Manned Mars Mission

"Greg (Strider) Moore" wrote in message
news
"Helmut Wabnig" wrote in message
news


sending two men to Mars.
Mission time 2 years.

You'd most likely send more than 2 folks (more likely 6 people).


One man dies.
How do you "bury" him in space?

Easy. Perform ritual based on her personal beliefs.
Wrap body.
Place in airlock
Vent to space (more likely have 2nd astronaut give her a slight nudge of
delta-V to make sure she eventually enters a slightly different orbit.)


Not that much different from "burial" at sea which has been done for
millennia.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God."

On Friday, August 2, 2013 9:41:23 AM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:





Dr. Mark Roth has developed suspended animation for trauma treatment. This process is easily adapted for other uses, such as space colonization.





No.


Yes.

http://www.popsci.com/science/articl...lliams-anymore





The US military revealed following Fukishima in 2011 that it had an effective anti-radiation drug, Ex-Rad that would make people impervious to radiation encountered in interplanetary space.





No.


Um - yes.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/...n-wonder-drug/



Omit usual Mookery of mathematics


The math is pretty straightforward.

The Proton M can put 5,000 kg into a Mars transfer trajectory today.

Mechanical counter-pressure suits are very lightweight. MEMS based mechanisms for life support and other functions make long duration suits a reality today for the dollars mentioned.

Starting from some false premises and then doing arithmetic is NOT a

convincing argument...

haha - interesting that someone who makes gratuitous assertions against factual evidence tries to lecture us on logic and argument. Gratuitous assertions are not arguments. Gratuitous assertions in the face of hard evidence merely reveals a profound stupidity. Holding fast to articles of faith in the face of evidence contrary to that faith is ignorance of the highest order since it blights any effort at well reasoned thought and progress toward truth.




--

"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar

territory."

--G. Behn

wrote:
On Friday, August 2, 2013 9:41:23 AM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

Dr. Mark Roth has developed suspended animation for trauma
treatment. This process is easily adapted for other uses, such
as space colonization.

No.

Yes.

http://www.popsci.com/science/articl...lliams-anymore

From the very opening of the talk:

"I'm not talking about gorking people out to fly to Mars, or even Pandora."

rick jones
--
denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance, rebirth...
where do you want to be today?
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

Rick Jones wrote:
From the very opening of the talk:

"I'm not talking about gorking people out to fly to Mars, or even Pandora."

One more thing - per
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Roth_%28scientist%29 the clinical
trials he/his company were (going to be) doing were
withdrawn/terminated two years ago.

rick jones
--
oxymoron n, Hummer H2 with California Save Our Coasts and Oceans plates
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

On Friday, July 26, 2013 11:20:55 AM UTC-4, Robert Clark wrote:
"Greg (Strider) Moore" wrote in message

...

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/602/1







Some good stuff in there. I'll note they make a decent case for why ISRU

for the Moon is probably pointless, and developing that technology does

you no good on Mars.



Having an atmosphere on Mars, even the one it has, makes a HUGE

difference.









Since that article was written, the evidence for near polar ice on the Moon

has gotten stronger. Also some of these sites are near locations of near

continual solar illumination so stations there could be powered by solar

power.

The advantage of getting the propellant from the Moon is that you could

have nearly unlimited amount of propellant available for the mission, which

is not the case if that huge amount of propellant had to be launched from

Earth's deep gravity well.





Bob Clark

Misquoting Mark Roth out of context doesn't change the reality that his work *is* broadly applicable to a wide range of situations, including interplanetary and interstellar travle.

Here's what Dr. Roth says of his research;

Metabolic Flexibility and Suspended Animation

Our work in suspended animation derives from the fact that many animals exhibit what we call "metabolic flexibility," the ability to dial down their respiration and heartbeat and, in effect, "turn themselves off" in response to physical or environmental stress. Mammalian examples include hibernation — from ground squirrels to bears — as well as estivation (quiescence in response to heat) and embryonic diapause, a pause in embryonic development found in about 70 species of mammals. Meanwhile, many invertebrates can go dormant for days, months, and even years before reanimating. Finally, germ and somatic stem cells are well known to exit the cell cycle for extended periods of time and to re-enter only when it is favorable for the organism..

