Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

Fledi · 2005-06-06 16:13:56

Yes, you're right, he didn't worry about such things, he just went to Canaan and settled there. That's the same what we will do with Mars.

Dook · 2005-06-06 16:34:44

Yeah, we will go to mars to stay. Around the year 2200.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-06 17:06:33

Abraham didn't need the wealth of nations of kings to get to Caanan however...

Movie and television filming in space? Why? You can do a much more visually exciting job with computer graphics and clever set rigging for 1/1,000th of the cost. Television shows and ads would quickly loose their novelty, and you'd be back to square one. Can't do much with the sets up there either, so if you are going to add them electronicly anyway, why bother with the space station at all?

RobertDyck · 2005-06-06 17:14:10

Regarding GCNRevenger's points about X-38 not being an OSP: after the Crew Recovery Vehicle (CRV) was cancelled for ISS, the guys working on X-38 got together with ESA to transform it into an OSP to replace Hermes. The modified X-38 would be launched on top of an Ariane 5 rocket. This included launch vehicle adapter and docking alignment hardware. The budget grew from $1.2 billion to $2 billion after expanding CRV from 4 to 7 astronauts and further modifying from CRV to OSP. I need to say this again, the final version of X-38 before it was cancelled by European politicians was an OSP with a budget of $2 billion. I argue that if they started with a 4-crew OSP and stuck with it to completion the budget would have only been $1.2 billion. If you want to argue the final $2 billion budget is required then I have to point out that $2 billion is a lot lower than $17 billion. Remember the letter from senators to Sean O'Keefe re: OSP said the price contractors asked was between $11 billion and $13 billion. Robert Zubrin estimated it would cost $17 billion, but these contractors have a history of cost overruns so it probably would have ended up what Dr. Zubrin predicted. If you want to argue an OSP would cost $2 billion instead of $1.2 billion, then after just 10 flights the vehicle would have been financially worthwhile. Since NASA intends to go to the Moon and then to Mars, it will probably fly at least 10 times. NASA is currently planning to continue missions to ISS. In fact, that's the best place to test a long-duration life support system. Add space taxi missions to ISS and the mini HL-20 becomes financially beneficial.

RobertDyck · 2005-06-06 17:28:51

Movies are always looking for a gimmick to gain audience attention. That's why budgets are so large, they compete for market share. You could get movie producers up there; in fact the "Vomit Comet" was used to make high-realism movies. One criticism I heard of Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country was that crew on a military space ship would become incapacitated by failure of artificial gravity. That's why the last series gave Enterprise NX-01 hand-holds. Movies with actors are visibly different than all CGI, and you can tell if they're really in zero gravity. If a studio in orbit was available, it would be used. However, movies are made as a single project. New studios are rarely built, and CGI farms are built for a single project and only made available to others after that. A "CGI Farm" is a large numbers of high-speed personal computers networked together to render movie quality images. It's unlikely a production company would build a studio in orbit, but if a space hotel was there then producers would use it. It's one financial consideration to deliberately design the space hotel so it could be configured as a studio, with replaceable sets.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-07 09:44:20

"Super X-38" on top of Ariane-V? A silly way for Scaled to try and salvage the vehicle, which zero work was actually done either that you could use to mitigate the multibillion dollar cost of your vehicle.

I find that $2Bn figure to be no more credible then the outlandish $17Bn figure that supposedly was required for OSP, even the HL-20 back in the 80s/90s dollars would have cost more then that. Counting inflation, the basic HL-20 was estimated to run around $6-7Bn or so if you include a few percent for launch vehicle and pad modifications, and in tradiational fasion this figure was probobly a little low, so a cost of around $8-9Bn isn't unrealistic. $11Bn is not insane if you include the money needed to operate the vehicle over its lifetime (training, spares, processing). If you were to include a billion for new rocket engine development, and another billion or so to redo all the work that has been done before because of the engines' mass/size, then you are still talking about $8-9Bn for a mini-HL-20/MAKS hybrid. Compare this to the cost of a ~$6Bn capsule, and the added safety bennefit of the capsule makes it the obvious choice.

