|
wjbarnett
|
|
« Reply #15 on: 08/28/2012 12:52 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robotbeat
|
|
« Reply #17 on: 08/28/2012 10:58 PM » |
|
If true, very, very exciting. If you can do a 30-35 month stint at ISS without problems, going to Mars for a long-duration (i.e. years-long) surface trip should (especially if to low-altitude sites, which are coincidentally easier for designing EDL systems) give you fewer problems with microgravity and radiation, while also having the lowest delta-v requirements. Even a 13-15 month mission would demonstrate enough for a short-stay mission (especially appropriate if doing an orbital-only mission), at the cost of much higher delta-v and a possible swingby of Venus (which would be kind of neat, anyway... could be co-timed with a brief low-latency teleprescence robotic mission to the surface of Venus, controlled for a day or so by the crew in transit to Mars).
Yearlong stays would also greatly increase the possible NEA targets, allowing lower mission delta-v.
|
|
|
|
Archibald
|
|
« Reply #18 on: 08/29/2012 11:40 AM » |
|
Indeed, that's important. And logical. It is the kind of mission the ISS could be useful for, particularly in the view of public opinion. Somewhat it would make the ISS more useful than the meagre science performed there...
Imagine the layman on the street. On TV he heards there had been a 520 day simulation of a Mars trip. He also vaguely knows we have a large, expensive space station in earth orbit.
Yet the 520 day simulation happened on the ground. Go figure. That doesn't sounds logical at all...
Hell, it is the kind of mission von Braun would have approved. In his infamous collier series, the rotating space station had that very function - a training ground for future long duration missions. It is a concept that reach back to the dawn of the space age.
|
|
|
|
erioladastra
|
|
« Reply #19 on: 08/31/2012 01:31 AM » |
|
As mentioned before, there would need to be a good reason for a year long mission. You have to remember, an astronaut costs a lot of money to train etc, so it is prudent to keep them in the best possible health. A year long mission presents some considerable health challenges.
But those health challenges are something that needs to be overcome.
Public links can be copied from L2.
http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_08_22/Russia-US-to-free-spacecraft-seats-for-tourists-in-2015/
I see that's already on the public thread, and answers the question.
I'd like to hear what erioladastra has to say about this before I get excited
Well I have not heard of it being seriously discussed but will have to poke around. I know a big issue is that the flight docs don't yet feel we could get enough out of it and 1-2 data points doesn't help.
|
|
|
|
Robotbeat
|
|
« Reply #20 on: 09/05/2012 05:04 PM » |
|
As mentioned before, there would need to be a good reason for a year long mission. You have to remember, an astronaut costs a lot of money to train etc, so it is prudent to keep them in the best possible health. A year long mission presents some considerable health challenges.
But those health challenges are something that needs to be overcome.
Public links can be copied from L2.
http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_08_22/Russia-US-to-free-spacecraft-seats-for-tourists-in-2015/
I see that's already on the public thread, and answers the question.
I'd like to hear what erioladastra has to say about this before I get excited
Well I have not heard of it being seriously discussed but will have to poke around. I know a big issue is that the flight docs don't yet feel we could get enough out of it and 1-2 data points doesn't help.
And zero data points is better? 1-2 data points helps immensely when you're comparing it to only extrapolating from an entirely different regime. I'd prefer the hazards of smallish sample size over the hazards of large extrapolations. Unless, of course, we just never go, in which case let's just shut the whole thing down right now.
|
|
|
|
erioladastra
|
|
« Reply #21 on: 09/06/2012 12:26 AM » |
|
And zero data points is better? 1-2 data points helps immensely when you're comparing it to only extrapolating from an entirely different regime. I'd prefer the hazards of smallish sample size over the hazards of large extrapolations. Unless, of course, we just never go, in which case let's just shut the whole thing down right now.
