Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

GCNRevenger · 2004-03-06 21:42:17

It is still a moot question, and the question of how to get there must be answerd before any signifigant research will be preformed at the ISS... you have to get there first. I imagine the only way to "save" ISS would be for someone to revive the Delta Clipper and make it able to dock to an MPLM sized port, haul at least ten tons (to ISS orbit), and be able to maneuver/loiter a little on-orbit, a difficult feat with Liquid Hydrogen fuel. Making a ship like this would probably cost a few billion, which would make sure it won't happen because it would be too big a fiscal detour for Moon/Mars missions.

As far as growing stuff in space, been there and done that to some point with Shuttle science missions, and the preferable method would be aeroculture anyway which isn't gravity-sensitive.

There is no way in heck a solar sail short of scatalogical proportion could move a 200+ ton space station, nor do you need a space station to deploy one anyway... in fact, it might just block the ISS's solar pannels.

Though it would be nice to develop a space-sickness magic bullet pill or treatment, this is unlikly, and the easiest solution to zero-G life is to simply not be in zero-G for very long... a nuclear NTR engine could make the trip to Mars in three or four months, which we know for fact is short enough to not have to worry.

The ISS is in a horrible orbit for telescopes, produces too much vibration to connect a telescope to the station, nor is the station mobile enough to be very useful as a repair site without a very advanced tug... and since you will have a reliable, cheap manned ship anyway to get there, why do you need a space station? Put a bigger telescope in an Equitorial obit and send up a CEV/DCX/HL-20 instead.

There aren't any good surfaces to attach a tether to ISS either, and unless you mean to have the payload and the rolled-up undeployed tether launched together from the start, a tether will be unrealisticly difficult to pull off.

The list of things you don't need or can't use ISS for goes on...

Bill White · 2004-03-07 09:26:46

The list of things you don't need or can't use ISS for goes on...

Okay, so explain why we are bothering to finish it at all?

GCNRevenger · 2004-03-07 10:15:29

See above...:

"1: We said we would to ESA/RSA/etc, we're already shorting them years of ISS duty by Nasa.
2: As nice as it would be to make Shuttle/ISS go away, simply pulling the plug is logisticly a near impossibility... politicly painful too, laying off thousands that keep Shuttle flying... Nasa will need to start narrowing down SDV designs in the mean time."

dicktice · 2004-03-07 11:12:13

Gee, this is fun--discussing hardware problems for a change. Leaving the problem of getting there and back--not moot, if we treat it as a means of going someplace (the ISS) rather than directly to Moon or Mars. But, just for a moment, consider the uses for the ISS as a permanent space platform from which offshoot platforms of any kind, shape and size, and for whatever purpose, are able to be assembled by the fact of its being there as a base of operations. Methods of fuel storage in parking orbits, involving hydrogen and oxygen electrolyzed from melt-water broght up as ice and stored as such behind a Sun-shade, could be perfected. Produce and oxygenating plant growth involves development and proving of hardware, enclosures, disease control and backup strategies, besides practical hands-off methods of directing shoots and roots initially during germination (such as minigravitational centrifuging) followed by post-sprout vectoring by directed Sun or alternatative light sources. Enabling solar sail experiments to be launched and controlled from on their own--I can't believe you thought I meant for moving the ISS--you must have been kidding! We have to learn how to survive in micro-gravity conditions eventually, so why not use the ISS to develop the methods. Centrifuging sleep platforms 20-feet in diameter, might be a bare minimum means. Bungeed to vibrating platforms, another. One hopes to see (not me, because I'm too old, dammit) rotating "2001: Space Odyssy" type stations, or "Rama" rotating cylindrical space colonies, eventually--but for now, keep it simple, stupid, solutions can be developed in, on and in the vicinity of the ISS. Regarding space telescopes: Assembly, and upgrading, would have been possible docked to the ISS, had the Hubble been designed for it, but it didn't exist. Methods of launching telescope spacecraft away from, and retrieving them, using methods adapted from the Russian's remote controlled ISS servicing spacecraft, would make this practical. It's not a question of launching from Earth "instead," since the ISS already exists. (What's this "instead," unless you just don't want to use it for anything?) Tether experiments need to be deployed in orbit, of course, and from an orbiting object that is relatively massive in comparison to the payload. Now, as to the "difficulties," they can only be worked out where failures can be retrieved, repaired and/or redesigned, over time. It's obvious that the ISS, always facing the Sun, can't be used directly because of the geometry due to orbiting, but a free flyer could be used, surely, in a non-conflicting parking orbit. (I'm thinking of the ice-storage conglomeration, for instance.) The list of things you need a base of operation, in orbit, for purposes neither of us has suggested pro or con so far, must by definition be endless. If you'll consent to keeping the launch-and-return system separate--using another forum for that (you must know my prediliction for an equitorial strato-volcano mag-lev track; coupled with a refueled vertical, powered geostationary atmospheric return) we might collectively just come up enough reasons for supporting the ISS, in future.

