You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Mars Direct was a good answer to the high projected costs,
prohibiting Man on Mars missions.
-
With the lower costs of return missions, we should be planning
the sustained buildup, during this century. Each mission to increase our capibilities,
in a well planned and efficient development.
Offline
Like button can go here
1. Hydrogen
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/m … 30725.html
, and especially - "From about 55 degrees latitude to the poles, Mars has extensive deposits of soils that appear to be rich in water ice, bearing an average of 50 percent water by mass, studies show. A typical pound of soil scooped up in the polar regions would yield an average of half a pound of water if it were heated in an oven, Feldmen explained.
Similar traces of hydrogen also found in lower concentrations closer to Mars' equator, ranging from 2 to 10 percent water by mass.
Surprisingly, two large areas, one within Arabia Terra, the 1,900-mile-wide Martian desert, and another on the opposite side of the planet, show indications of relatively large concentrations of sub-surface hydrogen."
=============================================
That means that Mars Direct would not need to carry hydrogen for methane production. It only needs: 1.nuclear reactor ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed … ed_reactor ;
- "Romawa B.V., the Netherlands, promotes a design called "Nereus". This is an 8MW (very small) reactor designed to fit in a container, and provide either a ship's power plant, isolated utilities, backup or peaking power. The reactor heats Helium, which in turn heats air that drives a conventional gas turbine. Romawa has a business agreement with Adams' Atomic Engines in the U.S." ); 2.robotic (?) excavator ( to dig and supply the chemical plant with the wet regolith from modest depth in meters); 3.chemical plant to process the atmosphere`s CO2 and the H2O from the dirt in methan, methanol, plastics for mars-regolith-concrete, etc.; 4. perhubs -- metalwork factory which electrochemically to extract, melt and shape the iron and aluminium and silicium, both ubiuitous in the martian regolith and make bulk details from these metals in sloid or foamed fom, + glass, amorfic silicon for solar power heliostat arrays...
2. The excavator could be multifunctional, representing a tractor module ( combustion engine power aggreagate + wheels, tanks and computer )nucley which to be able to tranform in stationary excavator, mobile crane which to collect the equipment from its landing sites and assemble it in working machinery... latter to pull around the ground mobile habitation module or astronauts in space-suits for shorter trips.
3. The standart container size and mass PBMR can work directly with CO2 as primary coolant - producing 50% electicity and 50% heat - the later used to melt the water out of the dug out regolith, to provide heat for the chemical plant, the habitat - built entitirelly from local regolith-epoxy briks and glass... One and a same standard PBMRs can be used as stationary power plants and also to be installed on two or more zubrin`s CO2 propelled hoppers. Such hoppers can be used for puting in orbit of CO2 for loading of another two or more standard PBMR-nuclear termal rockets with enough propelant to reach LEO ( the ISS?) , to pick up astronauts and to deliver them back in mars orbit, where they to descended to the base ( built by nonmanned automated equipment) by the hopper-shuttle lifting more CO2-propelant for the next journeys... The metal work factory should be able to poduce the structure and the tanks for the orbiters and the interplanetary ships. The hoppers can be used not onloy for surface-to-orbit lift-offs but also as surface-to-surface units to settle another bases if necesarry...
Thus the innitial payload investments to the martian surface could be just several dozens of tonnes: mainly the mass of several nuclear reactors ( but just one or two of them providing electricity by gas turbines, the rest directly collecting CO2 to heat it to >2000 degrees celsius for propulsion), the chemical plant for the organics, the metalwork plant for the construction details. The assembly 'tractor' can be powered by-wire, too.
From Earth thus one should only deliver the man labour power for the fine works and exploration, and the more sophisticated machinery. But the attractiveness of such Mars Sustain plan is that automatically Mars becames IMPORTER of shipping services, so in general terms this is beginig of interplanetary trade. From Mars these PBMR-NTR ships could easily access the Main belt, much more rich than the NEAs of whatever the space industry would need - includingly uranium or thorium for production of nuclear "pebble" fuel.
Such Mars Sustain version can start from scratch the same way as Mars Direct, but with bigger outcome -- the same way as Mars Direct we need to use combination of existing and from long time in service techology ONLY!!!
