We need to promote the manned Mars trip as ONE WAY

mcshlong · 2003-06-08 15:28:00

Thanks for the welcome guys.

Let me explain a bit more. I wrote the original post after I read the NASA specifications for a manned mission (here). In particular I am looking at the page on production of propellant (here).

Anyway the current NASA crewed mars mission plans call for a methane/oxygen propellant ISRU (In situ resource utilzation) strategy which may very well be included in an unmanned Mars sample return mission in the near future (i.e. which is really a test run of the ISRU for a manned mission). Basically the idea of the ISRU is to take the hydrogen from earth to mars and then to use that hydrogen to make methane. Then to use electricity, from solar panels, to free O2 from CO2. Then to compress that methane and oxygen to fuel a space ship.

Now I am an engineer. I can see that the effort it would take to get people back in NASAs crewed mission to mars would be by far the most critical, costly and dangerous part of NASAs current roadmap to mars. Now I ask you why would you WANT to spend tens of BILLIONS of dollars to try to bring people back, when the whole effort to come home adds quite a large risk to the people involved? Remember, failure in any part of the hugely complicated return mission means death.

To put it in perspective, the return trip would be the most complicated technological effort mankind has ever attempted. So why bother even trying? Spend the effort and billions of dollars on putting a good size house that?s safe and secure on the mars surface, sending ice cream (seriously), perhaps a sprint cell phone where they could dial any earth phone number, maybe even mail and deliveries on a yearly (have to double up on the 26 month lauch window) basis or provide a dune buggy for the mars base crew (spend the money on these types of technologies). Spend the money on having a couple "wharehouses" in Mars orbit ahead of time. So they could have things parachuted in if they needed somethig, at the touch of a button.

Basically touch down a house on the surface (a fairly decent sized one), hook the house into the internet, drop in a nice jeep in the front yard and have a couple warehouses (2 years of stockpiles) of oxygen and food in orbit for supplies, and then if it everything is tested and is working then and only then drop a man and a women in by parachute into the front yard (too stay).

It just seems cheaper and better then the return trip senario. And about the same cost as maintaining the international space station, without the weakness in the knees you get from weightlessness.

I really don't think they would suffer too bad on the surface if they were supplied once a year, if they had a decent sized house, if they had a phone that worked and if they liked the internet. And even plan the design of the house for a baby perhaps.

As far as your comments about human diversity on the surface of mars, I don't think that?s a problem. There is no hope to generate a population on Mars at this point anyway. Any settlement would be tiny and small, permanent for them perhaps but temporary really, in the big scheme of things.

Personally, I favor devoting the whole mars base project to trying to grow a garden. See if theres any way to get a leafy plant, a multicell animal or a bacteria growing. Simple as that. Put the base as close to water as we can manage. Many plants can convert CO2 to O2 and thrive, even in a desert environment. Watering them would be the tough part perhaps. Oh and I think that for the time this base is operating this would need to be NASAs one and only goal. No military missions, no space shuttle missions. No nothing just support the Mars base with missions and research.

Anyway thats why I posted the first topic. I didn't really like spending all that money on such a risky proposal. The one outlined here is a much safer one for the astronauts, as they can fly a direct entry and land in a safe tested and secure environment.

Cheers Guys!,
Mcshlong

P.S. Furthur reading on the return trip issue can be found here.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-06-09 04:24:12

Welcome mc !
Your idea has actually been put forward in another thread here at New Mars (I can't think where just now) but that doesn't mean to say it shouldn't be brought up again. People come up with new ideas all the time and it's no bad thing to revisit interesting concepts once in a while.

There's probably a minimum number of people required to form a viable initial colony. There are varying opinions as to what that number should be but I think most people would regard one couple as being too small a number.
If, as in your plan, there is no need to consider bringing the crew home again, even a modest Mars Direct style of mission might be upgraded to carry, say, 8 people. Whether even this number would be sufficient is debatable but I suspect it would attract more support than the notion of sending just two.
In any event, I don't think you'd have too much trouble rounding up a crew for a one-way trip. Many people would be happy to try a brand new life on a brand new planet, regardless of the potential hardships and dangers!

dicktice · 2003-06-10 10:37:14

And fame ... don't forget the FAME that would accrue ... until the folks back on Earth begin to tire of the soap-opera-like day-to-day doings of the one-way settlers transmitted from Mars, and balk at having to support 'em. Interesting idea ... needs work....

mcshlong · 2003-06-11 18:18:24

Hey just letting you know I rewrote the original first post to clarify the one way idea a bit. I'm thinking maybe of doing a web page on it and working out some more details on it.

Algol · 2003-06-11 19:41:20

I dont think people would be comfortable with the first trip to mars being one way. As much as we would'nt like to admit it, there is still so much we need still dont know, and so much we need to find out.

A mars mission would most likely be able to answer every question we have, but the crew should definately be planing on returning if only because there is a possibility we wont like the answers we get. I'm all for sending colonies, but not until we atually understand the place we are going to.......

Nick

mcshlong · 2003-06-11 21:27:55

Well even you have to admit that if a mission goes well they are going to stay there for 16-18 months.

Right ??? ?

Algol · 2003-06-12 04:19:41

yes, but they are taking all their supplies with them. The kit theyd need for a permanent stay would be completely different, and we frankly dont know what it will be yet. We can make good guesses, but we still just dont know at the end of the day. We need a manned mission to answer all of our questions before we can risk attempting colonisation.

nick

Shaun Barrett · 2003-06-12 06:28:24

For what it's worth, I think Algol is making some good points here.
Those of you familiar with Murphy's Law will understand the logic behind Algol's reasoning!

Free Spirit · 2003-06-12 20:16:07

Sending only a few people on a one way trip to Mars would be the height of cruelty. Our romantic visions of things and the reality often turn out to be very different. But if we were to sentence people to living on Mars for the rest of their lives a Mars Direct approach would be out of the question. Something like this would be a better choice for very long stays at Mars.

mcshlong · 2003-06-13 18:58:00

You guys are all missing the point.

The odds of getting to Mars and landing is about 40%, and that is being generous.

The odds of returning to earth is less so make it 30%.

The odds therefore to do the whole trip is 15%.

Better to set the mission up by focusing money for the quality of life on mars, with the comforts of home at 40% success rate. Then have a 15% success rate.

Remember the odds of a successfull mission has got to be the deciding factor when deciding a mission plan.

Becuase they are basically choosing which mission plan has the best chance of not giving them a bunch of dead astronauts. I don't think the return trip is safe enough to warrent the risk to the astrounauts. You guys havent looked at the risks of the mission close enough.

Free Spirit · 2003-06-13 21:19:52

With such terrible odds we should just be patient and develop the technology needed to defeat those odds. That would be the best route in my opinion. I personally don't see a need to rush humans to Mars. A one way trip might work from a technical standpoint but I just don't think any of us really understands what we'd be getting ourselves into by sentencing ourselves to life on the red planet. I remember reading somewhere that life on Mars would be about 100 times worse than living in Antartica and people in Antartica usually are all too happy to return to the "world".

RobS · 2003-06-13 22:23:53

I have never seen a scientific argument made for odds like 40%, 30%, 15%, etc. No will try a one way mission with a 40% odds. The goal will be a round trip mission with better odds than a space shuttle flight (currently, 98%).

-- RobS

mcshlong · 2003-06-14 11:43:41

There have been 34 missions to Mars. Overall 20 of the 34, or 59 percent, failed. And thats one way trips of the simpler kind, unmanned. There have been a large variety of failures in the mars missions to date, and the failure rates have not improved as time has gone by.

However, the types of failures have changed. Originally it was launch pad fires, and leaving earth orbit. Lately it has been problems with the space crafts themselves, navigation errors, software glitches, unknown errors, or even crash landings.

I would suggest that comparing the possible success of a mars trip to a space shuttle trip, is just wishfull thinking. I mean, Robs we have mastered the art of lauching into orbit, granted. But none of the recent Mars trip failures even happen near earth.

The problems arise near mars. Therefore, we have to determine the possibility of a mars mission success by, looking at recent mars mission results.

Not that a low chance of success should stop us from trying but I do think that becuase of the odds, the mars mission method should be choosen with one goal in mind. That is the a mission method should be selected to maximize the chance of success.

RobS · 2003-06-14 20:34:42

No one who is planning missions sending people to Mars assume that our technology will be as primitive as it has been with unmanned vehicles. The Apollo record is much better; 6 missions out of 7 were a success. Many of the failures of unmanned vehicles could have been prevented if people had been on the spot monitoring, testing, and repairing.

I don't think any organization has every taken the danger of a round trip as a serious argument in favor of a one way trip, either. The danger of trying to stay five or ten years is probably regarded as greater, not to mention the moral issue of stranding people on Mars, even if they are volunteer "settlers."

-- RobS

mcshlong · 2003-06-14 23:52:44

Ok fine. But Apollo and shuttle missions are one thing. Mars missions need a differant mind set. At some point in our travels in space, trips unavoidably become one way. A Mars trip is quite far away in human terms, with current technology.

