NASA Releases Plan Outlining Next Steps In The Journey To Mars

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
NASA has released a very nice brochure that details the preparation and challenges for getting to the red planet.

“NASA is closer to sending American astronauts to Mars than at any point in our history,” said NASA Administrator Charles Bolden. “Today, we are publishing additional details about our journey to Mars plan and how we are aligning all of our work in support of this goal. In the coming weeks, I look forward to continuing to discuss the details of our plan with members of Congress, as well as our commercial and our international and partners, many of whom will be attending the International Astronautical Congress next week.”
 
pipe dream

Moon > asteroids > Mars

Mars is 30-40 years in the future. Focus on something closer which will benefit the Earth and iterate technology.
 
We need to build a nuclear powered rocket, thats it. Get to Mars in 3 months. If it werent for environmental regulations we would have been there by the 80's - 90's. Of course I understand the fear, since there is plenty of footage of rockets exploding on liftoff at various points in travel. Dont really want to have a gas tank full of radioactive material exploding 20 miles up in the atmosphere.
 
McFry said:
We need to build a nuclear powered rocket, thats it. Get to Mars in 3 months. If it werent for environmental regulations we would have been there by the 80's - 90's. Of course I understand the fear, since there is plenty of footage of rockets exploding on liftoff at various points in travel. Dont really want to have a gas tank full of radioactive material exploding 20 miles up in the atmosphere.
Click to expand...

Yeah not like we haven't done that before.
Since the first nuclear test explosion on July 16, 1945, at least eight nations have detonated 2,053 nuclear test explosions at dozens of test sites from Lop Nor in China, to the atolls of the Pacific, to Nevada, to Algeria where France conducted its first nuclear device, to western Australia ...

Also, to make it a "bomb" it would be constructed differently, as in very differently.
And it wouldn't need to be used for lift off. More like using them in once they are in LEO, where it would be twice as efficient than our current rockets are in space.
 
Well first we need to establish a Moon Base, that will give us a better Launching point to Mars.
 
griff30 said:
Yeah not like we haven't done that before.
Since the first nuclear test explosion on July 16, 1945, at least eight nations have detonated 2,053 nuclear test explosions at dozens of test sites from Lop Nor in China, to the atolls of the Pacific, to Nevada, to Algeria where France conducted its first nuclear device, to western Australia ...

Also, to make it a "bomb" it would be constructed differently, as in very differently.
And it wouldn't need to be used for lift off. More like using them in once they are in LEO, where it would be twice as efficient than our current rockets are in space.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about a nuclear rocket creating a nuclear explosion. I'm talking about just a general failure resulting in it spreading radioactive material in the upper atmosphere at far higher concentrations than what a nuclear bomb causes. Imagine Fukishima but not on the ground.
 
If the story about China going to the moon to mine Helium III is true then you know the USA is gonna do One better than whatever China does.
Hopefully that will restart the space race and get us in the direction of Mars again.
 
hellokeith said:
pipe dream

Moon > asteroids > Mars

Mars is 30-40 years in the future. Focus on something closer which will benefit the Earth and iterate technology.
Click to expand...

If we doubled the NASA budget we could do all three, easily.

I agree with your sentiment though, I'm more interested in the asteroid missions than flags and footprints on Mars. We need a huge asteroid tracking program with detectors in Venus orbit looking outward, we need to learn how to deflect/re-direct asteroids safely, and we need to learn how to mine them for water. We can do all that in the 2020s. It would make a lunar outpost and/or Mars missions much easier. I can imagine that mining asteroids for rare metals could become economical within a few decades.

McFry said:
We need to build a nuclear powered rocket, thats it. Get to Mars in 3 months. If it werent for environmental regulations we would have been there by the 80's - 90's. Of course I understand the fear, since there is plenty of footage of rockets exploding on liftoff at various points in travel. Dont really want to have a gas tank full of radioactive material exploding 20 miles up in the atmosphere.
Click to expand...

Environmental regulations didn't shut down nuclear rocket testing. Nuclear engines were actually under active development under the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. The NERVA program was killed off by Congress as a cost-saving measure after Nixon ended the Apollo program.
 
The intention is to build a craft in the Earth Moon L1 lagrange point, then burn to Mars from there.
 