Our approach to understanding this flexibility has been to develop the means to stop animals for given periods of time and then reanimate them to normal function. We use the term suspended animation to refer to a state where all observable life processes (using high resolution light microscopy) are stopped: the animals do not move nor breathe and the heart does not beat. We have found that we are able to put a number of animals (yeast, nematodes, drosophila, frogs, and zebrafish) into a state of suspended animation for up to 24 hours through one basic technique: reducing the concentration of oxygen.

By examining the precise oxygen tensions needed to induce suspended animation, we also found discrete and lethal oxygen tensions exist just above the oxygen level that enables suspended animation. In other words, there is a range of oxygen levels that is too low to support life, but going below that causes the animals to suspend. We hypothesized that perhaps we could prevent death in low oxygen situations by adding agents that effectively inhibit oxygen utilization and induce suspended animation.

Carbon monoxide, a well-known gas, is extremely toxic because it does exactly that: binds to sites where oxygen binds in the body. We found that we can successfully put nematodes into a state of suspended animation using carbon monoxide, and these results with invertebrate systems encouraged us to explore other systems and agents.

Using another highly toxic gas, hydrogen sulfide, we found we can reversibly reduce the metabolic rate of mice: exposed to 80 ppm of hydrogen sulfide, mice enter into what we call a "hibernation-like" state, where their core temperature can be reduced as much as 11 degrees and their metabolic rate as judged by carbon dioxide production and oxygen consumption drops 10-fold. We've kept the animals in this state for 6 hours and they recover completely.

Our success in altering the metabolic rate of these mammals has given us the tools to pursue several promising lines of research, including whether it might be possible to 'suspend' human organs (for transplant) or to 'buy time' for human patients in trauma.

* * * *

Now Dr. Roth's approach clearly is quite flexible and *is* applicable to space applications and can be used to put humans into suspended animation for months or years if we do the research necessary.

* * * *

Oral Ex-RAD® was found to be effective in both prophylactic pre-treatment and mitigation post-treatment settings significantly increased survival among those exposed to lethal levels of radiation.

Clearly this has application for radiation exposure which occurs during interplanetary travel.

* * * *

PRESS RELEASE

Public release date: 27-Sep-2010

Contact: Katrhyn Morris

PR on Call

Onconova Therapeutics presents new data demonstrating radioprotection by Ex-RAD at RRS annual meeting

Orally administered Ex-RAD (ON 01210.Na) is radioprotective in pre-exposure prophylaxis and post-exposure mitigation animal models

Newtown, PA, September 27, 2010 – Onconova Therapeutics, Inc. is presenting new data in five posters and an oral presentation this week summarizing several studies with the company's radioprotectant Ex-RAD® at the 56th Annual Meeting of the Radiation Research Society (RRS), September 25-29 in Maui, Hawaii. In vivo studies show that Ex-RAD®, upon oral administration, produced a significant increase in survival versus placebo-treated groups in mice exposed to lethal whole body irradiation (WBI), for both prophylactic pre-treatment and mitigation post-treatment. Ex-RAD® is the only known oral radioprotectant that has shown such activity in animal model systems.

Collectively, these presentations demonstrate the ability of Ex-RAD® to provide radioprotective benefit by injection and oral delivery, an in-depth understanding of the kinetics and metabolism of Ex-RAD®, and radioprotective benefit to human bone marrow, as well as the gastrointestinal and hematopoietic systems in mice.

