h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Nice idea but can you "just fill up the fuel tanks and go home"? All this technology is great in theory but will it actually work? All it takes is one small glitch and the astronauts are stranded on Mars. To get everything 100% effective and reliable will take some time. I don't think we'll be on Mars for 15 years at least.

this technology is not just theory.

The entire basis of mars direct is that you use existing technology, with redundant backups to make the plan as robust as possible.

the fuels that are being moved are methane (ch4) and oxygen (o2). neither of these are especially difficult to pump around, and martian conditions don't significantly add to the problem.

as to being there in 15 years, zubrin makes the point that it takes 10 years to take the technology from being existing, to full scale production.

Technology is not the most difficult of the issues, as is the case through out the history of exploration, the problems are economic and political. Fnding the funding and the political will to develop the technology and support the project are the real challenges. In the current environment of fragmenting nation-states, terrorism, poverty, and a global mindset of political expediency and short term thinking, doing things for idealistic reasons in the global economy today is a hard sell. The money sources will be looking for profitability and low risk. Politicians ,corporations, and opportunists of all stripes will be looking for vehicles to perpetuate their power.
It may be best to for go all public entities, and wealty individuals and form a private "grass roots" collaboration within the scientific, engineering, and nonprofit communities. Big money would be needed but I am tentative about allowing corporations into the process. My suspicion is that they will arrive with their typical agenda to dominate the project and enrich themselves by gaining exclusivity to the technology and information that would be derived from it. The goal of the project should be to pass on the benefits to the world. Practically speaking it would be extremely difficult for any organization to maintain such an idealstic goal.
I am willing to consider the problem with other interested parties, and brainstorm our way to some solutions. I think the first course of action sould be for everyone involved to provide input into the making of a comprhensive list that states as many of the problems, technical, financial and political as possible. A parallel effort should be made to develop the framework of an organization that could take on such a project. I think one could equate this effort to the building of a nation, a virtual nation with a unifying purpose to explore and colonize the planet Mars.

there are a bunch of people with exactly that agenda, called the mars society.

see http://www.marssociety.org/

also there are another bunch who are just getting more formalised and organised to promote advancement generally, with an eye on space specifically over at http://www.pescu.net/

Thanks for the web sites. I am aware of them. I am more interested in the ideas and thoughts of the people on this site concerning the exploration of Mars.

Anyway, by my understanding of the points made in "The Case For Mars", the fuel tanks will already be ful before the humans leave Earth.

My real question is whether it wouldn't be beter (for political reasons) to colonize the Moon first.

aarrgghh!!!!....not the moon again.

sorry, but the moon makes a fine end point. unfortunately it is too simple with a moon project to have the same thing happen as happened with apollo.

first, you cost cut so the hardware can only go to the moon. then you take shortcuts with safety and redundancy. then something goes boom, or some politician wants more tax cuts, and the whole thing gets shut down.

also, going to the moon doesn't really help with mars.

going to mars first, on the other hand gives you a lot of advantages.

for a start, the long lead time means that you can't fall foul of short-termism so easily. If they try and cut the funding, you can't go, and they actually have to explain to the public why not.

also, once you have a minimalist colony on mars, all sorts of other developments happen as a byproduct.

for example, you don't want to waste fuel making your earth/mars craft atmospheric, so you fairly quickly end up with a mars space station, which makes the perfect jumping off point for moon, the asteroid belt, and the outer solar system.

similarly, you can rapidly gain from minor improvements in engine design. this encorages progress, and makes the moonbase easier when you do commit to it.

you also end up with a lot of data which you couldn't have got any other way, which always pays for itself.

also, once you have a colony it is much harder to mothball, so you ensure steady funding for the space program.

"sorry, but the moon makes a fine end point. unfortunately it is too simple with a moon project to have the same thing happen as happened with apollo."

The problem is that it seems to me that it is just as easy for the same to happen with a Mars mission.

"also, going to the moon doesn't really help with mars."

Regaurdless of Zubrin's arguments, it does. A moon colony would require NASA to build or buy cheaper acess to LEO. And, as Robert A. Heineiln said, "Once you're in LEO, you're halfway to anywhere in the solar system". Cheap access to LEO is essential to both and is what is really needed for a good space program.

