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

Martian Republic · 2005-01-03 22:06:43

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.

There more to setting up a space habitat than just testing individual components. Although testing those components are nice and need to be done, the real test is pulling the whole thing together and in a real life experience isolate it and see how it function. For this test, the moon would be a real good place to test it. Our astronauts are only three days away from the Earth if they have to retreat from a failed experiment. Then we will need to twice it some more, before we send it on to Mars. Problems are going to arise like the Apollo thirteen which was totally unforeseen. Although if something were to happen on a Mars flight like this, that crew would probably be doomed even with these pre-cautions, but there no point in increase the odds of something like this happening.

Larry,

Commodore · 2005-01-03 22:35:52

Creating a semi-self-sufficient environment, at least in terms of food production, air quality, and water recycling should be tested first on earth, then in orbit.

Couple that with varitable gravity research, and nuclear power system testing, thats more than enough to justify a Space Station Beta.

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-03 22:45:43

"Anything we send to Mars is going to be a striped down version of the Biosphere II model"

Ummm, no. No we won't. The "Biosphere II model" isn't a piece of machinery at all, the whole project mainly revolved around using plants to recycle. A Mars base isn't going to do that, the vast majority of fluids and atmosphere will be recycled by machines and not by plants. We neither want nor need a Biosphere type facility, which was I remind you again, a biology experiment and not a space life support experiment. The excuse that it would be useful for LSS research is at best dubious and at worst an outright lie.

"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."

Huh? No it doesn't, 2.5 years isn't anything to sweat at all. Remember: its only 5-6 months to get there. Getting cargo to Mars isn't any harder then the Moon either, it just takes longer. Let me say that again so that you'll be sure to not gloss over it and keep blathering away: you can send about the same amount of payload to Mars as you can the Moon with the same sized rocket. How? Aerobraking at Mars saves quite a bit of fuel, but the Moon has no atmosphere so every m/s you need to decelerate must come from rocket fuel.

MartianRepublic, I think that the entire calculus of your thinking is pretty confused about these issues.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-01-03 23:24:32

Cindy:-

Quote
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?
Quote
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.
Quote
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.

I agree.

RobS · 2005-01-03 23:46:18

You can probably find information about Biosphere II on the web. It was a tourist attraction and may still be. I think it cost me $10 or $15 to tour it, about eight years ago.

Most of the interior--2.5 acres, I think--was experimental ecologies. There were five of them, I think: rainforest, sea, desert, mangrove swamp, and prairie. There was also an area for growing food crops for the "biospherians," about 200 square meters for each of them. The desert ecology was there because it breathed--took in CO2 and gave out oxygen---during the winter when the other ecologies were doing the opposite. The only problem was that too much humidity reached the desert ecology, condensation of the ceiling glass caused drips, and the desert got too much rainfall! It transitioned to a semiarid ecology instead.

It was a fascinating visit. We got tours of some of the greenhouses and got to walk around Biosphere 2 and look in. They also had a little miniecology, a glass cube about 25 feet/8 meters wide, long, and high, which had fed, recycled wastes, and provided breathing air for one person successfully. It was their little prototype before they built biosphere 2. In one corner was a small room the person had lived in--there were windows so you could look inside--and crops were grown on the roof so as to use every square inch of space.

-- RobS

Martian Republic · 2005-01-04 12:02:05

GCNRevenger, first you talk about growing plants as though it will be the savior of you Mars Vision so we won't have to rely on the Earth. Then in another thread you talk about how machines won't solve our problem.

Well, which way is it?

I choose to acknowledge that we are going to have a problem which ever way we go and we are going to have to compromise which ever way we go.

"Anything we send to Mars is going to be a striped down version of the Biosphere II model"

>>Ummm, no. No we won't. The "Biosphere II model" isn't a piece of machinery at all, the whole project mainly revolved around using plants to recycle. A Mars base isn't going to do that, the vast majority of fluids and atmosphere will be recycled by machines and not by plants. We neither want nor need a Biosphere type facility, which was I remind you again, a biology experiment and not a space life support experiment. The excuse that it would be useful for LSS research is at best dubious and at worst an outright lie.<<

