Nasa is considering a Manned Mission to Venus before Mars!

[Bill Phil]

You would use Mars' moons for orbital infrastructure ISRU, building orbital stations, fuel depots, etc. Nit on the early missions, sure. But it is important if you want a Long-lasting presence on Mars.

[Borklund]

You would use Mars' moons for orbital infrastructure ISRU, building orbital stations, fuel depots, etc. Nit on the early missions, sure. But it is important if you want a Long-lasting presence on Mars.

No, you wouldn't. To get to Mars, you have to expel energy at Earth. It's going to be much more expensive (in energy and dollars) to get the energy to Earth orbit from anywhere other than Earth's surface, it's just that simple. Then, when you get to the surface of Mars, you need the energy on the surface of Mars to get back to Earth. Here you have the same exact situation as on Earth; it's going to be much more expensive (meaning wasteful) to get the energy from anywhere but the surface of Mars. You're just adding unnecessary cost and risk - more steps in a chain of things that have to go off perfectly in order for you to succeed. You do not need ISRU anywhere else but on the surface of Mars to get to Mars and back.

[Bill Phil]

The energy is best used in orbit. There's two moons that have those resources, and they're already in orbit. They already are travelling at orbital velocity. That's a lot of mass that shouldn't go to waste. Use it to build stations and send resources down to the surface. I don't where you got the idea of the best place to use resources is on the ground.

[SargeRho]

If you want to colonize Mars, the best place to use resources is probably on Mars, not above Mars.

[Bill Phil]

You still need orbital infrastructure. It makes it easier later on. And I didn't say colonuze. Long term presence.

Moons allow us to build waystations without shipping in all the materials. That and propellant depots.

[Borklund]

You still need orbital infrastructure. It makes it easier later on. And I didn't say colonuze. Long term presence.

Moons allow us to build waystations without shipping in all the materials. That and propellant depots.

I'm not entirely sure you can be convinced, but I'm going to give it one last try. Think of a mission to and from Mars in simple steps. Each stop costs money and adds risk, which makes the mission more expensive and less likely to succeed. Here's the way I'm proposing:

Transfer burn to Mars -> Descent to Mars -> Mars ISRU -> Ascent from Mars -> Transfer to Earth. A grand total of 5 steps.

This is your scenario (or some version of it):

Transfer burn to Mars -> Fuel transfer from Phobos to Mars orbit -> Refuel in space -> Descent to Mars -> Ascent from Mars -> Fuel transfer from Phobos to Mars orbit -> Refuel in space -> Transfer to Earth. A total of 8 steps. You have added three steps, and now you have to answer the following questions:

What do you get in your version that you cannot get from my version? I'll give you the correct answer: Nothing, and it costs more money and adds more overall mission risk. I have grossly simplified the mission, too. There are so many more steps than 5 in my version, and thus many, many more steps than 8 in your version. Your version would add up risk after risk after risk, dollar on top of dollar. What if some piece of the ISRU and prop production and depot hardware fails, and you have to replace it, where is that going to come from? Who is going to repair it, and where are they or it going to come from? More money, more risk. I could go on and on.

Does this help make it clear why there is absolutely no need for off-world ISRU and propellant production and storage? I haven't even mentioned any number of details, like the fact that we haven't yet refined a single gram of fuel from space, but there are already technologically ready and tested Martian surface ISRU and propellant production prototypes. Why would you spend limited time and energy on something which is completely unnecessary?

You haven't shown why an "orbital infrastructure" is necessary for a human, long term presence on Mars. You just insisting on it is not an explanation.

Edited January 3, 2015 by Borklund

[Bill Phil]

I think we aren't on the same page. I'm not talking about just one mission. I'm talking about long term presence. You're talking about flags and footprints. I'm talking about bases and stations.

And if goes like this:

For the Lander's Job:

1. Get loaded with cargo

2. Seperate from station

3. Land

4. Unloaded/Loaded with be cargo

5. Get to orbit

6. Rendezvous and dock with station

For the Space Tug:

1. Get loaded with cargo and fuel(if needed) in a Earth orbit

2. Seperate from Earth Orbit Station

3. Transfer burn

4. Mid-course corrections

5. Braking at Mars

6. Unload cargo at Mars Orbit Station

7. Repeat steps 1 through 6 replacing the celestial body a needed

This system uses many specialized craft, each there own system, whereas it seems yours does not. It amortizes the crafts by them being in space for many years. This plan is for a serious civilization.

