Manned Mars Mission by 2033, hope NASA

[Eldorado]

"NASA has made it clear they want astronauts back on the Moon in 2024, and now, they are zeroing in on the Red Planet—the US space agency confirmed that it wants humans to reach Mars by 2033.

Jim Bridenstine, NASA's administrator, said Tuesday that in order to achieve that goal, other parts of the program—including a lunar landing—need to move forward more quickly."

At Phys Org: https://phys.org/news/2019-04-moon-nasa-mars.html

At Gizmodo: https://gizmodo.com/nasa-chief-says-trip-to-the-moon-will-get-us-to-mars-fa-1833754085

Edited April 3, 2019 by Eldorado

[Coil]

In place of the Russians, I would quickly make a rocket that would land on Mars and the Russians would be the first on a real planet and not a satellite of the Earth. And let the Americans master the moon or fly second to Mars.
It seems that the Americans are walking in a circle instead of preparing for Mars.

 

[Dark_Grey]

2 hours ago, Eldorado said:

"NASA has made it clear they want astronauts back on the Moon in 2024, and now, they are zeroing in on the Red Planet—the US space agency confirmed that it wants humans to reach Mars by 2033.

Jim Bridenstine, NASA's administrator, said Tuesday that in order to achieve that goal, other parts of the program—including a lunar landing—need to move forward more quickly."

At Phys Org: https://phys.org/news/2019-04-moon-nasa-mars.html

At Gizmodo: https://gizmodo.com/nasa-chief-says-trip-to-the-moon-will-get-us-to-mars-fa-1833754085

"If you just give us, like, another 5 or 10 billion dollars, I'm pretty sure we can get to Mars by 2033."

*Year 2032*

"Hey, yeah, sorry about the Mars thing. It turns out it's pretty complicated so we're just going to fiddle with the new telescope instead."

[Waspie_Dwarf]

1 hour ago, Coil said:

In place of the Russians, I would quickly make a rocket that would land on Mars and the Russians would be the first on a real planet and not a satellite of the Earth.

 

Using what for money? Roscosmos has a fraction of NASA's budget. Roscosmos has only the 4th largest budget of civilian space agences, behind that of, not only NASA, but China and the European Space Agency. In fact NASA's budget is only slightly less than that of China, Europe and Russia combined.

The USA is already building the SLS, which is likely to be NASA's rocket for Mars missions. In addition both SpaceX and Blue Origin are designing super-heavy launch vehicles which could also do the tsk. The lack of budget means that the Russian super-heavy, which could take cosmonauts to the Moon, is not scheduled to make it's first test flight until 2028, 8 years after SLS.

It's also worth remembering what happened the last time Russia (or the Soviet Union as it was at the time) tried to quickly develop a suoer-heavy lift launch vehicle to compete with NASA. It was called the N1. It was launched 4 times and it failed 4 times.

Science, engineering and economics all mean that Russia can't simply magic up a suitable rocket out of thin air.

[Coil]

41 minutes ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

Using what for money? Roscosmos has a fraction of NASA's budget. Roscosmos has only the 4th largest budget of civilian space agences, behind that of, not only NASA, but China and the European Space Agency. In fact NASA's budget is only slightly less than that of China, Europe and Russia combined.

Science, engineering and economics all mean that Russia can't simply magic up a suitable rocket out of thin air.

How did the Americans then fly to the moon landed on it and flew back? But this was at the end of the 60s and the difference in the flight to Mars is only in the distance, and the ship should be strengthened with protection.

So you can take more food (for a year) a bigger ship (two sections, one lands and the second in Mars orbit) and for that too much money is not needed. Because the same international station has been hanging in orbit for years and an expedition to Mars can also be completed in a year. Even if Russia doesn’t have enough money, I’d invite the Chinese and other countries into the team and let each country allocate 2-3 billion, and so it’s 6-9 billion and I think that's enough. Let the Americans fly separately because Trump said that only Americans should land to Mars.

 

[toast]

45 minutes ago, Coil said:

How did the Americans then fly to the moon landed on it and flew back? But this was at the end of the 60s and the difference in the flight to Mars is only in the distance, and the ship should be strengthened with protection.

The equipment used in the 60s/70s, Saturn V/lander/other, was designed and build for the trip to the Moon. If you think we just need to rebuild the Saturn V and put some big tank on, you are wrong as the whole structure of the device was calculated on the lift up weight it had and nothing more.

Quote

So you can take more food (for a year) a bigger ship (two sections, one lands and the second in Mars orbit) and for that too much money is not needed.

As a manned trip to Mars and return cannot be made within 12 month, your food calculation plan is useless.

Quote

Because the same international station has been hanging in orbit for years and an expedition to Mars can also be completed in a year.

The ISS hasnt been completed within one year and/or came into operation after the first module was put in orbit

Edited April 3, 2019 by toast

[acute]

I hope they find the statue.

 

[Waspie_Dwarf]

2 hours ago, Coil said:

How did the Americans then fly to the moon landed on it and flew back?

By taking 8 years from Kennedy's commitment to go there and a NASA budget that, in terms of percentage of the federal budget, was more than 9 times greater than it is now.

Since it is Russia you seem to think will be able to produce a super-heavy lift launch vehicle out of thin air it is worth pointing out that their current civilian space budget is nearly 6 times less than that of NASA's. To match NASA's Apollo era budget the Russian Government would have to increase the budget of Roscosmos by around 54X. Once again, where do you think they are going to get the money from, and even the they would be trying to beat the Americans who have a rocket that is already designed and being built with one that only got approval to be designed in January 2018.

Science, engineering and economics inconvenient but impossible to circumvent.

