How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

clark · 2004-01-11 10:55:52

Mars Direct cheerleaders, here is your solution, and challenge:

The new space directive will be supervised by a 'comittee' that will watch NASA and greenlight the strategies...

Get Zubrin on it.

Heavy launch will come from Europe, Russia, and Japan (if japan can get it together). By getting rid of our own home grown heavy launch, private industry in the US now has what it wants- no government competition.

We can use the promise of more launches (=$)as a way to win hearts and minds in Europe and Russia, so the Chinese are stymied, and it reinforces our other alliances.

Spider-Man · 2004-01-11 12:06:44

Did you guys know about this?

http://www.marssociety.org/news/2003/1029.asp

This is incredible. I've e-mailed both McCain and Bush, telling them to get Zubrin to the President. That's all it'll take.

Palomar · 2004-01-11 12:33:45

Did you guys know about this?
http://www.marssociety.org/news/2003/1029.asp
This is incredible. I've e-mailed both McCain and Bush,

*Hi Spider-Man. Yep, and I've been contacting my gov't representatives too. I've not yet gotten a reply from any of them...but will "keep at it." I'm currently writing them about once every two weeks; short, to the point, and different letter each time.

The time is especially ripe now. "Out of sight, out of mind"...so those reminders are vital.

--Cindy

Rxke · 2004-01-11 13:21:14

Heh. Yes, Spider-Man... This was exactly the news that made me go totally crazy, initially. My very first post here was totally, utter excitement about that event.

Imagine, following Zubrin's 'windmill-fight' from a (safe) distance for years, thinking he'll never get heard and then all of a sudden seeing him sparkiling at these hearings, i went totally nuts...

And I am *still* convinced he *did* make a deep and lasting impression on the board.... just look at the 'closing comments' on the link you gave.

EDIT: *oops* no eye-candy on the link... (i saw the hearing, and some site had it in bits and pieces, forgot wich...)

Spider-Man · 2004-01-11 13:36:33

Indeed, Rxke. We're so close to getting to Mars; and a lot of the brief phrases that Zubrin used reminded me very much of the rumors of Bush's announcement. It may be that the two presidents already have met one another. If so, then Bush has a plan like Mars Direct, and we will be there in less than a decade. If not, Bush and Zubrin need to meet, at once, so that our future may be given its salutary life's breath.

I recommend everyone who reads this send a quick e-mail to the President (president@whitehouse.gov) commending his proposals and urging him to meet with Dr. Robert Zubrin, sine mora! (without delay)

Bill White · 2004-01-11 16:03:16

Mars Direct cheerleaders, here is your solution, and challenge:
The new space directive will be supervised by a 'comittee' that will watch NASA and greenlight the strategies...
Get Zubrin on it.
Heavy launch will come from Europe, Russia, and Japan (if japan can get it together). By getting rid of our own home grown heavy launch, private industry in the US now has what it wants- no government competition.
We can use the promise of more launches (=$)as a way to win hearts and minds in Europe and Russia, so the Chinese are stymied, and it reinforces our other alliances.

Excellent practical suggestion.

Also, the popular media is all over the map about "when" its on to Mars - - some say robots on the Moon in 2013 and Mars "maybe" in 50+ years and others say Mars missions will absolutely begin in 10 to 20 years.

I guess we gotta wait until President Bush releases details.

But track the expectations being established by the major media. President Bush had better deliver a plan worthy of America.

Mundaka · 2004-01-11 16:59:17

clark · 2004-01-11 19:43:30

Also, the popular media is all over the map about "when" its on to Mars - - some say robots on the Moon in 2013 and Mars "maybe" in 50+ years and others say Mars missions will absolutely begin in 10 to 20 years.
I guess we gotta wait until President Bush releases details.

Don't make me pull this car over! We will get there when we get there.

Remember, enjoy the ride.

But track the expectations being established by the major media. President Bush had better deliver a plan worthy of America.

Which America? ???

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-11 20:16:20

Dertails were released on a prelim basis tonight... seems that it's a "moon sometime soon and Mars sometime later" sort of thing. Politics as usual, imho.

Source.

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-11 20:17:19

BTW, Mundaka, I'd just like to say welcome aboard.

I say it to all our newcomers, but check out the Spirit & Opportunity thread, it's all so very exciting.

Rxke · 2004-01-12 03:19:47

Hi, Mundaka, welcome, nice post BTW
But...

"Sir, are the radio signals you uploaded to your rover traveling at the speed of light, or some other speed?"

