For Aron Sora: Mars Experiments

Aron Sora said: I also have the most insane idea for an experiment at the Mars Desert Research Center. I want to make solar panels (or atleast one cell), from scratch, in a simulated enviroment. I also want to do an experiment where I compare the efficiency of EVAs with and without UVAs. What do you think?

I'm afraid I need more information before I can give you an answer. When someone wants to do an experiment, it's important to understand what he wants to accomplish or what he's trying to prove.

In order to answer your questions, I need to understand what exactly you mean by them. For the first, do you mean making a solar cell using strictly Mars materials in a simulated space colony environment?

On the surface, it seems simple enough, but I can see some things to watch out for. First, there's an important level of uncertainty when it comes to the materials available on Mars. We've done a large number of analyses, both via rover and remotely, but there are limitations to that. No one has ever brought back actual samples from Mars as they have from the Moon so a certain percentage of our estimations of soil components and compositions is educated guesswork. Therefore, providing "Mars-like" soil samples would be, well, speculative. Even if the Martian soil was largely composed of silicates, obtaining high quality silica from that would take as much as energy as a solar cell could generate over several years on Mars.

But say we knew for sure or decided all we really needed was silicon and we were confident it could be obtained without using so much energy that it would be a waste of time (there are new methods for obtaining high quality silicon that might improve that), you're still talking about specialize equipment, a great deal of it, to gather materials, refine it, make it into a usable form and build the solar cells (and I suspect silicon is not the only key ingredient). In order for this to be a viable plan for on Mars, you have to do all this work either using equipment already planned to be used or specially built for the purpose. That's a multi-year endeavor, even to used it on the ground.

I think the idea has merit. I'm not sure, until we get more efficient and/or a better handle on Martial materials, that it's a viable short term experiment unless we have appropriate equipment already in hand.

As for the other question, I'm not sure what a UVA is. I reached acronym saturation some years back and I'm not familiar with that one. If you mean vehicles, one can experiment with it, but I could also just wander through the Apollo Lunar Surface Journals and find ample evidence of the value of surface vehicles, even when they spew dust and need to be repaired with document covers.

EVAs, of course, depend on having a representative suit available and experiments with those suits are severely hampered on the Earth's surface because of the huge difference in gravitational force. Which makes the wealth of data available from the Apollo missions all the more valuable. Having said that, I think experiments are in work now to evaluate different suit concepts and different roving concepts. I like the one they have now that keeps the suit on the outside of a pressurized vehicle that they can don from inside the vehicle. This severely limits the dust that comes inside, a real issue for the Moon and probably Mars as well.

If you didn't mean vehicles and did mean something else, let me know and I'll see what I think.

Read more...

For Aron Sora: Why Human Spaceflight So Expensive?

The capsule from Apollo 13

Aron Sora asked [building off my last post]: True, but why is manned space more expensive. Why isn't most of the cost for manned flight contained in radiation hardening and designing for temp. extremes?

Good question. Some of the expensive for human spaceflight is for radiation hardening and redundancy and reliability and thermal extremes. Everything true for a multi-million dollar space craft or rover is even more true a spacecraft carrying people. People forget when even an expensive satellite or probe fails. People remember when humans die in space. Even if the folks at NASA didn't care about the humanity lost (and they care, desperately, about that), the impact to existing programs is devastating.

But the long pole for unmanned missions (this design and testing) is just the tip of the iceberg for manned space exploration. For unmanned, you can make things as small as you can make them, as light as you can make them to perform whatever functions you need, and need only enough propulsion to get them where they need to go.

Manned spacecraft must do all that plus (a) they need environment, food, water, clothing, controls, displays, computer equipment, communication equipment, protection from thermal extremes, vacuum, radiation and g forces, waste control systems (air and other), backup systems and a minimum volume over and above what their body takes up AND (b) they must not only make it there, they must make it back . . . safely.

Whereas a satellite or unmanned rover can be disabled and use no power until put into use, manned vehicles must have power, thermal rejection and environmental systems at all time. They must have thermal protection for reentry and protection from excessive shock forces for landing. Not only do we need all these systems, we must have constant instrumentation of these systems (frequently more instrumentation just for these systems than an unmanned craft would have altogether), primary and backup voice and data communication, controls, equipment or instruments (or why bother with people), and consumables/waste facilities. None of which is required for an unmanned one-way rover. And all of these systems need to be tested, preferably in a flight environment, certified and demonstrated working together to get confidence they will keep people alive.

