Starship Asterisk*

MIT news

Click to view full size image

The non-profit company Mars One plans to establish the first human settlement on Mars by 2025. Pictured is an artist's rendering of a series of habitats. Solar panels (in the foreground), would supply the colony's electricity, while a system to extract water from the soil (in the background) would supply drinking water.
Courtesy of Bryan Versteeg/Mars One

Mars One (and done?)
MIT team independently assesses the technical feasibility of the proposed Mars One mission.
Jennifer Chu | MIT News Office
October 14, 2014

In 2012, the “Mars One” project, led by a Dutch nonprofit, announced plans to establish the first human colony on the Red Planet by 2025. The mission would initially send four astronauts on a one-way trip to Mars, where they would spend the rest of their lives building the first permanent human settlement.
It’s a bold vision — particularly since Mars One claims that the entire mission can be built upon technologies that already exist. As its website states, establishing humans on Mars would be “the next giant leap for mankind.”
But engineers at MIT say the project may have to take a step back, at least to reconsider the mission’s technical feasibility.
The MIT researchers developed a detailed settlement-analysis tool to assess the feasibility of the Mars One mission, and found that new technologies will be needed to keep humans alive on Mars.
For example, if all food is obtained from locally grown crops, as Mars One envisions, the vegetation would produce unsafe levels of oxygen, which would set off a series of events that would eventually cause human inhabitants to suffocate. To avoid this scenario, a system to remove excess oxygen would have to be implemented — a technology that has not yet been developed for use in space. ...

... Olivier de Weck, an MIT professor of aeronautics and astronautics and engineering systems, says the prospect of building a human settlement on Mars is an exciting one. To make this goal a reality, however, will require innovations in a number of technologies and a rigorous systems perspective, he says.
“We’re not saying, black and white, Mars One is infeasible,” de Weck says. “But we do think it’s not really feasible under the assumptions they’ve made. We’re pointing to technologies that could be helpful to invest in with high priority, to move them along the feasibility path.”
“One of the great insights we were able to get was just how hard it is to pull this [mission] off,” says graduate student Sydney Do. “There are just so many unknowns. And to give anyone confidence that they’re going to get there and stay alive — there’s still a lot of work that needs to be done.”
Do and de Weck presented their analysis this month at the International Astronautical Congress in Toronto. Co-authors include MIT graduate students Koki Ho, Andrew Owens, and Samuel Schreiner.

Read more at: http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/technica ... s-one-1014

Doum wrote:May be this can help.

...to put these crews into an induced state of hypothermia resulting in torpor....

http://phys.org/news/2014-10-nasa-deep- ... tml#ajTabs

NASA's plan is a little different than what you might remember from 2001: A Space Odyssey or Aliens. Instead of astronauts stepping into a tube and having their temperature lowered, torpor would be induced via the RhinoChill – a device that uses invasive tubes to shoot cooling liquid up the nose and into the base of the brain.

Ann wrote:I recently saw a documentary about the feasibility of a manned mission to Mars and what it would require to keep the astronauts alive. The documentary focused on the difficulties of the journey to Mars. One thing that was pointed out was that the astronauts would spend a longer time being weightless in space than any other human being has ever done. It was also pointed out that after spending months on end in weightless conditions, Russian cosmonauts have to be carried out of their spaceship and transported away in wheelchairs, because their bones and muscles have been weakened so much by the prolonged weightlessness that the cosmonauts can't walk.

So what will happen if physically weakened astronauts land on Mars, to tackle the extreme difficulties of surviving on that harsh planet?

Ann

Ann wrote:I recently saw a documentary about the feasibility of a manned mission to Mars and what it would require to keep the astronauts alive. The documentary focused on the difficulties of the journey to Mars. One thing that was pointed out was that the astronauts would spend a longer time being weightless in space than any other human being has ever done. It was also pointed out that after spending months on end in weightless conditions, Russian cosmonauts have to be carried out of their spaceship and transported away in wheelchairs, because their bones and muscles have been weakened so much by the prolonged weightlessness that the cosmonauts can't walk.

