US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

Terraformer · 2015-10-15 15:53:36

So if Energia and EADS Astrium got together to do a mission, you would congratulate the Russians and Europeans on their success?

RobertDyck · 2015-10-15 16:42:17

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Interesting that the Russian Space Program was build with stolen American technology. The Russians really were copycats, they stole from the Germans after World War II, and their spies got some technologies from the US, they reverse engineered the B29 bomber and build their own Russian version. The Soviet Rockets used a lot of American technology, they had American computers and the rocket engines were designed in the West as well. That's what I heard.

How very arrogant. The Vostok was entirely Russian. As was the Voskhod. Whether Soyuz was based on Apollo D2 is debatable; Russia denies it. The R-7 rocket used to launch Sputnik was evolved from A-5, which was the German designation for the V-2 rocket. But the Redstone was developed by Wernher von Braun and his team, directly evolved from the A-5/V-2. In the movie "The Right Stuff", one character said "Our Germans are better than their Germans." Uh huh. How is that really different? The Soyuz launch vehicle used to launch the Soyuz spacecraft is just an R-7 rocket with an upper stage. The first stage of Saturn 1 and 1B (S-1 stage) was a LOX tank surrounded by 8 Redstone tanks.

Soviets developed rocket engines using storable propellants to a much greater degree than any American engines. America focussed on solid and cryogenic engines. Most importantly, America keeps designing everything from scratch, while Soviets/Russians keep using the same model. Soyuz TMA spacecraft is an updated version of the same spacecraft they flew in competition with Apollo in the 1960s. The Soyuz launch vehicle is an updated version of the R-7 rocket used to launch Sputnik. Including ICBMs, various configurations of that launch vehicle have launched 1,727 rockets. (According to Encyclopedia Astronautica.) Cost reduction through mass production. Why can't America learn that?

SpaceNut · 2015-10-15 17:54:26

"Why can't America learn that?" Ya I did ask the same question when we heard that shuttle was ending and that we were going back to Apollo on steriods....hearing about every excuse for why we could not rebuild what we once had....

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-10-15 18:14:13

RobertDyck wrote:

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
Interesting that the Russian Space Program was build with stolen American technology. The Russians really were copycats, they stole from the Germans after World War II, and their spies got some technologies from the US, they reverse engineered the B29 bomber and build their own Russian version. The Soviet Rockets used a lot of American technology, they had American computers and the rocket engines were designed in the West as well. That's what I heard.
How very arrogant. The Vostok was entirely Russian. As was the Voskhod. Whether Soyuz was based on Apollo D2 is debatable; Russia denies it. The R-7 rocket used to launch Sputnik was evolved from A-5, which was the German designation for the V-2 rocket. But the Redstone was developed by Wernher von Braun and his team, directly evolved from the A-5/V-2. In the movie "The Right Stuff", one character said "Our Germans are better than their Germans." Uh huh. How is that really different? The Soyuz launch vehicle used to launch the Soyuz spacecraft is just an R-7 rocket with an upper stage. The first stage of Saturn 1 and 1B (S-1 stage) was a LOX tank surrounded by 8 Redstone tanks.
Soviets developed rocket engines using storable propellants to a much greater degree than any American engines. America focussed on solid and cryogenic engines. Most importantly, America keeps designing everything from scratch, while Soviets/Russians keep using the same model. Soyuz TMA spacecraft is an updated version of the same spacecraft they flew in competition with Apollo in the 1960s. The Soyuz launch vehicle is an updated version of the R-7 rocket used to launch Sputnik. Including ICBMs, various configurations of that launch vehicle have launched 1,727 rockets. (According to Encyclopedia Astronautica.) Cost reduction through mass production. Why can't America learn that?

Russians are conformists, their engineers are copy cats, they are not encouraged to innovate Russia basically fought the cold war using stolen American technology, with slight adjustments to meet their needs, the reason Russian technology is behind ours is because they rely on American engineers and scientists to do their R&D for them and they pay spies to steal it. The Russians didn't create the internet, they didn't develop the computer, Russia is not at the cutting edge of computer technology, but they know how to write some malicious software!

