With our current space technology is it possible to send a manned space capsule to Mars?

Question

The closest distance is 56 million kilometers. Could astronauts last that long in flight and have enough room for provisions? Would this ever be possible? How fast would the space capsule have to be traveling? I know we have landed several unmanned spacecraft, but each trip was one way only.

Answer 1

Yes, we have the technology to do this now. What's holding us back is the cost, not the tech.

The trip would be about six months each way using the engines we have now and gravity assists where possible. The most likely scenario would be to first launch a series of un-manned "provision" ships to land on Mars or perhaps orbit it -- these would contain food, water, and fuel. Once we had verified that they were safely at their destination, we would launch the manned ship -- which would carry enough provisions for a one-way trip, and upon arrival at Mars re-stock from the earlier unmanned ships and then return to Earth.
We *could* fully provision a ship for a round-trip, but doing so makes the manned craft much larger and expensive, and lacks the backup of additional supplies existing at the destination.

All of this is already on NASA's drawing boards, though whether it will ever happen or not is completely a matter of $$ :)

Answer 2

It's possible, in fact there is nothing very different from Apollo missions, but all must be re-dimensioned, larger spacecraft because the trip is longer, more oxygen and food, more propellant, more thrust needed to leave Mars.
This mean that the real problem is the cost.
Also a new Launcher is needed to carry such a big spacecraft to orbit. When there is already a solution, sometimes it's not accepted for political reasons.
For example there is the Russian missile Energia that is big enough for these tasks, but I think NASA don't want to use a Russian missile, but they prefer built a new one.

Answer 3

I take offence to that. Never send a monkey or a robot to do a man's job. The idea of a manned mission is not just the dream of stupid politicians. It is the dream of all who arent willing to just give up and accept the bonds of the Earth. The need to explore, the need to see is there all through out history. If Columbus had the same thought, then we would not be here, the United States would not exists the way we know it. We owe him a great debt. If the first neanderthals had the same thoughts we would never have left the forests. Yes, we can go to Mars. The question is will we go? Will we give in to the pessmism of society and just wilt and die from disease or utter ruin? Or will we stand and go fourth to our destiny among the stars? This is the question. We went to the moon once and we sure as hell can do it again. If we went to the moon, we can sure as hell go to Mars. We need to cast down the easy pessmism of society and go where no man has ever gone before.


The first thing we need to do is make the launch cheaper. Right now we are looking at about 10 million dollars for every ton. One way to do that is by brining it up in pieces. We already have the Station up there, so we could use it for a kind of space dock. Another way to do this is by building a space elevator, but with current materials, it will be some time before it will be feasable. So, we are reduced to bringing up the pieces because a ship of that size is not practical for launch from the ground. So what could we construct it out of. Many astronauts have said that we could use the External Tank for the frame of the craft, and I happen to agree with them, because the tank is discarded during flight, so it would be a good investment to use them. Then, there is the propulsion. That is a different matter, because quite frankly, chemical rockets arent going to cut it. We could use a liquid fuel like the liquid mix used for the Saturn V's F-5 rocket booster. (Apollo). I believe that the mix was liquid nitrogen and kerosene. But then again, how are they gonna get home, are they going to carry the fuel for both ways, or are they going to have to make it on Mars? Another thing we could do is manufacture the fuel while they are on the surface, when they dont need it yet, and save just enough fuel for them to dock with the refueler in martian orbit. That way, they dont need to lug the extra weight of the fuel into space, as the old mix gets used the craft gets lighter, and you get better fuel economy. Then, in orbit, dock with the refueler, (the US is the best at docking, we used Gemini to do that) and they are on their way. Or, we could wait for the ion-plasma drives that NASA or JPL or who ever, is perfecting. Or, we could use nuclear, but we could not fire the drive in martian atmo. unless we want to nuke a pristine world. So that leaves us with liquid fuel for now.

Then there is the matter of radiation. We can over come this by generating our own little magnetosphere around the craft using well known and already proven mission/ device designs. And we could augment that by keeping at least one foot lining around the craft, and creating a sort of storm shelter for them out of lead.

Then, there is gravity. We can compensate for that by making the main parts of the ship rotational, or by having a mass that is in constant motion while the rest of the ship is not rotating.

Then there is the food problem. That can be compensated by using hydroponics to grow most of their food. This would also take care of the human waste, which could be cleaned and used for fertilizer. And this would also solve the air circulation/ filtering problem by using plants to filter the CO2. But, the diet would also need vitamin supplements in place of the things that are less easy to carry on a space craft.

That said, this ship would probably be pretty big, so they would need to use smaller shuttle craft to get to the surface instead of the ship actually landing on Mars. This would also be benefitial because the ship could act as a space station and moniter other things, and would allow other missions to be carried out, say a trip to one of its moons?

We can do all of this, but it is a matter of do we want to. Because going to mars and establishing ourselves there would take pressure off the Earth, create more jobs, open new markets, and open the door to the rest of the universe.
"If you can get away from the Earth's gravity well, you are half way to any where in the universe."

Answer 4

Going previous our Moon isn't available without coming up new spacecraft and help structures for propulsion, ability, recycling components, man made gravity, and radiation protection, besides as convalescing the psychological difficulty on astronauts. that would take 20 to 40 or extra years in the previous even exploration journeys to Mars, properly in the previous any colony efforts ought to be made. Titan is a moon of Saturn, no longer Jupiter. that is out of attain for one hundred years. Mars, asteroids and dwarf planets interior the belt, and Jupiter's moons are closer targets. the biggest predicament to exploration now's fees. even however NASA is barely a pair of million p.c. of the federal funds, there are too many different issues that take in money.

Answer 5

Cost and radiation damage to the astronauts are the main problems.

Unmanned flights are much cheaper and give masses of information.

Manned missions are mainly the dreaming of stupid, simple, politicians.

Answer 6

Currently, yes and no...We could do it, but it'd be too expensive and the risk factor is still too great....
Projections are a 36-40 month round-trip, so you have to produce O2, water, eliminate CO2, solid waste, just 100s of thousands of details......
plus, the practicalities are just not palatable...you'd actually be eating your own poop and pee, cleaned up and re-nutriated, of course...How cool is that to sell to astronuats?