Changing the Paradigm - Challenging ideas about Mars Exploration

Mark S · 2003-01-07 14:43:46

Within the Mars Society and most of the engineering community, advocates of Mars exploration have locked themselves into a narrow line of thought regarding the initial exploration of Mars. Some of their ground rules include:
1) Use of large, expendable rockets to put components in orbit
2) Launching the mission as soon as technically possible
3) Using artificial gravity to overcome the negative aspects of long-duration travel
4) Obtaining funding from one or more national governments

The Apollo program was run according to rules 1, 2, and 4 (3 being moot for a trip to the moon) and it lead to a dead end. Essentially, Apollo died because American society was not willing to bear the financial burdens of lunar exploration after all of the propaganda value had died and only science remained. Mars exploration will be the same unless societal attitudes towards space change.

The public needs to understand several tenets of the argument being advanced by groups like ProSpace and Space Frontier. First, space is a place for everybody, not just the select few who are chosen by their government. Second, space is not dead and hostile, but it is a place where great sums of money can be made. Third, the science gleaned from exploration is beneficial to all residents of Earth.

Mars enthusasts have long argued for an HLLV because of infrequent launch rates on Earth. But if society deems it necessary to access space more frequently, to better serve the needs of the launch market and the new space tourism industry, we will develop a reusable launch vehicle that will be able to deliver a similar mass of payload by flying several missions over the course of a month or so.

The two soultions to the Mars transit dilemma are either providing artificial gravity or using nuclear plasma propulsion to speed up the trip. The Mars Society is pursuing the former, while NASA is slowly conducting research into the latter. Although artificial gravity is cheaper in the short term, nuclear plasma propulsion is a high risk, high payoff technology. The political opposition to this method, of course, is another area where we need a societal change. Nuclear propulsion may be a ways off because of this, but it promises to make Mars travel frequent, reduce its cost through its reusability, and make missions safer due to expanded abort options. At this time, I believe that we would be wiser to wait for nuclear plasma rockets than to go now and risk it with chemical propulsion and artificial gravity.

The same capitalistic drive which will spurn our first true RLV should also be tapped to explore Mars. What if Boeing or some other aerospace company, possibly a joint venture of several companies, were to start a Mars shuttle service? Would government scintific agencies take advantage of it and use it to ferry their own scientists to Mars? Would wealthy eccentrics go to Mars just for kicks? In a society that embraces space commerce, these ideas will all be possible. All we need to do is agitate the system. Change the paradigm. Mars must wait, but only as long as it takes for our thinking to evolve.

soph · 2003-01-07 17:14:03

like phobos has said, the space elevator could replace (1). (2) is good, but not as important to me, because in 10 years, when the elevator is due to be finished, ill be fresh out of college, and ready for action. i want to be in the first mars mission program!

(3) is good even if we use nuclear propulsion. reduce risks to null if possible. and send off an ion drive ship via the space elevator. assemble the ship in orbit, and fire the ion drives. the high thrust is, as far as i can tell, only important for lifting the material off of earth, and the space elevator gets rid of this need. could you use an orbital escape assist to provide a jumpstart?

nuclear propulsion is a good thing. combining ion and nuclear pulse in a single ship is even better-pulses can be used for quick manuvers, but for cruising, ion drives higher isp can be utilized.

I think this time around, funding from wherever possible is important. governments can provide a good percentage, but the private industry will be just as important. there is a LOT of money to be had in the private sector.

so, i think that we should follow (3) and (4), but with modifications.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-07 17:54:03

I have the habit of thinking that the future is in the simplest cheapest technology. This line of thinking just goes with my world view pholosophy.

I think that the concept that space is for everyone is a good one, and I think that people who see it this way are going to make more progress into space than those who think space is or only needs to be available for a select few (ie, the rich, or governments).

If simple is feasible, simple is better.

The space elevator (which soph seems to mention a lot) is simple. We don't know if it's feasible though or not. Carbon carbon nanotubes are promising, but we need much higher quality processing techniques before we can begin construction. The construction phase uses technology we already have, though. So we can begin construction immediately after we have a way to create high quality carbon nanotubes enmass.

DM2P2 is simple, but we still don't know if it's feasible. The math works, but we need more particle science. We need to find an ionized particle which will reliably suspend within a magnetic field. Perferrably reflective. The design of the overall system is very simple, though. And within the orbits or Mars, it competes with nuclear, and for small payloads is guaranteed to beat it (well, assuming it can be built, of course).