(These bennefits are as follows for the spaceplane-biased:)
-Capable of return during any point of Lunar transit or orbit directly to Earth's surface non-stop, spaceplanes cannot without heavy & dangerous active cooling
-Reduces mission complexity by eliminating a crew transfer
-Capable of surviving reentry completly unpowerd unlike a spaceplane
-Capable of being used as an Earth-return vehicle for a Mars mission (like expendable-DRM or Zubrin's MarsDirect)
-Easier to develop, proven and simpler technology
-Slightly lower mass
-More robust heat shield (no RCC tiles/nosecap here ala Columbia)
-Avoids aerodynamic interference with launch vehicle

Edit: Oh, and lets not forget, that unless you intend to store the mini-HL-20/MAKS in space for periods of at least a month, preferably up to six, then you will need -TWO- flights for Lunar missions that aren't back-to-back, one up and one back down. I don't think I like the economics nor safety of this vehicle the more I think about it, its just plain the wrong option.

Zubrin's $17Bn figure is just insane, and it is just like Bob to lie to try and get projects he doesn't like (I.E. that lead away from MD) stopped. See his three-part "critique" (propoganda for the technologically ignorant) on VSE's EOR mission arcitecture.

The ISS is a relic of the disease that has gripped NASA for so long... it is quite possible that it will simply cease to be this year if NASA fails to return Shuttle to flight. The ISS should never be a justification for ANY investment ever again, the sheer taint of its exsistance is sufficent cause to throw it away and start over right... we've blown nearly $100Bn on it, lets not spend another cent. The ISS is far from the best place to test anything, and its actually the worst place. If you want to test it then you just launch your prototype Mars ship into LEO and test it there (DRM could do this in one HLLV shot, perhaps just a Delta-IV if launched w/o lander), it will cost less then keeping the ISS proped up today until and during when such an LSS system is ready to test and be a more realistic test plus you get to test all the other systems too.

Fledi · 2005-06-07 11:04:49

Actually, if memory serves, one of the reasons the Hermes project was dumped was it proved to be difficult to cope with the added stress and sideways motion caused by its wings after liftoff. Now that seems like a minor problem compared to what would have to be done to make the X-38 fit on top of it.
A CEV for LEO->moon surface->LEO could prove to be effective, IF there will be enough traffic to justify the creation of a more complex vehicle with better engines and power supply for longer voyages. As long as we go only for a few times, a simple capsule should be enough however, particularly if it could be designed partially reusable, maybe with exchanging its heat shield each time.
As for the ISS, while I don't think it would justify any more large volume investments, just dumping it would be a waste, too. We should look if its modules and systems can be put to use for any parts of the lunar infrastructure, as living space or just as part of a CEV that stays in orbit.
It could also be placed into a higher orbit and left there unmanned until it is needed, depending on how cheap re-boosting it at current altitudes will become.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-07 11:26:45

Actually, if memory serves, one of the reasons the Hermes project was dumped was it proved to be difficult to cope with the added stress and sideways motion caused by its wings after liftoff. Now that seems like a minor problem compared to what would have to be done to make the X-38 fit on top of it.
A CEV for LEO->moon surface->LEO could prove to be effective, IF there will be enough traffic to justify the creation of a more complex vehicle with better engines and power supply for longer voyages. As long as we go only for a few times, a simple capsule should be enough however, particularly if it could be designed partially reusable, maybe with exchanging its heat shield each time.
As for the ISS, while I don't think it would justify any more large volume investments, just dumping it would be a waste, too. We should look if its modules and systems can be put to use for any parts of the lunar infrastructure, as living space or just as part of a CEV that stays in orbit.
It could also be placed into a higher orbit and left there unmanned until it is needed, depending on how cheap re-boosting it at current altitudes will become.

It is too late for the ISS, there is nothing - nothing - that it could possibly do for us to justify spending one more cent on it. Nothing at all whatsoever. Even its parts left over in orbit aren't worth much of anything versus just building copies with the old blueprints. You can't use it at a Lunar gateway really, since the thing in the wrong orbit (highly inclined, hard to reach from Florida or French Guiana) and the wrong shape (heavy ships would cause too much torque).

The correct course of action is to declare the ISS a failed project, which it is, and pull the plug. Get Russia to give us something for it, perhaps something political (pulling the plug on Iran's fuel supply) or for barter (like building us a bunch of RD-0120 engines for SDV for free or something) if they balk at money and be done with it.

Reboosting the ISS to stay in its current orbit isn't horribly expensive, put putting it into a higher orbit or an equitorial orbit is impractical since its so heavy. Just letting it sit for years and years unmanned isn't an option either, it was designed with regular human servicing in mind.

The ISS is a failure... it can't do what it was intended for, it can't do anything it wasn't, and keeping it alive costs us >$2Bn a year aproximatly not conuting Shuttle to supply it.

