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

GCNRevenger · 2004-09-27 11:20:10

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 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.
~~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.

-Launch costs: No its not, the real target is to lower launch costs AND increase flight rate. You can get close but not quite using HLLV rockets, they have limited granularity of cargo, and there is a need for a large and safe people hauler... you really need an RLV. I don't think a non-reuseable medium rocket can reach the requisit flight rates either.

-Building expendable orbital shuttles on Mars & one way trips: Not a chance. We are a long, long way from the level of industrial capacity needed to build rockets on Mars, I don't think that will happen before we need to stop using expendable landers from Earth. Not to mention, we will eventually need to send people back to Earth, a one way trip is silly.

-New propulsion technology: This is mainly to reduce to the amount of rocket fuel needed, which we really really have to do, before large manned flights to Mars can be come routine. Solid-core NTR isn't good enough, it still requires too much Hydrogen, nor is it that reliable for many firings. Chemical rockets are a non-starter. We really have got to come up with somthing better, 100's of tons of LH2 per flight isn't affordable.

And yeah, an ISRU plant is probobly fairly scalable... the trouble is, the thing is going to be BIG, and the thing has to be built to last. Not 2-4 years, but 10+ years without major repair, and that is a taller order then it sounds... Oh, and a nuclear reactor, hauling the working fluid from Earth shouldn't be a big factor if it would run much more efficently.

John Creighton · 2004-09-27 11:38:30

And yeah, an ISRU plant is probobly fairly scalable... the trouble is, the thing is going to be BIG, and the thing has to be built to last. Not 2-4 years, but 10+ years without major repair, and that is a taller order then it sounds

How about if you used pumps without any moving parts. Perhaps something like a http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question377.htm] carburetor. Air is blowing across a pipe creating a vacuum. Perhaps something thermal or electromagnetic could cause the air flow.

Martian Republic · 2004-09-27 12:46:25

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.

From today right now, I can agree with almost everything that you have said. As far as any serious investigation of Mars by Astronauts on the surface, that also pretty much a dead issue also. We neither have the infrastructure or the technology in hand to do it. So I will concede the next twenty years as a dead issue as to either doing an Apollo mission or a Martian McMurdro project for that matter. We are not going to be doing either one. About all we going to be doing for the next twenty years is getting ready for our Mars Mission. Even if we could slip something in as to a Mars landing 5 to 7 year from now, it not going to have any significant on what we are doing in our overall plan for Mars or whether we stay on Mars. As you apply put it, we neither have the technology nor the infrastructure to build McMurdro base, but we have no reason to do you project either even if we could do it, which is also question if we could do. I'm not one of the people that pushing that we can build everything remotely. Now what ever we can build remotely I will take it of course, but I believe that we will have to have people on sight to do much of the building that needs to be done. Other part of the project could be modular in nature or an inflatable made on Earth. So I'm not depending on any one solution to solve every problem, but a series of solution to be tailor maid for the individual problem that we need to solve. There is no one answer fits all problems that you are going run into or build every thing that you what to build solution. Like they don't exist, but we can lay out a battle plan as to what we want to do and how we intend to accomplish it.

So I will readily admit, we going to have to have at least a twenty year lead time to be anywhere near being able to do an Martian McMurdro project. Anybody that thinks otherwise is only fooling themselves. But, if we do the groundwork of developing the technology and building the infrastructure, there nothing to keep us from doing a Martian McMurdro like project then. But, we have to put time and effort in to be at our jump off point to do it though in twenty years. This building a City on Mars is going to be a two or three generation and be a planed event with the first generation laying down the frame work for us being able to build our City on Mars. This is going to have to be a generational mission if we intend to accomplish it. But, we also intend to double the size of the U.S. Economy every twenty years or so, because of technological spin-off too. Like we intend to have real growth vs inflated growth as in $20 dollars to buy one bag of groceries and we can buy two bags of groceries of the same item for the same $20 dollars bill as posed to $40 dollars for the same one bags groceries and calling that economic growth. Instead of having 5 Trillion dollar economy, I intend to have Ten Trillion dollar economy, but it real growth and not in inflated growth. In forty years I intend to Twenty Trillion dollars economy in real growth. That hundreds of billions of dollars that NASA spent on space is going get lost in that fifteen trillion dollar expansion of the U.S. Economy that going to happen in the next 40 years or so. So I’m not really worried about it, something bigger coming down the pike that going to make it look like so much pocket change. I’m still after my trillion return on my investment.

The why the government under leadership like Abraham Lincoln, FDR and John F. Kennedy engage in these kinds of infrastructural project, there looking for this kind of a return to the U.S. Economy.

Larry,

Martian Republic · 2004-09-27 14:54:04

And yeah, an ISRU plant is probobly fairly scalable... the trouble is, the thing is going to be BIG, and the thing has to be built to last. Not 2-4 years, but 10+ years without major repair, and that is a taller order then it sounds
How about if you used pumps without any moving parts. Perhaps something like a http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question377.htm] carburetor. Air is blowing across a pipe creating a vacuum. Perhaps something thermal or electromagnetic could cause the air flow.

