Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

Dayton3 · 2005-01-02 10:02:49

I don't believe a lunar return is necessary for a manned Mars mission.

But in order to test some key items of Mars Direct or Semi-Direct, such as the long term life suport capabilities of the Hab module I think it might be worthwhile to use Mars Direct (Semi-Direct) Hardware to send four astronauts to the lunar surface for at least a six month stay.

Besides, four astronauts staying six months on the moon could accomplish more than all the Apollo missions combined.

Martian Republic · 2005-01-02 11:33:43

I have always held the view that the Moon would be a great bread board for testing new equipment that we intend to use Mars. Not only would you be testing out the habitats, but rovers, mining equipment, space farming techniques, manufacturing techniques, re-useable space craft, nuclear powered rockets, power plants, etc. We could also be on the Moon in a three to four year in a National mission type goal too that would revitalize the U.S. Space Industries and NASA too. I would probably be the biggest thing to get things moving again since the John F. Kennedy National Moon Mission goals.

Larry,

MarsDog · 2005-01-02 13:17:43

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lu … tml]Apollo really happened.. More than 30 years ago.

Seems like a good idea to go for a test drive around the neighborhood. Technology has progressed considerably. The increased confidence and interest generated by Men on Moon is just what the more difficult and dangerous Mars base needs.

The increase in public support and interst might get US to Mars quicker than Direct to Mars; Especially if it develops into a race with China, Russia, Japan, etc ....

Direct to Mars, and other nations would just give up the race. MoonBase first would signal the start of the race, and allow others to compete. Every ballistic missile capable nation could redirect their aim.

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-02 13:25:58

The increase in public support and interst might get US to Mars quicker than Direct to Mars; Especially if it develops into a race with China, Russia, Japan, etc

I doubt that, since the hardware needed is so different. A sucessful Lunar program will instill confidance in NASA's abilities and make it more likly we will get to Mars, but the Moon is definatly a side trip.

Dayton3 · 2005-01-02 13:42:41

I assume that you could use the basic Mars Semi-Direct Hab and a fully fueled version of the Mars Ascent Vehicle to bring the crew home.

I figure you could attain 80% similiarity with the Mars vehicles.

Although we don't need a trip to the moon as part of a Mars program, I think that the "side trip" to the moon is important so NASA can overcome a mental hurdle.

As someone once said IIRC "I can't see us going directly to Mars after not leaving Earth orbit for 40 years".

MarsDog · 2005-01-02 13:58:24

Although we don't need a trip to the moon as part of a Mars program, I think that the "side trip" to the moon is important so NASA can overcome a mental hurdle.

You got to test and get the bugs out. MoonBase is a good way.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/apl … Launch]The Air Force paid Boeing $140 million to conduct the test rather than risk the loss of an expensive military satellite on the inaugural launch.

Even the military tests to reduce costs.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/delta/]Boeing Delta

Martian Republic · 2005-01-02 14:29:54

I assume that you could use the basic Mars Semi-Direct Hab and a fully fueled version of the Mars Ascent Vehicle to bring the crew home.
I figure you could attain 80% similiarity with the Mars vehicles.
Although we don't need a trip to the moon as part of a Mars program, I think that the "side trip" to the moon is important so NASA can overcome a mental hurdle.
As someone once said IIRC "I can't see us going directly to Mars after not leaving Earth orbit for 40 years".

Going back to the moon does more than that. It get the momentum going for both building new space ship for our space effort, along with a need to build that infrastructure that need to be in place so we can go on to Mars after going to the moon and developing new technologies too, that will make any Mars effort a more likely viable possibility. Even putting just a small number of people on the Moon will force us to develop new next generation technologies so that we will have the staying power to stay on the moon. We will have to setup assembly points both on the Moon and in either lunar or earth orbits which once setup for our moon mission can be used for our Mars mission too with some minor upgrades being made to that infrastructure. It would also bring up the issue of developing both fission and/or fusion power and space drive engines along with other technologies with a laboratory to work in on the Moon to develop those ideas.

So if we build much of anything on the moon, Mars won’t be far behind. You guy’s will see that. But, the technology will be in our hands and we will have either fission and/or fusion technology rockets. It would be allocating a few of those rockets along with anything that coming from the Earth.