You basically want to go to a dead system to generate the life supports for a living process. Up to a certain point we can do that, but at some point it causes problems if we leave this Bio-system out of this picture. There are just things that we can not generate in a dead system that our body need to live on. Like our bodies need Iron and you would say Mars has all kinds of Iron. But, it the wrong kind of Iron for our bodies to absorb. The kind of iron our bodies needs is iron that been processed through a plant to activate it so our bodies can use it. Plants have enzymes that are helpful for our digestion so we can receive the nutrients into our bodies and the list goes on. Also in many areas plants are the most efficient process to do something too, because they do it naturally and don't need human intervention to direct there activities to do something that we need to have done. One of the reasons that disease is on the rise down here on Earth is, because we are violating these principle and going with a dead system. We would also have to send vitamins to Mars make for the dead process that you intend to use on Mars. Now I want to know that I'm not one of these religious financial cult ecologist either, but they do have a point about living food vs dead food or a living process vs a dead process and we are going to have to address that if we intend to put a colony on Mars. We are not going to be able to solve all our problems by turning on some machine, that not going to happen.

Now to have machines do everything that a plant can do. Well that not possible, but even if we could machines would break down and we would have to have a whole hose of specialized machines to do even if we could do it. Actually what I see us doing is building a hybrid system of a biosphere/high technology system using machines. If we go to Mars in the next ten to twenty years, the Mars bio-system will be a bare minimum to what we should have, but we can work with it and the problems that it might cause us too. It will be basically a compromise so we can go to Mars in that time frame.

"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."

>>>Huh? No it doesn't, 2.5 years isn't anything to sweat at all. Remember: its only 5-6 months to get there. Getting cargo to Mars isn't any harder then the Moon either, it just takes longer. Let me say that again so that you'll be sure to not gloss over it and keep blathering away: you can send about the same amount of payload to Mars as you can the Moon with the same sized rocket. How? Aerobraking at Mars saves quite a bit of fuel, but the Moon has no atmosphere so every m/s you need to decelerate must come from rocket fuel.

MartianRepublic, I think that the entire calculus of your thinking is pretty confused about these issues.<<

The reason that I used that 2.5 years is that we have launch window that we have to use if we intend to send something to Mars or bring something or someone back from Mars. Now within that launch window, yes your right that it would only take 5-6 six month to get to Mars especially if we are using nuclear, with we should be doing instead of chemical which would have 6- 8 month trip. Now if we try to get to Mars any other time, well it would not be practical to do it. Now Moon has a launch window once a month if we use chemical rockets and if we use fission rockets, we could go to the moon almost anytime we want to. For no other reason than these launch window is why the moon has a definite advantage over Mars and it going to stay that way for the immediate future too. But, give us twenty to forty years of extensive development along with building infrastructure, then Mars will have a decided advantage because of it resources vs the Moon.

Larry,

MarsDog · 2005-01-04 12:30:01

Mars will have a decided advantage because of it resources vs the Moon

We don't know what is inside the http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/359840.stm]cold traps (places permanently shielded from the sun). There could be useful amounts of material from comets, such as water, ammonia, methane etc..

[i

SpaceNut · 2005-01-04 12:57:48

If memory recalls correctly the Lunar Prospector failed to prove the presence of ice.

Grypd · 2005-01-05 14:42:46

The Lunar prospector did detect the probable prescence of Hydrogen in the permanently dark areas of the lunar poles. Its last act was to kamikase one of the dark areas to see if we could detect the erupting water from the crash. This did not happen which proves - NOTHING.

Many basic reasons either way as to what happened. The prospector may simply have gone straight into a previous impact area, so no water there anyway. Or it may be that there is none. But the only way to find out for sure is a rover driving into these dark areas.

There is a lot to learn from the Moon and a lot to gain too but it needs a long term planned approach. And if we are going to be there anyway it makes sense that we practice what will give us a better chance of a permanent habitation of Mars and or Space.

There are many similarities in things that are needed to get either the Moon, Mars or the Asteroids done. These will all have to be worked out and an advancement in one will benefit all. A starter is a rocket that can actually put enough mass in space to allow us to make a start.

Austin Stanley · 2005-01-08 01:23:00

While I agree that that you do not HAVE to go to the moon to go to mars, I am starting to think that there very may well be some good reasons to go back to the moon first. I think the concept of a Lunar "Dry Run" or "Shakedown." May very well have some value to it. This was very much the approach during the Apollo/Gemini mission. Testing all mission critical systems in every possible way before actualy using them. The tested docking, spacewalks, lunar orbit and return, and virtual every other aspect of the mission before the ever attempted the landing.