RobertDyck · 2015-10-15 19:09:47

I remember reading about a North Korean fighter pilot who defected in 1953 with a MiG-15 aircraft. It outclassed straight-wing fighters of its day. It was one of the first to use swept wings, achieving high transonic speed. American aircraft engineers poured over this marvel, reverse engineering, learning from Russians how to build a fighter aircraft. In fact, American test pilots of the day couldn't even fly it until the cockpit was re-calibrated to US measure instead of metric.

Russia lead the space race from 1951 until Apollo 8. Stop repeating propaganda. Russia has certain technologies they excelled at, America had others. Yes, computers were an area America excelled. So what. Give it a break.

Void · 2015-10-15 19:36:58

Tom,

I don't like to kick you when so much else is on you, but.... If I recall, our method of docking was pin and cone. I think our current air locks are much what the Russians worked out. Correct me if I am wrong.

I could go on. Leave them alone. Yes they are tricky, that's because we are the bogy man to them. Think Napoleon, think Hitler, and before that the stupid Romans. Had to mess up their legions when the stupid morons would not stay in their areas. Got it? Want some more? Can do.

Stay on your side.

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-10-15 20:29:12

RobertDyck wrote:

I remember reading about a North Korean fighter pilot who defected in 1953 with a MiG-15 aircraft. It outclassed straight-wing fighters of its day. It was one of the first to use swept wings, achieving high transonic speed. American aircraft engineers poured over this marvel, reverse engineering, learning from Russians how to build a fighter aircraft. In fact, American test pilots of the day couldn't even fly it until the cockpit was re-calibrated to US measure instead of metric.
Russia lead the space race from 1951 until Apollo 8. Stop repeating propaganda. Russia has certain technologies they excelled at, America had others. Yes, computers were an area America excelled. So what. Give it a break.

that only happened because President Eisenhower let them, he expressly forbade the Army from launching anything into orbit, because he felt that then the Russians would complain about the satellite invading Russian Airspace, he wanted the Russians to launch the first satellite so they couldn't claim that. The Russians accomplished most things using stolen or copied technology, their atomic bomb was a knock off of an American Bomb, Some left-wing American Scientists felt it was their duty to do R&D for the Russians as well at American taxpayer's expense. The Soviet Union was all about command and control, people were employees of the government, and they often weren't awarded for being innovative, people wouldn't go out of their way to try something new, because if it failed, they might get a one way ticket to Siberia.

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-10-15 20:35:25

Void wrote:

Tom,
I don't like to kick you when so much else is on you, but.... If I recall, our method of docking was pin and cone. I think our current air locks are much what the Russians worked out. Correct me if I am wrong.
I could go on. Leave them alone. Yes they are tricky, that's because we are the bogy man to them. Think Napoleon, think Hitler, and before that the stupid Romans. Had to mess up their legions when the stupid morons would not stay in their areas. Got it? Want some more? Can do.
Stay on your side.

The Russians never buy what they can take by force or stealth. They like to reap the rewards of the stolen work of others, they don't like to do the hard work themselves. They like to write viruses that steal personal information rather that useful programs that they can sell. Russians are a lot like Sicilians, there is a Russian Mob, because Russians have no respect for the law unless they think they might get caught, they have a dull sense of morality, Communism has taught them that there is no right and wrong, there is just what you can get away with, and that is going to be a problem when dealing with the Russians.

RobertDyck · 2015-10-15 21:11:18

The space station was built with cooperation with Russia because Russia had several things NASA did not. First, as Void pointed out, NASA had a docking mechanism capable of docking a 16.2 metric tonne LM to a 28.8 metric tonne CSM. It couldn't dock a 100 tonne Space Shuttle to a 100 tonne space station. If you try, it would crash, something would break. But the Soviets had a mechanism to dock a 20 metric tonne module to a space station composed of multiple modules totalling more than 100 tonnes. America got the APAS docking mechanism from the Russians. NASA didn't have a recycling life support system, just bottled oxygen and lithium hydroxide to scrub CO2, and activated charcoal to scrub smells. The Russians had a recycling life support system on Mir. America had no means to dock an unmanned cargo ship to a space station. Russia had Progress. NASA had no means to transfer oxygen or fuel to resupply a space station. Russians learned you don't need to transfer oxygen, instead transport bags of water and use that to generate oxygen. NASA still to this day has no means to transfer propellant on-orbit. The Mir space station received propellant from a Progress cargo ship, and the Russian side of ISS can do this today.

