India Says Its Mars Spacecraft on Course

[Vikrant]

India moves into "First World" status while Obama halts NASA and moves us into "Third World" status. Thanks Idiot of the United States.

I was not aware that NASA got halted. If that is true, that is a bad news. I think we need more and more countries contributing towards space exploration for the benefit of mankind.

As far as India is concerned, it is a very long way from becoming a first world country. But they are certainly making efforts. They seem to understand that prosperity does not come by sitting around wishing for things. It comes after deliberate efforts. I am glad that India is taking initiatives to advance space technology in the country which creates jobs and enables various other civil projects resulting in benefits for millions of Indians.

Really? When the shuttle program was ended with no replacement NASA was halted. Where have you been?

Shuttle program did not seem to live up to its promise. I think that has more to do with its termination. As far as NASA is concerned, there is more to it than its shuttle program. NASA is still the most sophisticated space agency on the Earth with some fascinating plans for the future. I do agree that NASA's funding should be increased not decreased.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I think once Eon Musk perfects the grasshopper concept of reusing a rocket 5 or 10 times. Nasa should take the concept and scale it up to one that is as big as a saturn5. From that we can build a spaceship capable of getting to mars.

The cost would be half as much as it would be otherwise.

 

[Vikrant]

I think once Eon Musk perfects the grasshopper concept of reusing a rocket 5 or 10 times. Nasa should take the concept and scale it up to one that is as big as a saturn5. From that we can build a spaceship capable of getting to mars.

The cost would be half as much as it would be otherwise.

The space transportation need varies depending on the mission. If you are in a business of launching communication satellites, it makes sens to have rockets that are fuel efficient and if possible are reusable. But if your mission involves sending heavy payload to Mars then you need big rockets powered by cryogenic engines. On a mission like Mars, 90% of the fuel is spent on attaining escape velocity to get the payload out of Earth's sphere of gravity. To accomplish this, rockets with multiple stages are used. The first stage that gets the payload into the orbit of earth falls off in the ocean after it accomplishes its objective. These parts are collected and with proper research we can figure out a way to make them reusable. However, the stage of the rocket which has gone to Mars is gone. But this is just the beginning. I am sure in a matter of time those rockets will start to make round trips between Mars and the Earth.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Why not build a single planetary spaceship to go back & forth from Mars? A tiny little appolo obritial doesn't make a lot of since for such a mission considering we have to bring most of our food, water and a lander with us.

Why not make it big enough to hold 5-6 people? Let's say instead of chemical fuel it can be nuclear and refuelable at anytime.

Maybe something a little like this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manne...ile:Orion_docked_to_Mars_Transfer_Vehicle.jpg

 

[ScienceRocks]

Or how about this???

If we're going to go to mars we should have a permanent base and this ship would take people back and forth.

 

[Steven_R]

Just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment...

...what would be the benefit of sending (and risking) people on a trip to Mars that we couldn't achieve by sending probes and returning samples robotically? Why build something akin to the Saturn V just to shoot people to Mars when we can achieve the same end results with something far smaller and without the risk to lives?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment...

...what would be the benefit of sending (and risking) people on a trip to Mars that we couldn't achieve by sending probes and returning samples robotically? Why build something akin to the Saturn V just to shoot people to Mars when we can achieve the same end results with something far smaller and without the risk to lives?

1. spreading the human race assures that if something happens to earth = we continue on. Asteroids, super volcano's, etc...

2. Because we can? Why not I ask you??? People like you would of told us no when we started walking out of Africa.

3. More high paying jobs for people that deal with tech and construction.

 

[Vikrant]

Why not build a single planetary spaceship to go back & forth from Mars? A tiny little appolo obritial doesn't make a lot of since for such a mission considering we have to bring most of our food, water and a lander with us.

Why not make it big enough to hold 5-6 people? Let's say instead of chemical fuel it can be nuclear and refuelable at anytime.

Maybe something a little like this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manne...ile:Orion_docked_to_Mars_Transfer_Vehicle.jpg

Idea of a nuclear rocket was seriously considered during the space race era by both the erstwhile Soviet Union and the U.S. There were lots of testing done during 60s but so far we have never had a nuclear powered rocket going up even in the trial. We are a very long way from building a fully functional nuclear rocket.

In the meantime, let us take a look at what we can do with existing and realistic future technologies. Interplanetary travel has two energy intensive points in the journey - escape and entry. First thing we will need to make sure is that flight to Mars leaves when Earth and Mars are in opposition. First leg of the journey will take the passengers (payload) to the space station. This will be a heavy cryogenic rocket. The second leg of the journey will take the payload to Mars's orbit (a space station in the orbit of Mars). The third leg will require landing on Mars using a rocket with retro firing capacity to create a parachute like effect. To bring the payload (passengers) back to Earth, we have to reverse the steps I just laid out. This means we will need a powerful cryogenic rocket to bring the payload back into the orbit of Mars. Mars is a smaller planet so we will not need as much energy as we needed in the first leg of our journey (Earth to space station in Earth's orbit). Nevertheless, we will need to create a storage on Mars to store rocket fuel till we start mining Mars for minerals that can be used to make rocket fuels. Setting up this route will be tough but once we set it up, it will get a bit easier. The most efficient leg of the journey is the second leg which takes place in heliocentric orbit. During this leg you can travel millions of miles on zero fuel. That is awesome.

