Пилотируемая экспедиция на Марс

[Valerij]

Тем не менее, если не случится ничего экстраординарного, то кто-то из америкосов начнет реализацию концепции полета в один конец, причем, вероятно, еще до 2020 года.

Бред сумасшедшего

Реализация концепции - это примерно то же, что и "подготовка к подготовительныи работам по строительству космодрома Восточный" :lol:

Реализация концепции - это процесс. Результат которого - человек на Марсе. Например, Маск говорит о том, что через 20 лет отправит человека на Марс. Но пока не говорит подробно о том, как он это собирается сделать.

З.Ы.
Поскольку в данном случае речь идет о конкретной концепции, то я должен сразу сказать, что ни Маск, и ни кто другой не заявлял официально о том, что собирается реализовать концепцию колонизации Марса "полетом в один конец". Деталей, как Маск собирается отправлять человека на Марс у меня нет.

З.З.Ы.
Я не являюсь сторонником концепции "полета в один конец". Я просто считаю, что эта концепция (или ее ключевые элементы) будут кем-то реализованы.

Примерно так.

[Parf]

Это всё верно. И, учитывая реальную остроту проблемы, именно сюда страны должны вбухивать деньги, а не в управляемый термояд.

Угу... А летать так и будем педальным приводом. Зато с кучей грядок на буксире. Что за маньячество? Вес Вы так точно не сэкономите, так зачем?
А термояд -- ключ к системе. И не только к внутренним планетам. Когда он реально появиться -- всё то что сейчас -- будет мышиная возня. Хоть с грядками, хоть без.

Управляемый термояд (равно как и добыча ресурсов на астероидах или, скажем, глобальное потепление) относится к проблемам, важность которых "асимптотически растёт". То есть, независимо от текущей важности проблемы, рано или поздно нам неизбежно придётся ею заняться. Замкнутые и "почти замкнутые" СЖО - это немного другое. Это то, что надо было делать "ещё вчера", учитывая, что сельское хозяйство в его нынешнем виде (родившемся во время неолитической революции 9 тысяч лет назад) уже не справляется с ростом населения Земли. Космонавтика пока что - лишь интересное побочное применение и стимул для развития.

Раз уж я открыл тему про управляемый термояд, придётся и про замкнутые СЖО открыть.

P.S. Ура, я тысячнег!

[Дмитрий Виницкий]

Потребность в ПИ с астероидов прямо пропорциональна вашему ламерству.
Осуществимость УТС в экономически приемлимых формах - тоже. Глобальное потепление - ещё более призрачная отрасль, но более рентабельная у качестве кормушки для чиновников и азайцевых.
Как раз вкупе, как общение с инопланетянами по радио.
Учитесь!

[Parf]

Потребность в ПИ с астероидов прямо пропорциональна вашему ламерству.
Осуществимость УТС в экономически приемлимых формах - тоже. Глобальное потепление - ещё более призрачная отрасль, но более рентабельная у качестве кормушки для чиновников и азайцевых.
Как раз вкупе, как общение с инопланетянами по радио.
Учитесь!

Мне даже неинтересно вам объяснять, что такое асимптотический рост (кстати говоря, экспоненциальный). Вы уверены, что через 1000 лет мы не будем возить ресурсы с астероидов и использовать УТС? С вероятностью 99,99999% таки будем. :wink:

[Дмитрий Виницкий]

Насчет УТС не скажу, но на Землю 1000% возить не будем.

[LG]

Потребность в ПИ с астероидов прямо пропорциональна вашему ламерству.
Осуществимость УТС в экономически приемлимых формах - тоже. Глобальное потепление - ещё более призрачная отрасль, но более рентабельная у качестве кормушки для чиновников и азайцевых.
Как раз вкупе, как общение с инопланетянами по радио.
Учитесь!

Мне даже неинтересно вам объяснять, что такое асимптотический рост (кстати говоря, экспоненциальный). Вы уверены, что через 1000 лет мы не будем возить ресурсы с астероидов и использовать УТС? С вероятностью 99,99999% таки будем. :wink:

С вероятностью 99,99999% не будем возить ресурсы ниоткуда и никогда
Я бы сказал наоборот. Если рассматривать уж очень дальнюю перспективу то проблема будет не в том как доставлять на Землю ресурсы а в том как удалять с Земли отходы жизнедеятельности людей.

[Олигарх]

В "Независимой газете" опубликована 3-я или 4-я за последние несколько недель однотипная статья Юрия Караша, который, очевидно J)) является PR-менеджером РКК Энергия, про пилотируемую экспедицию к Марсу:

МАРС: РОССИЯ К 2014-МУ ИЛИ АМЕРИКА ПОСЛЕ 2030-ГО?
http://www.ng.ru/science/2004-12-22/13_mars.html

++++++++++++
Несколько фрагментов этой статьи:

