Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mars Desert Research Station Simulates Mars Base

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the simulate-having-internet-access dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Placing humans on Mars will be an extraordinary feat in itself, not to mention even living in such a harsh environment. To help train future astronauts to sustain life on Mars, the Mars Society has created the Mars Desert Research Station. The Mars Desert Research Station (MDRS) is one of four planned simulated Mars habitats (or Mars Analogue Research Station Programme) maintained by the Mars Society. Crews sign up for two week shifts during the winter months (it's too hot in the summer for pleasant simulation). Crews are not paid during their time at the station, but do get valuable experience."

29 of 122 comments (clear)

  1. More importantly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    But where are the simulated martians?

    1. Re:More importantly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      In the process of being evicted from their Pennsylvania Avenue home in D.C., presently, I believe.

  2. Not if you're trying to turn them into shoes... by Cornwallis · · Score: 2, Funny

    "lacing humans on Mars will be an extraordinary feat in itself"

  3. Wait another 4 years by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Obama has already made space exploration a back burner issue, so it's a nice idea but realistically we won't be seeing a mission to put a man on Mars anytime in the next 4 years. Maybe it would be better to vote in a guy who wasn't so hostile towards pure research next time.

    1. Re:Wait another 4 years by Elisanre · · Score: 5, Insightful

      as opposed to Bush who was a pure mercenate of pure science?

    2. Re:Wait another 4 years by jonadab · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > we won't be seeing a mission to put a man on Mars anytime in the next 4 years.

      We wouldn't be anyway. I'm not a big Obama fan, but the idea of sending humans to Mars within eight years, let alone four, is not realistic at this point. We have a ways to go before we're ready for that.

      Among other things, a desert simulation doesn't really do a good job of simulating the lack of any significant amount of atmosphere on Mars. That's a pretty big deal. An orbiting space station is a much better simulation, despite the lack of much gravity.

      But the real kicker is the whole "You're pretty much on your own for at least two years, longer if the next mission gets canned" thing. The closest we come to that now is the south pole base which is *difficult* (not impossible) to get supplies to in the winter. In a pinch we make overflights and drop packages in. It takes a couple of weeks to make it happen, due to the weather issues, but a couple of weeks is *not* the same thing as a couple of years.

      And the south pole base takes advantage of the fact that it's *very* accessible in the summer, by building up supplies over the course of many trips over several months, to get enough stuff brought in to be prepared for the winter. A mars mission won't have that option. The team would only have what they bring with them.

      These are not unsolvable problems, but they are problems that will require significant work to solve, and that can't be done overnight. Frankly, twenty years would be an optimistic timeframe. Four years is right out, even if funding were no problem at all.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    3. Re:Wait another 4 years by gregbot9000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The biggest problem to me is: how are they going to get off the rock?

      In order to get them off they will need to ship a man rated rocket, and its launch facilities, down to the planets surface, assemble it, pray one slight flaw from operating in a completely alien environment without prior testing doesn't blow it up. As I recall, rocket science on earth isn't without it's mistakes, even with back up parts, high tech facilities, and maintenance crews. And they are going to do that on the martian surface?

    4. Re:Wait another 4 years by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Among other things, a desert simulation doesn't really do a good job of simulating the lack of any significant amount of atmosphere on Mars. That's a pretty big deal. An orbiting space station is a much better simulation, despite the lack of much gravity.

      An orbiting station is important, but reasons other than you think... Any Mars mission will spend the bulk of it's time in transit, and the systems need to be proved in their operational environment - in space, in zero-G. Thus an orbiting station is extremely valuable for that purpose. The thermal environment will be a bit different, but we've had enough probes in solar and Martian orbits that once you proven the basic systems and components designing the actual system is fairly straightforward.
       
       

      But the real kicker is the whole "You're pretty much on your own for at least two years, longer if the next mission gets canned" thing. The closest we come to that now is the south pole base which is *difficult* (not impossible) to get supplies to in the winter. In a pinch we make overflights and drop packages in. It takes a couple of weeks to make it happen, due to the weather issues, but a couple of weeks is *not* the same thing as a couple of years.

      You're setting an unreasonably high goal. There is no need for a full dry run of two years unsupplied - something almost certainly bound to fail the first few tries.
       
