Where exactly is Mars Direct with NASA? - Are they going to do it or not?

John Creighton · 2004-09-26 10:50:02

Wrong way to think about it... yes, reuseing some of the old hardware would indeed make missions cost less money, BUT, let me place special emphasis on this, but it would accomplish much less exploration! So yes it costs fewer dollars, but is it really cheaper?

Well, I will go with which ever option gets political support. NASA can make a case for both missions and let the politicians choose which one they prefer. One plan implemented is better then no plans implemented.

Martian Republic · 2004-09-26 11:43:45

What your talking about doing GCNRevenger, will also take up ten to fifteen years to do and we still won't have a permanent base on Mars. All we will have are temporary habituation site that basically have no more use for and serve no purpose.

5 mission at 26 month interval is 132 month or a eleven year. You were complaining about having to wait ten years to see the rest of Mars and that it was too long to see Mars vs building a permanent base on Mars and then go see Mars. In either case, it going to take us ten or longer to see Mars, but we go one way we will have a permanent base or semi-permanent base and the other way we will have an Apollo lunar limb base sitting there marking our presence.

Beside, if seeing Mars is such a big deal, we might try and recycle NASA Mobile base for the next manned moon landings or build a specially designed ship to make landing on different places on Mars so we could stay different places for several day to one week or so.

When we run into a problem like wanting to see Mars, we need to figure out another way to solve the problem, without having to buy the same equipment 5 times so we can go sight seeing.

We are going to need both kinds of equipment anyway, so let go for a more permanent base right off the bat even if we have to do two or three Cargo Shuttle launches at 200,000 pounds a piece at maybe $300 to $400 million dollar a launch. That would be about $900 to $1.2 hundred million for the ground launch. Then we will need a fission powered rocket to push the cargo to Mars. Then we will need Mars shuttle to take it to the surface of Mars. We are going to need this infrastructure in place no matter which way we choose to go. Give our Mars base two or three shuttle or some equivalent ship that can land and take off once without having to refuel and we could use that as our explorer vehicle for the rest of Mars.

But, I think your making it a bigger issue that it really is though of having to go sight seeing. Although it would be nice, is it 20 billion dollars worth of something niece? I don't know about that. We might see a few things sooner by going the way you suggest, but if we go the other way, we will be preparing Mars for future colonization. If our goal is to colonize Mars and we choose your strategy, then we will delay that colonization process by ten while we investigate Mars and show beautiful picture of the landscape of Mars.

Again, it come down to what we intend to do and what our goals are, as what we should choose to do on the Mars question.

Larry,

RobertDyck · 2004-09-26 12:20:48

"In event that lander is far from the MAV, a single astronaut go will get the pressurized rover and bring it back."
Ummmmm no. The MAV vehicle is the single biggest and heaviest piece of the Mars surface payload other then the HAB (maybe), carrying it on a rover tailored for minimum mass isn't going to happen. The MAV or ERV is going to stay put where it lands, so you must bring the crew to it or carry the MAV on the manned lander.

I need to repost my entire mission plan. No, I am not talking about moving the MAV, I'm talking about using a combination of the pressurized and non-pressurized rovers to move the inflatable habitat before it's inflated. If nothing else, abandon the hab and transport the crew to the MAV/lab to set up the backup hab.

"The cargo lander would land via beacon and lidar right beside the MAV, so mission control would ensure it landed correctly before astronauts left Earth. That means the backup hab is already waiting beside the MAV."
I don't know if I want to place so much faith in accurate landing, the especially with entry at transfer velocities with an aerobrake...

On November 19, 1969, Apollo 12 landed within walking distance of Surveyor 3. If we can land with high precision in the 1960s, why do think it impossible with 21st century technology?

GCNRevenger · 2004-09-26 18:09:59

"...will also take up ten to fifteen years to do and we still won't have a permanent base on Mars. All we will have are temporary habituation site that basically have no more use for and serve no purpose."

Huh? I don't see how you can make a comparison between exploring for ten or twelve years versus waiting to explore for ten or twelve years. And thats correct, there will be multiple sets of small disposable exploration equipment dotted around the surface, but we will have been all over Mars, anywhere we want to go practicly, and not be stuck in the same little place for years and years and years. The public nor the scientific community will tollerate such a delay for any reason, being stuck with a "Martian ISS," in my opinion. NASA has betrayed the public's trust more than once, even the perception of an ulterior motive will be fatal to the program. Without support from the public and the people using the science derived from the mission, there won't be any missions, temporary or perminant.

