Mars Mission Comparisons - updated with kbd512's proposal

louis · 2016-02-19 19:25:49

I've updated my Mars Mission Comparison doc to include kbd512's "Affordable Human Exploration of Mars Program".

https://www.docdroid.net/vCwcfFY/mars-m … .docx.html

It's the no. 5 proposal - to be found on page 8 of the doc.

If anyone would like to add another proposal (whether their own or some other agency), please just reply here with the text for each category under the first column in the table in the doc i.e.

MISSION SIZE

PRE-MISSION CONTENT

LAUNCH

TRANSIT TO MARS

ENTRY, DESCENT AND LANDING/ASCENT AND RETURN

ENERGY AND LIFE SUPPORT

MISSION CONTENT

COST/INCOME

OTHER ASPECTS

SpaceNut · 2016-02-21 21:39:52

I found the other topic which is simular.... Index» Human missions» Mars Missions comparison

The list of attributes :
MISSION SIZE : What we do know is that crew size matter once we start to explore on the surface in that we would always want to explore in pairs.

PRE-MISSION CONTENT : If this is a preloading of a selected site that depends on mission length of time and crew size.

LAUNCH : The big change in size is when we employ artificial gravity and preload mars landing site for how many launchers will be needed for the mission.

TRANSIT TO MARS : We know that chemical will give a 6 to 8 month travel and that cargo can go via ION propulsion much slower for non living transport. The chemical transit will depend on how large the ship is that we travel to mars in and that will impact the launcher count.

++++++++ will finish thoughts later....

ENTRY, DESCENT AND LANDING/ASCENT AND RETURN :

ENERGY AND LIFE SUPPORT

MISSION CONTENT

COST/INCOME

kbd512 · 2016-02-22 00:28:20

One of my suggestions in another thread was sending two astronauts per DSH using two complete DSH's instead of one DSH. It adds a measure of redundancy to the mission and a LOX/LH2 upper stage or stretch tank LOX/RP-1 could throw the DSH to TMI from LEO. Each DSH is a single module that will fit inside the payload shroud of virtually any commodity heavy lift rocket.

Launch count is two Falcon Heavies to deliver two DSH's to LEO (and on to TMI after a Falcon 9 delivers the crews) and one Falcon 9 to deliver the crews. Absolutely no orbital assembly is required for the DSH, no SEP-CTV is required to push the DSH to EML-1, you can obtain AG by tethering off to the upper stage, and your crewed vehicles are pushed through TMI from LEO using existing chemical propulsion technology.

We have to kill the structural mass of the DSH and upper stages using composite pressure vessels, but Boeing has proven that the things don't leak and weigh substantially less than aluminum. If you want as near-term a solution as is practical, this is the solution.

The only SEP-CTV's absolutely required for the mission deliver the TEI kick stages and the MSH or MTVL's to Mars ahead of the crew. The SEP-CTV's delivering the TEI kick stages would be responsible for mating the TEI kick stage to the DSH's for return to Earth and attitude control in LMO.

Edit: If an unpressurized two person capsule is used for the MDV and MAV, then the MDV can be mated to the DSH and delivered to Mars with the DSH, rather than requiring a Mars orbital rendezvous with the MDV.

An unpressurized two person MAV can be delivered to the surface of Mars of using Falcon Heavy and chemical propulsion.

So:

Window 1 ($500M in launch costs, about the same as 1 STS or 1 SLS flight):

* 2 Falcon Heavies deliver 2 MAV's to the surface of Mars using chemical propulsion and aerobraking

* 2 Falcon Heavies deliver 2 MSH's to the surface of Mars using chemical propulsion and aerobraking

Window 2 ($315M in launch costs, considerably less than 1 STS or 1 SLS flight):

* 2 Falcon Heavies deliver 2 DSH's with attached MDV's to LEO (integrated SEP still required to spiral in to LMO and to spiral in to L1)

* 1 Falcon 9 uses Dragon to transfer 4 crew to the 2 DSH's in LEO before TMI burn

No unaffordable super heavy lift rockets, unaffordable super heavy capsules, or SEP-CTV's are required for this mission architecture. You can front load the mission with another two Falcon Heavies to add 2 more MSH's as second level surface backup or small pressurized rovers or throw heavier MSH's (by mating chemical kick stages to the MSH's in LEO). However, we're well within the realm of science reality here and very comfortably within NASA's budget while still permitting us to maintain ISS and do other interesting things with NASA's budget.

