7 ms·

NASA Announces Journey to Mars Challenge

84 points by T-A 12y ago

iwwr 12y ago
There's the old plan of Zubrin and Baker: Mars Direct. It involves manufacturing methane fuel on Mars from a small import of Earth hydrogen. 95% of the return fuel mass is manufactured on Mars, giving significant mass fraction savings for a launcher. Not only that, by using a nuclear thermal upper stage you double the payload, or halve the size of the Earth launcher. If on Mars you also bring along a nuclear rocket vehicle (Nerva-style) you can have unlimited, reusable global range, including Mars surface-orbit operations. Suck and liquefy Mars CO2 and use it as a reaction mass. All this was hashed out 24 years ago by Zubrin and Baker and NASA needs only a firm commitment to Mars to put it into practice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/marsconcepts2012/pdf/4069.pdf http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/marsconcepts2012/pdf/4069.p... - Gashopper, a concept derived from the larger NERVA hopper, this time solar powered small robot for exploration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA - compact nuclear reactor for space applications
- tokenadult 12y ago
  All this was hashed out 24 years ago by Zubrin and Baker and NASA needs only a firm commitment to Mars to put it into practice. The lessons of history suggest that a lot of ideas that only need firm commitment to be put into practice also need a lot of engineering debugging during the development process to solve unexpected problems. The Space Shuttle was based on engineering studies that somehow didn't anticipate that the whole spaceship would blow up if launched on a cold day[1] nor anticipate that the shuttle could break up on reentry if it was nicked by a piece of its own booster rocket while being launched.[2] Just as there were astronauts who took that risk on the Space Shuttle, there are surely astronauts who would risk taking Mars Direct to Mars. They might find out that the mission would end up being called Mars Direct and Bust, and never get back home. Disclosure: I am a big fan of the space program, including manned space flight, and my ambition in high school was to be the first man to set foot on Mars. I find it dismaying that I could STILL be the first man to set foot on Mars, as I thought that event would have happened by the 1980s, before many participants here were even born. [1] http://www.asktog.com/books/challengerExerpt.html http://www.asktog.com/books/challengerExerpt.html http://williamwolff.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/tufte-challenger-1997.pdf http://williamwolff.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/tufte-cha... [2] https://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0001yB https://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=...
  - iwwr 12y ago
    The Space Shuttle was expensive and this was apparent even at the end of the design stage. It was hobbled by the partnership with the Air Force, where it needed a large minimum payload and specific dimensions for the cargohold. Design considerations and technology limitations also made it not very reusable. It was expensive as a human and cargo launcher and eventual savings from learning (many launches) weren't feasible to begin with. The Air Force realized their mistake and went on to develop their own separate launchers. The Shuttle continued because it had acquired momentum and had large constituency support, it was a jobs program. Nixon also favored doing one thing over and over (i.e. Earth orbit) over potentially more risky one-off deep space missions. The ISS was eventually pushed through as a way to give the Shuttle something to do, absent any other US deep space aspirations. Mars Direct lays the trail for a continued program of exploration, not just a 'footprints and flag' operation. It has interesting savings and synergies even without necessarily having reusable launchers (except for the NERVA-style hopper). Technologically it's also very conservative.
  - programd 12y ago
    > The Space Shuttle was based on engineering studies that > somehow didn't anticipate that the whole spaceship would blow > up if launched on a cold day[1] nor anticipate that the > shuttle could break up on reentry if it was nicked by a piece > of its own booster rocket while being launched.[2] However it is worth noting that the engineers correctly predicted about a 2% catastrophic failure rate - that is loss of orbiter. Sure enough we lost two shuttles by mission 107. You can find the prediction in one of the two volume histories of the Space Shuttle project [1], [2]. Incidentally I think the books should be required reading for all engineers to understand how truly ambitious national projects such as the Shuttle are done. That includes the political, economic, and of course engineering issues involved. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Shuttle-Decision-1965-1972-History-Volume/dp/1588340147 http://www.amazon.com/Shuttle-Decision-1965-1972-History-Vol... [2] http://www.amazon.com/Development-Shuttle-1972-1981-History-Volume/dp/1588340090 http://www.amazon.com/Development-Shuttle-1972-1981-History-...
apetresc 12y ago
