New Mars Forums

http://davidszondy.com/contest.htm]Does it say contest?

1500 words is flash fiction, something I have been thinking about lately. Maybe I need to offer a small prize for the best NewMarsian story entered in this contest. The picture looks like Mars, no?

George C. Scott as Space Admiral Patton zapping those nasty bug-things?

Can Boeing deliver 45MT for $180 million?

You assume 495 MT annually? 33 barrels for this purpose only?

= = =

If it is really 35MT @ $240 million each based on 33 barrels then an SDV tanker might well beat those numbers.

So its all bean counting, isn't it?

Edited By BWhite on 1110906595

Luc-ee! We got us some trolling going on!

Sadly, I may agree with you more than you might know.

Therefore, we need to find more money for the VSE since my real point - - [underneath everything else] - - is that the proposed budgets aren't really large enough to do what most of us really want to do. To a large extent the VSE is about pretending to have a space program that actually does something meaningful.

Remember my bias - - if we don't stay or begin to exploit resources, why bother with $16-20 billion per year for human spaceflight, especially if we need to slash science to fund it?

Even Michael Griffin had been saying he wants $5 billion more per year. Read his older testimony from the last 2 - 3 years.

Political realiity is that the taxpayers won't fund much more through the federal budget. So where do we find more money? If the mountain won't come to us, what mountain might we travel to?  :;):

To carry CEV and our astronauts?

An American launcher. No argument. :;):

But to carry 5,000 kg tanks of methane or LH2 or LOX to help propel CEV to the Moon? Buy Dneper or Zenit or a 5 segment SRB. And when no one is looking, rendevouz and mate that fuel tank to your CEV.

Whatever is cheapest per pound to LEO. Remember, for every ton of net lunar payload we need four tons of fuel.

= = =

If the goal is prestige, HLLV will be far, far better because we can easily build and launch BIG rockets while the Russians cannot re-constitute Energia any time soon. And Energia is relatively puny in any event.

Mate four 5 segment SRBs to a stretched ET with RS-68s and a cryogenic upper stage, and the Florida launch watchers will see a far more impressive show that any puny Delta IV will ever give. 

= = =

If its about being economical, buy Russian/Ukrainian.

If its about showmanship buy BIG shuttle derived. Made in America!

If we are not going to stay, to colonize or mine lunar resources, then why are we going?

Form follows function. What rocket the VSE uses should require us to first define WHY we even have a VSE.

Ukraine is our friend, having given Putin a poke in the eye, right?

Zenit is Ukrainian.

Working for American capability is good and should be encouraged. A monopoly for buying exclusively American when its more expensive hurts us more than it hurts the Russians.

Wal-Mart fires Solidarity veteran from Poland allegedly for trying to http://newstandardnews.net/content/?act … 4]organize a union.

My point is that Griffin personally believes it should be on the table.

Edit: Repeat after me: inevitable outward migration

= = =

How fast? Reasonable people can differ but the goal remains the same.

Perhaps the settlement theme needs to be concealed or mislabeled as something else for temporary political reasons, but less than one year ago, Michael Griffin did tell Congress that spreading western civilization was the essential reason for space exploration.

His words, not mine.

All by itself, that moves the discussion forward.

= = =

Inevitable outward migration - -

Everything related to space exploration should be measured by simply asking "does this program or system help or hinder our species' inevitable outward migration into the solar system"

Edited By BWhite on 1110831088

What Griffin brings is legitimacy for the proposition that permanent settlement - - and the associated spreading of western civilization - - is the only "why" that can be sustained across decades, or generations. He has stated that "spin-offs" and "educational inspiration" may be feel-good but are actually meaningless with respect to the expense that is needed for space exploration.

It also appears Griffin does not have a history of subordinating his own opinion or personal integrity for the sake of team unity. Good!

Thus, we may have a better chance of learning what is really motivating the architects of the VSE, behind the curtain.

= = =

And, of course, this "why" ultimately requires children being born "out there" - - whether in 25 years or 125 years or 225 years is irrelevant.

Whichever subset of humanity gets there (safe, routine childbearing) first, with the most, will OWN the solar system.

Griffin's quote - - in my sig - - tells me he sees this.

Look at this:

Link to follow:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mp … y2/3080401

Edited By BWhite on 1110770839

How efficient would an NTR tug be for moving mass from LEO to the Moon on a regular basis? Large payloads broken into smaller chunks.

Chemical is about 5:1 ratio, right?  100,000 pounds in LEO = 20,000 pounds on Luna?  About the same as Mars.

Would NTR be a more efficient way to move mass from LEO to Luna?  Obviously, you need the economy of scale to justify the capital costs.

This is really a silly argument.   

David Poston has done some terrific work on small reactors in his spare time! Give him some real money and we could have space-rated power generation reactors within 10 years.

But, if we agree that a lack of reactors are a "show stopper" for exploration then the anti-space folks need only de-fund reactor research to stop us cold. The current VSE does not include funding for these "house" reactors (house = running the habs and smelters and O2 generators rather than for propulsion). It appears MIke Griffin agrees we need house reactors. Let's see what he says about the current lack of funding in this area. 

My main point is that  =IF=  we accept the idea that reactors are essential to space exploration, we set ourselves up for another decade or two of delay when 2018 rolls around. But  =IF= we make plans to go forward whether or not we have reactors (less desirable, but feasible) then I predict reactors will be developed somewhere along the line.