
Human mission to Mars may be planned for 2018 - evo_9
http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/21/human-mission-to-mars-may-be-planned-for-2018/?hpt=hp_t3
======
kristopolous
This is great. My whole life landing on Mars has been perpetually in the
closer and closer future.

The Russians talked about 20-25 year plans in the 50s and 60s.

When I was a kid, in the 80s, they talked about Mars in 15-20 year plans.

199x: 10-15.

200x: 5-10.

Now: 5.

The ambitious goals gradually decrease in time estimates and then one day, it
actually happens.

Do I expect Mars in 2018? no. By 2030? sure. That's fine by me.

Imagine: Living humans landing on Another Planet; one that is but a dot in the
sky to the human eye.

They'll get out of a space craft and set foot upon the /Surface of Mars/. We
will be The Aliens.

On that day, we will assume the next step of being the intelligent life that
we always hoped for; coming in from outer space, out of the sky, like a Greek
God descending from Mount Olympus.

We'll need to dream a new future; this one will be in the past.

Be patient. Be part of it.

~~~
keenerd
Just as an aside, the last time we seriously talked about manned Mars missions
was in the '70s. NERVA would have been powerful enough to make the round trip
in 90 days, but the program was canned in '72. This 501 day trip will be an
interesting bit of logistics in itself.

We are almost living in a Heinlein novel, though it would be unexpected if
Mars was colonized before the Moon.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket>

~~~
Retric
In many ways it would be easier to build a long term habitat on on Mars than
the Moon. Mars might have a mostly Carbon dioxide / Nitrogen atmosphere at
vary low pressure but it's a hell of a lot better than nothing. There is even
enough H2O (220ppm) that it's probably viable to extract enough of it from the
atmosphere to make up for recycling losses. (As in you could build a machine
that produces more H20 over time from extraction than you would spending that
mass shipping H20 directly.)

~~~
InclinedPlane
Mars is lousy with water. There's a very tiny amount of it in the atmosphere,
but for long term colonization that's irrelevant. Much of the surface of Mars
is underlain by significant amounts of water ice permafrost. If you pick a
decent place to put a base then it would be straightforward to begin producing
literally tonnes of water on a regular basis using a small amount of capital
equipment.

P.S. To be more clear, the presence of large quantities of CO2, H2O, and
Nitrogen as well as a near 24-hours day is a huge boon for a potential colony.
With one or a small handful of shipments of industrial equipment it would be
possible to bootstrap an initial Martian industry which produced Oxygen,
water, Carbon Monoxide, Methane, and Methanol. O2 and water are obviously
useful for human habitation as well as for growing crops using natural Martian
sunlight (likely in inflatable domes). O2 and Methane would be used
cryogenically for rocket propellants or as compressed gases for powering long-
range / high-performance surface vehicles (such as the very bulldozers and
excavators which would be used to mine water ice). Carbon Monoxide could be
used to smelt Iron and other metals from high-grade ores. Methanol could be
used as a fuel and could also serve as a chemical feedstock for manufacturing
plastics and other organic materials. All of this is stuff that could be
happening within the first few missions to Mars, which gives you a sense of
the enabling characteristics of in-situ Martian resources.

~~~
Retric
Step one is keeping ~10 people alive for ~5 years with minimal risk.
Colonization is 'possible', but there is basically zero economic incentive.

~~~
InclinedPlane
In the case of Mars the use of in-situ resources helps lower the cost of Mars
missions and reduce risk, so colonization becomes a natural byproduct of
exploration.

------
mongol
"His organization's new idea is to get to Mars and back in 501 days"

Does it involve landing? Is a free return flight similar to Apollo 8 what they
have in mind?

~~~
27182818284
I believe there is no landing, so just a flyby.

~~~
pjungwir
Skipping the landing seems like a great idea for the first trip. We'd still
get to learn lots about keeping humans healthy on such a long flight and get
practice doing such a long-range mission while we're still developing the tech
for a landing. But what do I know? Anyway, I'm thrilled to see people trying
to work out a plan one way or the other.

------
cantbecool
A human mission to Mars is analogous to the wide spread use of hydrogen fuel
cells in automobiles. If you keep giving a date further and further away, no
one will ever question the authenticity of the project.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Fuel cell powered cars are easy. Anyone could build one, the equipment is out
there. The problem is that they aren't very practical. Compressed Hydrogen is
not the best fuel choice for an automobile, and even aside from that the power
and range you'll get on a fuel cell car is worse than a purely battery powered
car.

~~~
btilly
Indeed Elon Musk claims that the theoretical maximum performance from a fuel
cell is lower than the current practical performance from a battery.

As he might say, "Your best case scenario is still failure."

------
neya
I would love to startup on Mars :D

~~~
cglace
what's your addressable market?

~~~
neya
Martians with a lot of 'money' :D

