The first human mars mission?

October 1, 2003

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.

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.

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

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
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.

We do not 'definitely know' that.

The best interpretation of the currently available
evidence is that; however, speculating about the
subsurface layers without a *lot* more remote sensing,
including some really good radar work, and/or surface
penetrator/drill sampling, is really a high degree of
hubris.

The only resources for ISRU I count on personally are
the air, though I agree that enough evidence for
significant subsurface water exists, and its value is
so high if present, that we really ought to go
specifically looking to confirm its apparent
presence.

The air, by the way, clearly includes useful quantities
of water (though it's a lot harder to extract than CO2).
WAVAR seems quite reasonable and reliable as a concept.
An ISRU test mission should bring a small WAVAR test rig
even if we don't need the water for the propellants cycles.


-george william herbert

October 2, 2003

George William Herbert wrote:

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
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.

We do not 'definitely know' that.

Sure we do. It's easily recognized via photo interpretation.

The best interpretation of the currently available
evidence is that; however, speculating about the
subsurface layers without a *lot* more remote sensing,
including some really good radar work, and/or surface
penetrator/drill sampling, is really a high degree of
hubris.

No, it simple geology and climatology applied to the imagery evidence.

The only resources for ISRU I count on personally are
the air, though I agree that enough evidence for
significant subsurface water exists, and its value is
so high if present, that we really ought to go
specifically looking to confirm its apparent
presence.

Then I suggest you look at the MGS and Odyssey photos.

The air, by the way, clearly includes useful quantities
of water (though it's a lot harder to extract than CO2).
WAVAR seems quite reasonable and reliable as a concept.
An ISRU test mission should bring a small WAVAR test rig
even if we don't need the water for the propellants cycles.

Those useful quantities of water in the air come from a vast underground frozen
reservoir, clearly distinguishable by even a cursory glance at the imagery
evidence, and verified by spectroscopy.

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

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
George William Herbert wrote:
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
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.

We do not 'definitely know' that.

Sure we do. It's easily recognized via photo interpretation.
[...]

Then you are setting your photo interpretation skills and
analysis above that of, oh, for example all the professional
planetary science photo interpreters who have been working
for their entire careers on this problem.

Pardon me if I fail to agree with your self-aggrandizement
in this matter. Somehow, Mike Malin strikes me as having
better education, experience, and judgement than you do in
regards to the MGS imagery. You are free to hold and
espouse your own opinion, of course.


-george william herbert

October 2, 2003

George William Herbert wrote:

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
George William Herbert wrote:
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
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.

We do not 'definitely know' that.

Sure we do. It's easily recognized via photo interpretation.
[...]

Then you are setting your photo interpretation skills and
analysis above that of, oh, for example all the professional
planetary science photo interpreters who have been working
for their entire careers on this problem.

You mean the same Malin and Edgett who first claimed that there was no water on the
surface of Mars, then "urged caution" about the possibility of water on Mars, a
position that has since been rendered completely untenable by Mars Odyssey
spectroscopic results?

Pardon me if I fail to agree with your self-aggrandizement
in this matter. Somehow, Mike Malin strikes me as having
better education, experience, and judgement than you do in
regards to the MGS imagery. You are free to hold and
espouse your own opinion, of course.

Well, lets consider Malin's opinion.

"Malin added, "I have not previously been a vocal advocate of the theory that Mars
was wet and
warm in its early history. But my earlier view of Mars was really shaken when I saw
our first
high-resolution pictures of Candor Chasma. The nearly identically thick layers would
be almost
impossible to create without water." As an alternative to lakes, Malin and Edgett
suggest that a
denser atmosphere on early Mars could have allowed greater amounts of windborne dust
to settle
out on the surface in ways that would have created the sedimentary rock."

Wow, what a confident guy. All of those outflow channels created by windborne dust.
That is truly amazing.

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

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
George William Herbert wrote:
[...]
Then you are setting your photo interpretation skills and
analysis above that of, oh, for example all the professional
planetary science photo interpreters who have been working
for their entire careers on this problem.

You mean the same Malin and Edgett who first claimed that there
was no water on the surface of Mars, [...]

