Would we be able to send man to mars soon? Or is it impossible?

[Deathsoul097]

This: ^

Here, have some rep, RedKosmos.

[vetrox]

I sitll hold bone (and muscle) loss to be the deciding factor.

Along with radiation protection.

Ok muscle mass isnt exactly hard to regain but imagine. You have spent all those months in zero g trying to maintain as much muscle mass as possible. You then get out of your lander at mars and flop about on the floor because you're muscles are still weak. Even astronauts who come back from the ISS have to be lifted out of their capsules.

Also. Its all well and good saying put a cetrifugal whatever into space but launching stuff into space is hard work. Theres probably a reason there isnt one on the ISS.

Even one of the astronauts (i forget which) stated that he fealt it was one of the major problems that needs to be overcome.

[razark]

Its all well and good saying put a cetrifugal whatever into space but launching stuff into space is hard work. Theres probably a reason there isnt one on the ISS.

Put your crew capsule on one end of a tether, and put something heavy (a nuclear reactor might work, or water, supplies, fuel, engine, etc.), and spin the whole thing. Instant gravity to keep your crew from wasting away. If you need to, spin it at partial gravity to get the crew accustomed to Mars normal on the way there, or spin it at full Earth normal to keep up as much normal as possible, as well as to prepare for returning to Earth. Radiation in travel is a problem, but it's not something new. It's a problem that has to be dealt with on ISS, as well.

[Deathsoul097]

Ah, but here is the thing: Transitioning from 0g to 0.3g is a lot easier than 0g to 1g, so muscle loss wont be as much of a factor on the way there. (Granted it will require quite a bit of rehabilitation on return to earth, but what do you expect?) I whole heartedly agree that this could be a deciding factor though. A centrifuge (or tether such as the one used in the plans for Mars Direct) would be a drastic improvement over the conditions, and rehabilitation will be a long process upon return, but it can be done without them. I admit that until such a structure or module exists the mission would be very likely to be postponed or cancelled, but never the less it is possible.

[Red Iron Crown]

Radiation in travel is a problem, but it's not something new. It's a problem that has to be dealt with on ISS, as well.

ISS is safely within Earth's magnetosphere, so the radiation is several orders of magnitude less than would be present during interplanetary flight, especially during a solar flare event.

Personally, I think we shouldn't bring back the first Martian visitors. Use unmanned missions to set up basic infrastructure, then send the people on a one way colonization mission. Repeat until enough people are present for a sustainable gene pool.

We should probably practice colonization on the Moon first, as help is only days away instead of months/years.

[vetrox]

I have been doing a bit more thinking into this. If anyone has any sources for the information I'm after that would be amazing but for now I'm going on pure speculation.

This bone and muscle loss can be countered by use of artificial gravity (at least that is the theory) so you all say centrifugal (or is it centripidal?) force is the answer. Now from an engineering poitn of view this must be a nightmare.

You have 2 options. You make the whole ship spin (impractical as it would have to spin quite fast and could you imagine looking out of the front of your ship as it span round? Also you would be facing forwards whilst the ship span clockwise so the gravity would be pushing you from the side...impractical. Not that you need windows.) But you would only need to get the ship up to speed once and it should stay at that speed. Howver the ship would need to be very specific dimensions otherwise you would have different amounts of gravity in different parts of the ship. This could be disorientating

Second option is to have a centrifuge as part of your ship (just like in the europa report I drew a diagram but left my phone at home!) now the only way I can see this working is through the use of bearings. Now basic physics/engineering shows that if 2 moving parts touch they will generate some sort of friction. It may not be much but its there (or did i just dream and imagine this?). This means maintainence and failure. Now i'm sure there must be bearings on the iss but i havent been able to find any info. Some bearings will require some sort of lubricant do we know how common lubricants act in zero G. Also you need to keep this thing spinning indipendantly of the rest of the ship? If there is friction then it will slow down eventually so you will need to divert extra power to keep it moving. Not to mention this will weigh alot. As well as the huge cargo hold for provisions to lug around and then your landing gear.

Another problem with this centrifuge idea is the effects it will have on the crew if they have to leave and re enter zero g on a regular basis. W just have no idea about it

Someone needs to design something and get it up to space for testing! However the ESA looks to be trying to develope a suite that pulls your body down to simulate gravitys effect.

I dont envy those engineers in any of the worlds space programms!

Also another thing i had swirling around in my empty head. How do we even know that our bodys would react in the same way to this artificial gravity as it does to earths gravity?

I'm just voicing my thoughts here so if anyone has a reliable source for any of this information that would be awesome you could also call me a crazy man with crazy thoughts running around in my head as I'm pretty sure thats what I am.

Edited January 17, 2014 by vetrox

[crazyewok]

centrifugal gravity is very possible and a module for the ISS was even made. But the suites at NASA in there infinate wisdom decided to can the project and not send it up with some nonsence excuse on interfering with microgarvity expiremnets.

[razark]

ISS is safely within Earth's magnetosphere, so the radiation is several orders of magnitude less than would be present during interplanetary flight, especially during a solar flare event.

As long as everyone being sent understands and accepts the risks, is it really that big a problem?

We should probably practice colonization on the Moon first, as help is only days away instead of months/years.

