Advertisement

Why the NASA approach will likely fail to send humans to Mars prior to c. 2080

Part of the Springer Praxis Books book series (PRAXIS)

Abstract

The great disparity between the time required in traveling to Mars (6 to 9 months) vs. the time required to travel to the Moon (∼3 days) results in a huge difference in requirements for transporting the crew in the two cases. These differences include differences in mass of consumables, requirements for longevity and durability of ECLSS systems, radiation exposure, low-gravity exposure, and Habitat volumetric space and facilities. When the entire mission is taken into account, including transit to Mars, surface stay, and return, the differences between Mars missions and lunar missions are very significant. There are also significant differences in Δν requirements for various transits, although these can be partly mitigated by aero-assist technologies at Mars.

Keywords

Challenge Environment Aerospace Technology Huge Difference Great Disparity Lunar Mission 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 219.
    ESAS Report, Section 9.3.3, p. 631.Google Scholar
  2. 220.
    ESAS Report, Section 2.4.7, p. 69.Google Scholar
  3. 227.
    This 118-page report is available at http://www.mars-lunar.net/References/Blueprint.2003.pdf
  4. 230.
  5. 232.
  6. 233.
    Artificial Gravity for Exploration Class Missions? W. H. Paloski, NASA-JSC, September 28, 2004.Google Scholar
  7. 234.
    “Estimating the Integrated Radiation Dose for a Conjunction-Class Mars Mission Using Early MARIE Data,” John F. Connolly, Earth & Space 2004, Engineering, Construction, and Operations in Challenging Environments, 9th Biennial Conference of the Aerospace Division.Google Scholar
  8. 235.
    Broad Agency Announcement, dated July 28, 2004.Google Scholar
  9. 236.
  10. 238.
    ESAS Report, pp. 58, 59 and 62.Google Scholar
  11. 239.
    Getting Space Exploration Right, Robert Zubrin, The New Atlantis, 2005; also http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/8/zubrin.htm
  12. 240.
  13. 241.
    Mars Scientific Goals, Objectives, Investigations, and Priorities: 2005, 31 p. white paper posted August, 2005 by the Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group (MEPAG) at http://mepag.jpl.nasa.gov/reports/index.html
  14. 243.
    “The Mars-Back Approach: Affordable and Sustainable Exploration of the Moon, Mars, and Beyond Using Common Systems”, International Astronautical Congress, October 17–21, 2005.Google Scholar
  15. 244.
    Aerocapture, Entry, Descent and Landing (AEDL) Capability Evolution toward Human-Scale Landing on Mars, R. Manning (ed.), Report of the Capability Roadmap: Human Planetary Landing Systems, March 29, 2005Google Scholar
  16. 245.
    Mars Scientific Goals, Objectives, Investigations, and Priorities: 2005, 31 p. white paper posted August, 2005 by the Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group (MEPAG) at http://mepag.jpl.nasa.gov/reports/index.html

Copyright information

© Praxis Publishing Ltd, Chichester, UK 2008

Personalised recommendations