One man one way suicide mission...

SpaceNut · 2005-12-09 10:17:17

We have made not that bringing solar panels are a first step but that nuclear would be better. But nuclear does bring with it some challenges.

So here is some solar power level information on output power to dust accumilation charts with regards to the rovers. This is what we can expect if we are there with solar panels.

Chart Shows Variation In Solar Power Available For Mars Rovers

Rxke · 2005-12-09 14:09:12

But the one person suicidal maniac probably carries a dust-rag with him...

RobertDyck · 2005-12-10 00:15:11

Dust on solar panels? Install windshield wipers. A human mission to Mars will include astronauts (or settlers) in spacesuits (or MCP Mars suits) walking out with a mop and tool box to clean and maintain the array.

Nuclear bring with it some challenges? Don't fall into the trap that "nuke-you-lar" activists create: that all nuclear power results in massive equipment failure. They appear to think that if someone even mentions the word they have to flog themselves like a medieval monk. Nuclear equipment (like any equipment) is reliable as long as it was properly designed in the first place, and operated within design limits. Chernobyl happened when that reactor was deliberately tested to demonstrate its fail-safe equipment, but technicians who tested one set of equipment by disabling all others did so when other technicians tested other equipment while disabling the fail-safe equipment the first team was trying to test. The result was all equipment was disabled. Any one of the fail-safes could have prevented the accident, but all were disabled at once. Very stupid, but it also demonstrates you don't want to push operational technicians into desperate measures to demonstrate their competency. Desperate measures mean stupid things happen, so lawyers who argue every little point should never be permitted to get any sort of message to technicians or engineers. Lawyers are evil incarnate, and the lawyers who tried to claim "American" reactors are safe while "Russian" reactors are dangerous are the ones who pushed Chernobyl engineers into committing the stupid mistake they made. As for American reactor design, we found how safe that was at Three Mile Island.

Nuclear power in space is safe as on Earth: perfectly safe as long and you don't rant on them.

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-10 08:59:45

A point of contention or two...

-Russian nuclear reactors have a positive void coefficent, which means that if the coolant leaks, the nuclear fission reaction speeds up instead of slowing down for lack of moderator. American reactors do not have this design flaw (especially since the coolant & control rods IS the moderator), and actually are inherintly safer then their Russian counterparts. Those graphite bricks around Chernobyl were neutron reflectors!

-The TMI reactor design works just fine, it was a manufacturing/construction mistake where a valve in the reactor compartment failed, not that the design was inherintly hazardous like the Chernobyl core. In fact, the TMI core vessel actually remained essentially intact partly because the fission reaction stopped when coolant was lost like it was supposed to. Blame the people that built it, not the people that designed it.

-The Russians rely on the failsafes to prevent core damage, and didn't plan on the core ever actually blowing up. This is a mistake, both in principle and in practice, for all nuclear reactors that fail if coolant is lost and control mechanisms fail. Note that this doesn't apply to reactors that are inherintly safe, like the pebble-bed reactors.

Nuclear power is safe on Earth, as long as you design your plant right, by planning for worst-case failure... which the Russians did't.
___________________________________________

The Russians have also had some trouble with their light duty space-based power reactors, with at least one or two of them either leaking or breaking up in orbit. At least the Russians were wise enough to put them into a medium orbit that won't decay for a few hundred years.

That said, I think that Russian NTR designs are pretty good, and if they put some effort into it they could come up with a reliable medium-duty space power reactor like we could (or Japan could).

RobertDyck · 2005-12-11 18:50:18

Russia built the first operational nuclear power plant. They're quite proud of that. Of course later models were built safer. The light water reactor at Three Mile Island had a containment building, Chernobyl didn't.

A light water reactor does not use coolant as moderator. The moderator is a solid material incorporated into the core. Control rods are neutron absorbers; they slow the reaction and if enough are inserted they'll stop the reaction. That means loss of coolant will result in uncontrolled heating, but won't stop the nuclear reaction. If the core heats to the point it melts, the control rods can't be inserted. That means once the core melts you're screwed. A full melt-down would result in the core melting and continuing to heat until it burned through the inner containment, and even burned through the outer containment structure. It would continue until it melted through the ground to the water table, but a steady supply of water would cool it until sputtering and cooling lobes resulted in spreading out the material so it lost critical mass and the reaction stopped. Of course you could flood the outer containment building and ensure that spread-out process occurred inside the containment. My understanding is you're right about what really occurred at Three Mile Island.