So what will happen if physically weakened astronauts land on Mars, to tackle the extreme difficulties of surviving on that harsh planet?

Chris Peterson wrote:

Ann wrote:I recently saw a documentary about the feasibility of a manned mission to Mars and what it would require to keep the astronauts alive. The documentary focused on the difficulties of the journey to Mars. One thing that was pointed out was that the astronauts would spend a longer time being weightless in space than any other human being has ever done. It was also pointed out that after spending months on end in weightless conditions, Russian cosmonauts have to be carried out of their spaceship and transported away in wheelchairs, because their bones and muscles have been weakened so much by the prolonged weightlessness that the cosmonauts can't walk.

So what will happen if physically weakened astronauts land on Mars, to tackle the extreme difficulties of surviving on that harsh planet?

Well, we're talking about a 6-7 month flight, which is considerably less than the longest periods of weightlessness astronauts have experienced. So that aspect of the documentary was wrong. I'd guess that given Mars low 0.38 G surface gravity, all they would need would be a good exercise regimen and they'd be in pretty good shape once they arrived.

(One of the big unknowns, and an ethical issue given that this is a one way trip, is what happens to a human after a long period at low G. The bigger concern isn't a few months at zero G, but years at 0.38 G.)

Chris Peterson wrote:

Ann wrote:I recently saw a documentary about the feasibility of a manned mission to Mars and what it would require to keep the astronauts alive. The documentary focused on the difficulties of the journey to Mars. One thing that was pointed out was that the astronauts would spend a longer time being weightless in space than any other human being has ever done. It was also pointed out that after spending months on end in weightless conditions, Russian cosmonauts have to be carried out of their spaceship and transported away in wheelchairs, because their bones and muscles have been weakened so much by the prolonged weightlessness that the cosmonauts can't walk.

So what will happen if physically weakened astronauts land on Mars, to tackle the extreme difficulties of surviving on that harsh planet?

Well, we're talking about a 6-7 month flight, which is considerably less than the longest periods of weightlessness astronauts have experienced. So that aspect of the documentary was wrong. I'd guess that given Mars low 0.38 G surface gravity, all they would need would be a good exercise regimen and they'd be in pretty good shape once they arrived.

(One of the big unknowns, and an ethical issue given that this is a one way trip, is what happens to a human after a long period at low G. The bigger concern isn't a few months at zero G, but years at 0.38 G.)

Nitpicker wrote:
The ethics get a bit thornier for me, at the thought of babies being born on Mars, with no prospect of living on Earth.

Ann wrote:

Nitpicker wrote:
The ethics get a bit thornier for me, at the thought of babies being born on Mars, with no prospect of living on Earth.

I once read that there are no permanent human settlements on Earth at a higher altitude than - was it 5,000 meters, or was it 4,000 meters? The reason why there were no settlements at a higher altitude than that was that women couldn't bear children at the harsh conditions at more than 5,000 meters above sea level.

Will the conditions on Mars be more clement than the conditions on the Earth at 5,000 meters above sea level? In other words, if we send people to Mars, will they be able to have children there?

Ann

200,000 brave and/or insane people have supposedly signed up for a one-way mission to Mars. But the truth about Mars One, the company behind the effort, is much weirder (and far more worrying) than anyone has previously reported.

bystander wrote:All Dressed Up For Mars and Nowhere to Go

200,000 brave and/or insane people have supposedly signed up for a one-way mission to Mars. But the truth about Mars One, the company behind the effort, is much weirder (and far more worrying) than anyone has previously reported.

rstevenson wrote:That's an excellent article, summarizing in sensible terms where we stand now vis a vis a Mars mission, and how we might eventually get there.

Rob

MargaritaMc wrote:I'll post this here rather than start another thread. It's an informative article and most interesting.
Planetary Society Blog: How NASA Plans to Land Humans on Mars

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

Could We Actually Live On Mars?

AsapSCIENCE

Published on 16 Nov 2014
What would it take to survive on Mars?