I can`t remember how much tonnes can provide the Saturn V directly on Mars via aerobraking, but May be the russian >100 tones to LEO Energia will be cheaper, and to start we`ll need only several starts...
BTW, Proton ( >50 years in service, thousands of launches...only couple of tens of millions $ per launch...) can toss in LEO about 20 metric tones, to geosinghronous ~5 tonnes, how much to Mars? If we lift with Protons, say two 20 tones modules on LEO at a time - one the final martian surface delivery payload + one uppest stage with fuel and rockets, than each 'parcel' to Mars could be with the size of a standart trade container, can contain operational - NR, chemical and metal processing plant, each, and every delivery will have transport costs <$100 000 000? One such container ould host up to ten 'tractors' - semi-robotic assembly and internal plant-transport vehicles and cranes, excavators -- manipulators...
Offline
Like button can go here
Cash flow is the only reason that we are not looking at this.
Building of the infrastucture to start the process is a must.
Finding some way to not only design a cheaper rocket but one that is less costly to operate is also a must.
Offline
Like button can go here
The methods of "living off the land" have never been tested. Thus the reason for returning to the moon first.
"Yes, I was going to give this astronaut selection my best shot, I was determined when the NASA proctologist looked up my ass, he would see pipes so dazzling he would ask the nurse to get his sunglasses."
---Shuttle Astronaut Mike Mullane
Offline
Like button can go here
Actually we have lived off the land for centuries but those were of liveable condition. We have lost much of what is instictive survival skills to be redeveloped again for the Moon or for the Mars current environments. That is partly why the analogous site for the Mars society are in the romote regions of Earth. Taking advantage of the near Mars climates, soils, lack of water trying to simulate hostile atmospheric conditions by forcibly using space suits, sealed habitats and near rover transportation style vehicles
Offline
Like button can go here
The methods of "living off the land" have never been tested. Thus the reason for returning to the moon first.
But Zubrin's 'living off the land' techniques are largely impossible on the Moon... A lot of those techniques involve compressing Martian atmosphere and distill useful stuff out of that... Try that on the moon...
The main objection for most observers against 'moon-first' is the fear that beancounters in Government will probably go for a launcher, infrastructure etc. that is capable to go to the Moon, but not beyond...
Let's hope not, let's hope the goals to get contracts are explicit: scalability/versatility first. Reaching the Moon should be a step in the overall plan, not a goal into itself.
Offline
Like button can go here
Going to the moon to practice yes is very different as compared to Mars at least it has an atmosphere.
Soil type on the moon versus Mars are not even of simular mineral oxides. I do not see much research on the moon leading to any developed items for Mars.
The moon has its own unique research reasons for going back to it. One is simply to finish where we left off in our search for knowledge on planet formation.
As for on the billing side of the budget unless Nasa learns how to lower the cost of doing space they stand to lose a lot more than there budgets.
Offline
Like button can go here
From:
http://www.dailyherald.com/search/main_ … id=3821980
"But lest anyone mistake the Mars Society for a bunch of head-in-the-clouds dreamers, Pohl and Zubrin are quick to note that neither of them believes in extra-terrestrials, Martians of the science fiction movie variety or flying saucers.
And in fact, probably only 1 percent or fewer of the society's more than 7,000 members do.
"It's not a physical impossibility, but none of the evidence ... has been particularly convincing," Zubrin said.
Pohl, the author of novels like "Space Merchants" and "The Coming of the Quantum Cats," is less diplomatic.
"What (people who believe in UFOs) need to do is get a life," he said.
That said, both men believe that once humans are on Mars, they'll find proof that at some point, life - in the form of bacteria or other microorganisms - existed there.
Even more thrilling, they say, is the possibility that somewhere deep inside the planet's surface, something still may be alive.
"Life is tough. It clings on," Zubrin said. "If it ever did exist, I think it probably still does.
"There's only one way to find out." "
"Even more thrilling"? NOW the possibility of the existence of native martian life is exciting and important? Oh I'm sorry, I thought it was his opinion that native martian life had about as much right to exist - and as much interest and importance for would-be Mars settlers - as the gunk you find in a paper tissue after a sneeze...