But only a heavy water reactor uses coolant as moderator. Newer reactor designs use heavy water, but Three Mile Island is older than that. Again, newer reactors are safer than older ones. Actually, CanDU reactors built in Canada are a newer design than Three Mile Island, and they do use heavy water. In the 1980s the Pickering reactor had the worst accident possible for that design: primary coolant leaked into the lake. Although clean heavy water isn't radioactive, after exposure to the core some of the deuterium will be converted to tritium. Tritium is mildly radioactive, but more importantly it's an isotope of hydrogen so if it gets into your body it'll be incorporated into organic molecules that make up your body. So part of your own body will become mildly radioactive. Very, very, low level radiation but permanent so radiation damage accumulates over time. Also some of the inner surface of the pipes got transmuted into radioactive elements, and they eroded into the water. That contamination resulted in very low concentration, but many different radioactive isotopes. All swimming was banned in Lake Ontario for a couple weeks while waiting for it to flush into the Saint Lawrence Sea Way. Remember Niagara Falls empties into Lake Ontario, and that empties into the Sea Way. The Sea Way used to be the Saint Lawrence River but they dredged and widened it so ocean ships could sail directly into the Great Lakes; that's why it's called a "Sea Way" now. My point is every reactor design has experienced the worst accident possible for that design. The newer the reactor the less impact. Does anyone in the US remember even hearing about the Pickering accident?

Anyway, sure, I agree with your assessment of Russian nuclear engines.

Martian Republic · 2005-12-11 20:14:17

Forth and fifth generation of nuclear power plants are even safer than the three mile island plant even. So if we upgrade to newer nuclear power plants, we could solve most all of the possibility of nuclear accidents in the future too. There using a bead design vs a rod design so they don't have to use water or need a containment building to guard against a meltdown like the older plants needed to have to protect from a release of harmful radiation into the atmosphere.

Larry,

quasar777 · 2005-12-29 15:18:50

i`d never agree w/ one person oneway. that`s a bit too much. 2, yeah. & actually any oneway missions give incentive for followups. & unfortunately w/ our consistency for abandoning space makes drastic measures even more imperitive to make certain we actually become spacefaring race. because in my opinion we may destroy our planet first. sorry to seem pessimistic. i`m not normally that way.

Josh Cryer · 2006-01-02 14:35:53

One person one way is to do the math for getting there for one person. Each person requires a given number of resources to survive. Doing the calculations for one person is the to find the absolute minimum required to get there. The $2 billion dollar figure is for one person to build a sustainable life support system on Mars that could potentially expand to support thousands (with a little investment every time someone arrived). The first billion literally is getting the ship back up to spec.

SpaceNut · 2006-01-03 08:02:13

The real trick is to find the means to lower the cost for each trip that follows. To setup a supply chain for those that do stay and to deliver what is need in order to carry out the scientific exploration.

Rxke · 2006-01-03 12:03:08

Once again I find myself advertising for Robs's novel, in wich he assumes a market for stuff launched back from Mars to Earth, partially offsetting launch/eq costs, assuming the find of Martian gold (easy to refine) fossiles( ok, so that's fiction, but it's not the biggest part of income) volatiles, propellant, later PGM's (hard to refine) and building in-orbit refuelling plants etc... Except for the finding of major gold deposits and Martian fossiles it's based on off the shelf equipment and extrapolations.... and it eventually brings costs down significantly... Millions instead of billions per person.

Oh, and about the gold... Don't scoff at the idea rightaway, Rob is a planetary geologist, so I bet he's taking an educated guess there, heehee...

http://rsmd.net/MarsFrontier/equipment.htm

http://rsmd.net/MarsFrontier/cargo.htm

http://www.rsmd.net/index/Rob%92s_Private_Pages (the novel itself)

Josh Cryer · 2006-01-03 16:09:59

SpaceNut, subsequent launches could be reduced drastically, if there was a big enough supply chain (and certainly there would be demand, the US, China, etc, would all want a piece of the pie). A billion or two to get the launch facilities back up and running, and only a half a billion to launch a new ship to Mars. I think this thread has shown one thing, one very important thing, governments and government pork has made the American space program a joke.

