New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#201 Re: Human missions » Selling out Mars and Science? » 2006-08-28 14:48:23
I just want you to know, I know Project Orion is a pipe dream of mine, the politics, and the fact that it uses nuclear bombs sours public attitude, but I think every once in a while, someone needs to push the envelope on thses things. Are we stuck on Earth because of public attitude not to go in certain directions or because of real technological limitations?
The Nuclear option looks like a nice way to provide energy and electricity to homes and become an energy source for space propulsion.
However GCNRevenger is saying one the biggest problems for Nuke-fans versus the public is how to get rid of the pollution and waste while keeping everything safe. Remember how the French caused international uproar by re-testing their weapons in the Pacific, or Ukraine/Russia's failure with Chernobyl, or Chinese who might have died from radiation sickness after testing, or the USA's three mile island and radioactive pollution in Nevada, Utah and Arizona.
The last thing needed would be a disaster with nuclear power, as it would set the Nuke propulsion method back another few decade, as you can imagine the public and media going into a Ban-frenzy after any suspicion of more fallout.
#202 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Methods to Lunar Orbit » 2006-08-26 13:32:09
I'm not sure what your getting at here, but the point remains that Xenon, Argon, and Neon are not present on the moon in economicaly recoverable quantites. There may be some there, but only in trace amounts.
In addition, while advances in technology may increase the ISP of an Ion engine (best measured by it's exahust velocity), they are unlikely to provide dramatic increases in it's thrust/weight ratio. An ion engine will never be practical for lifting off from a planets surface, or even the moon.
That said I don't think they should be ruled out as a method of transporting "sensative" cargo to and from the moon. The moon is close enough that the additional time penalty is not that great. And if our ion-tug was nuclear powered, it might have additional energy left over to recondense hydrogen making it's transport more pratical.
I agree that in order to get the craft into orbit we may need an old fashioned rocket booster like a Ariane/Soyuz/Titan, but once the craft is in orbit it could use an ion-drive to make the trip and save tonnes of fuel. A good iondrive spacecraft may be launched by conventional rocket on Earth and then need only a small lunar-railgun for launch on a return trip.
My point was that we still don't know the full potential of ion-drives and even today we probably know more about the Planet Mars than our own Moon, even though the US beat the Russian with Apollo there's still a whole lot of science we don't know about our own Moon, such as our incomplete knowledge of lunar topography, lack of understanding on what is inside those lunar craters ( calcium -phosphates ? water-ice ? , xenon, pyroxene ? neon and argon ? sodium alumino-silicates ? ) and recent discoveries of new chemicals on the Moon. This may be why the Europeans, Japanese, Chinese and Americans are now keen on getting their next robotic craft on the Moon first before somebody else does it.
#203 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Methods to Lunar Orbit » 2006-08-26 11:01:36
Ion drive has two main drawbacks for Lunar travel besides the fact that it can't get anywhere in a timely fasion to deliver time sensitive cargo (eg liquid hydrogen).
You're right GCNR,
I for one wouldn't want to be using ion-drive for sensitive cargo, but as other people say rockets have been around for a century or millenium of years if you're counting the Chinese scientific history but our Ion thruster are still in their early stages of development and it still could be used to transport other materials.
There is thought next to no water on our Moon, and almost no atmosphere but like the planet Mercury there is some there on our Moon- some of the deep craters are thought to contain ice and it does have atmospheric components of Na and Argon. The solar wind has been sweeping the small lunar atmosphere away leaving next to nothing there. Yet if the tiny atmosphere of the Moon were 200 times greater it could remain stable for hundreds of years. Larger human activity on the Moon could push the total mass over the limit and create a stable artificial atmosphere. The European Smart-1, Japan's Hayabusa and NASA's new HiPEP are pushing out the boundaries of ion technology. This year the ESA reportedly made a new type of ion propulsion with four times higher exhaust velocity than previously achieved.
#204 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Earth to LEO - discuss » 2006-08-26 10:41:29
Russia plans to launch two laboratory modules that would orbit near the International Space Station beginning in 2012, the state news agency RIA Novosti reports.
http://www.newscientistspace.com/articl … -labs.html
The laboratories would dock to the Russian side of the ISS before departing for three to four months to run their experiments in an orbit near the ISS. They would then return to the host ship so cosmonauts could unload experiments for return to Earth.
