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

[dalekphalm]

5 hours ago, Brian McKee said:

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.

1. I agree - we do have a lot to learn from the moon. Which is why, sooner or later, we'll go back there - most likely to establish a base or a station in orbit perhaps. That in no way invalidates the incredibly valuable research they get daily with the various ongoing Mars missions.

 

2. Really... that's the best you can do? C'mon now. You can do better then that. Actually address my points, and counter or discuss them. This? This is a non-response. We're obsessed with the surface because we don't fly. Gravity is bad. Gravity kills. Relying on some sort of non-existent balloon space colony to live floating in the skies of Venus? And you're talking about Mars being a suicide mission.

 

3. And....? What's your point? Mars having a thin atmosphere does not prevent us from learning an INCREDIBLE amount of information about the history of Mars - and in the process, no doubt learning a thing or two about Earth as well. Furthermore, finding evidence of life on Mars does NOT mean finding current life on Mars. We don't expect much of anything to be left alive there - maybe some bacteria in the soil or the poles or something, at best. But we may find lots of dead life on Mars. And that would be very interesting for a number of reasons - including discovery and confirmation of extraterrestrial life.

 

There are and were a number of technical challenges about drilling down that deep into the earth - the temperature was only one challenge. Just because the ice sheet won't have the hot temperatures, does not make it a piece of cake. Yes, it can be done. It will be done. But with current technologies? Nope. The drilling itself - maybe - but all of the other support mechanisms, not to mention getting a 25KM long drill rig all the way to Europa, and having spare parts, etc - that's a way bigger undertaking than Mars is.

[dalekphalm]

5 hours ago, Brian McKee said:

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.

This statement reeks of "Hollywood" space science. Even in a pure vacuum of space, you won't die in seconds. You could literally jump out of the ISS in your undies, and live for at least 30 seconds to a minute, if not longer.

 

You're insane if you think a Venus mission is less risky. If the habitat breaches on Mars, you can patch it back up. You can design the habitat in mind with this scenario, having multiple zones, and layers to the outer hull, and the crew could wear suits that can act as an emergency pressure suit. These would be relatively easy technologies to develop.

 

If on Venus, your "lift" mechanism (Balloon, whatever) is breached. Welp. Bye bye Venus, it was good knowing you. You're correct about the pressure though - but the atmosphere is INCREDIBLY TOXIC TO HUMANS. You'd likely die a lot faster when exposed to the atmosphere of Venus, then you would being exposed to a pure vacuum, or Martian air. Not to mention the clouds made of literal acid. If the hull breached, and some of that acid cloud got inside, the astronauts could die within seconds.

 

I'm sorry, but in just about every way - technology, logistics, survivability, feasibility of mission, etc, Mars makes a much more logical target for the first planetary expedition. We'll get to Venus when we've mastered simply surviving on a desolate rock that doesn't actively try to kill us with poison acid clouds.

[Rune]

NASA is a force unlike any other. I am proud my grandfather helped assemble two of the (sadly retired) space shuttles.

[Bensemus]

There also isn't that much science to do on Venus that can't be done on Mars or Earth. We can't explore its surface really and floating in the clouds won't really reveal much that we don't know.

[Stadin6]

8 hours 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? 

They could strap it on a falcon heavy (spacex has to finish the falcon heavy in 2018 as they have  a mars mission too).

[ScratchCat]

Quote

 

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.

 

Quote button is broken.

 

Firstly where would you get you power from for a full manned mission as solar panels will not work well under cloud cover.

Secondly you couldn't use normal space solar panels as they would be dissolved by the atmosphere.

Thirdly in in order it float 50km up you would need large balloons for large upwards thrust but how would you deploy a balloon while entering the atmosphere at near orbital velocity?

[Stadin6]

4 hours ago, ScratchCat said:

Quote button is broken.

 

Firstly where would you get you power from for a full manned mission as solar panels will not work well under cloud cover.

Secondly you couldn't use normal space solar panels as they would be dissolved by the atmosphere.

Thirdly in in order it float 50km up you would need large balloons for large upwards thrust but how would you deploy a balloon while entering the atmosphere at near orbital velocity?

use rockets to slow down, kinda like the falcon 9 

[dalekphalm]

7 minutes ago, Stadin6 said:

use rockets to slow down, kinda like the falcon 9 

Yeah easier said then done. The Falcon 9 needs to use a ton of fuel to slow down, and they have a nice hard surface to stop them.

 

You'd essentially need to hover in the air.

 

Whiiiiiiich is kind of a problem on Venus. Even in the "mythical" 50KM altitude, winds speeds are between 200Km/h and 300Km/h. Good luck keeping a Falcon 9 stable in those conditions.

[Stadin6]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Yeah easier said then done. The Falcon 9 needs to use a ton of fuel to slow down, and they have a nice hard surface to stop them.

 

You'd essentially need to hover in the air.

The falcon 9 is capable of stopping without a platform to land on.

 

 

But on further thought; it cannot hover, as the minimum thrust  from a single engine is more than needed to take off 

[dalekphalm]

33 minutes ago, Stadin6 said:

The falcon 9 is capable of stopping without a platform to land on.

