New Mars Forums

It has only been a few years since deep space 1, but there have already been significant improvments in ion engine design since then.  NASA is currently working on a High Power Electric Propulsion (HiPEP) ion engine, which uses microwaves to ionize the zenon atoms (instead of a cathode).  According to a NASA [http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2003/no … ngine.html]Press Release,

Hubble has operated successfully for many years, and has significantly advanced our understanding of the universe.  However, recent advance in optics are making the old Hubble design obsolete.  The James Webb Space Telescope utilizes these advance to create a much more powerful telescope that it also less massive (so it can be launched on a cheap expendable rocket.)  It is scheduled to be launched around 2010, and it will operate at L2.

The shuttles have had many extensive upgrades.  Current shuttles have computers that are much more powerful than your calculator, probably much more powerful than your PC.  The reason that the shuttle needs to be replaced is because the design has been flawed from the start.  The size, complexity, and cost of the shuttle were greatly increased by Air Force requirements that were never used.  The space shuttle is not really designed for the tasks that it is being used for, which is why we need a new spacecraft that is designed for those tasks.

Do you mean the mass of the engines?  Adding engines to increase thrust increases power and engine mass requirements, but the fuel mass should stay the same.

If the cables are rigged correctly, there really shouldn't be any problems with running the engine while the spacecraft is rotating.  The engines have a low enough thrust that they should not disrupt the spacecraft too much, and the spinning motion would stabilize the spacecraft.

I know that NASA has done a lot of research with balloons, though I haven?t heard of them trying to launch a rocket from one.  It is an interesting idea, though I think that it might be harder to implement with a "real" spacecraft than with the x-prize.  This is because the x-prize only requires suborbital flight.  A spacecraft capable of orbital flight must carry a lot more fuel than the x-prize equivalent, and will therefore be a lot heavier.  An orbital spacecraft would also save only a relatively small portion of the total energy it needs by launching at 80,000 feet.

Going back to the moon is a pointless diversion of time and resources that will simply delay a Mars mission.  Most of the equipment involved in a moon mission would be completely different from equipment used on a Mars mission.  "Testing" Mars equipment on the moon would not really be very useful as Martian environment can be simulated on Earth much more closely than it can on the moon.  Furthermore, the moon does not provide the type of experience the NASA is most in need of: manned interplanetary travel.

The moon is not really that interesting, scientifically.  Unlike Mars, there is little reason to suspect life might exist on the Moon.  We have already sent astronauts to the moon, and studied the rocks they brought back.  China, India, Japan, the ESA, etc. are also sending missions to the moon, so any scientific data that might be collected will likely be redundant.

There is also little reason to go back to the moon for nationalistic purposes.  With all the other space agencies launching moon missions, many of which will get to the moon before the proposed American missions start, going back to the moon would just make it look like all of the other space agencies have caught up with NASA.  For the American space agency to maintain its prestige, it must look to other targets and stay ahead of the curve.

If NASA needs intermediate goals before launching a mars mission, than it should probably send astronauts to near earth asteroids, gradually working its way up to asteroids farther and farther from Earth.  This sort of mission would be in many ways easier than a moon mission, while at the same time being far more interesting to scientist, and they would give valuable experience working outside of Earths gravitational field.

I agree that it would be best to have a reusable spacecraft to take people from LEO to LMO and back.  The concept has many advantages:
*It is reusable.
*It does not waste fuel by sending an interplanetary spacecraft to a planet's surface.
*The requirements for interplanetary spaceflight are very different from atmospheric flight.  This way it is not necessary to make a spacecraft that can do both.
*The spacecraft could visit many other places besides Mars, such as asteroids, Venus, and or Mars' moons.  This would both increase the amount of useful work the spacecraft could do, and give scientifically interesting intermediate missions to test the craft before attempting Mars.
*The mission architecture is modular.  The Earth launcher/lander, Mars launcher/lander, and the interplanetary spacecraft can all be upgraded independently as replacements become available.

There are many different options for the actual layout of the spacecraft.  My advice is to try and keep it as small as possible.  Just because we could build battlestar galactica, doesn?t mean that you can get Congress to approve it.

Why are they sending an atmospheric glider into space?

What about fuel cells?  It seems like they would be a good power source.

Since the pressure on Mars is lower than on Earth, the pressure inside the baloon would also be lower.  If the helium inside the baloon has aproximately the same temperature and pressure as the CO2 outside the baloon, then the helium would be about 11 times lighter than the same volume of Martian air.

how about "soul master"?

US to End Iraq Administration by June

Sending criminals back to earth would be extremely expensive, especially because you would need to send guards with them (to prevent them from taking over the space ship).  For serious cases I would suggest exile-but on Mars rather than on Earth.  If the criminal can convince another colony to take him/her in, then he/she will probably spend many years of hard work trying to earn the colony?s trust.  If the criminal's crimes are so horrible that no other colony is willing to take a chance with him/her, then he/she can expect to eventually die of starvation or asphyxiation.