The first human mars mission?

In article ,
Sander Vesik wrote:
...we have the necessary technology today - there is no need to
"develop new technologies"...

We do? I don't think so. Even sending unmanned simple probes to Mars is
still problematic and nobody has done a sample return mission yet.

What does that have to do with sending a manned mission? Doing
exploration by remote control is harder, not easier, than doing it in
person. The *sole* aspect in which manned exploration is harder is that
the minimum mission size is much larger, and hence harder to fund.

Five years before Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon, the US had yet to
send a successful unmanned probe there -- despite a number of tries.
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

In article ,
Christopher wrote:
NASA has *no plans* for a manned Mars expedition. None. It's completely
beyond their planning horizon. So there are no "preliminary designs"...

Thanks for that-and the other posters-looks like it'll be 2050 at
least before we go, and I'll probably be dead by then.

The situation is both worse than that, and better than that.

The bad news is that if you assume business as usual at NASA, the answer
to when they will do a Mars expedition is: never. Not 2015, not 2020,
not 2050, not 2100, but *never*. NASA is not competent to do it at any
reasonable price, and Congress knows that, so it will not be funded. NASA
cannot be reformed drastically enough to change that. Campaigning to get
Congress to write a blank check for it is futile, a waste of effort.

(And the outlook is no better for ESA, NASDA, RKA, or whatever the Chinese
equivalent is.)

The good news is that radical change in the situation is not out of the
question. I didn't say that NASA people will never walk on Mars; it's
just that they'll be paying passengers on someone else's ship.
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

In article ,
Bruce Sterling Woodcock wrote:
Our best chance is to wait for a Presidential candidate who
vocally advocates a manned Mars mission, and then vote for them.

There will be no such candidate; waiting for one equals giving up.

No presidential candidate with any hope of being elected is going to be
passionately in favor of *anything* except seeing himself sworn in as
President... because that sort of single-minded dedication is what it
takes to get the job.

So the only reason he would advocate such a thing is that he'd think it
would get him a lot of votes. And space as a spectator sport simply isn't
that popular.
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 15:28:15 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In article ,
Bruce Sterling Woodcock wrote:
Our best chance is to wait for a Presidential candidate who
vocally advocates a manned Mars mission, and then vote for them.

There will be no such candidate; waiting for one equals giving up.

Or if there is, such advocacy will lose more votes than it gains, so
(s)he won't be elected.

...the only reason he would advocate such a thing is that he'd think it
would get him a lot of votes. And space as a spectator sport simply isn't
that popular.

Right, but many here don't seem to understand that. They extrapolate
their own interests to those of the general population (which is why
many of them also poo-poo space tourism--they don't want to go--like
voyeurs, they only want to watch).

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

Christopher wrote:

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 17:14:47 GMT, (Henry Spencer)
wrote:

In article ,
Christopher wrote:
...Has there
been any preliminary designs on the lander craft, or how it's going to
get to Mars yet...

Mars mission studies are a dime a dozen. The NASA Mars Reference
Mission is one of the most detailed studies, though the Mars Direct
concept is probably the closest to what will eventually happen. Links:

http://www.nw.net/mars/marsdirect.html
http://cmex-www.arc.nasa.gov/MarsNew...ion_Table.html

*Lots* of designs. Lots of paper and viewgraphs. None of which have any
likely relation to anything that might happen.

NASA has *no plans* for a manned Mars expedition. None. It's completely
beyond their planning horizon. So there are no "preliminary designs":
that would imply a commitment, with specific plans to turn those
preliminary designs into definitive designs. There is no such commitment.

What NASA has, is design studies. A large pile of them; some of the ones
on the bottom of the pile are from the early 1960s. They might, or might
not, influence any real design that might someday be done.

or has the total work done on a Mars mission been
restricted to the work done by the Mars Society...

The Mars Society's work has been at the same level: design studies.
(Yes, they have built and experimented with mockups of some of the studied
designs. NASA has been known to do that too.)

Thanks for that-and the other posters-looks like it'll be 2050 at
least before we go, and I'll probably be dead by then.

There are no technological show-stoppers, so we could start a program at
any time. The only thing that is stopping us is the estimated costs.
Published studies (AFAIK) universally assume the use of expendable
HLLV's for Earth-to-orbit transportation which drives the cost out of
reach.

Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

Henry Spencer wrote:
The situation is both worse than that, and better than that.

The bad news is that if you assume business as usual at NASA, the
answer
to when they will do a Mars expedition is: never. Not 2015, not 2020,
not 2050, not 2100, but *never*. NASA is not competent to do it at any
reasonable price, and Congress knows that, so it will not be funded.
NASA
cannot be reformed drastically enough to change that. Campaigning to
get Congress to write a blank check for it is futile, a waste of
effort.

(And the outlook is no better for ESA, NASDA, RKA, or whatever the
Chinese equivalent is.)

The good news is that radical change in the situation is not out of the
question. I didn't say that NASA people will never walk on Mars; it's
just that they'll be paying passengers on someone else's ship.

I do disagree to this posting. (Politely and with all due respect.)
I do agree that NASA wont get anywhere doing things the way they are
going now, and ESA is not a bit better (just less funded...)
However, NASA *would* be able to do a manned Mars-mission given the
necessary funding (=lots and lots of cash), but the prospect of the
chinese starting a race seems at least possible. (Like Apollo)
On the other hand, any private effort without strong state backing
is prone to fail because of lack of funding, lots of government
regulation (rockets *are* dangerous) and other reasons. I do admire
the startups, but I do not put any faith into their success.

The only possible way a radical change in the situation may come is
by the efforts of space agencies, but only of third world countries
with scarce resources. If one of them decides to take a intelligent
risk by sidestepping the whole trodden path and doing something new
which works out to be lots better - this would be a change in the
situation.

I will agree (sadly) that none of my scenarios seems likely at the
moment - but even so, they are still more likely than the private
option.

Robert Kitzmueller

Dick Morris writes:

Published studies (AFAIK) universally assume the use of expendable
HLLV's for Earth-to-orbit transportation which drives the cost out of
reach.

Actually, the Earth to LEO transportation is a surprisingly small fraction of
the estimated cost for NASA's Mars Reference Mission.

Will McLean

The *sole* aspect in which manned exploration is harder is that
the minimum mission size is much larger, and hence harder to fund.

And keeping human bodies alive in space for years, and body deterioration due
to long-term zerog, and radiation shielding, etc, etc, etc.

Just
becuase peopel have a dream of a Mars mission doesn't really make it
possible or even make it neccessary.

Oh, it's necessary, even if not yet possible, if you want human beings to have
a future beyond the next planet-killing rock from the sky.

Our best chance is to wait for a Presidential candidate who
vocally advocates a manned Mars mission, and then vote for
them.

Bruce

The problem is, that the timeline of such a mission will exceed their term of
office even if reelected.