By the way, one of the best antivirus programs you can buy today for a personal computer is Kaspersky. It's from a Russian company. Kaspersky was the company that released to the media that NSA had planted a virus in the firmware of SATA hard drives. Antivirus software can't remove it because it's in the hard drive's firmware.

How the NSA’s Firmware Hacking Works and Why It’s So Unsettling

Wikipedia wrote:

Kaspersky Lab (/kæˈspɜrski/ ; Russian: Лаборатория Касперского, Laboratoriya Kasperskovo) is an international software security group operating in almost 200 countries and territories worldwide. The company is headquartered in Moscow, Russia, with its holding company registered in the United Kingdom. Kaspersky Lab currently employs over 2,850 qualified specialists. It has 31 representative territory offices in 30 countries and its products and technologies provide service for over 300 million users and over 250,000 corporate clients worldwide.

Terraformer · 2015-10-16 04:02:44

Any chance we could get back to talking about funding a Mars mission?

GW Johnson · 2015-10-16 09:23:31

Hi Terraformer:

I agree, we are supposed to be talking about how to fund a Mars landing mission. I gave one crude estimate in post 97 above, before all the political nonsense started. Few on these forums like my architecture, but it has two advantages: (1) no "hidden costs" or mission criticality risks for fuel depots or propellant extraction technologies that do not currently exist in a well-proven, high production rate form, and (2) an utter minimum of new technology requirements that eat up so much money and stretch schedules so badly.

The only items in my suggestion that are new hardware are the modules that contain propellants and supplies (which have zero technology development, only hardware prove-out), and the lander which won't even fit on an SLS (new hardware proveout plus the technology development of being able to assemble-from-small-components instead of docked modules while in LEO).

I think I addressed all the ethics of crew survivability with respect to both radiation and microgravity diseases. I think I addressed the ethics of crew survivability by providing a way out or a way home at every step, especially with the rescue bird concepts using the landers. Only a reusable lander gives you that, really. Especially for multiple risky trips one after the other.

Multiple sites explored with men gets you the highest possible yield. I do the minimum mission on a few sites with propellant brought from Earth, just so the overall mission is successful even if in-situ propellant production is not. Having locally-produced propellant just lets you visit a lot more sites. Again, it takes a reusable lander to take advantage of that properly.

So my whole design depends upon making a reusable lander design ready in time for the trip. That can be assembled and tested at ISS. That is the one and only technology item in my plan: being able to assemble from components on-orbit, instead of by docking big modules.

The whole trick with going at all anytime this century is to hold costs down. I think I did that, too, by restricting things to hardware prove-out and only one technology item of fairly limited scope and high probability of success. But the "usual crowd" cannot manage this. They wouldn't even design it like this, because it doesn't keep "big space" fat and happy and well-fed for decades.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2015-10-16 09:54:59)

GW Johnson · 2015-10-16 17:24:58

BTW, the Mig-15 flown to Japan by a defector that Tom mentioned (post 106 above) was test-flown by Chuck Yeager at Okinawa.

All swept-wing fighters at that time (and all times since) have outclassed straight-wing fighters, that's been true since the ME-262 entered combat service in early 1945. Tom is quite wrong about American engineers "pouring" (sic "poring") over it, and being surprised by it. It was no surprise. Both the North American F-86 and the swept-wing versions (plural) of the Republic F-84 came out at the same time as the Mig-15.

The Mig was actually far-outclassed in two very significant ways by the swept-wing F-86 Sabre Jet built by North American Aviation, as demonstrated on the battlefield in Korea, and substantially before 1953 (starting in late 1950 actually). (1) it could not take battle damage in combat, the F-86 could, and (2) it went uncontrollable at transonic speeds above Mach 0.94 in a dive, while the F-86 remained controllable to low supersonic (Mach 1.2-ish) in a dive. The secret was the all-flying horizontal tail (F-86), instead of a conventional tailplane and elevator (Mig-15).

This was documented by Yeager at Okimawa, testing that defector's Mig-15. Not long after, Yeager, who went there with Jackie Cochrane, astonished his Russian colleagues at meeting in Moscow ca. 1956, by having dived a Mig-15 beyond Mach 0.94 and surviving the attempt. No Russian test pilot had ever survived that flight condition in the Mig.

