What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

Martin_Tristar · 2004-12-07 19:57:18

About partnering with others, If we don't the world will fight over the rights outside the earth and no-one will win and no-one will go out there.

The term " partnering with others " should have the widest mean including private ownership modules ( individual and corporate), non-profit organizations, semi-government authorities and government agencies.

Also the rules are set for all parties and the rules don't change when one of the parties doesn't like the outcome. things might work then.

Then we could work on what mission profile and what crew etc.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-07 21:41:31

-Houston is close enough for OHR radio signals I would imagine and would have LOS pretty quickly. It is not close enough for Russia... signifigant portions of the communications network would have to be run by Russia any which way.

-Michoud doesn't have an airstrip for Energia tankage transport, nor does Michoud know how to make Energia tanks. Russia would very likly insist on letting them do it themselves, and they probobly should since they made the originals.

-You're about as bad as the crazy LaRouche guy, Martian Republic... Iraq indeed...

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-07 21:50:31

The whole idea of a small, reuseable transfer vehicle is of dubious worth in my opinion, you will have to build a heavy lander and a HAB for the Martian surface on every mission anyway, so make the transit hab and surface hab double up.

I also maintain that six crew should be the minimum, that a larger crew will have much greater capability for a reasonable marginal cost increase. Launching two smaller vehicles is an interesting aproach, but it would require duplicate everything and would have lower efficency by nature of the cube/square law. Spinning the two vehicles nose-to-nose joined directly together presents a pretty large coriolis force concern.

No vehicle of reasonable size with a crew more then two can ride on a single EELV shot without being inflatable. An inflatable vehicle will be hard to aerobrake and will require a large, seperate heat shield be sent up and attached which would not fit for sure.

I want to reiterate this notion that whatever Mars system is selected, it must have direct applicability to the next phase beyond simple exploration, or the whole dream dies with the Apollo effect. This means building bigger, and having more capacity in hand or at hand then is needed for a "just enough" program. NASA is not hurting for money over a decade-scale mission as long as the ISS is cut entirely.

Cryogenic tankage isn't a big safety risk, we know quite well how to store them just fine. Besides, if a small amount of course correction or a big amount of TMI/TEI/etc blew up, the result is the same. You're gonna need more then a dozen tons of Me/LOX to get back to Earth from Mars with anything much bigger then a CEV capsule.

ftlwright · 2004-12-08 11:31:17

Hey guys, good to see we still have a health discussion here .

With respect to the small launcher issue, if you plan on going that route (which is not all bad, IMO) you first need to develop in-orbit construction methods. As assembly time grows longer, mission cost begin to explode *cough* ISS/Shuttle. Further, this method is useful ONLY if you leverage existing launch technologies.

My personal belief is that the first manned mission should be solely focused on building a base of operations in preparation of future manned missions. All of the experiments should be focused on testing technologies and keeping the crew alive; this is much more important as it will lay the groundwork for sending larger crews.

I think a cryogenic tankage would be unneccisary when you could just go with gelled MMH/iRFNA loaded with Al; I'm not so much worried about the safety as I am the complexity of cryogenic propellant (KISS). I know a lot of folks would like to just go with in-situ off the bat, but in a foreign environment its better to go with those things you are familiar with.

I don't know about the DC-X, but the VentureStar/X-33 didn't have a chance in hell of making it to orbit. Truth be told, the calculations to disproved the concept could be done on the back of a napkin. The purpose of the x-33 program was to develop technologies that NASA - at the time - felt would be necessary for developing a next generation crew transfer vehicle (non-cylindrical composite tanks, honeycomb structure, aerospike engine). Unfortunately, NASA did a horrible job of letting the public know this, thus expectations of the program were unreasonable high. If I recall, the x-33 required a structural efficiency of .05, which is nearly an order of magnitude greater than an existing launch technology...very unlikely to happen. I'll try to verify this number later.

And the 2B dollar estimate for the HL-20/OSP were never going to happen. Remember how much the SSME turbopump redesign ended up costing? It's nothing unique to NASA, but development cost end up running *much* higher than the original proposal. Part of this is because everyone underbids with the cost will be and know NASA/military will give them more money to complete the project. Just the nature of the industry, but it's one of the first things that have to change if we are to accomplish a Mars mission.

