New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#29101 Re: Human missions » What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose » 2004-12-02 12:21:41
But in the same token if they were charging what the large aerospace industry leaders are then they themselves would also see how tough the game really is.
Yes, you may get more orders initially for the cheaper rockets but in the end run if the demand is the same year after year than bigger or smaller, cheaper or more expensive makes little difference to the eventual out come. Which is the larger the corporation then the longer they can live off the fat of overcharging there customers. Since it can be proven that it can be done for less.
#29102 Re: Human missions » Landing On Mars » 2004-12-02 11:39:22
Sort of like this concept from lockheed:
http://www.projectconstellation.us/article....alb=sec
I think if after spiraling down you could pop a parachute in the engine area much like the shuttle landing, to slow it down tremendously and then let it go follow by a slight vertical climb. To which once you reach the max of the top of it pop a nose cone chute and drift down using the developing steering technology. At which point once engines are need fire them up and finish the landing. Have the landing legs extend just prior to landing when the craft is possibly less than 100 ft from the ground.
#29103 Re: Human missions » What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose » 2004-12-02 11:21:39
Did a little search, actually I over stated the amount but it was still pretty high.
http://www.spaceline.org/rocketsum/soli … sters.html
Each SRB can produce a thrust of about 3,300,000 pounds of thrust at liftoff. The combined thrust of the SRB's accounts for just over 70% of the total thrust needed to carry the Space Shuttle into space. Each SRB exhaust nozzle may be gimbaled up to eight degrees to help steer the Space Shuttle during ascent.
#29104 Re: Human missions » Risk Reduction - Redundancy or Death ? » 2004-12-02 09:14:03
Thanks Jonh, I also was wondering about the fuels for use on the Mars ascent Vehicle, If the relaunch of it is intended to use insitu derived fuels such as methane, then how would one compensate the engines for the different fuel change over from Lox and H to this new combination. And where are we getting the lox for the return trip.
#29105 Re: Human missions » Use of Robotics for Moon or Mars - Freind or Foe to manned missions » 2004-12-02 07:15:28
Also for mars a reliable network of satellites would also be needed to maintain constant communications with them as well.
#29106 Re: Human missions » Has Dr. Zubrin Addressed Mars Direct Objections? - A few questions? » 2004-12-02 07:13:53
I disagree GCNRevenger on the cutting of corners that caused the near fatal mishaps and funerals of Apollo, Soyuz-1, Challenger and Columbia. But rather to the lack of knowledge as to the consequence of ignore engineering warnings and mismanagement decision making process that was flawed.
#29107 Re: Human missions » What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose » 2004-12-02 06:10:58
Ok Triple-barreled AtlasV/DeltaIV is a bad idea for they are aligned in a common plane. At lift off they will as noted act like a big wing with regards to the air gusts. But putting that same trio in a triangular fashion removes that issue now center the payload to the center and you done once a new flaring is attached to it to redirect the air flow around the lower segments.
If you want a cargo version use the SRB's from the shuttle and top that in the same fashion. Remember 80% of the lift for the 100ton shuttle comes from these and that's just using 2. Make it a third unit and see what we can lob into orbit with that.
Now back to what mission I would prefer. All of course, to each destination, to stay with a permanent presence once started. But since we are already in LEO we must start I think with the next closest target but that does not mean we should put our selves in a holding pattern to finish going to the moon before we can start looking at way to do Mars.
The development of anything used for the moon should be designed with the eventual goal in mind that we will use it to make it possible to go to Mars.
Then the next stop should be Venus and so on....
#29108 Re: Human missions » The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here. » 2004-12-02 05:51:33
Well as plans shape up to visit the moon robotically be fore man does so is the amount of change taking place by those that had already committed to sending probes.
In a departure from the earlier plan, the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) has decided that its 2007-08 unmanned moon mission will go for gold: a landing.
According to the revised flight plan, the lunar orbiter will carry a 25-kg "impacter". At a certain point when the craft enters lunar orbit, the "impacter" will detach from the mother craft and head for the moon's surface.
The "impacter" will kick up lunar dust on landing on the moon, whose chemical composition will be analysed by scientists.
#29109 Re: Human missions » Risk Reduction - Redundancy or Death ? » 2004-12-02 05:44:39
One trouble would be the amount of supplies would double to each ship containing the complete amount for the entire mission. At that point adding another ship only increases the amount of safety and rather than each ship having full mission supplies they could then be equally divided onto each having one stay in orbit and two ships landing. But how close will they land together needs to be worked out.
IMO the amount of supplies for a ship should be the journey to the planet plus its stay, then divide by 2 this is the best amount per ship to pack. If need be the last ship could also land and the stay could then be extended.
