mars how will we do it? (archival thread reposting #1)

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

serak_the_preparer

Guest
scottb50<br />(Member)<br />09/14/02 05:00 PM<br /><br />Three vehicles composed of multiple Modules, ferried to Earth orbit by a Shuttle based simplified vehicle that reaches a minimal orbit, transfers it's Modules to a Space Tug then returns for re-use. Modules are taken to a staging area and linked together in Earth orbit before being boosted to Mars using Space Tugs. Some Tugs return for normal duties and some stay with the vehicle for future use.The Vehicles are braked into Mars orbit, again using Tugs, then split up and reassembled into an orbital base and the surface Modules.<br /><br />Surface Modules are sent to the surface using expendable heat shields and a combination of steerable parachutes and airbags for landing. Once Surface Modules are safely on the surface a Landing Module, using parachutes and landing rockets takes down the first crew who use surface tugs, powered by Hydrogen/Oxygen fuel cells, to retrieve the Modules and assemble a base. Once the base is assembled surface exploration uses the tugs as rovers, actual walking surface missions in suits would be limited to reduce contamination to the station environment. Return would use the Landing Modules with solid boosters attached, brought down in Cargo Modules, to reach minimal Mars orbit where the Module would be recovered, by a Tug, and taken to the orbiting base. Multiple landings would be planned, rotating three or more crews throughout the mission.<br /><br />Fuel would be carried as water, lifted from Earth and used to shield the crew areas during flight. Solar cells produce Oxygen and Hydrogen as needed, for fuel cell operation, and cryogenically storing it using solar provided power for Tug use. On the surface solar panels break down landed water providing environmental Oxygen and powe
 
S

serak_the_preparer

Guest
jonclarke<br />(Member)<br />09/23/02 09:52 PM<br /><br />Crewed flyby missions (Mars only, Venus only, or Mars-Venus) were extensively studied by the USSR and the US in the 50's and 60's. The rationale then was that the low reliability of interplanetary probes needed crew on hand to maintain and deploy them. This rationale was soon overtaken by technology (see Mariner IV).<br /><br />As approximation, flyby missions last, depending on profile, 12-18 months. They therefore have equal or greater radiation and microgavity exposure as landing missions. The mass required in LEO is still considerable, between 1/3 and 2/3 of a landing mission (again depending on profile). A flyby spends no more than 2-3 hours near Mars and carries out the closest flyby on the dark side. Of all the crewed Mars missions ever considered, flyby missions have the highest risk (apart from skipping the Mars landing and launch phases) and lowest return, and would still cost between 1/3 and 2/3 of an actual landing mission.<br /><br />A flyby mission was reconsidered by the US in the 1980's because of fears that the USSR was thinking of one (they weren't), and there was pressure to upstage them. Scoring quick political points is about the only justication for a crewed flyby mission. It certainly isn't justifiable scientifically or technically. Everything you could learn about mars from a crewed flyby you could learn with robots, everything you could learn about humans in space or spacecraft systems from the mission could be done in earth orbit.<br /><br />A Mars orbit mission without crewed landing is a different story. There would be a lot of advantages to teleoperating surface systems from Mars orbit.<br /><br />Cheers<br /><br />Jon
 
S

serak_the_preparer

Guest
serak_the_preparer<br />(<font color="yellow">G</font><br />10/04/02 08:19 PM<br /><br />Cold antihydrogen: CERN delivers has me wondering if a century or two from now we might not be ready for antimatter-powered spaceflight. But nearer to now: Boeing reviving work on nuclear converter.<br /><br /><i>The Boeing proposal is being developed in an elaborate partnership with NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., and the agency's Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, as well as Honeywell Aerospace of Phoenix, Swales Aerospace of Beltsville, Md., Auburn University of Montgomery, Ala., and Texas A&M University of College Station. Also, the Department of Energy is overseeing development of nuclear reactors for space systems, while NASA is looking at electrical power converters and propulsion systems....</i><br /><br />Since I'm one of those who thinks nuclear power should be used on any manned mission to Mars, any progress on the nuclear-power front makes good hearing.
 
S

serak_the_preparer

Guest
Labatt<br />(<font color="orange">K</font><br />10/06/02 08:25 PM<br /><br />I was convinced that a Nuclear power source would do it. Since Scientists have created a fair amount of Anti Matter, who knows. It may take many years of study, before we can even begin to comprehend how Anti matter can power a spacecraft.
 