You got to be kidding ? ? ?

Well that at least is *one* reason to start sending people to Mars.. Then *everybody* will know the answer to speed of light questions like that! (Only half kidding: like that other reporter said: kids are not interested in space.. Of course they aren't Ms Brainmelt! There's nothing happening on the spacefront lately to be interested in! (Spirit is a temporarly exception)
But is it good kids prefer terrestrial matters (let me guess... TV, ripping shoddy MP3 tracks of the intarweb, some TV, hamburger and to top it off some more tv....)
No, Ms Brainmelt! That is *BAD* I cringe to see kids growing up like that... I as a kid at least had some dreams of going to the stars, read as much as i could, got some science in my head while doing so, and discovered a whole new world: education can be fun! I haven't looked back ever since.
Silly male fantasy, Ms Brainmelt, Hello? (Knocks on her forehead) Anybody home?
Take the minister of science in France (yes, France, Ms Brainmelt!) She's a former astronaut. She. And I'm sure she'd be overjoyed to hear news that, yes, we're going to Mars.

(Ok, stop. Can you tell I'm mad?)

Aetius · 2004-01-12 04:48:25

It frosts me when TV talking heads who have a demonstrated ignorance of all things space-related, deign to criticize ideas they hardly understand. The lack of knowledge on the part of people whose job is to editorialize is rather astonishing.

clark · 2004-01-12 13:46:06

A little more info is coming to light... this one about the international aspect of the space proposal:

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=200 … 4749-7399r

By Frank Sietzen Jr. and Keith L. Cowing
United Press International
Published 1/12/2004 11:01 AM

WASHINGTON, Jan. 12 (UPI) -- President George W. Bush will ask for international participation in his plan to resume missions to the moon and to send human crews to Mars within the next 20 years, a senior administration source told United Press International.
The decision means foreign launch vehicles or spacecraft components likely would play an important role in the space effort.
As UPI has reported, Bush is expected to announce Wednesday sweeping changes in U.S. space policy, including retiring the space shuttle fleet and gradually withdrawing from participation in the International Space Station. The president is scheduled to deliver the speech at 3 p.m. EST at NASA headquarters in Washington.
Although the thrust of the Bush space initiative will be within the context of domestic policy, sources said the president prefers the United States avoid undertaking such ambitious exploration journeys alone, if at all possible, and that the new plan not rule out international participation.
As of last Friday, however, aerospace industry sources told UPI none of the major U.S. partners in the International Space Station -- including the European Space Agency, Japan and Canada -- had been contacted to arrange a briefing before the president speaks on Wednesday.
Inviting such participation comprises a complex issue, however, whose full impact on the new space policy probably will not become apparent until later this year, sources said, when the overall architecture of Bush's new space policy begins to emerge.
International cooperation in space has created problems for the U.S. government in the past, particularly involving Russia. In the mid-1990s, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration was required to pay the Russian space program several hundred million dollars a year under the auspices of space station construction.
Russia's participation, initially justified as a way to help defray the cost of the project, ended up adding years to the station's schedule and costing additional billions.
The biggest problem with Russia's participation was NASA had placed it in the so-called critical path of space station development, sources said. The Russian space program often could not perform as promised, resulting in station construction delays.
U.S. dependence on Russian rockets has continued in the wake of the shuttle Columbia accident on Feb. 1, 2003. With the U.S. shuttle fleet grounded, NASA has been forced to rely on Soyuz spacecraft to carry humans to and from the space station.
Bush's new plan figures to continue that dependence, sources said. It calls for NASA to retire the shuttle fleet after the space station is completed. Although NASA is supposed to develop a new type of spacecraft -- called the crew exploration vehicle -- the process will require nearly a decade, during which the agency again will become reliant on Russian vehicles for station access.
This part of the plan is expected to draw the most criticism from Congress when legislators begin to examine its details. Though it might be possible to ease some of the Russian space program's problems by providing financial aid, the U.S. government is prohibited from doing so. Russia is technically in violation of the Iran Non-Proliferation Act of 2000. The U.S. government cannot purchase Russian goods or services until Russia changes its policy toward Iran to comply with nuclear non-proliferation requirements.
The situation could require NASA to rely on the other countries participating in the station program to provide funding to Russia for Soyuz flights so Americans can continue to live and work aboard the station.
In fact, the U.S. government has been undertaking this indirect strategy for some time. Sean O'Keefe, NASA's administrator, has stated "not 1 cent has yet to be transferred to Russia" for space services. He said Russia and the other nations participating in the space station have "stepped up admirably and behaved like partners" to help the United States adapt to the grounding of the shuttle fleet.

