Newbie Mars Question -- one person, one way

[qso1]

yoda9999:<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 />Me:<br />Here you have listed at least three missions. For the cost of those three missions, you could roll them up into one mission with return capability for the same cost or maybe even less cost.<br /><br />What do we need a flag and footprint mission for? Unlike the moon, Mars is far enough away to require we be more frugal with the types of missions. Robert Zubrin knew this when he proposed Mars Direct. There are a number of variations on Mars direct that could result in reasonably priced Mars missions with return capabilities.<br /><br />Any missions that may be needed to gain experience can be done at the moon as follows:<br /><br />Phase 1.....set up lunar outpost.<br /><br />Phase 2.....operate said outpost for 2 years with 6 month crew rotations.<br /><br />Phase 3.....send first mars base to mars unmanned.<br /><br />Phase 4.....send crew aboard mother ship with second base docked. That base would land crew on Mars where they would activate the other base and have two bases from the start. And return vehicles that would have enough propellant to leave mars and dock with the mother ship in mars orbit for the return to earth then repeat cycle from that point on except for phase 3 which could be done on an as needed basis.<br /><br />Any mars mission proposal that involves any colonization efforts will require large budgets over long periods of time. Or about the same amount of money it would trake to build the craft that will support one person for 20-40 years on mars surface with no hope of return. <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]

"Any mars mission proposal that involves any colonization efforts will require large budgets over long periods of time. Or about the same amount of money it would trake to build the craft that will support one person for 20-40 years on mars surface with no hope of return."<br /><br />Please note, I was not proposing that a person be sent with all supplies for 40 years. Supplies for 2-3 years maybe; with an expectation that a greenhouse (even electrically lit) would provide food, and some kind of refining procedure would collect oxygen and water. And the backup of a re-supply flight once REAL problems are better known.<br /><br />I can see in general that folks are cautious. But I dunno, our society has little problem sending young soldiers to be blown apart, what's wrong with inviting an adventurer to light the jet on a glorious mission that has not been tested to the Nth degree?<br /><br />I really believe the premise of Petrosky's book: "to engineer is human", I think it's called. He points out that each leap of technology involves the unknown, which eventually becomes known only after disaster strikes. A little uncomfortable, but true-to-life when it comes to innovation.<br /><br />Jim Papadopoulos

 

[mental_avenger]

Frodo says: <font color="yellow"> 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! </font><br /><br />That was over 30 years ago, and a lot has changed since then. The technological improvements have been astronomical. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Frodo says: <font color="yellow"> 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! </font><br /><br />We have the technology to do it, we just haven’t had the incentive to apply it. Even the Hohmann Transfer Orbit, which I assume you are referring to, could be done if we wanted to do it. We might not be capable of doing is efficiently at this point, but that is not due to lack of technology per se, but rather to the lack of developing necessary systems with that technology.<br /><br />Frodo says: <font color="yellow"> and a guy of vast experience by the name of Murphy almost guarantees that it WILL go wrong </font><br /><br />Actually Edward A. Murphy, Jr. was an engineer working on the rocket sled experiments. (As shown in the opening scene of the science show, “The Man And The Challenge”) Perhaps you are thinking of Larry Niven’s creation, Finagle’s Law of Dynamic Negatives.<br /><br />Frodo says: <font color="yellow"> There should be at least enough ships and people going that if one ship is somehow totally disabled other ships could get the people on the disabled ship both to Mars, and even home! </font><br /><br />That is a good plan. However there are a few problems. About the only disability a ship could have that would be survivable and yet prevent completion of the trip would be failure of life support. A significant number of tranferees would tax or overload the life support capabilities of the other ship(s). That w <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>

 

[spayss]

No Congress is going to spend a couple hundred bllion so a'loner' can walk on Mars in a probable suicide mission...or a mission in which 'maybe' they get picked up later.<br /><br />Lots of concepts are fine if the the proposer is spending their own money and not that of that of the taxpayer.<br /><br />'One person, one way' is a response to frustration at not having a possible return mission in our lifetimes or probably not even this century. It's a dead end concept.

