Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-06 08:14:56

The acent vehicle for crew and science samples would be considerd part of the landers' payload. The Apollo LM, which would probobly be a little bit small and uncomfortable for three, weighed in at around 4.5MT using Hypergolic propellants. I figure with Peroxide + Kerosene or again using Hypergolics, a nice Lunar acent vehicle could be built to support three for a week for about 6-7MT with an inflatable cabin.

RobS · 2004-08-08 08:48:45

NASA TM-2002-211970 (Timothy Sarver-Verhey et al; Google the report number to find it), describe an 11.3 tonne solar-electric vehicle using nine 50-kw gridded ion thrusters and 12.2 tonnes of xenon to move 36.6 tonnes of payload to Earth-Moon L1 in 270 days. The vehicle would have thin-film solar arrays totalling 2,685 square meters (mass 0.33 kg/m2 or 900 kg total). Arrays and engines would have a 2-year design lifetime (good for two round trips; but could probably do more). The design includes a 2.2 tonne margin for the ion engine mass (it could be as much as 13.5 tonnes, or if the engine is 11.3 tonnes the payload is 38.8 tonnes).

They also give the design in the form of percentages: for 59.8 tonne vehicle, 16% of the mass is tug, 3% is margin, 20% is xenon, and 61% is payload. This allows one to design a tug of whatever size you want quickly!

This is the most specific data about a solar-electric propulsion vehicle I have seen to date. It is much better than the numbers for an old Johnson Spaceflight Center ion tug, which used a lot more xenon. The report was vague about masses, but this TM gives a clear summary of them in table form.

Note, however, that the big, fat IAA report I mentioned last week gives two important pieces of information about xenon; it costs $17,000 per kilogram ($17 million per tonne; almost twice as expensive as gold!) and that world annual production is fifty tonnes. It's damn hard to extract from the atmosphere. Apparently krypton can be used and is much cheaper, though probably not quite as good.

Nevertheless, you save money. To launch Mars Direct (87 tonnes total mass on trans-Mars injection) you need two heavy lifters to LEO able to place 140 tonnes each. That would be at least 11 Delta IV large EELVs at $170 million each, or about $1.87 billion. With a solar ion tug that drops to 6.4 EELVs or $1.088 billion plus $578 of xenon, for a total of $1.666 billion. If you add lunar fuel, you need 4.5 EELVs (because you can use lunar fuel for trans-Mars injection and lunar oxygen for landing; you'd just haul methane from Earth for the landing) and that lowers the price to $765 million for launches plus $374 million for xenon, a total of $1.139 billion. If you can go to the moon and exploit lunar ice at a reasonable cost, it helps a lot.

I'm trying to investigate solar-thermal, which has an Isp of about 800 (though it could go as high as 1200 with advanced engines!) and which uses hydrogen (cheap), but the current state of research is not adequate to draw conclusions. One report I found on the web gave a design for a solar-thermal vehicle that, once you returned the vehicle for low earth orbit from geosynchronous for reuse, apparently used MORE hydrogen that a throwaway LH2/LOX chemical system would. So solar-thermal is potentially much better, but not well developed yet.

-- RobS

BWhite · 2004-08-08 09:48:43

http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements … html]Xenon

1 part per 20 million in Earth's atmosphere & 0.08 ppm in Mars atmosphere (why can't they use the same measurement?!)

???

0.8 parts per 10 million or 1.6 parts per 20 million or 160% of Earth's ratio, right?

= = =

Mars settlers will need to process atmosphere for survival.
Making supercritical carbon dioxide, for example.

Xenon will be a by-product of that processing and if a xenon powered ion vessel is in Mars orbit, to fill up the xenon tanks seems to make sense.