#205 Re: Human missions » ISS - Beware the Bear » 2006-08-26 10:36:10
Seems like we started working on this station with a democracy and ended up working on it with a dictatorship. One wonders if international collaboration projects like this are such a good idea. Should we go to Mars with Putin?
International projects sometimes work well like that Cassini-Huygens trip but thanks to politics they mostly become an international failure. Working with the Ruskies hasn't been the best for NASA, and Putin might us it as leverage to blackmail to US
into forking out more space dollars
but as much as some of us would like to
we can't blame everything on foreigners like the Chinese, French, Canadians, Russians...the USA's biggest problem is itself, bad policy from US Presidents that cut the heck out of the program or come up with grandoise plans ( Carter, Bush Snr, Clinton ) and years of neglect for NASA's manned space flight.After the Saturn rocket got binned, the Ruskies were making a comeback launching various space station projects and clocking up record time in space while US had no real way of putting space labs into space even if it really wanted to. The USA's best years for space were with Apollo and the Voyager/Viking missions while STS program has been something of a disaster. The Space Shuttle labs were pathetic they cost billions to launch, could only do material/bio science studies for a few days and only watch the zero-g effects on chemicals or the human body for a very short period of time before making the expensive STS trip home. The beauty of the Russian designs is that they had dedicated launchers Soyuz for manned astronaut/cosmonaut flight and Proton launcher for labs and other payloads. After Challenger and the bad PR from the death of teacher Christa McAuliffe people started asking serious questions about Shuttle, cost a billion per launch, no longer seems to be a safe system and will cost the US tax payer almost $200 billion when the Shuttle finally retires. As for the USA's astronauts, it has been the Soyuz that has been keeping the USA's manned program alive.
Concept Of Russian Manned Space Navigation Development
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Conce … t_999.html
At OAO Korolev RSC Energia a "Concept of the Manned Space Navigation Development Program in Russia for a period of 2006-2030 years" has been developed and offered for discussion. The concept is interesting not only to specialists, but also to the general public, since a solution of grandiose, qualitatively new tasks is proposed.
#206 Re: Unmanned probes » Cassini-Huygens - NASA/ESA Saturn orbiter & Titan lander » 2006-08-22 11:07:58
[URL=http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060802.html]Titan artscape -- this is very realistic imo[/URL]
*Wow...I can almost feel those methane raindrops. Excellent.
great link !
some news
Titan's Xanadu Region is Earth-Like Land
story here
Earth has a waycool sibling
http://www.startribune.com/789/story/609738.html
#207 Re: Unmanned probes » Phoenix - North Pole Region Lander (PHX) » 2006-08-22 10:16:39
Astrobiology interview Aug 10, 2006 with Chris McKay, a co-investigator for Phoenix and MSL.
... the north is more interesting, because it is more likely to have had liquid water at the surface in the more recent past. In the north I think we’re seeing young ice.
great interview !
#208 Re: Human missions » The First to Mars - Who will it be? » 2006-08-22 10:15:23
though this link should probably be posted here too.
RUSSIA, WESTERN EUROPE MAY UNITE INTO LARGEST SPACE ASSOCIATION
Would make for a very interesting combination
I'm not sure if Russia and Europe will ever form one space group, they politics of Euro ( French, British, German ) Vs Moscow mentality will prevent this
what they could do however without building one big space group is come to an understanding on joint missions like the ESA/NASA Cassini-Huygens or ESA/RSA joint missions putting European astronauts to space
#209 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Orion (CEV / SM) - status » 2006-08-12 09:38:48
NASA makes major design changes to CEV
NASA has made a number of major changes to their baseline CEV (Crew Exploration Vehicle) in a weight saving operation. Most striking is the shrinking of the Service Module (SM), which been reduced in length by around 50 percent, accommodating a Delta II engine (AJ10-118K).
Have you seen this one ?
by Jeff Bell
Scrap The Stick Now
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Scrap … k_Now.html
There seems to be general agreement that the Vision for Space Exploration is in deep trouble. Recently both the staid number-crunchers at Government Accountability Office (GAO)and the wild-eyed libertarians at the Space Frontier Foundation have issued reports questioning the viability of the program.