There is also the question WHY do you want to get to the Martian McMurdro phase so fast? For exploration? That makes no sense, as smaller temporary & expendable missions can see much more of the surface much sooner for about the same money as spending big bucks on reuseable hardware. Further, our technology is NOT ready for colonization. It simply is not ready. Building a small base for colonization before we are ready doesn't make lots of sense to me. The gap between building a small base where you do nothing but sit and watch the red dust blow for years and years waiting for technology to catch up doesn't make sense... and it won't make sense to those funding the mission either, so it won't fly no matter how cheap if it serves no purpose.

"On November 19, 1969, Apollo 12 landed within walking distance of Surveyor 3. If we can land with high precision in the 1960s, why do think it impossible with 21st century technology?"

Thats correct, I don't think that is possible yet, not enough to trust the crews' life to it anyway. Why? First of all, you will be landing following an aerobrake maneuver, which is not the most exact thing in the world, and at transit velocities small errors turn into big ones fast. Second, Mars has an atmosphere, so you don't have the nice situation of the Moon where you can ignore aerodynamics. Since Mars has no real magnetic field, the actual pressure and altitude of the atmosphere is not a nice round fixed number either... You would have to carry alot of landing fuel to correct your course, if you could do it at all carrying a large payload.

It relies on too much rocket fuel and/or too much going just right.

comstar03 · 2004-09-26 18:16:18

Ok, I see your plan is a micro-development strategy for mars, but we need more than just scout missions like apollo-style missions on the moon. We need a large scale installation on Mars in the quickiest timeline, In order to achieve humanity permanently into space.

You plan wants a 4-12 person team on mars in the first two visits. We need more, example - When Australia was colonized by United kingdom they sent six ships, called the first fleet, we need to do the same for mars - a first mars fleet with 6 person per craft with 5-7 crafts in the fleet ( plus cargo vessels ).

Thus we could set up two colonizing sites and the same time on with three crews and one with two - four crews, then you can rotate the crews from the second voyage (same as the first fleet) at the same time explore and grow plants and also commence site preparation for a larger colonies.

GCNRevenger · 2004-09-26 18:40:56

Development? No, I don't want to develop Mars at all for the first 5-6 missions. And no we don't need to set up a perminant base as soon as possible, as the base wouldn't have anything to do until we have the technology and will to colonize, which will probobly be quite some time after we are able to send small missions to Mars. As the base would have no purpose to justify its exsistence, no base should or would be built.

Sending a large number of ships in the first allignment or two isn't going to happen either, it would cost way too much, and you couldn't launch them quickly enough from KSC to keep them in the appropriate launch window.

comstar03 · 2004-09-26 18:56:45

GCNRevenger,

We are not going on a joyride with dad's car, We are going on an exploration and colonization journey to Mars for humanity. Its time that the world understands that we need to expand the frontiers of humanity and not just the physical frontiers but the knowledge and understanding frontiers as well.

Your joyride, doesn't help the situation it hampers it, because the public sees the apollo style missions and the wasting of money. But, we then show that we are not leaving and building a colony and expanding into space permanently and developing new technologies and then using them on earth to expand our existence here as well.

The main goal / objective is the total mobilization of the human race to expand into space permanently.

GCNRevenger · 2004-09-26 19:06:48

But Comstar, exploration and colonization are different things... We are not ready mentally, politicly, or technologicly for colonization, the best we can do with what we have is to build a small base that will serve no useful purpose. That is all we can afford and all we can do, and so, it is a bad idea because it can't be justified to the powers that be... So, that leaves us with exploration, which we do have the money and technology and will to do, and the best way to explore Mars is to send multiple smaller temporary missions all over the surface, and by the time we have done these, we should be much closer to the technological/political threshold needed for colonization. The inspiration, knowledge, and confidance of going to Mars will then make building a base easier down the road politicly and technologicly too.

As for the missions turning into a Martian Apollo, I think that the risk of that losing the interest of the public is slim given all the sights they will see, much more grand things then the same gray hills of the Lunar landings and a wealth of new things to study besides Moon rocks - like hunting for life. Furthermore, a Mars base which serves no purpose risks becoming somthing much much worse than a Martian Apollo... it risks becoming a Martian ISS.