Now for our Mars missions we have some advantages and disadvantages that the moon mission did not have. We have FAR less new equipment and techniques to develope. To go to the moon we learn/develope virtualy everything we now know about space travel. For mars there is alot less to learn/develop. The disadvantage is that these new things are all fairly difficult to test/develope safely. Mars is such a long ways away from Earth, any accident on the way there would spell disaster. If Apollo 13 had happened on the way to mars, the crew would all be dead.

Hence the value of using a new set of Moon missions to test, shakedown, burn-in whatever you you want to call it, the new systems before using them on the real deal. I'm especially concurned about the LSS systems. These are of critical importance, and yet we have never built such a system that has to exists in such harsh conditions for such long periods without resupply. And such a system would be difficult to effectivly test on Earth. The moon however simulates most of the extream enviromental effects of space and is a safer location for an abort should that become necessary. The moon is also an okay location for testing such things as the new space-suits, rovers, reactors, and what not. If anything it overtests them as the pressure and thermal issues are more intense on the moon then on Mars.

I would also point out that there are still alot of things left to learn about the Moon. And taking the investigative techniques we are going to be using on Mars there will benifit not only our knowelge of the moon, but will perhaps refine and make these techniques more usefull on Mars. Exterrestrial geology is still an unknown field, and that of the moon may well hold some important secrets for Mars as well.

Also so much of the mission hardware can be the same, going to the moon as well as mars makes more economic sense. Since the cost of development remains roughly the same, using the same hardware on multiple targets is more efficent. You get more science for your development buck.

Lastly I would point out that this, more concervative approach, is much more appealing to politicians and the public alike. The thought of risking billions on a Mars mission scares them, and they are more comforted by spreading/lessining that risk by spreading it our over the moon and mars. In any case it what they are most likely to vote to pay for, so we might as well get used to it.

LtlPhysics · 2005-01-08 16:50:56

I don't understand you guys.

Hence the value of using a new set of Moon missions to test, shakedown, burn-in whatever you you want to call it, the new systems before using them on the real deal. I'm especially concurned about the LSS systems. These are of critical importance, and yet we have never built such a system that has to exists in such harsh conditions for such long periods without resupply. And such a system would be difficult to effectivly test on Earth.

How so? Earthlings can create hostile environments with remarkable ease. Take Gary Indiana, for example.

Were I to know that I would be responsible for growing peas and carrots for 6 people in 5 years, I would start my garden here, on Earth, in a lab where I could mimic the hazards of space and make adjustments in real time. NASA has been testing materials in LEO for years. Extreme environments are nothing new.

George Bush has bequeathed us plenty of time to zap it, freeze it, irradiate it, toss it, vacuum it, whatever. The notion of throwing everything to the Moon in dry runs is not viable, given the budget, and is not practical either. The construction of biopods begins here. Please pass the potatoes.

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-08 17:13:15

I agree. The Lunar environment is sufficently different from Mars that it isn't a good investment at all, and both Lunar and Martian environments are sufficently similar to what can be mimiced on Earth that it makes little sense to not test things here.

Low-pressure CO2 greenhouses? Easy.

See if plants are killed by solar flares? Proton accelerators are probobly cheaper.

Testing space suits? Easy, just don't make the testers wear the backpack, hook it up to hoses.

Testing ISRU equipment? blow some dust into the vacuum chaimber with the machine.

Testing rovers? Run them around a hanger with a crane that lifts up on them to partially negate gravity.

Testing HAB LSS systems and fuel tankage? What has gravity got to do with that?

Engines? Largely gravity-agnostic too.

The list goes on. Antarctica or Sibera or whatnot would work pretty well for psychological training too.

The only reason to go back to the Moon is to go back to the Moon.

BWhite · 2005-01-08 17:16:31

The only reason to go back to the Moon is to go back to the Moon.

Well said.

= = =

Just bought Dennis Wingo's book, Moonrush. He has two great slogans on Moon vs Mars. I will paraphrase now and correct later when I have time to google, copy & paste.

We go to Mars to spread our civilization there.

We go to the Moon to save our civilization here.

It would appear that Wingo's desire to "Return to the Moon" is directly related to his belief we can profitably mine platinum group metals.

Fair enough.

Even as a confirmed Mars-guy - -IF - - we can mine lunar PGM for a profit then by all means, return to Luna as soon as possible. But if it is profitable, we don't really need government funding, now do we?

Edited By BWhite on 1105226500

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-08 18:12:30

I think that the gulf between those two, going to the Moon for Earthly wealth and going to Mars for colonization, do exsist on a continuum. That said, both destinations are near the extremes of the measuring stick.

