Speaking of Space

Speaking of Space exploration, last week the crew of the CHAPEA experiment returned "home" after a 1 year mission. CHAPEA, or Crewed Health and Performance Exploration Analog (CHAPEA), didn't actually "go" anywhere, but they simulated unassisted life in a habitat like environment for a period of 1 year. Previous similar experiments had failed. The experiment was notable for a couple of reasons, some obvious, and some not so much.

On the obvious side, the CHAPEA crew of four demonstrated they could survive in a confined environment (about the size of a 2 bedroom home, 1,700 sq. ft) for a period of 1 year with little to no outside help. This included food and simulated Mars mission conditions, including a 22 minute time delay for all outside communications (similar to what would be experienced on Mars). Congratulations to them are due for their effort and sacrifices. Seriously.

But was it worth it? Hmmmm, maybe, maybe not. Let's take a look at a "quick" Mars mission. Let's say our Mars explorers travel to Mars (6 months) and when they get there they determine Mars sucks, and they want to come right back home. Well, not so fast. They can't just turn around and go home. Why? Because Earth is now on the opposite side of the Sun from Mars. So, they'll have to wait on Mars for around (18) months (yes, months) before Earth and Mars will be approaching alignment such that a return journey to Earth can take place. Then, when that journey takes place, they travel back to Earth (another 6 months). So, nominally speaking, a realistic journey (using the technology we will have in the foreseeable future) will realistically take 2+ years, up to 2.5 years. The CHAPEA crew only made it maybe 50% of the way. And that's just to go there, and come back, on the fastest possible round trip.

Now lets take a look at some other considerations. Getting to Mars takes fuel, but more importantly, so does returning from Mars. You can't land on Mars with this much fuel, it's way too much mass to slow down for landing, so you're going to have to leave this 'return fuel' in orbit around Mars while you stay on Mars. In other words, you'd land with only enough fuel to return to your orbiting 'gas tank' at some later time. Rocket fuel is volatile and perishable stuff. So, your return fuel is going to need to be viable when you return to use it (in 18 months, or 5 years).

Now, you may wonder about deep space exploration missions like Voyager I & II and how they were able to carry on as long as they have. Part of the reason is because they never stopped moving. Stopping and starting in space takes massive amounts of fuel. Sure these probes changed direction many times over their lifespans, but they used the gravitational pull of other planets to do this. Mars explorers don't have this luxury. Why? Simply because they won't live long enough. I was 14 years old when Voyager 1 lifted off, and I'm over 60 now. Now granted, Mars explorers aren't going where Voyager I has gone (yet), but still Mars is a lot further away than our Moon. So, Mars explorers have to lift off from Earth, stop at Mars, lift off Mars, and return to Earth. Yes, they could just choose to stay there forever and never return, but that's a whole other chapter of human psychology.

I often say..."Space is Hard". I write this today to illustrate just how hard some things are, like traveling to Mars. Space is not impossible, but it is definitely hard. And, there comes a point where the logistics and magnitude of manned space exploration comes with diminishing returns. One thing for certain...Space is never free, and part of the magnitude I refer to is simply the sheer cost of such missions. I don't think manned colonization of Mars is realistic. It may not be impossible, but it is definitely hard and of questionable value given all the other "fish" mankind has to "fry" at the moment.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I don't think these kind of experiments really prove anything, especially on a psychological basis. The crew knows in the back of their minds that if anything really goes wrong, Mother Earth is just on the other side of that door. Rescue is as simple as opening an airlock. Hydroponics failed and no food ? Just call Uber Eats. [ not really but you get the point ] They're in no real danger.


I also think the first mission to Mars will be a one way trip, whether they want it to be or not.

a reply to: DAVID64

The mission failure rate for successful Mars landings is about 50%. And, even with that, none of those missions landed a fragile human on the surface. Most of the braking maneuvers for successful landings to date exceed human physiology. In other words, the g-forces are greater than humans can withstand.

Some people get grumpy when I quote the 6 month duration, claiming a mission could make it to Mars in 100 days. While somewhat true, then the braking involved becomes 2x as difficult. Mars' atmosphere presents a serious challenge for landing. Unlike the Moon, atmosphere exists on Mars, but not at anywhere near densities required for significant aero-braking until you are dangerously close to the surface.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Explanation: S&F! Cheers!

Methinks you are not fully appreciating that a full Mars base will be built by autonomous and remote controlled robots way before we decide to send a crew to live permanently on Martian soil!

Plus advances in rocket engine technology are coming down the pipeline fast ... such as NASA looking at making nuclear thermal rocket engines, again (remember NERVA!), and they will speed up both the travel to and back from Mars.