> NASA expects to make up to three awards at a minimum of $5,000 each from a total award pool of $15,000. Considering that these ideas (if this challenge was meant to be taken seriously) would be part of a likely dozens-of-billions-of-dollars project, $5,000 seems like a deliberate insult.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - flogic 12y ago
    Judging by the last "going to Mars"thing I saw, I got the impression there isn't a Mars project so much as a set of projects that could help us go to Mars but also provide other benefits.
  - SEJeff 12y ago
    Going to mars was the reason Elon Musk founded SpaceX. Just like their reusable rocket testing, they will use the income of their normal business/es to fund their own development on a manned mars mission. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Colonial_Transporter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Colonial_Transporter http://www.space.com/28215-elon-musk-spacex-mars-colony-idea.html http://www.space.com/28215-elon-musk-spacex-mars-colony-idea... http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/184640-spacex-says-it-will-put-humans-on-mars-by-2026-almost-10-years-ahead-of-nasa http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/184640-spacex-says-it-wil...
    - tkahnoski 12y ago
      Elon's businesses seem to continuously have overlap in value, but SpaceX was kind of out there. * Solar Panels * Battery powered cars * Rockets Now that I think about it the first two are major components to what happens after arriving on another planet. Now we just wait for him to invest in hydroponics and mining equipment...
      - andrewtbham 12y ago
hoopism 12y ago
They should just ask Mark Watney. His biography had lots of details on how to accomplish this.
- jprince 12y ago
  You've just won the internet. We can all go home now.
SEJeff 12y ago
I suspect SpaceX has a massive leg up on the competition for this, but doubt seriously they will compete for $15k.
- throwaway12357 12y ago
  They have more to gain than just $15k.
Shivetya 12y ago
I was going to say, just start reading some recent fiction on the subject and your bound to find many ideas rooted in science and industry that could set you on the right path. any manned landings are going to follow years of sending robots to make a home for them and redundant supplies already there or on their way.
throwaway12357 12y ago
I think it's a mistake to attempt a "naked" human settlement. You should start with a robot settlement. That means sending robots that can set the basic infrastructure (extract water, fuel, set up hydroponic farms, 3D printing, etc) for humans to live there. This will give you a considerable safety net to succeed. One thing that echoes my mind -- not for today but in 20-100 years from now -- is the question of Mars land ownership. And how likely will cessation occur.
bra-ket 12y ago
they should get an amendment to Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and resurrect Project Orion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propul...
cdnsteve 12y ago
To infinity and beyond!
brianmcconnell 12y ago
There's also solar electric propulsion, which when combined with water as propellant, leads to dramatic (10-100x) cost reductions due to increased propellant efficiency plus the synergies created by using water as reaction mass (it can be used for everything from radiation shielding to crew consumables prior to being sent to the engines, which effectively turns most of your consumables mass into propellant). This approach also benefits from ongoing improvements in component technologies (thin film PV, electric propulsion, and inflatable structures), so a reusable spacecraft based on this design pattern could be upgraded as things improve. (Release early, release often, versus the 30 year Gantt chart methodology favored by space agencies). http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=33078 http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=33078
bcg1 12y ago
This was the exact subject of my first website: http://wayback.archive-it.org/3635/20130719200949/http://library.thinkquest.org/10274/data/city/map.htm http://wayback.archive-it.org/3635/20130719200949/http://lib... Think I'll get a prize if I submit it? :)
rwallace 12y ago
My suggestion would be to work on uploading brains to digital substrate (starting with the Open Worm project and working up from there) on the grounds that interplanetary settlement would be dramatically less difficult for solid-state minds. Sadly, that's probably not the sort of suggestion they're looking for.
7952 12y ago
Maybe the simplest way to establish a permanent presence is actually a space station in Martian orbit. That would build the launch and transit infrastructure necessary for sustaining a permanent settlement. It also has some interesting advantages: * Low latency connection to rovers and manned landers giving a near instant mission control capability. * Trips to the surface could be made as a short excursion rather than the sole purpose of the mission. This would allow for failure of individual landings without jeopardising the entire program. * Could build on what was developed for the ISS. The biggest advantage is that it would require a long term political commitment instead of a one time mission that would be cancelled on return.