If you want to test how an LSS system operates, or how a crew handles zero-G for a six months, then you go ahead and build your Mars HAB and put the thing in orbit and send up a crew, have the thing fly in circles around the Earth until you are sure it works... don't spend another $40-50Bn+ to keep the thing up there even another five years.

RobertDyck · 2005-06-07 13:56:00

Actually, I read it was the Johnson Space Center that tried to salvage the X-38 program by selling it to ESA, not Scaled Composites. Don't blame Scaled.

Actually, screw direct return to Earth surface from the Moon. Just aerocapture into Earth orbit then rendezvous with the space taxi. That requires the LTV have a heat shield capable of aerocapture, nothing more. The space taxi requires a heat shield for entry from LEO, nothing more. RCC nose cap, FRCI belly tiles, DurAFRSI on sides and dorsal (back, top, whatever you want to call the white part). No RCC belly tiles or active cooling or other unproven systems.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-07 15:11:52

Uh uh Robert, aerocapture is a delicate maneuver compared to direct entry that demands a very accurate trajectory and attitude control, and if you have that, then you probobly don't need an emergency abort now do you? And suppose you do want to abort, you may not have the Delta-V or control to get it just right.

A capsule system wouldn't need a perfect trajectory, a modern ablative heat shield ought to handle non-ideal reentry okay, and a capsule has naturally self-correcting aerodynamics through the thick atmosphere, unlike the careful attitude control required for grazing the thinner upper atmosphere.

Oh, and speaking of orbital insertion, if your aerobraking vehicle doesn't aerobrake into the same orbit as the taxi, then neither vehicle may have enough OMS capability to change orbital altitude, inclination, or excentricity to permit rendevous.

Once you have roughly matched orbits, then you have to WAIT for days for your two vehicles' orbits to sync up, just like Shuttle and Soyuz have to wait two days until their slightly different orbital moments come in sync with the ISS, even though they are launched at the same inclination and exactly when the ISS is overhead relative. The chance that you would not have to do this is very small... Oh, and once you do sync up, at least one vehicle will have to alter its orbit slightly to match orbits exactly. And then wait some more while the taxi's orbit passes over a landing site.

Then of course, you actually have to dock your two vehicles together, which won't be possible if your transit vehicle has enterd a spin (like Apollo 13) and doesn't have attitude control since the mini-MAKS can't fly circles around the vehicle to "chase" the docking port like any other space craft.

And if your docking system fails? Or was damaged in whatever incident that caused you to abort? Or the unmanned taxi in storage doesn't respond to remote commands? Or any of its systems fail either? Well... thats that.

In fact, just after your TEI maneuver (if any), the capsule wouldn't need any maneuverability or power at all, just "point and shoot" back to Earth like (Apollo 13's infamous manual burn) and breath bottled O2 in your cozy space suits, then blow the parachute/airbag pyros when your unpowerd atmospheric altimiter hits the mark.

Too much has to go just right for an "aerobrake abort" senario, places too much faith in the vehicle still being mostly operational, and delays the actual return to Earth too long by nessesity of orbital synchronization. Then of course is the added mass and complexity to the transit vehicle, which you do. Not. Need if you fly in a capsule.

The safety edge, lower developement cost and risk, reduced mission complexity, and low flight rate dictate a capsule be used for transit from Earth to Lunar orbit and back again. Period.

Edit: More capsule goodness: Oh, and say you wanted to launch a -second- taxi to the same malformed orbit as the transit vehicle? Well, that just more time wasted before getting back down, and even more trouble and complexity. It also probobly won't speed things up much because of the orbital synchronization, and won't help at all if the transfer vehicle has lost attitude control... Ah, and almost forgot, the space taxi will -still- have a multiple square meter "soft spot" made of pencil lead that a capsule won't (RCC nose cone).

Fledi · 2005-06-07 15:18:29

I'm not blaming scaled for anything, they're one of the most promising candidates for making spaceflight common and affordable.

You can't use it at a Lunar gateway really, since the thing in the wrong orbit (highly inclined, hard to reach from Florida or French Guiana) and the wrong shape (heavy ships would cause too much torque).

That's true but if you think about launching the whole thing or parts of it into a lunar orbit, then the high inclination is just a minor problem. Of course it is unlikely that you could do that with a single burn without exceeding stress limits at the station, but it would go with many low thrust burns. Would still be difficult to get the parts down to the Lunar surface without some heavy transport that could attach to them in the middle instead of the docking ports.
But a space station in a lunar orbit could be useful, too. Would be great as an observatory in the lunar shadow, for example, additionally to supporting the lunar base.

BWhite · 2005-06-07 15:36:44

My understanding is that low lunar orbits are rather unstable. Not good for long term station keeping.

