New Mars Forums

I agree that they should have answered.

If they go with solar power at least visiting  Valles Marineris would still be feasible.  But nuclear would be quite handy if they want this to be a long-term probe.

Could you pass me a drumstick of Major Tom please....oh oh right...  :twisted:

I suppose if a custom-built MAV is sent the same could be done for an ERV.  As I said if an Orion is included in the mission it would be customized for Mars, and that could include a larger cabin or SM for more propulsive capability.

Give it two years without those boost-burns from the shuttles and the Progress and its orbit will begin to decay quite noticeably.  The original space station Freedom was intended to orbit 500 miles high to avoid virtually all atmospheric drag but with all the compromises made the ISS is barely half that distance and still within range of the atmosphere to lose appreciable orbital velocity.  It would certainly reenter within twenty years tops if nothing is done to regularly boost its orbit just like Skylab.

I do too.  I can see as I believe I stated before the Orion playing the role of the Earth return vehicle.  I think a dedicated HAB ought to be included along with a Mars lander that has ISPP with enough capability to reach high Mars orbit.

I'd suggest, for a Mars mission, 3 launches to assemble the crewed portion versus two for cargo.  My suggestion as follows:

Cargo Element

1Ca) MAV launches into LEO - carrying all material nessicary for reentry and surface operations, larger than the Mars Direct or Semi-Direct versions to maximize cargo to surface and Ares V capability.

2Ca) A lengthened EDS is launches solo into LEO, carrying enough fuel to launch MAV to Mars.

3Ca) EDS and MAV dock and then launch to Mars.

4Ca) MAV lands and sets up an automonous operation focusing on ISPP and surveying immediate region.

Crew Element

1) The HAB launched into orbit on ARES V, possibly with a small node module to allow for orbital Martian operations.

2) A lengthened EDS launches into LEO, docking with HAB.

3) An Orion, optimized for Mars operations, launches with Crew on Ares I.

4) Orion, HAB, and EDS are all launched to Mars.

5) Nearing Mars, Orion and HAB seperate - the Orion breaks into a high preferably-aerosyncronus orbit while the HAB with crew aerobrake to enter Mars orbit ala Mars Direct.

6) HAB lands near MAV.  Crew setup base and condtuct a long study.

7) MAV, fueled up long before, is used to ascend into high orbit and dock with the orbiting Orion.

8) Prior to Mars Departure, the Orion (especially if equipped with a smaller orbital module) could rendevous with the Martian moons for survey.  This would be optional but given the minimal propellant involved and Deimos' near-syncronus orbit quite feasible.

9) Orion departs for Earth.

10) Nearing Earth Orion decelerates with most of remaining fuel to minimize strain on CEV capsule.  Once spent SM detaches.

11) CEV capsule reenters and lands.

Hope that's simple enough.  I thought a seperate launch for the EDS would give more fuel for launching since a Martian vehicle will likely weigh more than a Lunar.  The orbital module I suggest would be small and utility-driven, but it could easily be left in Martian orbit and future modules done likewise could link ala Chinese Shenzou-design for a space station; however I'd rather think of their use for a Martian moon expedition.

Gaeto will be squeaking with joy on that UK comment...

*Lord Helmet holding on for dear life* "MY BRAINS...ARE GOING INTO MY FEET!"

lol John.

I doubt it'll be that bad.  If the average human being can endure a roller coaster an astronaut can handle a couple Gs of force with several months of training behind them easily.

I am so glad I am not a huge fan of math or its evil second-cousin accounting... 

Still I hope someone will keep an eye on the budget.  I am still confident Orion will prove to be an asset versus the shuttle's 20-odd-year fiasco.

I have more of the engineer's spirit than a politician.  I want to see the vehicle built and better still in flight.

What is the schedule for Ares I testing thus far?

To sumarize GNCR, all that probes do or ever will do is collect future textbook data...and after school 90% of the public in any nation forgets anything trivial to the average way of life.  Machines do build cities, we do.

Mars and the Moon are the best hopes for habitation, certainly for the next century.  VSE is short-term ultimately but it will lead the way to longer efforts.

Me too.  I think there's alot more to these moons than scientists think.  I think there might be a good chance, as assumed, that the pair have origins with the asteroid belt but their orbits suggest something else.

I'd like to confirm if there's carbon and water/hydrates in their surface material.  If so then there's alot of applications these moons have to the VSE.

Impressive.  Do we have any idea what size region we're looking at so there's a reference for scale?

It looks like sand dunes, mesas, and rocky hills.

In full honesty any government-funded space vehicle will likely be astronomically expensive compared with a commercial aircraft.  The upcoming commercial spaceflights at best might be 100 times less expensive initially but even then that's beyond casual use for the average American (American buisnesses maybe).

However compared to the shuttle Ares & Orion will be a hell of alot less to contruct and maintain.  The orbiter itself was STS' Achilles heal otherwise the SRBs and ET were not much worse than any other rockeyt.  The point was to eliminate the weakest link and use what we have more efficently, and with human lives in the equation efficency is a better choice than cheaply.

There are bound to be little bumps and changes here and there to find what's the most efficent - what we have to remember is not everything we initially conceive may prove to be practical or for the best.

It might be possible but Lockheed's concern was with getting this developed and giving the review boards as few concerns to poke at as possible.

I am not certain about a flaming rocket being swiveled about but the Harrier Jet does blast out hot exhaust too so it isn't inconceivable, but it would definetely need considerable more design than what's been put into the Harrier.

Oh...and so 1999? 

Personally to me it reminds me of 2001....a space odessy that is. 
Looking at the layout the domed front, its windows, and even the docking port eeriely ressemble Discovery.  I suppose that's another reason why I'm warming up to the concept 1 lander.