New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

idiom · 2004-05-13 04:25:21

Low pressure normally triggers dehydration reactions.

Well for some well know plants dehydration reaction = producing volumes of THC.

Perhaps there is a cash crop that would be worth exporting then?

deagleninja · 2004-05-13 05:29:40

I still don't see a good arguement against Mars Direct as a starting point for colonization.

As far as a good reason to do it in the first place....money. Clark, if you stand back and look down on a mission to Mars, I admit, it is hard to see the benefit at first, but let's look closer.

Say we use Mars Direct or a cheap Russian alternative to colonizing, we are going to spend about 15-20 billion initially. Ok, so people are there now, what now? Newpapers are going to cover the stories as they break creating a real need for a scientific minded reporter or more hours for the ones they have. Advertisers are going to spend millions maybe billions with this new subject matter both comical and serious. Colleges will see a significant raise in enrollment similar to the Apollo era, but sustained for a longer time. More educated people means higher paying jobs equals more tax revenue for the government. The aerospace industry will be challenged to provide faster, cheaper access to Mars, and by default the Moon, Europa, asteroids, etc. More money.

We aren't talking about a 'touchy-feely' need to spread our wonderful race to other worlds. What we are talking about is a new and the greatest of all industries. As I'm sure Bill White can tell you, new industry (failed or successful) means economic growth. The real gains for a Mars colonizing effort aren't going to be materials we can import, but rather a new breed of men and women. With new lifestyles comes new ways of looking at old problems.

Look at our country for instance. Today we may be decadent, fat, useless consumers, but it wasn't always so. This country was created by people longing for a better way of life. They thought it so important that tommorrow be better than yesterday that they designed our government to be both tolerant and flexible. We still benefit from those old laws, and people that they didn't see needing help (women and blacks) have recieved it. Although we may be less popular these days, countries strive to be like us. So you have our founding countries changing themselves to be more democratic.

Mars will definately be a better community than what we have now, and will likewise affect Earth for the better. It is a hostile, challenging environment that will weed out the 'undesirables' by it's very nature. Recycling and efficency will be a way of life for these people not a choice. They won't know what wasteful is for several generations. We are going to send only the smartest, bravest and maybe the wealthiest of us. This is going to be the seed for the next great political entity. Even the wealthy have a place. If some of our richest people go to Mars they are going to help make Mars a force in the 'world'. They will strive to make Mars an economic force to better pursue their desires.

England was settled by people seeking a better way of life and dominated the world for about 200 years till their colony took the spotlight (and still today they benefit). The US was settled by people seeking a better way of life, now it's our turn to start a colony and therefore the next step in humanity.

GCNRevenger · 2004-05-13 08:20:56

Hey, you don't see me saying that colonizing Mars would be a bad thing, do you? I think your list of the benefits might be optimistic with the short attention span that people have these days however.

I'm saying that MD is just barely maybe good enough to support the science mission while stretching safe weight allotments and crew physiology/psychology to the limits. Since it isn't practical to make a rocket much bigger than Ares, direct flight to Mars enforces fairly small payload masses and few flight opportunities especially since it relies on conventional chemical propulsion.

All this rolled together means that a base created using the MD arcitecture will be doomed to be a "Martian McMurdro" and little more. Ares can deliver 20-30MT of materials to the surface for around $1.0-1.5+Bn (don't forget the lander and payload faring) and can do this only two or three times per two year orbital allignment plus one or two crew trips. It is my opinion that this isn't enough to do more than sustain a small team of scientists, and is a far cry from what is needed for a colony.

So, since MarsDirect is limited in its abilities fundimentally by the limits of its launch vehicle, launch rate, and low energy fuels then the question begs... is it really such a good idea to begin with, if you can't upgrade or expand it beyond a Martian McMurdro?

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-13 08:51:52

So, since MarsDirect is limited in its abilities fundimentally by the limits of its launch vehicle, launch rate, and low energy fuels then the question begs... is it really such a good idea to begin with, if you can't upgrade or expand it beyond a Martian McMurdro?

The question, then is what constitutes expandability. While interchangeable parts for all components at all stages would be ideal, it's unworkable. So we're going to have some degree of waste, in the sense that we're going to send stuff that in time becomes useless.

