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

[DaveofDefeat]

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

and then the colony was destroyed and everybody died, so there is that.

[NERVAfan]

and then the colony was destroyed and everybody died, so there is that.

True, but that was due to conflicts with the inhabitants, not a problem on Mars. But my point was that they were intending to colonize from the very beginning.

[Nibb31]

True, but that was due to conflicts with the inhabitants, not a problem on Mars. But my point was that they were intending to colonize from the very beginning.

No, there were quite a few failed colonies in the Americas before Jamestown become sustainable. Most of them were failures because they were unprepared and uneducated. They typically ended up in cannibalism or everyone dead.

A one-way trip would have chances of ending up the same way. There are many things that can go wrong: your crops might catch a disease, or provide a lower yield than expected, an ISRU machine might underperform, or a single technical failure on the life support system can kill everyone in minutes. If for some reason all of your EVA suits are damaged or worn, then there is no going outside to fix some essential piece of gear until you get a replacement, and so on...

Space is a harsh environment. Anything you send will be designed for a limited lifetime. In those conditions, nothing can be permanent. Your station has to be temporary.

Who wants to live permanently in places like Antarctica or the ISS and never come back anyway ?

[dronkit]

"If you really wanted to", stop the invasions of Irak and Afghanistan and you'll be in Mars yesterday. With swimming pools and theaters.

Edited December 7, 2014 by dronkit

[MBobrik]

Space is a harsh environment. Anything you send will be designed for a limited lifetime. In those conditions, nothing can be permanent. Your station has to be temporary.

Right. The universe got no kethane mod installed, so there are no local resources and no replacement part can be manufactured from them.

[GoSlash27]

On the subject of Columbus...

He didn't set out on a quest of scientific discovery. He went looking for a new trade route to Japan and China and was looking to make himself very rich in the process. And Ferdinand didn't fund his expedition out of scientific curiosity or any altruistic motives. He funded it because he wanted Spain to be the major player in the spice trade, since the overland route was too dangerous.

At the end of it all, he conquered the indigenous people in the caribbean and ruled with an iron fist, using torture, mutilation, and slavery. He was so brutal, he was stripped of his governorship, thrown in jail, and never did receive the 10% on profits he had contracted for.

Columbus doesn't make a good example of exploration for discovery's sake.

Best,

-Slashy

[GoSlash27]

True, but that was due to conflicts with the inhabitants, not a problem on Mars. But my point was that they were intending to colonize from the very beginning.

Actually, they weren't intending to colonize. The Santa Maria ran aground and was damaged beyond repair. They didn't have enough room on board the other ships, so they left about 40 men behind.

[Nibb31]

Right. The universe got no kethane mod installed, so there are no local resources and no replacement part can be manufactured from them.

There are some local resources, but you can't "live off the land" like the first American colonists planned to do.

You might be able to make bricks and mortar, but anything more complex is going to require multiple extraction, transformation, and manufacturing steps. It will be a long time before you can make spacesuits out of domestically spun fabric, or filters, or rubber seals, or lubricants. Even transforming metallic ore into something that can go through a 3D printer is going to take a pretty large effort.

[RainDreamer]

Well, like any other frontier of technologies, we are going to need a lot of other supporting tech being developed first before colonization. There are some promising discoveries on the field of synthetic biology for space travel, however: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/news/why-synthetic-biology-could-be-the-key-to-space-travel-17401745.

It could help us a lot for colonization of mars.

[NERVAfan]

No, there were quite a few failed colonies in the Americas before Jamestown become sustainable. Most of them were failures because they were unprepared and uneducated. They typically ended up in cannibalism or everyone dead.

A one-way trip would have chances of ending up the same way.

Sure, but I was taking the "really wanted to" assumption of this thread as "willing to accept a very large risk".

OTOH I actually do think colonization will require accepting a huge amount of risk anyway and this isn't necessarily out of line.

There are many things that can go wrong: your crops might catch a disease,

From what exactly? There aren't many other lifeforms on the planet...

or provide a lower yield than expected,

You would have some margin for this reason (and would bring stuff like Spirulina that is incredibly calorie dense per cubic meter of growing volume, so you'd have room for margin).

an ISRU machine might underperform,

You'd have margin and time to fix things. If it's plant-based, your recycling should be pretty well closed by default, so you won't need input that often.

or a single technical failure on the life support system can kill everyone in minutes.

That's why you have redundancy. (And I think that is a bit overstated; "minutes" is I think much faster than CO2 would build up to lethal levels with no scrubbing or temperatures would drop to lethal levels with no heating).

And if you use your food plants for CO2 scrubbing/O2 production that would be hard to fail completely (barring the thermal control going way wrong - that will be very critical so need a lot of redundancy).

If for some reason all of your EVA suits are damaged or worn, then there is no going outside to fix some essential piece of gear until you get a replacement, and so on...

Space is a harsh environment. Anything you send will be designed for a limited lifetime. In those conditions, nothing can be permanent. Your station has to be temporary.

Sure, some resupply is required (early on anyway).

Who wants to live permanently in places like Antarctica or the ISS and never come back anyway ?

Well, Mars One got a lot of volunteers, and that's without much chance of getting the money necessary. So quite a few I think.

(And from what I've heard, a lot of people really fall in love with Antarctica, and did even back in the days when it was incredibly bad conditions - that's why people like Shackleton and Wild went back over and over again).

[NERVAfan]

Well, like any other frontier of technologies, we are going to need a lot of other supporting tech being developed first before colonization. There are some promising discoveries on the field of synthetic biology for space travel, however: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/news/why-synthetic-biology-could-be-the-key-to-space-travel-17401745.

It could help us a lot for colonization of mars.

That makes a lot of sense; but the title of that article is a bit misleading. It's mostly talking about using existing microorganisms.

[B787_300]

we could go to Mars right now, using existing launchers and techniques. Seriously it might take a while but it would be relatively trivial to construct a MTV in orbit using multiple launches (Delta IV Heavy and Airaine 5 and Proton, for the upmass capability) and then send it on its way using NTO/MMH engines. We have all the Tech we need for a short visit, it is just making sure that it all works well together

[Newt]

Overall, it seems that there is a wide bit of discrepancy, as has been pointed out already, between 'wanting' and 'needing' to go, the line seems to be drawn over amount of risk. If it was absolutely needed, we could launch really soon with lots of launches, lots of re-purposed devices, and lots of risk, as we will be testing new hardware by using it, and if it fails we will have to deal with it as it happens. I do not think that anyone in the field of spaceflight really wants that, however. If the funds were available in endless heaps of ready cash, a few years would be reasonable at the least, and it would again, depend on why we are going. There are some who want to go simply for flags, footprints, and a bit of surface material, some who want colonization, and some who want extensive science missions based on landings of teleop robots and humans in orbit, not to mention the many other mission profiles proposed. Each of these have differing amounts of technologies and preparations to be made, so it is difficult to really say what the length of time would be.

I would however, hesitate to jump on any bandwagon of people saying that x or y mission will happen in any length of time. Manned Mars missions have been coming in the next several years since the sixties, as have sample return missions, it would seem. It is difficult to gauge which of these, if any have any real potential, and certain of them (Mars One, for instance) have been already debated here extensively. The conclusion seems to be unfavorable. There is much that must be done to determine the needs of a manned Mars flight, that operates on sense and preparation, rather than mere hype.

[K^2]

we could go to Mars right now, using existing launchers and techniques. Seriously it might take a while but it would be relatively trivial to construct a MTV in orbit using multiple launches (Delta IV Heavy and Airaine 5 and Proton, for the upmass capability) and then send it on its way using NTO/MMH engines. We have all the Tech we need for a short visit, it is just making sure that it all works well together

True, but if we are talking fly-by, I'd wait for Falcon Heavy and 2020. Good window, single launch, and solar activity will be pretty low. Can't get better conditions than that for first manned fly-by.

[B787_300]

Oh no i am talking landing K^2, flybys are dull and more dangerous for Mars than it was for Apollo 8 and the lunar flyby

[K^2]

I don't think we have infrastructure for landing. There is nothing even on the horizon for delivering everything we need even with just two launches. This will be long, tedious assembly in orbit. That means we need a station there. ISS could have done for it, but the orbit is bad. So we need to build a way point first, then bring every module separately. Assemble, refuel, bring in supplies... And, of course, we don't have anything like a suitable lander, either. That has to be built essentially from scratch. We aren't going to Martian surface any time soon. No matter how much we'd want to.