#29110 Re: Human missions » The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here. » 2004-12-01 14:59:36
The Sixth International Lunar Conference was held November 22-26 in Udaipur, India hosted by PRL and ISRO, and cosponsored by the International Lunar Exploration Working Group (ILEWG) and ESA. The President of India, Dr. Abdul Kalam, addressed the group with insightful vision and highly relevant recommendations for international activities in exploration of the Moon, "for the benefit of human kind".
As we move forward with mission implementation, we urge the space agencies to study and coordinate international lunar infrastructures and assets, such as telecommunication, navigation, logistics, lunar internet, that are necessary for an effective lunar exploration. We specifically recommend coordination of international efforts for the establishment of "standards" to facilitate lunar exploitation and settlement - e.g., use of the metric system, well-characterized lunar soil simulants, common data formats and instrument interfaces; frequency, and power.
We urge establishment of a standard lunar geodetic network. We also recommend that the "Moon Treaty" be revisited, refined, and revised as necessary in light of the present-day impetus for expeditions, both robotic and human, to the Moon by several nations.
#29111 Re: Unmanned probes » New Horizons - mission to Pluto and the Kupier belt » 2004-12-01 14:37:24
NASA hopes to launch Pluto-bound craft in 2006 Plutonium pinch threatens mission potential
Security problems at Los Alamos National Laboratory halted production of plutonium, which NASA's New Horizons mission needs as its energy source. Though the mission is expected to get enough from the Department of Energy to get to Pluto, scientific ambitions might have to be curtailed.
With a planned January 2006 launch from Cape Canaveral on a Lockheed Martin Atlas 5 rocket, the earliest New Horizons would arrive at Pluto is 2015.
If NASA delays a year, it wouldn't arrive until 2019 or 2020. Getting to another Kuiper Belt object would take an additional two or three years.
#29112 Re: Human missions » Use of Robotics for Moon or Mars - Freind or Foe to manned missions » 2004-12-01 11:29:11
I myself feel that robots alone do little for man when it comes to exploration in a reasonable time frame. Yes they can do great things but only after a very long design process and at much expense plus testing out of functionality.
Yes a robot farm of droids at the beckon call of those astronauts just might be the only way to lower cost but must we wait until they have done what we want done or can we send them in as needed while man is there.
#29113 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Aerospace Archeology? » 2004-12-01 10:24:44
In terms of archelogy we have so much still yet to learn here on Earth.
New Evidence Supports Terrestrial Cause Of End-Permian Mass Extinction
Two hundred and fifty million years ago, ninety percent of marine species disappeared and life on land suffered greatly during the world's largest mass extinction.
#29114 Re: Human missions » Use of Robotics for Moon or Mars - Freind or Foe to manned missions » 2004-12-01 10:19:20
We have been discussing the importance of using them in the building process or at least in the initial stages for preparing the way, the mining of and processing of insitu materials for a multitude of reasons but some would argue then why send Man if the robots can do all that. Why should we burden ourselves with the cost.
A big advantage of space robots is that they need neither food nor drink and can support very inhospitable conditions. More important still, although expensive to design and produce, their loss is always preferable to that of an astronaut. They can support or replace people to carry out tasks that are too dangerous, too difficult, repetitive, time consuming or even impossible for astronauts. They can also be faster and more precise than people.
Lunar Robotic Village, Moon Base Gains International Support
As Moon exploration looms larger among the growing community of scientists and engineers from Europe, India, China, Japan, and the United States, a robotic lunar village is gaining support, leading to a permanent human presence on the Moon by 2024.
Gee what ever happened to man being on the moon around 2014... 
But of course that also means revisiting the 1979 moon treaty.
#29115 Re: Human missions » Return to flight slipping » 2004-12-01 07:28:29
Parachute-cleaning no small task Giant machines wash booster chutes for reuse
Parachute facts
Each solid rocket booster has a drogue chute and three main chutes.
Each main ribbon chute is 136 feet across and weighs 2,180 pounds.
Each recovery ship has four deck reels 5.5 feet across for rolling up the parachutes.
The Parachute Reburbishment Facility's washing machine recirculates 30,000 gallons of water.
#29116 Re: Human missions » Russian Klipper or US CEV - why can we not get it done sooner » 2004-12-01 06:53:45
Early morning update:
Next-generation Russian spaceship unveiled Getting the money to build it may not be so easy This nothing that we have not all speculated on for the funding of such a vehicle.
#29117 Re: Planetary transportation » Running on Compressed Air? » 2004-12-01 06:42:51
The planet wide exploration would mean that we would not be landing at the same site and would mean several missions before we would.