John Creighton · 2004-09-26 20:57:28

Furthermore, a Mars base which serves no purpose risks becoming somthing much much worse than a Martian Apollo... it risks becoming a Martian ISS.

I don’t think the comparisons are the same because the mars base will not require the same upkeep as the ISS. At the very least it becomes a good junk yard.

Martian Republic · 2004-09-26 21:01:57

Comstar03 you seem to have a similar opinion about GCNRevenger science exploration to Mars Mission that I have. I'm as pro-space as anybody else here. But If I were President of the United States and some one handed my a plan or program like that, I would hand it back them and tell don't bother me again with another space mission plan. Unless you can show something more than a tourist picture of Mars and maybe some science work done while our astronauts were on Mars with more or less present day technology, you have nothing to show me. I personally would have absolutly no use for the program except to file 13 it and then go on to something else. As far as getting behind such a program or making it a national mission, I see absolutly no purpose in it, nor would I have a desire to do it either.

Going into space has these purposes:

1. Do exploring and do science projects you can't do on Earth.
2. Develop new technologies on as many different fronts as possible. You deliberately pick target you can't do with present technology so you will have to develop new technologies to hit your target.
3. The goal here is to generate technological spin-off in new products being by the private sector in the U.S. Economy.
4. To expand the physical Economy of the United State by both increasing the productivity’s of the work force per man hour worked improved technology and by improving the standard of living because of that new technology.
5. To expand man authority over both nature down here in space too as some one action as a good steward through building new infrastructural both down here and in space, using that new technology that is being developed, because of those mission that we are engaging in in space.

If your space mission doesn't do these things, then I really have no use for it.

If the goal is to either spend of save money. I can spend or save money doing something else just as easily. So why go into space anyway? Except to accomplish higher purpose that you can't achieve on Earth and there are many higher purposes that you can't achieve on Earth too. As a race, there are a lot of childish things we going to have to let go of if we intend to colonize Mars or the Moon or the Asteroids. We start the process letting go childish things or we can forget about going into space. It will be one or the other that will happen. But, we will not go up there being childish or refusing to change, because our action are self-limiting and will prevent us from continuing into space.

Larry,

Martian Republic · 2004-09-26 21:19:19

Furthermore, a Mars base which serves no purpose risks becoming somthing much much worse than a Martian Apollo... it risks becoming a Martian ISS.
I don’t think the comparisons are the same because the mars base will not require the same upkeep as the ISS. At the very least it becomes a good junk yard.

What do you mean there would not be the same problem with upkeep as on the ISS. The shuttle has been down for two years and the Mission to Mars will be just over two years or so to complete. Also the Mars Mission is not going to be able to be re-supplied like the ISS is or can the Astronauts come home if it breaks and nor will that have access to the other habs, because there too far away. But, even if they could get to them in an emergency, they were not designed to last more than two years anyway.

So we will have five to six camp site of junk to look at.

Larry,

John Creighton · 2004-09-26 21:33:06

they were not designed to last more than two years anyway.

Design it to last longer. Atleast the orbit wont decay since it is on the ground. Brick lasts 50 years marble lasts thousands of years. Plus there are local resources available

GCNRevenger · 2004-09-26 21:45:10

Time for a little reality check...

If you can't get the people and the scientific community on board, then we aren't going anywhere. The public is willing to spend some money and the scientists willing to sacrifice some credibility for space programs, but they have been wronged so much before by Shuttle, ISS, etc that they will not be willing to give much more then they are now. It isn't going to happen.

Furthermore, if they even suspect that their investment is not going to make returns, and do so quickly and efficently, then their support is history. Delays of ten or twenty years from the first landings to achieve results will be utterly fatal to a Mars program of any kind. Even if they think that things are stagnating again... the pictures of the same red hills start getting boring, or scientists having requests for information from distant sites rejected because the rover can't go that far... Then its over, all over.

With what little financial or political reasources are available, the lack of confidance in NASA's desire to achieve results (rather than endlessly circle to keep engineers employed), and the lack of confidance in NASA's competance to achieve them, NASA must show that they are accomplishing something in the near term once we reach Mars.

