Slashdot Mirror
The Challenges of Building a Mars Base
ambermichelle writes with an excerpt from an article in Txchnologist: "Going to Mars? Expect to stay a while. Because of the relative motions of Earth and Mars, the pioneering astronauts who touch down on the Martian surface will have to remain there for a year and a half. For this reason, NASA has already started experimenting with a habitat fit for the long-term exploration of Mars. Last year, students at the University of Wisconsin won the XHab competition to design and build an inflatable loft addition to a habitat shell that NASA had already constructed. The final structure now serves as a working model that is being tested in the Arizona desert. Like any home, it's a sacred bulwark against the elements; but not just the cold, heat, and pests of Arizona. A Mars habitat will have to protect astronauts from cosmic rays, solar flares, and unknown soil compositions all while keeping inhabitants happy and comfortable."
and build it in there.
The base will build itself with corporate sponsorship. Problem solved.
Its not soil, it is regolith.
It's a cool thought, but we haven't even built a base on the Moon yet, or sent people to Mars. (although I guess you could send modules, and robots to Mars first to get things put together before they send people).
I rememeber in Middle School (Jr High) I had a science teacher that made an assignment where we would all have to design a "feasable" base design for mars. Obviously at that young age we didn't go through the mass complexities that really exists, but he did expect us to do a fair amount of research on Mars, and what plan what kinds of things would be necessary for survival, how you could make the base as self sustainable as possable, where on the planet would be best (and why we thought so) etc.
I've never forgotten that lesson, it was actually one where a teacher expected growth of thinking skills, not just a rehashing of materials from a text book...
That those fucking rocks are really spiders!!
The obvious and simple solution is cryo-sleep. Just ship some capsules along with a rudimentary habitat, and be prepared to sleep most of the time away. The Mars explorers can't realistically bring 18 months' worth of food and oxygen and medical supplies and whatever else--tampons, contact lenses, etc. So just send a month's supply of food, and they can sleep for 17 months until the return vessel arrives.
Cooling the human body to a near-death state has been demonstrated--actually, it has happened many times when people fall into icy water and are revived many minutes later (google extreme hypothermia).
Another concept might be to simply upload the astronaut's neural net into a very high capacity computer. Once this task is accomplished, the computer can continue to operate a space vessel and otherwise completely imitate a human being's decisionmaking and responses. One possible catch is that the computer, unlike an organic brain, lacks any stimulus from hormonal secretions, adrenaline, etc. This kind of stimulus would have to be simulated. The astronauts themselves would remain on Earth, monitoring the flight. Any mistakes or accidents would be blamed on the individual whose brain had been uploaded, obviously.
Lastly is the idea of telecommuting (similar to the second idea expounded above). A completely automated vessel with remote controls would allow a team of astronauts to "work from home". Unlike an actual trip into space, this virtual exploration would be much safer. In fact, the astronauts' main concern would be cutting themselves while slicing a bagel in the kitchen--the number one injury in the home. Nasa would probably want to ban bagels during this time, or maybe send them pre-sliced versions.
In summary, there are quite a few workarounds for this problem and I look forward to a lively discussion!
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
The NASA video shows them bringing whole hab in on 3 semi-trailers -
Why not airdrop the major components in, and see if putting the thing up while encumbered with a suit is feasible.
It is better to be the hammer than the anvil.
To even consider going to Mars we first need to send at least 5 rockets full of supplies and land them literally next to each other. We also need to park another 2 or 3 in orbit to hold fuel for Mars Orbit Docking in order to dock and go home within a reasonable time frame. Aldrin's free transfer trajectory is great but unsuitable for human passage.
Get the supplies and contingency machines in place, then think about it. But first figure out how to drop 5 tonnes safely to a very particular spot on the surface. Now do it repeatedly. Because that's what landing on Mars requires.
If NASA was smart, they would send robots to build a tunnel in a mountain, or underground. This would protect astronauts from all the elemnts including cosmic rays.
