You are not logged in.
Say in 2013, we have a new president. No manned Mars program as such. And the president notices that the Chinese intend to land a manned mission on the moon (and set up a permanent base there) to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the Communists victory over the nationalists in 2019.
The President wants desperately to upstage the Chinese.
Assuming that he allocates yearly resources of roughly the equivalent to the current yearly budget of NASA every year solely for a Manned Mars program, how does the United States put a manned mission on Mars by the time the Chinese get to the moon?
Assume that the U.S. is willing to run a substantial risk of crew deaths and/or mission failure.
Offline
Like button can go here
If speed is what you need, then MarsDirect reduced to a three-man crew, uprated 150MT class rocket, and minimal surface science hardware (esp only one unpressurized rover) is probably the least complicated way. Thats just to get there, make pretty boot prints & photos, and stick a flag in the ground. If you want to do anything else, then its going to cost.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
Of course, a few thousand well chosen surface photographs, a sustained period of weather observations, and about 100 kilos of carefully selected samples would be more exploration science wise than we've had with all previous unmanned missions combined.
Offline
Like button can go here
No it really wouldn't, because it would all be from one small area.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
Oh, and those three unlucky souls would have a pretty substantial (ca 10%) chance of death probably too.
Don't get all "oh we should do this instead then" and junk, it would still be a useless, dangerous, dead-end mission plan.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
In 2013 Ares I/Orion will be operational and Ares V/EDS/LSAM will be in development. Giving NASA enough money to accelerate the program will enable Ares V/EDS/LSAM to ready by 2016 and debugged on the Moon. The MTV should also be ready and checked out with a few NEO missions. That just leaves the MSAM. Giving these programs full funding in 2013 will enable them to be in place for a Mars mission in 2019, piece of cake. All we need is the money, no need to accept lots of risk.
[color=darkred]Let's go to Mars and far beyond - triple NASA's budget ![/color] [url=irc://freenode#space] #space channel !! [/url] [url=http://www.youtube.com/user/c1cl0ps] - videos !!![/url]
Offline
Like button can go here
Yeah, though I am worried that such a mission would just be flags and footprints.
If we're talking Mars, than DRM-III ought to be the smallest acceptable mission.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
No it really wouldn't, because it would all be from one small area.
Any future sample return missions are going to be from an even smaller area.
And I've never considered a 10% chance of dying to be that significant when it comes to a history making spaceflight.
Offline
Like button can go here
cIclops sort of put his finger on it. How long is the cycle to build the ships versus how much time from start to need for launch is available for the build cycle to be completed.
If we are lucky there would be time but if there is not then we must be able to build in short order of months not around a year.
Offline
Like button can go here
No it really wouldn't, because it would all be from one small area.
Any future sample return missions are going to be from an even smaller area.
And I've never considered a 10% chance of dying to be that significant when it comes to a history making spaceflight.
Certainly, but they could be sent all over the globe.
And 10%, I feel, is much too high. Yes I'm sure you can find hero-complex lemming astronauts, but that doesn't make it allright.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
No it really wouldn't, because it would all be from one small area.
Any future sample return missions are going to be from an even smaller area.
And I've never considered a 10% chance of dying to be that significant when it comes to a history making spaceflight.
Certainly, but they could be sent all over the globe.
And 10%, I feel, is much too high. Yes I'm sure you can find hero-complex lemming astronauts, but that doesn't make it allright.
You will never be able to fund more than three or four unmanned sample return missions over the next 50 years in all likelihood.
And I suppose you would call Alan Shephard, John Glenn, Neil Armstrong, Frank Borman, Jim Lovell, John Young......as "hero-complex lemming astronauts".
I think they did just fine.
I'm sure we could find a qualified pilot/geologist, biologist/medical doctor, and flight engineer/medic/meteorologist who would be willing to take the chance on such a Mars mission
Offline
Like button can go here
Why not? We funded two Mars rovers didn't we
Yes these men were. It just so happens that the country was willing to let them risk it at the time, as we were quite literally locked in a war of idealogical supremacy with the Soviet Union. They did do fine, they also got lucky, except the three in the Apollo pad fire.
