New Mars Forums

Feeling a bit like a minnow among sharks, I chime in to this exhilarating thread

GNCRevenger, would you be for MD if the mass margins were increased (say by Mars SemiDirect, or otherwise) to be more like DRM?

Dook, I think a stop at the moon before going on to mars (the real objective) could be a good idea -- so long as we don't go overboard there. Little infrastructure. No permanent base (money sinkhole, huge delay to mars). But if we achieve a genuinely capable exploration system (shuttle-stack derived MD, DRM etc) shouldn't we at least try them out on the conveniently placed Moon, and do some geology and astronomy while we're there? As well as testing our mars hardware and training astrounauts of course. I too would hate to see decades lost at the moon, but it might be worth a year or three...

As for lunar ISRU, regolith mining etc, sounds like a BIIIG distraction IMHO...but how heavy would the ISRU/mining stuff (and supporting power system etc) be? Tons, tens of tons? What if nasa, instead of making this core stuff, had a competition for private industry to make demonstrator ISRU units at the lightest possible weights. If it were just a few tons there would be no problem including it and seeing if GNCR's scenario is feasible (and perhaps even worthwhile)..And if there is money to be made in lunar mining the private industry can then go ahead and make some, while nasa continues to explore..

The key to having mars and the moon simultaneously is likely shared hardware. Shared booster of course, and the large/main habs and landers be of the same diameter (27' say) and made on the same basic factory design. Launch capacity could then be divided as desired, say 75% to mars, yet maintain a significant lunar presence too.

Just a noob's two cents worth.

Crash program today: We could be there by 2016, no problem. Nasa can afford 20-50 billion over this period, no prob, 15 % of budget. Probly could get a budget increase from Congress with wide support, too. Just takes the will, the call. I believe the support is there.

We need a booster, we need the in-situ fuel experiment done ASAP and smart lander technology, preferably a sample return or two (2011-2020 timeframe is not acceptable! ) Maybe an extra mission for all these silly new "safety" requirements above...reminds me more than a little of Zubrin's First Landing requiring of interminable unprovable proof of safety... Unmanned landers can test the technologies and the very shapes of the manned designs, even being scale models while doing their thing. There's no need to wait 20 years for 2 samples to come back! Start sooner! Launch 2 of them in 07 say, and have the manned designs somewhat finalized when the samples come back, instead of waiting to get the samples before starting. Duh! 1 or 2 heavier more capable robotic landers may be able to do the jobs of a fleet of the flyweight proposals -many of which seem hardly necessary - shaving many years off the forever stretching schedule.

Give the transfer vehicles some kind of artificial gravity and the in-space health concerns shrink drastically. (i prefer a "Mission to Mars "Cheesewheel" to Zubrin's mile-long scary tether, but smaller, 27' diam oughta do it) I'm not a rocket scientist but i have my share of human-mars vehicle doodles..and i read First Landing a few weeks ago..didn't know it was this cheap, had still been thinking 100 B! (the ISS may cost 100B! only 1/3 of that can get us to Mars!! ) (Russians have said as little as 10B but i shudder to think what that would be like) I've heard they also have better recyclers, so get them to make a big contribution and give them a seat on Mars 1. Whatever. Just do it.

If the US won't do it, get the Russians to! Excellent rockets (Saturn 5 RIP). Or ESA. Then Bush will be happy to throw not 40 Billion but several hundred billion at it.

Have decent money management, no cash-cow or make-work projects, bloating, or just throwing $ away. Farm the work out to private industry where it makes sense to do so. Make the larger vehicles at least reasonably modular for upgradability. And finally don't let's achieve the astonishing and then throw it all away like Apollo..

I doubt there's anything at Cydonia.

Moon or Mars: Mars. Any Mars infrastructure will obviously be moon capable, thrown in "for free." Mars hardware might be flight tested on Luna, wouldn't take long.

Maybe once the mice have flown, the Mars Soc could help accelerate the in-situ fuel filter experiment. Esa or japan might love to steal the US's glory by half a decade and could restart a space race. Can you say "wake up call"?

Sure, finish up the bloated ISS first -- and don't cut out the centrifuge. Begin planning now, fiscal year 03. Arrange the unmanned landers with reasonable common sense and alacrity. Then in 06 or so (when ISS down payment is final) make it official: humans to mars within a decade. we can do it. We know more about mars now than we did about the moon in 69, and technology has advanced significantly.

I know all these rantings may not be right on, but Mars is doable. Love that Zubrin.

Jay

ps anybody know if there are *interior* diagrams available for the vehicles in First Landing or the Mars Reference Mission? I'd love to se how lame mine are be comparison

I had a similar thought years ago: that one of the shuttles could be retired as a part of the ISS, with a nice big lab in the back. a 4 billion dollar vehicle to replace 10 or 20 Billion worth of ISS...

I also seem to recall NASA considered a "space taxi" for use in earth orbit, as a moon taxi, could go to the Lagrange points, etc. It could be either a x38 ISS escape vehicle with a fuel pod and service module mounted aft, or a capsule design. I think this would be more sensible than refitting a shuttle. Maybe.

Somebody tell NASA to get on with the nexgen RLV and manned missions to mars. And if they GOTTA build the ISS, DON"T CUT THE CENTRIFUGE AND TRANSHAB!

The Mars Society rules. Put those mice up there!