Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

Dayton Kitchens · 2006-12-12 14:01:37

But would it be doable?
You put one professional geologist and an amateur biologist on the surface of Mars for a year and I bet they could do one heck of alot of work.
The samples and first hand measurements alone they could make would be priceless.
I'm not going there. We either go to Mars with a crew big enough, or we shouldn't go at all. Six is the best compromise between rockets of practical size plus how much more you can accomplish with a dozen boots on the ground.
Three men to Mars is too much like repeating Apollo, and repeating Apollo on Mars would be MUCH WORSE than never going in the first place!
We go big enough to get stuff done, or we don't go.

At this point, I don't really care if it is recreating Apollo.

Give me three manned landings on Mars a year in duration each.

THEN I'll worry about whether we need to go back every two years indefinitely.

cIclops · 2006-12-12 14:13:09

I didn't know that NASA was going to aim for 448sec on J-2X though, which is quite good. Modifying Centaur with a wider, shorter fuel tank and the necessary hardware should yield about ~10MT extra TMI mass or ~5MT surface mass. Theres' your heavy pressurized rover.

Yep, that's the number shown by Pratt & Witney in their presentation last week at the exploration conference, namey:

J-2X Isp: 448 secs; Thrust: 294 klb; Mass: 5,360 lb; Length: 185 inches

BTW Lockheed have proposed a long duration wide body Centuar that reduces LH2 boiloff from 17% per day to less than 1%.

GCNRevenger · 2006-12-12 15:08:31

At this point, I don't really care if it is recreating Apollo.
Give me three manned landings on Mars a year in duration each.
THEN I'll worry about whether we need to go back every two years indefinitely.

No! Apollo ended and look where we ended up? It will be more than half a century since we last set foot there! If we aren't seriously planning on staying then we shouldn't even go until we are ready to.

The hardware required for a system even capable of leading to a permanent base far exceeds what you need for a simple touch-and-go with three men. Even MarsDirect is borderline for three.

RedStreak · 2006-12-12 19:27:06

In-situ fuel production. It may work, but the mission design should progress as though it will not be feasible. It is hard enough to build, test, prep and launch a rocket here on Earth; try adding the complexity of doing so 0.5 to 2.5 AU away? Good luck. At best (from an engineer stand point) your launching a Falcon I; more than likely you'll be launching something akinned to the Atlas V or the stick. Fun!

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.

GCNRevenger · 2006-12-12 21:56:13

Lugging Hydrogen to Mars (or any place) in the form of water is a bad idea, the whole point of ISRU is to bring a small mass of feedstock and make a large mass of propellant. The Oxygen in the Water is nine times as heavy as the Hydrogen, even losing 50% of the Hydrogen in transit you still come out ahead versus water. Plus, the liquid Hydrogen can't freeze like water, which would be a problem if a heater failed or something.

GCNRevenger · 2006-12-12 22:15:14

Another thought... this man-rated Centaur stage would also be about the right size to push the Orion capsule from LEO to Lunar orbit. Thus, in the likely event that AltSpace fails to come up with a viable crew launcher or Lunar transit vehicle then two Ares-I rockets could perform a crew rotation, launch & push heavy probes, or perhaps send small cargoes to the Moon in a pinch. Just add EDS docking electronics/RCS and stir. Use the boiloff in a fuel cell to power it.

RedStreak · 2006-12-12 23:12:53

Lugging Hydrogen to Mars (or any place) in the form of water is a bad idea, the whole point of ISRU is to bring a small mass of feedstock and make a large mass of propellant.

The extra oxygen would be handy on a manned mission...unless...you don't LIKE oxygen. :twisted:

You have your point on mass, my point is on logistics. The mass to store the hydrogen long-term for insulation could prove to be equal to the extra oxygen in the H2O in which case little difference. Water is a more stable form than hydrogen hence my suggestion.

If liquid hydrogen IS easier to carry than water to Mars then use it; I don't care if my way's better I just want something done right. If we get to ice mining on Mars then our dependence on Earthly H2 or O2 is cut but obviously that's only after we get something on Mars.

With or w/o ISRU we still have to deal with the mass of fuel needed to return to Earth. I think if we can prove it then do it; therefore if we can prove that ISRU works on Mars let's use it. Ice on the Moon is one thing but Mars unquestionably has resources.