A Martian base is neat and all, there will be some pretty pictures surrounding the landing site on peoples' walls, maybe a "Mars Base Playset" on sale at Christmas, but then what? There will be people on Mars. So what? Why are they there?...

If they are there to explore, then building the base has been a lousy investment, and we could have been really exploring Mars years and years earlier for billions of dollars less. NASA will have betrayed their trust and underscored just how incompetant they are... Maybe they wanted to build a base to keep NASA engineers employed rather than exploring for us (again).

If they are there to colonize, well, thats nice but with our current or near future technology, this simply isn't going to happen. They are a generation or so too early... next generation Silicon Carbide computers, next generation biotech crops, next generation RLVs, next generation High-Isp/Thrust propulsion, next generation automation and long-life space engineering, next generation materials, next generation technology... So they will have a base. A base with no purpose, sitting there in the red sand. And that will be the final betrayal that NASA ever makes.

Edit/Side Note: Planning a mission around technology that doesn't exsist yet is not such a great idea, for one it usually means that the mission is going to be really really expensive as it has to develop new technology before it can use it. Another thing is, for all the people that doubt NASA's competance, then the damage to the plans' credibility could be fatal. And frankly, there is an increased chance that the plan will simply fail. For NASA's first Mars missions it needs sucess, it needs credibility, it needs to show that it can do it efficently... and that means lower tech = lower risk

Martian Republic · 2004-09-26 22:00:24

they were not designed to last more than two years anyway.
Design it to last longer. Atleast the orbit wont decay since it is on the ground. Brick lasts 50 years marble lasts thousands of years. Pluss there are local resources available

These habitats aren’t build with Brick that lasts 50 years or marble that lasts thousands of years. But, these habitats are the blow up type. So we can save on weight and volume and we are sacrificing there long life to keep the program both cheap and compact so we don't have to use two rockets. Now I'm sure it possible to make them more durable, but that wasn't our ultimate goal here, especially if it add either weight or excess cost to our mission that we didn't want. These mission are basically another compromise instead of building something that we need to build. If it cost 8 billion dollars to build something that last 3 years and it cost 10 billion dollars to build something that last 4 years and the mission going to last 2 years, then you build the habitat that will last 3 years and you will save that two billion dollars. That generally the way it works. Why would you spend an extra two billion dollars on something when you were not planning on getting two billion dollars worth of use out of it. But, if your spending that money for the semi-permanent base, then you will spend that extra two billion dollars. Because you want something that will last as long as you can get it to last.

You will generally have a different attitude about it, depending on what you intend to do.

Larry,

John Creighton · 2004-09-26 22:13:08

These habitats aren’t build with Brick that lasts 50 years or marble that lasts thousands of years.

Yeah, I know but how long should transhab last. At least 20 years if not more right. Do you want to make you hab more flimsy? From a safety perspective is that wise. Don't generalize too much. Lets look at what is available first.

John Creighton · 2004-09-26 22:24:24

GCNReverneger, you make good arguments but I am not convinced that the technology is that far away. Moreover, it is NASA’s job to push the boundaries of technology. Engineering is a science too and NASA has provided many challenges that has helped many fields of engineering advance. Anyway, the president should set out a mission of exploration and reducing costs. Teams should focus on mobility, durability and ISTU recourse utilization. Exploration objectives should be set out and teams should asses the advantage of using hardware from previous missions. So maybe the second mission doesn’t land at the same site but maybe the third mission will. NASA can layout a serious of explorations targets on mars along with given dates for congress to approve or reject. Some targets will revisit old sites and some will explore new sites. The revisiting of old sites can readdress unanswered geological or biological questions as well as study techniques of construction and resource utilization. It will be an exciting day when a drill strikes water on mars. It will be called oasis one and it will inspire the imaginations of generations to come.

John Creighton · 2004-09-26 22:31:13

Robort, I like your idea of carrying an uniflated HAB to the MAV site. This should allow great mobility. This is true Especially if the pressurized rover is powered by a nuclear power source. This way there should be three refuges (two habs and one pressurized rover). There will however be only one MAV. Unfortunately it would probably be too expensive to make such a vehicle redundant. However, if a reusable one is ever developed then each mission could add another MAV. Of course I guess if your MAV fails it might not be reasonable to catch the next ride up from the surface for obvious reasons. Besides would the Martians do with all that ability to leverage mass to LMO?

