Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
October 1, 2003


[answerring to both - my news server has only this one 8-( ]

George William Herbert wrote:

Sander Vesik wrote:
In situ resources? Hahahahaha. And just how were you planning to test it
works?

Have you read Zubrin's books or refereed publications on Mars Direct?

A test program including both subscale tests and then sending an
unmanned return vehicle 2 years ahead of the crew, to manufacture
its return fuel before the crew leave Earth, are both planned.
If the first return vehicle fails to successfully manufacture its
return fuel for any reason, you don't send the crew until the
second ERV has landed and manufactured *its* fuel, etc.

Note that earlier in the thread, a sample return mission was mooted
(not by me) as going to cost more or less as much as the manned
mission anyways and thus not worth it... Which at least appears to
rule that scenario out.


Since we now definitely know that Mars is basically a frozen muddy glacial
ice ball just a few meters below the surface (to a depth of several
kilometers), and that Mars is only dry and desiccated in the top few meters
of soil, then the whole in situ fuel manufacturing scenario suddenly becomes
considerably more plausible.

Nope. We don't know that - its hydrogen you are talking about (unless
there is new data i have missed) and does not need to be ice at all. Not
all of the hydrogen need even be in water molecules.


Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net/mars.htm


--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++