Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

Josh Cryer · 2002-01-23 01:27:02

BTW, clark, check out my thread about the ice caps in the Water on Mars section.

Alexander Sheppard · 2002-01-23 11:34:47

http://www.espac.org/al_shifa_pages/al-shifa_1.html

Another US terrorist activity is listed in this report. The US destroyed a medicine factory. This action has cost thousands, perhaps even tens of thousands, of lives indirectly. The factory produced about half of certian kinds of essential medicine (vaccinations for easily preventable diseases) in the Sudan. But the mainstream news will not tell you this.

Adrian · 2002-01-23 13:33:46

Just a quick comment (I can't post on my home computer): if people would like to get into a discussion or argument about Afganistan, then they're perfectly free to take it to the Free Chat offtopic forum or email. However, this is not the forum or the topic for it.

RobS · 2002-01-23 15:06:28

Josh has indeed gotten a good thread going on water on Mars, located under "Acheron Labs."

Zubrin's *The Case for Mars* has an entire section about how to extract volatiles (mostly water) from Martian regolith. Most of the techniques would work on the moon as well. If equipment can be manufactured that can handle extremely cold materials (it does not matter whether there is a vacuum or not; if regolith is -150 Centigrade and is on a backloader, it will make the backloader blade -150 as well) then the regolith can be processed to remove the volatiles. Loads can be dumped into a furnace and heated with spare reactor heat. Or a plastic tent could be spread over the ground, anchored, and the regolith could be zapped with microwaves, or a mirror could reflect sunlight onto it. The escaping volatiles will inflate the tent and can be pumped into tanks, compressed, separated, etc. Or one could drill a shaft into the volatile-rich regolith, it could be heated, and the escaping gasses captured.

We do not know how much water, CO2, etc., there is at the lunar poles. Paul Spudis, who ran the Clementine experiment, has estimated it, and it was in the millions of tons or billions of tons range, I believe. Interestingly, the poles of Mercury appear to have more.

Most likely lots of fuel can be obtained from the lunar poles. But even at the equator there may be volcanic minerals with water in them, and the surface materials are full of oxygen. It takes a lot of energy to liberate it, but note that hydrogen-oxygen fuel is 90% oxygen by weight, and methane/oxygen fuel is 80% oxygen by weight.

One problem no one has discussed: from Earth, it is comparatively easy to enter an equatorial orbit around the moon, but apparently it is fairly difficult to enter a polar orbit. Does anyone know how much more energy it takes? This makes a big difference in terms of the use of the lunar poles as "gas stations" for interplantary exploration. Otherwise, one imagines convoys of tanker trucks rolling from Aitken to Mare Imbrium every lunar night, carrying liquid hydrogen to the moon's main spaceport. . .

--RobS

Alexander Sheppard · 2002-01-23 18:43:01

I might add that our discussion was on topic [although I did get a bit carried away... it is a very important issue to me], because I was trying to demonstrate the point that the US does not need the behemoth of a military that it currently supports, and the funds so freed up could be used for more constructive purposes, like Mars colonization.

robcwillis · 2002-01-24 23:03:41

My dear Mr. Clark,

Perhaps you should consider trying to address some of my points rather than spewing a load of hysterical rubbish. Nearly everything you say is so absurd that I hardly know where to begin, but let's start with your moronic suggestion that restraint of military spending can only be achieved through such measures as having the Air Force fly WWII era aircraft, having soldiers pay for their own weapons, or dissolving the military altogether. Only an imbecile could think that a moderate reduction in military expenditures would require anything of the sort.

I have very specific gripes; SDI, F-22, Joint Strike Fighter and other totally unnecessary rip-off tax money grabs. The cancellation of all these programs would still leave the overwhelming U.S. military domination of Earth completely intact. For example, rather than re-equip with replica B-17s and P-47s, perhaps the Air Force and Navy could make do with the many thousands of the worlds best, most advanced, and most sophisticated combat aircraft that they already have on strength.

Why would anyone but the most rabid warmonger not accept a slight decrease in the production of new death machines if some small portion of the funds could instead be used for large-scale space exploration and development?

George Dubya has just proposed a $48 billion increase in military spending for next year. I trust, my dear Clark, that you were overcome with joyful rapture when you heard the good news.

