New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#26 Re: Human missions » George Bush Jr planning on kennedy speach - mostly moon, but as prep for mars » 2003-12-04 18:43:04
The rumor I hear has no funding and is more of Bush's political BS. I just look at this as another chance for him to say nothing important but sound like he is profound. It's just more "Thanksgiving in Iraq" and flying on to an aircraft carrier for photo ops. :angry: 
#27 Re: Human missions » The Case for the Moon » 2003-11-18 04:17:51
What we are assuming is that astronauts bouncing around on Mars will be more popular than astronauts hopping around the moon. Are we sure of this, after the first few months? I hope so.
I wouldn't say that is what I'm assuming. I suspect we will end up with maybe one or two missions to Mars at most. If NASA suddenly becomes media savvy we could hope for two or three missions and they will be camels not the horse we would want...(see below).
I have some more thoughts for you folks wanting to go to the Moon.
The STS started out being fully reusable and cheaper to launch than Saturn Vs and we ended up with a compromised, camel instead of a horse, that cost more than Saturn Vs (for that matter any other launcher) and takes a standing arm to service.
ISS started out as Space Station Freedom in a useful orbit and with construction sheds to build Moon and Mars spacecraft in...
This trend will not stop because you dream it will...
The Moon base will devolve into something less than it started out as. Which will not include Mars related infrastructure without a huge continuing effort on our part to stop and reverses this trend.
#28 Re: Terraformation » Nozomi might contaminate Mars - since it was not sterilized » 2003-11-18 03:58:46
From what I understand Nozomi has a very slim chance of hitting Mars. Something on the order of 1 to 2 percent. Even without it's main thruster it can steer with it's attitude control thrusters.
But it is rumored that Zond 2 crashed on Mars and possibly Mars 1. Both were unsterilized Soviet orbiters.
#29 Re: Human missions » The Case for the Moon » 2003-11-17 16:53:35
I'm addressing several posts here:
No, I don't need a nap. I'm frustrated by people living in another world than the one I'm in. If you go to the Moon without planning everything used to also be used at Mars there is no sense in thinking we will be going to Mars within this century. :angry:
Try running any simulation of a Mars mission at the Moon and you run into the fact the two places are different. So the simulation is modified to work in orbit or on the Moon. It wont be a valid test of Mars equipment and thus more testing will be needed. Want to simulate a Mars mission without people send robotic missions to Mars with the correct infrastructure. That alone will be like pulling teeth. Witness the suggestion that a rocket using ISRU be used on the sample return mission.
In Cowing's article he writes: "Word from knowledgeable sources would suggest that an overt Kennedy-esque commitment to send humans to Mars is simply not in the cards. Indeed, Mars (as an option) is not on the table at the present time."
I don't often agree with Keith on points like this, but I feel he is right here. Mars wont be the primary reason for a return to the Moon...not even a secondary reason. Nothing useful for Mars infrastructure will be built, we will abandon the Moon again and it will be hung over anyone's head suggesting a manned Mars mission.
Arguing that engines or spacesuits can be built to be use at both places misses the point. Nobody will spend the extra money need to do so if it isn't in the plan in the first place and it easily can be seen by congress as a boondoggle; who will shut it down the second the NASA budget "needs" trimming. Just as Transhab was shut down for similar reasons. Just as there is no close-loop life support on ISS now.
When surveyed about 50 to 60 percent of "space fans" want a return to the Moon. And when asked it's usually for nostalgic reasons or this lame "...we need to relearn how to function in space on the Moon..." (we've had forty years folks how much longer do you plan to dink around). There two different environments with two different sets of (to be fair: slightly similar) problems. Everyone else will be bored to death by the Moon, just as they were in the 1970s!
Maybe we need to repeat old mistakes over again. I don't know why you folks who should know better don't get it. I've said my piece. I really should be happy with chaos for my namesake. Here have a golden apple...
#30 Re: Human missions » The Case for the Moon » 2003-11-16 23:58:38
Let me point out a few things: I'm not Mars centric, I'm not opposed to a return to the Moon (by a commercial entity) and I would like humanity to occupy the whole solar system...and beyond.
