Rethinking human missions as Foundation Projects

louis · 2011-12-28 21:40:20

We really need to rethink our approach to human missions. In a sense I think we are still following a military model, that grew out of jet fighter testing.

We need to move into a new conceptual framework...in fact, I think there may be a problem with the word "mission" in itself. [Never take language for granted!] Mission is far too self-contained I feel and suggests too much the idea of a kind of limited, time-specific exploration with military overtones.

Perhaps we need to use a new label eg Foundation Project. The first arrival on the planet would then be just phase 1 of that project.

The Foundation Project would have a clear focus on creating the basis for permanent human settlement on the planet through:

1. Developing life support.

2. ISRU development.

3. Creating a scaled down industrial infrastucture.

4. Developing basic institutions on Mars.

5. Economic development and revenue raising.

For instance in relation to 4 above, I think the establishment of a University of Mars, probably under the aegis of an Earth-based university will be of the utmost importance.

I think when it comes to planning how to live successfully on Mars, we need to give as much thought to such matters as we do to rockets, landing and energy production.

The more I think about it, establishing a University should be part of the Foundation Project from day one. Why not? Why not get an Earth based university involved in the early stages - providing probably hundreds of millions of dollars of funding? Yale on Mars...Mars Oxford University...

Terraformer · 2011-12-29 03:57:58

Louis, that would suggest we're trying to colonise Mars, which is effectively banned under international law...

louis · 2011-12-29 08:13:34

Terraformer wrote:

Louis, that would suggest we're trying to colonise Mars, which is effectively banned under international law...

Well I think that argument is more suitable on other threads, but I don't accept that. All that is banned is claiming part or whole of a celestial body for a particular state on Earth. There is nothing in law that prevents human settlement.

GW Johnson · 2011-12-29 14:11:10

I see a lot of cart-before-the-horse problems in a lot of these discussions. That concerns me more than anything else. How can you experiment with in-situ resource utilization, until you know what resources are really there? How can you know what is really there, until you have looked beneath the surface? Meters, maybe kilometers, beneath? No two sites are alike. Not here, not anywhere.

The first manned mission is one of "exploration". It should finish answering the two deceptively-simple questions: (1) what all is there? and (2) where exactly is it? You don't do that with a landing at a single site, the way we did it on the moon. And I do mean those two questions exactly as I worded them. That is not Texas slang, although it does sound like it.

Men should be working with robots. It is not men vs robots, that is a false zero-sum budget game. Robots see only what they are programmed to see. Men can see what is actually there, if you don't train it out of them. Robots can go where men cannot. So you start with robot probes, and you add men to the mix in the final exploration mission.

I think it is stupid to go to all the trouble to send men to Mars, and just make one landing. Let's not do any more flag-and-footprints nonsense. It was a waste on the moon, it would be a waste on Mars.

Base instead from orbit, and visit dozens of sites, all in the one trip. Send down a lander, rover, drill rig, men and robots, and stay for a week or two at each site. It would really help if the lander is one stage, reusable. That's nuclear, by the way. Check it with the rocket equation for yourself. We all but flew the engine 4+ decades ago, and then quit, like fools.

A mission like that, "capstoning" all these decades of robot probes, could actually answer the two questions. It could be done with the rockets we have, using the orbital assembly techniques we have. Hotter nuke propulsion would help, but is not absolutely required to do this.

Then, the second mission plants a base or two at the most promising sites. That's when you find out how to live off the land, and what you might produce for trade back home. That might take more than a single mission to do. But once self-sustainability and a profit commodity have actually been identified, then a colony makes sense. Not until then.