#210 Re: Unmanned probes » SMART-1 - ESA lunar orbiter » 2006-08-04 15:04:44
After 16 months of successful observations, ESA’s SMART-1 is about to make its final contribution to lunar science. On September 3, 2006, it’ll crash into the Moon in full view of Earth- and space-based telescopes, giving astronomers a glimpse of what’s underneath the surface.
http://www.universetoday.com/2006/08/04 … inal-days/
In its final orbits, the spacecraft will be flying so low that it might crash into a hill on a previous pass, giving different Earth-based telescopes a better view. The final crater is expected to be 3-10 metres (10-33 feet) wide and 1 metre (3 feet) deep.
#211 Re: Unmanned probes » DSN in trouble » 2006-08-04 15:03:32
sad news, i hope they can fix this
#212 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) - ESA ISS cargo carrier » 2006-07-03 12:16:23
Acoustic testing of Jules Verne, the first Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV), has successfully been completed at ESA's test facilities in Noordwijk, The Netherlands.
The 11-tonne test configuration of the ATV Flight Model (the actual flight launch mass is 20.5 tonnes) was transferred to the Large European Acoustic Facility (LEAF) with the help of an air cushion transfer pad.
Jules Verne passes acoustic test
The ATV, an unmanned vehicle that will deliver supplies to the International Space Station (ISS), will be put into orbit by the European Ariane-5 launcher. Acoustic testing is vital to ensure the ATV can withstand the vibrations caused by the extreme noise levels generated during launch.
#213 Re: Interplanetary transportation » China eyeing new HL - Agency Expecting approval this year » 2006-07-03 10:24:02
China took foreign reporters on a tour Wednesday of the command center of its secretive space program, a gesture of openness to encourage Washington and other governments to allow Beijing a role in joint manned space projects.
http://www.newsone.ca/hinesbergjournal/ … &id=198629
The highlight was a 15-minute appearance by Col. Yang Liwei — his first encounter with Western reporters since he orbited the Earth in 2003 on China‘s maiden manned space flight.
The carefully supervised 90-minute tour was part of a charm offensive by China, which hopes to win access to the International Space Station and other joint projects by allaying fears about the goals of its military-linked program.
#214 Re: Human missions » Reducing Costs - Changing the Human Centric Space Approach » 2006-07-03 10:20:56
As long as they find an alternative to the worst case scenario cost of colonizing and terraforming Mars. I can tell you now that 20 billion per person per year in continuous resupply for a colony of ten million will suck Earth dry of resources, and cost the full value of the twenty billion-billion dollars that such a oneway endeavour will involve. Certainly it will take more than a hundred years which will kill it for most thinking they can go now, and then there is the whole Population quota thing to ensure Earth representation...The thing that Pisses off those of the "God's chosen few" space colonization philosophy the most.
Mars transfer vehicle/lander/hab/resuppy module method:$20,000,000,000.00/year/colonist
Twenty billion per person, per year? Um. I'm not quite that...... pessimistic
Heres what happens:
1: VSE suceeds with a varient of DRM-III starting sometime around 2025, with plans to start setting up a base after the first round of expeditions. A site is selected with a supply of water, subsequent mission or unmanned payload tests water extraction hardware.2: VSE-based hardware is used to construct a minimal base for perminant habitation, with periodic resupply from Earth for ~6. Heavy ISRU plant, long-term nuclear reactor, and inflatable "hanger" constructed, maybe a greenhouse too.
3: Reuseable Mars light lander built, fueled entirely from native propellants, serviced in the hanger as needed. Primarily for crews, permitting the DRM Earth return vehicle to be reused as a interplanetary "taxi," reducing the number of launches per crew from six to two.
So, this gets us basic access to Mars on a regular basis relativly cheaply; the entire base could likly be sustained with only three no-EDS CaLV launches anually, or five for every departure window. Two for crew, say three for supplies/science/engineering, and one for a replacement ERV every few cycles. Toss in one CEV for crew launch maybe.
...So then NASA can save the money from reusing the ERV and lander and switches to phase two, now that NASA has "conqured Mars" and established man there perminantly, sights can then be set a little higher: With continuing support for the Mars base and perhaps Lunar science (if NASA hasn't contracted that to a private firm yet), NASA could then truthfully state that going beyond a little base on Mars is too inefficient for plain old rockets.
Phase two will be a tripple-pronged enterprise, centerd around the development of an honest-to-goodness "we're not kidding this time" reuseable launch vehicle. Most likly a TSTO with LOX-boosted jet powerd carrier and a rocket upper burning slushed hydrogen.
