You are not logged in.
I'm somewhat uncomfortable with a shuttle derived HLLV for Mars Direct. I've never cared for using solid rocket boosters for manned travel.
And the U.S. would never seriously consider buying Energyia boosters for a mission the U.S. was funding.
I think the Saturn Five should be revived. All the engineering has been worked out. And uprated F-1 engines capable of producing 1.8 million pounds of thrust each were ground tested though not flown.
With an upgraded upper stage and advanced F-1s in the first stage, the mass available to throw to Mars in the Mars Direct architecture might increase by up to 10%.
The Saturn V was in many ways NASAs crowning achievement and would bring back alot of good publicity.
If you think this is odd, to revived a 35 year old booster, the Syntheses Group in their report for NASA "America At The Threshhold" in 1991, actually proposed reviving the F-1 engines as a proven way of getting the needed heavy lift for the manned Mars and return to the moon programs.
Its worth considering.
You'll get more support from the right since conservatives are likely to see it as an issue of national pride and achievement. And worth it just to show American superiority.
This sounds like what some called "Energia II".
Theoretically it was capable of lifting 400,000 lbs. into LEO.
By the way, in Mars Direct, the ERV Cab actually has only half the space that the Habitat Module has.
About 125 square feet per person.
I think Dr. Zubrin originally called for using artificial gravity on the return leg with the ERV, but given that zero g would allow more space to be utilized by the crew and it would only be six months, he dropped the artificial G for the return leg.
That would save on weight as well.
Given that Dr. Zubrin is so instrumental in the Mars Society, I was wondering if he or any of the other long time "founders" ever read posts here or comment and start threads?
I've seen alot of good ideas in my two days here.
Should there be massive resistance to launching a nuclear reactor to power the chemical plants on the ERV for Mars Direct, how many solar arrays would be necessary to generate the same amount of power?
I'm a big supporter of nuclear power. But would expect at least some opposition from environmental groups. Any group that can oppose using RTGs aboard deep space probes would oppose anything.
The remote deployment of massive solar panel arrays on the surface would be difficult but not impossible.
I assume that the landing site preferred would be as flat and boulder free as possible.
I don't get it. If everyone thinks Zubrins mass estimates are too low, just increase the booster size.
During the Saturn V era, many well laid plans existed for increasing the LEO capability of the Saturn V to over 300,000 lbs. with relatively minor modifications.
I would wager the original Ares design could be stretched in capability as much as 20%. By adding a second pair of SRBs and replacing the four SSMEs with the already designed Advanced Launch System Main Engines (basically shuttle engines, not reusable, with very few moving parts) and capable of 650,000 lbs. of thrust.
Sure it would probably add a couple of hundred million to the overall development, but next to the Hab and ERV development costs it would be minor.
The first atomic bomb ever detonated was exploded on top of a steel tower 100 feet tall,
10 kilotons.
The bottom several meters of the steel tower SURVIVED the blast and can still be seen at the Trinity site.
There is an issue. While some artifacts in orbit might be usefull, rounding them up, from various orbits and such would burn a tremendous amount of fuel.
Probably more trouble than launching new equipment in the first place.
There is an issue. While some artifacts in orbit might be usefull, rounding them up, from various orbits and such would burn a tremendous amount of fuel.
Probably more trouble than launching new equipment in the first place.
I have Islands In The Sky, The Case For Mars, Entering Space, & First Landing by Dr. Zubrin. All are excellent.
Is Dr. Zubrin planning any more books and what might they be about?
I for one might like to see the following:
1) A Political Blueprint For Mars Direct
A guide to persuading governments and politicians into supporting a manned Mars Program based on Mars Direct
2) Marsbound-Mission Plans & Architectures
A lavishly illustrated book that looks at the various types of mission plans made over the last few decades for a manned Mars expedition and looks briefly at the merits and drawbacks of each.
Would look great. I'm still sure that Mars Direct would come out best.
Any other ideas?
I agree with Dr. Zubrin that having a dedicated doctor aboard is unnecessary. A biologist with medical training would be best. Simply put, what could a doctor do aboard a spacecraft with limited equipment, very little in the way of trained support personnel and et cetera.
A simple illness or injury can almost certainly be treated by a person with a basic level of paramedic training.
A serious illness or injury, an overturned rover with a crushed crewman would probably be well beyond the abilities of even the best surgeon under such conditions.
I do think astronauts on such missions would have to submit to some surgery beforehand to remove things like the appendix and gall bladder which could conceivably become infected during the mission despite any possible precautions.