The situation is simply different today, particularly with Challenger and Columbia crews dying for nothing. Whether we can find qualified people willing to take a 1-in-10ish chance is irrelevant, we aren't to let anybody take that risk. Its just not right, its a different thing than the space race, a different reason, one that doesn't hold the same stakes and urgency as before.
Furthermore such a mission would still be useless! Short range unpressurized rover(s), no heavy drill, no real room for lab space hardly, next to nothing in the way of science package (even MarsDirect only budgets 500kg) and a mission for three people is going to cost at least half or more what a mission for six would cost, and the latter is affordable if we will just have patience and discipline.
It doesn't matter one bit how many rocks you turn over and snap pictures of - none - because thats not where the water, and life, might hide. Or, if you have to drag all the rocks all the way back to Earth to find out if there is anything interesting in them! And the landing site will hold interesting things, but the dinky range of a light rover will fast run out of things it can reach compared to its range! A heavy drill, a well equipped laboratory, and a pressurized rover are not negotiable! Its just criminal to even talk about not including these things! To go all the way to Mars, all that money, all the political capital, all the risk and not bring the tools needed to even look for the answers we seek? Madness!
And what about afterwards? What happens then? Why is everyone who pushes MarsDirect so nonchalant about that? Is it because they are afraid? Or even worse, probably because they just don't care, they just care about pretty pictures of footprints and flags, and don't give a d*** if we actually stay or not... Not caring is what got us Apollo, which while it worked, was a dead end from the moment the single-shot-mission was decided upon.
Small missions require smaller payloads, and small missions aren't modular: the two things that we have absolutely got to have if we intend to stay. We can afford a mission plan big enough, we just can't afford to rush.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
Whether we can find qualified people willing to take a 1-in-10ish chance is irrelevant, we aren't to let anybody take that risk.
I find that absolutely absurd. I don't know what the great fear is about losing life to the unknown. If early explorers had the same attitude we would still be living in tribes.
It's exactly that allure of danger and mystery that propels the exploration spirit. While i agree that we must minimize our risk, you also take a risk each time you get in your car to go to work. It's a risk, you minimize it, the accept it.
Being that this is the first time this has ever been done, i find 10% damn good odds.
Offline
Like button can go here
I find that absolutely absurd. I don't know what the great fear is about losing life to the unknown. If early explorers had the same attitude we would still be living in tribes.
It's exactly that allure of danger and mystery that propels the exploration spirit. While i agree that we must minimize our risk, you also take a risk each time you get in your car to go to work. It's a risk, you minimize it, the accept it.
Being that this is the first time this has ever been done, i find 10% damn good odds.
Nonsense! Thats a terrible way to think!
Its totally irrelevant too, its different because these ancient explorers risked their lives on their own for the most part, and weren't a national effort to send them. If it were possible for private people or entities to go then they can risk whatever they please, 50/50 chance whatever, but not if they are going for us, thats just not right.
And we do go big, or we don't go. Better to delay Mars if need be then to screw it all up in a mad Zubrinesqe rush.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
I'm only saying so because i would be the first to sign up.
Offline
Like button can go here
If we don't go to Mars "Zubrinesque" then in all likelihood we will never go.
You saw how far President Bush #41 "Space Exploration Initiative" got with a "go big or not at all approach.
Thirty billion a year price tags over the course of 30 years. Permanent lunar bases. Orbital assembly.
While Bob Zubrin didn't get everything right he got one thing right that is in my mind nonnegotiable.
From the moment that a manned Mars mission is approved.......you've got ten years to accomplish the landing. Every year after that the chances of the program dying increase by an order of magnitude.
I'll refine it even further.
A manned Mars program once approved, probably should accomplish a manned landing OF SOME KIND ON MARS...within 6 to 8 years. As that might give it a hope of happening within the presidency of the president who set the goal.
Sure, a pressurized rover would be great.