GW

louis · 2011-12-30 03:15:15

GW Johnson wrote:

I see a lot of cart-before-the-horse problems in a lot of these discussions. That concerns me more than anything else. How can you experiment with in-situ resource utilization, until you know what resources are really there? How can you know what is really there, until you have looked beneath the surface? Meters, maybe kilometers, beneath? No two sites are alike. Not here, not anywhere.
The first manned mission is one of "exploration". It should finish answering the two deceptively-simple questions: (1) what all is there? and (2) where exactly is it? You don't do that with a landing at a single site, the way we did it on the moon. And I do mean those two questions exactly as I worded them. That is not Texas slang, although it does sound like it.
Men should be working with robots. It is not men vs robots, that is a false zero-sum budget game. Robots see only what they are programmed to see. Men can see what is actually there, if you don't train it out of them. Robots can go where men cannot. So you start with robot probes, and you add men to the mix in the final exploration mission.
I think it is stupid to go to all the trouble to send men to Mars, and just make one landing. Let's not do any more flag-and-footprints nonsense. It was a waste on the moon, it would be a waste on Mars.
Base instead from orbit, and visit dozens of sites, all in the one trip. Send down a lander, rover, drill rig, men and robots, and stay for a week or two at each site. It would really help if the lander is one stage, reusable. That's nuclear, by the way. Check it with the rocket equation for yourself. We all but flew the engine 4+ decades ago, and then quit, like fools.
A mission like that, "capstoning" all these decades of robot probes, could actually answer the two questions. It could be done with the rockets we have, using the orbital assembly techniques we have. Hotter nuke propulsion would help, but is not absolutely required to do this.
Then, the second mission plants a base or two at the most promising sites. That's when you find out how to live off the land, and what you might produce for trade back home. That might take more than a single mission to do. But once self-sustainability and a profit commodity have actually been identified, then a colony makes sense. Not until then.
GW

GW, I think the situation is now vastly different from 20 years ago, thanks to information gathered from satellites and rover missions. I would never put people on any site that hadn't already been visited by robot craft. So, my way plan would certainly include various pre-missions to land supplies and check you the terrain. But we should have a pretty good idea of what we will be landing on. But I think it would be a waste of resources to look at multiple sites in detail. We need to focus on one main landing site, which should a fairly boring but safe site for the first landing - though perhaps located closish to something more interesting (maybe about 50kms away). Once we are there we can use small airships for reconaissance.

I agree entirely we don't go to make one landing. I think we need to build up to at least 10 MTVs ferrying colonists and explorers between Earth and Mars, until finally the Mars community can build their own ISRU spacecraft - at which point there should be exponential growth in contact.

Craigipedia · 2011-12-30 17:28:04

I don't like this idea that we don't know what exactly is on Mars. We know just about everything that we can know without stepping foot on the surface. Any other major discoveries are going to be done by men and women with shovels, microscopes, etc. We know where the water is. We know where it has flowed in the most recent months, years, etc. We know where atmospheric methane exists, and we know it exists in the air above ground deposits of water, and so we can say with a surprisingly huge degree of certainty that there is life on Mars at this moment - producing the methane; remember Mars is Earth's geological cousin, and nearly all of our methane comes from lifeforms.

we know enough about Mars right now that those of us in the Mars Now community are getting fed up with the delays from international space agencies. Someone once asked me "yeah, but where are you going to find smart people willing to go and die on Mars?"... I raised my hand immediately. There are thousands of scientists who could both pass the physical training necessary to be Mars explorers who would also readily join a program even if it was a 15 year committment to the planet. Even if it was an open-ended committment

louis · 2011-12-31 06:00:56

Craigipedia wrote:

I don't like this idea that we don't know what exactly is on Mars. We know just about everything that we can know without stepping foot on the surface. Any other major discoveries are going to be done by men and women with shovels, microscopes, etc. We know where the water is. We know where it has flowed in the most recent months, years, etc. We know where atmospheric methane exists, and we know it exists in the air above ground deposits of water, and so we can say with a surprisingly huge degree of certainty that there is life on Mars at this moment - producing the methane; remember Mars is Earth's geological cousin, and nearly all of our methane comes from lifeforms.
we know enough about Mars right now that those of us in the Mars Now community are getting fed up with the delays from international space agencies. Someone once asked me "yeah, but where are you going to find smart people willing to go and die on Mars?"... I raised my hand immediately. There are thousands of scientists who could both pass the physical training necessary to be Mars explorers who would also readily join a program even if it was a 15 year committment to the planet. Even if it was an open-ended committment

I agree that we already know a huge amount. I think we certainly know enough already to be able to land safely on the plains, especially if we send robot pre-missions. Whether the methane is a signal of life remains to be seen: it could be, but that is why we need to go there.