... Все эти требования в совокупности определили профиль российской миссии к Марсу. Ее название – «Марсианская пилотируемая орбитальная станция» (МАРПОСТ). Этот вариант рассматривается специалистами Ракетно-космической корпорации (РКК) «Энергия» с октября 2000 года.
Напомним, что проект МАРПОСТ предполагает полет к Марсу орбитальной станции с экипажем из четырех человек. На поверхность планеты спустятся не люди, а автоматические аппараты, которые будут управляться космонавтами с борта околомарсианского комплекса. Через месяц после начала исследований, роботы доставят на борт МАРПОСТ образцы марсианского грунта, после чего станция возьмет курс на Землю и, достигнув ее орбиты, станет работать там, как ранее – «Мир» или Международная космическая станция (МКС).
Общее время полета по маршруту Земля–Марс–Земля – 2,5 года. После смены экипажа – очередной «вояж» к Красной планете, возможно, с пристыкованным взлетно-посадочным модулем, предназначенным для высадки десанта на поверхность Марса. Такую машину в рамках кооперации с Россией могли бы изготовить, например, Европа или США.
...
 «Мы адаптировали марсианский комплекс под ракету-носитель «Протон», так что теперь для вывода элементов станции общей массой около 500 тонн на орбиту Земли нам потребуется не более 25 пусков этого многократно испытанного и надежного носителя», – отметил в беседе с корреспондентом «НГ» заместитель генерального конструктора РКК Николай Брюханов.
...
Названа дата, когда МАРПОСТ может выйти на марсианскую орбиту. Это – 2014 год, задолго до того, как США, Европа или Китай смогут даже приблизиться к достижению подобной цели. Стоимость осуществления проекта – не более 14 млрд. долларов. Таким образом, ежегодные траты на него составят около 1,4 млрд. долларов в год. Это почти в три раза превышает нынешний годовой бюджет Федерального космического агентства. Но если учесть, что совокупный инновационно-технический и политический потенциал МАРПОСТ в несколько раз больше того, который заложен в проект всей «Федеральной космической программы на 2006–2015 годы», то затраты на марсианскую станцию, безусловно, окупятся.
«Стоимость проекта, включая сроки его осуществления, взяты не с потолка, – подчеркивает один из ведущих проектантов РКК профессор Леонид Горшков. – Эти цифры были точно определены конструкторским бюро в результате всесторонней технической и экономической проработки МАРПОСТ и на основании анализа инженерно-конструкторских и производственных возможностей отечественной космической отрасли».
...
Отсюда вывод: объединить усилия допустимо, но лишь тогда, когда Россия сможет внести в совместный марсианский проект вклад равновеликий с технологической точки зрения американскому, иначе она невольно окажется в положении «подмастерья» без каких-либо перспектив выйти в «мастера».
Итак, Марс: Россия к 2014 году, Америка после 2030 года. Обратный отсчет времени начался. У обеих стран примерно одинаковые технологические возможности в области создания пилотируемой космической техники. На стороне Америки – деньги. У России их меньше, но на ее стороне – жизненно важная необходимость вывести свои ключевые научно-технические отрасли из состояния стагнации, а также восстановить авторитет передовой индустриально-технологической державы. Какой из этих специфических факторов – российский или американский – окажется весомее, станет ясно уже в будущем году.
+++++++++++++++

Я с уважением отношусь к товарищам Брюханову, Горшкову и Andy_64k, но должен заявить:
проект экспедиции к Марсу у предприятия транспортного машиностроения РКК Энергия надо отобрать!

Точнее, РКК Энергия должна быть основным исполнителем этого проекта, но не его инициатором!

У этого проекта, очевидно, никогда не было настоящего (внешнего!) заказчика, инициатора.
Если я ошибаюсь, приведите институты (ИКИ? ГЕОХИ? ...) и ученых, которые были заказчиками и определили такие странные характеристики проекта.

1-я странная характеристика – почти полное отсутствие научной программы. А ведь это много определяет в самом КК, траектории его полета, в частности характер орбиты вокруг Марса.
Это может быть круговая, низкая 500 км, или эллиптическая типа 500-300000 км с периодом обращения около 3-4 недель. В последнем случае скорость КК относительно Марса близка ко 2-й космической, значит относительно небольшие затраты топлива нужны для выхода и схода с этой орбиты. Значит, масса КК на LEO после сборки будет существенно меньше, чем в случае его выхода на круговую, низкую вокруг Марса.

2-я странная характеристика – это многоразовость КК. Это межпланетный круизный лайнер!
Нужно ли это ученым? Кто из них это требовал?
Риторический вопрос.
Кажется, до пожара J)) в такой же теме, открытой V.B., 'Участник проекта' на вопрос о многоразовости ответил примерно так:
Этот КК основан на технологиях РС МКС, для которого достигнут срок использования 15 лет! Мы не собираемся от этого отказываться!

Но даже если ученые и возжелают эту многоразовость, насколько она реальна?
Я только что прочитал книгу Юрия Усачева о его трех длительных полетах (рекомендую всем!) на Мире и МКС. Боюсь, что о 15 годах использования можно говорить только для LEO, когда экипаж можно всегда эвакуировать и/или быстро подбросить запасные части, оказать помощь.
В межпланетном полете на это рассчитывть нельзя и ... Думаю, что РКК Энергия выдает желаемое за действительность.
Отказ от многоразовости позволяет отправить на траекторию Марс-Земля не весь КК, а корабль прибытия на МЭК/возвращения на Землю + пара жилых блоков по 20 тонн.
   

3-я странная характеристика – продолжительность 2,5 года (около 900 суток!). Иногда говорили о примерно 2-х годах. Насколько я помню, искусственной гравитации не предполагается, то есть только невесомость.
Межпланетная экспедиция – не место, где ставить рекорды продолжительности полета. Значит, сначала надо дойти до этих 2,5 лет на LEO! Вспомним, как долго наши шли к 415 суткам Полякова – 96, 140, 175, 211, 240, 326, 366, 415 суток и я, кажется, некоторые полеты пропустил. Если идти с шагом 2-3 месяца, то потребуются полеты по 500, 560, 650, 730 (2 года!), 800, 900 суток! И не факт, что до 900 или даже 730 дойдет! Причем, очевидно, что между полетами придется делать перерывы для анализа и осмысления и принятия решения о следующем рекордном полете, как так и было раньше.
Но даже если попробовать с искусственной гравитацией, с вращением, то на отработку проблем с ней на LEO уйдет времени, наверное, не меньше.

А Караш/РКК Энергия говорит о 2014 годе ... L(((
Кстати, они стоимость этих полетов отнесли к стоимости экспедиции, хотя бы частично?

