Newbie Mars Question -- one person, one way

[bikengr]

Apologies if this covers old, old ground. It's a topic I don't see being considered, whenever Mars exploration is planned.<br /><br />As I see it, a vast proportion of the resources of a typical Mars journey are devoted to the return. That's why we see such lopsided proposals as 4 years travel for 2 weeks of exploration, with $30 bn pricetag.<br /><br />I look at Mars as potentially habitable, and ask why we don't just send one person, with the tools to try to live permanently. I'm guessing a pricetag more like $3bn, leading to a decade or more of exploration.<br /><br />I think plenty of sane intelligent people would jump at the chance to be Earth's pre-eminent explorer, possibly making major discoveries every day. It would not be a death sentence, but rather a great challenge, in which one would be supported 24/7 by the smartest people on Earth (email and video). <br /><br />Can you imagine the email frenzy of credible suggestions, if something goes wrong with life support? Can you imagine the waiting list of scientists who would want time with you, to achieve interactive observations? How about the celebrities or experts who would strive to offer their best to you (whatevery you want to learn or hear) to obtain reflected glory? <br /><br />What I am trying to get at, is that the psychological environment of a single person would not be disastrous -- they would read the headlines about themselves every morning, they would have all the email companionship they wanted, they could get answers and interaction on any subject, they would be lionized and deferred to for a lifetime, while getting credit for infinite discovery.<br /><br />Physically also it doesn't look so bad. As long as general purpose equipment is sent (a mini backhoe, machine tools, a mass spectrometer), and all the experts on Earth will be advising how to use, one imagines most technical problems could be solved. And anyway, a resupply flight 2 years later could bring much better tools. <br /><br />So there it is,

 

[bushuser]

That's been mentioned here before, but in a less radical context...a one way mission for a group of people. It seems to me that to avoid a suicide mission, a huge amount of new information, an encyclopedia of Mars, must first be gathered. For example, you can't send folks based on assumptions of where resources are located, or how they will be harvested. There needs to be some proven sources of water, proven technology for providing permanent food, shelter,power, repairs, medical treatment.

 

[bikengr]

Thank you for replying, over the last 5 years I've been able to get no more than a handful of responses to my crazy idea.<br /><br />If you send fewer people (the lowest is 1), then you can send more tools or supplies. Take your example of water. [And I freely admit all my specific knowledge of Mars resources is dated or forgotten.] If you send ten people, the amount of water to let them survive a long time might be huge. If you send one person, a lesser amount of water can last far longer. And one can also send (a) water recycling equipment and components therefor; (b) well drilling equipment; (c) a vehicle to get to different locations. <br /><br />How I differ specifically with your comment, is that appropriate tools, plus enough resources to carry out some major projects, could possibly substitute for some of your 'encyclopedic pre-knowledge'.<br /><br />Or look at it another way, if water proved to be limiting, if the person arrives with 2 years' worth, and finds life otherwise unsustainable, perhaps the resuply flight should focus on bringing a lot more. [Or could be, some kind of smelting equipment to wrest small amounts from the minerals.] <br /><br />I should add, that all your issues of shelter etc. would be addressed, in my approach, by the accompanying equipment. The mini-backhoe would be designed for easy modification using the mini-machine shop. So if habitation actually required a bulldozer, or a rock drill, or a brick press, I'm assuming the person would be able to create such items from the accompanying supplies [supplemented by detailed guidance from machinists, brick makers, foundation diggers etc. viewing the situation from earth]<br /><br />Sincerely yours<br />Jim Papadopoulos

 

[spayss]

"Physically also it doesn't look so bad. As long as general purpose equipment is sent (a mini backhoe, machine tools, a mass spectrometer), and all the experts on Earth will be advising how to use, one imagines most technical problems could be solved."<br /><br /> In that one paragraph I can think of 100 techical problems that are years and tens of billions of dollars away from being solved.<br /><br />What happens when a screw on the backhoe fails? How about a screw on the ramp to remove the backhoe? How about a screw on the door to open the craft to let down the ramp to remove the backhoe? where are the replacement parts? The tools to do the repair? the tools to repair the tools to do the repair? what happens when the replacement part is also defective?<br /><br /> To paraphrase Aldrin: 'every damn one of the thousand little things that can go wrong have to be tested, retested and provisions made in case they screw up anyways'.