Bill White · 2004-01-12 15:13:35

By Frank Sietzen Jr. and Keith L. Cowing

Hmmm. . .

clark always wins his bets. Wonder if one of these guys is an old college roomie?

= = =

In truth, if President Bush and President Chirac join forces for humans to Luna, it would be a win-win for humans in space and help repair the U.N./Iraq debacle all in one swoop.

Wow!

clark · 2004-01-12 15:24:54

Would you believe that a crazed and dirty one-eyed hobo on a north bound train to Washington told me everything as we hitched a ride in a drafty boxcar and huddled around a small fire in a garbage pail?

I had looked into his bad eye, the one filled with the gray murky cloud of glaucoma, and he just cackled. He asked what I was looking at. I asked if he could see. He said he could see better than I could.

He proved it. And then told me to enjoy the ride.

I can neither confirm, nor deny this story.

clark · 2004-01-13 12:52:00

http://interestalert.com/brand/siteia.s … 20Breaking

[http://interestalert.com/brand/siteia.s … 20Breaking]President's plan revamps station research - LINK

By KEITH L. COWING AND FRANK SIETZEN JR., United Press International

WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 (UPI) -- The scientific research conducted aboard the International Space Station by the United States will be completely revamped under President Bush's new space policy.
Bush on Wednesday is expected to announce a new focus for America's human space exploration efforts. Missions will be directed outward from Earth to the moon and, eventually, Mars and the asteroids. Sources told United Press International American assets on the space station will be dedicated to meeting that goal.
Senior administration sources told UPI that just as the U.S. space shuttle fleet is retired to make way for a new vehicle to carry humans into space, the space station will find itself reoriented to a more focused set of tasks.
Some existing or planned research will be either scaled back or canceled, sources said. The new focus will be to ensure humans can spend long periods of time safely and productively in space as they travel to and from distant destinations, such as Mars.
The current emphasis of U.S. space research is a mix of material, physical and life sciences.
When the space station was first proposed by President Ronald Reagan in 1984, it was designed to address a variety of interests -- political, industrial and geopolitical. Reagan's plan was part Cold War diplomacy, part national pride, part science.
In the years that followed, the space station saw its design, cost, mission, and even its name change many times. Each change inevitably added to its cost and delayed its construction. Original station plans called for completion in 1992, on the 500th anniversary of Christopher Columbus' voyage to the New World, at a cost of $8 billion. Now, some 20 years since Reagan proposed the project on Jan. 25, 1984, the station remains under construction and still will not be completed until later in this decade. Current projections peg its eventual cost at more than $100 billion.
The delays and cost overruns -- although they have produced some scientific achievements -- have served to make backing the station a constant challenge to its supporters in Congress and the administration.
Supporters have called the station a crowning achievement of human space technology, noting it has melded many spacefaring powers together into the largest, most complex vehicle to ever be placed in Earth orbit. Yet the station's shortcomings loom large and its completion date remains undetermined.
Completion traditionally has been defined as the point at which all of the modules developed by the United States, Europe, Canada and Japan are in place -- and when most of the core equipment, to be provided by Russia, is delivered as well. This includes the U.S. centrifuge module currently being developed by Japan. It is likely all of these modules and systems will still be accommodated, but expansion beyond this configuration is unlikely, sources said.
Though the European Space Agency, Japan, Canada and Russia all have their own respective station assets -- and plans for them -- it is all but certain there will be substantial changes in their research as well as they adapt to the aftereffects of the new Bush plan.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration will reverse several longstanding research priorities for the project. During the summer of 2001, officials reviewed extensively what was being done on the space station and why. The activity, called ReMAP, struggled to develop a prioritized ranking. The final report on the effort, completed last year, only managed to take all of the existing projects and list them all as essentially high priority. Only one item was considered for termination. Critics complained that few hard choices actually were made.
Soon, NASA will begin another such effort. This time, however, any U.S. station research that does not directly support the life science questions needed to certify humans for long-duration interplanetary trips will be marked for reduced emphasis or termination.
Possible targets for such cancellation, sources said, include material science, such as metallurgy and basic physics; basic, non-human biology; plant physiology, and cell culturing experiments. This does not mean none of this research will be conducted aboard the space station. Rather, it will likely continue using the equipment and laboratories of other countries.
Sources suggested it is unlikely that changes in station programs will affect other areas of NASA's research, such as astronomy, physics or earth sciences. On the other hand, once the United States has answered questions about human adaptation to space, it is likely to end its space station participation -- probably around 2013

See what kind of results you can get if you threaten to quit... ??? :;):

Bill White · 2004-01-13 13:13:59

Possible targets for such cancellation, sources said, include material science, such as metallurgy and basic physics; basic, non-human biology; plant physiology, and cell culturing experiments.