My mistake.
A little bit of consistency here would be nice.
Stuart Atkinson
Skywatching Blog: [url]http://journals.aol.com/stuartatk/Cumbrian-Sky[/url]
Astronomical poetry, including mars rover poems: [url]http://journals.aol.com/stuartatk/TheVerse[/url]
Offline
Like button can go here
I don't see the inconsistency...
And, you'll hate me for this, but I largely agree w/ Zubrin's stance.
*if* we find life: great. No... GRRRREAT! Would be the find of the ... Millenium or bigger. For life-science, for philosophy, for a lot of things. No-one can deny that.
And it has to be preserved to be researched etc. And if it looks like it's dying out (quite probably so, we don't see a vibrant ecosphere,...) maybe we could give it a little helping hand. How?
By going there, and warming the place. Terraforming it.
I really don't think Earthbugs will be capable to kill Martian life, which (if it is there, of course, blahblahblah) had millennia to adapt rather perfectly to the circumstances, in contrast to Earth-organisms that will have a really hard time trying to survive long enough to proliferate.
And *if* Earthbugs get a taste for Marrslife, it's the predator/prey thingy... It won't get wiped out, bcause if Earthbugs should 'eat' say 99% of Marsbugs, they'd have a hard time to find the remaining 1%, so they'd die off for lack of food. Equibrilum would be reached after a while.
(Edit: come to think of it... Stu, why didn't you post this in a new topic under life on Mars or something?)
Offline
Like button can go here
<< *if* we find life: great. No... GRRRREAT! Would be the find of the ... Millenium or bigger. For life-science, for philosophy, for a lot of things. No-one can deny that.>>
Agreed, it will be the biggest story ever. That was my point, really. Until now, BZ has been rather dismissive of the importance of martian microbes... but now there's a growing scientific and PUBLIC interest in going to Mars to look for life there, rather than going to Mars to "open up a brave new frontier" he seems to be jumping on the bandwagon and changing stance and emphasis.
< And it has to be preserved to be researched etc. And if it looks like it's dying out (quite probably so, we don't see a vibrant ecosphere,...) maybe we could give it a little helping hand. How?
By going there, and warming the place. Terraforming it. >
Well, maybe it's comfortable just the way it is, with how Mars is today. Maybe it doesn't want a "vibrant" ecosphere and is quite content with its current, stable, "cold-as-hell-and-dry-as-a-bone" one. Maybe the ecosphere has found its own level and interference from us would disturb and destroy it. Maybe by warming Mars we would be exterminating the very life we all so desperately want to find there. Any terraforming efforts would inevitably lead to major landscape re-sculpting and the subsequent destruction of any subsurface "niche" habitats. We strive to avoid this here on Earth - Lake Vostok, Antarctica, etc - so why not show the same consideration to Mars?
< I really don't think Earthbugs will be capable to kill Martian life, which (if it is there, of course, blahblahblah) had millennia to adapt rather perfectly to the circumstances, in contrast to Earth-organisms that will have a really hard time trying to survive long enough to proliferate.>
Earthbugs won't kill martian life, the physical efforts of human explorers, engineers and terraformers will. Flooding, landslides, water pooling beneath the surface drowning any organisms which thrive on the merest, tiniest breath of moisture...
< And *if* Earthbugs get a taste for Marrslife, it's the predator/prey thingy... It won't get wiped out, bcause if Earthbugs should 'eat' say 99% of Marsbugs, they'd have a hard time to find the remaining 1%, so they'd die off for lack of food. Equibrilum would be reached after a while.>
I'm not convinced of that because it's not the case here on Earth, is it? Earth-life would surely be much more adaptable and predatory in nature, because it's evolved in a more "target friendly" environment... but I'm not really qualified to comment on this as it's not my field, so to speak. I just think that if Earth-life "gets a taste" for Mars life it will be compelled to feed its hunger until Mars life is made extinct. Might has always been right in evolution...
< (Edit: come to think of it... Stu, why didn't you post this in a new topic under life on Mars or something?) >
Cos I was browsing, came across the Herald story, and with just a few minutes available to me for posting before I had to go out, this was the first forum I found that was appropriate.
