What steps need to be taken for successful human colonization of Mars?

[Urvabara]

What are the possibilities that there is a manned Mars mission in the year 2019 (or before)?

What are the main problems we should solve, before we can send humans to Mars? Why is it difficult to solve them in 12 years? Money, perhaps?

Is it possible that USA, Europe, Russia and China will combine their resources in space engineering? If they will do that in 2008, is it still impossible to send humans (safely) to Mars during 2019 (or before)?

What can a physics student do to help Mars mission scientist? There are no space engineering in Finland, I think. I just would like to do something...

 

[berkeman]

I think the biggest problem is that taking humans on the missions, and adding all the overhead to keep them alive and relatively safe (and return them to Earth), burdens the mission significantly. And the extra return for that burden to the mission is debatable. It has a high "cool" factor, but probably at least for the next 50-100 years, we can get a lot more for our investment if we send increasingly intelligent and mobile robot explorers to Mars. Seems like you'd at least like the robots to build the shelters and mine the water wells and get everything set up, before you considered shooting humans to Mars.

Just my opinion, though. BTW, I don't know if it helps, but here's NASA's main Mars page:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mars/main/index.html

 

[Astronuc]

It's a low priority right now. To do it in 2020, the technical infrastructure would have to be established now in order to have a demonstrable technology available. Given things like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which costs about $100 billion/yr, and the apparent deterioration of infrastructure in the US, money for a manned mission to Mars is unlikely.

Sending a Mars station in advance and as Berkeman indicated, using robotics to establish a surface support base would be better use of resources.

 

[Danger]

The last that I paid any attention, there were also still concerns about the psychological hardships that might be encountered by a crew so isolated from home with just each other for company.

 

[SRode]

First I'd say the travel time is a biggest factor. Second, constructing a ship and getting it into orbit that is large enough to carry crew, supplies, and equipment. The best way to accomplish this would seem to be a prefab system that is assembled in orbit, but at the rate the ISS is being completed it seems unreasonable. Finally, I think that if we are sending scientist/ explorers out there it needs to be a long term or permanent voyage. Once they are there that's it, not an apollo program type program system of going and coming stright back

 

[Urvabara]

Ok. Thanks for the replies, guys! I still have some questions.

What is the minimum flight time from Earth to Mars, if we use the technology of 2007?

How many crew members is the optimal choice?

Will there be a centrifuge in the spaceship to produce artificial gravity? Is it difficult to build a centrifuge seen in the film "2001: A Space Odyssey"? I think that the toilets and showers should be put in the centrifuge area.

In 2019, lights won't consume very much power, because they all are LED lights. So, probably power issues are almost solved. Right?

 

[Danger]

I don't know about the flight time. If my memory serves, it's something like 4 months minimum one-way.
As for optimum crew membership, that depends upon a lot of factors. My instinct along that line is that there should be at least 4 each of male and female. Ideally, I would think that previously bonded couples should be chosen (and the male/female ratio could be altered to account for same-sex unions).
A ship wouldn't need a separate centrifuge area; the whole thing could spin. I agree that a 'positive-g' toilet would be preferable to the 'zero-g' type—too many things to get caught in the impellers.
As for the LED's, you're correct that they don't draw a lot of wattage. Unfortunately, lighting is the least of your worries when it comes to power management. Atmospheric control systems will take most of the available supply. Be that as it may, isotopic reactors should have no trouble keeping up.

 

[Urvabara]

Ideally, I would think that previously bonded couples should be chosen (and the male/female ratio could be altered to account for same-sex unions).

How about the people who do not bond at all? The loners? At least, they would not probably miss so much the people on Earth and they could concentrate 100% to the Mars mission.

As for the LED's, you're correct that they don't draw a lot of wattage. Unfortunately, lighting is the least of your worries when it comes to power management. Atmospheric control systems will take most of the available supply. Be that as it may, isotopic reactors should have no trouble keeping up.

Yep, you are probably right.

 

[Astronuc]

What is the minimum flight time from Earth to Mars, if we use the technology of 2007?

It's on the order of months, and I seem to remember more like 6 mo or more.

