My prerequisites for men on Mars

[willpittenger]

Correct. My apologies to the women. <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]

So this is your story you've just completed? I had not realised that, and assumed you meant you had just finished reading it. I am impressed! Like you I wrote stories about Mars missions when I was in high school but, unlike you, it never went further. Will you publish it?<br /><br />Just some thoughts. <br /><br />O2 - Provided you have a source of O2 on Mars the comsumption of this gas should not be a limiting factor. The usage would be not more than about 1 kg per person per EVA.<br /><br />Night EVAs - if you are looking at a mars station or an early settlement then night EVAs are more likely. Probably not common, but certainly one can imagine a greater range of scenarioes where they might happen.<br /><br />Public Opinion - Well, you certainly do not want to have public opinion against the mission, but you don't want to be held hostage to it either. Apollo shows the consequences of riding short term public opinion. I know that Antarctic and oceanographic research don't cost as much as space exploration, but they are significant items none the less - the NSF allocated $350 million in 2005 for polar research, and the combined NSF, NOAA, USN and other agency oceanographic and related research program budgets comes to ~$7.5 billion. The ongoing Shuttle and ISS program also show that public apathy does not stop ongoing programs. <br /><br />Quarantine - I think you solution is a good one. I would suggest a option for diversion to a lunar surface facility in the event of a genuine issue would be a good one. I assume you there are permanant settlements on mars there will be similar on the Moon!<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>

 

[qso1]

I'm attempting to try and self publish it on the web. I put these books on CD and can pretty much control the whole process except for the advertising and marketing for which I have no real money for.<br /><br />I didn't finish my high school version either which was one of the reasons I decided to finish it now. Unfinished business as it were.<br /><br />The only O2 source on Mars for the early base missions are in the base vehicles. I was toying around with the idea of unmanned supply deliveries in small vehicles that utilize airbag landing systems.<br /><br />I didn't realize the budget for oceanographic/Antarctic exploration was that high.<br /><br />Shortly before the lunar base is established in my story, a public opinion poll is taken that finds weak support for the moon base, stronger support for the mars base. The moon base was tied to the mars base program because of cross use of a majority of the hardware.<br /><br />I like your quarantine diversion to the moon scenario. I got pressed for time getting the book finished to the point of the crew being on mars so I ended up not really covering the quarantine issue much beyond mention of it. I do have plans to pick back up on the mars base books but I decided to proceed 150 years into the future with my story of the first mission to Alpha Centauri, to an earthlike world discovered there in 2011. The mission gets underway in 2156.<br /><br />I uploaded the lunar eclipse viewed at the base on 27 July 2018. <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]

One of the Mars base images, a dust storm which confines the crew to inside the base vehicle. <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]

One of the crew returns to the mother ship via ERV-1 mounted atop the base 1 vehicle. As seen in the foreground, the propulsion stage for ERV-2 not visible as it sits inside the top of the base 2 vehicle.<br /><br />I also show that each base is color coded as to what its purpose is. The red tinted one being a medical facility.<br /><br />BTW I built these models to scale in Lightwave 3D. <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]

In keeping with willpittengers topic on prerequisites for men on mars (And women). I would say that during the course of development of such a mission, original prerequisites will change...and change...and change.<br /><br />I pointed that out in the book where they started out discussing SSTO landers then changed to the system I eventually showed.<br /><br />Another, where to land. A discussion on safety issues pertaining to landing in such mountainous terrain was illustrated. Then the science, where to do the science. Since the whole mission was based on an unmanned probe returning evidence of life. The landing site was where the probe had been (And its lower stage still was).<br /><br />Changes were made even as the mother ship was enroute to mars but of course, at some point. Once on Mars, the mission rules in place post landing were frozen...sort of. Even they were shown as being updated as experience on Mars was gained.<br /><br />BTW, the site was Noctis Labyrinthus. <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>

 

[scottb50]

Getting to Mars orbit from the surface doesn't take that much, a vehicle could be extremely simple and SSTO would be quite simple. The same applies to the moon and was demonstrated by Apollo.<br /><br />The real concern for either, or any, destination is getting from Earth to LEO. The only economical way to do it is to shuttle materials and personnel, to LEO Stations and assemble vehicles around based core vehicles. Then it would be possible to go anywhere you wanted to. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

Your correct about getting to LEO being the toughest part. As for SSTO at Mars, it can be done I would think and that pretty much shows that you can approach the problem in several different ways. I chose a two stage vehicle because the lower stage is intended to serve as a base. In that capacity, it could be utilized for years if resupplied after the first three years.<br /><br />But more importantly (For me), for the purpose of the book, I wanted to touch upon the decisions and how they can be arrived at. <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>

 

[JonClarke]

Wonderful art work! Very nice, realistic work indeed.<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>

 

[josh_simonson]

Re public opinion<br /><br />The public is happy to support oceanographic and antarctic research because that work has relevance to our lives here on earth regarding climate history, fisheries, ect. Mars research would have less of an affect on our everyday lives, so it will be harder to justify. <br /><br /><br />Regarding robotics:<br />As this technology progresses, there will be less and less difference between what a robotic mission can accomplish and what a manned mission is capable of. In 20-50 years manned missions will be inferior to robotic ones in every way, from a scientific perspective. Dexterous, intelligent robots will be able to do most anything a human can, and the weight for life-support and the return trip can be used for additional scientific payload. Mountains of high-resolution data can be crunched by thousands of scientists and super-computers here on earth.<br /><br />This fact places a sunset on the opportunity to justify a manned mars mission based on science. After that point the only remaining reasons to go are as a demonstration of technological prowess and/or settlement. It's hard to see a mars settlement benefiting the economy, (unlike prior colonization that returned goods and services), so it will probably be difficult to justify it to the taxpayer. Likely it will have to be privately funded. Because of this, I'd say that for there to be a permanent human presence on mars, launch costs must fall at least 2 orders of magnitude so that private ventures can be capable of it. A technical demonstration would probably be of the flags and footprints variety.

 

[qso1]

Pretty much agree with your post where public opinion is concerned. The only reason I can see the public showing strong support for going to Mars is if we discover life on the planet. It would probably require a human mission to examine that life, to avoid the Viking controversy. Especially if it does not survive a sample return mission.<br /><br />There is the possibility that private enterprise could bring down the cost of LEO access in about 15-20 years which could significantly reduce Mars mission cost. <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]

Thanks, glad you liked it. <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>

 

[gsuschrist]

josh: "public is happy to support oceanographic and antarctic research because that work has relevance to our lives here on earth regarding climate history, fisheries, etc. Mars research would have less of an affect on our everyday lives, so it will be harder to justify."<br /><br />There also isn't an equivalency. Public funds (taxpayer) for Oceanographic and Antarctic research is a fraction... almost miniscule next to funs for NASA manned space exploration....millions next to billons. Folks might not mind a few million spent in the Antarctic but the red pencil would be out if it was billions.<br />

 

[JonClarke]

I suspect you will find that the average person's idea of what happens in polar and ocean research is very vague. The same person is also prepared to accept the current level of expenditure on LEO human missions, for similar valguly perceived results. This is the wisdom of VSE, it takes an expenditure that is known to be sustainable and applies to to Moon and Mars missions. Strong popular committment is not needed and may be harmful.<br /><br />Robotic missions: Sorry, I think you are wrong. Humans so outperform current robots that it is risible to draw a parallel. Apollo astronauts on the Moon showed that a pedestrian science traverses could cover 5 km per day. With a rover they averaged 15 km. The MERs average 20 <b>metres</b>. In terms of distance humans are 25-75 faster than state of the art robots. <br /><br />the first mobile robots were the Lunakhods of the early 70's. They were teleoperated, not autonomous. They averaged 111 m per day. Thirty years of robotics research has delivered autonomous rovers than have less than 1/5th the capabaility of teleoperated ones.<br /><br />In the 1950's peoplewere predicting human equivalent robots in 20-30 years. Despite the staggering advances in software and hardware, where are they? Still 20-50 years down the track! Realsitically by then we might get an autonomous rover that can operate as well as a teleoperated one.<br /><br />The world's current expert on robotic exploration of Mars is Steve Squyres. This is his opinion:<br /><br />"We are very far away from being able to build robots - I'm not going to see it in my lifetime - that have anything like the capabilities that humans will have to explore, let alone to inspire. And when I hear people point to Spirit and Opportunity and say that these are examples of why we don't need to send humans to Mars, I get very upset. Because that's not even the right discussion to be having. We must send humans to Mars. We can't do it soon enough for me. You know, I'm a robot <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>

 

[gsuschrist]

I was around in the 60's and don't recall anyone in sciences predicting human like robots in 20 or 30 years. Too much television?<br /><br />The issue of man versus unmanned exploration isn't who can do what best but who can do what for the best value working within the reality of limited rsources. <br /><br />Unlike others here, I doubt if a human will walk on Mars before the end of this century. There will be little imperative or purpose to it other than footsteps and marginal scientific knowledge. In the next 35 years a dozen or so of more and more sophisticated craft will land on Mars with the return of more and more sophisticated knowledge. Probably, though not necesarily, a return mission with rocks, etc. By the time we get around to having the capability of a returned manned mission we're going to know a lot about Mars and a human presence on Mars will be limited in the return for the buck in additional knowledge. In an ironic twist the success of unmanned missions, instead of paving the way for a manned mission, will make the answer to 'why a manned mission' question even more nebulous.<br /><br />

 

[willpittenger]

Personally, it is not whether or not I believe it will happen before the end of the century. Instead, I want to ensure we do not attempt to go before we have all our ducks in a row. If we go too soon, we will end up leaving flags and footprints and bringing back only rocks. Our second mission would be centuries after the first. <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>

 

[dragon04]

<font color="yellow">Unlike others here, I doubt if a human will walk on Mars before the end of this century.</font><br /><br />That might be a slightly premature statement, although not an unrealistic one.<br /><br />A lot will depend on unmanned missions to Mars in the next decade or two. If we find something astoundingly interesting there, you might see men and women on Mars by mid centruy.<br /><br />But you're right in that there is no imperative for us to do a manned Mars mission any time soon. At least not at the moment. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

The closest to an "imperative" I can come would be overcrowding. However, the nations that would most benefit can least afford it. <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> <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 was around in the 60's and don't recall anyone in sciences predicting human like robots in 20 or 30 years. "<br /><br />I did say the 50's, in actual fact. But the general impression by the AI proponents in the 60's (Minsky was one, I think) was that human level AI was just round the corner and might be available even before 2001.<br /><br />"There will be little imperative or purpose to it other than footsteps and marginal scientific knowledge. "<br /><br />On what basis do you say that detailed knowledge of the history of Mars and its processes will be marginal? In what sense is assertaining whether or not the human species can live on another planet for an extended period time can be considered marginal? In what manner can opening up a whole new planet to human experience be dismissed as "footprints"?<br /><br />"In the next 35 years a dozen or so of more and more sophisticated craft will land on Mars with the return of more and more sophisticated knowledge. Probably, though not necesarily, a return mission with rocks, etc."<br /><br />Agreed.<br /><br />"By the time we get around to having the capability of a returned manned mission we're going to know a lot about Mars and a human presence on Mars will be limited in the return for the buck in additional knowledge. In an ironic twist the success of unmanned missions, instead of paving the way for a manned mission, will make the answer to 'why a manned mission' question even more nebulous. "<br /><br />No. See my early post. Did you read it? A human mission will achieve somewhere between 5000 and 15000 times as much single MER. MSR mission will return less than 1 kg of sample, possibly as little as 100 g. A human mission will return hundreds of kg.<br /><br />The view that robots are sufficient and will soon equal human performance is not generally supported by people actually involved in robotics and space exploration. Sagan rejected it, Squyres does not hold it, neither to Edgett and Malin.<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 need to make your the ducks are reasonable befoere you set them up in a row. So why don't you specify your ducks?<br /><br />"Flags and foot prints" is a much bandied about term used to slam missions deemed to be too small. The opposite in abuse is "Battlestar Galactica" However people never define what they mean. So, please specify what you mean by "flag and footprints". How do current missions, typified by the NASA Mars DRM 3.0, compare with this definition.<br /><br />Take it from me - rocks are never "only". But any mars mission will bring back much more than rocks. It will return with images, experiences, concepts that will change the way we view the world. It willgenerate whole new technologies before it even leaves. Apollo did this, and there is no reason to think that a Mars program would be any different.<br /><br />Why would it take centuries to return to Mars after a "flags and footprints" mission?<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]

The problem with overcrowding as a reason is that even an overcrowded earth is more hospitable than Mars. Whatever "overcrowded" means. Is it Hong Kong? Calcutta? Amsterdam? I doubt if residents of any of those places would swap on mass for a place where you can't breath the air and it is below zero most of the time and is drenched with shortwave and cosmic radiation. There will be exceptions of course, but they occur everywhere.<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>

 

[bad_drawing]

On population providing a reason to go to mars: I completely agree with what you say, and I would add that even if mars were a perfectly hospitible world, the logistics of moving enough people to actually affect the population on earth (by that time, over 10 billion probably) will be absolutely staggering. Imagine how many people you would have to move a day to get zero population growth on earth. Eeek.

 

[JonClarke]

I think it's about 100,000 per day. The population battle will be fought and one here on earth. I think it will be OK. Human population has doubled in 50 years. it will almost double again to level of at 10 billion, but since this will take another 200 years I think we will make it as a planetary civilisation. The question are: at what level and with what quality of life and how many other species will be sharing the world with? But that is another story!<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]

Edit: Added GPS 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>

 

[quasar2]

i guess the problem w/ battlestar galactica approach is that it`d take far longer to throw this together. & there isn`t really anything of utmost importance there calling us as it were. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>