Both aircraft suffered from an engine stall/debris ingestion problem associated with cannon weapons located too close to the engine inlet. No aircraft since (on either side) has located gun muzzles anywhere close to an engine inlet.

GW

RobertDyck · 2015-10-16 19:37:50

GW Johnson wrote:

the Mig-15 flown to Japan by a defector that Tom mentioned (post 106 above) was test-flown by Chuck Yeager at Okinawa.
...
The Mig was actually far-outclassed in two very significant ways by the swept-wing F-86 Sabre Jet

Actually, I mentioned the MiG-15 in post #105 above. I'm aware of the F-86 Sabre, but didn't mention it to make a point. Documentaries about the incident said engineers had to re-calibrate the cockpit before Chuck Yeager flew it. And the MiG-15 did outclass the F-86 Sabre in some areas: it was lighter and more manoeuvrable. Here is a comparison by one pilot who flew a MiG-15
Korean War Jet Fighters - MiG-15 vs. Sabre F-86
The point was engineers at the time were amazed. This was not some old technology, far behind the US. It was highly competitive. Pilots had to learn where the F-86 had the advantage, and where the MiG-15 did. Ensure combat focussed on strengths of your aircraft, and not your opponent's. That test flight by Chuck Yeager was key to identify where the weaknesses were. And the link above states MiG-15 pulled 6 Gs, that g-suits made all the difference.

Again my point is Russia is not the backward morons that Tom makes them out to be. They were serious competition, and remain leaders in some areas today. Remember, NASA leaned how to make the pressed-channel exhaust cone for the RS-25 engine from RD-0120 engine built for Energia. The RD-180 engine is used for the first stage of Atlas V for a reason.

SpaceNut · 2015-10-16 20:58:00

Let take the path that we used a Space X style business that looks to a future by buying the technology and expertise to get started with contest contract funds coming with miles stones as they have; That said what we do need first for Mars is a landing vehicle capable of landing on the surface with a small distance from adjacent crafts.

The landers must be capable to be moved closer together in order to link there resources together from unit to unit. We will need the Mav, Cargo and habitat at a minimum with the initial landing being a Mav and cargo that will not parish for get to old for use by the crew for when they arrive.

The initial Mav and cargo can be sent via SEP with the main vehicles crew linked up in LEO with each piece landing once nearing Mars orbit seperately at the initial landing site..

Lets figure the landers for a crew size of 2 with each incrament by 2 to see what the lander limits are as we add on what each needs to support the crew. I understand that the habitat needs to be as large as possible but that can be done by being a partial inflateable and by utilizing the add space from emptying the cargo lander as its needed for additional space.

We can place a limit price on design of each new piece just like Nasa did for the cargo to ISS and on the crew capable vehicle. There you developement model to follow for the lowest costing mean to getting to Mars.

GW Johnson · 2015-10-17 09:44:29

Mig:

Oops, sorry RobertDyck. Somehow I misread the names on the posting about the Mig-15. I did not mean to imply the Mig was not a state-of-the-art airplane, because it was. Very similar in many ways to the Republic F-84F. The F-86 was bigger, heavier, more damage-resistant, less maneuverable, but more survivable, plus it could dive low supersonic.

Between the differences in the aircraft, and the differences in pilot training and skills, the end product was a sustained 15:1 kill ratio throughout the war, in favor of the F-86. It's very hard to separate how much of that was pilot vs how much was airplane, but my humble opinion is that it was mostly pilots with more training and flight experience.

Grouped landers:

To land adjacent to another lander will require radar beacons and computer flight control. I'm not at all sure that "close together" is a good idea. What if the second collided with the first? Now you have lost two. And moving a big heavy craft across potentially rough or soft ground after it has landed, is going to require substantial heavy equipment that adds to the vehicle's inert weight. That is a real killer for payload fraction, especially if such craft are to fly again. Even if not, it still cuts into payload deliverable.

I don't do that landing together stunt at all in my plan, until the second 6 months, where three landers come down together at the location where the base is to be built. I had it figured as about a km or two apart for safety. My reusable craft were large enough so that the cargo decks were large enough to be closed and pressurized for lots of crew habitation space, big enough for all 6 in any one vehicle. With some sort of rovers, a km or two apart is no real problem. I had no need to connect them.

