Mars by 2030

[PB666]

There are, in all probability, quite a few problems that we would face. These problems include keeping the astronauts sane along the trip, keeping them safe from cosmic radiation, designing a safe, reliable, and proven reactor that will provide them power planetside, designing the NTR to get them there, designing a lander that can stand over a year in cold shutdown and exposed to the elements and then take off again, and last but most certainly not least, getting public support. Going to mars is a lot different and quite a bit harder than going to the moon, that is not to say that it is insurmountable, but it is to say that it is not an easy task solvable with just throwing money at it. Of course you could effectively ignore certain cost and weight aspects if you used a certain peaceful application of nuclear explosives to do that, but the public would most definitely not support that one with the current political climate.

So I think it is less mars by 2030 and more "mars by when the general public gives a darn". Not a kilogram of HEU or a million metric tonnes of kerosene will move without public support.

If you built a station like environment like ISS you would not have to much problem with the psyche. Allow them to play KSP for 4 hours a day, lol. I agree an outer moon is by far the best choice, setting up a station around mars and then when everything is ready the launching a landing mission on the planet is the safest way to go. This going to Mars in 39 days is a dream. The ISS could be fed for years, is pretty well debugged, though cooling systems still need to be improved. The problem with ISS is that it is not that weight efficient. It could run VASIMR and that could get it to mars, a very expensive proposition.

I think we should target something that we could exploit, like an asteroid or comet.

[NuclearNut]

If you built a station like environment like ISS you would not have to much problem with the psyche. Allow them to play KSP for 4 hours a day, lol. I agree an outer moon is by far the best choice, setting up a station around mars and then when everything is ready the launching a landing mission on the planet is the safest way to go. This going to Mars in 39 days is a dream. The ISS could be fed for years, is pretty well debugged, though cooling systems still need to be improved. The problem with ISS is that it is not that weight efficient. It could run VASIMR and that could get it to mars, a very expensive proposition.

I think we should target something that we could exploit, like an asteroid or comet.

What we need is a dual mode (power and propulsion) NERVA powered spaceship designed to go to mars. Praying for an asteroid or comet will do nothing, and getting one would cost a ton. I think we should first debug bases on other planets on the moon, and then go to mars. At least on the moon you have hope for return if things go wrong, we can get to you in a few days if we have a rocket on standby. I cannot say that about mars.

Oh, and you do not have to spend tons of time outside of the magnetosphere when going there.

[fredinno]

What you refer to is knowledge. Maybe I do not know all those things, but science is so slow w process that it took thousands of years for people to take advantage of fire to do mechanical work. Thousands of years.

How are you getting the impression that I think science is "wow and flutter"? I'm not even talking about it in my original post. I'm talking about ability, the ability to go to Mars. Humanity possesses it. But few wish to use it.

Stop making mountains out of molehills, and actually try to respond to one of my comments please. It seems like you're trolling in my mind, and I don't appreciate that.

- - - Updated - - -

Delta V wise? On which assumptions? It is in a fairly inclined orbit, and depending on your entrance vector, it would take more Delta V to get to Phobos than land on Mars, and it could take less.

[Bill Phil]

https://dannypagano.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/wgoy3qt.png

That's making assumptions about the trajectory.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

Wow, that looks almost exactly like... Altair.

[PB666]

Yeah land and get off Mars to non-orbital diemos is 9.4 dV, versus 1.4 for diemos. Not that bad. Time is the big factor diemos,

What is missing from this are L1 and L2 transfer points. Assuming the total would be the same, but it allows better staging of docked craft if L2->L1 ....L1 to L2 transfers are done.

BTW, just a comment about 1 of the post, ISP for nuclear engine is not an accurate measure of efficiency. The problem with Nuclear is if you can get the operational temperature higher, you can get a higher theoretical maximum ISP, the problem is maintaining integrity at those temperatures. The engine was basically designed in the 70s and improvements in all kinds of things have been made, including RF plasma containment (and thats what you would have once you heated your gas beyond 700'C. If you can contain your fuel cells and keep them stable you can raise the ISP and the thrust. There are suggestions that nuclear engine ISP could be raised to 2500 sec if the operation temperature could be raised to 4000'K.

[Dkmdlb]

Yeah land and get off Mars to non-orbital diemos is 9.4 dV, versus 1.4 for diemos.

For the sake of all that is rational, can we please stop throwing around numbers like this without any units attached? It makes this community look like a bunch of dropouts.

[PB666]

For the sake of all that is rational, can we please stop throwing around numbers like this without any units attached? It makes this community look like a bunch of dropouts.

Well the brachpoint diagran did not have units, is km/sec.

[Bill Phil]

Yeah land and get off Mars to non-orbital diemos is 9.4 dV, versus 1.4 for diemos. Not that bad. Time is the big factor diemos,

What is missing from this are L1 and L2 transfer points. Assuming the total would be the same, but it allows better staging of docked craft if L2->L1 ....L1 to L2 transfers are done.

BTW, just a comment about 1 of the post, ISP for nuclear engine is not an accurate measure of efficiency. The problem with Nuclear is if you can get the operational temperature higher, you can get a higher theoretical maximum ISP, the problem is maintaining integrity at those temperatures. The engine was basically designed in the 70s and improvements in all kinds of things have been made, including RF plasma containment (and thats what you would have once you heated your gas beyond 700'C. If you can contain your fuel cells and keep them stable you can raise the ISP and the thrust. There are suggestions that nuclear engine ISP could be raised to 2500 sec if the operation temperature could be raised to 4000'K.

Which L-Points? EML?

[PB666]

Which L-Points? EML?

All of them, but in particular the ESL-1&2 and MSL-1,2

[Bill Phil]

All of them, but in particular the ESL-1&2 and MSL-1,2

Can you elaborate?