Alexander Sheppard · 2002-01-26 17:28:35

All I can say for Clark is: I advise you to relax. Lighten up. Its just a forum.

quasar777 · 2002-05-05 19:30:11

when i was younger & perhaps a bit naive i believed in the pro mars movement. as i`ve aged & noticed much inactivity in human spaceflight. i`ve come to realize that more attention should be focused on more realistic efforts than human mars mission at this point in our present development. there are many alternatives to mars direct. mars flyby, moon return, asteroid missions, moon flyby, phobos mission, moon-venus slingshot mars mission, cats, L-point mission, geosynch mission, tether experiments, space debris cleanup to name a few.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-05-06 05:46:16

I'll drink to your "space debris cleanup", that's for sure!! All that high velocity junk up there has really got me worried.
Just imagine floating around up in orbit, minding your own business fixing the Hubble Telescope, and having a 1960s Hasselblad camera pass through your chest at so many kilometres per second! All of a sudden Earth has many new moons, consisting of small pieces of your shattered sternum, spinal column, and freeze-dried internal organs!!
An unlikely scenario, I realise, but Michael Collins did drop a Hasselblad on his Gemini 10 spacewalk and nobody's seen it since!
The possibility of an impact by one of the thousands upon thousands of bits and pieces of garbage in orbit is the only thing that would worry me if they asked me to do an EVA. Not that there is any likelihood of me being asked to do any such thing, of course! And whenever I watch footage of the shuttle astronauts outside in their spacesuits, I can't help but wonder what's whizzing past them so fast they don't even see it. And I wonder what the reaction will be when one of them does take a hit and dies in a way no human has ever died before. Will that be the end of even the limited manned space program we have today?
It's definitely time for a cleanup. But how do we go about it?
???

Josh Cryer · 2002-05-06 07:37:48

Well, the moon is obviously the first step into space, but I was talking from a colonization perspective. This is NewMars after all.

Here's hoping China will succeed in their space program.

quasar777 · 2002-05-06 11:38:50

most every1 is familiar w/ seti@home screensaver? why not the same for space debris? if more people were invovled in tracking debris more attention would be brought to the problem. atm many don`t acknowledge it`s a problem. that`s the 1st hurdle: public awareness &/or acknowledgement. as for doing it, the step for that would be a human mission to geosynch orbit. i understand that space debris in that vicinity is slower moving than leo. next step is building a station there.this would be less costly than many other proposals. of course there`s the problem of radiation shielding, etc., but aren`t these problems inherent in any mission past van allen belt? i`m aware that this board is new mars & i knew eventually that would be pointed out. i recently was able to see zubrin`s show in person & i had recently read on another board that zubrin is actually for some moon exploration, to see all this mars enthusiasm 1 wouldn`t think so. so if there is actually a teensy weensy bit of moon support there is hope. we all have our specialties & i`m sure there are a great many wonderful plans for mars, i have a few of my own. but as i get older i realize that my personal chances for mars are getting slimmer. imho 1 of the most important goals in space is # of people. the more people we have in space at any given time the greater our chances of success. at this time by concentrating on nearer earth objectives we could achieve more than by leapfrogging. the moon just happens to have advantages, there are other goals besides the moon too. for instance, we need better suits all around. a great many side effects would be derived from mars direct. we must realize that redundancy is an important factor in many endeavors if there is a total failure in the 1st mission, we need an alternative.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2005-03-22 03:18:58

Here is a bit more on it
quote
"The Moon is a natural first step," explains Philip Metzger, a physicist at NASA Kennedy Space Center. "It's nearby. We can practice living, working and doing science there before taking longer and riskier trips to Mars."

The Moon and Mars have a lot in common. The Moon has only one-sixth Earth's gravity; Mars has one-third. The Moon has no atmosphere; the Martian atmosphere is highly rarefied. The Moon can get very cold, as low as -240o C in shadows; Mars varies between -20o and -100o C.
Even more important, both planets are covered with silt-fine dust, called "regolith." The Moon's regolith was created by the ceaseless bombardment of micrometeorites, cosmic rays and particles of solar wind breaking down rocks for billions of years. Martian regolith resulted from the impacts of more massive meteorites and even asteroids, plus ages of daily erosion from water and wind. There are places on both worlds where the regolith is 10+ meters deep.

Operating mechanical equipment in the presence of so much dust is a formidable challenge. Just last month, Metzger co-chaired a meeting on the topic: "Granular Materials in Lunar and Martian Exploration," held at the Kennedy Space Center. Participants grappled with issues ranging from basic transportation ("What kind of tires does a Mars buggy need?") to mining ("How deep can you dig before the hole collapses?") to dust storms--both natural and artificial ("How much dust will a landing rocket kick up?").