Jump ahead to Mars Direct. Say we have three occupied habs on the surface and between them an inflated greenhouse. Fairly modest 'settlement.' The greenhouse will probably not produce enough food for the crew without supplies from Earth, and who wants to eat soy-based meat substitute anyway?

The habs are non-upgradeable except for minor, field-expedient modifications. We'll assume the ability to produce Oxygen and Hydrogen, as well the ability to extract/recycle sufficient quantities of water.

What does this collection of an insufficient greenhouse, three habs, twelve people and some assorted gear have to offer to colonization?

That fact that twelve people are on Mars, at least partially living off the land. It's a start. Will the structures they erect become the center of thriving Martian city? No. But it shows that surviving on the planet is possible. It makes it plainly clear that the biggest obstacle is an unwillingness to try. That first base may never expand beyond its modest size, but it will be the first step.

If we wait until we have a fully upgradeable, modular collection of colony-building goodies, we'll never do anything. Mars Direct has problems, but it's a step we can take now. Stumbling forward today is preferable to putting it off to some unspecified future when we're "ready."

MD gets us to 'first base,' so to speak.

GCNRevenger · 2004-05-13 09:54:37

I would reguard "expandable/upgradeable" as meaning that the system wouldn't already be at the limits of its capability, as MD launches directly using the largest practical vehicle with a near maximum flight rate, just for the first small scale missions. MD itself is already dangerously underweight before its even rolled to the pad, still requires a long flight time and small payloads thanks to the limits of LOX/LH, and is completly expendable with no possibility of reuseability.

In short, a Martian Apollo.

I think we should use somthing better than MD on the first trip... it doesn't have to be a giant "Discovery 1" SEI battlecruiser, but it does need to be a bit larger than MD. A ship of intermediate size, 1000sec Isp Nerva-NTR engines with a fuel condenser possibly, aerobraking on both ends of the flight for orbital entry not landing, no ERV - same vehicle both ways. Built on the ground, launched by EELV/"EELV+" or HLLV if its cheap enough to develop, assembled by docking only and CEV flights, no ISS shipyard nonsense. Bring all crews and surface payloads up on EELV/EELV+, so that in the future when we build Shuttle-II, we can use the same ship and cut costs.

Ian Flint · 2004-05-13 10:18:51

GCNR,

I'm all for the 1000sec isp NTR engines and the reusable space-only ship. I just think it is a second generation vehicle. MD first, then use what you learn from that to make the second generation vehicle better. Just one question, though, how do you propose to get your return fuel without an ERV? I suppose you would use a reusable cargo ship of some sort, possibly a NIMF?

Tim · 2004-05-13 10:22:40

A) PlanBush Jr= PlanBush Sr revisited.
B)This administration is also deeply committed to running up the largest budget deficits in history, which should be a larger issue in the election than space.

I would have to look up the numbers, but I'm positive that as a percentage of GNP that Reagan's deficits were larger, and they caused no lasting damage that I can see.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-13 10:28:30

I think we should use somthing better than MD on the first trip...

I agree, MD is a bare-bones non-upgradeable architecture and something bigger and faster is preferable.

If the money materializes for such an undertaking I'm all for that approach, but if the choice is between going with MD or not going, I'm for Mars Direct.

We've got a toolbox with some old stuff and a catalog with all the cool new gadgets. The question is how much do we have to spend and are we trying to fix the sink today or build a house next year?

Bill White · 2004-05-13 10:30:57

I would reguard "expandable/upgradeable" as meaning that the system wouldn't already be at the limits of its capability, as MD launches directly using the largest practical vehicle with a near maximum flight rate, just for the first small scale missions. MD itself is already dangerously underweight before its even rolled to the pad, still requires a long flight time and small payloads thanks to the limits of LOX/LH, and is completly expendable with no possibility of reuseability.
In short, a Martian Apollo.
I think we should use somthing better than MD on the first trip... it doesn't have to be a giant "Discovery 1" SEI battlecruiser, but it does need to be a bit larger than MD. A ship of intermediate size, 1000sec Isp Nerva-NTR engines with a fuel condenser possibly, aerobraking on both ends of the flight for orbital entry not landing, no ERV - same vehicle both ways. Built on the ground, launched by EELV/"EELV+" or HLLV if its cheap enough to develop, assembled by docking only and CEV flights, no ISS shipyard nonsense. Bring all crews and surface payloads up on EELV/EELV+, so that in the future when we build Shuttle-II, we can use the same ship and cut costs.

An Earth-Mars cycler, that never lands on either planet, do I read that right? Makes sense to me.

Can you refuel nuclear engines? Or maybe "plug and play" and just save enough fuel to dump used engines into the Sun and launch new engine modules from Earth.

Yet who will pay for this and why?

= = =

My thesis is that some human group might well jump the gun and establish a Mars colony just before such a vessel came on-line, using the inferior MarsDirect architecture (with tweaks, of course).

Get in on the ground floor, beat the rush.

= = =

IIRC, RobertDyck has proposed that the first few ERVs remain in Mars orbit and the crew ascend in a barebones lifter from the Mars surface.

deagleninja · 2004-05-13 10:56:24

GNCR, I hope I didn't offend you. My post was not an attack on anyone.

Perhaps I was being a tad optimistic, but considering that a colony on Mars is going to spawn new industries we can't even think of now, not to mention reinvigorating older industries, I don't think I was that far off the mark.

As I see it, Mars Direct's entire purpose is to be a temporary shelter while a permanent shetler is created. Like it or not, the first generation of Martian colonists are going to have to be vegetarian. And yes, some of us do like that 'soy-based meat substitute', I had some fake sausage and bacon this morning

Anyway you look at it, someone is eventually going to Mars. It is simply a matter of when and who. Whoever does it is going to do it cheaply because it hasn't been done before and is therefore a great financial risk. Mars Direct may not be perfect, but it can get us there without breaking the bank. Once people are there, things get a lot easier in a sense. Shipping cargo to Mars will always be cheaper than shipping people.

However, our colonists are going to have to make as much of their own goods as possible. It is likely going to take much longer to get cargo to Mars than we do rovers because of the weight difference. So anything essential will have to bear the 'Made On Mars' tag.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-13 11:08:12

And yes, some of us do like that 'soy-based meat substitute', I had some fake sausage and bacon this morning

Blechh! This has always vexed me: why make it look like meat? It's... the culinary equivalent of... oh nevermind.

However, our colonists are going to have to make as much of their own goods as possible. It is likely going to take much longer to get cargo to Mars than we do rovers because of the weight difference. So anything essential will have to bear the 'Made On Mars' tag.

That's another factor to consider. MD-type architecture could be used as a means toward establishing the beginnings of rudimentary industry on Mars. Just the basics that inhabitants will need to survive and build. The more self-reliant they are, the better. When Martians can thrive with no aid from Earth, then real progress can begin.

deagleninja · 2004-05-13 11:10:35

I'd just like to add real quick, that no matter what our differences on other issues, it is good to see so many people with a passionate interest in Mars.

We may disagree on which plan is best or whose ideas are better, but we have one thing in common. That is a need to see people (black, white, red or yellow) walking on the surface of a world that has inspired so many human dreams since the dawn of time.

deagleninja · 2004-05-13 11:23:37

LOL, Cobra I get asked that all the time. I don't know why they make it look like meat. I guess it has to look like something.

As a vegetarian, I can honestly say that I love the taste of meat. I love the chewy goodness and smell of meat. Quite possibly, the human brain has come to associate the taste and smell of meat with survival.

Some products have come a long way, other have not. I recently cooked up a Morningstar Griller Prime, topped with cooked onions, mushrooms and cheese, and feed it to my girlfriend. She couldn't tell it wasn't meat and didn't believe me when I told her.

Now the varieties of 'gardenburgers' are a different story. They consist of blk olives, celery, carrots, etc and most people spit them out because their brains were expecting meat and got blended vegetables.

There are many reasons for being a vegetarian. Mine is that I love animals and can't eat them when I don't have to. I eat milk and cheese, vegans do not. They are a weird bunch, don't trust them...

I mean I love animals, but Ms. Cow, I need your milk to make me cheese!!!

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-13 11:39:54

There are many reasons for being a vegetarian. Mine is that I love animals and can't eat them when I don't have to. I eat milk and cheese, vegans do not. They are a weird bunch, don't trust them...

Hmm. I can respect that.

Vegans, on the other hand... I won't be too surprised if in a few generations someone's eating them. Based on the role of high protein levels in the evolution and development of the human brain.

Need that protein, silly Eloi.

Bill White · 2004-05-13 13:21:23

Vegans versus rare beef? Come on, we got too many fights going on already.

Read http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id … ert=0]this carefully;

Then http://www.spacedaily.com/2004/04051312 … .html]this;

and finally http://www.arianespace.com/site/news/st … .html]this.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-13 13:37:15

Let's get these Ruskis on board, unless they're Vegans, of course. :;):

But seriously, we could have the best of both worlds. Why not just buy the equipment and expertise that suits us, we get what Russia has to offer without bringing partners into the mix. Sure, they'll object at first but it's all bargaining. We can get to Mars quickly and cheap without even having to dent our unilateralism.

idiom · 2004-05-13 15:20:11

What if MD was doubled, so that you sent 4 launches every two years, and the extra two were both supllies and contruction materials... Domes, and consumables?

Also if each crew takes a pair of happy chickens and leaves them on Mars with the new crew and their chickens...

MD is not upgradeable much, but it is scaleable and would do for 20 years until second generation transport came online.

Also you don't have to bring the whole crew back...

MD is a simple way to initiate colonisation.

Ian Flint · 2004-05-13 15:53:39

agreed

deagleninja · 2004-05-13 19:34:25

Thanks for the links Bill. I'm a little disturbed, truth be told. Not only are we incapable (some would say unwilling) of launching manned missions, we seem to be losing the infastructure race as well.

Is it just me or does it not seem that Russia is the darling of spaceflight now? I'm sure it is played up over there that they must help 'poor american comrades'.

I was afraid that our fleet being grounded too long would cause the world in general to lose faith in us. Starting to wonder if NASA can pull off this major facelift if it won't be too little too late.

Like I've said, I don't care if someone beats us to Mars, as long as someone goes. But it is still more than a little depressing to see us struggling.

idiom · 2004-05-13 21:20:40

It used to be said (mostly by Americans) that spaceflight/technology is one of the indexes of a society.

Nasa should be really proud of the twin rovers. Those two little beauties have operated near flawlessly. Russians are still havng difficulty hitting the planet.

The manned spaceflight segment needs to be completely overhauled. Its time for the Shuttles and their technology to head to museums around the World.

The USA really has no worthwhile manned flight program, but the Russians are not actually fairing much better. They still can't put more then three people up at a time, and outside of LEO Russian hardware goes all to pieces.

Don't despair at the state of America, despair at the state of Spaceflight in general. And then pin your hopes on the rising stars of the X Prize class vehicles, the dark horse Ruskie projects and most of all, Plan Bush.

Euler · 2004-05-13 21:28:42

Don't despair at the state of America, despair at the state of Spaceflight in general. And then pin your hopes on the rising stars of the X Prize class vehicles, the dark horse Ruskie projects and most of all, Plan Bush.

If those are are best hopes, then we really should despair.

deagleninja · 2004-05-14 07:34:49

The offical height that SpaceShipOne reached in its thrid test flight was 212,000 feet! That's about 2/3 of what is required to win the X-prize.

I really think they are going to pull it off guys.....amazing.

GCNRevenger · 2004-05-14 15:01:53

And then pin your hopes on the rising stars of the X Prize class vehicles, the dark horse Ruskie projects and most of all, Plan Bush.

You ARE joking, aren't you?

A little reminder about orbital mechanics... in order to STAY in space, you have to achieve orbital velocity. It doesn't matter if you can fly 200,000ft or 2,000,000ft straight up, without the lateral (not vertical) velocity, you and your payload will promptly fall straight back down. Okay? Now, the orbital velocity for low Earth orbit, the lowest altitudes where drag won't be an issue for days/weeks, is around Mach Twenty Five... none of the X-Prizers' even break Mach 2-3 laterally.

THIS is why none of the X-Prizers' will be doing more than flying rich space hobbyists up just above the atmosphere, and maybe shooting lunchbox-sized payloads to orbit. Considering the extra weight involved for a heat shield and various other systems, all the current and not-silly X-Prize rockets are roughly two orders of magnetude too small for practical manned flight.

So, SS1 needs to hundreds of times more powerful, and White Knight hundreds of times bigger, and the whole thing hundreds of times more expensive before you can think about fielding a vehicle with orbital capability. Elon Musk's rocket the Falcon-I which can't launch sats to GEO still has not yet flown a single time, and would itself need to be about four times the power for a manned vehicle. Kistler Aerospace is around $700M in the hole and their rocket is only half finished and only half the size needed, plus no customers lined up (no GEO access either).

There is a very good reason why it takes such large rockets to get people or reasonable payloads into orbit, because there is a minimum practical weight (~10,000-15,000lbs for 2 seats, ~20,000lbs for 3-4) for safe construction, and even with the best chemical fuels you cannot move more than a small fraction of vehicle weight into space. Hence, the vehicle must be very big and operate at the limits of its materials and fuels, making it expensive and difficult...

No no, I have no faith in the X-Prize people. Suborbital flight is easy, orbital flight is extremely hard... When Elon Musk makes a rocket that can do 10-12MT to LEO reliably then I might change my mind, but with him going on about silly things like ISS cargo or replacing ICBMs with Falcons, I have little reason to take him very seriously, especially with the launch market so bad right now.

Edit: A little object lesson... http://www.astronautix.com/craft/maks.h … t/maks.htm
A Russian space shuttle concept with a small spaceplane riding a large fuel tank riding a large airplane. The airplane, White Knight's counterpart in the scheme, is the An-225 and the world's biggest airplane. The fuel tank, 32m long and 250MT with the headache of holding three kinds of fuel. The Shuttle part being about 25-35% bigger than you'd need for soley human or light satellite cargo weighing it at 18.4MT with its heavy experimental dual-fuel rocket engines... A far cry from the dinky SS1; Burt Rurtan is good at building small airplanes, but this is REAL spaceflight, and far exceeds him.

idiom · 2004-05-14 17:02:38

My point was aimed at the generally woeful state of spaceflight.

Everybody goes on about the Russians but at the moment their best play is putting three people into LEO.

There is a very good reason why it takes such large rockets to get people or reasonable payloads into orbit, because there is a minimum practical weight (~10,000-15,000lbs for 2 seats, ~20,000lbs for 3-4) for safe construction, and even with the best chemical fuels you cannot move more than a small fraction of vehicle weight into space. Hence, the vehicle must be very big and operate at the limits of its materials and fuels, making it expensive and difficult...

Your payload starts at about 1% glow and works its way down from there. I know the numbers.

At least Plan Bush seems to be dumping Leo only equipment.

Euler · 2004-05-14 19:12:20

Your payload starts at about 1% glow and works its way down from there. I know the numbers.

Don't modern HLLVs have about 4% glow as payload? I know that Saturn V had 3.9% glow as payload, and Delta IV heavy can get 1.83% glow to GTO.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2004-05-13 04:25:21

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#77 2004-05-13 05:29:40

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#78 2004-05-13 08:20:56

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#79 2004-05-13 08:51:52

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#80 2004-05-13 09:54:37

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#81 2004-05-13 10:18:51

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#82 2004-05-13 10:22:40

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#83 2004-05-13 10:28:30

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#84 2004-05-13 10:30:57

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#85 2004-05-13 10:56:24

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#86 2004-05-13 11:08:12

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#87 2004-05-13 11:10:35

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#88 2004-05-13 11:23:37

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#89 2004-05-13 11:39:54

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#90 2004-05-13 13:21:23

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#91 2004-05-13 13:37:15

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#92 2004-05-13 15:20:11

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#93 2004-05-13 15:53:39

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#94 2004-05-13 19:34:25

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#95 2004-05-13 21:20:40

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#96 2004-05-13 21:28:42

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#97 2004-05-14 07:34:49

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#98 2004-05-14 15:01:53

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#99 2004-05-14 17:02:38

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#100 2004-05-14 19:12:20

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

Board footer