There's absolutely no need for people to die on Mars. We are talking about something like a 2 year round trip for the first colonists. We can get them off the planet with fuel and propellant made on Mars or delivered to the planet on later robot missions. The important thing is to have orbital assembly at both the Earth and Mars end. That means the Mars ascent vehicle can be a relatively small craft.

GW Johnson · 2011-12-31 11:04:28

What's still missing is knowledge of what's more than 10 cm under the surface, in most places around Mars (or the moon, for that matter). That's where the real resources are that get used. The surface itself is rather barren and hostile. Decades of robots have yet to dig meters down, where those necessary answers are.

We could build robots like that, and it would make a huge difference. But in the end, whether we do or don't, there is a human capstone exploration that complements and completes what the robots have done, but still precedes any experimental base missions doing actual ISRU.

"Attractive landing sites" depends upon what's important to you. Flat plains are a good engineering proving ground for still-experimental vehicles, but usually are far from interesting geology and subsurface resource potentials that one might use for ISRU. Tough choice. To support the kind of exploration I advocate, the vehicle engineering proof testing needs to be already done (more likely on the moon than Mars, it's much closer).

That's part of the Apollo mistake we made in the rush to beat the Russians at the flag-and-footprints game. The first three landings on the moon were 99% engineering checkout and about 1% doing science of any sort (no rover car). We shouldn't go to Mars using that model. It's too dangerous to do vehicle experimentation that far away, and the knowledge return from the mission is too low (costliness critics become correct).

GW

louis · 2011-12-31 11:13:21

GW Johnson wrote:

What's still missing is knowledge of what's more than 10 cm under the surface, in most places around Mars (or the moon, for that matter). That's where the real resources are that get used. The surface itself is rather barren and hostile. Decades of robots have yet to dig meters down, where those necessary answers are.
We could build robots like that, and it would make a huge difference. But in the end, whether we do or don't, there is a human capstone exploration that complements and completes what the robots have done, but still precedes any experimental base missions doing actual ISRU.
"Attractive landing sites" depends upon what's important to you. Flat plains are a good engineering proving ground for still-experimental vehicles, but usually are far from interesting geology and subsurface resource potentials that one might use for ISRU. Tough choice. To support the kind of exploration I advocate, the vehicle engineering proof testing needs to be already done (more likely on the moon than Mars, it's much closer).
That's part of the Apollo mistake we made in the rush to beat the Russians at the flag-and-footprints game. The first three landings on the moon were 99% engineering checkout and about 1% doing science of any sort (no rover car). We shouldn't go to Mars using that model. It's too dangerous to do vehicle experimentation that far away, and the knowledge return from the mission is too low (costliness critics become correct).
GW

Well I am of course happy to see any Mars exploration at all, be it robot or human, but I do think that there is something ideological about this idea that ISRU has to wait. Why? ISRU is key to creating a 90% self-sufficient human settlement. Once we have that,then we can have all manner of things scientific going on. But until we have a stable self-sustaining colony, all our scientific effort will be mere pinpricks on the surface.

In terms of landing sites, I think we need to have somewhere reasonably equatorial, on a flat plain close to water, iron ore and basalt and - one hopes - with some interesting geology about 50 kms or more away (we probably need a 50km landing zone on a plain for added safety assurance,since we only get one chance at a successful landing).

