NASA Will Re-Launch its 2016 Mars Mission in 2018 !!!

[givingtnt]

ITS OFFICIAL ! 2018 mars here we come !  

 

(mind you this is a "reschedual" of the mission)

 

Quote

In December 2015, we learned the disappointing news that NASA’s InSight lander – a mission to probe the innards of Mars – had been delayed from launching in March 2016 due to a fault.

Quote

But now for some good news: NASA has given the green light for the mission to launch in May 2018, amid some concerns that the mission could be canceled following the delay. The revised timeline will see the mission launch no earlier than May 5, 2018, arriving at Mars almost seven months later on November 26.

InSight (Interior Exploration using Seismic Investigations Geodesy and Heat Transport) is a stationary lander that will drill 5 meters (16 feet) beneath the surface to measure the temperature of Mars and study the subsurface region. This will increase our understanding not only of Mars, but also how other rocky planets form and evolve, too.

 

 

Quote

The mission was initially delayed when a vacuum leak was discovered in one of its instruments

 

this is great news ! its not a man on mars yet. but it is something   and its something quite big !

 

Source : http://www.iflscience.com/space/nasa-next-mission-to-mars-will-launch-in-2018/
 

[TheSephirothh]

I'll be graduating the year they launch that  I hope I can get a job there or SpaceX. It's really exciting stuff!

[potoooooooo]

1 hour ago, TheSephirothh said:

I'll be graduating the year they launch that  I hope I can get a job there or SpaceX. It's really exciting stuff!

You get the choice of either slow bureaucratic underfunded mess or 80 hour work weeks

[Master Disaster]

Well I'll stick my hand up and admit to flat out disbelieving this would happen before 2020, I've even said so on these boards a few times in the past. 

 

Did NASA play NMS and hire Sean Murray as head of Media Relations? /jk

 

How exactly do they plan on building the ship in 18 months? 

[Slyhawk]

This is pretty cool maybe in the next 50-70 years we could have semi-affordable space travel.

[FPSwithaWacomTablet]

Inb4 Aldnoah Zero happens... Or DOOM

[Vode]

 

[BuckGup]

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

Well I'll stick my hand up and admit to flat out disbelieving this would happen before 2020, I've even said so on these boards a few times in the past. 

 

Did NASA play NMS and hire Sean Murray as head of Media Relations? /jk

 

How exactly do they plan on building the ship in 18 months? 

NASA never fails to amaze me. Working off 1% of the militaries budget in stupidly tight time frames

[Brian McKee]

I'm not sure what the never ending fascination with Mars is. It's a dead rock that never had much potential to begin with. I wish they'd put more resources into more promising en devours like moon bases, probing subsurface oceans of the various moons around our solar system or a dedicated mission to learning more about the weather patterns on Titan.

 

It's hard to get excited about this red ball.

[normpearii]

5 minutes ago, Brian McKee said:

I'm not sure what the never ending fascination with Mars is. It's a dead rock that never had much potential to begin with. I wish they'd put more resources into more promising en devours like moon bases, probing subsurface oceans of the various moons around our solar system or a dedicated mission to learning more about the weather patterns on Titan.

 

It's hard to get excited about this red ball.

It would be a good candidate to start development of terraforming technologies that we'd need if we plan to go outside the solar system in the future. (Assuming we don't kill each other into extinction first of course.) 

Plus is much easier to do human missions to a harsh Mar Environment, than say Venus... 

[Brian McKee]

Just now, normpearii said:

It would be a good candidate to start development of terraforming technologies that we'd need if we plan to go outside the solar system in the future. (Assuming we don't kill each other into extinction first of course.)

We don't have the tech to terraform, and even if we did Venus is a better candidate just for the gravity issue alone.

[normpearii]

2 minutes ago, normpearii said:

It would be a good candidate to start development of terraforming technologies that we'd need if we plan to go outside the solar system in the future. (Assuming we don't kill each other into extinction first of course.) 

 

[Brian McKee]

2 minutes ago, normpearii said:

Plus is much easier to do human missions to a harsh Mar Environment, than say Venus... 

You're wrong. While surface missions to Venus are near impossible, about 50km into the atmosphere is perfect atmospheric pressure and manageable temps. Not to mention that the gravity on Venus is very close to that of Earth so you won't get deformed staying there too long.

 

Mars is incredibly inhospitable, and it'd be most certainly a one way trip that'll end in your death.

[Brian McKee]

1 minute ago, normpearii said:

 

Again even if terraforming is the goal Mars is simply a bad candidate.