Cancel plant and cell growth research?

Isn't that how we are supposed to feed astronauts far away from Earth? And convert CO2 into breathable oxygen?

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-13 13:16:56

What does 'non-human biology' comprise of?

clark · 2004-01-13 13:16:57

Unless the research directly relates to sustaining people in space, it will be canceled or reduced. That dosen't mean all of the plant and cell growth research, just the stuff with less applicable results to human exploration will be cut.

Wait and watch for a the 're-definition' of research proposals to show how they all relate to human exploration though.

jadeheart · 2004-01-13 14:17:00

We really do need a more scientifically-aware press corps. The scary thing is that a lot of the journalists covering the current Mars mania are the MOST scientifically savvy individuals the press has to offer. They're the cream of the crop-- the ones who're assigned to cover sci-tek issues by their respective publications.

We need a better crop.

To switch gears a bit, in response to something GCN said awhile back: I don't think Mars will ultimately be Antarcticized. Initially this will be so-- scientists/astronauts will be the only folks to go. But part of the reason Antarctica is reserved for science (mostly) is because of the Antarctic Treaty; Antarctica is the only pristine place left on Earth and as such this gives it intrinsic value. Mars is an entire world with the same amount of land area as the Earth. Parts of it may be cordoned off, but not the whole thing, IMO.

Another reason is the difficulty of resource extraction. Unlike Mars, Antarctica is covered almost entirely by a constantly-moving ice sheet that's a couple of miles thick. (Plenty of water, but that's it and it's not terribly valuable on Earth at the moment.) Mars is not. (Granted, Mars is much further away, but I'm thinking in terms of Martians extracting resources for their own use.) Once we have overcome the distance issue (which we'll have to do just to get there) and get a little infrastructure going I think Mars will *eventually* be developed/exploited. There's plenty of Mars to go around. (Sure, Antarctica is vast too but the developable parts are almost non-existent.)

It's also worth pointing out that Antarctica can be opened & developed at some point in the future-- all that has to happen is for the Treaty not to be reratified at the next iteration of it. (I think this happens every 10 years or so, maybe 20.) And really, nothing is explicitly stopping anyone from going to Antarctica who wants to go-- if they have the money and/or resources. There is a burgeoning Antarctic tourism industry, as well as several private expeditions every year. But there IS a consensus of several nations and a body of international law in place to try and keep the place from being trashed like so much of the rest of the world already is. I personally think this is a good thing and exporting a certain amount of this attitude to Mars will also be a good thing.

RobS · 2004-01-13 15:51:03

Yes, Mars will definitely need national parks.

Spider-Man · 2004-01-13 16:49:16

Cancel plant and cell growth research?
Isn't that how we are supposed to feed astronauts far away from Earth? And convert CO2 into breathable oxygen?

Not in the near future. Any Mars Direct plan, for instance, simply uses standard, reliable meathods of regeneration and recycling.

What does 'non-human biology' comprise of?

Usually of putting a bunch of little mice into a little satelite to study their little responses to zero-g (or "little-g", as goes the political correctness of the day), and then ultimately cutting off their little heads with little guillotines to study the effects of that in zero-g too.

Dr. Zubrin told us about that one at the dinner we had prior to his presentation a year ago.

Bill White · 2004-01-13 17:37:04

Cancel plant and cell growth research?
Isn't that how we are supposed to feed astronauts far away from Earth? And convert CO2 into breathable oxygen?
Not in the near future. Any Mars Direct plan, for instance, simply uses standard, reliable meathods of regeneration and recycling.
What does 'non-human biology' comprise of?
Usually of putting a bunch of little mice into a little satelite to study their little responses to zero-g (or "little-g", as goes the political correctness of the day), and then ultimately cutting off their little heads with little guillotines to study the effects of that in zero-g too.
Dr. Zubrin told us about that one at the dinner we had prior to his presentation a year ago.

Fair enough. President Bush is right to kill off that stuff. The orbiter should have been killed yesterday.