 

 

But on further thought; it cannot hover, as the minimum thrust  from a single engine is more than needed to take off 

It is capable of "stopping", but it needs something to land on. Whether that be a launch pad, a barge in the sea, or a parking lot.

 

You could definitely purpose build a craft with enough variable engines to allow it to fly, hover, maneuver efficiently, etc. But that would be a pretty complex craft. We'll get there of course. But damn. Venus. Yeah, not gonna happen anytime soon.

 

We use Mars as a testing ground, for when we want to be more ambitious with our planetary exploration efforts.

[skyler_mertz]

16 hours ago, Brian McKee said:

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.

Yeah, explosive decompression in space is a myth. You're going from 1 atmosphere to 0 atmosphere, the pressure change would be noticeable not fatal. Explosive decompression is more likely for scuba divers that deal with 6-7 atmospheres of pressure and the pressure chamber, used to bring them back to normal pressure, fails.

 

Check out the ByFord Dolpin Incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byford_Dolphin#Diving_bell_accident

 

On Mars, a tear, rip, or gouge in the habitat would not nearly be as explosive as it was in The Martian. Essentially it would be a rush of air out of the hole and whatever humans inside would need to suit up before they suffocate and probably patch it up with duct tape.

[Devin92]

16 hours 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.

Theres few problems with ur thought.

1. earth gravity on venus and hovering 50Km up in the air constantly with potentially killograms - tons of payload with no stable energy source? I dont even think it can be done on earth let alone on Venus. Solar energy is not reliable under thick cloud, so u need other energy supply. wind? well 200km/h of wind is quiet a lot of energy but using them is quiet challenging since you need very heavy meganetic coil. same as nuclear, heavy machine and of course accident of a nuclear leak/ bomb.

 

2. why we obsessed with ground? Its safer and more easy to expand and we dont need the energy to supply constant floating as u suggest 50km up in the air.

 

 

[ScratchCat]

2 hours ago, Stadin6 said:

use rockets to slow down, kinda like the falcon 9 

They only slow down a small bit to get thier trajectory within the atmosphere. It would need a fully fueled multistage rocket to slow down from 7000m/s 

[Brian McKee]

1 hour ago, Devin92 said:

Theres few problems with ur thought.

1. earth gravity on venus and hovering 50Km up in the air constantly with potentially killograms - tons of payload with no stable energy source? I dont even think it can be done on earth let alone on Venus. Solar energy is not reliable under thick cloud, so u need other energy supply. wind? well 200km/h of wind is quiet a lot of energy but using them is quiet challenging since you need very heavy meganetic coil. same as nuclear, heavy machine and of course accident of a nuclear leak/ bomb.

 

2. why we obsessed with ground? Its safer and more easy to expand and we dont need the energy to supply constant floating as u suggest 50km up in the air.

 

 

Oxygen is buoyant in the atmosphere of Venus. Our normal breathing air would keep us afloat.

 

You guys think this is way more complicated than it really is.

[ThinkWithPortals]

Doubt it.

[Brian McKee]

1 hour ago, skyler_mertz said:

Yeah, explosive decompression in space is a myth. You're going from 1 atmosphere to 0 atmosphere, the pressure change would be noticeable not fatal. Explosive decompression is more likely for scuba divers that deal with 6-7 atmospheres of pressure and the pressure chamber, used to bring them back to normal pressure, fails.

 

Check out the ByFord Dolpin Incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byford_Dolphin#Diving_bell_accident

 

On Mars, a tear, rip, or gouge in the habitat would not nearly be as explosive as it was in The Martian. Essentially it would be a rush of air out of the hole and whatever humans inside would need to suit up before they suffocate and probably patch it up with duct tape.

I'm saying the bigger disparity is a problem because of the harmful conditions of the outside more rapidly coming in. The closer in PSI you are the slower the leak.

[Brian McKee]

8 hours ago, ScratchCat said:

Quote button is broken.

 

Firstly where would you get you power from for a full manned mission as solar panels will not work well under cloud cover.

Secondly you couldn't use normal space solar panels as they would be dissolved by the atmosphere.

Thirdly in in order it float 50km up you would need large balloons for large upwards thrust but how would you deploy a balloon while entering the atmosphere at near orbital velocity?

I dunno but it sure sounds like an easier problem to solve than extremely low gravity, agonizing amounts of radiation or extremely toxic soil.

[Devin92]

13 minutes ago, Brian McKee said:

Oxygen is buoyant in the atmosphere of Venus. Our normal breathing air would keep us afloat.

 

You guys think this is way more complicated than it really is.

show me a example on earth that 1 ton of mass floating under earth atmosphere for extended period of time with stable ans sustainable energy supply.

[Unhelpful]

21 minutes ago, Brian McKee said:

You guys think this is way more complicated than it really is.

No... You're just drastically over-simplifying things that ARE extremely complex.

[Brian McKee]

7 minutes ago, JoeyDM said:

No... You're just drastically over-simplifying things that ARE extremely complex.