"for example, you don't want to waste fuel making your earth/mars craft atmospheric, so you fairly quickly end up with a mars space station, which makes the perfect jumping off point for moon, the asteroid belt, and the outer solar system."

Not if you use the Mars Direct system. You won't get a space station until you find a new way to get there.

"also, once you have a colony it is much harder to mothball, so you ensure steady funding for the space program."

Yes, but the colony is harder to start in the first place. Eacch round trip will take around two years and a launch window opens only that often. Even if you send a crew each launch window and send them all to the same place (commiting to a colony there), it will be 10 years befroe you have a good-sized base, and within 10 years, the new presidents and new congresses can easily just decide to do what Nixon did-cancle the long-term part. This si my main problem-I'm not convinced it is politically possible to build a Mars colony if NASA would be building it. If you can suggest a different source of funding, thats a different matter.

dealing with your seperate points...

the apollo problem... getting funding for a mars program is tricky, but it would only require 2% of the current nasa budget to be set aside for 15 years. if you can get the political will within nasa to do that, then you are there. Once you have commited to go, and started sending the hardware, it becomes very hard to just cut the budget due to the way it is designed to have a minimal cost.

in other words, if you cut the budget, you kill the program, and you then have to explain why you have done that. this explanation gets harder the longer the program runs, making it more likely that something else is cut instead.

A moon colony would require NASA to build or buy cheaper acess to LEO... unfortunately, this just isn't true once you have something like the apollo rockets, you don't need anything better (although it helps). also, it is much easier to mothball the entire project. the problem is that when you have mothballed it for a few years, you have to start almost from scratch, making it much harder to restart the longer it is stopped.

Cheap access to LEO is essential to both and is what is really needed for a good space program.... I would agree, once you have the long term commitment which the politicians can't weedle out of. you just can't get that commitment to a 5 or ten year program from someone who has to get re-elected every four years. The moon is like the space station, as long as you keep it viable, you don't have to spend any money on improving it. unfortunately it is too easy to stop spending for too long.

You won't get a mars space station until you find a new way to get there.... wrong. you need a fair amount of fuel to get out of earth orbit. you then need to keep the fuel tank tethered to provide artificial gravity (removing the zero gravity requirements). all you do is go into orbit of mars (which you have to do anyway), rendezvous with the tank from last time, and bolt them together in space.

if you outfit the tanks properly before you fill them with fuel, you have your space station.

all it requires is orbital rendezvous (which we know how to do), orbital assembly (which we know how to do), and a little extra fuel and supplies. it is nearly free in fact.

but the colony is harder to start in the first place. Each round trip will take around two years and a launch window opens only that often... it is politically harder to start, but it is fairly easy to do it in steps, and not have them realise what they are commited to until it is too late.

as to the launch window, it is every 18 months. 2 years is a different and much more expensive "fast" orbit, which has no part in mars direct.

yes, the missions will be 2 1/2 years long, but that is an advantage. it keeps mars in the public eye, and makes it much harder for the politicians to cancel the program when you still have astronauts actively involved in missions.

the lunar base is nice, but only as a return destination from somewhere else. until then it is largely a white elephant.

I'm not convinced it is politically possible to build a Mars colony if NASA would be building it.... because mars direct works using various stages, when you succesfully complete any individual stage, you end up with hardware that is also generally usefull. this is not true with the moon base program. you don't say "lets commit to 30 years spending on a mars colony", you send a cheap probe, then another one, then a lander or two, and generally just keep building the push towards mars and a manned mission.

you effectively sneak it in through the back door.

"in other words, if you cut the budget, you kill the program, and you then have to explain why you have done that. this explanation gets harder the longer the program runs, making it more likely that something else is cut instead."

But it could still get cut after the first two missions--'OK, we've planted a flag and beat the Chineese, lets go home.'

"A moon colony would require NASA to build or buy cheaper acess to LEO... unfortunately, this just isn't true once you have something like the apollo rockets, you don't need anything better (although it helps)."

Isn't the same true of Zubrin's ARES rocket? Would it really be much cheaper in terms of $/lbs (or GBP/kg) than the Satern V?

"Cheap access to LEO is essential to both and is what is really needed for a good space program.... I would agree, once you have the long term commitment which the politicians can't weedle out of. you just can't get that commitment to a 5 or ten year program from someone who has to get re-elected every four years. The moon is like the space station, as long as you keep it viable, you don't have to spend any money on improving it. unfortunately it is too easy to stop spending for too long."