60 million for a tank. 60 million for a big aluminum can with foam on it and some hoses. Let that resound in your heads for a bit. Robert could build up to 12 of them for that cost.

We've already lowered the cost in theory simply by showing how ridiciulously overpriced things already are. Give me the capital and it'll happen.

bobunf · 2006-01-04 11:58:06

The current retail cost of gold is about US$530 an ounce. Can anyone seriously believe that it could cost less than $530 per ounce to mine and process ore on Mars and then send it to Earth?

Bob

GCNRevenger · 2006-01-04 13:42:48

If the gold is in relativly pure chunks, it could be.

For rare minerals, it all depends. If the current demand for Platinum and related metals continues to increase, its price will become high enough that harvesting it on the Moon would be competitive, provided we had some form of RLV on both ends of the trip. Platinum group metals (PGMs) on the Moon and perhaps asteroids are likly going to be the first space import.

SpaceNut · 2006-01-04 13:55:39

Well since there are 16 ounces to the pound and 2000 of them to a short ton. That would if we could bring that much back from the surface of mars make a grand total of $16,960,000 for processed gold.
So the real question is not the return of the item but how much does it cost to get the equipment needed if sufficient ore quality and quantity worth refining since there is no cost other than to feed and to keep the crew alive...

bobunf · 2006-01-04 17:44:22

Do you have any idea how much it costs to prospect, mine and extract that much gold on the Earth? Be-sides, you will have to do more than “feed and to keep the crew alive.” You have to pay them.

The pay rate of Martian prospectors, miners, factory workers and administrative personnel is likely to be much higher than that of similar people on Earth. Perhaps by as much as two orders of magnitude. Besides which you don’t have to pay workers at an ore processing plant on Earth for the time they spend going to and from work, which, in any case, is likely to be much shorter than 18 months roundtrip. The training time will also be far less on Earth by as much two orders of magnitude.

Anybody have a profit and loss statement for an Earthly gold mining company? Try multiplying wages by 100 and see what happens to the bottom line.

Bob

BWhite · 2006-01-04 23:41:10

I've thought about sending Mars methane to the Moon or EML-1. That would be "worth" whatever the launch costs are from Earth at that time.

Use made on Mars rocket fuel and salvage and refurbish RL-10s (for example) from a previous supply mission to Mars. Payment for those engines goes on another balance sheet.

The "hard currency" cost would be very little. Soft currency costs (i.e. Marsian labor & Marsian atmosphere processed into fuel) is irrelevant because the metric is to help raise cash to support people who want to settle permanently anyways. Thus that labor cost can be ignored.

= = =

To answer bobunf, all labor on Mars should be performed by people who want to stay permanently for reasons other than wages. Given them room and board and a liveable social contract and they won't need a Terran bank account.

If they do choose to return, book deals should help them pay the bills back on Earth.

GCNRevenger · 2006-01-05 00:31:13

No Bill, no...

Refurbish modified RL-10 engines on Mars? What in this world or any other for? Its so much easier just to build new ones and lift them from Earth, they don't weigh mush or cost much. There is absolutely nothing that Martian settlers could possibly do to make recycling light duty rocket engines profitable versus running a rocket shop on Mars.

Methane to a Lagrange point? Again, what for? Getting payloads and crews from Earth up to a Mars cycler stationed at the Lagrange point requires almost as much fuel as just going direct to Mars, and shuttling Methane from Lagrange down to LEO to mitigate burns off a big chunk of fuel. And where does all the LOX come from? In any case, Methane makes an inferior fuel, especially for orbital transits, compared to Hydrogen. Because your fuel bill increases exponentially as the specific impulse decreases, this is by no means trivial. 390sec versus 430-460sec makes a big difference.

