Semi-Direct still primary plan to send men to Mars - Is Semi-Direct plan still being used?

lzrdking · 2002-11-26 22:06:47

Hey all you Mars fanatics out there. I know everyone is itching to know when, how, and who in the plan to Mars. And I'm sure the majority of you have read Robert Zubrin's book The Case for Mars. If you haven't you have to read it. I highly recommend it. But anyways my question to anyone and everyone out there is is the Semi-Direct plan (discussed in The Case for Mars, that was abdopted by NASA as a variation of the Direct plan) still being used as the primary mission to send men to Mars? I would really appreciate if someone would answer this back. Thanks a lot and to everybody have a very righteous Thanksgiving and the best of Holidays. Peace and catch ya on the Mars side.

Fellow Mars Fanatic
Andy a.k.a. LzrdKing

mfrieden · 2002-11-27 01:07:17

Yes and no. Zubrin was refering to version three of the NASA Reference Mission, which you can read all about here.

It's been NASA's formal plan for manned exploration of mars for the last five years, but no one at NASA is actually working to make it happen. This is because NASA has yet to receive any funds in the budget for it, which is not likely to happen until a) the ISS is complete, b) the space shuttle is upgraded, and c) hell freezes over*.

Not much can be done about (a) and (b), but the Mars Society is working on (c ). But don't get too worried - if we make enough noise, and get the general population (a.k.a. voters) interested enough to make it a central issue, politicians will give in. They are, after all, working for us.

* I'm not kidding. Congress will kill anything related to humans-to-mars. They're still scared of the $450 billion price tag associated with the original 90-day report.

Oh, and have a happy thanksgiving too! (and an early, but sill merry Christmass/Kwanzaa/Hanukkah/Solstice/Newtonmass to the rest of the world! )

lzrdking · 2002-11-28 19:08:38

Hey thanks a lot for that information. It was extremely useful. But I have a follow up question. If I get into the position to explain the current plan for a manned mission to Mars, can I use the Semi-Direct plan and be confident that I'm giving the correct information? I'd really appreciate any feedback anyone can give me. Also if someone can tell me the side benefits of being a member of the Mars Society; other than the obvious, being part of history. Thanks again and Happy Thanksgiving.

Andy a.k.a Lzrdking

Shaun Barrett · 2002-11-29 01:44:37

Hi Andy!
I can't help you with your first question, regarding which plan is definitely the correct one to quote to interested parties.

But as for "the side benefits of being a member of the Mars Society", I think I can help you there.
If you are a fully paid-up Mars Society member, you have the proud satisfaction of knowing that your subscription is helping to advance the objectives of a great and glorious enterprise, unlike certain people, who shall remain nameless ... although Phobos and Josh Cryer might know of whom we speak!!!
In addition, there is the extra satisfaction of having risen above the thronging masses who are keen to make their views known to all and sundry, whilst being rather less keen to put their money where their mouths are!!

Nobody should infer from this that I would knowingly put pressure on certain individuals to join TMS. ... Perish the thought!
Nor is it my intent to imply that simple miserliness is an indication of a lack of commitment to the cause.

Hope I haven't wandered off topic too much!

Palomar · 2002-11-29 08:38:39

Also if someone can tell me the side benefits of being a member of the Mars Society; other than the obvious, being part of history. Thanks again and Happy Thanksgiving.
Andy a.k.a Lzrdking

*For me, it's the pleasure of knowing I am a card-carrying member of an organization whose goals, objectives, and ideals I've long identified with.

I think the greatest "side benefit" of being a Mars Society member is that you *don't* have to have the letters "PhD" behind your name, or be an engineer with NASA or scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, to be a member.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2002-11-29 08:43:18

Oh, and have a happy thanksgiving too! (and an early, but sill merry Christmass/Kwanzaa/Hanukkah/Solstice/Newtonmass to the rest of the world! )

*Thanksgiving was great! I outdid myself with the big meal I made...yum yum; I got rave reviews from my husband!

But my real reason for responding to your post is: What the heck is "Newtonmass"?

--Cindy

Nida · 2002-11-29 11:16:12

Shaun, Josh & Phobos might get mad at you. Hey your going to be 48 in June, huh? That's too old for me, but you are still sexy to me.

Phobos · 2002-11-29 22:46:27

Shaun, Josh & Phobos might get mad at you. Hey your going to be 48 in June, huh? That's too old for me, but you are still sexy to me.