Larry,

SpaceNut · 2005-01-03 06:00:26

Yes Dayton3: there is a need to do a dry run using the moon as if it were Mars. Designing the hardware as if it were going to mars, staying the long duration in flight in 0g, getting the radiation exposure issue resolved, designing long duration power sources, and so much more. That is just why I started The need for a Moon direct, and sustainability program so many months ago. For IMO felt that any Mars program would get little or no support in congress due to the large long term cost and the minimal returns. Besides a few rocks, flags and foot prints which would not be what any of us here on new mars would want.
Plus if all goes well with all the dry run hardware and stuff on the moon we could be rather than saying we can go to mars for flag and foot prints we could instead be say we are going to stay. The moon missions could be a very good momentum builder for mars in the long run. But all space hardware and intent must be geared not at just the moon capabilities but rather for Mars use from the start.

LtlPhysics · 2005-01-03 10:26:47

Creating a viable self-sufficient habitat has yet to be accomplished here on Earth. I don't recall the name of that experimental biosphere from 10 to 20 years ago. Even with occasional rescue missions it was ultimately abandoned and its contents lost to cockroaches. Someone here probably knows a great deal more about it.

And that long ago experiment had a large amount of mass to it; tons of water for a pond or lake, state of the art farming facilities and several humans to shelter, feed, and cleanup after. If we can't pull off a dry run here, on the planet, any Moon mission with a permanent population will be tethered to Earth for quite some time to come.

Martian Republic · 2005-01-03 11:21:22

Creating a viable self-sufficient habitat has yet to be accomplished here on Earth. I don't recall the name of that experimental biosphere from 10 to 20 years ago. Even with occasional rescue missions it was ultimately abandoned and its contents lost to cockroaches. Someone here probably knows a great deal more about it.
And that experiment had a large amount of mass to it; tons of water for a pond or lake, state of the art farming and several humans to shelter, feed, and recycle the waste. If we can't pull off a dry run here, on the planet, any Moon mission with a permanent population will be tethered to Earth for quite some time to come.

The habitat that you are referring to was in the state of Arizona and they were trying to do it through the natural process and trying to recycle everything or setup a biosphere configuration. It was about a two year experiment for about six people. They were trying to not to add anything to that complex and see how long it could servive. One of the problems was that they started losing there atmosphere or oxygen, because it was going into the concrete. You couldn't bring chemicals or additives in, because you had a closed system and the chemicals would build up and become toxic to the people that are in that habitat.

This biosphere had both successes and problems, but it also showed us things that need to be developed to make a biosphere a viable possibility too. One thing we know for sure is that we need to be able to resources to that complex like water and oxygen and assuming that there water/ice on the poles would help solve those problems. But, there are other thing that we could do to augment our biosphere with like scrubbers to clean the air. It kind of a through back to the kind of technology that we are using on the ISS, but it works for short periods of time. The moon would be a good place to test that technology, because our astronauts are only three or four days away from the earth and nothing serious enough could happen to our astronauts short of the habitat blowing up that could cause death or any other serious problem for us. We may choose to use that Arizona Biosphere too and/or use the Moon as one of the first off-world test sight for biosphere along with possible orbital biosphere too. It would be a real good baby step for us to make, before trying to dispatch people to Mars for two or three years.

It is by making these type of decision that we develop new technology and learn how to do thing that we have never done before. It is the deliberate decision to put a habitat on the moon that will cause us to have to develop a solution to the problems that you are referring to. We will be using the Moon as a laboratory for both putting a future long term colony on the Moon and also on Mars. The Moon is close enough that we can do that with some degree of safety and Mars is not.

Larry,

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-03 12:19:12

Yeah Biosphere-II it was called I think, a grandiose pyramid of glass, metal, and concrete... it was NOT primarily intended as an experiment in human sustainability, but rather as an enclosed model of how to make your own mini-Earth in a jar.

I am fairly confidant that we can build a habitat that is "almost closed" and needs little outside supplies to sustain a population indefinatly. However, only Mars has the potential to sustain a population with no bulk supplies at all, because only Mars has a ready albeit limited supply of Nitrogen and Carbon. Oxygen is available on the Moon, and perhaps Hydrogen at the polar caps, but it definatly lacks Carbon and Nitrogen, which will always have to be imported. A Mars base that takes advantage of all the elements available, C/O/N in the air and H in the would be easier to make into a colony with only the occasional load of trace elements and complex finished goods imported. As the population grows, the demand for H and N will increase, which might limit the size of (or at least increase expense) of a Lunar colony. Mars has enough atmosphere for limited radiation and micrometeor protection too, and no annoying two-week day/night cycle for easier plant growth and solar power.

That said, the Moon is more likly to be an economically valuble destination before Mars is though, unless asteroid mining can prove to be relativly simple. A Lunar base, though not a colony until a very inexpensive method of H/N importation is available anyway, might be in order.

LtlPhysics · 2005-01-03 12:35:50

It is by making these type of decision that we develop new technology and learn how to do thing that we have never done before. It is the deliberate decision to put a habitat on the moon that will cause us to have to develop a solution to the problems that you are referring to. We will be using the Moon as a laboratory for both putting a future long term colony on the Moon and also on Mars. The Moon is close enough that we can do that with some degree of safety and Mars is not.

And the Earth is even closer than the Moon.

My point is that lunar dry runs can be attempted here, on Earth, first.

MarsDog · 2005-01-03 12:36:48

But, there are other thing that we could do to augment our biosphere with like scrubbers to clean the air.

The water systems are crucial. Sewage treatment septic tanks, feeding small scale versions of the ocean and fresh water fish ponds. Water plants are efficient in removing undesirable chemicals, and populations of chemical sensitive fishes would give indication of water quality (add a few canaries to monitor the air). It takes skill to keep a fish tank going, and the water recycling specialist will be a crucially important member of the team.

We are on the verge of a http://www.thespacereview.com/article/146/2]spacefaring civilization. More people involved, the quicker permanent occupation of Mars. That is why the Moon Base is likely to preceede.

SpaceNut · 2005-01-03 13:42:58

Right now all the biosphere strategies employ the crew contained within one to put in large amounts of time keeping it going. The larger the population contained within one the more work that must be done to keep it safe to stay within.

Things must operate with no human intervention, energy source must be freely abundent or we will be in the same boat as we are with the ISS but only on the moon.

RobertDyck · 2005-01-03 14:02:05

Yeah Biosphere-II it was called I think, a grandiose pyramid of glass, metal, and concrete... it was NOT primarily intended as an experiment in human sustainability, but rather as an enclosed model of how to make your own mini-Earth in a jar.

Actually, Biosphere 2 was advertised as an experiment to develop technology for a human base on Mars. It was supposed to be a simulation of a Mars base; that's why they chose to close it for 2 years, the projected duration of a Mars mission. There are various things that don't match an actual Mars mission, but that was their stated intent. I treat the experiment as a success. If you don't learn anything then there was no point to the experiment. We did learn several things from Biosphere 2, and it did successfully maintain the "bionauts" for 1 year. They found trees require wind to stimulate branch strength sufficient to hold itself up, soil microbes consume more oxygen than predicted, farming took more personel time than predicted, and their repeated bean crop failure demonstrated the need for biodiversity. Their beans had a plant disease, they even wiped out the entire bean crop and planted a new one, but the new crops got the same disease when the beans matured.

Martian Republic · 2005-01-03 14:34:08

It is by making these type of decision that we develop new technology and learn how to do thing that we have never done before. It is the deliberate decision to put a habitat on the moon that will cause us to have to develop a solution to the problems that you are referring to. We will be using the Moon as a laboratory for both putting a future long term colony on the Moon and also on Mars. The Moon is close enough that we can do that with some degree of safety and Mars is not.
And the Earth is even closer than the Moon.
My point is that lunar dry runs can be attempted here, on Earth, first.

At some point we have to decide to either build in space or just build model’s of habitat's on Earth of what our future habitat are going to look in space. We can always add something new to our habitat and so we might decide to wait until next year or we are going to be having some newly developed technology in two years so we will wait for that new technology. If we take that attitude we will never do much of anything in space.

That why I take a forty or fifty year plan for space development plan as my ultimate plan. I don't see any thing that we build or could build as ultimate end to anything to do space right now, but as a piece of hardware to be used to promote our ultimate goal of developing a space based economy. I see the current shuttle, second generation shuttle, third generation shuttle, the habitat's, fission powered rocket, fusion powered rockets as future museum pieces that we built for today or tomorrow as an intermediate piece until we can bring on the next latest greatest piece to replace it and advance our goal of a space based economy. We will do this by going out there and not by staying on the earth building modules. Doing this has a side benefit in that you will expand the U.S. Economy and generally improving life on earth too and that why we should do it.

Larry,

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-03 14:36:13

I don't think so Robert, all the trouble they went through to make the "fake sea" and "fake desert" and such doesn't make any sense at all in the context of human life support. The "Mars base simulator" is nothing more then the often-broke biologists' excuse to sell the project for space program sized money.

No thought to crop automation or using non-biological recycling for the most part at all... No GMO plants either I bet.

Martian Republic · 2005-01-03 14:58:56

Right now all the biosphere strategies employ the crew contained within one to put in large amounts of time keeping it going. The larger the population contained within one the more work that must be done to keep it safe to stay within.
Things must operate with no human intervention, energy source must be freely abundent or we will be in the same boat as we are with the ISS but only on the moon.

A biosphere is always going to be labor intensive, but if we intend to live on Mars we need to be able to to build and maintain them. Ultimatly that only way to do it, is to make them big enough and with a suffiiently large enough population that we can commite enough people to the project of maintaining biosphere for the rest of the Martian population. Here in lies the problem, were going to have a problem building and maintaining a small biosphere on Mars with a small number of people running it, because we are having that problem here on earth too. It a problem were going to have to deal with if we intend to colonize Mars.

Larry,

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-03 15:02:58

No thought to crop automation or using non-biological recycling for the most part at all... No GMO plants either I bet.

Quite right, because Biosphere 2 was to a large degree motivated by ideology rather than science, canned food or mechanical means of recycling the air would have been heresy! Not a good way to go about matters.

Drop the requirement for a completely closed, self-sustaining system and things get much more realistic. Hell, a closed system complex enough to sustain multiple humans yet small enough for spaceflight may not even be possible. It certainly isn't wise to have your only means of scrubbing the air even more likely to die than the crew at the first signs of imbalance.

BWhite · 2005-01-03 16:03:01

No thought to crop automation or using non-biological recycling for the most part at all... No GMO plants either I bet.
Quite right, because Biosphere 2 was to a large degree motivated by ideology rather than science, canned food or mechanical means of recycling the air would have been heresy! Not a good way to go about matters.
Drop the requirement for a completely closed, self-sustaining system and things get much more realistic. Hell, a closed system complex enough to sustain multiple humans yet small enough for spaceflight may not even be possible. It certainly isn't wise to have your only means of scrubbing the air even more likely to die than the crew at the first signs of imbalance.

Why do we want a closed loop? I want to assimiliate Mars inorganic resources and convert them to Terran long chain organic molecules. Rather like the Borg, actually. :;):

Dang selfish DNA. Down! Down boy! (Slaps self on wrist. . .)

Palomar · 2005-01-03 16:22:37

Although we don't need a trip to the moon as part of a Mars program

*That's right, we don't, so why bother?

I think that the "side trip" to the moon is important so NASA can overcome a mental hurdle.

*I completely disagree. There's no "mental hurdle" to be overcome. They just need to get on with it.

As someone once said IIRC "I can't see us going directly to Mars after not leaving Earth orbit for 40 years".

*So what? That's just another opinion. We left Earth orbit multiple times with Apollo. How much more practice do we need?

--Cindy

P.S.: We've having enough difficulty getting Congress to pony up the $ to pay for a Mars Direct type scenario. The chances they'll be willing to cough up even *more* $ for a "dry (practice) run" to Mars via the Moon? Nil.

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-03 16:23:55

A biosphere is always going to be labor intensive, but if we intend to live on Mars we need to be able to to build and maintain them. Ultimatly that only way to do it, is to make them big enough and with a suffiiently large enough population that we can commite enough people to the project of maintaining biosphere for the rest of the Martian population. Here in lies the problem, were going to have a problem building and maintaining a small biosphere on Mars with a small number of people running it, because we are having that problem here on earth too. It a problem were going to have to deal with if we intend to colonize Mars.

No, no it won't, it can't be labor intensive because otherwise its no good: if keeping alive takes up most of the available man hours, then there won't be much time available to expand or explore even if the base does grow. You are throwing people at the problem, but the problem is that they will take up reasources too, and you won't get anywhere.

