How quickly could we get to Mars if we really wanted to?

[Torquemadus]

if all the agencies worked together and came up with a plan I am sure we could get there and setup in 5 years

The most obvious plan would be to adopt an Apollo style "Mars within a decade" approach. When Kennedy announced the Apollo programme, Alan Shepard had recently completed his 15 minute sub-orbital flight aboard Freedom 7. By the end of that decade, NASA had completed Project Mercury and Project Gemini and developed the full bag of tricks needed to perform manned Moon landings.

If you want an example of an expensive long term international space project, then the International Space Station is a good example. Using a similar approach, NASA could offer seats on their Mars missions to other space agencies in exchange for a contribution to the programme. For example, the Orion spacecraft currently uses a service module provided by ESA. Another obvious option would be to use the commercial model NASA have used to develop cargo and crew transportation to the ISS.

My thinking is that once the ISS programme has run it's course, it should be replaced by a international humans to Mars programme. I would timetable one decade from programme inception to send the first crew to Mars, followed by a further decade of exploration where successive crews explore the surface and establish the best location for a permanent base. At this point, all further crews and freight would land at the base, which would perform a similar function to McMurdo base in Antarctica, allowing expeditions to be sent out to explore the entire planet. The base would then be expanded to become the first settlement.

[Kerbart]

When you look at delta-V maps, Mars (with aerobraking) isn't really that much further away than the moon. Of course you'll need to carry a lot more mass than Apollo. Extra resources, larger crew accommodations, radiation shielding... but I doubt that puts it out of reach. As everyone mentions, it's mainly a matter of having the willingness to spend the resources on it. And we might consider it a good thing that the willingness isn't there.

[FishInferno]

When you look at delta-V maps, Mars (with aerobraking) isn't really that much further away than the moon. Of course you'll need to carry a lot more mass than Apollo. Extra resources, larger crew accommodations, radiation shielding... but I doubt that puts it out of reach. As everyone mentions, it's mainly a matter of having the willingness to spend the resources on it. And we might consider it a good thing that the willingness isn't there.

Whaaaa?

[MBobrik]

and we might consider it a good thing that the willingness isn't there.

Wt ... ?

[GoSlash27]

When you look at delta-V maps, Mars (with aerobraking) isn't really that much further away than the moon. Of course you'll need to carry a lot more mass than Apollo. Extra resources, larger crew accommodations, radiation shielding... but I doubt that puts it out of reach. As everyone mentions, it's mainly a matter of having the willingness to spend the resources on it. And we might consider it a good thing that the willingness isn't there.

Agreed. The willingness doesn't come without a major downside. People who weren't there think the space race was all puppies and rainbows; that we were spending all that money and risking all those lives merely because going to the moon was "kewl".

We had reasons for being that motivated, and they weren't pretty. Nations develop unity to accomplish big goals not because they want to, but because they have to. Having a gun to your head is a great motivator.

I'm with ya,

-Slashy

Edited December 6, 2014 by GoSlash27

[FishInferno]

I see your point, but nobody said that it would be the same motivation that drove us o the Moon. I only said that we had motivation, regardless of its source.

[GoSlash27]

I see your point, but nobody said that it would be the same motivation that drove us o the Moon. I only said that we had motivation, regardless of its source.

Right... but in the current climate where all of the governments are up to their eyeballs in debt, what do you imagine would be enough motivation to spend the money and resources to make this happen? Do you imagine that any motivation of that magnitude is going to be pleasant?

[RainDreamer]

Well, we already got a rover up there. Launching people to it wouldn't be much harder. So if we really want to, we can do it already. Launching people to it alive with the intention to return, however, is a different thing.

If we want to get our astronauts back, we will have a lot more testing and preparing to do, politic/economy aside.

[FishInferno]

I think that returning to Earth is obligatory when you bring someone to Mars.

[MBobrik]

Right... but in the current climate where all of the governments are up to their eyeballs in debt, what do you imagine would be enough motivation to spend the money and resources to make this happen? Do you imagine that any motivation of that magnitude is going to be pleasant?

Actually, I'd say, that the current lack of motivation to do accomplish anything bigger than lining the pockets of a rich few, and "all of the governments are up to their eyeballs in debt" might be actually causally related

[Kerbart]

Wt ... ?