Not neccessarily. First there are costs/impacts to do this though mainly to family and the long duration crewman. Second, I don't sense the flight docs feel we fully understand some of the changes we have seen so far. Just for example, the changes in eyes. Is there a risk that if we put someone up for a year that they could come back with serious permanent eye damage? So you don't want to go long before you are sure. You also need to make sure you really, really understand how 6 months affect you. Once you are there you can start going longer. If you make major changes to the protocols you lose a lot of your baseline. You could put through something very hard and then find your data is useless. Now once enough confidence is gained (and I am not a doctor, I just hear the complaints of lack of statistics) I think there will be a stronger push for them. We will see - I am not advocating against them. Now, also, before people pile on, the Mir long duration flights are virtually useless in this regard so we really don't have any useable data.
|
|
|
|
robertross
|
|
« Reply #22 on: 09/06/2012 01:30 AM » |
|
I think a great benefit is using previous ISS astronauts.
1. They are familiar with the systems, so training is less arduous
2. There is baseline information on them right from the beginning of astronaut training, to their mission, to post mission, and (hopefully) many follow-on medical exams post flight.
3. Since they've already had their feet wet, they can jump right into getting things done on station.
4. It might help for spacewalks, especially if, like Peggy Whitson, they've already had considerable time outside.
Of course some minor difficulty exists if there are experiments that require specific pre-flight training, but I guess they will have a crew change-out in between that can handle those experiments, allowing these candidates to focus on the long-duration tests.
|
|
|
|
erioladastra
|
|
« Reply #23 on: 09/13/2012 01:13 AM » |
|
I think a great benefit is using previous ISS astronauts.
1. They are familiar with the systems, so training is less arduous
2. There is baseline information on them right from the beginning of astronaut training, to their mission, to post mission, and (hopefully) many follow-on medical exams post flight.
3. Since they've already had their feet wet, they can jump right into getting things done on station.
4. It might help for spacewalks, especially if, like Peggy Whitson, they've already had considerable time outside.
Of course some minor difficulty exists if there are experiments that require specific pre-flight training, but I guess they will have a crew change-out in between that can handle those experiments, allowing these candidates to focus on the long-duration tests.
I think you misunderstood my statement. By changing baseline I meant the following. Lets say for Crew X on Increment 10 you had them take phosphate to reduce clacium loss. You now decide to fly that person on incrment 40 for a year but we had since found out that phosphate isn't good (don't know, making up stuff) and now they drink Mt Dew. So now you can't compre that individual to their earlier time. And lets say you are still trying to figure you what is best for a year long. Crew Y goes up and you have tweaked it to Dr. Pepper. Can you comapre those two? You have two data points with different histories so if the Pepper does better or worse, what you can learn? But agree at some point you need some data. I just know the docs are still not on board. However, it does appear that it is gaining traction with some deals and may be heading towards reality. Very likely anyone on orbit for a year would not do EVAs unless an emergency since someone who has had the training mroe recently would do it. Will be inetresting to see where it goes. Could be interesting for Peggy.
|
|
|
|
DarkenedOne
|
|
« Reply #24 on: 09/16/2012 09:40 PM » |
|
I think you misunderstood my statement. By changing baseline I meant the following. Lets say for Crew X on Increment 10 you had them take phosphate to reduce clacium loss. You now decide to fly that person on incrment 40 for a year but we had since found out that phosphate isn't good (don't know, making up stuff) and now they drink Mt Dew. So now you can't compre that individual to their earlier time. And lets say you are still trying to figure you what is best for a year long. Crew Y goes up and you have tweaked it to Dr. Pepper. Can you comapre those two? You have two data points with different histories so if the Pepper does better or worse, what you can learn?
But agree at some point you need some data. I just know the docs are still not on board. However, it does appear that it is gaining traction with some deals and may be heading towards reality.
Very likely anyone on orbit for a year would not do EVAs unless an emergency since someone who has had the training mroe recently would do it.
Will be inetresting to see where it goes. Could be interesting for Peggy.