There are a lot of things that we can do to reduce the maintain problem, but you will never reduce the maintain problem to "ZERO" problem. You can reduce number of problems that you have and possibly even extend the length of time before you have a problem, but no your not going to have "ZERO" problem or having "ZERO" something breaking or has broken. It could be something major go our on you in the habitat, or it could be a bunch of little things like rubber seal around air lock. Even the inflatable habitats have about three or four year life expectancy as to how dependable there going be before they start leaking or at least might start leaking.

Larry,

RobertDyck · 2004-09-27 15:12:23

~~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.

So you claim that a non-developed technology is absolutely necessary for any manned mission to Mars, then argue that same technology cannot be developed quickly so we can't go to Mars. This is a circular argument. We could also say that an energy/matter conversion transporter like Star Trek is absolutely necessary to go to Mars, and that such a device will never be built so we can't go to Mars. Reality is we can go to Mars with chemical propulsion. Solid core NTR would reduce the cost, and NERVA was ready for in-space tests in 1972, but it isn't required. VASIMR, which is a form of MHD engine, if powered by a nuclear reactor would also be nice; but it isn't necessary either. Vapor-core NTR would be really nice, but we could also say warp drive would be nice. Let's plan for chemical at first. NERVA would be trivial to prepare for the TMI stage; again it was ready for in-space tests in 1972. Nerva 2 was developed on paper in 1991, and that had an increased Isp of 925 seconds. Timberwind could be completed as well; it would be a single use stage but the paper study in 1992 had an Isp of 1000 seconds and an engine thrust:weight ratio of 30.12 vs 4.00 for Nerva 2.

~~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.

Mars Odyssey found a deposit on the equator in Arabia Terra that's as large as a great lake. I'm waiting for the ground penetrating radar from Mars Express to locate water at the bottom of equatorial valles because they have lower altitude (thicker atmosphere).

~~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.

As part of the Mars Homestead project I'm working on a materials factory. I can already tell you how to produce aluminum, glass, hydrogen, nitrogen, argon, and plastics like polyethylene, polypropylene, PVC, ABS, and polycarbonate (Lexan). MGS found muscovite which on Earth contains a little fluorine; the concentration is half the minimum detection threshold of the APXS instrument on Sojourner. The APXS instrument on Spirit and Opportunity is more sensitive so I'm hoping to see detection of fluorine. If we do have a source of fluorine we can make Teflon like Teflon FEP film or Tefzel film, ideal for inflatable structures. I'm working on epoxy, magnesium, steel, gypsum (for wall board), and cement. Another member is doing most of the work on brick and cement.

GCNRevenger · 2004-09-27 17:00:50

No no no Robert, I am not saying we need a next-generation propulsion system for all manned missions to Mars! Read carefully, you will see that I said we need it in order to colonize Mars. We can go to Mars today with essentially today's technology to explore, and we can go to Mars and build a Antarctic-style base, but we can't colonize yet. Thats when we will need new engines, as we can't afford to send sizeable ships round trip full of people because of the huge amount of fuel needed with any current technology... But a limited number of small missions, sure thats pretty easy with chemical engines or solid-core NTR.

And by securing a large supply of water, that means actually pumping it out into tanks or bags or whatnot, not just knowing where it is... I am also kind of skeptical that you can so easily make Hydrocarbon Polymers, Fluropolymers, or Epoxies so easily... how will you go about synthesizing them from raw Hydrogen gas and inorganic Carbon?

Euler · 2004-09-27 17:24:40

-Building expendable orbital shuttles on Mars & one way trips: Not a chance. We are a long, long way from the level of industrial capacity needed to build rockets on Mars, I don't think that will happen before we need to stop using expendable landers from Earth. Not to mention, we will eventually need to send people back to Earth, a one way trip is silly.

If the idea is to start a colony, then most of the trips will have to be one way. There is really no way around that, no matter what technology you have. Colonist go to Mars to colonize it, not to return back to Earth.

No no no Robert, I am not saying we need a next-generation propulsion system for all manned missions to Mars! Read carefully, you will see that I said we need it in order to colonize Mars. We can go to Mars today with essentially today's technology to explore, and we can go to Mars and build a Antarctic-style base, but we can't colonize yet. Thats when we will need new engines, as we can't afford to send sizeable ships round trip full of people because of the huge amount of fuel needed with any current technology... But a limited number of small missions, sure thats pretty easy with chemical engines or solid-core NTR.

You don't really need any new propulsion systems or RLV launchers. All you need is funding... lots of funding. New propulsion systems might lower the cost of colonization a bit, but they are not absolutely essential to the colonization effort.

RobertDyck · 2004-09-27 17:57:29

Fluoropolymers: well, let's just say I have high hopes. I hope that some polymere expert will jump in and tell us how to make it. It appears to be as easy as making hydrocarbon polymeres, but I'm not really sure.

Hydrocarbon polymeres start with the process described in Robert Zubrin's book "The Case for Mars". He got a NASA contract to develop it and build a brass-board prototype. I could give you the link if you want. The Reverse Water Gas Shift (RWGS) works like this:

Mars atmosphere that is 95.32% carbon dioxide by volume on a day when the pressure is 7.5 millibars. Purify CO2 from Mars atmosphere by operating a freezer during Mars night. At night the temperature is just a few degrees above what's needed to freeze dry ice, to the extra few degreeze by the freezer will accumulate dry ice. Everything else in the atmosphere requires cryogenic temperature to liquify, so this accumulates pure dry ice. Then close the container and heat it to sublimate pure CO2. Pump the pure CO2 into a holding tank.

