Reddit reviews The Case for Mars: The Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why We Must
We found 26 Reddit comments about The Case for Mars: The Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why We Must. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Free Press
If you followed the "Mars Express" design concept as championed by Robert Zubrin you could do it for $10 billion: basically don't fuck about with space stations or moon bases: send a lander to Mars in advance with all of your food and supplies - and another lander that contains the return ship that self fuels on the ground: you don't set off from Earth until the return ship has sieved all the fuel it needs from Mars' atmosphere.
This methodology brings the price down by orders of magnitude from NASAs bloated estimates.
For a more realistic concept of Martian colonization,
The Case For Mars by Robert Zubrin is an excellent read. Zubrin focuses on a smaller scale, less expensive method of colonizing Mars which involves three Ares class launches, one for a MAV (Mars Ascent Vehicle), an ERV (Earth Return Vehicle), and habituation module. The MAV will use in-situ, or on planet resources to produce methane rocket propellant and fuel the crew’s method of leaving the planet once their stay ends. They will dock with the ERV in LMO (Low Martian Oribit), where the ERV will perform a transfer burn to get back home. This plan is known as Mars Semi-Direct (the original, known as Mars Direct, combined the MAV and ERV, but NASA necessitated the modifications that created Semi-Direct) and has been a vision of Zubrin since he originally proposed it to NASA in the 1990s. It should be noted, however, that one needs at least a small scientific background to understand Zubrin’s book. (Concepts such as ISP, deltaV, orbital mechanics ex. Hohmann Transfer, and chemistry involving synthesis of propellants as well as catalyst reactions. Most of it is explained but a minimal background in rocket science is helpful)
EDIT: this plan comprises NASA’s most recent Mars plan, which was actually designed around Zubrin’s suggestions and collaboration with NASA as part of the SEI. This plan can be found in more detail
here
The Case for Mars is a great read, often recommended on reddit. Published in 1996 but sadly a still relevant proposal for a low cost manned Mars mission using currently available rockets and tech. At the low end it was estimated to be $20B in 1996 dollars ($30B now). It details why NASA departments lobby for far more expensive tech that needs developing to justify their existence and boost their department.
The proposal in the article is for $19.5B annual funding.
If you don't want to read a whole book there is good info at the Mars Direct website or the wiki.
Does anyone know if this type of plan has any current traction?
> It has always been about flags and footprints
He literally went against all of NASA by saying 30 days missions were a huge waste of resources and that the only way to properly do Mars Missions was to do opposition class mission, with a year and half stay... That's all in the book.
What's also in the book is that after 5 or 6 cycles (MAV lands at window n, crew lands at window n+1, leaves at window n+2), the covered surface by the frequently spaced landing sites (and by the methane powered rovers) would be sufficient to decide on the best landing site to start a more permanent base.
It's called The Case for Mars (which incidentally will totally be the name of my suitcase if I ever get a seat on one of these MCT), and while it smells like the 90s (built on STS assets, expandable rockets), it definitely is geared toward creating a permanent civilization on Mars. Watch this and tell me again that he is an Apollo kind of guy.
The problem with NASA doesn't really lie in how big its budget is, its in how congress defines the NASA budget.
Congress sets very narrow parameters that results in NASA operating in an very inefficient way. They do this because NASA's funding is used as pork to flow back to their districts.
We can travel to mars far more cheaply than any plan currently being proposed, we can do it basically with the existing NASA budget but it would require a major restructuring that would be politically untenable. If you're very curious in exactly how this can be done (the technical aspects, not the political ones), read Robert Zubrin's: The Case for Mars.
"The MAV was an orbital craft...it would be nearly useless if it were not. The reason why it needs to be heavily modified, and why it DOESN'T achieve orbit (even though it could) is because it has to match the insanely fast velocity of the Hermes as it does a fly-by. A little orbital mechanics, and what happened to the MAV after the rendezvous was that it escaped Mars' gravity entirely and went into a long orbit around the sun. There's a slim chance it fell into the Sun, but making that happen is harder than you think."
"Much of the hard science behind the Martian and in NASA thinking in general surrounding Mars comes from a book called The Case for Mars by Robert Zubrin. While it's a policy book, it's extremely engaging."
If this is a troll then it is excellent; I'm falling for it hook line and sinker.
However, if you are open to reading about why the reaction has been so negative (with all the downvotes) and want to read something cool instead Zubrin has a book called ["The Case for Mars"][1].
The book is not perfect (there are a few sections that could do with more recent information or more research input) but largely it's a good book that makes the wider points clear.
Or just read the much more approachable blog by Wait but why. Many people on this subreddit are here from that one post.
