BB: Scientist eyes 39-day voyage to Mars

[JMS]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.85b9e2174ee33f025b89dd95cee83b08.101&show_article=1

Scientist eyes 39-day voyage to Mars

A journey from Earth to Mars could soon take just 39 days, cutting current travel time nearly six times, a rocket scientist who has the ear of the US space agency NASA has said.

Former astronaut Franklin Chang-Diaz, a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, says reaching the Red Planet could be dramatically quicker using his high-tech VASIMR rocket -- now on track for lift-off after decades of development.

The Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket -- to give its full name -- is quick becoming a centerpiece of NASA's future strategy as it looks to private firms to help meet the astronomical costs of space exploration.

NASA, still reeling from a political decision to cancel its Constellation program that would have returned a human to the moon by the end of the decade, has called on firms to provide new technology to power rovers or even future manned missions.

[Renegade7]

Interesting. Anybody else down with the idea of us just shooting to Mars right quick, planting a flag, and laughing our way back home at China and Russia? Suckers.

[Teller]

Interesting. Anybody else down with the idea of us just shooting to Mars right quick, planting a flag, and laughing our way back home at China and Russia? Suckers.

I'm not only down, I'll bring the flag.

[Larry]

Interesting. Anybody else down with the idea of us just shooting to Mars right quick, planting a flag, and laughing our way back home at China and Russia? Suckers.

There are several things that I'd rather see us spend money on. Things that, I think, would leave us, when we're done, with something that we can then use to accomplish other goals.

The analogy that I use is that, when you spend money to build a bridge, then, when you're done, you have the bridge.

If you plant a flag and come home, then when you're done, what you've got is the ability to do it again.

Still, it does sound like if we did that, then all space travel would be vastly more efficient. Certainly doesn't sound like a bad idea.

[GibbsFactor]

I'd do it. Why not. First man to another planet!!!

[Renegade7]

There are several things that I'd rather see us spend money on. Things that, I think, would leave us, when we're done, with something that we can then use to accomplish other goals.

The analogy that I use is that, when you spend money to build a bridge, then, when you're done, you have the bridge.

If you plant a flag and come home, then when you're done, what you've got is the ability to do it again.

Still, it does sound like if we did that, then all space travel would be vastly more efficient. Certainly doesn't sound like a bad idea.

Baby steps, Larry, baby steps. I don't believe we're ready to be "building bridges" on Mars just yet, and I understand your point. But from a National Pride standpoint, why not? If it has half the effect landing on the moon did back in the day, a quick mission to Mars would be worth every penny. This time, maybe we'll keep going...

[DjTj]

There's surprisingly little in the U.S. press about this, but the Washington Post ran a story earlier this week:

There are only a few places in space where humans can go in the next couple of decades. NASA wants to go to all of them, with the ultimate destination, as always, being Mars.

"The suite of destinations has not changed over time," NASA deputy administrator Lori Garver said in an interview. "The moon, asteroids, Mars - if you're going to go anywhere - is where we are going."

But with any itinerary there is a first stop. So what is that?

Check back in a couple of years. That's when new technology should be developed enough to answer that question, Garver said. President Barack Obama plans to divert billions of dollars from the Bush moon plan toward developing better rocketry.

"The best way to get anywhere ... is really invest in technologies that will reduce the cost, reduce the time, reduce the risk and so forth," Garver said.

Some of those technologies seem like science fiction. The possibilities noted by experts inside and outside of NASA include the equivalent of an in-orbit gas station, electric-hybrid rockets, nuclear thermal rockets, inflatable parts for spaceships, and methods of beaming power between Earth and space.

Former astronaut Franklin Chang-Diaz, who has developed a new type of electric propulsion engine called VASIMR that the NASA leadership mentions specifically, said this new emphasis is especially welcome because six years ago NASA killed its advanced rocket technology program.