The space suits will be different: Who says? The pressure they have to enclose will be the same, relative to the outside. The heat generated inside the suit that has to be removed will be the same (the Martian atmosphere will not provide significant cooling; it's too thin). The oxygen needed will be the same. The CO2 removal will be the same. The waste management (in case the astronauts have to pee) will be the same. The dust they have to seal against will be chemically different, but will involve particles of the same size range (the lunar regolith has a lot of dust; it was a problem for Apollo).
Anyone who has bothered to look at the problems say so. The environments of the Moon and Mars are very different from each other. Cooling systems used in A7L and A7LB suits of Apollo vintage are pretty much the same as now used in the EMU and they will not work on Mars! They work fine on the Moon. What would the incentive to spend money on building a different system for use on the Moon that also works on Mars? We have something that works fine. Dust on the Moon is very probably different from that on Mars. They have some similar properties but have very different environment in which they formed. The ITMG needed for the Moon is not even vaguely the same as would be needed for Mars. A pare of Arctic coveralls is closer to the TMG for Mars! There is no need to worry about back contamination on the Moon yet this will be a prime concern for decades at Mars. Stopping air leakage will be costly and not need on the Moon at all. The gravity is different the gait of Spacesuit wearer will be different on both places the suits won't be the same in design at all. All this will cost money that will not be forth coming as it wont be needed for the Moon. You don't know what you are talking about!
The space vehicles will have to be different: Only partially. The engines and tanks could be the same (though the tanks might have to be bigger). The life support systems could be the same. If the lunar vehicles fly back to low earth orbit, they will need aeroshields like the Martian vehicles (which will also have to be designed to aerobrake into Earth orbit).
If you plan to use ISRU at Mars the fuels will be different. And thus there is no incentive to use the same engines need at Mars as at the Moon! Optimized spacecraft for the Moon will not work at Mars. A Lunar optimized lander would collapse under the heavier gravity. A spacecraft optimized for Mars can be made to work at the Moon. But nobody will spend the money to optimize for Mars when going to the Moon.
In situ resource utilization will be different: Maybe half true. If there is lunar ice (which is the main reason to go to the moon first; if there isn't, the moon may be worth skipping) the system for electrolyzing it and storing the products will be the same. The carbon dioxide breathed out by the astronauts could be converted into methane and oxygen using the same Sabatier process (as Robert Dyck has pointed out).
Lunar Ices if that is what the trace hydrogen is may not be easily mined or even mined for fifty years or more. Besides it makes no sense in a trip to Mars anyway.
Half true? Mars has an atmosphere with all the added complexity such gives to the process, dust, nitrogen and other gases. There is no incentive to do as Robert suggests anyway. It would cost more than just resuppling lost water. And with the economy of scale as you increase flights to the Moon this will be even more true. The incentives to spend billions more than the 15 or 20 billion it would possibly take to return to the Moon is not there. And if we should abandoned the Moon again this will be used against going to Mars.
And then there's the repair issue. NASA rightly is paranoid about sending astronauts to Mars and having them stuck there--or perish--because some small, irreplacable part has broken. We know we can make spacesuits that will work on the moon for a week; Apollo 17 did that. What about a month? Three months? Six? Twelve? Twenty-four? Mars will need suits good for at least eighteen. The moon is a good place to test out things like suits and life support systems and see what breaks, when, and how often they need to be repaired (and therefore how many spares they need). You can't fly people to Mars with fifty tonnes of spares. But you can build a moon base that is resupplied three times a year and fly spares up to it, test out new systems, etc., and get a good sense of what the repair schedule for Martian equipment will be. Dust is a big issue and was a problem with Apollo, but the crews weren't there long enough to see what problems resulted.
You don't get it. NASA is as paranoid about a return to the Moon as a mission to Mars. If you build a base at the Moon you have similar problems in logistic and failures as you would with Mars (an area of real similarity).
Unless the plan is to go to Mars and you are actually somehow testing Mars optimized spacecraft and equipment on the Moon then you wont go to Mars. It wont happen period. All these 30 years of LEO have been preparing to go back to the Moon and going on to Mars and we don't have a closed loop recycling life support system on ISS and we wont have it at the Moon and we wont be going anywhere after we abandon the Moon again for decades if ever. Anyway, you are wrong there is virtually no value in test equipment destined for Mars at the Moon and nobody who has a clue will be willing to pay for it!