Making it back is a huge deal as well, as I described here, here and here. It means effectively twice the propulsion in separate stages and systems (with separate fuel systems and control systems for each). It means many times the complexity as doing anything outside low earth orbit requires multiple vehicles working in concert, with duplication of controls and systems. It's such a huge scary difficult deal, the number of unmanned missions that have returned can be counted on one hand.

And, yes, I still think it's worth it, partially because it is so difficult. In fact, it's because it's so difficult that I think it's worthwhile. If we can do that, we have no limits.

Read more...

For Aron: Honoring the Shuttle

Aron asked: I have another nooby question, what do you think of the idea I posted on the Space Tweep Blog, should I go after it?

I think it's an excellent idea. For those that never follow links, Aron's proposal was to give homage to the last Shuttle flight (which keeps being put off) by carrying a torch through all of the communities that have supported it, which will cover probably every NASA center (and their surrounding communities) and many military and contractor facilities. The torch (symbolic since I think NASA will still use electronics to ignite the engines and solid rocket boosters) would not only remind us how many people have contributed to the Shuttles in their nearly thirty year lifespan, but also allow people to show that the Shuttle and its contributions have touched them.

The Shuttle is not a perfect beastie (I've talked about her before here and here), but it is still a technological marvel, even today. It cannot take us out of low earth orbit, but it has carried humans into space more than all other US space vehicles combined, more than all of the manned missions that the Soviet Union/Russia have ever launched. We have launched her 132 times, each time manned. 131 times she took her precious cargo to space. 130 times she brought them back safely. Even Soyuz does not have such a record (with regards to human spaceflight). Who knows when we will ever have a vehicle so capable of transporting

She has served this country well, humankind well.

All honor to her and to those who designed, built, service and fly her.

Read more...

For Aron: Aerogel instead of Shuttle Tiles?

Aron asked: So...I have the most insane idea for the shuttle, ever. Do you think it would be possible to strip all the tiles from the shuttle and replace it with aerogel and a thin ceramic to keep the aerogel in place. (It's insane and would increase the chance of damage to the shuttle) This could cut the weight.

It could cut the weight, in theory, given the density of aerogel. Aerogel has a density of 1.9 kg/m^3. Most of the tiles weigh in at ~144 kg/m^3 and, given that aerogel is pretty structurally strong and a great insulator, you might not even need the same volume to have the same thermal protection.

However, we might want to be careful before we get our Shuttle scrapers out and do the work.

First off, aerogel is hydrophilic (attracts and absorbs water), which means a couple of months sitting in Florida's humidity is unlikely to be good. Absorbing water not only drastically increases weight, but also cause it to deteriorate rapidly. Still, the Shuttle tiles also have to be waterproofed and there is a process for making aerogel hydroscopic (water repelling).

It's also friable which means it shatters like glass. I know it was used to gather space dust, so it can take tiny fast impacts, but I'm not sure how it would handle blunt trauma, handling, foam impact, etc.

Truthfully, we've known about aerogel for some time but I've never seen any suggestions or designs that use aerogel for a proposed spacecraft thermal protection system except early on; when the design matures, aerogel is taken off the table. I don't know why but I assume there good reasons for it. Perhaps it can't take the cold (as opposed to the heat). Perhaps it does poorly in high UV situations or is susceptible to atomic oxygen.

If whatever the problems are can be overcome (without degrading the thermal/density properties) of aerogel, perhaps some future designs will use it.

However, even if it were perfect, it might not be worth our while to change the Shuttle. As you know, there aren't many missions left for the Shuttle. Removing all the tile and replacing it (which hasn't I believe, been done in their lifetimes) would take months and probably force a recertification of the Shuttle. That's millions/billions of dollars. I'm not sure they could all be removed without potential damage to the underlying structure.

And Shuttle has some limitations - vendors no longer in business, limited spares and equipment, aging infrastructure and avionics - that replacing the tiles won't fix. Nor do I know that aerogel would better withstand foam. That makes extending the Shuttle to make the huge investment worthwhile (and to take advantage of the weight difference) a pretty bad deal I would think.

But, then, it's all speculation.

