You and a Mission to Mars.

[Knife]

Very well then, my challenge to you if you choose to accept is this:


With a budget of say $10 billion per year for 10 years, how would you go about putting a manned mission on Mars.

Using any off the self tech, or any currently in development.
Type of propulsion and or power source.
Any infrastructure you would have to put in place first.
How many would go and would it be perminant.
What would you do when you get there.



Note: budget is just so that one could do what he wanted without massive wasteful spending. Money can adjust so as your ideas can be brought to bare.

[NecronLord]

First build a test Ion Drive of decent power
See if it works

Then

Build ten
Add something like the ISS (though something able to take the acceleration of course)
Fission reactor
Two way landers X3
Hydroponics bay
Large video collection.
Vhs
Books
SD.Net long range version (argh think of the time delay)

[Pu-239]

Nuclear rockets. For those who don't know, this involves heating hydrogen with a nuclear reactor then spitting it out a nozzle. Screw the treaties.


Have a satellite solely dedicated to entertainment- though there won't be time for the scientists to entertain themselves anyways.

Build in earth orbit, then launch using chemical rockets, then nuclear rockets to break orbit and accelerate.

[Knife]

Nuclear rockets. For those who don't know, this involves heating hydrogen with a nuclear reactor then spitting it out a nozzle. Screw the treaties.


Have a satellite solely dedicated to entertainment- though there won't be time for the scientists to entertain themselves anyways.

Build in earth orbit, then launch using chemical rockets, then nuclear rockets to break orbit and accelerate.

Is there a treaty against this?

[Pu-239]

yeah I think there is a treaty against nuclear devices in space

[Spanky The Dolphin]

It falls under the nuclear test ban treaty.

[Exonerate]

Hmm, sounds like one of our SpaceSet (A school club) scenarios. Last time, we went all the way to the nationals, and placed first place

[Sea Skimmer]

My rocket would actually be the worlds biggest ICBM and the launch pad a super hardened silo in Peru. I'd then use the threat of its deployment to demand a bigger budget to build a massive orbital ring. After that, I'd build a ship on the lines of what NASA has purposed, they know more about it then me.

[SWPIGWANG]

Mars direct

nuff said

[Frank Hipper]

I`d embezzle the money, then fake the mission like NASA did with the moonshots!

[Knife]

Mars direct

nuff said

Good enough for one or two trips, but what if you wanted to have a perminate preasence.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

I`d embezle the money, then fake the mission like NASA did with the moonshots!

Don't even joke about that.

[Enlightenment]

Is there a treaty against this?

The nuclear test ban treaty forbids nuclear detonations in space. While the test ban treaty rules out the Orion drive AFIAK it doesn't prohibit nuclear propulsion drives that use reactors rather than nuclear bombs.

In today's (US) dollars, ten billion is nowhere near enough money for a Mars shot, particularly if NASA is going to be doing it. $100 billion is closer.

[Pu-239]

It is 100 billion, spread out over ten years though

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

For propulsion, I'd use some nuclear engines, and there goes a few billion. Such a trip would take a year, so I'd probably build something large, with ample space and an "open" feel. Perhaps constructed in space, and with enough food, water, and recycling facilities to keep the crew sustained. Perhaps wedge a greenhouse in there. Then, for entertainment, have some sattelite provide cable TV, and movies. For permanent settlement, I'd a landing craft take the crew down, like in the Apollo missoins. The ship I'm looking at would be about as big as the ISS, and cost more.

[Patrick Degan]

Nuclear rockets. For those who don't know, this involves heating hydrogen with a nuclear reactor then spitting it out a nozzle. Screw the treaties.

I do believe you're talking about NERVA. It was a system they tested in the 60s and it was projected to be able to deliver twice the ISP of a Saturn V first-stage. Looked very promising. But it wasn't the Outer Space Treaty (1968) which killed NERVA but budget cuts. NERVA didn't violate the terms of the OST the way Orion did.

Build in earth orbit, then launch using chemical rockets, then nuclear rockets to break orbit and accelerate.

Actually, with NERVA, you wouldn't have to worry about radioactive byproduct from the drive. But ion drives would be better for a direct transit.

My own programme would follow somewhat upon the idea of first sending unmanned supply rockets to Mars, followed by unmanned craft which would deliver tanker rockets either to the Martian surface or one of the two moons to harvest water ice for fuel for the return trip. These would be followed by unmanned landing craft which would be programmed for Mars orbit. These could also be carrying out orbital surveys of the surface and provide updated data every day.

The second phase would obviously be the main mission —a fleet of manned craft (about six), crews of ten for each ship. The ships would be nuclear powered, with rotational sections providing 1/3rd gravity, and equipped with ion engines to make a direct transit feasible, which would cut the flight time to 180-270 days each way. The ships would rely on hydroponics for both food and oxygen replenishment in addition to on-board consummables.

