New Mars Forums

Even I don't drink that much Kool-Aid. I'd setttle for Pete Worden.

I agree and I believe this proves a slightly modified Mars Direct is really rather easy with 2 shuttle B/C per ERV and crew transit hab.

Since only 20% of the total mass lifted to LEO lands on Mars, the crew hab and the ERV can both be launched without the need for on orbit assembly, correct? The "docking hardware" can be positioned smack dab along the axis of thrust so that the engine burn will press the two pieces together rather than pull them apart.

Two shuttle B/Cs (with 5 segment SRBs and perhaps a larger Michoud made tank to push that 77K kg payload closer to 90k kg) and a Kliper class crew transport and there you go with 200 MT, correct?

ERV launches from Pad 39A and the Mars injection engine and fuel from Pad 39B perhaps a week apart. Line them up end to end and go for Mars.

23 months later, the back up ERV launches from Pad 39A and the Mars injection engine and fuel from Pad 39B perhaps a week apart. Line them up end to end and go for Mars on a slower Hohman trajectory. Less fuel.

Another 3 months later, MarsOne launches from Pad 39A and the Mars injection engine and fuel from Pad 39B a week after that with CEV from the Delta pad or Vandenberg or Kouru once MarsOne has docked.

This saves the Ares development cost and save the cost of any new clean sheet HLLV.

= = =

Edit: How much extra room would a Delta IV CEV have to carry up additional clothes, food, and personal gear? Could that add a few MT to the overall mass budget as well as the roughly 1000 pounds of human payload (0.5 MT)?

Edited By BWhite on 1102710912

LEO to the Moon and LEO to Mars both require fuel mass of 4x the net payload mass (very roughly calculated) correct? In other words, about 20% ( + / - ) of what reaches LEO can arrive at the Moon or Mars

Thus, it seems to me that the mission critical job is to get useable LOX / LH2 in LEO as cheaply as possible. If mutiple launches can do it cheaper than a single big rocket like Ares, well fine. If not, then go that way.

Its all bean counting, and political resolve to accomplish something.

Edited By BWhite on 1102690098

More good questions asked of Rumsfeld:

http://tnr.com/blog/iraqd?pid=2440]Courtesy of Spencer Ackerman

Again, I predict no more Q&A sessions.

= = =

Edit to add:

We got played, stung, conned, bambozzled:

I just read this and I agree:

The Taliban are (were?) largely Sunni. Iran is Shia.

We (the US) have been whacking nut-job Sunnis left and right. So who wins at that? The Shia. Dang those guys are good at manipulating the US of A.

Iran can now build nukes and we are helpless to stop it!.

Whoa!

Who are the http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html]Taliban?

Edited By BWhite on 1102640815

This takes my breath away. Are you saying that public support for the foreign policy of our President is so very shallow that he cannot go on national TV and say:

My fellow Americans, we need 50,000 more regular soldiers, who will be regular Army and Marines, not Guard. I call upon the young people of America to step forward and volunteer. To the National Guard, I know you are over-extended. We miscalculated. But 50,000 new regular soldiers are coming on-line as fast as possible. Hang in there. And qualified Guardsmen who seek transfer to the regular Army will get signing bonuses and promotions.

If this call will not be answered by the American people, why did we write a check without enough money in the bank to cash it?

Not a bad idea in theory. But, who swings the auction gavel?

Cobra, the regular Army & Marines are doing just fine. It is the National Guard that is getting dumped on.

Joing the Guard is no way to escape this war.

This question is a legitimate question for serious discussion and negotiated resolution.

But to bandy about loose talk of Hubble-II - - with no promise for funding it - - is a smokescreen to avoid discussion.

Like I said above. Put Hubble-II money on the table and I will not complain one bit as Hubble I is incinerated, safely. Or fund ground based scopes that perform as well or better.

The Moon or Hubble? False choice. After orbiter is retired between $5 and $6 billion per year will be made available for VSE.

That is the promise anyways.

Even $2 billion for Hubble-II delays the moon landing by 4 months. Big deal. $4 billion? 8 month delay.

I agree with all of this. I am tired of people (clark, O'Keefe) trotting out JIMO as if it would help human spaceflight.

Ion propulsion is for cargo. I love ion drive. But its for cargo.

NERVA is 1960s technology. A genuine nuclear thermal system could be flying by 2012 or 2014 with no problem if we made the commitment.

That's why I say the jury remains out on whether the VSE is real or just smoke and mirrors. No praise given for a budget "hammered" through with inside politics. Let's seem some rockets fly.

Then there will be plenty of time for praise. The mission ain't accomplished until its accomplished. Too much premature celebration going on these days.

I also bought my son a new red Porsche, about 4 inches long with great detailing. About $12.99.

If the VSE chooses a gold plated CEV we ain't going anywhere no matter what Sean O'Keefe says.

Nuclear ion propulsion (JIMO) is worthless for human travel. Nuclear thermal is the bare minimum and I really like "gas core" even though its not necessary.

Both. Otherwise I whine and troll. 

Hubble-2 money is the real issue.

Frankly, I agree we need to de-orbit Hubble safely. But to say the need to de-orbit Hubble is "WHY" we cannot afford Hubble 2 is unacceptable, at least without massive whining.

Put the money for Hubble-2 on the table (not "stop whining and maybe we can think about it, someday") and I will happily drop the subject and move on.  :;):

And in that case, I prefer Jeff Bell's attitude. Spending $500 million for a robotic de-orbit module is stupid.

Just let it fall. Even Skylab managed not to hurt anyone.