Read more...

For Aron: Integration Engineers

Aron asked: What does a integration engineer do in the modern age? I thought most system interfaces where standardized.

Aron, you're such a dreamer. Actually, in the world where USB and computer connectors are becoming more and more predictable, in a world where one makes thousands if not millions of a single model of a unit, you may be right.

It's not true of space exploration or many of your other rarified engineering fields. People talk about standardization in these fields, but what they mean is that everyone should be building stuff like *they* do. Instead, contractors win contracts for subsets of complex few-of-a-kind spacecraft that will need to interact with other subsets (built by different contractors) but will likely hire subcontractors to built part of their subset rather than building the whole thing in-house.

Each contractor, subcontractor, and NASA will want to be the last word to define the many (many many many many) interfaces involved. Even if NASA puts its foot down and defines all the ones between subsets and spacecraft, they rarely dictate interfaces internally (though there's an argument that doing so makes sense, but that's a different post). However, it wouldn't matter if they did. Contractors still use the interfaces that are cheapest or associated with favored vendors, and they'll just ask for an exception. And they'll probably get it.

Do you need integration engineers to make sure everything works together using this and that interface? Damn straight.

However, even if interfaces were all standard, you'd still need integration engineers, because all the different pieces are built by different groups and different companies, with often independent software and computers and all that good stuff. And integration engineers test it and make sure it all works together like it's supposed to. Integration engineers are often the ones who put all the pieces together for procedures and instruction so people can use the equipment.

Do we need integration engineers. You betcha.

Read more...

For Phyl: Where Would I Send NASA?

Phyl asked: If you could decide the direction NASA would take for the next two decades (manned space exploration, going to Mars, concentrating on the space station, doing stuff on the Moon, or something completely different) -- what direction do you think would be best?

It's an interesting question.

First, let's assume that I have complete control over NASA (with ~the same budget as has been proposed) - me and me alone. What would I want to do? I'd want to work towards and effective self-sustaining colony on the moon. Why?

Because it's a vital stepping stone on the way way out there. Before I commit any spacecraft to Mars, I'm going to want to know those spacecraft and landers work, they can land and take off again, that the suits will be effective handling rocks and withstanding dust. I'm going to want to know that I can protect my crew from radiation for long periods of time, that I can extract some of what I need from the soil. I'm going to practice growing things and farming and manufacturing, basically being self-sufficient.

On the moon, everything I need to do is applicable to Mars, only the extremes are more extreme, the dust is sharper, the atmosphere is even less atmospheric. Yet, the moon has the invaluable advantage of being close at hand, relatively speaking. We can test all kinds of technologies and capabilities where rescue is days, not weeks, away, and upmass is just horrifically expensive rather than all but impossible. If we can tame the moon, make it a real colony, we'll know we can tame anything.

However, where we go isn't as important as figuring out the best way to get there. We need to decide what we want to do, what we want to accomplish, and then build the tools we need to get there. Optimize instead of make do or force fit.

Note also that this isn't choosing human spaceflight over unmanned. To me, they are a package deal. You need 'em both.

Now, if I was just a ridiculously rich and decided to go commercial, I would do things differently.

But, then, you didn't ask that.

BTW: This looks like a very interesting book for the space nostalgic.

Read more...

Hiatus Interruptus - For Jeff King: Where Will We Go?

Jeff King asked: If we ever travel to a planet, i mean actually going there ourselves in a spacecraft. What one do you think it would be, and when?

Well, do you count the moon? 'Cause, in my opinion, that's the way to go.

Why, you might ask. Because the moon is close at hand, an excellent place to test out all the things we're going to need when we move to other planets. Any other planet is months (if not years) to get to, a complicated trip where, if anything goes wrong, there are limited options to correct the rescue them. If the US doesn't make it there in the next ten years or so, other countries are also considering it and they will go there first.

However, if the moon doesn't count, it will be Mars. Why?

First, although Venus is technically closer, it is very inhospitable. Hot - I mean DAMN hot, toxic atmosphere, high pressure (like deep underwater type pressure). Right now, we just don't have equipment that can protect people from this kind of harsh environment. Protecting people from vacuum and temperature extremes found in "deep space" is child's play next to protecting people from temperatures that will melt lead (literally) or exposure to sulfur dioxide.