RobertDyck · 2004-08-08 11:03:45

1 part per 20 million is equal to 0.1 part per 2 million or 0.05 part per million. So Earth has 0.05 ppm Xenon while Mars has 0.08 ppm. So, yes, Mars has 1.6 times as much Xenon as Earth or 160%. That's probably due to the fact that a lot of Mars atmosphere is frozen as dry ice at whichever pole is experiencing winter; removing substantial CO2 makes Xenon less dilute. However, Earth has a pressure of 1013.25 millibars at sea level while Mars has just under 7 millibars, so Earth has a lot more atmosphere to start with.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-09 05:37:54

So an ION tug with a time of 270 days; I am assuming that the tug is unmanned other wise we need to develope radiation shielding.

RobS · 2004-08-09 10:48:28

Ion engines can only be used to move cargo and automated probes, not people; they're too slow. But that means we separate people and cargo, a lesson the shuttle explosions have taught us anyway. For a Mars mission, you move the bulk of the mass of the mission to a lagrange point or somewhere, then send the people up quickly in a small vehicle. For a moon mission, you send the lunar lander and its fuel slowly by ion tug, then send the people fast in the equivalent of an Apollo command and service module. In fact, an Apollo LM massed about 16 tonnes--I think less--and a Delta IV large could launch a 16 tonne LM, 5 tonnes of xenon, and a 4.5 tonne solar-ion tug into low earth orbit. Another Delta IV large should be able to launch a capsule with life support, three astronauts, and stage able to send it into a high lunar orbit. So an Apollo-style mission might be possible with two Delta IV larges, especially if the lander used hydrogen-oxygen insteadof storable but less energetic fuels, like the LM.

-- RobS

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-09 10:53:34

I think thats a little of a stretch to send a manned vehicle on a 2-week lunar trip with only one 25MT launch and fuel for the return trip. It will probobly take two flights for the manned CEV, one with the TLI engine and LOX, the other with the CEV (and its LLO-TEI fuel) with the Hydrogen.

Its plausable to send the lander by ion tug, though I wonder how much a second TLI stage would cost.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-09 11:08:57

So why are we doing this experiment with ION engines at the rediculus rate of 270 days. Lets go for the booster stage and get there in a reasonable amount of time.

RobS · 2004-08-09 11:32:53

By the way, I just checked; the Lunar Module was 14.6 tonnes, and could have been used to land 5 tonnes on the moon in place of the ascent stage. GCN Revenger, you may be right; I didn't check the numbers. But I wasn't thinking of a low lunar orbit rendezvous as in Apollo, but a high lunar orbit or even a lagrange rendezvous, which would greatly decrease the fuel needed for the chemical stage,. But under those circumstances the "lunar module" would need LOX/LH2 fuel.

Space nut, you can save money or save time and one chooses. 270 days is ridiculous only if one worries about it; if one plans ahead, 270 days by ion tug saves a few hundred million.

-- RobS

RobS · 2004-08-09 15:26:32

Here's a way of thinking about the moon mission:

1. Crew Exploration Vehicle, 10 tonnes, launched by a Delta IV Medium +5.2 (10.3 tonnes to LEO, $100 million launch cost). The CEV returns to the Earth's surface at the end of the mission but can be rebuilt and reused.

2. Solar-ion tug, mass 7 tonnes, sized to push 25 tonnes to an elliptical lunar orbit. It would be launched with two 9 tonne xenon modules (each able to push 25 tonnes of payload to L1) on a Delta-IV Large (25.8 tonnes to LEO; launch cost, $170 million)

3. Delta-IV medium second stage, total mass 24.17 tonnes (21.32 mt LOX/LH2 and 2.85 mt structure and engines). Its Isp is 462 seconds (exhaust velocity, 4.52 km/sec). The stage could be launched by a Delta IV Heavy into LEO fully fueled. This stage would be used for translunar injection, lunar orbit injection, and trans-Earth injection. A second copy of the stage, placed in lunar orbit by the solar-ion tug equipped with landing legs, would handle lunar landing and takeoff.

Here's the scenario:

1. Launch the solar ion tug, 2 xenon modules, and a small station-keeping unit into LEO. The station-keeping unit will maintain the orbit and attitude of one xenon tank when the tug leaves with the other (it could be a small ion engine, using xenon fuel from the tank).

2. Launch a Delta-IV Large with the Delta second stage (24.17 tonnes) as cargo, to which will be added 0.5 tonnes of lunar supplies, 1 tonne of tank with extra hydrogen (because of boiloff) and landing legs. This stage will serve as the descent/ascent vehicle. Possibly other modifications will be necessary as well. Its delta-v with a CEV attached and carrying 0.5 tonnes of cargo to the surface is about 4.3 km/sec.

3. Dock the stage to the ion tug and one xenon tank, send it to an elliptical orbit around the moon. This might take as much as 1 year, so we will have to be patient.

4. Launch a second delta medium second stage on another Delta-IV Large. It may need a bit of additional mass as well, such as a unit to station keep it in lunar orbit while the crew is on the moon, and possibly a tank with extra hydrogen to compensate for boiloff.

5. Launch the CEV on a Delta-IV medium. Dock it to the stage in LEO. The stage can give the CEV a delta-v of 4.4 km/sec total. This is enough to go to the moon (delta-v 3.2 km/sec, plus delta-v of 0.2 km/sec to get to it in a few days instead of slowly, plus 0.1 km/sec course correction and margin) leaving 0.9 km/sec. This is enough for a delta-v of 0.4 km/sec to put the CEV into an elliptical orbit around the moon with a low perilune but a very high apilune. After the CEV returns from the moon, the remaining delta-v of 0.5 km/sec sends the CEV back to Earth.

6. After arriving in lunar orbit, transfer the CEV from one stage to the desent/ascent stage. Descend to the lunar surface, explore a while--probably 4 to 6 weeks--then return to orbit and return to Earth using the first stage.

This system requires 5 Delta-IB Large launches and 2 Delta-IV medium launches for two manned missions to the moon; a total of $1.05 billion of launches plus $306 million for xenon. I'd send both lunar descent/ascent stages to the moon before the first mission arrives; the other stage can serve as a backup for landing, a rescue if the stage is unable to take off, and a backup if the original stage is unable to send the CEV back to earth. Indeed, one might want to send two CEVs at the same time so they can rescue each other.

-- RobS

RobS · 2004-08-09 23:43:16

I should add that the Delta IV medium's second stage is a concrete example of a stage that could be used, but I would not recommend that it be used. For one thing, the stage is 12 meters long and pretty thin; 2.5 meters or so. This means the CEV and its crew will be 14 meters off the ground (assuming 2 meters of landing legs) after landing; about 50 feet. A long way to descend on a ladder in a spacesuit. But the stage could be five meters in diameter instead and then would be only about 5 meters high. One would want to redesign the hydrogen tank to hold extra hydrogen--one could have a 1 tonne boiloff in a year of spiraling up to the moon--possibly by including a refrigeration unit drawing off some of the ion tug's power.

Another nice redesign, if it is possible, would be to "dock" the CEV not on top of the stage, but in a cage below the fuel tanks put above the engine. I don't know how easy this would be to design and carry out, or how heavy it would be. But it would offer two important advantages: (1) the crew would be just two meters off the ground after landing; and (2) they would have eight or so tonnes of hydrogen and oxygen fuel over their heads, providing excellent shielding against solar and cosmic radiation. The cage could also be used to trasport cargo and again would be much easier to unload than if the cargo were located fifty feet above the moon.

-- RobS

comstar03 · 2004-08-10 01:47:23

RobS,

Russia has commence using the energia booster to lift larger satellites into orbit again. I think that it would be a better launch platform to use, Because the Space shuttle is commited to the ISS and other launch vehicles are not as versatile as Energia for lifting capacity. With variation modules you could design a larger vessel for lunar exploration aand also mars exploration at a lower cost base.

Not body has talked about the assembly point in LEO for Lunar and Mars Vessels and Cargo transfer points, If you want to use the ISS then you will need to supersize the orbital facility, If not then they will need to design and cost out these facilities.

Again we are looking / talking at an Apollo Style Mars Exploration through all the CEV discussions and Case of Mars books and NASA reports, WHY ?? Reverse that thinking and Start out to develop a large scale settlement and the requirements for that.

I think we need to design new HLVs but we need more flexible variations to meet demand for the variety of missions that will come through the development of space.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-10 07:56:43

No matter what type of propellant or the design of the shape takes it still boils down to funding and of the complete rocket plus launch ect.. cost to operate it.

We must keep costs down in the design phase, construction and in its normal use or we will fail.

clark · 2004-08-10 09:16:31

There were three proposals for the Apollo Moon landings. Go look at those. There were proposals for returning to the Moon under SLI during the early 90's, go look at those.

From the basis of these previous studies will come the design parameters of returning to the Moon.

More than likely we will see a dedicated lunar lander that remains in space and ferries between an L1 and lunar base (probably several temporary bases). Afterall, they are budgeting several billion dollars just for this piece of equipment (the lander will determine a lot of what happens on the Moon).

First return landing will probably be with a throwaway, to meet goals. Then will come the development of a second generation lander (to prepare for Mars).

Ion tugs are good, but we are developing nuclear propulsion for a reason. What are the possibilities of a dedicated nuclear transfer vehicle on a Moon-Earth cycle orbit (think Mars-Earth cycler).

Again, the Moon is meant to be a training ground for Mars- not Mars hardware, but concepts of space exploration. Imagine the Moon as Mars (generalized) and you will get a better perspective of how we might approach with CEV.

comstar03 · 2004-08-10 19:38:48

Clark,

Design as a Green / Environment Party - RECYCLE, RECYCLE, RECYCLE, that is the name of the game!!!. If that means redesign existing launch components then do it, does this mean changing plans do it, If this will reduce cost and complexity in the space program for the long term development of humanity in space.

If Hangar facilities are needed in space to dis-assemble crafts then work on the issue and design and plan for that requirement. Work on LEO foundry facility for space launch if not developed then do it, it will be required for LEO, Moon, Mars etc. Remember the different specification requirements for low and micro-gravity environments.

We have alot of issues to take humanity to the stars then just life systems and transport.

???

RobertDyck · 2004-08-10 22:37:11

Hi comstar03. You said Energia has plans to resume launching the big launch vehicle named for their company. I checked the Energia web site as well as Tass and a couple other Russian web sites, I didn't see anything about that. After the accident of May 12, 2002, Kazakhstan wanted Russia to pay for the repairs, but Russia said Kazakhstan caused the damage so they should pay. ISS was placed at an inclination equal to the latitude of Svobodniy cosmodrome in Russia so they could stop using Baikonur in Kazakhstan. There has been much debate in Russia whether to base the Angara 5 launch vehicle from Svobodniy and build new launch pads, or convert Proton launch pads in Baikonur. Converting Baikonur launch pads is cheaper, but the nationalists gained political clout when Kazakhstan couldn't maintain the vehicle assembly building for Energia. Angara is built by Khrunichev while LV Energia is built RSC Energia, so RSC Energia would definately like the business; but I can't find anything about "using the energia booster to lift larger satellites into orbit again". Where did you read this?

comstar03 · 2004-08-11 01:31:15

RobertyDyck,

You are right, the complete facilities are falling apart, four launch pads for energia-buran, the assembly facilities for the buran orbiter been damage with roof collapsing, and they have left other energia that have been built to fall apart,

Because of the Collapse of the Soviet Union and financial / budget issues made these expensive program expendable. But it still can be recovered. It would mean building a recover plan and commence implementation of that plan in 18-24 months maximum. But I know that it won't happen to save the complex.

Its going to take our company a few more years than that to bring a consortium together to save those facilities by then they would be much to save., so I think it would be better to develop a new methods.

RobS · 2004-08-11 02:25:50

Clark, can you refer us to some specific plans from the 1990s to return to the moon? I haven't seen them and would like to. Romance to Reality has a few summaries, such as Michael Duke's "Lunar Reference Mission" (1997). I agree that the landing system is one of major decisions that has to be made.

If Energia is available, it would be good to use it, but I very much doubt the United States will agree to run its entire moon program with a Russian booster. It might be willing to use Energia if it had a comparable booster of its own; then the equipment could be flown by two different boosters, a wise decision should an explosion close down one of them for a year or two. Whether the US will build a heavy lift booster remains to be seen. It would be expensive, but it has the advantage of continuing the space shuttle technology, facilities, and some of the workers, and there undoubtedly is political pressure to do this. It is beginning to look to me that advanced propulsion techniques may reduce the mass you need in space, but may not reduce costs very much because they are expensive.

Clark mentions nuclear propulsion being developed. The technology being developed is nuclear-electric propulsion. Solar-electric propulsion would use the same ion engines but power them with sunlight, which should be cheaper for distances inside the orbit of Mars. A 500 kilowatt nuclear reactor in space will mass probably 10 tonnes or so and cost several hundred million dollars, perhaps a billion dollars each. Solar panels able to make 500 kw in earth orbit will mass 2-3 tonnes and cost much less. And they would power the same electrical propulsion system. So for transportation to the moon and Mars, solar power is probably better.

Comstar03 notes it is better to start thinking about settlement from the beginning, rather than designing a transportation system just for some exploration. I agree, but I don't think that will happen from a political point of view. The space exploration plan being proposed by the US government does not include settlement, though it actually does mention it as a long-term goal. The way to achieve settlement is to start with a small reusable system and then replace it with a larger system later; for example, a reusable interplanetary transit hab to take four astronauts from earth orbit to Mars orbit, where a reusable shuttle would take them to the Martian surface and back to orbit later. When the interplanetary transit hab returns to earth, it could be refurbished and reused, and supplemented by a second hab the next time it is flown to Mars. That second mission would fly 8 astronauts instead of 4. Then a mission would fly 12, then 16. Then one would design and build a larger interplanetary transit hab and a more reusable Mars shuttle, or a larger one. This incremental approach would save money and allow a smooth transition from a small exploration base to a small settlement.

-- RobS

comstar03 · 2004-08-11 07:18:31

RobS,

The reason for development a plan for settlement not just a landing site will determine the correct supplies and facilities for the longer term development of mars.

To be sent remotely to the settlement site while the operation staff are still travelling there and also when they arrive additional supplies and equipment would arrive while they are working on site preparation.

The first mission should consist of 2 CEV crew, 2 sub-orbital crew, 3 scientific and 3-5 ground base crew = 10-12 manned mission to mars. The ground base crew will remain until the next ground crew arrive, When arriving at mars Two sub-orbital decent vehicles carrying half personnel each to the planet, The CEV crew will unpack a large cargo power satellite that placed in geosat orbit would provide ground based power via microwave link. CEV returning to earth will be lighter and will return faster.

The CEV and Scientific crew will return to earth , while additional carg modules are sent to the ground crew for unpacking and expanding the settlement. Micro-foundry, Large Hydroponic Facilities with recycled water and sewage systems.

When the second CEV returns to mars it would bring the first permanent ground base personnel approx 12-15 and scientific personnel approx 4-6. That would expand the site quickly into a major base with the third CEV carrying 30+ personnel for mars.

That would provide a Mars Settlement of about 40 personnel in 3-5 year period. This level would be capable by 2030-2035 as well having the lunar base of double or triple that number ( 60-90 personnel ).

The lunar base would then develop a large CEVs and specialized vehicles with large scale personnel movement and specialized vehicles ( Orbital Construction Vehicle to attach to small moons or asteroids and construct bases including spacedock facilities )

SpaceNut · 2004-08-11 07:34:10

I think spacing out the man power of the crew over many years does not help with the base or of science. I would send as you noted all the supplies and the Habitat ahead of the crews but I would have it wait in orbit until the explorers all arrive before landing. Multiple ships seperated by days or a week or two not years.

We would want to maximize the research from differing areas of Mars keep in mind that we should be able to traverse to the others landing sites with in hours as a means for help or assistance.

clark · 2004-08-11 09:17:15

Okay, here are key words to do your own research (I will provide several links to one site that has some comprehensive information on lunar plans)

S.E.I report (SEI was intitated under the first President Bush)
First Lunar Outpost (FLO)
LUNOX (follow up to FLO) - automated oxygen plant
Early Lunar Access (ELA)
L.A.N.T.R (nuclear propulstion to Moon)
Human Lunar Return (HLR) - Started by Goldin
1991 Stafford Synthesis report

http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/Station/Sli … ld049b.htm
http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/Station/Sli … ld049c.htm
http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/Station/Sli … ld051f.htm
http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/Station/Sli … ld051p.htm
http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/Station/Sli … ld051e.htm
http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/Station/Sli … ld051t.htm
http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/Station/Sli … ld051x.htm

Happy hunting...

RobertDyck · 2004-08-11 09:30:02

Its going to take our company a few more years than that to bring a consortium together to save those facilities by then they would be much to save., so I think it would be better to develop a new methods.

"our company"? Who do you work for? I wouldn't want to discourage someone who had a real chance of re-activating it.

You also said 4 launch pads, but I believe there are 3. 110 Launch Complex has 2 pads, both converted from N1. 250-LC is an integrated launch and test complex, one pad. 113-MZK is for static test only, I believe.

The pictures from a tour group that went through in April 1997 show the launch pads were in good shape, and the rails were straight, smooth, clean and the concrete railroad ties didn't have any cracks or chips. It appears all you need for the gantry is a good scrubbing and a fresh coat of paint, and the rail lines only need a weed whacker to cut down the weeds. The landing runway for Buran has been maintained so it can be used for cargo aircraft carrying payloads for Proton. The orbiter processing building, building #254, was used to stage modules for ISS so it's well maintained. The low bays of building #112 (well, less high), are also used to stage ISS modules. The only problem is the high bays of building #112, the vehicle assembly building for Energia. It has been left 2 winters without a roof so that will have caused much damage.

I'm rather disgusted that the accident happened. There were 3 complete Energia launch vehicles in there when the roof collapsed on them, enough for a single Mars Direct mission to Mars. They're gone now. According to the Russian press, the director in charge of safety of the Energia complex suffered a heart attack and died a couple days after the accident; how mysterious.

The strap-on boosters of Energia are the first stage of Zenit, so they're still in production. I asked KBKhA about status of manufacturing equipment for RD-0120 engines; it needs a little work but can be reactivated. The only major manufacturing loss is the fuel tanks for the core module. They would need new manufacturing facilities. It might be possible to convince the Michoud Assembly Facility in Louisiana, USA, to manufacture tanks; that's where the external tank for Shuttle is made.

What would the performance of Energia be if the core module was made from the same lithium-aluminum alloy as the new super-light-weight tank of Shuttle? What if the Energia upper stage was also made of lithium-aluminum alloy? The Energia can lift 88 tonnes to 200km orbit without the upper stage, or over 100 tonnes with it. One Russian aerospace engineer told me Energia can lift 120 tonnes with the upper stage, but he didn't say if that includes orbit circularization; I suspect it doesn't. How much could it lift with a lithium-aluminum upgrade?

RobS · 2004-08-11 09:43:36

I love the idea of sending a dozen or more people to Mars all at once, but I suspect it is a vision better suited for *2001: A Space Odyssey* than to political reality. The debate in the US is whether to send 3, 4, 5, or at most 6 people to Mars, not 12 or 20! As for putting 60 to 90 on the moon, if one proposed a plan to do that the Congress would refuse to appropriate the money.

The best I can imagine is to design a reusable interplanetary transit vehicle (ITV) capable of flying four to Mars but able to accommodate six in an emergency. The first time you fly the system to Mars, you send two ITVs with three crew each; that way either one could rescue the other one. MAYBE you could persuade Congress and the international community to fund a six-person to Mars system. The ITVs would be accommanied by two reusable shuttles that can fly to the Martian surface with fuel brought from Earth, refuel, and return to the ITV to push it back to Earth. Such a vehicle would mass about 12 tonnes and hold about 155 tonnes of methane/oxygen fuel.

The second expedition would use two other ITVs (the first two return to Earth a few months after the second two depart), but would carry eight crew, because experience has been accumulated and the ITVs would be deemed more reliable. The third crew would reuse the ITVs of the first expedition but one could add one more ITV, flying 12 to Mars. This incremental system is more likely to get funded than anything huge. One could continue expanding the system, flying out pairs or triplets to Mars spaced a week or two apart, until you were flying a dozen or so ITVs; at that point you'd want to build a larger vehicle. If the Mars shuttles were reusable and could be refueled often on the Martian surface, each ITV would not need to be accompanied by a shuttle; eight ITVs could arrive at Mars and three or four shuttles there would be sufficient to deorbit the crew and cargo.

-- RobS

SpaceNut · 2004-08-11 13:23:17

RobS
I too believe that more people the better but definitely the cash flow from congress would be a problem.
Maybe this is easly solved by including a couple if more than one ship is sent to mars at a time. I think we have done that in the past even with the shuttle.

The ITV from Earth orbit to Mars seems like a good idea especially if one is design for a few months travel time.

I think rather than moth balling the current shuttle maybe they could be converted for mars use while in orbit at the ISS or at some newly design orbiting facility which would be best for there conversion.

RobS · 2004-08-11 13:37:07

People on this forum often talk of using the shuttle to go to Mars somehow, but I don't see any way that is practical. The interior cabin is too small for a long trip. The life support facilities would require complete replacement by something new. Even the avionics and computers are badly out of date; NASA was reduced to advertising on Ebay for some of the parts they need. We already know the thermal protection system is problematic The shuttle cannot land on Mars because there is no landing strip and with the thin air, it would touch the ground moving over 1,000 miles per hour. The shuttle has no provision for a radiation shelter. The main engines aren't designed to be restarted after six months in space. The reaction control system uses very corrosive propellants that might damage the system if stored six months. The shuttle uses fuel cells and can't even plug into the International Space Station to get power.

So when people talk about using the space shuttle, I think the modifications really would produce something so different we might as well call it something different. These babies will find their homes in museums.

Regarding sending couples to Mars, Zubrin has some interesting observations in his new book *Mars on Earth.* He says that a crew should not have just one woman because she can feel ganged up on or the odd person out. If there are females, there should be at least two. He seemed to think that 4/2 or 3/3 worked well (they have six people at the Mars analog stations, not 4). He also noted that people going either should be couples or in committed relationships. No romance on Mars. In the initial crews it could cause jealosies, and if a couple breaks up they can't get away from each other. One can read about those problems in my novel.

Clark, thanks for the key words and links. I'll take a look when I can.

-- RobS

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#276 2004-08-06 08:14:56

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#277 2004-08-08 08:48:45

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#278 2004-08-08 09:48:43

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#279 2004-08-08 11:03:45

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#280 2004-08-09 05:37:54

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#281 2004-08-09 10:48:28

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#282 2004-08-09 10:53:34

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#283 2004-08-09 11:08:57

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#284 2004-08-09 11:32:53

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#285 2004-08-09 15:26:32

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#286 2004-08-09 23:43:16

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#287 2004-08-10 01:47:23

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#288 2004-08-10 07:56:43

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#289 2004-08-10 09:16:31

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#290 2004-08-10 19:38:48

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#291 2004-08-10 22:37:11

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#292 2004-08-11 01:31:15

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#293 2004-08-11 02:25:50

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#294 2004-08-11 07:18:31

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#295 2004-08-11 07:34:10

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#296 2004-08-11 09:17:15

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#297 2004-08-11 09:30:02

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#298 2004-08-11 09:43:36

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#299 2004-08-11 13:23:17

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#300 2004-08-11 13:37:07

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

Board footer