I promise this is usually a fun sub and people don't often get downvoted so harshly. :)
[1]: http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-Mars-Settle-Planet/dp/145160811X
Read: A Case for Mars
It answers these kind of answers much better and more legitimately than /u/probelike. We don't need to go to the poles to refine fuel, there are techniques where you bring 1/8th of the fuel you need to get back and spend 2 years using a specific chemical process of pulling out a gas from the thin martian atmosphere to get the other 7/8ths. (You can read a more detailed account on the physics and engineering behind that in the book linked in my comment. It also talks about how people determine 'how long it will take to get to mars' which is not a set time, it all depends on how much fuel you want to use.)
How To Build Your Own Spaceship is a fantastic introduction to rocket appliances and commercial space flight. It's pretty short, too. I highly recommend.
And obviously The Case for Mars.
In Rubert Zurbin's excellent 1996 book The Case For Mars, he describes the Mars Direct plan which places a small nuclear reactor (does not say what type) capable of 100 kilowatts and lowers it into a crater or natural depression. This powers the chemical plant to produce fuel for the trip back.
To my mind, this seems to be the easiest solution; many small reactors. Portable with a rover, you can set up perimeter/remote bases that are not limited by umbilical cord length. If one has a problem, you still have capacity in the others.
I would also expect a few small RTGs laying about as well. Though an RTG is fairly inefficient for producing electricity, they are simple, dependable, and long-lived. The radioactivity is obviously a concern, but not insurmountable. Also, Mars is cold and a lot of energy will be needed for heat, and the RTG's waste heat can tapped directly without inefficient conversions.
I wonder how many people in this thread would enjoy reading Robert Zubrin's work. He laid out a solid plan over 2 decades ago with existing tech. for those interested
The Moon could be a useful source of some key minerals ("volatiles"), particularly water, both for human consumption and for the production of fuel. This is principally due to the fact that the Moon's lower gravity and lack of atmosphere makes it much easier to get from the Moon's surface to an orbit around the Moon, and moving from lunar orbit to near-Earth space (which the Moon basically defines the outer edge of) is relatively easy as well.
However, for exploration of the rest of the solar system (and beyond!), the real place to go is to the asteroids, starting with the NEOs (Near Earth Objects), as these are not in general gravitationally linked to the Earth, and would allow us much easier access to the rest of the solar system. In his book The Case for Mars Robert Zubrin also shows by analysis that the delta-v needed to get to the the asteroids is actually much lower from Mars than it is from either Earth or the Moon, so a better intermediate target before asteroid mining would actually be Mars, which also possesses far more of the chemicals and minerals useful for spaceflight than the Moon does.
TL;DR there is some reason to go develop the Moon, but much more compelling reasons to focus on Mars and the asteroid belt instead.
Caveat: It depends on what you mean; the radius at which Earth's gravity ceases to be the dominant force acting on a body in orbit, to be replaced by the Sun's gravity, is actually further than the Moon's orbit, and astrodynamicists often refer to that distance as the outer edge of "near-Earth space". Edit: See Sphere of Influence and patched conic approximation for more details.
Puh-lease.
> Here we have this beautifully made basket. It's nice and deep and woven in such a way that each egg is carefully secured and safe from harm short of catastrophe (e.g. having the basket crushed by a falling safe).
Like these five falling safes?
.
> The second basket is a bowling ball size rock. Bowling ball rocks make lousy baskets, so we have to bring all our basket constructing materials with us.
Already proven wrong.
Water: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44952710
And all the other basket materials.
See also https://www.amazon.com/Case-Mars-Plan-Settle-Planet/dp/145160811X
I would recommend checking out the book "The Case for Mars" by Robert Zubrin. In it he covers how we could begin to colonize mars within 10 years.
I would recommend reading it or listening to the audio book
The Case for Mars is a good plan for how to settle Mars.
Project Orion by George Dyson is about the nuclear rocket program.
No. A survey of the world's oceanic life is already underway; mapping the ocean floor is not terribly useful or important, and most mapping techniques aren't precise enough to detect small artifacts of the sort that ancient tribes would have had.
NASA, on the other hand, is trying to develop technologies which will make it easier for us to explore and later colonize other planets.
It is almost inevitable that humans will colonize Mars at some point in the next few hundred years (to make a very conservative estimate- it would actually be possible to send a manned mission to mars using a combination of Apollo technology and 1800s industrial chemical reactions to make rocket fuel from the atmosphere of mars).
