Jump to content

Mars Colony?


Asperion

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 152
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Re: Mars Colony?

 

One thousand hours of testing divided by 8 hour work days equals 125 days' date=' which is far less than the six years of development before the first unit would have to be launched to get a man on Mars by the end of this decade. I'd suggest upping it to ten thousand hours of testing, actually, but that still gives 2 and half years to build it. [/quote'] [snip].

 

That's just nuts. Here's a paper laying out the expected design history of a modern high performance jet engine, a not inappropriate parallel. As you can see, the interval between submission of a complete design and approval for production converges on 51 months. I would expect ISRU development to take rather longer, given that the developmental infrastructure hasn't even been built yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Mars Colony?

 

That's just nuts. Here's a paper laying out the expected design history of a modern high performance jet engine' date=' a not inappropriate parallel. As you can see, the interval between submission of a complete design and approval for production converges on 51 months.[/quote']

You might notice that jet engines are around since 1942. So we are currently in the phase where it only goes about refining of existing practices.

And unlike a Jet engine, the ISRU even fullfills his role when it is not running at 100% efficiency. And of course we test it first there. What the problem with that, after all we need at least 10 Years for the Programm. Enough time to build the facilities, test the prototype in it, build a real one, test it on mars.

And even in the chase the one we send before goes on the firtz, we send a second ISRU exaclty for that chase.

 

This is space exploration. When we wait with going to Mars until we can provide Roadside assistance that far out then yes, we will need a few more hundred years. Exploration always carries a risk. And more than testing it in Live condition and having two units ready is nothing we can reasonably do.

If you are American, be happy happy Columbus was not afraid of getting lost or die trying to find america/the path to india.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Mars Colony?

 

If you are American' date=' be happy happy Columbus was not afraid of getting lost or die trying to find america/the path to india.[/quote']

May not be the best timed example. In another thread I'd just been holding forth on the fact that his biggest accomplishment was an accident that happened because he got the math wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Mars Colony?

 

You might notice that jet engines are around since 1942. So we are currently in the phase where it only goes about refining of existing practices.

And unlike a Jet engine, the ISRU even fullfills his role when it is not running at 100% efficiency. And of course we test it first there. What the problem with that, after all we need at least 10 Years for the Programm. Enough time to build the facilities, test the prototype in it, build a real one, test it on mars.

And even in the chase the one we send before goes on the firtz, we send a second ISRU exaclty for that chase.

 

This is space exploration. When we wait with going to Mars until we can provide Roadside assistance that far out then yes, we will need a few more hundred years. Exploration always carries a risk. And more than testing it in Live condition and having two units ready is nothing we can reasonably do.

If you are American, be happy happy Columbus was not afraid of getting lost or die trying to find america/the path to india.

 

There seems to be a failure of communication here. I'm not arguing that the ISRU is impractical. I'm arguing that the Mars Direct developmental timeline is unrealistic. I personally don't think that even 10 years would be enough time for such an ambitious developmental programme; but a century seems far too long.

 

To summarise, and perhaps I should have put this more clearly at an earlier point in the discussion, it will take a good length of time for us to develop the technology required for Mars Direct or various related projects.

 

That is, it will take time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Mars Colony?

 

There seems to be a failure of communication here. I'm not arguing that the ISRU is impractical. I'm arguing that the Mars Direct developmental timeline is unrealistic. I personally don't think that even 10 years would be enough time for such an ambitious developmental programme; but a century seems far too long.

 

To summarise, and perhaps I should have put this more clearly at an earlier point in the discussion, it will take a good length of time for us to develop the technology required for Mars Direct or various related projects.

 

That is, it will take time.

I really wasn't paying that much attention to the official timeline. What i saw was it could be developed without any thechnological breakthrough, and that put an infrastructure on Mars where much of the equipment could be field tested before you ever launched a crew. Ten years, fifteen, whatever, it's not going to be finished if we don't get started.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Mars Colony?

 

I really wasn't paying that much attention to the official timeline. What i saw was it could be developed without any thechnological breakthrough' date=' and that put an infrastructure on Mars where much of the equipment could be field tested before you ever launched a crew. Ten years, fifteen, whatever, it's not going to be finished if we don't get started.[/quote']

 

This assumes, of course, that we will have a federal government capable of supporting such projects. If these times are any indication, we don't, and never may again.

 

I'm becoming convinced that we had our chance to reach for the stars, and blew it. And now, like it or not, we're stuck on this little mudball for the duration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Mars Colony?

 

This assumes, of course, that we will have a federal government capable of supporting such projects. If these times are any indication, we don't, and never may again.

 

I'm becoming convinced that we had our chance to reach for the stars, and blew it. And now, like it or not, we're stuck on this little mudball for the duration.

