In the near future the problem of radiation exposure makes a manned Mars mission impossibly difficult.

"Quote from Astronomy-Special Issue, October 2006."

"Space-travel woes; By Bob Berman."

"Things really get bad when you leave orbit and pass outside Earth´s magneto-sphere, the barrier against solar and cosmic radiation. Apollo astronauts all saw flashes like meteors cross their visual fields about once a minute, as heavy ions ripped through their brains. Their radiation exposure was not trivial, and, years later, Alan Shepard didn´t deny that going to the Moon may have given him the leukemia that eventually killed him."

"Things could have been worse. A coronal mass ejection blasted the Moon with carged particles just 1 month before the final Apollo 17 mission. Had the astronauts been on the surface - or in theyr capsule going or coming - they would have died."

"Okay, so we build a shielded "safe room"on the Mars-bound craft. Problem is, the Red Planet has no magnetosphere. Gamma rays and X rays from distant supernovae rain down on the surface, along with those pesky charged particles from the Sun. The continuous ionizing background flux disqualifies that planet as a health spa."

"High cancer risk aside, brain neurons will be destroyed continuously by the non-stop radiation. Biologists estimate that during a 2-year Mars mission, an astronaut may lose between13 and 40% of her or his brain! Ouch! Even smart people can't affort that. It greatly exceeds the 5% annual neuron necrosis suffered by some Alzeimer's patients."

"Once the Red Planet, astronauts will have to fend for themselves: There'll be no ride home for at least 18 months after arrival, when Earth and Mars again align. You're on a place without breathable air. It´s always freezing. Radiation is giving you a terrible splitting headache. The pizza´s terrible. Still want to go?"

OK, this is really bad. It appears that we really, really have to settle for the Moon for the time being, that is till we have found an effective solution for radiation shielding.[

Even so, we find a good shielding solution so that a base can be shielded effectivelly and perhaps even for the rovers as well "the light open Moon rovers are thus a no go," radiation exposure will remain a problem for any outdoors work on foot. That means all outdoors time would have to be at an absolute minimum.

This means any Mars mission would have to employee lots of robotic equipment to cut down that outdoors time. And, ladies and gentlemen, the Moon will be in the meantime the ideal test laboratory for the required technologies, i.e. radiation shielding and robotic tools.

Einar

Welcome back Einar. It has been a long time since we heard from you. I exchange with Spider once in a while. Keep in touch.

Thanks, I was kindof amazed to see that there was still someone around who believes the crap about Moon Hoax.

Einar

There are other problems, as well. I remember reading somewhere that, after the several months long journey in microgravity, any Mars-bound astronauts would have to land on one of Mars' moons and spend some time there to regain the strength to walk again,  even in Mars' lesser-than-Earth gravity, no matter how vigorously they had exercised during their voyage, before descending to the planet itself.

One has to wonder, given the hostility of outer space to biology, whether manned missions are really worth it, especially given our rapid progress in robotics. The success and longevity of the two rovers currently on Mars are an example of how much unmanned missions can do, and there is no doubt that even more sophistocated missions are forthcoming. In some cases, it seems, the "next best thing to being there" may well be the best thing.

Look at how many missions have either entirely missed, or crashed into Mars. Man, I'm sure glad I wasn't aboard any of them! What a way to go - either floating off uncontrollably into the solar system or crashing into a freezing, waterless, desert planet.

When I was a kid I read a story in a science fiction magazine about an astronaut slowly dying after a crash landing on Mars, and it still sends a chill up my spine to think about it. I wish I could find that story now and read it again. Chilling as it was, it was very well-written.

Surely it is possible that someday we might be able to develop technologies that could ameliorate some of the grave hazards of manned space travel, but especially with the rapid advance in robotic techniques, the question becomes increasingly pertinent - Why?

Don't get me wrong - I am in favor of renewed manned missions to the moon, and of establishing astronomical and other sorts of scientific bases there, but it seems that the real, physical dangers and difficulties of sending people farther than that far outweigh the potential psychological advantages. Sure, it would be fun to walk safely around the surface of another planet like Mars, or even to watch someone else do so on TV, but it is an open question whether that can possibly be accomplished with any reliable guarantee of safety. It surely would be horrifying to see footage of a crew dying as a result of a failed landing on the red planet, or even (perhaps) worse, just drifting off into the far reaches of the solar system until they run out of food, water and oxygen should they happen to have missed their target (perhaps through so stupid a blunder as that which doomed one Mars mission, that one team working on the project was using metric, and another using English measurements, and neither was aware of the confusion until it was far too late).

