Four Mars missions are launching next year

https://orbitalindex.com/archive/2019-06-11-archive-Issue-16/

by tectonic • 7 years ago

192 70 7 years ago

wtracy3• 7 years ago

Is anyone exploring modeling an unmanned sample return mission after Zubrin's Mars Direct plan?

It seems like something that could be done with little fundamentally new technology. Demonstrating the real-world application of the synthesis and use of fuel off-planet would be a major milestone in space exploration. To top it off, bringing back the first samples from Mars would be a major feather in the cap of any nation or corporation.

ExodusOrbitals1• 7 years ago

Little new technology, but a substantial financial cost. One would need a much heavier Martian probe that would include return stage for the lander.

mLuby• 7 years ago

Is ISRU refueling really ready for this? (Methane I assume, as hydrogen sounds much harder.)

To me, getting that set of technologies to an operational level is one of the biggest reasons to go (back) to the Moon. It's cheaper to send demonstrators there, and easier to troubleshoot them.

Once we can do ISRU refueling reliably, the solar system will become dramatically more accessible (to robots, and eventually humans).

Robotbeat3• 7 years ago

Yes, because we are sending an ISRU demo on the Mars 2020 rover which will convert the CO2 atmosphere into oxygen and carbon monoxide (which could be used as a fuel).

You'd have to use a completely different type of ISRU for the Moon, and mining for it on the Moon (i.e. scraping a permanently shadowed crater near a lunar pole) is a lot harder than on Mars where you can just suck in some of the atmosphere. There's not nearly as much commonality as you might think.

wtracy3• 7 years ago

Zubrin's plan is specific to Mars in that it relies on chemicals present in the Martian atmosphere.

The only equivalent option I know of for the moon would be to collect water ice and break it down to oxygen and hydrogen. The process involved would be quite different.

Rebelgecko• 7 years ago

NASA has been working on it, more or less, for at least a decade. I think the latest (and IMO much less risky) proposal doesn't involve any in situ fuel creation.

boxfire• 7 years ago

The Mars 2020 mission is taking core samples and caching them for a follow on sample return mission to pick up and send back to earth.

azernik2• 7 years ago

NASA's Mars 2020 is set to collect samples and place them in a capsule for later pickup; NASA and ESA have announced collaboration on a separate sample return mission to pick up the samples left behind. Lets them save collection hardware weight on the return mission.

tectonic2• 7 years ago

If you like this issue of Orbital Index, please consider subscribing for free. Orbital Index is a weekly newsletter about the space industry. https://orbitalindex.com/

lucb1e• 7 years ago

That sounded a lot like an ad. I was about to ask whether you are affiliated, but it turned out to be easy to find that you're one of the authors.

tectonic2• 7 years ago

That's correct! We launched on HN about 4mo ago and now have right around 600 subscribers. It's an unfunded side project for Ben and myself.

ryanmercer4• 7 years ago

By your command.

bediger40002• 7 years ago

It's worthwhile watching the launch of the Chinese Long March vehicle: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/06/china-first-sea-laun...

They appear to shoot the entire vehicle out of a cannon-like container, then air-ignite the booster. I can't think of another launch vehicle that does this. The US did this sort of launch for the Sprint anti-ballistic missile: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msXtgTVMcuA

Isamu• 7 years ago

Very cool.

They appear to shoot the entire vehicle out of a cannon-like container, then air-ignite the booster.

They have an interesting launch platform, maybe they are trying to limit the damage to equipment? As it is their strategy seems relatively gentle to their launch platform. This could give them faster turnaround on launches.

maxxxxx• 7 years ago

Don't submarine missiles work like this?

Sharlin• 7 years ago

Most man-portable anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles work like this as well, for obvious reasons.

Robotbeat3• 7 years ago

It's worth noting that's Long March 11, which is a completely different vehicle to the Long March 5 (the one which will launch China's robotic Mars mission(s)) with the only commonality being that they're both Chinese.

Long March 11 is based on solid rocket motors and is much smaller than Long March 5 (roughly equivalent to a Delta IV Heavy or an expendable Falcon 9) which uses kerosene and oxygen for the first stage and hydrogen and oxygen for the second stage.

nostrademons• 7 years ago

That's a "cold launch" in ICBM terminology. It was popular during the 1980s - the U.S. Peacekeeper MX and Soviet SS-18 (among others) used it, as did Soviet VLS tubes and every SLBM.

m4rtink• 7 years ago

There is a nice SS-18/Dnepr launch video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwvNuZLASdE

The sequence goes like this: - the missile is ejected from the silo by mortar system, that generates a huge amount of gasses under the missile to push it out, acting on a piston part located right under the missile - the missile jumps out of the silo and the piston is ejected sideways via a small solid rocket motor - some wiring harnesses and what looks like guide wheels is ejected from the missile - the first stage engines of the missile (in this case liquid & hypergolic) are ignited and the missile starts to climb

This technique keeps the silo pretty much intact, which is nice for an ICBM acting as a space launch vehicle. Also IIRC for war use, it was theoretically possible to reload the silo and fire another missile before a retaliatory strike could destroy it, causing all kinds of havoc in cold war scenario planning.

fshafique• 7 years ago

Frankly, I'd like to see some kind of maglev-based launch platform that propels the rocket up the side of a mountain, and then lets the rocket's own boosters take over.

