Mars in the next 50 years

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by SnowsportsSid, Feb 26, 2011.

  1. Acitnoids Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    704
    I agree, we should be hitting up the Moon before prospecting Mars. Even the surface sediment has value. Even though there is no true president, NASA estimates that 10 ounces of lunar material is worth $1 million (that's $3,500 per gram). Obviously this number will plummet as more material is brought back but, if there are viable veins of valuable material up there then even clearing the overlaying sediment will be worth it for awhile. The entire Apollo mission cost $170 billion in 2005 dollars over 14 years. That's the equivalent of bringing back 885lb of sediment a year. Apollo 11-17 (-13) brought back 841lb over 6 years but their mission plan was mainly explorative. As of right now there is no president for the value of Mars's sediment.
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2011
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Acitnoids Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    704
    Wow, that's even more over simplistic than I make it sound. Landing may be easier but what about taking off?
    My comments where a reflection on what can happen in fifty years. There are plenty of logistical reasons for returning to the Moon. A lot of things can happen in fifty years and there are a lot of things that need to be overcome before a manned voyage to Mars is feasible. For example, the in-route radiation exposure problem hasn't been mentioned yet, nor has the logistics of supplying a round trip to Mars (food, fuel and the like). If these problems can be solved within the next twenty years or so then I say a manned voyage to Mars and back should be possible within the next fifty years.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. orcot Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,488

    I can only think of 3 reason to prefer a human presence (on the moon) over tele-operating.

    1 Humans can measure the decay on their bodies to see what reduced gravity and radiation exposure do to a human.
    2 It looks really cool to have your people their
    3 Theirs always the offchange someone hacks into your teleoperating system.

    That's it depending how important you find those 3 criteria I see no other reason to send people to the moon.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    Yeah those are exploration reason but after 30 years that hasn't been enough.
    "They" project that the world population will reach 10.5 billion by 2050. More people more problems. More chances that disasters will effect them and destroy more property. With more people more discord, more territorial problems.

    I think it gets worse as a world order not better and that doesn't bold well for Mars exploration.
     
  8. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Could you provide us with a link that tells us what that material is and who is telling us that, thanks.

    Oh, how much will it cost to get that stuff mined, refined, then transported back to earth?
     
  9. orcot Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,488
    Well certain stuff is getting pretty rare on earth like helium and phosporous and many more. That seems like any good reason.
     
  10. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Helium-3 (He-3) is a light, non-radioactive isotope of helium with two protons and one neutron. It is rare on Earth, and is sought for use in nuclear fusion research. The abundance of helium-3 is thought to be greater on the Moon.
    WIKI

    So they really don't know how much is there which means they must do allot of work to find it, extract it, then refine it before sending it back to earth. All that costs billions of dollars to employ the people to do all of that work, house them, feed them, transport them and take care of them if accidents happen.

    I ask again for a link to show where you get your information from, thanks.
     
  11. orcot Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,488
    Lunar dust is not official for sale. Nasa has given some of it away ro other country's as presents and some get sold on auctions where I gues he must have got the figure. here is a article where someone paid 69000$ for a lunar fragment.

    A other way to look at it is the cost of the development of the apollo program and all the launches (170 billion$) and how much they returnend (382kg)... But that would be a stupid way to determine the worth

    Actually I was talking abouth yust regular helium that is being used mostly as coolents but also in the manufactoring process of... many things it is found as abundend on mars as on earth.

    If you want to mine something in the near future phobos (the inner moon of mars) is your best candidate. Mine for water ice (mostly) and send it to earths orbit using a space elevator, that can be made out of kevlar it only has to be 10.49km long and if you make it 20km the centripetal force would be enough to hurle it toward the earth where it should be catched in orbit.
     
  12. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Do we actually have to land on mars? Why not have a human controlled mothership, that carrier a dozen probes of various sizes. I'm sure you could make a few of them with a return system that will be picked up by the mothership and docked to be brought back to earth. That way, rather than having a lander like the one they had setup for the Ares and for DIRECT, you could fit even more probes and an airlock with an arm for retrieving the probes returning from the surface and then putting them in the large airlock.

    Once a probe is in the airlock it then functions like a hangar. The astronauts remove samples from the return probe and pack them either into the crew capsule to be returned to earth or back into the airlock/secondary ship. When the ship makes its burn back to earth it will take the secondary ship its attached to with it. It can then dock with the ISS and move the samples over to the ISS which can pack the samples on the next few craft that visit it.

    The advantages of this approach are:

    1. Humans won't have to land solving the problem of re entry.
    2. The habitable part of the secondary craft can be slightly larger then the actual capsule. This means that in theory it could work like a life raft the entire journey back and then dock with the ISS to get the astronauts back to earth without having to risk a damaged heatshield from the capsule.
    3. This approach could bring back vast amounts of samples and deploy a great many probes.
    4. This approash can become automated and controlled in part by robots which can reduce the necessity for crews which means more fuel rather then oxygen.
    5. With extra space for habitability general crew survivability and comfort can be improved.

    The disadvantages:

    1. A long period of time for the astronauts to get hit by radiation.
    2. Due to both ships, the capsule and the secondary craft, returning together the amount of fuel to be able to make the return flight is significantly greater. But this may be offset by the fuel capacity of the secondary ship.

    Second approach:

    Have an identical space craft to the one above except that when it fires for the return trip it will burn the fuel in the secondary craft from an engine on said craft until it almost runs out of fuel (why use the capsule's fuel supply for all the acceleration when you can use the secondary's to get a head start?). Then eject the secondary craft, and with its remaining fuel it will deccelerate itself using thrusters to distance itself from the capsule. Then the capsule will turn around and fire its engines. This approach will create a sort of two stage rocket.