To repeat, the risks are so high and the potential gains so questionable that one has to ask -Why?      

EinarBj wrote:

Thanks, I was kindof amazed to see that there was still someone around who believes the crap about Moon Hoax. Einar

I am good friends with a woman whose mother used to date Buzz Aldrin, and I am telling everyone, those guys really did go to the moon.

For crying out loud, it would have been more difficult to fake it as well as they supposedly did than it was actually just to do it. Besides, I have met someone who was intimate with one of the guys who went there, and there is simply no room for doubt in my mind that they actually did it.

xtopher wrote:

There are other problems, as well. I remember reading somewhere that, after the several months long journey in microgravity, any Mars-bound astronauts would have to land on one of Mars' moons and spend some time there to regain the strength to walk again,  even in Mars' lesser-than-Earth gravity, no matter how vigorously they had exercised during their voyage, before descending to the planet itself. One has to wonder, given the hostility of outer space to biology, whether manned missions are really worth it, especially given our rapid progress in robotics. The success and longevity of the two rovers currently on Mars are an example of how much unmanned missions can do, and there is no doubt that even more sophistocated missions are forthcoming. In some cases, it seems, the "next best thing to being there" may well be the best thing.

I have to agree with you here, plus our progress is robotics is happening faster at this point than space technology.  It just makes sense to do the robotic missions now rather than manned, given the how fragile our manned space technology is at this point.

Look at how many missions have either entirely missed, or crashed into Mars. Man, I'm sure glad I wasn't aboard any of them! What a way to go - either floating off uncontrollably into the solar system or crashing into a freezing, waterless, desert planet.

I would hope that by the time they sent a manned ship to mars, some failsafes, extra fuel ect. would be included.  Also, I think the best way to go there would be to put a ship in orbit, either manned or unmanned, and use it as a base of operations to and from the surface.  In that respect, if someone crash landed, they wouldn't be taking the whole ship with them, and hopefully, by the time they do that, they would have a backup in orbit.

When I was a kid I read a story in a science fiction magazine about an astronaut slowly dying after a crash landing on Mars, and it still sends a chill up my spine to think about it. I wish I could find that story now and read it again. Chilling as it was, it was very well-written.

Reminds me a bit of the Val kilmer movie, was it the red planet or mission to mars? 

Surely it is possible that someday we might be able to develop technologies that could ameliorate some of the grave hazards of manned space travel, but especially with the rapid advance in robotic techniques, the question becomes increasingly pertinent - Why? Don't get me wrong - I am in favor of renewed manned missions to the moon, and of establishing astronomical and other sorts of scientific bases there, but it seems that the real, physical dangers and difficulties of sending people farther than that far outweigh the potential psychological advantages. Sure, it would be fun to walk safely around the surface of another planet like Mars, or even to watch someone else do so on TV, but it is an open question whether that can possibly be accomplished with any reliable guarantee of safety. It surely would be horrifying to see footage of a crew dying as a result of a failed landing on the red planet, or even (perhaps) worse, just drifting off into the far reaches of the solar system until they run out of food, water and oxygen should they happen to have missed their target (perhaps through so stupid a blunder as that which doomed one Mars mission, that one team working on the project was using metric, and another using English measurements, and neither was aware of the confusion until it was far too late).

Hopefully they won't ever repeat that mistake ... and I agree, going to the moon actually makes some sense in terms of developing space technology, and setting up observatories.

To repeat, the risks are so high and the potential gains so questionable that one has to ask -Why?

No reason that I can think of.  Maybe in the future, with better safer technology, there might be resources we could use and get to in space, but I would think the asteroids would be as profitable to mine as mars would be, and maybe even safer to get to, and robotics would probably be as good or better for that than manned ships anyway.  And as far as colonizing goes, it will probably be cheaper, safer and better to build movable space habitats than it would be to lock ourselves down to another sitting target, assuming we survive the one we are on now.

