New Mars Forums

Hoaglund's "proof" of a coverup comes from the file headers of the two images.  Although he's being laconic right now, he says that the header in the "fake" file isn't right, while the header in the "real" data indicates that it was generated on a Unix machine.  If this computer can be tracked down to JPL or Arizona State, there might be a way to verify Hoagulnd's claims.  If he can prove that NASA has been tampering with data, Hoaglund should sue the agency.  But I still don't think that the daytime IR will lead to anything new.  After looking at the ENVI-enhanced image of the "real" data, I did not see any internal structure.  He should just wait until the definitive nighttime IR comes out before making any announcements.

Nukes Ahoy! 

Military programs don't have to be wasteful.  The Lockheed Skunk Works had a reputation for building fantastic new aircraft that were on time and under budget (Then the X-33 came along and ruined the company's reputation  :angry: )  Many of the problems come in when politicians authorize unneeded military spending to help their districts, or the armed services change their requirements.  And let's not forget companies "cooking the books" to hide their losses with the proverbial "$1000 hammer."

Compared to other federal agencies, NASA is pretty efficient.  They receive less than 1% of the federal budget ($15 billion) but still manage to get by.  But NASA isn't perfect, either, and America should not settle for leaving the agency the way it is.  The books on the ISS and Shuttle were "cooked" to hide the cost overruns.  When the errors were discovered, ISS parts were discarded to make up for the extra charges.  I've also heard a myriad of stories about the inefficiency of the Shuttle program.  Ultimately, the shuttle's failure as an economical launch vehicle is due to low flight rates.  We need to find more uses for the shuttle, churn out more ETs, inspect the orbiters faster, and just LAUNCH that puppy!  Just like an airliner, the shuttle isn't cost effective if it's not in space.

NASA is bureaucratically-bloated and lazy, but it's still our best ticket for humans to Mars.  I suppose the Russians could do it, but they would need additional (Chinese?) sources of funding.  The European Space Agency is developing the technology to go to Mars, but I won't be convinced that they can send humans there until they obtain the independent ability to put humans in orbit.

Sean O'Keefe is one of the best bean-counters in Washington.  I doubt that he has the vision to put humans on Mars, but the agency will be streamlined by the time he leaves, and a successor administrator just might be able to pull it off.

The mass of the hab could be as great as 130 tonnes, assuming that the launcher is the Saturn V or equivalent.  However, you couldn't get the hab out of earth orbit because you've wasted all your fuel putting it in orbit.

Zubrin estimates that 47 tonnes could be sent to Mars with Ares. I think that's a bit optimistic because the original specs called for the never-built Advanced Solid Rocket Motor.  But, assuming that number's correct, and the hab weighs around 35 tonnes, you can afford to grow by 12 tonnes.  Some of that mass would have to be aerobrake and heat shield, but you could still get more volume out of it, particularly if inflatables are used.  In NASA's missions, an inflatable habitat is docked to the lander shortly after touchdown on Mars.

I wouldn't rule out relations in the hab.  If it's possible in the backseat of a Camaro, the hab should be no problem 

The moon is not essential for flight to Mars, and most scientist and engineers know that.  But each of these two groups has a reason for wanting to go back.  The scientists believe that the moon is "the universe's attic" and might hold the answers to some of astronomy and geology's most enduring questions.  Engineers are saying that the moon could act as an outpost on the way to Mars, for harvesting fuel and oxidizer and reducing the cost of getting those raw materials into orbit. 

The argument made by the lunar scientists is very compelling, which I cannot say about the argument of the engineers.  The moon is an interesting place that deserves exploration, but the lunar return program should be independednt of humans-to-Mars.  The moon will eventually become a layover destination for travelers to Mars, but doing so on the first Mars missions adds to the cost and complexity of what will already be a difficult mission.  Lunar refueling of Mars spacecraft will have to wait at least twenty years followig the establihment of a Mars outpost.

Dr. John Brandenburg, who argues for the existence of oil shale on Mars, has some very interesting ideas about the Red Planet.  He thinks that Mars once nurtured intelligent life, but the greenhouse effect killed it off.  Brandenburg also argues that, if nothing is done about global warming in the near future, we will go the way of the Martians.

The most interesting idea Brandenburg has, though, is "Mars X," a plan to explore Mars that uses existing technologies, microwave thrusters, and water as propellant.  I was not fortunate enough to attend the MS convention, but if anybody attended Brandenburg's workshop on "Mars X," please tell us about it.  Perhaps this is the plan that will allow capable, intelligent human geologists to find the "life" on Mars that Viking detected.

The topic of aliens and religion is always a fascinating one, so I will add my two cents:

1. I feel that only the fundamentalists, who reject evolution and treat the holy books as being the literal word of God, will react negatively to the evidence that mankind is not alone.

2. Most mainstream Christians will be able to accept the idea of aliens.  For them, the omission of the subject in the Bible does not invalidate the idea.  If God is truly omnipotent, and if He has created a nearly infinite universe, it would be foolish to believe that humans are alone.

3. Maybe the Bible does describe aliens.  Ever since Von Daniken started looking for evidence of E.T. on earth, people have been drawing connections between Biblical angels and extraterrestrials.  Of course, the Grey aliens of popular folklore are nowhere as benevolent as the Biblical angels.  But the possibility of a connection still exists, especially when one reads the original text of Ezekiel.  If angels and aliens are one and the same, it would have profound implications for the big three religions.

It's very different from Mars Direct.  Zubrin wanted to avoid "Battlestar Galactica" starships, while Von Braun embraced them.  His original idea was sending an armada of winged spacecraft to Mars for the first expedition and having each one make a lifting entry into the Martian atmosphere.

Von Braun's Mars expedition evolved after the publication of "The Mars Project."  He eventually (1969) arrived at an expedition that used only two spacecraft.  Each one consisted of four nuclear-thermal rockets, a habitat module, and an Apollo-shaped lander.  The voyage also changed from a conjunction-class trip to an opposition-class mission.

In NASA's design reference missions, the landers make a direct entry into Mars's atmosphere instead of aerobraking into orbit.  The landers have been redesigned into conical shapes with a higher lift-drag ratio than the disk-shaped aerobrake.

This approach raises many design challenges.  The entry profile has to be stretched out so that the g-forces don't kill the astronauts.  It also requires a great deal of precision when determining the point of entry, which dictates some kind of guidance computer on board the ship.  Tail-first landing will also require a moderate re-orientation maneuver near the end of descent, although the lifting entry does eliminate the need for parachutes.

If this approach is what NASA goes with, I hope that this maneuver is rehearsed somehow before the first humans arrive.  It seems a bit risky compared with the original Mars Direct approach.

The most underhanded part of this business about cancelling VASIMR is that they "conveniently" waited to pull the plug until Franklin Chang-Diaz was just about to lift-off on his shuttle flight.  I'm happy that they were able to find funding through the year 2002, but the future doesn't look good.  I think that pressure from the ion-thruster community is killing whatever chance VASIMR had for a demonstration before the end of this decade and a Mars flight by 2018.

As an extremely opinionated person myself, I have realized that logical and reasoned debate usually doesn't change the minds of others who also have logical opinions.  The purpose of debate is to sway the uninformed and to raise awareness about your point of view.  As a poster on this forum I hope that I have at least raised awareness of different aspects of Mars mission design, especially from an engineering point-of-view.

I think that NASA's robotic armada which will be sent to Mars over the next twenty years is quite excessive.  The agency believes that multiple sample return missions will be necessary before humans can fly to Mars.  This reasoning is poor in light of the historical precedent set during Apollo.  NASA never conducted a robotic sample return from the moon.  Instead, the Lunar Orbiter, Ranger, and Lunar Surveyor probes were sent to photograph the moon and find suitable landing spots.

NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter of 2005 will do a satisfactory job of mapping the planet and finding landing sites.  Aside from that, there is no need for many of NASA's future missions.  These include Mars Sample Return and the Mars Scout missions.  All of the groundwork will have been set up by 2006 for humans to Mars, with one notable exception.

I have said in the past that MSR should be seen as a testbed for propellant manufacturing.  Now I believe that this is unnecessary.  In 2007-2009 NASA will launch a Smart Lander that will hop over the surface of the planet.  This is a perfect opportunity to test the propellant production system in the Martian environment without a long and costly sample return.