S

serak_the_preparer

Guest
quasar2<br />(<font color="orange">K</font><br />10/06/02 08:59 PM<br /><br />sooo the solution to that lil problem is: overcome the problems with rad/0g. this business of having to get there faster cuz of them is wearing thin. that makes an even greater argument for 1.underground lunar bases, 2." phobos " & possible asteroid ". what would be transit time between 1. & 2.? we only seem to have this MD (Mars Direct) figure to work with here, that`s not very good engineering or science. we should be building &/or mining anything we need on at least the lunar surface by now & moon return can still get done in less time, for that matter, why not a lunar flyby?
 
S

serak_the_preparer

Guest
spaceman186000mps<br />(<font color="blue">A</font><br />10/07/02 12:08 AM<br /><br /><b> Seems to Me, it makes a lot of common sense, to build some type of Orion nuclear ship in Earth orbit.<br />Then instead of landing directly on mars, land on Phobos or Demos first. Then after a week or so of exploring and checking out equipment, proceed from there with a manned mars surface lander.<br />I hope I live to see it happen.</b><br /><br /><font color="blue">With each passing second at C time passes@ knowlwdge grows at the speed of time.</font>/safety_wrapper>
 
S

serak_the_preparer

Guest
nebob<br />(<font color="black">void</font><br />10/09/02 02:52 AM<br /><br />While General Atomic did signifigent work on external pulsed plasma rockets, they did not solve all of the problems. They predicted at least 12 years for development in their later studies. For the first missions, sticking to NTR's or a high power NEP would be best, as they are well understood and proven technology, Mars is risky enough. NASA has started to look back into the concept in recent years, but has not considered it seriously for a Mars mission. A serious study may solve many of the problems which plagued the project in the 60's.<br /><br />It would be best to go straight to the surface, testing on the moons would teach you nothing you couldn't try in orbit.
 
S

serak_the_preparer

Guest
JonClarke<br />(<font color="red">protostar</font><br />10/09/02 08:41 PM<br /><br />There are several advantages to Phobos missions. First the moons of Mars are very interesting bodies in their own right. They are energentically very easy to reach and, if propellant could be manaufactured on site, would require only minimal launch mass. teleoperation of spacecraft on the surface on Mars from orbit, inlcuding rovers, aircraft, moles, and sample return missions, would be very atrractive if there is evidence of extant life before hand, it would minimise the risk of forward and back contamination.<br /><br />Radiation exposure could be minimised by woreking from the surface of Phobos during this time, the gravity of Phobos is so low that microgravity would remain an issue,<br /><br />Cheers<br /><br />Jon
 
S

serak_the_preparer

Guest
nebob<br />(<font color="black">void</font><br />10/10/02 01:45 AM<br /><br />Due to their small size and atmoshereless environments, Phoboes and Demos would be best explored remotly. It would not be a bad idea to carry a robotic lander on the ship for which to test if you could extract fuel, one with an RTG could work for years. For a first manned mission, however, I am not sure you would want to incease the complexity with a manned landing on either moon. The moons will play a vital role in the eventual colonization of the planet when the time comes.
 
S

serak_the_preparer

Guest
serak_the_preparer<br />(<font color="yellow">G</font><br />10/13/02 08:07 PM<br /><br />On the subject of living to see it happen:<br /><br />Manned Mars mission 'will happen' by Helen Briggs<br /><br /><i>People will one day step on Mars but perhaps not for hundreds of years, says an Apollo astronaut....<br /><br />"Is the technology available to go to Mars? The answer is yes,"</i> [Apollo 15 mission commander Dr. David Scott]<i> told an audience at the Royal Society in London, UK.<br /><br />"The adventure is what will drive us in the long term," he added. "The long term will be hundreds of years...."<br /><br />Dr Scott said intelligent microbots and probes could now do almost everything the Apollo astronauts did on the Moon....</i><br /><br />A return to the Moon will probably happen first, perhaps this century if China keeps the pressure on. Dr. Scott's estimate that Mars may not happen for centuries sounds pretty pessimistic, but perhaps it's also more realistic than what we're used to hearing from NASA?<br /><br />In Space.com's own NASA’S John Young: “The Moon Will Save Us” by Leonard David, Young's assessment is instructive: 'When critical rotating machinery fails, the Moon is the best place to recover from the problem – not wrestling with the issue on the 90 to 200 days-away Mars....' He also cites the need for technologies which are not yet developed, such as VASIMR. The Moon is slowly being moved up from the back-burner. I noticed in The Bizarre "Pluto War" Is Almost Over At Last, And Pluto Is Winning by Bruce M
 
S

serak_the_preparer

Guest
nebob<br />(<font color="black">void</font><br />10/13/02 10:16 PM<br /><br />What right do have to call ourselves human if we sit on our butts for a century before going to Mars? Lichen is more like it. A Moon mission may happen, but a man will walk on Mars within 30 years, you can count on it.
 