Wow its refreshing to hear people talk about what I thought was obvious for years. lets not forget that water on Mars will boil away at ambient temperature. Also the ground itself is toxic for growing plants. Too many scientists on TV say Mars can be terraformed in years, I think theyre just trying to boost funding. Without a magnetosphere solar wind will strip whatever atmosphere we can build faster than we can ever create it. Pure science is the way we should spend our resources to advance propulsion and magnetic technologies. Just imagine being able to contain a nuclear reaction inside a small man made magnetosphere. Thats free power. People are working on it. Or even generating such a field around a spaceship for shielding. Then we can go where no one has gone before.

Hello again, 

 I must admit I find it bit disheartening how difficult spacetravel appears to be in reality. I believe though that in the long term humans ought to develope means for reasonably safe spacetravel.

I know that in the near term it makes litle sence to send humans into space, with perhaps the sole exception of Earth orbit or even the Moon. But beyond the Earth/Moon system for sure a resounding 'NO.'

 In the long run life here is doomed. Even so, that´s probably not a near term risk. Still, it means that sometime we need to be somewhere ellse, if we survive that long. No matter how knowledgeable we become, it only has a meaning as long as we are around to appreciate that knowledge.

 

Cheers, Einar 

I think for now the cost of funding for a mars mission is way to great. There are so many things that need to be developed for the mission to even be possible. I think that the funds could be spent on much more usful things on earth for now(Humans must one day set foot on Mars though, and go even farther), or even a moon base mission. I see lots of good reasons for a lunar mission. I dont think mars is out of the question, but for now I think we should worry about what we can do in the near future. The accomplishments could be amazing if the funds where put to use on something else. Maybe something so great could be discovered or creaded a Mars mission would be a piece of cake.

I do agree that now is not the time to be sending anyone to mars, way way to many problems, many of which have been listed here, and I'm sure many not.  But I think we're forgetting the reason that many would like to see it one day, when it is safe and some what affordable.

So that we, as humans can accomplish it!!

It's the same reason we first went to the moon, not for science, for society. Though this time we should do a bit more science...

-Escape

Tesla220 wrote:

Too many scientists on TV say Mars can be terraformed in years, I think theyre just trying to boost funding. Without a magnetosphere solar wind will strip whatever atmosphere we can build faster than we can ever create it.

The question is, will the solar wind REALLY strip the atmosphere faster than we can create it?  After Mars' magnetic field died away it took probably at least several million years for the sun to strip the atmosphere away.  The terraforming proponents claim we can generate one there in just a thousand years or so.  Surely if they are right, we can keep an atmosphere there for tens of millions of years?

What about cosmic rays though? Sure, they might collide with the upper atmosphere, but what then?  Can't they still cause a shower of particles to reach the ground?  Maybe those are just the higher energy ones that Earth's M-field can't deflect anyway...

Anyway, there is good reason to do a manned mission to Mars.  There are untold benefits awaiting us there.  The human drive for exploration has yielded untold benefits, and most of the time, we had no idea what it was we would discover.  If we did, it wouldn't be exploration, would it? :)

There is an even more important reason to go to Mars in my mind though.  Until we find intelligent life elsewhere, we're the most valuble and amazing thing the universe has ever produced.  We need to protect the species by settling on more than one world.  If we don't ever get off this planet, we're very likely to go extinct in 10,000 years, quite possibly (probably) sooner.  Earth's other biology will probably be just fine after the "hiccup" of the human race, but there's no guarentee this planet will ever produce another intelligent race in the 500 million years it has till the sun gets too bright.

Yes, I'm an idealist.  But tell me, jokes aside over whether we are really an intelligent race, what part of the above paragraph is not true?

I believe that eventually man will have to look beyond this solar system for a planet that is habitable for us. Most of the planets and it's moons in this solar system are either too harsh,too far away and cold or hot(or all of the above LOL). I hope that our planet earth is not a quirk of the universe and not just the only place where intelligent live resides. It's going to take a very fast transportation mode with well thought out engineering if we are really going to start exploring other planets and eventually actually living on them.

