You are not logged in.
Going to Mars (or anywhere in space for that matter) is only going to get cheaper as new technology replaces the old.
Yes somethings as technology has come out it has been cheaper but space has not or does not seem to have taken that road. It has been more expense at least on the Nasa side of that coin.
Question for CEV, Can one vehicle design do all or must we have different vehicles for all or could we plan for the future use that it may be put to in order to make a universal unit.
The end goal is Mars with the moon as a stepping stone or practice site. Why not design as if we where going to mars, working out all details as we go now rather than later for the journey.
Landing on the Moon or Mars is a problem since we will need a vehicle capable of the down mass to surface but also be capable of return to orbit.
Now on the note of the lunar lander, If I recall the LEM was a Vertical landing Vertical take off, but was a two stage. Could this be done as a single stage if fuel tanks are replenished?
On the other side of the coin we have only done the simple heat shield with parachute anding in bouncing bag ball trick.
Mars will require a new method.
Thought from previous posted under the moon direct before:
Another thought I am having is to make the Mars Lander and Earth re-entry vehicle one in the same, also reusuable. Make the unit a biconal design much like a stretch klipper but rather than wheels to land on a runway. Lets glide from orbit using the well known spiral method but finish it off with a banking to climb manuver, where at the top of the glide up the cone would release with drone parachutes openning for a verticle landing using the landing engine and legs much like on the lunar surface for both the Earth and for Mars future ships.
Design the ship fuel tanks for a single stage to orbit for mars since that would also be more than adequate for the lunar surface since both would be basically empty. Design the universal lander for a down mass size for the mars mission using the glide, parachute and verticle landing. Unit left in orbit could carry the needed fuel for Mars return, plus food and water.
What that means is the section left in orbit for the moon is smaller than that of the one for the Mars mission.
Another point to be made on Mars exploration is that we are thinking that all astronauts are returning home after there mission time is up, I'm not sure how palletable the food would be after all that time in orbit for the return trip.
I also feel that if another crew is coming why not have a few stay and meet them at the new landing site in order to continue the expansion of Mars infrastucture.
First habitats without launching a seperate mission vehicle will most likely be Mars soil covered and inflatable or cavern dug with the inflatable placed inside. Otherwise they are made by processing the Mars surface into bricks or blocks and some glass; unless refining, processing and smelting equipment is sent to make metal support or panels to build from.
Also since you must go though the asteriod belt maybe sending a few on there way to be capture by mars or to be mined would benifit mars as well in the process of teraforming mars.
GCNRevenerg is it your opinion that enough of mars can’t be explored by wagon trail or is it your opinion that the wagon will weigh too much. Clearly some equipment is not expensive to make reusable like, a hammer, a drill, solar panels, methane tank, watter tank, etc. Clearly if enough of the equipment is reusable it will be cheaper to land near the old site and salvage the reusable equipment. Thus there are too issues. The first is how much cheaper does reusing old equipment make the next mission. The second is it worth the additional cost to abandon all of the old equipment.
The problem I forsee for reusing what ever is left behind is only a problem if the new site to be explored means sending a new base habitat since the old one what be hard to move without the right equipment to make it mobile.
The problem is that any moon projects are going to be pushed back by under funding. A better plan of what is necessary for man to be landed on the moon is a must.
If mining equipment or base construction leveling is part of the plan only one mission is needed to map with xrays under ground resources of possible underground water.
Now on the note of the lunar lander, If I recall the LEM was a vlvt but was a two stage. Could this be done as a single stage if fuel tanks are replenished?
Another thought I am having is to make the Mars Lander and Earth re-entry vehicle one in the same, also reusuable. Make the unit a biconal design much like a stretch klipper but rather than wheels to land on a runway. Lets glide from orbit using the well known spiral method but finish it off with a banking to climb manuver, where at the top of the glide up the cone would release with drone parachutes openning for a verticle landing using the landing engine and legs much like on the lunar surface for both the Earth and for Mars future ships.
Design the ship fuel tanks for a single stage to orbit for mars since that would also be more than adequate for the lunar surface since both would be basically empty. Design the universal lander for a down mass size for the mars mission using the glide, parachute and verticle landing. Unit left in orbit could carry the needed fuel for Mars return, plus food and water.
What that means is the section left in orbit for the moon is smaller than that of the one for the Mars mission.
The good news about bad news sometimes is that it has the opposite effect than to the one everyone is expecting. Rather than causing the ISS to continue to be under funded it may just if enough if voices are heard to push more funds to do what is necessary to not only complete the ISS but also to come up with a more coherent plan for its use once upon complete.
Yup, it has been on a very slow ride with its ION engines but has been a good proving ground for the technology and durability.
Also the second part to the question is where is it assembled for the destination not only matters but how much it can lift at one time for the starting point which may be in LEO instead of on Earth.
I read today that only a 10 degree band on either side of the equator would be the only chance for finding liquid water. Beyound that it would be frozen and either mixed with the soil or below ground level.
