Some Corrective Lenses - For that "Vision" thing...

Dook · 2005-05-02 19:53:14

Grypd: One more shuttle accident and the ISS is definately doomed and it might be the end of NASA. Say goodbye to everything then.

What great science are we going to get from the ISS anyway? Lets buy out our commitment. I'm sure Russia will take some cash and easily agree to end their own commitment to ISS.

Why is mars the prize? Because science is the whole point of space exploration, not science fiction fantasy and the insane urge to abandon the earth for space just to appease a bunch of trekkies. And the most intriguing science is on mars. Life or no life? Possible to terraform an entire planet or not? The moon does not compare.

I think the stars are a lot farther away than you realize.

You want space infrastructure? You want moon bases and orbiting stations and cycler ships going back and forth? What you don't understand is that Mars gives you those things. If we find out that we cannot terraform mars then all of that is a bust.

SpaceNut · 2005-05-02 20:15:24

Actually Nasa can not buyout anything for it is the congress that holds the purse strings.
As for science, going to any location would fit that bill but the question of what do you want answered by this exploration that is the key to science.

Visionary Explorer · 2005-05-02 20:27:03

The problem with the plans are timeframe, cost and how many flights for payback.

Payback? In the US Space program? I'll need more information on what you mean before I can comment SpaceNut.

1st, using the MarsDirect single-HLLV plan is unworkable. Zubrin's plan is simply not practical... it is an interesting thought experiment in ways to absolutely minimize the payload sent from Earth, but he went too far in trying to cut corners so that MD would fit on a single shot of a Shuttle-derived all-chemical vehicle. Furthermore, MD would require the largest and most difficult varient of SDV nuclear or not, which would be expensive.

I believe the last MD Plan which is what I'm referencing was for two launches - one for the ERV (so it can generate the fuel and consumables - and we know it's done that before sending anyone) and then the CDV. This is what I advocate as well. Nuclear propulsion is not necessary at this stage at all. I do note that the CDV as worked up by Zubrin may not cut it however.

MarsDirect has one much more fundimental problem however, in that it has no hope of doing anything more then just barely getting four people there and back.

GCN, that comment alone tells me you may want to see the latest version(s) of Mars Direct, and then I could respond with some better confidence. I would love to see a single lift-plan, but Zubrin and I (and everyone else) knows that impossible. Hence I placed at least two launches - not one - might take three (which is a bummer).

Sounds like Mars Direct. While I may agree with some of your changes I do not agree with the way you wish to implement these changes. Having the NASA Administrator go behind the Presidents back to congress would be a huge mistake and political suicide. The Administrator should bring the ideas to the President, convince him and his science advisor, then allow the President to announce the new plan to the people.

Dook, the President is not going to listen. The aerospace industry is in control on this issue - as are congressmen and women who have pork (ISS and Shuttle contracts) on the fire.

The way to do this however is simple and the late great James Webb showed the way. He stood up to Congress, said this is what we need to do what you want us to do, and he got it. We and NASA need to make sure we can placate the individual members of Congress who count - by making sure a test gets done here, or an assembly plant gets done there.

Going behind the President's back is common in Washington anyway... it's the way things get done.

The best way to sell this to the public is to say that we can achieve it within NASA's current budget, no new taxes and no robbing from other programs. To do it we would have to cut the space shuttle and ISS though.

I believe that's what I said.

Space based manufacturing infrastructure? Why would we need that? I am definately against it. I support science efforts in space but not the settlement of space simply to fulfill science fiction readers fantasy.

You cannot sell the space program on just science, exploration, or even "personal opportunity" alone. We don't really need a space-based infrastructure just yet, but we will, and the resources inherent in asterodial material cannot be ignored (nor the threat of impact - which having the technology to manipulate them can do no harm to stopping).

Thinking of the technology benefits (and the employment opportunities therein) here on Earth is not a sci-fi reader's fantasy - it's just common sense.

Grypd, I'll take all these on at once...

1) To summarily get rid of the ISS is unfortunatly politically impossible even to stop construction is again almost impossible. The ISS was billed as a worlds space station to get other countries especially Russia on board to summarilly abandon its construction with the modules other countries have built sitting in hangers would not go well for international space relations.
2) You seem to be very anti lunar and this would alienate a degree of the space advocates and this includes your congress. Many people are bitter that the apollo program seemed to stop before the dreams of lunar bases and a foothold on Earths companion happened.
Still a good heavy with a medium launcher would benefit the space program greatly. Especially if clean sheet but would the rather nasty buisness of political slash and cut allow it at the expense of all those current shuttle army and launchers jobs.

Dook provides a reply that answers the ISS problem, and it's a good way out of a bad situation.

I'm not anti-Lunar, I'm anti-self-interest at the expense of the space program. I place test runs on the Moon not as a bone to Lunar enthusiasts (although that occurred to me), but for what they're good for - testing. The Lunar missions however (and you should have seen my earlier draft concerning the Moon) can be done later. Unless Lunar people are gung-ho because they think they're going to have a chance to go themselves, this shouldn't be a major concern.

I would love to see a permanent presence on the Moon - for radio and optical astronomy being paramount reasons to go. But a base there will kill any chance of going to Mars and it will be worse than Apollo - it will never be completed and it will kill NASA.

