New Mars Forums

I agree, NASA must realize the best way to go about this lunar goal is to first develop a shuttle-based heavy lift launch vehicle, i.e Magnum, Ares, Shuttle C...

"We will begin the effort quickly, using existing programs and personnel."

I suspect the overwhelming majority of engineers at the Shuttle program work with the Shuttle Orbiter, and its associated life support systems; Systems that will not be incorporated into a heavy lift booster, although these engineers may apply themselves to the CEV.

Only the shuttle engineers who currently work with the SRB's, Main Engines, and other systems, will likely apply their work to this new launch vehicle.

Is it realistic to think NASA may return to the moon without an all new heavy lift launch vehicle?

And again I ask you this:

What happens if another shuttle disaster occurs during the next six years?

Surely we cannot afford another grounding, and the Columbia Report reccommendations will not save the crew from another Challenger-type disaster.

And here's an article from ShreveportTimes.com which includes a few comments from Zubrin, surprisingly.

[http://www.shreveporttimes.com/html/E3D … 81A7.shtml]Ex-NASA Scientists Mixed on Bush Plan

I must say I expected Zubrin to make more of a fuss. But then again, I'm sure this is just a small piece of his comments on this issue. Let's hope we'll hear more from him and like-minded professionals in the days ahead.

And here's another great article from the Christain Science Monitor:

[http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0116/p10s01-comv.html]A Countdown to Mars

I'm slowly cheering as I hear there is still intelligent life in the universe

Hey heres something interesting I found during a Whitehouse.gov forum session thingy with Sean O'Keefe on the 7th:

This is a surprise. It sounds almost exactly like Bush's plan. I bet William will be happy.

Unrelated: After studying many news articles and general opinion, I have found there are many space enthusiasts out there who share my view.

We must fight for Mars.

Voice your concerns to NASA, and to Bush. Let us preach to the public, and to the people in power.

We must mobilize for action, perhaps it is not too late to rally the significance of the Martian frontier.

But that is what has me so confused, Rob. Bush set some very specific agenda. A Crew Exploration Vehicle, capable of servicing the space station and flights to the moon, by 2008/2014. A return to the moon by 2014/2020, and a lunar outpost, where spacecraft can be launched on interplanetary missions.

He has set a very specific goal; a goal emulating science fiction. This does not seem to me like an efficient way to conduct human exploration of 'the cosmos'.

If Bush was expecting all this within the current budget, he clearly did not do his homework. I dunno, can't really think of a plan more difficult than this. I just hope 'difficult' doesn't mean 'too expensive'.

Thanks spider, didn't see your post there. Well, I hope your right. I'm sure we'll find out sooner or later how it all turns out.

Be optimistic, yet be discerning.

And let us continue to sow our views, opinions, and visions amongst the people in power.

It's not over till it's over.

On further thought, perhaps I was/am frustrated to realize the media and public had such great interest in a manned Mars mission, and little interest in a Lunar equivalent. Maybe if Bush had announced a Mars goal instead of a Lunar goal, we would have had a better chance of going to Mars sooner than we will likely meet the Lunar goal now... If your still with me... Get my drift?

One word: Spirulina.

Spirulina represents the most effecient foodsource in the known universe. It can be grown in relatively small vats, while converting carbon-dioxide into oxygen at better-than-wheat rates. It is the most nutritious food on the planet, its metabolic rate is off the charts, and it can be dried for easy stowage. Perhaps it may not taste all that swell, but it can be flavored and can be made into/combined with a multitude of (More Appealing) food products.

If Zubrins weight estimates are too low, just launch from a higher altitude! Launching from 5000 or 10,000ft would improve payload capacity considerably.

I hate politics

A shrink-wrap type suit isn't actually made of shink-wrap. It would probably be much like a wet suit, in fit and comfort. Although your post may have bought up a good point. Perhaps these wet-suits would be normal size at room temperature, but shrink as they are exposed to cold vacuum. This probably won't work on mars though, as the suit would expand come noon. But I don't think a shrinking suit would have to be used at all. I bet wearing a full body earth wet-suit would work just fine. Although a pressurized helmet would have to be worn.

Where'd you get that information from Lil Vader? If being near a strong enough magnet causes you to faint, that would probably mean the blood is indeed magnetic. Being near a strong magnet would cause the blood to pull closer to the magnet and away from the brain. If we put a strong magnet near the brain, however, then we would keep the subjects from fainting even under high G forces. Ofcourse doing that would pull the blood from other bodily organs, like the legs. The trick is to keep the blood stable throughout the whole body under high G loads. -The theory behind the electro magnetic chair.

Current Hydrogen Fuel Cell systems take up much of the floor space of an automobile. The fuel tank alone takes up the whole trunk, weighs 300 pounds (And carries perhaps 30 pounds of hydrogen), and provides the car with about 100 miles range. Water does not have to be pressurized, however, eliminating the need for a heavy pressure tank. Also, a 10 gallon tank of water would provide the fuel cell with enough hydrogen for around 500 miles range. That is, if we were to be using fuel cells at all. BMW has long had 7-Series that burn hydrogen in their internal combustion engines. Converting an internal combustion engine to run on hydrogen is fairly easy, according to BMW. An internal combustion engine is considerably more effecient than a fuel cell as well. But it all doesn't really matter, because electrolyzing water in an automobile would violate the law of conservation. An autombile that runs on water would effectively be a perpetual motion machine. Because the energy needed to electrolyze water is the same as the energy aquired from the oxidation of hydrogen. If we were to electrolyze the water from the suns own UV light, however, we would effectively be building an automobile that runs on UV solar power; Not water. Now we could power an interplanetary space craft in this way, or we could use a UV light bulb, powered by an onboard nuclear reactor, instead. But if we were to do that, than why not just electrolyze the water by conventional electrolysis?

   But why even do that? What is the point of using water as fuel instead of just the normal hydrogen-oxygen fuel? Well, I think there are many benifits. One of the most important being the public. The public has always been worried about the flammable nature of hydrogen. If the Hindenburg never blew up as it did, we would probably be traveling the globe in huge hydrogen filled airships (Although I do like to point out that the Hindenburg did not burn because it was filled with hydrogen, but because its exterior fabric was covered with rocket fuel. An Iron-Aluminum powder was used because of its insulating properties, basically the same stuff as the Solid Rocket Boosters on the Shuttle.). An interplanetary spacecaft powered with water would likely appeal to the public, as it is nonflammable. Number two reason is that water is much denser than stored hydrogen/oxygen. Meaning the fuel tanks themselves would not have to be reinforced to such a degree. -A significant weight saving. Number three reason: Simply the fact that it is water. Unused fuel could be stored as extra water for the crew.

   So there you have it. So is Natrium fuel the future of space propulsion? Or is water? Well, Natrium fuel basically has all the same properties as water, the upper-hand being that it doesn't have to be electrolyzed to be turned into viable fuel. Rather, it is passed through a small catalyst of Ruthenium. While powering a Launch Vehicle with water would seem ludicrous (As a nuclear reactor would have to be run as it was launched), a Natrium fueled Launch Vehicle would work quite comfortably. And requiring no electrical power in the process. The downside to Natrium fuel: It requires an oxidizer.