SpaceShip One date set for final test flight! - History in the making....

clark · 2004-06-10 09:45:35

What about launching from Brazil? They have nuclear reactors, and are working towards greater launches... maybe India? Isreal? Iran... if you can get past the Mullah (and have the moola!) Japan?

Of course some are too closely linked to the US and her interests, but there may be some wiggle room with some others, if the winds blow right.

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-10 10:00:21

As I understand it, you are aiming to build a private version of MarsDirect, correct? Adhereing to the Zubrin plan as best you can in order to reduce the cost and hardware requirements such that a private organization could afford and accomplish the task.

Here is a breif overview of how MarsDirect (MD) is supposed to work:

-A large rocket of Saturn-V class is needed to send the Earth Return Vehicle and the manned Habitation Module to Mars in two separate flights. Using a smaller rocket is not very practical because MarsDirect is already very optimistic mass wise, and extensive orbital assembly would drive the cost & complexity even out of Nasa's reach. Trying to launch a fueled TMI stage and manned Hab separatly would require two launches in rapid sucession (hours, not weeks), the risk of docking, and would still require a rocket many times the size of the current heavy lift rockets. No storable propellant offers sufficent impulse, LOX/LH2 is essentially a nessesitty for the TMI stage.

-The trajectory selected for MD requires a 500 day stay on Mars in order for the planets to allign and to keep time spent in transit reasonable (6mo each way, the best you can do with chemical engines) and to make it possible to launch the vehicles in only one or two flights of reasonable size.

-The ERV will arrive first carrying a small amount of liquid hydrogen, a Sabatier reactor to convert carbon dioxide and hydrogen to oxygen, methane, and water, and of course the power source... a 300kWt/100kWe nuclear reactor to operate the fuel plant. It is not safe to rely on any native source of any chemical except carbon dioxide, which is the only one we know for fact is easy to collect in bulk. The oxygen and methane will be the fuel for the ERV to return home with, not liquid hydrogen. This is what is unique and revolutionary about Zubrin's plan, that most of the rocket fuel will be produced on Mars as LOX/L-CH4.

-The manned Hab arives two years later and lands (hopefully) near the ERV with their very cramped Hab module, supplies/water, and probably for safety their own nuclear reactor. They "do Mars" for two years, then get into the very VERY cramped ERV and come home six to nine months later.
---
To review, you cannot escape the box:

~You still need a really big rocket, tripple to sextupal the size of any current or near-term proposed vehicle. Otherwise you must make many many launches to make up for fuel boiloff and do massive orbital construction, dooming the project.
~You still need two space ships reliable enough and big enough to sustain the crew safely in space and on Mars for at least three to four years without dying of radiation sickness or going insane.
~You still need that nuclear power plant! Why is solar not good enough you ask? Well i'll tell you...

First of all solar pannels on MARS would recieve about 1/4th to 1/5th the light as cells do near Earth because of the distance and trace dustin the air. So your 100kWe cells on Earth just got five times as big.

Now you have to have power at night too, at least a good portion of what you have during the day. So, you will have to bring batteries or a reversable fuel cell, adding weight and failure modes... those batteries on the ISS keep burning out with regularity, but thats okay, you'll just get more sent up from Earth! Uh oh... no you won't what was sent is what you have, and no more.

Batteries and fuel cells are not 100% efficent, and infact aren't real good at all, so now you need to produce the power you need at night plus the efficency difference during the day along with the regular power usage for the Sabatier fuel plant. I would figure your solar cells just doubled in size again, making them ten times as big as the ones needed on Earth.

And if there is an unexpected dust storm? Whoops, your crew freezes to death, or at the very least there is no fuel to return home with and the crew dies of starvation.

An SSPS system you say? Oh good god, don't even get me started...
-Solar cells in space wear out from radiation, a solar flare might be fatal
-Transmitting/focusing the energy from an altitude of 25,000km in Martian geosynch orbit down to a small (10m-ish) receiver is like trying to hit a gnat
-What if the thing breaks? A short? Gyro failure? The crew dies too

No no, a nuclear system is an absolute nessesitty or a solar system becomes too heavy for any rocket to lift and an SSPS system is just begging to fail.

