Space race to Mars in 1979 alternate timeline help, please

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

I suppose research outpost is more accurate than colony.
But much more than fly-by / rock grab mission like Apollo.

Though how much time is necessary to get to colony stage is anyone's guess... assuming it's even possible without significant hand-waving.

It might be a one way mission.

If it is a one way mission, you'd better make sure to bring enough women for all the men.

Otherwise, expect things to get really horrible. Discipline will break down. Morale will plummet, and then everybody dies. It's just a question of how long.

Yeah, not good.

Men and women together means that eventually, precautions of not, somebody will get knocked up.


Mars is a pretty horrible place.
I'm not sure that any children born there wouldn't have serious health problems.
For that matter, I'm not sure the astronauts won't develop cancer or radiation sickness, possibly even before they arrive.

TL 7 doesn't seem likely to have the biotech needed to solve these problems.




A two way mission is better for morale, but of course it's going to require more money and resources and time to get back home to Earth.

And is somebody staying behind?

ABOUT TECH LEVEL AND OPTIONS:

I've been assuming standard TL 7. I've also assumed a "realistic" approach to the daunting problems involved in the project.

But I could be wrong in either assumption.

Maybe this is TL 7 setting with emergent superscinece? TL 7 advanced in one area?

Is this a cinematic/slightly rubbery science setting?

Different planetology (like Mars being notably more habitable, possibly with some native life forms, and possessed of richer resources)?

Different natural laws?

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Anthony

The big requirements for Mars are a much higher budget than the Apollo program (which was already absolutely enormous) and an extremely cavalier attitude towards the survival of your astronauts (say, half of them survive to reach Mars, none ever come home).

Both would be available if there was enough money. While one way missions may be a bit extreme, people have been routinely going on expeditions with pretty high casualty rates if the pay was worth it.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

It might be a one way mission.

If it is a one way mission, you'd better make sure to bring enough women for all the men.

Otherwise, expect things to get really horrible. Discipline will break down. Morale will plummet, and then everybody dies. It's just a question of how long.

Yeah, not good.

Men and women together means that eventually, precautions of not, somebody will get knocked up.


Mars is a pretty horrible place.
I'm not sure that any children born there wouldn't have serious health problems.
For that matter, I'm not sure the astronauts won't develop cancer or radiation sickness, possibly even before they arrive.

TL 7 doesn't seem likely to have the biotech needed to solve these problems.




A two way mission is better for morale, but of course it's going to require more money and resources and time to get back home to Earth.

And is somebody staying behind?

ABOUT TECH LEVEL AND OPTIONS:

I've been assuming standard TL 7. I've also assumed a "realistic" approach to the daunting problems involved in the project.

But I could be wrong in either assumption.

Maybe this is TL 7 setting with emergent superscinece? TL 7 advanced in one area?

Is this a cinematic/slightly rubbery science setting?

Different planetology (like Mars being notably more habitable, possibly with some native life forms, and possessed of richer resources)?

Different natural laws?

Men are perfectly capable of going without women for years in extremely unpleasant conditions. Or is the purpose of Nasa really to demonstrate how wussy modern Americans are?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

Mars is a pretty horrible place.
I'm not sure that any children born there wouldn't have serious health problems.

I think you're grossly overestimating survival time. TL 7 might let you get people to Mars. It won't let you get them back home, nor will it let them survive there for long enough for raising children to be a factor.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Both would be available if there was enough money. While one way missions may be a bit extreme, people have been routinely going on expeditions with pretty high casualty rates if the pay was worth it.

May be a bit extreme?

Accepting a one way rocket to Mars for the high pay would be very silly, though, since you'll never come home to collect.

Please note that if there is a scheduled extraction, I would not call it a one way mission.

Are we talking about a whole crew of astronauts with Greedy and Gullible disads?

:)

Going to Mars to die seems like a hard sell for the American taxpayers.

I think the mission pretty much has to be two way to be viable in political terms, and not be a morale disaster for the astronauts.

That, or it has to bring women along and actually be a colony mission. At TL 7 and a Mars like our universe's Mars that's probably going to end in tears, unless there's a later evacuation/rescue mission (which could make a fun campaign/adventure...)


I don't know how Flyn feels about a semi-habitable alternate Mars, but I think it would go a long way towards making the scenario work.
If he goes that route, he might look at scientific speculation about conditions on Mars prior to 1965.

Originally Posted by Anthony

I think you're grossly overestimating survival time. TL 7 might let you get people to Mars. It won't let you get them back home, nor will it let them survive there for long enough for raising children to be a factor.