GW

RobertDyck · 2015-10-17 12:28:13

And after the Soviet Union collapsed, all sorts of information came out. Information about the Soviet combat against Nazi Germans in World War 2, and information about the Korean War. The Russians did sneak in some Russian "honcho" pilots. These were equivalent to "top gun" pilots. When a MiG-15 was flown not by a Chinese or North Korean pilot, when it was flown by a Russian honcho, the kill ratio was in favour of the MiG-15. It wasn't a big ratio, but it was in favour. And these weren't normal Russian pilots either, which were all better than Chinese or North Koreans, these were honchos. And this wasn't a honcho vs an American top gun pilot, it was a honcho vs an average American pilot. So that confirms what GW Johnson said, the kill ratio was due to pilot skill.

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-10-17 13:45:20

RobertDyck wrote:

GW Johnson wrote:
the Mig-15 flown to Japan by a defector that Tom mentioned (post 106 above) was test-flown by Chuck Yeager at Okinawa.
...
The Mig was actually far-outclassed in two very significant ways by the swept-wing F-86 Sabre Jet
Actually, I mentioned the MiG-15 in post #105 above. I'm aware of the F-86 Sabre, but didn't mention it to make a point. Documentaries about the incident said engineers had to re-calibrate the cockpit before Chuck Yeager flew it. And the MiG-15 did outclass the F-86 Sabre in some areas: it was lighter and more manoeuvrable. Here is a comparison by one pilot who flew a MiG-15
Korean War Jet Fighters - MiG-15 vs. Sabre F-86
The point was engineers at the time were amazed. This was not some old technology, far behind the US. It was highly competitive. Pilots had to learn where the F-86 had the advantage, and where the MiG-15 did. Ensure combat focussed on strengths of your aircraft, and not your opponent's. That test flight by Chuck Yeager was key to identify where the weaknesses were. And the link above states MiG-15 pulled 6 Gs, that g-suits made all the difference.
Again my point is Russia is not the backward morons that Tom makes them out to be. They were serious competition, and remain leaders in some areas today. Remember, NASA leaned how to make the pressed-channel exhaust cone for the RS-25 engine from RD-0120 engine built for Energia. The RD-180 engine is used for the first stage of Atlas V for a reason.

How come they don't have democracy, like the other European countries if they aren't backwards? There was a time when Europe was full of despots and kings, and Russia today harkens back to that time when Europe was full of tyrants trying to conquer each other and build their empires. So the real question is why is Russia different from all the other European states?

RobertDyck · 2015-10-17 15:00:45

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

How come they don't have democracy, like the other European countries if they aren't backwards? There was a time when Europe was full of despots and kings, and Russia today harkens back to that time when Europe was full of tyrants trying to conquer each other and build their empires. So the real question is why is Russia different from all the other European states?

You assume democracy solves everything. And I suspect you mean American style democracy. Never forget, the 2000 & 2004 presidential elections saw a lot of corruption: many so called voters were deceased, polls machines in areas that traditionally vote Democrat were set to "test" so all votes were thrown out, some polls had more votes for the Republican candidate alone than the number of registered voters. And this from the country that claims to be world leader in democracy? Russia's complaint is that America is building an empire, America is engaging in war in the Middle East, killing anyone who isn't a toadie to Washington, and now America is infringing on Russia's sphere. Russia behaved itself until Georgia and Ukraine, former republics of the Soviet Union.

And you think America doesn't use military force on it's own people? What about Ruby Ridge? Or Waco? What about American police committing highway robbery? Washington Post: Stop and seize - Aggressive police take hundreds of millions of dollars from motorists not charged with crimes

If you're obsession is democracy, not any other form of government, how about Canadian democracy? America's system has not been successfully exported to any other country; all those that tried, failed. The Canadian system has been exported successfully to many countries. Canada's system is a modification of the British "Westminster" system. After Canada separated from the British empire to become a country, many Commonwealth countries copied Canada. Today Australia, New Zealand, and many other Commonwealth countries have copied Canada's lead.

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-10-17 16:30:31

RobertDyck wrote:

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
How come they don't have democracy, like the other European countries if they aren't backwards? There was a time when Europe was full of despots and kings, and Russia today harkens back to that time when Europe was full of tyrants trying to conquer each other and build their empires. So the real question is why is Russia different from all the other European states?
You assume democracy solves everything. And I suspect you mean American style democracy.

