Mission To Mars 1080p Mkv Download
Griselda Humbarger
Developed by the Museum of Science, educators can use these lesson plans to introduce students to the basics of engineering and turn any Mission: Mars engineering mission into a whole-class engineering activity.
Enjoy a close-up look at a detailed model of the Perseverance rover and its groundbreaking companion, the Ingenuity Mars Helicopter, alongside the innovative Mars Ascent Vehicle, designed to collect and store samples for potential return to Earth. The exhibit will also feature digital displays showcasing the latest videos and images from this extraordinary ongoing mission.
The idea of sending humans to Mars has been the subject of aerospace engineering and scientific studies since the late 1940s as part of the broader exploration of Mars.[1] Long-term proposals have included sending settlers and terraforming the planet. Currently, only robotic landers and rovers have been on Mars. The farthest humans have been beyond Earth is the Moon, under the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA's) Apollo program which ended in 1972.
Meanwhile, the uncrewed exploration of Mars has been a goal of national space programs for decades, and was first achieved in 1965 with the Mariner 4 flyby. Human missions to Mars have been part of science fiction since the 1880s, and more broadly, in fiction, Mars is a frequent target of exploration and settlement in books, graphic novels, and films. The concept of a Martian as something living on Mars is part of the fiction. Proposals for human missions to Mars have come from agencies such as NASA, CNSA, the European Space Agency, Boeing, SpaceX, and space advocacy groups such as the Mars Society and The Planetary Society.
Several types of mission plans have been proposed, including opposition class and conjunction class,[6] or the Crocco flyby.[8] The lowest energy transfer to Mars is a Hohmann transfer orbit, which would involve a roughly 9-month travel time from Earth to Mars, about 500 days (16 mo)[citation needed] at Mars to wait for the transfer window to Earth, and a travel time of about 9 months to return to Earth.[9][10] This would be a 34-month trip.
Shorter Mars mission plans have round-trip flight times of 400 to 450 days,[11] or under 15 months, but would require significantly higher energy. A fast Mars mission of 245 days (8.0 months) round trip could be possible with on-orbit staging.[12] In 2014, ballistic capture was proposed, which may reduce fuel cost and provide more flexible launch windows compared to the Hohmann.[13]
In the 1980s, it was suggested that aerobraking at Mars could reduce the mass required for a human Mars mission lifting off from Earth by as much as half.[16] As a result, Mars missions have designed interplanetary spacecraft and landers capable of aerobraking.[16]
When an expedition reaches Mars, braking is required to enter orbit. Two options are available: rockets or aerocapture. Aerocapture at Mars for human missions was studied in the 20th century.[17] In a review of 93 Mars studies, 24 used aerocapture for Mars or Earth return.[17] One of the considerations for using aerocapture on crewed missions is a limit on the maximum force experienced by the astronauts. The current scientific consensus is that 5 g, or five times Earth gravity, is the maximum allowable deceleration.[17]
Conducting a safe landing requires knowledge of the properties of the atmosphere, first observed by Mariner 4, and a survey of the planet to identify suitable landing sites. Major global surveys were conducted by Mariner 9, Viking 1 and two orbiters, which supported the Viking landers. Later orbiters, such as Mars Global Surveyor, 2001 Mars Odyssey, Mars Express, and Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, have mapped Mars in higher resolution with improved instruments. These later surveys have identified the probable locations of water, a critical resource.[18]
A primary limiting factor for sending humans to Mars is funding. In 2010, the estimated cost was roughly US$500 billion. Although the actual costs are likely to be more,[19] this is less than half the cost of the Iraq War in the previous decade. Starting in the late 1950s, the early phase of space exploration was conducted as much to make a political statement as to make observations of the solar system. However, this proved to be both wasteful and unsustainable, and the current climate is one of international cooperation, with large projects such as the International Space Station and the proposed Lunar Gateway being built and launched by multiple countries.[citation needed]
Critics argue that the immediate benefits of establishing a human presence on Mars are outweighed by the immense cost, and that funds could be better redirected towards other programs, such as robotic exploration. Proponents of human space exploration contend that the symbolism of establishing a presence in space may garner public interest to join the cause and spark global cooperation. There are also claims that a long-term investment in space travel is necessary for humanity's survival.[19]