The upper will come in two flavors, crew (14 crew and luggage or a tonne or two of supplies + airlock) and cargo (minimum of 20MT, Shuttle sized bay, no crew). This vehicle should be capable of launch every other week for ~$10M a shot and fly at least ~250 missions over its lifespan (double STS).
NASA should then set its sights on manned missions to the gas giants, powerd by a high-energy nuclear engine (GCNR, VASIMR, etc). With this engine and the super-cheap spaceplane, add in a fully reuseable Mars lander (14 crew or 20MT cargo), and then the cost to get to Mars will be low enough to be really acessable to a private entity.
I don't think NASA will be around that long, they can't even get the Shuttle foam problem fixed. Groups like JPL, RKK-Energia, ESA, Chinese, Russians are now staring to get a hold in areas that NASA once dominated,
perhaps by 2030 China will have already painted the Moon red.
#215 Re: Human missions » Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight.... » 2006-06-18 02:29:26
Hmm...
The claim was made earlier that $10 billion US of NASA's budget is spent on the Space Shuttle and International Space Station. That leaves NASA about $5 billion for other projects. As long as NASA is tightly saddled with Shuttle and ISS, that $5 billion seems a better indication of NASA's capabilities than the $15 billion gross value, of which 66% arrives already spent.
I don't think $3 billion compares too unfavorably to $5 billion.
i'm not sure if its that much
more news on ESA's current moon mission
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=20792
This image, taken by the advanced Moon Imaging Experiment (AMIE) on board ESA's SMART-1 spacecraft, shows the central peaks of crater Zucchius.
A four-crew lunar return capsule could be operational by 2014 if the European Space Agency and Russia’s Federal Space Agency (FSA) get a €30 million ($39 million) pledge from ESA member states next week.
Kliper dropped for lunar capsule?
The money is for ESA’s proposed two-year preparatory programme for the Advanced Crew Transportation System, which would start this month if the funding is approved.
#216 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Europe build a Heavy lifter ( 100 tonne Euro-HLLV ) ? » 2006-05-30 00:27:33
Europe on the Moon with the ArianeX
#217 Re: Human missions » Japan Eyes Future Manned Moon Base, Space Shuttle » 2006-04-12 00:29:34
is this a joke ?
http://www.pinktentacle.com/2006/04/rob … ot-battles
sometimes its hard to tell if the Japanese are serious or not
ROBO-ONE sets 2010 date for space robot battles
Translated by Edo on 2006.04.11 ::: Category: Robot, Space
At the ROBO-ONE competition held in Tokyo in March, organizers announced plans to begin holding its robot competition in space in the year 2010. According to the recently launched “ROBO-ONE in the Space” official website, the project aims to further the progress of robot technology and boost the value of engineers by embracing the coming era of robotics and space. By taking the battles into space, ROBO-ONE hopes to fuel dreams and create an environment that inspires people to become engineers.
#218 Re: Unmanned probes » Venus Express - ESA orbiter » 2006-04-11 00:08:38
Start of slew should have begun - Slew maneuver
Spacecraft time 05:56 Apr 10 Earth receive 06:03
Begining slew to aim engine ?
more on Venus
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4895792.stm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12254327/
#219 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Europe build a Heavy lifter ( 100 tonne Euro-HLLV ) ? » 2006-04-08 15:42:24
People keep on saying that America is "entering decline" yaddah yaddah for decades, and then you know what? It still hasn't happend. We still have the strongest economy in the world, while Europe falters daily
<snip>
The demographics have killed Europe, they just don't know it (or won't admit it) yet; to sustain a population, that is just to keep it steady and not decline, you need every woman to have an average of 2.1 children. Germany and France are below 1.5, while the immigrants are well above 3.0. In fifty years, ethnic Germans, French, and Britons will all be minorities in addition to being an endangered species.
Congratulations CGN on writing such a long post without any mention whatsoever of Mars or space
Whereas I do agree with your main point that the US is far from decline, your repetition of the argument about Europe's decline does not stand up well to the numbers. Europe's economy is very new and highly fragmented, its currency is barely 5 years old, yet it already has a GDP close to the US ... about $12 Trillion. The slow process of market integration is happening even as new states are joining, there is no doubt that the EU will outstrip the US economically eventually, and if it gets its act together that may be well within 10 years. The current population is 454 million and will grow much more with the admission of Turkey and eastern European states. It's hard to see where the expansion will end, North African states are now being considered as well new states such as Ukraine. Even Russia may join bringing the total population close to 1 billion. BTW most of Europe's population are Caucasian unlike the US with its rapidly growing Hispanic and Asian populations. If you compare Caucasian US birth rates you'll see that they are not much higher than European levels, and according to the latest statistics already at or below replacement rate.