Martian Republic · 2004-09-26 23:34:59

OK, let do a reality check...

The reason that NASA built the ISS instead of a permanent base on the Moon is because they were not allotted the money by congress to do it.

The reason that NASA didn't build the kind of space station that should of had, was because they didn't have the money for it.

The reason that NASA didn't build a deep space space ship was because they were told that the could do only one major project at a time by congress and that turned out to be the ISS.

Under George Bushes leadership if you could call it that, we might get back to the moon in twenty years and NASA having 1/4 the budget that they had under Kennedy where we went to the moon in 7 years.

After 20 year we might turn to going to Mars in another 10 to 15 years or 30 to 35 year and that is very questionable even then.

OK, here reality.

Did I miss anything?

This pretty much end any idea that we are going to Mars any time soon. NASA running on 1/4 of it budget during the Apollo Mission is going to have a hard time going back to the moon and building a permanent base on the Moon and/or going to Mars on the same 1/4 of the budget of NASA Apollo Mission.

Larry,

comstar03 · 2004-09-26 23:56:32

GCNRevenger,

I think you are not getting the main issues, (1) continued funding and expansion (2) Personnel (3) Technology - New that's to start.

When we commence a mars exploration and colonization strategy we need the funding and continued support from the public in this enterprise. Alot of factors can play to stop or limit the grow in this venture, We need to make sure that doesn't happen because we would have a permanent outpost with personnel on the surface from commencement, not like the apollo style land, survey and then leave , but no-one left at the base location.

Personnel, are survivalists and have a variety of skills and can adapt quickly. Their tour of duty could be 5-8 years, also they need to be able to expand the existing infrastructure as new cargo components are sent from earth and new personnel arrive.

Technology will be constantly updating as scientists develop new vehicles, communications, computers, power systems, transportations systems and habitation systems. Our current technology can get us there, but our thinking around the processes for living on Mars are not there yet. We need more training and complete integration of systems.

We will get there but , what i fear is the public sees this as an apollo style mission from NASA and that means the politicans change the funding, reasons why we did that or the future in our exploration.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-27 06:30:53

Another point to be made on Mars exploration is that we are thinking that all astronauts are returning home after there mission time is up, I'm not sure how palletable the food would be after all that time in orbit for the return trip.

I also feel that if another crew is coming why not have a few stay and meet them at the new landing site in order to continue the expansion of Mars infrastucture.

First habitats without launching a seperate mission vehicle will most likely be Mars soil covered and inflatable or cavern dug with the inflatable placed inside. Otherwise they are made by processing the Mars surface into bricks or blocks and some glass; unless refining, processing and smelting equipment is sent to make metal support or panels to build from.

comstar03 · 2004-09-27 07:34:33

SpaceNut,

That is why you , have at least 12 persons in the mars outpost because you can then divide the outpost into 4 person teams and then crew rotate to each per voyage, that means over the second, third, and four voyages, based over the next 8 years each voyage brings the same or more personnel thus expands the outpost into a base then colony by growth of personnel.

At the same time gives the scientists / engineers and enterprises time for improvements on all technological fields while expanding the frontiers of space.

GCNRevenger · 2004-09-27 09:00:01

"...but I am not convinced that the technology is that far away. Moreover, it is NASA’s job to push the boundaries of technology."

Well okay, let me lay out a "laundry list" of things we need before we can go beyond the "McMurdro" phase and start bringing in people and start open-ended colonization:

~~A true RLV, probobly a TSTO spaceplane with payload in the 25 to 40MT range able to fly often and cut launch prices by about 90% over expendable vehicles that also seats 12-14.
~~A large refuelable nuclear reactor, probobly 1.0MWe range pebble bed reactor, which will be no small feat to make it trouble free and light enough to fly.
~~A reuseable MAV, probobly powerd by CH4/LOX from Mars, able to carry 25MT loads or passengers from orbit and back with man-rated reliability, and do so for 100+ flights without much serious maintenance. The MAV must also land with accuracy and precision to within meters of desired site.
~~A high-thrust/high-Isp propulsion technology, Ion drive is too slow for humans and solid-core NTR is too inefficent, which points either to an MHD engine or a vapor-core NTR. Either of these systems are hardly even in concept phase.
~~Securing a source of water on Mars, a big one, able to provide 1,000-10,000 ton quantities of water per year to fulfill Hydrogen demands and mitigate ISRU LSS demands depending on MAV flight rate and industrial Hydrogen needs.
~~A ISRU fuel plant at least two or three orders of magnetude bigger then Doc Zubrin's and be able to operate for a decade or so essentially non-stop without failure or signifigant breakdown.
~~A materials factory(s) able to produce glasses, metals/alloys, Siloxane polymers, and Carbon polymers when Hydrogen and nitrogen is available. The lack of Carbon-based polymers may become a big problem for expansion.
~~Workshops able to produce replacement componets for anything and everything heavy, able to make almost anything other then computer hardware, clothing, specialty materials/machined parts or other materials that are small/light and can be brought from Earth.
~~GMO crops able to flourish and grow rapidly in lower temperatures, lower pressures, lower O2/N2 concentrations, very low humidity, use water sparingly, and higher Ultraviolet/Solar/Cosmic radiation than basicly anything that lives on the Earth. A tall order for the biologists.

We will need these things, all of these things, before it is practical to expand beyond a small science base which is tended entirely from Earth except for rocket fuel, and even then Hydrogen may have to be imported too. I think that we ARE pretty far from achieveing this minimum technological and engineering threshold, and there is no point in rushing ahead with a base until these things are close at hand, as a small base is clearly inferior for the other "why" that is exploration.

NASA can't afford to wait for all these things, people will get too bored and lose interest or get suspicious and lose faith, plus the huge price tag with doing each of them which will be in the 9-11 digit range for all of them without a doubt, will scuttle a "Colony First" policy.

BWhite · 2004-09-27 09:26:55

Well okay, let me lay out a "laundry list" of things we need before we can go beyond the "McMurdro" phase and start bringing in people and start open-ended colonization:
~~A true RLV, probobly a TSTO spaceplane with payload in the 25 to 40MT range able to fly often and cut launch prices by about 90% over expendable vehicles that also seats 12-14.

I disagree. The real target is lower launch costs.

Perhaps RLV does that perhaps not. Logistical support (cargo only) can also be accomplished by disposables with ultra-high mass fractions.

~~A large refuelable nuclear reactor, probobly 1.0MWe range pebble bed reactor, which will be no small feat to make it trouble free and light enough to fly.

Agreed.

Using supercritical CO2 as a working fluid will (a) avoid sending working fluid from Earth and (b) allow for smaller turbine blades which must be milled on Earth with a high degree of precision. Pebble bed likely is the best way to go for ease of refueling and inherent safety for core over-heating.

~~A reuseable MAV, probobly powerd by CH4/LOX from Mars, able to carry 25MT loads or passengers from orbit and back with man-rated reliability, and do so for 100+ flights without much serious maintenance. The MAV must also land with accuracy and precision to within meters of desired site.

Only if we plan on sending people back. Made on Mars disposables can deliver cargo just as easily.

~~A high-thrust/high-Isp propulsion technology, Ion drive is too slow for humans and solid-core NTR is too inefficent, which points either to an MHD engine or a vapor-core NTR. Either of these systems are hardly even in concept phase.

Why? Only needed if we expect people to take routine trips back and forth. One way to stay? This is irrelevant.

Generate 3/8ths gee with tethers and surround the settelrs with rad-shields and six months in space is no big deal. Use hydrogen rich plastics for your shields and you kill two birds when the rad-shields are decomposed for re-use by your Marsian plastics factory after they protect the travellers.

~~Securing a source of water on Mars, a big one, able to provide 1,000-10,000 ton quantities of water per year to fulfill Hydrogen demands and mitigate ISRU LSS demands depending on MAV flight rate and industrial Hydrogen needs.

Agreed in principle.

~~A ISRU fuel plant at least two or three orders of magnetude bigger then Doc Zubrin's and be able to operate for a decade or so essentially non-stop without failure or signifigant breakdown.

No big deal. Those things are readily scale-able.

~~A materials factory(s) able to produce glasses, metals/alloys, Siloxane polymers, and Carbon polymers when Hydrogen and nitrogen is available. The lack of Carbon-based polymers may become a big problem for expansion.

Agreed.

All packaging sent from Earth should be amenable to being dissolved and re-processed. Having the settlers Earth-Mars radiation shields be made of a plastic that can be re-used on Mars helps satisfy this need, for example.