Постановку марсианской пилотируемой экспедиции у специалистов транспортного машиностроения надо отбирать!

А нужна ли эта экспедиция?
Даже если организовать правильную постановку и грамотный promotion?
Гарантий дать не могу, но предполагаю, что да, даже с учетом всех основных, нетехнических возражений! Но это отдельная большая тема.

Пора переходить к более длительным полетам на МКС, в том числе и в интересах экспедиций к Марсу.
В таких полетах должны принимать участие врачи, поэтому заслуживает внимания экипаж с Поповым и Рязанским. Но срок им назначили стандартный.
Я предлагаю увеличить его в три раза, а гонорар за такой полет в 4-5 раз ...

[LG]

Олигарх писал(а):

Пора переходить к более длительным полетам на МКС, в том числе и в интересах экспедиций к Марсу.

Я кстати давно про это говорю. Надо плавно увеличивать длительность экспедиций - с нынешних 150-160 суток до 240-300 и более для отдельных членов экипажей экспедиций.

В таких полетах должны принимать участие врачи, поэтому заслуживает внимания экипаж с Поповым и Рязанским. Но срок им назначили стандартный.

Наверно не Попов а Поляков Валерий Владимирович. И никакого виртуального Рязанского.

Вале
рий Влади
мирович Поляко
в (род. 27 апреля 1942 года в Туле, СССР) — лётчик-космонавт СССР, Герой Советского Союза и Герой России (один из 4 человек, удостоенных обоих званий), инструктор-космонавт-исследователь отряда космонавтов ГНЦ ИМБП. 66-й космонавт СССР и России, 207-й космонавт мира. Обладатель мирового рекорда самого длительного полёта в космос (437 суток и 18 часов).

Первый космический полет совершил с 29 августа 1988 по 27 апреля 1989 г. в качестве первого космонавта-исследователя ТК «Союз ТМ-6» вместе с В. А. Ляховым и А.Ахадом Момандом по программе ЭП-З, а также в составе ЭО-З вместе с B.А. Титовым и M.X. Манаровым и ЭО-4 вместе с А. А. Волковым, С. К. Крикалевым и Ж.-Л.Кретьеном (Франция). Позывной: «Протон-2», «Донбасс-3». Длительность полета 240 суток 23 часа 35 минут 49 секунд.

За успешное осуществление длительного космического полета В. В. Полякову присвоено звание Героя Советского Союза (1989), с вручением ордена Ленина и медали «Золотая Звезда». Он также удостоен звания Героя Республики Афганистан с вручением ордена «Солнце Свободы» (1988, ДРА), и награждён орденом Почётного легиона (1989, Франция).

С 8 января 1994 по 22 марта 1995 совершил второй космический полёт в качестве врача-космонавта-исследователя на космическом корабле «Союз ТМ-18» и орбитальном комплексе «Мир» продолжительностью 437 суток 18 часов. Это является абсолютным рекордом продолжительности работы в космосе за один полёт. За успешное осуществление полёта 10 апреля 1995 года ему присвоено звание Героя России.

В течение двух орбитальных полетов, провел в космосе 678 суток 16 часов и 34 минуты. По этому показателю Поляков уступает лишь двум людям в истории — Сергею Крикалёву (804 дня) и Сергею Авдееву (747 дней).

По профессии — врач, доктор медицинских наук, профессор, старший лейтенант медицинской службы запаса.

[Старый]

Надо плавно увеличивать длительность экспедиций - с нынешних 150-160 суток до 240-300 и более для отдельных членов экипажей экспедиций.

Как? Опять???  :shock:

[LG]

Надо плавно увеличивать длительность экспедиций - с нынешних 150-160 суток до 240-300 и более для отдельных членов экипажей экспедиций.

Как? Опять???  :shock:

:?:

[Старый]

Надо плавно увеличивать длительность экспедиций - с нынешних 150-160 суток до 240-300 и более для отдельных членов экипажей экспедиций.

Как? Опять???  :shock:

:?:

Ну уже ж летали и по 240 дней и по году и больше.

[Bell]

Надо плавно увеличивать длительность экспедиций - с нынешних 150-160 суток до 240-300 и более для отдельных членов экипажей экспедиций.

Вероятно, чтобы уменьшить еще вдвое число ежегодных полетов ПТК, чтоб делать его многоразовым стало совсем невыгодно. Тонкий ход!

[Старый]

Надо плавно увеличивать длительность экспедиций - с нынешних 150-160 суток до 240-300 и более для отдельных членов экипажей экспедиций.

Вероятно, чтобы уменьшить еще вдвое число ежегодных полетов ПТК, чтоб делать его многоразовым стало совсем невыгодно. Тонкий ход!

Банальнее. Чтобы освободить места в Союзах для туристов.

[LG]

Надо плавно увеличивать длительность экспедиций - с нынешних 150-160 суток до 240-300 и более для отдельных членов экипажей экспедиций.

Как? Опять???  :shock:

:?:

Ну уже ж летали и по 240 дней и по году и больше.

Для начала - надо подтвердить что это не Поляков был уникальным челом а любой подготовленный чел долетит до Марса и главное вернет карапь обратно.
Нужно пребывание чела в космосе где-то 2 года.
А при посадке надо возложить на него обязанности командира Союза.

[pkl]

Поддерживаю. Было бы здорово повторить "Марс-500" на МКС - связь с такими же задержками. И, вероятно, расширить объём и количество экспериментов с живностью.

[Старый]

Поддерживаю. Было бы здорово повторить "Марс-500" на МКС - связь с такими же задержками. И, вероятно, расширить объём и количество экспериментов с живностью.

А главное - места этих товарищей в Союзах занять туристами.  

