New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#126 Re: Human missions » Has Dr. Zubrin Addressed Mars Direct Objections? - A few questions? » 2004-12-01 15:42:01
I think if you throw nuclear thermal rockets into the mix and stick with the as published Mars direct plan then that gives you a much bigger mass margin then you would have using exclusivly chemical rockets.
Also Mars Direct and the DRM were penned before the TransHab project and before Bigelow. (although the significance of the latter has yet to be seen) Inflatable inspace habbitats would significantly expand the liveable volume of the ERV side stepping that problem.
I currently work for the NASA Advanced Life Support Systems project (At Purdue university, as the name implies, lol) and I have to say assides from maybe a minimal 'salad' machine and physio-chemical water and atmoshere recylcing I think closed loop life support is a dead end. With the volumes and power requirments you have to come up with to make it work you'd be beter off using your multi-megawatt nuclear reactors as NTRs or to power VASMIRs or other advanced electric propulsion option. Searching for Carbon and Oxygen closure on Mars doesn't make sense, what makes sense is developing techniques to use what we know is there already. Once we find a good way to extract water from permafrost or if we are really lucky and aquifer the life support problem goes bye-bye real quick.
#127 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Nuclear Transfer Vehicle Design » 2004-11-30 09:32:31
The only advantage of using a nuclear reactor to power an arc jet instead of a direct nuclear thermal rocket is that you run into the issue of ablation in a NTR so you get a mildly radioactive wake. An arc jet would side step that problem but it seems like it would be possible to engineer a reactor to get around the ablation issue.
#128 Re: Human missions » SpaceShipOne: Time Magazine - Hails as Invention of the Year » 2004-11-26 10:21:10
In my opinion the real value of SS1 was it gave alot of legitimacy to AltSpace start ups. How much you can scale up the air launch technology is debatable, but now you can at least talk about space start ups and without (as many) laughs and snickers in the room.
Although I can already imagine SS3 riding between a cattermaran 777 with four GE90s, now that would be a very Rutan esque flying machine.
#129 Re: Not So Free Chat » Future news; - that you can use now. . . » 2004-11-11 10:15:19
The problem for the Republicans is who could they possibley come up with to replace Bush? The only real candidates that i can think of are McCain, Giuliani or Schwarzenegar (if he can get the law changed), none of whom are overly religious (and so wont especially attract the religious right) and all three of whom are moderate in their views (they have different stances to Bush on gay marriage, abortion and stem cell research - all of which are still likely to be hot topics in 2008). So Bush wont be able to really campaign in suport of any of them (or shouldnt if he really believes half the cr*p he comes out with) and the religious right arent going to get nearly as worked up about them.
He's managed to change what it is to be a republican and in 2008 i think the real republicans are going to want their party back - which should be a very interesing and messy fight to watch. Basically, Bush may turn out to be one of the worst things to have happened to the Republicans, not the best. Isnt their a saying abouth the price of success?
Of course there could always be.....
CHENEY-WOLFOWITZ 2004! :laugh:
:laugh:
That would be the best presidential ticket ever!
Actually I'd Like to see Rice-Rumsfeild 08' but that wont happen.
I actually think we are going to see the fracturing of the democratic party in the near future because their two biggest constituency groups are diametrically opposed, the heavy industrial unions and the radical environmentalist, too rather incompatable interest groups. I'd also like to see the libertarian party gain ground, end up with a strong four party system by 2075, Greens, Labors, Republicans, and Libertarians.
I have to say Badnarik had the best campaign slogan of the election, "Libertarians, we're pro choice....on everything"
#130 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » ITER » 2004-11-01 18:30:08
While I am glad that the US is now signing back onto ITER I think it's an absolute tranvisty we are not developing a comprable reactor on our own. We are letting our physics comunity languish and this is a horrible mistake, we need projects like the Manhattan Project, the H-Bomb, The short lived Superconducting acccelorater to keep the national labs and DOE at the top of their game.
#131 Re: Interplanetary transportation » P&W's Nuclear engine... - Wowza article » 2004-10-24 21:17:14
Glad to hear someone is talking about NTRs again, I hope they get funding from NASA for it. That's one uber deal for$800 million, I'd take one less shuttle flight for that.
#132 Re: Interplanetary transportation » 6.6 Billion Tons Of Water On The » 2004-10-23 21:57:24
It may be there, but there are issues with the fact that you would have to place your base on the lunar south pole. Also the way I understand it, your still talking about extracting water in PPM concentrations.
