New Mars Forums

The "heavy" versions of Delta IV and Atlas V, using three common booster cores, go beyond the capabilities of Ariane 5; they were designed to replace the Titan IV, which has approximately the same payload capacity as the Shuttle.

Lockheed Martin had nothing to do with DC-X.  The ship was built by McDonnell Douglas.  Its further development was killed by Lockheed Martin, but not because of any meddling with the DC-X (the DC-X crash landing occurred after DC-X development was halted.)  Basically, NASA stopped funding the DC-X in favor of Lockheed Martin's X-33, which from the point of view of most engineers was inferior from the start.  It relied on too many unproven technologies, like complex composite fuel tanks, aerospike engines, and a metallic TPS.  Furthermore, the demands of a single-stage to orbit spacecraft left little room for weight growth.  When Lockheed Martin tried fabricate the multi-lobed fuel tanks for the X-33, they exploded during testing.  McDonnell Douglas had used a simple-shaped composite hydrogen tank on the DC-X and it worked admirably.

I'm less inclined to believe Gorelick because of his position at the center of the brouhaha, but that doesn't mean I won't listen to other objective debukers of Cydonia.

Laney's case for the "blockies" becomes more tenuous by the day.  Still, I can't entirely dismiss it because of the previous Russian photographs of the blockies (the raw data from Phobos 2 shopuld be released to the West as soon as possible, IMHO.) 

And I'm still confused as to how TEM could have faked the raw data for the Cydonia daytime pics when they show more detail than the ASU pics at first glance (although I will give them a second look, after reading the thread and finding select details to look for.)  It's frustrating, having this conversation and not being an imagine expert (and having bad luck with cameras of all sorts.)

Now that NASA's FINALLY released the nighttime IR of Cydonia, I'm anxious to hear what the rest of you have to say about it.  I tried looking at the Face and other objects for signs of a structure but the resolution of the JPEG I downloaded was too poor to make out any details if they exist.

I'm under the impression that EELV launch will only be an interim option.  The first Orbital Spaceplane flight will be an unmanned mission to the ISS, delivering the long-overdue lifeboat.  The OSP will be unmanned and there will be no need to man-rate the EELV.  Eventually an RLV would launch the OSP.  The RLV might be an Air Force Space Ops Vehicle, or it could be a commercially-operated RLV.  Either way, its an important step toward routine and commercial use of space.

If the shuttle were ever used for launching commercial satellites, it would have to fly in an unpiloted mode (astronauts would be unnecessary in the situation and represent an added expense.)  It's good to see that SLI might end up enhancing the shuttle for increased flight rates (such as advanced, health-monitoring engines and flyback boosters.) 

But I'm disappointed that NASA would return to the paradigm of "artillery as spacecraft."  Being able to launch a spaceplane on an EELV in an emergency is a plus, but it is too expensive to continue on a regular basis.

The more I think about SLI, the more skeptical I become.  From a technology standpoint it was good, but Space Frontier and Pro Space were right about one thing: it's leading us down the continued path of goverment-controlled spaceflight and "business as usual."

If we shifted from robotic exploration of Mars to human exploration of Mars, the entire industry would benefit, including JPL.  I don't think that conspiracy theory has any legs (yet...)

I think that NASA administrators are controlled by the same hopes and fears we are.  They know that a colossal failure would harm the program (in much the same way as the loss of MCO and polar lander,) and careers would be broken.  Because the 2001 lander was similar to the polar lander, it was seen as too high-risk for a 2001 launch.  Now that NASA's succeeded marvelously w/ Mars Odyssey, the lander deserves a chance.

Apparently In-situ propellant production has fallen out of favor w/ NASA, at least for initial missions to Mars. Otherwise the 2001 lander would have been penciled in for a new flight date by now.  As Dr. Benton Clark indicated, ISPP is too high-risk for an initial mission.  The only way of changing this is to test it on robotic missions.  Make methane on the 2007 "scout" lander, and use methane to get the 2011 Sample Return back to earth!

