Mars Direct still on the table? - ranting, wondering-

scavengeboy2 · 2004-01-18 02:21:59

From CNN:

?All fuel, water and other supplies would have to be carried along or sent ahead on robot craft. The crew size would have to be expanded to allow for sickness or death that is likely for such a risky expedition.? ?No firm cost estimates have been developed, but informal discussions have put the cost of a Mars expedition at nearly $1 trillion, depending on how ambitious the project was. The cost of a moon colony, again, would depend on what NASA wants to do on the lunar surface.? ?NASA's target for a moon mission is 2018, an official said.?

From the nonsense on CNN (above) and in my local paper you?d think it was pre-1989 with no lessons learned since then. ??? So expensive and slow! Are they trying to scare people away from any future in space? Why are there so few mentions of Mars Direct?I?d say this was meant to fail except the way Bush does things this ridiculous plan might even come to pass?

There's a lot of speculation (a trillion dollars!) but if the Bush administration puts forth a bloated ?Battlestar Galactica? plan, will the Dems back a competing (affordable, superior) Mars Direct type plan? Which Democratic candidate would be best for this ? and how do we get him involved?

In another thread sethmckiness said

We have to learn to crawl before we walk, and we have issues with even getting high enough to crawl... Also... I don't think we are ready for Mars yet. Until we can get a 100% rate of getting probes there.... we can't even do that yet... I think that makes any mission a bit of Russian roulette?We can find ways to maximize the commonality between the moon hardware and Mars hardware.

As the pundits keep saying we are more ready to go to Mars now than we were to go to the moon in the early 60s. As to 100% probe success that is impossible, we?d never go anywhere. And the way to maximize hardware commonality IMHO is to go with the more robust system (Mars Direct would do nicely) and then the lesser requirements (Moon) are a ?bonus? and can be dealt with simultaneously at whatever level is deemed appropriate.

The Moon has to be secondary. Mars hardware would have half a dozen uses, including making short work of the Moon. Two or three 27? diameter tuna cans would make a great moon base, they can do some geology, drop off one or two telescopes (possibly an interferometer) and perhaps a reactor for testing. We do not need a permanently manned moon base (can you say money pit) but an outpost to be occasionally manned might be a good idea ? if it didn?t distract too much from the real goal, Mars. The Moon is a bonus.

Bush?s plan does not seem to be too incompatible with mars Direct, too bad the timescale is so long. What are the chances of getting the Mars Direct ?tuna can? (possibly tweked) to be the CEV? I understand it would actually make an excellent hab, base, transfer vehicle, and cargo vehicle...could it do earth return?

Don?t retire the shuttle until something good replaces it! I would cry if we give it up and end up with nothing, lamenting the loss of our last real heavy booster, as we have lamented the Saturn 5 for so long now?

Mere Flyby of mars?probably a mistake. The fist Apollo was a flyby, but 2 years in space just to fly past for a couple days? If a dress rehearsal is required have one of the robotic vehicles be a scale model of the manned hardware. There's also the unmanned lander of similar design which would go first as a demonstrator; in addition to the shakedown on the moon, this should suffice. A flyby is a bit stupid, and a tease for really going to mars...

Killing all unrelated robotic programs would be a gross error. Robots return the most results for a fraction of the space budget. They were the only real explorers for the last 30 years. Imagine canceling them all only to have the moon-mars initiative fail - we might have nothing at all for a decade! Robots will always go farther, and work longer than people, without risking lives and for less cost?while they might be no substitute for sending people they make great advance troops. If this relatively small amount of money is that badly needed for the new initiative, i would grudgingly say to extend the program another year.

A thousand billion dollars would not be acceptable, 30 billion would be great. 30-40 years to mars is not acceptable, 9-12 years would be great. Teensy 25 tonne payloads are a poor way to do things, meaning space construction, cramped spaces and compromised capability, and ballooning costs (think ISS-like flying junkpile) ? really need a 120 tonne payload, such as a converted shuttle stack. As you can see I?m more or less a Zubrinophile. :;):

This is roughly what I?d want to see:

Y1 design and review begins
Y3 ?Beach ball resolution? orbital mapping of entire mars surface for pinpoint landings
Y5 robotic in-situ fuel demonstation (and optional sample return)
Y7 CEV design finalized, first launch: skylab type mission
Y8 two missions to lunar surface for shakedown (geology, drop off lunar telescope)
Y11 launch hab to mars
Y12 first landing!