Yeah, I think I'll sneak up on Shaun as he preens his plummage like a peacock and then pluck off all of his feathers. He'll be really sexy then. Maybe after that I'll bake him at 600 degrees until he's a golden brown and then carve him up with a Ginsu knife.

But my real reason for responding to your post is: What the heck is "Newtonmass"?
--Cindy

That's when we celebrate Newton's birthday of course but instead of decorating pine trees we prop up apple trees in the living room and then sit under them waiting for apples to drop and inspire us with great thoughts. Well at least that's the ritual among physicists anyway. The big question though is what do you want for Newtonmass?

*Thanksgiving was great! I outdid myself with the big meal I made...yum yum; I got rave reviews from my husband!

I made a pumpkin pie but unfortunately it didn't recieve rave reviews as I think only one person actually bothered eating a slice.

Phobos · 2002-11-29 23:00:08

Hey all you Mars fanatics out there. I know everyone is itching to know when, how, and who in the plan to Mars. And I'm sure the majority of you have read Robert Zubrin's book The Case for Mars. If you haven't you have to read it. I highly recommend it. But anyways my question to anyone and everyone out there is is the Semi-Direct plan (discussed in The Case for Mars, that was abdopted by NASA as a variation of the Direct plan) still being used as the primary mission to send men to Mars? I would really appreciate if someone would answer this back. Thanks a lot and to everybody have a very righteous Thanksgiving and the best of Holidays. Peace and catch ya on the Mars side.

I think the only Mars mission plan being seriously proposed by any official space agency is that Russian plan which would send six to Mars for a two month stay on the surface which I think has been updated to leaving out the landing and instead use robotic rovers that would be controlled in real time by the crew in Mars orbit.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-11-30 01:27:09

Nida, for someone I assume is quite young, you are evidently very astute.
Even though you've never met me, you've still managed to deduce the fact that I'm devastatingly sexually attractive ..... while 99.999999999% of the women I've actually met face to face have failed to notice!!

It's difficult to fathom how all those women have been so blind to what you see so clearly!

Shaun Barrett · 2002-11-30 01:38:24

Awww ... C'mon Phobos!!
Put away that Ginsu knife and turn off the oven ... I was just foolin' with ya!

And please ... don't deny a man a little 'plumage preening'. At my age, the opportunities are few and far between!!

Shaun Barrett · 2002-11-30 02:11:34

Cindy writes:-

I think the greatest "side benefit" of being a Mars Society member is that you don't have to have the letters "PhD" behind your name, or be an engineer with NASA or scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, to be a member.

Putting all my dubious attempts at humour aside, this is really how I feel about it too. In common with most of the contributors to New Mars, I haven't the qualifications (read brains) to actively work 'at the coal face' of space exploration ... i.e. at NASA or JPL. This is the closest I'll ever get to being part of what I see as something very important to our future.
Sure, I'd like to have everybody become a member of The Mars Society. That's why I tease Josh and Phobos every so often (in only a light-hearted way, I trust they realise! ).
But the truth is, it's enough for me just to find such a fascinating group of Mars enthusiasts to talk with - whether they're TMS members or not!

Cindy and Phobos, those Thanksgiving delicacies you cooked sound mouth-watering! We poor deprived Aussies don't have Thanksgiving ... but if it tastes half as good as it sounds, I'm all in favour of adopting it!!

Just to avoid "The Wrath of Adrian" (yeah, you're right ... Khan does sound better! .. ), I'll drag myself back on topic by stating my opinion that any human mission to Mars which doesn't include astronauts landing on the surface, is a very unattractive prospect.
To go so far and then turn back after spending months so close to the objective, would be more than I could stand! I feel sure most astronauts would see it the same way.
Even the two-months-on-the-surface plan has drawbacks, I think. Doesn't it involve much longer times in transit each way?
:0

Palomar · 2002-11-30 08:33:56

Cindy and Phobos, those Thanksgiving delicacies you cooked sound mouth-watering! We poor deprived Aussies don't have Thanksgiving ... but if it tastes half as good as it sounds, I'm all in favour of adopting it!!

*Actually, I didn't even mention what all I cooked [roast turkey, broccoli tips with cheese sauce, sage and onion cornbread stuffing, green bean casserole with french-fried onions, candied yams, corn coblets, peach pie, pumpkin pie -- yes, all homemade cooking -- there Shaun, now your mouth can really water! <grin>].

