You are not logged in.
The next question would be since re-entry does take a toll on one's heat shield is the capsule to be reusable. This choice may be weighed against what type of landing is preferred; Parachute to splash down, Parachute to crash landing or parachute with some glide path on final approach.
Well we only have so many planets that would even be considered hospitable though teraforming. Mars would be the easier of the two; Venus being the other.
The problem with any CEV design is the need for the crew capsule to be developed first with the correct structure to support lower stages of interface from its control panels.
Any of the existing rockets could be modified to support this new capsule which would include clean slate designs, Shuttle Derived Vehicles and or any other derivatives of Atlas or Delta.
The next questions are for crew size, length of use and space accommodations inside for easy of movement.
So even if you can find all of these museum pieces best case and reverse engineer all the given parameters for the design as a first pass. Using this info for the real enhanced design of these would be the way to go.
Those that do not understand the significant of those from Hubble would say the same. But I still would go to any of them just to feel or smell the reality of having been there.
Who cares about Van Allen. In just a few years or less his voice will not matter. For he will be no more, most likely.
Onto the serious debate of robotic versus manned flight funding and at what level of each. It is more important to not waste funds on what is not needed. Unless there is a question that Man can only answer robotic is the way to go. But if settlement is the ultimate goal then the sooner that man takes risk the better informed he will be.
No need for anti anything. We just need to find a different way to fund Nasa activity for the long term.
Ya a space race would aid in generating the much needed fire to fuel the funding issue. Who wants to be second anyway.
But if the private side is to do anything for investing the big bucks in space. They will need a direct pay back. Which IMO is property rights.
Not counting which planets to visit, features within probes that will be sent in the future or how many to be sent.
One could say using a Delta or Atlas derivative is also the way to go but much like the shuttle derivatives is it economical since neither is a man rated vehicle to start with. Only the shuttle hardware is at this point.
In either case the question is where is the cash for developement going to come from under a squashed budget?What is the timeline to manned flight?
Enough said about the rocket lets talk about the most important place on the rocket which houses the crew. Now depending on the launch format(winged or capsule) and the return re-entry landing style everything else is about size of crew, duration of use and easy of use to inside space demensioning.
Everthing else that is needed is an add on module and or boosters for each stage.
Now lets not forget the reason why we are in this situation in the first place.
Foam that sheds on launch from the external tank that could and does strike the orbitor. Not fixed as of yet but being worked on for return to flight.
No escape abort of launch if severly damaged since unit did not have real time broadcast of data though it had recorded the damaging strike. Note this is one of the fixes for return to flight with leading edge sensors.
If a strike does make a hole no means for repair was possible while in orbit. Last I checked they where still working on hole size variety of patch capability.
This also introduced the need for safe haven retreat or secondary shuttle rescue launch if unrepairable.
Now with those things said some of these things could be difficult even under a clean slate design to resolve.
Just trying to re-steer the conversation back to the proper link.
No need to rush to pick the best landing site. We have lots of time(2035 ish) to land probes every two years until we get it right.
One could say using a Delta or Atlas derivative is also the way to go but much like the shuttle derivatives is it economical since neither is a man rated vehicle to start with. Only the shuttle hardware is at this point.
In either case the question is where is the cash for development going to come from under a squashed budget?What is the timeline to manned flight?
Enough said about the rocket lets talk about the most important place on the rocket which houses the crew. Now depending on the launch format(winged or capsule) and the return re-entry landing style everything else is about size of crew, duration of use and easy of use to inside space demensioning.
Everything else that is needed is an add on module and or boosters for each stage.
Now lets not forget the reason why we are in this situation in the first place.
Foam that sheds on launch from the external tank that could and does strike the orbitor. Not fixed as of yet but being worked on for return to flight.
No escape abort of launch if severely damaged since unit did not have real time broadcast of data though it had recorded the damaging strike. Note this is one of the fixes for return to flight with leading edge sensors.
If a strike does make a hole no means for repair was possible while in orbit. Last I checked they where still working on hole size variety of patch capability.
This also introduced the need for safe haven retreat or secondary shuttle rescue launch if unrepairable.
Now with those things said some of these things could be difficult even under a clean slate design to resolve.
For those that may have not found this article. Probe maps water vapour on Mars, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3927041.stm
"Mars Express has detected an area of high water vapour over a region of the Red Planet called Arabia Terra."
So we now know for sure of water. So lets move on to something more interesting for the mars rovers to do.
So why did we move from the first stage saturn rocket engine use of LOX and Kerosene, to Hydrogen and Lox for the Shuttle. Is it safer to use or more environmentally friendly.
That is where the problem of funding a clean slate approach will not make it in this climate of under-funding of Nasa.
So one must look at altering what we already make. Probably kludging the first attempts just to get us heading in the right direction again. While we look to what is really needed to accomplish the goal. But lets not wait to long to get going again.
Like everything else funding of the space program is under the wrong committee (VA-HUD). Space has nothing to due with human resource survival of the poor, VA, or anything else under welfare assistance housing or otherwise.
The only problem is that this same issue will still be in place at any lunar or Mars base of the future. We must learn how to do things without relying on the Earth as much once we are there.
Most of the problem is under VA-HUD. What does that have to do with space? Human resources...
The ESA sure looks like a reusable shuttle, of course slightly improved.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-04g.html
The Phoenix EADS SPACE Transportation is simular in concept.
I agree with you BWhite, the silence has been deafening with regards to the vision that Bush spoke of in January of this year. Not only from the stand point of content but also from that of providing adequate funding to even start. A shell game never works with shuffling of funds for long term goals.
Why not get the much needed opinions of the voters onto the constitutional ballots some how as to the direction that the people want the space exploration to take and how fast.
All the more reason to start making things aboard the ISS, including recycling of what some would earmark as garbage(plastics,foils ect..).
The needed skills to do so in a near zero gravity environment is a must. Also developing the needed smelting furnaces, mining equipment and other tools that work off from alternative power sources is also a must.
These would only help on lunar or mars return flights for saving of water mined fuels not meant for Earth to orbit use.
Water has a higher priority for the colonist or for Base functions than for fuels.
Problem is that Nasa just does not have the budget for the Prometheus size reactor and may not get it back until later years. I think different chemical fueled engines are what will aid in lunar launches.
Martian Jet Engine Burns Carbon Dioxide or other non water based fuels.
http://www.space-rockets.com/marsjet.html
Now if we can only find a nation who's people are not p'ed at Americans and would be willing to give up enough property to build the necessary launch site, we could be in business in only a short while.
Probably not going to happen but maybe you are onto something...
Unless rights to property ownership can be answered and a new governing body for space issues can be created space will only be for the elite unfortunately.