New Mars Forums

I like the idea for using a catapult to launch from the moon.  Earth's atmosphere just seems like too big of a barrier.

I would propose using the Earth catapult as a mini first stage.  It would be much easier on the catapult to only launch its payload at 300 meters per second -- subsonic.  This would avoid bending, superheating, and sonic booms as well.

I suppose a catapult could be designed to launch a rocket at mach 3, 1 km/s, without causing extreme stress on the equipment.

What do you think?

We better be careful...if the Feds are monitoring us, this might end up like Waco. :bars:

I'm no chemical engineer, but some red flags just went up.
You factored in the methanation process, which is exothermic, and the start-up power.  But to produce the right ratio of oxygen to methane you need more oxygen.  Several methods are viable, but one for sure is extremely endothermic -- the direct reduction of CO2 at 1100 degrees C.  Also, you need to electrolyze the water produced from the sabatier reaction.  I believe that is also an endothermic reaction.

Please, set me straight on this.

John,

I suppose you mean that if launching from the Moon you can carry a lot more fuel and get to Mars a lot faster.

Again, Zubrin addresses this in "The Case for Mars".  With more fuel and thus greater speed you can save a few weeks of travel time but it will be very dangerous to aerobrake into Mars orbit travelling that fast.

Just a reminder...

From the discovery of America by Colombus in 1492 to the declaration of independence in 1776 there passed 284 years.

It took a long time for American settlers to be able to break away from their mother country.  And, they had to do it by force.  If I understand correctly, it took Canada even longer to break away peacefully.

Martians will be heavily influenced by their sponsoring countries for a long, long, long time.

Just to remind everyone...

Robert Zubrin (in The Case for Mars) compared how much power, or Delta V, it would take to go from Earth to the Moon vs. from Earth to Mars.  Just to get to the moon, it takes more power, more delta V, more fuel, more mass, and more money.

It's simple:

The Moon CANNOT be a stepping stone to Mars, period.  It takes more power to get there, period.

The Moon is attractive for other reasons, but it is not a stepping stone.

ruski_canuk,

The idea of a Moon base is definitely romantic!  But, it is foolish to think that it will be easier, simpler, or cheaper to get to Mars by launching from the Moon.

Here's an idea to help keep CEV on track with Mars Direct.  Zubrin's ERV would be a great vehicle for the CEV.

The core component of the ERV/CEV would be the habitation area with the heat shield.  This core component would be light enough to lift to orbit on a medium lift expendable booster.  Fully loaded it could support four astronauts for 6 months (will need a Delta IV Heavy class booster).  In this simple configuration it could serve the supply/crew rotation needs of the ISS and it could also be a stand alone 6-month station.

For use on the Moon the ERV/CEV core component need not be modified.  A Moon ascent/trans-Earth injection stage can simply be fitted to the core component.  This will of course be heavy enough to warrent developing an Ares class booster.

A natural extension of this is to slap on a second return stage and send it off to Mars.

Here everyone gets what they want.  We Mars buffs get half of the Mars Direct hardware.  The Lunartics get a series of 6-month Moon bases.  The ISS folks get an overkill supply ship (just like the shuttle).  And, the president gets a cute little "do-all" vehicle.

Well, for starters, I have to pick apart his speech.  It's one of my favorite hobbies. :laugh:

Here's a beautiful quote: "I welcome those who are listening by video."

I don't know about you, but I tend to 'watch by video.'

OK...that was fun.

Now about his actual "New Visionary (Bull Sh**) Plan"...

It seems to me that all he is doing is moving the goal-less NASA to the moon:

    "We can use our time on the moon to develop and test new approaches and technologies and systems that will allow us to function in other, more challenging environments." -- W.

This sounds just like the 'Shuttle Mode' of operations that Zubrin opposed in his testimony to the senate commerce committee this October:

   "In this mode, technologies and hardware elements are developed in accord with the wishes of various technical communities.  These projects are then justified by arguments that they might prove useful at some time in the future when grand flight projects ar initiated." -- Zubrin.

Bush definitely did compromise.  He will not accomplish anything new.  If anything in his Visionary plan actually gets done, we still will not have accomplished much of anything new.  We went to the moon before and we have operated in shuttle mode before.

But, let's be realistic folks.  Bush isn't serious about space, just like his dad wasn't serious about space.  Congress won't fork out enough money to get people back to the moon or to  Mars unless the president pushes.

Bush was very good pushing the "War on Poor Underdefended Nations" ...err..I mean... "The War on Terror".  We need a gagging smiley, by the way.

If he had pushed space exploration like he did with his two wars we would be well on our way to Mars.

If a president is serious about space he will do something big during his first year -- not in his reelection year.

I like your idea of separating singles and families, clark.  I think you may not be considering the growth of the colony, though.  It seems you assume there will only be one dome.  I suggest separate lifestyles equals separate domes.  You could have singles domes, family domes, straight domes, gay domes, religious domes of all types, even (heaven forbid) black or white domes.  You wouldn't have to force this separation either (and you shouldn't force integration either).  People tend to separate themselves into these groups naturally.  I would just build a lot of living space with a lot of separation and leave the rest up to the people.

I think Zubrin's 24 person colony ship is a good idea, But --

You don't need to land the thing on Mars.  You can park it in orbit and then use his NIMF vehicles to fly to orbit and ferry the colonists to the surface.  The earlier explorers will have had to establish living quarters, of course.

The NIMFs could then be used to deliver fuel and exports to the colony ship in orbit.  After two years it can be sent back to earth for another group of colonists.

This will make it more economical and the colonists will only be 'couped up' for six months.

Er, Hazer, If you haven't been paying attention, they are finding more and more water on Mars all the time.  Water is full of hydrogen.

I like this idea for a Martian flag.  I would leave it up to the Martians themselves, though.  This means I wouldn't want to place this red, green, and blue flag on the first landing.

If we leave the flags up to the martians, then what should we erect at the first base (assuming we even need a flag).

Some might say that the country who gets there first simply puts up their countries flag.  America did that on the moon.  That just sounds to nationalistic and arrogant.  It's like claiming the planet for that country.

I thought that a better flag would be the Earth flag (Earth as seen from space).  However, that still seems to be claiming Mars for Earth.  Future martians might resent that.

I am currently thinking of using a flag with a simple outline of a human face or body.  This would "claim" the planet not for one nation or another planet but for all of humanity.

What do you think?