The four astronauts who will fly in one direction to Mars are risking their lives, because they could die within 68 days. This is according to one of the scenarios in the simulation conducted by researchers from MIT.* The project initiator in response: Their estimates are not related to reality
How plausible is the possibility of landing humans on Mars and will Mars One, the organization that proposes to start establishing the colony on Mars by launching four humans in one direction, set off in 2025 as planned?
The four astronauts who will fly in one direction to Mars are risking their lives, because they could die within 68 days. This is according to one of the scenarios in the simulation conducted by researchers from MIT. The study titled "An Independent Assessment of the Technical Feasibility of the Mars One Mission" Presented at the International Astronautical Congress held a few weeks ago in Toronto, Canada.
The study reveals that the technological concept of Mars One falls short in several important points: the oxygen rate may jump to unsafe levels. Use of local resources is unproven and the technology required for it is very expensive. The researchers, Sidney Doe, Samuel Cheriner, Andrew Evans and Oliver de Wik - all from MIT explain that the calculations they made show that the first resources will run out after 68 days from the day of landing, assuming that there will be no production capacity from Komita, or that it will be insufficient.
"In mid-2012, the Mars One program announced that it plans to build the first settlement on the surface of Mars. Following a series of preliminary missions to develop the important technologies, the first four team members will fly to Mars and land on its surface.
An additional crew of four will be sent to Mars at each launch opportunity to support and expand the Martian colony. While this program has a growing fan base, very little has been published in the technical literature about the architecture of the mission.”
"Since Mars One represents a different path from the conservative approaches to manned flights, there are a lot of uncertainties in the mission planning. Establishing a mission on Mars will rely on in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) and the life support system required for this is more innovative than the most advanced existing ones. Moreover, the logistics of supply and the preparation of spare parts will play an important role in the proposed colony, and the effect of Nidvar on the inhabitants has not yet been assessed (in the article, the researchers specify that the station's survivability will depend on the knowledge and ability of the astronauts to replace damaged parts - that is, the simplicity of the system)."
"In light of this, the researchers developed a tool for analyzing a colony on Mars that is combined with a simulation of the living environment together with a model for managing resources in the field and analyzing spare parts. This logistic model will be used to predict the number of launchers needed and provide a preliminary estimate of the cost of the program. The researchers used these tools to independently assess the technical feasibility of the Mars One mission architecture.
resource availability
"A first baseline simulation of Mars One's living environment suggests that without utilizing local resources, the first crew members would die within 68 days. This is due to a lack of oxygen and partial air pressure within the living environment." the researchers write.
"Even if they use plants to replenish the oxygen supply, further research reveals that there are also dangerous and counterintuitive side effects that may be caused by excess oxygen that plants may create, which will increase the concentration of oxygen, which may cause the pressure control systems to release air. Since the system is not able to evacuate a specific gas, the proportion of oxygen will remain the same after reducing the pressure and the general air pressure will decrease. Add an eliminator to the system to bring the oxygen to the appropriate concentration. After many cycles of air release and nitrogen injection, all nitrogen will run out on the 66th day of the mission. Even without these problems, food is also a problem - and if local food is not produced quickly, the stock will run out in a little over 100 days."
Cost: 4.5 billion dollars
"Our evaluation revealed several insights about the architectural decisions regarding the establishment of a colony on the surface of Mars. If agricultural crops are used as the only source of food, they will produce oxygen levels that are unsafe for the living environment. Moreover, the local resource utilization system will account for 8% of the mass of resources produced over the course of two years. This means that the local production system will need technologies to produce nitrogen, oxygen and water on the surface of Mars will be relatively simple. The analysis of the spare parts reveals that the spare parts will very quickly constitute the dominant mass of the supply missions as the colony grows: after 130 months on the surface of Mars, the spare parts will constitute 62% of the mass that will be transferred from Earth to the surface of Mars. The logistics analysis reveals that in the best-case scenario, supplies to support the first crew would require the capacity of about 15 Falcon Heavy launchers, at a cost of $4.5 billion, and these numbers would increase as additional crew members are launched. It is also important to note that these numbers were derived only when considering that life support system launch missions and local production together with spare parts will cost much more in practice, and further studies are still needed to calculate the development and operation costs, as well as the integration with other components of the mission, such as systems Communication and energy.
Improving the local production capacity of life support systems and the capacity for local production of spare parts could reduce the cost of the architecture of establishing a colony on Mars.
In response to this calculation, Landrup said that a permanent supply line to Mars would not be required, and it would be possible to be satisfied with 13 launches, at a cost of 125 million dollars per launch or 1.625 billion dollars for the entire project.