 

[TheShadow]

Qso1 says: <font color="yellow"> Does anyone have a specific link that breaks down Mars trip expenses, itemizes the cost of going, and returning. </font><br /><br />I don’t have that available, perhaps someone else here does.<br /><br />Qso1 says: <font color="yellow"> How does the materials needed quadruple because a return leg is factored in? </font><br /><br />Several reasons. If you are going to Mars to stay, you only have to take the fuel required to get there. If you plan on returning, you (currently) would have to carry the fuel to get back also. Carrying that extra fuel would <i>use</i> extra fuel getting it to Mars orbit in the first place. Then there is the fuel required to get off the surface of Mars. That would also have to be carried to Mars. While extracting Oxygen from the Martian atmosphere would be relatively easy, making fuel on Mars would not be so easy.<br /><br />Qso1 says: <font color="yellow"> How is time limited on the surface </font><br /><br />Because of the positioning of the planets, the window of opportunity to return to Earth is very narrow. Depending upon the exact mission, that could amount to a surface time of about 5 months with a return window, or wait another two years for the next window. If you can stay 2 ½ years, why not stay a lot longer.<br /><br />Qso1 says: <font color="yellow"> 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. </font><br /><br />I don’t think we have data that answers that question one way or another. It is possible that, out of the 6 billion people on Earth, there are at least several dozen that would be able to survive and thrive on Mars all alone for 10-20 years. The problem would be in determining who those persons are before the mission.<br /><br />Qso1 says: <font color="yellow"> The amount of equipment, life support, the ability to maint</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><font size="1" color="#808080">Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men, the Shadow knows. </font></p> </div>

 

[TheShadow]

Qso1 says: <font color="yellow"> Phase 1.....set up lunar outpost. <br />Phase 2.....operate said outpost for 2 years with 6 month crew rotations. </font><br /><br />As explained, bases on the Moon are not necessary for comprehensive testing and/or preparations. There are places on Earth that are <i>far</i> more like Mars than anywhere on the Moon. In fact, the Moon would be a very poor test bed for Mars settlements. I can elaborate if needed.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><font size="1" color="#808080">Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men, the Shadow knows. </font></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

bikengr:<br />Please note, I was not proposing that a person be sent with all supplies for 40 years. Supplies for 2-3 years maybe; with an expectation that a greenhouse (even electrically lit) would provide food, and some kind of refining procedure would collect oxygen and water. And the backup of a re-supply flight once REAL problems are better known.<br /><br />Me:<br />The cost of continual ressuply over the lifetime of the loner on mars is still probably going to be at least as much as the return trip.<br /><br />But lets take a look at cost.<br /><br />The whole reason it is percieved that cost is such a problem is that after Apollo, the argument was raised that we should spend money in other areas. Social concerns such as disease and poverty among them. The concerns are certainly valid, but the argument is false.<br /><br />Its false because we already cut NASA after Apollo by 50% or so and there is no evidence of what those cost savings went to. New diseases came about, the best known being AIDs. Poverty still exists with a homeless problem that has no end in sight. Instead, it was business as usual via our government. The S&L scandal, the deficits year after year, money spent overseas that ought to be going where money spent on human space flight was said should have gone.<br /><br />Naturally we who support human spaceflight are conscieously aware of the costs. Mars missions have been estimated at anywhere from $100 to $500 B dollars. The Zubrin approach was estimated to be as little as $20 B dollars but realistically would probably be closer to the $100 B dollar mark.<br /><br />The U.S. budget deficit hovers around $400 B dollars annually. We spend $100 B dollars or more on Iraq annually. If we can afford that kind of waste, we could do a reasonably priced Mars mission (Well below $500 B dollars) with return capability.<br /><br />For that price, we should expect a mission that has some end result such as science or colonization, and we should expect to be able to ma <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]