 

[Politico]

I was not aware that NASA got halted. If that is true, that is a bad news. I think we need more and more countries contributing towards space exploration for the benefit of mankind.

As far as India is concerned, it is a very long way from becoming a first world country. But they are certainly making efforts. They seem to understand that prosperity does not come by sitting around wishing for things. It comes after deliberate efforts. I am glad that India is taking initiatives to advance space technology in the country which creates jobs and enables various other civil projects resulting in benefits for millions of Indians.

Really? When the shuttle program was ended with no replacement NASA was halted. Where have you been?

Shuttle program did not seem to live up to its promise. I think that has more to do with its termination. As far as NASA is concerned, there is more to it than its shuttle program. NASA is still the most sophisticated space agency on the Earth with some fascinating plans for the future. I do agree that NASA's funding should be increased not decreased.

The program was flawed from the beginning. Having a fleet of ships that can't break orbit was stupid enough. Especially when other options were on the table.
but shelving them and paying the Russians almost 300 million to fly us up there is idiotic.

Why not build a single planetary spaceship to go back & forth from Mars? A tiny little appolo obritial doesn't make a lot of since for such a mission considering we have to bring most of our food, water and a lander with us.

Why not make it big enough to hold 5-6 people? Let's say instead of chemical fuel it can be nuclear and refuelable at anytime.

Maybe something a little like this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manne...ile:Orion_docked_to_Mars_Transfer_Vehicle.jpg

This isn't 2001 A Space Odyssey. Most of those designs would be too suseptible to to damage. And it couldn't be something launched from the ground. It would have to be built in orbit.Either way th whole idea is kinda pointless.

 

[whitehall]

It's hard to maintain sanity when you consider the incredible mess that the State Dept and half a century of foreign extortion has cost the United States. Our foreign aid budget to India in 2010 was 126 million dollars. Now I ask you if a country can afford a frivolous trip to Mars shouldn't we re-assess the money that we send them as foreign aid?

 

[Vikrant]

It's hard to maintain sanity when you consider the incredible mess that the State Dept and half a century of foreign extortion has cost the United States. Our foreign aid budget to India in 2010 was 126 million dollars. Now I ask you if a country can afford a frivolous trip to Mars shouldn't we re-assess the money that we send them as foreign aid?

I have noted your discomfort and I hold a sympathetic disposition towards your view but this is not a politics forum. This is a Science & Technology forum. If you want to start a thread to discuss financial aid to India, that is fine. Do so but please leave this thread alone unless you want to share something technical related to Mars mission. I think my request is fair.

 

[whitehall]

It's hard to maintain sanity when you consider the incredible mess that the State Dept and half a century of foreign extortion has cost the United States. Our foreign aid budget to India in 2010 was 126 million dollars. Now I ask you if a country can afford a frivolous trip to Mars shouldn't we re-assess the money that we send them as foreign aid?

I have noted your discomfort and I hold a sympathetic disposition towards your view but this is not a politics forum. This is a Science & Technology forum. If you want to start a thread to discuss financial aid to India, that is fine. Do so but please leave this thread alone unless you want to share something technical related to Mars mission. I think my request is fair.

Politics is the source of space exploration. You can't separate the technology from the funding of the technology.

 

[Steven_R]

Foreign aid is just part of the cost of doing politics or business overseas. It greases the wheels is all.

 

[Steven_R]

Just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment...

...what would be the benefit of sending (and risking) people on a trip to Mars that we couldn't achieve by sending probes and returning samples robotically? Why build something akin to the Saturn V just to shoot people to Mars when we can achieve the same end results with something far smaller and without the risk to lives?

1. spreading the human race assures that if something happens to earth = we continue on. Asteroids, super volcano's, etc...

2. Because we can? Why not I ask you??? People like you would of told us no when we started walking out of Africa.

3. More high paying jobs for people that deal with tech and construction.

I agree with all of that, but if we can't articulate a need to go to Mars, especially putting people in harm's way in the process, then we're not going to get support.

If it were up to me NASA would be giving a clear objective, engineers in charge instead of paper pushers, and a blank check to do it.

 

[Vikrant]

It's hard to maintain sanity when you consider the incredible mess that the State Dept and half a century of foreign extortion has cost the United States. Our foreign aid budget to India in 2010 was 126 million dollars. Now I ask you if a country can afford a frivolous trip to Mars shouldn't we re-assess the money that we send them as foreign aid?

I have noted your discomfort and I hold a sympathetic disposition towards your view but this is not a politics forum. This is a Science & Technology forum. If you want to start a thread to discuss financial aid to India, that is fine. Do so but please leave this thread alone unless you want to share something technical related to Mars mission. I think my request is fair.

Politics is the source of space exploration. You can't separate the technology from the funding of the technology.

All countries in the world receive aid in the time of need. When hurricane Katrina struck the U.S., India provided 5 million dollars in cash and 20 million dollar worth of relief supplies to the US. So using your logic, NASA should be shut down.

