Coherent Mars plan

RobertDyck · 2005-08-19 00:38:44

There have been more posts to the "Human missions" group than I can handle during my week at the Mars Society conference, to say nothing about other groups. My brief scan of a couple threads show the usual thrashing about. Are you guys just chatting for the sake of chatting or are some of you willing to come up with a coherent plan to get us to Mars?

I'll assume if you're still reading this you do want to go. The first thing is to stop trying to de-orbit ISS. This represents a commitment to other countries. The United States has earned a reputation for childish unreliability, complete disregard for international commitments. The Iraq war has demonstrated the need for assistance from other countries. Trade treaties and space projects like ISS do affect military cooperation. Some US government people appear to think they're separate, and they appear to think past disputes don't affect current or future issues; they're not separate and nothing is forgotten. Europe had been expecting to be part of an international space station since Skylab, early 1970s. They were disappointed when Space Station Freedom excluded them (the only planned non-US module was Canadian), but now that they've spent billions of dollars (whatever in local currency) cancelling ISS would make them very bitter; they wouldn't forget or forgive for many, many years.

If you want to save money for a Mars mission, get the military out of Iraq. I have to give the US government credit that it is working with the European Union to pressure Iran to ensure their nuclear reactor program is for peaceful purposes only. That's what we need, not another war. I know the US government wants a way to get out while saving dignity, but the last opportunity to do so was when Saddam Hussein was captured. If you aren't willing to swallow your dignity, declare victory and get the hell out of Iraq then stop squabbling about ISS; it's a lot less money than Iraq.

A coherent Mars plan is also tricky because George W.'s directive is to go to the Moon; Mars was mentioned as an after thought: "eventually to Mars". Designing lunar equipment to be technology demonstrators for Mars is the only intelligent way to go, but contractors are already proposing equipment that just barely makes it to the Moon. No, we don't need large manned science missions all over the lunar surface. Apollo already scouted 6 landing locations, what we need now is a single lunar base that is the ultimate Mars analog research station. The NASA organizers of the Public Consultation Workshop in Washington DC in November 2004 were strongly in favour of simply using the Moon as a stepping stone to Mars. Great! We have NASA on-side, now let's get it done.

First we need to complete ISS quickly. I proposed using Shuttle-C to complete ISS because that has the lowest development time of any SDV. You could also use the Russian Energia. Which is more expensive, developing Shuttle-C or rebuilding the vehicle assembly building at Baikonur? As I've said before, you would either need a 3-tonne unmanned on-orbit tug or simply the Shuttle orbiter with its robot arm to pick pieces off the HLLV pallet and install them on ISS. I also said we need the US habitation module to demonstrate long duration life support in LEO, use the station to test technologies for Mars. Once ISS construction is complete, cancel the Shuttle orbiter. You should be able to cancel Shuttle at the end of 2007 or some time in 2008; but only if we get off our butt and do it! Right now they're talking about dragging the Shuttle out to 2010 and the first lunar mission in 2018. So that raises the question whether a Mars mission will happen in this century.

Alen Shepard's first manned flight into space on Mercury MR-3, call sign "Freedom 7", was 05 May 1961, using a Redstone ballistic missile. Apollo 11 launched 16 July 1969; that's 8 years, 2 months, and 11 days later. George W. announced his "Vision for Space Exploration" on 14 January 2004; I consider the clock to have started on that day. If NASA still has the "Right Stuff" then the first manned lunar landing should launch in March 2012, and Mars in 2016. If we can't even get ISS complete and the Shuttle cancelled by 2008 we'll never get make that schedule. After all, if we can't complete a re-do of Apollo in the same time it took to go from a sub-orbit hop on a ballistic missile to walking on the Moon, then NASA has completely lost the ability for manned space flight.

Next year's Mars Society conference will be in Washington DC, and the Zubrin's have called for a political blitz of capital hill during the conference. On August 17 the society's political director, Chris Carberry, sent a message on the newsletter list stating the home district blitz to starts now. I could copy that message here, but you won't be effective if everyone is pulling in a different direction. We have to include the Moon in that plan to get the Moon Society guys on-board, and include the National Space Society as well. Remember politicians view "space" as a single issue, if we show them fragmentation of the advocacy community they won't see a need to support anything.