TheShadow:<br />As explained, bases on the Moon are not necessary for comprehensive testing and/or preparations.<br /><br />Me:<br />Actually, I agree with you. However, lets look for a minute at how a Mars mission is likely to be approved. Just from what I have seen here at SDC, many believe we must go to the moon before going to Mars. Some even think of space stations as needed way stations or assembly points which IMO, is also not needed.<br /><br />But politically, if one can do the moon and mars, it makes sense to take advantage of anything the moon might have to offer.<br /><br />TheShadow:<br />I can elaborate if needed.<br /><br />Me:<br />I'll save you the trouble. Yes we can simulate mars conditions here on Earth. There are some preliminary efforts underway at Devon Island, and the Russians are starting one. But Earth has an atmosphere thicker than mars. The moon has no atmosphere of course, and if it could be done economically. A lunar simulation would be simulating conditions just beyond that expected at mars which guarantees that if it can survive the moon, it can survive mars. In addition, political expediency would require that the moon be developed with as much utilization in mind as possible. So if we already have an outpost there courtesy VSE, why not simulate mars operations to the extent practical during a lunar base mission?<br /><br />The moon was certainly not required in Von Brauns plans of 1969...which called for a 1982 Mars landing. But a 1982 mars landing would have been 13 years after Apollo 11, relatively fresh from the Apollo experience. Today, with Apollo 11 nearly 40 years behind us...we can still do mars without the moon far as I'm concerned. But most folks including many professionally in the space business would prefer the idea that while we may not need the moon, the fresh experience base we might have had in 1982 is now virtually all but gone and thats going to tilt discussion in favor of some kind of lunar prep, again IMO. <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>

 

[yoda9999]

The politicians and execs who run the first Mars mission may "need" a flag and footprint mission to prove the technology to land on Mars and return works. Scientists may not "need" such a mission, but non-scientists might. I'm just saying what I think will happen, not necessarily what I believe is a good idea.<br /><br />I'm also considering the possibility that Mars missions will not be under any one single plan. There might be many competing entities with different capabilities. Just like when exploring the New World, each nation competed and had different interests and capabilities. This time, there might be different corporations and nations exploring Mars. It may not be a united effort.<br /><br />So the phases I list...<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 />...may not be economical or necessary, and they won't necessarily be done by the same organizations. But this is just what I believe will be done by humans.<br /><br />Was Apollo needed? Was the space shuttle needed? Will CEV be needed? Is ISS needed? Will we be building a Space Shuttle on steroids in 40 years? Space exploration can be illogical and political depending on your POV. Reasonable people won't always make the decisions. That's sad, but it's also reality.

 

[mental_avenger]

Qso1 says: <font color="yellow"> lunar simulation would be simulating conditions just beyond that expected at mars which guarantees that if it can survive the moon, it can survive mars. </font><br /><br />I disagree. There are far too many differences. In fact, there are more differences between Mars and our moon, than there are between Mars and some places on Earth. It isn’t just a matter of surviving an extreme, but working, living, and surviving in a specific environment.<br /><br />Mars: Gravity is .38 of Earth's, Moon: is .17 of Earth's <br />Mars: thin atmosphere of CO2, Moon: none <br />Mars: Massive amounts of water at poles, Moon: May be small amounts <br />Mars: Plenty of Carbon and Nitrogen for growing food, Moon: virtually zero.<br />Mars: 44% of radiation of the Moon: <br />Mars: usable wind for wind power, Moon: none <br />Mars: Day 23 hours, Moon: two weeks <br />Mars: has two moons, Moon: none <br /><br /><b>Gravity</b>. Most scientist agree that the .38G of Mars is probably sufficient for indefinite habitation. However, the low gravity of the moon will probably cause problems for long term exposure. This has yet to be tested, but it is reasonable to assume that a gravity greater than 1/3 our own should be <br /><br /><b>Atmosphere</b>. . Although thin, the Martian atmosphere does provide some protection, especially against smaller meteorites. On the moon, even the smallest particle is not slowed and can kill a person, either directly or by suit puncture. Also, the Martian atmosphere can be mined for carbon and oxygen, both of which are needed for life. The difference between processing O2 out of CO2, and crushing tons of regolith for O2 is significant. In addition, the Martian atmosphere can be used to sink and transfer heat, something that is not possible on the moon. <br /><br /><br /><b>Water</b>. We now know that there is sufficient water on Mars for habitation. The moon has virtually none. If there is sufficient water on Mars, we can also extrac <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>

 

[qso1]

