NASA and Mars

[Vlad123]

Now, I'm sure you've all heard about this sort of thing recently. NASA is starting to plan a manned mission to Mars(along with other private companies such as Mars One). Since we all must have some relative interest in space, I mean come on it's an integral factor when we RP SW.

I would like to hear you opinions on this, and how you'd go about it if you were in charge of NASA. Now unless some of you are working for NASA, feel free to leak classified date or if you are in charge of the Human Resources department, hire me please.

The way I'd go about it is, land somebody on the moon in the next 2 years, using relatively the same techniques as the way they want to land on Mars. Then in the next 5-10 years, plan and an attempt a manned mission to the red planet.

Now remember, Earth's closest approach to Mars is every 1.6 years, it would probably take at least 130 days to get there, and that's if lined up perfectly with its orbit and trajectory to arrive, also assuming they use the SLS MKI concept of a rocket to have near perfect and quick high speed transfer while in orbit.

Again, I would like to hear your thoughts on this and how you'd go about it.

Meanwhile, here is a video of Apollo 17 astronauts singing on the moon.

My favorite line is towards the end,
"Not me, boy."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8V9quPcNWZE

Gets me every time. :lol:


P.S.
I hope I am not the only one on here that is a space nut.

 

[Fatty]

As optimistic about the potential of space and such, I am very sceptical of the success of these missions. Mainly because we're having so much trouble at home. This generation doesn't have any drive like the one that spawned the space race. It's lost its spark, and all its concerns lie in the strange aether of the nebulous interwebz. Economy has become an overbearing concern, and corruption runs rampant across the globe. Meanwhile, our environment is being destroyed faster than it can be recovered, and although awareness is increasing, it has not increase at a rate fast enough to being reversal. A lack of global cooperation is leading to a stagnation across the globe that is preventing any real progress forward, most especially, in my opinion, any venture into space.

Even if they can reach space, I have serious SERIOUS doubts they can do anything more than a visit. We need to bolster our ability to change the environment into habitable states long before we can even think of developing the technology to reach these far off planes. For one thing, there is no economic or ideological drive to so. During the Cold War, we expended MILLIONS of dollars for the sole drive of one upping the Russians. We don't have that drive or competition any more, and competition seems to be the mother of invention and progress. With our current society rewarding everyone for showing up, we are losing that integral part of innovation which is the drive factor present within competition.

I have a dire fear that if NASA or some other organization tries to attempt this too early, it'll be looked over as the newest cool fact on the internet. It won't be the phenomenon it should be, the phenomenon we expect it to be, the phenomenon that we have been hoping for in our literature and movies and science fiction where we fantasize that landing on Mars would kick off humanity into a whole new direction in civilization.

Currently, that optimistic future looks bleak in the presence of all the factors I have listed.

But who knows? Perhaps if its a resounding success, and the majority of us do miss it... then perhaps it will resonate stronger with the youth of society? They see this thing happening, and then suddenly realize all their fantasies about the final frontier could be feasible after all, spurning on a new generation of driven individuals hoping to pioneer the great expanse of the solar system and beyond.

One can only hope and dream however...

 

[Captain Jordan]

Honestly, talking about Mars in the 2030s is nice, but we've already adjusted our projected timeline several times. When I was a kid, it was the 2020s. I fear it's simply a carrot dangled before Congress and the American People to get more interest in space and funding. Which is good, except if NASA has little plans to follow through.

NASA needs to focus. It has branched out so far, so wide, that I have difficulties seeing what their goal is on Mars. Is it just to get there? Just a photoshoot? Boots on the ground? What will a human presence on Mars do that 2 decades of rovers have not? What will a human presence do that a robotic mission could not?

If NASA is serious about Mars (and I don't think they are, but let's assume otherwise for the moment), they need to lay out a firm plan to action right now. And if Congress is serious about Mars (which I don't think they are, and I won't assume anything) then they need to agree to work with NASA to secure funding for a period of at least 10 years. With 10 years to plan and prepare, NASA should be able to make some firm headway towards preparatory missions (like Mercury and Gemini led the way for Apollo).