The two decades were characterized by cancellation of DC-X, cancellation of VentureStar & X-33, cancellation of X-38, cancellation of OSP, cancellation of US space station Freedom, and the struggles to complete ISS. Well, OSP should have been cancelled considering the price contractors were asking, but the point is a long list of projects not completed. This time we need to complete what we started, build a cohesive plan for the future and stick to it. That starts with the us, the advocacy community.

John Creighton · 2005-08-19 01:22:29

I agree with most of what you said but yada yada yada get off the soap box. lol.

srmeaney · 2005-08-19 02:22:46

Fine, Lets throw our support out there for recognition of the Space Commonwealth and its right to self colonize using its own currency.

Colonize the territories of Mars with ten million people who must be trained in colonization within a window of one hundred years.

Contract open to the Private Sector of the Planet Earth. No earth Governments will be allowed to leave earth orbit.
Mars colonization contract: $50,000,000,000,000,000.00
Required: Space transports, Habitats, Mining Equipment, Nuclear Reactors, and what ever they need.

===================================================

President of The United States of America
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
USA

I Support the Space Commonwealth Colonization Act

On Behalf of the Space Commonwealth whose Territories encompass all space beyond earth and the planets that exist there, Would the United States Government Please:

Manage the Contract for Colonization of our Martian Territories (by ten million colonist citizens over a period of one hundred years) to the Sum of fifty million billion dollars written against the inate wealth of Our Martian Territories and the orbiting Moons.
Allowing tax free exploitation of all minerals between the north and south Martian Polar ice caps to any company interested in locating its personnel and infrastructure to Mars free of charge to explore and exploit Mars and Make it habitable for a population of ten million Space Commonwealth Citizens.

Colonization must begin by 2015AD.

Signature

================================================

GCNRevenger · 2005-08-19 07:58:05

A few technical/apolitical thoughts...:

-If the NASA "workshop" with such a small slice of the population polled want to use the Moon soley for Mars-analouge base is irrelivent, NASA should do what it is told to do based on what bennefits can be had there. Just testing Mars equipment while giving up PGM prospecting, Luna-wide telescope networks, real geology and not a pair of jet pilots with rock hammers, and so on does not make good sense. There is stuff worth doing on the Moon!

-Given the high cost of getting to Mars and the money needed for a Lunar program, and it WILL undoubtably be in the mid/high tens of billions to do either one right, a Mars mission is without a doubt some ways down the road given NASA's budget realities. Trying to define a specific mission plan right now therefore makes less sense.

"Designing lunar equipment to be technology demonstrators for Mars is the only intelligent way to go, but contractors are already proposing equipment that just barely makes it to the Moon. No, we don't need large manned science missions all over the lunar surface. Apollo already scouted 6 landing locations..."

Wrong. Designing Lunar equipment beyond specific componets (engines, reactors, LSS) for Mars use is a horrible idea! Spending the extra money to develop vehicles suited for the Moon will save alot of money in operating costs - the REAL problem - in the long run. Especially if you want to get anything done... Griffin's preference for the heavier SDV will enable us to do much more then just get there and back.

Good sized science missions all over the Lunar surface are indeed worthwhile! Its amazing just how little the Apollo missions didn't accomplish given the huge costs, but that is understandable given the time pressure. No such excuse this time: there are impact craters for PGM/He3/H2O prospecting, sites for serious Lunar geology rather then just piddling around like Apollo, and setting up much larger telescopes then could be pre-packaged for robotic deployment. As I have also pointed out, having extra payload with the lander would also eliminate the need for base supply flights.

-Cancelation of all those technology demonstrators and SS Freedom and ISS ferries, they all should have been reguardless if they would work or not, because they aren't the types of vehicles or stations we need. RLVs don't have anywhere to fly to yet, SS Freedom would have broke the bank, and a crew ferry that can't handle trans-Lunar/trans-Mars velocities are worthless... Anyway, NASA now has a very good motivation for pulling VSE off: if they don't, NASA in its present scope is finished.

"I proposed using Shuttle-C to complete ISS because that has the lowest development time of any SDV"

Shuttle-C is a terrible option, because its lower payload ensures that a Lunar mission will be "just barely Apollo redux" or nessesitate expensive seperate supply flights. It is also too small to lift pre-assembled rigid Moon/Mars HABs, plus will either need an expensive and payload-sapping tug or power/navigation system to deliver payloads to ISS. WHEN, not if, we need a more capable launcher, all the effort spent on Shuttle-C would have been for NOTHING!