Bill White · 2004-03-07 12:08:25

See above...:
"1: We said we would to ESA/RSA/etc, we're already shorting them years of ISS duty by Nasa.

By showing disrespect for the science missions planned for ISS, havent we already damaged our relations with ESA/RSA whether or not we finish ISS reluctantly and with petulance? The above reason for finishing ISS simply strikes me as petulant - - like insisting that your former boyfriend/girlfriend accompany you to a concert or wedding, even after you have broken up.

To finish ISS while steadfastly proclaiming how stupid it is will destroy our relations with the ESA/RSA more thoroughly than making a clean break and offering amends in some other way. European rocket scientists are not stupid and may well be less politically naive than we US-ians. :;):

2: As nice as it would be to make Shuttle/ISS go away, simply pulling the plug is logisticly a near impossibility... politicly painful too, laying off thousands that keep Shuttle flying... Nasa will need to start narrowing down SDV designs in the mean time."

Actually, there is sense to this, especially if large numbers of the STS workforce will reach retirement age (or close to it) by 2010 or 2012. Thus, we will continue to flying shuttle so GWB doesnt lose votes in Florida.

Hey, that may be the best we can do. Still, its an awful lot of money to essentially do nothing.

Therefore, a January surprise (orbiter remains too unsafe to fly, even to ISS) seems a possible scenario, at least to me.

= = =

Why ISS and not Hubble? See first point. Why does Sean OKeefe get to make that final call? How does his claiming "the buck stops with me'' help build a consensus for space that will survive transitions in political power?

Ad Astra · 2004-03-07 13:15:35

By showing disrespect for the science missions planned for ISS, havent we already damaged our relations with ESA/RSA whether or not we finish ISS reluctantly and with petulance? The above reason for finishing ISS simply strikes me as petulant - - like insisting that your former boyfriend/girlfriend accompany you to a concert or wedding, even after you have broken up.

By now, it appears that the Russians and ESA have drawn the same conclusions the US has about how little value ISS possesses. There is a sense that we cannot completely abandon it because of the money that's been spent, but I really think there will be a multilateral scaling back of the station from the original plan.

Bill White · 2004-03-07 15:02:45

John Glenn didn't talk only about the ISS. This e-mail from the Mars Society is focused on those portions of Glenn's comments that seemed far more interesting to me.