How many crew members is the optimal choice?

6-8, which includes at least two flight surgeons (doctors).

Will there be a centrifuge in the spaceship to produce artificial gravity? Is it difficult to build a centrifuge seen in the film "2001: A Space Odyssey"? I think that the toilets and showers should be put in the centrifuge area.

That is a consideration.

In 2019, lights won't consume very much power, because they all are LED lights. So, probably power issues are almost solved. Right?

It's possible that solar power as well as nuclear would be involved.

There are minimum energy transfer orbits, but they take too long. The best trip from the human standpoint is get there as fast as possible. However, we have to work around various technical constraints.

Radiation protection is a major concern.

The Martian transfer vehicle and orbital station will be very different than ISS - probably more like a large Apollo and Skylab respectively. The transfer vehicle would be finished on the ground, while the larger vehicle would likely be finished in orbit (LEO).

 

[Urvabara]

It's on the order of months, and I seem to remember more like 6 mo or more.

6-8, which includes at least two flight surgeons (doctors).

That is a consideration.

It's possible that solar power as well as nuclear would be involved.

There are minimum energy transfer orbits, but they take too long. The best trip from the human standpoint is get there as fast as possible. However, we have to work around various technical constraints.

Yep. Medical doctors are needed and I also think the faster the ship, the better. If one way trip takes half a year (or even more), there are many possibilities that something will fail badly.

Radiation protection is a major concern.

The radiation is mostly from the Sun, isn't it? X-rays? Gamma rays?

How about the micro meteors? They could make holes to the ship's walls. Maybe the front end side of the ship should be thicker, because it probably takes the most meteor hits (like the car's winshield takes more mosquito hits than the rear and side windows).

The Martian transfer vehicle and orbital station will be very different than ISS - probably more like a large Apollo and Skylab respectively. The transfer vehicle would be finished on the ground, while the larger vehicle would likely be finished in orbit (LEO).

So, we are going to need yet another space station to build the ship? Oh, boy.

Maybe we should forget the Moon and put all the money and efforts to Mars. If we are going to the Moon by 2020 then it will take at least another 10 years, before we can go to the Mars.

 

[Danger]

How about the people who do not bond at all? The loners?

You have a point about them not missing home very much, but people like that tend to not be great team players. The only reason that I suggested bonded couples is to minimize sexual tension as well as the sense of isolation. There is less likely to be rivalry for the attention of an individual if that person is already 'spoken for' (and also if one's own spouse is chaperoning).
As far as radiation shielding is concerned, a lot of previous designs for deep-space vehicles that I've seen use the on-board water supply as a major component. It can be stored in a 'double-hull' surrounding the crew compartment. While not adequate on its own, it can certainly contribute.

 

[ank_gl]

How about the people who do not bond at all? The loners? At least, they would not probably miss so much the people on Earth and they could concentrate 100% to the Mars mission.

loners are already ill

 

[russ_watters]

What are the possibilities that there is a manned Mars mission in the year 2019 (or before)?

Virtually nonexistent.

What are the main problems we should solve, before we can send humans to Mars? Why is it difficult to solve them in 12 years? Money, perhaps?

There are a number of issues, but AFAIK, none of them technically daunting. Money is the biggest dealbreaker issue - and it is a big one. IIRC, it would cost somewhere on the order of $1 trillion (it may have been more) for a Mars program, which would require 10x NASA's current budget for a ten year project.

Is it possible that USA, Europe, Russia and China will combine their resources in space engineering?

They already have to a large extent. But the US still has the lions share of those resources, so we're doing most of the work on joint projects (ie, the ISS).

If they will do that in 2008, is it still impossible to send humans (safely) to Mars during 2019 (or before)?

It is certainly possible. As Jim Lovell's character said in the Apollo 13 movie: 'it's not a miracle - we just decided to go'. That's the primary requirement to make it happen.

What can a physics student do to help Mars mission scientist? There are no space engineering in Finland, I think. I just would like to do something...

Not a lot as a student, but you could become an engineer in a related field and go to work for a company or agency in the program or a related one.