What I really want to see Grypd for the Lunnies is this: give a plan that builds a resource infrastructure and adds to going to Mars as opposed to subtracting from it. That's one thing I've never seen - and I wonder if that's because there is no meat on "them bones". There is no reason for going to the Moon besides science or prestige - and we've seen where that takes us before (Apollo).

I'm not sure a new set of lift vehicles would kill any jobs. It might even create more in the aerospace industry itself - but cost many in for the aerospace group who run the Shuttle now (forget the company's name). More launches would require more people as well - and that's the key to a new vehicle set.

Next... part two!

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-02 20:30:07

NASA is taking a signifigant risk with going ahead with Shuttle to finish the ISS, but it is a calculated and not completly unreasonable risk. As far as a Shuttle accident being the end of NASA, that would only happen if we lost another crew, a risk which is signifigantly reduced with the ISS as a safe haven.

"Because science is the whole point of space exploration"

No it isn't. Science is just one of the facets of exploration... one of the other facets - material exploitation - is not going to happen from Mars for a very long time. The Moon, however, is right next door.

"What you don't understand is that Mars gives you those things." (moon bases)

No it doesn't. Going to the Moon is different in almost every single way, from the size of ship, launch vehicle, and ISRU plant all the way down to what type of space suits, insulation, and habitat bulkheads.

SpaceNut · 2005-05-02 20:35:42

Payback comes in the form of a return not just some data on the age or mineral composition of the moon but rather can we make the steps from there for infrastructure and colonization of beyound.

Timeframe, well we have had nearly two years of no flights to which we have paid for the shuttle army to put out no flights at all. A few months after the accident there was much discusion as to what to replace the shuttle with. The flyoff as it stands now is just a paper rocket with not even a complete flight test of hardware fully intergrated to actually a full size testing until 2012 with manned flight in 2014. All to get to LEO or spiral 1.

Visionary Explorer · 2005-05-02 20:48:14

Note about the opposition comments. Why I didn't remember 2018 escapes me - I've been planning for it since last year. The first ERV launch could probably not go until 2021 as 2018 is really pushing it (moreso than 2019 which is not an opposition... duh).

There are ways that we could get rid of the ISS without actually abandoning our agreement. We could buy out the rest of our responsibility. Pay Russia to finish the ISS with their own launch systems and since they can do it cheaper, it costs us less. Plus this will mean we can retire the shuttle, more savings.

The first sentence makes sense, the second sentence is impossible for the Russians (not enough lift capacity). Grypd points that out well.

The moon is a waste and a distraction promoted by the old Apollo era astronauts who have now made it into congress.
Sure there are things we can do on the moon, there are things we can do everywhere but what is the real prize? Mars is. You think the public is going to get all goo goo over us returning to the moon? The interest will last about ten minutes. What is an astronaut going to say "One small step for man, one giant leap backwards for humanity!"

Ok, now wait a minute. It's fine to point out a fact, but what I want to see is the science behind that fact Dook and Grypd - against and for. Point of interest...

If it is too promote space infrastructure and to allow us more access to space then not going to the Moon is stupid. If it is to do eventual colonisation and of man spreading to new worlds then we need the Moon again. If it is to provide our homeworld materials and energy to improve life here and to allow our civilisation to continue we go to the Moon.

Does anyone realise what the Moon is made of? Mainly SiO2 and AlO2 (some areas are high in FeO, various isotopes). What are we going to do with Silicon? Computer chip boards and solar panels? For what? It's rich in Aluminum as well to be sure, but we need Titanium (it's no more than 4% by volume from various sites - over that in a couple of places - and often less than 1%) and Magnesium (about the same as Iron, no more than 11% and only in a couple of locations) among other things. Are these concentrations higher where there might be water (more likely just bound hydrogen which will need to be extracted and fast)? What is the Moon good for besides vacation spots is my question.

I could agree with the assertion we need resource utilization from the Moon, but it's another gravity well, it's not as rich as everyone seems to think, and the resources for maintaining a base or manufacturing colony are not apparent. NEAs are light (low escape but the delta-vees do need worked out), can be moved about, and brought to LEO or LLO (yes, Lunar orbit - we can have a better lunar infrastructure using NEA material as well as Lunar material) for processing, and materials can be used to build a space elevator - giving us greater access to the Moon, Mars, NEAs, and everywhere else.

As far as going to the stars - we'll still need NEAs by the way - because the best technologies for interstellar travel all require a space infrastructure (build a Maser-pushed-Lightsail thousands of km in diameter on earth?) - even though we won't be doing anything IS for decades to come. Starting within 15 years or so will give us the experience for Mars, the Moon, and even make for practical developments on Earth regardless of it's future benefits.

Visionary Explorer · 2005-05-02 20:50:59

Payback comes in the form of a return not just some data on the age or mineral composition of the moon but rather can we make the steps from there for infrastructure and colonization of beyound.
Timeframe, well we have had nearly two years of no flights to which we have paid for the shuttle army to put out no flights at all. A few months after the accident there was much discusion as to what to replace the shuttle with. The flyoff as it stands now is just a paper rocket with not even a complete flight test of hardware fully intergrated to actually a full size testing until 2012 with manned flight in 2014. All to get to LEO or spiral 1.

Got ya... I thought that was what you meant, but wasn't sure.

Let me think on that for a moment, as I'm guessing you mean the delay between starting and first flights (to Mars much less anywhere else).