L1?

Lots of folks like L1 as a transfer point, for reasons which include the ability to accomplish plane changes and reach any point on the Moon.

Once source suggests its about a ten hour trip to/from L1 and the lunar surface.

Edited By BWhite on 1118180248

Fledi · 2005-06-07 16:07:45

Oh, yes I forgot about the unstable Lunar orbit, thanks to the giant underground caves some aliens built, or whatever the cause of the uneven mass distribution.
Actually, one of the current subjects of the manned spaceflight research of the institute where I'm studying is looking into the feasibility of an L1 station, exactly because of the reason you mentioned.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-07 16:40:05

I'm not blaming scaled for anything, they're one of the most promising candidates for making spaceflight common and affordable.
You can't use it at a Lunar gateway really, since the thing in the wrong orbit (highly inclined, hard to reach from Florida or French Guiana) and the wrong shape (heavy ships would cause too much torque).
That's true but if you think about launching the whole thing or parts of it into a lunar orbit, then the high inclination is just a minor problem. Of course it is unlikely that you could do that with a single burn without exceeding stress limits at the station, but it would go with many low thrust burns. Would still be difficult to get the parts down to the Lunar surface without some heavy transport that could attach to them in the middle instead of the docking ports.
But a space station in a lunar orbit could be useful, too. Would be great as an observatory in the lunar shadow, for example, additionally to supporting the lunar base.

The big problem with that is, the ISS weighs on the order of 200-250 metric tonnes. You'd need hundreds of tonnes of rocket fuel to push the ISS to any Lunar orbit or else a truely massive ion engine that wouldn't be good for anything else. And what will you do with it when you get there? Its just not worth anything to build an L1 station out of ISS parts. Plus with either route, you would have to leave the crew out of the station during transit (it isn't intended to go long unmanned, an ion engine would take months), and likly add heavy radiation shielding to the entire station since you are outside the Van Allen belts.

And suppose Russia does build Klipper, and Europes' ATV? Worthless without a destination, and if they and Japan wanted to do science on the ISS for some reason, it would be too far away.

The best place for a Lunar observatory isn't in Lunar orbit, its on the actual surface. Down there, there is no air to muddy the view just like in orbit, except that the Moon turns very slowly and you have complete darkness and very little angle change for two weeks solid. You only have minutes or hours in Lunar orbit, and L1 doesn't move much at all out of the sunlight.

Edit: Stationing the scope' at L1 has the issue that the Moon doesn't convienantly block the Earth's radio noise for radio astronomy either.

Fledi · 2005-06-07 17:42:53

Good points, I thought about using the ATV to deliver the rocket fuel as an addon during many supply missions. It is really not a near term plan anyway, since the Lunar program is at least 10 years away.
On the other side the ISS is not of much use for science in its current state with astronauts' most time spent on just keeping it going, except if you want to find out how not to do things at the future Lunar base

Fledi · 2005-06-07 17:54:34

Yep, the astronomy part is not good at all for an L1 station, but I wonder when the first base will be built at the far side of the Moon, since you would have to rely on transmittion satellites from there.
Ande the ISS would need additional radiation hardening at L1, by the way that is one of the things that could be tried out on the near term with it being in LEO.

RobS · 2005-06-07 18:38:22

The best place for a lot of astronomy is the Earth-Sun L2 point, which is easily accessible from the Earth-Moon L1 point. Observatories at ESL2 could be moved to EML1 for repairs, then back, with very little delta-v.

If we want a station at EML1, use an interplanetary transit hab that will be built for the Mars mission. Nothing on ISS is designed for efficient long-term life support like the Mars equipment will have to be. L1 will be intermittantly inhabited anyway; it won't be a permanently staffed facility.

-- RobS

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-07 18:59:17

Sounds good to me if you have -got- to have a station. Take a Mars HAB and strip out the landing equipment, add bigger & better solar cells/storage systems, convert/expand the labs to make workshops, and use the TMI docking ring to hook up to a fuel depot tank(s).

The DRM design has a cylindrical "basement" with an airlock and (a place for) a docking port. Expand this to be "plus shaped" for extra docking ports perhaps.

BWhite · 2005-06-07 19:06:18

I believe an L1 transfer station allows access to the entire Moon from the entire Earth, solving plane change issues.

Lanuch Soyuz from Kouru, hook up with a propulsive stage and go to L1. Transfer to a re-useable lander that cyclers to / from L1 and the Moon. Go anywhere on the Moon.