And we aren't ever going to colonize Mars if we are piddling around with methane rockets and throwing away engines. Get that notion out of your head... there is never, ever going to be a Mars colony until we have this, this, or at least this. Never.

Second, we aren't going to colonize Mars with piddly chemical rockets. Ain't happening. Even with multiple RLV flights to bring up fuel, it would still be too hard. Some kind of nuclear propulsion is a given, and since they don't "burn" Methane, thats even less useful.

In any event, Mars has nothing tangible they could possibly offer the Earth save one and only one thing: a wilderness. Thats it. Thats all.

bobunf · 2006-01-05 01:04:49

“All labor on Mars should be performed by people who want to stay permanently for reasons other than wages. Given (sic) them room and board and a liveable (sic) social contract and they won't need a Terran bank account. “

“Get that notion out of your head... there is never, ever going to be a Mars colony until we” can pay the people who do the work.

Seriously, running an organization like the Mars Society with (mostly) unpaid volunteers is hard enough. But a permanent colony on Mars? Can’t you just see these people processing literally tons of gold, watching it being sent to Earth, and asking, “I’d like to help out my mother back on Earth. She’s had a stroke and needs more physical therapy then the system allows, she can’t afford the extra, and if she doesn’t get it, she’ll soon be an invalid for the rest of her life. Could you send her $5,000 on my account?”

And the answer, “No, that’s not part of our social contract; just keep on shoveling that ore.” I’d be surprised if our unpaid volunteer didn’t respond, “Well then you can take this job and shove it.” Or, perhaps, something more explicit. What about the guy who wants to send his kid to medical school back on Earth? And a million other things.

“Never.”

Bob

Rxke · 2006-01-05 04:35:21

'kay, because I brought up the gold thing, I suppose I will have to explain it a bit further, heehee.

First of all: DISCLAIMER: it's fiction, not fact, so there are some premises made here that are ahem-debatable...

First off, the novel uses some kind of VSE on steroids, so assume a long-term involvement of (inter)national agencies, that develop an OUTPOST (not a colony) on Mars, with regular crew-changes.
First 'to-be-scoffed-at-premise' : it so happens the first crew happens to have 2 members falling in love and the woman getting pregnant, not telling anyone before it's too late to 'do something about it'
So, they have no choice to stay, toghether with the doc etc etc... Long story short, the next crew rotation, some more hardware some more people deciding to stay... A non-sustainable settlement arises over the years

Then some years later, and exploration team finds MASSIVE gold fields, as in: "I walk around and w/o having to dig, I can collect goldnuggets as large as my hand" stuff.

Now, RobS is a planetary geologists, and he is not saying this WILL happen (in discussions outside his novel) but that it is possible. Noachian and all that...

Ok, on with the story...

So this whole gold-rush idea happens when there's already a sizeable amount of hardware in place, and a good deal of people (tens of people, not hundreds)

Further prospecting shows there are $Billions of gold worth to find, just by surface collecting, more billions by simple stripmining and basic centrifugal separation, and more Billions by some more digging. The first billions are literally up for grabs, so to speak.
So that land goes up for auction, two big companies pay some billions upfront for some launch-seats (occupied by grumpy hairy-knuckled guys with little or no love for that whole Mars thing, they're in it for the money, they get paid GOOD money, be sure about that,..and they sure plan to go back to Earth, when the rig works etc...) and basic equipment, and set up shop.

A part of the Martian 'settlers' help them out w/ setting up infrastructure, food etc.
The novel does not make it as straightforward as I spell it out here, lots of legal hassles, lots of infrastruction problems (first miners live in glorified pressurized rovers and tents for awhile etc.)
And the gold does not pay the whole settlement bill, it only makes it less astronomically expensive.

SpaceNut · 2006-01-05 09:18:33

Ok so the concept of gold present might have been off topic but it does bring up some interesting points in that an Astronaut (Nasa Employee) is compensated but a colonist would not be other than for he keep and any additional debt as incurred. Presumeably to pay off the fact that he is not a Nasa Employee for his or her passage to the red planet mars or to the moon.