Space is the final frontier- a frontier with almost limitless potential for expansion. History shows us that nations which are expanding along a frontier show far more innovation and far less stagnation; an example is the American frontier, which gave America a huge boost of innovation and corresponding world power for centuries. Once humanity takes the leap to exploring and colonizing space, it's quite likely that the challenges of that task will unlock a huge wave of technological progress for our entire species.
At the moment, the problem with NASA is that everything in its budget is subject to review by Congress, even though most Congressmen know nothing about what NASA does. This has created a small project centered culture at NASA; groups of scientists lobby for NASA to change its overarching goals in order to justify their individual projects, instead of NASA creating a long term strategy on the lines of the Apollo program which individuals would then adjust their projects to support. Because of this, very little useful gets done, and NASA wastes massive amounts of time and money sitting in the space station doing this test and that test without actually going anywhere.
If you really want to make NASA useful, it should have a set budget (higher than it is now) and a long term plan of action which is controlled by the NASA director, not one which changes every time a new president is elected.
If any of that interested you, The Case for Mars by Robert Zubrin is a great read on the subject of NASA and what we should be doing with our space program.
The Case for Mars and Entering Space are excellent reading for anyone interested in the future of space exploration. Or blowing up kerbals.
We're delighted to announce that r/SpaceX will be hosting an AMA with Dr. Robert Zubrin! The event will take place in its own dedicated thread this Saturday, November 23rd at 12:00 Pacific Time, which is 20:00UTC. As you may already know, Dr. Z's book The Case for Mars was a significant early influence on SpaceX's Mars colonization plans. His recent IAC2019 Mars Direct 2.0 presentation generated some good discussion here.
This is happening for real! We've been in contact with representatives of the Mars Society and Dr. Zubrin himself. We are very thankful to everyone involved for giving us their time and attention.
We'll collect the top few questions from this thread and repost them in the dedicated AMA thread on Saturday. Everyone will of course be welcome to ask their own questions in the AMA thread as well. Dr. Z will probably stick around answering questions for a few days.
Just to reiterate, this is NOT the actual AMA thread! That will be created a few hours before the AMA begins on Saturday.
Actually it does. Read this book and you'll see we could have already established a base there years ago: http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-Mars-Settle-Planet/dp/145160811X
Robert Zubrin's The Case for Mars.
Incorrect. Please check out The Case for Mars by Robert Zubrin.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-Mars-Settle-Planet/dp/145160811X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1344235543&sr=8-1&keywords=the+case+for+mars
Pour ceux que ça intéresse, je recommande vivement
The case for Mars de Robert Zubrin.
Livre écrit en 1996, qui, selon Carl Sagan lui même a changé la perception de la conquête de Mars à la NASA.
Zubrin fait partie des conseilles d'Elon Musk.
Mars is 37% of Earth's gravity according to wikipedia. It could be true that it may prove detrimental to those living on Mars long-term. I doubt it, but there's one good way to study those affects, and that's to go to Mars. A 3 year mission is unlikely to cause severe issues, especially if gravity is simulated en-route.
You can do that by spinning the craft, as you alluded to, but you can also do so by tethering the habitable portion to another object (such as the burnt out upper stage of the rocket that is sending you to Mars). In doing so you can decrease the size requirements of the habitable portion of the craft. This is discussed as part of Mars Direct. To be fair, this hasn't been tested (certainly not on a large scale - I think a small scale test is happening this year) but the principle is sound.
On that note, some sources on Mars Direct that I found very interesting and helpful:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKQSijn9FBs
http://www.amazon.com/Case-Mars-Plan-Settle-Planet/dp/145160811X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1456935955&sr=8-1&keywords=a+case+for+mars
>So, what's the plan for all that infrastructure? Where's the poo going to go
Into soil. While hydroponics will likely have a large use, you have to put the material in the shit back into the system or you are going to always be relying, partially, on shipments from Earth.
>What about roads?
The only people that will need roads are people prospecting. That's for them to worry about.
>Electrical?
At first you'll be taking your power generation equipment with you. You'll be relying on PV panels, some sort of storage means (taking local materials and creating methane or hydrogen etc for a generator, just ask the Russians how long dust storms can last on Mars), RTG's, I imagine people will experiment with some sort of wind turbines early on (while the wind pressure won't be similar to earth, you could use considerably lighter materials due to the reduce stress and the reduced gravity). Later you'd likely be able to exploit geothermal sources and ultimately put proper nuclear reactors online long after a local economy was established and you'd use PV on clear days and draw from the power plant during the night and when you need more power than you have available from your own systems just like on earth. You'd pay however the normal means of trade are at that time.
>Who determines the order of the weekly urea pick up
Anyone with their own habitat is going to be using all of their waste themselves for growing their own food or in various chemical reactors for other uses.