GCNRevenger · 2006-12-13 05:41:51

Just exclaiming that carrying a heavy feedstock to make heavy propellant kind of defeats the whole purpose

cIclops · 2006-12-13 07:07:55

No! Apollo ended and look where we ended up? It will be more than half a century since we last set foot there! If we aren't seriously planning on staying then we shouldn't even go until we are ready to.

Define "staying"? If that means a permanent human presence at a lunar base, that may not be either affordable or desirable. The key purpose of the Lunar Outpost is preparation for Mars, Mars is where the real action will be. The current Lunar architecture is looking at establishing a base capable of supporting crew for six months. This will take five years to setup at two landings per year. Why six months? Data from g/6 Lunar missions will compliment ISS 0g data and help predict what will happen physiologically to people on Mars. Crew could be moved after six months stay on ISS to the Moon to see how they adapt. After this round of research and testing of Mars forward systems, the need to stay on the Moon may diminish unless other activities are justifiable or become commercially feasible.

Dayton Kitchens · 2006-12-13 08:07:24

No! Apollo [i wrote:

ended[/i] and look where we ended up?

Apollo ended for political reasons.

No changes in the Apollo mission architecture could change that.

What you are trying to do GCN (while commendable) is to ensure changes in political and national will by mission planning and architecture.

That doesn't work.

We could spend 500 billion dollars on a huge, flashy Manned Mars program, with all the equipment reusable for followup missions, ...........and the President and Congress could still cancel the program after the first Mars landing. (probably after the second or third, but they could still cancel it).

cIclops · 2006-12-13 08:20:49

There is much to do on Mars, far more than the Moon. Initial surveys will take many years and people will have to stay there for at least 18 months at a time. So a permanent base makes sense as soon as possible. With the access to water and the vast range of minerals, ISRU is viable and the possibilities are almost limitless. Given the vast distance to cross getting there and the enormous expense, it's vital that the architecture used is affordable, scalable and sustainable.

Grypd · 2006-12-13 08:51:54

GCN is just trying to ensure that when we get to a point we stay.

Apollo for all its success was just about getting to the Moon ahead of the USSR and this it accomplished. Once this had been achieved the political and public support dried up and the Apollo programme did as well.

If we want to go to Mars and stay we have to ensure that the will is there before we go. Otherwise it will be oh you made Mars ok come home now mission accomplished. Some politicians will slap each others backs and state how they can now make savings to pay for some other "important" iniative.

There is much to do on Mars, far more than the Moon. Initial surveys will take many years and people will have to stay there for at least 18 months at a time. So a permanent base makes sense as soon as possibe. With the access to water and the vast range of minerals, ISRU is viable and the possibilities are almost limitless. Given the vast distance to cross getting there and the enormous expense, it's vital that the architecture used is affordable, scalable and sustainable.

Certainly there is a lot of things to do on Mars, but not everyone believes in the future of space and it is these people who will oppose permanent missions to Mars. Unless it is stated at the beginning and agreed that we go to the Moon and Mars to stay we will end up like apollo finding ourselves stuck in LEO or worse without a manned prescence in space at all.

cIclops · 2006-12-13 09:09:20

There's a danger in saying we need to go to the Moon to stay permanently because there's no justification for doing it. It can be justified in terms of preparing for the Mars mission, for lunar science and perhaps farside radio astronomy experiments. Those are limited activities, sure lunar science can go on and on but the cost will be way beyond its value. A Lunar base will make the ISS look cheap. It's important to focus on Mars otherwise the Moon will consume all NASA exploration funding. Mars is the future.

Grypd · 2006-12-13 10:38:38

There's a danger in saying we need to go to the Moon to stay permanently because there's no justification for doing it. It can be justified in terms of preparing for the Mars mission, for lunar science and perhaps farside radio astronomy experiments. Those are limited activities, sure lunar science can go on and on but the cost will be way beyond its value. A Lunar base will make the ISS look cheap. It's important to focus on Mars otherwise the Moon will consume all NASA exploration funding. Mars is the future.

There is justification for staying at the Moon and it is not just for scientific reasons. It is reasons that the public and politicians alike can understand and in that understanding we have not only there acceptance but there support. The ISS is an incredibly expensive white elephant and can only be improved by expensive deliveries from Earth. This is not the case with the Moon and unless we find the means to decrease costs while increasing our capacity for action in space then we will not get to go to Mars anywhere in the near term like the 21st century.