Only one time every 26 months do the orbits even come within 7 months of travel time for current space craft technology.

In other words, there is no such thing as a short Mars mission. The minimum time on Mars is 20 some months, due to the nature of the orbits of Earth and Mars.

So one way or the other, they will have to set up a pretty permanent long term home on the surface. So the minimum time for a total trip including return time is 7 months there + 20 months on the surface + 9 months return, or (=36 months) 3 years total. To put that in perspective that is about a year and a half of space flight, both ways.

This is justification enough to discard commonly held beliefs and entertain new paradiams.

It just seems like Mars missions are a whole differant thing then moon missions. Not only becuase of the distance but particularly becuase of the differance in the orbits of the two planets. We have to build a "long term facility on the surface to stay in 20 months anyway". So since we are going to be camped out there in a sophisticated self sustaining colony anyways, why not just stay there. A permanant facility where people could live for 20 months is probabaly not that differant from a facility where people could live permanetly.

So the question arises why leave? We could swap personel every few years at their request, which might answer your moral questions.

Personal there could have internet access, although lag time would be great they could still surf the web and post to forums like this one. They could have a significant other with them. If their significant other died they could come home. As for morals, there really isnt anything immoral about living on Mars. As far as costs we will be building a long term station anyway. And we do fly to this planet regularly anyway.

I think things all add up to the conclusion that the best way to handle Mars is to make it a colony from the git go. Not with the idea of staying forever, just maybe a few martian years, till we ran out of things to learn.

Algol · 2003-06-15 06:49:22

We could swap personel every few years at their request, which might answer your moral questions.

Whats the difference between swapping personel and returning them?

Are you suggesting we have permanent residents or residence?

Any mission we launched now would be designed to take everything they need with them. We cant grow food there, because we dont know how. We need to send a mission to answer all our questions. Then, and ONLY then, can we put a mission together with all the right tools, supplies and equipment necessary to make an attempt at permanent residence. All the kit sent on previous missions would still be there and available for their use.

It would be sheer folly to send the first mission/colonists to mars and ask them to work out how to live there and hope any equipment or supplies they will need to sustain themselves is included in their initial supplies. All equipment, of course, except that needed to provide them the option of returning home in case someone got their theories or calculations wrong - because that same somemone thought it might be too dangerous.

mcshlong · 2003-06-15 08:58:32

Whats the difference between swapping personel and returning them?

The differance is leaving someone behind, or not.

It would be sheer folly to send the first mission/colonists to mars and ask them to work out how to live there and hope any equipment or supplies they will need to sustain themselves is included in their initial supplies.

Earth goes twice as fast around the sun as does Mars. Therefore, if a Mars mission spent 3 days on Mars surface and left for earth orbit right away. When they got to Earth orbit, the Earth would be on the OTHER SIDE OF THE SUN! Therefore, whatever manned mission goes they will be stuck on the surface for a minimum of 20 months just waiting for earth to "FLY BY", so to speak. Therefore, we are going to have to put a very substantial manned station on the surface first. If they decide to swap personnel, return or stay, any way you look at it, our mission will be on the surface of Mars for 20 months, minimum.

So let us hope that,

any equipment or supplies they will need to sustain themselves is included in their initial supplies.

Algol · 2003-06-15 11:43:50

So are you no longer advocating that we should be promoting the mission as one-way?

The mars-direct plan already includes a 500-day surface stay and a cycle of crews arriving and departing from the surface ( i cant remember if there is a small overlap, or if each consecutive team just misses the last), each bringing with them their own habitat and equipment which whilst originally might be dispersed over an large area, would eventually be brought together in order to assembled a small base.

The whole basis of the mars direct plan is in-situ resource utilisation, but, WE DO NOT KNOW HOW TO GROW FOOD ON MARS. The point is that each crew is taking with them ALL THEIR NECESSARY CONSUMABLES, and yes for the WHOLE 500 DAY STAY, as such they will have to return, or starve.

Luckily they will be conducting handy resaerch whilst they are there, and upon their return they will be able to tell us all the wonderful secrets concerning living on mars. Then, armed with this new found knowledge, we will be able to consider colonisation of mars.

This way we get our handy base, and nobody starves by going on one way missions (which they are apparently now allowed to reurn from).

N.B I dont know where you got a 20 month surface stay from, if they waited this long to leave theyd have missed theyre "FLY-BY".

