If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

Peter Pevensie · 2002-05-10 05:26:31

On David Portree's "Romance to Reality" site (http://members.aol.com/dsfportree/explore.htm) once had an abstract for a "one way" mission to Mars that was very interesting, but AOL is wreaking havoc with his site right now and I can't find the link.

BTW, I emailed the Mars Now! paper to Adrian.

Phobos · 2002-05-10 19:30:54

I definately hope the second option pans out, that the Chinese spur us on to Mars. Sending people on one way trips
to Mars to die just seems defeatist and immoral. It's like admitting somehow that we're only half-capable of getting to Mars.

BryanEye · 2002-05-13 20:22:09

I can't see a human surface mission happening before the 2018 perihelic opposition. I agree with Peter about respect for Zubrin as well as the need to work on alternate plans.

I advocate the following four phases:

Phase 1 (2003 - 2014) - First comes HREP, short for Heavy Robotic Exploration. We send thousands of inexpensive robots to conduct science, scouting and a support infrastructure for future missions.

Phase 2 (2014 - 2018) - Next is a series of Human Orbital Missions that will place skilled humans into orbit around Mars to interact with robots on the surface. This enables mission specialists to remotely control craft below in real-time, allowing them to operate much more efficiently without the ~20 minute communications lag on Earth.

Phase 3 (2018 - 2032) - Human Surface Mission and First Colonies. Then come the first humans, selected because of their extreme athleticism, developed intellect and survival skills in intense environments.

Phase 4 (2032 and beyond) - Settlement, Surface Engineering and Beginning of Terraforming

I believe that this approach and timeline could be accomplished primarily through private funding and operations.

Bill White · 2002-05-13 21:28:17

Can someone point me to a website that lists the launch windows for Earth to Mars (MarsDirect mission architecture) over the next 30 to 50 years?

I know about January 2014 (which apparently has a pretty easy free return option) and I could once find the others at the Caltech SCHEME site but for some reason I cannot find that information any more.

VitaminJ · 2002-05-14 10:04:18

Crash program today: We could be there by 2016, no problem. Nasa can afford 20-50 billion over this period, no prob, 15 % of budget. Probly could get a budget increase from Congress with wide support, too. Just takes the will, the call. I believe the support is there.

We need a booster, we need the in-situ fuel experiment done ASAP and smart lander technology, preferably a sample return or two (2011-2020 timeframe is not acceptable! ) Maybe an extra mission for all these silly new "safety" requirements above...reminds me more than a little of Zubrin's First Landing requiring of interminable unprovable proof of safety... Unmanned landers can test the technologies and the very shapes of the manned designs, even being scale models while doing their thing. There's no need to wait 20 years for 2 samples to come back! Start sooner! Launch 2 of them in 07 say, and have the manned designs somewhat finalized when the samples come back, instead of waiting to get the samples before starting. Duh! 1 or 2 heavier more capable robotic landers may be able to do the jobs of a fleet of the flyweight proposals -many of which seem hardly necessary - shaving many years off the forever stretching schedule.

Give the transfer vehicles some kind of artificial gravity and the in-space health concerns shrink drastically. (i prefer a "Mission to Mars "Cheesewheel" to Zubrin's mile-long scary tether, but smaller, 27' diam oughta do it) I'm not a rocket scientist but i have my share of human-mars vehicle doodles..and i read First Landing a few weeks ago..didn't know it was this cheap, had still been thinking 100 B! (the ISS may cost 100B! only 1/3 of that can get us to Mars!! ) (Russians have said as little as 10B but i shudder to think what that would be like) I've heard they also have better recyclers, so get them to make a big contribution and give them a seat on Mars 1. Whatever. Just do it.

If the US won't do it, get the Russians to! Excellent rockets (Saturn 5 RIP). Or ESA. Then Bush will be happy to throw not 40 Billion but several hundred billion at it.

Have decent money management, no cash-cow or make-work projects, bloating, or just throwing $ away. Farm the work out to private industry where it makes sense to do so. Make the larger vehicles at least reasonably modular for upgradability. And finally don't let's achieve the astonishing and then throw it all away like Apollo..

I doubt there's anything at Cydonia.

Moon or Mars: Mars. Any Mars infrastructure will obviously be moon capable, thrown in "for free." Mars hardware might be flight tested on Luna, wouldn't take long.

Maybe once the mice have flown, the Mars Soc could help accelerate the in-situ fuel filter experiment. Esa or japan might love to steal the US's glory by half a decade and could restart a space race. Can you say "wake up call"?

Sure, finish up the bloated ISS first -- and don't cut out the centrifuge. Begin planning now, fiscal year 03. Arrange the unmanned landers with reasonable common sense and alacrity. Then in 06 or so (when ISS down payment is final) make it official: humans to mars within a decade. we can do it. We know more about mars now than we did about the moon in 69, and technology has advanced significantly.

