New Mars Forums

In response to Free Spirit:
Q. I'm curious why you put the lander in the nose cone.

A. What you see there is not a launch vehicle but a spaceship. The nose section of the space ship is meant for aero-braking in the martian atmosphere. Like this:

After the parachutes reduce the speed to sub sonic speeds the entry vehicle splits apart and the lander appears. At this point its flown to the surface by an astronaut Apollo style.

In response to TJohn:
Q. Great pic.  What program are you using to create these pictures?
A. Its just a render from my modelling program Maya.

What we need is very simple.

A cheap way to move cargo and people into space.

Perhaps one that changes very little over time and can be reconfigured to lift differant payloads easily. i.e. Adding boosters.

Oh yah and no new technology that isn't proven like space planes ect...

Whala... rockets and capsules. [sarcasm on]What a concept.[/sarcasm off].

How complicated is this really ?

I'm not in favor of investing in totally new technology for our main launch systems.

Hey my website related to a manned Mars Mission game I'm working on. I thought I'd post it here first though for you guys.

Check it out and give me some feed back please. Mars Mod

Cheers!
Matt

Uh theres a big differance between acceleration and centrifical force.

For one thing once you get the thing spinning you won't need to continue to fire the rockets. It should spin almost forever supplying the 1 g you need. Being that big you wouldn't need it spinning very fast at all.

Hi guys. I am posting an email that I sent out to a few people concerning a project related to Mars exploration. I thought I would post a copy here for your information and in case there was a visitor that might be interested. Thanks Matt
****************************************
Hiya,
I am currently trying to form a small team to evaluate the feasability of using the future Half Life 2 engine to simulate a manned Mars Mission. I am a 39 year old engineer (who lives in Missouri) with experiance in programming. You are being contacted becuase of your knowledge in either 3d modelling (or Mars exploration), and you are invited to join the exploritaory team. This is differant then being invited to join the production team. The exploritory team will be in existance for 1 month (or so) and should not take up much of your time, since most of the communication will be through emails.

I am hoping that either your interest in the movie making capability of the engine itself, or the manned Mars mission itself will entice you to help our fledgling effort out. Ultimately the goal of this exploritory team will be to determine if it would be possible to simulate such a Mars Mission using 3d game technology (and if so if such a thing would be desirable).

However, do to the Mars Expedition Simulations scope, I feel this might be something more then just a Half Life 2 mod. The Half Life 2 powerfull (and free) rendering engine may allow us to construct every phase of the manned mission using high poly models. Well basically the power of gaming engines has advanced to the point where highly detailed working models are possible. Untimately this may allow the production of a very fun and exciting trip to Mars simulation, showcasing the technology and the art. Perhaps even using the Mars Direct or Nasa reference mission plans for the mission. In doing so we may be able to create something inspiring to us all.

The scope of this thing would include using 3d models to simulate the manned mission in a 3d rendering engine (half life 2 is exactly the right tool) but in a online multiplayer format. This means you could join a game online and pick up a role in the mission, this might include anything from astronaut to flight control technician. Players would take the place of mission control, astronauts, engineers and technicians (on public servers). Voice communication would be included in the game so that all prechecks between (the multiplayer )simulated astronauts, engineers and technicians could be completed.

The game (mod) include:
a) Mission Control Prelaunch Checks, and all Related Engineering, Communication and Control of Mission During the Mission. Including a real to life mission control room, with working engineering systems and monitors
(failure in these areas would result in the mission failures)
b) Launch of all Space Vehicles Required to complete the Mars Direct Mission
c) Flight to Mars
e) Entry, landing
f) Setting up the Mars habitat, including the stay and preperation for the return flight
g) Lift off from Mars
h) Flight to earth
i) Earth Entry

Obviously a big project. Perhaps too ambitious. Yet perhaps possible. I've actually done a project equal in scope to this with just two people in less then a year.

Anyway let me know if your interested in helping evaluate the possibilities (I will post this on a forum or too also and see if we can get some help). This will require only 4 people (including me) who are qualified to create, review and approve a general outline for the project. The group will then be dissolved and the project will either die or proceed.

I think its an intriguing vision. Be a fun game to play online too.

Matthew Pratt
Mod Maker
Metallurgical Engineer

Ok fine. But Apollo and shuttle missions are one thing. Mars missions need a differant mind set. At some point in our travels in space, trips unavoidably become one way. A Mars trip is quite far away in human terms, with current technology. 

Only one time every 26 months do the orbits even come within 7 months of travel time for current space craft technology.

In other words, there is no such thing as a short Mars mission. The minimum time on Mars is 20 some months, due to the nature of the orbits of Earth and Mars.

So one way or the other, they will have to set up a pretty permanent long term home on the surface. So the minimum time for a total trip including return time is 7 months there + 20 months on the surface + 9 months return, or (=36 months) 3 years total. To put that in perspective that is about a year and a half of space flight, both ways.

This is justification enough to discard commonly held beliefs and entertain new paradiams.

It just seems like Mars missions are a whole differant thing then moon missions. Not only becuase of the distance but particularly becuase of the differance in the orbits of the two planets. We have to build a "long term facility on the surface to stay in 20 months anyway". So since we are going to be camped out there in a sophisticated self sustaining colony anyways, why not just stay there. A permanant facility where people could live for 20 months is probabaly not that differant from a facility where people could live permanetly.

