
Four Mars missions are launching next year - tectonic
https://orbitalindex.com/archive/2019-06-11-archive-Issue-16/
======
bediger4000
It's worthwhile watching the launch of the Chinese Long March vehicle:
[https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/06/china-first-sea-
laun...](https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/06/china-first-sea-launch-long-
march-11-seven-satellites/)

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](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msXtgTVMcuA)

~~~
fshafique
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.

~~~
nine_k
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.

~~~
rdruxn
If it’s accelerating along the longitudinal axis, then the slant doesn’t
matter. It’ll never experience more than 1g orthogonal to the axis.

The problem is getting out of the thickness of the lower atmosphere. That’s
why rockets go up before they go sideways.

------
wtracy
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.

~~~
mLuby
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).

~~~
Robotbeat
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.

~~~
LeifCarrotson
I thought the typical Martian ISRU called for heating soil to extract water
vapor and using the hydrogen in that to make fuel. Oxygen is still
interesting, for sure, but that robotic mining sounds a lot more difficult.

~~~
Robotbeat
The carbon monoxide can also be used as rocket fuel. Not commonly considered,
but it'd simplify a lot of things.

------
e40
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.

------
tectonic
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/](https://orbitalindex.com/)

~~~
lucb1e
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.

~~~
tectonic
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.

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

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

~~~
aeternus
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.

~~~
zamalek
> 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
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

~~~
davedx
> 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!

------
ncmncm
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?

~~~
azernik
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.

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

~~~
ncmncm
Concentrated sulfuric acid is shipped freely in polyethylene bottles.

Polyethylene is just carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, all available at altitude.

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

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

------
luxuryballs
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.

~~~
nercht12
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.

~~~
ncmncm
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.

~~~
nercht12
> Any arguments based on lower cost of anything collapse instantly.

That's too broad an assumption. In truth, it'll depend on WHAT you are trying
to manufacture and if you can keep it on Mars and send its product/output back
to Earth. I'm not going to try to predict what stuff we'll want in the future
because I don't know. But it's too early to dismiss the possibility of "real
utility".

~~~
ncmncm
Any claim of utility has a very, very high bar to get over. Mars-high.

Asteroid mining, maybe not so much, depending on how much it can be automated.
The problem there quickly becomes how not to saturate demand and drive down
prices to the point that the material's not worth transporting. Probably the
only solution, ultimately, is to create enough demand _in situ_ to absorb
excess capacity.