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-02 21:07:13

1st, using the MarsDirect single-HLLV plan is unworkable. Zubrin's plan is simply not practical... it is an interesting thought experiment in ways to absolutely minimize the payload sent from Earth, but he went too far in trying to cut corners so that MD would fit on a single shot of a Shuttle-derived all-chemical vehicle. Furthermore, MD would require the largest and most difficult varient of SDV nuclear or not, which would be expensive.
I believe the last MD Plan which is what I'm referencing was for two launches - one for the ERV (so it can generate the fuel and consumables - and we know it's done that before sending anyone) and then the CDV. This is what I advocate as well. Nuclear propulsion is not necessary at this stage at all. I do note that the CDV as worked up by Zubrin may not cut it however.
MarsDirect has one much more fundimental problem however, in that it has no hope of doing anything more then just barely getting four people there and back.
GCN, that comment alone tells me you may want to see the latest version(s) of Mars Direct, and then I could respond with some better confidence. I would love to see a single lift-plan, but Zubrin and I (and everyone else) knows that impossible. Hence I placed at least two launches - not one - might take three (which is a bummer).
Dook, the President is not going to listen. The aerospace industry is in control on this issue - as are congressmen and women who have pork (ISS and Shuttle contracts) on the fire.
Going behind the President's back is common in Washington anyway... it's the way things get done.
...the resources inherent in asterodial material cannot be ignored (nor the threat of impact - which having the technology to manipulate them can do no harm to stopping).
I would love to see a permanent presence on the Moon - for radio and optical astronomy being paramount reasons to go. But a base there will kill any chance of going to Mars and it will be worse than Apollo - it will never be completed and it will kill NASA.
What I really want to see Grypd for the Lunnies is this: give a plan that builds a resource infrastructure and adds to going to Mars as opposed to subtracting from it. That's one thing I've never seen - and I wonder if that's because there is no meat on "them bones". There is no reason for going to the Moon besides science or prestige - and we've seen where that takes us before (Apollo).

My, plenty of things here...

First off, I know perfectly well what I am talking about with concern to MarsDirect. I've even read the various presentations and documents about it, the fact that you have to enumerate how you would send the ERV and the HAB (Oops, sorry, the "CDV." You aren't even using the same terminology.) seperatly clearly illustrates how you aren't exactly an expert on the topic.

I am saying that even with the whole payload of the largest all-chemical Shuttle-derived launch vehicle called for by MarsDirect dedicated to the ERV or HAB seperatly, it still isn't enough. If the biggest chemical SDV can't do the job, and a new mega-HLLV is out of the question, then you would therefore have to use a heavy nuclear engine... Just like Zubrin details in his MarsDirect "upgrade options" following the meat of the "Reno" presentation.

NASA's DRM instead would split the mission into many more pieces, which gives you practical payload masses - no more cutting off the toothbrush handles - without needing an expensive mega-HLLV. Three rather then two payloads would be sent to Mars: the roomy fully-fueled ERV into Mars orbit, the MAV (acent vehicle) and surface gear to the Martian surface, and then a much bigger HAB/lab module to the surface with the crew. Each payload would be placed into LEO and mated to a TMI boost stage powerd by small RL-10 class nuclear engines.

Next, you seem to be under this odd impression that NASA could somehow be this rouge agency and do what its cheif executive told them not to do... The Vice President, and hence the President himself by extension, is the actual head of NASA. Not the NASA administrator... he is merely a manager, and does not set policy. There is a good reason why the NASA admin is nominated by the President.

I can tell you where there are plenty of asteroids, big ones, much closer to us then the NEAs... lots of gravity for easy mining, loose dirt for radiation shielding, and perhaps even a ready supply of water... You know all those round thingies on the Moon? How do you suppose they got there? ...From asteroids impacting the Moon. And they are still there, perfectly preserved in the vacuum, hidden by dust.

"But a base there will kill any chance of going to Mars and it will be worse than Apollo - it will never be completed and it will kill NASA."

Says you. I say that it can be done, and both can be done... just not simultainiously. Why do you think it will never be finished, and would kill NASA? In fact, I sure hope that its never finished, as it should be an open-ended project that is eventually handed off to large degree to businesses for mining.

"a plan that builds a resource infrastructure and adds to going to Mars as opposed to subtracting from it."

There isn't any such thing, and you shouldn't expect it either. Setting up shop on the Moon and visiting Mars are such different tasks that neither plan will have much practical commonality.

"There is no reason for going to the Moon besides science or prestige"

Not true! The Moon offers much quicker and easier payoff then a mega giant self-replicating AI robotic zero-G asteroid mine... and would give us the same minerals. You can't support NEA mining and summerly dismiss Lunar mining, since the same minerals are available in either place.