But lets not kid ourselves. A nonpressurized rover on the first mission could help the crew explore hundreds of square miles. Especially given that they'll be using it for more than a year.
And a large drill would be good for exploring. But there is one heck of alot of exploring to do on the Mars surface alone before drilling many meters into the surface.
GCN.
Give up with "Go big or not at all" and try to accomplish the possible dream.
Offline
Like button can go here
Nonsense, NASA's old SEI plan was never serious and NASA knew it, nobody really believes that their plan was anything other than an attempt to protect Shuttle status quo, and by extension the space station, to maintain funding for doing nothing, the NASA modus operandi pre-Columbia.
And this nonsense talk about "Bob Zubrin says that we have a ten year stopwatch to beat," if we have to be held to an arbitrary deadline then whatever mission plan that comes out of it will be likewise shaped because of arbitrary stupidity or wind up like Shuttle. If there is not enough political momentum for a useful and well planned Mars mission, that it has to be a worthless, risky, and stupid mission to race some election date, then there is no way the missions will amount to anything. In which case, better off waiting until a mission will amount to something.
That is the price, the price for learning the secrets of Mars, and the price for extending ourselves there in earnest, the price is no flags, no footprints, no pictures of Americans saluting the flag for a while longer. And it is not that high of a price.
If the first Mars missions wind up becoming the new Apollo, which we abandoned for fifty years at least when it is so close and so much easier, how long will we wait to be serious about Mars? Fifty years? A hundred? Two hundred? With the plateau of conventional rocket technology, it might be a very long time.
We have to do this right, and do it right the first time. It is absolutely critical that we make progress early, and be able to transition from visits to establishment with a minimum of investment both fiscal and political. If we build a one-off useless dinky mission just because, which doesn't answer the big questions and can't lead to establishment, thats not doing it right. Questions will be asked, "if what you really wanted was X and Y, why did you ask for Z?" or "if you really wanted this, why did you build a rocket that can't do it?" and "but if you just spent a little more earlier, you wouldn't have to start from scratch now." ...And there will be no answer.
Thats Apollo Redux... the greatest triumph of spaceflight, but also the greatest tragedy, to go so far and to just throw it all away. Granted that it was primarily one of the great battles of the Cold War, so how much worse would it be for Mars, when there is no such reason? To go so far, to accomplish such a feat, to literally touch and taste the red dust... and to throw it all away again.
That is a far, far greater tragedy then putting off the journey a while longer
It takes how long it takes, which lucky for us is not that long if its done right. NASA's DRM mission, the smallest and simplest credible and useful plan, uses vehicles that are of similar size as MarsDirect's HAB but with much better use of its volume, plus a small extra airlock deck. The MAV in fact is smaller and simpler than the MarsDirect ERV! The vehicles are not that dissimilar, except that the DRM mission plan carries really useful amounts of mass and has room to grow. In fact, developing the DRM vehicles shouldn't be harder the MarsDirect vehicles.
The HAB and ERV are almost identical in the DRM, the MAV could easily be a combination of Orion and a modified LSAM, and the TMI booster a modified Lunar EDS. And since there is so much more mass available not everything has to be as carefully (and time-consumingly) developed to minimize mass. DRM isn't a great deal more difficult than MarsDirect, primarily its just bigger.
Its foolish to count on the immediate area around the landing site will be cram full of things to do, or more importantly that we will get lucky and land within a few tens of kilometers of the entire 21000km around globe where the answers of Mars lay hidden under the dust. Long range mobility with a pressurized rover is important. Without it, its a cosmic crap shoot with bad odds if we will answer the big questions or not.
And I reject this idea that "you can do a lot" without a drill, yeah you can poke a lot of rocks and take a lot of pictures, wa hoo. Is there life on Mars? Was there? Where is the water? Where did it go? Is is still there? Can we extract it? What salts are dissolved in the water? Liquid or solid? What minerals are inside this boulder? What is under the dirt? How deep does this vein go? etc etc etc etc etc etc etc... Again, a drill is non-negotiable, and such a thing is going to weigh in the high kilos to low tonnes, we are NEVER going to find life nor probably fossils on the corrosive, UV-bleached, bone dry near-vacuum of the Martian surface, so we should just give up answering this question so we can shave a few years off the program?