>Water?
You're going to take your own, you'll buy more or harvest it yourself.
It'd be pretty easy to melt worthwhile amounts too, the 'cheapest' method is going to be using the sun directly, basically put the ice in a sealed, transparent, greenhouse and use reflectors to concentrate more sunlight on a given space to raise the temperature. Place ice in, seal, pressurize, open valve in funneled floor, let the sun do it's work. Use a solar tracking system to adjust enough reflectors while it melts, water collects in tank. Melting done, close drain valve and vent pressure. Since no one is in the box you don't even have to use breathable air, simply pump Martian atmosphere into the box in a high enough concentration to assist with the heating of the box.
Second option, so Mars averages 57% the solar irradiance that earth gets. Average temperature on Mars is -55C. Doing some quick math in my head you'd likely need a little less than 0.5KWh to melt 1kg of ice and to get it slightly above freezing so you'll need about 6 square meters of PV panel to thaw 2kg an hour of ice, that's about 2 liters of water an hour assuming it's pure water ice and doesn't contain any dry ice or meteorites of appreciable size.
>When is trash day?
Again, any refuse is going to be reused. If you aren't breaking it down into its basic components one way or another, you are going to trade it as scrap or use it for decoration/art supplies or even as insulation.
>Are we sending engineers, or outsourcing designs off-planet
Probably both.
> and sending builders?
Companies might. A lot of the habitats are likely going to be inflatable in nature at first. If you can assemble a tent you'll likely be able to assemble a habitat. Later you can relatively easy make bricks from local materials (almost entirely from the regolith) and build vaults/bunkers under ground and then cover with regolith, pressurize them and they'll eventually seal themselves off thanks to the temperature... moisture from exhalation and what not will seep through any cracks and ultimately freeze You could also go in and paint some sort of sealant. Above ground you'd use a sealant or put an inflatable inside the brick structure. I suggest reading Zubrin's books The Case for Mars and Mars Direct: Space Exploration, the Red Planet, and the Human Future and his fiction, but scientifically accurate book, How to Live on Mars which is a guide written in the future for those that are on their way to Mars. His fiction book First Landing is also worth reading, it came out before The Martian and involves an entire crew trying to scrape by on Mars.
-----------------------
Now for getting to Mars for people that can't afford it I wrote the following using Mars Direct as the means of getting there in another sub some time ago it assumes a considerably smaller crew than Musk's baby...
Zubrin said in 2012 that if given to NASA Mars Direct would cost 30-50 billion but a private company could do it for around 5bn. That's for 6 manned flights over 10 years.
Let's pretend a private company would need 20bn per 5 flights. Let's say 1 equipment launch per 4 manned launches. I believe Mars Direct called for 3 people for the early flights but let's pretend 5 per flight.
You get 100 people and a hell of a lot of equipment and habitats to Mars for 500bn over 10-16 years and then BOOM. Declare yourself a nation.
You sell land claims, you license technologies, you tax import but instead of a financial cut you get paid in cargo space or human passage.
You take those human passage spaces taken as tax and use them to hire via employment contracts. You get passage to Mars as well as room, board for working for us for x years and you also earn this many Marsbucks per month. Any mineral deposits, discovers, inventions etc you make while under your initial contract the Martian Free Government gets 10% royalties on gross profits and may use any technologies or processes for free.
You also work with other companies that want to send people to Mars. "You will be granted access to such and such, an xx year land lease for a nominal amount, in exchange you will give 5% of any profits that arise from your operations on Mars whether or not sold on Mars or not".
Inside of 50 years from the first landing of humans you'd essentially have Mars locked down. If any wildcat colonies tried to land, it'd likely be far from your settlement and they wouldn't be an issue for centuries. If armed forces attempted to come and be a problem, if they were from a Terran government that government would likely find themselves screwed politically as soon as news made its way back to earth.
> The idea of sending one mars on mars just to say that humans walked on it is stupid and doesn,t do much, just like the ISS.
Hence why I did not suggest that; I mentioned Mars Direct, created by Robert Zubrin. He is highly critical of a "flags and footprints" type of mission where we would just land, say something dramatic, plant a flag and leave. Mars Direct involves an 18-month stay and sets the groundwork for future missions, in-situ production of resources and living space, and longer stays. If you haven't read The Case For Mars, I recommend it.
If you want to look into how we should do it, I'd read The Case for Mars by Robert Zubrin.
It's very concise and well-written, and even has a bit of technical info if you have the background. You'll probably form the same conclusion that it makes a lot of sense to mine the asteroid belt from Mars, not from Earth.