Return to L1, then land the Soyuz in Kazakstan, no problem, or so I believe.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-07 19:44:03

Sure thing Bill... except you'll need an Energia's worth of rocket fuel to push that Soyuz and lander there and back, and you'll have little or no payload other then those three men.

BWhite · 2005-06-07 19:51:49

Sure thing Bill... except you'll need an Energia's worth of rocket fuel to push that Soyuz and lander there and back, and you'll have little or no payload other then those three men.

That is why the lander stays at L1, sent as uncrewed cargo on a weak stability boundary trajectory, along with uncrewed cargo missions to L1. 90 day transit times.

People fly fast, with minimum cargo. Isn't there a commercial plan for a used ISS Soyuz to do a lunar fly-by with a single Proton launched propulsion unit?

One Soyuz + One Proton = Three crew at L1.

Are we going to visit the Moon or develop the Moon?

= = =

My reading suggests that by flying weak stability boundary trajectories, we can achieve a 2.5 to 1 or even a 2 to 1 ratio between LEO mass and L1 mass.

12 tons of cargo in LEO means 4 to 6 tons at L1. Launch from the equator, of course. :;):

Edited By BWhite on 1118195804

Martin_Tristar · 2005-06-07 22:34:12

I love it when you talk about the what is required to build a viable Mars Colony and Colonization of Mars. It comes down to infrastructure from all L Points, Earth Orbit and the Moon. To expand the human race into permanent living in space we need a permanent home that provides earth gravity or close to earth type gravity to make sure our bodies are not effected much. Second, the volume of resource movement must increase to match the movement of humans to mars and other space platforms, stations, and bases throughout our solar system.

Its not the fact of builidng space stations, space habitats, space transports both cargo or human or provide the necessary resources for these colonies but the development of a complete infrastructure from physical, governmental, economic and social structures that would properly prespare humanity into space.

Fledi · 2005-06-08 06:02:09

Yes, we also need lots of public support, that's why it would be good if we could come up with something better for the ISS than just dumping it into the ocean after spending some 100 Bn $ on it. I imagine those who oppose spaceflight for being a waste of money will be pointing at that for quite a long time if we go with it.
But it seems to be rather hard to find a cost effective way of doing something useful with the station, I must admit.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-08 06:30:22

GCNRevenger first you say:

It is too late for the ISS, there is nothing - nothing - that it could possibly do for us to justify spending one more cent on it. Nothing at all whatsoever. Even its parts left over in orbit aren't worth much of anything versus just building copies with the old blueprints.

Then you say:

And suppose Russia does build Klipper, and Europes' ATV? Worthless without a destination, and if they and Japan wanted to do science on the ISS for some reason, it would be too far away.

Here is the question, how long do the partner nations plan on using the ISS?

Ours if we bail in 2010 would be just under 5 years but I do not see that as the stop date for the US involvement in the station.

So how long after the shuttle is retired before something major needs a shuttle bay lift capability that the partners then scream and say you must?

Shuttle may be retired and in moth balls but it will still need to be kept operational for just that reason.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-08 07:35:08

If our partners are dumb enough to want to try to do much up there on the ISS, let' um... its not our problem. We have no sufficent reason to keep the stupid station afloat.

And if they absolutely HAVE to have Shuttle to fix something vital after 2010? Thats too darn bad, we have better things to do and keeping one of the orbiters ready is much too expensive. Its their own dumb fault for relying on Russian vehicles and batteries/gyros/etc that won't fit through the door.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2005-06-06 16:13:56

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#102 2005-06-06 16:34:44

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#103 2005-06-06 17:06:33

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#104 2005-06-06 17:14:10

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#105 2005-06-06 17:28:51

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#106 2005-06-07 09:44:20

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#107 2005-06-07 11:04:49

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#108 2005-06-07 11:26:45

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#109 2005-06-07 13:56:00

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#110 2005-06-07 15:11:52

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#111 2005-06-07 15:18:29

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#112 2005-06-07 15:36:44

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#113 2005-06-07 16:07:45

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#114 2005-06-07 16:40:05

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#115 2005-06-07 17:42:53

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#116 2005-06-07 17:54:34

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#117 2005-06-07 18:38:22

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#118 2005-06-07 18:59:17

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#119 2005-06-07 19:06:18

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#120 2005-06-07 19:44:03

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#121 2005-06-07 19:51:49

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#122 2005-06-07 22:34:12

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#123 2005-06-08 06:02:09

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#124 2005-06-08 06:30:22

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

#125 2005-06-08 07:35:08

Re: Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments?

Board footer