[Valerij]

Нашел еще одну сборную статью по теме:

Journal of Cosmology, 2011, Vol 13, 4121-4130.
 JournalofCosmology.com, January 2011

Why We Must Go To Mars[/size]


  1.  The Beckoning Red Dot in the Sky[/size]
 Shirin Haque, Ph.D.
 Astronomer, University of the West Indies

Recently, I was on the island of Dominica in the Caribbean, roaming the country sides with its mountainous terrain and undeveloped regions -- waterfalls, rivers and forests, pristine in their conditions for maybe thousands of years. As I stared from the northern coast I could just make out the faint outline of another island up ahead. My map told me I was staring at the island of Guadeloupe -- but all I could think of was how Christopher Columbus would have felt to see the similar outline I saw and knowing there was land there unexplored yet. "Land ahoy" indeed!!

 So too I look up at the pale red dot in the sky and think "planet ahoy!". The reason often perpetuated, for climbing a mountain by those who do it, is because it is there. It is a human instinct in us to explore, discover and often conquer with sometimes disastrous effects to the prized jewel we found.

 One of the most thrilling moments of my life with no regrets, was flying over a volcano on the island of Montserrat to record a documentary. The doors of the helicopter were open and the stench of the sulphurous emissions from the volcano stung our noses as the helicopter did its dives. It was scary, but what a rush! Every neuron in my body was firing. It is what it means to feel alive. Going to Mars is an adventure that beckons similarly.

 The human spirit of adventure and exploration of the unknown is likely encoded into our genetic makeup to ensure our survival as a species despite the risk and possible death to the soldiers of exploration at the frontier for the sake of the many that follow and the future.

 Going to Mars is nothing more than the next logical step in our advancement of discovery and exploration. It must be done. Until we can do it -- we remain restless caged spirits. Sometimes, like in the case of the lunar landings, there was the dynamics of political agendas. Had there not been political agendas, I believe with certainty that humans would have landed on the moon nonetheless. It was the logical step at the time.

 The opportunity to make history, to be the early charters risking it all is a small price for the satisfaction of doing it. It is an elixir of life only to experienced. It is a part of us in the deepest sense and what makes us human.

 The journey to Mars can be eight or nine months long. In an adult's lifetime, this is quite doable. How many of us for the sake of jobs, research, and studies spend years away from our home base? What of the early sea farers braving the rough oceans of the Atlantic and inclement weather to discover the 'new world'? We have already ventured forth. Modern day science gives a much better idea as to what to expect and preparation for such compared to the explorers of the days of yore who lived on a whim, prayer and luck oftentimes.

 Humans' fundamental needs are few and universally defined. Apart from the need for food and shelter, there is a strong need for companionship. It is essential if one is never to return from Mars, that a group of persons be the early settlers, with others to follow. We have seen how the world has shrunken globally with the advent of connectivity how many our own families are now scattered across the globe and we stay in touch with the technology of the day. Such an evolving humanity lends to making the leap to the next level to Mars. To boldly go where no man has ever gone before. Star trek is visionary in its appeal decades later. We don't care to be beamed up, Scotty.

 To have survived the journey, to land and step out on to Mars 'terra firma', despite all the preparations will be nothing like we expected. The hope to step on Martian soil, to see the terrain and know you are in a place of dreams is what churns us on. Humans will always travel to places they have studied thoroughly and seen virtual tours and images of because nothing ever beats the real experience.

 The first days, the first weeks will be an awakening, and discovering and getting the basics in order for survival. Yes, there will perhaps be a sense of depression with it all, even as anyone in an uncharted territory can feel, but it evaporates quickly as the mind and senses are enraptured and intoxicated with the new discoveries. The skies, the sunsets, planet earth, Phobos and Deimos in the night sky -- how wonderful to be a part of the bigger universe. A chance at a new beginning.

 In the truest sense, a journey to Mars is just another sequel to many other such migrations humans have already done -- albeit this is to another planet. But in spirit it is hardly any different when we leave the shores we were born in and grew up in and settle in another country sometimes to never return or Christopher Columbus takes to the seas to discover "new lands" or going to the moon. What we must learn to never ever repeat are the mistakes of the past - slavery, and wiping off the indigenous peoples. As far as we know, there are no Martians to conquer or enslave. But it will be a new land, new challenges, new resources. Never to exploit, if we have learned anything at all.

 Buzz Aldrin made the potent remark 'magnificent desolation' with regard to the moon. Clearly the most meaningful thing in his life is likely to be the moon landing. He continues to be an advocate for manned missions to space. Who can know better than one who played that wild card already? And his own words are that "Mars is waiting for your footsteps."

 Pitter... patter... God of War, here we come.


  2. Is A Manned (One-Way) Journey To Mars Our Responsibility? [/size]
Johannes J. Leitner, Ph.D.1, 2, and Maria G. Firneis, Ph.D.2
1University of Vienna, Research Platform on ExoLife, Tuerkenschanzstrasse 17, A-1180 Vienna, Austria.
2University of Vienna, Institute for Astronomy, Tuerkenschanzstrasse 17, A-1180 Vienna, Austria

 Life on Earth with its prodigious diversity and especially the homo sapiens sapiens as the most intelligent or at least most dominant species on Earth is exposed to permanent threats from inside and outside. Threats from inside as consequences of social conflicts and wars, but also pandemics denote only some of these conceivable scenarios. Impacts from asteroids have caused mass extinctions in the past and still pose the most popular risk for life on Earth. Furthermore gamma-ray bursts, supernovae, solar eruptions, cosmic rays and the stellar evolution of our Sun form additional astronomical hazards for life on our home-world. Certainly the chance for world-wide extinction is very low at present, but not zero. In this context the question is of importance how large is the risk (percentually) to demand a massive, expensive reaction from our side. Human life on Earth, being the most evolved species which we know up to now, according to our moral standards, has to be preserved absolutely. This is our responsibility! Colonizing our Solar System can help to minimize this risk of extinction and a manned journey to Mars should be the first step to initiate the conquest of space.