"I also said we need the US habitation module to demonstrate long duration life support in LEO..."

Another horrible idea! The best place to test such hardware is on the Mars ship/Moon base itself, this is a really weak justification for using the ISS. For goodness sakes, just send the LSS box to the Moon base or put the Mars ship in LEO and fly it in circles! You'd save tens of billions of dollars, half the cost of a Mars program!

"So that raises the question whether a Mars mission will happen in this century."

How pessimistic and devoid of sense, did you say that just as a invective or as a scare quote? This century just started after all.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Now for the polit-ik-ing...:

"The first thing is to stop trying to de-orbit ISS. This represents a commitment to other countries... The Iraq war has demonstrated the need for assistance from other countries. Trade treaties and space projects like ISS do affect military cooperation... now that they've spent billions of dollars (whatever in local currency) cancelling ISS would make them very bitter; they wouldn't forget or forgive."

The Iraq war has not done any such thing concerning space travel, in fact the ISS experience which is much more pertinant, has proven the exact opposit. The US neither needs nor should rely on any other country to provide mission-critical hardware for any reason. If other countries want to send their own astronauts or science payloads, lovely lets bring them along, but considering how little other countries have to offer as far as major systems I think the bennefit of an all-NASA VSE outweighs that, in an engineering and political sense.

I think that its about time that everybody had a little reality check here, the ISS is never ever going to live up to its billing as a research haven even if it were finished to its original, complete specifications. The types, amounts, and qualities of research that require zero-gravity are simply not worth the fantastic expense of even operating it. This being the case, I think that the resistance to canceling further NASA construction would not be quite the blow, because contituencies don't care about the ISS so the political cost would be relativly low if Moon/Mars missions were pushed hard enough... So, lets offer our partners a "buyout" which would cost billions instead of tens of billions to finish/tend ISS. Offer an even trade for slots on VSE mannifests, JAXA Lunar prospecting or ESA Lunar astronomy, etc... And quietly relegate the ISS to a Russian tourist haven

"If you want to save money for a Mars mission, get the military out of Iraq. I have to give the US government credit that it is working with the European Union to pressure Iran to ensure their nuclear reactor program is for peaceful purposes only. That's what we need, not another war. I know the US government wants a way to get out while saving dignity, but the last opportunity to do so was when Saddam Hussein was captured. If you aren't willing to swallow your dignity, declare victory and get the hell out of Iraq"

Excuse me Robert, but apparently you don't seem to understand what exactly the situation is in Iraq: we are not leaving under any circumstance, we are comitted in the literal sense of the word to staying until victory is achieved: that their country is stable and capable of taking care of itself. Period, end quote. Anything short of this is not victory, but retreat in the face of our responsabilities as the conquering power. Both presidential canidates - even Howard Dean - are adamant about staying. Its a done deal.

There is also a principle which I believe and many other people agree: tyranies and states that support terrorism do not have soverign rights, Saddam had no right to rule and so we right in eliminating him, and neither do the Mullahs of Iran getting The Bomb. The EU aproach will fail, Iranian politicans even publicly gloat (in arabic) what a sign of weakness the game is, and they are not without a doubt restrained by the mad sanity of mutually assured destruction (terrorist allies and The Bomb aren't e a good combination)... Then there is their political power with the now-credible threats. Its a good thing we have alot of long-range bombers when the time comes.

Palomar · 2005-08-19 08:17:52

That starts with the us, the advocacy community.

*Sorry to say it, but too often it seems the big shots mostly ignore the advocacy community. It's as if we're invisible and taken for granted. The support base is being disregarded it seems; and if so, how foolish -- for a variety of reasons which should be relatively "obvious." There's more I could say, but some things are best left unsaid and I don't want to risk this going off-topic.

--Cindy

RobertDyck · 2005-08-20 09:56:20

Fragmentation is a major part of what I created this thread for. I see Cindy created another thread to talk about this. The point is to have one single plan to go into space, advocate that to congress and stick together. If you don't, congress will ignore you. Silly anecdotes about job specialization since the invention of agriculture don't help. United we stand, divided we fall. I thought Americans understand that concept.

Palomar · 2005-08-20 10:08:14

Fragmentation is a major part of what I created this thread for. I see Cindy created another thread to talk about this.

*Hi Robert. Sorry, I didn't intend to be redundant; if I'd stressed my points a bit more in the other thread (I haven't), it might quickly prove to go off-topic from what you intended. By all means, let's keep discussing *here*; the Mods can lock the other if they wish.

I totally agree with you. There's too much "harum-scarum" in the space advocacy movement; any which way the wind blows, chasing after the latest fad, sheeple qualities. People need to make up their minds what they want and stick to it.

It'd be nice, as well, if there'd be more efforts within the space advocacy community of reaching across social differences and recognizing/reaffirming the common ties which bind. But I'm probably dreaming. :?

United we stand, divided we fall. I thought Americans understand that concept.

Well I'm an American and I'll say it: In many respects, IMO, Americans have become lazy, take things for granted, have an overweening sense of entitlement, would be "too good" for their grandparents and great-grandparents (who worked hard to build this nation), etc., etc. There certainly are some points of principle which knuckleheads around here just aren't getting or have forgotten. I love my nation, yes; and the truth hurts.

--Cindy

Dook · 2005-08-20 10:26:26

You're not getting me behind wasteful lunar missions unless they test mars hardware. A lunar base to get PGM's and build a lunar interferometer, fine but first figure out how to extract the less than 1% platinum from the other lunar regolith and maybe NASA could actually explain how and where they are going to build this interferometer because so far I haven't seen them mention it. Little on the moon really interests me or the scientists.

I'd also like to point out something in GCN's reply: So, lets offer our partners a "buyout" which would cost billions instead of tens of billions to finish/tend ISS. Offer an even trade for slots on VSE mannifests, JAXA Lunar prospecting or ESA Lunar astronomy, etc... Something I promoted months ago. But I think the ESA and JAXA should pay for seats on Mars Direct/NASA DRM.

Mars should be the vision because it's the future. A mars full of life.

RobertDyck · 2005-08-20 10:31:34

GCNRevenger, you really don't understand what's going on. The United States of America is a foreign invader that is attempting to install the government it likes in Iraq, ruled by officials it appointed, and with supposed method of replacing those government officials that would only perpetuate the government form and type of officials that it wants. I have seen TV interviews with Iraqi news reporters who said they were initially glad US troops came in to overthrow Saddam but they understood that US troops would leave as soon Saddam Hussein was gone, why are they still here? Those Iraqis who supported the US are now against it. It's not the place of the US to judge whether the Iraqi government is stable. Freedom and liberty include the right to make mistakes. It's their decision whether their government is democratic or not, their decision whether their culture will be secular or Islamic fundamentalist, it's even their decision whether their economy will be capitalist or communist. Obviously I prefer to live in Canada with all it has, but what happens in their country is their decision. Now there are individuals the US government calls "insurgents" but I've already seen a TV interview with one former Iraqi general who calls them "freedom fighters". This isn't good, this means Iraqi civilians feel they have to fight the foreign invader (the US) to get them out before they can start to rebuild their government. There really is no difference between Iraq today and the Ukraine after Stalin invaded and annexed it to the Soviet Union. This is not what America is about; America is supposed to be about freedom and liberty, not military conquest and subjugating a conquered people. The bottom line, as long as you attempt to impose a stable government on Iraq it will never happen and you will never, ever get out.

Why don't you attempt to get your own government officials to take military forces out of Iraq and focus on Al Qaeda. The news today says another US navy ship was attacked. Was that Al Qaeda or a copycat organization that observed Al Qaeda can attack a US navy ship and get away with it? As long as you continue to commit your military assets on Al Qaeda's enemy (secular Iraq) and leave Al Qaeda to rebuild their forces they will continue their terrorist attacks.

RobertDyck · 2005-08-20 10:52:32

I don't want this thread to be bogged down in politics, the point is the ISS is a firm commitment and becoming adult means learning to fulfill your commitments. Too many people don't understand that. ISS is a commitment, it's time to treat space exploration as an activity of adults, not children who are irresponsible with their toys. In case it isn't obvious I've grown tired of being polite with rude people who just don't get it. Patience is only productive if there's movement in the right direction; I don't see certain people on this board moving toward responsible adult behaviour. If I have a desire to rally people to work together I guess I have to find a positive way of wording these things, but we've gone on and on about the same damn things for years. It's really time to stop bickering and start working together toward something that will actually produce results. Iraq will never produce results, it will never end. Scrapping ISS really would be a demonstration that NASA is incapable of completing what it starts and irresponsible with a multi-billion dollar budget. Blaming the international partners will not accomplish anything.

