4 ms·

Send the ISS to Mars

34 points by tocomment 17y ago

Pahalial 17y ago
This is an interesting idea and I wouldn't mind seeing it, but it's also a year and a half old. There have been rebuttals published far and wide, including in the WaPo itself three days later: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/16/AR2008071602238.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07... Why the repost, if I might ask? A couple of quick searches have turned up no noise from Benson himself on the topic since then.
- panic 17y ago
  Human missions to Mars will not be just a bit harder than a trip to the Moon and back, which takes a matter of days. They will be incredible multi-year journeys -- more like the voyages of Magellan than Apollo. This seems like hyperbole to me. Getting to Mars takes less than a year.
  - InclinedPlane 17y ago
    There's no civilization on Mars, yet, getting to Mars isn't the end of the journey, it's just the start. The total journey to Mars, on Mars, and back to Earth will be multi-year.
    - robryan 17y ago
      I think mars is one of those places where if we ever want to get there we will have to come up with a first mission that doesn't pass current safety standards. I think it's such a big undertaking that to plan for all circumstances wouldn't allow the mission to happen for a long time. Thing's like no rescue if something went wrong and only accounting for one launch window back to earth,
rms 17y ago
If we're going to start making unrealistic space requests, let's start by cutting the US defense budget by 35% so we can fund real science.
- DTrejo 17y ago
  Sniper scopes that work even when it's foggy are crucial to our advancement as a human race!
  - Asa-Nisse 17y ago
    Probably yes. Sea navigation. Mountaineers. Rescue missions. Not that I would much rather see manned mars missions in my lifetime than another desert liberated from its evil nomad dictators... but still!
InclinedPlane 17y ago
This is why you don't let news reporters write science policy, because they have no effing clue. Developing the ability to send the ISS to Mars is significantly more difficult than building a purpose built spacecraft to send to Mars. The design of ISS is, to use programmer jargon, tightly coupled to its role in Earth orbit, sending it on a mission to Mars without significant modifications would cause its crew to suffer severe radiation exposure. Not to mention that we'd lose radio contact, the crew would run out of supplies and die, and the station would probably miss its target and fail to enter orbit around Mars (assuming it had the capability to do so, which it doesn't). Adding all those modifications would be more expensive than building a new vehicle that was actually designed for the journey. Moreover, the most difficult aspect of all of this is propulsion. ISS is vastly heavier than other craft we would send to Mars, making it a more difficult task to move to Mars than any of the reference Mars missions on the table.
- electromagnetic 17y ago
  Wholly agreed. I'm certain the ISS will be of great use in a future manned Mars project (supposing we don't wait until the ISS goes the way of Mir), but repurposing it as a vehicle to Mars is, quite frankly, fucking moronic and as stupid as trying to break the land speed record in a modified backhoe. Simply put: That shit ain't happening. The ISS would be best used as a permanent base for the crew constructing the manned vehicle to Mars. The ISS would also be capable of acting as a tether for the vehicle, enabling its own habitation modules to be created first. Then once the Mars vehicles habitation module is made, it can be the base for the construction effort. Using the ISS as a habitation module for the construction effort will significantly speed up the process. Instead of taking years to assemble the structure, like with the ISS, the entire project could be assembled in months with a permanent crew in space. The ISS struggled with getting enough launches, a multinational manned Mars mission would enable launches to be made from at least 3 locations. NASA, ESA and Russia are all capable of launching large components into space, and a ISS based crew would be capable of the assembly process. The ISS will be capable of housing 6 astronauts at one time (I'm unsure if life support can handle 6 astronauts for months at a time, but that's easy to resolve if needed), which means projects could easily continue on the ISS while a Mars project is underway. I believe everyone wants the manned Mars mission to last longer than the construction effort, or it's going to be a serious anti-climax. Also I hope NASA plans ahead and that the Mars craft is highly reusable and highly adaptable for later missions.
DannoHung 17y ago
What I've never understood is why the ISS wasn't designed in part as a construction platform. Wouldn't it make sense to build the vehicle needed for a Lunar or Martian mission in space and not worry so much about the weight needed to haul everything up in one go? I mean, I'm not so hot at orbital mechanics, but I thought a really big chunk of the weight was in the rocket and fuel needed to boost the payload into orbit, then a much smaller amount of weight got spent on setting up the flight path to the destination orbit. If I have the right of it, why spend time and money building the launch vehicles when we can use existing lifters to shove the stuff up and then push off from there. I mean, depending on the departure orbit, we're talking about a third of the velocity needed and most of the mass. You wouldn't even need to tug the return re-entry vehicle along for the ride. Am I missing something that space experts know all about?
- encoderer 17y ago
  It also opens-up design options. If it never has to fly in Earth atmosphere, it doesn't have to be aerodynamic.
nazgulnarsil 17y ago
non-modified humans in space is a waste of time and money. space science should all be poured into transhumanism.
omarqureshi 17y ago
Haven't people learned anything from Doom?

34 points by tocomment 17y ago

This is an interesting idea and I wouldn't mind seeing it, but it's also a year and a half old. There have been rebuttals published far and wide, including in the WaPo itself three days later: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/16/AR2008071602238.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07... Why the repost, if I might ask? A couple of quick searches have turned up no noise from Benson himself on the topic since then.

panic 17y ago
Human missions to Mars will not be just a bit harder than a trip to the Moon and back, which takes a matter of days. They will be incredible multi-year journeys -- more like the voyages of Magellan than Apollo. This seems like hyperbole to me. Getting to Mars takes less than a year.
- InclinedPlane 17y ago
  There's no civilization on Mars, yet, getting to Mars isn't the end of the journey, it's just the start. The total journey to Mars, on Mars, and back to Earth will be multi-year.
  - robryan 17y ago
    I think mars is one of those places where if we ever want to get there we will have to come up with a first mission that doesn't pass current safety standards. I think it's such a big undertaking that to plan for all circumstances wouldn't allow the mission to happen for a long time. Thing's like no rescue if something went wrong and only accounting for one launch window back to earth,

rms 17y ago

If we're going to start making unrealistic space requests, let's start by cutting the US defense budget by 35% so we can fund real science.

DTrejo 17y ago
Sniper scopes that work even when it's foggy are crucial to our advancement as a human race!
- Asa-Nisse 17y ago
  Probably yes. Sea navigation. Mountaineers. Rescue missions. Not that I would much rather see manned mars missions in my lifetime than another desert liberated from its evil nomad dictators... but still!

InclinedPlane 17y ago

This is why you don't let news reporters write science policy, because they have no effing clue. Developing the ability to send the ISS to Mars is significantly more difficult than building a purpose built spacecraft to send to Mars. The design of ISS is, to use programmer jargon, tightly coupled to its role in Earth orbit, sending it on a mission to Mars without significant modifications would cause its crew to suffer severe radiation exposure. Not to mention that we'd lose radio contact, the crew would run out of supplies and die, and the station would probably miss its target and fail to enter orbit around Mars (assuming it had the capability to do so, which it doesn't). Adding all those modifications would be more expensive than building a new vehicle that was actually designed for the journey. Moreover, the most difficult aspect of all of this is propulsion. ISS is vastly heavier than other craft we would send to Mars, making it a more difficult task to move to Mars than any of the reference Mars missions on the table.

electromagnetic 17y ago
Wholly agreed. I'm certain the ISS will be of great use in a future manned Mars project (supposing we don't wait until the ISS goes the way of Mir), but repurposing it as a vehicle to Mars is, quite frankly, fucking moronic and as stupid as trying to break the land speed record in a modified backhoe. Simply put: That shit ain't happening. The ISS would be best used as a permanent base for the crew constructing the manned vehicle to Mars. The ISS would also be capable of acting as a tether for the vehicle, enabling its own habitation modules to be created first. Then once the Mars vehicles habitation module is made, it can be the base for the construction effort. Using the ISS as a habitation module for the construction effort will significantly speed up the process. Instead of taking years to assemble the structure, like with the ISS, the entire project could be assembled in months with a permanent crew in space. The ISS struggled with getting enough launches, a multinational manned Mars mission would enable launches to be made from at least 3 locations. NASA, ESA and Russia are all capable of launching large components into space, and a ISS based crew would be capable of the assembly process. The ISS will be capable of housing 6 astronauts at one time (I'm unsure if life support can handle 6 astronauts for months at a time, but that's easy to resolve if needed), which means projects could easily continue on the ISS while a Mars project is underway. I believe everyone wants the manned Mars mission to last longer than the construction effort, or it's going to be a serious anti-climax. Also I hope NASA plans ahead and that the Mars craft is highly reusable and highly adaptable for later missions.

DannoHung 17y ago

What I've never understood is why the ISS wasn't designed in part as a construction platform. Wouldn't it make sense to build the vehicle needed for a Lunar or Martian mission in space and not worry so much about the weight needed to haul everything up in one go? I mean, I'm not so hot at orbital mechanics, but I thought a really big chunk of the weight was in the rocket and fuel needed to boost the payload into orbit, then a much smaller amount of weight got spent on setting up the flight path to the destination orbit. If I have the right of it, why spend time and money building the launch vehicles when we can use existing lifters to shove the stuff up and then push off from there. I mean, depending on the departure orbit, we're talking about a third of the velocity needed and most of the mass. You wouldn't even need to tug the return re-entry vehicle along for the ride. Am I missing something that space experts know all about?

encoderer 17y ago
It also opens-up design options. If it never has to fly in Earth atmosphere, it doesn't have to be aerodynamic.

nazgulnarsil 17y ago

non-modified humans in space is a waste of time and money. space science should all be poured into transhumanism.

omarqureshi 17y ago

Haven't people learned anything from Doom?