New Mars Forums

No oxygen for you! 

Still to settle this question can anyone crank some numbers on whether carrying water is easier than hydrogen?

Much of the testing for In-Situ on Mars could be done while men are still at Luna; i.e. unmanned test vehicles.  Smaller versions could be sent on Phoenix-esque-massed craft and if that works a Mars-Sample Return could test the technology fully.  When we're finally testing manned Martian vehicles then send a full-sized ERV - perhaps it could deliver the initial base materials.

I think the technology is sound; it just involves Martian CO2 mixed with H2 to produce methane, water, and some oxygen.  If you're worried over cryogenics then lug the H2 in the form of water and electrolocize it on Mars - the shuttle does that regularly as does the ISS so it isn't unheard of (on the ISS they keep the O2 and vent the H2 in their case).

We just need to build the damn thing.  Test it in simulated Mars atmosphere here on Earth, then send the model on a Mars probe, and then send one or two progressively beefed-up versions.  Pathfinder was considered extremely risque with its airbags and yet when MPL blundered the MERs immediately bounced their way to Mars in its wake.  New tech isn't untouchable - you just give it a chance to work and, if it does, then use it.

...btw, we BUILD the damn rocketry here on Earth.  At Mars all the stupid thing has to worry about is opening a few vents otherwise its all internal, which goes back to the quality of its Earthly construction.  Mars didn't kill MPL, shotty Earthly engineering did which is the only true worry.

Out of everything Zubrin suggested my bet is they'll modify Semi-Direct since the ERV could be based on the CEV, whether modified or not it essentially fits the bill.

I would like to see a HAB used as the manned lander but all this is just wishful thinking on my part.

If any I'd say finding an asteroid with a stable-enough orbit to allow frequent revisists.  Mars you can visit one ever two years but NEOs are trickier - they can get closer than the Moon but only once in a blue Moon...

If somewhere out there there's a rock that's allow revisits, say, once every two to nine months (or at least once a year if our asteroid sojourns are really robust) then you're in buisness.

Still I think asteroids at best will be second to the Moon due to launch window access.  Someone will just have to look for an ideal candidate rock...and with several small NEO-watching-groups already on the job there is potential for this route.

Amazing photographic capability - it is hard to believe the Vikings have been spotted from orbit and thirty years (give or take a few months) since they landed. 

Obviously they're still sitting there, dead as frozen car batteries, but the photographs still leave me to wonder about their physical conditions.  I guess we won't know until either an aerial probe visits (since the sites are too damn boring to warrant a shorter-ranged rover and certainly lander) or humans walk up to 'em.

I hope we'll hear some news from SHARD next, not that the photographs are bad but if you want some real back-up on that water gulley bit finding an underground lake will bolster the odds.

A Halloween mission - how spookily intruiging... 

Still hoping to see some specific technical designs of LRO and its piggy-back LCROSS.  Any specifics yet on what LCROSS will be carrying for that matter?

Looking at that diagram it looks like they might be using solar electric judging from that module with the blatantly huge solar arrays.  It looks like it is jettisoned around MOI...kinda a waste but is that an atmospheric entry capsule near Mars?  That makes me ponder if a lander is being considered, either Russian or perhaps Chinese (if the later no doubt an effort to boost their space ratings).

Beyond what I noted above looks like the usual for a SRM ala Stardust, Genesis, and Haybuskia (the Japanese asteroid mission): a main bus landing and then delivering a capsule for reentry & landing on Earth.

I hope well for this Russian(/Chinese) mission, and that more details about it will be revealed soon.

You're forgetting these are the makers of Energia and Buran - if their governement really wanted to get devoted to space they would be orbiting the moon without ESA's blessing and currently exploring options for a lunar lander.

All good questions, and this is why we need lunar probes providing data for answers asap.

Regarding crushing moon rock, we still need to generate LOX and extract minerals - we can do plenty with that 100 tons - the H2O would be the bonus from the process.  Personally I'd hope that gross an excess wouldn't be the case but it could just as likely be too with as little 'ground truth' we have.

Depends - lunar landers if they're developed into a local-operated vehicle may be modified to run on LOX-aluminium for instance to utilize more cost effective materials.  I would recomend that route for the same reasons you state - H2O is there but like oil on Earth it isn't limitless.

Martin summarizes alot of what I think alright.  You want to lower the cost of getting into space?  You need to build stuff in space - not like the ISS I mean mine, refine, forge, assemble, wire, stamp and launch it into orbit. 

The Moon is a blessing, even if it is lifeless and barren.

Sorry Admiral but your comment has to be demoted to cadet...

These are based off Earth-based radar readings, much of which like visual Earth-based observations are difficult at best due to the angles we're seeing the lunar poles at.  Also ice grains are likely mixed in with lunar dust, so when you bounce radar off you're more likely to see it as dust not pure ice.

I find it only fitting that we're getting contradictory findings from something so many space enthusiasts are betting their hopes on.  My only bet thus far is that we're going to get confirmation from the LRO-Lunar Impactor mission.  Nearly half the instruments aboard it are dedicated to delving into those shadowed craters; coupled with an entire booster stage being plowed into the surface if that doesn't spew out a hint of water then likely it is not present in sufficent quantities to support at least global lunar exploration - perhaps a localized base at best but the point remains.

Heck of a way to put it Tom...