We could even go the whole hog and build the 1950's Project Orion - nuclear detonation propulsion spacecraft and really drop the time it takes to get there and back, as long as its built say on the far side of the moon, which I might add is the perfect recipient for space elevators to help us in that critical task of manufacturing deep space spacecraft and mining moon resources such as Helium3 etc.

Then we could relax more as 1950's Project Orion was a 4000metric ton spacecraft that they were putting one ton barbers chairs on board just as ballast, due to the fact that the heavier the spacecraft was the better it squatted upon the nuke explosion and hence gained even more thrust thanks to working more efficiently. It could carry up to 800 tons payload to Mars [one way] and that could easily accommodate a relatively large crew and also a sizable passenger list, say 25 crew and 100 passengers = 6.4 tons of payload per person! That amount easily covers all the water, which can be recycled, and food etc that they would need to make such a trip very viable!

For comparison the Space Shuttle was about 60 metric tons of spacecraft and so a 1950's Orion Spacecraft could carry its own Martian Landers and that would simplify a whole swag of issues that we currently face!

Project Orion (nuclear propulsion)

Personal Disclosure: We could also build a deep space spacestation that occupies the lagrange point between Earth and Mars and that occupies the halfway point between the long distance path between the two planets and that might solve some issues to do with quickly returning to Earth safely if the need arises.

Space IS Hard ... but its not impossible and we have the technological aspects already worked out by geniuses over 70 years ago.

As for cost, there are many many people who would pay everything they have to just be free of this earthly satanic system of things. There will always be breakaway civilizations wanting to go where no man has been before!

Elon Musk has done much to reduce the cost of getting to space with chemical rocketry and I suggest that bases on the Moon backed by space elevators and nuclear powered rockets will reduce that cost to get to and stay permanently on Mars even cheaper still.

It is realistic but do we have the wherewithal to achieve that currently ... NOPE!

We just need a forward thinking comprehensive plan that factors in things like autonomous AI robots, space stations and nuclear rocket engines and taking small manageable bites instead of arrogantly wolfing the problem down and choking on it for political reasons etc.

We choose to go to the Moon. We choose to go to the Moon... We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things,not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win, and the others, too.

P.S. Don't forget we have a Space Force that would just love to be able to extend its area of influence eh ...

a reply to: OmegaLogos

Explanation: Be inspired ok! ...



Personal Disclosure:

While the idea of using rocket thrusters to go to Mars is akin to using a sail ship to go from UK to Australia, people done it. It too was dangerous and not all made it. What happen as electro gravity leaks out of its national security box and turns a trip to Mars from months to hours or minutes?

Then it is not just Mars for some where new to play a round of golf. What kind of fishing stories will Europa hold with the one that got away? it is going to be about the resources if a colony does get started on Mars or one of the other planets or moons in this solar system. Mars is just the first step, makes a realistic common goal for now with all the technology, infrastructure and support required.

Then what happens if mankind can keep it together enough to get the technology to travel to the stars? What kind of opportunities and dangers will be there?

The Lithium ion in today's electric cars has a lot problems. Sodium is one possibility for faster recharge, more cycles and no fires. Maybe something even better will emerge one day and make the electric car a much more popular choice. With the way technology is going, who knows what capabilities will emerge? With a lot of the components already in place, a few tweaks can be a game changer.

Or do we go with the Bill Gates plan to manage the population issues with a few more wars thrown in for good measure? With the nature of man, maybe the universe is better of just keeping them all here on the prison planet?

Well, I can't wait to be like the Jetsons!

We will just fold space like in Dune one day. It seems like we can't ever do these things now, but the tech we have like the "build Mars back better" robots we can send mentioned already, and things we have like the antigravity UFO tech are already in our possession. It is about the timing because right now we are a warring, full of huge lies, full of hate and full of shat that we are not ready. God, Aliens or whoever you think is holding us back is doing it because evil monsters can't be released into the Universe from Earth. We have to ascend and some of us just won't for the hateful and deceitful lives they lead don't translate well to actually living peacefully among the stars.

BLM,, KKK, ANTIFA,, they have some big changes to make just to have a chance to lose all that baggage for good and move into a time of love an peace.

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I don't think these kind of experiments really prove anything, especially on a psychological basis. The crew knows in the back of their minds that if anything really goes wrong, Mother Earth is just on the other side of that door. Rescue is as simple as opening an airlock. Hydroponics failed and no food ? Just call Uber Eats. [ not really but you get the point ] They're in no real danger.