"We clearly need the technology leap if we really want to go to Mars," Chang-Diaz said. "We are not going to Mars on chemical rockets."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/23/AR2010022302861.html

I really agree with this philosophy. We don't need to have a planned mission to the moon or to Mars just yet, and the past few years spent focusing on Ares was really unnecessary. We need some new breakthroughs in technology, like this engine, and then we can go back to the moon, or to an asteroid, and then on to Mars as part of a larger strategy of expanding our capabilities, rather than just planting a flag.

[JMS]

The analogy that I use is that, when you spend money to build a bridge, then, when you're done, you have the bridge.

Larry don't you think the country got it's money's worth out of Apollo and Mercury? We can trace two of our top five export industries back to previous space effort. Aeronautics and telecommunications; not to mention electronics and all the industries spawned from the micro computer age and the integrated circuit.

[Larry]

Baby steps, Larry, baby steps. I don't believe we're ready to be "building bridges" on Mars just yet, and I understand your point. But from a National Pride standpoint, why not? If it has half the effect landing on the moon did back in the day, a quick mission to Mars would be worth every penny. This time, maybe we'll keep going...

Sorry. My "infrastructure" idea for space is to construct a permanent space station, with the capabilities to:

1) Assemble larger payloads/launch vehicles, so that we can get to places that are further away.

2) Go out to other Earth orbit locations, and support activities in those locations. (By servicing other satellites wherever they may be, or by bringing them back to the station for service.)

A space station that enables us to do things that we can't do if everything has to be launched from Earth in a single piece.

For example, in Larry's World, when we do go to Mars, we'll do so in a ship that was launched from Earth in pieces, assembled in orbit,

tested

in orbit (maybe send it into lunar orbit, spend a week circling the Moon, then come back and refuel.), and

then

we send it off to Mars.

(IMO, testing any hypothetical Mars lander by having it land on the Moon and return would be a nice idea, but probably impractical. I'd suspect that any hypothetical Mars lander will use the planet's atmosphere for a good part of it's descent, and the Moon just doesn't have one.)

In short, I think that a permanent, useful, Space Station makes going to places like Mars cheaper, safer, and more reliable.

And frankly, I don't see a real need to ever go to Mars. IMO, space itself is a much more attractive place to go than anything that's located at the bottom of a planetary gravity well.

Or another way of putting it: I think that Space has characteristics (energy and transportation are virtually free) for which there are economic uses. I have trouble believing that there will ever be anything found on Mars that will be valuable enough to pay the costs of shipping it back to Earth.

[Chopper Dave]

While I agree with the sentiment that the rocketry must first be developed, and that the key to future space endeavors and the fulfillment of their future necessity may come from this rocketry, the fact of the matter is, as it is with most matters of technological progress, the advancements that lead us to Mars and to asteroids and back to the Moon and beyond will most likely be discovered by accident. NASA will grind away at this VASIMR thing for 40 years, then one day some scientist in a lab working for Oreck or Johnson and Johnson or See's Candy will stumble upon the secret to cold fusion or lightspeed propulsion, and 3 years later we'll have a permanent base somewhere west of Alpha Centauri.

[Mooka]

The analogy that I use is that, when you spend money to build a bridge, then, when you're done, you have the bridge.

If you plant a flag and come home, then when you're done, what you've got is the ability to do it again.

You forget the new rocket being developed.

[Renegade7]

Sorry. My "infrastructure" idea for space is to construct a permanent space station, with the capabilities to:

1) Assemble larger payloads/launch vehicles, so that we can get to places that are further away.

2) Go out to other Earth orbit locations, and support activities in those locations. (By servicing other satellites wherever they may be, or by bringing them back to the station for service.)

A space station that enables us to do things that we can't do if everything has to be launched from Earth in a single piece.

For example, in Larry's World, when we do go to Mars, we'll do so in a ship that was launched from Earth in pieces, assembled in orbit,

tested

in orbit (maybe send it into lunar orbit, spend a week circling the Moon, then come back and refuel.), and

then

we send it off to Mars.

(IMO, testing any hypothetical Mars lander by having it land on the Moon and return would be a nice idea, but probably impractical. I'd suspect that any hypothetical Mars lander will use the planet's atmosphere for a good part of it's descent, and the Moon just doesn't have one.)