This is more focused if we consider colonisation of Mars which is not an economic or scientific necessity rather that of a dream of many. It can only happen if we can reduce costs and allow for the creation of larger vessels to transport ourselves across the solar system. Only the Moon can realistically allow us to do this. We are very lucky to have so many resources close to us and in a place where we can actually utilise them.

A Lunar base can be made to work it is not the structural knightmare that is the ISS and it has a real purpose rather than the make work waste that is the ISS. We have to ensure that costs do not overun.

GCNRevenger · 2006-12-13 13:10:52

Apollo did not end purely for political reasons

Apollo ended because each Saturn cost about $3.6Bn in today's dollars, and the price became untenable for the results Apollo produced. Sure modified versions of Saturn-V would have helped (stretch first stage w/ F-1A, replace first stage with Titan SRB, NERVA upper stage) but would't improve what you got for the money much. Our rockets are more efficient now with lighter construction and heavy Hydrogen rockets that were not previously available.

What is needed is to make long-term presence on Moon/Mars affordable enough so that only marginal political support would be required. Much of the expense of a Moon/Mars crew rotation and supplies are tied up with propulsion to get them there. The Moon and Mars both have resources to dramatically reduce the propulsion requirements for a given mission.

However, we can only access these resources with machinery of substantial scale, which will require vehicles of substantial mass. A small 3-4 man bare-bones mission just doesn't give this capacity in a reasonable number of flights and time. Also, such a system doesn't give a large enough capacity for scientific, prospecting, or other work which would justify a long-term presence.

The initial missions and the base building missions will likely all be expendable and derived from the currently planed VSE hardware (give or take a little). But, we must at the very least make reuseable landers (which would make a huge difference in launch and hardware costs) possible by having rockets large enough to deliver the machines to make & store substantial quantities of rocket fuel.

Bottom line, MarsDirect nor anything smaller provides this.

GCNRevenger · 2006-12-13 13:28:07

I think there is justification for staying on the Moon permanently, though not necessarily as a government operation: I think the government has sufficient cause to build a Lunar base camp, develop and build an Oxygen factory, and perform basic prospecting & technology development. The hard science folk would also like Lunar origins studies and some sort of astronomy complex too.

This list of things would justify continuous or semi-continuous habitation for a long time, at least until construction of the base and telescopes are done and any Mars technology testing/training is complete. After that however, it is really up to private companies to step up and take over. During these time, only intermittent habitation could probably be justified, but at least the capability should be maintained.

I reject the idea that a small Lunar base needs to cost just as much as the wretched ISS did, careful control of costs should keep the actual base sane. What needs to be guarded against is summing up the whole cost of the program over its life and calling that the base cost.

RedStreak · 2006-12-13 15:18:41

Just exclaiming that carrying a heavy feedstock to make heavy propellant kind of defeats the whole purpose

No oxygen for you!

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

RedStreak · 2006-12-13 15:20:25

Much of the expense of a Moon/Mars crew rotation and supplies are tied up with propulsion to get them there. The Moon and Mars both have resources to dramatically reduce the propulsion requirements for a given mission.

...coming from the guy with ISRU issues.

Grypd · 2006-12-13 16:08:52

Much of the expense of a Moon/Mars crew rotation and supplies are tied up with propulsion to get them there. The Moon and Mars both have resources to dramatically reduce the propulsion requirements for a given mission.
...coming from the guy with ISRU issues.

ISRU utilisation is not a problem. As long as the belief that it solves everything is not taken for granted. Mars direct is an example where everything is skimped to make a program work to the point it really becomes for Mars exploration worthless.

GCNRevenger · 2006-12-13 17:07:38

Just exclaiming that carrying a heavy feedstock to make heavy propellant kind of defeats the whole purpose
No oxygen for you!
Still to settle this question can anyone crank some numbers on whether carrying water is easier than hydrogen?

Its not. Its easier to carry water than oxygen though, which is what is done on the ISS.

SpaceNut · 2006-12-13 20:11:20

There is justification for staying at the Moon and it is not just for scientific reasons.
It is reasons that the public and politicians alike can understand and in that understanding we have not only there acceptance but there support.

I agree but the but has to do with developing commercial capability to get to the moon. When none exists. It is the same issue for COT's for the ISS.