      You do need to operate the equipment for a period of years, but sending supplies doesn't harm anything. In fact, sending supplies is a good thing because it tells you where your logistics calculations were off. So you send a few supplies (mostly repair parts as food and water consumption is easily calculated in advance), update your logistics information, and continue the mission simulation. Constantly starting and stopping the simulation is hard on the equipment, hard on the personnel, and makes things overall much harder for essentially zero return. (I've done simulations like this on a smaller scale in the Navy - sitting next to the pier and pretending we were underway.)

    5. Re:Wait another 4 years by Ortega-Starfire · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Some people have the will and the skill to explore. Even more are willing to die for the chance. Don't worry, there will be plenty of volunteers.

      --
      ---- Liquid was a patriot ----
    6. Re:Wait another 4 years by smoker2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Really ?

      I'm left wondering how they managed to get those astronauts off the moons surface. No construction, no launch facilities, no assembly needed.

      If we are to establish a base on Mars, then crew changes will be necessary I presume. Leave the "command module" in orbit and use a lander. One crew gets out, another gets in. It's not rocket sci...
      hang on, maybe it is, but it has been done before.

      I get tired of the whining about small issues regarding Mars habitation. Nothing is that big an issue if we are prepared to give it an honest go. Even the long periods in space to get there aren't that bad. How long did it take to sail around the globe the first few time ? Nearly 3 years. Ok, they stopped here and there, but not for that long. The scientific challenge is to get the travellers there without being nuked by the cosmic rays, but if we build a ship in space then the heavy shielding can be done little by little, which will keep the costs down.

    7. Re:Wait another 4 years by Rich0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm left wondering how they managed to get those astronauts off the moons surface. No construction, no launch facilities, no assembly needed.

      Uh, the moon's gravity is significantly lower than that of Mars. The moon also lacks an atmosphere - the lunar landar had skin the thickness of aluminum foil at points which made it very light (it would have disintegrated if you tried to launch it from earth). The lack of atmosphere meant zero drag, and they could basically boost above the craters and immediately accellerate into an orbit. On a planet with an atmosphere you need to expend quite a bit of fuel just getting your ship above the bulk of the atmosphere before accellerating into orbit. The command module could also hang out very close to the lunar surface - in theory it could have been in orbit a few hundred feet off the ground as long as it cleared the craters. A Mars orbiter needs to be dozens of miles up at least.

      While Mars is easier to launch from than Earth in terms of mass and atmosphere, it isn't nearly as easy as the moon. The atmosphere does make it easier to land on, however (you don't need to use fuel to completely decellerate like you do on the moon).

      Now, you could park the return ship in orbit so that you only need to shuttle the crew itself up to Martian orbit. That would keep the size of the shuttle to a minimum (the only payload is the crew and any samples brought home - conceivably the samples could be taken in a different craft if they were heavy enough to warrant it). However, the rocket taking off from Mars is going to look a lot more like a Mercury capsule than the LEM.

    8. Re:Wait another 4 years by Mr2cents · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Obama has already made space exploration a back burner issue

      I don't think that's a bad thing. The whole "humans to mars" thing is very optimistic once you realize everything involved. In my opinion, it's just a way for contractor to receive a lot of money without the need for deliverables, because it won't get launched. I still have a book from when I was a kid preaching the same fantasies about the ISS, together with pictures that are simply ludicrous when you compare it to what's being built. Now, we are hurrying to get it finished in time so it can be dumped in the pacific ocean.

      When you look at the computer science revolution, and the amount of remote sensing that's being made possible, the idea that humans need to be there is foolish; sure, a scientist could work faster in situ, but when you look at the price tag, it should be enough to send a hundred of mars science laboratories there, each working for years and years. But somehow, we are being sold a mission to send a scientist to mars for a few weeks (I'm sure the rest would be military and then I'm being optimistic). Unless you really think they would choose to miss the launch window back and stay there for two years. Where is the scientific profit?

      To make my point, I would suggest they start planning a sample return mission, and once they get some martian soil back on earth, maybe we could reopen the discussion. Untill then, I will keep repeating it is a ripoff scheme, spun by some big companies who smell easy money.