Answering these questions on Earth isn't easy. Moondust and Mars dust is so ... alien.
Try this: Run your finger across the screen of your computer. You'll get a little residue of dust clinging to your fingertip. It's soft and fuzzy--that's Earth dust.
Lunar dust is different: "It's almost like fragments of glass or coral--odd shapes that are very sharp and interlocking," says Metzger
"Even after short moon walks, Apollo 17 astronauts found dust particles had jammed the shoulder joints of their spacesuits," says Masami Nakagawa, associate professor in the mining engineering department of the Colorado School of Mines. "Moondust penetrated into seals, causing the spacesuits to leak some air pressure."

In sunlit areas, adds Nakagawa, fine dust levitated above the Apollo astronauts' knees and even above their heads, because individual particles were electrostatically charged by the Sun's ultraviolet light. Such dust particles, when tracked into the astronauts' habitat where they would become airborne, irritated their eyes and lungs. "It's a potentially serious problem."

Dust is also ubiquitous on Mars, although Mars dust is probably not as sharp as moondust. Weathering smooths the edges. Nevertheless, Martian duststorms whip these particles 50 m/s (100+ mph), scouring and wearing every exposed surface. As the rovers Spirit and Opportunity have revealed, Mars dust (like moondust) is probably electrically charged. It clings to solar panels, blocks sunlight and reduces the amount of power that can be generated for a surface mission.
For these reasons, NASA is funding Nakagawa's Project Dust, a four-year study dedicated to finding ways of mitigating the effects of dust on robotic and human exploration, ranging from designs of air filters to thin-film coatings that repel dust from spacesuits and machinery.

see the NASA website

SpaceNut · 2005-03-22 06:14:41

Thanks again for the quick wrap up of the articles.

The confusion on the moon trials is in designing a product just for the Moons use. We must keep in mind that a greenhouse for plant growth has the same problems of low gravity and harmful radiation for either case so design for both applications. Pick those things that are most common and then design the item for use in either place. Then going to Mars gets a whole lot easier for some of the work is already done.

SpaceNut · 2005-03-23 10:28:57

One of those tools to make any exploration possible will be the space suit. Though they would be different for moon versus Mars in structural density of material used to make them. They still must hold the environment out while keeping its contents in.

The North Dakota Space Grant Consortium based at the University of North Dakota gets grant to develop prototype Mars space suit

UND said the Mars suit project ranked in the top three of the 50 grant proposals submitted to NASA.

SpaceNut · 2005-03-31 06:02:31

IMO worth the read if one can believe we can do Mars without the moon.
With Nasa because we have been in LEO so long, we have a need for alot of new stuff and to justify it only on mars for a few trips probably will be a no go. But couple into that the moon, maybe a NEO asteriod and IMO we are off and running in no time.

RUSSIA SUGGESTS MANNED MARTIAN-MISSION PLAN

Russian experts have come up with a 30-volume plan that calls for launching a manned Martian expedition in the foreseeable future.
We have learned much more about Mars during the last several years and are growing quite eager to develop the Red Planet. It has been established with almost complete certainty that Mars abounds in water. It will therefore become possible to colonize Mars. Quite a few scientists believe that the Martian atmosphere could be restored with an artificial greenhouse effect.

Palomar · 2005-03-31 07:24:32

IMO worth the read if one can believe we can do Mars without the moon.
With Nasa because we have been in LEO so long, we have a need for alot of new stuff and to justify it only on mars for a few trips probably will be a no go. But couple into that the moon, maybe a NEO asteriod and IMO we are off and running in no time.
http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id … o_alert=0] RUSSIA SUGGESTS MANNED MARTIAN-MISSION PLAN
Russian experts have come up with a 30-volume plan that calls for launching a manned Martian expedition in the foreseeable future.
We have learned much more about Mars during the last several years and are growing quite eager to develop the Red Planet. It has been established with almost complete certainty that Mars abounds in water. It will therefore become possible to colonize Mars. Quite a few scientists believe that the Martian atmosphere could be restored with an artificial greenhouse effect.

*Sure we can do Mars without the Moon.

Looks like the Russians may do just that. And if they do, more power to them! :band:

Sad to see my own nation -- the U.S. -- seemingly so willing to play the reluctant mediocrity. Hate to say it, but it seems we've always needed Russia more than they've ever needed us. :-\

NASA is currently encouraging private (LEO-bound) interests. IMO that's because *any* additional activity "out there" (even if still stuck in LEO -- world without end, amen, amen) distracts from the fact that NASA is (as manned missions go) doing next to nothing. Any distraction from their foot-dragging is welcome, I guess.

If Russia can get us out of this LEO-LEO-LEO rut, I'll be grateful.