The whole terraforming issue sends me crazy, honestly, I flop and flap about from side to side like a fish on a beach. Some days - like when I was writing my stories about the MER landing sites - I actually WANT terraforming, to see blue skies, fluffy white clouds and water flowing... then other days, like when I spend hours peering through my 3D glasses at the recent Dao Chasma image returned by MARS EXPRESS, I think it would be a crime against nature to ruin the Mars we are so entranced by today. I don't know, I just don't know. All I know for sure is that if we find life there we have to stop, dead, and study it until our brains bleed out of our ears before moving on to do anything which would impact upon it.
I need a lie down now...
Stuart Atkinson
Skywatching Blog: [url]http://journals.aol.com/stuartatk/Cumbrian-Sky[/url]
Astronomical poetry, including mars rover poems: [url]http://journals.aol.com/stuartatk/TheVerse[/url]
Offline
Like button can go here
The methods of "living off the land" have never been tested. Thus the reason for returning to the moon first.
There is little on the Moon to live off of.
= = =
PS - - Awesome convention in Chicago!
Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]
Offline
Like button can go here
Cash flow is the only reason that we are not looking at this.
Building of the infrastucture to start the process is a must.
Finding some way to not only design a cheaper rocket but one that is less costly to operate is also a must.
Mars Direct is and was always intended to be a sustained human presence on mars. The book talks about terraforming.
Cash flow is NOT keeping us from going to mars. If NASA put only half of it's current budget toward Mars Direct it would be paid for in 7 years.
The methods for living off the land, on-site production of rocket fuel from CO2, cannot be tested on the moon because it does not have an atmosphere of CO2.
Offline
Like button can go here
Mars direct, isn't a great option, We need to survey the martian landscape for mining purposes first to have ore deposits for building a successful reason for settlement.
We need to develop a large volume of specialized space tools need to be developed it would be better to use the moon, for testing and research for off-world activities. ( Closeness to earth ) Also the long term development of Mars would be beeter managed from the moon. The moon is a HLV launch center for humanity to our solar system and beyond.
Don't look at this a Moon or Mars direct but what would benefit the process in the long term exploration for humanity.
Offline
Like button can go here
Mars direct, isn't a great option, We need to survey the martian landscape for mining purposes first to have ore deposits for building a successful reason for settlement.
We need to develop a large volume of specialized space tools need to be developed it would be better to use the moon, for testing and research for off-world activities. ( Closeness to earth ) Also the long term development of Mars would be beeter managed from the moon. The moon is a HLV launch center for humanity to our solar system and beyond.
Don't look at this a Moon or Mars direct but what would benefit the process in the long term exploration for humanity.
All we need to "mine" is CO2 (scooped in from the atmosphere) and which we know exists in great abundance and H20 which we now also know is plentiful in the permafrost. (Okay, H probably as H20 but still H)
Touch and go on the Moon is perhaps an acceptable idea to try out the Mars hardware but otherwise there is nothing on the Moon that will sustain extended public support for a space program.
There is NOTHING that can be mined at a profit on the Moon.
Mars has
< 1 > Possible life (extant or fossils) AND
< 2 > Mars is the second safest planet to build permanent settlements (after Earth, obviously).
Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]
Offline
Like button can go here
Profit or not, people go to the Olympics.
People go on a hike, vacation, or build a sandcastle; not for profit.
A kitten practices with a ball, newer having seen a mouse.
A flower grows in a crack, because it can.
Offline
Like button can go here
BWhite,
What the public doesn't like is a non-structure approach , wasting money ( Their money ) , If we show a long term development approach with returns in the short term ( 3-10 years ) into the long term exploration of space by humanity then the public will allow the expansion of the exploration.
But If we Apollo-style landings on Mars without a concrete plan of colonisation / settlement and the means to back that up, then they won't fund the continued exploration with humans. They will allow in automated vehicles ( probes ) only with limited earth-moon or only LEO Humanflights.
If you can show, that the material burden for space development will be shared with the moonbase for earth orbit activities and exploration activities then the human race would fund expansion. ( even at current levels it would allow the expansion of space bu increasing resources of a period of years, without the increased costs to the earth based countries and the public within those countries).
Offline
Like button can go here
The public doesn't care one way or the other.
For 99.9% of the people, space is an overly expensive plaything for the scientists.
And the media is to blame for that image in a large part.
Every frigging newsbite about a rover, sat, spacestation, ... mentions the price of said things.
I once saw a launch of a new launcher on T.V. ....
"The new launcher is x times as powerful as the previous one, was x years in the making, costs XXX$"
That was it. Nothing else, no tonnage, no mentioning of goals, whether it was man-rated or not... Disgusting.
And I'm sure that 99.9% people would rather see whizz-bang stupid one-off boots&footprints missions than sustained stuff. Pretty pictures. Short attention-span.
Settlement? Gimme a break.
/whiney voice:/ we should get our problems fixed here before we do that, think about the poor, the whales, pollution, booohhooo /whiney voice/
They don't see the scientific, economical, environmental... pay-back of such missions. All they (think!) they see is the price-tag, literally going up in a lot of smoke.
Sigh...Not to mention they don't believe you if you tell them that 'smoke' is H2O... That said rocket gives jobs to lots of people etc. Look at French Guyiana, those poor people originally living there couldn't be more happy, economy is booming... Infrastructure is built, tourism, healthcare...
Offline
Like button can go here
Profit or not, people go to the Olympics.
People go on a hike, vacation, or build a sandcastle; not for profit.
A kitten practices with a ball, newer having seen a mouse.
A flower grows in a crack, because it can.
Hmmm...
That is *all* for profit. Not money-profit, but survival profit.
Read for instance Richard Dawkins' "The selfish gene"
One of the leading Neo-Darwinists, originally a behaviourist, and tries to find out what profit comes from behaviour looking -superficially- non-profitable. Among other things. A real eye-opener.
Offline
Like button can go here
If we show a long term development approach with returns in the short term ( 3-10 years ) into the long term exploration of space by humanity then the public will allow the expansion of the exploration.
The post apollo applications programme showed a long term development approach with returns in the near term and settlement in the long term. The public didn't care as they knew that 'settlement' means 'settlement by scientists'.
The public will always care more about issues closer to home. Unless a space programme can have a positive effect on tens of millions of people they will not be interested. This is why they like TV satellites, and are willing to *volintarily* pay for them through license fees, and why they kinda like Hubble. All those pretty pictures don't you know.
Why would they like Mars Direct, or any variation? And more to the point, why would they like a second Mars Direct? Single cell life will only hold their interest so long.
ANTIcarrot.
Offline
Like button can go here
As you noted, it should not just be scientist that get to go and to settle if you want the public even if it is a minority to get behind these billion to trillion dollar explorations ventures. You must portray the people that are doing this to the people that are left behind as common people and not the chosen few with the right stuff.
Offline
Like button can go here
If we give the people the belief that there son or daughter going through school and college can honestly go to the moon and mars, then you will get support its personal now.
Mars Direct is about sending crews of 4 scientists/astronauts these guys in the peoples eyes are not commen they are the cream of the elite. But if we have to send technicians, plumbers, surveyors, mechanics and the such. Then this is jobs that people with a bit of drive can go for. This is commen people no Dr so and so professor la de dah, commen people and your children can be that. That is when the space program becomes personal.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
Like button can go here
I found this reference with regards to Humans 2 Mars lots of links and details.
http://www.swri.org/swim/human2mars.htm
Topics:
Mission Designs:
Overview
NASA: 90 Day Report (1989)
Mars Society: Mars Direct (1990 - current)
NASA: Mars Reference Mission (1997 - current)
Alternatives, Areas for Improvement, Critiques
Primary Mission Goals:
Water - Where was it, Where is it? ( current Mars Odyssey water map )
Search for Life
Mars Geology
Engineering Needs:
Artificial Gravity:
Biosphere Closure, Habitat (CELSS)
Communications
Navigation
Radiation Shielding
Fuel Generation
Power Generation
Marssuit Design
Rover Design
Human Factors:
Medical Issues
Crew Isolation Studies
Command Structure, Autonomy Studies
Living and Working on Mars
Speculation Corner - Other Links
Mission Designs:
Overview
White House Press Release, 1/15/2004
MarsNews: Humans to Mars
Romance to Reality
NASA Mars Missions (Robotic) - Past, Present, Future
NASA's Human Exploration of Mars Web Site
NASA: 90 Day Report (1989)
Summary
Analysis
Mars Society: Mars Direct (1990 - current)
Mars Direct Basic Plan
Mars Direct Supplemental Info
NASA: Mars Reference Mission Version 1.0 (1997 - 1999)
Reference Mission: Table of Contents
Reference Mission: Part 1
Reference Mission: Part 2
Reference Mission: Part 3
Reference Mission: HTML Version, 2009 Baseline
NASA: Mars Reference Mission Version 3.0 (1999 - current)
Summary of Version 3.0
Alternatives, Areas for Improvement, Critiques
Lockheed Martin (very little info online)
2002 NASA plan
Primary Mission Goals:
Water - Where was it, Where is it?
Space.com: Mars Odyssey's search for subterranean water
Space.com: Mars Odyssey's preliminary detection of hydrogen
Current Mars Odyssey water map
Search for Life
Space.com: Life signs detection, contamination, back contamination
NRC study on back contamination, other remote hazards, and POSSIBLE SwIM RESEARCH IDEAS!!
Mars Geology, Climate
Mars Global Thermal Inertia Map (Mellon et al, 2002)
Nature: The Crust and Mantle of Mars (Maria Zuber)
ABC News: Possible radical climate shifts on Mars
Engineering Needs:
Artificial Gravity
Mars Society Translife Project , MIT
Translife Project: Phase 1 review documents (3/7/02)
Translife article
1960's - 1980's Artificial Gravity Research (Theodore W. Hall)
Biosphere Closure, Habitat (CELSS)
Purdue University NSCORT project (NASA press release)
Biosphere 2
Example educational project - cute idea
Greenhouses (CU project)
Communications
Interplanetary Internet (IPNSIG)
Navigation
NASA-JPL: "Pork Chop" plots
Radiation Shielding
Reinforced Linear Polyethelene hull shielding (NASA)
Demron fabric (Radiation Shield Technologies, Inc.)
Mars Bars: in-situ radiation shielding
Regolith shielding - NASA
NASA Mars Odyssey instrument: MARIE
Mars Society Youth Chapters: in flight radiation hazard
CSA radiation study on ISS
Radiation Nanodetectors
Fuel Generation
Pioneer Astronautics Mars projects, in-situ fuel generation, etc (note: METAMARS !)
Power Generation
NASA Center for Space Power
Marssuit Design
Hamilton Sunstrand Systems Mars Spacesuit
ILC Dover (no info)
David Clark Company (minimal info)
SSOAR
Chameleon Suit (Sunstrand)
Rover Design
NASA-JPL: Inflatable Rovers , Tumbleweed rover
Human Factors:
Medical Issues
Immune cell function supression
Crew Isolation Studies
Europe: (ISEMSI, EXEMSI)
Russia: Institute of Medical and Biological Problems (HUBES, SFINCSS studies, issues )
Canada: (Capsules)
NASA
Command Structure, Autonomy Studies
Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station (FMARS)
Mars Society Desert Research Station
Living and Working on Mars
Human/Robotic Teamwork: Robonaut
NASA Cliff-bot rover
Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station (FMARS) , space.com on FMARS
Mars Society Desert Research Station , Wall Street Journal on MDRS
Speculation Corner - Other Links of Interest:
NASA: Valles Marineris rendered flyover photos - incredible!
Space.com: Lunar/Mars mining, in-situ resource usage
Microgravity Health/Psychology Concerns (space.com)
Amazon.com: Dead Mars, Dying Earth
NASA Public Opinion Survey: 1/31/02
Humans to Mars? Not any time soon......
Marscase: Mars info site
Encyclopedia Astronautica
Lunar and Planetary Institute
Popular Science - What NASA's goals should be
Space Shuttle CAIB report
Summary of 2003 COMPLEX Report
SwIM Home Boulder Office Home SwRI Home DoSS Homepage
Offline
Like button can go here
Pages: 1