I don't see why we shouldn't have a vehicle on first landing. A small pressurised dual use digger/rover would be ideal. We've driven Rovers over the surface without major mishap, directing them from over 100 million miles away. No reason we can't drive safely with humans in control.

GW Johnson · 2012-01-01 10:29:12

Sorry, I don't really think ISRU "has to wait". Didn't mean to imply that at all. There is some work that could be done starting with the very first landings, or even robotically, before we go.

I'm just trying to point out that such efforts are more of a wild guess than most folks want to admit (because it doesn't sell the project, I understand), precisely because the subsurface has yet to be sampled effectively. What ISRU equipment do you take, and exactly how do you plan to use it? That depends upon what is really there to utilize at your landing site. Kinda hard to choose when you don't really know what is there. And every site will be different, too. Don't forget that!

The first ISRU efforts are not going to be the ones that blossom into sustainability support for bases or colonies. History shows we humans do things more by trial and error, with a lot more error than success. The ISRU approaches that do work will be found later, by people already on the surface of Mars, trying to use the surprise resource bounties they found subsurface.

That's our history talking. That's the way we've always done it. Now we'll just do it in a stranger, more hostile environment. So what? We'll still do it.

GW

louis · 2012-01-01 13:47:03

GW Johnson wrote:

Sorry, I don't really think ISRU "has to wait". Didn't mean to imply that at all. There is some work that could be done starting with the very first landings, or even robotically, before we go.
I'm just trying to point out that such efforts are more of a wild guess than most folks want to admit (because it doesn't sell the project, I understand), precisely because the subsurface has yet to be sampled effectively. What ISRU equipment do you take, and exactly how do you plan to use it? That depends upon what is really there to utilize at your landing site. Kinda hard to choose when you don't really know what is there. And every site will be different, too. Don't forget that!
The first ISRU efforts are not going to be the ones that blossom into sustainability support for bases or colonies. History shows we humans do things more by trial and error, with a lot more error than success. The ISRU approaches that do work will be found later, by people already on the surface of Mars, trying to use the surprise resource bounties they found subsurface.
That's our history talking. That's the way we've always done it. Now we'll just do it in a stranger, more hostile environment. So what? We'll still do it.
GW

I feel fairly confident that on the back of the satellite imagery we can get close to water sources. Similarly iron ore, silica and basalt should be reasonably easy to identify.

I would have thought on the first mission, with the exception possibly of rocket fuel, we would be looking simply to prove some ISRU techniques e.g. iron smelting, glass production, Mars bricks - without being in any sense dependent on them for human survival.

I agree much will be learned by trial and error, but we probably can do a lot of Mars analogue testing on Earth (and I don't mean those joke projects like Mars 500).

GW Johnson · 2012-01-01 14:13:44

Mars 500 had little to do with anything but the psychology of confinement for long periods in tight spaces. But that itself is valuable, so I don't really consider it a joke.

However, on the other hand, the mission model behind it looks like 60's Apollo: 99+% flag-and-footprints, 1% (or less) real science. One landing for one trip. What nonsense!

It is clear that no one associated with Mars 500 learned the lesson of what we did wrong in Apollo. So few have 20-20 hindsight vision? Disappointing.

GW

SpaceNut · 2012-01-01 20:37:29

Orbital platform after a long weightless ride to get there and since we would be staying only long enough to scout each landing site little ability to stop the issue of muscles becoming as if bed ridden....So how much exercise is required to be fit as what is known from the ISS that changes the daily routine of Mars exploration.
Since we would not be using insitu derived oxygen we now change the make up of what we bring. Also time frame is so short on the surface then its not likely to be used then either.
So a mission that is structured around a sortie style means we are not doing anything from the above list.....

JonClarke · 2012-01-01 21:14:04

louis wrote:

[I agree much will be learned by trial and error, but we probably can do a lot of Mars analogue testing on Earth (and I don't mean those joke projects like Mars 500).