S

serak_the_preparer

Guest
JonClarke<br />(<font color="red">protostar</font><br />10/14/02 08:44 AM<br /><br />Hi nebob<br /><br />teleoperated exploration would be one option. However if you were going to spend a long time in Mars orbit it would be useful to have your spacecraft rest on the face of Phobos nearest Mars. It would provide a shieldf against 50% of cosmic radiation, while mars over head should protect against a lot more. I am not sure how big Mars is in the sky of Phobos, but I imagine it would cover a fair area. if you were going to do this than simple EVAs to explore the surface would be useful.<br /><br />cheers<br /><br />Jon<br /><br />The advantage<br />
 
S

serak_the_preparer

Guest
serak_the_preparer<br />(<font color="yellow">G</font><br />10/18/02 02:31 PM<br /><br />And it's coming from ESA and its Aurora program:<br /><br />Lift Off for Aurora: Europe's First Steps to Mars, the Moon and Beyond<br /><br /><i>The first phase in 2005-2015 is aimed at gathering the knowledge and developing and demonstrating technologies required for a human mission on Mars and Moon, eventually leading to a decision about whether to proceed with such a mission.<br /><br />This initial phase will be followed in 2015-2030 by a second phase dedicated to development, verification and implementation of the European elements of the human mission, which is expected to be an international endeavour....</i><br /><br />In the next paragraph, the target date for such a mission is given: 2025-2030. The major space agencies, however, seem almost united on this key point: any manned mission to Mars should be international. Russia has said it. So has China and, as is obvious from the above, so has ESA.<br /><br />It's hard to imagine any major international space project that does not involve NASA. Yet NASA will not be content in the role of follower or mere support in a mission of such importance. NASA would want to lead a manned mission to Mars. But by the 2025-2030 date NASA will using its L-point waystation - if it's built by then - to stage a return to the Moon. And China may only just be starting work on a space station of its own, or on a Chinese component for ISS.<br /><br />Perhaps circa 2050 is a more realistic target for a manned mission to Mars?
 
S

serak_the_preparer

Guest
serak_the_preparer<br />(<font color="orange">K</font><br />06/09/03 10:02 AM<br /><br />Human Mission To Mars: The Second Aurora Working Meeting (ESA)<br /><br /><i>“We are trying to get a clear idea of what will be required and what we can contribute to an international project to send humans to Mars,” said Franco Ongaro, head of the Aurora Programme.<br /><br />“In order to do this, we must investigate how far Europe’s present day assets in human spaceflight can be advanced so that it can make important contributions to international exploration missions to the Moon and Mars in the decades to come.”</i><br /><br />(Also at Human mission to Mars: the second Aurora Working Meeting.)
 
S

serak_the_preparer

Guest
serak_the_preparer<br />(<font color="orange">K</font><br />06/17/03 06:13 PM<br /><br />Preparing a human mission to Mars via Antarctica and Toulouse by Oliver Angerer<br /><br /><i>A human mission to Mars may still be some time away, but scientists are already aware of the many hazards that must be overcome if the dream is to become a reality. One particular cause for concern is the potential for physiological and psychological problems that could arise....<br /><br />To address these concerns ESA, in cooperation with the French space agency CNES, NASA and two Antarctic research organisations, is seeking proposals from scientists wishing to participate in two pioneering ground-based studies to simulate some of the side effects of extended periods of space flight....</i><br /><br />(ESA Manned Spaceflight and Microgravity - Latest Research Announcements)
 
S

serak_the_preparer

Guest
Crowing<br />(<font color="blue">B</font><br />06/18/03 05:56 AM<br /><br />ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!<br />Unfortunately there are not as many people like you and me that feel that way about Nuclear, but with nuclear back on the drawing board I feel that it definitely could be done.<br />Lets hope the landers find something,like WATER, and then plan a Nuclear Rocket trip to MARS!!!<br />
 