So the real toss up is which would be best for insitu resources or which ones are the most important for survival and or return of these available materials.
Is leaving the Earth return vehicle in orbit around Mars such a good thing, since the time frame for it being unmanned and unattended is quite long.
NASA scientist says manned Mars flight planned for 2025
According to NASA's timeline, the first piloted mission to Mars should be sometime in 2025. It will be a 30-month mission.
http://www.daily-chronicle.com/articles … news04.txt
snipet:
A group of Northern Illinois University students heard detailed plans Thursday night about how NASA plans to organize manned flights to Mars.
Mike Greenisen, NASA scientist and NIU graduate, presented his talk "International Space Station: Transitional Platform for Moon and Mars."
"Sometimes we have to stop and say, 'We're really going to Mars, we're really going to do this,'" Greenisen said about himself and others at NASA.
I think for more people to be involved with the idea of space exploration and of its cost. There is a need to also include settlement for one without the other yields only a small return on investment.
Should the United States continue to send people into space?
While the verdict was out earlier this year that the amount of damage to the Mars atmosphere from a solar storm was down played as minimal. It now appears that may not have always been the case in the early history of Mars.
Mars attacked by solar wind
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/9/14/1
Lots of articles in the news today as we draw ever closer to historic flight and hopefully era of a new space race.
SpaceShipOne aims to claim $10 million
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoda....illion+
Watching SpaceShipOne Prize Attempts
Flight Dates and Times:
Wed., September 29th, 2004 7:00 am- 10:00 am (tentative) Mon., October 4th, 20047:00 am- 10:00 am (tentative)
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoda....ocument
Countdown begins Poway's SpaceDev part of historic civilian launch
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news....ev.html
Also it is felt that Innovation will cut space travel costs, experts say
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoda....ocument
The New Rocketeers article of other viaing for the xprize as well.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoda....ocument
It appears that the Samples From Genesis Craft are being Sent to Calif.
Heavy Lift Is Needed
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-04zc.html
Sentiment in the last round of senate appropriations do concor that beyound the shuttle to carry out the vision heavy lift is a necessary part of the plan.
Quote from spaceref Nasa excerpt of appropriation bill.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=14032
The Committee has provided $20,000,000 for the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter [LRO], a reduction of $50,000,000 from the budget request reflecting the difficult spending allocation within which the subcommittee has been forced to operate. NASA should continue with its announcement of opportunity for scientific instruments with these funds. However, in establishing the criteria for instrument selection, not less than 25 percent of the LRO's scientific instrumentation funding should be explicitly dedicated to building instruments focused solely on answering basic science questions. The Committee is concerned that the lunar measurement investigations to be carried out by the LRO mission, intended to characterize future robotic and human lunar landing sites, will forgo the opportunity for research and focus only on applied engineering assessments. The current proposed AO focuses solely on the human exploration objectives of the potential mission. Since the LRO is allocated against NASA's space science budget, the Committee believes that fundamental lunar science questions should be addressed in a significant fashion through instruments on this spacecraft. The Committee encourages NASA, as part of the LRO development, to consider the research instrumentation opportunities as well as technology qualification, navigation and communications capabilities, and resource identification technologies to maximize the opportunities of this first lunar mission.
end
So it would seem that science takes presidence over laying down of infrastructure to actually land Man on the Moon in the near term with the use of the LRO.
This article gives the history of the vision and the laying down of what is expected by the Senate Appropriations Committee to progress and stay within the budget expectations. If Nasa wishes to stay in there good graces if the funding is expected to continue and to inform if changes are needed as well as why. Much more is contained within this article than I can summarize. It is a must read....
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=14032
NASA Excerpts from S. Rpt. 108-353; S. 2825, the Senate FY 2005 VA/HUD Appropriations Bill
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Appropriations, 2004 $15,378,248,000
Budget estimate, 2005 16,244,000,000
Committee recommendation 15,579,500,000
One of the daunting tasks for manned flight to mars or of the moon is the need to create power for a multitude of uses.
Fuel Cell Converts Waste to Power
http://www.technologyreview.com/article … 092204.asp
Try this link for the article Space Watch: NASA gets a budget boost
The amount of solar energy needed to recharge batteries or to even supply power would be minimal for a motor assisted bike at low speed operation. Making the enclosure for the astronaut to be seated in, out of solar cells. Picture one of the small electric cars for size.
So it would seem that the Moon to Mars commission hearings have had an impact on Nasa after all for what is out there with regards to research into the Human side of long duration flight.
So just what we needed an international quabble over possible petroleum rights on Mars.
Very interesting article Cindy, on the potential of life under ground.
Seems interesting in that if the core is not solid that maybe a magnetic field might be possible in the future as we teraform mars.
Maybe when we are able to send Seismic equipment and other such sensors in order to determine the core parametrics we then will know if it is possible.