 

[bikengr]

I know a rapidfire interchange is just a symptom of manic mood. Sorry about that! I'm sure I'll be much calmer, later. <br /><br />"What happens when a screw on the backhoe fails? How about a screw on the ramp to remove the backhoe? How about a screw on the door to open the craft to let down the ramp to remove the backhoe? where are the replacement parts? The tools to do the repair? the tools to repair the tools to do the repair? what happens when the replacement part is also defective?"<br /><br />I want to address that specifically. I have some machining background. Here are the ways one can assure redundant security.<br />All designs use a few interchangeable fasteners<br />Bring extra fasteners, or swap from one item to another.<br />Bring a lathe as one key element of general self sufficiency<br />Bring a welder too. <br /><br />My view is possibly more expansive than yours. With an assortment of simple tools, options expand dramatically. A ground-roving vehicle can be modified to work as a lathe (wheel = chuck, frame = bed). Metal rod stock can be used as a rivet. Thermite can quickly join two pieces of steel in an emergency.<br /><br />I had the great good fortune (and hilarity) to appear on Junkyard Wars. I firmly believe an ingenious craftsperson can generally find at least one way to proceed, given a palette of tools and supplies, and assuming all equipment is not being operated at a super-high-functioning limit.<br /><br />I think Mars 1 would make great 'reality TV', sort of a 'junkyard wars' on another planet. <br /><br />Thanks for engaging me in this conversation!<br />Jim Papadopoulos

 

[pathfinder_01]

There are some mental health issuses with being alone for extremely long periods of time. Man is a socal creature and that might be a bad idea. In addition having extra hands around to help is probably a good idea esp. if you are doing a lot of contruction. With one person you are limited to doing one thing at a time. With more you can do more that a thing at a time and you can have an extra hand to hold something while you attach something. Finally I think the real problem with one way trips is if you change your mind. No way back at all.

 

[bikengr]

"There are some mental health issuses with being alone for extremely long periods of time. Man is a socal creature and that might be a bad idea."<br /><br />I see your point. But remember, this is not the isolation of explorers a century ago. The individual will have email contact with family, friends, and a vitally interested network of supporters and scientists. Beyond, that, as the most public of all figures, can probably command the attention of entertainers, leaders, etc. in looking for fulfilling interaction.<br /><br />For sure, certain types would not do well. But I don't think it is outside the range of human normalcy, to find certain other personality types who could thrive as self-reliant discoverers.<br /><br />If the explorer wanted a late-night discussion of philosophy, or lessons in dulcimer playing, or chatroom interaction, or even amazing "email sex", I'm sure there would be scores of individuals eager to supply this.<br /><br />So, I'm suggesting that it could work out OK if the right person is selected?<br /><br />Jim Papadopoulos

 

[spayss]

bickengr:<br /><br />and your junkyard on Mars would be found at ?<br /><br />(just kidding)<br /><br />I agree with the 'generic' approach to machinery. I've had the engine pulled on our tractor, all eager to tackle it and and can't do a damn thing because the socket I needed just popped off and rolled down the garage floor drain. I just ran into town and got a new one but if on Mars???

 

[thinice]

<i>Apologies if this covers old, old ground. </i><br /><br />Yes it does. And the quick answer is: send that person with the same tools to the Antarctic mainland first. It is much cheaper.