So the question arises why leave? We could swap personel every few years at their request, which might answer your moral questions.

Personal there could have internet access, although lag time would be great they could still surf the web and post to forums like this one. They could have a significant other with them. If their significant other died they could come home. As for morals, there really isnt anything immoral about living on Mars. As far as costs we will be building a long term station anyway. And we do fly to this planet regularly anyway.

I think things all add up to the conclusion that the best way to handle Mars is to make it a colony from the git go. Not with the idea of staying forever, just maybe a few martian years, till we ran out of things to learn.

You guys are all missing the point.

The odds of getting to Mars and landing is about 40%, and that is being generous.

The odds of returning to earth is less so make it 30%.

The odds therefore to do the whole trip is 15%.

Better to set the mission up by focusing money for the quality of life on mars, with the comforts of home at 40% success rate. Then have a 15% success rate.

Remember the odds of a successfull mission has got to be the deciding factor when deciding a mission plan.

Becuase they are basically choosing which mission plan has the best chance of not giving them a bunch of dead astronauts. I don't think the return trip is safe enough to warrent the risk to the astrounauts. You guys havent looked at the risks of the mission close enough.

Why does America support Israel ?

Are you sure they do? Or are they being targeted as another western style evil country, by arab countries, becuase the USA is not arab.

Its hard to believe that any arab country would actively suggest that the USA was on its side. Seeing how radical the arab religion is these day.

The questions you need to ask yourself is has America really choosen sides? My view from here is that America is trying to broker peace, and they are neutral.

As to why the USA has to get involved I have no idea. My personal solution is to build a big wall between the two countries and place mines for a mile on both sides of it, becuase its pretty obvious those two need to be seperated. This is the one case where the berlin wall seems a good idea.

Who really cares about making a force field? Nobody else is using them in space. I think the effort is better spent on comfort for the astronauts on the way or something more practical.

Thanks for the welcome guys.

Let me explain a bit more. I wrote the original post after I read the NASA specifications for a manned mission (here). In particular I am looking at the page on production of propellant (here).

Anyway the current NASA crewed mars mission plans call for a methane/oxygen propellant ISRU (In situ resource utilzation) strategy which may very well be included in an unmanned Mars sample return mission in the near future (i.e. which is really a test run of the ISRU for a manned mission). Basically the idea of the ISRU is to take the hydrogen from earth to mars and then to use that hydrogen to make methane. Then to use electricity, from solar panels, to free O2 from CO2. Then to compress that methane and oxygen to fuel a space ship.

Now I am an engineer. I can see that the effort it would take to get people back in NASAs crewed mission to mars would be by far the most critical, costly and dangerous part of NASAs current roadmap to mars. Now I ask you why would you WANT to spend tens of BILLIONS of dollars to try to bring people back, when the whole effort to come home adds quite a large risk to the people involved? Remember, failure in any part of the hugely complicated return mission means death.

To put it in perspective, the return trip would be the most complicated technological effort mankind has ever attempted. So why bother even trying? Spend the effort and billions of dollars on putting a good size house that?s safe and secure on the mars surface, sending ice cream (seriously), perhaps a sprint cell phone where they could dial any earth phone number, maybe even mail and deliveries on a yearly (have to double up on the 26 month lauch window) basis or provide a dune buggy for the mars base crew (spend the money on these types of technologies). Spend the money on having a couple "wharehouses" in Mars orbit ahead of time. So they could have things parachuted in if they needed somethig, at the touch of a button.

Basically touch down a house on the surface (a fairly decent sized one), hook the house into the internet, drop in a nice jeep in the front yard and have a couple warehouses (2 years of stockpiles) of oxygen and food in orbit for supplies, and then if it everything is tested and is working then and only then drop a man and a women in by parachute into the front yard (too stay).

It just seems cheaper and better then the return trip senario. And about the same cost as maintaining the international space station, without the weakness in the knees you get from weightlessness.

I really don't think they would suffer too bad on the surface if they were supplied once a year, if they had a decent sized house, if they had a phone that worked and if they liked the internet. And even plan the design of the house for a baby perhaps.

As far as your comments about human diversity on the surface of mars, I don't think that?s a problem. There is no hope to generate a population on Mars at this point anyway. Any settlement would be tiny and small, permanent for them perhaps but temporary really, in the big scheme of things.

Personally, I favor devoting the whole mars base project to trying to grow a garden. See if theres any way to get a leafy plant, a multicell animal or a bacteria growing. Simple as that. Put the base as close to water as we can manage. Many plants can convert CO2 to O2 and thrive, even in a desert environment. Watering them would be the tough part perhaps. Oh and I think that for the time this base is operating this would need to be NASAs one and only goal. No military missions, no space shuttle missions. No nothing just support the Mars base with missions and research.

Anyway thats why I posted the first topic. I didn't really like spending all that money on such a risky proposal. The one outlined here is a much safer one for the astronauts, as they can fly a direct entry and land in a safe tested and secure environment.

Cheers Guys!,
Mcshlong

P.S. Furthur reading on the return trip issue can be found here.