If we go to the Moon for Earthly wealth, it depends on if we need He3/Pt and/or if we can figure out a means of transmitting electricity over the quarter-million-mile gulf between here and there.

SpaceNut · 2005-01-08 20:10:53

Great quotes BWhite: I quite Agree with them.

We go to Mars to spread our civilization there.
We go to the Moon to save our civilization here.

As for the moon or earth being perfect places for Mars simulations IMO Neither are, nor can growing plants on either be perfect in regards to the gravity that they would feel if they are transplanted from Earth to an alien world or moon that Mars represents.

Commodore · 2005-01-08 20:21:38

Long term colonization of the solar system is depenant on the mining of heavy metals on the moon.

Why wait?

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-08 20:32:01

Long term colonization of the solar system is depenant on the mining of heavy metals on the moon.
Why wait?

Uh, no its not.

Even PGM mining on the Moon isn't a foregone conclusion with asteroid mining.

SpaceNut · 2005-01-08 20:39:14

If by mining you mean by returning the product to earth for use IMO we are mining for the wrong reasons. Mining should be to lower the amount of supplies and for creation of there own supply construction process. To make any colony support more colonist.

LtlPhysics · 2005-01-08 21:30:11

As for the moon or earth being perfect places for Mars simulations IMO Neither are, nor can growing plants on either be perfect in regards to the gravity that they would feel if they are transplanted from Earth to an alien world or moon that Mars represents.

SpaceNut, who's expecting perfection?

Data from the shuttle missions probably exists, free for the taking, that documents the growth of tomatoes or beans under various g-forces. It might easily have been a grade school experiment.

That said, it will probably be ten or more years before a resident of the Moon eats their first Moon grown tomato.

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-08 21:33:52

Gravity shouldn't be a huge concern with plants either, they will just grow taller. What about lower gravity could possible cause them trouble? Just give them more vertical growing space then they need on Earth.

John Creighton · 2005-01-08 22:01:45

Anything we learn about living in space be it data gathered from the earth, moon an asteroid or mars is a step forward. I favor going to Mars first but I favor any step closer to a space fairing species. Lets pressure all avenues and set roots in all lands.

LtlPhysics · 2005-01-08 22:35:04

Mars and the Moon both have some gravity so you don't have to worry about the plants escaping.

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-08 23:16:30

Yeah but its much less gravity.

Grypd · 2005-01-09 10:32:22

Gravity shouldn't be a huge concern with plants either, they will just grow taller. What about lower gravity could possible cause them trouble? Just give them more vertical growing space then they need on Earth.

And we already create grain etc that are smaller stalks and more grain. It really just means we take our time to ensure we take a few strains of a plant that would provide the most nutrients for the least growing time and with the expectation that we will probably find varieties most suited to the task.

This is really something we can start down here now under artificial conditions to see what can be done. And the reduced gravity of both Mars and the Moon means that one species that thrives well in one location will probably work well in the other.

Especially as we will have to provide artificial illumination on both the Moon and Mars. The Moon as it has a 14 day then night cycle. Mars as it so far away not enough light is likely available for plants to grow without some support.

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-09 20:16:39

I wonder if it is possible to engineer a plant that will go dormant or use stored chemicals for two solid weeks without light or much heat, and then grow and replenish these stocks in the extra-bright Lunar day and (some) of its heat...

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-01-03 22:06:43

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

#27 2005-01-03 22:35:52

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

#28 2005-01-03 22:45:43

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

#29 2005-01-03 23:24:32

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

#30 2005-01-03 23:46:18

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

#31 2005-01-04 12:02:05

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

#32 2005-01-04 12:30:01

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

#33 2005-01-04 12:57:48

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

#34 2005-01-05 14:42:46

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

#35 2005-01-08 01:23:00

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

#36 2005-01-08 16:50:56

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

#37 2005-01-08 17:13:15

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

#38 2005-01-08 17:16:31

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

#39 2005-01-08 18:12:30

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

#40 2005-01-08 20:10:53

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

#41 2005-01-08 20:21:38

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

#42 2005-01-08 20:32:01

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

#43 2005-01-08 20:39:14

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

#44 2005-01-08 21:30:11

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

#45 2005-01-08 21:33:52

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

#46 2005-01-08 22:01:45

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

#47 2005-01-08 22:35:04

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

#48 2005-01-08 23:16:30

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

#49 2005-01-09 10:32:22

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

#50 2005-01-09 20:16:39

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

Board footer