 

[bikengr]

"the quick answer is: send that person with the same tools to the Antarctic mainland first. It is much cheaper."<br /><br />Of course, I agree totally! The question is, why is this option not being pursued today? My disjunctive thought is: Either there is a fatal flaw in the idea, which I'd like to hear. Or, we are dealing with cultural blindness, in which NASA is determined to bring every body home without delay, for no meaningful reason.<br /> <br />Thanks for your input<br />Jim Papadopoulos

 

[yoda9999]

Excellent post bikengr, and welcome! I'm also brainstorming about the first manned Mars mission on the various forums here.<br /><br />I think sending one astronaut is way too risky. You do not want single points of failures. That one astronaut is a SPOF. You always want redundancy. If that lone astronaut gets sick or injured, mentally or physically, who will replace him? Almost everyt system has a backup, including the astronaut. You need more than one astronaut to make sure all the systems that provides shelter, air, water and energy are working properly, not to mention the science experiments. No organization will fund an ambitious and expensive mission for one astronaut. On Earth, exploration has always required a crew, a team, or help from natives.

 

[no_way]

Recent SpaceReview article on the very same subject:<br />http://thespacereview.com/article/669/1

 

[j05h]

>> "the quick answer is: send that person with the same tools to the Antarctic mainland first. It is much cheaper."<br /> /> Of course, I agree totally! The question is, why is this option not being pursued today?<br /><br />It is being done, in several locations. They are the Mars Society's Research Stations. There is one on Devon Island in northern Nunavut, Canada. Another in the Utah desert, and one on a Swedish or Greenland glacier. They haven't done an Antarctic base because of treaty, technical and cost issues. <br /><br />One-Way To Stay missions are a great idea, we discussed it here this past spring. I give a single explorer only several years survival time, the terrain, equipment and construction issues are to great. A team is definitely the way to go, three people can do much more than 3x1 person's labor. I think the minimum size is probably 6 people with plans to build a sandbagged-inflatable base. Once established, they can explore in shifts of 3 with rovers, while the other 3 recuperate and maintain the base. It also allows specialized knowledge: you can have a real surgeon in a crew of 6. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[bikengr]

"I think sending one astronaut is way too risky. You do not want single points of failures. That one astronaut is a SPOF. You always want redundancy. If that lone astronaut gets sick or injured, mentally or physically, who will replace him? Almost everyt system has a backup, including the astronaut."<br /><br />That's a legitimate philosophy, but I'm not sure it should dominate. Our Mercury shots did not have double crew. A military platoon may send out a single scout. My view is, if doubled crew size leads to doubled cost, then I'd be skeptical. (Because of my assumption, that cost is a big driver here.)<br /><br />My hope would be, that if an explorer regrettably died, all the equipment would remain available for the next person to incorporate.<br /><br />Underlying my question and thinking, is the assumption that humanity can afford a simple mission 'soon', and plenty of individuals would be temperamentally inclined to volunteer. The learning would be immense, and would permit much better planning for any later 'mega mission'. <br /><br />Thanks to the person who brought up the SpaceReview article, I was really hoping to make contact with someone who had pondered the same approach.<br /><br />Jim Papadopoulos

 

[mental_avenger]

I agree, the return trip scenario is both extremely expensive and extremely limiting. Not only does it nearly quadruple the materials needed to be sent on the outbound trip, but it severely limits the time on the surface and therefore the amount of useful work that can be done. <br /><br />But I disagree with the single individual for several reasons. As pointed out, if this person is disabled or crippled physically or mentally, even partially, the mission would be over. Any people who are either colonizing or even just visiting Mars will have a full time job just surviving, even with the most comprehensive preparations.<br /><br />BTW, I understand about making do with what is available. I do that all the time. I understand using tools to make almost anything you need. My father taught me that anything one person can build, another person can repair. I have almost every kind of tool there is, including quite a few I designed and build myself because exactly what I needed was not available or hadn’t been invented yet. I have a small Central Drill Mill that I use to fabricate special parts. I also have access to a nice Bridgeport Vertical Mill, several lathes, and various other machine tools.<br /><br />The problem is that fabricating complex parts from scratch can be very time consuming. A colonist is going to be very busy with the basic necessities of life. Taking six hours to fabricate a latch might not be practical. And that is what it boils down to. Is it practical to use the machines tools to make a screw instead of carrying a few spares? No, it is not.<br /><br />IMO, the only practical way to send humans to Mars is with a large initial group, possibly 200 individuals. It goes like this. Send several large rovers, like Big Al, to Mars to find the best place to start a colony. Using information from the orbiters, land the rovers in the most promising areas. Once the rovers have found the best site, send robotic supply ships via the economy route and <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>

