You are not logged in.
I plan to submit an article to the National Review and Weekly Standard regarding President Bush's plans for the moon and Mars. My article charges that the Bush plan is too timid and that all of his goals could be accomplished by following the Mars Direct program over a ten year time period.
I'm not that good with those kinds of details, could anyone here provide a ten year timetable of sorts?
Some notes:
1) The plan should begin in 2006.
2) It should include at least one (and probably two) Mars orbiters that would circle the planet in polar orbit to provide the best ever resolution of potential landing sites. These should be at least five years PRIOR to the manned missions.
3) The plan should include at least one unmanned "test launch" of the Ares launch vehicle.
4) The plan should call for two long duration (six months) lunar missions utilizing the Mars hab and a smaller version of the Earth Return vehicle. These should occur at least two years prior to the manned Mars missions.
5) It should stick with Dr. Zubrins original four astronauts per mission, two launches per mission plan.
Any takers?
Offline
You should spend a few hours reading all the scenarios on David Portree's marvelous "Romance to Reality" website:
[http://www.marsinstitute.info/rd/faculty/dportree/rtr/]http://www.marsinstitute.info/rd/faculty/dportree/rtr/
-- RobS
Offline
Don?t be too critical. As of yet it is the only plan put forth by anyone in a position to make such a plan happen.
Dig into the [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/2006/12/political-grab-bag.html]political grab bag[/url] at [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/]Child Civilization[/url]
Offline
We do have a lot of talented people on this board. I also have contact with a few other members who don't post here, including a few aerospace engineers. However, there are many mission plans that would work. The quickest would make use of non-American assets, such as the Russian Energia launch vehicle, and Soyuz descent module. The ERV could use two descent modules and a single enlarged orbital module connected to both capsules, and provide 6 months of life support. Two astronauts plus 85kg of samples per capsule. This would avoid development of a lot of hardware, but you would need thee launches: Hab, ERV, and a cargo lander with vehicles and laboratory.
Or you could use Mars rendezvous similar to the mission architecture of Apollo. That would launch a Mars Ascent Vehicle first, then the astronauts would be sent in an interplanetary vehicle with a lander and inflatable surface habitat. The interplanetary vehicle would park in orbit until the astronauts returned to it via the MAV, then return to Earth. As I've said before, if the MAV is the trans-Earth injection stage then it still makes full use of ISPP. A couple Soyuz descent modules attached to the interplanetary vehicle would return crew to Earth. This architecture has the advantage of a reusable orbit-to-orbit spacecraft.
Whatever the architecture, I would suggest a sample return mission to prove ISPP, and one unmanned mission with manned hardware. A manned mission to the Moon with Mars hardware would further prove the equipment, but would have to be modified. The first manned mission to Mars should land on the surface; orbit is much more dangerous than the surface.
So how much American hardware do you want to use, vs international?
Offline
Lemme add my 2 cents... First off, Dayton, make sure you emphasize the need for an SDV/HLLV. Remember to mention fixed costs, and the security of current shuttle workers. Also, Don't mention a moon mission should occur 2 years before a Mars mission; Although the hardware is more-or-less the same, the mission profiles are too different (for a moon mission to be a test bed for mars). The periodic launch windows to Mars means an SDV doesn't get work for 2.5 years. In order to keep launch costs of the new SDV low, work for it can be sustained by using it to launch Lunar missions between Mars mission launch windows, and for cheap deployment of orbital facilities, space hotels, 10 meter telescopes, etc. To NASA, an SDV doesn't make all that much sense, as they don't see much use for a 100 tonne booster. We have to remind them of all the things it can do, how cheap it will be, and how valuable it will be in the future.
Don't hardwire your proposal; keep it flexible. Also, is a high resolution mapping precursor mission all that smart? Is it really necassary, and, more importantly, might it reduce the value of exploration by human eyes?
NASA guys don't listen to philosophical crap... But be sure to give them every other reason why we should send humans to Mars, and soon.
- Mike, Member of the [b][url=http://cleanslate.editboard.com]Clean Slate Society[/url][/b]
Offline
Oh yes, Dayton3 called for a high resolution mapping obiter in polar orbit. We already have 3: Mars Global Surveyor, Mars Odyssey, and Mars Express. Each has different instruments, but if you want high resolution images of a potential landing site, just ask JPL to use the high resolution mode of the Mars Orbiter Camera to image it. JPL is taking requests, [http://www.msss.com/plan/intro]click here.
Offline
I would want basically all American hardware. Call it 95% or more.
The reason is political. The more "internationalized" a manned Mars program gets, the lower the support it will get from the American people.
Diplomats and Washington insiders view "international cooperation" as getting other nations to help foot the bill.
Americans as a whole view "international cooperation" as the U.S. paying other nations to cooperate.
The two long duration lunar missions I put in there despite Dr. Zubrins aversion to them as part of a manned Mars program.
Why?
1) A "lunar base" is part of the Bush program so something that couples a manned Mars program to that is most likely to get support.
2) Scientific reasons. A four man crew spending six months on the moon can achieve many times as much as all six Apollo lunar landing missions.
3) Immediate return on investment. A "return to the moon" gives the American taxpayers something quick to point to that the program achieves. Important given that a manned Mars landing might not follow for as much as three or four years.
4) "Mentality" reasons. One scientist in Discover magazine advocating a mission to a Near Earth Asteroid mentioned this. He said he just didn't see the U.S. going from 40 years of missions in low earth orbit to the surface of Mars in one leap. I don't either. Oh I'm sure it could be done, but lots of people both scientists and layman would be uneasy at the prospect.
And yes, I would go with the Ares design, Shuttle Derived Launch vehicle as my steed of choice.
Although if I wouldn't be adverse to modifications to it that would still fit the KSC infrastructure if payload could be increased somewhat.
Offline