Bill White · 2004-06-10 10:04:57

What about launching from Brazil? They have nuclear reactors, and are working towards greater launches... maybe India? Isreal? Iran... if you can get past the Mullah (and have the moola!) Japan?
Of course some are too closely linked to the US and her interests, but there may be some wiggle room with some others, if the winds blow right.

Only the US, EU, Russia and China have the ability to place objects in orbit.

(Query - does Israel have a "made in Israel" launch system capable of placing sats into orbit?)

To have the lift needed to actually send payload to Mars would be viewed as proliferation of weapons systems, IMHO.

Didn't Clinton offer to launch North Korean weather satellites below cost to remove the argument that they "needed" launch technology?

A private sector launch program that gave Brazil a reliable Earth to LEO capability would annoy the Pentagon, IMHO.

This is why DH-1, IMHO, would give the NORAD generals apoplexy and why I believe the lack of official hysteria over alt-space is a sign they don't think sub-orbital will reach orbital any time soon - - which ties this post into the original thread!

= = =

Edit: Note that Elon Musk and Falcon have been brought into the fold with Air Force contracts. All the better to keep an eye on him as well as leverage Lock-mart and Boeing.

deagleninja · 2004-06-10 10:16:53

GCN, why must we always argue?

I think our main difference is that what I see as challenging you see as impossible. You are good at pointing out obsticles that an endeavor faces, but I feel you often understimate new approaches that haven't been tried and future progress.

Side Note: anyone see the recent article on space.com about the new material which can boost solar cell efficency from its current ~30% to 50%?

I can also find the article on the CO2/methane engine if anyone is interested.

GCN, you mentioned Viking in your post. Are you aware that the biological experiment was designed to detect microbes in Earthlike concentrations of billions per gram and nothing lower? This seems like an error in human judgement. I would also say that deciding to launch the Challenger shuttle in sub-freezing temperatures was human error. Mars Polar Lander crashed because someone used miles instead of kilometers. Beagle II failed upon entry because humans didn't take atmospheric thinning into account. Spirit's initial computer glitch was due to controllers trying to upload too many commands at once.

My point is simply that the technological hurdles have been crossed in nearly all areas where a human mission to Mars is concerned. However, the problem isn't our technology, but the people behind it. I will grant that NASA is getting better at addressing safety concerns, but will they stay vigilant? Columbia wasn't our first tragedy as you know.

I didn't suggest that our martian crew rely on unproven technology. In fact, I believe that it be best to send the infastructure beforehand to further prevent risks. Love Mars Direct or not, it is always better to have the necessities waiting on you (return vehicle).

GCN, I will always value your opinions and leap at the opportunity to debate you should my views call for it. Please don't take anything I say personally, or let it upset you.

Amandacruising, thank you for your kind words of support and encouragement as well as bringing a fresh perspective to these forums. It is my hope that you find the time to visit and share your thoughts often.

Whatever our differences, we all share a longing to see humanity expand its reach and its horizons. This shared vision is what binds us together and what will ultimately make humans on Mars a reality.

Thank you.

deagleninja · 2004-06-10 10:39:59

Ok, my math may be a little fuzzy here but aren't you over-estimating how large martian solar panels will need to be? Ten times bigger seriously? How are those little rovers getting by with such small solar panels to travel hundreds of feet a day and transmit all their data and use their scientific packages?

It was my understanding that they carry radioactive elements to keep electronics warm by radioactive decay. Are the producing nuclear power as well?

I know that Mars recieves only 40% as much sunlight as the Earth. I also know that solar panels in orbit produce roughly ten times as much energy as their ground based counterparts because there's no atmospheric scattering effect.

Doesn't Mars' thinner atmosphere make up for the fact that it is farther from the Sun?

Don't get me wrong GCN, I would hope that a mission to Mars DOES include nuclear power of some variety even if only as a heat source. However, I think it foolhardy to rely on just one source of power. Nuclear reactors have their own problems you know. Nothing is fail proof.

Bill, doesn't Japan have orbital launch capacity?

IMHO.......grrrrr

The Pentagon needs to quit making space access harder than it is. Is any progress being made on updating or killing the Iran Non-Proliferation Treaty that is keeping NASA from buying Soviet goods?