 

[quasar2]

Some call this the "BattleStar Galactica" approach. Which i agree with. & one of the aspects (@least in my opinion) of a one-way mission as advantageous is this. The "Flags & Footprints" scenario which many would like to avoid is possibly avoided. If this had been done w/ Apollo, (& actually i believe there was proposal @ that time. Possibly there would `ve been further interest in The moon. Of course we`ll never know now. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacefire]

what about sending a midget (picked up the idea from a book actually) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[bushuser]

"Midgetstar Galactica"? <br /><br />Actually, come to think of it, dwarves and midgets are prone to many unique medical problems, some of which would be ameliorated by lower gravity living.

 

[frodo1008]

I am really very sorry, but the reason that your idea does not receive any attention (in particular from the more technically minded people on these boards) is it is indeed suicidal! In fact even sending just one ship with multiple numbers of people is somewhat suicidal! And that is for just getting them to Mars at all.<br /><br />Remember Apollo 13? If those good astronauts hadn't have been in exactly the right spot when disaster struck them and their vehicle, and the NASA people of the time performed relative miracles we would have been watching the greatest tragedy of the ENTIRE space program at that time, and even since. Remember that nobody actually saw either the Challenger crew suffer and die, or the Columbia crew suffer and die either, but in the case of the Apollo 13 it might just have been all on TV! Ouch!<br /><br />So sending people on to Mars where they will be millions upon millions of miles from any help at all in case of the almost inevitable things that could go wrong is asking for a disaster of such proportions that it could set ALL such attempts back decades! If NASA is going to be that stupid then let them go ahead and suffer the consequences!<br /><br />I find it so very difficult that people seem to think that such a trip is going to be almost as easy as going to the moon. What utter and complete bunk!!!<br /><br />The moon is some 250,000 miles away, and even the experienced astronauts that went there can tell us that it was ANYTHING but easy to do!<br /><br />Now Mars is some 60 million miles away at its closest approach, and this isn't even doable at all. What is needed is a trip of at least some 250 million miles away, spiraling outwards into the solar system! The amount of time and radiation that the astronauts will receive is almost enough to kill them off alone. Sending just one ship is an almost total recipe for disaster. If ANYTHING goes wrong (and a guy of vast experience by the name of Murphy almost guarantees that it WILL go wrong)

 

[Boris_Badenov]

Damn, you make some long winded posts.<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[yoda9999]

I think once we have a foothold on Mars, the first actual settlements may infact require "loners", people who are independent, resourceful, and want to rough it out on Mars. A Mars settlement is its own kind of risky social experiment. A small group of people could result in cabin fever.<br /><br />Phase 1: flag and footprint missions<br />Phase 2: missions to find sites, build simple settlements<br />Phase 3: send in the first lone settlers<br /><br />Having single person settlements might be a good idea. If a settlement fails, only 1 person dies. You don't want all your eggs in one basket. The lone astronaut should be given a dog and robot for companionship. A husband-wife team might be a good idea also.<br /><br />If a settlement survives, we could try expanding the settlement with more people and see how that goes.

