One of NASA’s long-range goals is to land people on Mars.
Because of the orbits of Earth and Mars, there are only two practical mission profiles: one in which they would stay a month or so, the other in which they would stay 18 months.
Every time I’ve seen someone talk about what they would ultimately like to do, it’s always the 18-month plan. The one-month plan is practically not even being considered.
Doesn’t this sound like it would greatly compound the risks of an already very risky mission?
I would guess that it would be hard to justify the expense if they only spent a month on the planet. This isn’t a moon shot where a couple of weeks leads to a couple of hours surface time. This is years just for the travel. I doubt that they could get unpacked in a month.
Also, many current plans call for a ‘two stage’ deployment. (I can’t remember the actual term used.) Where you have rocket A landing on Mars well before anyone living sets foot there using rocket B. Rocket A would carry the fuel (or make it) and equipment to return to Earth, and Rocket B would carry the people there. If you are going to use this sort of system to do the job, the eighteen month stay over makes a certain amount of sense cost wise. Also, because of the time it takes to travel and return from mars, such missions would want to maximize amount of data gathered.
>>Being Chaotic Evil means never having to say your sorry…unless the other guy is bigger than you.<<
Boris, IIRC, a doubly-tangent free-fall orbit (i.e., one that just touches both Earth’s orbit at Earth’s position on it and Mar’s orbit at Mars’s position on it) is 15 months minimum.
The above site estimates the time for the trip from Earth to Mars to be 259 days. I don’t know how their assumptions differ from the 15-month assumption. It’s a very interesting site, anyway, with lots of neat stuff about various types of engine that I don’t understand.
My memory was that a Mars trip (one-way) was 15 to 18 months, and could be longer, depending on the relative positions of Mars and Earth. (I had never seen the info presented on the site with the 259 day estimate.) 15-18 months gives 2 1/2 to 3 years round trip.
Where would the human race be if no one ever took a chance. The whole idea of space exploration is to find places to put our population because we bred like rabbits.
I would rather take a risk in space than live an accident free life on Earth.
As far as I’m concerned, the risk and cost are justified by what we would learn from it. (How to travel between planets.)
We have to send robots there first to see if it’s worth exploring any further. We can get virtually the same data with robots for a fraction of the cost. Let’s make sure it’s worth risking human lives before we take the big plunge.
The problem is, the machines called “robots” have about the intelligence and behavioral flexibility of a simple bacterium. If anything more is called for (as it surely will be), actual human beings will be called for.
“Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away.”
I disagree with this assessment. Even if we can establish colonies on the Moon and/or Mars, and develop dirt-cheap launch vehicles to send people there, the maximum rate at which we could send people to other planets wouldn’t begin to put a dent in Earth’s population. If finding more elbow room is your goal, you can colonize Antarctica or the oceans much faster and cheaper than you can colonize another world.
The motivation for European exploration in the Renaissance had nothing to do with European overcrowding and everything to do with finding new sources of raw materials, goods, and slaves. Manned space exploration in the 20th century has been primarily fueled by national pride. If manned space exploration is to continue in anything more than a token capacity, there has to be an economic incentive.
The truth, as always, is more complicated than that.
OK, say we skip the robot thing and spend a trillion bucks to send a few humans to Mars to wonder at the twin moons and knock around a few golfballs. Then there is a disaster. That will be the end of NASA and space exploration. We’re not even sure if we have the technology to manufacture rocket fuel in space without bankrupting the planet.
We probably can’t terraform Mars, definately not in our lifetimes, so what’s the point? There are plenty of heavenly bodies for us to exploit nearer to earth. The moon, ateroids and comets are alot cheaper to get to, I think.
If the robots show evidence of life or something else interesting on Mars, let’s pack up and head out. But let’s wait and see. It’s not like Mars is going anywhere.
Tracer:
Hmmm, slaves, huh? That might be a worthwhile prize to bring back. Paldors? Contestant #3? We’ll defer to your wisdom on this one <chuckle, snort>. How likely are we to find an exploitable indigenous population on Mars. It would be nice to BE the alien invaders for a change.
As for you, danielnsmith, Mjollnir did not seem to be averse to taking the risks. The way I read his post, he felt that if we ARE going to take the risk (which should be substantially the same regardless of how long the visit), we should stick around for a while and get some real work done.
And as for those of you who are arguing the point about sending robots, I have this to ask you: Haven’t we already sent several robots to Mars? I find it a touch ironic that this particular angle should be getting this type of attention right now. After all, the last robot we did send to Mars crashed and burned because somebody’s right hand didn’t know what somebody else’s left hand was doing (what with the English Engineering system of measurement being less than compatible with the metric system, at least when proper conversion factors are omitted). In a letter to the editor of the Los Angeles Times yesterday, I read somebody’s horror-struck question, “what if that mission had been MANNED?” Well, IMO, the astronauts would have been in a position to fly by the seat of their pants and rescue an expensive set of hardware.
Time to change the signature line; my cover’s been blown . . .
I am not aware of any failed robot missions to Mars. The satelite failure was human error, not robot error. Dead robots are a learning experience, dead astronauts are a reason to stop exploring space.
I have nothing against going to Mars, as long there’s a good reason. What’s so wrong with taking our time, improving the technology, sending some robots to scout it out? Isn’t NASA planning a robot that goes to Mars, scoops up some dirt, and brings it back here? Wait and see what data that bring us first.