I know several people involved in Mars 500 and I can assure you it was not a joke project. It was a large, long term, nultinational project running over many years, the most recent dev elopment of studies going back decades. And it was very successful.

JonClarke · 2012-01-01 21:26:08

GW Johnson wrote:

Mars 500 had little to do with anything but the psychology of confinement for long periods in tight spaces. But that itself is valuable, so I don't really consider it a joke.

Mars 500 did a whole lot more than just investigate the pyschology of confiment. It explored life support systems, telemedicine, long term group interaction in confined space, habitat archiecture, medical issues with long term confinement of small groups, the psychology and sociology of changing time lags in comms, virtual reality in crew well being and Mars exploration, plant growth, microbical ecology, maintaining of skills in isolation, and many others. In no shape or form was Mars 500 a joke.

However, on the other hand, the mission model behind it looks like 60's Apollo: 99+% flag-and-footprints, 1% (or less) real science. One landing for one trip. What nonsense!

Certainly I am not that keen on the low thrust short stay mission architecture behind the concept. However, it is a valid mission concept that has been extensively researched over many decades in Russia and the former USSR, so it is natural form them to base the mission scenario on it. The prime advantage of the approach is the overall mission duration is quite short - only sprint missions has shorter trip times. And the lessons from Mars 500 in engineering and human factors are applicable to all mission archiectures.

The Mars 500 people I have spoken to are well aware the the surface component was the most limited part of the project. But there are limits to what can be done in this area in such a facility and the details of the Mars surface mission were not the focus of the project anyway.

It is clear that no one associated with Mars 500 learned the lesson of what we did wrong in Apollo. So few have 20-20 hindsight vision? Disappointing.

What did we do wrong with Apollo? What aspects of Apollo are even relevant to experiments such as this? What lessons could the Mars 500 project have learned from Apollo?

louis · 2012-01-01 22:11:16

GW Johnson wrote:

Mars 500 had little to do with anything but the psychology of confinement for long periods in tight spaces. But that itself is valuable, so I don't really consider it a joke.
However, on the other hand, the mission model behind it looks like 60's Apollo: 99+% flag-and-footprints, 1% (or less) real science. One landing for one trip. What nonsense!
It is clear that no one associated with Mars 500 learned the lesson of what we did wrong in Apollo. So few have 20-20 hindsight vision? Disappointing.
GW

Absolutely - all Mars 500 proved was that people can survive in close confinement for long periods - something we'd known for hundreds of years. Even the psychological test was faulty because in a real Mars mission the crew will be buoyed up tremendously by the knowledge of the momentous nature of their voyage and the support and interest of those back on Earth.

I think Mars 500 was just a pathetic attempt to show continued attachment to the cause of Mars exploration without expending big bucks.

louis · 2012-01-01 22:12:19

JonClarke wrote:

louis wrote:
[I agree much will be learned by trial and error, but we probably can do a lot of Mars analogue testing on Earth (and I don't mean those joke projects like Mars 500).
I know several people involved in Mars 500 and I can assure you it was not a joke project. It was a large, long term, nultinational project running over many years, the most recent dev elopment of studies going back decades. And it was very successful.

In what sense was it successful? What did it demonstrate?

JonClarke · 2012-01-01 23:13:36

louis wrote:

Absolutely - all Mars 500 proved was that people can survive in close confinement for long periods - something we'd known for hundreds of years. Even the psychological test was faulty because in a real Mars mission the crew will be buoyed up tremendously by the knowledge of the momentous nature of their voyage and the support and interest of those back on Earth.

We have indeed known for hundreds of years that people can survive long periods of close confinement. We also know they often don't do it well, if they survive at all. It is a couple of hudred years since it was acceptable to send an expedition off into the unknown and if 10% made it back could declare it a resounding success.