End Edit

The MDV (Red Dragon), MAV (modified Red Dragon with larger LOX/LCH4 tanks), and even the MSH (if it's a reprise of Zubrin's combination MDV and MSH using a stowed inflatable) could be variations of the same piece of hardware.

That's the most affordable and practical human exploration of Mars mission structure that I can come up with.

International Participation Side Bar:

Each participating country would be required to purchase certified flight hardware (DSH, TMI/TEI kick stages, and SEP-CTV's; America would pick up the tab for the surface exploration hardware, MDV/MAV/MSH, and active radiation shielding hardware), provide their own launch services if desired, and staff a mission control facility. We can afford to send 2 to 4 crew members per space-faring country. Our maximum crew head count is 16 and I believe the scientific return would be far, far greater with 16 vs 4 crew members. Mars Mission Control Center (MMCC) would rotate between Houston, Korolyov, Darmstadt, and Beijing in 6 hour shifts with a one-hour hand-off, so each facility only requires 8 hour staffing with an after-hours skeleton staff.

Last edited by kbd512 (2016-02-22 05:01:23)

SpaceNut · 2016-02-22 18:02:29

its later....

ENTRY, DESCENT AND LANDING/ASCENT AND RETURN : This is 2 seperate items and should be treated as such as what goes down is not what is returning back to orbit as the mass of each is different.

ENERGY AND LIFE SUPPORT : This is a necessity regardless of what landing or habitat or preloading is utilized. It will depend on where the units are placed and of what type as this will change the mass and power consumption.

MISSION CONTENT : I think this is the exploration and science that is conducterd but its also the survival techniques that allow for less to be consumed and for what future mission can be planned by still having remianing resources to build with from one mission to the next.

COST/INCOME : This is not just the launcher but the developement cost to make what we need as we do not have it to use currently as a COTS commodity. Return of samples will go to the scientific community and therefore does not have a return value to offset the costs. Yes there are other means to create income to manage costs whether they are media content or other returned goods or samples that are not part of what is return for science.

louis · 2016-02-22 19:15:35

I will try and incorporate that additional material as best as I can and then you can review.

kbd512 wrote:

One of my suggestions in another thread was sending two astronauts per DSH using two complete DSH's instead of one DSH. It adds a measure of redundancy to the mission and a LOX/LH2 upper stage or stretch tank LOX/RP-1 could throw the DSH to TMI from LEO. Each DSH is a single module that will fit inside the payload shroud of virtually any commodity heavy lift rocket.
Launch count is two Falcon Heavies to deliver two DSH's to LEO (and on to TMI after a Falcon 9 delivers the crews) and one Falcon 9 to deliver the crews. Absolutely no orbital assembly is required for the DSH, no SEP-CTV is required to push the DSH to EML-1, you can obtain AG by tethering off to the upper stage, and your crewed vehicles are pushed through TMI from LEO using existing chemical propulsion technology.
We have to kill the structural mass of the DSH and upper stages using composite pressure vessels, but Boeing has proven that the things don't leak and weigh substantially less than aluminum. If you want as near-term a solution as is practical, this is the solution.
The only SEP-CTV's absolutely required for the mission deliver the TEI kick stages and the MSH or MTVL's to Mars ahead of the crew. The SEP-CTV's delivering the TEI kick stages would be responsible for mating the TEI kick stage to the DSH's for return to Earth and attitude control in LMO.
Edit: If an unpressurized two person capsule is used for the MDV and MAV, then the MDV can be mated to the DSH and delivered to Mars with the DSH, rather than requiring a Mars orbital rendezvous with the MDV.
An unpressurized two person MAV can be delivered to the surface of Mars of using Falcon Heavy and chemical propulsion.
So:
Window 1 ($500M in launch costs, about the same as 1 STS or 1 SLS flight):
* 2 Falcon Heavies deliver 2 MAV's to the surface of Mars using chemical propulsion and aerobraking
* 2 Falcon Heavies deliver 2 MSH's to the surface of Mars using chemical propulsion and aerobraking
Window 2 ($315M in launch costs, considerably less than 1 STS or 1 SLS flight):
* 2 Falcon Heavies deliver 2 DSH's with attached MDV's to LEO (integrated SEP still required to spiral in to LMO and to spiral in to L1)
* 1 Falcon 9 uses Dragon to transfer 4 crew to the 2 DSH's in LEO before TMI burn
No unaffordable super heavy lift rockets, unaffordable super heavy capsules, or SEP-CTV's are required for this mission architecture. You can front load the mission with another two Falcon Heavies to add 2 more MSH's as second level surface backup or small pressurized rovers or throw heavier MSH's (by mating chemical kick stages to the MSH's in LEO). However, we're well within the realm of science reality here and very comfortably within NASA's budget while still permitting us to maintain ISS and do other interesting things with NASA's budget.
End Edit
The MDV (Red Dragon), MAV (modified Red Dragon with larger LOX/LCH4 tanks), and even the MSH (if it's a reprise of Zubrin's combination MDV and MSH using a stowed inflatable) could be variations of the same piece of hardware.
That's the most affordable and practical human exploration of Mars mission structure that I can come up with.
International Participation Side Bar:
Each participating country would be required to purchase certified flight hardware (DSH, TMI/TEI kick stages, and SEP-CTV's; America would pick up the tab for the surface exploration hardware, MDV/MAV/MSH, and active radiation shielding hardware), provide their own launch services if desired, and staff a mission control facility. We can afford to send 2 to 4 crew members per space-faring country. Our maximum crew head count is 16 and I believe the scientific return would be far, far greater with 16 vs 4 crew members. Mars Mission Control Center (MMCC) would rotate between Houston, Korolyov, Darmstadt, and Beijing in 6 hour shifts with a one-hour hand-off, so each facility only requires 8 hour staffing with an after-hours skeleton staff.

louis · 2016-02-22 19:23:13

See below my response in bold...

SpaceNut wrote:

I found the other topic which is simular.... Index» Human missions» Mars Missions comparison
The list of attributes :
MISSION SIZE : What we do know is that crew size matter once we start to explore on the surface in that we would always want to explore in pairs.
I would agree. No one I know is arguing for solo exploration. Way too dangerous.
PRE-MISSION CONTENT : If this is a preloading of a selected site that depends on mission length of time and crew size.
It's for people contributing to say what they envisage in the pre-mission period. Personally I think you need to cover (a) any pre landing of supplies/infrastructure (b) training and proving (c) establishing a (or utlising a pre-existing) Mars-Earth communication system.
LAUNCH : The big change in size is when we employ artificial gravity and preload mars landing site for how many launchers will be needed for the mission.
TRANSIT TO MARS : We know that chemical will give a 6 to 8 month travel and that cargo can go via ION propulsion much slower for non living transport. The chemical transit will depend on how large the ship is that we travel to mars in and that will impact the launcher count.
Isn't there also the option of a direct shot at Mars which is quicker (less than 6 months) but also more fuel-costly?
++++++++ will finish thoughts later....
ENTRY, DESCENT AND LANDING/ASCENT AND RETURN :
ENERGY AND LIFE SUPPORT
MISSION CONTENT
COST/INCOME

Last edited by louis (2016-02-22 19:24:34)

SpaceNut · 2016-02-22 20:00:11

That is true tha the draw back to Direct launch has no circularization of orbit So you can not mate it up to more fuel, requires more fuel to get the speed which comes as a payload restriction and usually less mass being sent. It also requires more fuel to do the burn required to slow the craft down in order to aerobrake into orbit.

kbd512 · 2016-02-22 23:29:00

Louis, with respect to the second launch window and direct shots, there really isn't a way to use fewer than three launches or to use direct shots with this minimalist mission architecture. There's not enough remaining lift capability to accommodate a MDV with a launch abort system.

The crew could potentially ride in the unpressurized MDV during launch of the DSH, but there is no possibility of escape if something goes wrong during ascent and that's not something NASA would ever permit nor anything I would ever recommend doing. There is such a thing as a reasonable limit to minimalism and I draw the line at any measure that would endanger the crew during a launch sequence.