Here are some of the missions I see need to happen:
1. Asteroid Recovery Mission (this is a test of the Solar Electric Propulsion, SEP, engines that could power a barge to Mars)
2. Manned mission to the moon, testing new space suits, new lander, and other ground-based technologies.
3. Manned mission beyond the moon using an eccentric orbit to expose the crew to the radiation of deep space. This should test our technologies for protecting astronauts in this environment.
4. Robotic retrieval missions to and from Mars. Ideally, this would land a mockup of the Mars lander and test the ability of said lander to return to Mars orbit. Recovery of Martian soil and rock samples, and ice if we can get it, would be secondary mission objectives.
5. Robotic cargo missions to Mars, landing preparatory materials for future manned missions.
6. Manned mission to Martian system (a la Apollo 8), fly around, take observations of the surface, of the Martian moons, then return home. Possible secondary mission could be to allow astronauts to pilot remote craft around Mars or rovers on the surface to additionally prepare a future habitat space.
7. Manned mission to Mars' surface. Primary mission objectives to test long-term human survival on another planet, secondary mission objectives being surface experiments, plant growth, sample recovery, photoshoots, etc.

If funding allows, robotic versions of #4 as a precursor to a manned #4 would be ideal.

This would be accompanied by an aggressive schedule for developing the necessary technologies, spacecraft and equipment. We need spacesuits accustomed for atmosphere and surface travel on a planet with about double that of the Moon, so they need to be flexible yet durable. They also have to last for a year of use with Martian-side maintenance, no refurbishment or replacement available. We need to study whether plants can sufficiently grow on the conditions of Mars, and how to prepare in case they cannot.

Above all, we need Congress to commit the most in terms of funding set in stone. Once they set NASA on this course, they cannot use it for politicking, for gaining voters, for threatening the source of funding. Do that, and the whole project collapses. This is why NASA hasn't been strong lately, they've been too dependent on the political winds of Congress. There's little support from our Executive, and little support from our representatives in Congress, excepting those with jobs coming directly from NASA and their contractors. No one is excited about space travel, and until they are, nothing is going to really change.

 

[Nyxie]

Mars will be the grounds of corporate and resource wars within the coming centuries. I can't say much about it for reasons I can't say much about, but we're not just going there to get an A+ on our Science Fair project. And, of course, the first step is getting there.

 

[Davin Jusik]

Pour all the money into space
Send all the children to propaganda filled space schools
Launch all the people into space

 

[Sabena Shai]

I hope I am not the only one on here that is a space nut.

You're not the only one. I might work at NASA once I finish my degree - mostly because it's cool. It's not my first choice, though.

Got to see a couple test models of the Orion last week, though. Pretty tyte. Here's a pic of the one they used in the NBL (the fact NASA allowed me to take pictures was amusing to me, since my current workplace technically doesn't allow me to take pictures).

Though, from my trip to NASA, I was able to get a good look at their operations and goals.

NASA remains in charge of (the majority) of the ISS's operations. For example, while SpaceX has its own Mission Control, NASA's Mission Control was active in trying to make sure things were aligned with the ISS. Got to watch the recent Dragon launch in NASA's Mission Control as a result.

The primary long-term goal really is a trip to Mars. The process in getting there is still a decade or two ordeal. To give you an idea of where they are, they are still trying to figure out where to have the hand switches for the Orion capsule when I visited. By where, I mean how to best put them for the ergonomics of the astronauts, figuring out who would be the best person to be in charge of that switch, what other switches need to be nearby, what switches shouldn't be nearby. A small mistake could lead to a multimillion dollar failure and loss of life for NASA, so every little detail is a serious decision. Someone told me they're even considering touch-screens, but unless there's a backup for them I doubt that would ever come true (hard-wired switches have the advantage of being very reliable and can also be bypassed in the event of failure).

Plus, NASA has essentially ceded low-earth orbit activities to the private sector. They're exclusively focused on ventures to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. This pretty much helps refine their focus.

The (tentative) launch vehicle for Orion is also pretty much like a Saturn V rocket - slightly larger, too. Yet it incorporates two solid-fuel booster rockets like what the Space Shuttle uses - without having to worry about the mechanics involved with having the center of mass out of line with the center of thrust.