.......

Before I retired from NASA I participated in almost all of the major human Mars mission studies from about 1985 to 2010. Also participated in a number of the Mars analog activities in places like Devon Island, Mars Desert Research Station in Utah, etc.

What you say about the lack of physical danger in this experiment is true, but misses the point, I think. In any Mars analog experiment you can't simulate all of the factors that humans would experience on a trip to Mars. The only way to capture all the factors is to actually send a crew to Mars and back. So you have to choose which factors you are going to investigate, and which ones you aren't. For example, long-duration stays on the Space Station can be analogs for the Mars transit portion of a Mars mission. You start with a rocket launch from Earth, spend up to a year or so in microgravity, and then end the mission with an aero entry back to Earth. That simulates the duration and some of the danger of an in-space transit to Mars, but totally ignores the surface stay part.

This experiment was intended to look only at the "being there" part of a Mars mission, not the "getting there" part. And it looks to me like they were mostly concentrating on the crew social interactions part of the problem.

All of the studies conducted by NASA assumed we would use whatever the NASA-designed big rocket of the day would be whenever Congress decided to provide the funds to start flying the missions. Today, that would the SLS (AKA the Senate Launch System). The consequence of that assumption is that you would necessarily have crew sizes of 4 to 8, max. The problem then becomes how you would select that crew. If you make a list of all the various occupational specialties you would need in a crew like that, you end up with things like pilot, medical doctor, electrical engineer, mechanical engineer, biologist, repair and maintenance people, vehicle drivers, and a few more that I've probably left out. And you need redundancy in the crew in case someone dies or gets disabled, so everyone will have to be cross-trained in a few of the specialties. So you end up needing four 25-year-old triathletes with 3 Ph.D.s each, and with 10 years of work experience, each. Four Buckaroo Banzais, essentially.

Getting a group like that to function together becomes an exercise in what is called small group dynamics, in Psychological terms. In large groups (say 100 or more) all the skills, abilities, and personality traits are distributed across a large number of individuals, so if any one of them dies or goes psycho, it won't necessarily affect the functioning of the group all that much. But in a group of 4 or 6 or 8, the functioning of the group will depend on exactly which members are functional and which ones aren't. This is one reason why the Soviets always selected cosmonauts as a crew, instead of as individuals. The crew for a mission would train together and fly together. If anyone of them became disabled or unable to fly, they would be replaced by a different crew who had also trained together.

If SpaceX ends up being the organization sending humans to Mars (and that's where I placing my bets), they will go in groups of maybe 50 to 100 at a time, and they will avoid this problem.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Actually, the fuel problem was mostly solved when it was discovered that Mars has an abundant supply of water in the form of ice, both at its pole, and likely below its surface.

Water, H2O, can be separated into its constitute components, Hydrogen and Oxygen, by the application of electricity, which could be generated easily on the Martian surface by solar photovoltaics, or via a radio isotope thermoelectric generator (RTG), or even a small, self-contained nuclear reactor (such as those currently being developed for commercial use).


Remember, the US Space Shuttle's main engines (as opposed to its twin boosters, which were solid fuel rockets) were cryogenic engines burning a mixture of liquid Hydrogen and liquid oxygen (LOX).


Also, "starting and stopping" in space does not, necessarily, take "massive" amounts of fuel; it does take a sufficient amount of energy, usually provided by the expense of some sort of fuel, to overcome inertia/momentum. But even a small propelling impulse, exterted continuously over a period of time, can result in very high terminal velocity. And is more efficient, in terms of fuel cost. This is the reason ion and plasma propulsion systems are so favored for long range, deep-space missions.

To me, it was all just a show for the public. I doubt we ever go to Mars...this show just keeps the money flowing.

a reply to: Mantiss2021

I'm sorry, and with all due respect, but you are (sorely) mistaken about space travel.

I appreciate your response, but it is much of the same fantasy that pervades our society today. It is just that..."fantasy"; fantasy which will never come to fruition.

Fantasy is "fun", but it's not reality. Reality, like Space...his "HARD".

Sorry.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Mantiss2021

I'm sorry, and with all due respect, but you are (sorely) mistaken about space travel.

Mistaken?


What part of what I posted, particularly regarding space travel, is "mistaken"?

about space there are some points from me
1) there are different types of space..one without stars and ISS/china station the other..with stars and with future things like space bays very large
2)The sun is hot for atmosphere so no problems
3)The sun does not bring hot to earth and everything is done by an haarp system alien even
4) No ship could do round things around sun or planet because the systems will not recognize the round trip