New Mars Forums

On this point,

So when I describe myself as a "recovering pro-space activist", I mean that I have given up on the idea that a few thousand wild-eyed space enthusiasts can bring the Millennium.

Bell is probably correct.

Politics and finding money are the show stoppers, not the engineering.

Since a mission architecture based on 2 shuttle C+ is most likely cheaper than building Ares (if Delta "V" can come close to shuttle C+ well that's okay also) and 2 shuttle C+ can throw more to Mars than one Ares, then that is what we should be looking at for mass budget numbers.

Shuttle C+ will absolutely be cheaper if it is used for something in addition to Mars, such as lunar cargo support missions, JIMO class missions (and I still believe an orbiter can "play catch" with a shuttle C launched truss payload for ISS completion) etc. . .

1 shuttle C+ lifts the Mars hab and some fuel. The 2nd lifts fuel and engines. A Delta IVH (or Kliper) carries up crew, spacesuits and extra food. The total mass available will be much higher than Ares.

Edited By BWhite on 1103334416

I believe the article is seeking funding to use Kliper as an ISS transport. And unless we withdraw from ISS participation soon, we may need to do something to allow a better job of crew transfer than Soyuz, especially since CEV is not scheduled to be man-rated until 2014.

Looks like a political no-brainer to me.

Delta IV is a probably a lock for CEV and all the components. Which means some astronauts will visit the Moon towards 2020 and then, what?

If we scale back ISS, no need to to not fly a Hubble service mission. Hubble is a public relations icon. Perhaps its not logical, but to scrap Hubble in favor of VSE will provide the VSE with negative PR capital.

How we scale back ISS will be interesting to watch as well.

Heh! Cindy, Carl Sagan would be horrified by the teaching of intelligent design as being co-equal with evolution.

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/000446.html#more]CEV RFP - - is use of EELV mandated by this RFP?

Taken from The Case for Mars, page 89:

Using nuclear thermal, a 140 tonne HLLV can deliver 46 tonnes to the surface of Mars. Go with 210 tonnes from using 2 Shuttle C+ instead of Ares and that is 69 tonnes in payload.

How many of those cargo shots would be needed to get a permanent base up for 12 people and running? 

Page 91:

GCNRevenger, very few Mars Society types will oppose nuclear propulsion. Or building bigger boosters.

The question is how to build momentum when the NASA, Boeing/Lockmart propaganda is that we need 30-40 years of practice on the Moon before we even begin thinking about Mars.

If the VSE included nuclear thermal development from the beginning, few would argue against waiting for it.

Pete Worden.

Robert Dyck,

GCNRevenger's acceptance of a Mars mission built on two light HLLV (upgraded shuttle C) is probably the fastest way to Mars. Even faster than classic Mars Direct since Ares is a developmental step beyond an upgraded shuttle C.

Money? Using multiple shuttle C+ with no Ares development costs is probably cheaper than Mars Direct with Ares. And shuttle C+ will have assorted uses Ares may be just too big to justify, right now. Of course, Ares can be developed off a shuttle C+ as a straightfoward program.

When I listened to Robert Zubrin speak (both in Chicago and Boston)  he said he was agnostic about choice of HLLV.

= = =

One branching point I see is nuclear thermal. With nuclear thermal, an Earth return ship could be parked in Mars orbit rather easily. Without nuclear thermal, pushing fuel to Mars orbit seems to be both expensive and risky due to boil-off concerns. The MAV ascent vehicle hits low Mars orbit and discovers empty fuel tanks. ;-(

Robert Zubrin's Case for Mars plainly contemplates the possibility of nuclear propulsion but we need to get over the idea that JIMO actually will assist human flight and just build some nuclear ships that can push people.

GCNRevenger, building political momentum for an all chemical Mars Direct makes it more likely that a nuclear add-on gets funded. To say Mars must wait for nukes and then to say that nukes are too sensitive, politically is merely subterfuge for saying "No" to Mars, period.

Get the public behind an all chemical Mars mission and then explain why we need nuclear propulsion as an "add on" - - since saying "No" to Mars is high on the political agenda of a surprisingly large number of "Moon-first and only" people, I want as few show stopping obstacles as possible.

Edited By BWhite on 1102952603

SDV tankers (shuttle C) would seem to work just fine.  :;):

Launch 70,000-80,000 kg of fuel with a cluster of RL-10s or RL-60s stuck on the bottom.

Mate with whatever and go wherever you want. . .