It's in comparison to Mars. Obviously it's very complex but the hurdles to a manned mission to Venus are realistically overcame, while there are SERIOUS ISSUES WITH MARS that we may never find an answer to.

 

You guys are so thick. I'm done with this conversation, I'm basically repeating myself at this point.

[Unhelpful]

Just now, Brian McKee said:

You guys are so thick. I'm done with this conversation, I'm basically repeating myself at this point.

You're repeating stupid points and making yourself look like a moron... So... No huge loss to the conversation.

[Brian McKee]

2 minutes ago, JoeyDM said:

You're repeating stupid points and making yourself look like a moron... So... No huge loss to the conversation.

It's not like I've taken these points out of my ass mind you, several scientists are pushing for manned missions to Venus and yes, even NASA is heavily considering it as an option.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Altitude_Venus_Operational_Concept

 

 

[dalekphalm]

3 minutes ago, Brian McKee said:

It's in comparison to Mars. Obviously it's very complex but the hurdles to a manned mission to Venus are realistically overcame, while there are SERIOUS ISSUES WITH MARS that we may never find an answer to.

 

You guys are so thick. I'm done with this conversation, I'm basically repeating myself at this point.

 

2 minutes ago, JoeyDM said:

You're repeating stupid points and making yourself look like a moron... So... No huge loss to the conversation.

Agreed. @Brian McKee, you haven't backed up any of your "suggestions" with reasoning or facts (or sources for said facts). You basically just keep repeating "Well duh of course Venus is easier", without justifying it.

 

We've stated multiple times over how insanely difficult it would be to get a manned mission to Venus, let alone a manned "colony" or base there. With windspeeds of over 200Km/h all the time, along with toxic acid gas clouds, and a mostly toxic atmosphere, that's not so great.

 

Mars is difficult, yes. But I don't see a single issue that we "may never find an answer to". In fact, the basics for supporting a base on Mars are pretty simple. Any system designed to work on Mars will, in principle, work on the Moon too (and vice versa) - with of course specifics for each body, but the basic setup will be pretty similar.

 

We could get a base setup on Mars in well under 10 years, if we decided to throw enough money at it. Venus on the other hand? Even with an unlimited budget, it could take 20 or 30 years to develop the technology for a SAFE AND FEASIBLE Venus base.

 

5 minutes ago, Brian McKee said:

It's not like I've taken these points out of my ass mind you, several scientists are pushing for manned missions to Venus and yes, even NASA is heavily considering it as an option.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Altitude_Venus_Operational_Concept

 

 

Err. you know that NOT ONCE has any of us said that Venus was not an eventual target, right? It is, and will be, a target for manned exploration, in time. It's just that Mars is wayyyyy easier to develop technology for, and to safely inhabit, without the risk of plummeting several dozen KM to a gruesome death.

 

Venus is a great target for eventual exploration. After we've been to Mars, and gotten some of the basic technologies needed for Venus working and ironed out.

[Brian McKee]

39 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Agreed. @Brian McKee, you haven't backed up any of your "suggestions" with reasoning or facts (or sources for said facts). You basically just keep repeating "Well duh of course Venus is easier", without justifying it.

Same for you guys for Mars, how quaint.

 

Quote

We've stated multiple times over how insanely difficult it would be to get a manned mission to Venus, let alone a manned "colony" or base there. With windspeeds of over 200Km/h all the time, along with toxic acid gas clouds, and a mostly toxic atmosphere, that's not so great.

Wind speeds aren't a huge issue unless you're tethered. Do you feel the speed of an airplane going hundreds of miles per hour?

 

Quote

We could get a base setup on Mars in well under 10 years, if we decided to throw enough money at it. Venus on the other hand? Even with an unlimited budget, it could take 20 or 30 years to develop the technology for a SAFE AND FEASIBLE Venus base.

Ok let's consider the different problems with the 2 missions:

 

Mars:

Low Gravity

Toxic Soil

Radiation

Distance (very difficult roundtrip due to significantly larger distance)

Meteors (no significant atmosphere to even stop small ones)

Oxygen

Low pressure

Temperature

 

 

 

Venus:

Sulfuric Acid

Oxygen

Water

Long term aerostats

Temperatue

Deployment from orbit

 

I dunno man I'm not seeing anything in the Venus least that would take 20-30 years to develop.

 

 

Quote

 you know that NOT ONCE has any of us said that Venus was not an eventual target, right? It is, and will be, a target for manned exploration, in time. It's just that Mars is wayyyyy easier to develop technology for, and to safely inhabit, without the risk of plummeting several dozen KM to a gruesome death.

Don't impose your own fear of falling on a mission. Gruesome death is a very real possibility for both missions, like mars not having enough fuel to get back, ionizing radiation and I'm sure other unpleasant ends.

 

Quote

 

Venus is a great target for eventual exploration. After we've been to Mars, and gotten some of the basic technologies needed for Venus working and ironed out

I'm not sure what an exploration to Mars would teach us about an exploration to Venus, considering they have very different challenges.

[Misanthrope]

Wait, only 5 meters deep? Captain? Why not drill a lot more?