On a side note, I didn't mean to imply I was working for NASA when I did work on the HL-20. It was a research project while I was in school looking at some of the entry dynamics. This, of course, is not to say that I won't be working for NASA in the next month, but that a matter for another time.

RobertDyck · 2004-12-08 13:46:25

X-33 was a quarter scale version of VentureStar. X-33 was a suborbital technology demonstrator that was intended to reveal problems before committing to the full size vehicle. VentureStar was supposed to replace the Shuttle.

So the technical documents from the Glenn Research Center on silicon carbide composites are the most up-to-date information available?

ftlwright · 2004-12-08 16:15:07

X-33 was a quarter scale version of VentureStar. X-33 was a suborbital technology demonstrator that was intended to reveal problems before committing to the full size vehicle. VentureStar was supposed to replace the Shuttle.
So the technical documents from the Glenn Research Center on silicon carbide composites are the most up-to-date information available?

My knowledge is a bit out of date, but I'm sure you could find the appropriate info on the NASA/AIAA document database.

The problem with silcon carbonite tanks were not size (though they were prohibitively expensive because of it, to be expected), rather it was the macadamia nut shaped composites that threw everything out of whack. I believe TRW(?) demonstrated that Si/C composite tanks of that size were possible, if I have time I see if I can find any documentation to back that up.

Despite which, the VentureStar did not stand a chance of attaining its target goals. NASA went with the high risk/high return option hoping to gain valuable research data from the program, but everything I've heard indicates that they did not expect the VentureStar to fly. The numbers did not add up... which should be the first thing you make sure of before you start building hardware.

jmiller3002 · 2004-12-08 18:22:50

Stop thinking return missions. Is it true that we have heavy lift rockets that could lob supplies to the surface. When enough supplies arrive to make a survival village send humans by the same means. Go there to stay. Send older people that
plan on dying on mars. Never come back. We could wait forever here for technology to catch up. Send new villagers each month. Send new supplies constantly. Build a city. Settle the new world like north america was settled.

When the technology catches up the tourists and military can come and do their five year rotations.

If mars settlers wanted to travel they could go outward into space instead of wasting resources coming back where they had been. We could establish orbital labs around other planets and moons while the cautious wait for the technology to send someone to mars and return them safely.

Use expendable rockets and people. I will go. Just keep sending new people to replace the old ones there dying on
mars. Think about it.

ohnny

RobertDyck · 2004-12-08 18:58:15

Oops, sorry ftlwright. I should be careful when talking about two separate things in one message. X-33 was originally designed to use solid wall graphite fibre/epoxy composite tanks, but changed to use graphite fibre cloth with vertically oriented kevlar paper between the inner and outer layers of graphite. The kevlar formed sides of the honeycomb cells. The whole thing was bonded by painting it with epoxy. One problem was someone used a piece of tape to hold graphite cloth in place during assembly. When cryogenically cooled the tape acted as a piece of foreign matter; when warmed the tank broke at that point. Imagine a laminated tank breaking while under pressure; reports state it was quite dramatic. But even if tape wasn't used it would have disintegrated anyway.

I was referring to the Glenn Research Center's work on carbon/silicon carbide (C/SiC) as a ceramic composite for fuel pump turbines and rocket exhaust bell cone. I did a bit more digging today and found a couple carbon composites that have been examined for rocket engines. My interest is to reduce the weight of a reusable tri-propellant rocket engine. My simple spreadsheet calculation shows that if we get the weight:thrust ratio of the engine down to 90% of the RD-701 then the mini-MAKS/HL-20 can be air-launched from NASA's 747. That doesn't sound like much of a weight reduction and should be easily achievable, but it's also a significant reduction in size.

Dook · 2004-12-08 19:02:36

Send humans to stay? The only people who would voluntarily abandon the earth permanently are losers with no life whatsoever. Exactly the type you would never put on a space mission. Send older people? Old people want to end their days near their family. Also they depend on a lot of medicine and machines to help maintain their quality of life as they get old.