The gas giants are very very far away with no place to land. Some of the moons to the gas giant have possibilities as places to explore. But, as for planets, Mars will be first.

When? Not sure. It depends on when we come up with the right plan and then DO it. Not soon enough.

Now returning me to my regularly scheduled hiatus.

Read more...

For flit: What Do You Think of the X-Prize?

(Photo created by Armadillo Aerospace/Matthew C. Ross)
flit asked: Ross & I have been watching a lecture by Peter Diamondis ...about the X Prize stuff... how do you, as a safety geek, feel about the X Prize competitions as a way of pushing innovation? How are the safety issues handled...especially when it comes to space exploration, of course, and is it good enough?

It's a good question. I'm torn in several ways. First, an artificial incentive is not as good for building and maintaining a long-term space capability. There must be another incentive behind it or either the prize will go wanting or people will build something that barely meets the requirements and then let it go. Enthusiasts will be attracted, but that is not guarantee of long-term involvement.

Secondly, a prize that stipulates too much by way of needs (like demanding a reusable craft that can land horizontally) can restrain innovation, having people focus on a particular solution rather than figuring out the best solution.

Having said that, I do believe, quite strongly, that an artificial incentive is certainly better than none at all. Just because one doesn't have a profit motive to begin with doesn't mean you can't find one if you have a viable design solution. Truthfully, most of the competitors for the X-Prizes spent more in development than the prize itself, hoping to leverage success into more opportunities. That does speak well of hte future. Let's face it, we all know what commercial human space innovation has accomplished in the 50+ years since this business really got cooking. Not much. If an incentive kick-starts it, that's not a bad thing.

However, as a safety person, I' concerned, particularly in the commercial world, not because of the X-Prize but because the FAA has been mandated (by Congress) to stay out of the space safety business until at least 2012 (other than making sure no one drops bit o' rockets on the unsuspecting public). That means, if you step on to a rocket or space tourism vehicle, you are completely dependent on your provider, with no oversight, to ensure your safety. The rationale behind this to compare this to the early days in aviation where the attrition rate of pilots was astronomical. As a space safety person, the mind cringes.

I'm not sure that's a valid line of reasoning, but that's politics for you. Does that answer your question?

Read more...

Trivia Break: Space Firsts Answered

Wow, I'm glad The Mother answered my post yesterday. I sincerely didn't know about the fruit flies and would have been a liar. I HATE that. Kudos to the Mother. I'm also learning that ancient history gets answers, technology and science and stuff, not so much.

Alright, here are some answers for you.

What was the first animal in space?
My bad. It was really fruit flies, sent up by the US in a couple of V2 rockets (courtesy of Von Braun and his transplanted team) in White Sands in 1947. The fruitflies were successfully recovered (for those of you rife with fruitfly awareness). But the US beat the Russians with more than insects, sending up a Rhesus monkey, Albert II, in a suborbital flight past the "Kármán line" into space (100 km altitude) in 1949 on another V2. The original Albert's mission only made it to 63 km altitude and Albert suffocated in flight, but Albert II didn't fair much better even though he was a true spacefarer. Although the flight was successful, the parachute failed to open and he died on impact.
What happened to the first animal to orbit the earth?
Poor Laika of Sputnik 2 in 1957. This dog was the first animal to orbit the earth and was sent up by the Soviets. Unfortunately, the probe was not designed to be recoverable, so the Soviets had sent up a poison dog food portion to euthenize her long before reentry (some five months after launch). Unfortunately, she only lived five or so hours after launch because the thermal control system didn't work as planned as she was desperately overheated (the cabin was at 40 degrees C [104 degrees F]) and stressed.

Who was the first man in space? The Mother nailed with with Yuri Gagarin who was the first person in space on Vostok 1 (1961) and the first person to orbit. The US tended to discount this flight (as much as they could) because Yuri (and several cosmonauts that followed him) didn't land with the craft but ejected and landed via parachute. The thinking was that the landing was too rough for people to survive. A month later, Alan Shepherd followed him into space in a suborbital flight and the US wouldn't orbit anyone until John Glenn in February 1962 (after the Soviets had pulled it off two more times).

Who was the first man to orbit the earth? And, yes, got both distinctions on his first flight.