This development might make the logisitics of a lunar base seem beter, but I hardly think they significantly alter the balance of power in the Moon vs Mars debate. I still think going to the moon as a preamble to Mars is a very, very ill-logical move that will keep us off mars until the 2050s at least.
#133 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Falcon 1 & Falcon 9 » 2004-10-14 21:55:04
I wonder how much of the fear of solid rockets is vaild. I agree on paper the inability to throttle or shut them off is a problem, but the Thikol SRBs have never failed in flight. (baring being fired outside desing parameters, a problem now fixed in any event)
Not saying solids are the way to go just not something we should take off the table, especailly when we are talking about building a HLV from existing componets. Two five segement SRBs on a Enlarged Delta IV or Atlas core using slush hydrogen fuel with regenerative colling could be quite an impressive booster.
#134 Re: Not So Free Chat » TV to rubbish Kerry a 'Traitor' on election Eve - US channels will air Kerry as Traitor » 2004-10-14 21:51:13
How boring if no one across the border would even comment!
Sinclair, Fox News, et al. are gradually losing their claim to objectivity on certain issues. The expected "documentary" is so closely in keeping with their recent coverage that I doubt the regular viewers will even notice the difference. It's just a shame that they command such a big audience.
Fortunately, "commanding" his audience will not allow Sinclair to send them forth like flying monkeys. Conservatives think, too. Generally. :;):
I agree, but let's not pretend that ABC, CBS, MSNBC, and CNN all have an agenda too.
There just aren't any non-biased American news sources left. If you want to figure things out for yourself you have to dig up primary sources and formulate your own opinions.
I blame all the 24 hour news networks for changing the news from information to entertainment, thus all the uber spin.
#135 Re: Not So Free Chat » TV to rubbish Kerry a 'Traitor' on election Eve - US channels will air Kerry as Traitor » 2004-10-14 10:00:37
No offense but as a non-American, and all non-Americans really should keep out of internal affairs.
IMHO Kerry wasn't a traitor, just in exceptionally bad taste. Also Micheal Moores been distributing propaganda for over a year now, it's about time we got something to balance it.
#136 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Falcon 1 & Falcon 9 » 2004-10-08 21:04:49
Well I think both the Falcon and Falcon V have a huge yet undeveloped military market. The Air Force is currently developing the "Common Aero-Vehicle" to allow the hypersonic delivery of kinetic energy weapons as well as other payloads rapidly anywhere in the world. The falcon fits the bill perfectly for a cheap launch vehicle for strike missions, it's like a budget MinuteMan III without the political implications of an ICBM launch or the fact that we would be expending and ireplacable componet of our nuclear deterent if we started using ICBMs to launch coventional strikes.
This brings up another issue with the fact that the MMIII is over 40 years old and there is no replacement program. We need to start either developing a replacement ICBM or speed the development of space based weapons with a hard target kill capability.
#137 Re: Human missions » Return to flight slipping » 2004-10-04 00:34:06
A handle of whatever alchol you choose says that the shuttle doesn't fly till the second quarter of 06' if it ever leaves the ground again at all.
We should just cut our loses now, and get our collective shit in order on what we are going to do post-ISS, make a plan, and put it into action.
Unfortunetly that's not going to happen, the shuttle will get scuttled, the ISS will fall from the sky ala Sky Lab, the BSI will die because of internal NASA and contractor politics as well as political apathy and in 2100 people will be saying how quaint manned spaceflight was and the dream of off world colonies will still be '30-50' years off...man the future sucks.
#138 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Martian Nuclear Proliferation - How will it affect development, etc? » 2004-09-15 20:54:06
Morris, lol
Too many things to argue to little time, I'll respond to that when I'm not swaped, although truth be told you and I differ on a very basic level on the question of globalism and the role of the nation state so I'm not going to sway you and your not going to sway me.
In the mean time cheers!
#139 Re: Human missions » Rutan to try for orbital spaceplane? » 2004-09-15 20:47:25
Well one of the big things that the X-37 is supposed to eventually test is it's new metallic thermal protection system which will do away with the finacial sink hole that is the tile system. In theory it is supposed to be tested in space around fy 09' launched on an EELV.
#140 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Martian Nuclear Proliferation - How will it affect development, etc? » 2004-09-15 20:40:51
The Nuclear power will be a day to day necescity, and fission/fusion explosive devices are not the most sophisticated devices in the present day arsenals of us and our enemies.
Spoken like a true technocrat. And just what does the fact that they are not the most sophisticated devices have to do with the overall danger they pose? How many tanks have succumbed to "Molotov cocktails" and how many helicopters to RPGs?