Reverse Water Gas Shift (RWGS): CO2 + H2 -> CO + H2O
Iron Fischer-Tropsch Catalysts: 2 CO + 4 H2 -> C2H4 + 2 H2O

This produces ethylene (C2H4). There is another process that synthesises ethylene in hydrochloric acid, but it produces 6 molecules of water per ethylene molecule instead of the 4 molecules of water listed above. Furthermore, the above reaction doesn't require hydrochloric acid. Water is broken into hydrogen and oxygen using electrolysis across a proton transport membrane, also known as a reverse fuel cell.

Then you can directly polymerize ethylene to form polyethylene, or convert ethylene into propylene then polymerize that to form polypropylene, or several other reactions. Most of these other reactions start with ethylene. I can give you step-by-step reactions to produce intermediate chemicals: benzene, toluene, naphthalene, phenol, glycol, formaldehyde. Or I could give you step-by-step reactions for finished products: High Density polyethylene (HDPE), Low Density polyethylene (LDPE), polypropylene (PP), acrylic, lexan, polystyrene, mylar technically known as Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET), polybutadiene rubber (PB), Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS), vinyl, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), pheolic, nylon. I'm waiting for Tony to answer if we can dehydrogenate an olefin to make turpentine.

Martian Republic · 2004-09-27 18:15:11

-Building expendable orbital shuttles on Mars & one way trips: Not a chance. We are a long, long way from the level of industrial capacity needed to build rockets on Mars, I don't think that will happen before we need to stop using expendable landers from Earth. Not to mention, we will eventually need to send people back to Earth, a one way trip is silly.
If the idea is to start a colony, then most of the trips will have to be one way. There is really no way around that, no matter what technology you have. Colonist go to Mars to colonize it, not to return back to Earth.
No no no Robert, I am not saying we need a next-generation propulsion system for all manned missions to Mars! Read carefully, you will see that I said we need it in order to colonize Mars. We can go to Mars today with essentially today's technology to explore, and we can go to Mars and build a Antarctic-style base, but we can't colonize yet. Thats when we will need new engines, as we can't afford to send sizeable ships round trip full of people because of the huge amount of fuel needed with any current technology... But a limited number of small missions, sure thats pretty easy with chemical engines or solid-core NTR.
You don't really need any new propulsion systems or RLV launchers. All you need is funding... lots of funding. New propulsion systems might lower the cost of colonization a bit, but they are not absolutely essential to the colonization effort.

Even though I'm one of the primary defenders of colonizing Mars or even building a city on Mars, even I will concede that it not practical to colonize Mars for the next ten to twenty years or so and concede to GCNRevenger on that point. The only way to alter that situation is to have a Government National Mission that requires a transportation system to be built that can support that kind of colonization program. The only way that the Government could justify building transportation system like that would the to have a National Goal to also build the Martian Colony too. It will take you at least twenty years to build the infrastructure and/or develop the technology to do that.

With what we have in place right now, we just could not throw enough stuff at Mars fast enough to be able to setup a long term colony on Mars. Any attempt to do so, would soon break down and our efforts would fall apart in a relatively short period of time.

Larry,

comstar03 · 2004-09-27 19:32:27

Martian Republic,

I agree that we need a large scale movement to mars of people to make Mars viable in the long term, But first we need to have the infrastructure to support this type of movement with food supplies grown on Mars, the housing, transport, and communication needs for two hundred people. Also the people should develop two colonies or settlements about 20-30 Kms apart from each other descreasing risk factors of faults and failures.

Using the moon industrial base and also the mass driver launching facilities on the moon you could design cargo vessels to use the mass driver and park in orbit and launch together remotely towards mars with additional modules for settlements and other cargo necessary for expansion.

from the first fleet entering Mars it would take only 25-35 years to have a 2x 100+ human settlements on Mars and an automated industrial processing facilities. Builidng to critical mass for settlement and exploration of the planet. The settlements could then develop large UAVs for exploration and survey use across the globe including dropping sensors and beacons.

But the infrastructure is required near earth and the moon to meet your aims - Martian Republic. It can be done within the next 40 years, It will also depend on the society on earth - are we ready for colonies in orbit , on the moon and on mars ? Some people are, but alot aren't !!!.

You have seen alot of comments and megarich owning things in space, or one government ahead of another, we are going to still have that even if we go into space. This will take time to sort things out as we learn and adapt into the space environment.

Euler · 2004-09-27 20:24:59

If the economy keeps expanding at the rate that it has been growing through the last few decades, then by 2025 America could spend 10 times what NASA's current budget is on this project and still be spending a smaller percentage of our resources than we were spending on Apollo.

If the cost per mission of a Mars Direct style mission is $10 billion, then we could send 30 missions(and 120 people) each 2 year cycle. However, the missions should actually cost much less, since by sending so many people we should be able to benefit from an economy of scale, and also because we do not need to build as many ERVs if most people are staying on Mars.