Onconova, a biopharmaceutical company developing novel chemical entities to treat cancer and protect normal cells, is developing Ex-RAD®, a novel radioprotectant with potential utility in bio-defense or bio-terrorism, which could prove useful as a prophylactic agent for first-responder protection from the harmful effects of radiation from nuclear accidents or weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

These presentations result from an on-going Onconova collaboration among investigators at a number of institutions: AFRRI, (The Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute) a part of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS); Georgetown University, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular & Cellular Biology; Long Island University, Arnold & Marie Schwartz College of Pharmacy; and the Department of Oncological Sciences, Mt. Sinai School of Medicine.

Summary of Oral Ex-RAD® Findings

The results from a prophylactic radioprotection study in mice demonstrated that Ex-RAD® dosed orally or by injection prior to lethal whole body irradiation (WBI) produced significant enhancement in survival for both Ex-RAD® treated groups versus placebo.

Results from the radiomitigation experiment (where the drug is administered after exposure to lethal radiation), using both injection and oral methods of delivery demonstrated that Ex-RAD® treated animals had comparably high rates of survival in both groups.

Hence, oral Ex-RAD® was found to be effective in both prophylactic pre-treatment and mitigation post-treatment settings.

"Years of collaborative work are resulting in great progress with Ex-RAD® in the laboratory and the clinic and Ex-RAD® is the focus of several posters and a key presentation within the RSS scientific and educational track," said Manoj Maniar, PhD, Senior Vice President for Product Development of Onconova. "We are very excited to see the acceleration and new developments within radioprotection, specifically in oral prophylaxis and treatment. Ex-RAD® holds a unique position among developing products with the potential to benefit people exposed to whole body radiation."


* * * *

Obviously in a controlled atmosphere of a long-duration space activity suit it is simple to control the gases introduced to this environment to quickly and efficiently induce suspended animation and reverse it. Its also possible to raise and lower body temperature. Finally, automated injections of Ex-Rad prior to suspension and boosters when high radiation levels are detected are also possible.

Taken together this group of technologies provides a way to send people through space with very little payload.


* * * *

Here's someone who built a micro-farm that supports 4 people, and produces enough surplus to sell to local restaurants, all on 1/5th acre (810 sq m) - which taking his house into account, confirms the data I provided for crop productivity earlier (129 sq m per person).

http://trutube.tv/video/10900/Living...ban-Homestead-

The Falcon Heavy, with its 18,000 kg to Mars, is sufficient for a minimum Mars mission to send over 40 people one way to Mars. You can even send a handful of people to Mars and return them, which will build interest.

On Sunday, August 4, 2013 6:51:52 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Here's someone who built a micro-farm that supports 4 people, and produces enough surplus to sell to local restaurants, all on 1/5th acre (810 sq m) - which taking his house into account, confirms the data I provided for crop productivity earlier (129 sq m per person).



http://trutube.tv/video/10900/Living...ban-Homestead-



The Falcon Heavy, with its 18,000 kg to Mars, is sufficient for a minimum Mars mission to send over 40 people one way to Mars. You can even send a handful of people to Mars and return them, which will build interest.

http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct...16585 3,d.aGc

Masataka Okutsu and James Longuski in the Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets in 2002 Vol 39 (Jan-Feb) published "Free Returns via Gravity Assist from Venus" where they outlines an aerogravity assist short-stay missions on Mars..

Table 2 outlines an Earth-Venus-Mars/Mars-Venus short stay mission with a V-infinity of 4.43 km/sec leaving Earth 24 March 2017 and arriving at Mars on 9 March 2018 with a V-infinity of 5.98 km/sec. With a 30 day stop over the ship leaves Mars with a V-infinity of 2.61 km/sec takes 197 days to reach Earth arriving at Earth on 22 October 2018 with a V-infinity of 3.22 km/sec. A total mission duration of 572 days.

The Falcon Heavy puts up 53,000 kg into LEO with an orbital speed of 7.9 km/sec. With a V-infinity of 4.43 km/sec this means we need to add another 9..1 km/sec to our speed. Using a high expansion RL-10 engine to boost tweaking its oxygen/hydrogen mix to 5.5 (as the Russians have done) we get a 4.6 km/sec exhaust speed. Thus, a 7,372 kg payload may be sent to Mars along the trajectory described.

