Water found on Mars

[Chalenge]

The asteroid mining is a great concept but it's beyond the steps we would need to do to simply land and survive on Mars. Hell if the Mars atmosphere is not sufficient to shield the astronauts from solar wind, radiation and other "bad" things, how will an airless rock do so?

We have already landed probes on comets and we wont even need to man operations to asteroids. Fuel can be collected on the way and we already have robotic collectors that we use here on earth (robotic salt mining robots for instance). NASA already agrees that these are the 'better return on investment' missions but they are not high profile enough for the public and have been pushed back off the budget. Mars is a much loftier goal.

[ROX]

Well.. We all but knew it was there   Now we need to go make something of it.

If they find hops, barley, and malt on Mars as well...THEN we've made all those tax dollars worth while!




ROX

[moot]

Mav it's not that we can't manage your first point with the technology, it's that there's far too little political backing.  There's also way too much red tape inertia in Nasa.  Not enough tolerance for risk in Nasa, the govt, and from the public.  It's unrealistic to assume we can do so much new development in space without breaking some eggs along the way.
We could be on Mars right now, if the Apollo momentum had continued.

Regarding the rest, I know I've seen detailed studies of all of that, but didn't read them.  I'm pretty sure it's workable. e.g. Astronauts were on the moon for 6 hours at a time. Water layers in spacecraft hull will stop most radiation.  And going to near earth objects is actualy a pretty good intermediate step to Mars; lots to learn at shorter distances.


Rip - Look at this..
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/03/04/a-one-way-one-person-mission-to-mars/
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/05/26/one-way-mission-to-mars-us-soldiers-will-go/

[ROX]

Mav it's not that we can't manage your first point with the technology, it's that there's far too little political backing.  There's also way too much red tape inertia in Nasa.  Not enough tolerance for risk in Nasa, the govt, and from the public.  It's unrealistic to assume we can do so much new development in space without breaking some eggs along the way.

We could be on Mars right now, if the Apollo momentum had continued.

Mainly due to the fact that just like the American initail stabs at the Gemini & Mercury projects there were costly problems.  Some test rockets blew up on the pad.  America sadly lost 3 brave sons on Apollo 1 that died in a fire on the gantry during a practice session.

I remember reading books as a kid saying "we" (America) would not only land a man on Mars before 2000, but we would have a permant colony there. 

Things don't always work as planned.

America has also had costly mishaps in our Mars program.  One probe got all the way to Mars, then crashed into it.  Flush all that time, effort, and tax money down the drain.  That's why they have been so careful with this present one.  Yes we've "broken eggs" along the way and they haven't been cheap.

Please don't make this a personal Moot vs ROX issue, because it's not intended to be, but the "we" you speak of is the American Taxpayer. 

The Apollo series went back with a few later lunar landings.  At the time, the scientists here figured they had enough moon rocks and moon dust to keep them busy for awhile and they were right.  And then...there were NASA budget cuts by congress.

The joint US/Soyuz mission was a huge initiation to international cooperation in space.  Skylab was a decent effort, and now the ISS is the best example so far.  It's GREAT to see other countries join in the effort...but by far the biggest chunk of the price tag is paid by the American taxpayer, and since it is, there are politics to deal with.

The US might enjoy those in the international community to help throw in a bigger slice of the funding to get the benifits of whatever scientific knowledge there is to be had...not to mention the national pride of having one of their own be part of the ISS missions. 

I believe we will go to Mars in the next 20 years, but the technology to get a big enough solid rocket booster there on the short haul, and get the crew home on either the long or short hauls just isn't there yet.  Maybe the ISS and new fuel possibilities will get there.






ROX




ROX

[Masherbrum]

Helium-3 (He3) is worth $5.7 million/kilo

http://www.direct.ca/trinity/helium3.htm

Artemis project: http://www.asi.org/adb/02/09/he3-intro.html

From Space.com: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_000630.html

Even ABC has reported on this Im surprised you missed it: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200411/s1252715.htm

True we arent ready yet and it could take a few years but why waste money on a project that requires technology that we know will take one hundered centuries to accomplish when we already have an energy crisis today?

I also believe we should be sending probes to map out minerals and resources of the asteroid belt. Theres enough material there to produce ten earths or more worth of raw material.

Why not go after the billions of Manganese Nodules at the bottom of our Oceans first?   

[Cthulhu]

Why not go after the billions of Manganese Nodules at the bottom of our Oceans first?   

Would you believe taxes?

[Masherbrum]

Would you believe taxes?

I mean, instead of worrying about going out into the Asteroid belts, etc.   

[Saxman]

Rox,

I highly doubt they'll use a solid-fuel rocket for something like that. Something along the line of a plasma/ion engine is more likely.

[Chalenge]

I believe we have the technology to build orbital platforms in space from materials in the asteroid belt. We could save a lot of money in fuel costs and expendable parts. We could use robots that would therefore save on risks to man. We could pick up fuel as the mission goes forward and we would learn a great deal too.