2 hours ago, Coil said:

 the difference in the flight to Mars is only in the distance,

The difference between a trip to my nearest shops and New York is only distance, but that doesn't mean I can walk to New York. Even at it's closest to Earth Mars is more than 140 times further away than the Moon.

[Seti42]

Personally, I think NASA's very limited money should be spent on probes/robots...Not trying to get humans on the moon or Mars. Visiting places like Europa and Enceladus and really looking for life there sounds much more interesting to me than putting boots on the ground of two dead rocks nearest to us.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

4 minutes ago, Seti42 said:

Personally, I think NASA's very limited money should be spent on probes/robots...Not trying to get humans on the moon or Mars. Visiting places like Europa and Enceladus and really looking for life there sounds much more interesting to me than putting boots on the ground of two dead rocks nearest to us.

That argument was made back in the sixties. It lost then too.

[Seti42]

2 hours ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

That argument was made back in the sixties. It lost then too.

We have much better robot/rover/probe tech now than we did in the 60's. We don't have much better astronaut tech than we did in the 60's, however. The ISS is one thing, going back to the moon and continuing on to Mars are completely different, and don't (IMO) offer benefits to science that outweigh their risks and costs. Sending machines further out, more frequently, and evolving that type of exploration tech is the way to do space exploration, for now and into the foreseeable future.

 

[Black Red Devil]

I was hoping we would land on Zeta Reticuli by 2033.

[Ell]

The cost of the Apollo missions was about 150 billion dollars (2018 money). I expect that a new and extended stay on the Moon would cost at least 500 billion dollars.

One four man Mars mission is estimated to cost 6 billion dollars. In my opinion that is extremely optimistic.

[MWoo7]

Half of us will be dead by that time.  Sounds extremely expensive to me, well at least its not one thousand 500 billion.  Like in 2030, oh wait, never mind.  

Edited April 4, 2019 by MWoo7

[Black Red Devil]

13 minutes ago, MWoo7 said:

Half of us will be dead by that time.  Sounds extremely expensive to me, well at least its not one thousand 500 billion.  Like in 2030, oh wait, never mind.  

You look like a young kitten to me.

[EBE Hybrid]

1 hour ago, Ell said:

The cost of the Apollo missions was about 150 billion dollars (2018 money). I expect that a new and extended stay on the Moon would cost at least 500 billion dollars.

One four man Mars mission is estimated to cost 6 billion dollars. In my opinion that is extremely optimistic.

I agree 6 Billion is super optimistic.

Just think of the logistics for the mission.

The interplanetary vehicle would probably be built in orbit, mainly because it would need to be big enough to provide a healthy amount of space for the astronauts to stretch their legs and hold a decent amount of food and water. This would require several earth to orbit launches.

Carrying all of the supplies, Mars landing vehicle, fuel for the landing vehicle to return to Mars orbit, Mars habitat (along with a nuclear reactor to power it) and Mars surface exploration vehicles all in one ship seems a little ambitious. Might be best to use multiple missions to ferry all of this stuff to Mars before sending astronauts, ideally all of the Martian surface facilities should be constructed by robots so that the astronauts have an operational habitat ready when thy arrive.

Additionally far more supplies than anticipated should be sent in case the launch window for the return flight is missed and the astronauts have to stay on Mars until the next launch window, which could be a long time!

To be ready for 2033 they'd best start building spaceships now and multiply the mission budget by at least 100 !!!!

Edited April 4, 2019 by EBE Hybrid

[MWoo7]

1 hour ago, Black Red Devil said:

.... look like a young kitten to me

Why yeaus 

 

We were all young sweet things and spring chicks at one time . . .  

Edited April 4, 2019 by MWoo7

[Coil]

Waspie_Dwarf, toast

I heard your point of view, well, we will wait when America collects money and in the future will fly by itself.

 

[HawkLord]

I'm pretty sure they meant by 2133.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

12 hours ago, Seti42 said:

We have much better robot/rover/probe tech now than we did in the 60's. We don't have much better astronaut tech than we did in the 60's, however. The ISS is one thing, going back to the moon and continuing on to Mars are completely different, and don't (IMO) offer benefits to science that outweigh their risks and costs. Sending machines further out, more frequently, and evolving that type of exploration tech is the way to do space exploration, for now and into the foreseeable future.

 

Whilst that is true, robots are still inferior to human beings in many ways... self driving cars anyone?

In the 24 years that Opportunity was active on Mars it covered a total distance of 28.06 miles.

In 1972 two astronauts on a lunar rover covered a total distance of 22.30 miles in 4 hours 26 minutes.

In tests on Earth fossils were placed in a test area to see if scientists would be able to detect them via a rover. They failed to find a single one.

Doing science remotely is cheaper and safer, but it is not better. There is no substitute (yet) for human eyes and minds.

Robotic exploration has its place but if it is really so good why did you make an exception for the ISS? Why is that not fully automated? The answer is because much of the science being carried out there can not be done without humans present. What is true for low Earth orbit is true for the Moon and Mars.

There is also the issue of humanity becoming a multi-planet species. If we are to move out in the universe we need to learn how to live off of the Earth. We can't do that with robots.

[tmcom]

More likely that it will be an united endeavor, or other countries will chip in, and we will circle Mars only and land on one of its moons, (virtually no gravity so a close orbit and anchor would do).

Then look around for anything out of the ordinary, which is an understatement.

The year 2033 will be a year we will never forget.

 

[Eldorado]

There's more than just cash investment to hurdle...

"From Radiation to Isolation: 5 Big Risks for Mars Astronauts."

At Space dot com: https://www.space.com/42918-big-space-risks-mars-astronauts-videos.html

It's an "almighty" endeavour.  To boldly go, where no one has gone before.