John Glenn Calls for "Direct to Mars" Plan
March 5, 2004
For further information about the Mars Society, visit our website at [http://www.marssociety.org][http://www.marssociety.org]www.marssociety.org.
In a speech delivered at Cape Canaveral, former astronaut and US Senator from Ohio John Glenn called for designing the new space initiative around "the direct to Mars" plan.
John Glenn's comments were repoerted in Reuters wire story by Broward Liston, part of which is reproduced below.
From Reuters:
Glenn said he would support returning to the moon for research purposes, but urged the panel to seriously consider whether building habitable moon bases as a stepping stone to Mars was cost effective.
"In effect you're making a Cape Canaveral out on the moon. It would be a smaller one, I'm sure, but it would be enormously complex," Glenn said. "It just seems to me the direct-to-Mars (route) is the way to go."
He warned NASA might "use up all our money on the moon and never get to Mars." One commission member, Neil de Grasse Tyson, an astrophysicist and director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York, called Glenn's testimony "refreshing in its candor."
**** **** ****
Glenn's comments about the need to avoid a massive Lunar diversion are right on the mark. From the engineering point of view, the idea of launching Marsbound spacecraft from the Moon is utter nonsense. The reason why this is so is because rocket propulsion requirements to go from Low Earth Orbit (LEO) to the Moon and land are a delta V of 6 km/s, while it only requires 4.5 km/s of delta-V to go from LEO to Mars and land. So EVEN IF THE LUNAR CAPE CANAVERAL WERE ALREADY BUILT, and large supplies of rocket fuel were available right now, sitting in tanks on the lunar surface, and available FOR FREE, it would still make no sense for a Marsbound spacecraft to go to the Moon and refuel, as it would take more propellant in LEO to go to the Moon than it would to go straight to Mars.
The "Lunar Cape Canaveral" is thus really a LUNAR TOLLBOOTH, which will cost decades of time and tens of billions of dollars to construct, and whose use, forced as a bureacratic imposition on Mars mission planners, would at least double the cost of Mars missions, assuming that any budget were available for Mars missions after the logistic burden costs required to support the Lunar Tollbooth itself are paid for.
If you want to go to Mars, you need to go to Mars.

Hey Bob, can you be a little less wishy-washy about all this? :;):

Bill White · 2004-03-07 16:56:25

You must have not understood my post... permitting useful work to be done on the ISS that does not assist in getting us out of Earth orbit will risk making the ISS a more perminant fixture, and the costs associated with keeping ISS going are large enough that they ARE an impediment to getting us out of Earth orbit.
Everything should be done to make sure ISS is as useless as possible, to make getting rid of it and letting its huge budget be spent elsewhere as quick and easy as possible

Like I said above, disrespect and passive political sabotage of the ISS will damage relations with the ESA/RSA far more than a candid decision for a clean break. And cost us billions in wasted taxpayer money.

Is that really the Bush plan? ???

I sincerely hope Ad Astra is right and we can exit from ISS sooner rather than later with the blessings and consent of our ISS partners.

GCNRevenger · 2004-03-07 20:44:57

At this point in time, with Bush pushing his space initiative with a little more nationalism and saving Nasa from death than "cooperatism," I imagine that little thought would be paid to ESA/RSA other than "what do we need to do to get rid of ISS/Shuttle?"

Although in hindsight, I think am leaning more tward Ad Astra's take, that its too late to stop the project because it has come too far to dump and that the fate of the ISS was negotiated before Bush released his plan... imagine the headlines: "BUSH WASTES >$100Bn by killing ISS, more than the Iraq war bill!!!" ...even though the money has already been wasted, it would be blamed on him anyway.

I also like the fact that one man must ultimatly be in charge of Nasa, because the Nasa experience has shown the concensus of any gov't pannel will be first and foremost how to maintain itself indefinatly, and it makes accountability a much more effective mechanism with only one place to point fingers. O'Keffe concern over another TPS failure (Columbia) is at least partially well-founded, and without ISS and its supplies its iffy that a second Shuttle could be sent up soon enough to rescue them, which would be a scarry operation anyway. But I also think he used the safety excuse so the extra shuttle flight can do ISS duty, since Nasa will be hard pressed to finish by 2010 even with all flights headed to ISS.