In the 21st century we need to ensure that a Mars mission has the greatest possible chance of success. This means testing different technologies, approaches, and designs. It means knowing which people have the best profiles to send to Mars, how the crew is best structured to ensure success, how the relationship between the crew and mission control is to be managed, and how they are to reintegrated back to Earth. It means knowing the logistic issues - food, oxygen, water, spares, other supplies, in great detail with great confidence. All this has to be exhaustively tested, first on the ground, then in space, in the lab, and in the field.

I think Mars 500 was just a pathetic attempt to show continued attachment to the cause of Mars exploration without expending big bucks.

Yes, I know that is what you think. But what is it based on? How much to you know? Are you aware that the project builds on a hertitage of nearly 40 years to such work? That Mars 500 was also a decade in the planning and exedution? That more than a dozen nations took part in it? That while cheap compared to an actual Mars mission, still cost many millions of dollars?

Or do you think we should send people to Mars without the best possible chance of them succeeding? Because if you dismiss Mars 500 that is what you are doing.

.

JonClarke · 2012-01-01 23:20:01

louis wrote:

In what sense was it successful? What did it demonstrate?

At the most superfical level that should be evident, to even the most casual observer with the slightest knowledge of what's involved in a Mars mission, that it demonstrated that it is possible to carry out a high fidelity simulated Mars mission that not only achieves all its goals, but without major engineering, logistic, psychological, or medical issues, all without physical outside support or contact, often at a significant timelag. This is a huge hurdle to have crossed.

The detailed achievements will emerge over the next few years as the results are written up.

The Mars 500 team are already working towards the goal of the next simulated mission using the ISS.

Last edited by JonClarke (2012-01-01 23:23:29)

louis · 2012-01-02 07:55:29

JonClarke wrote:

louis wrote:
In what sense was it successful? What did it demonstrate?
At the most superfical level that should be evident, to even the most casual observer with the slightest knowledge of what's involved in a Mars mission, that it demonstrated that it is possible to carry out a high fidelity simulated Mars mission that not only achieves all its goals, but without major engineering, logistic, psychological, or medical issues, all without physical outside support or contact, often at a significant timelag. This is a huge hurdle to have crossed.
The detailed achievements will emerge over the next few years as the results are written up.
The Mars 500 team are already working towards the goal of the next simulated mission using the ISS.

I don't wish to sound harsh - if valuable data was obtained it will no doubt be used in the future. However, I can't help but remain sceptical about that.

I think that once a consortium to land humans on Mars is put together, such testing will be undertaken, but on a much closer Mars analogue (atmosphere,temperature, sol cycle, soil and so on). In my view it would be worth spending a few hundred million dollars to built a Mars replica site (as well as an MTV simulator). But you can't do it on the cheap is my view. Obviously an ISS simulation would be quite realistic for the transit, so I wouldn't mark that down.

JonClarke · 2012-01-02 15:58:12

louis wrote:

I don't wish to sound harsh - if valuable data was obtained it will no doubt be used in the future. However, I can't help but remain sceptical about that.
I think that once a consortium to land humans on Mars is put together, such testing will be undertaken, but on a much closer Mars analogue (atmosphere,temperature, sol cycle, soil and so on). In my view it would be worth spending a few hundred million dollars to built a Mars replica site (as well as an MTV simulator). But you can't do it on the cheap is my view. Obviously an ISS simulation would be quite realistic for the transit, so I wouldn't mark that down.

You don't sound harsh, only ignorant. I don't want that to sound harsh either. You show no signs of havig done any background investigation into the true scale and sophistication of this experiment, not into the reasons why such experiments are done.

Mars 500 did simulation the conditions of a Mars mission as accurately as possible. A realistic crew, living on realistic food, in realistic quarters, do real science, supported by a realistic life support, with real and virtual isolation, is a good simulation to allow a wide range of issues to be explored. It's an experiment.

The Mars landing side of things was not the purpose of the simulation, but they did that as well as could be expected for a first attempt under the set up constrains. Their use of telerobotics and virtual reality was most interesting. I am fairly sure they did operate under Mars time while "on the surface".