Edit
As for why to go to the moon or Mars. I personally need no specific reason only that it is not here... Others however quibble about why we should as indicated in the article 8 Reasons Why Going Back to the Moon Is Loony

1. Cost.
2. There Is No Atmosphere
3. Radiation
4. Lack of Water.
5. The Gravity Well
6. Lack of Accessible Resources
7. The Myth of Helium 3.
8. The Moondoggle Factor.

First lets reorder things a bit for it is the moons gravity well that has allowed for the lack of atmospher and of water. For this the moon pays for it by being exposed to radiation and since these are factors in why the moon has a lack of acessible resources just means you must work a little harder to get them. The Myth of helium 3 is only a myth iif the science needed to use it does not come to be for with that frame of mind we would not have nuclear power plants at all. The moondoggle factor is only a factor if one gives up after going a few times claiming oh well we have gone, we have seen and we are done (insert flag and foot prints here).

So that only leaves the cost and that we all agree is high but very doable once shuttle and Iss are gone. Which leads us back to how Nasa works and that is at a very high cost.

Rxke · 2006-01-05 11:39:19

Errr... Can you rephrase that?

(Don't understand what you mean)

SpaceNut · 2006-01-05 14:32:44

No problem I know that I am that way some times.

Ok so the concept of gold present might have been off topic but it does bring up some interesting points in that an Astronaut (Nasa Employee) is compensated but a colonist would not be other than for he keep and any additional debt as incurred. Presumably to pay off the fact that he is not a Nasa Employee for his or her passage to the red planet mars or to the moon.

How are Astronauts compensated for going to the ISS by Nasa?

Did the tourists once aboard the ISS after paying for there ride (Russian Soyuz) to the station get compensated for the work that they did do while there, by any of the partners?

Were there some sort of barter system of trade agreement other than that of wages?

These are some of the things that I was trying to get out and into text...

Rxke · 2006-01-05 15:50:53

Thanks.

Interesting point. IIRC, Tito was seen as more of a hazard than an asset (to NASA)
Shuttleworth a tourist, but did some experiments he took with him, from S.A. uni's etc., but he did it for free, and IIRC, NASA 'respected' him more because he was 'serious' (doing experiments)
Olsen did some stuff too, for his company...

But none of them did work for NASA, so no pay (but IIRC, one of them prepared some meals )

(we're going waaaay offtopic sorry Josh)

BWhite · 2006-01-05 15:51:29

No Bill, no...
In any event, Mars has nothing tangible they could possibly offer the Earth save one and only one thing: a wilderness. Thats it. Thats all.

Well, that is my standard 2nd answer to this topic. :?

Position value. Supplies for explorers going further out from Earth, perhaps.

BWhite · 2006-01-05 15:54:03

If the gold is in relativly pure chunks, it could be.
For rare minerals, it all depends. If the current demand for Platinum and related metals continues to increase, its price will become high enough that harvesting it on the Moon would be competitive, provided we had some form of RLV on both ends of the trip. Platinum group metals (PGMs) on the Moon and perhaps asteroids are likly going to be the first space import.

Why do you need an RLV to bring PGM down. Just dump it in the atmosphere with a rudimentary heat shield and target a remote desert.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2005-12-09 10:17:17

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#102 2005-12-09 14:09:12

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#103 2005-12-10 00:15:11

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#104 2005-12-10 08:59:45

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#105 2005-12-11 18:50:18

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#106 2005-12-11 20:14:17

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#107 2005-12-29 15:18:50

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#108 2006-01-02 14:35:53

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#109 2006-01-03 08:02:13

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#110 2006-01-03 12:03:08

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#111 2006-01-03 16:09:59

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#112 2006-01-04 11:58:06

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#113 2006-01-04 13:42:48

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#114 2006-01-04 13:55:39

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#115 2006-01-04 17:44:22

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#116 2006-01-04 23:41:10

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#117 2006-01-05 00:31:13

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#118 2006-01-05 01:04:49

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#119 2006-01-05 04:35:21

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#120 2006-01-05 09:18:33

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#121 2006-01-05 11:39:19

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#122 2006-01-05 14:32:44

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#123 2006-01-05 15:50:53

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#124 2006-01-05 15:51:29

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

#125 2006-01-05 15:54:03

Re: One man one way suicide mission...

Board footer