Elifritz CV in planetary science:
-0-

Malin CV in planetary science:
see 20 pubs listed below

Elifritz confidence level 1 demonstrated credibility 0
Malin confidence level 0.5 demonstrated credibility 1.0

You lose. You may be right, but you are not right for
demonstrably well founded reasons, and that's just as
bad as being wrong. You don't understand the geology,
physics, or photointerpretation well enough to be that
sure, and worse yet you don't understand that you don't
know it.


-george william herbert



Malin Recent Publications:

Christensen, P. R., J. L. Bandfield, R. N. Clark, K. S. Edgett, V. E. Hamilton, T. Hoefen, H. H. Kieffer, R. O. Kuzmin, M. D. Lane, M. C. Malin, R. V. Morris, J. C. Pearl,
R. Pearson, T. L. Roush, S. W. Ruff, and M. D. Smith, Detection of crystalline hematite mineralization on Mars by the Thermal Emission Spectrometer: Evidence for
near-surface water, Journal of Geophysical Research, in press, 2000

James, P. B., B. A. Cantor, M. C. Malin, K. Edgett, M. H. Carr, G. E. Danielson, A. P. Ingersoll, M. E. Davies, W. K. Hartmann, A. S. McEwen, L. A. Soderblom, P. C.
Thomas, and J. Veverka, The 1997 spring regression of the martian south polar cap: Mars Orbiter Camera observations, Icarus in press, 2000.

Thomas, P. C., M. C. Malin, K. S. Edgett, M. H. Carr, W. K. Hartmann, A. P. Ingersoll, P. B. James, L. A. Soderblom, J. Veverka, and R. Sullivan, North-south
geological differences between the residual polar caps on Mars, Nature 404 161-164, 2000.

Edgett, K. S., and M. C. Malin, New views of Mars eolian activity, materials, and surface properties: Three vignettes from the Mars Global Surveyor Mars Orbiter
Camera, Journal of Geophysical Research 105 1623-1650, 2000.

Malin, M. C., and K. S. Edgett, Oceans or seas in the martian northern lowlands: High resolution imaging tests of proposed coastlines, Geophysical Research Letters,
26 3049-3052, 1999.

Malin, M. C., and M. H. Carr, Groundwater formation of martian valleys, Nature 397 589-591, 1999.

Thomas, P. C., M. C. Malin, M. H. Carr, G. E. Danielson, M. E. Davies, W. K. Hartmann, A. P. Ingersoll, P. B. James, A. S. McEwen, L. A. Soderblom, and J.
Veverka, Bright dunes on Mars, Nature 397 592-594, 1999.

Hartmann, W. K., M. Malin, A. McEwen, M. Carr, L. Soderblom, P. Thomas, E. Danielson, P. James, and J. Veverka, Evidence for recent volcanism on Mars from
Crater counts, Nature 397 586-589, 1999.

McEwen, A. S., M. C. Malin, M. H. Carr, and W. K. Hartmann, Voluminous volcanism on early Mars revealed in Valles Marineris, Nature 397 584-586, 1999.

Malin, M. C., M. H. Carr, G. E. Danielson, M. E. Davies, W. K. Hartmann, A. P. Ingersoll, P. B. James, H. Masursky, A. S. McEwen, L. A. Soderblom, P. Thomas, J.
Veverka, M. A. Caplinger, M. A. Ravine, T. A. Soulanille, and J. L. Warren, Early Views of the Martian surface from the Mars Orbiter Camera of Mars Global
Surveyor, Science, 279 1681-1685, 1998.

Malin, M. C., 1992, Mass movements on Venus: Preliminary results from Magellan Cycle I observations, J. Geophys. Res. 97 (E10), 16337-16352.

Malin, M. C., Danielson, G. E., Ingersoll, A. P., Masursky, H., Veverka, J., Ravine, M. A., and Soulanille, T. A., 1992, The Mars Observer Camera, J. Geophys. Res.
97 (E5) 7699-7718.

Malin, M. C., Danielson, G. E., Ravine, M. A., and Soulanille, T. A., 1991, Design and Development of the Mars Observer Camera, Int. J. Imaging Sys. Tech. 3, 76-91.

Phillips, R. J., Grimm, R. E., and Malin, M. C., 1991, Hot-spot evolution and the global tectonics of Venus, Science 252, 651-658.