Mundaka · 2004-01-18 19:39:07

scavengeboy2 · 2004-01-20 07:33:18

Thanks, Mundaka! This isn't really my first post, log-in isn't accepting my username VitaminJ because there is no such user, then if i try to re-register it says the name is already taken, grr.

I'm surprised at the dearth of replies though, am I that dull, or stupid, or not controversial enough...or am i just saying more or less what all Zubrin's followers think ???

I suppose i should have also said I am glad nasa has a direction and goal again, and if Bush is serious then the plan is better than no plan! I guess we'll know if he's serious when we see the details of the budget and the swiss-army CEV system...

RobertDyck · 2004-01-20 11:27:13

We appear to have an increasing number of threads in the Human missions folder. It's getting hard to keep track.

We have discussed some of this before. I'm sure the author of the CNN article hasn't read them; his comment appears quite uneducated/misinformed. The ISS already has a life support system that recycles half of the oxygen breathed, and water from the dehumidifier and urine collection tube. NASA has a water recycling system that recycles water from all sources, and addition of a Sabatier reactor will recycle oxygen. The result is 97% water recycling closure (according to NASA); although I don't have a figure for oxygen recycling closure, it should be about the same. NASA has stated they want a life support system that recycles 95% or more of each of oxygen and water, they now have it. I have also been working on a life recycling life support system; the next step requires a bio-lab. My system will create some food; fairly bland and not complete nutrition, but it would reduce the amount of food you must carry. Both NASA's system and my idea are equipment that can easily be installed in a spacecraft; it doesn't require an entire greenhouse. CELSS is great for the surface of Mars, but too big for the interplanetary spacecraft; these other systems do fit on a spacecraft.

Odyssey's neutron spectrometer found a lot of hydrogen in the top 1 metre of Mars soil. It's so much that it can't all be bound in hydrated minerals, it must be permafrost. Europe's Mars Express has a radar system that will measure water to a greater depth. This means if we can harvest water from that permafrost, we won't have to carry any water.

I think a fly-by mission is a dumb idea. A much better idea would be an unmanned mission with the manned equipment, including landing and lift-off from Mars. Once you send humans, it would be much safer for them to be within the atmosphere of Mars until the planets are aligned for return. Atmosphere provides protection from micrometeoroids and radiation. If I could have my way, the first mission would be a robotic sample return mission as a technology demonstrator. Then the unmanned mission with manned equipment. Then the third mission would be manned.

One concern is exactly what does Mars soil and Mars permafrost consist of? We need to know the particle size, minerals, superoxides (if present), alkali or acid, and anything else dissolved in the ice. Once we know that, we can devise a water purification device to make potable (drinkable) water from Mars permafrost. We could use that water both for life support, and creating rocket fuel. We should use Robert Zubrin's idea of ISPP for the sample return mission, then decide if we can make hydrogen/oxygen fuel from permafrost.

RobS · 2004-01-20 18:10:27

Automated drilling technology needs to be developed if we want to obtain water from the regolith. I suspect that's complicated, too; drills have all sorts of problems with materials so hard they break bits and chunks just the right size to jam moving parts. I saw an article somewhere; people are working on the problem.

But once people land on Mars, they can run a drill and extrsct the water for the next mission's earth return vehicle. That's quite a few tonnes of water; I think the Mars Direct ERV would need forty tonnes of water to make its 86 or so tonnes of methane/oxygen (water is 45% of the exhaust by mass, more if you want a methane-rich exhaust to prevent oxidation of the engine).

-- RobS

Dayton3 · 2004-01-20 19:16:03

In regards to Mars Direct, you've got to remember that much of NASA has always hated Mars Direct. And NASA of course has advised the president on Manned Mars Missions.

The reasons NASA has never liked it are legion:

1) It deemphasized the space station program. Lots of NASA managers have built their careers around the shuttle and station.

2) Many are appalled at the "bare bones" nature of the plan. Claiming that Zubrins mass estimates are way too low.

3) Like it or not, Robert Zubrin is an outsider, a maverick, a threat to the natural order of things (their view).