Geef said:
If the story about China going to the moon to mine Helium III is true then you know the USA is gonna do One better than whatever China does.
Hopefully that will restart the space race and get us in the direction of Mars again.
Click to expand...

Yea I was kinda hoping China getting into space travel would bump start another race. So far their work has been pretty pathetic so far. They bought advanced tech from the Russians in 94 and Soyuz spacecraft tech in 95. Docking systems, space suits, life support systems, etc. It also included cosmonaut training. Pretty much the Chinese bought proven tech from one of the two nations that know what they are doing when it comes to putting people in space. It took them until 03 to put a single person in space. So almost a decade using tech that was bought and tested. In the next decade they did 5 manned missions including that first one.

Look at what the Russians and we did in a single decade where we had to invent the tech. In just over a decade we put men on the moon. I was expecting more for the Chinese considering they didn't have to start from scratch.
 
McFry said:
I'm not talking about a nuclear rocket creating a nuclear explosion. I'm talking about just a general failure resulting in it spreading radioactive material in the upper atmosphere at far higher concentrations than what a nuclear bomb causes. Imagine Fukishima but not on the ground.
Click to expand...

Fukishima and Chernobyl was only deadly because the fuel were partly used, hence the byproducts is the lethal one.

The nuclear reactor that we put on space craft may not necessary need to be activated until we reach orbit, which means the fuel rods will be unused and much less dangerous than used fuel rods.
 
Get your ass to Mars....

total_recall.jpg
 
A part of me hopes that the human race never reaches advanced planetary exploration as a goal. We're like a disease, eventually we'll just exploit and militarize anywhere we'd go.

In the beginning science would rule the days, but as our capabilities expand profit and militarization will expand with them.
 
griff30 said:
Yeah not like we haven't done that before.
Since the first nuclear test explosion on July 16, 1945, at least eight nations have detonated 2,053 nuclear test explosions at dozens of test sites from Lop Nor in China, to the atolls of the Pacific, to Nevada, to Algeria where France conducted its first nuclear device, to western Australia ...

Also, to make it a "bomb" it would be constructed differently, as in very differently.
And it wouldn't need to be used for lift off. More like using them in once they are in LEO, where it would be twice as efficient than our current rockets are in space.
Click to expand...



Nuclear Detonation Timeline 1945-1998 Artwork by Isao Hashimoto,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9l7DriYppg

Utter and complete fucking madness.

I'd call it criminal.
 
swatbat said:
Yea I was kinda hoping China getting into space travel would bump start another race. So far their work has been pretty pathetic so far. They bought advanced tech from the Russians in 94 and Soyuz spacecraft tech in 95. Docking systems, space suits, life support systems, etc. It also included cosmonaut training. Pretty much the Chinese bought proven tech from one of the two nations that know what they are doing when it comes to putting people in space. It took them until 03 to put a single person in space. So almost a decade using tech that was bought and tested. In the next decade they did 5 manned missions including that first one.

Look at what the Russians and we did in a single decade where we had to invent the tech. In just over a decade we put men on the moon. I was expecting more for the Chinese considering they didn't have to start from scratch.
Click to expand...

Well there is one good thing, China is smart enough to invest their time and money into LFTR's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor

Chinese thorium MSR project[edit]

The People's Republic of China has initiated a research and development project in thorium molten-salt reactor technology.[112] It was formally announced at the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) annual conference in January 2011. Its ultimate target is to investigate and develop a thorium based molten salt nuclear system in about 20 years.[113][114] An expected intermediate outcome of the TMSR research program is to build a 2 MW pebble bed fluoride salt cooled research reactor in 2015, and a 2 MW molten salt fueled research reactor in 2017. This would be followed by a 10 MW demonstrator reactor and a 100 MW pilot reactors.[115][116] The project is spearheaded by Jiang Mianheng, with a start-up budget of $350 million, and has already recruited 140 PhD scientists, working full-time on thorium molten salt reactor research at the Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics. An expansion to 750 staff is planned by 2015.[117]
Click to expand...

Kirk Sorensen @ MRU on LFTR - Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3rL08J7fDA
 
Who knows how it will all work out. But damn, exciting reading. Snatching a 2-ton boulder out of an asteroid and throwing it in orbit around the moon, to wait there til we can get to it? Sounds pretty badass to me.
 
