BBC asked some top professor from a University if they could plan a Mars Mission...

[Cmdr. Arn1e]

(damn, tried so hard not to typo! Professors!)

And what they have come up with uses all-current tech (will link in the other thread about sending manned missions to here to keep it seperate) but looks like Shynung isn't completely crazy after all (Despite his mad professor avatar!)

Linky Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23349496

they've put it all together into a very nice little presentation with a fair bit of video with the scientists/professors explaining the various step of the journey... Not sure if I could knowingly drink my own recycled urine, let alone anyone elses!

And that HAL-9000 eye they have in their simulation video... you sure that's a good idea guys?! hehe!

Please, discuss your thoughts on the theory and tech behind their thinking, and say if you think it is feasible (or possible) with current tech

Edited May 17, 2014 by Cmdr. Arn1e

[Brotoro]

...Not sure if I could knowingly drink my own recycled urine, let alone anyone elses!

You already do. The water molecules you drink have long histories involving many kidneys and bladders.

[Redjoker]

You already do. The water molecules you drink have long histories involving many kidneys and bladders.

Especially dinosaur's kidneys and bladders.

"Dinosaurs, as a taxonomic group, have been around[10] for 230 million years, but their heyday was the mid-to-late Jurassic period. In this period, there were probably around 5 trillion kilograms of dinosaur alive at any given time.[11] (Today, there are probably only a few hundred billion kilograms of living dinosaur,[12] 50 billion of it chicken).

If we assume Jurassic dinosaur water requirements were similar to mammal ones,[13] then this suggests dinosaurs drank something like 10^22 or 10^23 liters of water during the Mesozoic eraâ€â€more than the total volume of the oceans (1021 liters).

The average "residence time" of water in the oceansâ€â€the amount of time a water molecule spends there before moving into another part of the water cycleâ€â€is about 3,000 years,[14] and no part of the water cycle traps water for more than a few hundred thousand years. This means we can assume that, over timescales of millions of years, Earth's water is thoroughly mixedâ€â€and dinosaurs had plenty of time to drink it all many times over.

This means that while the chances are that most of the water in your soda has never been in another soda, almost all of it has been drunk by at least one dinosaur."

from http://what-if.xkcd.com/74/

Edited May 18, 2014 by Redjoker
Didn't realize that my copy and pasting left the superscript off

[Tiberion]

That is uh.. 10^22 (23, 21..) or 10 to the 22nd power (10E+22) - not 1022 liters, heh.

[Redjoker]

That is uh.. 10^22 (23, 21..) or 10 to the 22nd power (10E+22) - not 1022 liters, heh.

Thanks, didn't realize that it did not carry the superscript over

[Scotius]

Cheers! *downs his tea* Speaking about space drinks - astronauts on the ISS drink recycled water too. I've watched an YT clip of an astronaut preparing a dinner onboard the station. He commented that recycled water actually tastes better than water in his own house.

[Deathsoul097]

Am I the only one who noticed this is almost exactly the "Mars Direct" mission architecture that was produced a while back?

[Cmdr. Arn1e]

I think there could be a big difference between 'naturally recycled' and 'closed system recycled' - on earth, we all know how the water cycle works, and that our drinking water tastes different from place to place depending on the salts and minerals they have passed through (all of which are in trace amounts and don't really affect us, apart from the taste of the water). In a closed system, the water should technically be 'purer' simply because it hasn't come into conatact with anything that would/could be dissolved... my misgivings come about when I realised that as a piece of technology, it has the ability to break down, and it could be hard to repair/replace if not designed to be accessed by the crew during transit...

Anyone notice they didn't mention other waste products? I have images in my head of very small nasty asteroids leaving a trail to mars >.<

[Dodgey]

That last point of yours is very interesting Cmdr, I've seen a lot about the recycling of urine and not much of feces. Obviously they would dry it out as much as possible, but what after that?

[Simon Ross]

In truth, there is nothing to stop us sending a manned flight to Mars, the technology has been there for decades.

It just needs the political will and the money

Simon

[Cmdr. Arn1e]

That last point of yours is very interesting Cmdr, I've seen a lot about the recycling of urine and not much of feces. Obviously they would dry it out as much as possible, but what after that?

One proposed theory is to store it in the hull to use as a radiation shield... but to be honest I think it might be better to 'recycle' it in it's own way - to grow food to cut down on wieght again... I guess it would need a larger ship, but the other ideas put forward could still be used, and it woulld also double as a science experiment in it's own right, testing how native Earth plant life reacts to the type of artificial gravity, how decomposed the compost matter is, how much of a danger the decomposition is to the crew's health, whether there should be some sort of isolation from the crew (automated/robotic processes carried out by subsystems on the ship) and so on... and if they do it right, they can even do both at once - use it as radiation shielding AND grow plants with it, as the root structures of the plants, once mature, will bind the 'compost' together and add it's own radiation absorbing quality (depending on the plants used, so mostly vegetables, herbs and other similar plants) - PLUS it would double as carbon-scrubber; plants mostly use up CO2 (reversed at 'night time', but they use MUCH less oxygen in their 'sleep' phase than an animal would) and so would cut down on a huge bulky machine to do the job...

That's my idea, anyway! Anyone got any alternates?

Edited May 18, 2014 by Cmdr. Arn1e
still can't spell!

[shynung]

I think it's likely that they use it for radiation shielding. Dried solid waste doesn't have any immediate use in a spacecraft environment that I know of.

If they use it as plant compost in an onboard greenhouse system of some sort, they'd have to be very careful about what they are going to grow. Plants need several types of nutrients in their growing medium, specific to each species/genus. If the solid waste is lacking in one of these nutrients, they'd get malnourished plants at best, and nothing at worst.

Also, I think doubling solid waste as both compost and radiation shielding doesn't sound like a good idea; it sounded like one would be feeding irradiated compost to the plants. Not sure about its safety at all; I wouldn't eat an apple that has been exposed to solar radiation in space, if I were ever offered one.

...looks like Shynung isn't completely crazy after all (Despite his mad professor avatar!)

Approved.

[Cmdr. Arn1e]

I think it's likely that they use it for radiation shielding. Dried solid waste doesn't have any immediate use in a spacecraft environment that I know of.

If they use it as plant compost in an onboard greenhouse system of some sort, they'd have to be very careful about what they are going to grow. Plants need several types of nutrients in their growing medium, specific to each species/genus. If the solid waste is lacking in one of these nutrients, they'd get malnourished plants at best, and nothing at worst.

Also, I think doubling solid waste as both compost and radiation shielding doesn't sound like a good idea; it sounded like one would be feeding irradiated compost to the plants. Not sure about its safety at all; I wouldn't eat an apple that has been exposed to solar radiation in space, if I were ever offered one.:

Very good points... Another thing about waste is methane and other by-products; could this get filtered out by the life-support machanisms and used as fuel for somthing, maybe?

Not the nicest discussion we seem to be having by everyday standards, but all scientifically relevant for long, long space journeys of course

Anyone got any other ideas on this mission spec? Do you think they used Modded KSP for some of their ships in the videos? those RCS thrusters look very familiar!!

How about power generation for when they are in shadow? or do you think they will have enough storage capacity for any planet/oid shadow they encounter?

[xenomorph555]

This seems like a very good concept , now we just need a billionare and hundreds of engineers. Oh and falcon ultra heavy.

[jwenting]

Cheers! *downs his tea* Speaking about space drinks - astronauts on the ISS drink recycled water too. I've watched an YT clip of an astronaut preparing a dinner onboard the station. He commented that recycled water actually tastes better than water in his own house.

depending on where that house is, that might not be so surprising. Many places have horrendous water, with massive amounts of chalk and/or chlorine in it.

[shynung]

Very good points... Another thing about waste is methane and other by-products; could this get filtered out by the life-support machanisms and used as fuel for somthing, maybe?

Not the nicest discussion we seem to be having by everyday standards, but all scientifically relevant for long, long space journeys of course

Anyone got any other ideas on this mission spec? Do you think they used Modded KSP for some of their ships in the videos? those RCS thrusters look very familiar!!

How about power generation for when they are in shadow? or do you think they will have enough storage capacity for any planet/oid shadow they encounter?

Methane is usable as rocket fuel. One simply needs an oxidizer to burn it with. Or, if an NTR is present, using it directly as propellant is also a possibility.

RCS thrusters are pretty generic as far as I know. You'd find these at almost every spacecraft that needs quick attitude adjustments. The position is also quite similar; almost always a group of four 4(or 5)-way thrusters located around the center of mass. Note that I have to exclude space capsules and shuttle designs, as these has a heatshield on one side, on which thruster nozzles may not cut into.

Power generation needs are usually taken account for in initial vehicle designs. In this case, they have options. Solar panels might be obvious, but the fact that Mars is farther to the Sun than Earth needs to be considered. Nuclear power generation systems could be used (either RTG or a fission reactor), but this requires additional shielding from the reactors themselves. However, if the design calls for NTRs, using them as power generators when coasting is definitely possible.

Edited May 18, 2014 by shynung

[jwenting]

One proposed theory is to store it in the hull to use as a radiation shield... but to be honest I think it might be better to 'recycle' it in it's own way - to grow food to cut down on wieght again...

that would actually do both. The water tanks would act as a radiation shield, and be refilled as water gets recycled.

And that recycling might involve using it in a hydroponic garden. Ureum is high in nitrogen, good fertiliser.

[Albert VDS]

Am I the only one who noticed this is almost exactly the "Mars Direct" mission architecture that was produced a while back?

Yeah, except Mars Direct uses a much simpler aproach of getting the return fuel.

Bring some hydrogen and use a converter to create methane and oxygen.

[Cmdr. Arn1e]

Yeah, except Mars Direct uses a much simpler aproach of getting the return fuel.

Bring some hydrogen and use a converter to create methane and oxygen.

I thought this way was better, as they get the hydrogen from converting the oxygen, so even more weight saving... either way, it will have to be a seperate mission to send the converter machinary...

[maccollo]

I thought this way was better, as they get the hydrogen from converting the oxygen, so even more weight saving... either way, it will have to be a seperate mission to send the converter machinary...

I'm not so sure about that. Pumping air is easy. Excavating huge volumes of soil is not. Keep in mind that Mars Direct requires 8 tones of hydrogen because in that plan the ERV is going straight from the surface to an earth return trajectory. In this case you would need much less since you are only going to low orbit, so let's say only 2 tons is required. Even so this will require a huge amount of digging.

From each ton of soil you dig up there will be some quantity of water ice in it, and from this ice you will get 1/9 hydrogen. If we assume the excavated material is 50% water we're going to need to dig up 18 tons of soil for 1 ton of hydrogen.

In the 3d illustration they are using a curiosity derived platform to do this. Frankly I find that to be wildly optimistic.

I mean just think about how long it takes every time JPL wants to drill a tiny hole on Mars. They have to be super careful so that they don't accidentally damage the rover.

In this case there is no time to be careful and at the same time it's a very demanding activity that will produce a lot of wear and tear. You are going to need a sturdy platform, which means it will be heavy.

Now on top of this you have to consider:

The cost of designing and building this vehicle.

The cost of operating this vehicle for the whole year it will take to gather all of the water.

Risking mission failure if the rover breaks since it cannot be repaired.

Edited May 18, 2014 by maccollo

[Valley]

The fact is we could colonize Mars with the Tech we have now. Could have for the past decade. There are books on it all over the place. What we need is some reason to do so besides 'because we can'.

[jwenting]

we could have done it in the 1970s or '80s at the latest if we'd kept up the development of heavy boosters instead of dreaming about using the NASA budget to buy votes for congresscritters using the SSTS.

And oh, "because it's there" is a perfectly valid reason to go places, so is "because we can".

[CaptRobau]

This proposal doesn't sound that different from the ones we've heard before, although artificial gravity spinning isn't always in them.

My favorite manned Mars landing plan has been Footsteps to Mars. It is based on the lessons learned by Apollo and the Space Shuttle that if you accomplish your goal, your budget will be cut and if you do something often enough, the public will lose interest. So instead of going straight for Mars' surface a couple of times and losing either funding or public attention, there would be several steps:

-Mars Flyby

-Deimos Landing

-Phobos Landing

-Equipment Tests in Earth Orbit and Lunar Surface

-Mars Polar Landing

-Mars Equatorial Landing

So each mission would seem fresh enough to keep the public interested and until the first person set foot Mars, politicians would be weary to cancel the program for fear of wasting such an investment before it could be put to effect.

[peadar1987]

Also, I think doubling solid waste as both compost and radiation shielding doesn't sound like a good idea; it sounded like one would be feeding irradiated compost to the plants. Not sure about its safety at all; I wouldn't eat an apple that has been exposed to solar radiation in space, if I were ever offered one.

Actually, in the majority of cases, exposing something to radiation doesn't make it radioactive. You can get rare occasions where neutrons are captured by nuclei and transmute them into radioactive isotopes, but there is a pretty negligible neutron flux in space.

In fact, a lot of the food you eat might already be treated with far higher doses of radiation to preserve it, depending on where you live: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation

[Kruleworld]

Originally Posted by Cmdr. Arn1e View Post

...Not sure if I could knowingly drink my own recycled urine, let alone anyone elses!

You already do.

especially if you live down-stream from someone else....