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
  4. 3D mockups of the mars base facilities by screenbert · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Explore Mars now" has a great 3D mockup of all the Bunks, Galleys, wardrooms and other parts that would make up a Mars base. http://www.exploremarsnow.org/

    I look forward to this moving to completion so I can juggle on Mars too. :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvp8m8CqIDc

    Chuck Norris was the first one to Mars, that's why there are no signs of life.

    1. Re:3D mockups of the mars base facilities by gregbot9000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why? simply answer why? there is nothing there, there will be no long term benefit to humanity. The costs to great. Why does mares get so much attention when an average near earth object has more high quality metal ore than human society has produced in the last 10 years? Space was a fun romp, but the only reason anyone will go back is for money, which mars lacks.

  5. nevermind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Nevermind that we're still learning the basics of the chemical composition and the true environment of Mars, we have a group of people who think they can accurately recreate it. While their goals are noble, it looks like it's more a society of "enthusiasts" rather than people who actually have a real knowledge and understanding of what's involved (though there are some of them working on the project).

  6. Exactly the same by thered2001 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Except you can breath the outside atmosphere, the gravity is Earth-normal, and emergency help is much closer. Otherwise, a great simulation of life on Mars. (An Antarctic simulation lab would be a bit closer to the mark.)

    --

    If your only tool is a hammer, every problem becomes a nail.

  7. Participant Point of View by realperseus · · Score: 3, Interesting
    My daughter had the privledge of participating in the MDRS back in the Fall of 2006. She described it as "Fun and awesome!" Their mission was to refit the "Hab" as best as they could within their limited budget. She described living conditions as "cramped, much like a typical Mars mission. You need to work as a team to get things done". Here is another link to MDRS project for those who wish more information:

    The Mars Society - Mars Desert Research Station

    --
    "Trusting every aspect of our lives to a giant computer was the smartest thing we ever did.." Homer Simpson
    1. Re:Participant Point of View by eviltangerine · · Score: 2, Interesting

      a friend of mine just got back from the MDRS -- he was there for a week at the beginning of January. He said it was an awesome experience as well. And for those who are wondering, yea, it's not paid, but the Mars Society covers food, transportation, and I guess technically lodging as well. The food he said was all dried stuff. While he was there they would go on scouting trips and worked on revamping the documentation for the site. Oh, and he also mentioned that while boucing around in their spacesuits outside, he found a dinosaur bone! (So the analogs to Mars may end there, but of course, no one's been bouncing around Mars -- maybe there *are* fossilized dinosaurs there!)

  8. Re:how about a submarine then? by Kugala · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Weight. One of the largest issues getting anything into even orbit, much less Mars, is weight.

    A Delta IV Heavy rocket could get about 14 tons to high orbit. A Virginia class submarine weighs about 8,000 tons. This would take around 570 launches to lift.

    Even considering you don't need half the features, there's probably more you do need, so the final product might wind up weighing more.

  9. This is idiotic by ShooterNeo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is stupendously stupid and idiotic.

    The most BASIC problem has yet to be solved : how do we loft things into orbit without blowing $10,000 of taxpayer money per kilogram? Every last dollar of the manned space division of NASA SHOULD go into solving this problem, FIRST.

    THEN, once it is cheap and easy to put stuff into orbit, and only then, do we work out how to put up a real space station, then a trip to the moon, then to mars. In roughly that order.

    And before you say something dumb like "well, a modern Saturn V is as cheap as possible"...no. Disposable giant rockets aren't cheap, they are just cheaper than rube goldberg spaceplanes (aka shuttle)

    What do I think will work? Probably laser launch. LED Solid state laser technology is finally cheap enough that we could use infrared lasers to blast spaceships into orbit. Instead of one launch every few months, a laser launch system would fire a smaller payload off daily. After a few thousand successful unmanned launches, we would buy more laser modules and launch small manned capsules, probably one person at at time. (with a laser launch system, you can run the solid state lasers all day, so long as you pay the power bill. But adding more capacity costs money)

    Rotons, or space elevators, or a railgun, or Saturn Vs made in China, or various other 'out there' ideas might also work. The point is, we need to keep working on better ideas until we get one of them to work, and then worry about conquering Mars.

    1. Re:This is idiotic by cowscows · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, here's the thing. Different people are skilled at solving different sorts of problems. A rocket scientist isn't necessarily the best person to be designing a mars habitat. And since it's not the same person doing both, they can both be worked on at the same time.