 

[Mak Manto]

Whether this becomes a reality or another dashed dream, I commend anyone who is willing to go to Mars, because it might be a one-way trip. The fact NASA or the various companies involved in this aren't sure they may have the resources to get the people off the planet one day is a bit daunting. Not that they would die once they land, but that they're leaving everything behind to do this, and this won't be something simple to do for those who go. You'll have to live in a sealed environment, eating food that is basically little more then nutritional necessity.

I believe it should be done, for there will have to be a day when we will need to leave the planet, but it's a decision unlike any other, to know if you will go.

 

[Vereaux]

Like everything [member="Sabena Shai"] mentioned, just the placement of a switch is important, because once they are out there in space, that's it. They won't have any outside help. What they have will stay with them throughout the entire trip, and even when they leave Mars. It's a scary trip, because there is always that idea that you might not come back. And there in lies the problem. The reason they haven't done anything is because our current state of technology does not ensure a crew's survival. Background radiation is only one problem among many that we are, unfortunately, ridiculously ill equipped against. If a mission was done and a mistake made, that's it. It will ruin outside perception and convince the general population that we aren't ready for space. Attention to detail is key, because it's everyone's asses on the line if it fails.

Personally, I think we can do it. Hell, when I get my degree, I very well might seek out NASA to work for them as an Engineer. I'd love that job! ^-^ NASA, in my opinion, is underfunded, and should get more, but that's just me. We don't pour money into it because there isn't any immediate profit, but if we could get access to a resource where the profits exceeded anything they spent going to get it, then we'd have companies fighting each other to get a hold of it. Such is making a living, but that's an entirely different discussion.

 

[Sabena Shai]

NASA, in my opinion, is underfunded, and should get more, but that's just me.

Even if I'm a NASA-nut, I disagree with this.

Doing experiments on the ISS and monitoring the climate and weather patterns is a clear benefit for life on Earth, but going to the Moon and Mars are vanity projects that are just for the sake of doing it.

I would honestly throw more money at NASA if they turned their focus to stuff that could produce value for the people on Earth in the near future. The value of mining the Moon or asteroid is just not worth the price-tag, yet.

 

[Vereaux]

[member="Sabena Shai"]

That's the thing, "yet" =P I do agree that it comes down to what's of value in the immediate future, but I think of myself as looking at it from a long term perspective, so that does cause me to not look at things short term (which I think to be a problem for myself, but eh). We are a species approaching 8 billion on the planet, and we cannot support 10 billion at the current level of technology we have. We might think we can, but we will exhaust the planet before that comes to pass.

I think of it like this: We need to get off this rock.

That's just me though =P

 

[Sabena Shai]

That's the thing, "yet" =P I do agree that it comes down to what's of value in the immediate future, but I think of myself as looking at it from a long term perspective, so that does cause me to not look at things short term (which I think to be a problem for myself, but eh). We are a species approaching 8 billion on the planet, and we cannot support 10 billion at the current level of technology we have. We might think we can, but we will exhaust the planet before that comes to pass.

Humanity has yet to tap into most that the Earth can provide - nor even anywhere closer.

Ever growing technology demonstrates that we are able to tap into resources thought unobtainable. Oil is perhaps the best example: wells were once little more than 6,000 feet deep, now they're 20,000+. What was once thought unusable oil can now be acquired and refined. The date we reach "peak oil" gets pushed back repeatedly as a result.

It's a little fallacious to depend on past trends to suggest the future will be the same, but I have confidence the economic drive for more efficient technology will keep the trend going in the foreseeable future.

This is why I have full confidence in saying that trips to the Moon and Mars are simple vanity projects. It's cool, but so is having an 81" curved 4K TV.

 

[Vereaux]

Let me rephrase then: we will kill this planet before we can use it. Past trends are important, because if we do not study them, then we are doomed to repeat them. Our technology can advance to such heights that we create A.I., but if we do not grow as a species as well, then what's the point? I agree that the current form of the economy will drive for more efficient technology, but our motives for material wealth will not drive everything in an efficient direction for humanity, or the planet. We have become more dependent on the internet, and less on our physical interactions with each other. We show more and care less. I guess my beef with the entire thing is that humanity is not thinking long term >.>

By the way, I just wanted to say that I appreciate talking =) I love being able to talk with other people about this; keeps me thinking xP

 

[Sabena Shai]

we will kill this planet before we can use it

I'm not sure what you mean by that, tbh.