 

As the wise man said, "This too shall pass."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Mars Colony?

 

To summarise, and perhaps I should have put this more clearly at an earlier point in the discussion, it will take a good length of time for us to develop the technology required for Mars Direct or various related projects.

 

That is, it will take time.

Nope. It won't take as long as you think, simply because those willing to go to mars are willing to risk it before the technology is 110% save.

Again: This is space exploration. There is supposed to be a mortal danger of being stranded far from any help. We can miminize it but it will always be there. And more than one rescue plan (the second ISRU) is simply not practical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Mars Colony?

 

Nope. It won't take as long as you think, simply because those willing to go to mars are willing to risk it before the technology is 110% save.

Again: This is space exploration. There is supposed to be a mortal danger of being stranded far from any help. We can miminize it but it will always be there. And more than one rescue plan (the second ISRU) is simply not practical.

 

People keep talking as if it's the opinions of the the astronauts that determine whether the mission is put together or launched. It isn't. They are the most minor element of the equation. Not a single mission has been scrubbed because the crew or passengers were afraid to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Mars Colony?

 

People keep talking as if it's the opinions of the the astronauts that determine whether the mission is put together or launched. It isn't. They are the most minor element of the equation. Not a single mission has been scrubbed because the crew or passengers were afraid to go.

Becuase they always had others willing to do it. Didn't they even have a complete B-Crew for each mission. For example if somebody get's ill? The Astronauts are most likely the cheapest part of the Mission-Budget.

And they are certainly not some City dwellers who are ruluctant to travel anywhere without cable-tv, or even without electricity and warm watter.

 

I was not saying they were the most important. I was saying: Security is not the primary concern in Exploration. It's explroation because nobody dared to do it before.

 

Take this artikle on Wikipedia that lists Explorers:

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

 

Name me one of them that did not faced any danger to his body, even potential mortal danger, during his Explorations. And keep in mind that even a swamp you don't know of, people with unknown attitudes agaisnt strangers, or even the potential disseases of the new area could be deadly without GPS or medicinal Science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Mars Colony?

 

Nope. It won't take as long as you think, simply because those willing to go to mars are willing to risk it before the technology is 110% save.

Again: This is space exploration. There is supposed to be a mortal danger of being stranded far from any help. We can miminize it but it will always be there. And more than one rescue plan (the second ISRU) is simply not practical.

 

No. It will take exactly as much time as I say that it will. The issue isn't "safety." It's "working." Here. Enjoy a story about a technological project that was rushed because, apparently, will-to-succeed can be substituted for proper development time.

I have a lot of others. So many

that I'm really just extending this sentence for the fun of linking to them all at this point. Notice how I got away with not including Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, or Microsoft Vista? On the other hand, I included the Stirling Engine, which has been proven to be practical, and has been known to be the most efficient heat engine design possible for almost two hundred years now, but which has almost no commercial applications, due to problems in the engineering details? That's how engineering works out in the real world.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Mars Colony?

 

Almost any of your examples where failed long after they where build because of impropper tesing (posibilities).

 

Every part of the mission that only needs to work a short time (like most parts of the ISRU) can be tested en detail, even for times equal to their real-live application.

The other parts with long term useability (especially Life Support) are currently in use on the ISS.

 

The only thing that is absolute is, taht we won't get their until somebody dares to finance it. The same way it was a question of people daring to finance Kolumbus on his "search for a path to India". Or Orion. Or the Wright Brothers. Or....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Mars Colony?

 

Just so we have the comparsion here:

Sputnik was launched 4th October 1957.

First Human: 12 April 1961

First human on the Moon: 20. Juli 1969

The USA needed 12 Years from the first Satelite to the First human on the moon, despite beign at a disadvantage. And we fire sattelites to the outer planets for some time now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Mars Colony?

 

That's just nuts. Here's a paper laying out the expected design history of a modern high performance jet engine' date=' a not inappropriate parallel. As you can see, the interval between submission of a complete design and approval for production converges on 51 months. I would expect ISRU development to take rather longer, given that the developmental infrastructure hasn't even been built yet.[/quote']

 

Developmental Infrastructure? Like, say, a wind tunnel that simulates Martian conditions? Like the Mars Surface Wind Tunnel at Ames Research Center?

 

A not inappropriate parallel? You're comparing a jet engine to a chemical refining plant. If we'd been talking about a rocket, that might have been an appropriate parallel. Here's a better parallel for you: The Mars Science Laboratory launches in about 100 days. The initial mission concept was approved at the end of 2004. Seven years from start to launch. And that includes developing an entirely new landing system, a entirely new power system (first RTG on the Martian surface), engine system, AI system, and 80 kg of scientific payload. 6 years for something with a conventional landing system, no AI, no frail science experiments, and no required mobility is perfectly reasonable, especially with ten to twenty times the budget NASA gave this "flagship" project. (IMHO it's not a "flagship" project if it only gets 2% of your budget).