So it makes sense that NASA is considering a flight to the moon first. It would almost be irresponsible not to; thirty months is a LONG time to be away from Earth and unable to be rescued. BUT the position of the Mars Society that any moon exploration must be in the CONTEXT of Mars exploration makes sense. That seems to be the position of the Planetary Society as well. And the rumors coming from the White House suggest that is at least what they will say: that a return to the moon must be done in the larger context of deep space flight (Mars and asteroids).
It is not NASA (in the main) thinking of a return to the Moon, it is the Whitehouse. And from what I've heard it's not both Mars and the Moon. What rumor have you heard? Please check out this article. Wouldn't matter if that was the "Plan" anyway it would simply change to the Moon alone and leaving it after a few visits. Get a clue!
#31 Re: Human missions » The Case for the Moon » 2003-11-15 03:52:40
The moon is a place where humans can work in reduced gravity, test life support systems that are truly closed, andbe within one to three days of home at all times. Perhaps Mars Direct, in the form of "Moon Direct," will enable a truly in-depth exploration of the moon. Successful moon missions will validate essential parts of Mars Direct or whatever method is chosen for going to Mars.
In and environment not similar to Mars in so many ways as to make the effort near meaninless. Spacesuits will be vastly different, spacecraft build for lunar use will not function properly on Mars, and Lunar ISRU will be meaningless to amplications on Mars.
No one will make a close loop life support system for a place just three days away from home it doesn't make economical senses. People where making this same argument for ISS and in no way could you describe it's life support system as closed loop.
What will happen? We will return to the Moon costs will get out of hand the useful gains will be low and the entertainment value of the Moonscape is so low nobody but space fans will tune in and the effort will be shut down! And this will be hung over Martian's heads just as Apollo is now! "You can't go to Mars! Look what just happened again at the Moon."
Mars fanatics, don't lose faith. The moon is not a detour, but a stepping stone to Mars in mankind's eventual colonization of space.
No it's tombstone for going to Mars! The Moon is the biggest deadend for going to Mars possible it doesn't have a turnaround in it! :angry:
#33 Re: Life support systems » Mars regolith analog » 2003-11-15 03:06:15
You are right I was looking at a different graph. The webpage you mention is from Spacedaily and is written by Barry DiGregorio a non-scientist with the agenda of never in a hundred years having humans visit mars! I think he is not worthy of reading. I don't know if there is life on Mars, but I wouldn't accept Barry's views as fact. He is a hack!
Try: Life Pinned on Viking Horns?at Astrobiology Magazine
#34 Re: Life support systems » Mars regolith analog » 2003-10-22 15:27:25
P.S. I should clarify something about the GCMS. It was designed to detect organic material - NOT life. The fact that it detected no organic material was taken to mean that no bacteria, alive or dead, were present in the regolith, although the Labeled Release experimental data were strongly indicative of actively metabolising microorganisms. The problem was simply that you would need at least 10,000,000 bacteria in the soil (alive or not) for the GCMS to detect organic material. The LR device is capable of detecting the metabolic products of as little as 50 organisms! Thus, in a harsh environment like Mars, where the population of microorganisms could well be small (as in Antarctic soils), the GCMS was too insensitive to detect the amounts of organic material involved.
The problem is that the LR producted a sudden spike of activity with just as sudden a drop. Nothing like the bell curve you would think life would produce. It has also been discredited by others work...
Maybe Beagle II will answer this question.
#35 Re: Human missions » Helmet Condensation - Science Channel Special » 2003-10-21 04:14:45
The Apollo and current EMU use airflow over the head and down past the face of the helmet user. I think using the chemical film that divers apply to there helmets and this method should be used. It would be hard to develop a double hemispheric helmet with some noble gas inside...
#36 Re: Life on Mars » Mars Sample Return - Threat of back-contamination » 2003-10-21 04:04:01
An important document when talking about this is:
A Draft Test Protocol for Detecting Possible Biohazards
in Martian Samples Returned to Earth (NASA/CP 2002-211842)