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

Well I'll stick my hand up and admit to flat out disbelieving this would happen before 2020, I've even said so on these boards a few times in the past. 

 

Did NASA play NMS and hire Sean Murray as head of Media Relations? /jk

 

How exactly do they plan on building the ship in 18 months? 

I'm not exactly sure what you mean... They're sending another Probe to Mars, not a ship with people inside it. Honestly, this is just a normal part of the current Mars exploration efforts.

5 minutes ago, Brian McKee said:

I'm not sure what the never ending fascination with Mars is. It's a dead rock that never had much potential to begin with. I wish they'd put more resources into more promising en devours like moon bases, probing subsurface oceans of the various moons around our solar system or a dedicated mission to learning more about the weather patterns on Titan.

 

It's hard to get excited about this red ball.

There are many reasons to get excited (and to go to) Mars.

1. It's a stepping stone to other planets in our solar system. This allows proof of concept designs that can be expanded and tested farther out in the edges of the system.

2. Mars is in the habitable zone of the sun. A few billion years ago, it might have looked very much like Earth.

3. There's water on Mars (albeit, frozen water). There was once liquid flowing rivers and oceans - the evidence for this is already confirmed. Where there is water, there is the potential for life.

 

We'll get to those outer planets, but this is the most realistic planetary exploration we're gonna get for the time being.

[normpearii]

5 minutes ago, Brian McKee said:

You're wrong. While surface missions to Venus are near impossible, about 50km into the atmosphere is perfect atmospheric pressure and manageable temps. Not to mention that the gravity on Venus is very close to that of Earth so you won't get deformed staying there too long.

 

Mars is incredibly inhospitable, and it'd be most certainly a one way trip that'll end in your death.

Well if you want to do counter arguments. We don't currently have the tech to reliably stay suspended at a certain altitude in cloud cover where Solar Power Sources are useless. 

Much easier to setup shop on solid ground on a planet that has frozen water on the surface.

Plus, when the Sun expands. Venus will be engulfed before the Earth. Thus Mars makes a much better place to evacuated to while preparing to move an entire civilization to a different solar system if the time comes.

[Brian McKee]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I'm not exactly sure what you mean... They're sending another Probe to Mars, not a ship with people inside it. Honestly, this is just a normal part of the current Mars exploration efforts.

There are many reasons to get excited (and to go to) Mars.

1. It's a stepping stone to other planets in our solar system. This allows proof of concept designs that can be expanded and tested farther out in the edges of the system.

2. Mars is in the habitable zone of the sun. A few billion years ago, it might have looked very much like Earth.

3. There's water on Mars (albeit, frozen water). There was once liquid flowing rivers and oceans - the evidence for this is already confirmed. Where there is water, there is the potential for life.

 

We'll get to those outer planets, but this is the most realistic planetary exploration we're gonna get for the time being.

1. The moon is a much better stepping stone if the goal is surviving harsh conditions. 

 

2. So is Venus.

 

3. There's water on the moon too. Lots of it. There's almost no hope for life on mars, and if the intention is to look for life they'd be better off looking at Titan, Enceledus or Europa.

[Brian McKee]

2 minutes ago, normpearii said:

Well if you want to do counter arguments. We don't have the tech to reliably stay suspended at a certain altitude in cloud cover where Solar Power Sources are useless. 

Much easier to setup shop on solid ground on a planet that has frozen water on the surface.

It's called balloons, we've had them for a long time my friend.

 

It's a much easier problem than super low gravity for long periods of time.

[normpearii]

1 minute ago, Brian McKee said:

It's called balloons, we've had them for a long time my friend.

In an acidic atmosphere?

Good luck with that.


We're significantly better prepared for landing on the surface of Mars in the near future than floating in the atmosphere of Venus.

[Brian McKee]

Just now, normpearii said:

In an acidic atmosphere?

Good luck with that.

Are you implying we can't easily create or already have a suitable material for sulfuric acid?

[dalekphalm]

6 minutes ago, Brian McKee said:

You're wrong. While surface missions to Venus are near impossible, about 50km into the atmosphere is perfect atmospheric pressure and manageable temps. Not to mention that the gravity on Venus is very close to that of Earth so you won't get deformed staying there too long.

 

Mars is incredibly inhospitable, and it'd be most certainly a one way trip that'll end in your death.

 

1 minute ago, Brian McKee said:

It's called balloons, we've had them for a long time my friend.