 

Speaking of the Mars Rovers; something has always bothered me about NASA's rover design. They've sent three rovers on relatively similar missions over relatively similar terrain. And yet they've designed each one from scratch. Say they instead sent Curiosity up (in 106 days). By the mid part of it's mission (two years from now) it becomes clear that it's missing a number of vital instruments to determine if there is life on Mars. Instead of spending 7 years designing a new rover to carry those instruments, why not just take a Curiosity-class rover and replace the scientific payload? The second mission can then be done far faster and cheaper, and the third one even more so. By the fourth there is probably some new tech available to make use of (computers come to mind), but it must be cheaper to upgrade those parts of the design rather than starting with a blank page every damn time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Mars Colony?

 

Becuase they always had others willing to do it. Didn't they even have a complete B-Crew for each mission. For example if somebody get's ill? The Astronauts are most likely the cheapest part of the Mission-Budget.

And they are certainly not some City dwellers who are ruluctant to travel anywhere without cable-tv, or even without electricity and warm watter.

 

I was not saying they were the most important. I was saying: Security is not the primary concern in Exploration. It's explroation because nobody dared to do it before.

 

Take this artikle on Wikipedia that lists Explorers:

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

 

Name me one of them that did not faced any danger to his body, even potential mortal danger, during his Explorations. And keep in mind that even a swamp you don't know of, people with unknown attitudes agaisnt strangers, or even the potential disseases of the new area could be deadly without GPS or medicinal Science.

 

Chris, take a look at my examples. My many, many examples. Every word in that sentence is linked to a different example of a heavily-promoted, usually heavily funded techological project that failed. I could do the same again, were there but world enough and time. Technological failures are commonplace.

 

Why? I'll tell you why, based on the only commonality that I can find in them. That commonality is utopian promoters who fail to acknowledge realistic objections and the timelines or financial investments that they imply. See a connection here with Robert Zubrin? I sure do. I see an even closer one with the cult leaders who routinely predict the end of the world. There are gullible people, mainly idealistic young folk, and there are the con artists (who often do not even acknowledge to themselves that they are con artists) who prey on them.

 

And if you want to talk about explorers, it isn't a subject that is entirely unfamiliar to me. Be warned, however before you go off reading my blog (as dozens have before you) that my views of how successful exploration happens do not involve mad idealists making leaps into the dark.

 

And speaking of technological utopians: Gnaskar, you must be aware of how different the incremental development of a new Mars lander is from a compressor designed to work in an unfamiliar environment, automatically, for however long it is intended to work (six days? Pull the other one!) as a feedstock source for a chemical reactor whose basic operating principles require complete redesign in multiple parameters for the work at hand.

 

I understand that I'm making the world seem like a boring and tedious place to you. I'm sorry. If I'd thought my role as killjoy through before responding to this thread, I would probably have stayed out of it. There's probably some second order political damage done by Mars Direct advocates, but it's as nothing compared with the first order political damage done by more directly engaged idealists who post here, and whom I usually let slide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Mars Colony?

 

800 nuclear explosions between Earth surface and LEO. Compared to 420 - 460 atmospheric nuclear explosions so far (summing all nations)' date=' 1945 - present. Hmm.[/quote']

 

Even back when they were looking at using the conventional weapons grade bombs for propulsion, the total fallout of an Entire Launch (for the 6000 ton Orion), was only equal to one 10 megaton bomb....so .1 to 1 fatal cancer or so the info rolls out Out of the worlds population), which could be reduced over 10 fold with the newer stuff, and more so with the really modern devices they got nowadays....

 

Compared to the risk of say, anything else. *shrug* Plus the bigger you make it, the fallout scales down because of the initial detonations super compression of the fissionable material.. All that's been discussed before in other threads though. Considering the odds of me getting a fatal cancer from Project Orion are significantly non existent compared to the odds of me getting a fatal cancer from having spent time on a few missile bases as a kid, I say, Launch the thing. Really the worse thing that happens is if you launch it in the right place, is that some folks don't get to play World of Warcraft for a few days because of the EMP.

 

~Rex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Mars Colony?

 

800 nuclear explosions between Earth surface and LEO. Compared to 420 - 460 atmospheric nuclear explosions so far (summing all nations)' date=' 1945 - present. Hmm.[/quote']

800 bombs with the minimum possible yield, as opposed to the 420 designed for maximum destruction (high yield = high radiation).