In my mind, the moon needs to be colonized and an industrial complex put in place there before a trip to Mars makes sense. As I remember it, it would take 20 launches of about the same mass as the shuttle craft launch to send a crew of 6 to 8 on a round trip to Mars. Far too much stuff to put together here and then waste on a single round trip to Mars.

 

If all those liftoffs were used to get things going on the Moon, and we focus on robot miners, refiners, growers and technical expertise, when the time is right a trip to Mars will not be so difficult. We should attempt to have the Moon bases up and running by mid century, and aim for a human Mars mission around the year 2100.

 

By then, we should be able to safely go along as "guests" of the robot fleet that will have been traveling back-and-forth from the Earth to the Red Planet for decades (remember that so far, robots are only going to Mars, none have returned). Or, we can put the cart ahead of the horse and make getting to Mars ASAP as a one time event just to prove that we can do it a priority.

 

The long slow approach makes much better sense to me, but then.... I won't be one of the luck few that get to go either way.

I mentioned this once before on a similar topic. I think a mission to Mars is completely feasible, but think that we need to approach it completely differently than the moon.

Maybe someday we can more easily find solutions to getting a manned mission to Mars, but for now, I think we should concentrate on sending a series of unmanned missions to Mars utilizing more sophisticated robotics.  If there were some way to send a enough of these, they could be designed to eventually be self-sustaining to some degree.  Meaning that they could replace worn parts, batteries, etc.  Possibly build a base for the robotic "research team," make it so we don't send a singular robot something up that has a limited lifespan and research ability.

 Instead of trying to solve the difficult and expensive problem of trying to get a manned mission there, we could send a wave of robotic missions.  Possibly it could be done so that there could be constructed something of a Mars base for humans if and when we finally figure out a way to send them.  I know that a manned mission could accomplish more in terms of research, but if we kept sending robotic missions with a bigger plan of laying a regular path to Mars, I think that would be a much greater benefit than trying to send a manned mission.  

  

I think it will be done eventually. I think man's biggest problem is his ability to find too many problems to convince himself that something isn't possible.

Just like when people thought it a silly thought that humans could use a device to fly from one destination to another... or that we would never make it into space... or to the moon.

I think people drastically underestimate the capabilities yet to be discovered. Too much is based on what we all call 'proof' or 'scientific fact' when in fact it is mostly 'observation' than anything else.

Until we get up there and start doing it, we can all sit here and nay-say all day long to no end. Is the flight to Mars to great a risk? No IMHO. Wasn't it a great risk to learn to fly? Wasn't it a great risk to implement certain strategic battle plans at a last minute notice in a totally overwhelming situation but still come out on top? Is it too great a risk to send up astronauts with a frigging bomb attached to their chair just to get to the ISS?
It's all about chance, and as long as you can find people willing to take that 'one step for man & one giant leap for mankind', then it will be possible.

Ofcourse it proably won't be as simple as plop-down on Mars and start the colonization process. It will most likely be in stages from earth to luna to mars etc etc. The idea of trying to jump from point A to point C by bypassing poing B is silly IMHO. 

As far as 'too expensive'... why don't we NOT maufacture a few cruise missles or other massive amounts of ordinace each year. You would have a chunk of billions in no time at all. 

 

Hi Einar :

(Tipping my hat to you) Thanks for keeping it real when discussing a manned Mars mission. I remember vividly Mr. Berman article, and agree with him 100%. In my thread on this forum which discusses the human element of space flight, I point out the scale of dangers out there to astronauts who travel outside of LEO, as well as the fact that if they had to leave an area of space in a hurry, they would not be able to get out of the way fast enough. The Mars ship wouldn't have the moves or speed of the 'Enterprise E' or the 'Millenium Falcon' because the laws of physics and the forces exerted on the human body simply wouldn't allow it. Not to mention the astronauts being cooped up in very confined quarters for months at a time with the same people and not sleeping in their own warm beds, held down by something we take for granted: gravity. The picture on the right is a sleeping astronaut.

 

The lack of gravity along with space weather is absolutely hostile to flesh and blood human beings regardless of the technology used to try and protect them. Medicines would degrade quickly during their trip, so if someone did get sick it would be useless. 

-Mr. Jackson