Who was the first woman in space? Sally Ride was the first US woman in space, but the Russians sent up Valentine Tereshkova on Vostok 6 in 1963, some twenty years before Sally Ride flew on the Space Shuttle (STS-7). The Soviets/Russians didn't fly another woman themselves until 1982 when they sent Svetlana Savistkaya up on Soyuz T-7 (who also performed the first spacewalk by a woman in 1984).

Who performed the first EVA in space? The first EVA (as defined by being in suit exposed to space), was also a Soviet achievement by Alexei Leonov on Voshkod 2 in 1965. They used an inflatable airlock and Leonov never technically left it (which meant that, as a first, it has been challenged). In fact, Leonov had quite a few problems including going out the wrong way so he couldn't turn around to get back in. The suit wouldn't bend and he had to release a dangerous amount of his own pressure to bend over. He managed to get back in, but the whole excursion, which lasted only 12 minutes, dangerously overheated him. EVA (spacewalk) ain't easy, folks. Ed White performed a spacewalk later that year on Gemini 4 (22 minutes) and had difficulties closing the hatch but they managed it.
Who were the first people to orbit the moon? The crew of the Apollo 8 orbited the moon over Christmas in 1968, with the crew of Frank Borman, Jim Lovell and William Anders.
Who was in the command module when Armstrong and Aldrin first walked on the moon? Michael Collins.
Who was/were the first people killed in space? This is a tricky one. Technically, very few have died in the actual unequivocal confines of space. Most have been lost during reentry and, in the case of Challenger, during launch. The first person to die during a spaceflight was Vladimir Komorov who died when Soyuz 1 tore to pieces during reentry in 1967. However, you don't tear up until you've hit atmosphere. The only people to die in space are the crew of Soyuz 11, Vladislav Volkov, Georgi Dobrovolski and Viktor Patsayev, who were killed when a valve was jolted open when the service module was jettisoned prior to reentry. The crew tried to close the valve manually, but it was under a seat and took longer to close than it took to depressurize the cabin. No one knew what had happened until the capsule was opened on the ground. This happened in 1971. The Russians/Soviets have not lost anyone in space or a spaceflight since this incident.

Tomorrow, back to my questions.

Read more...

Trivia Break: Space Firsts

Bad day=trivia break. It's just a little easier for me than trying to do justice to the excellent questions I get. In the interest of space, since I know a few space enthusiasts read this, here are some "manned" or "pre-manned" space firsts.

So, using my new method, I ask you first and tomorrow, I expand on the answers I might get today.

Ready? (My preference on these is to get animal/astronaut(s), flight, year on these answers but I'll settle for anything ya got.)

What was the first animal in space?
What happened to the first animal to orbit the earth?
Who was the first man in space?
Who was the first man to orbit the earth?
Who was the first woman in space?
Who performed the first EVA in space?
Who were the first people to orbit the moon?
Who was in the command module when Armstrong and Aldrin first walked on the moon?
Who was/were the first people killed in space?

That ought to keep you busy.

Read more...

Another Update for Bob

Long long ago in an old post, Bob Johnson asked why we didn't just take pictures of the landing sites and "prove" we landed on the moon. I didn't know the answer per se but I did note that I saw little reason, even if we did have the pictures, to think anyone would be convinced.

I mean, if you don't believe the tracking by several different countries or the video or the unprecedented photographs unlike any ever taken before or the samples of soil older than anything ever found on earth or the actual people who wandered about up there, I fail to see how showing a photo of the landing site, no matter how convincing, would convince someone who was willing to ignore all the available proof.

But, in case I'm wrong:


This is good stuff. There's the LEM, the scientific hardware left behind and a neat little trail of footy prints. The truth is, it IS cool to be able to see the site of where we've been before. So, I'm glad they took it whether it convinces anyone or not.

And, if someone who felt there wasn't sufficient proof before was convinced by this, let me know. I'd like to understand the reasoning.

Read more...

For Aron: Space Habitation...

Aron asked: I have a question, so you can participate in space settlement day, what is your opinion of space habitation?

The challenge I have in answering this question is that I don't really think about space habitation on its own but as a potential side effect of human space exploration.

Am I absolutely for human space exploration? Yes. Do I think space colonization, either on other planets or in space is a natural by product of space exploration, do I foresee someday permanent colonies in orbit, on the Moon, perhaps elsewhere in our solar system and beyond? Yes. I think we will be able to overcome the challenges some day. I can't tell you when.

