The simplest mission we could do would be a flyby, followed by a Mars orbital mission, follwed by a landing. Flybys don't have a great deal of scientific value, but they allow us to build experience in travelling through deep space.
I view this slightly differently.To me the risk of any mission is so high that,it is unfair to the volunteers not to offer a Mars landing.Send as many unmanned missions to test the technology but when humans are involved I would go the whole way and land on Mars.It is arguably safer to have a one way mission that does not involve having to launch from Mars and can make the whole mission much cheaper and provide years more surface time.
I do agree that NASA probably will not send people to Mars this century with their current attitudes and it is more likely to be the Chinese or Russians who get there first for the prime spot in the history books.
Americas only hope is the private sector undertaking the mission which should be fairly affordable.I dont think it needs to be justified by value of raw materials at this stage. Science pride and adventure should be enough.
One of the reasons I believe BEO human spaceflight has been in plans for 40 years and not be accomplished is overcomplication. What about starting with the simplest possible mission requirements and build from there? For instance, how about a Mars orbital mission with just a crew of 2. An Earth return capsule for a crew of 2 can be purpose built and tested. A spacecraft to Mars orbit for 2 only doesn't have to weight 1000mt and can be brought to orbit in smaller junks.Should NASA focus on these very small, minimal steps before planning 6-crew, long-duration surface missions to Mars?
I don't think that a manned flight to Mars that doesn't include a manned landing on the planet is marketable.
A simpler mission than Mars manned flyby would landing crew on the Moon.
Some people might think a Mars flyby could a waste of time and money, just as a lunar flyby could seem as waste of time and money. But there could be significant advantages for a Mars flyby. One advantage of Mars flyby could be the reduction of the time delay for controlling anything on Mars if using teleoperation. Any flyby of Mars which then returns to earth with the crew, will have months of time in which crew are significantly closer to Mars than anyone on Earth.
If NASA explores the Moon, one thing it could also work out is not landing on Earth surface but instead areobraking and going to LEO. And perhaps this could also be used from return from Mars.
Quote from: gbaikie on 08/26/2011 10:57 pmA simpler mission than Mars manned flyby would landing crew on the Moon. Actually a Moon landing is much more costly and complicated to develop than either a Mars flyby or orbital mission.
I do not think teleoperation is worth the money. The MERs definitely can do a lot more science within the years spent on Mars than a few days of teleoperated rovers (without the time lack) could ever do. In contrast a mars orbital mission to Deimos or Phobos is worth the money from a science point of view.
Why is a Mars surface mission flags & footprints and a Phobos mission not? In both you have to spend 500 days on or around Mars, if you want to use minimum energy trajectories. Going to Mars surface allows you to do much more meaningful science (searching for life etc.) than landing on Phobos.