LtlPhysics · 2005-01-03 16:33:29

At some point we have to decide to either build in space or just build model’s of habitat's on Earth of what our future habitat are going to look in space. We can always add something new to our habitat and so we might decide to wait until next year or we are going to be having some newly developed technology in two years so we will wait for that new technology. If we take that attitude we will never do much of anything in space.

That's not my attitude. I favor "going with what you've got" rather than waiting for the next best thing.

We certainly have plenty of time, courtesy of Bush's vision, to experiment with inflatable gardens and the like. Some chickens to provide eggs but forget the trees. This isn't "Little Biosphere on the Prairie."

The ability to sustain plant life is a serious issue and there is no reason to be unprepared for it.

Dook · 2005-01-03 18:04:15

Virtually every part of Mars Direct can be tested on the ground or has already been tested in space missions. We've been to the moon, we know how to do that already, and we can't test in-situ propellant production on the moon.

NASA does not need confidence. Very smart people work there, ones who tackle incredible challenges day after day. They simply need leadership.

Martian Republic · 2005-01-03 21:48:05

A biosphere is always going to be labor intensive, but if we intend to live on Mars we need to be able to to build and maintain them. Ultimatly that only way to do it, is to make them big enough and with a suffiiently large enough population that we can commite enough people to the project of maintaining biosphere for the rest of the Martian population. Here in lies the problem, were going to have a problem building and maintaining a small biosphere on Mars with a small number of people running it, because we are having that problem here on earth too. It a problem were going to have to deal with if we intend to colonize Mars.
No, no it won't, it can't be labor intensive because otherwise its no good: if keeping alive takes up most of the available man hours, then there won't be much time available to expand or explore even if the base does grow. You are throwing people at the problem, but the problem is that they will take up reasources too, and you won't get anywhere.

My primary point is, what ever we are going to be sending to Mars is going be hacked down system even with our best efforts, because of labor problem of trying to build it and maintain it. Even using the resources on Mars to help to solve the problem, we will still have a labor problem when it come to solving this problem.

I'm not just throwing more people at this problem either as you may be suggesting. When I'm saying were going to need more people for a major project like this, I'm not just adding more people either. I'm also thinking about the equipment that there going to be needing to accomplish this mission too and how it needs to be laid out also. Of course we will lay it out with the idea of it using the least amount of labor to maintain it, but it will take more labor than you think it will take even with robots, overhead cranes, etc.

Anything we send to Mars is going to be a striped down version of the Biosphere II model, because of this labor intensive problem of building and running that Biosphere. Matter of fact, the only place that we could build such a Biosphere today in space with the present technology at hand is on Moon, because it only three days away and we can resupply it from Earth until we get it up and running. It doesn't matter if we use Chemical or Fission powered rocket to get to Mars. The fact that it going to take two and a half years for a round trip to Mars and back to Earth for a manned mission to Mars is going to reduce anything that we can do on Mars to bare minimum research center with a heave reliance of resupplies from Earth. We send two of them to Mars so we can double the number of people on Mars so they can do more research. It will double the amount of resources we have to send to Mars so we can have twice as many people there. So any idea that this is going to grow into a city would be like the six people of the Biosphere growing that into a city. It not going to happen.

Now I have no problem going to Mars, but it going to be what we do on the moon that going to give us the mass we need to be able to do something more on Mars that just put down a small temporary research station.

Larry,

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-01-02 10:02:49

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#2 2005-01-02 11:33:43

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#3 2005-01-02 13:17:43

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#4 2005-01-02 13:25:58

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#5 2005-01-02 13:42:41

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#6 2005-01-02 13:58:24

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#7 2005-01-02 14:29:54

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#8 2005-01-03 06:00:26

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#9 2005-01-03 10:26:47

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#10 2005-01-03 11:21:22

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#11 2005-01-03 12:19:12

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#12 2005-01-03 12:35:50

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#13 2005-01-03 12:36:48

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#14 2005-01-03 13:42:58

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#15 2005-01-03 14:02:05

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#16 2005-01-03 14:34:08

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#17 2005-01-03 14:36:13

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#18 2005-01-03 14:58:56

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#19 2005-01-03 15:02:58

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#20 2005-01-03 16:03:01

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#21 2005-01-03 16:22:37

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#22 2005-01-03 16:23:55

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#23 2005-01-03 16:33:29

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#24 2005-01-03 18:04:15

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#25 2005-01-03 21:48:05

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

Board footer