But I can tell you one thing, if Phobos bakes a turkey at 600 degrees, it'll get brown all right -- yeah, -really- brown. C'mon Phobos, no domestic oven even goes that high.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2002-11-30 08:38:45

But my real reason for responding to your post is: What the heck is "Newtonmass"?
--Cindy
That's when we celebrate Newton's birthday of course but instead of decorating pine trees we prop up apple trees in the living room and then sit under them waiting for apples to drop and inspire us with great thoughts. Well at least that's the ritual among physicists anyway. The big question though is what do you want for Newtonmass?

*Hmmmm. I think I'll stick one of those tiny birthday candles into a Fig Newton, light the candle and then sing "Oh, I don't like math and it doesn't like me, so I will end this little homily!" then blow out the candle and exclaim "Happy Newtonmass!"... I'll send Sir Isaac greeting cards to family and friends...I'll invite those family and friends over for a "Drop An Apple On Your Noodle" contest...

How's that for a celebration? ???

--Cindy

P.S.: I know what I want for Newtonmass, but I won't tell.

Palomar · 2002-11-30 08:51:38

I think the only Mars mission plan being seriously proposed by any official space agency is that Russian plan which would send six to Mars for a two month stay on the surface which I think has been updated to leaving out the landing and instead use robotic rovers that would be controlled in real time by the crew in Mars orbit.

*Okay, what do they figure is the point of sending a human crew to Mars, sans human landing and just orbiting the planet? I know Apollo 8 was sent to only orbit the moon [although the main objective was to locate and map a suitable landing site for Apollo 11], and the actual landing came less than a year later [if memory serves me right]. But, of course, the moon is just a skip away from Earth as compared to Mars. Why send a human crew all that way, only to keep them up in orbit while robots alone descend onto the surface?? :angry:

*#)!(%@!, do it right: A HUMAN landing on Mars!

--Cindy

dicktice · 2002-11-30 10:02:39

Cindy? Re. human{s) on Mars. Think of Mt. Everest, over a century ago. Just to get to the foothills took a year, what with the provisioning treks and acclimatization (assume no Sherpas already acclimated and able to help)...equivalent to getting to low Mars orbit, and perhaps "docked" to Phobos.
Now you crew-of-three (say) have a number of landers of various types, equipped with rovers with various mobilities (crawlers, aerostats, power gliders) all equipped for remote presence manipulation in realtime by any and/or all of you in concert, some with ability to take samples where your remote viewing from orbit via radar, hydrogen, visible/infrared daytime and nighttime scans indicate subsurface water-ice (say), and delivery to LMO-return launcher(s) for receipt by you, for initial analysis and consultations with Earth scientist, followed by repeats...until you are due for return trip back to Earth orbit, LEO, and docking to ISS isolation facility.
Now your equivalent of the Everest attack team, the second Mars expedition, have what they need to know and can be equipped to land, do what they have to do, leave resources for the third (colonization) expedition to build upon.
That shouldn't take more than six-to-ten Earth years to accomplish, and each trip an adventure. I woudn't mind going on a first trip without landing myself, if I had all those tools along for performing the initial exploration by means of remote presence, even to the extent of tactile sensing. The same vehicle(s) but with different payloads could be assembled in LEO, between trips. Imagine all the neat stuff you could carry if you didn't plan to land the first time out. Or is that too conservative for you? I never like to "go for broke" and fail, because it tends to turn people off who might otherwise provide long-term support....

RobertDyck · 2002-11-30 11:23:12

I get my information about the Russian mission plan directly from the web site of the Russian corporation RSC Energia. That does appear more accurate, for example, I heard on the news that Russia was developing a solar sail spacecraft to send humans to Mars, but Energia's web site shows extremely large solar arrays for solar-electric propulsion.

The Energia web site describes a reusable interplanetary spacecraft that can travel from Earth orbit to Mars orbit and back. Each mission would require a new lander, and the solar panels would eventually have to be replaced, but the core of the spacecraft could be used for multiple missions. Their plan was to *TEST* the spacecraft by replacing the lander with robotic rovers. After the interplanetary spacecraft made it to Mars and back safely, the second mission would have humans onboard. This approach to testing seams quite practical considering the number of Mars probes that have been lost.

Personally I think the Mars Direct plan is better because it uses In-Situ Propellant Production, lands all of the crew on Mars, and stays on the surface over half of the round-trip time. But no one should claim the Russian plan would fail to land humans on Mars.

By the way, their test would include a very large lander. Replacing the habitat, pressurized rover, ascent vehicle, and fuel for ascent leaves enough room for 10 unmanned rovers each as large as a small car.

