NASA Ponders Human Mission to Moons of Mars

mithridates · Jul 15, 2007

http://www.livescience.com/blogs/author/leonarddavid <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />A potential outward bound destination for astronauts: Phobos and Deimos - the two moons of Mars. NASA is stirring up the exploration pot by co-sponsoring in early November the first international conference on sending robots and humans to Phobos and Deimos. This global gathering of experts will meet at the NASA Ames Research Center in California. Theyâ€™ll detail new ideas on probing Phobos and Deimos, as well as how to utilize the two moons as a gateway for exploring Mars itself. In the human exploration department, scientists and engineers are to delve into what an expeditionary crew might do on Phobos and Deimos - and how to use those mini-worlds to help in investigating the red planet. Also, what precursor robotic missions that might be needed will be addressed. By the way - Russia is already spearheading a multi-nation project to explore Phobos, dubbed the Phobos-Grunt mission, a sample return effort eyed for 2009. Phobos is the larger of the two moons and is the closest to Marsâ€¦so close, in fact, that it stands to be ripped apart by gravitational forces way out in the future. Phobos and Deimos are thought by many scientists to be captured asteroids, perhaps rocky travelers that originated in the outer solar system.<hr /></blockquote> So how much money/effort would be saved going to a location like Phobos and its escape velocity of a mere 11m/s? It also has an orbital speed of 2 km/s that certainly doesn't hurt on the way back. I see there's another forum here advocating exploding Phobos in order to heat up Mars and decrease the albedo at the same time: http://metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----- http://mithridates.blogspot.com </div>

j05h · Jul 15, 2007

We discussed this pretty extensively last year in "Private Mars Mission" in Business&Tech: http://uplink.space.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=businesstech&Number=503952&page=&view=&sb=&o= My interest was in the feasibility of a "big Mir" space station on Phobos (or Deimos or orbit) to facilitate surface robot tele-ops and volatile mining on the martian moons. This would grow from orbit to staging any surface expeditions. The facility would be run by a consortia of partners or a single company functioning as "port authority" for a variety of clients. Success would rely on two things. First, that there is something fuel-like on Phobos or Deimos. Second, that a market in robotic surface activity is generated - this implies providing realtime tele-operation of various facilities including mining, research, exploration and base-preparation. This would start from what we have now, existing and near-term space station components and proven rover designs. A human crew in orbit gets written instructions and voice comm from Earth, then executes robotic activity in realtime cis-Mars. Personally, I think Phobos is the best site off Mars, specifically Stickney Crater. Phobos should have some water - there is serious dispute about it's physical makeup. Stickney always faces Mars because Phobos is tide-locked to Mars. Part of the rim, similar to how Shackleton Crater is planned for use, would serve as a buried-module site. Phobos' properties including composition and orbital position, are close to ideal for ISRU and cargo staging - assuming some volatiles exist. It provides almost as easy delta-V access to LEO as Luna. The guy advocating nuking Phobos is overlooking the damage his plan would cause to any prexisting facilities. He may be suggesting Phobos be b <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

thereiwas · Jul 15, 2007

Phobos will be more like what we know from Luna, with none of that weird Martian surface chemistry to contend with. Downsides I see are a lot less covenient water, and so little gravity it will not be any more comfortable than zero-G. No re-entry to worry about but could still use aerobraking around Mars on the way in.

3488 · Jul 16, 2007

Very Interesting. I think that we will have to wait for the results from Phobos / Grunt first. But as already said, there are now hassles concerning atmospheric entry, etc. Gravity pretty weak. 50 KPH escape velocity for Phobos & only 25 KPH for Deimos. Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

j05h · Jul 16, 2007

Excellent point about helping avoid weird Mars chemistry. We don't know how much water Phobos has - it's probably not as easy to access as Elysium Planitia, but will prove much easier to extract than Lunar water. It is essentially working in Zero-G, but that actually can make things easier in some ways. Landing on Phobos is more like docking than planetary EDL. More than any other solar location, Mars orbit/moons is something we can do now. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

3488 · Jul 16, 2007

Hi J05H. Yes very true. I like the idea of crewed Phobos / Deimos missions very much. General consensus is that both are type C asteroids, captured long ago by Mars (although there is some doubt, about their type C status. They could be S types, but heavily space weathered. I was tipped off about this by an interesting post from Jon Clarke, so it shows how LITTLE we do know about these two). Anyway, I am seriously looking forward to Phobos Grunt & also hope that MRO will turn the HiRISE to them too. True, the landing on them vill be like a docking, more than a traditional landing. Having said that, once down, their gravity is captive. Both have regolith & both have boulders, so the gravity, although extremely weak, can still hold dust & boulders on the surfaces. So once landed a crew will not just drift off, unless they do a running jump. We have seen this also with asteroids 243 Ida & 433 Eros. Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

thereiwas · Jul 16, 2007

I would agree unless it was discovered that the surface chemistry of Mars is such that such a landing could prove fatal to man or machine. Hydrogen peroxide snow? Pretty corrosive stuff. Better not track any back inside on your boots unless you like breathing bleach. (Ben Bova makes mention of this in his first "Mars" novel.)

summoner · Jul 16, 2007

I'd say set up a base both on Phobos and Mars, then you could use Phobos for both arrival and departure from Mars orbit to both the surface and return to Earth. That way even if you needed to make fuel on the surface of Mars, you could ship it up to the Phobos base for other uses. Mars would also serve as a gravity sourse for the long term stays that are inherent with any Mars trip for the moment. Ship fuel and any other useable resources from the planet surface and launch everything from Phobos. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width:271px;background-color:#FFF;border:1pxsolid#999"><tr><td colspan="2"><div style="height:35px"><img src="http://banners.wunderground.com/weathersticker/htmlSticker1/language/www/US/MT/Three_Forks.gif" alt="" height="35" width="271" style="border:0px" /></div>

mithridates · Jul 16, 2007

I was thinking about that too when I saw the article since Phobos and Deimos are just captured asteroids and geologically not much more interesting (apart from size) than the proposed manned missions to a near-Earth asteroid, and a much longer trip as well. There would have to be a real benefit to Mars research itself to make it worth the trip. Perhaps real-time control of various robotic probes might make it worth it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----- http://mithridates.blogspot.com </div>

j05h · Jul 16, 2007

> I'd say set up a base both on Phobos and Mars, then you could use Phobos for both arrival and departure from Mars orbit to both the surface and return to Earth. That's the general idea behind "Phobos First". If sufficient resources can be extracted in-situ (and staged up from Mars), it becomes a natural base for access to the whole planet. Focusing the first crew to Mars on building orbital infrastructure and ISRU would help later crews immensely. Any person that gets to cis-Mars space will be "valuable" in the sense that it costs a lot to get them there. With spin-G in orbit or .38G being safe, a tour to Mars should be several years long - like 2-5, not including trip in and out. The first crew out might even get to land at the base site. They spend a couple years tele-opping an Elysium fuel factory and Phobos ice mine, build up an orbital depot (yes, with spin-G in 1+ module). A second crew arrives 26 months later with a descent vehicle. After a change-over on the Phobos base, the first crew descends to establish a biology research station at Valles Marineris. They receive regular fuel and LOX deliveries via Phobos and their industrial base at Elysium. With this rough concept and resuable rockets, they would have global access. If a decision was made to start human Mars exploration, the choice would realistically be 10-15 years before first landing. My argument is that the leverage of existing spacecraft (FGB, Soyuz, EELV, Nautilus) is enough to start now basing at Phobos or orbit. With Phoban resources, landings could actually happen sooner than the "all-up" approach of landing the first flight out. This is due to the fact that we could speed Mars' orbit access using current systems and be in orbit years to a decade sooner than with all-up approach. Deciding on Phobos First would allow perfection of general Mars aerobraking before putting crew at risk in all-up flight. This was a critical weakness, IMHO, of Mars Di <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

j05h · Jul 16, 2007

> If I were at astronaut, I would find it frustrating to make it all the way to Mars, yet not be able to land on the surface. I would hope a Phobos/Deimos mission would come after a surface mission. Assuming the first crew's tour is in Mars orbit gives them some special opportunities. Maybe they get to land after several years of exploring and mining Phobos. In the mean-time, they arrive cis-Mars much sooner than other Mars schemes and would have real-time control of robots across the planet. Crew would get to explore many, many Mars sites virtually, instead of a single one hands-on. The fastest route to wide-scale Mars development may be through leveraging orbital ISRU. My description in "Private Mars Missions" was a consortia providing support to various other enterprises. Start with the services (sell the "shovels & picks" - early tele-ops and fuel) to all customers. It is meant to complement and enable other Mars endeavours. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

oker59 · Jul 16, 2007

I can't believe Zubrin didn't think of this . . . i can't believe I didn't think of this . . . i can't believe it took this long for anybody to think of this . . . must mean something about our intellectual state of mind!

thereiwas · Jul 16, 2007

Teleop of surface robots will take a bit of thought because Phobos whips around Mars so fast (7 hrs, 39.2 min) and is so low (5900 km from the surface) it will not be above the horizon for very long as seen from the ground. A few relay satellites should solve this. Propagation time will still be much better than Earth/Lunar communications.

gunsandrockets · Jul 17, 2007

<Teleop of surface robots will take a bit of thought because Phobos whips around Mars so fast (7 hrs, 39.2 min) and is so low (5900 km from the surface) it will not be above the horizon for very long as seen from the ground.> That's why I like Deimos better as a base for teleoperations. Deimos is also higher in the gravity well of Mars and that would reduce the mass needed for the first manned mission to Mars orbit.

gunsandrockets · Jul 17, 2007

<I can't believe Zubrin didn't think of this . . . i can't believe I didn't think of this . . . i can't believe it took this long for anybody to think of this . . . must mean something about our intellectual state of mind!> Not really. Going first to the moons of Mars is actually a pretty old idea. It was never a focus of Zubrin's ambitions because he wants to get to the Martian surface right away and even start colonizing right away.

tomnackid · Jul 17, 2007

Didn't Von Braun and his contemporaries propose a mission to the moons before a landing? I seem to recall some Bonestel paintings illustrating that. I think with the incredible success of Spirit and Opportunity and the advances in autonomous robots it will be a very "hard sell" to convince the powers that be that a trip to mars soley to use Phobos or Demos as a base for teleprecence is a economical option.

3488 · Jul 17, 2007

Phobos & Deimos are not required for telepresence. When that idea first evolved, the technology was not as it in now. You are correct about Spirit & Opportunity. They have managed just fine, without the need for equipment on either Phobos or Deimos. I would like to see a crew land on both Phobos & Deimos, simply for exploratory reasons & to leave behind scientific equipment that we can monitor, long after their departure, much like the Apollo astronauts did with the Moon. We have the exciting Phobos / Grunt coming up & hopefully there will be others following along. Phobos & Deimos are real enigmas. Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

j05h · Jul 17, 2007

> Phobos & Deimos are not required for telepresence. When that idea first evolved, the technology was not as it in now. There is a huge difference between what can be accomplished with people exerting real-time control vs. the semi-autonomous ops that Spirit and Opportunity perform. One is instantaneous, the other takes an hour and half to execute. Phobos and Deimos are huge scientific and industrial targets - as I said they should provide samples from Mars, themselves and the Main Belt. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

NASA Ponders Human Mission to Moons of Mars

mithridates

Guest

j05h

Guest

thereiwas

Guest

3488

Guest

j05h

Guest

3488

Guest

thereiwas

Guest

summoner

Guest

mithridates

Guest

j05h

Guest

j05h

Guest

oker59

Guest

thereiwas

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

tomnackid

Guest

3488

Guest

j05h

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page