I'd like to also mention that Shuttle and ISS were never really seperate projects to begin with... before Columbia ever left pad 39 at KSC on its maiden flight, the question of what do we do with it I am sure came up, and with a vehicle that can't make Lunar orbit, there was but one destination...

Josh Cryer · 2004-03-07 21:20:58

Wow Bill, thanks for that post about the Mars Society comments on Glenn. Lunar Tollbooth for sure! Lunar freaking tollbooth.

GCNRevenger · 2004-03-07 21:28:50

Thats assuming you can use aerobraking though for Mars orbital insertion or deorbiting.

A space station (edit: or at least a fuel depot & construction truss) in a Lunar orbit though does make some sense, and it would be easier (as far as Delta-V anyway) to haul Lunar water to it than from the Earth.

Bill White · 2004-03-07 23:41:58

I'd like to also mention that Shuttle and ISS were never really seperate projects to begin with... before Columbia ever left pad 39 at KSC on its maiden flight, the question of what do we do with it I am sure came up, and with a vehicle that can't make Lunar orbit, there was but one destination...

Conjoined twins, maybe?

dicktice · 2004-03-08 09:15:27

Since none of you appear to see any need for the ISS in any connection with your space travel plans and expectations, how about just deeding it over to the Russians? They, I'm sure would welcome it, as a stepping stone towards their Mars ambitions, by making their much discussed Mir-2 unnecessary.

Bill White · 2004-03-08 09:24:56

Thats assuming you can use aerobraking though for Mars orbital insertion or deorbiting.

Yup. We've been over this ground before. I guess someone just as to try so we can know for sure.

A space station (edit: or at least a fuel depot & construction truss) in a Lunar orbit though does make some sense, and it would be easier (as far as Delta-V anyway) to haul Lunar water to it than from the Earth.

= IF = there are any useful amounts of lunar water readily available, that is.

Edit: shuttle C seems like an awesome platform for deploying a "fuel depot plus construction truss"

Attach the main tank to a custom design depot (in the basic shape of the orbiter) with permanent bolts. Do not detach the main tank after launch. Modify the main tank to allow re-filling with lunar H2 and O2. Launch without crew.

Send to LEO and move to lunar orbit. Voila! - - > a lunar fuel depot with one launch and NO on-orbit assembly.

The custom depot could include a TransHab where the orbiter crew compartment is now and the payload bay could be a work space. Add a robot arm and you have a pretty damn good facility needing only one launch.

= = =

Use shuttle C for cargo and CEV for crew and potential mission architectures simply blossom.

GCNRevenger · 2004-03-08 09:37:26

For a few reasons, and I believe this may actually happen eventually, Mir I was almost commertialized, if the US didn't demands its death so ISS would be "the only game in town" and since Mir I was in bad shape. You could actually call the ISS Mir II... its main modules are Russian (navigation, life support, toiletries/food) with a US lab, solar pannels, and (broken) gyros tacked on.

The first big reason is that Bush wouldn't want to face the criticism of "giving away" $100Bn to the Russians, who have stabbed us in the back over Iraqi/Iranian missiles & wmds already.

Second is that the Russians can't finish ISS, since none of their rockets can carry the remaining componets to the station... in fact, no rocket can except Shuttle, the parts were explicitly designed for it and cannot be sent otherwise.

I think its possible we will let them have it, but not for many years to come in order to finish the thing.

Bill White · 2004-03-08 09:38:05

Since none of you appear to see any need for the ISS in any connection with your space travel plans and expectations, how about just deeding it over to the Russians? They, I'm sure would welcome it, as a stepping stone towards their Mars ambitions, by making their much discussed Mir-2 unnecessary.

Heh!

All I am trying to do is expose the logical fallacies inherent in the Bush space vision. Either finish ISS or quit. Don't finish ISS "because we have to" and use that to justify foolish decisions about shuttle and other future plans.