The ships would be in close formation to allow for exchange of personnel, who would be rotated on a regular basis. In this way, cabin-fever would be somewhat allieviated, and recreational down-times of several days duration could be programmed into the mission profile. The extra personnel also provides a degree of redundancy to ensure that the mission succeeds in getting people to the surface to conduct a proper survey and takes possible losses of units into account.

In this way, a multistage mission effort would succeed with the least risk of physical and psychological degredation to the personnel involved, with resources on hand at the destination for the return trip, and could be executed within a two-year timeframe.

This idea is somewhat based upon a Mars-exploration concept developed by Wehrner VonBraun and Willy Ley for NASA in the late-50s. If you've ever seen Ink & Paint Club on Disney, you might have run across a film titled Mars And Beyond. The first half delves into a comical review of various ideas about the planets from previous centuries and includes a vicious but funny parody of the science fiction films of the period, then moves on to a more serious discussion about life on other planets before climaxing with a depiction of the VonBraun/Ley Mars mission (I believe the space artist Chestley Bonestell had some involvement in the prodution). But the mission concept was a rather farsighted one for the period and I think could be adaptable for a real mission to the Red Planet.

[Knife]

Nuclear rockets. For those who don't know, this involves heating hydrogen with a nuclear reactor then spitting it out a nozzle. Screw the treaties.

I do believe you're talking about NERVA. It was a system they tested in the 60s and it was projected to be able to deliver twice the ISP of a Saturn V first-stage. Looked very promising. But it wasn't the Outer Space Treaty (1968) which killed NERVA but budget cuts. NERVA didn't violate the terms of the OST the way Orion did.

Build in earth orbit, then launch using chemical rockets, then nuclear rockets to break orbit and accelerate.

Actually, with NERVA, you wouldn't have to worry about radioactive byproduct from the drive. But ion drives would be better for a direct transit.

My own programme would follow somewhat upon the idea of first sending unmanned supply rockets to Mars, followed by unmanned craft which would deliver tanker rockets either to the Martian surface or one of the two moons to harvest water ice for fuel for the return trip. These would be followed by unmanned landing craft which would be programmed for Mars orbit. These could also be carrying out orbital surveys of the surface and provide updated data every day.

The second phase would obviously be the main mission —a fleet of manned craft (about six), crews of ten for each ship. The ships would be nuclear powered, with rotational sections providing 1/3rd gravity, and equipped with ion engines to make a direct transit feasible, which would cut the flight time to 180-270 days each way. The ships would rely on hydroponics for both food and oxygen replenishment in addition to on-board consummables.

The ships would be in close formation to allow for exchange of personnel, who would be rotated on a regular basis. In this way, cabin-fever would be somewhat allieviated, and recreational down-times of several days duration could be programmed into the mission profile. The extra personnel also provides a degree of redundancy to ensure that the mission succeeds in getting people to the surface to conduct a proper survey and takes possible losses of units into account.

In this way, a multistage mission effort would succeed with the least risk of physical and psychological degredation to the personnel involved, with resources on hand at the destination for the return trip, and could be executed within a two-year timeframe.

This idea is somewhat based upon a Mars-exploration concept developed by Wehrner VonBraun and Willy Ley for NASA in the late-50s. If you've ever seen Ink & Paint Club on Disney, you might have run across a film titled Mars And Beyond. The first half delves into a comical review of various ideas about the planets from previous centuries and includes a vicious but funny parody of the science fiction films of the period, then moves on to a more serious discussion about life on other planets before climaxing with a depiction of the VonBraun/Ley Mars mission (I believe the space artist Chestley Bonestell had some involvement in the prodution). But the mission concept was a rather farsighted one for the period and I think could be adaptable for a real mission to the Red Planet.

Sounds alot like Mars direct.

[neoolong]

My idea, let it be known that with my billions I will be sending some very hot chicks on the long ride to Mars. Then I will let the lonely engineer build the ships necessary. Then I will send them in one with some KFC hot and spicy of course, while I load my ship with the hot chicks and fly to Mars.

Seriously, I would try to contract out and see what NASA would come up with. With that kind of bank roll they would probably be willing to come up with something better than what I could. Though, it may involve a stopover at the new base on the moon. Just cause I always wanted a personal moon base on the moon. Yes, moon bases are cool.

Okay, really ion drives seem the most feasible with a combo of dry food stuffs and some hydroponics. I would also have multiple ships specialized as crew areas, food storage, etc. These would of course be able to dock with each other and there would be multiples in the case of accident.

[Pu-239]

Space travel should be privatized and commercialized

[Enlightenment]

Space travel should be privatized and commercialized

The only reason space has not been developed commercially beyond GEO is a lack of economic incentive. Find some way to make a profit by doing X in space and sooner or later the capitalists will crawling over eachother to get a piece of the action.