Each DSH will be inspected, internally and externally, by the crew prior to departure. I expect this process to take one day for each DSH. The Dragon capsule will carry six crew members. Two crew members will pilot Dragon and assist the two DSH crews with their inspection and transfer process.

We're using just about every trick in the book merely to keep the mass of the DSH within the throw capability of Falcon's upper stage.

To name a few:

Falcon Upper Stage:

* Composite upper stage tanks with increased propellant capacity

Deep Space Habitat:

* Composite pressure hull with vapor deposited boron carbide debris protection
* Polymerized aerogel insulation
* Graphene radiators
* Spectra fabric flooring and storage compartments instead of storage bags
* Tanks for storage of fresh and grey instead into the hull instead of separate HDPE containers
* Integrated SEP for attitude control and orbital insertion
* Inflatable airlock for crew transfer and EVA's
* Only one docking port with MDV attached
* Single module flight avionics and communications equipment

I think a 15t to 17t DSH is reasonably achievable using advanced materials. That's within the TMI capability of a Falcon Heavy rocket with the reusability hardware removed and an enlarged upper stage tank.

SpaceNut · 2016-03-07 17:54:06

kbd512 wrote:

GW,
My response is somewhat off-topic, but since the reason for using a light pressurized rover for habitation only makes sense within the context of a mission architecture, I'll rehash some things here.
In addition to relatively modest technology development requirements, and hopefully procurement, the architecture I've proposed makes every attempt to minimize extreme performance requirements. Virtually every other mission architecture I've seen has extreme performance requirements for one or more mission hardware components.
Examples of extreme performance requirements:
reusable Mars landers (we hashed out what this actually entails in terms of tonnage delivered in another thread)
Earth return vehicle fueled on Mars using ISPP
40t surface habitat (creates extreme performance requirements for lift vehicles or requires multiple lift vehicles)
40t+ deep space habitat (creates extreme performance requirements for lift vehicles or requires multiple lift vehicles)
130t+ super heavy lift vehicle
100t+ SEP-CTV
Even if we could develop any or all of the above listed hardware, is any of that actually required for human exploration of Mars? If we just wanted to do the mission, what's the most mass efficient solution that requires the least expensive technology development programs with the least extreme performance requirements?
My admittedly limited knowledge of super heavy lift vehicles and reusable spacecraft is that this kind of hardware is really expensive, difficult to develop, and has extreme performance requirements. With respect to large habitats, the habitat itself may be rather simple, but seems to drive extreme lift vehicle performance requirements.
Everything I've proposed has modest lift requirements and modest performance requirements because of the actual funding availability to NASA.
* More rockets and minor assembly is required with my architecture, but it's not outlandish (if we can't launch 2- 4 cargo flights and 1 human flight per year, then something is very wrong with our human space flight program)
- DSH's require no assembly for TMI (MDV and TMI stage are physically connected to each other at launch), but are launched unmanned (as stated elsewhere, the crew could launch inside the DSH, but there's no possibility of escape from a stricken lift vehicle and that's is a no-go; it is possible to use the MDV for launch to eliminate the requirement for a separate capsule launch) and crews transfer to them using a separate capsule (if a DSH launch fails, there's no reason to send a crew)
- A capsule (Dragon V2 or Orion or CST-100, any will work) docks with the DSH to transfer crew and perform inspection prior to TMI (in my mind, it's sensible to inspect a vehicle you're totally dependent upon for six months in deep space prior to departure)
- TEI kick stage must be mated to DSH for return to earth, but the TEI kick stage has modest performance requirements and weight (SEP-CTV attached to TEI kick stage spirals in to LMO to mate the TEI stage to the DSH)
- MAV has to dock with DSH prior to TEI to transfer crew and perform inspection prior to TEI (inspect everything, assume nothing)
That's one orbital assembly event in LMO and three docking events (LEO, LMO, GEO or EML1). If mating a TEI kick stage or docking with the DSH three times (crew transfer for TMI, crew transfer for TEI, crew transfer for return to Earth) is too complicated, then perhaps it's best if we call this whole thing off.
* DSH is a two crew member vehicle, so no super heavy lift launch vehicle is required
* DSH does not have to survive aerocapturing or aerobraking, so no technology development required for this
* DSH uses TMI / TEI kick stages for orbital transfers and integrated SEP for LMO and GEO or EML1 orbital insertions only
* DSH can be spun to produce AG to reduce in-transit crew deterioration
* MDV only has to make it to the surface in one piece and is not expected to provide long duration life support
* MAV only has to make it to LMO in one piece and is not expected to provide long duration life support
* LPR only has to store one quarter of consumables and does not require non-existent battery, solar, or life support technology to function
* LPR only weighs .95t fully loaded, so it has the weight of a Ford Fiesta on Mars
* LPR has the same atmosphere as the pressure suit, so there's no pre-breathe prior to EVA and no requirement for LN2 storage
* LPR rings the landing area, so if your landing accuracy is within a 75km by 25km ellipse, one or more rovers will be on top of you within a few hours or less (sit tight and wait for the cavalry to arrive)
* Every piece of mission hardware has a backup that is included as part of the mission and we can do this because there are no outlandish performance or mass requirements that dictate extremely expensive mission hardware or launch vehicles
* MAV is the most complicated item to deliver and it's still less extreme than other proposed solutions because it's much smaller and lighter than other solutions