 

[russ_watters]

What is the minimum flight time from Earth to Mars, if we use the technology of 2007?

A few months. At it's closest, Mars comes about 40 million miles from Earth. If we were able to launch a craft at the right time and send it out at 20,000 mph, that's just under 3 months.

There is a complication though: Mars is at it's closest to Earth once every 2.5 years. That means that the astronauts would have to spend two years on Mars before returning.

In 2019, lights won't consume very much power, because they all are LED lights. So, probably power issues are almost solved. Right?

LED lights are not significantly more efficient than fluorescents and lighting is an insignificant part of the power requirements of a spaceship. Heat is a much bigger one. Besides - we have solar power for spacecraft , so it isn't a very big issue usually.

 

[Astronuc]

The radiation is mostly from the Sun, isn't it? X-rays? Gamma rays?

How about the micro meteors? They could make holes to the ship's walls. Maybe the front end side of the ship should be thicker, because it probably takes the most meteor hits (like the car's winshield takes more mosquito hits than the rear and side windows).

Mostly GCR and solar protons. The issue involves spallation reactions with the hull structrual materials, which are usually light elements. Surrounding the hull with hydrogenous propellants would help. Also, LiAl or LiH would provide a good shield against protons and some spallation products.

Micrometeorite protection is certainly an issue.

So, we are going to need yet another space station to build the ship?

No. The CEV is being developed already, quite independent of mission or infrastructure.

A Skylab type orbital support station would be needed in orbit around Mars. That would have to be sent in advance.

The idea is to get there as quickly as possible, and to return quickly. As Russ alluded to, there are windows of opportunity with respect to the closeness of Mars and the earth. Larger windows require more power.

 

[Urvabara]

loners are already ill

Hmm?

Well, I actually mean romantically inactive people. Are they also ill? Maybe not.

It is useless to send people who can go crazy in love. :!)

 

[Danger]

It is useless to send people who can go crazy in love. :!)

Show me a person who can't, and I'll show you a corpse.

 

[Urvabara]

Show me a person who can't

--> Me. <--

and I'll show you a corpse.

A corpse?

 

[Danger]

I can only assume that you've never been in love. Believe me... when it happens, all reason flies out the nearest window.

 

[ank_gl]

--> Me. <--

dont worry man, u ll find out soon

 

[Urvabara]

LOL. Thanks, guys. :->

 

[yujean]

we're more likely to develop a space station on the moon by 2020, than to go to Mars by 2020... The moon is rich with Helium-3, which can be used as a valuable energy source. Google / Wikipedia: Helium-3

 

[russ_watters]

Assuming we can figure out how to use it...

 

[Integral]

we're more likely to develop a space station on the moon by 2020, than to go to Mars by 2020... The moon is rich with Helium-3, which can be used as a valuable energy source. Google / Wikipedia: Helium-3

I hope you guys are doing all of this on your dime and not mine. Can anyone come up with a single REAL reason to send a human to Mars or the Moon?

I am sorry, there is so much difficult work to be done here on Earth NOW that man in space is a wast time and money. Do you as a physics student want to help get man is space? Then put all of your efforts into finding the energy source to get us there, the best way to do that is to find the energy source to free us from fossil fuels. We need to ensure the survival of our civilizations in the next 50yrs. Not create an expensive graveyard on Mars.

 

[turbo]

We have some pretty capable little explorers on Mars right now, and should we see some opportunities that are so compelling that we are willing to sacrifice one if necessary, that decision can be made with plenty of time to contemplate and weigh the benefits and costs. If we sent humans to Mars with current or near-future technology, we would gain flexibility and autonomy, but lose the advantages of robotic exploration, including lighter payloads (fuel is expensive, but lofting that fuel to orbit is WAY expensive), modest shielding requirements, and the ability to use fuel-saving gravity-assist trajectories to get the probes there without a lot of reaction mass to throw. Getting to the Moon was a walk across the street compared to getting humans to Mars, and the Apollo astronauts did not stay there long enough to stress their life-support and power systems.

