Mars To Stay

[Alfastar]

Mars one. I call it more the biggest spaceflight fraud I ever seen.

Serious, the first problem is that the MSL was already very close what we can put the maximal mass we can soft land on Mars at this moment. So with our today tech, its unrealistic to put something ca 2500 kg landed soft on Mars.

Second of all, the only things what are really clear are the lander, and the launch rocket. But for the rest, there are totally unclear about there stuff.

Third point is that the mars one team is just a wild gripped group of people who got no experience in the spaceflight business, and those who have, joined only this project simple because there will attention to the mass.

Fourth point is that this mission cost circa 6 BILLION US DOLLARS! That's a lot of money. The donations are only on $100,000 dollars. Don't think companies are going serious support them. It would just cost too much, and it have a high risk that it not even become true also.

And the last point is more my opinion. We don't must go to Mars to make it a big brother planet. We must go in the name of humanity, science and exploration. With a return to earth included.

I surely some go say: But there got SpaceX. But don't forget also that SpaceX does this only because there own PR. It cost them almost nothing, and it gives SpaceX a good PR for the mass. And would be it not even just dumb to let SpaceX again in a non-profit project, who needs much millions of NASA funds to support (again) SpaceX non-profit projects?

[Kerbface]

How do you do that? Earth moving and digging equipment is heavy. A bulldozer or an excavator is typically 40tons. How do you send it to Mars surface? You also need it to be a special-built design to be low maintenance, electric, shielded, and to work in vacuum. It's going to cost billions... Who is going to pay for it and for why?

You can't make something out of nothing. You're talking about digging an underground base and now you say that you don't need heavy equipment. How are your colonists going to dig? With shovels in space suits?

Would it be crazy for me to say "yes"? Spacesuits impede movement but low gravity makes lifting either. Land near soft dirt, use big shovels to dig a trough, move base over with propellant or something, use pile of dirt plus whtever extra to cover dirt. If it takes a week, they've lived in poor shielding for a week, surely much less than deep space for 9 months, then when additional modules come down, you can have a trough prepared, then move it into place and stay in the soil shielded section until the rest is covered. Just a thought...

[The Stinger]

No it doesn't.

It provides the astronauts with drinkable water, breathable air and a comfortable atmosphere for almost 13 years. Hows that not proof?

No, they grow differently, which might have an impact on the yield of the crop. We don't know. And as I said, you can't extrapolate results in partial gravity from experiments in microgravity. They are two different environments and we have zero experience in partial gravity biology. Microgravity has negative effects on some biological functions. We don't know what level of partial gravity is safe in the long term. Do we need 1.0G, 0.6G, or is 0.371G enough? We simply don't know.

They just grow fine in space, Mars' gravity is in between zero gravity and Earth gravity. So there is no reason think that the plants wont grow the same.

We need to study the environment before we risk human lives on theoretical extrapolations.

As we have done countless times.

There's no reason to believe everything will go well. When you design a space mission, you always design it so that things won't go wrong. Then you assume they will, and design around them. Then you assume that your fixes will go wrong too, and you design more contingencies, and so on... It's not the rockets that make spaceflight expensive. It's the engineering.

http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html

The shielding issue is similar. We know that there is cosmic radiation, but we can't design a base without knowing the shielding requirements, and we can't know those requirements without doing more experimentation. We simply don't know yet if we can overcome the radiation issue.

Shielding has been done countless times, I think we know how much it needs.

How do you do that? Earth moving and digging equipment is heavy. A bulldozer or an excavator is typically 40tons. How do you send it to Mars surface? You also need it to be a special-built design to be low maintenance, electric, shielded, and to work in vacuum. It's going to cost billions... Who is going to pay for it and for why?

You mentioned heavy equipment, I think they don't need it at all. You don't need it because they've got time on their side.

In that case, you might as well build your bunker in a desert somewhere. There is no point in living on Mars if you're going to live in an underground bunker with TV screens for the outside view. You can do that on Earth for much cheaper.

To compensate for the FEW windows, I didn't say no windows at all.

You can't make something out of nothing. You're talking about digging an underground base and now you say that you don't need heavy equipment. How are your colonists going to dig? With shovels in space suits?

Probably something similar, at least not huge excavators sent from Earth.

How does your base expand with no supplies from Earth and no heavy equipment? How do you expand your food variety? Magic?

The base expanse via new settlers with their habitat modules and additional supplies.

If you do rely on supplies and hardware from Earth, who pays for it? For what ROI?

Sponsors, TV rights, investments, technology licenses, etc.