EForEndeavour• 7 years ago

That wouldn't fit on most ships.

nine_k• 7 years ago

The tubular structure of most large rockets is well suited to withstand many gs of load along its axis. It's also quite fragile wrt side forces and bending. Making it stronger makes it also heavier.

A device that can carry several tons to GEO and to start in a slanted position along a mountain would be a very different beast than a usual rocket.

To say nothing about building several miles of an excessively straight maglev bridge along a mountain which is likely not that straight, and also highly visible.

SmellyGeekBoy2• 7 years ago

How about a very similar concept, but implemented as a deep vertical shaft in the ground? The initial acceleration could be provided by electromagnets with the rockets only kicking in once the vehicle reaches ground level?

yummybear• 7 years ago

What happens if the rocket fails to fire - I mean, it's a rhetorical question, I can imagine what happens.

jacobush2• 7 years ago

It makes a big splash into the ocean?

AFascistWorld• 7 years ago

That's a missle, and lauching like that don't make sense for rockets.

loblollyboy• 7 years ago

This is like that time when king gizzard released 5 albums in one year

e40• 7 years ago

Even if people around here think humanity isn't really prepared for a Mars mission yet, what's clear to me is there are nations on this planet that will take far more risks that, say, NASA was prepared to take back in the days of our first space program. I'm not passing judgement, just saying I think it's clear, even if NASA had the funds to go to Mars, we wouldn't be the first to Mars. Maybe not even second or third. And in this politically charged world we seem live in currently, there are likely interesting times ahead.

abledon• 7 years ago

sobering run down of the realities when living on mars: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqKGREZs6-w

The layers of soil we'd have to cover our buildings in really got me!

aeternus• 7 years ago

Tunnels are a much better solution. More radiation protection and built-in structural integrity. Just use giant LCD panels for natural light shafts for windows.

zamalek2• 7 years ago

Just use giant LCD panels for natural light shafts for windows

I read about tech a few years back that simulates the entire atmosphere in about 5cm. Photos of rooms with these lights looked like skylights. "Real" sunlight is probably very important for mental health.

nirav72• 7 years ago

I always wondered why Mars is first on the list for exploration. why not develop the tech to mine astroids and then use the resources for building up human presence on Mars. Plus, the economic benefits alone would drive many private entities to jump into it

afro88• 7 years ago

I think it stems from environmental and doomsday concerns on Earth.

TeMPOraL2• 7 years ago

Mars is a more interesting scientific target; cislunar space is a more interesting industrial target. Mars is where we should explore; Earth-Moon system is where we should expand to and build permanent space presence.

davedx• 7 years ago

why not develop the tech to mine astroids and then use the resources for building up human presence on Mars

Because we have all the resources we need on Earth to build a base on Mars, and if we make good use of ISRU ("live off the land") on Mars, we can get a lot of what we need right there. See for example synthesising methalox from Martian resources; marscrete; making glass and other chemical processes... Zubrin's "Mars Direct" book goes into many details here.

Building a reusable booster capable of launching vehicles that can do the Mars transfer is much more economical than building intermediate stages like orbital gateways or asteroid mines.

That's not to say mining asteroids is a bad idea though -- there are other companies looking at this too!

de_watcher2• 7 years ago

It involves launching an untested zero-g mining and manufacturing facilities from Earth. It also needs shielding if we use people there.

Mars has gravity and can use our normal mining and manufacturing, it's straightforward to dig in with shovels for shielding. Launching from Mars is easier, so it's a probable path to the belt.

I don't see economical viability for the Earth in any of these scenarios. Maybe only the straight breakthrough in zero-g autonomous mining and return of precious metals from the belt to Earth.

ncmncm9• 7 years ago

What, again?

With so many going to, already at, or already been to Mars, it seems like they should be able spare a probe for Venus.

Mars will never be a place anyone sane would want to be. But Cloud City floating 50 miles above Venus! Who could resist?

azernik2• 7 years ago

Cloud City would have no access to raw materials for ISRU, and still have to deal with (low-pressure-gradient) sealing and wind forces. In terms of engineering, easier to build a self-contained environment in a place where the only environmental interactions are heat loss and some dust, and where you can use local materials to make oxygen, concrete, and metals.