Throughout history, the willingness to embark on large projects like these has been fueled by a feeling that if we don't do this, our existence as we know it will be threatened. Whether it's the col war, imminent meteor impact, looming invasion by the evil space aliens from Arcturus IV or whatever... the willingness of societies to take on large projects and finish them in the shortest time possible is only there when there is (real or perceived) grave danger:

• The hoover dam (controlling irrigation and preventing another dust bowl, at least in the Nevada/Arizona region)
  
• Putting the first satellite/hamster/dog/monkey/man in space
  
• The Manhattan project
  
• Landing on the moon
  
• Delta project
  
• Aswan dam
  

It's easy to add other big projects to this list. None of these projects would have seen the daylight if the motivation had been “wow, wouldn't it be awesome if we did that.†They were all driven by a desire to reduce the loss of life, prevent starvation, feed the nation, intimidate enemies. The motivation of each can be described as starting with “If we don't do this, [something terrible] will happenâ€Â

So yes, I'd like to see us go to Mars. Which will probably be a 30 year project. What I don't want to see is that apperently there is a reason to go to Mars THIS decade. Because that would really, really not be good.

[Red Iron Crown]

I think that returning to Earth is obligatory when you bring someone to Mars.

The "Mars to Stay" proposal was for a one way mission, a permanent outpost was to be established on the first manned mission. I don't think it got much support aside from Buzz Aldrin.

[GoSlash27]

Actually, I'd say, that the current lack of motivation to do accomplish anything bigger than lining the pockets of a rich few, and "all of the governments are up to their eyeballs in debt" might be actually causally related

This is wandering far off into the political weeds, and also demonstrably false.

I'm 100% on board with Kerbart's post above.

Best,

-Slashy

[CatastrophicFailure]

I'm surprised no ones mentioned that bunch that wants to fund a one way colony mission by making it a reality show. The comment about oil bugged me first but the guy has a point. If we had a REAL reason to go there other than SCIENCE!, the private sector would find away. And without the same unpleasant "motivation" that govt needs. If we found something there worth $20 million a kilo, SOMEone would get there pretty darn quick.

Its also worth noting, from a risk perspective, that the vessels that brought the first people to Polynesia, or the first Europeans to America, had no business making voyages of that kind either...

[Torquemadus]

I don't think it got much support aside from Buzz Aldrin.

Bearing in mind the transportation costs involved, there will be an incentive from the outset to encourage crews to spend longer on Mars, especially once a permanent base is established. Remember that the real risks involved come from getting to Mars and getting back, not from living on the surface. Once the base has grown into a settlement, there will be those who decide not to go home at all. Once permanent settlements exist, families will be raised. The first children born on Mars will be the first true Martians.

However, the location of the first base needs to be chosen carefully. Ideally, it should be built in a location with access to geothermal energy, which would provide a source of power for the base and a source of liquid water (geothermally heated subsurface water is also where you should look for life, not on the cold irradiated surface). This site will need to be found by explorers.

The main reasoning given for marooning early explorers on Mars is not for practical reasons, or even to make a serious effort at starting a colony, but merely to save the bother of figuring out how to do the mission properly and return them safely to the Earth (which is easily done with in-situ propellant). The aim is apparently to strand a bunch of people on Mars and hope that someone is guilt tripped into making a real humans to Mars programme before they die (of old age if nothing else).

Buzz Aldrin has advocated the construction of Aldrin Cyclers (space stations that cycle in continuous free returns between the two planets), but nothing I've read in his books advocates a cynical marooning strategy.

[GoSlash27]

I'm surprised no ones mentioned that bunch that wants to fund a one way colony mission by making it a reality show. The comment about oil bugged me first but the guy has a point. If we had a REAL reason to go there other than SCIENCE!, the private sector would find away. And without the same unpleasant "motivation" that govt needs. If we found something there worth $20 million a kilo, SOMEone would get there pretty darn quick.

+1. People don't migrate because they're curious, they migrate because the conditions where they are at are intolerable.

When it becomes beneficial for individual humans to go to Mars, they'll go.

[Red Iron Crown]

Buzz Aldrin has advocated the construction of Aldrin Cyclers (space stations that cycle in continuous free returns between the two planets), but nothing I've read in his books advocates a cynical marooning strategy.

"I now believe that human visitors to the Red Planet should commit to staying there permanently. One-way tickets to Mars will make the missions technically easier and less expensive and get us there sooner."