If we can send that much stuff to Mars, then starting a small colony does not sound unreasonable. All we really need is better funding, though improvements in technology do help.

RobertDyck · 2004-09-27 22:05:22

No no no Robert, I am not saying we need a next-generation propulsion system for all manned missions to Mars! Read carefully, you will see that I said we need it in order to colonize Mars. We can go to Mars today with essentially today's technology to explore, and we can go to Mars and build a Antarctic-style base, but we can't colonize yet. Thats when we will need new engines, as we can't afford to send sizeable ships round trip full of people because of the huge amount of fuel needed with any current technology... But a limited number of small missions, sure thats pretty easy with chemical engines or solid-core NTR.

Ok, so let's use this timeline.
*Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, launch August 2005, land March 2006.
*Phoenix, launch August 2007, land May 25 2008.
*Mars Science Laboratory, launch fall 2009, land spring 2010.
Sample Return, launch late 2011, land spring 2012, depart Mars summer 2013, arrive on Earth early 2014.
ERV and cargo, launch early 2014, land summer 2014.
Manned Science Mission, launch spring 2016, land fall 2016, depart Mars late 2017, arrive on Earth spring 2018.
Base cargo, launch summer 2018, land late 2018.
Base construction crew, launch late summer 2020, land early 2021.

Meanwhile, asteroids are devloped:
*Hayabusa, launched September 2003, arrive at asteroid October 2005, land sample on Earth June 2007.
*Dawn, launch May 2006, arrive at Vesta July 2010, depart Vesta July 2011, arrive Ceres August 2014.
Near Earth Asteroid Prospector, launch 2008, land sample on Earth 2009. (between 0.9 and 1.1 AU from Sun)
several NEA prospectors, launched 2010, land on Earth 2011.
2 unmanned asteroid mining missions (C- and M-type), launch 2012
carry fuel from C-type to M-type, 2013
precious metals to Earth, land late 2013
LOX/LH2 fuel to Earth orbit, arrive late 2013
start construction of large fuel depot in medium Earth orbit, 2014
Mars base cargo & construction crew TMI stages fuelled with asteroid propellant

* - mission already in progress.

Martian Republic · 2004-09-27 23:34:41

comstar03 we appear to be pretty much in agreement. The first twenty years need to be concentrated on or near the Earth and the Moon. We need time build up the infrastructure develop the technology to accomplish that mission. Yes, I agree with you that we should also go back to the Moon and I also believe that we should use the Moon as a bread board for the colony that we intend to build on Mars too.

For the technology and infrastructure that we can pull and press into service, Mars is just little too far away for us to be able to make serious effort to colonize Mars for right now. We can see it and we can send unmanned probes to it. It might even be possible to send humans to Mars, but, what we send those people to Mars in, will be like sending row boat across the Pacific Ocean between China the U.S. It can be done, but there will tend to be a high death rate and some people might actually make. I'm sure some people would still choose to go, but for our purposes it could not work. So we can discard that idea right now.

I believe that our basic battle plans should follow this line of attack to do what we want to do on Mars. Although Mars is too far away from us, the Moon is not too far away from us. So we should concentrate the first twenty years on both the moon and developing new technologies and building the infrastructure for a future Mars Colonization program within these confines of what we can do. So we are going to have to make a list of thing that we have to do and things that we have to develop.

So here what I think we need to have in place for the project from start to finish to building colony on Mars.

Here the list:

1. We go for a development package for the Moon of power plants, mining equipment, manufacturing equipment, farming, lunar shuttle. The kind of stuff that we intend to take to Mars and we test it out on the Moon and even use the moon as a staging area for manufacturing stuff for Mars and as gathering place for all the pieces that we intend to send to Mars. We may have one or two inflatable habitat dedicated for Mars for temporary shelter, but it won't work for our purposes. So we will basically setup a skunkworks on the Moon to assemble permanent structure that we intend to build on Mars and we may decide it need to be a few thousand feed in diameter or so. To be able to support that kind of operation, we will basically have to setup a town or city on the Moon.
2. Already mention that we will need a shuttle for the Moon and that would be primarily for the people. But, we could also use a levitated rail system that three or four miles long and throw stuff off the moon and into space too. That would give us access to the moon in both coming and going for both people and material.
3. Our current shuttle will be great for servicing the ISS when it start running again and may even be helpful as we start going to the Moon or possible for one or two other space station, but it won't serve our fully developed moon project. So we are going to have to design and build a whole generation of shuttle to serve our needs. We will probably need about 10 or 15 of those shuttle too. We also might choose to higher private contractors if there are any and encourage private development if there aren't any.
4. We will need ship that can go from an Earth orbit to a Lunar orbit to meet the shuttle on each end to make connection between the Earth and the Moon. We should plan on having about twenty to thirty of them. NASA will have there two or three and we would like the rest of them privately owned. We are not interested in NASA getting into the tourist business. We are going to leave that for the private carriers along with the privately owned Earth shuttle and Lunar Shuttle. Chemical Rockets are very inefficient in space and it takes a lot of it to get anywhere even to the Moon and the Earth. So we are going with Ion drive and Fission plasma drive rockets and get away from the chemical rockets for economic reasons.
5. Now we will need a staging area in space like about three to five space stations and that just for our lunar base/town/or city too. However, now most of the infrastructure and technology that we need for our Colonization is in place and only need minor modifications or upgrades.
6. Now we interested in going to Mars. We could use fission powered rocket to go to Mars and we be locked into the launch window of 26 month of being able to go Mars. We will also have to flip our rocket end over end trying to generate one G gravity for health reason. Besides one of our mission is to develop new technologies to advance the growth of the U.S. Economy. We decide that we don't like that 26 launch window and we don't like monkey around with our rocket to generate gravity. So we decided that we want to build a rocket that will accelerate at one G until we get half way to Mars and we will turn rocket around and decelerate the other half way to Mars. We will just have to use a different flight path between the Earth and Mars every time we make our trip, because there going to be constantly moving in relationship to each other. We have already figured out that fission doesn't have the kick we need to do that. So we decided that we would develop fusion powered rocket, because it has the power to do that. So while we were using fission power for going to the moon and back, we were developing fusion for our Mars Rocket and when we were planning on being ready to Mars we were planning on having four to six fusion rockets ready to go. In the even that we mis-calculate and our fusion rockets are not on line, we may be forced to use fission rocket for a while until we can finish developing our fusion. Obviously, our fusion rockets will be our first choice if we have them on line for Mars Mission.
7. Now we need our reusable Mars shuttle to finish this package off and make it happen.
8. Any new technologies or upgrade or other hardware that needs to be added and we ready to go.