First of all, I would like to point out that the risks involved in this operation are trivial compared to previous operations like Apollo. The astronauts can be continuously monitored and tested to ensure no permanent damage is done. If they are in danger of serious injury they can simply return home early. The biggest risk in my opinion is some yet undiscovered effect of micro-gravity on the human body. Astronauts on Apollo missions on the other hand did not have such an easy way out if things went wrong. Second of all, the risk adversity of NASA is one of the reasons many people think NASA is just a shadow of its former self. We have a $100 billion dollar space station at our disposal, and guess what I have not heard of any plans to replace it. We better make use of it right now as much as possible.
|
|
|
|
sdsds
|
|
« Reply #25 on: 09/16/2012 09:56 PM » |
|
The astronauts can be continuously monitored and tested to ensure no permanent damage is done.
We certainly all wish this to be true, but don't you think it might be difficult for them to test for dangers of which they are unaware?
|
|
|
|
erioladastra
|
|
« Reply #26 on: 09/17/2012 01:10 AM » |
|
I think you misunderstood my statement. By changing baseline I meant the following. Lets say for Crew X on Increment 10 you had them take phosphate to reduce clacium loss. You now decide to fly that person on incrment 40 for a year but we had since found out that phosphate isn't good (don't know, making up stuff) and now they drink Mt Dew. So now you can't compre that individual to their earlier time. And lets say you are still trying to figure you what is best for a year long. Crew Y goes up and you have tweaked it to Dr. Pepper. Can you comapre those two? You have two data points with different histories so if the Pepper does better or worse, what you can learn?
But agree at some point you need some data. I just know the docs are still not on board. However, it does appear that it is gaining traction with some deals and may be heading towards reality.
Very likely anyone on orbit for a year would not do EVAs unless an emergency since someone who has had the training mroe recently would do it.
Will be inetresting to see where it goes. Could be interesting for Peggy.
First of all, I would like to point out that the risks involved in this operation are trivial compared to previous operations like Apollo. The astronauts can be continuously monitored and tested to ensure no permanent damage is done. If they are in danger of serious injury they can simply return home early. The biggest risk in my opinion is some yet undiscovered effect of micro-gravity on the human body. Astronauts on Apollo missions on the other hand did not have such an easy way out if things went wrong.
Second of all, the risk adversity of NASA is one of the reasons many people think NASA is just a shadow of its former self. We have a $100 billion dollar space station at our disposal, and guess what I have not heard of any plans to replace it. We better make use of it right now as much as possible.
On your first point - I never said otherwise. But even then your statement is not correct. For example, search this forum and you will see a good discussion of eye problems, which may be permanent, that were not neccessarily apparent on orbit. Do these eye problems get worse over a year - we don't know what is causing it so can't say. Second, while I would generally agree NASA is risk adverse, more a reflection on the political state of our country than what most people at NASA desire, this is not the point here. The question should be - can we lern something useful and is it safe. Lets let the experts (mainly the flight docs) worry about that; just because you think so does not make it so.
|
|
|
|
Robotbeat
|
|
« Reply #27 on: 09/19/2012 02:39 PM » |
|
Spaceflight isn't safe, end of story. But launch and reentry are both more hazardous than the rest of the time spent in space combined, probably even for long-duration missions. Thus, total per-astronaut safety over a year of on-orbit time is probably /increased/ by having a year-long mission versus two 6-month missions. Is this taken into account by the flight surgeons?
|
|
|
|
STS109
|
|
« Reply #28 on: 09/19/2012 03:56 PM » |
|
I think there is alot to learn for a year long mission but wait to see the mission someone has to train for that will make them stay in orbit for as long as it takes to get to Mars then land on earth without help, set up camp, survive and then launch again. Someone will have to do this before we ever get to Mars.
|
|
|
|
erioladastra
|
|
« Reply #29 on: 09/20/2012 01:15 AM » |
|
Spaceflight isn't safe, end of story. But launch and reentry are both more hazardous than the rest of the time spent in space combined, probably even for long-duration missions. Thus, total per-astronaut safety over a year of on-orbit time is probably /increased/ by having a year-long mission versus two 6-month missions. Is this taken into account by the flight surgeons?
Unfortunately that is two different things but I see what you are trying to compare. One is direct health and you can measure that and make some estimates. Of course it is very hard to say you return alive but with some permanent problem.The launch/entry issue is purely one of probability. But you can weigh both of course.
|
|
|
|