You can have a much more pleasant experience for a fraction of the cost by settling in Antarctica or on the Ocean floor. You don't need to go to Mars if you can live the same thing on Earth.

Because we've already been there. A problem with the ocean floor is the huge pressure.

Mars is a place which hasn't been physically explored by humans.

In space, everything is much harder. You need to develop new techniques and special tools for every engineering task you can imagine. Those are not unsurmountable problems, but you've got to try them out a few times to figure out what works and what doesn't in practice. Mundane stuff like breaking a drill bit or lubricating a hinge can become a huge issue when you have to don a space suit, prepare an EVA and fix things wearing space suit gloves. It takes time and a lot of money to design around that sort of stuff. You underestimate the engineering effort by several orders of magnitude.

Of course it will be hard, but proven technology already exist.

Now I can understand the point of a scientific outpost that would spend several months on Mars, with crew rotations, on a model similar to the ISS or to the Scott Amundsen base in Antarctica. It would be mostly government funded, maybe with some private sponsorships. It wouldn't be self sustaining, it would need resupplies, the crew would rotate, and it would provide lots of science.

I would personally prefer a Moon base first though, to develop the techniques and experience of working in partial gravity, ISRU, hydroponics, EVA techniques and hardware, etc....

Why waste money on a Moon base, when Mars provides condition similar to Earth? The Moon no mentionable atmosphere, a much lower gravity, higher radiation and it's tidally locked to Earth almost 30 days of Sun.

However, there is no point in a one-way colony for the next couple of decades. It serves no purpose, the cost would be tremendous, and there is no incentive for anyone to pay that much money.

And that's pretty sad, compared to all the useless thing humanity wastes it's money on.

[Alfastar]

- The Stinger: Shielding has been done countless times, I think we know how much it needs.

I think you miss a big difference between shielding probes for Mars, and shielding a manned spacecraft on Mars who must stay a very long time. Yes, you can say: But the ISS... But fact is that the ISS is in LEO, under the radiation belt. So shielding the ISS is a lot more easy then shielding a manned spacecraft who must land on Mars.

- The Stinger: You mentioned heavy equipment, I think they don't need it at all. You don't need it because they've got time on their side.

Well, something like digging stuff is not 1000 kg. Digging stuff on Mars would cost ca 15000 kg, aka 15 tons. That would be very uneasy and not cheap.

- The Stinger: The base expanse via new settlers with their habitat modules and additional supplies.

This is one of the most hilarious thing I ever hear. New settlers means more supplies, more supplies means more mass, more mass means more costs.

- The Stinger: sponsors, TV rights, investments, technology licenses, etc.

Well, would you serious spend you money towards a non-profit project what got a high chance that it fails? I think 99,99% of the people don't will fund them. Mars one already cost 6 BILLION $, at least!

- The Stinger: Why waste money on a Moon base, when Mars provides condition similar to Earth? The Moon no mentionable atmosphere, a much lower gravity, higher radiation and it's tidally locked to Earth almost 30 days of Sun.

A moonbase would be not a waste. It would be in the long term maybe far more cheaper and better then a Mars colony of 20 people. Also, it would cost less Delta-V, less money, more realistic and more safer then a Mars to stay mission. And don't forget the crew got only a communication delay of only 3 seconds, and can return to earth more easy then return to earth from Mars. And you got a ton of science and exploration if you build a moonbase. Maybe in the long term, it would even be very useful to build spacecrafts on the moon, and let them to the other planets.

[qfeys]

I think many people seem to forget something:

They're not going to use current equipment. They're going to use the equipment of 2023. Don't forget that SpaceX is planning to have fully reusable rockets against that time (which I think they will have) and that Planetary resources wants to have orbital fuel stations available (which might be tight, but I give them chances for success). I don't know how much the people of MarsOne have calculate this in (I guess totally not, to be sure), but if the costs of a rocket goes 1/100, trips to and from mars will be lots less expansive.

[Alfastar]

I think many people seem to forget something:

They're not going to use current equipment. They're going to use the equipment of 2023. Don't forget that SpaceX is planning to have fully reusable rockets against that time (which I think they will have) and that Planetary resources wants to have orbital fuel stations available (which might be tight, but I give them chances for success). I don't know how much the people of MarsOne have calculate this in (I guess totally not, to be sure), but if the costs of a rocket goes 1/100, trips to and from mars will be lots less expansive.