DHS = Deep space Habitat
LPR = Light pressurized rover
MAV = Mars Ascent Vehicle
SEP = Solar Electric Propulsion
LMO = Low Mars Orbit

SpaceNut · 2016-03-11 21:36:45

kbd512 wrote:

After reviewing everything I could find about ADEPT, I think aerocapture is right at the edge of technical feasibility with our mass budget and still dangerous. No matter what the final ADEPT solution weighs, it's gonna have to be real light because the heat shield mass is coming out of the mass budget for the DSH if we still need to retain a .5km/s dV capability.
I really hate to lose any days on Mars, given the time and expense of sending humans there in the first place. However, in my opinion the 30 days of surface time lost is not significant. I think integrating SEP into the DSH provides a pretty comfortable dV margin without adding a lot of mass or the engineering problems that the ADEPT solution has to overcome.
In any event, after orbital insertion, the first priority is mating the DSH to the TEI kick stage. The TEI kick stage uses the same SEP hardware that the DSH uses for MOI. I haven't talked much about the TEI kick stage in my mission architecture plans, but I have been looking at the AJ-10-118K. A 15t wet mass TEI kick stage is all we need.
Let's add just a touch of mission architecture to the DSH solution:
DSH + MDV must have a mass of 15t or less, preferably 12.5t or less, for one Falcon Heavy to TMI the stack
MDV obviously transfers the crew to Mars after arrival
MAV obviously transfers the crew to the DSH before departure
DSH + MAV mass is roughly the same as the arrival mass and that's what my TEI calculations are based off of
If the MAV capsule is based on the MDV capsule and stays attached to the DSH for TEI, then the crew can use the capsule to return to Earth. That eliminates another Falcon 9 + Dragon V2 or Falcon Heavy + Dragon V2 flight.
Broader context of a 4 crew member mission:
Launch Opportunity 1:
2 Falcon Heavies to deliver two TEI kick stages to Mars
Launch Opportunity 2:
2 Falcon Heavies to deliver the DSH + MDV
1 Falcon Heavy to deliver Boeing's fancy new active radiation shielding device
1 Falcon 9 to deliver the crew to both DSH's
We're well within NASA's human space flight budget here by using very light DSH's designed for 2 person crews instead of 4 to 6 person crews. If it's desirable to send more crew members, then it's far more feasible to add 2 additional Falcon Heavies to deliver a TEI kick stage and DSH. Without going into details here, I think it's possible to use this DSH solution for Venus and lunar orbital missions. I think we can cover most of our inner solar system human space exploration objectives using 2 person DSH's and swappable mission hardware elements. Obviously some specialized hardware is required for landing on the planets in the inner solar system, but you have to get there first.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-03-22 11:17:18

kbd512 wrote:

One of my suggestions in another thread was sending two astronauts per DSH using two complete DSH's instead of one DSH. It adds a measure of redundancy to the mission and a LOX/LH2 upper stage or stretch tank LOX/RP-1 could throw the DSH to TMI from LEO. Each DSH is a single module that will fit inside the payload shroud of virtually any commodity heavy lift rocket.
Launch count is two Falcon Heavies to deliver two DSH's to LEO (and on to TMI after a Falcon 9 delivers the crews) and one Falcon 9 to deliver the crews. Absolutely no orbital assembly is required for the DSH, no SEP-CTV is required to push the DSH to EML-1, you can obtain AG by tethering off to the upper stage, and your crewed vehicles are pushed through TMI from LEO using existing chemical propulsion technology.
We have to kill the structural mass of the DSH and upper stages using composite pressure vessels, but Boeing has proven that the things don't leak and weigh substantially less than aluminum. If you want as near-term a solution as is practical, this is the solution.
The only SEP-CTV's absolutely required for the mission deliver the TEI kick stages and the MSH or MTVL's to Mars ahead of the crew. The SEP-CTV's delivering the TEI kick stages would be responsible for mating the TEI kick stage to the DSH's for return to Earth and attitude control in LMO.
Edit: If an unpressurized two person capsule is used for the MDV and MAV, then the MDV can be mated to the DSH and delivered to Mars with the DSH, rather than requiring a Mars orbital rendezvous with the MDV.
An unpressurized two person MAV can be delivered to the surface of Mars of using Falcon Heavy and chemical propulsion.
So:
Window 1 ($500M in launch costs, about the same as 1 STS or 1 SLS flight):
* 2 Falcon Heavies deliver 2 MAV's to the surface of Mars using chemical propulsion and aerobraking
* 2 Falcon Heavies deliver 2 MSH's to the surface of Mars using chemical propulsion and aerobraking
Window 2 ($315M in launch costs, considerably less than 1 STS or 1 SLS flight):
* 2 Falcon Heavies deliver 2 DSH's with attached MDV's to LEO (integrated SEP still required to spiral in to LMO and to spiral in to L1)
* 1 Falcon 9 uses Dragon to transfer 4 crew to the 2 DSH's in LEO before TMI burn
No unaffordable super heavy lift rockets, unaffordable super heavy capsules, or SEP-CTV's are required for this mission architecture. You can front load the mission with another two Falcon Heavies to add 2 more MSH's as second level surface backup or small pressurized rovers or throw heavier MSH's (by mating chemical kick stages to the MSH's in LEO). However, we're well within the realm of science reality here and very comfortably within NASA's budget while still permitting us to maintain ISS and do other interesting things with NASA's budget.

Does this count as a super heavy rocket?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSK_mym … hwlrI3lNIQ

SpaceNut · 2016-03-22 16:27:15

yes Tom Kalbfus, I would call the orion nuclear propulsion system a super if not super super heavy lift....or as others call it a Big Dumb Booster....

GW Johnson · 2016-03-22 18:02:50

The NASA Orion-based Mars mission was done in the mid-1960's based upon the old USAF Project Orion data given to NASA when the USAF space program was terminated and turned over to NASA in 1965 or 1966. It was a competing design to the baseline NERVA-based NTR mission. The preferred version was also NTR, but gas-core based, at a projected 6000 sec Isp and vehicle acceleration in the 0.01 to 0.10 gee range. This mission was booked for the 1983 opposition, as understood at the first moon landing in 1969.

This version of Orion pulse propulsion was way too small to be efficient at under 1000 tons for the whole vehicle. Nuclear pulse propulsion is far more efficient at very much larger launch gross weights, and does not require a chemical launch. The original Orion pulse propulsion designs were done for USAF by General Atomics in San Diego in the mid-1950's.

The final General Atomics baseline Orion design circa 1959 was 280 feet long, 185 feet diameter, and about 6000-10,000 tons at launch. It had a 1/second pulse rate, fractional KT yield down in the atmosphere, 4-5 KT out in vacuum. Effective Isp was around 6000 to 10,000 sec, at vehicle acceleration 2-4 gees. Design mission was a 3 year (single stage) round trip to Saturn, stopping off at the moon and Mars along the way. It spun for 1 gee artificial gravity at hull rim. Crew was 30-50. Fallout from launch was equal to one atmospheric test of a 9 MT warhead. It carried something around 10,000 to 20,000 charges. Each was a shaped charge, not very practical as a blast weapon. A steam catapult ejected them.