Josh Cryer · 2003-06-16 12:58:00

This is why I'm fond of a first Hundred-style mission, only with fewer people. Send the equipment in several shots, first the biosphere (CELSS), then the nuclear generator / ore processor / chemical manufacturer, then vehicles, etc.

5 or 6 of these trips could make it so that any future settlers are self-sustainable- indefinitely.

One way or not, this is the ideal way to go. It's just that costs are prohibitive at the momment (I've been looking quite into CELSS lately- it would've been nice if I were able to go to the August convention, to share my ideas, but it ain't happening).

But we could probably take care of CELSS technology right now, without even eating into the Mars Society budget very much (this is just my opinion from an argiculturalist position, I haven't actually looked at the logistics in depth, so I could be wrong). It could become an extension of MDRS.

RobS · 2003-06-17 16:21:07

With Mars Direct, by the way, one mission leaves Mars about nine months before the other arrives. The Mars Return Vehicle leaves for Earth about five months before opposition and reaches earth about a month after opposition; the Mars Direct outbound vehicle leaves earth about 2 months before opposition and reaches Mars 4 months after.

prometheusunbound · 2003-07-03 09:58:04

As stated, (sorry I'm newbie and don't know how to quote) the chances of a mars mission succeeding was 15%. another guy pointed out the kind of failure was changing, a shift from mechanical to software. All the missions doomed by software were unmanned missions. The manned missions will be less suspectible to software failure simply because there are people on ship that can repair that software if it fails. If that cannot work, there is usually a backup that the manned mission can use. therefore, the 15% success rate stated is much too low to be considered definative. I believe it is much higher than it really looks.(the success rate) In a mars mission it would be wise to have four things; a backup plan and backup files, and finally, a ace programmer. It would be prudent to keep code as simple as possible (#4)

sethmckiness · 2003-07-05 01:05:51

I have a slightly different perspective on this, but will make a point. I think there would people who would love to goto Mars for an extended period of time. (saying extended opposed to permanent) Lets say 4 years. This would be tremendous for research in a number of areas. But you would need more then 8 people. You would need two qualified Doctors, two qualified maintenance technicians, etc. Of course people can be rdundant, but you need two in case one dies!. As far as food goes, I think by the time we would do something like this or are going to Mars period, that will be resolved. Hell. We can grow food under light, so send a Big RTG or a small reactor with them, all the light they need. I think this is an interesting idea. But there is some detail work that needs to be dealt with. Other then that. I think it could work.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-06-08 15:28:00

Re: We need to promote the manned Mars trip as ONE WAY

#2 2003-06-09 04:24:12

Re: We need to promote the manned Mars trip as ONE WAY

#3 2003-06-10 10:37:14

Re: We need to promote the manned Mars trip as ONE WAY

#4 2003-06-11 18:18:24

Re: We need to promote the manned Mars trip as ONE WAY

#5 2003-06-11 19:41:20

Re: We need to promote the manned Mars trip as ONE WAY

#6 2003-06-11 21:27:55

Re: We need to promote the manned Mars trip as ONE WAY

#7 2003-06-12 04:19:41

Re: We need to promote the manned Mars trip as ONE WAY

#8 2003-06-12 06:28:24

Re: We need to promote the manned Mars trip as ONE WAY

#9 2003-06-12 20:16:07

Re: We need to promote the manned Mars trip as ONE WAY

#10 2003-06-13 18:58:00

Re: We need to promote the manned Mars trip as ONE WAY

#11 2003-06-13 21:19:52

Re: We need to promote the manned Mars trip as ONE WAY

#12 2003-06-13 22:23:53

Re: We need to promote the manned Mars trip as ONE WAY

#13 2003-06-14 11:43:41

Re: We need to promote the manned Mars trip as ONE WAY

#14 2003-06-14 20:34:42

Re: We need to promote the manned Mars trip as ONE WAY

#15 2003-06-14 23:52:44

Re: We need to promote the manned Mars trip as ONE WAY

#16 2003-06-15 06:49:22

Re: We need to promote the manned Mars trip as ONE WAY

#17 2003-06-15 08:58:32

Re: We need to promote the manned Mars trip as ONE WAY

#18 2003-06-15 11:43:50

Re: We need to promote the manned Mars trip as ONE WAY

#19 2003-06-16 12:58:00

Re: We need to promote the manned Mars trip as ONE WAY

#20 2003-06-17 16:21:07

Re: We need to promote the manned Mars trip as ONE WAY

#21 2003-07-03 09:58:04

Re: We need to promote the manned Mars trip as ONE WAY

#22 2003-07-05 01:05:51

Re: We need to promote the manned Mars trip as ONE WAY

Board footer