It looks like you don't address the problems with your own plan. If ISRU equipment on Mars breaks, you're simply screwed. Whereas if it breaks in orbit, you might also be screwed, but you have a better chance than on Mars.

And what if your lander's engine fails while transferring home? Unnecessary ware and tear on an engine designed for only landing. Unless you use orbital rendezvous, oh wait. Then the number of steps goes up to more than 8.

It doesn't add much risk. In fact, all the stops make it more likely that rescue is close by. It gets less risky. And btw, all plans are risky, especially interplanetary ones.

- - - Updated - - -

And you know what? This is a thread about Venus. Let's take this elsewhere if you really want to keep debating.

[Rakaydos]

To be fair, SOME form of orbital infrastructure should be in place- The apollo service module counted as orbital infrastructure while the lunar lander was on the surface, after all. If your parking yor transfer vehical in the long term, especially a reusable transfer vehical, a servicing (and refueling) capability would be useful.

Resource production on earth, refueling station in orbit to top off a transfer vehical, Transfer vehical parking/fuel depot over mars, ISRU on mars.

By halving the DV requirements of the transfer vehical (by refueling it in mars orbit) you can increase the payload by the mass of the fuel you save.

[Dispatcher]

To be fair, SOME form of orbital infrastructure should be in place- The apollo service module counted as orbital infrastructure while the lunar lander was on the surface, after all. If your parking yor transfer vehical in the long term, especially a reusable transfer vehical, a servicing (and refueling) capability would be useful.

Resource production on earth, refueling station in orbit to top off a transfer vehical, Transfer vehical parking/fuel depot over mars, ISRU on mars.

By halving the DV requirements of the transfer vehical (by refueling it in mars orbit) you can increase the payload by the mass of the fuel you save.

These are good points. While the thread OP deals with the idea that NASA would feel justified to send a crewed mission to Venus prior to a crewed mission to Mars, I think the point is well established that access to a wider range of local resources appears to be had at Mars; if one looks beyond the "dog and pony show" of that first mission and focuses instead on establishing bases. By extension, I think this demonstrates that for similar reasons, Luna becomes a viable step in the roadmap to solar system infrastructure development. Ultimately, equipment and products manufactured on the Moon and destined for another planet will be cheaper to get into orbit (as opposed to those made on Earth, when a dV budget comes into play). Forays into the colonization of either Mars or Venus (or elsewhere) would ultimately benefit from the integration of a Lunar presence.

[AngelLestat]

If you haven't noticed, the first stage of that Proton burst into flames seconds after the fairing broke off. The only way it could do that is if the fuel tanks experience a structural failure, leaking off the hypergolic fuel inside, and letting them ignite outside the tank.

The farings bend first, which increase the force over the same farings, then as they are attached to the fuel tank, the tank breaks too.

But I guess this is the only case of a rocket destroyed due high angles of attack, or not?

For what purpose do we send men in rocket-delivered blimps to the atmosphere of Venus, when easier and safer ways to gather resources or scientific data about Venus are already available?"

come on shynung, we already talk about this. A manned mission is very important and gets extraordinary funds that in other way you will never receive with unmanned missions.

That's an interesting graphic you came up with. What I had in mind was more like a centrifuge ride, within a room of the Lunar base. Your's is an interesting implementation. It would allow people (and pets or dairy animals perhaps) to stand and walk freely, rather than just being seated/ harnessed at the end of a centrifuge arm.

Yeah, you can have desk or anything like a normal floor. The only complication is keep it air tight as anything in the moon.

It can be used in Mars too with a different concavity to match the gravity vector. But I guess it will be more complicate and needs to spent energy to maintain rotation. Also is not so necesary like the moon.

It actually makes more sense to have long period staggered personnel rotations at any non-Earth bases, including Mars; these could even be considered "vacations". Lunar base(s) would of course make shorter term rotations practical.