SpaceNut · 2005-05-02 21:18:04

Here is a list of CEV references:
A Spiral Stairway to the Moon and Beyond

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Exploration_Vehicle] Crew Exploration Vehicle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.[/url]

Aviation Week & Space Technology a Trial By Fire

Checkout the cev central for more links

Visionary Explorer · 2005-05-02 21:56:58

1st, using the MarsDirect single-HLLV plan is unworkable. Zubrin's plan is simply not practical... it is an interesting thought experiment in ways to absolutely minimize the payload sent from Earth, but he went too far in trying to cut corners so that MD would fit on a single shot of a Shuttle-derived all-chemical vehicle. Furthermore, MD would require the largest and most difficult varient of SDV nuclear or not, which would be expensive.
I believe the last MD Plan which is what I'm referencing was for two launches - one for the ERV (so it can generate the fuel and consumables - and we know it's done that before sending anyone) and then the CDV. This is what I advocate as well. Nuclear propulsion is not necessary at this stage at all. I do note that the CDV as worked up by Zubrin may not cut it however.
MarsDirect has one much more fundimental problem however, in that it has no hope of doing anything more then just barely getting four people there and back.
GCN, that comment alone tells me you may want to see the latest version(s) of Mars Direct, and then I could respond with some better confidence. I would love to see a single lift-plan, but Zubrin and I (and everyone else) knows that impossible. Hence I placed at least two launches - not one - might take three (which is a bummer).
Dook, the President is not going to listen. The aerospace industry is in control on this issue - as are congressmen and women who have pork (ISS and Shuttle contracts) on the fire.
Going behind the President's back is common in Washington anyway... it's the way things get done.
...the resources inherent in asterodial material cannot be ignored (nor the threat of impact - which having the technology to manipulate them can do no harm to stopping).
I would love to see a permanent presence on the Moon - for radio and optical astronomy being paramount reasons to go. But a base there will kill any chance of going to Mars and it will be worse than Apollo - it will never be completed and it will kill NASA.
What I really want to see Grypd for the Lunnies is this: give a plan that builds a resource infrastructure and adds to going to Mars as opposed to subtracting from it. That's one thing I've never seen - and I wonder if that's because there is no meat on "them bones". There is no reason for going to the Moon besides science or prestige - and we've seen where that takes us before (Apollo).
My, plenty of things here...
First off, I know perfectly well what I am talking about with concern to MarsDirect. I've even read the various presentations and documents about it, the fact that you have to enumerate how you would send the ERV and the HAB (Oops, sorry, the "CDV." You aren't even using the same terminology.) seperatly clearly illustrates how you aren't exactly an expert on the topic.
I am saying that even with the whole payload of the largest all-chemical Shuttle-derived launch vehicle called for by MarsDirect dedicated to the ERV or HAB seperatly, it still isn't enough. If the biggest chemical SDV can't do the job, and a new mega-HLLV is out of the question, then you would therefore have to use a heavy nuclear engine... Just like Zubrin details in his MarsDirect "upgrade options" following the meat of the "Reno" presentation.
NASA's DRM instead would split the mission into many more pieces, which gives you practical payload masses - no more cutting off the toothbrush handles - without needing an expensive mega-HLLV. Three rather then two payloads would be sent to Mars: the roomy fully-fueled ERV into Mars orbit, the MAV (acent vehicle) and surface gear to the Martian surface, and then a much bigger HAB/lab module to the surface with the crew. Each payload would be placed into LEO and mated to a TMI boost stage powerd by small RL-10 class nuclear engines.
Next, you seem to be under this odd impression that NASA could somehow be this rouge agency and do what its cheif executive told them not to do... The Vice President, and hence the President himself by extension, is the actual head of NASA. Not the NASA administrator... he is merely a manager, and does not set policy. There is a good reason why the NASA admin is nominated by the President.
I can tell you where there are plenty of asteroids, big ones, much closer to us then the NEAs... lots of gravity for easy mining, loose dirt for radiation shielding, and perhaps even a ready supply of water... You know all those round thingies on the Moon? How do you suppose they got there? ...From asteroids impacting the Moon. And they are still there, perfectly preserved in the vacuum, hidden by dust.
"But a base there will kill any chance of going to Mars and it will be worse than Apollo - it will never be completed and it will kill NASA."
Says you. I say that it can be done, and both can be done... just not simultainiously. Why do you think it will never be finished, and would kill NASA? In fact, I sure hope that its never finished, as it should be an open-ended project that is eventually handed off to large degree to businesses for mining.
"a plan that builds a resource infrastructure and adds to going to Mars as opposed to subtracting from it."
There isn't any such thing, and you shouldn't expect it either. Setting up shop on the Moon and visiting Mars are such different tasks that neither plan will have much practical commonality.
"There is no reason for going to the Moon besides science or prestige"
Not true! The Moon offers much quicker and easier payoff then a mega giant self-replicating AI robotic zero-G asteroid mine... and would give us the same minerals. You can't support NEA mining and summerly dismiss Lunar mining, since the same minerals are available in either place.

First of all, it's noted as a C(rew) D(ecent) V(ehicle), kinda like the C(rew) E(xploration) V(ehicle). It's called a HAB-Unit by Zubrin as it's for habitation. I know plenty about the Case For Mars meetings, as I was there through IV. I'm probably not familiar with the Reno options, as I was no longer able to pay close attention (as in not enough free time) until this year. But they are "options", which is interesting.

I thought you were referring a true MD approach, which was my error as well.

More information please GCN on this? I believe I do know what your referring to, but it seems to be later than my most recent planning information from Zubrin (who still wants to go as cheaply but safely as possible - two or three launches maximum). Regardless however, the Habs (which are crewed decent vehicles yes?) can be used to form a base - is this not correct? Happily, I already know it's correct, as that is what I was referring to in my reply - MD or MSD gives us the option of a sustained presence on Mars.