Nothing wrong with Mars as a project but I do believe its more of a political project then one of science or engineering.

[Maverick]

You keep saying we could do all of this stuff yet you don't indicate where the breakthrough in cybernetics, fuel capture in space, lifting of the materials as well as the maintenance of the station and it's personnel are coming from. You mention that we couldn't get a high ratio of robots to mars yet we can use robots to build something in space from materials we haven't been able to confirm much less mine in a commercial manner. If we can't hit a planet with working robots to do very limited exploration how do you propose to mine and refine then actually ship materials to another spot in space all without people to oversee / do it with robots we don't yet have?

Don't get me wrong I am all for space exploration / exploitation but have a differing opinion of where to go first. My option would be moon then Mars while working the asteriods once the technology is there.

[trax1]

I believe we will go to Mars in the next 20 years, but the technology to get a big enough solid rocket booster there on the short haul, and get the crew home on either the long or short hauls just isn't there yet.  Maybe the ISS and new fuel possibilities will get there.

NASA has said that they plan on going to Mars around 2030, & they are going back to the Moon in 2020, they want to go to the Moon first in order to test out the things needed to go to Mars and live there for extended periods of time.

[ROX]

Why not go after the billions of Manganese Nodules at the bottom of our Oceans first?   

Sadly, we know more about the make up and natural composition of the surface of the moon than we know of the depths of the Earth's oceans.






ROX

[moot]

Rox you have to use specifics, not just "the technology to get a big enough solid rocket booster there on the short haul, and get the crew home on either the long or short hauls just isn't there yet."  What's "big enough" and "short"?

The DeltaIV-H can put 17,600 lbs into Trans Mars Injection, or 10,000 to the surface, time of flight 6 months.  That's one DIVH.  Shoot a few payloads into LEO and you can assemble a pretty good payload to Mars. You can just as well send a few cargo loads on their own the slowpoke way, ahead of time. Zubrin probably covered these possibilities in depth.
The AresV (or VI or whatever they end up settling on) will be even bigger.

The ISS to Mars?  You've been drinking the bad reporting koolaid..

Mav,
 I'm not sure what you're pointing out. First you say all of that is unfeasible, then you say we should do it (moon>mars, rocks asap).. Well yeah, we should do it and if the tech isn't there, we'll make it.  I doubt it's as revolutionary as you make it sound.  I haven't read about those specificaly, but I'm pretty sure it's simpler to get to freespace rocks than mars.  I'm pretty sure the developments needed for mining are sluggish so far, only because of a lack of funding.  I doubt it's anywhere as opaque as getting fusion to work profitably.

I mean, instead of worrying about going out into the Asteroid belts, etc.  

I don't think there's any reason to pit the two against each other.

[Chalenge]

You keep saying we could do all of this stuff yet you don't indicate where the breakthrough in cybernetics, fuel capture in space, lifting of the materials as well as the maintenance of the station and it's personnel are coming from. You mention that we couldn't get a high ratio of robots to mars yet we can use robots to build something in space from materials we haven't been able to confirm much less mine in a commercial manner. If we can't hit a planet with working robots to do very limited exploration how do you propose to mine and refine then actually ship materials to another spot in space all without people to oversee / do it with robots we don't yet have?

Don't get me wrong I am all for space exploration / exploitation but have a differing opinion of where to go first. My option would be moon then Mars while working the asteriods once the technology is there.

The technology is already here. Fuel in space can come from two sources and it doesnt run out. Hydrogen is everywhere and unless you are behind a planet or moon you can use solar wind (like wind surfing or sailing). Pojects like we are discussing dont have to go fast as human flight does because we dont have to feed robots.

Reentering a planet is very dangerous stuff the way NASA goes about it but putting robots in space is easy.

We would have to design a refinery for near orbit use and then send mining robots (we already have them here on earth) to the asteroids. They dont have to come back so they can spend their time exploring and testing and using solar energy to recharge for some duration. Between here and there we would have automated cargo ships that make the trip to and fro and also carry repair/recharge items for the miners. Humans would spend time in orbit here doing the assembly and refining.

The asteroid belt actually helps to protect Earth from large body collissions somewhat and it could be dangerous for humans to go about mining rocks in space. Ignoring for the moment the long term exposure risks to gamma rays on long missions it is also much more lkely that near the asteroid belt there would be high energy masses moving about. Its much safer to use robots.

I definately think the moon comes first (mining He3) but I think we should use this approach to a permanent presence/port in orbit and then move on to Mars exploration by humans. Im not concerned that NASA is inept and will get people killed because everyone involved in exploration knows the risks. My concern is that things will go terribly wrong often enough that politicians put the axe to it and you know they would.

[Maverick]

Moot I was replying specifically to Challenges posts. He says we can't get to mars but all these other things are somehow possible through robotics that we can't seem to get right on mars missions.