Look how NASA has taken Zubrins plan and altered it.

1) They went from Zubrins original two launches per mission to three (Mars Semi-Direct) then to SIX launches per mission. Including yet to be developed nuclear rocket engines.

2) They increased the crew size by 50% for no apparent reason.

Every time NASA touches Mars Direct, they make it bulkier and more complicated.

RobertDyck · 2004-01-21 02:55:11

Automated drilling technology needs to be developed if we want to obtain water from the regolith. I suspect that's complicated, too; drills have all sorts of problems with materials so hard they break bits and chunks just the right size to jam moving parts. I saw an article somewhere; people are working on the problem.

NORCAT, a contractor for the Canadian Space Agency, developed a drill for a Mars Rover. It's called [http://www.canadrill.com/]CanaDrill. The mission wasn't approved by parliament, but tests had shown some amazing results. It drilled through a 2 metre tall stack of hard rock, soft rock, loose gravel, sand, and even went through the plywood bottom of the sample box. It uses dry drilling (no lubricant) and is all electric powered. It has multiple drill shaft segments with a segment holder that looks like a Gatling gun. The picture looks like it holds 10 segments, each a metre long. The rover would take samples 10 metres below ground, at multiple locations, with sample preparation and handling, and multiple analysis instruments. It would have been a good mission, but parliament didn't approve any funding over CSA's normal budget.

Palomar · 2004-01-21 14:08:39

In regards to Mars Direct, you've got to remember that much of NASA has always hated Mars Direct. And NASA of course has advised the president on Manned Mars Missions.
The reasons NASA has never liked it are legion:
1) It deemphasized the space station program. Lots of NASA managers have built their careers around the shuttle and station.
...snip...
Every time NASA touches Mars Direct, they make it bulkier and more complicated.

*NASA: My ultimate love/hate relationship.

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2004-01-22 07:12:04

I don't think I've welcomed either of you, Mundaka and Scavengeboy2.
I'm sure I speak for all of us here when I say we're always happy to see new contributors with new ideas - WELCOME!

I'm afraid Dayton3 is probably right that NASA's convenient 'tinkering' with Mars Direct to make it unmanageable ... in the name of safety, of course(! ) ... was entirely political and/or personal. [Yes, SB2, I'm a Dr. Zubrin fan too!]
Dr. Zubrin is as much a brilliant, and therefore unwelcome, outsider in rocketry and mission-design as Dr. Gilbert Levin is in the field of exobiology. And unfortunately it seems that both of them are to remain ostracised until the faceless architects of their banishment from 'The Club' either retire or die. Or, as is so often the case, they will only gain recognition after their own deaths!

I find myself very much in agreement with virtually everything Robert Dyck proposes or suggests here. I particularly like the sound of that CanaDrill device and I too am disappointed that it seems to have been dumped.

When I assume absolute power and complete domination of the world, there'll be more than a few changes made. And all of them will be for the better!

Mundaka · 2004-01-24 18:19:48

Bill White · 2004-01-24 18:24:14

When I assume absolute power and complete domination of the world, there'll be more than a few changes made. And all of them will be for the better!

And astronauts will wear MarsSkin! (designed in Australia!)

The radiation issue is crucial, yet plastic spacecraft does help mitigate the secondary radiation and surrounding the astronauts with lots and lots of water and polyethylene seems to be the key, IMHO.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-01-24 20:29:06

Very interesting stuff, Mundaka.
What you say reinforces my view that Dr. Z has probably had the rug pulled out from under him by people within NASA who simply object to the fact that he came up with a quicker, cheaper and more practical plan to get humans to Mars than they did!
Of course, it won't be simply a matter of personal sour grapes and jealousy. Let me think, now, what other factor could make people so antagonistic? Hmmm ... Ah yes, that was it .. money!!
Why would anyone at NASA, chewing up $15 billion a year and talking about needing $450 billion dollars (now $1 trillion) to get a human to Mars, want to have someone prove that for only $3 billion a year, over as little as ten years, he could initiate a permanent human outpost there?!!

Yup, it's no wonder he's as popular as a f*** in an elevator!
:;):

Shaun Barrett · 2004-01-24 20:35:01

And yes, Bill, those MarsSkin suits are going to be the ant's pants!
Not all of us Aussies are lying around on the beach all day or wrestling crocodiles you know!!