Considering that I don't have information on Reno, consider the following as potentially in error.

My problem with nuclear propulsion is it's another delay and more costs - although with no Shuttle or ISS consuming resources that would probably not be a problem. Sure it's gets us there faster and at a sustainable G (I assume), meaning less consumables etc. But how much is it going to cost, and when will it be developed?

NASA has had an obsession with nuclear-propulsion since it was formed, so I'm not entirely confident about that option for good reason, but the orbiting-ERV/MAV-docking option requires another level of complexity and therefore another option for failure - another problem.

And yes, you have to enumerate before you go. You don't just build a bunch of launch and habitation vehicles and then expect to throw together a mission. That's why it's called a plan. And I did invite commentary and correction, plus more information - so please start pointing to that information GCN.

Webb was a manager, yes that is true of all NASA Admins. But a manager goes to the head of the operation and states what he/she needs to get the job done. That's hasn't been the case since Paine, and I think Griffin gets that. Congress grants the monies for those policies and gets what it wants - it does not work any other way. They want Hubble saved - Griffin is now basically saying "Hubble gets saved". If they up and want Voyager to be listened to - listening continues. Regardless of what the Prez or VP want, Congress is in control.

As far as business going to the Moon, tell me one example of where business has exploited space besides for telecommunications or imaging of the Earth for weather or pleasure? (I'll believe in a new private man-rated spacecraft when I see it as well.) That's been a lark since the 1970's - business will get involved yada yada. That assumes something out of the control of NASA and assumes the U.S. will spend $35 billion or more to get a base up (and nothing else) - and then assumes some business will be interested in that free base (cause they won't pay for it). That's untenable for long-range planning.

I've explained the Lunar mineralology situation well enough. Actually the high levels of TiO2 and MgO2 are from asteroidal material on the Moon - not the Moon itself, but I'm sure we can use three month testing missions for Mars to look at these lunar impactors, no base required! And a robotic mission to pinpoint them all - no base required! And GCN, I'll be curious for all the facts (again), on these other asteroids, assuming I don't already have that information.

I will admit the NEAs aren't well understood enough mineralologically to make them a definite - that's why it's last in my post. That's why I put a 10 year period for studying not only them, but the options for using them, without spending billions to find out we're wrong.

Visionary Explorer · 2005-05-02 21:59:06

Here is a list of CEV references:
http://space.com/businesstechnology/tec … 209.html]A Spiral Stairway to the Moon and Beyond
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Exploration_Vehicle] Crew Exploration Vehicle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
http://aviationnow.ecnext.com/free-scri … =02215top] Aviation Week & Space Technology a Trial By Fire
Checkout the cev central for more links

Thank you SpaceNut... that's what is needed to fine tune any plan like this - information.

Visionary Explorer · 2005-05-02 22:23:16

Not true! The Moon offers much quicker and easier payoff then a mega giant self-replicating AI robotic zero-G asteroid mine... and would give us the same minerals.

For clarification, RMC/P units are not mega giant or AI. They're simple, small, analogue solid-state robots (like those that have been/are being developed at Los Alamos) which have the capability of creating copies of themselves, and creating materials processing units (the M-/P in RMC/P) which are also robotic.

SpaceNut · 2005-05-03 04:57:58

Question does the C(rew) D(ecent) V(ehicle), once it is time to go and leave mars will it act as a single stage to orbit or is there another lander that is used to do that function or is it the E(arth) R(eturn) V(ehicle) that is destine for this role?

I am looking at how many launches and how much is waste for the designs.

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-03 10:06:24

"...the Habs (which are crewed decent vehicles yes?) can be used to form a base - is this not correct? Happily, I already know it's correct, as that is what I was referring to in my reply - MD or MSD gives us the option of a sustained presence on Mars."

No it doesn't, and no they don't. Clustering a few worn-out HAB modules doesn't make much of a base, you'd have enough trouble keeping them all operating much less tear their insides out and remodel them, and even getting them bolted together would be a challenge.

The biggest problem is though that MarsDirect has no growth options. You can't make a bigger SDV then a nuclear Ares, and for every single crew rotation you have to throw away two brand new vehicles, the cost of which will prohibit you from doing much besides take pretty pictures and vainly hunt for bugs on the freeze-dried/UV-blanched surface.

The solution, is that you must plan the mission with reuseability in mind, which will entail dividing up the mission into pieces like NASA DRM calls for. The first missions will be sent "all expendable" until a base camp can be established with a heavy ISRU plant (preferably with water drilling capability), heavy nuclear plant, and a crew-only RLV. Then, the ERV will aerocapture into Earth orbit on the return leg, be refueled/resupplied and mated with a new TMI stage, and the crew will take the ERV to Martian orbit where they will ferry down in the RLV to the surface.

Asside from the TMI stage and associated launch vehicles (2X HLLV, 1X CEV to LEO), the whole system would be reuseable. Ths savings taken from this radical cost reduction would then be available to build a real Mars base in earnest, or a Lunar mineing base, or whatnot... MarsDirect however, can do none of these things, as the way it is envisioned there can be no reuse.

"...nuclear propulsion... gets us there faster and at a sustainable G (I assume), meaning less consumables etc. But how much is it going to cost, and when will it be developed?"

