Has Dr. Zubrin Addressed Mars Direct Objections? - A few questions?

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-03 13:29:13

I didn't say that. I said that a von Braunian & Saganaut vision would exclude the O'Neillians.

I'm in general agreement with Bill that "O'Neillian" is the approach we should strive for, something permament. But that doesn't mean we can't use "von Braunian" to further that end. "Saganaut" is, well, essentially useless. Some pictures and data that really help no one.

Perhaps. But Putin and Chirac would be foolish to let NASA return to the Moon first if a French-Russian mission can gte there sooner and cheaper.

Absolutely, and what kind of response can best be whipped up to such a development? An "O'Neillian" space-colony vision... or a "von Braunian" national pride response to beat them? "The French are going to beat us?" That alone has some usefulness. While I'm a firm believer that we must go into space to stay and live, I don't think we can realistically sell that vision without some intermediate steps. "O'Neillian" can evolve from "von Braunian" with a little prodding. A good space-race, if played well, can lay the groundwork for exactly the sort of vision we want. It takes time and pressure, but the indirect route is the most viable at this point.

SpaceNut · 2004-12-03 13:36:45

"Saganaut" is, well, essentially useless. Some pictures and data that really help no one.

Well actually there is a use for them, put them on sale and enjoy the extra cash flow as a side benefit.

Euler · 2004-12-03 13:38:42

But with regards to morality do you think it is worth spending a million to improve an astronauts chance of survival by 1/3. How much do you value life?

There are lots of places in this world where you can save lives by spending more money. Is $3,000,000 per life a good deal compared to other ways you could spend money? That is debatable. However, astronauts are not ordinary people. They have a lot of expensive specialized training, which includes hard to get training in space for most of them. This makes each astronaut a valuable resource. In addition you have to look at the affects of death on the mission. If an astronaut dies on a multibillion dollar Mars-Direct style mission, the amount accomplished on the mission is decreased by at least 1/4 (probably more). Also, if one mission goes badly, it could also decrease the amount that succeeding missions can achieve. Then there are also political problems that occur if an accident happens. Clearly, we should ensure that the missions are as safe as we can reasonably make them, but there are practical limits on how safe the initial missions can be.

BTW even the shuttle I bet is more dangerous then extreme skiing?

I don't know how dangerous extreme skiing is, but I do know that the shuttle is much safer than climbing Mount Everest.

To be protectionist yet pretend we are not is the worst possible combination.

Well we are openly protectionist with regards to Chinese launch competition. We actually forced them to sign an agreement that they would not undercut US commercial launch prices by more than 20%.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-03 13:46:49

Putin and Chirac would be foolish to let NASA return to the Moon first if a French-Russian mission can gte there sooner and cheaper. And with Zenit / Proton / Kliper it will be much cheaper for them than it will be for us with our liquid EELVs.

Sure they can do it for less money absolutely, but can they do it for a smaller portion of GDP? I doubt it. So "cheaper" is a relative term.

In fact, since American technology is by and large superior, our materials lighter, our computers more powerful (Russian LIDAR?), we already almost have the TLI stage (heavy Centaur), modifications of our currently available rocket capable of doing the task (super Delta-IV HLV), and since we have built a working Lunar capsule and lander before, I imagine that we might actually be able to do it for less then France/Russia... Klipper won't be able to return to Earth from the Moon directly either.

John Creighton · 2004-12-03 13:56:44

The saguanaut is not useless. This can be seen in the tremendous success in the unmanned portion of NAS with respect to advances in propulsion techniques and the understanding of the solar system. It is this improved understanding of the solar system that will pave the way for future colonization. BTW I mentioned the cost saving of a one way manned mars mission. This cost saving should appeal to all three groups you described Bill.

Euler · 2004-12-03 14:00:40

Sure they can do it for less money absolutely, but can they do it for a smaller portion of GDP? I doubt it. So "cheaper" is a relative term.

If they can do it for less money absolutely then they can defiantly do it for a smaller portion of the EU's GDP.

BWhite · 2004-12-03 14:00:56

Perhaps. But Putin and Chirac would be foolish to let NASA return to the Moon first if a French-Russian mission can gte there sooner and cheaper.
Absolutely, and what kind of response can best be whipped up to such a development? An "O'Neillian" space-colony vision... or a "von Braunian" national pride response to beat them? "The French are going to beat us?" That alone has some usefulness. While I'm a firm believer that we must go into space to stay and live, I don't think we can realistically sell that vision without some intermediate steps. "O'Neillian" can evolve from "von Braunian" with a little prodding. A good space-race, if played well, can lay the groundwork for exactly the sort of vision we want. It takes time and pressure, but the indirect route is the most viable at this point.

And I agree with this.

But Apollo was 100% von Braunian. Okay, 95% with some nice rock sampling. And if the VSE proves to be essentially von Braunian it will end like Apollo did.

