New Mars Forums

With talk of manned moon missions by the European, Chinese, and American space programs, I thought it might be appropriate to start a new topic where Lunar (either past, present, or proposed) mission profiles can be discussed.

Here are some questions to be considered:

-Will we need an HLLV?
-Should Lunar hardware be compatible with future Mars hardware?
-Should we use in-situ techniques on the moon (i.e. manufacturing hydrogen and oxygen on the surface from ice deposits)?
-How much infrastructure might we need initially, and will long stays on the surface be an integrale part of the design?
-Will the mission require in-orbit assembly?
-Will the ISS play a role?
-How many craft might there be?
-How many launches will be required to complete the mission? One launch, a la Apollo, or multiple launches? (Seperate launches for CEV, surface hab, and a return vehicle, for example.)

This thread is intended for hypothetical discussion; all ideas, of yours and of others, may be posted here. As well as design studies of the past, and of course, lessons learned from Apollo.

Wouldn't it be just as easy (easier?) to go to mars than a return to the moon with todays technology anyway? Especially if Bush is calling for long stays on the surface, and all the trouble that entails... Sure, we might need atleast a little practice first, but anything we can do on the moon we could do much easier in orbit. Eh? What am I saying??!!   

Edit: Notice how NewMars posts are a lot like chinese whispers? Sorry Cindy...

Shaun, I think you just elaborated on my very thoughts which sparked my above post.

A toast to great minds! *raises alcoholic beverage*    :;): 

The Navy had to remove its reactor as part of the antarctic treaty of 1959. Tons of 'contaminated' soil was removed from the site, not as a precaution, but under treaty rules. And yes, the site may still be radioactive, but since it is largely isolated (perhaps not at this site) from the ecosystem, it is of little danger to the environment. The surface of antarctica is mostly ice, the bedrock being up to 15,000 ft below. The ice sheet moves very slowly (taking thousands of years to reach the coast from the center of isolation), and there are areas that don't move at all. A slowly moving ice sheet is an extremely stable environment, nevertheless. At projected rates of global warming it would take millions of years for the ice to melt to sufficient depth, and by that time all the continents would have been flooded anyway... Finally, concerning nuclear fission power plants, antarctica may be one of the better places for a chernobyl type incident to occur: The atmospheric pressure over the extremely cold and arid continent is relatively low, (The extreme dryness of the air over the antarctic may be another advantage. This is all conjecture on my behalf, I'm not exactly sure of the science involved.) so winds there nearly always blow inward (towards the south pole) in a giant spiral; thereby containing radioactive air-borne particles. For this reason nuclear testing there may also be less environmentally damaging.

Hey, isn't this thread about space based nuclear power? My imagination has no self-control.

I agree. Space is perhaps one of the safest places for a nuclear power plant to malfunction. What you don't want, however, is millions of tiny particles of radioactive plutonium raining down on the earth. Nuclear reactors should be capable of surviving a booster explosion, re-entry, and impact, without spilling uranium. I've become curious of Antarctica in recent years, and have concluded it would be greatly beneficial to store radioactive and other wastes there (deep under the ice sheet). Unfortunately (IMO), the antarctic is protected from this sort of thing. Antarctica is unique, as it is nearly completely isolated from the rest of the world. As is space. So the same idea holds true for space. If we can find a way to safely transport radioactive material off the earth. As for the 'greens';  they can be a little short-sighted at times, imho...

5 tonne rovers? That's why Mars Direct should have a dedicated cargo vehicle for large pressurized rovers, inflatable habs, spare parts, and other miscellaneous, not mission critical hardware. A cargo vehicle won't necessarily need an HLLV either, and ideally could be launched before the usual launch window; kept in earth orbit before heading off to mars.

Here we go...    

[=http://www.exploremarsnow.org/]Explore Mars Now

Wow. Now how come I've never seen it?

Koptev: he seems like a pretty miserable fella to me... Let's hope he's hiding something. 

Lemme add my 2 cents... First off, Dayton, make sure you emphasize the need for an SDV/HLLV. Remember to mention fixed costs, and the security of current shuttle workers. Also, Don't mention a moon mission should occur 2 years before a Mars mission; Although the hardware is more-or-less the same, the mission profiles are too different (for a moon mission to be a test bed for mars). The periodic launch windows to Mars means an SDV doesn't get work for 2.5 years. In order to keep launch costs of the new SDV low, work for it can be sustained by using it to launch Lunar missions between Mars mission launch windows, and for cheap deployment of orbital facilities, space hotels, 10 meter telescopes, etc. To NASA, an SDV doesn't make all that much sense, as they don't see much use for a 100 tonne booster. We have to remind them of all the things it can do, how cheap it will be, and how valuable it will be in the future.
Don't hardwire your proposal; keep it flexible. Also, is a high resolution mapping precursor mission all that smart? Is it really necassary, and, more importantly, might it reduce the value of exploration by human eyes?

NASA guys don't listen to philosophical crap... But be sure to give them every other reason why we should send humans to Mars, and soon.

Exactly. Ditch the ISS, build the Shuttle C, launch a one piece ISS2 (i.e Skylab).

And all for less than keeping ISS.

Unfortunately, politics and common sense NEVER hold hands. Will private industry or the Russians (Chinese?) be first to Mars?  'Cause it sure aint gonna be NASA. Well... Not if they continue to think like this (refering to CEV, Hubble).

PS: Isn't Mars Direct $35 billion?

Y'know, in some sense I'm hoping these images will raise many more questions than answers. We're sure to get the attention of the media with this one... HotDangFred! Don't you just want to be there right now, sift your fingers through the soil...