USA: Indian aid for hurricane Katrina victims delivered - United States of America | ReliefWeb

 

[Vikrant]

Just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment...

...what would be the benefit of sending (and risking) people on a trip to Mars that we couldn't achieve by sending probes and returning samples robotically? Why build something akin to the Saturn V just to shoot people to Mars when we can achieve the same end results with something far smaller and without the risk to lives?

1. spreading the human race assures that if something happens to earth = we continue on. Asteroids, super volcano's, etc...

2. Because we can? Why not I ask you??? People like you would of told us no when we started walking out of Africa.

3. More high paying jobs for people that deal with tech and construction.

I agree with all of that, but if we can't articulate a need to go to Mars, especially putting people in harm's way in the process, then we're not going to get support.

If it were up to me NASA would be giving a clear objective, engineers in charge instead of paper pushers, and a blank check to do it.

We should be realistically looking to build bases on planets and their moons at least within our solar system. We need to venture out. Justification for this exploration is no different than the justification for any of the sea voyages humanity had in the past to explore and find new routes and continents. There is compelling argument that life existed on Mars way before it surfaced on the Earth. It has abundance of water. It has plenty of CO2. One of the most basic requirement for building a space base is water and Mars got plenty of it. I am not saying we should be sending a human tomorrow on a Mars mission because this will certainly result in the death of the said human. We need to create a route first. In my earlier post, I was talking about establishing a space station. We could even use Moon as a space station. We will need only one sixth of the energy we need on the Earth to escape Moon. This is not a bad first step till we build a space station big enough to act as a transit point between the orbit of Earth and Mars. It will take years to build it but it will be done. Because that is where we are headed. Desire to explore and expand is intrinsic human character and nothing can change that.

 

[ScienceRocks]

1. spreading the human race assures that if something happens to earth = we continue on. Asteroids, super volcano's, etc...

2. Because we can? Why not I ask you??? People like you would of told us no when we started walking out of Africa.

3. More high paying jobs for people that deal with tech and construction.

I agree with all of that, but if we can't articulate a need to go to Mars, especially putting people in harm's way in the process, then we're not going to get support.

If it were up to me NASA would be giving a clear objective, engineers in charge instead of paper pushers, and a blank check to do it.

We should be realistically looking to build bases on planets and their moons at least within our solar system. We need to venture out. Justification for this exploration is no different than the justification for any of the sea voyages humanity had in the past to explore and find new routes and continents. There is compelling argument that life existed on Mars way before it surfaced on the Earth. It has abundance of water. It has plenty of CO2. One of the most basic requirement for building a space base is water and Mars got plenty of it. I am not saying we should be sending a human tomorrow on a Mars mission because this will certainly result in the death of the said human. We need to create a route first. In my earlier post, I was talking about establishing a space station. We could even use Moon as a space station. We will need only one sixth of the energy we need on the Earth to escape Moon. This is not a bad first step till we build a space station big enough to act as a transit point between the orbit of Earth and Mars. It will take years to build it but it will be done. Because that is where we are headed. Desire to explore and expand is intrinsic human character and nothing can change that.

Yep, it's going to be done. Rather, it is America leading it or China is the question. India or Europeans just as easily could too.

How much do we value our leadership role?

 

[dilloduck]

I agree with all of that, but if we can't articulate a need to go to Mars, especially putting people in harm's way in the process, then we're not going to get support.

If it were up to me NASA would be giving a clear objective, engineers in charge instead of paper pushers, and a blank check to do it.

We should be realistically looking to build bases on planets and their moons at least within our solar system. We need to venture out. Justification for this exploration is no different than the justification for any of the sea voyages humanity had in the past to explore and find new routes and continents. There is compelling argument that life existed on Mars way before it surfaced on the Earth. It has abundance of water. It has plenty of CO2. One of the most basic requirement for building a space base is water and Mars got plenty of it. I am not saying we should be sending a human tomorrow on a Mars mission because this will certainly result in the death of the said human. We need to create a route first. In my earlier post, I was talking about establishing a space station. We could even use Moon as a space station. We will need only one sixth of the energy we need on the Earth to escape Moon. This is not a bad first step till we build a space station big enough to act as a transit point between the orbit of Earth and Mars. It will take years to build it but it will be done. Because that is where we are headed. Desire to explore and expand is intrinsic human character and nothing can change that.

Yep, it's going to be done. Rather, it is America leading it or China is the question. India or Europeans just as easily could too.

How much do we value our leadership role?

Yes---use all of Earth's resources and blast it into space !

You snooze you lose.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

May have to accept than sending humans to Mars is beyond our reach for the forseeable future. Problem being radiation. Shielding an Earth to Mars vehicle would make it impractical, and sending astronauts there knowing they'll then die from radiation is unethical.

 

[Steven_R]

It wouldn't be quite that bad. A year long mission (3 months each way and six months on the surface) would only be a 1 Sievert exposure for the astronauts which would only be something like a 5% increase in chances of fatal cancer.

Plus adding in shielding would just mean an increase in space vehicle mass which is just another engineering problem to overcome.