New Mars Forums

just to let you think a bit.

Each shuttle flight costs between 500 to 1500 million US$

25 to 30 shuttle flights will cost about 25 to 30 Billion $

That is a lot of cash, the main reason is that the shuttle may only carry about 24 Mtons, A shuttle C would carry 80 to 100 Mtons. You could pay for the development of a shuttle C with the cost savings you get by sending a lot of cargo up. I estimate that the flights could be dropped to between 13 to 18 flights. To get construction crews up could be done by use of Russian soyuz modules.

Oh and we a have a heavy lifter.

Interesting thought who owns outer space.

The outer space treaty is pretty definite in that all space belongs to and is the collective property to everybody. If the USA withdraws and starts auctioning off parts of the moon who will take those claims seriously. Interesting point is would that not be classed as theft!

What could be a way around is areas of space to be licenced to allow commercial activity. So if you are the first to be actively using an area it will allow you to use that area until you stop. If a certain area around the base you are using is also kept clear as part of this revision of the treaty then it will stop possible claim jumping tensions.

Of course the treaty could be withdrawn from so making it worthless and then it will belong to who ever can hold it so start making those space battleships.

VASMIR if it relies on having a power generation of 10 Mw would not be as useful as nuclear. But it does not need that amount of power it works at 50kw so it is actually the only Electric engine that can compare to a nuclear power sourced rocket. Also its fuel is hydrogen this allows for lunar refuelling so again a cost saving can be made.

In mars direct it states a nuclear powered mars mission could be done in 130 days with about 45 tons of "cargo" to intercept mars. Using vasmir this speed could be reached but as vasmir has a lot higher specific impulse it could probably take time off or if engine efficiency improved from the 60% we have got it(by the use of superconductors) an increased cargo load. There are limits to how fast the mission could be done as safety must be a priority and should engine fails take place a means to return home be available. This must be studied further!

The ISS is just make work to ensure the survival of the shuttle. It would have made more sense to have had more than one station but saying that the ISS as initially envisaged was supposed to be a construction platform, this needless was dropped due to cost.

There are 4 main science disciplines that would be accomplished in orbit, they are Astronomy, Earth study, Microgravity research and finally spacecraft operations( satellites and manned spacecraft). It would have made sense to have had spacestations for each discipline. This could have been done cheaper than the ISS as it only needs soyuz type stations to do the amount of research that the ISS does.

It would be more efficient as an example Earth study (atmosphere and ground ) would really need a polar orbit. Microgravity would prefer a higher orbit. And space station operations would have had benefitted from just having 4 stations to work on, oh and a space tug. The Esa columbus science module was to have its own power and life support system and was to be substantially larger than it is now. Nasa vetoed it as it would have shown that the rest of the ISS is not needed to service the module.

Too many corners where cut too many compromises where made to get the ISS in space for the eventual price tag of over 100 billion $us why cant we have had something that didnt leak have really strange bangs and noises and allowed our astronauts a quiet place to sleep.

The ISS is a wonder, I wonder how someone let it happen

Rxke I am a product of the generation that seen the American space program reach its greatest success and its most abject failure. It reached the moon and then burned its boats.

I honestly dont think that the USA will ever reach those heights again. It is the great chinese empire that destroyed its navy due to political pressure and infighting. Time for someone else to take the lead.

http://www.islandone.org/APC/]Island one advanced propulsion info

Try this site has many advanced propulsion concepts and you should be able to get info on what could be done.

So the USA would force Russia to join forces with Esa.

Hmmm, sounds like falling on sword material here. Its not as if Esa and the Russians are not cooperating already. If the Usa does cause a close alliance between these groups it will quickly find itself the second power in space with the Moon and Mars "prizes" not being owned by Nasa.

The ISS is a 100 billion$US waste of time it could have made better science sending up 4 or 5 Russian Soyuz type stations for a total price of about 250 Million$US.

Smart 1 is an Esa probe that is using its ion engine to slowly power itself to a moon intercept. We could not use the Ion engine to provide the thrust for humans as it would result in too high a radiation dose to the human crew and probable starvation.

Ion engines are used as high specific impulse low weight thrusters for satelites. These allow station keeping to be reliable for long periods.

We need a more powerful engine to be able to travel to the moon and mars. This may well be nuclear engine, Solar, or a form of high thrust plasma, ie vasmir. Each has benefits and drawbacks. Nuclear is the most efficient but has the major problem it is illegal under international treaty. Also there will be major protests if used. Solar and plasma are about as efficient as each other but again have drawbacks to there use. Vasmir would need a nuclear plant, solar is the heaviest.

There are other options solar sailing, or using plasma sails but in the end the most efficient will be the use of fusion engines if we get them to work.

I wonder if all the fuss in saving the hubble is not really a fight between the two main groups in space advocacy. The hubble is a very visible symbol of we can do space science without touching group or no man needed, Saganists.

As it seems the other group the lets go, explore, exploit Zubrinists had the Hubble confined to the Scrap yard. The fact that they want to use a robot (no man needed) to sort the mess it is in kind of hints that they plan to prove why send people when a sterile machine can do better.

Vasmir

It is one of the best engines to come under the heading electric engine. It seems to be very hard wearing as unlike Ion it does not suffer wear to the Cathodes. Another useful feature is it uses Hydrogen as a fuel source not the scarce rare gases. Frankly the fact it has two thrust type settings and can be high thrust or economical are hinting that it will be the engine of choice for spacecraft until fusion can be developed. It has only one shortfall it is an energy hog and needs the power supply to be a strong one and that means Nuclear.

Vasmir will be the engine of choice for the Space tugs to be built so if you want an engine that can do just about anything.

VOTE VASMIR

Consider the Scottish-English rivalry. It is when these cultures along with Wales became Great Britain that Britain was able to create its Empire. Even now there is a strong rivalry between these states though they form one country. It is the capacity for states to Promote the general interest ahead of strict national ones that allows them to be successful.

Europe is joining it is at an early stage but it will grow. At the moment with all the different Cultures and laws it is a bit top heavy to deal with this, but it can change.

Esa is an agency it is not part of the Eu goverment. But they recently have agreed to have a lot closer links.

The Galileo project will be funded by be the Eu and a lot of the bills that Esa used to pay for have now come under the Eu's technology budget, Ie maintaining the Weather satelites. this does free up for esa about 600 million euros a really good percentage of Esa's budget. The Aurora programme if on track was to cost the eu taxpayer about 900 million euros between 2004 to 2007. This puts them still on the financial trail and apparently well on it too. Will this money be put to good use i dont know. Esa certainly has shown a willingness to use cheap reliable technologies so it does give hope as long as the red tape is well cut.

Can Esa do the Bush type plan before Nasa, Yes it can, Will it, im not so sure. Can America beat Esa yes, but only by seriously changing Nasa.