      And while there's almost certainly going to be a need for a mars habitat to make design adaptations to work with whatever the launch vehicle is (and vice versa), there are plenty of habitat issues that need to solved irregardless of how it's gotten into space, so work spent figuring those out isn't wasted.

      Besides, once the rocket is ready, it'd be nice to have the mars project almost ready to go, instead of just starting up.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    2. Re:This is idiotic by ShooterNeo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Except that no-one at NASA is even TRYING to build a cheaper rocket. And they also have no concrete plans for a Mars mission, either. Meaning the engines you would need to even get the Mars are not even in the design stage.

      So if you don't even have a guess as to how much stuff you could bring to Mars, then playing with habitats is pointless.

      Best case scenario, we build a super-efficient laser launch system and a nuclear powered VASIMIR rocket to get to mars real fast. In that case, we could just cram the spaceship with a bunch of MREs and life support components right off of a nuclear submarine.

      Worst case, it is still super-expensive to go to Mars, and NASA has to custom build every last part, min-maxing for mass.

  10. Re:Wait another 20 years by jae471 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Arctic simulation isn't that far off. Any martian base would need to be near a water supply, which are most accessible at the poles. Only problem is on Mars, Arctic Winter is 11 months instead of 6.

  11. 15 minutes by dwarg · · Score: 4, Funny

    I just wasted about 15 minutes of my life looking over this thread and I have to say I'm fascinated.

    > Moderately funny comment

    >> Strange non sequitur attempt at political humor

    >>> Openly racist, long-winded slur

    >>>> Stupid attempt at humor after making said slur

    >>>>> Masturbatory over-analysis of thread

    This analysis was made after looking through the racist poster's previous comments to see that he isn't a perennial troll, but has made several Insightful and Informative posts recently.

    What does it all mean? Why did I bother posting this? Shouldn't I get some work done?

    Oh the humanity!

    1. Re:15 minutes by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Welcome to Slashdot.

  12. Re:Wait another 20 years by smoker2 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Of course there is. Even on earth we have a day side and a night side. Neither is permanently in the same place, just the same as on mars. Otherwise it wouldn't be day or night would it ?

    You can simulate the night side or winter of mars by going to antarctica, and the day side or summer by going to an earth desert in winter, maybe peru or the steppes of Russia. Nobody said you have to do them both twice a day !
    Plus the maximum temp. on mars is around 20C not 0C, and the minimums can reach -140C.

  13. Re:Wait another 20 years by Froboz23 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think the best way to simulate living on Mars would be to build an underground installation. Go to a cold barren climate like the Alaskan tundra or North Dakota, then excavate a cavern about 100 meters in diameter and 50 meters deep that is entirely subterranean. You could then accurately simulate many aspects of the environment as follows.

    Atmosphere: Reinforce the walls of the cavern so you can pump all the air out, then fill the cavern with an atmosphere containing the same density and composition as Mars. The astronauts' habitats would be constructed inside this environment, and they would have to wear actual functioning spacesuits to work in the environment.

    Temperature: Use compressors and heaters to create temperature variations to simulate Martian days and nights.

    Soil: Create an artificial soil several meters deep similar to what has been found on Mars, in terms of chemical composition, pH, density, etc.

    Light: Use artificial lighting to simulate Martian days and nights, using the same low luminosity and the 24.6 hour day.

    Combining all these factors, you could potentially create a simulation very similar to Mars except for the lower gravity. A project like this would require billions of dollars in funding, but if you're serious about testing a Mars habitat, or even a lunar habitat, this seems like the way to go.

    --
    Take off every Sig. For great justice.
  14. Too hot in the desert? by PPH · · Score: 2, Funny

    Then why not set up a simulation on Northern Canada or someplace similar. The temperature is close and precipitation is actually pretty low.

    Plus, they'll gain experience dealing with the inevitable Martian polar bear they'll encounter.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  15. Would Paul steer you wrong? by rts008 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Must...Resist...Obvious...Joke!...argh! Too weak!:
    "In order to get them off..."

    "All you need is pr0n!"
    *sing to the tune of: All You Need Is Love[by the Beatles]....makes the world go round!

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti