New Mars Forums

Gee whiz... This place is weird... Looks like ancient martian foundation work nearby...
Where's the hematite?

Umm, what is [http://boeingmedia.com/images/one.cfm?i … &release=t]this? Boeing needs to fire them crack smoking hippies... Save us, ZubrinMan!

Refering to:[http://www.nasawatch.com/misc/New_Space_Vision.pdf]New Space Vision (PDF) Distributed to NASA Employees 16 Jan 2004.

Much more resolved than Bush's speech, IMHO...

It's great to see 'societal importance' up there. Is this the first time such a thing has been mentioned by NASA? The second highlight gives me hope NASA will start listening to the visionaries. Wait a minute, do we want that?...

This is great; Notice no mention of the Moon.

This appears to clear up Bush's lunar misconception. Although we can't be sure what 'where advantageous' means exactly. Also notice reference to 'near-earth' asteroids, not Kuiper belt ones...

This might refer to a new or adapted launch vehicle, as it does not refer to the CEV, below.

Notice 2008 has been changed to 'end of this decade'.

This is expected. I only hope NASA discovers it has what it needs before 2020...

I wonder what they mean by that?

And finally,

Is interstellar travel part of Bush's long term agenda?

Overall, I reckon this looks pretty darn good.
It's all coming together for NASA; we're finally headed somewhere.

Hey BGD, love your new sig

Hehe, completely fluid! :laugh:

Y'know, it just occured to me, Japan doesn't have its own manned space program. Why is that? Maybe after the Chinese accomplishment Japan might consider investing a little more in the industry... But who am I to say? I've never given much thought... Perhaps Japan is too efficiency obsessed to see the merits of manned space flight? Pity, I bet they could do a great job! Definately show the Americans a thing or two... :;):

Hey, what would it take to deliver a small high resolution camera and transmitter to the surface of Mars? Profitable maybe? On a more relative note, studying the preliminary [http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/54873main_budge … 4jan04.pdf]Budget Plan (PDF) from NASA, it looks like 100 billion (!) will be devoted to 'Explorations Missions' from '04 to '20; And over 20 billion for the CEV in the same period. Am I reading this chart right?  ???

Hehe, well said. :;):

I'm afraid if Bush's plan starts too repeat the cost overuns and expense of ISS/Shuttle, it won't show its true worth. I don't feel as though we should go to Mars exclusively, indeed I am in support of a new Lunar program, but I don't feel it's a necassary step; We can get to Mars on what we have, as far as life support (If we use artificial gravity; also, I don't see the need for spinning hardware in lunar transit ). And we don't have to go to the moon to test hardware, we can do that much closer to home. Beyond that, I think we have all the experience we need. And I'm sure we can do the whole Apollo2 thing a lot easier with an HLLV. Also, NASA's manned program has been unnecassarily inefficient during its recent history, and I strongly feel we should use this chance to correct that; to show how inexpensive space travel can be.

The Columbus reference was obviously from Zubrin. Destination drives transportation. I'm afraid once we start investing in novel transport infrastructure without a worthy destination, people will start to ask where the money is going.

We will undoubtedly need more preparation, but is a new Lunar Program going to give us what we need? And at what expense?

What you have to realize here, Rob, is that space is an extremely expensive place to visit. Nothing will happen there unless it is really economically efficient, and/or makes really good science. Unfortunately, NASA is not a corporation about factualizing science fiction, and grand visions come at considerable expense. Columbus arguably didn't have the experience, but he had the passion. If Columbus wanted too, he could have waited for new, larger, safer exploration ships to be developed. But he knew America was waiting. He chose to push the limits of what he had.

We have the shuttle hardware, we have chemical propulsion. And we have the know-how.

Let's push the limits of what we have.

I find it hard to beleive that Bush was prompted to return to the moon in fear of the Chinese. If the Chinese were to get there before the US, we would just say, 'Haha, your 40 years too late.' We have already been to the moon. Its now more likely Russia or China will beat the US to Mars, if Bush's Space Plan is taken seriously.

I don't understand the economics of an EELV based mission. Surely a shuttle derived booster capable of launching everything in one go is cheaper than launching several Atlas' or Deltas and assembling them on the ISS, where arguably no provision is made for such assembly work. A Shuttle C will not ask for giant premiums, as do the Lockheeds and Boeings. And if it is at all cheaper, and I assume it won't be by much, any savings will be lost with increased vehicle complexity, in orbit assembly, and confusing management...

No, a shuttle derived booster will definately be much cheaper in the long (medium?) term. And will provide genuine interplanetary capability. And will preserve many Shuttle Program workers. And give us economical lunar bases. And large space telescopes. And...

Be sensible, NASA.

Okay, now my legs have turned wobbly...

Once we have returned to the moon, a plan like this will leave us with nothing, no heavy lift booster, no large craft, nothing to help us to Mars after 2020.

And what about lunar bases... Will they be constructed of tiny modular pieces too?

What the hell is wrong with NASA, or specifically O'Keefe, if he's the one who got us into this... There is no vision...

Hey, Let's hope this isn't the new CEV: [http://www.cheapdisposable.com/~bchan/cevspec.jpg]CEV: Speculative Configuration

Where'd this come from anyhow?