New Mars Forums

On the contrary, NASA has proposed using an RTG to operate the ion thruster for a future Pluto orbiter, which Sean O'Keefe tried to promote as a better alternative to the current Pluto mission.

The word from the World Space Congress says that NASA will fefocus the scope of Space Launch Initiative.  Instead of leading to a new RLV, it will produce a crew rescue & transfer vehicle for the ISS and upgrade the shuttle.

A two-step approach, in my opinion, would ease the transition to a new RLV.  First, the shuttle launched with flyback boosters.  When the shuttle retires, the boosters will form the first stage of a new RLV.

O.J. Simpson is not a murderer because O.J. Simpson says so.  And while we're at it, let's release all of the inmates in the prisons, because they all say that they're innocent

When foul play is afoot and nobody can be trusted, one should not take the words of the accused without a grain of salt (duh.)  Working for NASA does not automatically give Gorelick and Christiensen crediblity, and neither should working for TEM discredit Keith Laney.  For all those who call Richard Hoaglund a charlatan, you should look at Hoaglund's book about Europa and the work he did for CBS News in the 1960s.

What do you think of "Mission to Mars" ?

Most critics have been absolutely brutal toward the movie.  I felt that it was too simplistic, but it was still enjoyable.  The characters were underdeveloped and the movie did not live up to its potential, but it still presented a realistic looking and magical look at Mars that was able to entertain even the most jaded space enthusiast.

As an interesting tidbit, I found this on the Enterpris Mission website.

Due to the incredible interest in The Enterprise Mission of late, we have outgrown our
website provider and we are in the process of moving the website and discussion forums
to a new home. Keep checking back here for updates and news.

IF Enterprise Mission is faking this, it's paid off in spades (although Hoaglund and co. could be using it to make a lot more money than they currently do through the website and publications.)  Of course, it's not fair to accuse TEM of such a perverse hoax, especially in the absence of any evidence.

Does ESA have any plans to develop an independent human spaceflight capability before they send humans to Mars?  Obviously, they must, but I haven't heard any details.  Hermes was supposed to be Europe's ride into space, but the French pulled out and the project unraveled.  Is there a successor program to Hermes?  Will the ESA build an Apollo-style capsule, as they had discussed after the demise of Hermes?

If I remember correctly, a much greater amount of fuel is expended in ascending to Mars orbit than escaping from Mars orbit.  If an ISPP ascent vehicle docked with an NTR-powered transfer vehicle in Mars orbit, it would combine most of the benefits of ISPP with the added efficiency of an NTR that both creates thrust and generates electricity.

Some thoughts on Sample Return...

In-situ propellant production was on the drawing boards for the 2005 MSR mission.  This was back in the days before the infamous "English to Metric" conversion that turned the Mars Climate Orbiter into an artificial meteorite.  Under the plans before MCO and Mars Polar Lander were lost, a small Sabatier reactor would be tested on Mars by the 2001 Mars Lander and then incorporated into the 2005 MSR.  But Dan Goldin decided to scratch the lander following the loss of the two probes in 1999.  It was succeeded by the 2009 "Smart Lander" (now called MGE.)  As far as I know, MGE will move via wheels and not by in-situ produced propellant.  D'oh.

Solar panels are still the best solution for any kind of ISPP test because an RTG can only produce somewhere around 400W of power.  At some point (such as Mars Direct) a nuclear reactor will be needed to generate enough power for the ISPP process, but that decision will be made on whether the reactor is lighter than the corresponding solar array for the required power output.

Sample Return became a two-stage mission because NASA wanted international help to finance the mission, and because ISPP was viewed as too much of a technical risk.  Under most of the scenarios, a lander with a rover and a solid rocket would be sent by NASA, retrieve samples, and blast them into Mars orbit.  A French orbiter would then make a risky rendezvous with the sample canister and return it to earth.  So much for the KISS principle...

In 1989, George H.W. Bush promised to put a man on Mars by July 20, 2019.  In subsequent years, he also lead the war with Iraq and raised taxes against his better judgement.

Fast forward to the present.  His son, George Walker Bush, has cut taxes and will, most likely, finish the job his father started in Iraq.  Is a renewed Space Exploration Initiative in the offing?

Some political scientists have viewed President Bush as an "avenging son" who will make amends for his father's mistakes.  So far, there's nothing to dispute this.  I do expect him to endorse an ambitious space program once the political climate is right (read: the economy straightens out and Saddam is gone.)  Remember that the administration has tenatively supported the "Next" plan, which calls for an L1 space station, a base on the moon, and the exploration of Mars (sound familiar?)

Sometimes the best solutions aren't elegant...

I'm thinking that the X-Prize may be won by a team that chooses a "rocket goes up, recovers by parachute" flight profile, like DaVinci or Starchaser.  However, the real money, from space tourism, will be made by guys like XCor and Burt Rutan who design spaceplanes and TSTO spacecraft.  The easiest way to make a spacecraft that operates like an airliner is to make an airliner that flies in space.  That's the beauty of a spaceplane.

Rob, have you considered putting your plan on the web?  If you were to share it with others outside this forrum it might light a candle under NASA's butt...

24-tonne launch vehicles would be the best idea for now.  The problem with using the shuttle for anything, aside from its high fixed costs, is the small diameter of its payload bay.  Using an EELV like the Delta IV heavy or the less-hyped Atlas V heavy would make more sense because these rockets use 5m payload shrouds.  Of course, someone could always adopt my idea of making an even bigger EELV by clustering seven Common Booster Cores...

One last question: did you ever consider nuclear power for the mission?  I believe that a 400 kW reactor would have a lower mass than the equivalent solar panel for the electric transfer vehicle.

I don't think that 'cost-plus' is a bad way of doing business.  It's far superior to a fixed price contract for any project requiing significant research and development.  The reason why is because there are too many unknowns when there is a lot of R&D to be done.  The contractor and the government cannot accurately estimate a fixed price when there is so much uncertainty, and such a contract leads to the contractors getting screwed (look at the cancellation of the A-12 Advanced Tactical Aircraft and the reprocussions for G.D. and McDD.)