The CEV needs to fly on an inexpensive booster so the O'Neillian vision can be integrated into the Saganaut and von Braunian motivations. Delta IVH may be affordable for a von Braunian program but its too expensive (per pound to LEO) for a sustainable O'Neillian program.

Without competition, the aerospace giants will coil, not stretch those spirals. Remember the original Mars plan from 1989?

Edited By BWhite on 1102104468

SpaceNut · 2004-12-03 14:07:06

But how we make things less expensively is also the issue.

example of a Student Satellite Almost Ready For Space

Building a satellite takes years and costs millions. Well, not always. Nearly one hundred students from all over Europe have been working hard on SSETI Express. From the drawing board to launch in less than one year, all the while keeping costs to a minimum.

Well really a little off the subject but I think we can do better than the current cost development system. Volunteers are cheap and so are the unemployed.

Then we always end up talking about robotics, villages of them, tele robotics and mining or setting up the easy access approach to when man should go.

Build Your Own Borg: Sort of article gives the impression that people do not under stand space.

Most observers of the Mars missions think the rovers are driven, like a car, but in fact they are commanded.

A lot of stuff in the article though for the future possibilities if we only open our minds and dream.

BWhite · 2004-12-03 14:11:44

Sure they can do it for less money absolutely, but can they do it for a smaller portion of GDP? I doubt it. So "cheaper" is a relative term.
If they can do it for less money absolutely then they can defiantly do it for a smaller portion of the EU's GDP.

Especially if they sell the television rights.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-03 14:38:13

Sure they can do it for less money absolutely, but can they do it for a smaller portion of GDP? I doubt it. So "cheaper" is a relative term.
If they can do it for less money absolutely then they can defiantly do it for a smaller portion of the EU's GDP.

*shrugs* The EU would have to send an awful lot of money Russia's way without getting any of it back... I don't know if they will be that generous.

BWhite · 2004-12-03 14:49:53

Sure they can do it for less money absolutely, but can they do it for a smaller portion of GDP? I doubt it. So "cheaper" is a relative term.
If they can do it for less money absolutely then they can defiantly do it for a smaller portion of the EU's GDP.
*shrugs* The EU would have to send an awful lot of money Russia's way without getting any of it back... I don't know if they will be that generous.

Buy Klipers. Not rides, buy the vehicle itself.

Design the ESA version so it can ride up on a big Ariane. Pay the Russians a billion euros, or two, and take possession of TWO Ariane capable Klipers in exchange. Voila! ESA can now send its own astronauts to LEO.

Can the ESA possibly design and build its own man-rated launch system for two billion euros?

= = =

Design a Delta IVH version and sell it to NASA. Heh!

= = =

Quid pro quo. France helps Russia land on the Moon, and in exchange the ESA gets independent human access to LEO.

Edited By BWhite on 1102107631

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-03 15:12:52

And what would the ESA do with them? LEO. Big deal.

Russia might be more interested in selling R-7's along with Klipper too you know Bill.

Euler · 2004-12-03 15:35:24

Klipper would not be able to fit on the current R-7 boosters anyway, so it would make some sense to adapt it to Ariane V rather than designing a new booster.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-03 15:38:13

Russia intends to fly it on a modified R-7 with a cryogenic upper stage if memory serves, which will be a small fraction the cost of a Ariane-V, especially with man raiting costs.

Mark S · 2004-12-03 19:16:22

If James Oberg's recent report is correct, Zenit is the preferred booster for Kliper. The modified R-7 (Onega) is one of two designs that will serve as a Russian fallback for the Ukranian-built Zenit. Perhaps an Angara variant is the other backup.

BWhite · 2004-12-03 19:25:25

And what would the ESA do with them? LEO. Big deal.

Propaganda. Especially after orbiter is grounded and CEV has yet to fly. NASA asking ESA for a ride to ISS?

Cost? 2 billion euros

Value? Priceless

= = =

That gap between 2010 when orbiter stands down and 2014 when CEV flies might be painful.

GraemeSkinner · 2004-12-04 04:03:43

And what would the ESA do with them? LEO. Big deal.
Propaganda. Especially after orbiter is grounded and CEV has yet to fly. NASA asking ESA for a ride to ISS?
Cost? 2 billion euros
Value? Priceless

I agree in terms of propaganda, 2 billion Euro's* is nothing, If they worked it our correctly they'd make so much more in sponsorship/government hand outs that it could set them up for years.

Graeme

* A Euro is a worthless piece of currency anyway - but I won't go too far off topic and onto politics

Can I have a iB spell checker too?