You probably havn't seen any itemized costs because AFAIK, the cost of going to mars has never been seriously itemized. I've done research on mars missions for fact based books for decades and all I have ever seen is the $100 B price tag or the Bush 1 price tag of $500B dollars. On occasion I have seen a few itemizations but as they were single source info, my preference for accuracies sake is multiple source info.<br /><br />For one thing, how do you itemize the cost if you don't know what mission arcitecture you will employ?<br /><br />On the quadrupling question, I agree to some of what you pointed out. But you should consider what I mentioned earlier. If your going to put someone on mars for even a minimum of 20 years. The cost of supplying him and getting the supplies to him will at least equal the cost of simply returning a crew. The cost of the robotic resupply you mention later could be allocated to sending out the additional quadrupled return propellants ahead of a two way mission.<br /><br />Another thing, the vast majority of cost estimating is not for hardware at all. Its for personnell. The technical expertise required to design the mission in question. And you will have to have one h**l of a technical expert base to design a one way mission to mars.<br /><br />Even if one goes with the idea that the guy becomes self sufficient after 3 years...can that be maintained by him till he dies? What will it cost to get something he needs if he can't generate it on mars?<br /><br />TheShadow:<br />Qso1 says: How is time limited on the surface <br /><br />Because of the positioning of the planets...<br /><br />Me:<br />I misunderstood what he meant there as I am aware of the planetary alignments necessary for getting to and from mars.<br /><br />TheShadow:<br />I don’t think we have data that answers that question one way or another. It is possible that, out of the 6 billion people on Earth, there are at least several dozen that would be able to survive and thrive on Mars all alon <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>

 

[mental_avenger]

Yoda,<br />One thing you have backwards is finding sites. That all must be done from orbit and with robotic rovers. Imagine landing men on Australia before there were any other people there, and having them find a site. Before any humans are sent to Mars, the sites for landings, exploration, and colonization will already have been established. There simply is no other way.<br /><br />BTW, I don’t think anyone would fund a flag and footprints mission. They would want something much more substantial, and something that would have a real purpose.<br /> <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>

 

[bikengr]

You folks have livened up my weekend (and my thinking). Thanks!<br /><br />"For that price, you could include a return trip on at least one mars mission by sending the additional propellant for a return mission on this same robotic cargo setup." <br /><br />I'm going to make the lazy guess, that propellant requirements are hundreds of tons; whereas food and a small bulldozer would be tens of tons. I suspect it's no contest, but would be happy to be shown wrong.<br /><br />"Besides, as I have stated before, the cost thing is not one in which we can't afford a mars mission. Its that we won't afford a mars mission."<br /><br />Well... gold-plated hyper-cautious missions may not attract society in the same way. I think many more of us are prepared to be inspired... than are prepared to foot an unthinkable bill for a very limited amount of antiseptic adventure or specialist science, decades ahead!<br /><br />Cheers<br />Jim Papadopoulos

 

[qso1]

Mental_Avenger:<br />I disagree. There are far too many differences.<br /><br />Me:<br />The primary area of simulation we could benefit from is day to day actual surface operations more than anything else. We can do these on Earth but if VSE provides us with some possible options for study on the moon. Why not use them? If the moon proves absolutely useless for mars preps, sims, whatever as applicable to mars, then we don't use it.<br /><br />For lunar simulation, what difference does it make how many moons Mars has as opposed to the moon? And we still have to prove we can actually grow food on mars not that the moons of any use for food growing.<br /><br />Your other points are part of the reason I said that I actually agreed with you on the moon not being required. Remember that the key word is required. And I never said we absolutely have to have the moon to do mars.<br /><br />Mental_Avenger:<br />I believe that setting up a viable, self-sufficient colony on Mars to protect humanity from extinction should be one of the most noble and pressing goals we could have. Even if we started today, there is no guarantee we can save humanity before a major catastrophe destroys all life on Earth. But if we don’t start, it is absolutely certain that we cannot save humanity.<br /><br />Me:<br />Make that case to the public and Congress and see how far you get. Especially if your saying we should start with a one way mission. That in itself nullifies the one way mission because all the money you now save on a one way mission will eventually be spent, and then some on moving humanity to Mars.<br /><br />Moving humanity to mars is better justified IMO by starting with two way missions because if the humanity survival option can be sold to Congress and the public...cost will be no object. The sooner the infrastructure is set up, the better the likelihood of saving humanity. <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>

 