I love the thought of space-flight, but at our level of technology, I would prefer that we fund numerous robotic explorations instead of gutting science for the sake of the "gee whiz" accomplishment of getting humans to another planet. Just my take on it. BTW, I grew up with the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions in full swing and have an "autographed" picture of Buzz Aldrin that was certainly auto-penned. He was flying combat missions in Korea when I was born.

 

[mgb_phys]

We have some pretty capable little explorers on Mars right now

But we aren't going to bring them back to stand along side the politician in charge of funding them, and if we did no glamour is going to rub off on the politician.
Also with the current state of AI none of these rovers is likely to run for the senate and be in a position to help with funding.

It's the same problem with using predator drones instead of fighters.
In your campaing literature you can't use photos of yourself sitting in front of a keyboard as evidence of your topgun / war hero status.

 

[turbo]

Knowing what we know now about these little rovers, their capabilities, and the puzzles they face, the next generation of rovers could be designed to be WAY more capable, but not cost a whole lot more. Our technology is advancing apace, and the next generation of rovers could be lighter, faster, more agile, and more durable.

 

[yujean]

RKK Energiya is likely to mine the moon in 2020.

 

[Urvabara]

I made a web site: http://mars2019.org .

 

[Old Pokey]

I wonder what if anything "nanotechnology" could bring to the table on a trip like this. ??

 

[Astronuc]

There are already Mars exploration advocacy groups, e.g. The Mars Society - http://www.marssociety.org/portal .

As much as members of the public push, it's not a priority for NASA or the general public.

D-He³ is attractive for fusion reactor, but the conditions are more challenging than for DT or DD fusion.

 

[Dale]

we're more likely to develop a space station on the moon by 2020, than to go to Mars by 2020... The moon is rich with Helium-3, which can be used as a valuable energy source. Google / Wikipedia: Helium-3

I like this idea. I think the technology developed in establishing a permanent and self-sustaining moon base would be much more valuable than the technology developed for a visit to Mars.

 

[ThienAn]

There are many things to consider to even begin to build a mission to Mars. First, energy, engine exaust, fluid, oxygen, screws, hovercraft, etc. This is the history repeats itself as the reflection of the Cold War. But, one of the safest way to reduce risks is not to do the rendezvous, and not using the Space Shuttle (I think) to provide mor eenergy for both engine and the astronauts. Plus, as you say before, fund, war, political parties, and we never know if something is going to happen, so croos our fingers and wish the program good luck.

 

[ThienAn]

Hey, an idea: a delayed-trip to Mars. A joint programm between U.S and other countries would sastify this idea.

 

[Astronuc]

NASA is investing in the Crew Exploration Vehicle, Cargo Vehicle and Shuttle-derived booster technology. First the moon, and perhaps then Mars.

The booster for a mission to Mars has yet to be determined, but I expect when time comes, there will be something like a larger version of Sklyab sent ahead. Possibly modules of ISS if the they hold up or if the could (if necessary) be retrofitted or upgraded.

 

[Danger]

A Skylab type orbital support station would be needed in orbit around Mars. That would have to be sent in advance.

I expect when time comes, there will be something like a larger version of Sklyab sent ahead.

I'm wondering about the necessity of that. Wouldn't it be more efficient to send the crew in the station?

 

[Herodotus]

There are just simply too many unknowns at the current time. We still need to conduct tests after we have developed the technology, just as the Apollo program did before it sent man to the moon. And if we do send a space station to Mars, we need to make it self sustainable, before it becomes manned. Otherwise, we would need to resupply the crew.

 

[frankinstein]

There are just simply too many unknowns at the current time. We still need to conduct tests after we have developed the technology, just as the Apollo program did before it sent man to the moon. And if we do send a space station to Mars, we need to make it self sustainable, before it becomes manned. Otherwise, we would need to resupply the crew.

Ok...1969 man landed on the moon but humanity did not! Why? Ok listen to the pitch to the president: "Mr. president we're goanna send three guys in a tin can to the moon just to show those Russians what America is all about! What do you say Mr. president?"

Ok Three guys to the moon in a ship that if one guy farted its a real pain...