Bill White · 2004-06-10 10:57:58

Bill, doesn't Japan have orbital launch capacity?
IMHO.......grrrrr
The Pentagon needs to quit making space access harder than it is. Is any progress being made on updating or killing the Iran Non-Proliferation Treaty that is keeping NASA from buying Soviet goods?

Japan? Yup. I was wrong. After all they are coming close to ISS supply rocket capability.

But do you think Tokyo will support a launch Washington opposes?

= = =

I agree totally with GCNRevenger about the need for nuclear reactors for electricity for crew support. I am less convinced nuclear propulsion is necessary, at first, but it would be very nice to have.

Maybe, maybe a very short "dusty feet" visit and scamper home could be done without a nuclear reactor yet that would only be the most symbolic of visits. Hardly worth it, IMHO.

Nukes and heavy lift means government, for better or worse.

clark · 2004-06-10 11:37:01

Well, here is a counter argument Bill.

If the Pentagon was really that worried about the nuke stuff, why would they really want to push nuclear reactors in space? Now, they want it for themselves, but it's kind of like opening Pandora's box, or letting the cat out of the bag.

A bigger stink can be made if a priavte venture is the first to deploy nuclear reactors in space, but the smell isn't so bad if the Pentagon has been doing it for a while (or NASA).

So, what do the smart tend to do? They realize and anticipate a problem, and instead of trying to damn againt the inevitable flood, you get ahead (ahem, your idea if I'm not mistaken...) of the curve. hat puts the Airforce 2025 and space dominance into perspective, no?

Heavy lift control can't be stopped either, because eventually, somebody is going to go through the trouble of an orbital hotel. That won't happen without HLLV of some sort, and it will be good business for the country that pursuses (optimistically speaking of course).

I'm more inclined to believe that DOD is just going to shrug, and say, "we're ready." come the time a private venture of some sort considers this.

The Euro's won't be ready for this until 2030 (nuclear). China? They've barely begun. Russia dosen't have the cash. America really will be the first to do nuclear propulsion in space of some sort. Setting the stage for american dominance of LEO (it is all about the energy requirements). Have you seen the models they are considering for the Space Vision? They all center around a moon-earth tugboat that never comes down. Most of the diagrams involve nuclear for this thing.

Rxke · 2004-06-10 12:07:17

For the peeps wanting to go and see SS1 do it's thing:

http://www.space.com/news/mojave_histor … 0.html]You surely won't be the only one...

Bill White · 2004-06-10 12:30:37

Well, here is a counter argument Bill.
If the Pentagon was really that worried about the nuke stuff, why would they really want to push nuclear reactors in space? Now, they want it for themselves, but it's kind of like opening Pandora's box, or letting the cat out of the bag.

Are we so sure JIMO won't get delayed until 2020 or later?

Anyway, I agree that in 20 to 30 years other countries may well be able to support a mission themselves. Russia sooner if someone opened a fat checkbook.

What is unrealistic is a purely private mission either TODAY or fairly soon because of nukes and lift.

But how might the Pentagon delay the inevitable?

No private sector explotation of celestial resources, by Americans or anyone else. No resolution of ownership or sovereignty for celestial objects. Thus no financial incentive for going.

Then scrap all HLLV and send flags and footprints military astronauts on rock collecting trips to the Moon and Mars, riding EELV.

clark · 2004-06-10 13:09:55

Are we so sure JIMO won't get delayed until 2020 or later?

If it is, it will be for technical reasons. CEV and the Space Vision is reliant on nuclear propulsion.

Anyway, I agree that in 20 to 30 years other countries may well be able to support a mission themselves. Russia sooner if someone opened a fat checkbook.

So it's eventual, which means that the only real term solution is to prepare now.

No private sector explotation of celestial resources, by Americans or anyone else. No resolution of ownership or sovereignty for celestial objects. Thus no financial incentive for going.

Which all runs counter to the Space Vision, and Chinese intentions. Both call for the exploitation of lunar resources. Celestial resources are being exploited right not via orbital slots. The Larange points are some of the choicest celestial real estate spots in the near future.

When orbital does happen for private, space hotels and orbit positions will be worth even more money. This is pretty much unavoidable.

amandacruising · 2004-06-10 15:54:51

Captain, you sound motivated and in the enviable position to have the skills and resources at your disposal to perhaps make some headway towards landing and returning a person to Mars. What are you looking for here?

Hello Clarke,

May I answer you comment & questions please?

Motivated - Yes, highly, in all things that seem to matter IMO.

Skills - No. I can successfully design & build things that float and fly around the globe. But spaceships? Er...... Definitely not. But who knows? We have never tried.
If I had the cash & facilities to spare, be assured, design work would start tomorrow morning. Believe me. I don`t mess about and have a track record to prove it.

Resources - No. Thats for sure !!! I used to have a boat called `From rags to rags` (From rags to riches - get it?)
However, I do have access to some resources that matter in a very small way. So have many, many, others that could collectively become a very significient resource. Perhaps more than enough.

You ask what am I looking for? A long shot but worth looking at:- Testing the water to see what potential there may be in contacting realistic, mature people of similar outlook and who have the prerequesite experience and dynamism to drive a difficult international private project (I prefer the words "Human project") forward, free of politics and of those with hidden adgendas.
If there are one hundred people of similar dynamism, dedication, resources and skills, it cannot be done.
However, if there are a thousand........... who knows what might happen........

The challenges to be overcome in the order of descending difficulty are, IMHO:
1/The mind-set of people, both technical and lay.
2/Quasi-Governmental bodies.
3/Technology vandals. (I have suffered myself from them. People who immediately raise objections just because they have not thought of something themselves first. They are normally charlatans purporting to know what they are talking about and just love to see their own name in print. The advent of the Internet must rate as their number one invention in the last Centurary. The perfect medium for BS).
4/Selling the project to the appropriate sectors of society - i.e. old fashioned money. Even the Vikings had that problem. However, a voluntary concept is the only answer to this snag.
No supplier gets their palm crossed with silver - instead, they get uplifted by a higher (excuse the pun) and much more noble objective than grubby money. Just think of the Public Relations Kudos "Supporting mans greatest aspiration since Magellan.........", or whatever.
I know my company, its sales offices, and its shareholders would get a warm feeling about that one..... Thousands of other companies too.
Two years back, NASA ordered a piece of special, unique, kit from my company and the sales guys ever since have not overlooked their skills at name-dropping.
5/ Keeping Humanity enthused and curious about the project for the long haul. This is a matter for the P.R. & marketing experts. They have the ability solve that one.
6/The SI of the acceptable fuels & rocket design.
7/The uncertainty of the availability of propellant to return.
8/The life support energy audit, and radiation exposure.
9/Physical engineering, test flights & assembly.
10/Propellant management.

Note that even if you do not agree with my order of difficulties, you will agree that half the problems are human - not insurmountable technology.

11/ Somewhere to do it - Ah! but we have solved that, eh? A couple scrapping supertankers borrowed for a few years stationed in International waters in Western Pacific or Atlantic. Solves much official meddling and there are no security or third party public liability problems....... I can hear the rising tide of voices from the habitual losers - "That`s stupid. Cost a fortune. Boats wobble. Anyway, Nasa cheaper".
Oh. Really? Lets look at it. Say 110,000 ton scrapper @ $26 per raw ton = say $3 million.
Borrow the scrapper.
What is the investment value to the owner per year? It is $3 million @ 4% per annum top whack at the moment. That is, gentle reader, $2 grand a week. (Even if NASA would let you inside their perimeter fence, [no chance] they would charge that much for a bit of office space, never mind a launch complex).
Think positive. We may even get lucky and get a loan of the scrapper for the required time...... As it so happens, I know someone in that line of business........

There is insufficient space here to mention the remaining 999,999,999 other challenges, but it will do for a start.

However, I am serious, even if I dont have the time...... Frankly I am a busy bunney - but this is important. If anyone does not think that it is, what has he been reading this for during the last minute? !!!!! :-)

Thank you for your attention. I appreciate it.

clark · 2004-06-10 16:12:52

Skills - No. I can successfully design & build things that float and fly around the globe. But spaceships? Er...... Definitely not. But who knows? We have never tried.
If I had the cash & facilities to spare, be assured, design work would start tomorrow morning. Believe me. I don`t mess about and have a track record to prove it.

If you don't have the cash and facilities or time,

However, I am serious, even if I dont have the time...... Frankly I am a busy bunney - but this is important. If anyone does not think that it is, what has he been reading this for during the last minute? !!!!! :-)

why did you present your ideas as such? Are you looking to spearhead the organization of such a group? What are your proposals?

clark · 2004-06-10 17:53:51

Captain R. Doblet,

May I offer a tiny example: My company, along with five others who are owned and controlled by persons well known to me would provide some $5,000 cash funding, plus $12,000 in professional / administrative services and some $20,000 in equavilent engineering hardware per annum for a period of 8 to 10 years without a second thought - provided that they believed the project was properly managed and feasible.

And:

I find it difficult to believe that I am a unique maveric. No, there are thousands of people like the writer in the world who are thinking, caring, forward looking, and like me, can raise the equalivent of $370,000 per year for ten years for the right project..... and I am not a politician, nor indeed well known. Imagine what high profile people could do.

And:

I have already stated that my company would provide funding along with five other corporations for a period of 8 to 10 years that I know of.

How do you resolve your previous statements earlier in this thread with your now new claims that you haven't the time nor money nor resources to help?

amandacruising · 2004-06-10 18:04:55

Even Bill Gates does not have the time, resources or cash to do a human Mars project. (Perhaps he has. Hummm..... I`ll ask him next time he rings me for advice...... !!!)

You ask what I am proposing, Clark:

I am just trying to sow a seed crystal to see who or what pops up. From little acorns....

I am passionate in the belief that everything is possible, given the right conditions and management. No such thing as magic.

You ask if I am trying to spearhead something:
I would not dream of spearheading anything like this. I have not got what that takes. I am a small industrialist, not a public orator. I am an outstanding technical innovator, a good organizer and get things done when it comes to commercial matters. Other than that, I have nothing at all going for me.
I could never head up any public enterprise which requires tact, media savvy, and political accumen. I`m far too intolerant of fools. There are lots of `em about..... but they are the public, so we need `em.
A project like this needs a management team of spectacular interpersonal and other specialised talents and and above all, determination.

I am only trying to see a sensible discussion going between good, clever, well meaning people. Something may come of it.
Better a man try & fail than not try at all...

Cheers, Clark

clark · 2004-06-10 18:11:22

Well, let me offer what help I can.

There is a gentleman you might wish to correspond with, goes by the name of Rick Dobson. He runs an organization with the goal of sending people to Mars. I believe he calls his organization, The International Space Agency. Perhaps you have already heard of him?

See if you can make something happen with him and his group, you never know what may come of it!

Cheers, Captain.

Josh Cryer · 2004-06-11 07:32:56

Hey, if he's going to join up with anyone, he should check out JP Aerospace, they seem to be on the ball with new cheap tech, it may or may not work, of course, but hey, we want to get into space cheap.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-06-10 09:45:35

Re: SpaceShip One date set for final test flight! - History in the making....

#27 2004-06-10 10:00:21

Re: SpaceShip One date set for final test flight! - History in the making....

#28 2004-06-10 10:04:57

Re: SpaceShip One date set for final test flight! - History in the making....

#29 2004-06-10 10:16:53

Re: SpaceShip One date set for final test flight! - History in the making....

#30 2004-06-10 10:39:59

Re: SpaceShip One date set for final test flight! - History in the making....

#31 2004-06-10 10:57:58

Re: SpaceShip One date set for final test flight! - History in the making....

#32 2004-06-10 11:37:01

Re: SpaceShip One date set for final test flight! - History in the making....

#33 2004-06-10 12:07:17

Re: SpaceShip One date set for final test flight! - History in the making....

#34 2004-06-10 12:30:37

Re: SpaceShip One date set for final test flight! - History in the making....

#35 2004-06-10 13:09:55

Re: SpaceShip One date set for final test flight! - History in the making....

#36 2004-06-10 15:54:51

Re: SpaceShip One date set for final test flight! - History in the making....

#37 2004-06-10 16:12:52

Re: SpaceShip One date set for final test flight! - History in the making....

#38 2004-06-10 17:53:51

Re: SpaceShip One date set for final test flight! - History in the making....

#39 2004-06-10 18:04:55

Re: SpaceShip One date set for final test flight! - History in the making....

#40 2004-06-10 18:11:22

Re: SpaceShip One date set for final test flight! - History in the making....

#41 2004-06-11 07:32:56

Re: SpaceShip One date set for final test flight! - History in the making....

Board footer