New Mars Forums

Sounds reasonable. So what would be your dream mission architecture (propulsion, habs, ISRU etc) ?

Mars nay-sayers always claim that the planet's absence of a strong magnetic field will complicate setting up a human outpost as well as making the chances of finding any lifeforms negligible due to strong radiation. While they are probably right to a degree, how would setting up a base in one of the areas where Mars _does_ have a local magnetic field affect the feasibility of such an undertaking? Are the Martian magnetic fields strong enough to deflect harmful radiation, hence improving the chances of any lifeforms surviving? Are there places that both has a local magnetic field and a low elevation which would increase likelihood of standing brines/water as well as provide additional atmospheric protection agains radiation (maybe Valles Marineris)?

Does anybody know where to find maps detaling Mars's magnetic fields?

GCNRevenger wrote:

"As far as I know little work on the GCNR concept has been carried out since the ideas' invention beyond some pre-computer table-top fluid dynamics models and some low-definition physics studies. Nobody has picked it up with intent to actually build the thing yet to my knowledge. "

So, wouldn't the case for GCNR propulsion be a very good foundation for a pressure group for constructive criticism of NASA (if only there was a way to keep the alt.space nutheads out)?

What you're saying about VASIMR research justifications and the general conundrums of large organizations like NASA sounds completely plausible, from my experience with politics and large organizations, and NASA must be one of the worst of all when it comes to infighting over resources, considering the sheer volume of public resources at stake (or play, rather...).
Too bad, but then again, without clear focus and leadership, and huge budgets, that's what's bound to happen.

I get the impression that your level of expertise and intimate knowledge of NASA inner workings means that you're probably not the guy that will stick his head out publicly with wild schemes of non-pc nuclear rockets, though ;-)

It would be great with a website where you gather together your arguments for this technology. The message would start spreading from there -"truth will out". I'd love to see that happen, and I'm sure it would attract attention in the right places after a while if it was done right. Ah well, I'll stop preaching, couldn't help myself.

Thanks for your answers, I'd appreciate your thoughts.

What about other kinds of nuclear rockets? Are there any kinds of nuclear rockets which could realistically (technically) be considered for near-term NASA use? I've been going through some of your past posts concerning this subject, and I find them very interesting and enlightening.

I'd like to point out that I'm very happy that NASA is finally doing actual and realistical work in order to go to Mars and the Moon, so I'm not complaining, unlike some alt. spacer types with their sci-fi plans. Chemical is fine by me as long as it gets people there safely and according to plan -it's just that nuclear seems to promise so much possibility. Given that the VASIMR has apparently been the subject of a long-term research effort with at least some form of higher-level acceptance, I thought that maybe that was a contender.

How far away do you think practical use of nuclear rockets is, realistically, and what would the actual benefits be? Would the space program be completely transformed by NASA having access to a reliable nuclear rocket, or would the effects be more mariginal? Have materials research come up with new possibilities over the last few years which brings nuclear rocket technology closer to being a reality? Or are nuclear rockets still just a pipe dream? Would a NERVA style rocket or a gas solid core rocket be possible and practical to implement today?

I find the knee-jerk anti-Americanisms on this forum very interesting, especially considering that the only option any true space exploration fan has is to have faith in, and support, the US -the only nation with the know-how, spirit, and not least guts to get the job done, not just talking about it like the Russians or endlessly having conferences about it hoping the US will eventually pick up the bill, like the Europeans.

If the Shuttle is of no use, don't use it. If the ISS is of no value, don't spend money on it (or spend as little as is politically possible). The same goes for Hubble. Move on!

Don't nitpick or find faults, let's savour the moment and rejoice: we have an American President who have a will to explore and has put some (hopefully enough initial) money to this end in a realistic plan. We have a strong US economy and improved technology. This might happen. Isn't that what everybody on this forum wants, or am I mistaken? This is good news. Treat it as such. Show some respect. Be happy. Be creative.

I do realise it sounds stupid, and I'm fully aware of how the Shuttle has hindered human space flight beyond Earth orbit, but it just seems insane not to try and use all that insanely expensive hardware in some way. Can't the shuttles be used for cargo transport, or be useful in some other way?

So what are the plans, if any, for how a human crew will get to Mars under the Bush scheme? Isn't it some variation of the Zubrin plan, only with a lot more redundancy?
I thought the CEW design would be utilized for all parts of the plan, in modified versions, but I haven't seen any details. Are there any?