GM crops can include that new plastic corn. IIRC Archer Daniels Midland has a stake in that project.

~~Workshops able to produce replacement componets for anything and everything heavy, able to make almost anything other then computer hardware, clothing, specialty materials/machined parts or other materials that are small/light and can be brought from Earth.

Agreed.

Rapid prototype machines will be essential. New designs can be constructed on Earth, beamed to Mars for download into the computers and then fabricated from the accumulated plastics salvaged from the settlers rad-shields.

Old plastic items are dissolved or melted for re-use.

~~GMO crops able to flourish and grow rapidly in lower temperatures, lower pressures, lower O2/N2 concentrations, very low humidity, use water sparingly, and higher Ultraviolet/Solar/Cosmic radiation than basicly anything that lives on the Earth. A tall order for the biologists.

Agreed.

However, the intellectual property rights to successful GM crops can be sold to other settlers, to offset the cost of development.

We will need these things, all of these things, before it is practical to expand beyond a small science base which is tended entirely from Earth except for rocket fuel, and even then Hydrogen may have to be imported too. I think that we ARE pretty far from achieveing this minimum technological and engineering threshold, and there is no point in rushing ahead with a base until these things are close at hand, as a small base is clearly inferior for the other "why" that is exploration.

Agreed.

And if one subset of humanity masters these skills first and best, then their descendants will OWN the future of the solar system.

Martian Republic · 2004-09-27 09:53:06

comstar03,

Even with all that done all, it will only be prep for a permanent colony, because it will be hard to get over fifty or sixty people on Mars and to be able to supply them. At that point a decision will have to be made about do we want to go all the way with it or do we want to keep it just as a research station. If we choose to go all the way with it, there will have to be another series of investment develop more new technologies and to build base or city that can be more or less self-sufficient and expand the space ships that are flying between the Earth and Mars. It will almost certainly have to be government financed and government directed, but with private enterprise doing there part too.

I think our stated goal should be that we intend to build a city on Mars and we figure that we need about 200 hundred space ship that can travel between Mars and the Earth in a two to three week time scale. Of course this will take two or three generation to pull something this big down and make it happen. But, at least every body will know what the game is and act accordingly. Instead of the $16 billion dollars or $40 billion dollar investment on 5 mission, it may go out to $400 billion dollar investment, but we were expecting to get 4 trillion dollars or more out of our original investment in spin-off technologies. So we were planning on getting 3.6 trillion dollars more out of our project than we originally put into it. But, from our $16 billion or our $40 billion dollar investment program, we were not planning on retrieving our investment past doing a photo op on the planet Mars with our Astronauts and do some scientific work of investigation on another planet. For that effort, you will get a negative return on your investment of ten twenty or thirty billion dollars or so, instead of the positive return on your investment.

Larry,

GCNRevenger · 2004-09-27 11:06:43

OK, let do a reality check...
The reason that NASA built the ISS instead of a permanent base on the Moon is because they were not allotted the money by congress to do it.
The reason that NASA didn't build the kind of space station that should of had, was because they didn't have the money for it.
The reason that NASA didn't build a deep space space ship was because they were told that the could do only one major project at a time by congress and that turned out to be the ISS.
Under George Bushes leadership if you could call it that, we might get back to the moon in twenty years and NASA having 1/4 the budget that they had under Kennedy where we went to the moon in 7 years.
After 20 year we might turn to going to Mars in another 10 to 15 years or 30 to 35 year and that is very questionable even then.
OK, here reality.
Did I miss anything?
This pretty much end any idea that we are going to Mars any time soon. NASA running on 1/4 of it budget during the Apollo Mission is going to have a hard time going back to the moon and building a permanent base on the Moon and/or going to Mars on the same 1/4 of the budget of NASA Apollo Mission.
Larry,

First off let me reiterate about the Martian McMurdro vs Martian Apollo thing, then the costs thing... I don't think that a Mars base using current or near-term technology in and of itself can... without very large (read: $30 billion plus range) investment to develop & build a reuseable MAV and its infrastructure... inspire the taxpaying population or satisfy the scientific community, who only have so much patience and trust, both of whom have to aprove of the project for it to fly. We are going to have to develop explorer-class hardware in order to be able to send people to set up a base anyway, it can't be reasonably done completly by remote, so it therefore makes more sense to build more of the already developed temporary hardware and explore Mars instead.