As to doing a high fidelity simulation of the landing component of a long stay, we are a long way from that, and it probably would be impratical. Aspects of it certainly could be simulated and tested, as has been done at MDRS, FMARS, HMP, Svalbard, and Desert RATS. I think long stay missions at low to moderate fidelity simulations could be sustained at FMARS or HMP, this would be quite useful.

As I am very sure we will go back to the Moon before we go to Mars, I sustepct that long stays on the lunar surface would be the best preparation.

louis · 2012-01-02 17:29:09

JonClarke wrote:

louis wrote:
I don't wish to sound harsh - if valuable data was obtained it will no doubt be used in the future. However, I can't help but remain sceptical about that.
I think that once a consortium to land humans on Mars is put together, such testing will be undertaken, but on a much closer Mars analogue (atmosphere,temperature, sol cycle, soil and so on). In my view it would be worth spending a few hundred million dollars to built a Mars replica site (as well as an MTV simulator). But you can't do it on the cheap is my view. Obviously an ISS simulation would be quite realistic for the transit, so I wouldn't mark that down.
You don't sound harsh, only ignorant. I don't want that to sound harsh either. You show no signs of havig done any background investigation into the true scale and sophistication of this experiment, not into the reasons why such experiments are done.
Mars 500 did simulation the conditions of a Mars mission as accurately as possible. A realistic crew, living on realistic food, in realistic quarters, do real science, supported by a realistic life support, with real and virtual isolation, is a good simulation to allow a wide range of issues to be explored. It's an experiment.
The Mars landing side of things was not the purpose of the simulation, but they did that as well as could be expected for a first attempt under the set up constrains. Their use of telerobotics and virtual reality was most interesting. I am fairly sure they did operate under Mars time while "on the surface".
As to doing a high fidelity simulation of the landing component of a long stay, we are a long way from that, and it probably would be impratical. Aspects of it certainly could be simulated and tested, as has been done at MDRS, FMARS, HMP, Svalbard, and Desert RATS. I think long stay missions at low to moderate fidelity simulations could be sustained at FMARS or HMP, this would be quite useful.
As I am very sure we will go back to the Moon before we go to Mars, I sustepct that long stays on the lunar surface would be the best preparation.

I see no reason why we can't construct a proper Mars analogue facility - a large sealed hangar with 6 metres of Mars analogue soil, the right pressure and atmospheric contents, and a controlled sol cycle at the right seasonal intensity - all with wall projections to simulate the landscape. It would cost hundreds of millions of dollars but it would providse usable data.

JonClarke · 2012-01-02 17:55:54

louis wrote:

I see no reason why we can't construct a proper Mars analogue facility - a large sealed hangar with 6 metres of Mars analogue soil, the right pressure and atmospheric contents, and a controlled sol cycle at the right seasonal intensity - all with wall projections to simulate the landscape. It would cost hundreds of millions of dollars but it would providse usable data.

Small chambers like this already exist. Chambers large enough to test large spacecaft also exist, these could probably be adapted to simulate the Mars surface (pumping them down might a challenge though). They would play a vital role in testing equipment.

But could could not make one large enough to support a sustained EVA campaign. Even not pressured Mars floors can only with difficulty be made large enough. The Mars 500 one was too small. Even a converted sports field would only be large enough to support a couple full scale pedestrialn EVAs.

To simulate long range EVAs with pressurised vehciles duing a long stay Mars mission you would have to go to some reasonably analogue terrain - the Sahara, the Atacama, central Australia, Devon Island, parts of Antarctica, and accept the limitations.