 

Lawnmower:

You are just a pessimist. You fail to see the human potential at all.

I guess you would have made similar arguments against the moon landing (or even the space race), the internet or the possibiltiy of a second world war before it happened.

 

And no, I am not a Utopian Promoter. I too see us unable to get to the move, but not because we could not develop how to get there but because no government has the energy or focus to actually do it.

Well, perhaps China or some private Concern get's his but in gear to make it happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Mars Colony?

 

Gnaskar' date=' you must be aware of how different the incremental development of a new Mars lander is from a compressor designed to work in an unfamiliar environment, automatically, for however long it is intended to work [/quote']

 

And yet you compared it to the incremental development of a jet engine? At least the rover (any moving platform is going to be more complex than a lander; our last Moon lander was developed in to years) was designed to work, automatically, for 680 days in the same unfamiliar environment.

 

I'll reiterate my fundamental argument: We have all the technology needed for a Mars Direct style program. This does not mean it should be put together and sent without being tested. It does not mean there aren't significant engineering challenges left. My point is that these engineering challenges can't be solved without actually setting the goal. A Mars rated compressor is never going to be developed except as a part of mission to Mars that needs one. Waiting solves nothing.

 

 

I understand that I'm making the world seem like a boring and tedious place to you. I'm sorry. If I'd thought my role as killjoy through before responding to this thread' date=' I would probably have stayed out of it. There's probably some second order political damage done by Mars Direct advocates, but it's as nothing compared with the first order political damage done by more directly engaged idealists who post here, and whom I usually let slide.[/quote']

 

Political Damage caused by Mars Direct advocates? They're not asking for more money for NASA, so the worst case scenario is NASA missuses it's budget for a while. A bit like SEI, Constellation, the Orion crew capsule (the senate's insisting they develop a crew capsule; mostly so people will associate Orion with something else. There is no mission that calls for it, and no booster that can launch it), the Space Shuttle (Arguably. The ISS could have been launched by a single Sea Dragon).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Mars Colony?

 

800 bombs with the minimum possible yield, as opposed to the 420 designed for maximum destruction (high yield = high radiation).

 

Lawnmower:

You are just a pessimist. You fail to see the human potential at all.

I guess you would have made similar arguments against the moon landing (or even the space race), the internet or the possibiltiy of a second world war before it happened.

 

And no, I am not a Utopian Promoter. I too see us unable to get to the move, but not because we could not develop how to get there but because no government has the energy or focus to actually do it.

Well, perhaps China or some private Concern get's his but in gear to make it happen.

 

Actually, fallout doesn't scale with yield. It's a function of the amount of stuff that you burn, and small nukes are less efficient nukes, not nukes with smaller bursters.

 

Chris, I never called you a utopian promoter, although Gnaskar's been listening to them too much. You're young. You're unrealistic. You've been taken. I don't wish wisdom on you, because it will come with age and aches and pains and regrets. Save those for later.

 

But the two of you shouldn't go round talking about how the only reason we don't have Mars Direct is because NASA is stupid and the government is stupid, and everyone should just listen to us!

 

And, Gnaskar, I'm sure that with longer and more careful cogitation, you will realise why I compared a compressor designed to take in large quantities of Martian atmosphere and chemically change it to a jet engine, as opposed to a remote-control electrical car with a small sensor load. But if you don't see where I'm coming from, here's a hint: moving parts. And sealants and lubricants and blah blah blah blah

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Mars Colony?

 

Just so we have the comparsion here:

Sputnik was launched 4th October 1957.

First Human: 12 April 1961

First human on the Moon: 20. Juli 1969

The USA needed 12 Years from the first Satelite to the First human on the moon, despite beign at a disadvantage. And we fire sattelites to the outer planets for some time now...

 

Well, that partially ignores the fact that there was already 30 years of development on liquid fuel rockets, plus development on everything else...

 

If you want a better number, try:

May 25, 1961 - JFK gives his famous speech on going to the moon

January 27, 1967 - Fire happens in first manned capsule, killing 3 and forcing major redesign of crew capsule

July 20, 1969 - "One small step..."

 

So basically 8 years from deciding that the US will do it to a successful landing. And I would argue that they were further away from their goal in 1961 than we are from a Mars lander, at least on the technological and operational end of things.

 

Now, I'm not saying we will be there by 2021. I am merely saying that we could if we real wanted to. Compared to Apollo, most of the hardware for the mission is available off the shelf. And even a big fancy mission to Mars will likely cost less than Apollo as a share of GDP.

 

Things might go wrong, and technology isn't perfect. But almost everything I can see that we would need appears to be within reach of a decade or less of R&D. Can we all at least agree that the biggest barrier to this is the will, not the way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...