The big draw of nuclear engines isn't to speed up the trip, that is already reasonably short, what it does give you is a large increase (around 33-50%) in practical payload mass. Such engines would be absolutely nessesarry to give MarsDirect enough payload, and are assumed standard in NASA DRM so that the mission could fly on the cheaper & easier 100MT class vehicles (as opposed to the big 120MT class Ares)... A small RL-10/RL-60 scale engine that NASA DRM calls for could probobly be built for only a few billion, perhaps as low as one billion. An engine big enough for MarsDirect however (SSME/RD-0120 scale), as this engine would need large thrust as it would be the Ares upper stage, would be much harder.

"...but the orbiting-ERV/MAV-docking option requires another level of complexity and therefore another option for failure - another problem."

You say that like it were some immoral offence. Zubrin's obsession with simple has killed MarsDirect, in its advertised form, of being either practical nor efficent enough... the added complexity is a worthwhile expense to make the system both large enough (about double MarsDirect scale with a smaller launcher) plus gives it a future path to reuseability.

Your contempt for the "throw lots of HABs at it" NASA DRM arcitecture is unwarrented, NASA has a perfectly good "plan" that is not impractical unlike MarsDirect, and has a future. I also find your unwillingness to do even a quick Google search to find documents about DRM to be emblematic of your irrational and emotional unwillingness to entertain doubts about Zubrin's plan... DRM isn't my idea, NASA has had it and refined it for years, the only thing I add to it is a potential path to reuseability that MarsDirect lacks.

"As far as business going to the Moon, tell me one example of where business has exploited space besides for telecommunications or imaging of the Earth for weather or pleasure?"

Ahhh here we go with the typical "but you wern't THERE!" type faux-arguments, which doesn't even mesh with your statements about asteroid mining... It is really quite simple, there are materials on the Moon that are or will not long from now be extremely valuble, literally worth much more then their weight in gold. Private companies will (or should) be able to buy the same systems or flights of a system from aerospace contractors as NASA does, and employ them to bring those materials back.

"That's untenable for long-range planning"

Says you. I think that you are wrong, it is entirely natural for a forward-looking business to expand into this market: when the price of Pt or He3 is high enough, it will happen. The trick, of course, is to make it worth their while... at the moment, there are no industries except comm sats that are worth it, since launch vehicles and satelites are so expensive. However, when the worth of the material is high enough, and the means of getting it are inexpensive and low-risk enough, then somebody is bound to do it. NASA, being a government agency dedicated to exploration and technological development, will (mostly) pay to develop the means (ships, base, mining gear) of getting these materials, and then hand off a portion of the operations to private firms.

This is another good reason why whatever system we use to get to the Moon should NOT be built by NASA.

Wasting money on asteroid mining technology demos and surveys doesn't make much sense, since it is obvious that the Moon is the preferred location. The presence of gravity, though a hinderance for rockets, is a nessesity to practical mining for the forseeable future. The fact that there is so much oxygen literally laying around in the dirt (or even better, "snow" perhaps) will also radically reduce the amount of rocket fuel (by mass) needed for a Lunar base.

"For clarification, RMC/P units are not mega giant or AI. They're simple, small, analogue solid-state robots (like those that have been/are being developed at Los Alamos) which have the capability of creating copies of themselves, and creating materials processing units (the M-/P in RMC/P) which are also robotic."

Zero-G self replicating controllerless mining robots? You are out of your mind, thats a sci-fi fantasy if I've heard one.

dicktice · 2005-05-03 10:44:32

One vital question seemingly overlooked in the foregoing posts: Assuming rendezvous space stations exist, exactly what will be the first-generation means of transportation adopted for routine, regular travel between LEO and LLO?

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-03 11:52:56

Actually, I don't think that the money for any space station of any sort will be available during the early Lunar mission phase.

As such, a capsule like Boeing's would be preferred, since it could return directly from the Moon without a braking burn, aerobrake maneuver, or delicate RCC heat shield.

Grypd · 2005-05-03 15:49:56

If it is too promote space infrastructure and to allow us more access to space then not going to the Moon is stupid. If it is to do eventual colonisation and of man spreading to new worlds then we need the Moon again. If it is to provide our homeworld materials and energy to improve life here and to allow our civilisation to continue we go to the Moon.
Does anyone realise what the Moon is made of? Mainly SiO2 and AlO2 (some areas are high in FeO, various isotopes). What are we going to do with Silicon? Computer chip boards and solar panels? For what? It's rich in Aluminum as well to be sure, but we need Titanium (it's no more than 4% by volume from various sites - over that in a couple of places - and often less than 1%) and Magnesium (about the same as Iron, no more than 11% and only in a couple of locations) among other things. Are these concentrations higher where there might be water (more likely just bound hydrogen which will need to be extracted and fast)? What is the Moon good for besides vacation spots is my question.
I could agree with the assertion we need resource utilization from the Moon, but it's another gravity well, it's not as rich as everyone seems to think, and the resources for maintaining a base or manufacturing colony are not apparent. NEAs are light (low escape but the delta-vees do need worked out), can be moved about, and brought to LEO or LLO (yes, Lunar orbit - we can have a better lunar infrastructure using NEA material as well as Lunar material) for processing, and materials can be used to build a space elevator - giving us greater access to the Moon, Mars, NEAs, and everywhere else.
As far as going to the stars - we'll still need NEAs by the way - because the best technologies for interstellar travel all require a space infrastructure (build a Maser-pushed-Lightsail thousands of km in diameter on earth?) - even though we won't be doing anything IS for decades to come. Starting within 15 years or so will give us the experience for Mars, the Moon, and even make for practical developments on Earth regardless of it's future benefits.