84 points by T-A 12y ago

iwwr 12y ago

There's the old plan of Zubrin and Baker: Mars Direct. It involves manufacturing methane fuel on Mars from a small import of Earth hydrogen. 95% of the return fuel mass is manufactured on Mars, giving significant mass fraction savings for a launcher. Not only that, by using a nuclear thermal upper stage you double the payload, or halve the size of the Earth launcher. If on Mars you also bring along a nuclear rocket vehicle (Nerva-style) you can have unlimited, reusable global range, including Mars surface-orbit operations. Suck and liquefy Mars CO2 and use it as a reaction mass. All this was hashed out 24 years ago by Zubrin and Baker and NASA needs only a firm commitment to Mars to put it into practice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/marsconcepts2012/pdf/4069.pdf http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/marsconcepts2012/pdf/4069.p... - Gashopper, a concept derived from the larger NERVA hopper, this time solar powered small robot for exploration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA - compact nuclear reactor for space applications

tokenadult 12y ago
All this was hashed out 24 years ago by Zubrin and Baker and NASA needs only a firm commitment to Mars to put it into practice. The lessons of history suggest that a lot of ideas that only need firm commitment to be put into practice also need a lot of engineering debugging during the development process to solve unexpected problems. The Space Shuttle was based on engineering studies that somehow didn't anticipate that the whole spaceship would blow up if launched on a cold day[1] nor anticipate that the shuttle could break up on reentry if it was nicked by a piece of its own booster rocket while being launched.[2] Just as there were astronauts who took that risk on the Space Shuttle, there are surely astronauts who would risk taking Mars Direct to Mars. They might find out that the mission would end up being called Mars Direct and Bust, and never get back home. Disclosure: I am a big fan of the space program, including manned space flight, and my ambition in high school was to be the first man to set foot on Mars. I find it dismaying that I could STILL be the first man to set foot on Mars, as I thought that event would have happened by the 1980s, before many participants here were even born. [1] http://www.asktog.com/books/challengerExerpt.html http://www.asktog.com/books/challengerExerpt.html http://williamwolff.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/tufte-challenger-1997.pdf http://williamwolff.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/tufte-cha... [2] https://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0001yB https://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=...
- iwwr 12y ago
  The Space Shuttle was expensive and this was apparent even at the end of the design stage. It was hobbled by the partnership with the Air Force, where it needed a large minimum payload and specific dimensions for the cargohold. Design considerations and technology limitations also made it not very reusable. It was expensive as a human and cargo launcher and eventual savings from learning (many launches) weren't feasible to begin with. The Air Force realized their mistake and went on to develop their own separate launchers. The Shuttle continued because it had acquired momentum and had large constituency support, it was a jobs program. Nixon also favored doing one thing over and over (i.e. Earth orbit) over potentially more risky one-off deep space missions. The ISS was eventually pushed through as a way to give the Shuttle something to do, absent any other US deep space aspirations. Mars Direct lays the trail for a continued program of exploration, not just a 'footprints and flag' operation. It has interesting savings and synergies even without necessarily having reusable launchers (except for the NERVA-style hopper). Technologically it's also very conservative.
- programd 12y ago
  > The Space Shuttle was based on engineering studies that > somehow didn't anticipate that the whole spaceship would blow > up if launched on a cold day[1] nor anticipate that the > shuttle could break up on reentry if it was nicked by a piece > of its own booster rocket while being launched.[2] However it is worth noting that the engineers correctly predicted about a 2% catastrophic failure rate - that is loss of orbiter. Sure enough we lost two shuttles by mission 107. You can find the prediction in one of the two volume histories of the Space Shuttle project [1], [2]. Incidentally I think the books should be required reading for all engineers to understand how truly ambitious national projects such as the Shuttle are done. That includes the political, economic, and of course engineering issues involved. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Shuttle-Decision-1965-1972-History-Volume/dp/1588340147 http://www.amazon.com/Shuttle-Decision-1965-1972-History-Vol... [2] http://www.amazon.com/Development-Shuttle-1972-1981-History-Volume/dp/1588340090 http://www.amazon.com/Development-Shuttle-1972-1981-History-...