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
I hate to bring up something that can only bring up more cost and delay to the exploration and colonization of Mars (and other worlds) but we REALLY need to figure out human biological response to differing gravity levels. Extended stays in zero (micro-gravity) environments have shown that a vigorous regimen of physical activity is necessary to keep astronauts healthy. Will the same be true on the Moon (1/6 earth gravity)? On Mars (1/3 earth gravity)? Will they need to do the same strenuous (and tedious) daily exercises for the same length of time?
Eventually, of course, it'll be "vital" to know if women can conceive, gestate, bear and raise infants in these varying gee environments (at least until they're old enough to exercise by themselves). But that can wait.
This seems to be perhaps the ONE thing that the ISS could do that cannot be possibly done on earth. Perform long term studies of humans in environments where the gravity is 0ISS1. Of course that would involve a big (very expensive) centrifuge or at very least a smaller one capable of using small animals. I understand that there was a (small) one planned but it was cut. Considering the long term importance of this, I would say that they should spend the big bucks and put in a big one (large enough so that coriolus effects wouldn't be noticeable) and study it thoroughly. Since this (human biology) is truly an international issue (rather than one nation planting a flag), I would hope it would get international support. Pinwheels in the sky a la 2001 here we come!
Of course if the results are bad (humans, especially reproducing females, are found to be exquisitely tuned to one gee) we may need to wait until genetic engineering can adapt us to our environment rather than the other way around. In that case I've got a whole host of other "improvements" I'd like to see (radiation tolerance, hibernation capability, vacuum safe bodies...)
simple solution: if i got a terminal illness id seriously consider volunteering for a one way mission there. First person to die on another planet... sounds cool to me.
The NASA video shows them bringing whole hab in on 3 semi-trailers - Why not airdrop the major components in, and see if putting the thing up while encumbered with a suit is feasible.
Testing is done in stages. First see if we have the concepts and solution correct with basic equipment. Then figure out how to ruggedize the equipment. If the concept was flawed or the basic equipment lacking then ruggedizing would be a waste of time and money.
that people simply don't live long enough to care about such long term goals. But life extension is bad, I get it.
like the airlock opening inwards and the waste in weight and energy that is having an elevator in the middle of the dome, some stair would do just fine!
I'm always confused by base designs for other worlds that are invariably above ground. Why waste the protective features of just burying things?
I suppose it's difficult to dig a base into the earth but because there's very little atmosphere to speak of you have no real protection against radiation. And then there are questions of insulation. Put twenty feet of dirt between your habitat and the surface and all sorts of problems go away.
No problem with micro meteorites since they'd have to penetrate 20 feet of dirt to even touch your habitat.
No problem with radiation unless it can go through 20 feet of dirt. I know really hard radiation can... but that has to take most of the edge off it. And if needed you can always go deeper.
No problem with dust storms because it's all raging above you. I suppose a dune could position itself on top of your access shaft but there are some fairly cheap ways to make that manageable.
So on and so forth.
this goes double for the moon. For the love of god there's not even a weak atmosphere on the moon. No protection. Put the facility down twenty feet though and you can inflate your little habitat to your heart's content knowing that the whole place isn't going to get stabbed by a thousand micro meteorites or flash burned by a solar flare.
The only thing that really needs to be on the surface is an access shaft complete with airlocks. A communications array so you can broadcast to orbital relays or directly to earth. And some solar cells. Bury everything else.
If we build underground we might not even need those somewhat elaborate bubble walls they're talking about inflating. We might just be able to get by with something to harden the earth up and then maybe a spray on polymer to make sure the walls are airtight.
If people want to see the surface they can use one of the video feeds or climb up the ladder/take the elevator to the surface.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
A new Total Recall movie is in the works. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1386703/
Going to Mars was cool last century. This century our priorities have shifted and we can't put humans in orbit of this planet without making them honorary cosmonauts.
If you want to get people interested in going to Mars, you need to start by erasing the memory of the film "Mission To Mars" from the public consciousness. The very thought of going to Mars now triggers a knee-jerk reaction of: "Wait... didn't Quinn Mallory, Ken Mattingly and Merlin already do this? And it sucked?" It might be easier to simply rename Mars and make it sound like we're going somewhere new and exciting, like Pandora. Then we can start thinking about this again.