Just don't kill the crawler or the VAB or plants growing in 5 psi atmospheres. Algae and microbes are also useful for fixing nitrogen. Astronauts would grow weary eating MREs all the time.

Now, if only President Bush will call for shuttle derived boosters, then all is well, IMHO. A new big booster would be cool, but a budget buster.

Why not use a new unmanned shuttle derived booster to fulfill ISS commitments at a way lower cost and NEVER fly the orbiter again? The cost for Shuttle B development might well be less than what is needed for orbiter upgrades, which is be scrapped by 2010 anyway.

Hasn't NASA called for an "on orbit" repair kit? Spend that money on Shuttle B with those RS-64 engines and send ISS stuff up on uncrewed launches.

The CEV lifted on Atlas and/or Delta combined with dissipation of shuttle infrastructure? In that case, no one American is going to Mars for many, many decades.

IMVHO, as always.

clark · 2004-01-14 11:02:25

Why not use a new unmanned shuttle derived booster to fulfill ISS commitments at a way lower cost and NEVER fly the orbiter again? The cost for Shuttle B development might well be less than what is needed for orbiter upgrades, which is be scrapped by 2010 anyway.

Becuase they don't want to spend anymore money on the Shuttle. They want to kill it. The commission report coming out of the Columbia disaster requires that we invest a great deal of money into the Shuttles- we're better off just cutting the cord now, and figuring out another solution.

There are other solutions.

The CEV lifted on Atlas and/or Delta combined with dissipation of shuttle infrastructure? In that case, no one American is going to Mars for many, many decades.

What about the much bally-hooed private industry? Perhaps there is an answer there.

Bill White · 2004-01-14 12:17:24

Why not use a new unmanned shuttle derived booster to fulfill ISS commitments at a way lower cost and NEVER fly the orbiter again? The cost for Shuttle B development might well be less than what is needed for orbiter upgrades, which is be scrapped by 2010 anyway.
Becuase they don't want to spend anymore money on the Shuttle. They want to kill it. The commission report coming out of the Columbia disaster requires that we invest a great deal of money into the Shuttles- we're better off just cutting the cord now, and figuring out another solution.
There are other solutions.
The CEV lifted on Atlas and/or Delta combined with dissipation of shuttle infrastructure? In that case, no one American is going to Mars for many, many decades.
What about the much bally-hooed private industry? Perhaps there is an answer there.

To develop Shuttle B will cost LESS than making the orbiter SAFE for use through 2010. There is talk of developing on-orbit repair capability, right? How expensive is that? Shuttle B can carry 2x - 3x the payload of the orbiter. One Shuttle B launch can carry TWO orbiter payloads to the ISS.

Flying one Shuttle B to the ISS (even with the R&D) would seem to cost less than two shuttle orbiter missions even if we ignore orbiter re-fit costs. Why spend money to re-fit the shuttle making it safe for humans to fly and then just scrap it a few years later?

Stand down the shuttle orbiter TODAY. No more orbiter flights, ever.

Use those savings to develop Shuttle B and throw more weight to the ISS. Then, by 2010 we have an unmanned heavy lifter ready to use, if desired. The other plan calls for investment in orbiter re-fit and upgrades and then the scrap heap leaving us in 2010 with no heavy lift whatsoever.

All for the same price tag!

What about the much bally-hooed private industry? Perhaps there is an answer there.

Hype. IMHO. Falcon V is tiny compared with Shuttle B or Ares.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-01-11 10:55:52

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#27 2004-01-11 12:06:44

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#28 2004-01-11 12:33:45

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#29 2004-01-11 13:21:14

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#30 2004-01-11 13:36:33

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#31 2004-01-11 16:03:16

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#32 2004-01-11 16:59:17

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#33 2004-01-11 19:43:30

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#34 2004-01-11 20:16:20

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#35 2004-01-11 20:17:19

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#36 2004-01-12 03:19:47

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#37 2004-01-12 04:48:25

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#38 2004-01-12 13:46:06

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#39 2004-01-12 15:13:35

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#40 2004-01-12 15:24:54

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#41 2004-01-13 12:52:00

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#42 2004-01-13 13:13:59

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#43 2004-01-13 13:16:56

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#44 2004-01-13 13:16:57

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#45 2004-01-13 14:17:00

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#46 2004-01-13 15:51:03

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#47 2004-01-13 16:49:16

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#48 2004-01-13 17:37:04

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#49 2004-01-14 11:02:25

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

#50 2004-01-14 12:17:24

Re: How to kill Mars Direct - DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!

Board footer