New Mars Forums

I'm going to offer a contrary prediction, Oil will hit 15 year low by this time next year. Siberian oil will start to hit the US market in a big way in the next year along with hopfully oil from the California coast and the Gulf of Mexico. Also its very likley that tar sands and oil shale extraction will come online soon after their false start in the late 70s.

/shudder/
Although H2M in 96 would have been nice, it's way way too 'cumbaya' for me.

lol, you'd think the readers of the KSR series would be lear of anything with the the phrases UN and Mars in them.

One of the big problems I see in MC fusion propulsion is that they all hearken back to the 'Mirror Machine' arrangement favored by the Princeton plasma physics lab in the 60s and 70s. The geometry makes allot of sense for a rocket engine but because of the boundary layer turbulence that the inline configuration and circulation of plasma causes it is amazingly hard to get the confinement times needed for ignition. That is why the focus has been on IC fusion (EG the National Ignition Facility) Pulse fusion (EG the Z machine at Lawrence Livermore [I think]) and Tokomaks (EG the ALCOR at MIT or the JET in the United Kingdom)

In any event we all these technologies are between 5 and 15 years away from implementation for power plants on the ground so it's anyone’s bet whether they will ever be light enough for ground launch. The important use of these technologies will be in space propulsion and power generation on the surface of the moon and Mars. The moon and gas giants have He3 and Mars has deuterium, voila. (Deuterium/Tritium fusion doesn't make economic sense, the free neutron issue aside)

In the really long term I would guess that there will be craft that are fusion powered can take off and land on the surface and make the Earth/Mars 'milk run' in three of four days, but they will have to be based on materials science and a understanding of plasma physics that we can't even begin to approximate currently.

I agree that Zubrins biggest effect has been one of organization and credibility. I would say it is because of him more then anyone else that we can talk about H2M with out (at least no too much) laughing in the backround.

As far as the BSI (speeking of, what are we calling it, the Bush Space Initive? the Moon Mars Initiive? Opperation why the Hell not?, lol) I don't see why Moon/Mars are necessarily first one then the other. It seems like they are alike and different enough to run the program in Paralell. Once you get the building block of heavy lift launch vehicles, inflatable habitiats and nuclear reactors it's  like a lego set, you need very few specific parts for either set. In the case of Mars you need to develop aerobrakes for decelloration and orbital insertion and a ISRU plant. On the moon you would need a different ISRU plant to extract oxygen and aluminum from the regolith and possible a system to extract ice from the south pole. You might be able to get away with using the same 'landing bus' assembly with the same leggs and rockets on both the moon and mars, just on mars it goes in a aeroshell and has parachutes as well.

In either event I think a big enabler will be the increased cost effectiveness of the new space start ups. You get Bigelow building the habs and if you give SpaceX the contract for a 120-140mt booster you'll be getting alot more bang from your buck compared to LockMart or Boieing. Hell, just switch over to true bidding and not cost plus and I would say we can do Lunar and Martian missions simultaniously without a problem.

In the current world most of what you say is perfectly accurate. The problem is that the world is a very dangerous place that is far from static. Let us not forget that Germany went from being a bombed out shattered nation to a juggernaut in less the ten years and nearly conquered the western world. The reason we have to maintain our might as you put it is that it takes decades year between concept and production of new systems and, so we have to be preparing for the wars we will be fighting in the 2010s and 2020s.

For example the Air Force is in the ‘perfect storm’ of procurement right now since many of our front line systems are reaching the end of their effective design cycles and their replacements were either cut back significantly or canceled altogether. The F-15 was designed in the 70s, and the F-16 is rapidly becoming yestertech. Our bomber and tanker forces are horrible antiquidated with the exception of the B-2 which was cut to such a small production run as much as a silver bullet as it is still doesn’t really keep our capability. In retrospect we would have been better off just ordering 300 B-1bs in the 80s instead of splitting bomber procurement to both the B-1 and then ATB program. Or if you go back even deeper if we had followed through with the brilliant program that was the XB-70. Toss in the 50 year old fleet of KC-10 and KC-135s we desperately need a replacement for…well you get the picture. The good news the USAF has an out in Space based systems and UCAVs which are coming online faster and cheaper then ever expected. The navy on the other had is screwed without a great answer

Also on the subject of the Navy they are in a serious pickle right now since during the mid-90s (not pointing any fingers )there was a serious cut in the funding and slow down in the ordering of new ships so our fleet is reaching retirement age over twice as fast as new ships are becoming operational, so we are in the position of trying desperately to try and get more ships out there faster with less people. The good folks at Electric Boat have come up with some really good ideas like the fully automated weapons handling system for the next LA class attack boat upgrade and the Virginia class is being built modularly so that hopefully they can be produced faster then both the LA and Seawolf classes were. Also the reactivation and refit of Ohio Class SLBM subs are massive cruise missile carriers (essentially the arsenal ship concept from a few years ago) will serve as a huge force multiplier since it offers carrier like strike capability with a huge amount of flexibility without having to deal with putting an immensely valuable asset like a CVN  at risk.. It will be interesting to see how the DD(X) turns out especially since they will be all electric and possible nuclear powered.

I would agree with you that we need to fund the national labs significantly more then they are, we need more big projects like the National Ignition Facility and a new larger accelorator facility, but this funding shouldn't come from the NASA budget. (ideally I would like to see it come from medicare/medicad or wellfare or some other social programs) These 'big science' programs further the cause of general research that is the seed corn of new technologies. The US needs to catch up in the areas of fusion and particle physics with the CERN accelorater and the various European tokomaks. (Although admittedly I am of the camp in physics that thinks that IC fusion is far more promising, barring the low temprature fusion thing from panning out)The national labs also provide a huge driving factor for the economy as our supremacy is based on our technological dominance.

The one thing I don't like is people pointing to the DOD budget and saying "OMG the military is spending
so much, we should use all that money for X program"

The DOD is an enabler, if we don't maintain and continue to expand our military dominance we won't be able to ensure our security and we will be increasingly vulnerable to subversion by the rest of the world. Also without the unquestionable insurmountable threat of the American Military Machine it will be very hard to insure the free flow of important raw materials. (eg Oil)

First and foremost the DOD should be A.) Funded to the highest possible extent and B.) Be given carte blanche on procurement and tactics. IE if they think they need a system be free to procure it, not forced to go through the needless process of congressional approval from people who do not understand what they are making policy on. C.) Be free to get rid of cost-plus.

I'd say that's long over due. I would even go so far as to say we should can the space treaty in general. I'd love to see the first mission to mars (American hopefully) plant the flag and then proclaim "We claim this new new world for the old new world, we claim Mars for the USA"..../parades ensue/ lol

If we can get NTRs that would be a huge boost to the program. If nothing else it really simplifies the ISRU you have to do on mars as far as getting fuel.

On a different note I would love to see someone do a extensive look at the viability of a gas core reactor as far as engineering goes, GCNR I'm sure you know more then I do if you could point me in the right direction of some sources.

I fail to see how even the most politically motivated senators can not understand the short term benefits that NASA provides to civillian aviation and the long term benefits of down to earth air breathing technologies. (So many people forget the first A in NASA)

We absolutley have to get funding for at least the CEV and the Prometheus program. Those are the minimum two things we have to get this budget cycle to make H2M a viable option in 15 years.

I see space as the single most important issue in this election long term. I don't understand how anyone can see the DNC in general with a professed dislike of the aerospace industry as being on the correct side of this issue ( Notice I chose the word correct and not right, lol)

Frankly I think the best case scenario is that terrorist decide to use a scud full of ten penny nails to take out the ISS (with the crew getting away unharmed) That way NASA has no egg on it's face for abandoning the ISS and we can focus on the more important goals of converting the shuttle infrastructer to a Shuttle C or otherwise HLV configuration and get the CEV flying.

I was also thinking don't Bigellow Aerospace and Space X make the perfect alt space contractors for H2M? One has their sites set on cheaper progressivly bigger expendables the other is privatley developing Transhab derivatives. Just a thought, I'd love to see a fly off in the near future (try before you buy ala Air Force, non cost-plus) between two or three 120-150 tonne to LEO class boosters. Maybe a Space X entrat along with a US Space Alliance Shuttle C and some entrepaneurs revived or updated Energya.

In any event I think NASA is going to end up getting it's money and all will be well if we can successfully get out from under the hippo on our backs that is the ISS/Shuttle duopoly.

http://www.space.com/news/bush_veto_040723.html]Bush threatening Veto over NASA cuts

Just thought I'd throw this out there.

Talk amongst yourselves.

Economy in the toilet? I'd say that is far from being accurate, manufacturing orders are up, especially in the north east, we still have negligible inflation, especially if you don't look at gas prices and last quarter was a record for new small businesses. When it comes down to it most people vote their pocketbooks and if the economy is doing well come the fall I think that essentially seals the deal. I know I for one have been very pleased with my portfolio the last three quarters.

I'm not saying I am any fan of Bush, I most certainly am not; on the domestic agenda he has been rather bad! He signed a massive new social entitlement program in the form of prescription drugs (Republicans...party of small government?) He banned the expansion of stem cell research and his tax cuts didn't touch business or capital gains taxes which need to be cut in the worst possible way, although I suppose he should be applauded for sticking to his guns and making sure that all brackets got a rate cut. Not to mention the horrible blunder that is the patriot act.

I feel like I am without a party because it doesn't seem like the Republicans are standing up for the Lochean/Jeffersonian values of small government and laise faire economics they used to. That being said I still think Bush is by far the lesser of two evils for the following reasons.

A.) He has come out in support of leaving LEO. Even if support has been weak, it has been better then nothing, and there is work being done behind the scenes in the house to make sure NASA gets its full budget request when they consolidate the house and Senate versions of the budget.

B.) Bush has started initives to strengthen the military and heal the wounds made by short sighted cuts during the 90s especially in the area of development and procurement. To name a few issues, the Navy has been forced to retire ships twice as fast as it can replace them in a period of increasing demand. There is program now to change the way the Navy buys ships so that Electric Boat and others will be able to speed production of the new Virginia class Attack sub and the DD(X) so that the fleet will cease shrinking by FY06 and grow back to optimal size by FY08. Also he has set the much needed precedent for space control by leaving the ABM treaty. I can go into more on this subject but that's all I can say in a white world capacity.

C.) His foreign policy. He has stood up for American sovereignty in the socialist joke that is the UN. Many times in instances as minor as having our ambassador walk out of the 'Conference for the Control of Civilian Small Arms' to his actions in Iraq. WMDs or not a democratic Iraq will change the face of the region and most importantly be a model and an antagonist for the civil unrest brewing in Iran, so that a Democracy can be established there without a shot being fired. Also it demonstrates to North Korea that we aren't afraid to pull the trigger. Kerry has made it very clear that when it comes to the use of the military he would be far to gun shy.

D.) Kerry has said repeatedly that he would raise taxes. Not a smart thing to do in a growing economy. Fix that tax rate, and once the war in Iraq is over in two or three years the growth that will have been spurred will have out paced the debt and we will be in surpluses again by FY2008 or FY2009.

All these are ancillary issues in my mind to the main issue in this election. Kerry would destroy NASA and the National Lab systems as well as the current military R and D structure. The national labs have to be given carte blanche so that they can keep our country on the bleeding edge of technology. Our technological supremacy is what gives us our military and economic strength. NASA is essentially in the same boat, except and even longer term investment towards our future off world. Both organizations would be ravaged by budget cuts and restrictions by a hypothetical the Kerry administration. Point and case you can kiss any new nuclear power programs, either on the ground or in space bye-bye once you have a president bought and paid for by radical environmentalist. His administration would also be less receptive to utilizing the new burgeoning space start-ups.

/soap box off/ lol

Wouldn't it be nice if space was not an issue that incited politics?

In refrence to the Mobile Offshore Base it's not intended so much as an uber aircraft carrier as a mobile Diego Garcia. (sp?) In the middle east and else where we have to deal with allies that may or may not supoort our opperations and thus might not give us baseing privileges. The MOB will give us the ability to opperate conventional aircraft in theater without having to deal with host nations.

I think you are right though that air breathing hypersonics will make a beter solution then the MOB. A hypersonic B-3 based in the CONTUS would be a much more effective weapon platform and less vulnerable.

As far as the Russians SCRAM program goes, while the Ruskies make up for their shoe string budgets with creativity and a willingness to take risks that regretable no longer exists in our space program, I just don't seem them as having the epertise or technological maturity to make it work. ABHS is far too important a stratigic technology for the US not to acheive first.