In short, I think that a permanent, useful, Space Station makes going to places like Mars cheaper, safer, and more reliable.

And frankly, I don't see a real need to ever go to Mars. IMO, space itself is a much more attractive place to go than anything that's located at the bottom of a planetary gravity well.

Or another way of putting it: I think that Space has characteristics (energy and transportation are virtually free) for which there are economic uses. I have trouble believing that there will ever be anything found on Mars that will be valuable enough to pay the costs of shipping it back to Earth.

Okay, "building a bridge", "infrastructue", I understand what you're saying. But until I read this article, I didn't believe in my life time we'd be realisticly talking about the technology to get to Mars and back in less then half a year. There's no telling what is on Mars yet or how expensive it will be to harvesting that planet's resources once we decide to do it (weak atmosphere and gravity).

Same way I feel about the moon, if it becomes cost-effective to take a vacation there, people will want to do it. Tourists also love starbucks coffee, and then it'll snowball from there. Next thing you know people will want to really get away; imagine waking up in the morning and right outside your window is Saturn. That's coming sooner then I ever though possible now.

Plus, Mars is about as close to an Earth-type planet as we have in this solar system. Next thing you know, we'll be talking about terra-forming. Between throwing radioactive waste in the Sun and being close to the asteroid belt to get rare-earth metals, big picture Larry.

The solar system is pretty big, there's no reason for us to stay stuck on Earth forever, imo.

[Chopper Dave]

Or another way of putting it: I think that Space has characteristics (energy and transportation are virtually free) for which there are economic uses. I have trouble believing that there will ever be anything found on Mars that will be valuable enough to pay the costs of shipping it back to Earth.

What about the other type of space? We ARE destroying this planet. That's undeniable. It's not a slight on big business, or a condemnation of our unsustainable, modern lifestyles. As society advances, we consume our planet. Not just its natural resources and ecosystems, but its physical capital; real estate. No, Mars may not have the natural resources and ecosystems to sustain life at the moment, but at the moment, we don't have the technology to get there, and at the moment, we don't have the need for the space. But as time passes and technology gets more advanced, Earth's population growth progresses exponentially, and eventually, we're going to reach carrying capacity. And we're not deer. It's not like all the side effects of a population reaching carrying capacity are going to occur and scientists will say "it's natural" and everyone will be cool, because it won't be Bambi, it'll be your friends and neighbors and family. So we'll need somewhere else to go. And Mars is closest.

[Larry]

I really agree with this philosophy. We don't need to have a planned mission to the moon or to Mars just yet, and the past few years spent focusing on Ares was really unnecessary. We need some new breakthroughs in technology, like this engine, and then we can go back to the moon, or to an asteroid, and then on to Mars as part of a larger strategy of expanding our capabilities, rather than just planting a flag.

Problem with that reasoning is that there's always some great new idea on the horizon that will make everything better (if it works).

"There's always an Arquillian Battle Cruiser, or a Corillian Death Ray, or an intergalactic plague that is about to wipe out all life on this miserable little planet, and the only way these people can get on with their happy lives is that they Do... Not... Know about it!"

The expression I've heard to refer to this phenomenon is "The Perfect becomes the enemy of The Good".

We have the same phenomenon when discussing alternative energy: Well, I hear that some guy claims that he's going to solve all our energy problems, because he's got this theory that's never even worked in a laboratory, yet.

(This engine may not be in that category. I'm not about to try to claim that what an MIT Rocket Scientist says is impossible. But I haven't seen anything that says he's done it, either.)

How long have we been hearing that we're Real Close to having commercial fusion power?

[mjah]

Am I the only one for whom the OP reads like a Mad Lib?

All the hyperlinks are in black text! Then I go to the article and nothing is hyperlinked.

Maybe it's a browser plug-in on my machine.

[zoony]

not just you mjah.

I'm not all that in favor of a manned mission to Mars. I just don't think the risk/reward ratio is right on that one. With robotics the way they are I think we should continue to explore that.

