![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Breakthrough in Cosmology | Kazmer Ujvarosy | Space Shuttle | 3 | May 22nd 04 09:07 AM |
Breakthrough in Cosmology | Kazmer Ujvarosy | Space Station | 0 | May 21st 04 08:02 AM |
NASA Extends Mars Rovers' Mission | Ron | Science | 0 | April 8th 04 07:04 PM |
A human Mars mission? | Christopher | Policy | 814 | September 15th 03 03:00 PM |
NASA Selects UA 'Phoenix' Mission To Mars | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | August 4th 03 10:48 PM |