New Mars Forums

Well I can see the direction that they have chosen to market there concept to the people. It is all about glamour, of romance of vacation and to be exotic to feel. The same approach is given to the great big ocean going cruise lines. But you seem to be onto something thou with the updates. The also is no project cost for such a vacation and the only off shut item is the sub needed to bring you there, which followed a year later. Structuraly I think the sub is the harder of the two to build and design versus the under water bubble but we will have to wait and see if anything does develope from it. They might be able to use a decommision sub as a starting point from design or for even there first active taxi if they were able to build it.

But if rockets in general cost less to launch per payload then orbital assembly would make more sense in some ways than the big booster super duper heavy lift giant that we will need to design before we can even start....
Shielding could be the very water that is needed for the astronauts journey.

The good news of asking them to stop is one thing but if they do not, what then is the question of what actions should be taken is the real problem? The bad news is how did they ever get the nuclear material in the first place? ???

The project of constellation is so tightly wrapped with the president vision that it seems to be dragging on and on for not only the design of the CEV but also of the lunar probes.

I look to the future when man can go to the moon and beyound maybe even to mars only to see that in going to the moon either Nasa is relying on other to do the leg work or that all they believe they need will be accomplished by the LRO.

Though Nasa has stated that it would be doing a probe a year to the moon nothing seems to be in the planning stages that at best take more than a few years to a decade before launch can be achieved.

Other stated goals for Mars at least are more firm with probes every 2 years but what each is to have for primary and secondary goals seems to be lost in advance landing or other tools for exploration techniques.

Yes Bill outsourcing is one way to lower building cost. Also launching from such places would also take advantage or earths rotational speed as well.
The 20% to reusability would mean what ? Only fuel used, pieces considered expendable (parachutes, Tps tiles). Is this a piece count or by weight percentile?
As to actual rocket stages being a 2 stage. Would it be fine for LEO with minimal orbital deltas to get it to where we want it to be. Or must we plan for large delta changes such as what would be required in rescue missions.

Lockheeds cev concept is the american version of the klipper but the real problem with the whole concept of built in a american would be that he is looking for russian level pricing for products delivered.
Lockheeds version probably would be well over 200million was as the russian if they hold true to form would be probably no more than 50million. With my best guestimate no real info in hand.

I believe so long a the US remains in a friendly standing with the three regions of Iraq and make no new enimies of the iraqi people such that all we are fighting hard liners of Sadam rebells and foriegn fighters that just simply do not want what America is doing then we will be able to finish what has been started and will be able to leave there nation in peace.

It appears that there is truely an indirect plan as piece mealed together form all planned mission into the future.

So far this is all I have found 
Lunar-A - JAXA (Japan) Lunar Orbiter and Penetrator Mission (2005) http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/Mas … sc=LUNAR-A

SELENE - JAXA (Japan) Lunar Orbiter Mission (2006)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/Mas … ?sc=SELENE

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/chronology.html

with the only Nasa mission being in a preliminary stage.
Moonrise - NASA New Frontiers sample return mission under study.

I wonder if this is the LRO for 2008.

India will launch its first lunar mission, Chandrayaan-1, in 2007 or 2008
http://www.chandrayaan-1.com/

China would like to send a probe to the Moon by 2006.
http://www.spacetoday.org/China/ChinaMoonflight.html

Also I believe there are a few thrown in from India as well.

As noted about the technology for probes, in many cases the items are just not ready for use in designs and need time to mature to become robust enough for use. Also there is hardware creep meaning that as a concept is put forth the ideas of what is and what is want keeps changing. Then you have the cash flow problem that contractors do not work on a project unless cash is in hand, budget cuts that put projects on hold and so on.
Even the russians take 18 months to complete a build of a soyuz and that is with a known design.

Thanks C M Edwards for the photo of the Mars Desert research facility. I sort of half wondered why the lights are on the wall but I suppose as long as they are not on the floor they aught to work out just fine.

I am wondering if it would be more cost effective to have just the lander hitch a ride with the mars Reconnaisance Orbiter to be launched next year.

Though someone must always lose in a race it may not always be the winner that wins. AS indicated by the florida today title Victory will jump-start space plans I beg to question will it.

It is felt that since Nasa has four years to get started down the road to space exploration that it would be hard to undue.
This is what they hope to accomplish in that time frame.

Well we will just have to see if the congress continues to fight the president all the way to the bank or if there will be concession along the way during the next four years.