It is not just the lower gravity of the Moon that makes it the best place to create industrial capacity but the capability to have power generated. The Moon with peaks that are almost permanently in sunlight are a solar power paradise. It is power and especially electrical that has made our civilisation what it is and the Moon has in abundance all that is needed to easily make cheap solar panels that are very "hard" when it comes to radiation. There are Science projects that have it planned for automated Rovers to make lines of these panels solely from lunar soils. Its all that abundant SiO2.

Another advantage is that the Moon is sprinkled with Iron not much except in certain concentrated areas but this allows us to build what scientists call smart bricks. If we collect Lunar regolith and crush it into a mold then heat it. The mold will release oxygen and any other free gases. leaving us with a structural component and if passed through a powerful magnetic source the brick becomes polarised. This allows us to create a very good structural component which helps to right itself and is easily picked up by a robot arm.

Still it is when we go to find the PGMs that the Moon will either pay for itself or at the minimum to defray costs the same with the use of Helium 3.

dicktice · 2005-05-03 16:34:44

Actually, I don't think that the money for any space station of any sort will be available during the early Lunar mission phase. As such, a capsule like Boeing's would be preferred, since it could return directly from the Moon without a braking burn, aerobrake maneuver, or delicate RCC heat shield.

No, I didn't mean now, but after the Pioneering Phase (Apollo being the Discovery Phase), when the need is for routine Earth orbit to Moon orbit transportation. But wait. What's this Boeing Capsule you mention. Mind running that by me/us again?

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-03 16:53:56

Quite right, but even that is small potatos compared to the fact that you have gravity. We need gravity in order to build anything realisticly, since zero-g construction is very difficult.

An interesting idea for Lunar bricks... so they become magnetic enough to hold themselves together? I wonder, would their magnetic properties help deflect solar/cosmic particle radiation? The main attraction I see is to skip using bricks and make structures out of continuous slabs of sinterd Lunar dust, which you can make by just blasting it with microwaves. Build a "mold" in the shape you want, fill it with sifted Lunar dust, and hit it with the microwave generator.

Ultimatly, if mining the Moon is to be economical, a true Earth and Lunar end reuseable launch vehicle would be nessesarry. For the Earth end on small scales, something like the Kistler rocket or DC-X would be enough, but for real signifigant industrial scales, something like a mega DC-X or a real honest-to-we're-not-kidding Shuttle-II. As for the Lunar end, who knows. Since there is no air, it wouldn't have to be that complicated, only bigger.

But, before then, capsules are the way to go... it seems that if Lockheed is serious about the design they present in this months' Popular Mechanics, then Boeing's capsule would be the only game in town.

http://www.projectconstellation.us/arti … ...&nh=384
Here is Boeing's capsule idea, along with a service module of same diameter and a little longer length, equipped with solar pannels and fuel for the return trip.

Commodore · 2005-05-03 17:40:10

Remind me not to bring a computer to the Moon house made of magnetic bricks.

The biggest threat to the VSE is attention deficit disorder. We'll just get to the Moon and then try to run off to Mars, or we'll find Mars is hard and abandon it, or something.

We need to be established on the Moon now. Its relatively cheap to get to and is a treasure trove of thing that will make our further exploration efforts easier.

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-03 18:12:37

"Space exploration for the purpose of material exploitation is hardly worth mentioning for another 50 years. Only when we really need it will we do it...

...My point about mars giving you the moon is this: If we can terraform mars then we may be able to use bases on the moon to make solar panels, rocket fuel, or whatever to help in that effort. I didn't say it was the same thing as going to mars."

Again you keep saying things that aren't true... We could do ALOT in 45 years, including set up serious Lunar Platinum and Helium-3 mining operations that bring back economically signifigant quantities to Earth, and probobly start on building solar pannel farms able to produce nontrivial megawatt quantities of energy.

Terraforming Mars however IS a project that is far, far, FAR away. Easily 100 years beyond some minor microbial experiments. Getting started on that today is a day-dream if there is one... setting up a base on Mars that is essentially self-sufficent is something practical, and if we are spending all our money on it, then there won't be any for a Lunar development program.

Dook · 2005-05-03 19:43:12

What are we going to be able to sell this urgently needed platinum and He3 for, a few million? You want to turn NASA into a business and it still doesn't come close to covering the cost of the mission and paying NASA employee salaries.

Your idea would be to completely write off the expense as a NASA exploration mission when it's purpose is not about exploration at all. I certainly won't support it. I want visionary exploration, not billions of dollars and many years wasted digging up the moon just in case we need this strange He3 stuff that we very well may not ever need at all.

Solar panel farms on the moon? Great, why? We need a moon base like we need another ISS.

I don't feel that we should get started on terraforming mars today. There is much more research that needs to be done to see if it's possible at all. But here are our two differing sides:

I favor:
1) Cancel the shuttle now, buy out our ISS commitment, build and launch a new hubble and turn all of NASA's efforts into a Design Reference Mission to Mars by 2018 with continuing missions every few years to explore other areas of mars and test greenhouses and domes. And most of all, search for life!