Doh, I meant to post the following version of Sorensen's presentation rather the the link I posted in my prior post. The prior version is chopped up, and the following version discusses thorium reactors and space flight.

Kirk Sorensen @ PROTOSPACE on Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVSmf_qmkbg
 
Lith1um said:
Well there is one good thing, China is smart enough to invest their time and money into LFTR's.
Click to expand...

Not really relevant for traveling through space. LFTRs are too heavy to be practical heat sources for NTRs - even Sorenson agrees with that.

They might be useful for a colony, but that's really an entirely different matter.
 
hellokeith said:
pipe dream

Moon > asteroids > Mars

Mars is 30-40 years in the future. Focus on something closer which will benefit the Earth and iterate technology.
Click to expand...

All of the technology being developed for the mars mission is incredibly beneficial to the earth. Pretty much everything in the works right now can be applied to "something closer" like the moon as well. We need a new man-rated launch system since the shuttle is shut down anyway...
 
While it'd be nice to stop at the moon first for that lovely regolith that we used for more efficient solar cells, it most certainly isn't required. Lunar orbit vs Mars transfer are similar in total delta-V budget with the right timing, if you step around Deimos then Phobos. Of course, that isn't a ballistic capture... I'm eagerly waiting for ballistic capture theories to be tested. Screw the old Hohmann transfer nonsense, it's inefficient and too time dependent.
 
workshop35 said:
All of the technology being developed for the mars mission is incredibly beneficial to the earth. Pretty much everything in the works right now can be applied to "something closer" like the moon as well. We need a new man-rated launch system since the shuttle is shut down anyway...
Click to expand...

Not too mention, the politics of it. It's easier for a politician to fund a manned mission to mars, than a return to the moon, or asteroid. Regardless of how important both of those things are, and asteroid deflection is SUPER important, it is still the least exciting thing when compared to Mars. Mars is something you dreamt of as a kid, and the people pulling the strings still have a kid like understanding of the importance of space. So, this will hopefully allow a chain of events that benefit everybody.

I still wished they would cut funding from the Military and give it to NASA.
 
twonunpackmule said:
Not too mention, the politics of it. It's easier for a politician to fund a manned mission to mars, than a return to the moon, or asteroid. Regardless of how important both of those things are, and asteroid deflection is SUPER important, it is still the least exciting thing when compared to Mars. Mars is something you dreamt of as a kid, and the people pulling the strings still have a kid like understanding of the importance of space. So, this will hopefully allow a chain of events that benefit everybody.

I still wished they would cut funding from the Military and give it to NASA.
Click to expand...

Having alternative rocket manufacturers, namely spacex and blue origin, can help spur some innovation and cost competitiveness (even though they are direct competition with my employer). It's good to see people with passion put their money where their mouth is, even if/when they fail.
 
Farkle said:
While it'd be nice to stop at the moon first for that lovely regolith that we used for more efficient solar cells, it most certainly isn't required. Lunar orbit vs Mars transfer are similar in total delta-V budget with the right timing, if you step around Deimos then Phobos.
Click to expand...

I don't think that stopping on the moon is even particularly useful, except maybe as a testing ground for a few technologies. Even if we had a refueling station on the moon, it still wouldn't save much dv (and god, can you imagine how expensive lifting that much mass would be?)

Farkle said:
Of course, that isn't a ballistic capture... I'm eagerly waiting for ballistic capture theories to be tested. Screw the old Hohmann transfer nonsense, it's inefficient and too time dependent.
Click to expand...

Ballistic capture isn't practical for manned flights - it takes too long. It certainly could be useful for probes and cargo, though.
 
workshop35 said:
Having alternative rocket manufacturers, namely spacex and blue origin, can help spur some innovation and cost competitiveness (even though they are direct competition with my employer). It's good to see people with passion put their money where their mouth is, even if/when they fail.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think it's better for the private industry to focus on the Moon. NASA has already conquered that mountain. Mars will give long term focus. Hopefully, they can afford to have separate teams working on different projects; 1)Asteroids, 2) Mars.
 
Armisael said:
I don't think that stopping on the moon is even particularly useful, except maybe as a testing ground for a few technologies. Even if we had a refueling station on the moon, it still wouldn't save much dv (and god, can you imagine how expensive lifting that much mass would be?)
Click to expand...

