No, I don't get it. Rotating habitats are not a must. They are not difficult, they are unnecessary. That's what Charles Bolden said in a Congress hearing. They have learned enough about mitigating zero gravity problems for a Mars mission duration.
Quote from: guckyfan on 06/04/2016 04:09 pmNo, I don't get it. Rotating habitats are not a must. They are not difficult, they are unnecessary. That's what Charles Bolden said in a Congress hearing. They have learned enough about mitigating zero gravity problems for a Mars mission duration.Only if there's a fast transit, only if everyone goes to the surface, and only if Mars gravity is safe for two years, none of which has been demonstrated.
Quote from: Lee Jay on 06/04/2016 04:40 pmQuote from: guckyfan on 06/04/2016 04:09 pmNo, I don't get it. Rotating habitats are not a must. They are not difficult, they are unnecessary. That's what Charles Bolden said in a Congress hearing. They have learned enough about mitigating zero gravity problems for a Mars mission duration.Only if there's a fast transit, only if everyone goes to the surface, and only if Mars gravity is safe for two years, none of which has been demonstrated.Wrong. He talked about a full mission. And remember the first mission planned by NASA is an orbital mission. Without rotating habitats.
Quote from: guckyfan on 06/04/2016 05:17 pmQuote from: Lee Jay on 06/04/2016 04:40 pmQuote from: guckyfan on 06/04/2016 04:09 pmNo, I don't get it. Rotating habitats are not a must. They are not difficult, they are unnecessary. That's what Charles Bolden said in a Congress hearing. They have learned enough about mitigating zero gravity problems for a Mars mission duration.Only if there's a fast transit, only if everyone goes to the surface, and only if Mars gravity is safe for two years, none of which has been demonstrated.Wrong. He talked about a full mission. And remember the first mission planned by NASA is an orbital mission. Without rotating habitats.Poor Scott Kelly. They subjected him to almost of year of microgravity, but they had it all figured out. I'm sure he'll relish that thought as he's going through the significant amount of rehab he need's from his mission.
Poor Scott Kelly.
Quote from: stoker5432 on 06/04/2016 05:23 pmPoor Scott Kelly. Ask him if he would reverse his decision to quit when he is offered a microgravity trip to Mars in 3 years.Unfortunately he is probably going to be too old in 10 years.
The cosmonaut actually walked from the capsule on his own two legs, stole a cigarette from his comrade, and said, "We can fly to Mars."
Not sure how long they are planning to keep people there initially. That will be interesting to learn (probably in September).
My best guess, some will return, when the next crew arrives, some will stay.
Quote from: guckyfan on 06/04/2016 08:19 pmMy best guess, some will return, when the next crew arrives, some will stay.Well that would imply at least 2 years stay, which I find a rather risky proposition for a first mission. The long stay would also require a lot more consumables, habitats, etc. I would assume that they would only stay for a few weeks initially (as long as practical given return trajectories, etc). I might be wrong, though.
In this discussion it seems relevant that Musk said at RecodeDotNet that they are aiming for 90 day trips times to mars (and back I presume) and 30 days later. Which is interestingly very much in line with what I was hoping for. Such short trip times (if they can indeed make them happen), should make artificial gravity unnecessary. Of course there is still the problem of the low Martian gravity for the duration of the stay. Not sure how long they are planning to keep people there initially. That will be interesting to learn (probably in September).
The challenge is that any station big enough to provide refuge for a colony is currently too big to build or move using our current abilities and cost structures. And it's mainly the cost of moving mass to space that needs to come down, since I believe that we have the technology necessary to build at least the 1st generation of rotating space stations.
Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 05/15/2016 07:34 pmQuote from: muomega0 on 05/15/2016 02:03 pmGas stations in space with prepositioned supplies and propellant are the fastest way to send crew to Mars, but it appears to be limited to about 3 months one way with existing technology. I think there was a concept for a VASIMIR based mission with a slightly over 30 day trip time. MSNW is also working on a new fusion drive that could result in 30 day trip times with a space craft that fits into a single BFR launch (with payload to spare) or a single SLS launch (with no margin).There's a 39-day VASIMR mission described here:http://www.adastrarocket.com/Andrew-SPESIF-2011.pdfIf I'm reading the paper correctly, the 39 day mission requires a 200MW nuclear reactor with power density of around 0.8kg/kW. It mentions in passing that 4kg/kW is the best that's currently achievable.
Quote from: muomega0 on 05/15/2016 02:03 pmGas stations in space with prepositioned supplies and propellant are the fastest way to send crew to Mars, but it appears to be limited to about 3 months one way with existing technology. I think there was a concept for a VASIMIR based mission with a slightly over 30 day trip time. MSNW is also working on a new fusion drive that could result in 30 day trip times with a space craft that fits into a single BFR launch (with payload to spare) or a single SLS launch (with no margin).
Gas stations in space with prepositioned supplies and propellant are the fastest way to send crew to Mars, but it appears to be limited to about 3 months one way with existing technology.
Quote from: SpacedX on 06/04/2016 03:32 pmI don't get it. The record stay in space is 438 days. Mars would be 900 days. There are demonstrable health effects which increase with time in zero g. For humanity to go to Mars, or space, rotating habitats are a must. Why not develop this technology? It's difficult but necessary.No, I don't get it. Rotating habitats are not a must. They are not difficult, they are unnecessary. That's what Charles Bolden said in a Congress hearing. They have learned enough about mitigating zero gravity problems for a Mars mission duration.
I don't get it. The record stay in space is 438 days. Mars would be 900 days. There are demonstrable health effects which increase with time in zero g. For humanity to go to Mars, or space, rotating habitats are a must. Why not develop this technology? It's difficult but necessary.
Could many of the muscular/skeletal problems of low Mars G be mitigated by just wearing a weight suit? I know it might not have a impact on other areas, but just curious.