Simulated Mars mission 'lands' back on Earth (isolated for 1.5 years)

BBC ^ | November 4, 2011 | Jonathan Amos

[sbMKE]

I hope the tube wasn’t filled with only white males.

Mars needs diversity too.

[mewzilla]

The crew has now been taken away into quarantine for medical checks.

Uh huh. Sounds to me like something went pear-shaped and the Russians are trying to cover it up....?

[mewzilla]

Mars needs diversity too.

Hey, according to Edgar Rice Burroughs, Mars has plenty of that ;-)

[Farmer Dean]

“Doin’ the French Mistake.”

[Erik Latranyi]

Imagine waiting nearly a half hour between hitting F5 to reload a FreeRepublic page and seeing the result.

I think there are days when we get close to that already!

[blueunicorn6]

The Van Allen Belts have been holding up the earth’s pants for a long time.

[Zakeet]

I wonder how they simulated the effects of zero gravity (e.g. loss of bone mass, muscle atrophy, etc.) and lethal doses of cosmic radiation over those 18-months.

And I supposed they recycled and ate human waste over that time.

After all, that was a realistic simulation, wasn't it?

[GonzoGOP]

Would I be correct to assume that the return would have to be while Mars is in approach with Earth? How often do Earth and Mars pass each other in orbit? Once a year?

Every two years. It isn't exact, but very close. The Mars Direct plan, probably the most workable put forward to date, sends the Earth Return Vehicle ahead with empty fuel tanks and some H2 to use as feedstock. It makes Methane and O2 from the Martian atmosphere.

A on the next approach when the ERV reports it is ready and fueled you send your exploration team with another ERV and a habitat. They land, explore the planet for a year, then come back. The ERV they brought then makes fuel to bring back the next crew. And it also serves as a backup in case the original ERV breaks down.

It only requires 1980s tech and isn't that expensive, compared to the Battlestar NASA plan. For example you just coast with chemical rockets rather than try to come up with some kind of exotic nuclear powered plasma engine. Slower, but it is so simple it has to work. And when you are a year from the nearest help simple and reliable is a good thing. Also instead of creating exotic radiation shielding for solar flares they just surround the storm shelter with the waste tanks. Turns out poop blocks radiation real well.

[GonzoGOP]

Imagine waiting nearly a half hour between hitting F5 to reload a FreeRepublic page and seeing the result.

So they made them use Vista?

[Zuben Elgenubi]

Nicely put.

[dog breath]

I am wondering about the radiation and loss of bone mass myself. I will have to read more articles about this to find out how they plan to deal with that. Good question.

[rarestia]

I wonder how much the plan would change if we implemented NASA’s original plan to settle the moon and harvest materials for a Mars shot?

It’s my understanding that there’s plentiful amounts of Helium 3 on the moon that could be converted into breathable atmosphere and propellant.

If we would settle the moon first, we could perfect some things like habitat configurations and the like. I would love to see this come to fruition in my lifetime.

[SunkenCiv]

If these jokers were really serious about simulating isolation on Mars, they’d have built this thing in the ruins of what used to be Detroit. :’) Thanks decimon.

[GonzoGOP]

I wonder how much the plan would change if we implemented NASA’s original plan to settle the moon and harvest materials for a Mars shot?

Actually even if there was a shipyard on the moon giving away free fuel you wouldn't stop there. It takes almost as much energy to go to the moon as it does to go to Mars. Escape velocity is escape velocity. And the moon orbits at an angle to the sun's plane of the ecliptic. So you have to burn energy to go from the moons inclined orbit to Mars that you don't have to burn if you just go straight from Earth without the stop.

As for He3, that only matters if you have a fusion reactor. And we are a bit short of those at the moment. Waiting for fusion reactors to go to Mars is like the pioneers in 1849 waiting for jet aircraft before going to California. Sure the 747 is cheaper and safer, but the Conestoga wagon gets a 100 year head start. Same with fusion reactors and plasma rockets. Sure they cut the travel time, but we won't have them for many years and it will cost hundreds and billions of dollars we don't have to develop them. You can go with methane rockets and be there half a century ahead of the nuclear plasma rocket guys. And you can spend the extra money on building the base.

[rarestia]

Hmm, you bring up myriad interesting points here, Gonzo. Most of them I’ve never considered, and I thank you for the education.

Any suggestions for reading and research on this subject?