McEwen, A. S. and Malin, M. C., 1989, Dynamics of sediment gravity flows: Lahars, avalanche, pyroclastic flows, and blast surge of Mount St. Helens, J. Volcan.
Geotherm. Res. 37, 205-231.

Kelley, A. D., Malin, M. C., and Nielson, G. M., 1988, Terrain simulation using a model of stream erosion, Computer Graphics 22 (4), 263-268.

Malin, M., 1986, Rates of geomorphic modification in ice-free areas, southern Victoria Land, Antarctica: Antarctic Journal of the United States 20 (5), 18-21.

Malin, M. C., 1986, Density of martian north polar layered deposits: Implications for composition: Geophys. Res. Lett. 13 (5), 444-447.

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 +++

In article , Sander Vesik wrote:

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.

Not precisely. The MD plan runs like this:

2010: send return vehicle. RV lands, makes fuel
2012: send crew, in hab vehicle. Send second RV next month.
Crew lands near first RV, with the ability to use that
to go home. Second RV lands nearby (as backup) or at new
site (for next mission). Crew flies home in RV1.
2014: send second crew, in HV2, send RV3, second crew returns
in RV2 (or RV3 as backup)...

The first return mission isn't a sample return one; it's just the first
mission spread over a few years for safety. If an earlier step fails,
you know it's failed before it can kill you, is the logic. (There are
still critical steps, but this removes some).

Indeed, it's arguable that the first mission to get to Mars will be the
flight hardware for "Mars Direct I".

[I do suspect that some form of automatic sample return mission will
take place, previously or concurrently, but I don't think it'll be part
of that program... remember, the US managed six lunar landings without
ever doing that critical technological sample-return ;-)]

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.

Indeed. We've reduced the number of possible interpretations of the
Martian hydrosphere from what they used to be, but those still-supported
ones are still intensely debated...

(I mean, it doesn't have canals everywhere and occasional oases. But
that doesn't mean the Global Acatama and the Occasional Aquifer sides
(or whatever you want to call them) agree g)

--
-Andrew Gray

October 2, 2003

George William Herbert wrote:

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
George William Herbert wrote:
[...]
Then you are setting your photo interpretation skills and
analysis above that of, oh, for example all the professional
planetary science photo interpreters who have been working
for their entire careers on this problem.

You mean the same Malin and Edgett who first claimed that there
was no water on the surface of Mars, [...]

Elifritz CV in planetary science:
-0-

Malin CV in planetary science:
see 20 pubs listed below

Elifritz confidence level 1 demonstrated credibility 0
Malin confidence level 0.5 demonstrated credibility 1.0

You lose. You may be right, but you are not right for
demonstrably well founded reasons, and that's just as
bad as being wrong.

Let me see if I got your reasoning straight. Malin built a great camera, took a lot of pictures, published a lot of peer reviewed papers, but was demonstrably wrong in his
interpretation of the images, therefore his credibility in photointerpretation should be higher than Elifritz (that's me), who built no camera, published no papers, but was
demonstrably correct in his photointerpretation of the results (i.e. - his pre Odyssey claim that water exists on the surface of Mars).

It gets even more interesting, you claim that Elifritz (that's me), who was demonstrably right in his prediction of the existence of Martian water (post MGS, MOLA, pre
Odyssey) was right for the wrong reasons (i.e. - he published no peer reviewed papers) therefore his prediction is wrong about its general underground extant and
distribution..

You don't understand the geology,
physics, or photointerpretation well enough to be that
sure, and worse yet you don't understand that you don't
know it.

But I apparently have an demonstrated ability to see frozen groundwater in the Mars surface morphology, and I am able to visualize plausible climatological scenarios for its
geological evolution and distribution.

At worst, that makes me a dilettante.

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

In article , John Penta wrote:

2. Saying we can do it with current tech: No, we can't. Face it, we
can't.

It all depends how you define "current technology". Currently produced
hardware? No way. Currently understood technologies? Pretty much, some
envelope-fiddling needed on tethering & rotationg (if you want that) and
Mars-surface work (suits, airlocks, that ilk) - but I don't see it
needing much in the way of a breakthrough, or a generation ahead. Okay,
building the rocket might be an interesting challenge, but I don't think
it can't be done...

IMO, as always.

--
-Andrew Gray