Pressurized rover is a nice thing but not a necessity on the first few missions, having a backup and parts for repair might mean sending the rovers on a seperate rocket. Maybe shipping Segways for each astronaut would fit the bill. They are light weight, battery powered, take up little space and weight not very much.
Or design a modified tricycle with high ground rock clearance, sort of a battery powered ATV.
#29118 Re: Space Policy » Space fairing Nations - The ever changing view » 2004-12-01 06:01:40
Kind of the chicken and the egg problem.
If we have no where to go then we have no need to make the means to get there.
Build it and they will come if the cost is low enough. As to getting large quantities of people to say a LEO Base size ISS. Convert the shuttles to do the job. I am sure you could get 100 seats easily in the cargo bay at over 1 million a pop but less than 20 and it would pay for every flight if filled...
#29119 Re: Human missions » What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose » 2004-12-01 05:55:32
#1. How will the pay for it?
They do not have the revenue streams to support a multi-billion dollar space development program.
So why should it remain to cost multi-Billion for any space effort? It only needs a different mind set to change what is driving the cost sky high. It is still manufacturing of an item, just look around you do TV cost 1,000 no they cost only a few hundred or less for the same size as grandpa use to have.
#2. How will they make a profit?
There is currently little potential for profit in space. It's to expensive to get up there, and developing technologies that would bring this cost down are to expensive as well.
So moon rocks have no value. Thats why they are stole and given such high values at auctions for museums and are so wanted by collectors. Everyone has differeing opions as to what has value.
#3. Why would a major company do it?
Even if you assume that a profit could be made in space, a major company would not start pumping their money into it.
I guess that question can only be answered by how greedy for profits and to what amounts do they consider a profit is large enough.
#4. Why would I WANT the major companies to do it?
Don't get me wrong, I am all in favor of space development, but I do not benifit if it is done by big coporations.
It is to bad that the leading space companies are using it as a cash cow instead of going for it with what they can do.
By the way this was not pointed at the quotes but rather at the questions raised.
#29120 Re: Human missions » Mars One Way Vs. ISS » 2004-11-30 22:26:14
MarsDirect is ideal for sending four frogmen to take samples and scout future landing zones. And deploy radio homing beacons for future landings, etc. . . etc. . . etc. . .
I thought that the next 15 to 20 years worth of probes launched every two years or so had all of that responsibility.
As to the quantity of personnel to send it is a matter of how safe would it be and at what expense to a single mission is the gain worth it for safety. But I think we can send crews within a few weeks to possibly even a month after the first have been sent to make a much larger surface exploration team possible for nearly the same cost as a single large mission.
#29121 Re: Human missions » What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose » 2004-11-30 22:17:58
I agree stop labeling the mission but rather detail the mission goals short term and long term for all to see, that is how it will sell.
#29122 Re: Human missions » Russian Klipper or US CEV - why can we not get it done sooner » 2004-11-30 22:08:13
Klipper mockup photo page number 24 and 25 give the most details into the design, others are just pretty.
#29123 Re: Human missions » Has Dr. Zubrin Addressed Mars Direct Objections? - A few questions? » 2004-11-30 15:38:07
What about using a modified Ariane 5 rocket.
Europe's "super-rocket", the Ariane 5-ECA, will be back in action in January 2005, says its operator Arianespace
The world's reference for heavy-lift launchers, Ariane 5 enters service with a 6.5 metric ton payload capability to geostationary orbit, growing to 10 tons in response to the development of increasingly heavy telecommunications payloads.
#29124 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Aerospace Archeology? » 2004-11-30 15:31:14
We have not even stepped foot there yet and already they are planning or have
Planetary Parks Proposed For Mars or Conservation ideas.
A set of seven 'planetary parks' have been proposed for the conservation of the martian environment by two European scientists. Each of the parks contain representative features of the landscape on Mars.
Among the many barriers to this proposal is the fact that while many nations, including the United States, Russia and China, have signed the UN Outer Space Treaty, few have ratified the 1979 Moon Agreement. This agreement specifically seeks to regulate the exploration and exploitation of natural resources found on the Moon and other celestial bodies; the U.S. has not ratified this agreement.
#29125 Re: Planetary transportation » Running on Compressed Air? » 2004-11-30 15:16:04
Parachute steering is one of the items that have been given some thought and actual contracts are already in the works.
As for other alternatives I gave some in the Earth Re-entry, Moon or Mars Lander and return vehicle. One do all, part of CEV? can one ship do all for how to combine the shapes and features to get a more accurate and a much more robust load to planet surface lander for the mass cargo that we will need.