Phobos · 2002-11-30 14:34:28

Awww ... C'mon Phobos!!
Put away that Ginsu knife and turn off the oven ... I was just foolin' with ya!
And please ... don't deny a man a little 'plumage preening'. At my age, the opportunities are few and far between!!

OK Shaun, I'll spare you the ravages of the Ginsu this once.

*Hmmmm. I think I'll stick one of those tiny birthday candles into a Fig Newton, light the candle and then sing "Oh, I don't like math and it doesn't like me, so I will end this little homily!" then blow out the candle and exclaim "Happy Newtonmass!"... I'll send Sir Isaac greeting cards to family and friends...I'll invite those family and friends over for a "Drop An Apple On Your Noodle" contest...
How's that for a celebration?
--Cindy

LOL! I wish I would have had that homily a long time ago. I used to have this strange ritual where I'd go into an empty classroom before I had a class and write weird and bizarre poems and fictional anecdotes on a chalkboard. Since nobody knew I was the author it was entertaining to see how people reacted to them. Anyways I think I'm coming to your house next Thanksgiving. After reading that list of food you made I find myself suddenly hungry!

Their plan was to *TEST* the spacecraft by replacing the lander with robotic rovers. After the interplanetary spacecraft made it to Mars and back safely, the second mission would have humans onboard. This approach to testing seams quite practical considering the number of Mars probes that have been lost.

It appears my memory failed me. I like the idea of a recyclable Mars ship that could be outfitted with new rovers and the like for on going missions to Mars. If we used inflatable habs I doubt it would be difficult to build up a Mars base using these recyclable ships and it would be considerably cheaper than launching whole tuna cans into space each time. I think a combination of Mars Direct (i.e. in situ fuel production) and the use of these recyclable ships might be a good. I'm warming up to the Russians ideas. It appears the "cycler" might not be so far off into the future after all.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-11-30 23:09:28

Thanks Robert for clarifying the Russian plan!

I'm with Phobos when he says he's "warming up to the Russians ideas". And his idea about possibly combining the best elements of the Russian and Mars Direct plans could conceivably produce the ideal mission structure.
Great food for thought!

Speaking of food, Cindy you've got to stop torturing people like this!!
My God ... all those delectable culinary delights ... I can actually taste them!!
There's only so much a man can stand you know .... AAARGHHH !!!
STOP IT ... STOP IT !!

RobertDyck · 2002-12-01 03:27:33

The Russian plan does have the great advantage of a reusable spacecraft. The plan as posted has the problem that it calls for the spacecraft to spend 3 months spiralling out from low Earth orbit to escape velocity. That much time in Earth's radiation belts is dangerous. Upon return it would spend another 3 months spiralling down. That could be solved with an idea from one variation of Semi-Direct: spiral out unmanned and use a crew taxi to deliver the crew just before departure from Earth orbit. Semi-Direct calls for the interplanetary spacecraft to be discarded upon return to Earth and a capsule return the crew. The Russian plan calls for spiralling down before it also uses a capsule to return the crew, but its spacecraft is parked in Earth orbit. You could combine these: have a capsule return the crew to Earth via direct entry while the spacecraft continues unmanned to spiral down to low Earth orbit.

For those concerned about astronauts on the International Space Station, Earth's radiation belts are in medium Earth orbit. That is why satellites are always placed either in low or high Earth orbit, they couldn't survive very long if they were parked in the radiation at medium orbit.

I have some ideas to incorporate In-Situ Propellant Production, but I'll post that on another thread.

Palomar · 2002-12-01 13:44:56

There's only so much a man can stand you know .... AAARGHHH !!!
STOP IT ... STOP IT !!

*Gee, the things I could say...but nah, I'll be a good girl. };)~

--Cindy

Phobos · 2002-12-01 14:36:43

The Russian plan does have the great advantage of a reusable spacecraft. The plan as posted has the problem that it calls for the spacecraft to spend 3 months spiralling out from low Earth orbit to escape velocity.

To solve the slow spiralling problem we could just use a simpler version of the Earth return vehicle that would dock with cycler in orbit and just shoot the crew back to Earth once the cycler begins it orbital maneuvers around Earth. Instead of outfitting the ERV with six months of suppliies it would only need enough to keep the astronauts alive for the time it takes to get back from the cycler to Earth. Additional ERV's could be hooked up the cycler that would also act as landing craft that would carry inflatable habs to be set up at the landing site.

lzrdking · 2002-12-02 11:35:04

hey ya'll. Hope your Thanksgiving went well for everyone. I know I ate a lot. But anyways I've been reading the posts lately and a Russian plan has been mentioned. I not very familiar with this plan so if someone could direct me to a web site on it I'd appreciate it.