Last night it was my pleasure to attend a presentation by Dr. Benton Clark, chief scientist at Lockheed Martin's Space Division (responsible for MGS and Odyssey.)

Dr. Clark prefaced his presntation by asking the audience "What will happen first?  Will the United States switch to the metric system, or will humans land on Mars?" The overwhelming majority went with "humans on Mars."

Dr. Clark spent a significant amount of time explaining the benefits of the metric system before talking about the loss of Mars Climate Orbiter.  He told us that MCO's problems stemmed from bad software that should have been making the conversions automatically but wasn't; the probe was moving off course more than anyone expected.

I fell in love with the metric system when I began to study physics as a high school junior, and life has never been the same.

If America went metric, I believe that it would make science and mathematics easier for schoolchildren and encourage many more of them to pursue technical careers.  Because the Customary system doesn't have consistent (or base ten) conversion factors, it introduces more opportunities for error.

In the 1970s, futurists predicted the death of the customary system.  People were sipposed to work in both systems during the transition period and move to metric by the end.  Looks like we're still caught in the beginning of the transition.

The government has a role in the metric conversion.  It should set the standard by using both customary and metric units in all publications and projects (including the interstate highways.)  When the government changes its ways, people will begin to follow.

A question to all non-American posters in this forum: how did your respective countries convert to the metric system?

The CTV is a concept that is backed primarily by Orbital Sciences.  It's a more luxurious version of the autere X-38.  In fact, The OSC concept is based on the HL-20 lifting body.  Such a CTV could act as a crew capsule or a rescue vehicle, and it could be launched by either a reusable rocket or an expendable EELV.

NASA has postponed the down-select of designs for SLI.postponed

It looks like SLI might be re-structured after all.

I think SLI had the wrong idea by trying to build a "one-size fits all" vehicle for both cargo launch and crew launch.  If SLI is restructured, I'd like to see a modular approach.  There could be several different orbiters as part of a "SLI system."  Each one would have common components, but they would be sized for crew transfer missions or different payloads.  A small orbiter would replace Delta-II class rockets, while a larger orbiter would be more likely to compliment or replace the EELV.  Other components, like external tanks and flyback boosters, could be clustered to support the larger orbiter.

I'm sympathetic to your argument, Phobos.  But there are many people who would say the same thing, but substitute "space exploration" for "missile defense."

In a society where people are accustomed to government handouts from cradle to grave, there are too many who say, "Why are we shooting money into space when people are living in rat-infested apartments in the slums?"  The same people who make these claims forget that money spent on developing the technologies to explore space has a huge return in the form of spinoffs.  Investing in development projects is probably the wisest investment any government can make.

I have the feeling that there will be plenty of "missile defense" spinoffs as well.  For instance, my opthamologist was trying to sell me on the idea of getting laser eye surgery.  I was amazed to learn that the eye-movement tracking system in the vision-correction machine was a direct spinoff of the original SDI.  Still, my sense of techno-philia wasn't enough to convince me to get the surgery. 

Assuming that each interceptor had a 50% chance of hitting warhead, it still would not be fair to say that the system only has a 50% chance of success.  Several interceptors can (and will) be fired, you could conceivably have 100 chances to hit the warhead.

An rest assured that if the warhead did break through the interceptors, the country that fired it would become a green, smoking crater.  The nuclear stockpile, as exorbitant as it may seem, grew to its current size because we needed to have enough weapons to retaliate after a Soviet first-strike destroyed the primary strategic weapons.

GMD gives us a second line of defense should mutually assured destruction fail.  And it also protects us in the event that a missile should be fired accidentally, which nearly happened during a Russian training exercise in 1995.

http://www.space.com/news/wsc_prey_021018.html

I'm really excited about this Bird of Prey.  It's one of the most exotic-looking planes ever built.  As a technophile, I can appreciate all of the advanced technologies that were first tested on this plane (some of which probably haven't been acknowledged yet.)  I can't wait until we get the full story on this plane.