Slashdot Mirror
Domain: marsinstitute.info
Stories and comments across the archive that link to marsinstitute.info.
Comments · 14
-
Re:do you know how to climb a really big mountain?
Sure, but do you need a multi-billion dollar "tent" set up years in advance to put everything into? After all, during the debate on which mode to use to get to the Moon, an orbital station was never considered. The closest mode would probably have been EOR, which allowed for on-orbit assembly of components before departure for Earth's orbit. I'm not sure that I see how having a manned orbital outpost would make things any easier. To use your own analogy, base camps are set up while on-route to the top of the mountain. You don't set them up years in advance. You set them up as you go. (In partial defense of your argument, polar explorations often set up depots in advance of travel. This is necessary, however, because of the short windows of opportunity for travel.)
-
Re:Why an immobile lander?That's probably the reason, but the Spirit and Opportunity rovers are somewhat bigger:
1.5 meter (4.9 feet) high by 2.3 meters (7.5 feet) wide by 1.6 meter (5.2 feet) long, according to this site.
I'm thinking NASA is trying to save money by not sending somthing with mobile capability. Its a pity, as the dev work's already been done... may as well use it.
-
Re:Well, keep looking!
We spend all this time sending up little probes when what is needed is not Martian air samples, but Martian soil samples.
Using ISPP (In situ Propellant Production) an Mars Sample Return mission is feasible today.
http://www.marsinstitute.info/rd/faculty/dportree/ rtr/rs33.html
One was planned for 2003 but it got bumped. There is a lot more life in good old fashioned rocket technology yet. -
Re:Doesn't anyone read the actual article?
Thank you for a great article (and the links) and don't ever worry about slashdot comments, they're often not worth the bytes used. Such a great heads-up as yours seldom even get through the "editorial" process here.
I might be completely wrong but I think this method of cargo transport has a very important sideeffect (or rather the lack of a disadvantageous one) that it seems Mr.Pearson and you yourself might not be aware of or have remembered, so I have sent you both an email. I'm sure you (and others) can figure it out for yourself by looking at this link:
http://www.marsinstitute.info/rd/faculty/dportree/ rtr/lv06-1.html (synopsis of an old NASA report and Nature article from the 70ies)
If that wasn't enough of a hint think about He-3 and how to get more (as long as the sun lasts) " ) -
Re:Reuse what lander?The idea of a Mars mission that used existing hardware or hardware that was expected to be developed for other purposes is not new. I remember an article in Analog of June 1981 ( waddaya mean fossil!) entitled "Mars in 1995" by Bob Parkinson that talked about using off-the-shelf Titans.
A version of this proposal is on the Mars Institute Website
Parkinson talked about using a "conical two-stage Lander Module modeled on the 1968 North American Rockwell Mars Excursion Module". Since NAR were the prime contractor for the Apollo Command Module I assume it would have been based on the Apollo experience.
In 1981 dollars Parkinson estimated that the lander would take the lions share of the development capital - $2.4 billion - with a total of $4.84 billion.
Sooo- if
I wonder if they've checked Ebay?
Cheers
Alan, Downunda -
Re:Reuse what lander?The idea of a Mars mission that used existing hardware or hardware that was expected to be developed for other purposes is not new. I remember an article in Analog of June 1981 ( waddaya mean fossil!) entitled "Mars in 1995" by Bob Parkinson that talked about using off-the-shelf Titans.
A version of this proposal is on the Mars Institute Website
Parkinson talked about using a "conical two-stage Lander Module modeled on the 1968 North American Rockwell Mars Excursion Module". Since NAR were the prime contractor for the Apollo Command Module I assume it would have been based on the Apollo experience.
In 1981 dollars Parkinson estimated that the lander would take the lions share of the development capital - $2.4 billion - with a total of $4.84 billion.
Sooo- if
I wonder if they've checked Ebay?
Cheers
Alan, Downunda -
History of the figure
A little history on this is in order. Imagine wavy vertical lines transporting you back to the past.
The year is 1989 and I'm growing out a mullet. The first president Bush makes an attempt to rejuvenate NASA by setting Mars as a goal. Since he's a politician and not a scientist, he delegates the details to a group to give him a plan and price tag. What he got was the infamous 90-day report. The 90-day report amounted to implementing a Mars exploration plan that included every pet project that NASA had. It involved building giant craft in orbit, sending them to lumbering to Mars, have a crew land for 2 weeks and then go back to Earth. The estimated cost was an insane $450 billion which they comically expected to get. At the time, I was too concerned with getting my hands on a Sega Genesis to care or understand.
NASA had lost their minds and took the presidential initiative to mean that they were getting a blank check for everything they ever wanted to fund. King George the First saw the price and turned them down flat. He wasn't aware that there were any other ways to do it so it was slated to happen in "the future". Since then, there have been several different plans developed to get to Mars on a tight budget and stay there long enough to do some real science and establish a permanent presence.
Wavy lines back to the present. -
Re:Where have I heard this before?
NO ONE has made a realistic case as to how to have a sustainable program in a cost-effective fashion.
Yes
they
certainly
have.