The ISS is an incredibly expensive white elephant and can only be improved by expensive deliveries from Earth. This is not the case with the Moon

While the ISS is expensive it does not need to remain that way if commercial use was encouraged to reuse what gets dumped back towards the oceans. What goes up should stay up..

The moons expense is one of equipment delivery to become self sufficient thou this in and of it's self will come at cost to mars future missions.

We have to ensure that costs do not overun.

This is probably the hardest of things to fix...

Grypd · 2006-12-14 05:09:01

There is justification for staying at the Moon and it is not just for scientific reasons.
It is reasons that the public and politicians alike can understand and in that understanding we have not only there acceptance but there support.
I agree but the but has to do with developing commercial capability to get to the moon. When none exists. It is the same issue for COT's for the ISS.

There is more than just plain commercial reasons that can be used. National interest is something as well, even though there is not anything coming from the Moon immediately there is the potential for it to happen and similar to what occurs in Antartica, missions are kept there just in case legal and other frameworks change. The Outer Space Treaty which restricts commercial and national interests is unlike the Antartic treaty a very shaky treaty without real broad public support and one which could well fall if any of the intrested and active parties withdraws.

We already have the Russians and Chinese and even the Indians intrested in the resource potential of space and pushing that could increase public and therefore political support.

Grypd wrote:
The ISS is an incredibly expensive white elephant and can only be improved by expensive deliveries from Earth. This is not the case with the Moon

While the ISS is expensive it does not need to remain that way if commercial use was encouraged to reuse what gets dumped back towards the oceans. What goes up should stay up..
The moons expense is one of equipment delivery to become self sufficient thou this in and of it's self will come at cost to mars future missions.

Will it ? I have serious doubts as to the usability of the ISS and even its actual purpose. It appears to be a station in need of a purpose and one which due to domestic political concerns and ignoring the engineers does not help the furthering of the push to space.

Commercial delivery to the ISS is a good way to reduce costs and to promote an increased US space capacity but will the ISS have a future?

Developing a purposeful and deliberate plan for the use of a space station is something that should have been done before it was launched and even the construction method (piecemeal) has lead to the stage where the ISS is getting old and worn out before it is even finished.

Grypd wrote:
We have to ensure that costs do not overun.
This is probably the hardest of things to fix...

It does depend on what we plan to do and how we do it. It also depends on the red tape that seems to flow out of everything goverment being cut. And nothing more seems to increase costs than the cost + system.

SpaceNut · 2006-12-14 08:53:39

National interest is something as well

In what form? Is this by possession, owner ship, occupency, military might...

We already have the Russians and Chinese and even the Indians intrested in the resource potential of space and pushing that could increase public and therefore political support.

So true that they are getting to the point where they may be able to execute a plan to get them there in a manned mission before the US.

Commercial delivery to the ISS is a good way to reduce costs and to promote an increased US space capacity but will the ISS have a future?
Developing a purposeful and deliberate plan for the use of a space station is something that should have been done before it was launched and even the construction

The purpose of the ISS was based in science, study of manufacturing as it relates to material science and medicine, the human body studies...

How about expanding the base to include recyling space vehicles either whole or in parts to form new ships, construction materials to expand the station by melting them down, to make orbital green houses, manufacturing of rocket fuels from waste.... oh I forgot none of these are science so we can not do these.... These things all relate to colonization, expanson of the human presence...

All this holds true for the moon or mars for once the science has started so must the aspects of learning how to live there.

Will NASA’s plans turn into a moondoggle? Mars researchers debate whether lunar exploration will be a dead end

Will the construction of a moon base mark a great leap in planning for a human mission to Mars or prove a wasteful diversion of funds?
That’s when inflation and current budget projections just make it difficult to continue at the pace that we are on right now,

Right now it may be early to tell how the opportunity for partnership will play out but so long as the US costs are 10 times those of a partner nation for a like kind item Nasa will continue to have difficulty in getting funding for the projects of the future.

The moon is important because we don’t know how to live on an outpost on another planetary body, said Douglas McCuistion.

But we do know how to live in that it is totally isolated to protect the crews from the hazards of being there. Whether this be by underground habitats, under domes or in protective space suits or rovers as we explore and live there for the purpose of scientific study or of exploration.

We can take a baby step by putting a moon base out there and spending time on the surface of the moon, learning how to work in that environment, learning about the effects on health and psychology and things like that.

But we must also take the next step or it will not be sustainable.

Dayton Kitchens · 2006-12-14 10:08:38

After all this GCN I still have one question.

Is the Semi-Direct 6 man mission doable with the 130 ton capacity (about 280,000 lbs. to LEO ) Ares-5 in only three launches assuming chemical engines only?

If it is not. Can it be done in three Ares-5 launches with a a five man crew or a five man crew.

Yeah, six launches per manned mission still unnerves me.

Grypd · 2006-12-14 11:49:52

National interest is something as well
In what form? Is this by possession, owner ship, occupency, military might...

Occupancy gives you a say in what happens and in this case especially of a treaty which just does not work. There will be a form of occupancy possession which allows the user to utilise the area and materials there. National interests mirror commercial interests here.

We already have the Russians and Chinese and even the Indians intrested in the resource potential of space and pushing that could increase public and therefore political support.
So true that they are getting to the point where they may be able to execute a plan to get them there in a manned mission before the US.

Im unsure if we can take the verbal announcements of some seriously and others lack the infrastructure/finances and experience to actually manage there statements. Still time could and likely will change this so best to get in first.

The purpose of the ISS was based in science, study of manufacturing as it relates to material science and medicine, the human body studies...

And we have yet to send the actual main science labs up, as the ISS reaches its end of life. So making any stated purpose evident as illusion.

How about expanding the base to include recyling space vehicles either whole or in parts to form new ships, construction materials to expand the station by melting them down, to make orbital green houses, manufacturing of rocket fuels from waste.... oh I forgot none of these are science so we can not do these.... These things all relate to colonization, expanson of the human presence...
All this holds true for the moon or mars for once the science has started so must the aspects of learning how to live there.

Will NASA’s plans turn into a moondoggle? Mars researchers debate whether lunar exploration will be a dead end
Will the construction of a moon base mark a great leap in planning for a human mission to Mars or prove a wasteful diversion of funds?
That’s when inflation and current budget projections just make it difficult to continue at the pace that we are on right now,
Right now it may be early to tell how the opportunity for partnership will play out but so long as the US costs are 10 times those of a partner nation for a like kind item Nasa will continue to have difficulty in getting funding for the projects of the future.

Strictly speaking one advantage of the Moon is that various national systems will not have to fundamentally go in front of a committee just to see if it might effect another nations mission element. The ISS as a combined collection of various elements and from just about every space fairing nation was such a complicated hodgepodge that the various methods and in some cases the actual design philosphy created problems and tensions.

It is a case on the Moon where we will only be connected by electrical systems and possibly air and water subsystems. It makes sense then for the nations to develop a single set of warning and access systems like airlocks and to standardise the atmosphere used for safety reasons as well as reducing complexity. This is not fundamentally expensive and in the case of the Moon allows the various nations to design base elements they believe would give the most benefit. If science experiments in the European science habitat could interfere in another nations hab then it is easy to move the European science habitat further away so that the problem is resolved. This is something that could not happen in the ISS where the closeness of modules meant adding a bit could well interfere in another nations hab.

Developing private enterprise driven habs could also reduce costs especially if there is a standard set of items to be used. And power systems will tend to rely on solar access and if more power is needed add more solar cells. Burying the habs puts them in a constant tempature where stress reduces so increasing service length as well as reducing maintenance.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2006-12-12 14:01:37

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#52 2006-12-12 14:13:09

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#53 2006-12-12 15:08:31

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#54 2006-12-12 19:27:06

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#55 2006-12-12 21:56:13

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#56 2006-12-12 22:15:14

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#57 2006-12-12 23:12:53

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#58 2006-12-13 05:41:51

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#59 2006-12-13 07:07:55

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#60 2006-12-13 08:07:24

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#61 2006-12-13 08:20:49

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#62 2006-12-13 08:51:54

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#63 2006-12-13 09:09:20

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#64 2006-12-13 10:38:38

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#65 2006-12-13 13:10:52

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#66 2006-12-13 13:28:07

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#67 2006-12-13 15:18:41

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#68 2006-12-13 15:20:25

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#69 2006-12-13 16:08:52

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#70 2006-12-13 17:07:38

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#71 2006-12-13 20:11:20

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#72 2006-12-14 05:09:01

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#73 2006-12-14 08:53:39

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#74 2006-12-14 10:08:38

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#75 2006-12-14 11:49:52

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

Board footer