You are not logged in.
I favour electric trikes with a large boot on the back.
Electric power will be in plentiful supply on Mars and the electric motor/battery are quite small.
Do we really need to drill? Why? It's unlikely we will need to drill for anything - no oil and water can be acquired from the permafrost in all likelihood.
I favour use of a simple digger with a microwave machine attachment to melt and loosen the frozen regolith/permafrost.
I'd start from this premise:
We don't need an atmosphere fifty miles high. About fifty feet would be fine thanks.
So are there any ways of producing a thick layer of gas at a height of fifty feet which is coherent and wouldn't fly off beneath which we could have a breathable atmosphere.
Even if not suitable for the whole planet, could it be achieved within large craters perhaps?
CI -
This is probably a stupid question - but why can't you slow down the rocket before the descent. Why can't you say slow it down as you approach Mars orbit? Is it just the fuel use which is the issue?
I'm wondering why we can't slow to subsonic speeds and then descend gracefully to the planet's surface.
I suggested something similar regarding magnets on Red Colony but a respondent suggested that type of magnetism would not ward off radiation in the way the earth's magnetic field does. I've no idea whether or not that is true.
Bone loss is more or less manageable with exercise I would say judging form ISS experience. Artificial gravity would be a wasteful and potentially dangerous addition to the craft. Forget it.
Radiation exposure is not a problem . We can have hidey holes on board for major radiation events.
The immune system is of some concern. On the plus side of course, they are going somewhere where the likelihood of catching a bug is probably small (though we don't know for sure). But this is something we need to look into more.
Having said, none of the long stay astronauts has keeled over and died.
Are we sure the immune system isn't working less efficiently because it isn't being challenged in the it would on earth on a daily basis? Do people isolated in the Antarctica experience similar immunity reduction one wonders?
Lovely graphics Zhar.
You make it look v. beautiful.
Have you really addressed the pressure problem though? My understanding is that the pressure differential is huge and therefore the structure must be sturdy. Yours looks graceful but not sturdy.
For the side seal, how about clear a smooth flat edge several metres wide round the top of the crater and then dump back the regolith on top of the cover's edges over that width of several metres. Could maybe hold it if the cover was turned upwards like a cake liner and perhaps cross-attached with cables to the other side of the crater.
Seer -
Yes, I like the basic idea and favour it myself (in a perfect world!).
I agree with most of your thoughts.
Are you incorporating retro-rockets in your proposal? I favour that. Assuming the stability issue can be resolved then I think that is the safest and surest way down - only one mechanism to fail , not three as with some Mars landers.
I wonder also whether we need to be dependent on fuel production on the surface. Not that I am against fuel production on Mars in the longer run, but I against creating a potential failure point if it can be avoided for the first mission.
I am currently thinking in terms of two robot pre-missions (essentially supplies) and two human missions. If we are thinking in terms of continuous settlement, can we not have a situation where further landers come in a couple of years' time and include fuel supplies for the initial colonists to make the return journey? Or perhaps that could be the back up plan - so if fuel production has been successful, the imported fuel would simply go into the energy storage systems as a bonus.
I don't know how much technical knowledge you have Seer - I don't claim too much. The difficulty I think is to see what kind of problem we are faced with regarding a Mars landing. Is it a kind of D Day problem - is there really only one basic solution (the landing have got to be on the Channel coast and Normandy is preferable to Brittany or Calais)? Or is it a problem with several possible solutions? Are we in a position as at the start of jet travel, where engineers could have gone with a delta wing solution (which some people think would still be preferable to the "tube with wings" concept)? Or could we have switched to jump jet technology at some point, so as to avoid all the problems of approach and noise arond airports?
I just have a sneaky suspicion that a single stage solution has not been given top billing because a lot of R&D has already gone into multi stage rocketry. But perhaps it is what the ride to Mars calls for.
Ci -
I think I was researching the same figures today and I think the 8.9 million millionaires was a world wide estimate.
That's still a lot of millionaires.
Looking at this in terms of economics, we probably need to look at cruise holidays where millionaires will happily pay tens of thousands of dollars.
I think really you want to get the cost down to about 200,000 dollars to get a lot of people to bite. But there may well be an "early" market of people willing to pay larger sums to get into orbit and get to the moon.
Associated with this issue -
Shouldn't assembly in space of sub-units be much easier now with laser technology and so on. Isn't there an argument for looking towards assembly in LEO as the way forward? So, if you want a 40 tonne Mars lander, you build it from 8 "snap together" 5 tonne sub units (which can be lifted into space by medium sized rockets)?
They seem a very efficient outfit - I'm their biggest fan!
Take a look at the on board video of their rocket launch on their site - fantastic! It was ultimately unsuccessful but all the space agencies have had their failures along the way. I think they are doing good.
I was reading about the problems of retro rocket landings on Mars. Apparently the rocket exhaust acts like an unstable nose cone and because Mars unlike the Moon has winds , it is a bit of a liability in trying to land smoothly and successfully.
Does anyone have any comments/thoughts on this?
One thought I've had is whether a "tripod" of rocket exhaust angled at three equidistant points on the side of the lander would help stabilise it.
Another thought: Harrier Jump Jets have mastered the art of landing with jet exhaust i.e. a retroactive system. Does that afford any insights?