You favor:
2) Build moon mission architecture that won't ever work for mars. Land on the moon by 2018. Build a moon mining and solar panel manufacturing base by 2030. Never have to worry about electrical power on the moon again. Wow, I was really concerned about that. Begin shipping platinum back to the earth at a total mission cost of $1 million an ounce. Around 2040 we still haven't figured out this fusion thing so the base is basically minimally manned but costing us $15 billion a year just to keep the few people there stocked with food and repair parts. Gee thanks for another ISS, only worse, it takes up all of NASA's budget forever and provides less desirable science.

Maybe you should consider selling it to the people at this place:
http://www.moonsociety.org/]http://www.moonsociety.org/

Michael Bloxham · 2005-05-03 19:57:20

We need to be established on the Moon now. Its relatively cheap to get to and is a treasure trove of thing that will make our further exploration efforts easier.

That is what they said about the space station. 'It will make further efforts easier'. And it could have worked, and indeed may work in this case under the right set of circumstances. But reallistically, it probably will not work.

Again you keep saying things that aren't true... We could do ALOT in 45 years, including set up serious Lunar Platinum and Helium-3 mining operations that bring back economically signifigant quantities to Earth, and probobly start on building solar pannel farms able to produce nontrivial megawatt quantities of energy.

That's right, we could. And I too wish we would, but we probably won't.

And that's the problem.

You see, the great thing about Zubrins plan is you can't do it half-assed. It is the bare minimum you could get away with to perform a manned mars mission. There's nothing in it to cull. Get it?

Commodore · 2005-05-03 21:41:49

It is the bare minimum you could get away with to perform a manned mars mission.

Michael Bloxham · 2005-05-04 01:19:13

Commodore, Mars Direct entails that all the return fuel is made, and the ERV checked, before the crewed hab is launched. So that could never happen. Ofcourse, any number of things could go wrong, but the same could be said of NASA's DRM plan.

Mars Direct consists of the bare minumum of hardware you could get away with, while keeping the crew safe. So if you wanted something with more redundancy, you would have to spend a lot more, but you end up with diminishing returns. Also, by adding redundancy you may also inherently increase risk (by relying on extra docking procedures, etc.). Such is the case with the Design Reference Mission, IMO.

Here's a thought: If you wanted to increase redundancy, why not launch 2 MD missions at aproximately (within a few weeks) the same time (perhaps the first one could be launched at a slightly lower velocity, so that the last passes the first mid-flight). If one fails, the HAB might have enough fuel to dock with the other; the crew would transfer supplies, and land on the surface together in the same hab. Also, by flying two missions together, you could have two teams working together on the same site, and the same advantages might apply on the return leg.

What makes DRM better than MD again?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-05-02 19:53:14

Re: Some Corrective Lenses - For that "Vision" thing...

#2 2005-05-02 20:15:24

Re: Some Corrective Lenses - For that "Vision" thing...

#3 2005-05-02 20:27:03

Re: Some Corrective Lenses - For that "Vision" thing...

#4 2005-05-02 20:30:07

Re: Some Corrective Lenses - For that "Vision" thing...

#5 2005-05-02 20:35:42

Re: Some Corrective Lenses - For that "Vision" thing...

#6 2005-05-02 20:48:14

Re: Some Corrective Lenses - For that "Vision" thing...

#7 2005-05-02 20:50:59

Re: Some Corrective Lenses - For that "Vision" thing...

#8 2005-05-02 21:07:13

Re: Some Corrective Lenses - For that "Vision" thing...

#9 2005-05-02 21:18:04

Re: Some Corrective Lenses - For that "Vision" thing...

#10 2005-05-02 21:56:58

Re: Some Corrective Lenses - For that "Vision" thing...

#11 2005-05-02 21:59:06

Re: Some Corrective Lenses - For that "Vision" thing...

#12 2005-05-02 22:23:16

Re: Some Corrective Lenses - For that "Vision" thing...

#13 2005-05-03 04:57:58

Re: Some Corrective Lenses - For that "Vision" thing...

#14 2005-05-03 10:06:24

Re: Some Corrective Lenses - For that "Vision" thing...

#15 2005-05-03 10:44:32

Re: Some Corrective Lenses - For that "Vision" thing...

#16 2005-05-03 11:52:56

Re: Some Corrective Lenses - For that "Vision" thing...

#17 2005-05-03 15:49:56

Re: Some Corrective Lenses - For that "Vision" thing...

#18 2005-05-03 16:34:44

Re: Some Corrective Lenses - For that "Vision" thing...

#19 2005-05-03 16:53:56

Re: Some Corrective Lenses - For that "Vision" thing...

#20 2005-05-03 17:40:10

Re: Some Corrective Lenses - For that "Vision" thing...

#21 2005-05-03 18:12:37

Re: Some Corrective Lenses - For that "Vision" thing...

#22 2005-05-03 19:43:12

Re: Some Corrective Lenses - For that "Vision" thing...

#23 2005-05-03 19:57:20

Re: Some Corrective Lenses - For that "Vision" thing...

#24 2005-05-03 21:41:49

Re: Some Corrective Lenses - For that "Vision" thing...

#25 2005-05-04 01:19:13

Re: Some Corrective Lenses - For that "Vision" thing...

Board footer