The response of the initiator of the Mars One project: the estimates are based on different technologies than those that will be used in the operation
"The research is based on the technologies currently available on the International Space Station" says Bass Landrup, initiator of the Mars One project In an interview with the Universe Today website. "And so their result is a completely different mission than Mars One. Therefore, their analysis has nothing to do with our mission."
The mission created a public debate about sending humans on a journey with no promise of return, but thousands of applicants competed for the chance to do so. After two reductions, the current list stands at 700 people waiting for interviews, and there is no date yet for the next screening.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
16 תגובות
Sending people to Mars is an unforgivable crime by any standard. Beyond the aspect of 4 eccentrics with a card in one direction. It is clear that they will die if not after 68 days, they will not die of old age.
The crime is biological contamination of Mars, which will not allow any scientific research in the future. It is not clear to me why it is not possible to send smart robots to perform all the necessary scientific tasks. It's not just that we don't find any biological markers either on Mars or on any planet in the immediate vicinity. The chance of finding a biological entity in our galaxy is also small. The reason is simple. The complexity of such a large biological entity that includes: a. A super nova explosion. B. A gathering of mass in the form of a sun and around stars with a precise composition of the material ratio of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, chlorine, sodium, water, and everything else. third. A ball of mass that will hit the earth and move it by about 37 degrees, in order to create the seasons. d. May he have a moon to stabilize the rotation angle. God. to rotate at the correct speed. and. It will be located at the edge of the galaxy so that it will not be disturbed by damage from the masses running around. And a million more reasons.
So let sane people stand up and stop this crime.
Has anyone tried to create a robot that will create a large dome that regulates gases and another robot that will plant and grow trees inside it on Earth? I think you should try it here before flying there.
It is not clear to me how 4 people can survive there alone. What will happen if one of them gets the flu? Will it get cold? Will he need dental treatment or will he be injured and need surgery? After all, each of them is supposed to fulfill an important function such as: engineering, biology, medicine, management. If indeed one of them is sick and there are not enough drugs, diagnostic tools, treatment environment or appropriate surgical knowledge, he will die quickly, and then the others will have to manage without him. If the one who got sick is the doctor, then the rest is in trouble.
XNUMXD printers can do amazing things given raw material and software. When the raw material is limited, the software should be the finished product from the initial stage, which does not happen in reality. So it's a nice robot and a good solution for MDB books, but when it breaks down or doesn't produce the material with the appropriate features, you can't call a service person.
In the bottom line, it seems to me that we should start colonizing Mars with robots controlled from Earth and after establishing appropriate and tested infrastructure as possible, fly humans there, and even then there should be more than four suicides for that.
Another point raised here is a political management problem. If one of them hit someone else, who will punish him? After all, there is no police, no prison and everything is based on the fact that everyone wants the good of everyone, like a commune for everything. The point is that no commune lasts. People want to appropriate products and increase their quality of life even at the expense of others.
Think about a situation where the amount of food is limited and one of the staff members has a healthy appetite. Is it right that he will eat more than others? Will the approach where everyone gets as much as they need and gives as much as they can - which has not been successful in any communist country and in any kibbutz - work on Mars because... what? Because they know they went on a suicide mission? Will it bring out the best in them and make them want to make more of an effort for others at the expense of themselves? It's hard for me to assume.
If people were mere robots performing functions, like ants, it could work. But many people are offended, offend and the cooperation that should be problematic even for such a limited number of people who are supposed to get along together, will hurt at an early stage.
The point is to tell the entrepreneurs of a company to stop with your nonsense, at the moment it is not possible at all, this matter is being discussed with extreme seriousness....
And this is not possible if only because of the following reasons:
Today there is no rocket capable of lifting such a heavy load towards Mars, and this is a task that financially requires the resources of some power for 15 years and not of some private entrepreneur
There are very significant health problems that have been discovered in recent years as a result of being weightless for long periods of time
(and we are talking about a flight for at least a year and a half) the problems were discovered and they still don't know how to solve them.
There are psychological and legal problems that cannot be solved yet (and as an example I will point out that as soon as these companies take off towards Mars, the fear of the law no longer exists for them ever... and think about what that means)
It is probably not clear enough what a tremendous achievement it would be if humans lived on Mars for even 67 days! What an honor to be one of those people! To be one of the first four people to set foot on the soil of another planet, to fulfill a human dream that has existed since the day they realized that the twinkling dots in the sky are other worlds. I don't think these people are "innocent" but heroes, I don't foresee psychological problems in these volunteer Robinsons, and I wish them success in this important task.
There are quite a few spelling errors in the article, and also some that require spending a few moments trying to understand what the poet meant. Too bad.