 

It's a much easier problem than super low gravity for long periods of time.

No offense, but in an ALREADY extremely hostile environment (Whether that be Venus, Mars, or any other planet besides Earth), we try to minimize the risks and lower the complexities, if possible. Have a floating suspended "habitat" is way overly complicated. Too much potential for catastrophic failure.

 

On Mars, if you have a habitat breach, everyone can (in theory) suit up, and reseal the hab. On Venus, if your flotation device fails... well you're fucked - good knowing you.

[Brian McKee]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

 

No offense, but in an ALREADY extremely hostile environment (Whether that be Venus, Mars, or any other planet besides Earth), we try to minimize the risks and lower the complexities, if possible. Have a floating suspended "habitat" is way overly complicated. Too much potential for catastrophic failure.

 

On Mars, if you have a habitat breach, everyone can (in theory) suit up, and reseal the hab. On Venus, if your flotation device fails... well you're fucked - good knowing you.

Sorry but a Venus mission is far less risky and far less complex than a mars one. For example, your habitat breach. Due the atmospheric pressure being 1 to 1 with the inside of the cabin there would be absolutely no explosive decompression and the holes can easily be repaired with almost no risk to the inhabitants because it'd be a slow leak.

 

Mars on the other hand would probably kill you in seconds.

[dalekphalm]

6 minutes ago, Brian McKee said:

1. The moon is a much better stepping stone if the goal is surviving harsh conditions. 

 

2. So is Venus.

 

3. There's water on the moon too. Lots of it. There's almost no hope for life on mars, and if the intention is to look for life they'd be better off looking at Titan, Enceledus or Europa.

1. Yes it is. We've been there. It was fun. We're moving onto the more challenging task of a deep space mission (Deep space compared to the relatively easy trip to the Moon). I fully believe that we'll have a Lunar Colony before a Mars one though.

 

2. Yep. But the surface is inhospitable, and we'd need to float in the air. Not great. Mars is easier. Once we conquer Mars, we can move onto Venus.

 

3. The moon has NEVER had an Atmosphere. Evidence suggest Mars may have had a very earth-like atmosphere, oxygen and all once. It just got sand-blasted into space by the power of the SUN because it's Magnetic Field wasn't strong enough (or collapsed, depending on the theory).

 

Also, places like Europa, etc, with sub-surface oceans. We're a LONG WAY off of getting to those.

 

The ice sheet on Europa is estimated to be between 15 and 20 KM thick. The deepest hole we've EVER DRILLED was less than 15KM. On earth. Where it's pretty easy (and, you know, spare parts).

 

Getting through that Ice Sheet is possible, but will require years of planning and scientific and technological advancements. We'll get there. But Mars is a practical and realistic stepping stone first.

[Brian McKee]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

1. Yes it is. We've been there. It was fun. We're moving onto the more challenging task of a deep space mission (Deep space compared to the relatively easy trip to the Moon). I fully believe that we'll have a Lunar Colony before a Mars one though.

 

2. Yep. But the surface is inhospitable, and we'd need to float in the air. Not great. Mars is easier. Once we conquer Mars, we can move onto Venus.

 

3. The moon has NEVER had an Atmosphere. Evidence suggest Mars may have had a very earth-like atmosphere, oxygen and all once. It just got sand-blasted into space by the power of the SUN because it's Magnetic Field wasn't strong enough (or collapsed, depending on the theory).

 

Also, places like Europa, etc, with sub-surface oceans. We're a LONG WAY off of getting to those.

 

The ice sheet on Europa is estimated to be between 15 and 20 KM thick. The deepest hole we've EVER DRILLED was less than 15KM. On earth. Where it's pretty easy (and, you know, spare parts).

 

Getting through that Ice Sheet is possible, but will require years of planning and scientific and technological advancements. We'll get there. But Mars is a practical and realistic stepping stone first.

1. We still have a lot to learn from the moon and it'll minimize risks to human life. Not everything has to be a dickwaving show of human accomplishment for a suicide mission.

 

2. Why the obsession with the surface?

 

3. And now it's atmosphere is so thin it might as well not exist. 

 

To your point about depth, you can't compare it to earth because it's entirely different. We couldn't dig deeper on earth due to EXTREMELY HOT TEMPERATURES MELTING THE TOOLS. We could easily get through the ice, we have the tech as it is.

[pit5000]

i'm waiting for 2020!

NASA, Roscosmos/ESA and the Chinese are all launching Mars rovers. India and UAE are launching another Mars orbiters.