Well, what do you think of it?

Larry,

RobS · 2004-09-28 00:32:56

I take a different approach than GCNRevenger in that I would favor establishing a "mini-McMurdo" before the big base GCNR speaks of. A "mini-McMurdo" would be possible once substantial intra-planetary mobility (across Mars) becomes possible. This needs the following elements:

1. Reliable long-distance surface vehicles. The first Mars mission won't have this, but what it has will be the first test vehicles that will teach us about cold tolerance, dust problems, maintenance, etc. A mini-McMurdo would need a small fleet of vehicles that could go out together for several months at a time. Some vehicles might have bulldozer blades to clear a surface track to make the movement of the others faster and easier. Most likely a mobile nuke will be needed as well. The Zubrin 3.5 tonne nuke able to make 100 kw could power a small expedition, especially if a Stirling cycle engine raised the power output to 300 or 400 kw electrical. One might need a robotic vehicle to transfer methane and oxygen without people getting close to the reactor, or the reactor would need a radiation shield on one side. The expedition would also need several types of vehicles; a truck-like vehicle to do heavy trail blazing and towing; a "recreational vehicle" type to house crew. A long expedition would need at least two of each type, with a third as a spare at home base.

I could see ten years of experience and ten billion dollars being enough to develop these vehicles. Perhaps we are talking about forty to fifty tonnes of such vehicles, also; say, three heavy (four-tonne) trucks and three eight-tonne recreational vehicles or "mobile habs." Add two mobile five-tonne nukes and five tonnes of miscellaneous stuff: all-terrain vehicles, science equipment--and we have a 51-tonne exploration system. The mobile habs probably would be inflatable and would have to have collapsable chassis that after landing would be extended to full length and bolted together.

That's the mass equivalent of two Mars Direct habs. A mini-McMurdo could start out as three Mars-Direct Habs and nukes landed near each other, thus able to house twelve max and eight in an emergency with an entire hab as a redundancy, plus this exploration system, which could also be flown out gradually over three oppositions in a single additional cargo launch. Most likely the Habs would also need a second-generation life support system based on the experience of the early habs, or possibly early habs could be upgraded with new equipment, since the shells would still be fine. The first landing at the mini-McMurdo would test out the vehicles on the first cargo lander and travel up to a thousand kilometers away; the second would have two of everything and would make a longer trip to an interesting area; the third would begin a major expedition of perhaps 10,000 kilometers round trip.

2. The other thing a long-distance mobility system needs is air transportation of cargo and possibly of replacement crew. This could be accomplished by blimps or solar-powered aircraft. The Helios solar-powered flying wing was able to fly on Earth at Martian air pressures using only part of its solar power. It was able to fly up to 65 meters per second (230 km/hr). Its total mass was 700 kg and it was able to lift 300 kg of payload (though if a fuel cell system had been added, the mass would have been more like 850 kg and 150 kg payload). Such a vehicle could be used to fly out 150-kg blocks of ice or frozen food to an expedition; it could drop them rather than land, or the crew could use their bulldozer blade to clear a landing strip. A larger second-generation air vehicle could fly one or two replacement crew at a time and allow crew rotation by air and rescue capability of injured crewmembers (or fly-in of a physician).

A solar-powered flying wing would take a long time to fly half way around Mars; about 48 hours. Ultimately, a better choice would be a network of four or five oases with fuel-making capability (possibly the original landing sites) with occasional rocket shuttle service between them, and surface or air transportation from them to the expeditions. Or, if a solid-core nuclear engine using liquid carbon dioxide is ever developed, it would allow very rapid exploration of the entire planet from one point. But I doubt such a vehicle will come along quickly.