If it was a high fidelity simulation you could still have a pressurised habitat and suits. The main issues would icluding maintain fidelity during the changing seasons and security.

louis · 2012-01-02 19:14:39

JonClarke wrote:

louis wrote:
I see no reason why we can't construct a proper Mars analogue facility - a large sealed hangar with 6 metres of Mars analogue soil, the right pressure and atmospheric contents, and a controlled sol cycle at the right seasonal intensity - all with wall projections to simulate the landscape. It would cost hundreds of millions of dollars but it would providse usable data.
Small chambers like this already exist. Chambers large enough to test large spacecaft also exist, these could probably be adapted to simulate the Mars surface (pumping them down might a challenge though). They would play a vital role in testing equipment.
But could could not make one large enough to support a sustained EVA campaign. Even not pressured Mars floors can only with difficulty be made large enough. The Mars 500 one was too small. Even a converted sports field would only be large enough to support a couple full scale pedestrialn EVAs.
To simulate long range EVAs with pressurised vehciles duing a long stay Mars mission you would have to go to some reasonably analogue terrain - the Sahara, the Atacama, central Australia, Devon Island, parts of Antarctica, and accept the limitations.
If it was a high fidelity simulation you could still have a pressurised habitat and suits. The main issues would icluding maintain fidelity during the changing seasons and security.

I'm thinking of putting rovers on rollers to give the effect of travelling distance and then at the "arrival point" moving into a smaller chamber for "EVA" activity eg.. getting out and taking some rock samples with a drill or mining ice.

JonClarke · 2012-01-02 19:53:53

louis wrote:

I'm thinking of putting rovers on rollers to give the effect of travelling distance and then at the "arrival point" moving into a smaller chamber for "EVA" activity eg.. getting out and taking some rock samples with a drill or mining ice.

You could do that to test the technology. In terms of human factors research it would need o be linked to high level VR. Which is what the IBMP people are working on.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2011-12-28 21:40:20

Rethinking human missions as Foundation Projects

#2 2011-12-29 03:57:58

Re: Rethinking human missions as Foundation Projects

#3 2011-12-29 08:13:34

Re: Rethinking human missions as Foundation Projects

#4 2011-12-29 14:11:10

Re: Rethinking human missions as Foundation Projects

#5 2011-12-30 03:15:15

Re: Rethinking human missions as Foundation Projects

#6 2011-12-30 17:28:04

Re: Rethinking human missions as Foundation Projects

#7 2011-12-31 06:00:56

Re: Rethinking human missions as Foundation Projects

#8 2011-12-31 11:04:28

Re: Rethinking human missions as Foundation Projects

#9 2011-12-31 11:13:21

Re: Rethinking human missions as Foundation Projects

#10 2012-01-01 10:29:12

Re: Rethinking human missions as Foundation Projects

#11 2012-01-01 13:47:03

Re: Rethinking human missions as Foundation Projects

#12 2012-01-01 14:13:44

Re: Rethinking human missions as Foundation Projects

#13 2012-01-01 20:37:29

Re: Rethinking human missions as Foundation Projects

#14 2012-01-01 21:14:04

Re: Rethinking human missions as Foundation Projects

#15 2012-01-01 21:26:08

Re: Rethinking human missions as Foundation Projects

#16 2012-01-01 22:11:16

Re: Rethinking human missions as Foundation Projects

#17 2012-01-01 22:12:19

Re: Rethinking human missions as Foundation Projects

#18 2012-01-01 23:13:36

Re: Rethinking human missions as Foundation Projects

#19 2012-01-01 23:20:01

Re: Rethinking human missions as Foundation Projects

#20 2012-01-02 07:55:29

Re: Rethinking human missions as Foundation Projects

#21 2012-01-02 15:58:12

Re: Rethinking human missions as Foundation Projects

#22 2012-01-02 17:29:09

Re: Rethinking human missions as Foundation Projects

#23 2012-01-02 17:55:54

Re: Rethinking human missions as Foundation Projects

#24 2012-01-02 19:14:39

Re: Rethinking human missions as Foundation Projects

#25 2012-01-02 19:53:53

Re: Rethinking human missions as Foundation Projects

Board footer