Build a city? Why?

Tourists? Probably not for hundreds of years.

Military on mars? Why? Do you think the martians will resist us?

I'll never understand the urgent need some people have to abandon the earth.

But if you really want to go then all you have to do is become an aeronautical engineer and put in about 10 years as a military pilot.

John Creighton · 2004-12-08 21:08:14

I'll never understand the urgent need some people have to abandon the earth.

\

Get off before it go boom. Do you duty for mankind.

Personally I would rather stay on earth but if no one else wants to I am willing to do my duty. I would of course need a girlfriend there or at least a good dating pool. I am not sure if I could convince my girlfriend to go. Aside from probably hating it on mars she thinks the shuttle is a little dangerous. I agree. A 2% chance of death. Those aren’t good odds.

SpaceNut · 2004-12-09 06:17:03

But if things had been done right and not scrimped on and bypassed it would still be 100% but that is all hind site. Going forward it is possible to lower that failure rate but it will take vigilance and not apathy on everyone part that is associated with them.
Why is there no shuttle II being planned for just crew only transfers?
Why was no work down to make the tile system more of a Large piece replacement process?

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-09 09:40:08

Why is there no shuttle II being planned for just crew only transfers?
Why was no work down to make the tile system more of a Large piece replacement process?

Why do we need a space shuttle? Why would you need numerous light-to-medium flights to LEO? No truely cheap and spaceplane capable of medium lift could likly be built for under $15-25Bn. No spaceplane can return from Moon/Mars either, since reentry velocities would be too high.

There simply isn't a good reason for one, unless you count the ISS, which is not a good reason in my view.

The reason that there are no large tiles on Shuttle is because no such tile capable of resisting those temperatures exsists. Metal or heavy ceramics are perhaps possible, but those would make Shuttle too heavy... Silica tiles were favored for their light weight.

Shuttle's temperatures are very high because of its shape, that the USAF demanded that it be able to glide for long distances, and the narrow & pointed fuselage and delta wings were selected. Shuttle also has alot of heating because it is so heavy for the area of heat shield, which is fairly small, for its ~80-90+ ton weight.

SpaceNut · 2004-12-09 09:47:13

I am continuing my thoughts on shuttle and ISS in the ISS woes thread.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-08-21 18:59:52

Build all slow but with a sure foundational structure.

Perhaps an old topic worth looking at again, the Moon is looked at now.

Greenhouses, animals inside Biodomes, a day that invites 24 hours and 37 minutes.

Some time ago there was an insanity of hitting Mars at Mach 30

Perhaps picking the 'Best of the Best' the Right Stuff that if successful one day is made into a book or tv show, exploration possible with Human Psyche the madness of Elon Musk's quirky creativity and the determination of someone who has done Antarctica and confided Submarine missions. Direct an alternative, a proposal for a human mission to Mars which purports to be both cost-effective and possible with current technology

History Lessons?

Fascinated by the Arctic and the Franklin expedition?
https://www.toronto.com/things-to-do/bo … 69cdf.html

OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush had ‘meltdown’ the CEO Stockton Rush had one-hour meltdown after he got another sub stuck in Andrea Doria wreck in 2016
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/oceangate-ce … tanic-sub/

Event in Sioux City recreates 1804 Lewis and Clark Expedition
https://www.radioiowa.com/2023/08/17/ev … xpedition/

Antarctic explorer Sir Ernest Shackleton book to be sold at auction
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/202 … ?ref=yahoo

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2023-08-21 19:24:10)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2004-12-07 19:57:18

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#127 2004-12-07 21:41:31

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#128 2004-12-07 21:50:31

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#129 2004-12-08 11:31:17

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#130 2004-12-08 13:46:25

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#131 2004-12-08 16:15:07

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#132 2004-12-08 18:22:50

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#133 2004-12-08 18:58:15

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#134 2004-12-08 19:02:36

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#135 2004-12-08 21:08:14

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#136 2004-12-09 06:17:03

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#137 2004-12-09 09:40:08

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#138 2004-12-09 09:47:13

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#139 2023-08-21 18:59:52

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

Board footer