RobertDyck · 2004-12-04 16:24:05

The problem is still inherintly a fundimental one, that because of the limited energy density of chemical or solid-core NTR engines plus the high minimum degree of complexity and robustness. These facts quite simply demand a mission that is bigger and more expensive then at least Doc Zubrin is willing to accept, and this is an almost fatal blow to taking a smart man like him seriously. The same goes for talk of the AltSpace folks magically overcoming the energy density problem with capitalist innovation magic, and that Boeing/LockMart/etc are greedy liars that make space travel (some perhaps) far far more expensive then it "could be" or somthing.

“Doing Mars” is not easy, but can be done with today’s technology. That message has to be driven home to congressmen. The fallacy that it takes some futuristic technology like GCNR just causes cessation of all progress. We’ve been stuck in LEO since 1972, that’s 32 years now. There hasn’t been any real progress toward manned exploration beyond. We need to demonstrate to congressmen that Mars is achievable now; not 2060 or some later decade, but now.

One point Robert Zubrin made at this year’s conference was to “straighten out” the spirals. At the NASA workshop last Tuesday they explained what a “spiral” is: starting development with requirements that are mostly complete, but not total. For years major contractors have been blaming NASA and congress for imprecise requirements, blaming lack of requirements for high costs. But I’ve seen some of their requirement documents; they’re insane: too long, too verbose. It takes more time to develop the requirements documents than the development project. As a computer programmer, normal practice is to get most of the requirements and expect new requirements to come out as the project proceeds. It takes less than 10% of the time to get more than 90% of the requirements, and you’ll never get them all. Customers will always say “That’s what I asked for but not what I want.” or “Now that I see it, it doesn’t work; change this or that.” There are also technical things that come out: it runs too slow to support the required number of concurrent users or more disk space, requiring hardware upgrades. One MS project I started in 2002 was the spacesuit PLSS. I asked a member who is a Lockheed-Martin engineer help me with technical details of an all-composite oxygen tank, since he said Lockheed-Martin has one. But he wanted to do it “professionally” and found a military requirements form that was so long we would have spent over a year just on the requirements. I had been looking at the PLSS for years before that, I was familiar with the problem and wrote a short requirements document in an hour, spending a year on a book was just a make-work project. This is one way contractors pad their bill. I applaud NASA for cutting through all that crap and creating these “spirals”.

Russian LIDAR?

Canadian LIDAR.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-04 18:11:22

Robert, I think this would be the second time that somebody on this very thread has taken what I have said and taken away the exact opposit.

We do NOT need any radical new technology to reach Mars. Plain old chemical engines will do the job. Even NTR engines aren't needed It can be done. It can be done without radical increase in NASA funding.

What IS needed is simply a matter of scale. That MarsDirect is irreperably too small. It is too small because the mission is designed with the wrong aproach and letting the Marsie' zeal influence big decisions.

As far as propoganda victory concerning the space station... I don't think there will be many astronauts going up after Shuttle is gone. Nobody cares about the ISS, it is worthless. If Russia and the ESA want it themselves, let them have it.

Canadian LIDAR and that kind of thing will come at Canadian prices too, not the ultracheap Russia price.

RobertDyck · 2004-12-04 18:28:35

I've talked before about changing the mission architecture; using a reusable ITV and unmanned cargo lander to deliver science instruments. I don't think what we're saying is significantly different. However, we as others have pointed out to me, we need to maintain a consistent message to congress. We can't keep changing the mission architecture. Mars Direct was estimated to cost $30 billion for 7 missions in 1990, although in public Robert Zubrin keeps saying $20 billion for an unspecified number of missions. NASA's Design Reference Mission was estimated at $55 billion. That's significant cost creep, and without building any hardware; it demonstrates the need to keep cost under control. We can't start talking about a $450 billion Battlestar Galactica. Congress is afraid cost will grow that high and will not approve anything until they are convinced cost will stay down. NASA is getting $15 billion per year and will continue to get about that much. A Mars mission must be paid over just a few years from that budget.

John Creighton · 2004-12-04 19:20:03

The trick to reducing cost is to spread the development and procurement costs of a mars mission over other worthwhile projects. For instance if we build a heavy lift vehicle for JIMO mars direct becomes cheaper. If the mars direct vehicle was already used on the moon mars direct becomes cheaper. If a thermal rocket is tested for a NEO sample return mars direct becomes cheaper. I agree that we have to be weary of cost creep so we can tell congress that If you want to go cheaply do this but if you want better value take a little more time and do this. If it comes down to a choice between two missions that don’t get much done and have a lower probability of success or one mission that gets a lot done and has a high probability of success which do you choose.

Dayton3 · 2004-12-04 20:10:20

We can't keep changing the mission architecture. Mars Direct was estimated to cost $30 billion for 7 missions in 1990, although in public Robert Zubrin keeps saying $20 billion for an unspecified number of missions. NASA's Design Reference Mission was estimated at $55 billion. That's significant cost creep,

No, thats not cost creep.