--Andy a.k.a. lzrdking

RobertDyck · 2002-12-02 12:08:55

I now hesitate to give links to web sites because I have seen NASA take down some of the web pages I referenced. For example, the web page about the X-38 and its cost justification has been taken down. But I think Russia and the Rocket Space Corporation Energia would like publicity, so you can view thier mission plan here.

I have a couple additional articles. One is in both English and Russian, and the other was only in Russian. I used translation web sites to translate it into English. The original and my translation are available on the Winnipeg chapter web site.

nebob2 · 2002-12-03 12:40:17

Energia's plan is just too risky in my opinion. Subjecting the crew to more then one year of zero G before getting to Mars and a year more on the return. Anything that slow should be deligated to cargo carring not human transport.

Hall thrusters are really too weak for manned spaceflight, with 15 MWe of power they could run a much higher power megnetoplasma dynamic thruster of some sort and get there a lot quicker.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-11-26 22:06:47

Re: Semi-Direct still primary plan to send men to Mars - Is Semi-Direct plan still being used?

#2 2002-11-27 01:07:17

Re: Semi-Direct still primary plan to send men to Mars - Is Semi-Direct plan still being used?

#3 2002-11-28 19:08:38

Re: Semi-Direct still primary plan to send men to Mars - Is Semi-Direct plan still being used?

#4 2002-11-29 01:44:37

Re: Semi-Direct still primary plan to send men to Mars - Is Semi-Direct plan still being used?

#5 2002-11-29 08:38:39

Re: Semi-Direct still primary plan to send men to Mars - Is Semi-Direct plan still being used?

#6 2002-11-29 08:43:18

Re: Semi-Direct still primary plan to send men to Mars - Is Semi-Direct plan still being used?

#7 2002-11-29 11:16:12

Re: Semi-Direct still primary plan to send men to Mars - Is Semi-Direct plan still being used?

#8 2002-11-29 22:46:27

Re: Semi-Direct still primary plan to send men to Mars - Is Semi-Direct plan still being used?

#9 2002-11-29 23:00:08

Re: Semi-Direct still primary plan to send men to Mars - Is Semi-Direct plan still being used?

#10 2002-11-30 01:27:09

Re: Semi-Direct still primary plan to send men to Mars - Is Semi-Direct plan still being used?

#11 2002-11-30 01:38:24

Re: Semi-Direct still primary plan to send men to Mars - Is Semi-Direct plan still being used?

#12 2002-11-30 02:11:34

Re: Semi-Direct still primary plan to send men to Mars - Is Semi-Direct plan still being used?

#13 2002-11-30 08:33:56

Re: Semi-Direct still primary plan to send men to Mars - Is Semi-Direct plan still being used?

#14 2002-11-30 08:38:45

Re: Semi-Direct still primary plan to send men to Mars - Is Semi-Direct plan still being used?

#15 2002-11-30 08:51:38

Re: Semi-Direct still primary plan to send men to Mars - Is Semi-Direct plan still being used?

#16 2002-11-30 10:02:39

Re: Semi-Direct still primary plan to send men to Mars - Is Semi-Direct plan still being used?

#17 2002-11-30 11:23:12

Re: Semi-Direct still primary plan to send men to Mars - Is Semi-Direct plan still being used?

#18 2002-11-30 14:34:28

Re: Semi-Direct still primary plan to send men to Mars - Is Semi-Direct plan still being used?

#19 2002-11-30 23:09:28

Re: Semi-Direct still primary plan to send men to Mars - Is Semi-Direct plan still being used?

#20 2002-12-01 03:27:33

Re: Semi-Direct still primary plan to send men to Mars - Is Semi-Direct plan still being used?

#21 2002-12-01 13:44:56

Re: Semi-Direct still primary plan to send men to Mars - Is Semi-Direct plan still being used?

#22 2002-12-01 14:36:43

Re: Semi-Direct still primary plan to send men to Mars - Is Semi-Direct plan still being used?

#23 2002-12-02 11:35:04

Re: Semi-Direct still primary plan to send men to Mars - Is Semi-Direct plan still being used?

#24 2002-12-02 12:08:55

Re: Semi-Direct still primary plan to send men to Mars - Is Semi-Direct plan still being used?

#25 2002-12-03 12:40:17

Re: Semi-Direct still primary plan to send men to Mars - Is Semi-Direct plan still being used?

Board footer