If you'd asked me 4o years ago (assuming I was old enough to give a cogent answer), I would have said a space colony would exist before the end of the century. I truly believe, if we had gone to the moon for the right reasons (for all mankind instead of to one-up the Russians) or von Braun (who was working toward this for the right reasons) had lived longer and had his way, it would have happened already. But we've wasted the talent and know-how that first put us on the moon, wasted the momentum, failed to follow through when the world was with us on this, when the public understood this was more than patriotism and all about the real future of the human race - even if the politicians didn't.

But we didn't and that's water under the bridge. The mindset, however, the impetus, the realization that this is key to our long term survival, that journeying to the stars is an inevitable step in our future that we can't begin too soon is lacking in the general public. Oh, there are folks that understand it and people around the world who can see beyond right here and right now, but there are too many still who can't see beyond what's happening to them today into what the future needs to be.

Until we get that mindset rampant in the general public, any future will be dependent on the inspiration and technical skill of the few dreamers and those in power they can woo to their side. It can happen, though it will likely take longer and mean movement forward will be in fits and starts, involve failures (perhaps tragic ones) and be unlikely to progress as quickly or as completely as we are truly able.

And I'm not just talking about space habitation but space exploration as a whole. Every failure, sets things back tenfold, which scares me. If only amateurs are brave enough and inspired enough to pursue space exploration and space habitation, it seems more likely that failures will occur (I hope I'm wrong). On the other hand, we've certainly seen some impressive successes among those that have not had much prior experience.

In my opinion, going forward intelligently and as safely as possible stands the best chance to bring us to success and even, perhaps, relight that sense of wonderment and exploration so key to our long term success.

Space habitation in the interests of science I take as a given. Perhaps hotels and the like to support tourism can be viable. To make space colonies for the general populace , we'll have to make them self-sufficient because sucking more resources from the Earth does nothing to help long term survival; however, if we can find a way grow food, make air, build shelters using the native materials, we will open up a universe of possibilities. We will have fulfilled the potential Apollo 11 carved for us.

I would love to see space colonies, perhaps at our Lagrange points or the moon before the end of my life, would love to know people have set foot not only on the moon, but on other surfaces within this solar system. I don't know if we will, but I will certainly work to make it so.

Read more...

For Aron: AC on ISS

Aron asked: One a scale of 1 to 10, how bad would it be if the ISS lost it's AC?

The ISS doesn't have air conditioning the same way we have here on earth. On earth, air is moved in and out of homes here, but is just "conditioned" by being cooled and dehumidified.

On orbit, it's a bit more complicated.

The Environmental Control and Life Support System removes CO2, adds oxygen, regulates pressure and O2 partial pressure, removes trace contaminants, dehumidifies the air (while recycling the condensate into the water supply) and regulates temperature.

How important is each of these capabilities on the ISS on a scale of 1 to 10? - 10

If the system fails to remove CO2, the crew will die.
If the system fails to add sufficient oxygen, the crew will die.
If sufficient cabin pressure and partial pressure of oxygen, the crew will die.
If trace contaminants are not removed in the fully enclosed environment, the long term health of the crew can be at risk.
If the air is not maintained at the right humidity, condensation is a serious concern, especially in an environment with electronics everywhere, the electronics that keep the system oriented and powered and everything else - too much humidity and the crew and ISS is at risk. Many electronics systems are on cold plates for cooling - making condensation a real issue.
If the air is not at the right temperature, electronics can fail (we don't have any but forced convection on orbit since there's no gravity). Too hot, and systems overheat and fail. Too cold, and, again, you have condensation issues.

Most of these systems have redundant components and subsystems because they're so key.

Read more...

For the Mother: Tell Me About Mars Exploration

The Mother gave me a great question since I was out of them: What is the current status of the manned mission to Mars? Loved the "Mars Rising" series. How much of that was true?

This is a great question, most of which I can't answer, because the answer to the first part is "speculation status" and the answer to the second one is "I have no idea because I've never seen it." I really should watch a little television once in a while, but I really don't. But fear not, I think you'll like my whole answer anyway.