The GP was giving a sober assessment. The folks who think we can do it with Apollo-equivalent effort are the type of completely bizarre nutters who think Ron Paul makes sense.
Literally. Have the butt-end of the lander be a giant screw, that drills directly into the crust, followed by an at-least-equal-length tube of approximately the same diameter. Then fill the tube with like-diameter sphere-in-sphere modules that stabilize and interconnect afterwards. The extra space around the spheres could be flooded with some kind of expandable foam insulate, or cheese, or whatever.
An inflatable Greenhouse.
Honestly, why not ship up seeds and have them grow some easy food crops? Plus the greenhouse will deliver free heat, something that is needed for a habitat even in the tropics of mars.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Don't go at all, just insert memories on interested people of a gorgeous trip to mars, solving a conspiracy, meeting mutants, and activating an alien device that terraforms the planet. Another option is be unplugged from Matrix: Y2K, and get plugged into Matrix: Mars Colonization. Or something more spacey, build a team of robots capable of building a mars colony by themselves (even finding the resources for doing so) and don't launch them, as will be more valuable to use them right here by the time they are finished.
Hi gang,
There ain't sh%t going on on Mars yall.... just hollyweird cgi... don't let them fool you!!!!
stop the fanboy fantasizing...
Thanx!
Sitting in a barrel on a lifeless desert planet... At least they could have some fun with each other.
I think that If BA or IDC were smart, they would put one of their units at a south pole base and and see how they do. It would be useful to see them hit -100F/-70C or below. That would enable it show how they will do at Mars and parts of the moon. And as far as dropping on the mars or lunar surface, that makes little sense. There are plenty of caverns at both places. Put it down one and drop soil/regolith on top for insulation. At the very least offer up some sort of seal at the opening with a walk-way down to the habitat. That would limit the exchange of heat to make it easier to keep an iso temp.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Human body fat is the most efficient way for a human to store energy. Give them enough (recycled) water, some vitamins and protein and they will shed weight all the way to Mars, and back maybe too.
Cryo sleep will not work, because joints will become fibrosed, muscles will atrophy, etc.
So to figure out how FAT our ASTRONAUTS will be - we'll need to look at some numbers.
A pound of fat can expend about 3500 KCAL of energy.
An average male basal metabolic rate is around 2000 KCAL/day.
Now using conventional fuel - the trip takes 214 days, using a constant propulsion nuclear motor might shorten it to 120 days
Soooo - ballpark FAT ESTIMATES are for conventional fuel 214 x 2000 = 428,000 KCALs /3500KCal/fat = 122 pounds (or about 56 Kilos extra)
428,000 KCAL
Nuke fuel require them to only gain about 70 pounds extra.
Now this is a one way trip - so lets double the weight to provide for our FAT ASTRONAUTS to get back home safely
So now we are looking at 244 pounds EXTRA - or a 444 pound (200 KILO) Buzz Aldrin... for conventional fuel
and for constant acceleration nuke powered craft - a 340 pound Buzz Aldrin
This will make the newer movie version of the RIGHT STUFF a bit different to watch. All those neck beards out there - yep - you're training for a MARS mission....
..........FULL STOP.
yes it would be cool to be on Mars but with the risks and costs the moon base should be the first step. Prove the technology closer to home, isn't that why we built the Space Station (other than job security for defense contractors across the globe). The moon has resources we can use to launch a mission to Mars. With the lower gravity than Mars the Moon base can give humanity a better look at how long term exposure to low gravity will affect us while still being close to home. An international moon research facility would provide a much better return on investment and prepare for a longer journey. Get a Moon base up and running can be done with robotics, testing climate controls, hydroponics, water reclamation/recycling etc as well as rocket designs, radiation shielding ...
We could even send the Current Space station as an orbital go between for the Moon instead of crash the station into the ocean at end of life. put a few rockets and slowly take it into Moon orbit. once we have a base built on the moon that has been tested via robotics and remote science equipment an expedition can go to the station in orbit around the moon (where supplies could be waiting) then take a trip down the the lunar surface. Add a space elevator between the moon and orbiting space station so you don't need to use fuel. Robotic cargo ships can ferry supplies and refuse between earth and the space station.