I think we should focus our efforts on the simplest technologies first, rather than wasting them on technologies which are going to work and have been around for awhile. Nuclear propulsion is good. I like it. Especially for the outer solar system. But I'd prefer something simpler, where there is no potential for a fuel monopoly.

soph · 2003-01-07 18:12:44

http://www.highliftsystems.com/convert....ts.html

Also:

"We have received 10 CNT composite samples from Foster-Miller and those have been sent to Los Alamos for testing in an atomic oxygen chamber. We also received a 60 m length of CNT composite fiber from Kentucky that will be used for demonstration purposes among other things. We have already turned that length into a 2 ft length of 1/5 inch wide ribbon with tape interconnects. It certainly looks nice."

"We have also heard of some progress that indicates CNT composites are moving along more quickly than we had hoped.
Quantitative news will be a few months in coming but I just thought I would wet everyone's appetite. Now, two independent groups have reported kilometer-length CNT composite fibers with good interfacial adhesion in different matrices.

In addition we have done some modifications on the climber and spacecraft to improve the design. We have also begun planning for the ramp up in our efforts. We have looked at facilities that we will need, the numbers and types of people we need, where to locate, all those business type things. This has meant that Michael and I have spent more time on the road than at home but it is part of the process."

both from the highliftsystems website. can you tell that i like the idea of a space elevator?

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-08 13:48:57

Believe me, I'm equally excited about a space elevator. I suspect that the money involved in the investment into one would easily be a lot cheaper than the money to invest in another launch vehicle. The math is there, all that we need now is a composite (and that looks promising).

But doesn't it make sense to seek out the simplest solution?

soph · 2003-01-08 14:09:20

Depends. If the simpler solution costs us more money in the end, no. And if it costs so much that it stops us from getting to our destination, no again.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-08 17:15:17

Technically, the simplest solution tends to be cheaper to test for validity. Highlift Systems will be able to test their theory for pennies compared to other experiments with the same goal. And if they're successful, will open up a whole new pathway into the future.

The more complex something is, the higher risk you have of success.

soph · 2003-01-08 17:39:15

The problem I see is that Highlift isnt advertising enough. I think the Mars Society should make itself more for-profit. after all, Dr. Zubrins plans are touted as being based on sound economics and profitability.

imho, NASA should be privatized. I have had this idea about several government agencies (transportation, etc.). it would force them to cut the pork and do whats lucrative. get rid of bad contracts, sell space (the government could impose partial regulations on acceptable renters), etc. to make money.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-08 18:14:03

Highlift doesn't need advertizing. It's so cheap it can be government funded. When it's built, expect to see lots of advertizements, and clones.

The Mars Society is having a hard enough time without having to deal with taxes.

Now, the Mars Society might be able to get more funds by selling services, but I can't think of anything they really have to offer (except for a few mugs and stuff). Perhaps a stay at MDRS or whatever. But even that isn't that great, since it's not that great of a simulation (frmo what I'm hearing).

I've vowed not to get in to the NASA privatization arguments, since I really don't know enough about the situation. In the end I would say that it would be fine, as long as they still have unfettered control over the resources they need within their branch of government.

soph · 2003-01-08 18:52:11

The more funding the better, for highlift. Just a few choice ads in magazines, just to spark business interest, and public interest. a little could get a lot in return.

and heavy patents on CNT would negate the space elevator being copied. If the CNT doesnt get out, the elevator cant be copied.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-08 20:27:00

Patents aren't necessarily respected over international waters and in some nations. And the elevator(s) will undoubtedly go over international waters. And over time, they will even go up over anarchist nations that don't give a damn about other states, once good weather resistence is created.

soph · 2003-01-08 20:44:59

Who else could build a space elevator?

highlift systems is based in the US. i doubt they would build the space elevator outside of the US. i may be biased, but the US would be the best place for it. we are the most advanced nation in terms of our space program and capability.

and i doubt that we'll be seeing many anarchist states. but stealing technology is hardly something to be proud of.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-08 21:17:10

The actual placement of the deck has to be on the equator, you should know this, soph. Obviously whoever builds a space elevator will guard it and such, but since the equator is so big, anyone could build one. The comment about anarchist states, was to refer to countries which basically doesn't follow US patent or IP laws, so they could care less. In that sense they are anarchistic.

And, technically, stealing requires that you take a tangible item away from someone. This is the whole point of patent and IP laws. Because you can ?take? something from someone without stealing.

soph · 2003-01-08 21:25:53

hmm didnt think of that. any way advancements could place it in other locations?

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-08 21:36:53

Wellm KSR envisioned elevators that arched off from the equator basically had their center of gravity over the equator. Don't know if such a design is feasible, but it may prove to be in the distant future.

Here's an interesting link regarding Equatorial Countries: http://www.nasda.go.jp/lib/space-law/ch … 1-2_e.html

At the bottom it lists the countries: Bresil, Colombia, Congo, Ecuador, Indonesia, Kenya, Uganda, Zaire

They are sovereign.

soph · 2003-01-08 21:40:33

and are there any US controlled waters on the equator?

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-08 21:51:56

Doesn't matter. If the US wanted to control a certain area of water on the equator, the US would. Period. The US will have their own exclusive space elevator, if the technology is feasible.

The question is whether or not the US could get away with blowing other countries on the equator up for breaking US based IP laws or something absurd like that. The most likely answer is no (and that no one would care because the more space elevators the better), but we'll see. Certain interests in the US would obviously want to have exclusive control over the only space elevator.

But anyway, I suspect that each equatorial country would build a space elevator. The revenues alone would be worth it (and it would easily pay for itself). And they wouldn't necessarily have to design it or anything. They'd have outside contractors or the like, promising them part of the pie for allowing them to put one up. Believe me, if space elevators are feasible, they'll pop up all over the friggin place.

soph · 2003-01-08 22:00:45

oh, i believe it. but the technology has to come out first. and i believe the first one will be an american one.

i hope every country does get one. i want another space race. but i dont think all the african nations have the resources, and not all of them are trustworthy business partners.

Mark S · 2003-01-08 22:53:51

The space elevator is a good idea, but the technical challenges are great, and I doubt we'll see it in our lifetimes.

A more realistic solution for meeting human space needs in the next twenty years is an RLV. It will be done once the market demands it. Boeing spokesmen have even said that the Delta IV will be their last expendable rocket, so I think the industry is headed in the right direction.

Having an RLV will enable Mars exploration, as well as a lunar return. A few RLV flights can assemble a reusable Mars tranfer vehicle (MTV), and another one will put cargo or humans on this vehicle. Eventually, a fleet of MTVs will continually deliver cargo and explorers to Mars. Because of their nuclear plasma propulsion, these MTVs will be able to fly during launch windows that aren't available to chemical rockets.

Meanwhile, RLVs will allow more nations to obtain access to space. Countries that cannot afford to develop RLVs can simply purchase them from their private operator. I'm assuming (and hoping) that NASA will not dictate the design specs for this vehicle, nor should they operate it. NASA, the USAF, and other customers will instead purchase its services from a private operator.

Bill White · 2003-01-09 09:36:01

and are there any US controlled waters on the equator?

Howland Baker Isalnd - SW of Hawaii and an island group I think is known as the Palmyras is due south of Hawaii. I have heard that is where Amelia Earhart died.

Kirimati is not US territory but we did purchase Alaska and Louisiana, right? The cost to purchase Kirimati would probably be less than the cost to actual build your elevator.

Ben Bova placed his spaceport in the Gilbert Islands. It would be ironic if the Japanese built an elevator on Tarawa.

But - but - but - my reading suggests that the carbon nanotubes needed to make this work do not exist yet and the research and development costs may well be far, far more than projected and the actual cost of manufacturing these nanotubes - IF we can make any at all - may be far greater than projected.

SO - we go back to Mark S and his original post in this thread - IMHO

soph · 2003-01-09 13:58:04

Okay.

BTW, according to Highlift, the CNT has already been assembled in 10 m lengths.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-09 17:20:40

Yes, we did get somewhat carried away with Space Elevator talk, but the topic of this thread is ?Changing the Paradigm? after all.

I think an RLV can still be built following my basic philosophy about simplicity. I personally thought the X33 was a brilliant design, and it makes absolutely no sense why it was scrapped so freaking close to completion. Makes you want to think the interests involved didn't want NASA to have a much more resuable vehicle.

One thing someone pointed out (not here, on /. or something, I believe), is that evry time we send the shuttle up, we waste lots and lots of cargo room. Apparently sometimes we're sending up practically nothing. Or at least we were during its inital launches. I think that, if we do have a good (high turnaround) RLV, like the X33 or some such, we ought to not time launches every week, but every time a maximum payload becomes available.

I'm not sure the private sector has any motivation to get into RLV, though. They need some sort of incentive. Right now, the world is in an economic slump. Will it be ten years from now? Who knows. All it would really take is for one person or company to make space profitable. Set up a hotel or something. Build a huge inflatable space station (with artifical gravity and everything). Hell, that was the design we thought we'd be using. But nope, due to international reasons, we designed it with the crappiest technology we had.

soph · 2003-01-09 17:32:27

i like horizontal spaceplanes because they could replace airplanes. theres no need to limit them to maximum payloads, because they could go into orbit on their way to say, tokyo, drop off their payload, and drop more people off. they would always have a maximum payload of mail, passengers, etc. and they could use existing runways.

the economy goes in cycles. the 10 year boom we had after the Gulf War was almost bad, because it causes a prolonged bear economy. It will go back up again, it always has.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-09 17:53:18

The only reason I mention the X33 is ecause it uses known technolgy. I mean, it was practically finished, for crying out loud. Anything beyond the X33 is relatively new technolgy that needs to be tested. And the testing phase could take awhile. The X43 test failed miserably. Probably because the contractors got enough money to build two, and they wanted the extra money.

Space planes are good, though. And I do hope research continues in that direction. In fact, I believe the X33 was scrapped in favor of a one wing space plane design. I mean, that's the way we seem to be heading.

And we are going into a Japan-esque recession. Mark my words.

soph · 2003-01-09 18:34:27

I don't think so. I think the economy is near its bottom point. With unemployment up, cheap labor is easier to find. with cheap labor, more can be accomplished by companies, who begin to make a profit again, allowing for more work, etc.

i think we're almost out of the recession...by the next presidential election, unless bush hurts us with some stupid act.

but back on the topic. what do you think we should do with our space program, josh?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-01-07 14:43:46

Re: Changing the Paradigm - Challenging ideas about Mars Exploration

#2 2003-01-07 17:14:03

Re: Changing the Paradigm - Challenging ideas about Mars Exploration

#3 2003-01-07 17:54:03

Re: Changing the Paradigm - Challenging ideas about Mars Exploration

#4 2003-01-07 18:12:44

Re: Changing the Paradigm - Challenging ideas about Mars Exploration

#5 2003-01-08 13:48:57

Re: Changing the Paradigm - Challenging ideas about Mars Exploration

#6 2003-01-08 14:09:20

Re: Changing the Paradigm - Challenging ideas about Mars Exploration

#7 2003-01-08 17:15:17

Re: Changing the Paradigm - Challenging ideas about Mars Exploration

#8 2003-01-08 17:39:15

Re: Changing the Paradigm - Challenging ideas about Mars Exploration

#9 2003-01-08 18:14:03

Re: Changing the Paradigm - Challenging ideas about Mars Exploration

#10 2003-01-08 18:52:11

Re: Changing the Paradigm - Challenging ideas about Mars Exploration

#11 2003-01-08 20:27:00

Re: Changing the Paradigm - Challenging ideas about Mars Exploration

#12 2003-01-08 20:44:59

Re: Changing the Paradigm - Challenging ideas about Mars Exploration

#13 2003-01-08 21:17:10

Re: Changing the Paradigm - Challenging ideas about Mars Exploration

#14 2003-01-08 21:25:53

Re: Changing the Paradigm - Challenging ideas about Mars Exploration

#15 2003-01-08 21:36:53

Re: Changing the Paradigm - Challenging ideas about Mars Exploration

#16 2003-01-08 21:40:33

Re: Changing the Paradigm - Challenging ideas about Mars Exploration

#17 2003-01-08 21:51:56

Re: Changing the Paradigm - Challenging ideas about Mars Exploration

#18 2003-01-08 22:00:45

Re: Changing the Paradigm - Challenging ideas about Mars Exploration

#19 2003-01-08 22:53:51

Re: Changing the Paradigm - Challenging ideas about Mars Exploration

#20 2003-01-09 09:36:01

Re: Changing the Paradigm - Challenging ideas about Mars Exploration

#21 2003-01-09 13:58:04

Re: Changing the Paradigm - Challenging ideas about Mars Exploration

#22 2003-01-09 17:20:40

Re: Changing the Paradigm - Challenging ideas about Mars Exploration

#23 2003-01-09 17:32:27

Re: Changing the Paradigm - Challenging ideas about Mars Exploration

#24 2003-01-09 17:53:18

Re: Changing the Paradigm - Challenging ideas about Mars Exploration

#25 2003-01-09 18:34:27

Re: Changing the Paradigm - Challenging ideas about Mars Exploration

Board footer