[MBobrik]

Throughout history, the willingness to embark on large projects like these has been fueled by a feeling that if we don't do this, our existence as we know it will be threatened.

Well, the thread is "How quickly could we get to Mars if we really wanted to" not "How quickly could we get to Mars if we really had to".

[MBobrik]

+1. People don't migrate because they're curious, they migrate because the conditions where they are at are intolerable.

When it becomes beneficial for individual humans to go to Mars, they'll go.

I might name several discovery voyages, expansions and migrations that were not desperate last-ditch attempts to survive by fleeing into the unknown.

[Torquemadus]

"I now believe that human visitors to the Red Planet should commit to staying there permanently. One-way tickets to Mars will make the missions technically easier and less expensive and get us there sooner."

Buzz Aldrin has since published his book Mission To Mars, which was the source I was using. His book mentions colonisation plans from groups such as the Mars Society and SpaceX, but doesn't mention a marooning strategy. It does mention base building and permanent settlements, but those are accepted by most as long term goals anyway. The idea he seeks to emphasise is that we shouldn't be going just to do a zero capability "flags and footprints" mission.

[Red Iron Crown]

Buzz Aldrin has since published his book Mission To Mars, which was the source I was using. His book mentions colonisation plans from groups such as the Mars Society and SpaceX, but doesn't mention a marooning strategy. It does mention base building and permanent settlements, but those are accepted by most as long term goals anyway. The idea he seeks to emphasise is that we shouldn't be going just to do a zero capability "flags and footprints" mission.

Good to hear he has revised his thoughts on this (I'm not really a fan of early one way missions). I'll have to pick up Mission to Mars, haven't read that one yet.

[GoSlash27]

I might name several discovery voyages, expansions and migrations that were not desperate last-ditch attempts to survive by fleeing into the unknown.

You might. You might also be surprised to learn the back- stories associated with them

Best,

-Slashy

[MBobrik]

You might. You might also be surprised to learn the back- stories associated with them

Now I feel slightly insulted. What makes you think I don't know those ? But well, maybe I don't. Let's start with the basics... what desperate crisis caused the Spanish rulers to pay Columbus's voyage ? Or he himself ... Was he so throughoutly miserable that he had to leave the continent ?

[GoSlash27]

Now I feel slightly insulted. What makes you think I don't know those ? But well, maybe I don't. Let's start with the basics... what desperate crisis caused the Spanish rulers to pay Columbus's voyage ? Or he himself ... Was he so throughoutly miserable that he had to leave the continent ?

Funny you should mention Columbus. I thought you might.

Update coming tomorrow...

Best,

-Slashy

[NERVAfan]

No way could we go there in 4 or 5 years. That time wouldn't even be enough to develop the SCLSS for the hab module.

Sure you could. Doesn't need any super-special life support systems; the ISS or Mir lasted way longer than a Mars mission. Sure, they're resupplied, but that's purely a matter of bringing enough supplies (IE enough launch mass), which can be handled by launching enough rockets.

If we assume that we want to use Orion and the SLS, then that thing is designed for a maximum flight rate of 2 per year. You would need at least 5 launches to assemble the MTV, which means at least 2,5 years of orbital assembly. You also need to design and build the parts for the mission. It took 15 years just to develop Orion, the crew capsule. It took 15 years to field the F-35.

Absolutely no reason to use either. Dragonv2/Falcon Heavy architecture; they'll be ready sooner, for one thing, and will be vastly cheaper.

I don't see how we could design an entire MTV, with crew habitations, ECLSS, SEP propulsion, a cargo lander and a MAV, in less than 15 years, more realistically 20.

You don't. You make minor modifications to hardware for other purposes - Bigelow module for transit habitat, Dragonv2 for lander.

This only works for a one-way/Mars to Stay mission though, but that's fine...

The "Mars to Stay" proposal was for a one way mission, a permanent outpost was to be established on the first manned mission. I don't think it got much support aside from Buzz Aldrin.

It makes a lot of sense though. It doesn't necessarily mean you have to commit to staying forever; a return vehicle could always be sent later. And if your plan is to colonize from the start (which makes sense, IMO - the trip times are long enough that you might as well) you don't have to have the ability to return at the start of the manned activities - it can come later.

Heck, Columbus' first expedition dropped off a colony, so colonizing from the very start isn't particularly weird.