 Why a manned mission to Mars? Can it only be justified by the scenario of a threatened Earth or by the argument of bringing the first human to another planet as gaining his outstanding place in history. While overrating the development of robotics may seem to abolish the necessity of a steering (deciding) human, in reality the trained scientist collecting data on the Moon (Apollo 17) delivered more important data/samples to the Earth, than any robot/untrained colleague before. A space probe has to be configurated well in advance with a restricted equipment to clarify specific hypotheses, for which at least part of the solutions have to be known prior to pose the correct questions. A human can decide on the spot in an unexpected situation.

 Why a one-way mission to Mars? This has the advantage that a part by part construction of a science-mission habitat could be set-up in a modular way in advance to provide the human investigators with an apparatus-set comparable to terrestrial geological and biological laboratories to perform experiments, which were not anticipated, while a robot could carry out only preconceived investigations. Thus a sample-return mission is obsolete. The greatest advantage is seen in the sociological point. A one-way mission and the necessary supply for humans with food, clothing and techniques (daily utensils) with several replenishment flights would maintain a long-persistent equipment which can outlast the lifespan of a radiation contaminated human. The government thus is not in the position to be the executioner of the astronauts due to the fact that material loss would doom the humans. Nevertheless, a one-way mission implies that the astronauts as well as the first Martian settlers will die on the Red Planet. What to do with their corpses - cremate them, bury them? This problem has not only a sociological implication, but also underlies the question: 'Do the humans have the right to settle on another planet?' We cannot rule out that Mars possesses its indigenous life (several clues as ALH84001, the methane abundance in the atmosphere, the results of the Viking measurements, water(-ice), etc. are known and subject to controversial discussions) making it feasible that life originated in the Martian past. Do we have the right to settle on Mars and to endanger its potential own biological evolution?

 Therefore Mars is only a wild-card for any potentially habitable object to be discovered in the future. Do we need a prime directive according to Star Trek - a consensus of non-involvement? From which starting point of life's evolution do we set this directive to be operational due to our own judicial feelings - for a civilization, a planet with plants and animals, for bacterial life, or also for a planet which could host life at present or in the future? Do we need a COSPAR planetary protection policy extended to all celestial bodies?

 Yes and No! Yes, we have to ensure that any life-forms on other planets and moons are allowed to carry on their evolution. However we have to ensure our own evolution as well. In case we decide not to settle Mars as a first step into outer space, we are dooming our own civilization which will evidently disappear at the very latest when our Sun turns to the Red Giant stage. This will not happen within the next one hundred years, but it will happen definitely. We believe that the pioneer spirit of our species has not diminished. A one-way mission to Mars and the decision to build a permanent station on Mars will be the first step to ensure our own future.


  3. Why Send Humans to Mars? Looking Beyond Science [/size]
 Pabulo Henrique Rampelotto
 Department of Biology, Federal University of Santa Maria (UFSM), Brazil.

 In the last decade, the human exploration of Mars has been a topic of intense debate. Much of the focus of this debate lies on scientific reasons for sending, or not sending, humans to Mars. However, the more profound questions regarding why our natural and financial resources should be spent on such endeavor have not been addressed in a significant way. To be successful, the human exploration of Mars needs reasons beyond science to convince the public. People are far more interested in the short-term outcome of exploration than any nebulous long-term benefits. Finding the right balance of science and other factors is critical to convince taxpayers to part with $100 billion or more of their money over the next couple of decades to fund such endeavor. In the following, I briefly explain why the colonization of Mars will bring benefits for humans on Earth, looking beyond scientific reasons.

 The engineering challenges necessary to accomplish the human exploration of Mars will stimulate the global industrial machine and the human mind to think innovatively and continue to operate on the edge of technological possibility. Numerous technological spin-offs will be generated during such a project, and it will require the reduction or elimination of boundaries to collaboration among the scientific community. Exploration will also foster the incredible ingenuity necessary to develop technologies required to accomplish something so vast in scope and complexity. The benefits from this endeavor are by nature unknown at this time, but evidence of the benefits from space ventures undertaken thus far point to drastic improvement to daily life and potential benefits to humanity as whole.

 One example could come from the development of water recycling technologies designed to sustain a closed-loop life support system of several people for months or even years at a time (necessary if a human mission to Mars is attempted). This technology could then be applied to drought sufferers across the world or remote settlements that exist far from the safety net of mainstream society.

 The permanence of humans in a hostile environment like on Mars will require careful use of local resources. This necessity might stimulate the development of novel methods and technologies in energy extraction and usage that could benefit terrestrial exploitation and thus improve the management of and prolong the existence of resources on Earth.

 The study of human physiology in the Martian environment will provide unique insights into whole-body physiology, and in areas as bone physiology, neurovestibular and cardiovascular function. These areas are important for understanding various terrestrial disease processes (e.g. osteoporosis, muscle atrophy, cardiac impairment, and balance and co-ordination defects). Moreover, medical studies in the Martian environment associated with researches in space medicine will provide a stimulus for the development of innovative medical technology, much of which will be directly applicable to terrestrial medicine. In fact, several medical products already developed are space spin-offs including surgically implantable heart pacemaker, implantable heart defibrillator, kidney dialysis machines, CAT scans, radiation therapy for the treatment of cancer, among many others. Undoubtedly, all these space spin-offs significantly improved the human`s quality of life.