A real scientific expedition to the moon would have been very different. There would be many more crew members and most of those scientists, you'd have a doctor on board, yes just like star trek. You would have many more reusable parts to save costs and escalate the missions. Eventually if things really got too expensive you'd invite the rest of the world to indulge in space exploration and help colonize the moon.

The mission to Mars smacks too much of the cold war propaganda that perpetuated fear. Are we to be soo naive that thinking that if the world thought the US was really going to Mars that would gain us respect? A real Mars mission would be done with a really big ship with hundreds if not thousands on board. Such technology would come about from the exploration of the moon where infrastructure and large scale missions that lasted years would have been practiced.

All to sad ladies and gentlemen we have not such experience and yahoo cowboy missions to Mars, if ever attempted, will be responded with a yawn...


Frank

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Ok...1969 man landed on the moon but humanity did not! Why? Ok listen to the pitch to the president: "Mr. president we're goanna send three guys in a tin can to the moon just to show those Russians what America is all about! What do you say Mr. president?"

Ok Three guys to the moon in a ship that if one guy farted its a real pain...

That is ovbiously a gross oversimplification of an historic achievement. While the driving force behind the space race may have been politically motivated, the technical advancements during the projects were staggering in scope, and have gone unmatched into the present day. Flying three men to the moon in a "tin can" is an extraordinary achievement, by any measure.

A real scientific expedition to the moon would have been very different. There would be many more crew members and most of those scientists, you'd have a doctor on board, yes just like star trek. You would have many more reusable parts to save costs and escalate the missions. Eventually if things really got too expensive you'd invite the rest of the world to indulge in space exploration and help colonize the moon.

Not only is this a pie-in-the-sky utopian view of a "scientific expdition," the technical feasability of such a project is beyond our technical capabilities even today, let alone in the 1960's.

A scientific project does not require the entire team to go to the location; sending three men to the moon at a time (2 to the surface) and collecting samples and placing instruments that can then be controlled and analyzed on Earth at the scientists' leisure is a realistic and efficient solution. Only 12 men have ever walked on the Moon, but how many tens of thousands of scientists have scrutinized samples and data collected by those 12 men?

The mission to Mars smacks too much of the cold war propaganda that perpetuated fear. Are we to be soo naive that thinking that if the world thought the US was really going to Mars that would gain us respect?

I don't really see where you're getting any of this. Contrary to your personal interpretation, a mission to Mars would probably be an international effort, with many countries taking part in the design and implementation.

A real Mars mission would be done with a really big ship with hundreds if not thousands on board. Such technology would come about from the exploration of the moon where infrastructure and large scale missions that lasted years would have been practiced.

All I can say to this is there has to be a first step SOMEWHERE. You have to crawl before you can walk, and you have to walk before you can even think about running. What you're proposing is creating a permanent scientific facility on Mars, but you can't skip the necessary intermediate steps to get there.

 

[frankinstein]

That is ovbiously a gross oversimplification of an historic achievement. While the driving force behind the space race may have been politically motivated, the technical advancements during the projects were staggering in scope, and have gone unmatched into the present day. Flying three men to the moon in a "tin can" is an extraordinary achievement, by any measure.

Not only is this a pie-in-the-sky utopian view of a "scientific expdition," the technical feasability of such a project is beyond our technical capabilities even today, let alone in the 1960's.

Three men to the moon in a "tin-can" a great achievement by any measure? Excuse me but the trip to the moon is more like the Vikings sailing to the American continent. Small ship, not much creature comforts. Now let's go back centuries before any Europeans could ever make ships that sailed the Vikings to America. When the Chinese decided to sail across vast oceans there were no examples of larger ships comparable for the task they imagined. But they could take the principles of the ships they had developed to build big ships. And they did build big ships before any Europeans.