[mental_avenger]

Much of this has been discussed here in detail, and costs were estimated. I think most of those posts were lost in one of the big crashes. On those mars mission threads, various mission profiles were discussed. Since the costs were comparative, increases due to inflation would not matter. I hope someone has access to those figures. Perhaps ricimer has the data. <br /><br />Qso1 says: <font color="yellow"> The cost of the robotic resupply you mention later could be allocated to sending out the additional quadrupled return propellants ahead of a two way mission. </font><br /><br />Good point. But look what you get for the money. If you bring them back, the mission is over. If you keep them there, the mission continues to return valuable information for a long time while at the same time preparing for future colonists. There is really no comparison in the payback.<br /><br />Qso1 says: <font color="yellow"> And thats a problem not even worth trying to solve as there will never be a way we can determine whos able to live the 20-40 years expected of a 40 year old. </font><br /><br />Agreed. We cannot even predict extreme criminal behavior yet. How could we possibly predict something as subtle as a latent inability to tolerate isolation.<br /><br />Qso1 says: <font color="yellow"> IMO, proposals such as this reflect the desperation of some to see humans on Mars. </font><br /><br />In my case it isn’t merely to see humans on Mars. It is, and always has been, about providing a viable off-Earth place for humanity to survive. That is why I advocate staying on Mars, and staying with a large number of people. If the big one hits Earth, it could end humanity for all time.<br /> <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>

 

[qso1]

bikengr:<br />I'm going to make the lazy guess, that propellant requirements are hundreds of tons; whereas food and a small bulldozer would be tens of tons. I suspect it's no contest, but would be happy to be shown wrong.<br /><br />Me:<br />Its probably close to that, but remember you have to have propellant to get your equipment to mars. Not only that, will a gas powered bull dozer even operate in mars atmosphere. Now were talking modified bulldozer. Even if it can operate on gasoline or diesel...craploads of that (Tons?) will have to go to keep your dozer operating. Not to mention other gas powered surface equipment. But without oxidizer...bulldozers or other gasoline powered vehicles won't operate on mars.<br /><br />bikengr:<br />Well... gold-plated hyper-cautious missions may not attract society in the same way...<br /><br />Me:<br />And suicide missions do?<br /><br />First off, a basic mars mission is not a gold plated hyper cautious mission. Have you ever even looked at the Von Braun plan, or the Zubrin Mars direct plan? I ask because they represent the range of missions pretty well. Von Brauns was cautious, Zubrin was live off the land but the crew guy or gal will eventually come home.<br /><br />What is the unthinkable bill? A $100 B dollar mars mission, or $100 Billion spent year after year in Iraq? <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]

On itemization...to approach it another way just in case ricimer does not have that info. It can be assumed that a $100 B dollar mars proposal covers the costs associated with return. I don't consider this unreasonable to go to Mars. But some might consider even $20 B dollars unreasonable and even a one way mission is going to cost that much.<br /><br />Mental_Avenger:<br />Good point. But look what you get for the money. If you bring them back, the mission is over. If you keep them there, the mission continues to return valuable information for a long time while at the same time preparing for future colonists...<br /><br />Me:<br />Actually there is IMO. As always, these one way proposals eventually suggest future missions. Now were sending more people to die eventually on mars. Again, cost is the wrong reason to do this IMO. One reason, if we eventually are going to do future missions, lets build the Buzz Aldrin cycler for maybe the cost of two one ways. We'd then have a continuous supply capability to Mars. It may be decades before a martian colony can sustain itself, especially on the scale required to get even a small percentage of humanity off earth to prevent humanities demise by global catastophe.<br /><br />Mental_Avenger:<br />In my case it isn’t merely to see humans on Mars. It is, and always has been, about providing a viable off-Earth place for humanity to survive. That is why I advocate staying on Mars, and staying with a large number of people. If the big one hits Earth, it could end humanity for all time.<br /><br />Me:<br />And its the one reason that going to mars does not have to be justified on cost grounds. Convince humanity they are about to go and mars is their salvation...and watch the bucks just fly! BTW, the return option would be needed to get a sufficient number of humans to mars for permanent residency. Once thats done, and the global catastrophe occurs, then there won't even be missions to mars, much less one ways.<br /><br />One question, what if we <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>