I know all these rantings may not be right on, but Mars is doable. Love that Zubrin.

Jay

ps anybody know if there are *interior* diagrams available for the vehicles in First Landing or the Mars Reference Mission? I'd love to se how lame mine are be comparison

BryanEye · 2002-05-14 11:08:16

(responding to Lars)

2018 has got to be it... robots have to go first. But I don't want those that advocate a Mars Direct mission to stop their hard work and truly pioneering efforts. At the pace things are going and the logistics involved, I feel the 2018 window is a good one to shoot for. And by that time, propulsion technology will bring travel time way down.

When I say "thousands of robots" I am taking into account all of the entomopters, cluster probes and multiple release packages of small disposable robots created by the boom in miniaturization and autonomous robotics. These could number in the thousands after 10-15 years. I would like to promote a Mars Challenge to private companies and federal programs to incentivize all of those amazing people and students building prototypes for Battlebots and Robot Wars and turn their interest to Mars. Part of the Mars Challenge would incorporate robotic probe contests to spur more widespread development of new and competing technologies to reduce the cost of getting machinery on the surface and in the martian atmosphere. Between media/advertising coops, government grants, private funding, universities and a Next Generation public outreach campaign, this (or an evolved variation) can be done.

Phase 2 - Yes, there are some radiation issues, but think about it. We need some type of orbital infrastructure. no matter how basic. Some great science can be done from orbit by specialists remotely controlling surface probes in a very skilled way. The real-time feedback and science of this approach I think will be invaluable.

Regarding the characteristics of those extreme adventurers who do go, you are right. They will need to have a great PR presence because reality entertainment will play a big role in the Greatest Human Adventure!

GOM · 2002-05-14 11:33:44

(Russians have said as little as 10B but i shudder to think what that would be like)

Whew.

Shudder is right!

Can you say Mir II???

Mark S · 2002-05-15 10:16:25

I'm pretty sure that any manned Mars mission would have to wait for about thirty more years. NASA has been talking about doing a robotic Sample Return in 2016. That would mean a return to earth by 2018. A manned mission would take at least eight more years beyond that date, assuming that MSR worked correctly.

The only way to accelerate the process is a private venture to land on Mars. I'd like to see the Mars Society team up with the aerospace industry to form a company that would colonize and explore the red planet.

Peter, it's great to hear from a fellow Riddler in this forum. I think that Riddle's current students need to play a bigger role in the Mars Society, like the group that submitted the Translife proposal did. I'm interested in your Mars Now paper and want to know where I can find a copy.

GOM · 2002-05-15 12:27:16

The only way to accelerate the process is a private venture to land on Mars.

That's not good. It will take an awful lot of money, not to mention expertise to pull it off.

On top of that, I doubt our military would allow such a thing.

.02

P.S. We don't even have a private venture that could put a man on the Moon right now.

Crash landing's don't count!

Bill White · 2002-05-15 13:16:32

On top of that, I doubt our military would allow such a thing.

Lets see - what does a private Mars mission need:

<a> $20 -$30 billion USD

<b> Heavy lift (Shuttle variant or Energia, right?)

<c> Deep space tracking and telemetry (Houston and where else?)

<d> 72 pounds of plutonium and a Rickover style nuclear reactor.

Suppose we somehow manage to acquire a, b & c - does anyone really believe the Pentagon will allow a bunch of anarchist quoting space nuts to possess 72 pounds of plutonium?

However, the Russians are desperate for hard currency. I believe $20 - $30 billion could purchase b, c & d if the funders were willing to use Russian stuff and if the US refrained from leaning too hard on Putin or his successors.

GOM · 2002-05-18 11:55:34

<d> 72 pounds of plutonium and a Rickover style nuclear reactor.

hmmm

Bill,

Do you really think 72 pounds of plutonium is the only, or even the best, way to get to Mars?

Bill White · 2002-05-18 12:37:39

Do you really think 72 pounds of plutonium is the only, or even the best, way to get to Mars?

Its not for getting there.

In MarsDirect, a nuke is needed to run the Sabatier reactors which make the fuel for a return trip to Earth. Zubrin's "Case for Mars" plan requires a nuclear reactor.

And, if its one way to stay, a nuke is needed to stay alive on (or under) the surface of Mars - even the most efficient forms of artificial light (LEDs or a sulfur light) will consume vast amounts of power as you grow food to survive.

How many square meters of solar panels are needed to equal one decent Rickover nuclear reactor?

Phobos · 2002-05-18 12:59:37

Is completing a sample return mission really that important
before we send people to Mars? Someone above mentioned
logically that a sample return probe will take two years to
make the trip and that it will take probably a decade after that
to actually send someone to Mars. After all, the best
kind of sample return mission is a manned mission. People can do a lot better than just take a few scoops off the surface. I don't really think a robotic sample return mission
will likely have that high of a chance of finding life or pathogens anyway since its very limited in its gathering ability.