So my point here is there are and were principles and methods know then and now that would make a more robust exploration of the moon. For instance; utilizing multiple launchings to airlift systems for the mission. To clarify: Something like skylab that could carry many more crew members and for longer durations would have been more ideal. This would mean that the Staturn V would be used as the large cargo lifter that would place in orbit the heavy gear and fuel. Now you only need to place a skylab like ship in orbit once after that it's a matter of air lifting fuel for any future missions. A Saturn 1b is used just to airlift a capsule carrying the crew intended to fly to the moon. The capsule does not fly to the moon but remains in Earth orbit until the crew return from the moon. So the skylab size ship carries the crew in style to the moon. Now you may argue what about the lander and the moon cart! Yes, yes I haven't forgotten those parts. As I mentioned earlier the Saturn V is the heavy lifter, it could be used to air lift the lander or landers depending on the complexity of the mission into orbit seperately and then landers dock with the skylab ship in Earth orbit.

The scenario I describe above was very possible at the time and would have been a much more robust exploration of the moon.

A scientific project does not require the entire team to go to the location; sending three men to the moon at a time (2 to the surface) and collecting samples and placing instruments that can then be controlled and analyzed on Earth at the scientists' leisure is a realistic and efficient solution. Only 12 men have ever walked on the Moon, but how many tens of thousands of scientists have scrutinized samples and data collected by those 12 men?.

And such a task can be performed by a machine, which by the way is how the Russians brought back rocks from the moon. This approach is by far much more economical. While some may argue the point to sending men to the moon was to develop technologies for humans to survive in space. Low Earth orbit missions, skylab, russian space station, etc have done far more productive work to understanding the problems of survival in space than any moon mission.

All I can say to this is there has to be a first step SOMEWHERE. You have to crawl before you can walk, and you have to walk before you can even think about running. What you're proposing is creating a permanent scientific facility on Mars, but you can't skip the necessary intermediate steps to get there.

No you're wrong...We should have the abilty to do backward flips by the time we decide to take on a mission to Mars...

 

[Topher925]

Personally, I think we should put the kabash on sending people to mars. First I think we need to work on terriforming it in the next 5 years and go from there. Terriforming, although we have never done it, will take a very long time and if we ever plan full scale colonization of mars, its got to be done eventually.

 

[LowlyPion]

Personally, I think we should put the kabash on sending people to mars. First I think we need to work on terriforming it in the next 5 years and go from there. Terriforming, although we have never done it, will take a very long time and if we ever plan full scale colonization of mars, its got to be done eventually.

Certainly there is no rush to get there now is there? Neither is there any rush to terraform it before we even may know what would be there and whether or not terraforming is possible before the sun would incinerate us all - even if on Mars.

Remember that terraforming the Earth took a considerable amount of time and went through a number of epochs in developing an atmospheric medium that would facilitate the chemistry we all enjoy. Even short circuiting evolution and going for the end point of creating a suitable environment on the planet is a daunting task. Such trivial concerns as what weather will develop with a more robust atmosphere may present extraordinarily difficult trade-offs.

 

[mshinavar]

Knowing what we know now about these little rovers, their capabilities, and the puzzles they face, the next generation of rovers could be designed to be WAY more capable, but not cost a whole lot more. Our technology is advancing apace, and the next generation of rovers could be lighter, faster, more agile, and more durable.

to some extent I disagree. How much bigger can we make a rover, that is capable of making it to Mars on the current boosters? would it be "not a whole lot more" to place an upperstage transfer engine in LEO, just so this tin can can make it there? It would be hard to fighter jockey it in there like Apollo, when signals have a couple minutes of lag on them

then if you get to the moon with a 20,000 lb rover, how do you land? Pheonix was already too heavy for the standard inflatable bag idea. I've talked to people at JPL, that said when the sky crane idea was proposed, it was viewed as the worst idea ever. hovering with rocket power? yea right... (although all of space problems are minimizing the number of single point of failures, unlike airplanes where they are almost nonexistant)

Phoenix used a Delta II Heavy to get 775 lbs on mars. what if you wanted a vehicle that could move more than a mile on Mars (slight understatement, but nevertheless a vehicle that could get somewhere semi distant) it would probably be in the 3000lb class, probably similar to the most wild off road vehicle we have on Earth. But that's 4 times as massive at liftoff, short of doing the calculus, i would venture a guess that its not as simple as 4x the launch vehicle. for example, IIRC, the shuttle on the first stage requires 12 lbs of propellant to add 1 lb of payload. this would follow the same trend.

it might not be "that much more" to build a bigger rover based off the technology base and experience we have developed with our various rovers over the last decade or so, but more often than not, the payload is the inexpensive part of a space operation.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Three men to the moon in a "tin-can" a great achievement by any measure? Excuse me but the trip to the moon is more like the Vikings sailing to the American continent. Small ship, not much creature comforts.

We obviously disagree greatly about the historical and technological significance of the Apollo missions.

So my point here is there are and were principles and methods know then and now that would make a more robust exploration of the moon.

I think your subjective definition of "more robust exploration" is somewhat contrary to the requirements and goals that were set at the time of the Apollo misisons, and they aren't really in-line with exploration goals for Mars that have been proposed by NASA. When you say robust, in what way? Have you done a trade-off study to determine your propsed method is indeed the best method (how do you even define the "best") or at leat as good as you claim? Launching a bunch of stuff into orbit to be assembled and then sending it to the moon doesn't necessarily sound like a slam-dunk to me.

Again, it seems to me that you think the only "worthwhile" manned scientific exploration mission as one where all of the scientists and equipment are carried along in laboratories that either orbit and/or land on the moon. This seems like it would be inefficient and technically unreasonable when compared with other options.

And such a task can be performed by a machine, which by the way is how the Russians brought back rocks from the moon. This approach is by far much more economical.

Are you sure? If you measure the economy of the missions by how much moon rock they brought back versus how much the programs cost, Apollo wins by a VERY large margin.

Apollo Estimated Cost- $25.4 billion (upper estimate)
Total Moon Samples Returned- 381.7 kg
Cost/Weight- $66.5 million per kilogram

Luna Estimated Cost- 4.5 billlion
Total Moon Samples Returned- 0.326 kg
Cost/Weight- $12.2 billion per kilogram

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_missions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_program

 

[Integral]

Personally, I think we should put the kabash on sending people to mars. First I think we need to work on terriforming it in the next 5 years and go from there. Terriforming, although we have never done it, will take a very long time and if we ever plan full scale colonization of mars, its got to be done eventually.

5yrs

A more reasonable number would be 500yrs. How can we possibly create a working ecosystem on Mars if we cannot maintain the one we have here on earth? Far more important that sending cowboys in tin cans to nearby by barren rocks is leaning to live on the Earth. Any expedition to the solar system will be entirely dependent on supplies from Earth so it is essential we be able to maintain a "home" base.

 

[frankinstein]

I think your subjective definition of "more robust exploration" is somewhat contrary to the requirements and goals that were set at the time of the Apollo misisons, and they aren't really in-line with exploration goals for Mars that have been proposed by NASA. When you say robust, in what way? Have you done a trade-off study to determine your propsed method is indeed the best method (how do you even define the "best") or at leat as good as you claim? Launching a bunch of stuff into orbit to be assembled and then sending it to the moon doesn't necessarily sound like a slam-dunk to me.

Again, it seems to me that you think the only "worthwhile" manned scientific exploration mission as one where all of the scientists and equipment are carried along in laboratories that either orbit and/or land on the moon. This seems like it would be inefficient and technically unreasonable when compared with other options.

Your objective for the moon missions are much too short sighted. It's not only about exploring the moon that we want to achieve but to also learn how to survive in space for long periods of time, inclusive of alien worlds such as the moon. Within that context not only is the exploration of the moon by more individuals with skills and experience to personally look, see and "feel" the alien world are possible, but the ROI on developing the knowledge base and experience for the eventual colonization of space is much higher as compared to a tin can landing on the moon. Taking my approach benefits by solving the kinds of problems that would be encountered for long stays on the moon, Apollo missions lack this kind of benefit because the objective was a very short term one.

Are you sure? If you measure the economy of the missions by how much moon rock they brought back versus how much the programs cost, Apollo wins by a VERY large margin.

