NASA Studying Russian 12-month Plan

No, no, no! Again, if there are real microgravity related medical
issues that would prevent a Mars flight, you've got to make changes to
your "mars transit vehicle" design to accommodate this. One thing
that could be done is to spin the craft (manned part on one end
attached to the transfer stage by very long cables).

The issue here is how much "gravity" is necessary? Can you get by
with 1/6 G (moon), or do you need more? Do you need 1/2 G? If you
need to provide a full 1 G, this makes the mass of the structure,
cables and the fuel needed to spin and de-spin the craft higher. We
really *need* to find out what the *real* medical effects are for Mars
duration flights and we need to know a.s.a.p. These effects will
directly drive the design of your "mars transit vehicle".

If NASA is serious about going to Mars, they really need to get moving
and start investigating these issues now, not after Mars hardware is
designed and built. If they "discover" these issues after the hardware
is built, a Mars mission may not be possible without throwing out the
hardware and starting the design process over.

They could automatuically add in a audio time delay and have no windows
looking
at earth.

You can do this with isolation simulations on the ground. NASA already
has some data on this. You don't need microgravity to simulate these
effects. It would be pretty cheap to recruit people to spend a couple of
years in a double wide trailer without windows. Set them up with
computers and communications with the appropriate time delay. Give
them the same exercise equipment and the same food you plan to use on
your Mars mission, all to examine the *psychological* effects.

Unfortunately, the physiological effects can only be studied in microgravity.

Whatever the vehicle it shouldnt be so loud to do permanent hearing damage

As far as noise goes, blame NASA and Russia for the current ISS
design. As I recall, JimO and separately NASA Watch both covered the
noise issue early on in the ISS program. The noise kept exceeding the
requirements, and NASA kept writing waivers (it's that "can do"
attitude to write waivers that we all know and love). If you do a web
search, I'm sure you'll find the articles. Try looking for for Zarya
and noise.

Jeff


ISS was not designed for long term stays. with it too noisey, prone to
breakdown and requiring way too much maiuntenance.

What we need for mars, which presently is what 20- or 30 years out is a interim
testbed design.

A prototype mars transit craft that would mimick all parts iof a long duration
flight.

leaving earth it might fly a spiraling flight to a asteroid, with the windopw
to earth closed, a increasing time delay built in, and other things to mimick
such a flight in a near earth environment.

I find the what gravity do we need to keep the crew safe argument funny.

When the discussion of a moonbase came up this group thought it unnecessary.
While the moons gravity long term study would be a excellent test for
equiptement and personell.

Your set to solve the mars human health factor while we cant even get out of
LEO
:
:
:
My opinion is right

You're such a twit. Who cares what the press thinks! Tell them the
truth. NASA is preparing for the missions that will be available and
the astronauts who were let go simply refuse to go on those missions
because they thought they were signing up for two week long

Next mars trip is what 30 years from now? 20? existing astronauts wopuldnt be
going anywhere far, and its doubtful those recruited today will either

But the AMERICAN PUBLIC pays the bills, ignore public opinion is a good way to
destroy manned space
:
:
:
My opinion is right

In article ,
says...
(dave schneider) writes:

On the other hand, the Mars team will have signed on for that
duration. If the astronauts picked for ISS didn't sign on for longer
than 6 months, and there is genuine concern that a 1 year mission
would have adverse effects on their health, then it seems reasonable
to look for a crew that is prepared for that issue.

A pertinent data point would be long term effects on those cosmonauts
who have been on missions greater than 6 months (especially the 14
month mission). Has there been an increase in post flight problems
such as permanently reduced bone density?

I can see a younger astronaut saying, "I have too many years on earth
after the mission to spend them all with brittle bones; I want to be
healthy enough to raise a family."

I agree. I don't doubt that these astronauts have valid reasons for
not going. I've turned down job assignments on similar grounds
myself. It's hard to be away for a long time, especially if you've
got a wife and young children.

However, there are plenty of other astronauts, and countless astronaut
candidates, that don't have these sorts of commitments.

It's time to clean house and find astronauts who are willing
to take these assignments. If we don't, how do we expect to get to
Mars? A Mars mission will be such a long flight, so far away from
Earth that if astronauts are already balking at one year ISS flights,
do we really think these same astronauts will sign up for a much
longer Mars trip?

The brittle bones issue may have to be addressed with some type of
inertia-based artificial gravity system for Mars flights and asteroid
exploration/exploitation missions. I don't know that there are *any*
astronauts who are willing to become invalids in the name of science,
and I don't know that it's fair -- at any level -- to ask that of
anyone.

However, the problem of separation from family does have some solutions.
In the case of an astronaut who has a spouse (but no little kids) at
home, the answer is simple: send married couples. There are already a
couple of married couples in the astronaut corps, and there are many
more couples out there, I am sure, in which both members would qualify.
That way, you don't have the problem of crew members wanting to back out
of an expedition because they don't want to separate from their spouses
for extended periods. You also mitigate the problem of forcing
unmarried crew to not have sex for a period of two years or more. (You
can never tell which people are going to respond to that situation by
going into serious depression, and it would be a hell of a thing to pre-
screen your entire astronaut corps for Mars expeditions by forcing them
to be celibate for two years just as an "entrance exam"...)

Doug

(bob haller) writes:


ISS was not designed for long term stays. with it too noisey, prone to
breakdown and requiring way too much maiuntenance.

So, you're claiming that a Mars ship using today's technology and
NASA's limited budget would be significantly better? How do you
arrive at this? Point the finger at NASA for writing all those
waivers when the required noise limits were originally exceeded.