We use aerobraking at Mars to slow the craft and land. Mars has an escape velocity of 5.00 km/sec. To achieve a V-infinity of 2.61 km/sec from Mars' surface requires a delta vee of 5.64 km/sec. With this engine this means we have to burn 5,209 kg of propellant leaving 2,163 for payload and structure of the 7,372 kg stage for this mission.

With a structure budget of 743 kg we have a payload of 1,400 kg. This is enough to send four people along with 10 probes massing 22.3 kg each and a solar power unit designed to operate on the surface of Mars.

We have 12 days duration at full power and water usage.

We have half a day on Earth departure, before entering suspended animation for the trip.

We spend a day at Venus, half a day before fly by, half a day after. We drop probes into Venus and control them remotely in real time. This allows us to gauge performance following stasis and then re-enter stasis following flyby.

We spend another half a day in space prior to Mars arrival. Determine if a landing is feasible. If not, we abort to Earth with flyby of Mars and dropping probes there as well.

A landing approval results in landing and a 30 day stay on Mars. We have six days active on the surface to find a water supply and use it to extend time awake using the solar power unit.

If a water supply is not found and developed within six days we spend another two days in scientific exploration and go into stasis for a period of 21 days.

If in stasis we awaken 1 day prior to launch, spend half a day in the vicinity of Mars, after dropping probes elsewhere on the planet during launch, and enter stasis for the return to Earth.

Half a day prior to Earth arrival, leave stasis for the last time, and land on Earth.

We plan to go into stasis in any event and get 'bonus days' for each few liters of water we find and convert to hydrogen and oxygen.

So, in all we have 12 days of supplies, with back up supplies of 30 days (without water, requiring finding water on Mars and breaking it down to hydrogen and oxygen)

For this trip - we modify my earlier entry;

An astronaut in a long-duration mechanical counter-pressure space suit with an ablative thermal protection parachuting down after performing a re-entry from a trans-Mars journey is what we send.

Astronaut: 85 kg
3D printed highly parallel life support: 2 kg
ILC Dover Mechanical Counter Pressure suit: 12 kg
Jalbert Parafoil: 16 kg* (configured for Mars operation)

Total 115 kg

This is your payload, plus consumables.

In a controlled atmosphere about 1 kg of CO2 must be scrubbed out of the air each day. Apollo used lithium hydroxide to absorb CO2. You may recall that adapting CM scrubbers to LEM fans was a challenge during the rescue of Apollo 13.

2 LiOH(s) + CO2(g) → Li2CO3(s) + H2O(g)
48 44 74 18
1.09091 1.00000 1.68182 0.40909

The ISS uses a reverse Sabatier process using hydrogen to absorb CO2 to produce water and methane.

CO2 + 4 H2 -- CH4 + 2 H2O
44 8 16 36
1.00000 0.18182 0.36364 0.81818

The hydrogen scrubber removes 6x the CO2 for a given amount of material than the Lithium Hydroxide based scrubber. Hydrogen scrubber also produces twice as much water per kilogram of CO2 scrubbed. The methane gas may also be evaporated to reject heat into the vacuum of space.

Since using hydrogen and oxygen as propellant gives the needed consumables let's look at hydrogen as the scrubber of choice.

It takes half a day to launch, do Mars injection, and do a final check out before entering suspended animation. It takes another half a day prior to planet fall to awaken, prepare and prepare for entry. It takes a week to recover supplies and develop a water source. This is eight days. Adding four days for handling emergencies, this is a total of 12 days of supplies.

This translates to 2.18184 kg of hydrogen to absorb 12.00000 kg of CO2 and produce 9.81818 liters of water and 4.36364 kg of methane gas which is liquified and evaporated to reject heat from the spacesuit.