To elaborate on the first answer, let me explain. Constellation (our exploration program) is designing hardware to launch (Ares I rocket) a craft (Orion spacecraft) capable of going to and from the ISS and orbiting the moon in support of lunar expeditions and outposts (like excursions only longer on the order of months). I believe there are groups actively starting to wrestle with the challenges associated with building the lander (Altair) for the Moon. These are the criteria we are using for the design even though a manned mission to Mars is definitely an end-goal.

But, right now, there's a world of speculative prototyping and speculating on the right directions to take for both the lunar surface and, especially, Mars. Some of the prototypes exist and are quite cool, though perhaps not as cool as the many concepts being bounced around in simulations. Some of those are supercool. But Mars is at least twenty years away and what we actually find is most practical, what we actually build and fly so far away may resemble the concepts out today as much as street cars match automotive concept cars. A lot can happen between now and then, a lot of politics and money wrangling, a lot of lessons to learn on the moon, a lot of technology to perfect. The plan is to use the designs we're designing now as the starting point for Mars, but by then, there's no way to tell how much we'll be able to use moving forward. Everything you saw in the documentary might be true, but I'd bet a great deal of it will look different when we really get there.

So, why not design for Mars now?

I'm glad you asked. (You would have, you know it).

Well, first, we're not ready.

• Part of it is that we haven't sent people beyond low earth orbit in literally decades. We need to reteach ourselves learning from what was done before and taking advantage of some of the technological advances since then (like computers - Apollo 11's computer had a total of 80 Kb - not Gb, not Mb. I think my watch has more than that. I know my cellphone does.) Most of the people who were deeply involved in the Apollo Program are either retired or dead. We haven't been building those kinds of rockets, those kinds of spacecraft in decades.
• Part of it is that we don't know enough. Mars has had many missions to it, but we still don't know it as well as the moon but there's a lot we don't know about the planet and the trip there. Even more importantly, what we do know poses technological problems we don't necessarily have the knowhow to fix today.
  
• Additionally, there considerable challenges to address that we don't have with the moon. Like a lander than can deal with reentry. Like storms. Like a long long trip with no one able to come rescue you if something goes wrong. And things go wrong with Mars missions, quite frequently. Roughly two thirds of all planned Mars missions failed before completing their missions. Not because of a bogeyman, but because getting there is complex, is challenging, is tricky with minimal margin for error. And, if we fail, we only lose money, not people. We'd better know what we're doing before we send people are sent over. Just the radiation and meteoroids alone are issues.

That's why going to the Moon is so important. It's a dry run for most things we have to do for Mars, but within reach. The math to reach the moon is relatively benign and we don't have those tricky three month launch windows. There's no complicating atmosphere and no storms, BUT it has gravity and we haven't waltzed in spacesuits in gravity for years. It has a high radiation environment (relative to low earth orbit) and methods we develop there to protect the crew may help with Mars. We'll want to explore it with rovers and there's no reason to think we can't test out real designs in a real extraterrestrial environment to see how they work. Dust mitigation on the moon will be at least as challenging as it will be on Mars and we better get that handled because, if we come back with an enclosed environment as dusty as the Apollo missions came back, we'll have a whole lot of astronauts with red lung.

It gives us a relatively safe way to prove we have a viable program because, if things go wrong here, it might be days or weeks before we can get them, but it won't be months and years. Mars has a 780 day period between 2-3 month windows for optimized approach. We can launch one vehicle in that period, but, if something goes wrong after the window has gone by, anything we send after them has no possible way to catch up - heck they won't be going to the same place. The earth has changed positions and so has Mars. We may have no choice to abandon them, alive or dead. If they get lost on the way, if they get stranded on Mars, help can't reach them, even if we were able to launch immediately for months or years. Maybe ever. We need to be confident, really confident, they can make it before we send them.

Or, let's say, we send two during the window and we find out, say, when the first lands, that there's a catastrophic design flaw with the lander. We'll either have to waste the second mission's trip and send them back or we'll have to gamble that the second lander can survive. The moon can help increase our confidence in our hardware.

Personally, I like the design I've seen of the rover they're talking about. It's a pressurized rover with suits you climb into from the back but they're attached to the outside. This eliminates the need for an airlock, drastically reduce dust brought into the habitable environment and is way safer for the astronauts in my opinion. Here's hoping that our end result is as appealing as they current model (pictured above and below).

Read more...