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

clark · 2004-01-14 12:24:45

To develop Shuttle B will cost LESS than making the orbiter SAFE for use through 2010.

I don't have the numbers, but let's assume this: What do we need Shuttle heavy lift for after ISS? We have the Shuttle to build the ISS- to go back and forth to ISS and earth.

After ISS is complete, we don't need the Shuttle anymore for building things in LEO. We won't be investing in the Great Observatories, so we won't need the Shuttle.

We can send humans to the Moon on exsisting rockets- we don't need the Shuttle engines for that. In fact, we will be BUYING the rockets we need- government no longer will produce them.

Use the Shuttle up until 2010, invest only what is neccessatry to keep them useful towards building ISS. By the time we're ready to do Moon Base Grovers Mill, priavte industry should have woken up and said, hey, government needs heavy lift, we'll build it! Or just buy it from the Europeans, Russians, or Japanese.

We are going to see if the private enterprise folks are right about space access, that government should get out of the way.

If we build the SHuttle B, and get rid of the exsisting orbiters today- we still have to build and test Shuttle B. Yet we still need to build the ISS, now. After we're done with the ISS, what would we need Shuttle B for? What would it do?

Bill White · 2004-01-14 12:43:16

If we build the SHuttle B, and get rid of the exsisting orbiters today- we still have to build and test Shuttle B. Yet we still need to build the ISS, now. After we're done with the ISS, what would we need Shuttle B for? What would it do?

I sense a potential Zubrin explosion. Who leads heavy lifters you ask? Maybe George Bush = Emperor Ming. :laugh:

Burn the ships! Burn the ships! Burn the ships!

Before we decide on a plan maybe we should ask whether Shuttle B deployment would or would not be cheaper than making the orbiter human-ready. Besides, we can finish the ISS without risking humans flying in the orbiter.

The RS-68 is a proven engine, bought "off the shelf" aren't they cheaper that SSMEs? Since the SSMEs will all be thrown away in 2010 anyway who cares that the RS-68 will be a use once engine?

Design the payload to imitate as closely as possible the weight distribution of the orbiter. Re-do as little engineering as possible. If needed add a disposable fairing to mimic orbiter aerodynamics.

Question for you rocket scientists: How hard would Shuttle B be to test and launch?

Twice the payload for 1/2 the price per launch (no orbiter tile processing for example) - - seems like a no brainer - - if only to save money between now and 2010.

But Hey! - - Lets throw it all away and return to the drawing board.

clark · 2004-01-14 12:48:28

Okay, I hear ya.

Why not convert the current Shuttle fleet to automatic launch, docking, and recover. No more people go up in it. We finish the ISS, then look at Shuttle B as a cargo hauler after the demise of the Shuttle.

I think this wil be one of the areas that gets refined by Congress and the 'Space Exploration Comittee".

I can't argue when you are so freaking sensible Bill. Please stop, if not for me, then for the children.

Bill White · 2004-01-14 13:25:18

Why not convert the current Shuttle fleet to automatic launch, docking, and recover. No more people go up in it. We finish the ISS, then look at Shuttle B as a cargo hauler after the demise of the Shuttle.

Because you still have to land the shuttle by remote operation and refinish all those gadzillion freakin' tiles. One by one, by hand.

And you still only get 1/2 the payload to LEO that shuttle B can deliver. The cost of one launch saved should pay for development costs with room to spare.

How many orbiter flights are needed by 2010 to finish ISS? Cut that number by 50% and use the savings to deploy an unmanned shuttle derived booster able to carry twice as much payload.

clark · 2004-01-14 13:32:34

Sounds too good to be true. Anyone else shed some light on this?

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-14 13:37:06

I sense a potential Zubrin explosion. Who leads heavy lifters you ask? Maybe George Bush = Emperor Ming.
Burn the ships! Burn the ships! Burn the ships!

:laugh:

tim_perdue · 2004-01-14 15:35:44

Was I the only one who noticed that NASA TV played a mars-direct-ish shuttle-C 5-minute animation right after the president's speech?

Sure looks sensible, and politically-safe to me - keep all those shuttle workers employed, but working on something sensible.

Tim

GCNRevenger · 2004-01-14 16:10:32

What I would like to see happen...:

-Shuttle re-man-raiting programs will be stopped, and Shuttle will be operated unmanned until ISS is complete and the ESA cargo vehicle is complete

-Shuttle-C/B/Z configurations are actually carried out... traditional stack with the new 5-segment super SRBs, 2-3 RS-68 engines on the bottom of the tank, and a monster mega payload faring used as needed, tall and wide enough to hold six Shuttle/EELV-sized payloads (stacked in clusters of 3), and with a son-of-Centaur orbital insertion stage on the bottom of the faring.

-Nasa HL-20 or similar vehicle selected to serve as the CEV, since the ISS will be tended by Soyuz capsules, we have the time to "do OSP right" and abandon the old capsule concept.

-Use EELVs for everything except very large payloads, and in the distantish future, build the X-30 NASP style SSTO using technology from the USAF Falcon hypersonic bomber in order to bring costs down in the medium-term, like shipping up fuel and colony hardware to reuseable transfer vehicles launched by the Shuttle-C/B/Z etc.

Now about Mars and Antarctica...

The fact that Antarctica isn't being mined is because of the economics of the venture, which are much much worse on Mars and pretty bad on the Moon. No no, you can't bring the wealth of Mars to Earth since its too heavy... but we can bring the people to the wealth of Mars. Colonies first, economics second.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-01-14 12:24:45

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

#52 2004-01-14 12:43:16

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

#53 2004-01-14 12:48:28

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

#54 2004-01-14 13:25:18

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

#55 2004-01-14 13:32:34

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

#56 2004-01-14 13:37:06

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

#57 2004-01-14 15:35:44

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

#58 2004-01-14 16:10:32

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

Board footer