From the mini-McMurdo one would eventually expand to a real McMurdo. A hab could transport six or eight crew if the lower deck was clear of cargo and a cargo flight were added. If some crew stayed two oppositions, a base of twelve to sixteen would be possible. At that point a reusable Mars Ascent Vehicle (only six reuses, perhaps, at first) and an interplanetary transit hab would replace the hab/ERV system. A reusable MAV could go up, pick up cargo uncrewed, and land it, which would increase the cargo lifted to Mars on each flight by about fifty percent. But the base power output would have to be two or three times greater than Mars Direct (300 kw, rather than 100 kw) and the ISRU would also need to be about three times bigger. If one had two MAVs and each had to make three trips to orbit to get cargo at twenty tonnes per flight, the MAV would be about the same mass as the ERV and would need to be refueled once every six months.

I am not sure one needs more than chemical engines either, GCNRevenger. A solid-core nuke would help, but so would solar-thermal or solar-ion for cargo. Six month flights for crew are not dangerous.

-- RobS

RobertDyck · 2004-09-28 01:50:17

Mars is just little too far away for us to be able to make serious effort to colonize Mars for right now. We can see it and we can send unmanned probes to it. It might even be possible to send humans to Mars, but, what we send those people to Mars in, will be like sending row boat across the Pacific Ocean between China the U.S. It can be done, but there will tend to be a high death rate

I'm afraid I have to object to that. We can go to Mars, and we can to it reliably. We don't absolutely need nuclear propulsion, but there are certain technologies that can be developed quickly. Solid core NTR can be developed very quickly; it was space test ready in 1972. Gas core NTR could be developed, and an advanced form of VASIMR could be developed that uses a nuclear reactor optimized for high speed neutrons, not epithermal neutrons, and moderates those high speed neutrons to directly generate the radio waves needed for VASIMR. This avoids the thermal to electricity conversion, then electricity to EM emitters. That is a new technology, but certainly possible in 20 years. Like I said, lets get our ass moving now, construct the Mars base with resource harvesting and manufacturing capability, then we should have advanced propulsion ready at the same time as the base is ready to start receiving large numbers of settlers.

As for the Moon; as I've said many times, it's a good location for interferometry and radio telescopes; it's a good source of aluminum, titanium, and oxygen, but not much else. It doesn't have water, carbon, or nitrogen for growing food. It doesn't have sufficient hydrogen or carbon for fuel. I asked Dr. Zubrin at this year's Mars Society conference about John Wickman's Lunar Soil Propellant. Dr. Zubrin literally laughed in my face at the idea of monopropellant for a manned spacecraft.

Death rate?! That's just sensationalism. Flying the Space Shuttle is no more dangerous than training fighter jet pilots. Do you know how many pilots are killed in training each year? But more importantly, Mars is not more dangerous than the Moon. That's just propaganda. A safe development plan would start with testing a recycling life support system on ISS. Validate it in space before going anywhere. Yes, a single mission to the Moon could be justified to prove equipment for a Mars mission; but a Lunar base cannot be justified. The Moon doesn't have any resources with which to resupply the life support system. You need hydrochloric acid and water to extract aluminum and oxygen from lunar soil. Mars has plenty of water and salt, the Moon doesn't. An emergency plan to extract life support supplies from lunar resources cannot count on tight recycling of water and salt; if recycling was that tight you wouldn't need lunar resources. So lunar oxygen must rely on imported water and salt. For a long term base, Mars is a lot safer than the Moon.

Mars is not too far away. Like the T-shirt says "Object is Closer than it Appears."

SpaceNut · 2004-09-28 06:49:45

It will take me a while to read though all of the comments by RobertDyck, RobS, and Martian Republic for you have written some very complete analysis of the issues.

On the row boat analogy to cross the Pacific if multiple row boats are tethered together not only do they strengthen each other but they also make the larger vesel that is required. Add a few more planks and lashing to allow for greater flexibility plus more supplies for safety.

That is why I guess that I am in favor of linking multiple ships together in LEO as the means to go to Mars, rather than sending each seperately. Each ship in the cluster can still be a dedicated purpose vehicle but launch from orbit to the destination together.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-28 09:48:19

Martian Republic you note that there is a need for a lunar shuttle and more from Earth orbit.

I started this topic: Earth Re-entry, Moon or Mars Lander and
return vehicle. One do all, part of CEV?

In hopes of thoughts for and by others on a more universal design. That would be capable of all landings or launch requirements from the moon to lunar orbit and Earth re-entry as well as for future Mars use that would be reusable.

GCNRevenger · 2004-09-28 09:58:21

You don't really need any new propulsion systems or RLV launchers. All you need is funding... lots of funding. New propulsion systems might lower the cost of colonization a bit, but they are not absolutely essential to the colonization effort.

RLVs and Propulsion for Colonization:

I disagree, we must have superior technology to make a colony affordable... I don't think that it is possible to sortie enough flights with expendable rockets for real colonization, I don't think you can fly them fast enough without breaking the bank by parallel operations, so a true RLV is a must.