Apollo Estimated Cost- $25.4 billion (upper estimate)
Total Moon Samples Returned- 381.7 kg
Cost/Weight- $66.5 million per kilogram

Luna Estimated Cost- 4.5 billlion
Total Moon Samples Returned- 0.326 kg
Cost/Weight- $12.2 billion per kilogram

Here again you're short sighted, your comparison limits the amount of rocks that can be sent back by a machine. This is a ludicrous assumption. The fact that it would take more fuel and added equipment to send men to the moon only inhibits a manned mission to carry back material to earth. A non-manned mission of equivalent weight as the Apollo Lander could be significantly larger to carry much more material than the Apollo moon missions.

Frank

 

[LowlyPion]

5yrs

A more reasonable number would be 500yrs. How can we possibly create a working ecosystem on Mars if we cannot maintain the one we have here on earth? Far more important that sending cowboys in tin cans to nearby by barren rocks is leaning to live on the Earth. Any expedition to the solar system will be entirely dependent on supplies from Earth so it is essential we be able to maintain a "home" base.

As a point of curiosity what process could even be driven to create the volume of just the gases that Mars would require? Where would the energy come from to drive the necessary reactions? I don't see us heating up mountains of perchlorates and releasing O2. Mars albedo ranges from .2 to .4 and developing clouds would do little to help harvest what precious sunlight is even available. (Forget for a moment the not inconsiderable task of releasing Martian water sources.) The point being that just where is the energy coming from to overcome the entropy there to be more favorable for human habitation?

 

[FredGarvin]

Your objective for the moon missions are much too short sighted. It's not only about exploring the moon that we want to achieve but to also learn how to survive in space for long periods of time, inclusive of alien worlds such as the moon. Within that context not only is the exploration of the moon by more individuals with skills and experience to personally look, see and "feel" the alien world are possible, but the ROI on developing the knowledge base and experience for the eventual colonization of space is much higher as compared to a tin can landing on the moon. Taking my approach benefits by solving the kinds of problems that would be encountered for long stays on the moon, Apollo missions lack this kind of benefit because the objective was a very short term one.

Here again you're short sighted, your comparison limits the amount of rocks that can be sent back by a machine. This is a ludicrous assumption. The fact that it would take more fuel and added equipment to send men to the moon only inhibits a manned mission to carry back material to earth. A non-manned mission of equivalent weight as the Apollo Lander could be significantly larger to carry much more material than the Apollo moon missions.

You are all over the place. In the same post you made an argument that the ROI for manned missions includes the experience of individuals learning to live in space. Now you turn around and say that it is more economical for unmanned missions the size of Apollo? What is it?

YOU made the statement that the Russian method of retrieving moon rocks was more economical. ME proved that incorrect by pointing out the economics. How is that short sighted?

I think you need to start backing up some of your wild *** claims with some kind of reputable data.

 

[frankinstein]

You are all over the place. In the same post you made an argument that the ROI for manned missions includes the experience of individuals learning to live in space. Now you turn around and say that it is more economical for unmanned missions the size of Apollo? What is it?

YOU made the statement that the Russian method of retrieving moon rocks was more economical. ME proved that incorrect by pointing out the economics. How is that short sighted?

I think you need to start backing up some of your wild *** claims with some kind of reputable data.

Wow...You're failing to understand the context that each argument is addressing...Unmanned space exlporation is more economical in comparision to manned missions if the objective is simply to collect data and not solve problems for humans to live in space. To solve the problems for colonization of space requires a much different approach than the Apollo missions...

I hope this clears up your confusion.

Frank

 

[Topher925]

As a point of curiosity what process could even be driven to create the volume of just the gases that Mars would require?

Hence the purpose of terriforming. Send some hybrid grass and some plants over there and start them off in an isolated green house until they can firmly root themselves in the martian soil. It would require and incredibly large amount of resources to terraform a planet artificially so why not do it with biology? Life is a phenomenon that exists because of adapting itself and its environment.

And by 5 years, I meant, start experimenting in 5 years. Obviously you will not be able to terraform an entire planet in that short of time. Hell, it would take me 5 years just to grow a tomato.