NASA Studying Russian 12-month Plan

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

Yep thats why we need a moonbase, and a nuclear transit mars vehicle. a year
transit time takes way too many consumables.



:
:
:
My opinion is right

(Derek Lyons) wrote:
[...]
I can see the manager in charge of the astronauts saying, "fine,
security will escort you while you clean out your desk and turn in
your badge".

Not unlikely.

If you aren't willing to do the job, don't join the Corps.

But we're talking about the job *changing* after joining the Corps.
Not quite as extreme as sending you to sea running a missile tube, and
then saying "oh by the way, you're doing underwater demolition this
trip, too". But still a change.

/dps

(bob haller) writes:

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

Basing a Mars mission on unproven, controversial, nuclear power is
silly. For someone who cares too much about public opinion, I don't
see how you could advocate nuclar power for the first manned mission
to Mars.

I can hear the media now, "As the NASA craft Expedition enters Mars,
it's nuclar power plant spewing radiation..."

From an engineering point of view, it's going to cost *a lot* of money
to design, build, certify (environmental impact studies an government
approvals), test, and debug anything nuclear that's big enough to do
the job.

I see the engineers sticking with chemical rockets for the first Mars
mission. Their development cost will be very low (i.e. pick an engine
off the shelf).

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:

Yep thats why we need a moonbase,

A moon base won't help. It's occupants don't experience microgravity.
These things will need to be tested in LEO, so that if emergencies
happen, you can return to earth. ISS is the logical place for these
tests, as I doubt NASA could justify building a new space station in
LEO. Furthermore, you can't use your Mars transit vehicle to test
this, because this research is needed *before* we build a Mars
vehicle.

Why can't you admit that the design of the Mars transit vehicle will
depend heavily on human endurance in microgravity?

and a nuclear transit mars vehicle. a year
transit time takes way too many consumables.

Spoken like someone who isn't an engineer.

Take a look at what was done on Skylab. As far as I remember, there
was no recycling of any kind. Skylab was launched will all the
supplies needed by the three crews (and there was quite a bit of
leftover supplies). You can easily find data on how much O2, N2, and
H2O was used by the three crews (check the official summary of
Skylab). Food might be a bit more difficult to find data on, but it
should be there as well.

People aren't that hard to keep alive (food, air, water, temperature,
humidity, and etc). The effects of extended exposure to microgravity
is the only real unknown.

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

If it takes 6 months to get to Mars, then work X months in low gravity, and
then another 6 months back to earth, then in a way, current 6 month missions
on ISS would be sufficient to ensure they know exactly what to do so that when
they arrive on Mars, they can be productive and not break bones as they walk.

(Note that NASA wanted 4 month missions on ISS, but the current 6 months is
due to Shuttle grounding. Not sure if crews will return to 4 month missions
if/when shuttle returns).

I think that they first need to decide how many crewmembers would be on a mars
mission. Then, perhaps they can "simulate" this on the ISS once ISS is able to
sustain that many crewmembers.

image of astronauts carrying boxes out because they weren't willing to
spend 1 year in space.

What do astronauts do when they're not flying ? Why not let them continue to
do what they are doing now ? They may have the "astronaut" title, but if their
feet are solidly on the ground and they are working on procedures, testing new
equipment etc, then they can still be productive to NASA.

If they are not happy about not being given missions, then let them quit. If
they refuse a mission because it is too long and NASA gives the mission to
someone else, then what is wrong ? If the guy who refuses a mission is unhappy
he can quit. Otherwise he can continue is earth-bound tasks.

John Doe writes:
If they are not happy about not being given missions, then let them quit. If
they refuse a mission because it is too long and NASA gives the mission to
someone else, then what is wrong ? If the guy who refuses a mission is unhappy
he can quit. Otherwise he can continue is earth-bound tasks.

Because it's expensive to keep an astronaut trained. Your average
engineer doesn't get the expensive training that an astronaut gets.
Look at the training that shuttle commanders and pilots get. I'm sure
flights in the T-38's aren't cheap. Then there are the costs of the
simulators, the "swimming pool", the EVA suits, and etc.

I personally don't think you can justify paying for all that overhead
for someone who knows they won't be flying after the shuttle program
ends.


On the other hand, there may be lots of LEO assembly missions to fly,
depending on how NASA designs the CEV and all of it's components.
This may lead to two classes of astronauts. The "LEO class" gets to
do shorter, LEO missions to assemble spacecraft, while the upper class
gets to venture beyond LEO on longer missions. Training would be
tailored to each class of astronaut and hiring of subsequent
astronauts would be tailored to each class of astronaut.

I'm sure the two classes of astronauts would view each other with some
disdain, but that's life.

However, if people like Scott get their way, we'll be using super
large shuttle derived vehicles to launch payloads that would require
little assembly in LEO, negating the need for the "LEO class" of
astronauts. In that case, anyone not willing to venture beyond LEO
ought to be given the chance to leave NASA gracefully (i.e. told
they'd be fired within the year if they didn't).

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

Basing a Mars mission on unproven, controversial, nuclear power is
silly. For someone who cares too much about public opinion, I don't
see how you could advocate nuclar power for the first manned mission
to Mars.


Ahh remember the timeframe is 30 years. By that time ISS will be long gone, the
shuttles definetely in museums, ISS two probably gone too.

What you do is build a nuclear space booster, launch it unfueled, attach a
probe and motor it around the solar system. Orbit all the worlds, perhaps take
it for a spin with a grapple and have it catch and return Snoopy Just for
test purposes.

Then once its proven its used for the first mars mission

..
From an engineering point of view, it's going to cost *a lot* of money
to design, build, certify (environmental impact studies an government
approvals), test, and debug anything nuclear that's big enough to do

Remember most of us here will be retired or dead before this occurs, if it even
happens.

The best use for a nuclear booster! As part of a asteroid deflection system.
:
:
:
My opinion is right

John Doe wrote:

image of astronauts carrying boxes out because they weren't willing to
spend 1 year in space.

What do astronauts do when they're not flying ? Why not let them continue to
do what they are doing now ? They may have the "astronaut" title, but if their
feet are solidly on the ground and they are working on procedures, testing new
equipment etc, then they can still be productive to NASA.

If they won't do the job, then they should not be wearing the title.

If they are not happy about not being given missions, then let them quit. If
they refuse a mission because it is too long and NASA gives the mission to
someone else, then what is wrong ? If the guy who refuses a mission is unhappy
he can quit. Otherwise he can continue is earth-bound tasks.

He certainly can, but under some other title than 'astronaut'.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

(bob haller) writes:

Ahh remember the timeframe is 30 years. By that time ISS will be long gone, the
shuttles definetely in museums, ISS two probably gone too.

What you do is build a nuclear space booster, launch it unfueled, attach a
probe and motor it around the solar system. Orbit all the worlds, perhaps take
it for a spin with a grapple and have it catch and return Snoopy Just for
test purposes.

Then once its proven its used for the first mars mission

It is my opinion that you are seriously underestimating what NASA will
be able to do with the funds they'll receive over the next 30 years.
Nuclear reactors being used as the only means of power for the first
Mars mission isn't at all likely.

Besides, 30 years for today's NASA is like 10 years for the NASA that
sent men to the moon. Why? Lack of funding due to a seriously strong
political motivation (i.e. beat the godless communists to the moon).

The best use for a nuclear booster! As part of a asteroid deflection system.

Pie in the sky, well beyond a manned Mars mission.

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