If only we would direct these vast resources to the improvement and maintenance of our sphere…
Dehydration on Mars will undoubtedly take place, but several points must be taken care of beforehand
Creating a magnetic field that will repel the charged radiation from the sun
The plan should be
Sending robots (in 20 years the robots will be very advanced and will be able to perform many tasks that today seem impossible)
Sending a small nuclear reactor that can produce energy
The robots will start with the construction work (they will have to build a structure with a huge glass ceiling that will withstand the pressures and serve as a kind of greenhouse
The robots will grow agricultural crops and plant trees (which will produce oxygen)
10-20 years after the robots land it will be possible to send people who can live there
Anyone who thinks that people can be sent and that they will start establishing the colony is living in an improbable world
Without a magnetic field and without a large structure with an atmosphere identical to the one on Earth I'm afraid these companies are just right
All attention is now directed to the technical problems. it's natural. However, in the future, various social, legal and psychological problems will also arise that must also be taken into account. For example, the issue of property ownership on Mars, the issue of the socio-economic structure in Mars society, etc., etc.
If these problems are not analyzed and sorted out in advance, then (almost certainly) an oppressive totalitarian society will develop there, most of whose members will be literally slaves to the rule of an oppressive, exploitative and cruel dictatorial minority.
It will take thousands of years (if at all!!) until the ancient society develops into a sophisticated society, such as the national society. And it is even possible that such a society will destroy itself for socio-political reasons similar to what happened, for example, to the ancient peoples in South-Central America (the Incas and the Maya).
If the existential problems on Mars are solved and autonomous life becomes possible there, then the social-legal-economic regime there will also be autonomous and independent of human society on Earth. So much so that they could, for example, develop a weapon of mass destruction and use it against KDA in order to conquer it and appropriate it.
Even before they attack Kadhaa they will fight each other, the "old" against the "new", "the dwellers of the mountains" against the "dwellers of the valleys", etc., etc. And the worst of all, they will be able to prevent the people of KDA from returning and landing on Mars.
In short... he will be happy.
Either they put their lives in their hands, or they risk their lives. To be sure, they do not "endanger their souls with their palms", unless their palms are dangerous to their souls in some way.
Besides that, thanks for the article and good luck to the Mars settlers. May you survive more than 68 days.
All the best
According to my calculation, 69 days came out. I don't understand where the absurd result of 68 comes from
Even so, they fly in one direction without sufficient means for future existence. The whole project is a bad exploitation of innocent people!
what are the problems They will take a XNUMXD printer and print spare parts, food, oxygen, and also new people when someone dies. (And they will also print a new XNUMXD printer just before it breaks down).
But seriously - the issue of radiation on the way to Mars is problematic. Mars itself also has a serious radiation problem. Nobody wants to launch a nuclear reactor into space because of the risk of a launch malfunction (perhaps in the distant future a fusion reactor). An experiment of living in a closed system in Arizona failed and the people would have died if food and oxygen could not be introduced (the ecosystem collapsed and most of the plants and animals died).
Anything you want to do in space and on other planets must first be tried on Earth, for example repeat the experiment in Arizona until success. Or try to extract oxygen from rocks similar to the Martian soil. To try to grow plants in the image of Martian conditions - chemically similar rock, air with a composition similar to that of compressed Mars and windows sealed against UV and cosmic rays - and see that enough oxygen is produced for the plants to survive at night and produce human food.
There are also problems that cannot be attempted at all, such as a low gravitation of about one-third g that will cause physiological problems for people.
What can be solved quite easily is the separation of oxygen from carbon dioxide. According to NASA, if enough plants grow to eat, too much oxygen will be produced. So every device for an emphysema patient separates oxygen with the help of a material that selectively absorbs gases at different pressures and an electric pump. But it is not clear to me if there is enough other gas - such as argon or nitrogen - available in the atmosphere of Mars because pure oxygen is too dangerous in the habitable zone (remember the three NASA astronauts who died in an experiment in a chamber of pure oxygen? The experiment was on the ground, not in space).
In conclusion: people will reach Mars and establish permanent settlements that can exist independently. In my opinion, existence depends on shipments from here in 50 years and independent existence in 150 years. seen.
The review is strange, not to mention stupid.
The challenge of growing food is hard enough, to claim that the plants will produce excess oxygen and that there is no way to get rid of it? Kind of like predicting that wearables like Google Glass will fail because people will refuse to take them off to get a haircut.
The supply cost estimate apparently ignores that the sheer number of launches will lower the cost, which is already lower on the Falcon than on any other Western launcher.
Nonsense, technically it is possible with the help of a small nuclear reactor to provide energy that will extract oxygen from the atmosphere and the plants and animals will grow in a separate structure. But psychologically it is not certain that everyone will survive with the knowledge that they will never return.