Might as well practice for a trip to Denver by camping in Antarctica. The moon and Mars a different enough that knowledge gained from the moon wouldn't be practical for Mars.

I have been doing a bit more thinking into this. If anyone has any sources for the information I'm after that would be amazing but for now I'm going on pure speculation.

Check out Robert Zubrin's book. A Case for Mars, I think. He lays out the Mars Direct approach. I lent my copy to a friend a while back, and I can't remember if he returned it or not.

As for gravity by spinning: basically, you create a long tether. The longer it is, the slower you can spin the ship. Also, the longer the tether, the less gravity differential there will be between levels in the cabin. On the other end of the tether, you can place dead weight (a spent transfer stage) or a nuclear reactor (keeps the people away from it).

[Red Iron Crown]

As long as everyone being sent understands and accepts the risks, is it really that big a problem?

Yes, if the radiation is going to kill the crew before they get there. A trip to Mars is too expensive to roll the dice on whether there'll be a solar flare event or not; I can't imagine any mission to Mars craft not having at least a "storm cellar" radiation shelter.

Not to mention that in today's risk averse culture, deaths on the first mission would probably set the whole program back by decades. I truly believe that if Apollo were happening today, an Apollo 1 style accident would shut the whole program down for months, if not years, of inquiry and finger-pointing.

Might as well practice for a trip to Denver by camping in Antarctica. The moon and Mars a different enough that knowledge gained from the moon wouldn't be practical for Mars.

Nonsense. Certainly there are significant differences between the environments, but some of the problems that need to be solved for inhabiting them are very similar. To turn your analogy back on you: If you were from another planet, Denver and Antarctica are similar enough (or, more precisely, different from your home planet in similar enough ways) that it would be worth practicing in Antarctica if the costs, risks and travel time were so much lower than a straight trip to Denver.

I do believe that Mars is a friendlier environment than the Moon for colonization, but the travel costs and times make any mistakes or oversights very costly to correct. The Moon is much less so, so I think we should establish the basic, common techniques required on the Moon first.

[Seret]

centrifugal gravity is very possible and a module for the ISS was even made. But the suites at NASA in there infinate wisdom decided to can the project and not send it up with some nonsence excuse on interfering with microgarvity expiremnets.

Do you have a source for this claim?

[Deathsoul097]

Actually, he is partially correct. A module was designed and a protoype was built for testing, and it was planned to be launched to the ISS. However, due to budget cuts and the changes in the shuttle flight plans (AFAIK due to the Challenger shuttle incident), the international commitee that runs the station decided that they had to scrap some of the planned modules to keep the station afloat. AFAIK it may have interfered slightly with the rest of the station, although I am not sure about it.

Regarding artificial gravity for the mars mission:

We could take the proposal for Mars Direct, and use a tether to create artificial gravity. The only problem with this approach is the limited living space provided by only being able to use one capsule, because the spent stage would be on the other end of the tether, and wouldn't be usable as a wet workshop. You could use a larger pod, but as your designs get bigger, it becomes impractical, due to increased mass and fuel, along with becoming more difficult to start up the circular motion. (There are other problems associated with this approach, most notably the D/V that would be needed to circularize at mars, as current designs are unsuitable for large aerobraking manouvers.)

A centrifuge is also good, but it has problems too. A typical centrifuge is very bulky, and unless you make one quite large you are limited to about half a G, due to the coriolis effect. Still, with a smaller inflateable centrifuge you could get up to martian gravity, but the limiting factor is still mostly size. A centrifuge can also be quite massive (In the scientifically correct term of the word), so it may be more expensive fuel-wise to sent a centrifuge. (An inflateable centrifuge could also help counteract this, as it would be several times lighter. A good thing about the centrifuge is that it would be adjustable if you had a large enough centrifuge. On the way to mars you could slowly reduce the rotation rate, and decrease the gravity to martian levels, making it easier for the astronaut to adjust upon arrival at mars and upon their return. The centrifuge propsed for the ISS would have been unsuitable for extended human living quarters, IIRC.

You could also disregard artificial gravity completely, but this would not be a very wise thing to do, unless it is a one way trip. Upon returning to earth in these conditions would require an incredibly extensive rehabilitation, which could last several years, due to the significant amount of time spent in null G. For a flyby mission it may be more appropriate to use this method, as the trip would be significantly shorter. This is the method we know best, as the other two have not been extensively tested and researched, but it is also the least desireable due to the long term effects of null G on muscle tissue and bones.

Edited January 19, 2014 by Deathsoul097

[Skyler4856]

*Cough* Mars Direct *cough*

[Deathsoul097]

Look at the post above yours, and see what it links too...

[thunderstar]

The tecnology for doing that has existed for decades, a plan for a mars missions comes up nearly every year, but the "real" mars travel is at least past the mid 2020's, first they have to finish the orion and the SLS, thats estimated for 2017, but it could get posposed until 2019 or 2020, then there will be the manned missions to LEO, to the moon, maybe and asteroid capture in lunar orbit and then, they will start working on a mars mission, so it a long way until there

[Skyler4856]

Look at the post above yours, and see what it links too...

What is this read and evaluate the opinions of others sorcery?