Well, I don't serious got the thrust that SpaceX re-usable goal become true in 2023. It would TBH even dumb to use government funds (again) for years and years for a re-usable first stage, and finally a re-usable second stage, who both terms of re-usable counts only for LEO missions, missions where there is almost no profit! Planetary resources orbital fuel stations are almost fiction, and who supply the fuel station? I don't see any real fact that Planetary resources fuel station become true.

SpaceX can't solve the problems. If spaceflight was so easy, then NASA already landed already people on Mars in the 70's.

[Thaniel]

There´s a point here I´d like to just crush into oblivion for being missused to discredit an idea,

and that is the size of the equipment for burrying the baseelements. I agree that relying on astronatus with shovels is taking it too far, but, there are alternatives that actualy fits the bill in size and weight allready in use.

Nibb31 "suggests" equipment/excavator in the 40 tons size, those are some of the absolutely largest ordinary excavators in use on earth today. One of those would probably be able to dig a trench for a module within an hour, be used as a crane to lower the module into the trench, and fill over it, before lunch. Then it´d have to wait a few months or a couple of years for more work to do. So, huge, developing a vacuum-rated version would be prohibitively expensive in itself.

Alfastar suggests not to use 1000gk equipment, but closer to 15 ton. The 15 ton sized excavater is the regular size you see at constrution sites around the globe. They are versatile and well developed for a multitude of jobs. This sized vehicle would also be able to do the job relatively quickly. I´d hazard a guess that within a day or two, a 10x4 meter sylinder section could be well and nicely buried underneath the sand with one of those. But, it´s still very heavy, and would take up a significant part of any shipment on it´s own, not to mention the challenge of landing the thing.

However, these sizes are unnecesary and way too large compared to what is needed. If they take some time doing the job, then there´s a couple of alternatives that would fit the description well, and be easily delivarable.

So, behold, in all it´s splendor, the 1 ton micro excavator: http://www.nixonhire.co.uk/1-tonne-micro-excavator-d51590.html

Also, check out the bright orange motorized mini dumpster.

Now, before you ramble on about things and problems that have NOTHING to do with it, let me clarify a couple of things first:

Not hydraulic, but mechanic. Springing a leak of hydraulic fluid on mars, even with spare parts, isn´t realy a good thing, because they would also have to replace that fluid. So, proven mechanical sollutions would be of benefit here.

Mars, with it´s significantly lower gravity wouldn´t put nearly as much strain on the construction itself, so exchanging hydraulics for mechanical gears and motors isn´t out of the question, and on earth, it´s frame is made of steel, it could easily be made using aluminiumalloys instead, reducing the weight by 1/3-1/2.

Unnmanned, make it radiocontrolled. That means it can be made even lighter and more robust, and the astronatus can be at a safe distance when operating it.

Granted, making something like that weighting in at around the same weight as curiosity, while that shouldn´t be of the most challenging engineering jobs, and not be too hard ot land, it would require some testing to get right. When something like this is sent to mars, it´s there to stay, and hopefully be used for years to come. Possibly decades. It should be constructed for simplicity and longevity. And all parts should be simple enough that they could be manufactured by a 3D printer, or as much as possible.

So, the job can be done by delivering a couple of machines with a total weight of some 1.5 tons to the surface of mars. Some work required for the job, but it´s all there. But to be sure that it actualy works asa intended, we realy should have a scientific base on the moon to test such equipment in advance. If it works out, it can be used there. And if it works fine on the moon, it will in all likelyhood work on mars as well.

Mars society have done a lot of simple everyday testing of livingconditions in a mars-like setup. Or as lose as they have easily come. Even at their level of simulation (wich realy isn´t all that genuine) have still come up with a lot of small things and contraptions and procedures and sollutions to problems that will arise in such situations. Combine their experience, with the experience of NASA and other spacefaring nations, then test it out and develope it on the moon, will be a good start. And in any way you see it, going back to the moon, to stay this time, is the way to go. It will grant valuable experience for further exploration later on, it will be an excelent training ground for the astronauts heading for mars, itś close enough to relatively easy get help if needed, and a continued presence there is a good start for later mining and industry in space, when that becomes will be beneficial.

[japascoe]

I think many people seem to forget something:

They're not going to use current equipment. They're going to use the equipment of 2023. Don't forget that SpaceX is planning to have fully reusable rockets against that time (which I think they will have) and that Planetary resources wants to have orbital fuel stations available (which might be tight, but I give them chances for success). I don't know how much the people of MarsOne have calculate this in (I guess totally not, to be sure), but if the costs of a rocket goes 1/100, trips to and from mars will be lots less expansive.

I currently helping to supervise a bunch of engineering students who are making a design for a one way Mars mission based on the Mars One plan. For three sets of 4 astronauts; assuming SpaceX delivers on their promise of a Falcon 9 Heavy launch only being $125 million, assuming 2023 technology, and only considering the transport of the astronauts (so not sending all the additional base stuff), at a quite early design stage, the cost estimate is $16 billion. Most likely that will increase, and of course the base modules are not factored in.

I'm rather sceptical that Mars One can deliver what they promise for only $6 billion. Though for context I should point out that $6 billion is only half of what was spent on tobacco advertising in the US alone in the year 2006 [http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/tobacco_industry/marketing/] (Yes that is $12.4 billion, just spent on advertising tobacco!)

Mars One is also rather contradictory about the technical readiness, on the one hand they claim they're using off-the-shelf tech that can be delivered today, on the other hand once they gather sufficient funding they will start on conceptual design? Those two statements are mutually contradictory.

I don't believe Mars One will succeed (though fortunately they will probably fail long before it costs lives), but I'd be happy to be proved wrong . I'm fine with the concept of sending people to Mars one way, but I don't think Mars One's funding model is reliable enough and a lot of technology still needs to be developed. Yes, there are a lot of concepts of how a Mars base could work, but going from a concept to a working object is always a lot harder than people think. The challenges are definitely not insurmountable, but it's important to realise at the moment we just have an idea of how we might solve the problems, we haven't actually solved them yet.

[Kerbface]

If they do implement artificial G in a Mars mission, and they've got to sometime if we want to do any longer missions in future, how do you think it will be implemented? I'm thinking the crew module will be either connected to the engine/fuel tanks and then detatch with a tether between them and RCS will try to get some tension there, or if something more solid and sturdy is required, have the two attatched by a long structural lattices or whatever those are called. Unless this would make communication difficult, I'm really a little unclear about whether it's necessary for the communication dishes to move in a straight line or what.

[jwenting]

Mars One is also rather contradictory about the technical readiness, on the one hand they claim they're using off-the-shelf tech that can be delivered today, on the other hand once they gather sufficient funding they will start on conceptual design? Those two statements are mutually contradictory.

I don't believe Mars One will succeed (though fortunately they will probably fail long before it costs lives), but I'd be happy to be proved wrong . I'm fine with the concept of sending people to Mars one way, but I don't think Mars One's funding model is reliable enough and a lot of technology still needs to be developed.

Not necessarily. There's a difference between having the science and engineering principles known and having a design based on those principles. Not saying they're going to be able to pull it off, far from it, I indeed seriously doubt both their technology and their business model, but that's no contradiction there.

[The Stinger]

I think you miss a big difference between shielding probes for Mars, and shielding a manned spacecraft on Mars who must stay a very long time. Yes, you can say: But the ISS... But fact is that the ISS is in LEO, under the radiation belt. So shielding the ISS is a lot more easy then shielding a manned spacecraft who must land on Mars.

First off I never used the ISS as an example for shielding, only for life support.

Well, something like digging stuff is not 1000 kg. Digging stuff on Mars would cost ca 15000 kg, aka 15 tons. That would be very uneasy and not cheap.

Get something lighter. What about a dirt throwing machine? http://www.sheyennemfg.com/index.php?p=cyclone

This is one of the most hilarious thing I ever hear. New settlers means more supplies, more supplies means more mass, more mass means more costs.

The 2nd group would would land in their habitat module, which would be hooked up to the existing base and they bring new crops with them. Hows that hilarious?

Well, would you serious spend you money towards a non-profit project what got a high chance that it fails? I think 99,99% of the people don't will fund them. Mars one already cost 6 BILLION $, at least!

What made you come to the conclusion that Mars One has a high chance of failure and how did you get the 99,99%?

- The Stinger: Why waste money on a Moon base, when Mars provides condition similar to Earth? The Moon no mentionable atmosphere, a much lower gravity, higher radiation and it's tidally locked to Earth almost 30 days of Sun.

A moonbase would be not a waste. It would be in the long term maybe far more cheaper and better then a Mars colony of 20 people. Also, it would cost less Delta-V, less money, more realistic and more safer then a Mars to stay mission. And don't forget the crew got only a communication delay of only 3 seconds, and can return to earth more easy then return to earth from Mars. And you got a ton of science and exploration if you build a moonbase. Maybe in the long term, it would even be very useful to build spacecrafts on the moon, and let them to the other planets.

The Moon is exposed more to cosmic radiation and dangerous secondary particles when they hit the surface.

It's day lasts a month. Lower gravity, 1/16th of that of Earth's.

You have a lot more science and exploration on Mars in terms of past or present life.

Edit: To add to the discussion, who is planning to go to Mars?

NASA? If funding keeps getting cut they wont get anywhere. Russian? Oh they want to go as they say, but they don't have a clear plan.

Europe? They don't even have a manned craft.

China? Seems like they are on track.

Edited June 16, 2013 by The Stinger

[3_bit]

Maybe if we get Russia AND the US convinced (and some rivalry....) we could see another massive technological growth.

[Kerbface]

Edit: To add to the discussion, who is planning to go to Mars?

NASA? If funding keeps getting cut they wont get anywhere. Russian? Oh they want to go as they say, but they don't have a clear plan.

Europe? They don't even have a manned craft.

China? Seems like they are on track.

All of them, why not? The ISS was a project of cooperation, why couldn't a Mars mission be?

[Sathurn]

Sending only four at a time is doomed to fail.

People Need other People. We need to send a hundred or so as a start. If it is a one way trip.

[ZingidyZongxxx]

Sending only four at a time is doomed to fail.

People Need other People. We need to send a hundred or so as a start. If it is a one way trip.

A hundred or so people would be insanely expensive to send. While each person may not add much weight themselves, there's still the extra equipment and supplies that you need for each person. We could send more than four at first though, maybe ten or so? Just a guess here, not sure if this would be much more expensive.

[Henri von Braun]

I don't support a 100 man expedition. I think a moonbase would be better on the short term.

THEN, a marsbase. <--- Only a limited number of people , 5-10...

[Sleipnir]

Landing on Mars (doesn't matter if Mars One or any other flight) will be a huge milestone for humanity and society, and might even bring many positive changes and open a few eyes of our actual capabilities. I find it very sad and pathetic actually, that so many people think about costs and complain about funding..........as always said in Star Trek: "Space IS the final frontier" for all of mankind. If we all want to survive as a species we MUST sooner or later put our combined effort into space travel/exploration. And I find it pathetic and dumb that Space travel/exploration even gets a price tag. It IS INVALUABLE to our species. We have already so many technologies, so many plans and so many theories that could be put in place but simply are not due to monetary "cost". We as a species that puts so much value into money and materialism is just sad. I truly hope Mankind will wake up one day and put more effort and funding into space travel. So much waste, so little time.

[Kerbface]

Sending only four at a time is doomed to fail.

People Need other People. We need to send a hundred or so as a start. If it is a one way trip.

That's insane. Do you have the slightest idea how difficult this would be, not to mention unnecessary? I believe it was Russian astronauts who recently did a test of being in isolation with 5 people in a simulated long term mission (think it was about 15 months). They got through it fine. 4-8 people will be fine for the first Mars mission, more can come later. Astronauts have rigorous training that lasts many years, they know how to get used to this sort of thing.

[CleverWalrus]

The main problem i can forecast:

Something goes very, very wrong and we have a multiplier of 4 in people that will die over TV.

Is this something we really need?

Sorry but for how much i'd like the humans to colonize mars i think we are not yet ready for it..

[JelloTickles]

Why don't they just make a moon landing instead? We could even make a abse and it won't cost as much to make a base there.

[Sathurn]

With a launch window every 26 months, It would take 54 YEARS to get 100 people to Mars. 15 months is not a lifetime. We are talking about sending people for the rest of there lives to Mars. People need people. We each know (to varying degrees) about 100-150 people, about the size of a small village. Sure sending 100 people would be expensive, sending one is expensive. But you need to send enough that there is enough to support each other.

[czokletmuss]

I think they should do a fake Mars landing. That's the only thing within the range of possibility.

[ngianoplus]

6 Billion is not a lot of money to ask for... If 3 Billion people donated 2 dollars... we would have a Mars Base. If 2 Billion Donated 3 dollars... we would have a mars base. If 1 Billion people donated 6 dollars... If 500 Million people donated 12 dollars... Now factor in the Investors, Generosity of the Wealthy, and Possible Government funding. I believe the monetary issue is a sad excuse for WE ARE AFRAID

[CoriW]

So after reading what's been posted in this thread after my earlier post. I figured it would probably be appropriate for this link to be mentioned...

Mars One FAQ

[Kamsko]

Voted no - other. Because the moon is like, right there in our face, and it wouldn't be all so different from Mars as far as bringing life support goes. Plus if some thing super important breaks then it's an easy few days trip home. On Mars you would just kinda be **** out of luck. Walk before running, tread water in the shallow end before belly flopping off the high dive.