I won't comment on Europe's political unity as there's almost nothing to say about it. :>
Exactly the Europe economy is pretty damn good when compared to the USA, both the World Bank and IMF list the EU has the strongest economy on Earth but the Europeans do not have a superpower state as cIclops points out political unity in Europe is almost non-existant. As for GCN comparing the US military with European, the US Air Force chief of staff has already flown the stealthy Eurofighter and stealth Raptor and he thinks them both to be very comparable aircraft the only trouble is the F/A-22 has such an outrageous price-tag that not even the US military can afford it. On military matters the Europeans are sometimes better equipped, they've got great German Tank builders and that US Ageis warship is nothing but a bucket of bolts waiting to be sent to Davy-Jones Locker when its is compared to power of ICBMs, high tech Subs, Stealth bombers, Exocets and Cruise missiles. Without the back-up of aircraft and land forces, Ships are nothing but sitting ducks just check out the time when the USA was friends with Saddam back in the 80s and early 90s and an Iraqi aircraft accidentally fired two missiles against the US Navy thinking they were an Iranian, the US Ships could not defend themselves and were nothing but sitting ducks waiting to be sunk down to Davy-Jones Locker.
As for our Euro pals in space, I am cautiously optimistic. They've got good technology, done good robotic missions and have a powerful economy but they lack manned missions and the European space exploration lacks political backing...every couple of years somebody like Blair or Chirac may or may not casually mention space in some vague manner but I would imagine that European nations would happily back the idea of a robotic Mars Sample Return.
#220 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Ares I (CLV) - status » 2006-04-07 05:57:04
Mentioned elsewhere in the forum and included here for reference
According to reliable sources NASA's initial internal estimate of what it would cost to modify the current SRB used for Shuttle missions to serve as the first stage of the new Crew Launch Vehicle had been around $1 billion. That estimate has been revised up to around $3 billion.
that is nuts !
#221 Re: Unmanned probes » Herschel - ESA Infrared Observatory » 2006-04-01 20:50:14
The ESA's infrared space telescope Herschel launches in 2007, it will be the first space observatory covering the full far infrared and sub-millimetre waveband, and its telescope will have the largest mirror ever deployed in space. It will be located 1.5 million kilometres away from Earth at the second Lagrange point of the Earth-Sun system.
some photos
http://www.techno-science.net/?onglet=news&news=1841
http://spire.uleth.ca/spireinst.cfm
Herschel will investigate the creation of stars and their interaction with the interstellar medium and observe the chemical composition of the atmospheres and surfaces of comets, planets and satellites.
Herschel - the biggest space telecope ever
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19953
ESA TV Exchanges
#222 Re: Human missions » NASA Calls On Private Sector » 2006-03-30 10:37:39
Why? Has the Pegasus launch vehicle been discontinued?
Two problems with Pegasus
1 It never claimed to be totally private, which is what Musk's Falcons are claiming to be
2 Its Payload and Price were not great, it was a much lighter launch than a small Delta-II and Pegasus may have only lifted 400 kgs ( less than half a ton ) for $8 million - 16 million dollars.
#223 Re: Human missions » How much the return to the Moon and Mars-trip costs ? » 2006-03-30 08:25:18
Michael Griffin mailed Nasa-Watch on this Thomas DeLay issue
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2006/ … ail_o.html
Back to the subject of cash, the VSE wasn't big, it proposed spending $12 billion over five years on the effort. You might think the NASA budget sounds good but Katrina costs, DOD budget rises and Iraq costs are putting pressure on space. The NASA price could be anywhere between $200-300 billion but costs could continue to rise. However we should forget this 1 "Trillion" number, it isn't real.
#224 Re: Human missions » New Russian Spacecraft » 2006-03-29 17:18:00
#225 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Europe build a Heavy lifter ( 100 tonne Euro-HLLV ) ? » 2006-03-29 15:32:19
To me the ideal situation would be if both the US and the EU/Russian alliance develop HLLV, but the US builds the only ITV necessary for the transit to Mars. We could then sell these to ESA/RSA at cost or for other considerations, but the US would be the a political veto option this time.
What date are the Russians launching from South America or Guiana ?