 At the economical level, both the public and the private sector might be beneficiated with a manned mission to Mars, especially if they work in synergy. Recent studies indicate a large financial return to companies that have successfully commercialized NASA life sciences spin-off products. Thousands of spin-off products have resulted from the application of space-derived technology in fields as human resource development, environmental monitoring, natural resource management, public health, medicine and public safety, telecommunications, computers and information technology, industrial productivity and manufacturing technology and transportation. Besides, the space industry has already a significant contribution on the economy of some countries and with the advent of the human exploration of Mars, it will increase its impact on the economy of many nations. This will include positive impact on the economy of developing countries since it open new opportunities for investments.

 Furthermore, the benefits of close cooperation among countries in space exploration have been made clear on numerous missions. International crews have been aboard the Space Shuttle many times, and the Mir Space Station has hosted space explorers from many nations. After the realization of the International Space Station, human exploratory missions to Mars are widely considered as the next step of peaceful cooperation in space on a global scale. Successful international partnerships to the human exploration of the red planet will benefit each country involved since these cooperation approaches enrich the scientific and technological character of the initiative, allow access to foreign facilities and capabilities, help share the cost and promote national scientific, technological and industrial capabilities. For these reasons, it has the unique potential to be a unifying endeavor that can provide the entire world with the opportunity for mutual achievement and security through shared commitment to a challenging enterprise.

 To conclude, the human exploration of the red planet will significantly benefit all the humanity since it has the potential to improve human`s quality of life, provide economic returns to companies, stimulate the economy of many nations including developing countries and promote international collaboration.


  4. From the Pale Blue Dot to the Red Planet: Why Choose to go to Mars? [/size]
Harold Geller, Ph.D.

 I happen to be old enough to remember the late President John F. Kennedy. In fact, I got to see Kennedy in person, on the campaign trail, while staying at a hotel in Philadelphia with my family, attending my cousin's wedding. I vaguely recall watching Kennedy on television when he made his speech to a joint session of Congress, so famously saying "that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth." Kennedy knew that such a "space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish." He spoke about the need "to accelerate the development of the appropriate lunar space craft [and] to develop alternate liquid and solid fuel boosters." He realized also that there was a need to "propose additional funds for explorations which are particularly important for one purpose -- the survival of the man who first makes this daring flight." Finally Kennedy emphasized that "in a very real sense, it will not be one man going to the moon it will be an entire nation." (Kennedy, 1961)

 I still recall very vividly that evening in 1969 when Neil Armstrong took his first steps on the Moon. I was watching it on television (black and white, by the way) at my cousin's house in Ventnor City, New Jersey. I was certainly caught in the period, a time when this nation did come together to achieve a daring goal, one that many had considered foolish. After that summer, I was fully convinced that the United States of America would be putting a human on the surface of Mars, before the century was done. I was wrong.

 My master's project focused on the data from the Viking mission to Mars. Many scientists from the Viking mission are now gone, and their works are being re-interpreted in their absence. I also worked on a university proposal for a robotic instrument which we had hoped would be chosen to go to Mars and return samples to Earth. Although our proposal was not chosen, it was generally believed at that time that there would be a Mars sample return mission in the 1990's. This did not occur. And this nation did not send humans to Mars in the last century.

 It should be noted that President Kennedy did not offer science as the reason to go to the Moon. In fact, Carl Sagan, years later, in his book Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space wrote about the story that Kennedy's science advisor, Jerome Wiesner, purportedly had a deal with Kennedy so that there would be no pretending that the mission to the Moon was for science. (Sagan, 1994).

 Today, there are many in the science community who vociferously voice their opinion that all "manned space" operations are a waste, and that all science data about the Moon and Mars, can be retrieved via robotic spacecraft. However, as noted by Kennedy, it is not for science that I believe we should one day venture to Mars. It is for human exploration, and a human insatiable curiosity.

 On my desk today, there sits a book, written by James T. Bennett, a faculty member at my institution. Bennett mocks all such efforts like the space program. His view is that all of this is a waste of money, and in fact something our founding fathers never dreamed of spending federal tax dollars to support. In fact the spending of federal taxpayer money for things like a space program may be unconstitutional in his opinion. I do not agree.

 Bennett uses quotes from Eric Drexler to defend his views, regarding a mission to Mars. He notes that "private enterprise, not taxpayer-fed fantasies of national glory, should drive space exploration." Such was the view of many citizens when Apollo 11 successfully landed on the Moon. Drexler himself refers to such missions as "grand stunts." Bennett concludes that "there is nothing of liberty or freedom in such a scheme; it is little more than a flashy scam, a hornswaggling of the public" (Bennett, 2010).

 Even after all this banter about the supposed waste of taxpayer money to go to Mars, while I know not what others may feel, but for me, if given the opportunity I would be willing to go to Mars, even if it meant never returning to Earth. Since Neil Armstrong took those first steps on the Moon, I had dreamed of someone, perhaps even me, stepping on the sands of Valles Marineris, collecting rock samples along the way. I realize that I am too old for even this one-way mission, but there are others who are not. To give one's final days in service to the pursuit of knowledge, to many, is a fine end to a life lived as well as one could. It reminds me of Wolfgang Vishniac, who died on the hills of Antarctica. Sagan wrote of Vishniac in his seminal book Cosmos. Regarding Vishniac's last moments alive, Sagan pondered "perhaps something had caught his eye, a likely habitat for microbes, say, or a patch of green where none should be. We will never know. In the small brown notebook he was carrying that day, the last entry reads, 'Station 202 retrieved. 10 December 1973. 2230 hours. Soil temperature, -10 degrees. Air temperature -16 degrees.' It had been a typical summer temperature for Mars" (Sagan, 1980).

 It was Sagan who noted that we stand on "the shores of the cosmic ocean." He continued by saying: "The ocean calls. Some part of our being knows that this is from where we came. We long to return. These aspirations are not, I think, irreverent" (Sagan, 1980). I agree.

