4 ms·

There are two schools of thought on how we should approach manned Mars exploration: 1. The incremental approach, the NASA favorite, the outrageous proposal tha

There are two schools of thought on how we should approach manned Mars exploration: 1. The incremental approach, the NASA favorite, the outrageous proposal that got dismissed due to budget costs. It involves build a base in orbit or on the moon and using it as a relay between Mars and Earth. 2. Mars Direct. Reducing a lot of the complexity of the incremental approach. Using available technology. Launching directly from Earth. Using a multitude of vessels to setup an outpost on Mars before human arrival. Generating oxygen and hydrogen before human arrival from the abundant methane on Mars. Cutting the previous budget proposal by more than half. An estimate of ten years of work required.[1] Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Mars Direct seems like a more realistic and pragmatic proposal but the incremental approach is more visionary. Something that most of us laymen don't often consider is the aftermath. We see the objective a human working on the red planet whereas I believe most at NASA are more interested in prolonged human exploration of Mars. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct

sehugg 14y ago
NASA's previous administrator championed a lunar base as a prerequisite for a manned Mars mission -- if only to prove that we could send a crew up for an extended period of time without resupply. I never understood this reasoning. We have plenty of ways to engineer and simulate these conditions on Earth (like the MARS-500, recently completed -- tl;dr, it's not fun, but they didn't dismember and eat one another). The only reason to stop en route to your destination is to refuel. This allows a larger spacecraft to be launched with a smaller rocket (of course you need more rockets to launch the fuel). http://www.nss.org/articles/depots.html http://www.nss.org/articles/depots.html
rbanffy 14y ago
Depressingly, the people who allocates funding see neither humans working on Mars nor a prolonged human exploration of space. What they see is usually limited to a guy planting a flag and making a speech. Oh... and the money allocated to aerospace contractors from his/her state. I like the incremental approach. If we can build the bulk of the spacecraft on the Moon, the solar system becomes our backyard.

sehugg 14y ago

NASA's previous administrator championed a lunar base as a prerequisite for a manned Mars mission -- if only to prove that we could send a crew up for an extended period of time without resupply. I never understood this reasoning. We have plenty of ways to engineer and simulate these conditions on Earth (like the MARS-500, recently completed -- tl;dr, it's not fun, but they didn't dismember and eat one another). The only reason to stop en route to your destination is to refuel. This allows a larger spacecraft to be launched with a smaller rocket (of course you need more rockets to launch the fuel). http://www.nss.org/articles/depots.html http://www.nss.org/articles/depots.html

rbanffy 14y ago

Depressingly, the people who allocates funding see neither humans working on Mars nor a prolonged human exploration of space. What they see is usually limited to a guy planting a flag and making a speech. Oh... and the money allocated to aerospace contractors from his/her state. I like the incremental approach. If we can build the bulk of the spacecraft on the Moon, the solar system becomes our backyard.