I am indeed overestimating survival time. Call me a generous soul.

I think a manned Mars mission today, with TL 8, would be a waste of time, money, and quite probably human lives.

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Men are perfectly capable of going without women for years in extremely unpleasant conditions. Or is the purpose of Nasa really to demonstrate how wussy modern Americans are?

A one way mission means they aren't coming back/no scheduled return. Don't shift the goalposts now, please. My comment about women was for a one way mission. We're talking about men going to Mars for the rest of their lives, or at the very least with no scheduled pick up and every reason to expect they may die on Mars.
You think that these men are going to do well with no women, under those conditions, long term?
I suppose if they all die of radiation sickness before its gets really ugly--as Anthony will no doubt point out they likely would-- that solves the problem.


Are you proposing a crew made up only of homosexuals?

Monks?

Just saying they are all bachelors won't cut it. The men will have needs, and not only sexual but also psychological and social.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Anthony

I think you're grossly overestimating survival time. TL 7 might let you get people to Mars. It won't let you get them back home, nor will it let them survive there for long enough for raising children to be a factor.

Self contained ecosystems can work fine as long as you're large enough and have occasional resupplies.
Nuclear submarines can last years between resupplies.

Orion and later Medusa version rockets can certainly give the delta V to go there and back quite realistically. A 2 month trip there is realistic for a classic Orion drive.
Big ships also allow significantly more radiation protection.
There's also the preliminary finding that cosmic radiation may be only half as long term damaging as initially thought.
All in all it still seems safer for a couple years off earth than taking up chain smoking.

Keep the thing in orbit, maybe Phobos' Lagrange point for extra stability. With a soft landing upper stage and facilities to process LOX and LH2 or LCH4 for launching back to mother ship.

Burying the facility under a couple of tens of meters of regolith would shield them nicely.


What risks am I ignoring or irrationally minimizing?

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

...

That, or it has to bring women along and actually be a colony mission. At TL 7 and a Mars like our universe's Mars that's probably going to end in tears, unless there's a later evacuation/rescue mission (which could make a fun campaign/adventure...)


I don't know how Flyn feels about a semi-habitable alternate Mars, but I think it would go a long way towards making the scenario work.
If he goes that route, he might look at scientific speculation about conditions on Mars prior to 1965.




I am indeed overestimating survival time. Call me a generous soul.

I think a manned Mars mission today, with TL 8, would be a waste of time, money, and quite probably human lives.



That's nonsense. A one way mission means they aren't coming back. Don't shift the goalposts now. We're talking about men going to Mars for the rest of their lives, or at the very least with no scheduled pick up and every reason to expect they live and die on Mars.
You actually think that these men are going to do well with no women at all, ever again, for the rest of their lives?
I suppose if they all die of radiation sickness before its gets really ugly--as Anthony will no doubt point out they likely would-- that solves the problem.


Are you proposing a crew made up only of homosexuals?

Monks?

Just saying they are all bachelors won't cut it. The men will have needs, and not only sexual but also psychological and social.

I want a fully realistic alternate but nearby more forgiving realties would be wonderful. I'm not sure how one could make Mars nicer without radically changing the solar system or physics itself. How would one up the atmosphere density plausibly?

I think manned missions anywhere off earth are inherently irrational. Incredibly cool and ideologically worthwhile. But on the whole, a pretty dumb way to throw away money and lives.

Irreversible vasectomies and tubal ligations aren't exactly rocket science. ;)
Disturbingly, you could also force them to take libido destroying SSRIs.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Men are perfectly capable of going without women for years in extremely unpleasant conditions. Or is the purpose of Nasa really to demonstrate how wussy modern Americans are?

Some men have but through carefully considered choice? I doubt that for any but the most off kilter zealot or hermit.

[Flyndaran]

Rubbery science seems like a cop out. The easiest single one though would be some kind of perfect radiation shielding.
Or Mars with an atmosphere works to avoid humans having magi-tech.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Anthony

The big requirements for Mars are a much higher budget than the Apollo program (which was already absolutely enormous) and an extremely cavalier attitude towards the survival of your astronauts (say, half of them survive to reach Mars, none ever come home).

A big enough delta V would allow a return trip off window. Orion, and especially the realistic Medusa version, gives a boat load of that.

Smearing the project over a longer time frame would ease the tax payers' burden quite a bit. The Apollo project was a freakish rush job.
I assume the Ares version to steadily proceed from slighter more advanced space tech 1960s to the 1979 touch down.