I have to agknoledge your point there.

"You won't get a mars space station until you find a new way to get there.... wrong. you need a fair amount of fuel to get out of earth orbit. you then need to keep the fuel tank tethered to provide artificial gravity (removing the zero gravity requirements). all you do is go into orbit of mars (which you have to do anyway), rendezvous with the tank from last time, and bolt them together in space."

"if you outfit the tanks properly before you fill them with fuel, you have your space station."

"all it requires is orbital rendezvous (which we know how to do), orbital assembly (which we know how to do), and a little extra fuel and supplies. it is nearly free in fact."

But what will a Mars space station achieve in the early days? You'll find its hard to convince anyone to leave a crew there when there isn't a return ship around and I'm not clear on what else it would be good for. A base on Phobos or Diemos makes much more sence.

"but the colony is harder to start in the first place. Each round trip will take around two years and a launch window opens only that often... it is politically harder to start, but it is fairly easy to do it in steps, and not have them realise what they are commited to until it is too late."

Yes, but until they actually declare they want a colony, they can pull out at any time. Noone but us space enthusiests will realize we've been cheated.

"as to the launch window, it is every 18 months. 2 years is a different and much more expensive "fast" orbit, which has no part in mars direct."

Sorry, you may be right about the launce window (I'll have to look it up), but 2 years is the approximation in _The Case For Mars_, that's why I used it.

"yes, the missions will be 2 1/2 years long, but that is an advantage. it keeps mars in the public eye, and makes it much harder for the politicians to cancel the program when you still have astronauts actively involved in missions."

Or else, the public will get board.

"the lunar base is nice, but only as a return destination from somewhere else. until then it is largely a white elephant."

Perhaps. You have a good point there.

"I'm not convinced it is politically possible to build a Mars colony if NASA would be building it.... because mars direct works using various stages, when you succesfully complete any individual stage, you end up with hardware that is also generally usefull. this is not true with the moon base program. you don't say "lets commit to 30 years spending on a mars colony", you send a cheap probe, then another one, then a lander or two, and generally just keep building the push towards mars and a manned mission."

I suppose you have a point, although I suppose you meant moon in your first sentence. The problem with Mars Direct is that it is too easy for the government to weasle out after one stage. If one makes a commitment to a moonbase, and gets it far enough, the intertia may help carry it.

I think the political difference sums up to this:

Mars Direct is easy to get started, but lacks inertia and could be dropped partway, giving us another Apollo fiasco.

A Moonbase has the inertia to kepp going if you get it past the criticle point, but it is hard to get it to that point and you risk something along the lines of the Shuttle-C or Buran (A project that is started but canceled before doing anything.).

'OK, we've planted a flag and beat the Chineese, lets go home.'... no, because to get to that point you have to have an exploration plan for mars. these things have a long lead time. becauseyou send a fuel generator with each manned mission, you would effectively be thowing away the cost of half a mission for no return.

Isn't the same true of Zubrin's ARES rocket?... I can't quite recall the spec for them at the moment, but once you get a mars direct compatable rocket (heavy lift 125 tons) you have something which is generally usefull for other purposes. with a moon rocket, you can be forced to cut lift capacity to the point where it is no better than what we currently use for satellite launches.

But what will a Mars space station achieve in the early days?... mars has this small problem with dust. part of the design of mars drect includes abort to orbit in the event of a major dust storm preventing landing, and also in the case of a disaterous failure of the mars habitation module. the use would be as an improved orbital habitat.

You'll find its hard to convince anyone to leave a crew there when there isn't a return ship around and I'm not clear on what else it would be good for.... you abort to orbit, and every time you go to mars, you increase the supplies. this improves your safety margins a lot.

A base on Phobos or Diemos makes much more sence... not really. they are largely microgravity environments. with a space station you can easily give it artificial gravity.

I'm not convinced it is politically possible to build a Mars colony if NASA would be building it.... no i didn't mean moon. you made the comment and I was replying to it.

The problem with Mars Direct is that it is too easy for the government to weasle out after one stage.... no, that's the problem with the moon program.

If one makes a commitment to a moonbase, and gets it far enough, the intertia may help carry it.... true, but you won't get far enough. with a mars program it is harder to get started, but much harder to kill.

"I think the political difference sums up to this:"

Mars Direct is easy to get started, but lacks inertia and could be dropped partway, giving us another Apollo fiasco.... no, this is the position with the moonbase.

A Moonbase has the inertia to kepp going if you get it past the criticle point, but it is hard to get it to that point and you risk something along the lines of the Shuttle-C or Buran (A project that is started but canceled before doing anything.).... no a moonbase is fairly easy to get going, but you have to keep it going for a long time until it becomes hard to kill. it's just too close.

Mars direct on the other hand is a lot harder to get going, but you can sneak a lot of it in by developing the technology as part of other programs. it's only really at the point where you commit publically to a manned expedition that you have to be open about it.

you have to plan the first fuel stage for about 1 year, then you launch it, and it takes about six months to get there. then you spend another year waiting for it to tell you the fuel has been made. then you launch the astronaughts and another fuel module for the next trip.

by this time it has a lot of momentum, and could get very hard to kill very quickly. all you need is to time it so that you have a politician with guts for a few years.

"'OK, we've planted a flag and beat the Chineese, lets go home.'... no, because to get to that point you have to have an exploration plan for mars. these things have a long lead time. becauseyou send a fuel generator with each manned mission, you would effectively be thowing away the cost of half a mission for no return."

Well, someone in congress just has to decide that its a waste of money to send good money after the bad. YOu have a point, though.

"But what will a Mars space station achieve in the early days?... mars has this small problem with dust. part of the design of mars drect includes abort to orbit in the event of a major dust storm preventing landing, and also in the case of a disaterous failure of the mars habitation module. the use would be as an improved orbital habitat."

I see your point there, but it would only be really practicle if you could dock it to the ERV while in space.

"You'll find its hard to convince anyone to leave a crew there when there isn't a return ship around and I'm not clear on what else it would be good for.... you abort to orbit, and every time you go to mars, you increase the supplies. this improves your safety margins a lot."

I sort of see your point.

"A base on Phobos or Diemos makes much more sence... not really. they are largely microgravity environments. with a space station you can easily give it artificial gravity."

True, I was thinking from the standpoint of using it as a supply base, not a place to abort to.

"I'm not convinced it is politically possible to build a Mars colony if NASA would be building it.... no i didn't mean moon. you made the comment and I was replying to it."

I didn't realize you were quoting me. Having your qoutes inside your statements, instead of in different paragraphs confused me.

"The problem with Mars Direct is that it is too easy for the government to weasle out after one stage.... no, that's the problem with the moon program."

Its a problem with both.

"If one makes a commitment to a moonbase, and gets it far enough, the intertia may help carry it.... true, but you won't get far enough. with a mars program it is harder to get started, but much harder to kill."

I'm not convinced that Mars Direct is that hard to kill.

"Mars Direct is easy to get started, but lacks inertia and could be dropped partway, giving us another Apollo fiasco.... no, this is the position with the moonbase."

"A Moonbase has the inertia to kepp going if you get it past the criticle point, but it is hard to get it to that point and you risk something along the lines of the Shuttle-C or Buran (A project that is started but canceled before doing anything.).... no a moonbase is fairly easy to get going, but you have to keep it going for a long time until it becomes hard to kill. it's just too close."

I disagree but can't prove you wrong.

"Mars direct on the other hand is a lot harder to get going, but you can sneak a lot of it in by developing the technology as part of other programs. it's only really at the point where you commit publically to a manned expedition that you have to be open about it."

You have a point, but I'm not convinced its as easy to sneak it in as you think.

"you have to plan the first fuel stage for about 1 year, then you launch it, and it takes about six months to get there. then you spend another year waiting for it to tell you the fuel has been made. then you launch the astronaughts and another fuel module for the next trip."

I know how Mars Direct works.

"by this time it has a lot of momentum, and could get very hard to kill very quickly. all you need is to time it so that you have a politician with guts for a few years."

A politician with guts who stays in office--next you'll ask for Cavorite. Frankly, I may be too cynical to be convinced because I duistrust politicians too much. I think that 90% of them hate space travel because the're idiots who can't see past the next elction. I may be wrong, but part of my cynicism may come from living under the rule of His Unelectedness, president Bush.

I give up. You're too good at this. I hope you're right, because Mars is a better location from a non-political standpoint, but I'm still not convinced that Mars Direct will wor politically.