    Advantages:

    1. Could potentially leave the capsule with excess fuel which can be used in an emergency.

    2. Could make for a faster return trip

    3. The ship will be less massive for its secondary acceleration through the capsule's engines.

    Disadvantages:

    1. You lose the lifeboat
    2. You lose a significant amount of storage capacity
    3. You lose living space for the astronauts on that long flight home.
     
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    It's about the same difficulty as taking off from the moon; a bit more difficult due to the higher delta-V requirement. It's a LOT easier than taking off from Earth.

    There's an additional consideration, though. When you go to the Moon you have to carry every bit of fuel you need to get back. When you go to Mars, you can use the atmosphere to manufacture fuel. You land with a few hundred kilograms of hydrogen as "starter" fuel, make methane and oxygen from it, then take off with several thousand kilograms of liquid methane and oxygen for the return trip. That (newly fueled) stage puts you into Mars-Earth transfer orbit, and the remaining course correction/orbital insertion fuel can be something easily stored, like hydrazine.

    That was my question - what are they?

    That's a problem for both the moon and Mars. Indeed, the problem on the Moon is much more severe; you have the problem on the surface _and_ enroute.

    Google "Mars Direct." We have a pretty good handle on the fuel problem.

    It's possible in five if we really wanted to do it. We have all the technology to do it right now; we just lack the will.
     
  14. orcot Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,488
    This is true but NASA will probably take all of their return fuel with them. NASA has 3 concept for a martian sample return mission (link) and in none of these concept mission will it make any of it's return fuel. So if NASA isn't willing (willing because it would be cheaper to use this system) to use this concept for a unmannend probe then they won't be using it for a mannend mission either
     
  15. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    the problem with manufacturing is, what happens when something breaks? Its not like you can bring extras, they are pretty large systems. And some repairs are too hard to do or don't have the materials. Its not like they have the oxygen and food supply to survive long enough for a rescue.

    That's probably why NASA wants to be able to bring their own fuel.
     
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Send two. The Mars Direct plan works like this:

    Launch 1 - send an Earth Return Vehicle to Mars. It lands and starts making fuel. Once it's full it does a self test and sends back a "ready" signal.

    Launch 2 - send the crew and habitat on the next launch.

    Launch 3- send a second Earth Return Vehicle right afterwards.

    The crew lands. The very first thing they do is inspect the ERV, maybe even do a test firing. If it works, all is well. The second ERV lands somewhere far away in preparation for the next mission.

    If it doesn't work, the second ERV is diverted to land near them. It then processes fuel for the return trip. If something on _it_ breaks, they have an entire spare ERV to raid for parts.
     
  17. Acitnoids Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    704
    Sure.
    http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock
    That link also states the total amount of lunar mission samples retured by each mission and gives a good rundown on what the material is made of. While I'm at it, here's the link where I found the total cost of the Apollo Program ($25.4 billion in 1973 dollars).
    http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program
     
  18. orcot Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,488
    The biggest invention for NASA (apart from the rocket itself) has been multi stage rockets. I believe when return flights are concernend making your fuel on the spot is as important like the former 2 inventions.
    You are asking? What happens if something breaks and that their won't be enough food and air for a rescue mission. But in the first case we are talking abouth returning rocks they don't need air or food.


    And what abouth the repairs if during the apollo mission the fuel tanks reptured and their fuel was spilling out do you believe they could have stopped the leak yust because they where humans?
    So fuel leaks can't be stopped by humans or machine and the sabatier reactor itself is a 1 meter long rod with a diameter of 12 centimeter this could probably be made on the spot but then again the SPE (to electrolyse the water into H2 and O) can't probably be fixed.
     
  19. Acitnoids Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    704
    The last example we have for successfully landing a craft on the surface of Mars was the Mars Exploration Rover Mission.
    I didn't look hard enough to find the exact date for when construction began but, Spirit left the surface of the Earth on June 10, 2003. I think it's safe to say that it'll take at least $950 million to land two unmanned craft, for the purpose of scientific discovery, onto the surface of Mars and then operate them for at least seven years. This however does not address sending anything back to Earth. Seeing that the escape velocity of Mars is 5.03 Km/s compared to 11.19 Km/s for Earth and 2.38 Km/s for the Moon, the initial price-tag may be doubled. I don't know enough about the industry to give a more exact price. It goes without saying that adding human cargo to the payload will increase this price substantially. If all we wanted to do was collect a series of core samples and rocks for profit on the open market then it could probably be done for less than $2 billion (no need for expensive measuring instruments). As the market gets flooded with unrefined material it may become more cost effective to refine it on sight. After all, industrial advancements are market driven.
    .
    The question that pops into my mind is: Is it prudent to allow privet companies to ransom off scientific material to the highest bidder?
     
  20. DeeCee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,793
    Just to put those costs into perspective....

    "More than 100 bankers at Royal Bank of Scotland were paid more than £1m last year and total bonus payouts reached nearly £1bn – even though the bailed-out bank reported losses of £1.1bn for 2010."

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/feb/24/rbs-bankers-bonuses-despite-loss?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

    "With third-quarter figures from JP Morgan expected to begin a bumper profit reporting season today, a study of more than three dozen banks, hedge funds, money-management and securities firms estimates they will pay $144bn (£90bn) in salary and benefits this year, a 4% increase on 2009."

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/oct/12/us-bankers-record-pay-bonuses

    2009-10 NFL Salaries by Team.

    http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/football/nfl/salaries/team

    The money is out there....

    Mars Base One will be staffed entirely by bankers and professional sportsmen.

    No bad thing perhaps.

    Good to be back.
    Dee Cee
     
  21. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Only if Shane Warne is one of the staffers.

    And welcome back!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    <3
     

Share This Page