But my question is.. if there is no delay in transmissions with the moon. Why we need people there?

Maybe now, because our tele-robots are not so advance yet.

But I guess that a second home at least needs to had some pressure, gravity and radiation shielding, then of course something of value about the place.

Venus is a much more hellish, hot, strange place that has acid rain as it's only rain. Freakin ACID RAIN.

I'll stick with Mars thank you. Plus, radiation on Mars' surface is about as much as LEO. Oh, and because of the no magnetic field thing, you have no radiation belts in orbit. And, Mars has two Asteroidal moons, which can be used for ISRU by an orbital infrastructure.

Mars FTW.

As I said before..

Being in Venus at 52km. You can take a deep breath, go outside with any kind of cloth (or without), stay there at 37 celcius degrees in a dry breeze, then enter again and breath again without any harm. Maybe we can feel a slight ardor due the micro doplets of sulfuric acid.

If we try the same thing in mars, all our air escape from our lungs, we would not feel the cold because we would lose awareness in 15 seconds due lack of oxygen. Then we have 1 or 2 min to be save us by somebody else or we would die. An oxygen mask can not save us, we need a space suit.

Mars' atmosphere is thin, but it's there.

What is there? XD 0,6% of earth atmosphere.

On your Venusian airship, you're confined to your pressure vessel, looking out at some clouds.

pressure vessel? what you mean?

You have equal pressure outside or inside your habitat. You can open the door, go outside, leave it open by 1 hour, that the leak of gasses (air or hydrogen) would be so slow, that it would not matter in case your habitat is big enoght.

Take the example of the germany airships in the world war 2, they had hundreds of holes of caliber 50, and they never fall.

The only solution for the british was to use incendiary ammunition. But even if you do the same thing agains an habitat in venus that use hydrogen as lifting gas, nothing happens because there is not much oxygen in the atmosphere. You have plenty of time to repair any leak.

Also I imagine Venus like a place for tough guys; bars, girls.. just take your flying vehicle and go to the next floating city.

In mars you need to wear a space suit to visit your neighbor.

You get the Sabatier reaction on Mars too, and it's a hell of a lot easier and less risky because it's on the ground and not in some giant airship floating in the sky.

first you need to compress the co2. Then you need to get the energy to do it (venus has 240% more sun energy), also why is more easier? ah right.. because I would put a foot outside of the habitat and I will fall. I wonder why people dont fall from tall buildings.

Basically, human missions are way more expensive, but also astronomically more efficient. Robotic exploration is great for places humans can't go, but they're limited. There's a third option, teleoperated robots from orbit, but that's still very expensive - you have to send the robots and the humans, and even if the humans aren't going on the surface of Mars (for example), they still have to go almost the entire way and back, and they still don't get as efficient as human autonomy.

100% agree in this one.

These posts are really typical of people who may confess to be interested in space exploration, but are actually not very knowledgeable about it.

heh, we can all have a lack of knowledge. But the most important and hard is indentify the things that we dont know.

[Bill Phil]

Are you saying you can breathe at high-altitudes of Venus?

[Rakaydos]

Are you saying you can breathe at high-altitudes of Venus?

With a teflon scuba tank, sure. Pressure and temperature is right, just not the gas mix.

[AngelLestat]

no, that you take a breathe inside your habitat and then you go out, until you need to breathe again.

[Bill Phil]

That's assisted breathing.

And generally not comfortable for many.

[Rakaydos]

That's assisted breathing.

And generally not comfortable for many.

Better than a huge pressure suit like you would need for mars, even allowing for the gravity difference.

[Bill Phil]

For Mars you could use something like a skinsuit....

Either way you wouldn't step out on either planet.

[shynung]

NASA could pluck you from your chair, put you in a probe, send you to Mars, transmit the instructions and tell you to go out and do what Curiosity has taken three years to do, and you could do it in under a day. Do you know how far Curiosity has travelled in three years time? About 9 kilometers. Even at a slow speed of 3 km/h, you'd catch up to it in three hours. That's not to mention all the things you can do. The human eye and instinct is something a rover will never have. You could pick out interesting objects and features and analyse and value their importance on the fly, something mission controllers in California spend weeks and weeks on, before sending a pre-planned set of commands to Curiosity. If anything comes up, they have to wait. Curiosity can automatically detect and avoid some rocks, that's it. It doesn't know when to perform scientific experiements or when to take experiments, and even if it did, it doesn't have the resources it would need. You should read this article: http://astrobites.org/2012/03/29/dispelling-the-myth-of-robotic-efficiency-why-astronomers-should-support-human-exploration-of-the-solar-system/

Basically, human missions are way more expensive, but also astronomically more efficient. Robotic exploration is great for places humans can't go, but they're limited. There's a third option, teleoperated robots from orbit, but that's still very expensive - you have to send the robots and the humans, and even if the humans aren't going on the surface of Mars (for example), they still have to go almost the entire way and back, and they still don't get as efficient as human autonomy.

No, they can't. In order to pull one member of the public (like me) for a space mission, that individual has to be trained intensively, especially if they don't know anything else beforehand. Astronauts who go to the ISS, for example, are usually scientists or engineers. Harder missions like Mars or Venus explorations require good piloting skills. Since most members of the public (including me) usually haven't much of these skills, they'd have a lot to study in order to catch up with a typical ISS astronaut. That alone costs a lot already.

Manned missions are more time-efficient than robotic missions, in the sense that a human can get things done faster than a robot. However, they are not very cost-efficient. Manned missions require plenty of life-support supplies just to do anything (or even just to survive), while robots don't need much other than a few command signals. Also, robotic missions aren't necessarily unable to distinguish interesting objects the way a human eye can; the output their cameras are ultimately seen by scientists (on Earth) anyway, which decides what to do next. It's slow, but not necessarily limited.

come on shynung, we already talk about this. A manned mission is very important and gets extraordinary funds that in other way you will never receive with unmanned missions.

How so? The last manned mission to another celestial body (Moon) was mostly political in nature; that's why they get a lot of funds. As of now, there isn't much need of manned missions other than keeping the ISS afloat, so funding for that, goes down accordingly. Unmanned missions are much cheaper from the start, and they generate plenty of useful scientific data as well, despite taking a long time.

Edited January 4, 2015 by shynung

[AngelLestat]

Ok, I guess I have an idea to improve this concept mission.

Lets see the problems first:

Some data:

We know that that at that altitude, we have winds of 85 m/s = 306km/h

And north winds of 5m/s

Venus circunference: 38.025 km

This mean that the airship will be 62 hours at day and 62 hours at night.

That is why it has energy storage for 66 hrs

But how much energy? Only 2000 kwh

This mean 32kwh each hour at night. And it needs to counter those 5m/s and keep energy to do more science.

In other way we are wasting all the nights.

The problem with storaging energy in batteries, is weight and not provide enoght power at nights.

So here my solution:

-First.. why hellium?? we are in earth?? Noo.. we are in venus! There is not O2 in the atmosphere. The only O2 is with the crew, you just need to insolate those. We fly with hydrogen airships over 40 years, with very primitive systems. In fact right now a lot of scientist are saying that we should go back to hydrogen airships here on earth, except for commercial flights.

Hydrogen has slightly more lift, it does not leak so much as hellium, easy to contain.

-Then we can improve the energy system with a hydrogen cycle using PEN fuel cells and Electrolysis.

If the battery is charge then you dont have that lose in efficiency, so the energy bypass the battery, this only helps if needs provide extra power. That 75% is because you get 80% for charge, and 90 for discharge.

The meridional wind can also be countered without spent electrical energy.

And many more ways to improve the efficiency.

For Mars you could use something like a skinsuit....

Either way you wouldn't step out on either planet.

I know the skinsuits, but are not ready yet.. this is the official new space suit, in the right.. I mean left..

How so? The last manned mission to another celestial body (Moon) was mostly political in nature; that's why they get a lot of funds. As of now, there isn't much need of manned missions other than keeping the ISS afloat, so funding for that, goes down accordingly. Unmanned missions are much cheaper from the start, and they generate plenty of useful scientific data as well, despite taking a long time.

It does not matter, because is still political.

If one nation achieve place a human in other world then you gain the same respect as you would had the best weapon on the world.