 

[qso1]

I've seen this idea proposed for a one way mission with a group of people. I'm a big supporter of human Mars missions but if this is how we would have to do it. Its not worth it. Mars can wait.<br /><br />Its too bad we get to the point where we think its so expensive to travel in space that we'd be willing to consider missions such as this.<br /><br />Wake up folks, we can afford to send humans to Mars. We simply live in a society that is not interested in it.<br /><br />You could send the sanest person one could find and in five years with no human contact, what do you think is going to happen? Imagine the headlines...lone mars astronaut dies (Don't matter why), was Mars mission, even at this cheap price worth 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>

 

[bikengr]

"Does anybody even begin to know what traveling with even a rotating natural gravity of some 0.38 g's (the gravity of the surface of Mars) for months on end, and then living at that gravity on the surface of Mars for more months on end (or in the case of the one way people, for the rest of the astronauts lives), and then additional months of travel back to the Earth, is going to do to the human body? We KNOW that this is a dangerous thing to do for very long times at zero gravity, but we have no way of even measuring such for a partial gravity unless we have permanent rotating space stations at such gravities, and then study people for long periods of time on such stations at these gravities!!"<br /><br />Well, the sociology of posting is interesting. I am aware of my complete newness to an established group, hence inclined to be deferential and diffident.<br /><br />On the other hand, a boldly stated technical challenge gets the juices flowing, which makes me want to jump into an argument (where I surely don't know enough to make sense).<br /><br />So.... what to do?<br /><br />For the heck of it, meaning no disrespect, let me ask about the low-gravity issue. I think two masses joined by a 2 km cable can spin like a bolo, providing an acceleration of 1 g with a rotation rate of just 1 rpm [hence, minimally disorienting]. And, I guess my proposal avoids the return-voyage low-g danger! <br /><br /> <br />Obviously I know nothing about rocket engine reliability. I'm thinking you want to fire at the beginning and end, and not much in between. Just like a moon flight?<br /><br />Wel, thanks for the input, I'll ponder it.<br /><br />Jim Papadopoulos<br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[qso1]

Mental_Avenger:<br />I agree, the return trip scenario is both extremely expensive and extremely limiting. Not only does it nearly quadruple the materials needed to be sent on the outbound trip, but it severely limits the time on the surface and therefore the amount of useful work that can be done.<br /><br />Me:<br />Does anyone have a specific link that breaks down Mars trip expenses, itemizes the cost of going, and returning. If so, I'd like to see it because all I have ever seen on Mars mission estimates are overall costs.<br /><br />How does the materials needed quadruple because a return leg is factored in? How is time limited on the surface. Seems to me a quadrupling of material would add to the mission.<br /><br />Mental_Avenger:<br />But I disagree with the single individual for several reasons. As pointed out, if this person is disabled or crippled physically or mentally, even partially, the mission would be over. Any people who are either colonizing or even just visiting Mars will have a full time job just surviving, even with the most comprehensive preparations. <br /><br />Me:<br />On this I agree. Obviously whoever comes up with these ideas has no clue as to what can go wrong with the human in the loop as well as the machinery itself. If were leaving even one person on Mars...how old is this person? If say 40...one needs to figure out how much supplies that person needs to live 40 plus years.<br /><br />Even a 60 year old loner will need more supplies and equipment than a 6 person crew that will eventually return.<br /><br />Human factors. Someone said humans are social creatures. Another said the loner will have E-mail etc. By social, humans need human contact, even if its only ontact at a 711. Even a hermit needs the knowledge that if they so chose, they could go out of their house or wherever and be within no more than a few days of making some sort of contact with other humans.<br /><br />The people the loner would be in touch with by E-mail. They might eventually q <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]

Boris1961:<br />Damn, you make some long winded posts.<br /><br />Me:<br />The particular post your referring to had to be long because obviously proponents of one way trips to Mars do not think through the pitfalls of such a venture. And Frodo1008 points out the same thing I do.<br /><br />If society is this cheap...don't bother with Mars! <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>