Distress signal from Mars?

Question

Let's suppose the first manned mission on Mars takes place, but a landing malfunction leaves the ship stranded on Mars. The crew members are intact and even have the food supply to survive for at least the time they would have taken to return back to Earth.

Will NASA be likely to organize a rescue mission in this case? The costs would probably be enormous and there is also an additional risk for the rescuers. What YOU think would be the best decision?

Answer 1

This is a HUGE question for the safety conscious folks at NASA. It is fairly obvious that the Mission to Mars will have to be staged from the International Space Station. That is the only way NASA can get sufficient materials and supplies up into orbit prior to the mission launch. In other words, several launches will take supplies and materials up to the ISS and once everything needed is collected there, it will be assembled into one space ship and then launched toward Mars.

The idea that you could have one or two fully loaded ships on standby for emergencies is desireable but probably not within the realm of possibility. That would double or triple the cost of the Mission and place it into some distant time frame completely.

The crux of the situation is the amount of fuel needed to lift the fully equipped space ship and accelerate it to Escape Velocity at launch from the surface of the Earth. In most launches the objective was to shoot a probe or technical package out into space which took lots of fuel carried in boosters strapped to the main body of the rocket. When all of that boost fuel was used up, the boosters fell off and the main rocket continued on until all of its fuel was also used up.

In the Mars Mission case, one must calculate how much air, water, food, will be needed for one astronaut for one year. Then you must multiply that by three, four, or six depending upon how many people will be on the mission. convert that into pounds of payload.

Now the planet Mars has a gravity force which is similar (not the same, but similar) to that of Earth. Recall the Lunar Landing Mission on the Moon? The Moon's gravity is 1/3 that of the Earth's. So the Lunar Mission's return launch sequence did not require the use of much fuel (relatively speaking). In other words, you have seen television film of launches from Earth, right? You will have to use that much fuel times two for a Mission Launch from around the Earth and a Mission Launch from the surface of Mars (no International Space Station there).

Okay...

Now here is the issue...

You will need to carry much more fuel and supplies. So, you need a bigger rocket than previous models. To accelerate that bigger rocket to Escape Velocity, you will need more fuel.

Well, if you need more fuel to do that job, you will need a bigger rocket to carry it.

Oh, you need a bigger rocket? Well that bigger rocket and all of that additional fuel will weigh more, so you will need more fuel to accelerate it to Escape Velocity. If you want to carry more fuel, you will need a bigger rocket ship...

ETC., ETC.

Various compromises and adjustments need to be made to get out of the fuel/weight/acceleration requirements loop. So, it will be most interesting to see what the planners actually come up with for this Mission. Also, please understand that I have oversimplified much of the logistical aspects of this situation to illustrate the problems faced by a voyage of this duration.

If you eliminate the live pilots and explorers you also eliminate a great deal of the payload weight for air,
food, and other consumeable supplies. You also give up
the feature of human solution of unexpected problems
not allowed for in software programs prepackaged in
the systems that are actually launched. Many examples of those software and equipment problems have been seen in previous news reports following the efforts of NASA. In a number of cases these equipment failures and software problems have resulted in mission disasters. With humans on board, it would be very nice if the entire Mars program went off disaster free.

Answer 2

NASA would no doubt do everything in it's power to rescue a crew stranded on Mars but unless they had a rescue ship ready to leave with in a short period of time and the planetary alignment was in their favor the astronauts could be out of luck.
.
Most of the Mars manned landing scenarios I've read about has a return to Earth craft waiting for the men when they get there. The Mars Society is advocating also landing equipment and machinery to manufacture the methane fuel for the return trip directly from the Martian atmosphere.
.

Answer 3

The risks are understood by the astronaut's before they go into space.
Just like on Everest, where people get left all the time, people on Mars would be expected to look after themselves and I don't think NASA would send a rescue mission.
Why don't you ask NASA about any contingency plans.

Answer 4

You always have to consider the cost/risk factor. Automobile manufacturers take this into account when they balance the risk and cost of potential lawsuits against the savings realized by using two less bolts to secure the gas tank. If the savings achieved by using two less bolts outweighs the possible costs of lawsuits, then it is cheaper to let people die.

Same thing on a Mars mission. The cost of an astronaut or two is probably far less than the cost of a booster rocket, so the astronauts are expendable and will be left there to die.

It all depends on the budget line item.

Of course, the public-relations spewage is always different from the real reasons.

Answer 5

The current plan for a Mars mission involves launching supplies and a return vehicle in advance.

Answer 6

they would definitely organize a rescue mission
i think they have something planned for that, you know in case things go wrong
i mean I HOPE they have a plan B

Answer 7

Well, to leave them to die is plain cruelty. They must be rescued immediantly, and people must learn to value the life of everyone.