 

[mental_avenger]

Qso1 says: <font color="yellow"> The primary area of simulation we could benefit from is day to day actual surface operations more than anything else. </font><br /><br />And the conditions on the Moon are so vastly different from Mars that simulations on the Moon would be useless. Did you know that most of the bulk of the space suits used on the Moon are the result of the need for extreme cooling and heat removal? On Mars, a skin-tight pressure suit and helmet would suffice. That is the same type of suit that can be tested on Earth, but definitely not on the Moon.<br /><br />Qso1 says: <font color="yellow"> For lunar simulation, what difference does it make how many moons Mars has as opposed to the moon? </font><br /><br />Let’s see, I used to know the answer to that. Oh, yeah, ready made orbital way-stations. There is very little gravity on the Martian moons, but they do offer protection from radiation and a place to anchor. On Phobos, a man would weight about 2 grams. That means the lift-off from Phobos would require very little fuel. But a way-station could be anchored or buried on Phobos. It is also possible the moon itself could provide some raw materials.<br /><br />Qso1 says: <font color="yellow"> That in itself nullifies the one way mission because all the money you now save on a one way mission will eventually be spent, and then some on moving humanity to Mars. </font><br /><br />It isn’t about moving humanity to Mars. It is about starting a self-sufficient viable colony on Mars. I doubt that it will ever be practical to move people to Mars enmass. I have seen comments that suggested that space will alleviate the crowded conditions on Earth by giving all these people somewhere to live. That isn’t how it works. It merely starts another separate colony of humans that will eventually grow far more from procreation than from immigration. <br /><br />Qso1 says: <font color="yellow"> The sooner the infrastructure is set up, the</font> <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>

 

[mental_avenger]

Qso1 says: <font color="yellow"> Not only that, will a gas powered bull dozer even operate in mars atmosphere. Now were talking modified bulldozer. Even if it can operate on gasoline or diesel...craploads of that (Tons?) will have to go to keep your dozer operating. </font><br /><br />The only practical heavy equipment on Mars would be nuclear powered. The drive would probably consist of individual electric motors on each wheel.<br /><br />Qso1 says: <font color="yellow"> First off, a basic mars mission is not a gold plated hyper cautious mission. </font><br /><br />The way the PTB are running the space program it would be. There is a problem and an STS explodes. The entire project is shut down for years, even though they know what went wrong. Millions of people die on Earth every day, but they treat a few astronauts who are killed as superheroes. Having said that, I cried all day when Challenger blew up. Imagine where we would be today if Chuck Yeager had acted like that when he flew the Bell X-1.<br /><br />Qso1 says: <font color="yellow"> One reason, if we eventually are going to do future missions, lets build the Buzz Aldrin cycler for maybe the cost of two one ways. We'd then have a continuous supply capability to Mars. </font><br /><br />The cycler concept is false economy. Unless food can be grown on the cycler, it is really no more economical than sending a ship. The only thing you really gain is living space during the trip. Everything else costs virtually the same.<br /><br />Qso1 says: <font color="yellow"> t may be decades before a martian colony can sustain itself, especially on the scale required to get even a small percentage of humanity off earth to prevent humanities demise by global catastophe. </font><br /><br />Once again, the concept of <i>moving</i> even a very small percentage of humanity off the Earth is ludicrous. That is simply not an option.<br /><br />Qso1 says: <font color="yellow"> BTW, the retur</font> <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>

 

[frodo1008]