We also really must have somthing better then chemical or solid NTR rockets too, it isn't the travel time thats the problem, its the huge mass of rocket fuel required for many many flights to Mars and back for reuseable orbit-to-orbit ships cannot be sustained, we absolutely have to have somthing better. Ion engines or maybe even the rickity & untried solar thermal are fine for cargo you can afford to wait on, but regular flights for crew and time-sensitive materials must absolutely use less rocket fuel, period... Sending up an HLLV or two every week with TMI/TEI fuel to push one colony ship is not going to happen.

As for building a flotilla of throw-away MarsDirect hardware for colonization & transport, thats pretty silly, like trying to build the ISS with a Delta-II. Not to mention vastly multiplies the probability of failure, nor can that flight rate be reasonably achieved.

Martian Mini-McMurdro/McMurdro Station:

This is the right kind of idea for an initial base, but I don't think that you can achieve the kind of mobility you need with current or near-term technology. A 10,000km trip with rovers isn't happening in one Opposition crew rotation, nor do I think it practical to rely on the hardware for that long so far from base.

A Helios-style flying wing would have to have a really, really long landing strip, which would have to be harder then regolith, and I don't think that such a plane can carry enough cargo to be worthwhile either, nor will it be all that useful anyway. The only practical means of long-distance travel on Mars in the near future is a reuseable MAV rocket, there really aren't many other options... Blimps? Doubtful.

But the better question is, why build the base at all? If we are going to have to wait on the MAV, so we'll have to wait on the water drilling rig, and the heavy-duty ISRU plant, and the heavy-duty reactor to power it... well, we could have just sent multiple temporary missions Mars-wide to explore instead, and be inspiring people and making scientists giddy years earlier for similar or less money... and they will ask, why didn't you do this instead?

Getting There:

Yes, yes yes yes we can absolutely send humans to Mars to explore without next-generation spaceflight technology or waiting for generation(s) for the economy to catch up. We can even set up a decent sized base with what we have today. Chemical engines, Ion engines, and maybe a "Timberwind-II" would do just fine for this purpose... But colonization, that, that is a different matter: the scale of such a huge endeavour is so big, that superior technology to decrease the magnetude of the investment is a definatly a pre-requisit.

Lunar Reasources:
"So lunar oxygen must rely on imported water and salt."

Ummm no it doesn't. There are other ways to crack Aluminum Oxide into Aluminum metal and Oxygen gas besides throwing Hydrochloric at it.

Euler · 2004-09-28 11:14:05

I disagree, we must have superior technology to make a colony affordable... I don't think that it is possible to sortie enough flights with expendable rockets for real colonization, I don't think you can fly them fast enough without breaking the bank by parallel operations, so a true RLV is a must.

It depends on what you consider to be affordable. If we continue to spend the same amount on space travel that we have been spending, then it is not affordable. However, the economy is certainly large enough to support such an endeavor. If this becomes important to people, then it can be done.

As for building a flotilla of throw-away MarsDirect hardware for colonization & transport, thats pretty silly, like trying to build the ISS with a Delta-II. Not to mention vastly multiplies the probability of failure, nor can that flight rate be reasonably achieved.

Yes, but if it looks feasible using a very inefficient architecture, then it should certainly be feasible using a more efficient architecture. I was mainly using Mars Direct missions to get an upper bound on the cost that can be expected, and to show that it can be done without breaking the bank if enough people really want to do it.

Yes, yes yes yes we can absolutely send humans to Mars to explore without next-generation spaceflight technology or waiting for generation(s) for the economy to catch up. We can even set up a decent sized base with what we have today. Chemical engines, Ion engines, and maybe a "Timberwind-II" would do just fine for this purpose... But colonization, that, that is a different matter: the scale of such a huge endeavour is so big, that superior technology to decrease the magnetude of the investment is a definatly a pre-requisit.

Improvement in technology is certainly helpful, but I think that it will become affordable more as a result of increasing the funds that we can spend on it than by decreasing the cost of the mission.

Martian Republic · 2004-09-28 12:08:09

RobertDyck,

Even in a crash mode development phase by the U.S. Government where they pull out the stops and price is no issue, it would still take ten years to do what your talking about doing. Even some of the stuff you talk about developing like for a propulsion system even you thing it might take twenty years to develop it. Even after develop the technics of technology that you want to use, it will still take two to three years to a space pad near you. You still have to design & engineer it, layout the specification how it what ever you intend to build and start making blue prints. This will take anywhere from six month to one year to do this. You have several teams that have to collaborate with each other and making sure that nobody has made any mistakes. Because they have to drawing, blue prints and specification that the Manufacturing department have to have to make those part. Once you know what you want, you can't just punch a magic button and get what you want. Your lining supplier for buying your rough casting, designing and building fixture, designing and/or buying special tool to run the job so you can build the equipment that you want to have. lining up machines that machine all those individual parts. If we don't have the machines, we will have buy those specialty machine if they exist and if they don't exist. We will have to go through a whole new design phase to build, which will cause more delays. Then we have to have sub-contractors and suppliers for one thing or another that we need to build what ever building and they will have to do some design work. Now we have to assemble it all and see if it fits together and make minor modification on our final product. This process will take at least a year and a half and maybe even two and half year to trouble shoot and complete. Now we are ready to test it and see works or see if we have to rework our design and try it again. Just this process alone will force into a second ten year period of when we are going to be something on Mars and we have no control it either. Now every new thing that we have to build or invent for our mission has to go through this same process, because we have to know it going and know what it limitation are.