apetresc 12y ago

> NASA expects to make up to three awards at a minimum of $5,000 each from a total award pool of $15,000. Considering that these ideas (if this challenge was meant to be taken seriously) would be part of a likely dozens-of-billions-of-dollars project, $5,000 seems like a deliberate insult.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- flogic 12y ago
  Judging by the last "going to Mars"thing I saw, I got the impression there isn't a Mars project so much as a set of projects that could help us go to Mars but also provide other benefits.
- SEJeff 12y ago
  Going to mars was the reason Elon Musk founded SpaceX. Just like their reusable rocket testing, they will use the income of their normal business/es to fund their own development on a manned mars mission. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Colonial_Transporter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Colonial_Transporter http://www.space.com/28215-elon-musk-spacex-mars-colony-idea.html http://www.space.com/28215-elon-musk-spacex-mars-colony-idea... http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/184640-spacex-says-it-will-put-humans-on-mars-by-2026-almost-10-years-ahead-of-nasa http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/184640-spacex-says-it-wil...
  - tkahnoski 12y ago
    Elon's businesses seem to continuously have overlap in value, but SpaceX was kind of out there. * Solar Panels * Battery powered cars * Rockets Now that I think about it the first two are major components to what happens after arriving on another planet. Now we just wait for him to invest in hydroponics and mining equipment...
    - andrewtbham 12y ago

hoopism 12y ago

They should just ask Mark Watney. His biography had lots of details on how to accomplish this.

jprince 12y ago
You've just won the internet. We can all go home now.

SEJeff 12y ago

I suspect SpaceX has a massive leg up on the competition for this, but doubt seriously they will compete for $15k.

throwaway12357 12y ago
They have more to gain than just $15k.

Shivetya 12y ago

I was going to say, just start reading some recent fiction on the subject and your bound to find many ideas rooted in science and industry that could set you on the right path. any manned landings are going to follow years of sending robots to make a home for them and redundant supplies already there or on their way.

throwaway12357 12y ago

I think it's a mistake to attempt a "naked" human settlement. You should start with a robot settlement. That means sending robots that can set the basic infrastructure (extract water, fuel, set up hydroponic farms, 3D printing, etc) for humans to live there. This will give you a considerable safety net to succeed. One thing that echoes my mind -- not for today but in 20-100 years from now -- is the question of Mars land ownership. And how likely will cessation occur.

bra-ket 12y ago

they should get an amendment to Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and resurrect Project Orion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propul...

cdnsteve 12y ago

To infinity and beyond!

brianmcconnell 12y ago

There's also solar electric propulsion, which when combined with water as propellant, leads to dramatic (10-100x) cost reductions due to increased propellant efficiency plus the synergies created by using water as reaction mass (it can be used for everything from radiation shielding to crew consumables prior to being sent to the engines, which effectively turns most of your consumables mass into propellant). This approach also benefits from ongoing improvements in component technologies (thin film PV, electric propulsion, and inflatable structures), so a reusable spacecraft based on this design pattern could be upgraded as things improve. (Release early, release often, versus the 30 year Gantt chart methodology favored by space agencies). http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=33078 http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=33078

bcg1 12y ago

This was the exact subject of my first website: http://wayback.archive-it.org/3635/20130719200949/http://library.thinkquest.org/10274/data/city/map.htm http://wayback.archive-it.org/3635/20130719200949/http://lib... Think I'll get a prize if I submit it? :)

rwallace 12y ago

My suggestion would be to work on uploading brains to digital substrate (starting with the Open Worm project and working up from there) on the grounds that interplanetary settlement would be dramatically less difficult for solid-state minds. Sadly, that's probably not the sort of suggestion they're looking for.

7952 12y ago

Maybe the simplest way to establish a permanent presence is actually a space station in Martian orbit. That would build the launch and transit infrastructure necessary for sustaining a permanent settlement. It also has some interesting advantages: * Low latency connection to rovers and manned landers giving a near instant mission control capability. * Trips to the surface could be made as a short excursion rather than the sole purpose of the mission. This would allow for failure of individual landings without jeopardising the entire program. * Could build on what was developed for the ISS. The biggest advantage is that it would require a long term political commitment instead of a one time mission that would be cancelled on return.