--Cindy

RobS · 2005-03-31 17:13:09

But remember, the Russians have a lot of skilled workers but no money. So it is easy for those workers to churn out 30-volume mission plans. They're hoping money will come their way.

-- RobS

SpaceNut · 2005-04-01 07:00:15

Wanted: North Dakota students to design Mars space suit

Research for a Martian suit will date back to the Apollo moon mission, but the project always is looking for unique and relevant ideas for a suit that will adapt its user to the Martian environment. Some space suit requirements:
• The user must be able to operate a motorized rover while seated.
• The suit must have a life-support system and other components that are designed to be repairable when necessary.
• Materials and mechanisms must be designed to be operable, considering the type of problems that could arise from Martian dust.

Palomar · 2005-04-01 11:08:36

But remember, the Russians have a lot of skilled workers but no money. So it is easy for those workers to churn out 30-volume mission plans. They're hoping money will come their way.
-- RobS

*Well, there's even more bad news. A mere half hour after posting yesterday, I read http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u … ids_2]this Yahoo! news article regarding Russia.

I think that issue alone has the real potential of seriously jeopardizing the ability of humans to move into space (Mars, whatever). But that's another topic for discussion...

I'd read about Russia's plight in this regard a few months ago, but it didn't come to mind while posting yesterday.

...1 million people could die of the disease in Russia by 2008.

--Cindy

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2006-01-18 13:06:18

I don't mean that kind of organization. I mean physical organization... the ability to put your knolwedge to use!

CU research team suffers due to NASA shortfalls
http://www.thecampuspress.com/news/2006/01/nasa.php

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/515/1

Human factors and the new Vision for Space Exploration

Gerald Kulcinski has spent the last two decades studying how to develop feasible fusion reactors using helium-3 that could come from the Moon; his focus has now expanded to study workforce issues as part of the NASA Advisory Council.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/536/1

NASA gambles all for a shot at the moon
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ … 011106.php

EuroLauncher · 2006-01-19 02:27:48

I don't mean that kind of organization. I mean physical organization... the ability to put your knolwedge to use!
CU research team suffers due to NASA shortfalls
http://www.thecampuspress.com/news/2006/01/nasa.php

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/515/1
Human factors and the new Vision for Space Exploration
Gerald Kulcinski has spent the last two decades studying how to develop feasible fusion reactors using helium-3 that could come from the Moon; his focus has now expanded to study workforce issues as part of the NASA Advisory Council.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/536/1
NASA gambles all for a shot at the moon
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ … 011106.php

here is the vid
http://www.fusiononline.com/nasa_esas.htm
ESAS summarizes NASA's response to President Bush's directive to return to the Moon and look toward Mars

Martin_Tristar · 2006-01-19 04:18:42

We need a Space Sector that really moves forward , not just goes round and round and moves very slowly forward and the public won't stand for it much longer when things need fixing on earth by their governments.

GCNRevenger · 2006-01-19 11:44:49

To a large extent, because of how hard spaceflight is, there is no way you can make it "move quickly" like you are calling for without a vast expense and high inefficiency. Its the nature of the thing.

Josh Cryer · 2006-01-20 10:19:20

Damn, this thread brings me back... I used to be such an ass.

cIclops · 2006-01-27 11:42:55

Mike Griffin at the premiere of "Roving Mars" the new IMAX movie at the National Air and Space Museum, Jan 25

I, for one, cannot wait until NASA sets up a permanent exploratory base on Mars. But, preceding such an event, we have many preparatory events to execute before we get there.

--
spacewiki - touch the water

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2002-01-23 01:27:02

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#77 2002-01-23 11:34:47

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#78 2002-01-23 13:33:46

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#79 2002-01-23 15:06:28

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#80 2002-01-23 18:43:01

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#81 2002-01-24 23:03:41

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#82 2002-01-26 17:28:35

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#83 2002-05-05 19:30:11

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#84 2002-05-06 05:46:16

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#85 2002-05-06 07:37:48

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#86 2002-05-06 11:38:50

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#87 2005-03-22 03:18:58

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#88 2005-03-22 06:14:41

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#89 2005-03-23 10:28:57

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#90 2005-03-31 06:02:31

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#91 2005-03-31 07:24:32

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#92 2005-03-31 17:13:09

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#93 2005-04-01 07:00:15

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#94 2005-04-01 11:08:36

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#95 2006-01-18 13:06:18

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#96 2006-01-19 02:27:48

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#97 2006-01-19 04:18:42

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#98 2006-01-19 11:44:49

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#99 2006-01-20 10:19:20

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#100 2006-01-27 11:42:55

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

Board footer