TeMPOraL2• 7 years ago

Cloud City would have no access to raw materials for ISRU

Arguably, it would, it would just require the collector to take a dip in the denser parts of the atmosphere. It might be tricky though, and generally the less moving parts a misson has, the better.

jacobush2• 7 years ago

What worries me about Cloud City is the sulfuric acid gas in the atmosphere. Is it so hard to handle as I imagine?

ncmncm9• 7 years ago

Cloud City has easy access to unlimited amounts of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and sulfur, and plenty of solar energy. Balloons dipping lower could pick up other needed trace materials.

Balloons don't need to deal with wind forces. They go where the air goes.

More important, though, is that on Mars you're in Nowheresville. Cold, dusty, airless, dim, with possibly unhealthily-low gravity.

ryanmercer4• 7 years ago

it seems like they should be able spare a probe for Venus.

Venus is hard unless you want to just stay in orbit. Surface temperature that's steady right around 872F (tin melts at 449.4F, lead at 621F, zinc at 787F) and a surface pressure that is equivalent to being under 3000 feet of water.

Sure, something in orbit over Venus could do some mapping and stuff but meh, Mars could have harbored life like we find on Earth now at some point in its past, we can hang out for months or years taking photos from orbit and the ground, on the ground missions can last months or years instead of hours (Venera 12 sent data back for 110 minutes, it could have for longer but was out of range of its orbiter after 110 mimutes) or days that evne modern equipment would be able to survive before you started having multiple failures. Best case you'd have to land something akin to a submarine with expendable coolant and buy some time as you consumed coolant but realistically you aren't going to get more than a couple of days if that on the surface.

Something like a balloon is just as likely to fail as it is to succeed given we have no way to realistically test one before sending it and even then, it's still going to collect very limited amount of data, not much more than the Russians already collected via the various Venera missions.

pseingatl• 7 years ago

How much law do we take with us? And whose? See, marslegalcode.org

luxuryballs• 7 years ago

But why? Such a waste of money, it’s too far away, and there’s nothing there. It’s like the ultimate snake oil investment.

The ROI must be awful. Just think about the cost to get there and the chance of anything of value coming back... a big time net loss no doubt.

I wish I could buy the hype but I’m just not seeing it.

BellBivDeVoe• 7 years ago

Why sail across the ocean? The new world is just wilderness and indigenous people.

Why move west, across the Mississippi? It's just open prarie and Indians.

Why go camping? It's just dirt and bugs and carcinogens from cooking fires.

Why climb mountains? People get killed all the time in horrible accidents.

thelittleone• 7 years ago

I can't speak for the science value but these missions do inspire people. I often sit with my two sons and watch launches and missions, or set an alarm to see the ISS fly over. They're fascinated that we're able to send machines to Mars and that people are inside that tiny space station flying overheard.

lnsru• 7 years ago

Space race is going further: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Race

It’s a wonderful way to demonstrate power without starting a war.

taneq• 7 years ago

The ROI for the first few successful missions will, long term, be a significant portion of an entire planet.

That's a pretty decent ROI.

ncmncm9• 7 years ago

There is apparently an economic theory behind this argument. But I doubt it's been published.

Who do the inheritors of Mars sell it to? And what do they swap for it?

imtringued2• 7 years ago

Humans have a limited time span. Therefore they care more about year over year numbers than total ROI over a span of tens of thousands of years.

nercht122• 7 years ago

Actually, I can think of some things: 1. Manufacturing heavy equipment will be much cheaper due to low gravity and prevalence of iron. Plus shipping it to Earth will still be relatively affordable because you're only escaping Mar's gravity.

2. It'd be a great testing/research site for wild science experiments like artificial creatures and stuff that would go very badly if not contained on Earth.

ncmncm9• 7 years ago

Any arguments based on lower cost of anything collapse instantly.

Mars has demonstrated high amusement value. That has sustained all the missions thus far. It's all we have any prospect for in decades to come. God knows we'll need a lot as our ecosystem folds up around us.

imtringued2• 7 years ago

Anything shipped from mars to earth will be 500 days out of date by the time it arrives.

zamalek2• 7 years ago

In space there is just a vacuum, why would we ever go there? Let's see. The Microwave oven. GPS. Cancer treatments.

It's impossible to tell what Mars could offer in full, but we do know one of them upfront: surviving a meteor, Yellowstone, a pandemic, or any one of many ways that the entire species could be wiped out.

ncmncm9• 7 years ago

Microwave ovens work on the ground, and were invented on the ground. GPS satellites operate under remote control. What about cancer treatments? Weightlessness, vacuum, and high ambient radiation don't cure cancer, singly or in combination.

We could survive a Yellowstone eruption much, much, much more easily in Antarctica than on Mars.

Mars is interesting, but not as a place to live.

de_watcher2• 7 years ago

The whole purpose of life is to fill space. Through the genetic algorithm it searches the forms that do it.

The algorithm has developed the current forms that can actually plan ahead and try to push through the gaps of 'nothingness' to keep filling the space.

Four Mars missions are launching next year

Related Stories