I'd like to see a telescope constructed the size of rhode island, personally.

.....

[HOF44]

(This engine may not be in that category. I'm not about to try to claim that what an MIT Rocket Scientist says is impossible. But I haven't seen anything that says he's done it, either.)

A small much less powerful version is slated for use in keeping the ISS in its correct orbit. Should be in use 2011/2012

[Chopper Dave]

Am I the only one for whom the OP reads like a Mad Lib?

All the hyperlinks are in black text! Then I go to the article and nothing is hyperlinked.

Maybe it's a browser plug-in on my machine.

Scientist eyes 39-day voyage to Mars

A journey from Wendy's to Mars could soon take just 39 days, cutting current travel time nearly six times, a rocket scientist who has the ear of the US space agency NAMBLA has said.

Former astronaut Gary Busey, a physicist at the International House of Pancakes, says reaching the Red Planet could be dramatically quicker using his high-tech VASIMR rocket -- now on track for lift-off after decades of corpulence.

The Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket -- to give its full name -- is quick becoming a centerpiece of NAMBLA's future strategy as it looks to private firms to help meet the astronomical costs of space exploration.

NAMBLA, still reeling from a political decision to cancel its Constellation program that would have returned a merkin to the moon by the end of the decade, has called on firms to bloviate new technology to power rovers or even future manned missions.

[Metalhead]

I'm all for manned missions to Mars, and at 40 days there/40 back, that is amazing.

Pro sports players get paid millions and pro sports leagues generate billions, yet we can't rally financial support for developing future technologies. This world can be frustrating.

[Dr. Do Itch Big]

not just you mjah.

I'm not all that in favor of a manned mission to Mars. I just don't think the risk/reward ratio is right on that one. With robotics the way they are I think we should continue to explore that.

I'd like to see a telescope constructed the size of rhode island, personally.

.....

Do you mean an optical type telescope because that's a waste a radio ri type telescope would probably work. There already huge radio telescopes so it is possible.

[Renegade7]

I'm not good with math, but if we're talking 40 days to get to Mars, how long would it take to get to the moon? I know one of ya'll payed attention during college math.

[War Paint]

I'm wondering if they are going to use the set of Total Recall to film the first man to Mars mission?

[DjTj]

Am I the only one for whom the OP reads like a Mad Lib?

All the hyperlinks are in black text! Then I go to the article and nothing is hyperlinked.

Maybe it's a browser plug-in on my machine.

I think the problem is on JMS's end. He also needs to get his spellcheck fixed.

The full article from AFP is here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100226/sc_afp/usspacenasamars

And the Washington Post article discussing the politics in more detail is here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/23/AR2010022302861.html

Problem with that reasoning is that there's always some great new idea on the horizon that will make everything better (if it works).

That's always a problem, but I think NASA has probably spent too much of the last few decades doing the opposite, which is sending people into space for the sake of sending people into space, without enough progress in new technology (other than communications and robotics).

(This engine may not be in that category. I'm not about to try to claim that what an MIT Rocket Scientist says is impossible. But I haven't seen anything that says he's done it, either.)

The longer AFP article says that it has been tested and could be in space in 3 years.

Scaled-down models of the VASIMR craft have been built and tested in a vacuum, under a deal with NASA.

The next major step, according to Chang-Diaz, will be orbital deployment at the end of 2013 of a vessel using the 200-kilowatt prototype VASIMR engine, the VX-200.

That sounds pretty promising to me.

[Chopper Dave]

I'm wondering if they are going to use the set of Total Recall to film the first man to Mars mission?

I'd venture that they'd probably just go with Red Planet, Mission to Mars, or maybe even Ghosts of Mars. All way horrible compared to Total Recall, all way newer, though. Alternatively, they could just use Mars.

[HOF44]

I'm not good with math, but if we're talking 40 days to get to Mars, how long would it take to get to the moon? I know one of ya'll payed attention during college math.

Not as quick as you think. This type of rocket is has very slow acceleration, but super duper top end. Plus you have to turn around a decelerate at the half way point. So the farther you go, the bigger the gains.