Gennaro · 2004-01-24 21:50:55

What you say reinforces my view that Dr. Z has probably had the rug pulled out from under him by people within NASA who simply object to the fact that he came up with a quicker, cheaper and more practical plan to get humans to Mars than they did!

And that's the very reason why we have to let Shaun assume absolute power. We have to get rid of the middle men. Oligarchy always screws things up. Why did Ferdinand and Isabella send Columbus along on his voyage? Yeah, you guessed it. Spain wasn't a democracy.

Bill White · 2004-01-24 22:32:35

And yes, Bill, those MarsSkin suits are going to be the ant's pants!
Not all of us Aussies are lying around on the beach all day or wrestling crocodiles you know!!

I knew that, Shaun. Most of you Aussies spend your time eating barbie shrimp and chatting with the sheilas, no?

By the way, what is vegemite really like?

Oh yeah, I forgot about the Fosters and the Black Opal vineyards.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-01-25 02:29:14

Hey, Gennaro!
Waddya mean: ".. let Shaun assume absolute power."

What makes you think I'm going to sit around waiting for you people to "let" me assume absolute power?!!! What kind of a namby-pamby, sissified, effeminate ruthless dictator do you take me for?
??? :laugh:

[P.S. Vegemite tastes like sh** !! I can't stand the stuff.
I can put up with the occasional Fosters lager and a chat with a good-lookin' sheila by the barbie, though! ... When I'm not lying on the beach, wrestling with crocodiles, or taking over the world, that is.]

SpaceNut · 2021-08-23 20:00:57

Topic fixed

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-09-14 15:15:32

Op-ed | Whither Mars or Wither Mars?

https://spacenews.com/op-ed-whither-mar … ther-mars/

tahanson43206 · 2022-09-14 17:39:04

For Mars_B4_Moon ... re #18

Thanks for the link to the article in SpaceNews .... I enjoyed the comments ** after ** the article as much (or perhaps more) as the article itself. The comments became spirited.

There seemed (to me at least) to be a consensus around the article's focus on science as backwards, to put it mildly.

The authors put science first, and the commentators appeared to agree it should be last as a motivation for making the trip.

There seemed to be general agreement that robots are doing a decent job already, but the arguments for human participation were persuasive (again, to me at least) (But then, of course, I ** am ** biased).

(th)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-01-18 02:21:59

Re: Mars Direct still on the table? - ranting, wondering-

#2 2004-01-18 19:39:07

Re: Mars Direct still on the table? - ranting, wondering-

#3 2004-01-20 07:33:18

Re: Mars Direct still on the table? - ranting, wondering-

#4 2004-01-20 11:27:13

Re: Mars Direct still on the table? - ranting, wondering-

#5 2004-01-20 18:10:27

Re: Mars Direct still on the table? - ranting, wondering-

#6 2004-01-20 19:16:03

Re: Mars Direct still on the table? - ranting, wondering-

#7 2004-01-21 02:55:11

Re: Mars Direct still on the table? - ranting, wondering-

#8 2004-01-21 14:08:39

Re: Mars Direct still on the table? - ranting, wondering-

#9 2004-01-22 07:12:04

Re: Mars Direct still on the table? - ranting, wondering-

#10 2004-01-24 18:19:48

Re: Mars Direct still on the table? - ranting, wondering-

#11 2004-01-24 18:24:14

Re: Mars Direct still on the table? - ranting, wondering-

#12 2004-01-24 20:29:06

Re: Mars Direct still on the table? - ranting, wondering-

#13 2004-01-24 20:35:01

Re: Mars Direct still on the table? - ranting, wondering-

#14 2004-01-24 21:50:55

Re: Mars Direct still on the table? - ranting, wondering-

#15 2004-01-24 22:32:35

Re: Mars Direct still on the table? - ranting, wondering-

#16 2004-01-25 02:29:14

Re: Mars Direct still on the table? - ranting, wondering-

#17 2021-08-23 20:00:57

Re: Mars Direct still on the table? - ranting, wondering-

#18 2022-09-14 15:15:32

Re: Mars Direct still on the table? - ranting, wondering-

#19 2022-09-14 17:39:04

Re: Mars Direct still on the table? - ranting, wondering-

Board footer