In the full documentation, the moon phase is very much for testing technology for habitats, materials, etc. One of the interesting concepts was attempting to create habitats, tools, whatever, out of similar components and modules to minimize complexity and increase redundancy. So if habitat A has an issue with part B, there are plenty of part B's around.
 
fleggett said:
No love for Robert Zubrin's Mars Direct initiative?
Click to expand...

Not from NASA it would seem. The most important idea - making fuel on site - is definitely getting some traction in the popular consciousness, though. The author of The Martian used Mars Direct as a rough outline (with some admittedly heavy changes to make the story go).

TwistedAegis said:
In the full documentation, the moon phase is very much for testing technology for habitats, materials, etc. One of the interesting concepts was attempting to create habitats, tools, whatever, out of similar components and modules to minimize complexity and increase redundancy. So if habitat A has an issue with part B, there are plenty of part B's around.
Click to expand...

I just took a closer look at that and it definitely makes some degree of sense to test in cislunar space. When I saw all the moon chatter I was assuming people were interested in landings. That one's my bad.
 
Krenum said:
Well first we need to establish a Moon Base, that will give us a better Launching point to Mars.
Click to expand...

Myth, unless they actually can get resources from the Moon, which I know that some have said is possible, but I don't think we're anywhere close to that. You need a Moon mining colony, then a Moon base, and at the end of the day need to wonder if it's actually feasible in the long run.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Myth, unless they actually can get resources from the Moon, which I know that some have said is possible, but I don't think we're anywhere close to that. You need a Moon mining colony, then a Moon base, and at the end of the day need to wonder if it's actually feasible in the long run.
Click to expand...

No not mine the moon, leave the moon alone the Earth needs it. I'm talking about stock pilling the moon with the materials we would need to make it to Mars. Have the Moon be a way station or launching point.

But you are correct, we would have to establish a Colony and base and everything we would need to launch such an operation. From a scientific standpoint , yes it would be feasible and productive to our species to explore. But as it sits now, we seem more inclined to fight over table scrapes & dirt.
 
What benefit do we get from using the moon as a waystation? It actually takes less delta-v to get to the surface of mars from LEO than to the surface of the moon, because you can aerobreak around mars.
 
Krenum said:
No not mine the moon, leave the moon alone the Earth needs it. I'm talking about stock pilling the moon with the materials we would need to make it to Mars. Have the Moon be a way station or launching point.

But you are correct, we would have to establish a Colony and base and everything we would need to launch such an operation. From a scientific standpoint , yes it would be feasible and productive to our species to explore. But as it sits now, we seem more inclined to fight over table scrapes & dirt.
Click to expand...
Alright think about this for a second, the biggest issue with any space travel is weight, and more to the point how that affects the fuel needed to go there. So if you moved all the stuff to a Moon base, you spend the fuel lifting all of that out of Earth's gravitational well, and put it in the Moon's gravitational well, now while that is smaller than Earth's you still need to use fuel to now leave the Moon, so you end up using more fuel in the long run. From an energy needed (aka fuel) standpoint you might as well build on Earth, and launch from Earth to go directly there, even in some low Earth orbit you still need to move materials there so there's absolutely no benefit of having a lunar base in that fashion.

Now if we could get resources from the Moon and build there then it would be useful, assuming that building there isn't an issue. However even if the Moon was one giant fuel station, it still wouldn't be terribly useful except maybe in using lots of fuel to get there quicker. Usually with any long range craft the fuel is used up well before they even get close, and they coast most of the way there (or use some sort of gravity assist). I do suppose for a manned mission you'd want to get them back (unlike that private campaign to send people there), so you need to bring sufficient fuel with you for a return trip, so in that sense a lunar refuel station might useful but again only if it all comes from there.
 
Lith1um said:
A part of me hopes that the human race never reaches advanced planetary exploration as a goal. We're like a disease, eventually we'll just exploit and militarize anywhere we'd go.

In the beginning science would rule the days, but as our capabilities expand profit and militarization will expand with them.
Click to expand...
Humanity is the greatest thing we yet know of in the universe. We're awesome. If you hate yourself that much, please . . . be my guest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top