I said democracy, like all the other civilized European countries like Great Britain, France, Poland, and Germany, they don't all have a President, a Senate, a House of Representatives, and a Supreme Court. if Russia has a Democracy like the UK has, that would be enough for me. Please don't put words in my mouth! Russia is a different breed altogether, Europe doesn't have very many aggressive militaristic Empires like Russia any more, Russia is the last one, comparable with the late Imperial Germany in its aggressive attitude towards its neighbors!

RobertDyck wrote:

Never forget, the 2000 & 2004 presidential elections saw a lot of corruption: many so called voters were deceased, polls machines in areas that traditionally vote Democrat were set to "test" so all votes were thrown out, some polls had more votes for the Republican candidate alone than the number of registered voters. And this from the country that claims to be world leader in democracy? Russia's complaint is that America is building an empire,

Lets test this: Putin has invaded Georgia, Ukraine, and Syria, what countries has Obama taken over? Oh that's right, he pulled troops out of Iraq, now what country has Putin pulled troops out of?

RobertDyck wrote:

America is engaging in war in the Middle East, killing anyone who isn't a toadie to Washington,

Actually America is disengaging in war in the Middle East, it is only ISIS's extreme behavior, you know chopping off heads and such, which is slowing that effort to disengage down. Don't you watch the news? I haven't been aware of much war hawkishness on the part of the Obama Administration, Putin is just looking for excuses for his aggression, so he is making things up that is 180 degrees from the truth about Obama, who is basically a wimp!

RobertDyck wrote:

and now America is infringing on Russia's sphere. Russia behaved itself until Georgia and Ukraine, former republics of the Soviet Union.

When has Obama done that? What has he done about Russia's invasion of George? Nothing! What has he done about Russia's invasion in Ukraine? Nothing! You should be pleased with Obama's Passive-Aggressive foreign policy, so why aren't you?

RobertDyck wrote:

And you think America doesn't use military force on it's own people? What about Ruby Ridge? Or Waco?

You really think Putin invaded Ukraine because of what happened at Ruby Ridge or Waco? Do you think he looks like a person who would care? Maybe he would do it because of America's past with slavery, or because of the Mexican-American war in 1848, could that be the reason? For the record, Russia expressed support for Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War.

RobertDyck wrote:

What about American police committing highway robbery? Washington Post: Stop and seize - Aggressive police take hundreds of millions of dollars from motorists not charged with crimes

Well you know, I got a parking ticket in New York City for $125 dollars, I consider that highway robbery!

RobertDyck wrote:

If you're obsession is democracy, not any other form of government, how about Canadian democracy?

Canada is a civilized democratic country with a parliamentary form of government, and a symbolic monarch as the official head of state, but which has no actual power. I wish Russia was more like Canada, instead of the barbaric aggressive empire that it is. Russia does have Canada like weather in places, there is that.

RobertDyck wrote:

America's system has not been successfully exported to any other country; all those that tried, failed. The Canadian system has been exported successfully to many countries. Canada's system is a modification of the British "Westminster" system. After Canada separated from the British empire to become a country, many Commonwealth countries copied Canada. Today Australia, New Zealand, and many other Commonwealth countries have copied Canada's lead.

The Philippines has an American Style Democracy, it has a President, Vice President, a Senate, a House of Representatives, and a Supreme Court, I would call that a successful export, wouldn't you?

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2015-10-17 16:34:17)

SpaceNut · 2015-10-17 17:23:23

Threads topics that end up this way really annoy me especially since the last few pages are not about the topic can we not do this.....

GW Johnson · 2015-10-17 17:29:56

No one will ever solve anything arguing with Tom Kalbfus over politics. Or the capabilities of current technology.

Why not return to what might get funded by US citizens budgetarily, as part of (or not part of) a NASA budget.

Myself, I do not believe much will ever happen until the giant-corpoorate welfare state is broken. This afflicts more than just the US, by the way.

Otherwise, any manned Mars mission had best be do-able for under $100B, else it will not go through Congress, or any other body, US, EU, or any other.

GW

SpaceNut · 2015-10-17 19:07:54

I would not want a lander to crash into another already on the ground either but we should be able to get closer than kilometers for distances once the first ship down lands activating a beacon. What I am thinking of is more of a jack it up and slide it up the ramp of a trunk bed (think lunar chariot design) to bring the lander closer to the other.

