Research Facility Mars Moon?! - A misprint maybe?

Palomar · 2002-06-08 12:16:04

*Hi. I just now read the following in the article at the MS home page, regarding the 2002 USA govt' space exploration bill:

"The twenty-year goal would require development of a reusable vehicle to carry humans to and from Martian orbit, development of a human occupied research facility on one of the moons of Mars..."

*Erm...this is a typo, right? Why the heck try to land and create a research facility on one of the moons of Mars??

Explain?

--Cindy

Phobos · 2002-06-08 12:46:13

It's for real. Even though I applaude the enthusiasm of that bill, I think it does go a bit overboard in places. I think it's better to just have one or two big goals, like getting people to Mars in the first place, then to stretch ourselves to thin trying to build all these Martian moon stations, reusuable lunar vehicles, etc. I just can't see them getting full funding for all of those programs so its better to see that the main ones get all the funding they need, like a manned Mars mission.

Palomar · 2002-06-11 11:06:34

Phobos wrote: "It's for real. Even though I applaude the enthusiasm of that bill, I think it does go a bit overboard in places. I think it's better to just have one or two big goals, like getting people to Mars in the first place, then to stretch ourselves to thin trying to build all these Martian moon stations, reusuable lunar vehicles, etc."

I feel this proposal is a red herring. Why bother with the moons of Mars at this point in time -- if ever? Focus on *Mars* itself. Funnel the funding and resources into the *planet.* If our space agency is going to fund the exploration and study of any planet's moon in the solar system, let it be Europa.

--Cindy

MS member since 6/01

bruckner · 2002-06-11 15:12:19

I remember having read somewhere that a Phobos mission would be far cheaper than a Mars mission. It makes sense: the costly parts of any mission (apart from the fact of keeping living beings alive) involve lifting from gravity wells. Earth is a tough problem, but we may skip the Mars problem altogether by using Phobos (or Deimos, but Phobos looks more interesting) as intermediate station. Imagine a space station where living quarters would have no radiation problems, no risk of oxygen leaks... It's doable just by drilling there. And if Phobos is a captured asteroid (as it seems) it may have valuable sources of raw materials...

By the way: Hi, I'm new to this forum. Nice to meet you!

Bruckner

Palomar · 2002-06-11 15:42:41

"By the way: Hi, I'm new to this forum. Nice to meet you!

Bruckner"

*Hi, and welcome aboard!

--Cindy

MS member since 6/01

RobS · 2002-06-17 01:08:46

Phobos and Deimos are marvelous intermediate stations on the way to Mars. Since they are probably made of carbonaceous chondrite (which is several percent water) they probably can be sources of rocket fuel. Ultimately it is probably best to design a reusable one-stage Mars shuttle that goes from the Mars surface to Phobos (delta vee, 5.5 km/sec or 12,300 mph), where it can refuel and head to earth or return to the Martian surface. If you want to export items from Mars--fossiliferous rocks to sell on Earth, or gold nuggets--it would be easiest to fly them to Phobos, accumulate a supply there, then fly up another small batch, refuel with Phobosian fuel, load on board the previous cargos, and head for Earth.

Phobos and Deimos take less delta-vee to reach than the surface of the Earth's moon (delta-vee, 4.3 km/sec, versus 5.5 km/sec), so they might ultimately prove to be as cheap or cheaper a source of hydrogen and oxygen for low earth orbit than the poles of the moon. The lunar poles are unlikely to have very much carbon dioxide or nitrogen; the former is abundant in carbonaceous chondrite and the latter is available.

So it may be cheapest to design a reusable one stage shuttle from the beginning of Mars exploration. At first it would rendezvous with a fully-fueled Earth return vehicle sent from Earth, but if astronauts spent a week visiting Phobos every time they were on their way down or on their way back up--twice every two years--facilities on Phobos could gradually be developed and expanded.

--RobS

Palomar · 2002-06-17 12:43:18

Phobos and Deimos are marvelous intermediate stations on the way to Mars.

*Hmmmm, I don't know. See, to my way of thinking, using Phobos and Deimos as "stepping-stones" of sorts to getting to Mars makes as much sense as, say, Neptunians seeking to use our moon in order to help in the exploration and colonization process of an uninhabited Earth. Why not just go to Earth?

Sure, landing robots or even humans on Phobos or Deimos might have its merits, but I think the focus should remain on Mars itself; its moons can wait -- IMO.

--Cindy

MS member since 6/01

Phobos · 2002-06-17 15:47:07

Even though I agree with Buckner and RobS that the Martian satellites will prove valuable, I think for the short term it's still better to spend our resources just landing people on Mars and having a look around for life and doing some greenhouse experiments etc. I think the space bill is a little bloated with expensive projects that are bound to interfere with each other.

Palomar · 2002-07-02 20:15:01

*Do Deimos and Phobos orbit Mars clockwise or counter-clockwise? Also, what is their obital inclination to Mars' equator? Just curious.