Like the electricity conversion as stated below.

>This avoids the thermal to electricity conversion, then electricity to EM emitters. That is a new technology, but certainly possible in 20 years. <

Being able to get to Mars is only part of the problem. Going to Mars is not going to be like a bus trip or air plane ride. When we get there there is no living quarter or life support system to sustain our colonist. Even if you could build the system on Mars for the living quarter. Then you would have to be able to maintain it or you would have the same problem that the ISS is having with there air supply. But with one big difference, the people on the ISS can abandon the ISS and come back to Earth. The people on Mars stuck and would have to wait for a replacement part from Earth that might take six months to a year to get there. By that time they could be a long time dead waiting for that part. That why the Moon is safer, your only three days away from the Earth if you have an emergency like that. The Apollo 13 Mission comes to mind. They had a triple failure, which was not suppose to happen and they were three or four days away from Earth. They were able to conserve enough and were able to use the Lunar limb to supply what they needed until they could get back to Earth and safety. You don't have that kind of safety valve on Mars for your colonist, they can not retreat to the earth in two or three day in an emergency if the need arises.

But, even considering that, your talking about doing something that we can't do right here on Earth. Let me give you an example:

Let say the U.S. Government is going to build a City of one million people out in the West in a place where there are no road for maybe 50 to 100 away. We are going to build a modern city with subway system, levitated rails with levitated super trains. We talking about building house, water & sewer system, road, air ports, etc. Keep in mind it generally take about 4 to 6 years just build an air port like O'hear or D/FW and that with the construction crews and contractors waiting for contract and setting just down the street waiting to go. But, it would take the U.S. Government 20 years to build that city and build the transportation into and out of our new city. Then they would issue call to builder across the entire United States to round equipment and manpower to build that city. One of the first things you would do is put in the rail road and the roads system to we could get to the place we are building city so they could get down business of building that city. We can be confident that there not going to be showing up with old fashion type Wagon trains of a hundred and fifty years, because they don't need bridges across rivers to get our new city sight. Although they can get to the sight first, they also don't have the capability to build our modern city either. Showing up with people who have sledge hammer, hand saw, wash basin with horse drawn labor to do the job, is not going to get the job done that we want done. We may be able to get to Mars, but we won't be able to much of anything else because, we can’t to mars in large number and nor do we have the equipment in right now or can we get it to Mars if we had the equipment on Earth. As far as build our City on Mars or a major colony on Mars, we are not going to be doing it with the wagon train that we going to be sending. It going to take twenty years to develop and build the equipment that we have to have in place before we even consider building a major settlement on Mars.

Larry,

SpaceNut · 2004-10-01 06:19:22

Any Mars mission will need better information with regards to location on the surface once there. Why not use GPS?

Astronomy prof: NASA must adjust positioning system for Mars’ quirks
http://www.bu.edu/bridge/archive/2004/10-01/mars.html

SpaceNut · 2004-10-06 07:19:28

For any and all of the plans for moon or of mars they all boil back down to a small group of variables that defines the ship or ships that we will use to do each.

1 crew size
2 Habitat
3 duration
4 consumables
5 reusuability or expendable
6 cargo or equipment to do mission
7 where are we going
8 transfer points to change or assemble vehicles ( earth to LEO, LEO to lunar orbit, Lunar orbit to lunar surface)

Unfortunately the numbers are linked together some more tightly than others. Man can not survive if he does not have food, water, oxygen, fuel, and power sources.

SpaceNut · 2017-05-06 21:28:20

Bump finally finished getting to the first page of artifacts and shifting....

SpaceNut · 2017-05-22 20:01:26

bumping topic so as to find it as I am in the process of cleaning it up

SpaceNut · 2020-06-28 18:11:34

bump page 2 is shifting...

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2004-09-27 11:20:10

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

#102 2004-09-27 11:38:30

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

#103 2004-09-27 12:46:25

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

#104 2004-09-27 14:54:04

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

#105 2004-09-27 15:12:23

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

#106 2004-09-27 17:00:50

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

#107 2004-09-27 17:24:40

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

#108 2004-09-27 17:57:29

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

#109 2004-09-27 18:15:11

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

#110 2004-09-27 19:32:27

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

#111 2004-09-27 20:24:59

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

#112 2004-09-27 22:05:22

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

#113 2004-09-27 23:34:41

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

#114 2004-09-28 00:32:56

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

#115 2004-09-28 01:50:17

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

#116 2004-09-28 06:49:45

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

#117 2004-09-28 09:48:19

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

#118 2004-09-28 09:58:21

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

#119 2004-09-28 11:14:05

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

#120 2004-09-28 12:08:09

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

#121 2004-10-01 06:19:22

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

#122 2004-10-06 07:19:28

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

#123 2017-05-06 21:28:20

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

#124 2017-05-22 20:01:26

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

#125 2020-06-28 18:11:34

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

Board footer