My prerequisites for men on Mars

[willpittenger]

1. Geostationary combination weather/communication satellites<br />2. Reusable lander<br />3. Ability for the first crew to stay in its entirety until the second crew arrives -- even though that would be a 3 year stay. I suggest 2-3 members of the first crew remain with the second for experience<br />4. Ability to either communicate with Earth regardless of the position of Mars relative to Earth -- or the ability to do without while the Sun is between the two planets (How long would that be?)<br />5. GPS or at least a rudimentary version.<br /><br />Edit: Added new requirement. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[qso1]

Good list and one that reflects my thinking on humans to Mars (No wonder I say its a good list eh?). I say this because I finished a book on just that subject and pretty much all of your list were things I considered. One I did not was the crew being cut off during solar conjunction which varies depending on Earth Mars positions but generally a conjunction lasts a few weeks.<br /><br />Part of crew self sufficiency is the ability to be isolated from earth in these situations.<br /><br />A few others I developed for the book. No night EVAs until the crew gains at least 30 days of familiarity with surface conditions near there landing vehicle.<br /><br />Rovers cannot go more than the distance a crewmember can walk back to the base in the event of a rover breakdown.<br /><br />Vehicle reusability I compromised. While its possible a Delta Clipper type vehicle could be a Mars lander, I favored a two stage approach. The lower stage serves as a base vehicle so it would be used for years on the martian surface. The upper stage which was known as an ERV in the Zubrin Mars direct scenario is returned to earth via mother ship in my scenario where a commercial shuttle type vehicle returns it to the surface for refurb and later reuse.<br /><br />Most important, crew overlapping stays.<br /><br />All of these will probably be on NASA mission rules if ever we go to Mars.<br /><br />In addition to weather sats, the base itself can serve as a weather station.<br /><br />BTW, you bring up some really good questions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>All of these will probably be on NASA mission rules if ever we go to Mars. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Not if we do an Apollo style mission like in some of the science fiction from the 70's. There was one movie where an Apollo-sized capsule was going to Mars. (It was probably filmed with Apollo props.) However, someone found a flaw that would have killed the crew enroute. So, they smuggle the crew (3 members like with Apollo) out and hide them on Earth. They then fake the entire mission. The capsule burns up during Earth reentry. So the ones that were helping the crew fake the mission attempt to kill them off. One escapes (after the others die) and shows up at his funeral.<br /><br />There was also a SeaQuest DSV episode which featured a capsule that was bigger than Apollo, but only slightly. Four crew members were featured there. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

My thoughts:<br /><br />1. Nice to have, but not strictly necessary. Remember that there will be a constellation of other satellites by then anyway capable of providing much of this service.<br /><br />2. What would be the point? How and where are you going to service and this?<br /><br />3. The first missions would probably go to different locations, so what would be achieved by crew overlap? What would be achieved by some members staying on for a second term?<br /><br />4. Good idea, and will probably be serviced by a satellite in a earth-sun or mars-sun L-point. The satellite would probably monitor solar weather as well.<br /><br />Jon<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

What is the book you have been reading? Sounds interesting. Some thoughts.<br /><br />I doubt that night-time EVAs would ever be done except in an emergency. Apart from repair of something that can’t wait 12 hours until daylight, what useful role could they serve? <br /><br />The rover walk-back rule is basically inherited from Apollo, as I recall the limit was 10 km. On Mars you have the extra limit that with a 24 hour day you don’t want to be caught out at night. This was not an issue for the Moon, of course. There are ways round this limit, including a network of survival shelters, pressurised rovers, and using multiple vehicles.<br /><br />How much infrastructure and manpower is needed to provide reusability of the Mars surface shuttle?<br /><br />What do you think can be achieved by overlapping stays and why is it essential? I don’t think any NASA mission scenario specifies it as a requirement.<br /><br />Jon<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

You are thinking of the Moon-Hoax believers favourite movie: <i>Capricorn One </i><br /><br />Realistically you need to allow about 30-60m3 per person for a Mars mission – something much bigger than Apollo. Of course the actual crew entry vehicle could be a lot smaller – even Apollo sized. But they would only spend a couple of days in that.<br /><br />Jon<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>1. Nice to have, but not strictly necessary. Remember that there will be a constellation of other satellites by then anyway capable of providing much of this service. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />True, however, they are not geostationary and may not be overhead.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>3. The first missions would probably go to different locations, so what would be achieved by crew overlap? What would be achieved by some members staying on for a second term? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Possibly, however, I would prefer that did not happen until a long range surface transport system was available. (One that can take you around the planet.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

"True, however, they are not geostationary and may not be overhead. "<br /><br />If you have enough satellites you don't need to have geostationary ones. By the time people go to Mars, there will be many more orbiters than there are now, the L-point relay stations, plus pssibly the spacecraft that carries the crew to and from Mars. And earth will be overhead for 12 hours every day for almost all the year. A dedicated communicatons satellite constellation is more likely to be needed only when there is a network of surface stations.<br /><br />"I would prefer that did not happen until a long range surface transport system was available. (One that can take you around the planet.)"<br /><br />Why is that? I would see the reverse being the case. Until you have global (or at least semi-hemispheric mobility ) it makes more sense to land at different locations rather than one central one. It is quite possible that the first landing site won't be the best for a base after all, for reasons that do not become apparent until after people have explored there.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

You sound like one of those people that feel we should go to Mars just to claim we did. "Look, we brought a few rocks back to prove we went." That is all we got out of Apollo and we have not been back since. If that is what we are doing, why go?<br /><br />A fully reusable lander could serve as long distance transport if we can refuel it quickly enough. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

The purpose of bringing rocks back on Mars is not to prove that we went but to gain understanding of where we have been and to learn how we can live and work there more. As you say, this is what happened with Apollo. Even if we never go back to the Moon Apollo was worthwhile for these achivements and many others.<br /><br />But back to your question, you are right a fully resuable lander, presumably some kind of SSTO, would be a very useful basis for a long distance transport. But given the range of features that could explored within say, 200 km (that is 125,000 km2) of almost any landing site on Mars, I don't think it would be neccessary for early missions. Plus the fact that any resuable SSTO will need dedicated maintainence personnel and service facilities, more in keeping with a large station rather than initial missions.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>But given the range of features that could explored within say, 200 km (that is 125,000 km2) of almost any landing site on Mars<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />As noted in the first post of this thread, if you are going to be there for 3 years at a time, you definitions will change as your stay progresses. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

You still haven't explained why the crew needs to spend 3 years on Mars, twice as long as necessary.<br /><br />You also need to explain how you are going to service your reusable spacecraft. How many people will this need, what sort of facilities? What proportion of the overal mission will this consume?<br /><br />As I have said before, a radius of 200 km is more than enough when you are landing at different sites. You don't need long range transport until you have a permanant station and the possibilities within 200 km are not longer sufficient.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"Plus the fact that any resuable SSTO will need dedicated maintainence personnel and service facilities..."</font><br /><br />...and refueling aka propellants. I guess ISPP would be the greatest contender, but unlikely for initial missions.

 

[qso1]

I'll take a stab at it:<br /><br />First off, despite the Bush proposal for Mars which is vague at best. I doubt we will actually send anybody unless we have a justification that captures the public imagination strong enough to virtually guarantee plentiful funding and support.<br /><br />The one justification I think the public would get behind (Barring a private enterprise Mars mission) would be an unmanned probe turning up strong evidence for life on Mars. Even stronger evidence if a sample return mission returns organisms in living samples. The organisms may or may not survive the trip to Earth. This is when a human mission would probably be called for.<br /><br />Humans on Mars would allow at least one person to be an exobiologist to be part of the surface crew. After landing, the exobio could confirm finding living organisms that day...or it could take months, even years which is why it would be desirable to have rotating crews. It would not be an absolute requirement that crew rotation start with mission one but preferrably as soon as practical.<br /><br />If living organisms are not found, but fossilized remains instead, Imagine the exobio as being similar to a dinosaur fossil hunter here on earth. Fossil hunters can spend weeks or months before turning up anything. Now put that paleontologist in an EMU.<br /><br />No doubt there will be serious challenges to keeping people on Mars. Everything from keeping the base cabin areas free of martian dust from space suited humans coming back in to keeping a rover in working order. EVA time will be limited by how much O2 is available at the base. Much of the exobios time would probably be spent inside the base analyzing and cataloging samples.<br /><br />On reusable landers, the scenario I had in mind turns the lower stage of a lander into a base once on the surface so propellant and reusability are non issues.<br /><br />The upper stage would be an Apollo like capsule with a disposable propellant stage which rendezveous with a nu <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

willpittenger:<br />A fully reusable lander could serve as long distance transport if we can refuel it quickly enough.<br /><br />Me:<br />If your talking an SSTO that also serves as the craft that brings them to and from Earth. A lot of propellant would be required and this would greatly increase the lander size and mass. As it would likely not be nuclear powered, it would have to go to and from on tight Hohmann transfer orbits which would mean lengthy transit times on the order of eight months to a year.<br /><br />I can see an SSTO that is fully fuelled and transported by a nuclear powered mother ship. The SSTO then descends to Mars and ascends from Mars back to the mother ship.<br /><br />In that scenario, the SSTO would require so much propellant, it would have very little payload capability available. If it is able to resupply on mars, then payload would not be as big an issue. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[mcbethcg]

My prerequisites:<br /><br />1) A reason to go there.<br />2) A large underground premade settlement.<br /><br />I can not see any reason at all to send men to Mars. Any likely scientific experiment can be built into an automated lander. If there is something missed by one lander, another can be sent the next year with updated experiments.<br /><br />As far as eventual colonization- I think most of the ideas for terraforming mars are untenable. I dont think that Zubrins ideas have any hopes of changing temperatures, pressures, chemical compositions, or radiation levels anywhere near enough for human survival on the surface without a space suit.<br /><br />If a reason could be found to send humans, the first thing that should be sent would be very durable automated construction equipment to spend years building an underground complex.

 

[willpittenger]

I do not understand why it would not be three years. That is how often Mars and Earth are in position. Besides, unused equipment tends to breakdown.<br /><br />Unlike Qso1, I believe the first initiative for sending men to Mars will be colonization. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

I had assumed we would get fuel from the surface of Mars. The only real problem would be how quickly enough fuel could be obtained -- especially if the lander is used for long range surface transport. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

Actually, I think colonies will be your reason, but until we understand what happened to Mars' oceans, I want to ban terraforming.<br /><br />In the meantime, your underground complexes could serve as colonies. The Martians might later develop above ground cities (or perhaps, like in Green Mars, cities in the side of a canyon wall). However, that could be a century or two after the first colonists arrive and it would still work. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

"I guess ISPP would be the greatest contender, but unlikely for initial missions."<br /><br />ISPP is essential for ballistic surface transport. It has been a core component of most Mars mission proposals of the last 15 years.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

You have't told me the book you are reading - I am really keen to know!<br /><br />You raise some interesting points:<br /><br />The Bush initiative: I prefer to all it VSE. It isindeed sketchy about the mars mission as it has to be. It is all continginent on the lessons learned from the return to the Moon which in turn relies on developing the earth orbit CEV. But it has been stated several times that the departure point for the VSE mars mission is the NASA Mars DRM 3.0.<br /><br />Exobiology - This is a bit of a hobson's choice. on one hand discovery of life on Mars would be first class reason to send people to Mars as it will require in situ study. On the other hand, fears of forward and backward contamination would be so severe that it is unlikely to happen. <br /><br />Design issues - Most of these you raise have been well covered in the DRM 3.0 and other studies.<br /><br />Public interest - To send any misison to mars requires a lot term committment taht is not dependent on public interest. Oceanographic and Antarctic research are expensive but generally low public profile programs. The public is generally not hostile though, and seems them in terms of the public good. If we are to go to Mars then space exploration must come to be seen in the same way.<br /><br />Private missions - I would say at least 50 years before this happens. <br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

"I do not understand why it would not be three years. That is how often Mars and Earth are in position. Besides, unused equipment tends to breakdown. "<br /><br />Launch windows open every 26 months. To take advantage of these with conjunction class missions the semi Hohmann transfers require 6 months each way and a 18 month stay on the surface of Mars.<br /><br />Even if you want colonisation you still will need early missions to develop the knowledge base that will make colonisation possible. we have to crawl before we can walk, let alone run.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

mcbethcg<br /><br />With respect to your points<br /><br />"I can not see any reason at all to send men to Mars. Any likely scientific experiment can be built into an automated lander. If there is something missed by one lander, another can be sent the next year with updated experiments."<br /><br />There are many scientfic instruments that can't be built into any likely lander. Humans, even in a space suit, are faster, more flexible, more dextrous, and more mobile than any robot. Having all the expertise and decision making on the spot rather than on earth is also an enormous advantage.<br /><br />permanant settlements - youc an't have these as a prerequiste for going as you have to construct the settlements first. this will mean a whole succession of precussor missions beforehand.<br /><br />Terraforming - this is not Zubrin's idea, although he has discussed it. I agree, I don't find it likely.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Its a graphic novel series I wrote and illustrated. The story itself is a Mars mission based on as much real science as its possible for one person (Me) to put into it.<br /><br />For that reason, the ideas for going to Mars and how its done are not so much mine as they are my spin or variation on mostly NASA ideas. The craft I illustrate are part of a system resembling the Mars semi-direct concept.<br /><br />Another concept with my variation of how it could be done is shown in a few of my graphics in the Space Business & Technology forum under a thread entitled "Shuttle "C" and SKAM". This concept is portrayed in my book series as well. <br /><br />Some of the stuff I did imagine was the idea that EVAs would be limited by the amount of available onboard O2. I sometimes get an idea only to find some study already covered it. I've been doing this stuff for years and usually I come up with problems by actually imagining a crew encountering them.<br /><br />Night EVA for example, not talked of at all from what I've seen so far but given Mars day and night cycle is not much different than ours, night EVA is a consideration.<br /><br />Public opinion IMO is a big problem for Mars or we'd have gone in the 1980s, 1990s, or would be conducting a human mission now. Public opinion with Congressional backing is what cut NASAs budget in the early 1970s to the 1% GDP it is currently at today. In fact, I was writing this during my junior and senior years in high school. I quit only to pick it back up in 1976 after the Viking missions showed a pinkish sky. At that time my mission scenario was flags n footprints (Before they were called that) starting with the first mission in 1985-86 and follow ons every two years.<br /><br />I never finished the original but did finish the current one and some of my old ideas are in the current series.<br /><br />Oceanographic/Antarctic research is far less expensive which is probably why the public does not complain about it as much and its not in the ne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

willpittenger:<br />Unlike Qso1, I believe the first initiative for sending men to Mars will be colonization. <br /><br />Me:<br />The process of colonization might well be traced to the first human bases in a history of Mars that one might read in say, 2106. I'm assuming you are using the term men generically, as I suspect women will also be part of human Mars missions, especially colonization. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>