Community > Forum > Technology & Science > Create Your Own Manned Mars Mission Scenario

Create Your Own Manned Mars Mission Scenario

Posted by: idiom - Sun Nov 16, 2008 9:22 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 3 posts ] 
Create Your Own Manned Mars Mission Scenario 
Author Message
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 4:01 am
Posts: 747
Location: New Zealand
Post    Posted on: Sun Nov 16, 2008 9:22 pm
I don't know that originality is a huge bonus.

Bob Zubrins Mars direct is pretty much the best template to work from.

The best steps from there is to work with a much much larger launcher of 300MT+ and possibly use a Mars orbit solar power station instead of nukes.

This would give you a crew of 10 with ease, and simple supplementation is colonising.

What goes up better doggone well stay up! - Morgan Gravitronics, Company Slogan.

Back to top
Profile ICQ YIM
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Mon Nov 17, 2008 4:51 pm
I would prefer to use a reusable vehicle.

A crew of around 20 would be better because more reasonable service could be provided and because it might be safer in case of the requirement of repairs, health problems etc. while a crew of three or four requires less food and water.

It should be a crew experienced in working together on Earth, on the Moon and aboard the ISS.

Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)

Back to top
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 7:09 pm
Posts: 485
Location: Maastricht, The Netherlands
Post    Posted on: Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:17 pm
I'm working (extremely slowly) to my own approach which only it's ideology rented/taken from Zubrin's plan. Other then that, you can do a lot with 10,000 kg of landed mass. Sure, it's risky, but there is no point to try at attain 99,999% safety. We don't even have that on Earth, so why try on Mars. Yes, it should be as safe as possible, but it does not make any sense whatsoever to try to make it 1% more safe when that requires an uneven amount of investment and weight while you're allready at 90% safety levels.

For example, NASA shivers of non-metallic composites. Yet, they have many uses to. Bigelow's modules, without the solid beam, are very leight and flexible as we've seen. So why not use tent-like structures on Mars? The chance of a micrometeorite impact on the surface is insignifcantly small. And there are several cheap ways to deal with micrometeorites on the ground. In space, that's a nother story.

But, imo, it would require another kind of thinking to colinize Mars. I don't really see at the moment how a Mars-Earth economy could ever exist. Yes, Mars communications, or orbit to orbit economies, yes, very likely. But ground2ground, nope. The biggest issue is economy though. There aren't many economical reasons (because it is so damn expensive) to try and colonize Mars. But many other advantages can be named. Ow, it can be a long term investment though. Expect real estate prices on Mars to soar once a few people have a foothold. But economies on Earth don't deal with long-term investment. They think 10 years is a long term investment. Sadly, that thinking can never see an economic reason or plan to go to Mars.

If you could have 3 falcon 9 heavy launches, and let's say that you could get 10,000 kg on the surface of Mars with each payload (that leaves 5,000 kg for re-entry/heatshield and some fuel). That's 30,000 kg. That's a lot of gear. And it's unrealistic to sent machinery and production facilities that can output tons of products. Tons of products for who? First priority would be to expand habitable space. If you could double habitable space in one year, that would be awesome. By the next year you have three times the original space (it doesn't double every year). This is a slow process, but once this is going, other machinery have the space to be used. Sand casting, for example. Together with a small iron melter. You then start an industrial revolution on a very small scale.

Small, simple and differtent. Those are the keys.

Most people think i'm crazy or that this concept cannot work. But it's the only concept that can work under a billion dollars/euros which also looks further then just a silly roundtrip.

Back to top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use