A Mars base without mobility or without the ability to initiate colonization rapidly, which it cannot do without the yet unacheived requisit technological maturity, will not serve any useful purpose for years and years and years. Yes there is a risk that temporary exploration-centric missions will get boring and be canceld, though I think it is unlikly with how much less boring the Martian surface is than the Moon (fantastic vistas, hunting for life, etc), but a Martian McMurdro runs a much higher risk of becomming boring and scientificly useless such that there won't be any tolleration of another $100Bn program that just sits there for years without results like the ISS.

I have a little more faith in NASA's abilities to yeild exploration results without breaking the budget MR, that NASA can get us back to the Moon fairly quickly without too much trouble or excessive expense, the reason why it is going to take so long is that we still have to use Shuttle to finish ISS. If we didn't have those to worry about, then I am quite sure we could get to the Moon in under a decade without much of a budget boost. As for Mars, that depends on what we want to do when we get there... I think that NASA can, given time, do the exploration of Mars without a massive budget raise, but i'm not so sure about a base.

I also must point out just how much was NOT accomplished by Apollo given the extreme cost, if it wern't for the emotional and idealogical value of Apollo beating the Commies, it would have been a HORRIBLE investment scientificly.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2004-09-26 10:50:02

Re: Where exactly is Mars Direct with NASA? - Are they going to do it or not?

#77 2004-09-26 11:43:45

Re: Where exactly is Mars Direct with NASA? - Are they going to do it or not?

#78 2004-09-26 12:20:48

Re: Where exactly is Mars Direct with NASA? - Are they going to do it or not?

#79 2004-09-26 18:09:59

Re: Where exactly is Mars Direct with NASA? - Are they going to do it or not?

#80 2004-09-26 18:16:18

Re: Where exactly is Mars Direct with NASA? - Are they going to do it or not?

#81 2004-09-26 18:40:56

Re: Where exactly is Mars Direct with NASA? - Are they going to do it or not?

#82 2004-09-26 18:56:45

Re: Where exactly is Mars Direct with NASA? - Are they going to do it or not?

#83 2004-09-26 19:06:48

Re: Where exactly is Mars Direct with NASA? - Are they going to do it or not?

#84 2004-09-26 20:57:28

Re: Where exactly is Mars Direct with NASA? - Are they going to do it or not?

#85 2004-09-26 21:01:57

Re: Where exactly is Mars Direct with NASA? - Are they going to do it or not?

#86 2004-09-26 21:19:19

Re: Where exactly is Mars Direct with NASA? - Are they going to do it or not?

#87 2004-09-26 21:33:06

Re: Where exactly is Mars Direct with NASA? - Are they going to do it or not?

#88 2004-09-26 21:45:10

Re: Where exactly is Mars Direct with NASA? - Are they going to do it or not?

#89 2004-09-26 22:00:24

Re: Where exactly is Mars Direct with NASA? - Are they going to do it or not?

#90 2004-09-26 22:13:08

Re: Where exactly is Mars Direct with NASA? - Are they going to do it or not?

#91 2004-09-26 22:24:24

Re: Where exactly is Mars Direct with NASA? - Are they going to do it or not?

#92 2004-09-26 22:31:13

Re: Where exactly is Mars Direct with NASA? - Are they going to do it or not?

#93 2004-09-26 23:34:59

Re: Where exactly is Mars Direct with NASA? - Are they going to do it or not?

#94 2004-09-26 23:56:32

Re: Where exactly is Mars Direct with NASA? - Are they going to do it or not?

#95 2004-09-27 06:30:53

Re: Where exactly is Mars Direct with NASA? - Are they going to do it or not?

#96 2004-09-27 07:34:33

Re: Where exactly is Mars Direct with NASA? - Are they going to do it or not?

#97 2004-09-27 09:00:01

Re: Where exactly is Mars Direct with NASA? - Are they going to do it or not?

#98 2004-09-27 09:26:55

Re: Where exactly is Mars Direct with NASA? - Are they going to do it or not?

#99 2004-09-27 09:53:06

Re: Where exactly is Mars Direct with NASA? - Are they going to do it or not?

#100 2004-09-27 11:06:43

Re: Where exactly is Mars Direct with NASA? - Are they going to do it or not?

Board footer