The mass breakdown of other metabolic parameters is as follows: 0.84 kg of oxygen, 0.62 kg of food, and 3.52 kg of water consumed, converted through the body's physiological processes to 0.11 kg of solid wastes, 3.87 kg of liquid wastes, and 1.00 kg of carbon dioxide produced.

So over 12 days this translates to 10.08 kg of oxygen, 7.44 kg of food and 42.24 liters of water. Subtracting out the 9.82 liters of water obtains 32..42 liters created by reacting 3.60 kg of hydrogen with 28.82 kg of oxygen in a fuel cell at a steady rate producing 320 Watts of electrical power along with 172 Watts of heat over the 12 day period.

Hydrogen for CO2 scrub: 2.20 kg
Hydrogen for Fuel Cell: 3.60 kg
Oxygen for Fuel Cell: 28.82 kg
Oxygen for Breathing: 10.08 kg
Food: 7.44 kg
Other consumables: 2.86 kg

Sub-Total: 55.00 kg

Astronaut & Suit: 115 kg

Total: 170.00 kg

Once a water supply is found we would like to stay 30 days. If a water supply cannot be found, the crew goes into stasis after This is an additional 74.4 kg of food and 28.6 kg of other consumables.

Freeze dried food (30 days): 18.6 kg
Other consumables (30 days): 7.4 kg

Sub-total: 26.00 kg

Running total: 196 kg per astronaut

4 x 196 = 784 kg.

On Friday, July 26, 2013 11:20:55 AM UTC-4, Robert Clark wrote:
"Greg (Strider) Moore" wrote in message

...

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/602/1







Some good stuff in there. I'll note they make a decent case for why ISRU

for the Moon is probably pointless, and developing that technology does

you no good on Mars.



Having an atmosphere on Mars, even the one it has, makes a HUGE

difference.









Since that article was written, the evidence for near polar ice on the Moon

has gotten stronger. Also some of these sites are near locations of near

continual solar illumination so stations there could be powered by solar

power.

The advantage of getting the propellant from the Moon is that you could

have nearly unlimited amount of propellant available for the mission, which

is not the case if that huge amount of propellant had to be launched from

Earth's deep gravity well.





Bob Clark

Thanks for that. I agree that its not a preferred way. It is a way though..

The point is if Elon Musk wants to send folks to Mars this is a way to radically reduce mass requirements and put it within reach of the Falcon Heavy. We should be able to send a half dozen people to Mars and return them to Earth or send four dozen people one way.

With 1,200 billionaires in the world, and 82,000 people worth over half a billion dollars, according to a recent Credit Suisse report.

It should be possible to find 18 people willing to spend $200 million each who would want to go to Mars and back - and live forever in the history books! They would be deployed on four vehicles put up by four Falcon Heavy Launches.

That's $3.6 billion at this price and is sufficient to build all the hardware and procedures, test it and deploy it, by the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11.

to do mars a nuke booster for deep space use is essential and would likely cost less than moon fuel depots, which would cost so much the whole idea isnt affordable

fred

robert clark posted..... the costs to build moon fuel depots will cost far more than a nuke booster

Manned mission to Mars an unlikely proposition.
Current limits on exposure to radiation make chances of flight in near
future pretty slim.
Sep. 22, 2013
Written by Todd Halvorson FLORIDA TODAY

It's "the elephant in the room," NASA Chief Astronaut Robert Behnken
recently told a National Academy of Sciences committee.
"We're talking about a lot of ionizing radiation, almost a guarantee for
cancer, and you are really close to the edge of the range for lethal
exposure," said Kristin Shrader-Frechette, a University of Notre Dame
professor and a specialist in ethical issues that arise in scientific
research and technology development. "If we can't get shorter transit times
in space, and we can't get better shielding, then we really can't do (a
Mars) spaceflight."

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/...ly-proposition

A near term solution is already apparent: lunar derived propellant depots.