 References  ....


  5. A One-Way Trip to Mars [/size]
J. Richard Gott, III, Ph.D.
 Department of Astrophysics, Princeton University

 I've been advocating a one-way colonizing trip to Mars for many years (Gott, 1997, 2001, 2007). Here's what I said about it in my book, Time Travel in Einstein's Universe:

 "The goal of the human spaceflight program should be to increase our survival prospects by colonizing space. ... we should concentrate on establishing the first self-supporting colony in space as soon as possible. ... We might want to follow the Mars Direct program advocated by American space expert Robert Zubrin. But rather than bring astronauts back from Mars, we might choose to leave them there to multiply, living off indigenous materials. We want them on Mars. That's where they benefit human survivability.... Many people might hesitate to sign up for a one-way trip to Mars, but the beauty is that we only have to find 8 adventurous, willing souls" (Gott 2001).

 I've been stressing the fact that we should be in a hurry to colonize space, to improve our survival prospects, since my Nature paper in 1993 (Gott 1993). The real space race is whether we get off the planet before the money for the space program runs out. The human spaceflight program is only 50 years old, and may go extinct on a similar timescale. Expensive programs are often abandoned after a while. In the 1400s, China explored as far as Africa before abruptly abandoning its voyages. Right now we have all our eggs in one basket: Earth. The bones of extinct species in our natural history museums give mute testimony that disasters on Earth routinely occur that cause species to go extinct. It is like sailing on the Titanic with no lifeboats. We need some lifeboats. A colony on Mars might as much as double our long-term survival prospects by giving us two chances instead of one.

 Colonies are a great bargain: you just send a few astronauts and they have descendants on Mars, sustained by using indigenous materials. It's the colonists who do all the work. If one is worried that funds will be cut off, it is important to establish a self-supporting colony as soon as possible. Some have argued that older astronauts should be sent on a one-way trip to Mars since they ostensibly have less to lose. But I would want to recruit young astronauts who can have children and grandchildren on Mars: people who would rather be the founders of a Martian civilization than return to a ticker-tape parade on Earth. Founding a colony on Mars would change the course of world history. You couldn't even call it "world" history anymore. If colonizing Mars to increase the survival prospects of the human species is our goal, then, since money is short, we should concentrate on that goal. In New Scientist (Gott 1997) I said:

 "And if colonization were the goal, you would not have to bring astronauts back from Mars after all; that is where we want them. Instead we could equip them to stay and establish a colony at the outset, a good strategy if one is worried that funding for the space programme may not last. So we should be asking ourselves: what is the cheapest way to establish a permanent, self-sustaining colony on Mars?"

 I have argued that it is a goal we could achieve in the next 50 years if we directed our efforts toward that end. We would need to launch into low Earth orbit only about as many tons in the next 50 years as we have done in the last 50 years. But will we be wise enough to do this?


 References ....


  6. For Mars Exploration, Rovers are Good, Humans are Better [/size]
Steven W. Ruff, Ph.D.
 School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State University, USA

 Mars is a real place to me, at least the few square kilometers of it in Gusev crater where the Mars Exploration Rover Spirit roamed from January of 2004 to March 2010. I had the privilege of naming hundreds of rocks along its route, which perhaps means that I've named more features on Mars than any other person on Earth. Some of those rocks I can even recognize from orbit, thanks to the incredible resolution of the HiRISE camera on the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. I've looked at those rocks and the landscapes that contain them using the rover's eyes - its black and white as well as color cameras. The cameras produced stereo 3D images, making the rocks and landscapes even more real to me. I've spent many hours gazing into those scenes and frequently experience the sensation of actually being there.

 My job on the Spirit team was to look at rocks not just with cameras, but also with a thermal infrared spectrometer called Mini-TES. I learned that the squiggly lines of emissivity spectra serve to readily distinguish one rock from another, allowing me to recognize common classes. Typically we'd work among a particular class before moving onto another one as the geology changed along Spirit's route. In some cases, earlier rock classes would show up farther down the trail, presenting a spectrum that was like a familiar face to me. In this way, I developed an even more intimate familiarity with this place on Mars.

 Spirit outlived even the wildest speculations about its lifespan, making possible the remarkable discoveries about the igneous, aqueous, and aeolian processes that shaped the landscape that it and we roamed. But despite these successes, I became painfully aware of the shortcomings of robotic exploration of Mars. In a word, it is cumbersome. It took years of painstaking effort to explore just those few square kilometers of Gusev crater. Many tens of humans had to participate to guide the rover along a path that was carefully chosen to maximize both safety and science potential. Although Spirit proved to be much more robust and capable than anyone imagined, its speed and mobility were limiting factors. And despite a science payload exquisitely adapted to the tasks it was designed for, surely we failed to recognize and understand important clues to the geologic history we came to investigate. The experience of exploring a planet with a rover is both incredibly exciting and rewarding and incredibly frustrating. It is science by committee modulated by engineering constraints.

 Many on the science team echoed the sentiment that a human geologist could have performed the years of exploration done by Spirit in just a few weeks or perhaps days. It's true that Spirit's amazing toolkit is still unavailable to a terrestrial field geologist. But simple tools combined with the eyes, hands, boots, and brain of a human far outstrip the capabilities of a rover, even those of the next generation Mars Science Laboratory. Given the impossibility of real- time interaction between a human and a robotic surrogate across the millions of kilometers separating Earth from Mars, robotic exploration will never replace what is achievable by humans. Here I am focused on the scientific achievements. The ones that arise from humanity expanding into the solar system, by definition, require humans. Robots should never be viewed as a substitute for humans directly experiencing another world.

 A one-way mission to Mars is a bold plan that could expedite the gathering of information about an endlessly fascinating place. The exciting possibility of finally learning whether life ever took hold beyond Earth is profound motivation to send human life there. With sufficient resources, skills, and knowledge, human explorers sent to Mars would be adept at exploring for alien life while preserving their own. In the process, the vicarious thrill and satisfaction that Earth- bound humans have experienced even from robotic missions, would be compounded in ways immeasurable. Given the trajectory of human exploration and settlement, it is not a question of whether Mars will become a target but when.

 As a geologist, I routinely daydream about roaming the surface of Mars and imagine how I would go about answering questions posed by robotic explorers. A few times a year, those dreams come back to me while I sleep. But in this context, it's not scientific questions that are compelling; it's the surreal wonder of another planet. Likely these ephemeral moments will be the closest I ever come to the real experience. There was a time before the joyous entanglements of a wife and two young daughters when I would have enthusiastically embraced the adventure of a lifetime in a one-way trip to Mars. Perhaps toward the end of my life I will revisit the idea. For now, I will defer to those bold explorers who are eagerly lining up and wondering why we are waiting.


  7. To Be Human is to Explore. [/size]
S. Giddings, Ph.D.

 When settlers left Europe for the New World, many knew that they would not return, and might perish in the undertaking. Yet, they were drawn by an urge to explore, and to find new lives.

 Modern society is losing sight of this elemental challenge -- although some still find its calling in the more remote areas of our planet. Climbers on difficult routes in the high mountains commit to their ascents with full knowledge they may not return -- some do not -- for the sake of the human spirit of adventure and exploration, and to experience something bigger than themselves.

 Space is the next frontier, and travel to Mars a small hop to a stepping stone in a grander quest. It would be an honor to represent humankind in its exploration, and those with an adventurous spirit will find this calling -- even with no vision of return. The first human visitors to its surface will watch in awe as they see Earth -- barely larger than a star -- rising from the martian horizon. With this distant view of home, they will begin discoveries on how to make a new life, both for themselves, and for our species.

 Like with other settlers, their first challenge will be to find a way to survive and sustain life. They will begin to find resources both on the planet, and within themselves. For the first time in history, they will begin to learn whether and how humans can sustain themselves in an environment utterly different from the cradle of our species, Earth. They will begin a journey that may even be the key to humanity's survival.

 These pioneers will confront entirely new challenges of physics, engineering, and mobility. With their fragile toehold, they will then begin to explore the richness of a profoundly different geography and geology, possibly even a biology. They will expand the human psyche to a visceral new understanding, by witnessing the cosmos and the smallness of our planet in views never imagined by our ancestors, and never seen by the human eye. They will give the human family a bold yet terribly humbling perspective on our role in a vast cosmos.


  8. Logbook for day 283 on Mars [/size]
Crew 1, Crew Biologist Cora S. Thiel Reporting

 Cora S. Thiel, Ph.D.1,2, and Vladimir Pletser, Ph.D.1,3
1EuroGeoMars campaign; Mars Desert Research Station Crew 76-77
2Institute of Medical Physics and Biophysics, University of Muenster, Germany
3Human Space Flight Directorate; European Space Agency, The Netherlands

 5:00 am

 Today the day starts early, because we want to prepare for an Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA). We plan to collect soil and rock samples from several locations to continue our search for life on Mars. We are here now for 283 days, more than nine months, and we are sampling twice a week - that means more than 800 samples were analyzed and still no luck. Not the slightest trace of life! Some of our crew members start to be depressed, but I am still convinced that if we keep on going, we will find the right sampling location and we will be successful. Today might be a promising day, because with the ground penetrating radar we found a location last week containing ice in shallow subsurface layers - an ideal condition for life as we know it on Earth.

 6:00 pm

 The EVA was very difficult and energy-sapping. We were caught in a dust storm and had to hide for more than two hours in a lava tube cave. Luckily, the weather conditions improved and we could continue our way to the chosen experimental sampling site. Sampling was not easy, our motorized drilling machine broke and we had to wait until our Russian crew engineer repaired it. He is a genius! In the end we were able to collect ten samples and returned to the habitat.

 Back in the habitat laboratory, I cataloged all samples and started the biological analysis. First of all, I started the MarsBioanalyzer instrument that we use to extract potential biomolecules from soil and rock samples. A first round of experiments is now running using the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR), a well established technique, to amplify a single or a few copies of a piece of DNA, a nucleic acid that is used by all living organisms on Earth for long-term storage of information.

 10:00 pm

 The first half of the experimental analysis is done. I am waiting impatiently for the electrophoresis results. Will we detect life on Mars today?

 11.30 pm

 Unbelievable, I got a positive signal in the analysis for soil sample number 5! This means I detected DNA, most likely from some kind of extraterrestrial microorganisms. What kind of organism is it? Bacteria? I will work through tonight to start the DNA sequencing unit of the MarsBioanalyzer instrument. I have to have certainty about the origin of this DNA. Is it something known? Related to a form of microorganism on Earth? These results could be the breakthrough! It seems that we detected for the first time that we are not alone here. There is life on Mars!

http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars151.html

[Bell]

Why We Must Go To Mars[/size]

Если такой вопрос задают, значит нам туда не надо.

[pkl]

Поддерживаю. Было бы здорово повторить "Марс-500" на МКС - связь с такими же задержками. И, вероятно, расширить объём и количество экспериментов с живностью.

А главное - места этих товарищей в Союзах занять туристами.  

Да при чём тут туристы! Это будет реальный шаг к Марсу!

[instml]

Для начала - надо подтвердить что это не Поляков был уникальным челом а любой подготовленный чел долетит до Марса и главное вернет карапь обратно.

Чего там возвращать, корабль может и на автомате летать, все технологии давно есть :wink: