What are we waiting for? - The Mars Underground (2007) Discussion

[–] billysky 17 years ago

well.. i also got excited about the idea of geting to mars after seeing this film.

to anser your question - i think the film lacked a more balanced view of the pros and cons of the mars project.

the movie only spends a few minets describing the dangers and arguments againt mars travel..im sure that the pepole at NASA could say much more about why havent we gone to mars already.its just not easy...

anyway..i tought its a cool intersting film..and im waiting for the day we get there:)

reply

[–] Pixanaut 17 years ago

I think a major problem with any mission like this is going to be government and NASA involvement. The red tape and egos involved will crush any realistic plans for making this happen.

Having said that, this documentary resonated with me enough to have me considering methods of funding a Mars mission outside of government funds. Better yet, I believe I have found the answer.

If the mission science is sound and the people involved are as driven to do it as they seem to be, the only thing missing is money.

I need to hammer out some details, then I need to decide if I want to take on the responsibility and commitment required to provide funding for such a mission.

Right now, I'd love to see this happen... but I don't want to jump into it with my eyes closed.

reply

[–] nagmashdriver 10 years ago

It's not money, it's the desire to do anything bigger than ourselves. Eight years of Obama haven't helped at all.............................

reply

[–] brooksshows 9 years ago

The biggest thing is cost. This would cost an enormous amount to do regardless of any claimed estimate. My next concern would be the potential for unforeseen problems. I can't evaluate those because they are unforeseen. On a two year Mars mission, you'd have to figure there might be some. Our success on the moon has made us think this kind of thing is a piece of cake and it's not. As one astronaut put it, if we knew back then what we know today, we probably wouldn't have tried it.

The NASA guy in the documentary says his big concern is radiation exposure, and I agree. The thin atmosphere on Mars means the crew is going to be exposed to a lot of radiation. We can't send them up there in lead suits. Just going to the moon and back, we dealt with this problem. However, it was a much shorter mission and time of exposure limited. A manned Mars mission pushes the boundaries of everything we've ever tried.

We also have to consider the effects of failure. What if we do this and 3 months into the journey catastrophe strikes and we lose everything? I doubt we'd ever put another human into space. When you consider the benefits of sending robots instead of humans, it really makes better sense. Yes, there are still some things that humans can do which robots can't, but that list of things is getting smaller every day. Our technology is simply outgrowing the need for us to risk life in order to explore the solar system and beyond.

reply

[–] victor-200 8 years ago

by brooksshows - Mon Feb 16 2015 05:38 -
... biggest thing is cost ... the potential for unforeseen problems ... a two year Mars mission, you'd have to figure there might be some ...

Two years? Yes, a probe gets to Mars in six months to a year. A human mission would require much, much longer.

First of all, you must factor in the return trip. You must factor in the mission time - several months? Maybe even longer? Maybe even a year?

Second. While a probe can accelerate to a speed that can reach Mars in only a year, true. A manned space craft cannot travel at that speed, because of the G-forces generated are too much for complex biological organisms to withstand. The rates of acceleration and deceleration are limited by the factor, this is a manned probe. This means that the mission's travel time may be as much as three to four years - EACH WAY.

So you're looking at a (possibly) seven to ten year mission. That is, from the time they leave earth to the time they return. The biggest thing, I think, isn't just cost.

You are absolutely right, something might go wrong. It's the extreme risk, over the time of such a long mission, of something going wrong. Even radio signals take, sometimes over ten minutes to reach Mars. A supply probe to replenish the mission might take one to two years to reach them, depending on how close they still are to earth.

The entire mission, at our level of technology is not that feasible. We should wait till we can find a safer way to get to Mars. It would be much smarter to have several large space stations in orbit, between earth and Mars - FIRST. When I say space stations, I mean city-sized, self sufficient space stations. We're probably nearly a century away from this. Not technologically, but feasibly.

I'd say cost is secondary to the extreme risk and the small payoff for the amount of time and resources such a mission would require. We're much better off building a moon base (or bases), and several orbiting space stations.

http://gizmodo.com/why-the-human-body-cant-handle-heavy-acceleration-1640491171

"As Bruce Thompson of NASA Quest explains:

The human body can tolerate violent accelerations for short periods,
including the prolonged high-g acceleration necessary to reach Earth
orbit. However very prolonged periods of high-g acceleration during
travel between planets would be very harmful to the body, and therefore
out of the question.

Imagine traveling to Mars, accelerating all the way at 3 gravities.
You would weigh three times your normal weight for the duration of the
trip and would barely be able to move, but what would the unrelenting
acceleration be doing to your body? Heavy acceleration is a speeded-up
aging process. Tissues break down, capillaries break down and the heart
has to do many times its proper work. You could not count on being in
good shape when you arrived. "

''I'm fortunate the pylons were not set to a lethal level.''

reply

[–] TRinzler 8 years ago

While a probe can accelerate to a speed that can reach Mars in only a year, true. A manned space craft cannot travel at that speed, because of the G-forces generated are too much for complex biological organisms to withstand. The rates of acceleration and deceleration are limited by the factor, this is a manned probe. This means that the mission's travel time may be as much as three to four years - EACH WAY.

There is no need to accelerate to 3gs unless you want to reach Mars in hours!

A Mars trip starting from Earth orbit with 1g constant acceleration/deceleration would take only a few days...

http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/840/how-fast-will-1g-get-you-there

Unfortunately, we currently lack the propulsion technology to do this so would have to accelerate/decelerate in short bursts and instead, "coast" most of the way.

So you're looking at a (possibly) seven to ten year mission. That is, from the time they leave earth to the time they return.

http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/venus/q2811.html

By leveraging the correct launch windows to minimise the mission trajectory the flight time can be reduced to a year or less each way. There are also several months between these windows during which time the crew must survive on Mars. However, the total mission time would be approx 2 years, not 10!

reply

[–] TRinzler 8 years ago

The Mars Underground: https://youtu.be/tcTZvNLL0-w

The story of Dr Robert Zubrin's life long struggle to convince NASA why we need to go to Mars ASAP.

reply

[–] melnar1 8 years ago

The story of Dr Robert Zubrin's life long struggle to convince NASA why we need to go to Mars ASAP.

Dr. Zubrin is a nut if I've ever seen one - totally consumed with a misguided obsession of sending humans to Mars, right now.

If he would take the trouble to absorb realistic opinions such as the intelligent and perspicacious one by victor-200 posted above, he just might wake up to the fact that his plans wouldn't have a hope of succeeding.

reply

[–] TRinzler 8 years ago

We should wait? Yeah, sure...because that's how progress is made? 

Zubrin may indeed have been a little crazy. Visionaries usually are. Their efforts are only recognised in hindsight.

Without such pioneers we would never have found America or settled the Wild West or crossed Antarctica or visited the bottom of the ocean or gone to the moon.

A manned mission to Mars may indeed be beyond our current capability but how do we know unless we try?

Regardless, it would require unprecedented cooperation between nations in science, technology and funding. An international mission would both unite and inspire people on Earth and we'd also learn a huge amount in the process.

I don't support manned space exploration at the expense of unmanned space science but we should definitely putting more money and effort into it than we are.

Having said all that, I do agree that building a permanent orbital manned space station should be our first priority. (The ISS is a good prototype.) Next should come a moon base and a space elevator. Once we can construct spacecraft either in orbit or on the moon we should aim for Mars. This incremental approach is the safest, most cost effective approach.

However, it's also the least likely to be green lighted because it's a long term strategy which won't benefit the politicians who initially fund it. Unfortunately politicians are much more self serving and short sighted than scientists!

reply