One factor reducing the funding needed to place a human presence on Mars may be space tourism. As the space tourism market grows and technological developments are made, the cost of sending humans to other planets will likely decrease accordingly. A similar concept can be examined in the history of personal computers: when computers were used only for scientific research, with minor use in big industry, they were big, rare, heavy, and costly. When the potential market increased and they started to become common in businesses and later in many homes (in Western and developed countries) for the purpose of entertainment such as computer games, and booking travel/leisure tickets, the computing power of home devices skyrocketed and prices plummeted.[20]
Some of these issues were estimated statistically in the HUMEX study.[37] Ehlmann and others have reviewed political and economic concerns, as well as technological and biological feasibility aspects.[38] While fuel for roundtrip travel could be a challenge, methane and oxygen can be produced using Martian H2O (preferably as water ice instead of liquid water) and atmospheric CO2 with sufficiently mature technology.[39]
Robotic spacecraft to Mars are required to be sterilized. The allowable limit is 300,000 spores on the exterior of general craft, with stricter requirements for spacecraft bound for "special regions" containing water.[40][41] Otherwise there is a risk of contaminating not only the life-detection experiments but possibly the planet itself.[42]
Sterilizing human missions to this level is impossible, as humans are host to typically a hundred trillion (1014) microorganisms of thousands of species of the human microbiota, and these cannot be removed. Containment seems the only option, but it is a major challenge in the event of a hard landing (i.e. crash).[43] There have been several planetary workshops on this issue, but with no final guidelines for a way forward yet.[44] Human explorers would also be vulnerable to back contamination to Earth if they become carriers of microorganisms.[45]
Over the past seven decades, a wide variety of mission architectures have been proposed or studied for human spaceflights to Mars. These have included chemical, nuclear, and electric propulsion, as well as a wide variety of landing, living, and return methodologies.
Entry into the thin and shallow Martian atmosphere will pose significant difficulties with re-entry; compared to Earth's much denser atmosphere, any spacecraft will descend very rapidly to the surface and must be slowed.[55] A heat shield has to be used.[56] NASA is carrying out research on retropropulsive deceleration technologies to develop new approaches to Mars atmospheric entry. A key problem with propulsive techniques is handling the fluid flow problems and attitude control of the descent vehicle during the supersonic retropropulsion phase of the entry and deceleration.[57]
A return mission from Mars will need to land a rocket to carry crew off the surface. Launch requirements mean that this rocket could be significantly smaller than an Earth-to-orbit rocket. Mars-to-orbit launch can also be achieved in single stage. Despite this, landing an ascent rocket back on Mars will be difficult.[citation needed]
One of the medical supplies that might be needed is a considerable mass of intravenous fluid, which is mainly water, but contains other substances so it can be added directly to the human blood stream. If it could be created on the spot from existing water, this would reduce mass requirements. A prototype for this capability was tested on the International Space Station in 2010.[59]
A person who is inactive for an extended period of time loses strength, muscle and bone mass. Spaceflight conditions are known to cause loss of bone mineral density in astronauts, increasing bone fracture risk. The most recent mathematical models predict 33% of astronauts will be at risk for osteoporosis during a human mission to Mars.[31] A resistive exercise device similar to an Advanced Resistive Exercise Device (ARED) would be needed in the spaceship.
While humans can breathe pure oxygen, usually additional gases such as nitrogen are included in the breathing mix. One possibility is to take in situ nitrogen and argon from the atmosphere of Mars, but they are hard to separate from each other.[60] As a result, a Mars habitat may use 40% argon, 40% nitrogen, and 20% oxygen.[60]
An idea for keeping carbon dioxide out of the breathing air is to use reusable amine-bead carbon dioxide scrubbers.[61] While one carbon dioxide scrubber filters the astronaut's air, the other is vented to the Mars atmosphere.[61]
Sample return plans raise the concern, however remote, that an infectious agent could be brought to Earth.[70] Regardless, a basic set of guidelines for extraterrestrial sample return has been laid out depending on the source of sample (e.g. asteroid, Moon, Mars surface, etc.)[71]
b37509886e