Are NASA being unduly cautious about the scope for retrorockets?
Yes, it's an interesting idea on which I've also mused.
I was wondering about some many layered (maybe 100 say) polymer cover with differential pressure chambers, so that there would be "natural" release of pressure. This would require the interior to be replenished with air but it would mean that there would not need to be the heavy materials used to construct the sealed cover.
If such a polypressure cover could be devised then many craters could be covered in this way with maybe just a central support for the cover.
I imagine seals at the crater side would be a problem.
OK, maybe not the most brilliant proposal - but it does resonate a little with me.
I was wondering whether there is any scope for multi-part craft that splits as it approaches Mars. So say with a three person craft, perhaps it splits into four with three individual pods and a supplies unit which then descend. IN theory, this could make the descent easier.
Im not really advocating this - it's just something that occurred to me. The pods could also be launched separately and then assembled together (so reducing need for big launchers).
I've just seen below others (e.g. Terraformer) are more or less putting forward the same idea, so maybe not so daft.
Anybody seen the BigDog robot from Boston Dynamics (search on You Tube - it's there)?
It's an amazing beast. It slips on ice and sets itself up on its four legs, just like a deer. It can carry 200lbs or more. Would be very useful exploring Mars or Moon - put a camera on it. Also would be v. useful in laying supplies (oxygen/food/solar power points/mini inflatables) at strategic points.
(REPOSTED NOW I UNDERSTAND HOW THE HEADINGS WORK!)
I'm rather enthused by this idea of lunar gardens of remembrance.
Flying up a kg of ashes is a lot more economically within the reach of people than flying up a whole live body.
The gardens of remembrance could be laid out tastefully on some sort of plain. With no wind, the ashes won't blow away. They will still be there in a million years (or so the advertising will promise). It will be the perfect resting place for all astronomers and space enthusiasts. Doesn't have to be the whole of the ashes, could just be a part. There could be different prices ranging from tiny amounts to the full works with perhaps remembrance plaque as well.
There could be a webcam to broadcast the scene permanently back to earth.
It would be comforting for many to be able to look at the moon and know they are gazing on their loved ones' final resting place.
Even with current launch costs, this could still be an economic proposition and with costs reducing it becomes ever more so.
I'm not saying the IBM analogy is precise, but I am saying it shows that an organisation that is doing things in many ways right, technologically (IBM had a personal computer available by the early to mid 70s I think but it never really took off), isn't necessarily the right vehicle to deliver a related goal effectively.
To say Space X is small seems to me fairly irrelevant. Their largest planned craft will take 12 MTs into orbit I believe. That's good enough for me. NASA and other space agencies have done a lot of the expensive development work on a whole range of technical aspects of space travel. Space X can in effect piggy back on that - it isn't looking to reinvent the wheel as far as I can see.
I think actually it's quite likely Space X will get involved in lunar economics, if they can get the price of launch down. I think it's to do with its founder's vision. I can't see him holding back if he has the means to get to the Moon, but of course he may well co-operate with other providers (Bigelow?).
The Space Shuttle is an incredibly expensive way to get stuff into space as I think everyone who has studied the subject now admits, however nice the concept is.
Palomar -
ISRU technologies will be vital in lifting India's rural poor out of resource poverty. Solar power; solar furnaces; wind power; wave power; mini hydro; micro power generation; hydroponic agriculture; efficient recycling; water manufacture...all of these could be hugely important.
Ci -
I'm not really criticising NASA, though it may appear so! They have their priorities and in many ways they are shaped by the public and by science.
However, I think that if we are interested in establishing an enduring human presence on the Moon and Mars without unnecessary delay, then the NASA approach is not the right one.
Once upon a time the IBM way was the only way to do computers - no longer.
I hope - no more than hope - that some organisation like Space X (whose owner Elon Musk is certainly focussed on the ultimate goal of a settling Mars) will be able to bring down the cost of launches significantly and make lunar economic development a reality. Space X are using conventional rocket technology which I think is the right way to go.
The NASA figure of 1 billion dollars you quote just sounds too much to me. We are talking about an established technology and a journey of quarter of a million miles - ten times round the earth. It shouldn't be costing 1,000,000,000 dollars. But if at the same time you are going to develop lunar rovers and a range of science products, then I think you are building in unnecessary additional cost.
I'd like to have a short stay. But I wouldn't relish the journey there and back.
2020? That's 12 years away. Why the delay?
It seems to me there is far too much science and exploration in NASA's approach which could be slowing things up.
I'd prefer to see much more emphasis on lunar economic development - yes, welcome to the Moon Hotel. With a firm economic base, exploration and science become far, far easier I would say.
We need to look more closely at the economics. The right approach from my point view is to say how much would it cost to establish a lunar hotel and how much would guests have to pay to stay there for a couple of days? Then, is there a market for those facilities at that price. What would people pay?
I think the moon would also make a good resting place for people's ashes. People would pay good money to send their loved ones' ashes to the moon, knowing that when they gaze up they are looking at those ashes.
In the world there are some 9 million millionaires. If we could get the cost of launching down to say 3000 dollars per kg would that make lunar tourism and lunar gardens of remembrance economic?