GOM · 2002-05-19 10:49:38

Do you really think 72 pounds of plutonium is the only, or even the best, way to get to Mars?
Its not for getting there.

Thanks for that explanation Bill,

I just found your comments in this thread

http://www.newmars.com/cgi-bin....f=8;t=2

which was also very helpful.

That puts any Mars exploration by private companies very much between a rock and a hard place.

Mark S · 2002-05-20 09:00:02

If you need a nuclear reactor for power on the surface, wouldn't it also make sense to have nuclear propulsion from the surface into orbit? That would eliminate the hydrogen feedstock and the sabatier reactors. You would simply need compressed carbon dioxide, taken from the martian atmosphere, to run the nuclear thermal rocket. The same reactor could be used for propulsion and power. The only issue I have with this setup is the amount of shielding that will be needed in the tiny ERV. Any suggestions about fixing this problem.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-05-21 20:25:11

At last! Thankyou Phobos for raising the question again about the necessity for a sample return.
I've been trying hard to break this mind-set which seems to have everyone believing that, just because a few people at NASA want some rocks brought back from Mars, we should go along with the idea. I won't reiterate what I've written elsewhere on Forums but suffice it to say I DO NOT agree that a sample return is required; for ANY Mars program, and certainly not for GOM's suggested program of ten years.
I think we have to stop regarding every word from NASA as holy scripture. They're just a bunch of humans, like us. They don't have the monopoly on ideas and good sense and they (God knows) are just as capable of errors of judgment as we are.
Let the first human crew do the testing, as Phobos so rightly suggests. At least that way we'll be sure. What would one batch of sterile rocks from one small area of Mars tell us about microbial life planetwide .... effectively nothing!! We may have missed an oasis seething with pathogenic bacterial life just over the hill!
And that's precisely what the ditherers and the environmental fanatics will say, too. The MSR route is a never ending one because we will never have enough sample material to CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDE ALL DANGER of back-contamination! We could do dozens of MSRs over a period of decades and still not convince some people.
Ask the astronauts themselves! See if they are prepared to take the vanishingly-small risk of Hellas Herpes or if they'd rather wait until the mission can be guaranteed risk-free!! After they'd finished laughing at the concept of a risk-free mission, all you'd hear is: "Where do I sign?!"
That's all you'd hear from me, too!

Mark S · 2002-05-22 14:13:06

I'm sensing a lot of opposition to a sample return mission. I do not believe that a sample return will give us a definite answer to questions about life on Mars, but I still believe that we should launch one in order to TEST THE TECHNOLOGIES for a humans-to-mars mission in a real-world scenario. In "Case for Mars," Zubrin's sample return is seen as a prototype for his propellant-production plant that will be used in Mars Direct. In another iteration, MSR would use an ion engine for transit to and from Mars, paving the way for this novel engine to be used on a manned mission. It will also be interesting to see whether humans could survive a direct entry at Mars or on the return to earth, or if they would need to be decelerated into an orbit around the planet before they descended. Instrumentation aboard MSR would give us a definite answer.

Phobos · 2002-05-22 15:24:57

Ask the astronauts themselves! See if they are prepared to take the vanishingly-small risk of Hellas Herpes or if they'd rather wait until the mission can be guaranteed risk-free!! After they'd finished laughing at the concept of a risk-free mission, all you'd hear is: "Where do I sign?!"
That's all you'd hear from me, too!

haha, I'm not sure I'd be so quick to volunteer for a trip to Hellas Herpes, but I generally agree that the chances of finding any life, much less pathogens, from little robots with toy scoops is about as likely as finding watermelons growing at the North Pole. It could take decades of extensive research done by people living on Mars to even find life, if it exists at all. Money ear marked for the sample return mission should probably be diverted into research on how to best do science on Mars when a manned landing takes place there.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2002-05-10 05:26:31

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#27 2002-05-10 19:30:54

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#28 2002-05-13 20:22:09

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#29 2002-05-13 21:28:17

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#30 2002-05-14 10:04:18

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#31 2002-05-14 11:08:16

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#32 2002-05-14 11:33:44

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#33 2002-05-15 10:16:25

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#34 2002-05-15 12:27:16

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#35 2002-05-15 13:16:32

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#36 2002-05-18 11:55:34

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#37 2002-05-18 12:37:39

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#38 2002-05-18 12:59:37

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#39 2002-05-19 10:49:38

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#40 2002-05-20 09:00:02

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#41 2002-05-21 20:25:11

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#42 2002-05-22 14:13:06

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#43 2002-05-22 15:24:57

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

Board footer