It just seems to me we just started crawling in space with the Space station and now we want to run like Forest Gump by sending a manned mission to Mars at a far higher price than going back to the Moon
Really, less than 50% landed?
I think most landed if not all.
Some faster than others..
No brain, no pain.
...of doing anything in space, but particularly important for going to mars, is getting to low earth orbit more cheaply, regularly, reliably and safely. without easy access to LEO and more significant orbital infrastructure than a tiny tin can toy space station (yes, the ISS is a useless pos), any trip that is made to mars will be hugely expensive and will never be repeated (vis-a-vis the moon race).
going to mars at the moment is like starting to build a house by picking out curtains
By "inflatable greenhouse", I assume you mean one with transparent walls that uses natural sunlight? The one in all the Mars Base artist's impressions?
According to NASA's Mars rover designers, the atmosphere on Mars is just thick enough to conduct away heat, making thermal control harder on Mars than in a vacuum. A greenhouse is a high surface area, low density volume, so apparently it would take less energy to use grow-lights in a fully underground chamber than to heat a surface-exposed greenhouse at night. (You'll have the same problem with all surface modules and vehicles on Mars.)
Inflatable greenhouses make for a good Mars Base artist's impression, but a lousy actual Mars Base.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Rather than do all the challenging things you mention, how about re-engineering humanity to be more fit for space?
How about tolerance of low (10-100K) temperatures?
Tolerance of 0 G?
Tolerance of radiation?
Remove requirement for O2, food, and water?
Make extended hibernation more feasable?
Make able to use interchangeable replacement parts?
Probably a solid state implementation of people.... Send those across the gulf between stars, and if they want, they can re-engineer themselves back into meat-bags on the far side. Or not.
--PM
They're called lava tubes. (Another link)
Those exist on the Moon and Mars, as well as the Earth.
There's no lava in them now. There used to be, then the lava hardened to a "cap". The lava underneath the cap receded, and the whole thing collapsed on itself, making a large tubular shape which extends a considerable length underground.
What's best is the bottom is mostly level. Also, radiation at the bottom of the tube is insignificant and suitable for long term stay.
There are plenty of architectural options available after this. Examples follow Cover the mouth of the tube with an inflatable plastic roof. You could have one which has solar cells in it too. Or something you can dim if needed. Build a spiralling road within the walls, spiralling up from the tube all the way to the surface so you can drive vehicles up and down. Or build an elevator, whichever makes sense and is easiest. Make new tunnels and caves radially from the bottom level. Spray the smaller caves with polymer to make them airtight and turn them into living quarters, greenhouses, etc.
Seriously, I'm really tired of your bullshit. Why are you spending money waxing poetic about a trip to Mars when you can barely keep the space station in orbit and have yet to land a 13th person on the moon? Does even one of your science geniuses know how to get shit done? You're talking about building a castle in japan when you can't even build a snow fort at the end of the block. You have the rockets, you have the parts, you have the people willing to go... and yet you don't. What's up with that? What's a matter, Mcfly? Are you CHICKEN?
In conclusion, go on being DARPA's bitch instead of hope for humanity. Fuck you guys and your poser bullshit.
Why are we even thinking about sending humans to Mars when robots would be exponentially cheaper and more practical while being able to do so in by spending far less money and resources.
Look at the amount of junk in the video, There are handle bars, tables, supports, etc..Is that all necessary to carry them? Instead carry some more food & food processing instruments (not the chef's paraphernalia) & medical equipment.
From the video, they grew their food in what appears to be elevator space between two levels.
Is this really enough to feed two adults? I always assumed you'd need at least another large room, perhaps even with specialized equipment such as growing lamps to be able to grow it 24/7, also being able to utilize volume (by having multiple levels), not just the surface.
If I remember correctly, /. posted an article on the loss of vision caused by long term weightlessness. These folks better build something that can be piloted, and structures that can be assembled and utilized, by blind/vision-impaired astronauts....an elephant in the NASA room...