onlooker wrote:I think one of the main problems with this mission, is how to deal with the unexpected. Like a rock or something hitting the ship, or a unexpected malfunction. Remember they will be so far away from any assistance or rescue. Then their is the capabilities of the crew to deal with the conditions of space travel as well as the long time of being away from Earth as well as dealing with each other. A daunting challenge but doable given adequate planning. We even seem to have the preferred propulsion system being the ionized Solar Sails
Manned missions never use bleeding edge tech. Certification.
Not to say that cargo trains to Mars wouldn't be able to use low-G propulsions system to reduce cost; but the best way to reduce the risk of the transit flight from Earth to Mars for a crew, is to reduce its time of flight. You do that by launching at high-G, probably from orbit (LEO would be good, geosync would be an awesome trick), from a docked to vehicle, and having a high-G deceleration capture at Mars.
So go and stay would look like:
supply launches 1 to x. once every 6 months.. till mission end
two years before people leave, launch support and habitat system
after confirming landing & function of supply and support modules; launch transit vehicle to LEO
fuel it; test by boost to geosync,
launch human varmints to geosync, dock.
Test systems for flight
burn
all astronauts should start praying really really hard; because they are now exposed to lots of things that could kill them in the blink of an eye that no capabilities exists in the hands of man to protect them from.
orbital capture at mars
check to confirm astronauts have not been barbecued
test.
land.
work.
live.
die.
the end.
If one were to INSIST on return. Let me suggest that an orbital STATION at mars commanding a fleet of ground robotics does permit a certifiable return, and gets you most of the benefits of proximity without the risk of contamination of the Mars environment.