The NASA Refence Mission is Mars "Semi-Direct" requiring three launches instead of two (SIX if we don't develop the Ares launcher).

And the NASA mission has a six man crew as opposed to basic Mars Direct four. So that is a major upscaling of the mass necessary to send to Mars.

Personally, I agree with Zubrin that in reality a Mars mission should only cost a 6 to 8 billion or so. Triple that for the usual government inefficiency and you've still got a manned Mars program for less than 30 billion dollars.

Euler · 2004-12-04 20:33:10

Mars Direct was estimated to cost $30 billion for 7 missions in 1990, although in public Robert Zubrin keeps saying $20 billion for an unspecified number of missions. NASA's Design Reference Mission was estimated at $55 billion. That's significant cost creep, and without building any hardware; it demonstrates the need to keep cost under control.

If we have to choose one mission and stick to it, we should choose the http://cmex-www.arc.nasa.gov/CMEX/data/ … ]Reference Mission. It is much more feasable and less risky than Mars Direct, and it is already approved by NASA. $55 Billion is a very reasonable price for a mission that is likely to work.

Austin Stanley · 2004-12-04 23:18:50

I agree wholeheartedly with Euler's statment. While 55 billion may seem like a lot, you have to rember that this amount is spread out over time, and that NASA's budget is already some 16 billion dollars a year. So over the 10 years or so it would take to put the program into action it realy wouldn't be that big a problem.

RobertDyck · 2004-12-05 00:02:03

We've strayed from "Has Dr. Zubrin Adressed Mars Direct Objections" and started discussing mission plans. I responded in the thread "What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For?"

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2004-12-03 13:29:13

Re: Has Dr. Zubrin Addressed Mars Direct Objections? - A few questions?

#77 2004-12-03 13:36:45

Re: Has Dr. Zubrin Addressed Mars Direct Objections? - A few questions?

#78 2004-12-03 13:38:42

Re: Has Dr. Zubrin Addressed Mars Direct Objections? - A few questions?

#79 2004-12-03 13:46:49

Re: Has Dr. Zubrin Addressed Mars Direct Objections? - A few questions?

#80 2004-12-03 13:56:44

Re: Has Dr. Zubrin Addressed Mars Direct Objections? - A few questions?

#81 2004-12-03 14:00:40

Re: Has Dr. Zubrin Addressed Mars Direct Objections? - A few questions?

#82 2004-12-03 14:00:56

Re: Has Dr. Zubrin Addressed Mars Direct Objections? - A few questions?

#83 2004-12-03 14:07:06

Re: Has Dr. Zubrin Addressed Mars Direct Objections? - A few questions?

#84 2004-12-03 14:11:44

Re: Has Dr. Zubrin Addressed Mars Direct Objections? - A few questions?

#85 2004-12-03 14:38:13

Re: Has Dr. Zubrin Addressed Mars Direct Objections? - A few questions?

#86 2004-12-03 14:49:53

Re: Has Dr. Zubrin Addressed Mars Direct Objections? - A few questions?

#87 2004-12-03 15:12:52

Re: Has Dr. Zubrin Addressed Mars Direct Objections? - A few questions?

#88 2004-12-03 15:35:24

Re: Has Dr. Zubrin Addressed Mars Direct Objections? - A few questions?

#89 2004-12-03 15:38:13

Re: Has Dr. Zubrin Addressed Mars Direct Objections? - A few questions?

#90 2004-12-03 19:16:22

Re: Has Dr. Zubrin Addressed Mars Direct Objections? - A few questions?

#91 2004-12-03 19:25:25

Re: Has Dr. Zubrin Addressed Mars Direct Objections? - A few questions?

#92 2004-12-04 04:03:43

Re: Has Dr. Zubrin Addressed Mars Direct Objections? - A few questions?

#93 2004-12-04 16:24:05

Re: Has Dr. Zubrin Addressed Mars Direct Objections? - A few questions?

#94 2004-12-04 18:11:22

Re: Has Dr. Zubrin Addressed Mars Direct Objections? - A few questions?

#95 2004-12-04 18:28:35

Re: Has Dr. Zubrin Addressed Mars Direct Objections? - A few questions?

#96 2004-12-04 19:20:03

Re: Has Dr. Zubrin Addressed Mars Direct Objections? - A few questions?

#97 2004-12-04 20:10:20

Re: Has Dr. Zubrin Addressed Mars Direct Objections? - A few questions?

#98 2004-12-04 20:33:10

Re: Has Dr. Zubrin Addressed Mars Direct Objections? - A few questions?

#99 2004-12-04 23:18:50

Re: Has Dr. Zubrin Addressed Mars Direct Objections? - A few questions?

#100 2004-12-05 00:02:03

Re: Has Dr. Zubrin Addressed Mars Direct Objections? - A few questions?

Board footer