S

serak_the_preparer

Guest
gbbaker<br />(<font color="blue">B</font><br />06/19/03 12:23 AM<br /><br />The only good use (IMO) for those two moons is to slam them into mars and see what happens.<br /><br />All this endless discussion and theorizing and attempts at figuring out how previous impacts have affected the surface and volatiles and magnetic properties when the matter could be simply settled by sending an electric propulsion craft there with some harpoons on it and simply drag the GO* DA** things into the atmosphere and let them impact.<br /><br />The harpoons could be made by that new super metal alloy that was recently discovered/invented [the Ti Zr Hf Nb Ta alloy].<br />The lines can be made from carbon nano tube technology.<br />[I'm sure you all saw the recent article either here or on spacedaily.com that showed incorporarting carbon nanotubes into an alcohol based chemical to make a fiber that is four times the strength of spider silk]<br /><br />You just position in front of it and harpoon it and drag it in.<br />Hey!...... maybe you can even get away with flying out of the way after disengaging the lines.<br /><br />There are millions of objects just like them scattered all throughout this system so I don't see why we have to place any sentimental value on them.<br />Furthermore; there is plenty of evidence that the same and greater sized objects have already impacted Mars before and so any attempt at arguing that we might be endangering any possible life there is a mute point as it would just be "business as ususal."<br /><br />Having a planned impact (or two), possibly conducted one after another by the same craft, would allow us to have all trained eyes and instruments on it.<br /><br />A WHOLE LOTTA QUESTIONS WOULD BE ANSWERED REALLY QUICK.<br /><br />Then again - this (large
 
S

serak_the_preparer

Guest
quasar2<br />(<font color="orange">K</font><br />06/19/03 02:04 PM<br /><br />well not just just life would be destroyed, but there were ruins they would possibly be buried by this. for that matter we may collapse existing usable caves, i hope this isn`t considered.
 
M

mikejz

Guest
Humm… its seems as though a manned mission to Mars should be built around a paradigm shift of lower launch costs. <br /><br />Lets imagine that a Mars mission was staged off of a space elevator, or for that matter any cheap way to access space. It seems a far better investment of capital into these projects in terms of long-term payoff. It seems as though this would allow for a more robust mission without many of the weight constraints. <br /><br />Okay, so lets suppose we are not doing the space elevator:<br />I would like to see the development of low-cost, low-reliability, heavy lift booster that would launch massive amounts of consumables into LEO for low cost. From there electric-ion propulsion will slowly rise until it finally reaches mars.<br /><br />A crewed module will have a crew of 7-10 and hopefully would use some sort of nuclear propulsion that will be used to cut the trip down to about 90 days each way. The craft will be used to both transport the crews back and forth between the earth and mars (just adding fuel for each trip) while more expensive, it will supply the fixed overhead that makes killing the funding hard. <br /><br /><br />What I am somewhat interested in is the development of transport systems on mars. It seems as though a better way then driving should be devised for getting around---maybe some sort of aircraft?<br /><br /><br />Bottom line, more money will be spend on the ISS then will be needed for a Mars mission or space elevator.<br />
 
S

serak_the_preparer

Guest
serak_the_preparer<br />(<font color="orange">K</font><br />06/24/03 10:15 PM<br /><br />Well, I'm not one of those out on a crusade for nuclear power. Deep space missions will, however, require a reliable and plentiful source of power. If not some form of nuclear power, what then?<br /><br />The water is certainly there. But it seems nothing short of the discovery of life on Mars will get the US moving on a manned mission to that planet. Yet some have cautioned an announcement of life on Mars could actually delay such a mission.<br /><br />Which is why items like the following make for good reading. Someone is actually making a public policy statement which includes the goal of a manned mission to Mars.<br /><br />Europeans say 'Yes' to a strong Europe in space (Agence France-Presse) by Franco Bonacina<br /><br />[EU Research Commissioner]<i> Philippe Busquin said: “... With strong political commitment from all key space stakeholders and sustained interest among the public, we can turn Europe into the space leader of the 21st century....”<br /><br />During the consultation, space sector players addressed a series of options, including:<br /><br />* Further support for ESA’s Aurora programme, which aims, inter alia, to put a human on Mars within the next 30 years....</i>
 
S

serak_the_preparer

Guest
So there it is!<br /><br />Nearly two years of material - from October, 2001, through July, 2003 - from back before the pressing of the DELETE button. All here for your perusal, as well as any comments.<br /><br />Given the pattern of regular and massive deletions on Uplink, perhaps going to the trouble of posting all this old stuff back on the very same forum strikes some out there as, well, quixotic? If it does, then I can only agree. Besides, I've always kind of liked Don Quixote. : ) And until a better place can be found on-line for old Uplink material, this site is the obvious home for it.<br /><br />Again, if you have any URLs to old dead links you'd like me to research and try to bring back, send me a Private Message and perhaps we'll get lucky. Or if you'd like to offer your services in this benighted quest, then please contact me.<br /><br />Meanwhile, it's Mars we're talking about here. How are we going to get there? WILL we ever get there? If so, then when? Thoughts, ideas, suggestions, recommendations? If you've got anything to say on the subject, then right here on this old thread is a great place to start. : )<br /><br />All my best,<br /><br />~Serak the Preparer (Interstellar Culinary Specialist, Retired Pong Champion, Mad Archivist)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY