New Mars Forums

We've lost. Well, not precisely, but when the dust settles, and we see the end results, we will realize that we could not win.

Since I spent a good chunk of the weekend arguing with kook socialists and neo-nazis about the Iraq war (incidentally both groups made essentially the same arguments) I'm curious as to why those here who oppose it hold that view. I mean the real reasons, not some Halliburton oil-stealing nonsense  but real defensible positions with some relation to reality. If anyone wants to try and really get to the heart of the matter, I'm willing to listen fairly.

Hint: there are some valid objections that don't revolve around conspiratorial fantasies.

Well, while we're being fair, even the Halliburton thing is on the table. If that's you're reason, good enough. Dick Cheney's insatiable desire to drink oil and the blood of foreign children is just as valid. 

Good point SpaceNut. But I just read Cindy's post and Im a little curious why everyone thinks that a space elevator would be such a great terrorist target? Terrorists struck at the Twin Towers because it is a symbol of our greed and the Pentagon because it is a symbol of our over-bearing military. So why would they strike at a symbol of hope?

*Well, that's some of the problem.  It's a symbol of hope to us.  I doubt terrorists would care to try and see it that way.  Anything connected/associated with America is to be destroyed, apparently.  :-\  Besides, most of these radical religions fervently believe "the End Times are upon us," so they feel they have nothing to loose; world's coming to an end anyway...and they're happy to lend a hand in ending it all.  Including squashing our hopes and aspirations. 

As for why they struck the Twin Towers:  Their envy, not our greed.  IMO.  They wouldn't turn down an opportunity to have the kind of might and wealth we do.  Envy. 

--Cindy 

Yeaaah i've heard of this idea before... it may have pretty decent Isp, but I am skeptical as to how easy it is to scale up the concept and make serious thrust. When you need to really squeeze serious performance and thrust out of a given set of dimensions, how will the thing behave? Will any hybrid rocket of any kind be able to match regular Aluminum + Perchlorate propellant?

So, now we have the Bush administration trying to put together a "what now?" to keep NASA going, and the decsion was reached for a number of contributing factors... that the project(s) not be destined for LEO, too boring, and nobody will fall for the "$9Bn for ISS for science! honest!" line again. Then the China moon mission angle. Then sustainability too, the program must be cheaper than Apollo and be open-ended. And help make launchers for the military bigger and more available... But mostly to protect NASA from the "robots can do it cheaper!!!" croud and give 2/3rds of NASA's money to Social Security. What it does is give us reliable and sufficently inexpensive access to LEO and cis-Lunar space to sustain small to moderate science & development operations indefinatly without making NASA go broke for really a minimum of development dollars to not do a half-baked job.

Yes, it is possible that keeping KSC open would actually help advance manned spaceflight even if it were more expensive, but I think that NASA simply cannot afford another Shuttle-like situation where launch costs and ISS/STS maintenance utterly bankrupt the agency. If NASA does not do this, then there won't be any NASA anymore... Everything that has to do with Shuttle since the Nixon days has been about one thing: Maximize engineer employment, and like many results when NASA really tries, has suceeded beyond any expectation. I question if NASA has the willpower to fix this hardest of problem: "redesigning" KSC to change course and fulfill a new goal.

So, if NASA does not have the willpower to "fix" KSC to stop maximize manpower and spending, then KSC has to go, and it would be better to start over again... Maybe at the Boeing Delta-IV plant up the coast...

Throw this way, or that way, what about the environment and reusability. If we go down the track of expendable, then we are throwing money away, that is stupid.

I thought humanity was getting better and advancing space development and expanding the frontiers, I was wrong if they go down the track of expendable modules for the launch vehicle.

The J-2 doesn't have the best of specific impulse though, I wonder if a pair of smaller RL-60s would do... theoreticly, they will put out 65,000lbs of thrust in the production model at ~460sec specific impulse... Smaller engine, no need to re-learn how to make J-2 engines, higher performance.

Well, what function(s) do you want the Thiokol medium launcher to accomplish? Then think about if the launcher is the right choice or no is what i'm trying to get across.

How exactly do you intend to supercool the entire burning fuel core, and do it within one second, without it being too heavy? You also cannot separate the booster segments during flight, that would definatly never work and would add too many.

The SS1 engine is a hybrid rocket, not a true SRB.

Looking at this, =IF= demand existed to fly 500 5 segment SRBS with an upper stage made from 2 RL-10s launch costs for cargo only would fall below $1000 per pound to LEO and in best case scenarios, fall below $250 pound to LEO.

Best case (fantasy?) scenario:

5 segment SRB costs $15 million (based on a 500 unit purchase)

2 RL-10s cost $ .5 million (based on a 1000 unit purchase)

1 upper stage fuel tank costs $3 million? (based on a 1000 unit purchase) 

Miscellaneous stuff including payload stabilization until collected costs another $3 or $4 million.

(Nore - Northrup inteds their new fuel tank to be re-useable as living space and the guidance systems could be collected and returned to Earth for re-use after cargo is collected)

Lets say $20 million is our fantasy launch price. Based on statements from ATK Thiokol's Mike Kahn, such a system with 87% or 88% mass fractions and lighter upper stage tanks could well throw 80,000 pounds to LEO at a net price of $250 per pound.

From Rob S. on another thread.

A lot of GREAT ideas were exchanged. Zubrin had two very cool presentations, one about a carbon dioxide thermal rocket engine for a small "hopper" probe (I've described it elsewhere) and the other a tethered balloon that would be blown around the surface of Mars, its wheel being forcably rolled across the surface by the wind, thereby generating electricity to run the cameras on the balloon and the wheel, and power other instruments. Zubrin had video of the thing being tested on Mount Evans (above the tree line in a boulder field, not far from Denver). Chris McKay gave a fascinating presentation. So did the head of NASA's nuclear engine program; he said that solid-core nuclear thermal engines were possible for the Mars initiative.

Yes, nuclear power, would seem to be a wonderful source of energy for Martian settlements. Here in Arkansas we have two excellent nuclear power plants which have been running for decades with a minimum of problems. It seems that a particlar species of mussel liked the water in the system and grew so fast that there was a danger of them clogging the pipes, but that was about it.

However, one big factor in Martian politics will be it's statehood status. If it is it's own country, how will it be seen by nuclear nations in terms of the risks of allowing it to develop nuclear power? If it can use nuclear power, can't it develop nuclear weapons (e.g. North Korea and others)? Since Mars great economic potential may well be in a super high level of technological development, this could well be a major barrier.

It has been brought to my attention that we've overlooked something in this discussion. Something of great significance to the future of any American settlement program.

What America do we seek to plant on other worlds? What do we today consider to be the core of what it is to be "American"?