We go big, or we don't go. And its not that much bigger, nor is it that much longer.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
There are alot of people less interested in what a manned Mars mission would accomplish on Mars than what it would do on Earth.
Specifically for the United States.
Offline
Like button can go here
There are alot of people less interested in what a manned Mars mission would accomplish on Mars than what it would do on Earth.
Specifically for the United States.
And whats that supposed to mean?
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
The biggest problem faced under a gloom and doom senerio is a factor of time remaining to impact. The problem is further esculated when ships still need to be built when workers will want to be with there families instead. Remember there is no tomorrow for them that are not on the flight....
Offline
Like button can go here
The biggest problem faced under a gloom and doom senerio is a factor of time remaining to impact. The problem is further esculated when ships still need to be built when workers will want to be with there families instead. Remember there is no tomorrow for them that are not on the flight....
Uh. Huh?
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
There are alot of people less interested in what a manned Mars mission would accomplish on Mars than what it would do on Earth.
Specifically for the United States.
And whats that supposed to mean?
The purpose of the first Mars mission should be to set up a base that would be used by the next mission and the mission after that. Perhaps the pressurized rover can be prepositioned ahead of time, it should be similar to the 2 Mars rovers in that they can be controlled from the Earth to a limited extent, except that it would be much bigger, it probably should have some camera's attached and other instruments including a sampler arm and a drill. All these things can be controlled from the operators or programmed to do something with commands from Earth. I think the ROver should have the mass of a Hab, and thus it would require a seperate launch just to get the rover there ahead of the manned expedition. Now what would be the best way to land a pressurized rover, the size of an RV on Mars?
Offline
Like button can go here
The first couple of missions need not immediately lead to a base, but should be sent to prime candidate locations; the critical resource for a base is access to water, and we need to make sure it can be extracted. A manned DRM-sized mission would best maximize the chance of finding a good supply of it for what we can afford.
The pressurized rover doesn't need to be THAT big, its not an RV more like a big SUV, it just has to be big enough to travel the terrain with two astronauts normally or six astronauts in a pinch and carry/power the heavy drill. The DRM plan calls for a rover in the 5-10MT range to be carried with the ISRU plant and the MAV, which would be about right. Of course it will have the ability to drive by remote, albeit not as well perhaps. The larger size of this rover will let it traverse terrain that the MarsDirect "enclosed golf cart" simply couldn't, and do useful work when it gets there.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
The first couple of missions need not immediately lead to a base, but should be sent to prime candidate locations; the critical resource for a base is access to water, and we need to make sure it can be extracted. A manned DRM-sized mission would best maximize the chance of finding a good supply of it for what we can afford.
The pressurized rover doesn't need to be THAT big, its not an RV more like a big SUV, it just has to be big enough to travel the terrain with two astronauts normally or six astronauts in a pinch and carry/power the heavy drill. The DRM plan calls for a rover in the 5-10MT range to be carried with the ISRU plant and the MAV, which would be about right. Of course it will have the ability to drive by remote, albeit not as well perhaps. The larger size of this rover will let it traverse terrain that the MarsDirect "enclosed golf cart" simply couldn't, and do useful work when it gets there.
A big rover could be powered directly by a nuclear reactor and would have a virtually unlimited range and direct communications with Earth, the idea being that you might want to travel anywhere on Mars and you'd have two years to do it. You might want to go to the North Pole, then traverse the Valles Marineris, descend into the Hellas Basin, and climb to the summit of Olympus Mons.
Offline
Like button can go here
No, making such a behemoth mobile makes no sense, the reactor would need heavy duty shielding that would make the whole thing too big and heavy. You could never drive that far even in two years either, remember that there are no roads on Mars. And if you get stuck too far from the ascent vehicle, the crew is dead.
A stationary reactor splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen for a fuel cell would probably be easiest, or else NASA's proposed DIPS system.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here