Better yet, devise better hearing protection and ways to retrofit the
systems to make them quieter. Do this NOW, so we can use ISS for
actual human factors research that is absolutely needed if we are to
go beyond LEO.

Your set to solve the mars human health factor while we cant even
get out of LEO

You're putting the cart before the horse.

We won't know how to design a ship that can get to an asteroid, let
alone Mars, if we don't know what the human requirements are for long
duration missions (e.g. greater than one year). The key variable here
is how much gravity is necessary. Is microgravity o.k., or do we need
more? If we need more, how much more is required? We simply won't
know until we do the research.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

(bob haller) writes:

Look astronauts are intelligent people, accepting risk with reward. Like flying
on a shuttle/ I doubt many would accept flying the saturn 5 at JSC even it were
refurbished, as it would be too risky.

The risk of flying on a refurbished piece of scrap (however historical
it may be) has nothing to do with medical research on ISS. Despite
how you get to and from ISS, the highest risk is still, arguably,
launch and landing.

Sure you can get a volunteer to do anything, no doubt someone would volunteer
to be the first guy executed on a live tv broadcast with enough money for his
family but thats not what a astronaut would do.

We're talking about extending the duration of ISS missions to gather
more and better medical data on the effects of zero gravity. We've
done six month missions. Next, extend it to a year. Keep extending
the interval slowly until you either start to see irreversable
effects, or you reach the duration necessary for a Mars mission.

Astronauts have long been guinea pigs. This began with Mercury and
has never stopped. This should be nothing new to the astronauts.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

A lot of people have been talking about how bone demineralization could
be such a serious problem on long missions that we may have to generate
some form of artificial gravity. But no one knows how much G is
necessary to slow or stop demineralization.

Well, here's a thought -- wouldn't that be one of the very good reasons
for having a lunar base for five years or so before we try a Mars
expedition? Putting people on the Moon for periods of a year or more
would let us determine whether or not 1/6G is sufficient to stop bone
demineralization. If it's not, then we'll have to design spin-up
systems that provide more than 1/6G. If it is, then we'll know for sure
that 1/6G will suffice for long expeditions.

The other option, as I see it, is to design, build and fly in LEO a
spacecraft that has various "levels" of inertia-generated gravity. Have
some crew spend all their time in the microgravity section, have some
crew spend all their time in the 1/20G section, and so on, up to a 1/4G
or 1/2G section. You'd have to be really rigorous in keeping people to
their own sections (which could be terribly hard on a crew if your crew
size is small), but you'd get the data you need.

And here's another thought: if you don't want to use highly trained
astronauts and cosmonauts as medical guinea pigs for such long-duration
studies, why not ask for volunteers? Hell, I'd be HAPPY to spend a year
or two away from my spouse if it means I could spend it in orbit. Just
give me an internet connection and I'll be just fine. I bet there would
be hundreds of thousands of people who would volunteer for such "guinea
pig" missions.

Doug

(bob haller) writes:

Next mars trip is what 30 years from now? 20? existing astronauts wopuldnt be
going anywhere far, and its doubtful those recruited today will either

But the AMERICAN PUBLIC pays the bills, ignore public opinion is a good way to
destroy manned space

We'll hopefully have signifacant presence on the moon much earlier
than that. Considering the cost in fuel and the time to get to and
from the moon, I certainly do not expect the norm to be two week lunar
missions. That's just silly.

Lunar missions may not face exactly the same microgravity situation
that a Mars mission would, but we have no long duration data on 1/6 G
either. That would be a *great* thing to have. It could be that you
could get by with 1/6 G, so you design your Mars transport for 1/6 G.

But we just won't know until we send people on long duration lunar
missions, will we?


If we're serious about going to Mars, we'll start the necessary
biomedical research very soon. If the research doesn't start before
we end the ISS program, then I don't think we're truly serious about
ever going to Mars.

If it doesn't look like we're serious, politicians will fight funding
for it for fear that it will turn into another money pit of constant
redesigns brought on by lack of up-front research to determine the
actual requirements.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

Doug... writes:

The brittle bones issue may have to be addressed with some type of
inertia-based artificial gravity system for Mars flights and asteroid
exploration/exploitation missions. I don't know that there are *any*
astronauts who are willing to become invalids in the name of science,
and I don't know that it's fair -- at any level -- to ask that of
anyone.

As of now, NASA claims that this is an unknown. The only way to find
out is to do the research. We seem to be lacking the balls that the
early NASA astronauts had. Everything was unknown at that time and
the astronauts flew the first flights knowing that they were guinea
pigs.

Look at the Skylab fights. Those guys faced the very same dilemma of
pushing the envelope of human endurance in microgravity.

If we've lost that determination to push the envelope, we'll never get
to Mars.


Just when did NASA's astronauts loose the "right stuff"? They had it
in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. Maybe this is something else to blame on
the shuttle program after the "test program" was declared over and the
e-seats were deactivated. It was deemed so safe, they decided that
pressure suits weren't needed.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

NASA Studying Russian 12-month Plan

Theres that nuclear powered transit craft. theres no real reason to spend sop
long in transit. I THINK it was around 2 months each way. Given that less than
a year away might be the maximum needed. 2 months transit each way and a few
months on mars
:
:
:
My opinion is right

So, you're claiming that a Mars ship using today's technology and
NASA's limited budget would be significantly better? How do you
arrive at this?

To be safe and successful it MUST be way better than ISS.


Better yet, devise better hearing protection and ways to retrofit the
systems to make them quieter. Do this NOW, so we can use ISS for

A mars transit craft will the next generation station, hopefully e will learn
from our mistakes
:
:
:
My opinion is right