 

[Vereaux]

Oh, alright, the first thing that comes to mind is the nuclear capacity in both the United States and Russia. One in Russia is 50 times more destructive than the ones that bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and that's just one that we know of. For all we know, there are others. In all likelihood, there are. There are enough weapons on this planet to kill every last living being, both human and animal. It is a wonder we're still alive today. The second thing that comes to mind is that our forests are getting smaller. Entire rainforests, once vibrant 30 years ago, are gone. Based on ice ring studies of the polar ice caps, we are exceeding the CO2 levels the planet can process. Earth had a very stable cyclical recycling pattern, where the emissions it naturally produces was balanced with how quickly it could process them. If I remember correctly, the Earth processes 40 gigatons of CO2 every year, and while we're are only contributing a fraction of that, about 5 to 6 tons each year, it has caused an imbalance in the eco system. Now if we could get technology to advance to a point where we can reverse our damage, then that would be progress in the right direction =)

When I can think of some others, I'll post them. It's 3 am where I am >.> Bed for me =P

 

[Sabena Shai]

Oh, alright, the first thing that comes to mind is the nuclear capacity in both the United States and Russia. One in Russia is 50 times more destructive than the ones that bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and that's just one that we know of. For all we know, there are others. In all likelihood, there are. There are enough weapons on this planet to kill every last living being, both human and animal. It is a wonder we're still alive today. The second thing that comes to mind is that our forests are getting smaller. Entire rainforests, once vibrant 30 years ago, are gone. Based on ice ring studies of the polar ice caps, we are exceeding the CO2 levels the planet can process. Earth had a very stable cyclical recycling pattern, where the emissions it naturally produces was balanced with how quickly it could process them. If I remember correctly, the Earth processes 40 gigatons of CO2 every year, and while we're are only contributing a fraction of that, about 5 to 6 tons each year, it has caused an imbalance in the eco system. Now if we could get technology to advance to a point where we can reverse our damage, then that would be progress in the right direction =)

When I can think of some others, I'll post them. It's 3 am where I am >.> Bed for me =P

A little beyond the scope of a NASA discussion, so I'll just post links:
1) USA and Russia are still moving forward with nuclear disarmament.
2) There are at least government efforts to manage timber harvesting, and there are economic drivers for a timber harvesting company to not clear cut everything if possible.
3) Land-life has thrived with several times more CO2 in the air and less O2 and warmer temperatures (granted, humans cannot survive as they are with this low O2 %).

Really, things on Earth aren't as dire as they seem - and those with the most impact on it (ie, companies harvesting Earth's resouces) are the ones with the most data to make effective decisions on how to properly manage it for the best value humanity (their consumers in general) can get.

 

[Vereaux]

[member="Sabena Shai"]

This is true, we have gone a bit beyond the original topic =P Still though, excellent points. The first and second I am very much aware of, and hope that things are going to continue progressing forward =) The third point though I'm not sure how it relates. We have been able to determine a bit about that age based on fossil records and the magnetic orientation of volcanic rocks, unless you're commenting on that life did survive afterward, which yes or we wouldn't be here talking xP Maybe I am being too pessimistic about the general behavior of humanity, so more optimism, yes yes ^-^

Back to original topic...get a job at NASA, yes yes xD I have to survive getting my degree first though >.>

 

[Sabena Shai]

So, there's an internship opportunity for NASA coming this fall. However, NASA posted their pay-rates and I immediately didn't feel as compelled to apply.

The pay is actually rather sad - especially when compared to what I'm getting in my current internship and the going rate for me at this point.

Then again, tons of people want to work for NASA, so it has the freedom to keep the pay low. Though I do kind of doubt that a bit, the GPA requirement is a very low 2.9 - much lower than what I see Space Alliance and SpaceX demand.