Not just pie in the sky stuff either but detailed plans by experts with proven technology. Read up on it and you'll realize the only thing keeping humans off of Mars is politics. -
Re:The problem with the ISSFirst, many of you are probably wondering what L1 is-the first Lagrange Point where an object can enter an equilibrium orbit that matches the moon's motion.
It could be useful if we want to come up with a plan similar to this one for colonizing Mars. Due to Earth's immense gravity, weight and aerodynamics are critical in spaceship construction. However, once the ship is in low gravity these considerations are totally irrelevant. Given a good space station we could have three sets of spacecraft: a true space shuttle for lifting things up to the station; transportation craft designed to move things between planets and moons, and explore new areas; and landers designed to reach planetary surfaces. Assuming we'd be establishing actual colonies on the moon and eventually Mars, this is probably the only cost-effective way of doing it.
In space you can do a lot of cool things with something as simple as a piece of string - provided, of course, that your "string" is made of high-tech materials, has an electrically conductive core, and measures many kilometers long. Tethers have electrodynamic applications - for example, a tether in Earth orbit to which electricity is applied will interact with Earth's magnetic field and climb to a higher orbit without using propellant. Allowing ionospheric electrons to move through the tether via plasma contactors at both ends causes the tether to slow down and drop to a lower orbit. Tethers also have momentum-exchange applications. Physically linking high- and low-orbit objects with a tether forces the object in lower orbit (for example, a spacecraft) to travel slower than dictated by orbital mechanics, while the higher-orbit object (for example, a payload) travels faster. If the tether is cut, the payload will jump to a higher orbit while the spacecraft will drop to a lower one. Hoyt and Uphoff propose a Cislunar Tether Transport System for shipping cargo between low-Earth orbit (LEO) and the lunar surface using minimal propellants. Their work is described by "Cislunar Tether Transport System," AIAA 99-2690, R. Hoyt & C. Uphoff; paper presented at the 35th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, Los Angeles, California, June 20-24, 1999.
That's just one example of the stuff we could try if we had a serious space program with good infrastructure. Once a moon colony starts to have practical value (mining, manufacture in decreased gravity, science, and of course, the all-important military applications) we'll start to see progress down this road. Unfortunately, it will be a long time before that happens. The military, our best bet to kick-start the process, won't bother until rival nations start building fleets of armed satellites.
Once the military faces the prospect of a space-based war all these ideas are no longer just cool, they may be essential to survival. So, the best-funded operation in the world will be determined to create a moon base capable of controlling space near Earth. Once that's done it will be paid for and justified by tacking on scientific and industrial components. Yes, that's how we're most likely to begin our grand and heroic journey into the destiny of man-for the purpose of being able to kill each other more effectively. Human nature, right?
But don't worry, recent history shows us that the best deterrent to war is mutual assured destruction, and we'll be fairly safe until we have a large enough moon base to become self sufficient and declare independence from Earth. In Soviet Russia, the moon colonizes YOU!
Read the rest of this comment... -
Re: How would it react to wind?
Rover dimensions: 1.5 meter (4.9 feet) high by 2.3 meters (7.5 feet) wide by 1.6 meter (5.2 feet) long ( MERfacts
It's closer to the size of a riding lawn mower. It's only the camera mast that makes it tall. -
An old idea rehashedThere was a serious paper presented in 1962 titled The One-Way Manned Space Mission by John M. Cord and Leonard M. Seale. It described sending a Mercury sized capsule to the moon with a single astronaut. The capsule would have a cylindrical container attached to it with supplies. Before and during the mission more capsules and cylinders with supplies would be launched to the landing site. The astronaut was to use the empty cylinders as shelter. Later a two man expedition would be sent to retrieve the original astronaut when sufficiently powerful rockets were developed.
Maybe this current plan for Mars is just a similar situation where in the eagerness of the moment some wild ideas like this get tossed about until technology catches-up.
The idea for the moon mission lead to the novel The Pilgrim Project by Hank Searls which lead to the movie Countdown directed by Robert Altman (of M*A*S*H fame) starring James Caan and Robert Duvall which was eclipsed by a certain other movie set in space released shortly after this one.
-
Not a new idea"One way to stay" mission designs are not new. George W. Herbert, an aerospace engineer and regular on the sci.space newsgroups, has made several detailed proposals like this. Most of them revolve around the point that sending a life-time's worth of food to Mars is not that expensive, especially compared to the scientific and engineering returns on such a project. One way missions to Mars should be considered the start of colonizing, not "abandoning" astronauts there. Also, even with a nominal one-way flight, there is always the possibility of getting home 10, 20 years in the future.
http://www.marsinstitute.info/rd/faculty/dportree
/ rtr/ma26.html-Josh
-
Been there, done that
Looks like Bush Jr. is fixated on finishing up what his Dad couldn't: He announced this 15 years ago and it was ultimately scrapped because it was too expensive...even without the record deficits we face now.
-
Some of the early plans are a bit out there
My personal favourite is the One Way Manned Space Mission scheme from 1962 that would involve putting a man on the Moon and then launch supplies to him for the several years needed to develop a two-way retrieval system. All in the name of planting a flag first.
So, hands up. Who would accept this mission if it was offered?