I really hate these kind of back and forth affairs, but I will at least try to answer most of your points on my points. You DO have some good, and some not so good answers, such as:<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> “That was over 30 years ago, and a lot has changed since then. The technological improvements have been astronomical. ” </font><br /><br />Heck , to be honest with you, there are quite a lot of people that DON’T think that this can be done at this time at all! I know as I have seen some of their very comments to that affect right on these boards! Of course, I would have to say that it would be a whole lot easier if NASA were to have the kind of percent of the federal budget that we enjoyed back then! The average percent was for the entire 1960’s was some 2% every year, with a high of 4% in 1965! Today instead of a budget of some $17 billion (at about 0.6% of the total federal budget of some $2.5 trillion) that would mean a $50 billion dollar NASA budget, with a high of about $100 billion at the highest year of expenditures! Yes indeed, that would allow NASA to not only go back to the moon real fast, but put permanent colonies on the moon, and place even bases on Mars in less than 15 or so years! Along with all the other things that the American people expect from NASA! So lets go for it! We can take the excess from the military by getting out of the losing situation in Iraq! <br /><br />Gosh. That was just one reply, and others already think that I am too long in my posts!<br /><br />OK, onward!<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> “We have the technology to do it, we just haven’t had the incentive to apply it. Even the Hohmann Transfer Orbit, which I assume you are referring to, could be done if we wanted to do it. We might not be capable of doing is efficiently at this point, but that is not due to lack of technology per se, but rather to the lack of developing necessary systems with that technology.” </font><br /><br />Ok no problem wit

 

[mental_avenger]

Goodnight. <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>

 

[qso1]

Mental_Avenger:<br />Let’s see, I used to know the answer to that. Oh, yeah, ready made orbital way-stations.<br /><br />Me:<br />If a mars mission proposal utilizes that and some have. In those cases then the moon sim would be useless but I must once again stress...I agree we dont absolutely have to have the moon to go to mars. But someone somewhere has convinced politicians that we do. Otherwise, Bush should have proposed Mars and bypassed the moon altogether.<br /><br />Mental_Avenger:<br />It isn’t about moving humanity to Mars. It is about starting a self-sufficient viable colony on Mars.<br /><br />Me:<br />I didn't mean to imply moving humanity en masse but you did say save humanity. Gonna have a h**l of a fight on hand as to who gets to go. Aside from that. Starting a colony on Mars implies some kind of additional missions from Earth.<br /><br />Mental_Avenger:<br />And that infrastructure can be set up much faster if the colonists can stay and work, instead of spending months in transit coming back to Earth.<br /><br />Me:<br />Since your already sold on this idea, I'm not going to try to bring up any points against it. Clearly you are more knowledgeable than me on this stuff.<br /><br />I still think that despite all the points, cost is a p**s poor reason to justify having to send someone one way to mars. In a situation that fragile, the first tragedy IMO, will be this ideas undoing. <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>

 

[dreada5]

Great thread guys! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> I've learnt a fair amount, but I firmly believe, like it or lump it, the US Gov't would NEVER allow a human mission to mars without NASA having first re-demonstrated its ability to travel to and work on the moon (which is a relative stone's throw away)!<br /><br />VSE, is more than just an approach that is based on "whats technically possible", its also about what non-scientific decision makers are "comfortable" investing in, what they think is the most common sense / least risky approach forward... and right now, that has to include the Moon!<br /><br />Although Mars has a more hospitable environment than the Moon... the decision makers will want to see NASA learn to live and work on the moon's harsh environment, prove and test technologies there before going to Mars in 25 YEARS time!<br /><br />And by that time, I wouldn't be surprised if the world, technology (maybe even US gov't/NASA's view to risk) has changed so much that completely different approaches to todays are feasible.

 

[spayss]

Re the cost of a return mission... the need to take extra fuel, etc. is not 'the' major cost. The big cost is the multiple unmanned missions needed to make sure a return flight is even possible and that the craft can be unloaded, prepared, take off properly, maintain all life support systems and get the folks home safely. There will not be 'an asumption' it will function properly but will go through several dry unmanned runs.

 

[j05h]

> some end result such as science or colonization ...<br /> /> In our world today, that could well be "Land a man on mars and watch him die"...well, a little sarcastic but if you think I'm being sarcastic, imagine what the press would do with it.<br /><br />If the goal is colonization, why not plan for the first people going to stay? It's not suicide, it's settling. This is different from the "lone wolf" being described above. I give a single explorer only months or a few years survival time. Instead of that scenario, a large crew journeying to Mars and settling becomes a sustainable effort. Even just 6 people could begin the work of creating the first Mars town.<br /><br />This would likely be a private venture, but not neccessarily a profit-driven one. A visionary billionaire could do it, or a TV network, university, etc. The more interested parties, the more some costs can be spread out. I still like the Ports-Authority model, where a consortia builds Phobos base while leasing volume to others and supporting small Mars settlements. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>