100 billion is way out of the box for what a mission to Mars should cost and even when saing funds for 10 years to allow for it to occur its still to much as all we have done is save money that gets burned at such a high rate as to not even be enough to even go even after another decade of saving......

We need to design based on the Spaxe x model.....
NASA Analysis: Falcon 9 Much Cheaper Than Traditional Approach

SpaceX has publicly indicated that the development cost for Falcon 9 launch vehicle was approximately $300 million. Additionally, approximately $90 million was spent developing the Falcon 1 launch vehicle which did contribute to some extent to the Falcon 9, for a total of $390 million. NASA has verified these costs.

So what are the payload developement costs that we should target?

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-10-18 02:55:44

SpaceNut wrote:

Threads topics that end up this way really annoy me especially since the last few pages are not about the topic can we not do this.....

I am a counter puncher, just like Donald Trump, I am happy to talk about Mars, then people from other countries start getting critical of the United States, I would simply point out, that if it weren't for the United States, there wouldn't be much to talk about, there would be no Apollo Program, no exploration of the Outer Planets. Russia has done very little except build manned space stations in low Earth orbit, it planetary program has concentrated on unmanned moon rovers and probes to Venus. The United States by contrast has sent probes to Mercury, Venus, the Moon, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and now Pluto, can you beat that?

SpaceNut · 2015-10-18 08:19:08

The Game for Russia is in controlling the high ground it is straight forward and while the US has done the same as part of the military posturing but the spirit of exploration is clear as it helps to push the frontier. Its when the joint effort and colaberation from both that the world can grow out of the war state that we get caught up in..

So back to why the US public is opposed to spending money comes back to the buying power. The cost of say a car ($1,000 back in the 60's), house (under $10,000 in the 60's possible and up) and gas (was only 50 cents a gallon) have all gone up to $20-$30 thousand(factor of change 20-30), $100 thousand (factor of change 10 up), and up, while gas is on the decline its been as high as $4 a gallon and is currently just over $2 (factor of change 4-8), . The hourly pay rate was just around $2 in the 60's and is only currently near $9 of course the area of the nation, job types and family situation do change the ability to survive(factor of change 4 plus a bit ).

RobertDyck · 2015-10-18 10:44:12

Tom, you don't restrict yourself to Mars. You keep spreading propaganda. Look at your latest post, you did it again. Russia developed very important technologies, including recycling life support. It had to be improved, but it was a start. We can't send humans to Mars without recycling life support. And Russia sent the first probes to Mars. In fact, Russia developed the "bounce and roll" landing technique used by Mars Pathfinder and Spirit/Opportunity. NASA copied Russia's idea. And Russia landed a series of successful landers on Venus, NASA still hasn't.

Today America is wasting far too much money and attention fighting wars around the world. And America is part of the reason these conflicts are happening. Not everyone in the US wants America to become an empire like the ancient Roman empire, or the Third Reich, but enough do that it has become a problem. Resources are wasted trying to accomplish something that is in conflict with the principles of freedom. If you want to focus on Mars and something constructive, then stop trying to rule.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2015-10-15 15:53:36

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#102 2015-10-15 16:42:17

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#103 2015-10-15 17:54:26

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#104 2015-10-15 18:14:13

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#105 2015-10-15 19:09:47

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#106 2015-10-15 19:36:58

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#107 2015-10-15 20:29:12

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#108 2015-10-15 20:35:25

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#109 2015-10-15 21:11:18

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#110 2015-10-16 04:02:44

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#111 2015-10-16 09:23:31

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#112 2015-10-16 17:24:58

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#113 2015-10-16 19:37:50

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#114 2015-10-16 20:58:00

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#115 2015-10-17 09:44:29

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#116 2015-10-17 12:28:13

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#117 2015-10-17 13:45:20

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#118 2015-10-17 15:00:45

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#119 2015-10-17 16:30:31

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#120 2015-10-17 17:23:23

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#121 2015-10-17 17:29:56

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#122 2015-10-17 19:07:54

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#123 2015-10-18 02:55:44

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#124 2015-10-18 08:19:08

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

#125 2015-10-18 10:44:12

Re: US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions

Board footer