At closer to 20,000 tons, Isp falls in the 12,000-20,000 sec range, again at vehicle acceleration in the 2-4 gee range. It really is far more efficient the larger you make it. Hull plating is typically 2 inch steel plate. You build it in an armored naval warship shipyard.

The real side effect is not so much the fallout, it is the EMP. You launch once, from someplace very remote. You do not typically depart from LEO, unless over somewhere very remote.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2016-03-22 18:03:30)

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-03-23 12:59:26

I assume the giant chemical booster was to get the Orion above the atmosphere before it started detonating nuclear fission devices behind its pusher plate to get into orbit. That monstrous sized booster was one stage only. Probably the bombs would be detonated over the Pacific Ocean to minimize the EMP fallout, though if the launch was from Cape Canaveral it would have to be over the Atlantic Ocean unless they wanted to launch counter to the Earth's rotation. It appears to be a sprint mission, as it lasts 400 days.

kbd512 · 2016-03-23 16:46:29

If NASA wants to orbit 500t+ payloads, the pressure fed rocket is the most realistic concept I've seen. Then it's possible to fabricate the rocket in a shipyard and use a nuclear powered vessel would make propellant at sea. Now that we have the technology for a single step process to convert CO2 and hydrogen into kerosene, the idea has some merit. Use the reactor for heat instead of the sun so you can make propellant 24/7.

SpaceNut · 2018-12-09 18:41:51

I see that we all get busy with the topics and they get burried to quick to contiue discusion....

Mars_B4_Moon · 2021-09-11 08:28:17

European Space Agency: Europe risks being 'left behind'
https://www.dw.com/en/european-space-ag … a-59130924

Reinventing The Wheel (For Mars)
https://www.sciencefriday.com/education … -for-mars/

China’s prototype Mars helicopter looks strikingly familiar…
https://thenextweb.com/news/china-devel … helicopter

SpaceNut · 2021-09-11 08:33:35

ESA its about funds and what needs to be accomplished as a united goal. Space is expensive for robotic let alone human. That is why they try to partner with all space faring nations.

Mars has proven that rocks are sharp, that temperature makes thing become easily damaged and that speed of exploration is slow on wheels.

china's ability to copy is nothing new and its flattering in a way.

While these links are important its not really about the topic but a reason to change mars mind set.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2016-02-19 19:25:49

Mars Mission Comparisons - updated with kbd512's proposal

#2 2016-02-21 21:39:52

Re: Mars Mission Comparisons - updated with kbd512's proposal

#3 2016-02-22 00:28:20

Re: Mars Mission Comparisons - updated with kbd512's proposal

#4 2016-02-22 18:02:29

Re: Mars Mission Comparisons - updated with kbd512's proposal

#5 2016-02-22 19:15:35

Re: Mars Mission Comparisons - updated with kbd512's proposal

#6 2016-02-22 19:23:13

Re: Mars Mission Comparisons - updated with kbd512's proposal

#7 2016-02-22 20:00:11

Re: Mars Mission Comparisons - updated with kbd512's proposal

#8 2016-02-22 23:29:00

Re: Mars Mission Comparisons - updated with kbd512's proposal

#9 2016-03-07 17:54:06

Re: Mars Mission Comparisons - updated with kbd512's proposal

#10 2016-03-11 21:36:45

Re: Mars Mission Comparisons - updated with kbd512's proposal

#11 2016-03-22 11:17:18

Re: Mars Mission Comparisons - updated with kbd512's proposal

#12 2016-03-22 16:27:15

Re: Mars Mission Comparisons - updated with kbd512's proposal

#13 2016-03-22 18:02:50

Re: Mars Mission Comparisons - updated with kbd512's proposal

#14 2016-03-23 12:59:26

Re: Mars Mission Comparisons - updated with kbd512's proposal

#15 2016-03-23 16:46:29

Re: Mars Mission Comparisons - updated with kbd512's proposal

#16 2018-12-09 18:41:51

Re: Mars Mission Comparisons - updated with kbd512's proposal

#17 2021-09-11 08:28:17

Re: Mars Mission Comparisons - updated with kbd512's proposal

#18 2021-09-11 08:33:35

Re: Mars Mission Comparisons - updated with kbd512's proposal

Board footer