--Cindy

Byron · 2002-07-03 05:03:57

Hey Cindy,

Both moons orbit from west to east, so I guess that would be counterclockwise...Phobos makes it around every 7 hours, while Diemos takes a bit more than a day to orbit; almost directly over the equator (something that the space elevator advocates would have to contend with..lol)

B

Shaun Barrett · 2002-07-03 07:45:06

I think RobS is correct to recommend using Phobos and Deimos as staging posts.
I know it looks like a detour, and I'm not here to advocate fooling around .... I want to get to Mars at least as much as the next person. But what RobS is trying to point out is that our biggest problem is fuel. We know there's fuel here on Earth and we know we can make it easily enough on Mars. In fact, we can probably even make it from purported water ice at the lunar poles. But the problem with all these 'gas stations' is they lie at the bottom of gravity wells of various depths.
The beauty of the Martian moons is that they have no significant gravity and yet they almost certainly have volatiles we can make rocket fuel out of. This means we can fly up and down from the surface of Mars to orbit and back again indefinitely, without ever having to worry about carting fuel from Earth or engaging in dangerous aerobraking in the Martian atmosphere. And, as RobS said, getting from LEO to Phobos or Deimos is relatively undemanding of fuel in the first place!
In view of these facts, the moons of Mars are really a gift of nature! They can make return trips to Mars very much easier and cheaper. We'd be crazy to pass up such an opportunity!
Incidentally ... a warm welcome to you from me too, Bruckner!

Canth · 2002-07-03 11:48:43

I think that the use of mars' moons in the space exploration act is to help define the kind of program. Ultimately it is foresaking the mars direct idea for a toned down version of the old huge intergrated space exploration plan of von Braun. Mars direct was a desperate plan to get some government funding for men on mars when there was a good chance of getting none, which is what happened. This new plan is mars forever. Lampson wants to build a fleet of exploration which will be reusable. There is nothing wrong with mars direct but this plan trades price for forsight, it is a different plan for different circumstances. If it gets pulled off it is obviously one of the right ones for the circumstances. I have nothing against mars direct but it is meant to be a plan on a very tight budget. Doctor Zubrin says in the case for mars that it was a plan specifically designed for the circumstances, the circumstances have changed. This plan is much harder to abandon in good concience, it isn't going to suffer the fate of the apollo program. That is my interpretation anyway.I think it will be the biggest single advance in space exploration ever.

Palomar · 2002-07-03 13:29:46

Hey Cindy,
Both moons orbit from west to east, so I guess that would be counterclockwise...Phobos makes it around every 7 hours, while Diemos takes a bit more than a day to orbit; almost directly over the equator (something that the space elevator advocates would have to contend with..lol)
B

*Thanks Byron.

BTW, what's this "space elevator" thing?

--Cindy

Phobos · 2002-07-03 16:50:46

BTW, what's this "space elevator" thing?

Space elevators are basically giant winches in geo-stationary orbit that pull cargo into orbit with long cables. They could be a very cheap alternative to launching payloads on rockets, even though you'd have to wait a lot longer for your payload to get into orbit on a space elevator. I wish NASA or another space agency would look into them more, maybe we just lack strong enough materials at this time to build one.

Doctor Zubrin says in the case for mars that it was a plan specifically designed for the circumstances, the circumstances have changed. This plan is much harder to abandon in good concience, it isn't going to suffer the fate of the apollo program. That is my interpretation anyway.I think it will be the biggest single advance in space exploration ever.

I hope your optimism pans out. I'm somewhat skeptical of Congress's ability to give full funding for such a wide array of what will obviously be very expensive space projects. I think we'd be safer if we dropped some of the more extraneous goals like building manned bases on the Martian moons.

Canth · 2002-07-04 12:06:30

In my opinion if they can get the funding they should go for it. If it is gonna be a show stopper they should drop the requirement. It all depends on the attitude and forsight of the US congress. Also, congress will likely revise the bill. Who knows what kind of changes it will undergo before being passed or abandoned. It could end up supporting a mars direct style mission archatecture.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-06-08 12:16:04

Re: Research Facility Mars Moon?! - A misprint maybe?

#2 2002-06-08 12:46:13

Re: Research Facility Mars Moon?! - A misprint maybe?

#3 2002-06-11 11:06:34

Re: Research Facility Mars Moon?! - A misprint maybe?

#4 2002-06-11 15:12:19

Re: Research Facility Mars Moon?! - A misprint maybe?

#5 2002-06-11 15:42:41

Re: Research Facility Mars Moon?! - A misprint maybe?

#6 2002-06-17 01:08:46

Re: Research Facility Mars Moon?! - A misprint maybe?

#7 2002-06-17 12:43:18

Re: Research Facility Mars Moon?! - A misprint maybe?

#8 2002-06-17 15:47:07

Re: Research Facility Mars Moon?! - A misprint maybe?

#9 2002-07-02 20:15:01

Re: Research Facility Mars Moon?! - A misprint maybe?

#10 2002-07-03 05:03:57

Re: Research Facility Mars Moon?! - A misprint maybe?

#11 2002-07-03 07:45:06

Re: Research Facility Mars Moon?! - A misprint maybe?

#12 2002-07-03 11:48:43

Re: Research Facility Mars Moon?! - A misprint maybe?

#13 2002-07-03 13:29:46

Re: Research Facility Mars Moon?! - A misprint maybe?

#14 2002-07-03 16:50:46

Re: Research Facility Mars Moon?! - A misprint maybe?

#15 2002-07-04 12:06:30

Re: Research Facility Mars Moon?! - A misprint maybe?

Board footer