Anyway - - as for shuttle C - - my current favored scenario is to place an orbiter on orbit to meet up with a subsequent shuttle C launch. Shuttle C can carry 3 ISS components by weight and 2 by volume, so each shuttle C launch can carry 2 ISS payloads and assorted supplies like water, batteriers, clean uniforms, etc. . .

Give shuttle C basic station keeping ability so the orbiter can dock with it. Then the orbiter moves shuttle C over to the ISS and unloads it with the robotic arm.

Return as much of the shuttle C avionics and stuff like that as possible in the orbiter payload bay. Would shuttle C SSMEs fit in the paylaod bay?

8 orbiter flights plus 8 shuttle C completes ISS. 25 orbiter flights to complete ISS just seems far-fetched since O'Keefe seems convinced that the orbiter is just too fragile to rescue Hubble.

= = =

But otherwise, sure, give ISS to ESA/RSA, or maybe sell it to Hilton or Hyatt hotels! :;):

GCNRevenger · 2004-03-08 10:02:23

It isn't a "logical fallicy" to avoid getting blammed for wasting $100Bn or suddenly firing ~20,000-30,000+ Nasa employees, who make up a huge pool of US aerospace skills, in Florida, California, and Louisiana. Its easier to finish the d**n thing than it is to pull the plug at this point.

We do have to in order to not leave so many gov't employees, which are by the way promised jobs by law if memory serves, out to dry and to fulfill international agreements with Russia and Europe.

About using Shuttle-C to finish ISS... no, it will take too long to make Shuttle-C available, plus building a whole new ship and launching TWO shuttle stacks to move three cargos is only a marginal improvement. Instead, make somthing more like Energia: giant rocket with modest-to-large cryogenic upper stage, little or no station-keeping with no reuseability beyond the boosters (RS-84 and RL-10/64 engines are cheap), tailored for maximum payload (giant Ariane-V style payload faring, not wingless shuttle cargo bay).

clark · 2004-03-08 10:07:05

All I am trying to do is expose the logical fallacies inherent in the Bush space vision. Either finish ISS or quit. Don't finish ISS "because we have to" and use that to justify foolish decisions about shuttle and other future plans.

But isn't that the plan? To finish the ISS first?

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Some call that wisdom.

We 'have to' finsih ISS. We can't just walk away, just like we can't walk away from Iraq.

That said, we can look for a way to expidite the entire matter. If we can arrange to cut back the ISS further, and the international partners can be mollified with this result, then we can win.

It's generally unwise to give up a capability in the hope of developing a similar or greater capability in the near future. You're looking to take a greater gamble because of the unknowns, whereas we have at least an idea of what the risk and limits are of the current known system.

I'm all for a SDV, but not at the exspense of giving up the Shuttle immediately. If the SDV fails, for whatever reason, then where are we?

GCNRevenger · 2004-03-08 10:11:24

Nasa is putting together plans for robot Moon missions before a manned base would be committed to I think, so we'll know if its worthwhile to stay in a big way before we have to decide.

The Shuttle tank isn't well suited to long-term storage of LH or LOX in a vacuum, and getting the thing to orbit would be hard enough, much less getting the whole thing to a Lunar orbit. Getting to Lunar orbit will roughly half the amount of total mass you could send which will be around 40-50 tons, and with the tank weighing a good chunk of that, I think a purpose-built setup would be preferable. Put it into LEO and push it with a Nuclear/Ion tug perhaps.

Bill White · 2004-03-08 10:13:53

It isn't a "logical fallicy" to avoid getting blammed for wasting $100Bn or suddenly firing ~20,000-30,000+ Nasa employees, who make up a huge pool of US aerospace skills, in Florida, California, and Louisiana. Its easier to finish the d**n thing than it is to pull the plug at this point.

I agree, of course. As does Senator Glenn.

I believe Zubrin's main point is to merge the various programs as seamlessly as possible. I see three distinct objectives:

Finish ISS
Go to Moon
Go to Mars

Spacefaring capability is developed along the way. Why scrap the technology needed to accomplish each step and then re-invent the wheel for the next step?