[Rakaydos]

Wasnt there a proposal for a lunar single stage langer, that doubles as a martian ascent stage?

[Nibb31]

Wasnt there a proposal for a lunar single stage langer, that doubles as a martian ascent stage?

Never heard of any serious proposal like that in the last 20 years.

[Newt]

Wasnt there a proposal for a lunar single stage langer, that doubles as a martian ascent stage?

Even if it were practical, which I highly doubt, we do not have a suitable lunar vehicle already designed, and for our interests here, the design of that vehicle would almost certainly take longer and be more difficult than an ordinary lander.

To the 787, I am not sure exactly what you mean by dull and dangerous, especially if we could stick in a Venus flyby too, which has been the plan since the 60's. The next launch window:2021.

Apollo VIII, was by no means dull.

[cicatrix]

In theory, anything is possible but since the original question is put like:

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

...have serious doubts about the latter. We wouldn't. There should be something on Mars good enough to patch a huge hole in the national budget of any country who attempts. Science is good, yes, but we have Curiosity, etc. What MAN has to do there? What's the benefits of sending a man who eats, drinks, breathes oxygen and produces CO2 (among other products), needs a comfortable environment temperature, should be protected from cosmic radiation and preferably have means to return over an unmanned probe which requires only electricity? There's nothing there for man except 'reputation' (speaking in KSP terms). What will you do with rep? What's the practical use of it? Who's going to buy that?

[m4rt14n]

Shouldnt they be focusing more on assembling rockets in space? I mean can you fit Mars delivery, command module, living area, orbitter, lander, and return vehicle in one 130 ton payload? This is of course assuming a return mission.

[Rakaydos]

Shouldnt they be focusing more on assembling rockets in space? I mean can you fit Mars delivery, command module, living area, orbitter, lander, and return vehicle in one 130 ton payload? This is of course assuming a return mission.

They are already assuming assembily in space. It just means they can launch a 130 ton habitation module, a 130 ton fuel tank, and several 130 ton fuel payloads to fill the (empty) tank.

[kzauner]

Shouldnt they be focusing more on assembling rockets in space? I mean can you fit Mars delivery, command module, living area, orbitter, lander, and return vehicle in one 130 ton payload? This is of course assuming a return mission.

Not really. Total mass in LEO start shy of 200t, upto 1000+ tons, depending on the mission parameters. As we speaking of NASA, you can peek into the 'Design Refererence Architecture 5', or one of its appendixes: <http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA-SP-2009-566-ADD2.pdf> (I think the DRA-5 is the currently 'active' one (for small values of active).

There are others, as well as there are projects from other agencies, even officially abandoned plans give an idea. For ESA, search for the Aurora-Program. There are some ideas to cut tonnage in LEO, as in-situ production of fuel and water (some of them with added complexity as sending some stuff ahead).

[m4rt14n]

Wouldnt 200 tons still means you need to send 2 rockets and assemble in space? I cant even fathom what kind of whackjobian contraption needed to send 1000tons into LEO in one go..

[kzauner]

Wouldnt 200 tons still means you need to send 2 rockets and assemble in space? I cant even fathom what kind of whackjobian contraption needed to send 1000tons into LEO in one go..

Well, I was just trying to give lower and upper bounds (of plans which are more than just a powerpoint-presentation). In fact, there will be multiple launches (there are other mission ideas, as sending the Mission bit-by-bit, so that that some hardware will already be at mars when crew arrives - obviously this also requires multiple launches, but there is no need for LEO-assembling; as well as you 'know' as you send the crew that you have a working habitat in place).

Yes, DRM-5 requires orbital assembly. One of the problems is also that the max. output of KSC is limited to shy of 3 SLS launches per year (shy of 5, if they are working in shifts 24x7). So I don't believe we will see a final mission profile grossly exceeding 500-400t in LEO, if no major changes to the ground infrastructure (read: a 2nd VAB, ...) will be made.