And right now wars are not as they were before, now there is too much media. Now a country can not do whatever they want and get away with it so easily. So how to win the new wars? marketing, publicity.

After something like this, all the great minds would like to work in that country.

Why any nation sent a human to mars yet? Because is too risky and expensive. But mosly for the risky part.. If they kill the astronauts, then all that money invested would play against them self. And mars has an history of 50-50. Not very encouraging taking into account than sent humans is many times harder.

Meanwhile almost all last missions sent to venus were all successful.

Edited January 4, 2015 by AngelLestat

[Bill Phil]

Hydrogen is not easy to contain at all. It's tiny for atom sizes, and it slips through the smallest cracks...

And it's VERY reactive. More so than carbon. And what if the winds are inconsistent? And then it takes much longer than 66 hours to get to the day? We may need bigger margins...

[shynung]

It does not matter, because is still political.

If one nation achieve place a human in other world then you gain the same respect as you would had the best weapon on the world.

And right now wars are not as they were before, now there is too much media. Now a country can not do whatever they want and get away with it so easily. So how to win the new wars? marketing, publicity.

I personally have little interest in political endeavors. If any single nation finds it politically advantageous for them to send men anywhere they want, that's their decision. I will not go into that line of discussion.

On a purely scientific view, unmanned missions yield more scientific data for a similar cost than manned ones, even if it takes a long time.

Edited January 4, 2015 by shynung

[Skyler4856]

I personally have little interest in political endeavors. If any single nation finds it politically advantageous for them to send men anywhere they want, that's their decision. I will not go into that line of discussion.

On a purely scientific view, unmanned missions yield more scientific data for a similar cost than manned ones, even if it takes a long time.

Ofcourse you're only viewing the data gathered during the missions duration, not discoveries made in the development of the mission.

[xcorps]

not discoveries made in the development of the mission.

I have issues with that. Unless you can definitively prove that those discoveries wouldn't have been made otherwise, which you cannot do.

It'd be like saying that the New World would never have been found unless the Nina Pinta and Santa Maria sailed. (Yes, I'm ignoring the Vikings and Chinese)

[AngelLestat]

Hydrogen is not easy to contain at all. It's tiny for atom sizes, and it slips through the smallest cracks...

And it's VERY reactive. More so than carbon. And what if the winds are inconsistent? And then it takes much longer than 66 hours to get to the day? We may need bigger margins...

Is a bit easier to contain and avoid leaks than helium, because in nature, hydrogen is bounded in a diatomic molecule h2, helium is not.

About being reactive... what it matters? there is no oxygen in venus. What is the problem? Also those 66 hours (which we have very limited energy to spent) is the main reason of my fuel cell idea.

With my idea you dont need limit so much your activity during night hours. You can harvester a lot of energy, save weight and use it as a way to control your buoyancy.

Also we can get extra energy from the wings even at night hours, something that NASA never thought about it.

If you see this graphic between 47 km and 52 km of altitude, we have a wing speed gradient of 50m/s (180 km/h in just 4 or 5 km)

We dont need all that energy, just a little bit of that.

How we do it? Similar to this:

Of course that is not the best kite angle we need, but is good to understand the principle.. We need something like this:

Venus winds towards the pole.

This is similar to do Kite surfing, It can be done with only 1 kite, is not necesary choose both heights.

So doing this we avoid to use the proppelers and all the energy they consume. We can use that energy to achieve different things, maybe as get fuel in situ.. But not with a manned vehicle.. maybe with its precursor unmanned vehicle. Then is not need to carry the fuel from earth to launch from venus.

Edited January 4, 2015 by AngelLestat

[Skyler4856]

I have issues with that. Unless you can definitively prove that those discoveries wouldn't have been made otherwise, which you cannot do.

It'd be like saying that the New World would never have been found unless the Nina Pinta and Santa Maria sailed. (Yes, I'm ignoring the Vikings and Chinese)

Yeah, but the discoveries would be expedited.

[xcorps]

Yeah, but the discoveries would be expedited.

Meaningless. There is evidence of galvanic batteries created during the Sassanid period used for electroplating gold and silver.