I mean, hell, I could have put together a nearly working model of a basic Teller-Ulam inline fusion device my junior year of high school!
And how many years and billions of dollars later do we have a nearly working model? One of the classic cases of welfare for scientists if you ask me.
What will the proof be? I'll bet that once the first sustained, net-energy producing fusion reaction is demonstrated in public, it won't be 18 months before they are all over the world regardless of whether or not the technical details of how they did it are made public.
My point as far as their sophistication was given the caliber of people and the equipment you would need to settle mars, producing nuclear demolition devices is not going to be the most challenging thing to do. (And actually might be a great tool for terraforming to flash melt permafrost and the icecaps)
Um, you misunderstood me, I was talking about a hydrogen bomb not a fusion reactor. H-bombs gain most of their yeild via fusion, ie they are Fusion Devices vs Fissiond devices.
As far as controled fusion research, it's long term importance is unquestionable, even if the goal is still 20 years off it has such profound implications that I would never think to call it 'welfare for scientist' even now when I am feeling very cyical about it.
Oh and Cindy, by Blue Helmets I meant the UN. The "Peace Keepers" where those silly helmets so I make fun of them
#141 Re: Human missions » Mining H3 on the moon - Popular Mechanics article » 2004-09-14 22:59:57
About the same time as large scale development of the moon is happening, PurduesUSAFguy.
Well that add more weight to going to the moon direct first, to develop large scale spacedock facilities on the surface and also mine and refine the fuel for future power plants and spaceships for exploration and colonization
That sounds great,
The kicker is that building dry docks and mining and manufactoring opperations on the moon are going to take decades. On a surface with the exception of Oxygen has no volitiles what so ever. Barring a breakthrough in nanotech in the next decade such a program is likley to take 30 or 40 years. I'm not out of grad school yet and I'd be retired before we were even talking about an expidition to Mars.
I'm sorry but I have yet to hear a single convincing argument why going to the Moon first makes any sense at all.
And I'm not just defending the little red book! lol
#142 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Martian Nuclear Proliferation - How will it affect development, etc? » 2004-09-14 22:54:03
As for nuclear proliferation, the International Atomic Energy Commission could send a team to inspect and oversee Martian facilities, just as they do in North Korea and Iran (when permitted!). My guess is that nuclear research and testing facilities on Mars will be developed by national governments and their agencies, which will lease a few tens of thousands of square kilometers of reservation for their exclusive use. Imagine the controversy if the United States military manufactured uranium and plutonium on Mars for export to their Star Wars facilities in Earth orbit. I can already see the Martian protesters (I might be inclined to join them, too).
Funny, I wrote a report that actually suggested that one of the best reasons for settling Mars would be to supply our war fighting assets in orbit. Mars would be the perfect Skunk Works! The last thing we would want is the UN or IAEA to be there. Ideally no one would know we were there at all.
Of course given the temprament of the board I wasn't going to float the idea but if you put it out there, lol 
Keep the blue helmets off Mars!
#143 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Martian Nuclear Proliferation - How will it affect development, etc? » 2004-09-14 22:50:32
The reality of the matter is due to the nature of colinizing Mars you are going to have a planet full of educated technincally adept people who are very comfortable working on the bleeding edge of technology. Nuclear power will be a day to day necescity, and fission/fusion explosive devices are not the most sophisticated devices in the present day arsenals of us and our enemies.
In our department theres a saying, you can't hide physics, at least not forever. That's on Earth with the unwashed masses and in most circumstances great control over non-mobile nuclear material (the exceptions being America, British, French, and Russian naval vessels) On Mars reactors have to be everywhere, in everything from air craft to mobile power carts for portable bases. If some group really wants to start throwing around 750 kilotons the hardest part is going to be coming up with the nitrogen for the high explosives in the primary.
I mean, hell, I could have put together a nearly working model of a basic Teller-Ulam inline fusion device my junior year of high school!
#144 Re: Human missions » SRB booster for CEV » 2004-09-14 22:40:12
Because the technology is simple, proven, and available. Capsules are not that hard to engineer, neither is a small OMS/Service module with a Kerosene/Peroxide or Hypergolic engine, and the launchers are available or with only modest modification... We have done them before without costing too much, and we'll do them again. The launchers today are reliable enough with the use of a good escape system, which Lockheed already has in the works... The CEV can be done, the reason it doesn't have a clear shape yet is because we're still trying to figure out what we want it to do, not so much we don't know how to do it.
Short term orbital missions? Medium term Lunar missions? Lunar landing option? TLI stage compatibility? Choice of fuels? Multiple services module types? Inflatable orbital module ala Soyuz? Crew size? Cargo-only option? Reuseability? Decent angle? Powerd cross-range? Landing rockets? Surface or water landing? Transfer-orbit velocity reentry? Lifetime on orbit? Airlock/repair orbital module option?
...There are quite a few paramters that NASA has to narrow down before they go beyond pretty 3D pictures. It is unlikly that the launcher for CEV will exceed $200M by much, and if the CEV can be built for $100M each (fairly generous), then $300M for a flight is not a bad deal compared to a $1.1Bn Shuttle shot.
Rebuilding the Pad-39 complex is a bigger deal then it sounds, you would need some kind of arrangement like the Delta-IV pad if you are going to do verticle integration, which would require large-scale changes to the launch pad structure, particularly the tower... You really might as well build a new one. This isn't quite like handling a liquid rocket either, each segment is a delicate, armed BOMB... see the Brazilian satelite launcher.
100 million for an expendable basic CEV cabin sounds more the generous, I would have guessed more along the lines of between 30-45 million plus whatever inflatables or other mission componets you add on.
I agree it doesn't make alot of sense to launch from pad 39a and b for EELVs. Prehaps it would be cheaper to launch from a new facility at Vandenburg?
The thing I am not comfortable with is an EELV derivative for cargo launch. 80 tonnes seems very much on the low end of the spectrum if we are serious about going beyond the Moon. (I still maintain that the Moon and Mars make more sense in parallel not as luna being a prerequisite) It seems there is where an SRB or Shuttle derived launcher would make sense.
I appologize for the spelling but crazy old Ivan (skyy vodka) is flying his mig around in my stomach right now, I had to celebrate the end of my first Neutron Mechancics exam.
#145 Re: Human missions » SRB booster for CEV » 2004-09-14 22:32:33
Just out of couriosity has any given serious thought to a clean sheet design?
#146 Re: Human missions » Rutan to try for orbital spaceplane? » 2004-09-14 22:17:50
Using the White Knight for a launch platform for atmostphereic tests makes a ton of sense. It was designed specifically for that application, and it's hourly opperations cost must be a tiny fraction of the compared to the B-52 that NASA uses for atmospheric tests.
It makes so much sense in fact that I wonder if NASA might consider buying a dedicated craft like the White Knight or Prometheus from Rutan to replace the modded BUFF which is rapidly aging.
#147 Re: Human missions » Mining H3 on the moon - Popular Mechanics article » 2004-09-14 22:13:37
Well, if you really want to get rich of Helium-3 minning (assuming that the Tokomaks exist in a mature enough state to make use of it, with out that you might as well use it to make your voice squeeky) the way to go would be some sort of Ballon collection system for Saturn and Uranus. The He3 is in greater concentrations and in a more easily extractable form. Uranus would be the beter choice most likley because it has a very low escape velocity.
It might be a 15 year launch to revenue cycle but you might be bringing back more like 4 or 5 times your launch mass vs fractional returns for lunar opperations.
Just don't go putting up venture capital yet because comercially viable fusion has been "10 years away" since at least a decade before I was born.
#148 Re: Human missions » NDSS National Department of Space Settlement - We've explored, now let's occupy! » 2004-09-13 22:18:32
I totally agree with Cobra that the US should look at solar and hopfully extra solar expansion as a national affair much like manifest destiny. (prehaps with the inclusions of the Aussies, Brits and Canadians {not Qubec })
Anyways I don't particularly want to get involved in that argument but I thought of a great name of a colinization agency
SICCA
Space Industrialization Commercialization and Colinization Administration
What do you think?
#149 Re: Human missions » Space Initive Launch Vehicle » 2004-09-05 18:42:09
Has there been any word on what NASA is thinking for HLVs for the space initive? I know along time ago in a galaxy far far away they were talking about a concept called "Magnum" which was supposed to use a composite version of the STSs external tank and the liquid-fly back boosters they were talking about pre-BSI. What are their leaning towards now, I know that LockMart/Boeing are pushing for EELV derived HLVs but I don't know exactly how much engineering would be involved in creating a larger diameter core stage.
#150 Re: Not So Free Chat » Any News on the /insert color/ Mars mini-series? » 2004-09-01 10:46:58
I was wondering if anyone had heard any news about the KSR Mars mini-series that Sci-Fi channel is filiming, such as when it will be on, or if it covers the events of one book or all three.