We do have to in order to not leave so many gov't employees, which are by the way promised jobs by law if memory serves, out to dry and to fulfill international agreements with Russia and Europe.

Okay - so lets finish ISS in a manner than better leverages the next step. Don't finish ISS and then throw away the tools used to finish ISS.

If we save only 4 orbiter flights but can pay for shutle C development by doing so, its a win-win, right?

About using Shuttle-C to finish ISS... no, it will take too long to make Shuttle-C available, plus building a whole new ship and launching TWO shuttle stacks to move three cargos is only a marginal improvement. Instead, make somthing more like Energia: giant rocket with modest-to-large cryogenic upper stage, little or no station-keeping with no reuseability beyond the boosters (RS-84 and RL-10/64 engines are cheap), tailored for maximum payload (giant Ariane-V style payload faring, not wingless shuttle cargo bay).

If we save 4 flights thats 2 billion dollars that can be transferred to shuttle C development costs and we end ISS completion with a new heavy lift system. A 2 for 1 deal.

Besides, who still believes 2010 is feasible anyways? NASA works its tail off to implement CAIB and fly 25 missions and then we throw away all the engineering legacy developed between 2004 and 2010. Why?

Flying shuttle C is easy compared to a SDV with a new upper stage and therefore is an incremental step to something like Ares or another new booster. A new booster might be a good idea except it forces us to re-invent the wheel.

If some of the development costs can be spread onto ISS completion, giving more bang for every buck, why is that a bad thing?

GCNRevenger · 2004-03-08 10:17:17

We did expedite the matter, by cutting about six years off US involvement in ISS, eliminated alot of the science that would be done up there, and have essentially canceled the US hab module which will doom ISS to be useless.

Energia works, Shuttle works. Simply mix the good design and the good hardware together... it will work. Building the "classic" Shuttle-C with reuseable engines will both cut into the payload mass by 20-40 tons, but also isn't nessesarry with the low cost of Delta-IV and Centaur cryogenic engines... get rid of the reuseable SSME and you get rid of alot the expense, its almost cheaper to build a new one each flight. Edit: Its not re-inventing the wheel, because all the hardware exsists today... Delta-IV RS-68 engines and flight computers plus a Centaur-G upper stage used on the Titan... more payload mass, no reuseability nightmare, easy construction.

Bill White · 2004-03-08 10:19:39

All I am trying to do is expose the logical fallacies inherent in the Bush space vision. Either finish ISS or quit. Don't finish ISS "because we have to" and use that to justify foolish decisions about shuttle and other future plans.
But isn't that the plan? To finish the ISS first?
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Some call that wisdom.
We 'have to' finsih ISS. We can't just walk away, just like we can't walk away from Iraq.
That said, we can look for a way to expidite the entire matter. If we can arrange to cut back the ISS further, and the international partners can be mollified with this result, then we can win.
It's generally unwise to give up a capability in the hope of developing a similar or greater capability in the near future. You're looking to take a greater gamble because of the unknowns, whereas we have at least an idea of what the risk and limits are of the current known system.
I'm all for a SDV, but not at the exspense of giving up the Shuttle immediately. If the SDV fails, for whatever reason, then where are we?

The plan is to have NASA work its butt off to implement CAIB, fly 25 orbiter missions to finish ISS then throw away all that engineering legacy so we can escape the fized overheard of the STS program, to free up money for the EELV based Constellation/CEV program which will be started from scratch.

That is just stupid, especially if we also express disrespect for the ISS science missions at the same time.

Edit: GNCR writes:

Energia works, Shuttle works. Simply mix the good design and the good hardware together... it will work.

Hey! I thought I was saying exactly this.

Where does the money for Constellation come from? By cancelling the STS overhead after ISS is compelte, which means scrapping the ability to mix these technologies as you propose.

Move right to a shuttle stack plus a new upper stage? Fine by me. Zubrin's Ares could "one throw" your purpose built lunar fuel depot, right?

Bill White · 2004-03-08 10:26:36

We did expedite the matter, by cutting about six years off US involvement in ISS, eliminated alot of the science that would be done up there, and have essentially canceled the US hab module which will doom ISS to be useless.
Energia works, Shuttle works. Simply mix the good design and the good hardware together... it will work. Building the "classic" Shuttle-C with reuseable engines will both cut into the payload mass by 20-40 tons, but also isn't nessesarry with the low cost of Delta-IV and Centaur cryogenic engines... get rid of the reuseable SSME and you get rid of alot the expense, its almost cheaper to build a new one each flight.

SSME or RS-68 is a bean counter decision.

Shuttle B is based on RS-68 and I read Northrup claims to have an even cheaper engine. If there is no need to recover SSMEs, that is a very good thing.

An orbiter/shuttle B/C tandem however does allow creative mission architectures as early as 2012 while Constellation/CEV won't be man-rated until 2014.

= = =

Don't forget institutional inertia.

One reason I favor shuttle derived is that President Bush and Sean O'Keefe can get something flying by January 2009. Having the operational ability to move large payloads to LEO before the next President takes office minimizes the danger that the fellow sworn in come January 2009 "pulls the plug"

clark · 2004-03-08 10:31:21

Okay, assume that we end up with an SDV, built off of the exsisting infrastructure of the Shuttle system. A finished ISS.

Now what?

If we have a SDV system, then we don't need to launch the CEV on EELV, do we?

If we have and SDV, where do we generate the cost savings to build the CEV? Wouldn't we require more funds just to build the CEV?

We will still need a return-from-orbit capability for some science projects, I don't believe that the SDV can do this, can it? If not, then we need another source for this capability... right now, people are trying, but nothing real exsists yet.

Would Shuttle C be able to launch anything to the Moon? If we do develop the SDV, before the CEV, then we may make engineering compromises that prevent us from building the 2nd generation HLLV (Ares or whatever) when we start contemplating Mars. We could create the same problem we have been running into over and over again already.

GCNRevenger · 2004-03-08 10:32:35

slow down man, i'm on a modem and carpel tunnel medication...

But its a BIG beancounter decision... the engines are ready and available. The tank is essentially ready and available with only limted modifications. The upper stage has been in use since I was born... it is not that big a deal to combine them compared to making a beheaded TPS-less orbiter which only hauls 2/3rds as much. Its Shuttle derived AND Delta-IV derived AND Titan derived...

Nasa can do ISS with Shuttle by 2010-2012 I think, especially since the expectations have been cut down to nothing, so its worthwhile to make a good rocket that can do more per-launch than to make one that can do less PLUS ISS duty, which we will be done with pretty soon.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-03-06 21:42:17

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#27 2004-03-07 09:26:46

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#28 2004-03-07 10:15:29

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#29 2004-03-07 11:12:13

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#30 2004-03-07 12:08:25

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#31 2004-03-07 13:15:35

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#32 2004-03-07 15:02:45

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#33 2004-03-07 16:56:25

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#34 2004-03-07 20:44:57

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#35 2004-03-07 21:20:58

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#36 2004-03-07 21:28:50

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#37 2004-03-07 23:41:58

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#38 2004-03-08 09:15:27

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#39 2004-03-08 09:24:56

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#40 2004-03-08 09:37:26

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#41 2004-03-08 09:38:05

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#42 2004-03-08 10:02:23

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#43 2004-03-08 10:07:05

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#44 2004-03-08 10:11:24

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#45 2004-03-08 10:13:53

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#46 2004-03-08 10:17:17

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#47 2004-03-08 10:19:39

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#48 2004-03-08 10:26:36

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#49 2004-03-08 10:31:21

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#50 2004-03-08 10:32:35

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

Board footer