I talked to a space historian at the conference who pointed out the original Russian life support system for ISS included a vacuum desiccator toilet and system to recycle wash water. The result was 95% water recycling closure, not oxygen but water. NASA has long stated they need 95% recycling closure of both water and oxygen before they're willing to go to Mars, Ok the Russian service module was supposed to have that for water. The historian reported the excuse was NASA didn't want all that plumbing. But Node 3 and the US Habitation module were supposed to have a life support system that does recycle wash water, total >95% water recycling closure. This is obviously an attempt to one-up the Russians. But since the US Habitation module has been cancelled the ISS doesn't have either the Russian or American system. NASA now recognises they need a system that can handle disruption of Shuttle service, and there's no way a Mars mission can go to the local hardware store for replacement parts. Fine, let's replace Russian hardware with the high efficiency stuff and install all that plumbing, and launch both Node 3 and the US Hab module with a Sabatier reactor for high efficiency water recycling and to test/demonstrate American recycling technology. The Advanced Life Support project achieved 97.5% water recycling closure partly through its incinerating toilet, I've said before send the ISS toilet with an electric oven attachment that bakes out water at the temperature of a self-cleaning oven. Also include direct [tex:dc03ab4748]CO_2[/tex:dc03ab4748] electrolysis to complete recycling closure. Then you have a prototype of a Mars life support system tested on ISS.

Rxke · 2005-08-20 11:24:57

I really can't see a general plan *all* space advocacy groups will agree on...

And saying, "fine, then find a compromise, and the ones *still* objecting are out" is still... fragmentation...

Lessee... we have

The Moonies;
The Marsies;
The Tourists;
The Asteroid Miners;
The Dyson Spherees
...
And Then I probably forget half of them.

Is there a common ground?

BWhite · 2005-08-20 11:30:59

I really can't see a general plan *all* space advocacy groups will agree on...
And saying, "fine, then find a compromise, and the ones *still* objecting are out" is still... fragmentation...
Lessee... we have
The Moonies;
The Marsies;
The Tourists;
The Asteroid Miners;
The Dyson Spherees
...
And Then I probably forget half of them.
Is there a common ground?

Permanent presence off the planet, which must mean the ability to conceive, bear and raise children, out there. Anywhere, actually.

Once humans start having kids, out there, anywhere becomes everywhere.

GCNRevenger · 2005-08-20 13:58:44

GCNRevenger, you really don't understand what's going on. The United States of America is a foreign invader that is attempting to install the government it likes in Iraq, ruled by officials it appointed, and with supposed method of replacing those government officials that would only perpetuate the government form and type of officials that it wants. I have seen TV interviews with Iraqi news reporters who said they were initially glad US troops came in to overthrow Saddam but they understood that US troops would leave as soon Saddam Hussein was gone, why are they still here? Those Iraqis who supported the US are now against it. It's not the place of the US to judge whether the Iraqi government is stable. Freedom and liberty include the right to make mistakes. It's their decision whether their government is democratic or not, their decision whether their culture will be secular or Islamic fundamentalist, it's even their decision whether their economy will be capitalist or communist. Obviously I prefer to live in Canada with all it has, but what happens in their country is their decision. Now there are individuals the US government calls "insurgents" but I've already seen a TV interview with one former Iraqi general who calls them "freedom fighters". This isn't good, this means Iraqi civilians feel they have to fight the foreign invader (the US) to get them out before they can start to rebuild their government. There really is no difference between Iraq today and the Ukraine after Stalin invaded and annexed it to the Soviet Union. This is not what America is about; America is supposed to be about freedom and liberty, not military conquest and subjugating a conquered people. The bottom line, as long as you attempt to impose a stable government on Iraq it will never happen and you will never, ever get out.
Why don't you attempt to get your own government officials to take military forces out of Iraq and focus on Al Qaeda.

*Laughs at you, not with you* Oh please... someone really has taken the MoveOn.org crap hook/line/sinker... There is no excuse Robert, no excuse at all; at least as far as foreign issues go, you are a fool. Eight million Iraqis, in the face of death decided that they like some form of a democratic state if you may recall (infact, campaign workers are still being shot), and if 26,000,000 Iraqis didn't want us there, do you in your delusional echo-chaimber of the "reality based" community think that we would last a single month in that country, awash with weapons the likes of any WW2 world power?

You have also been fed a steady stream of lies, distortions, and omissions by TV news sources ever since before the war even. Iraqi reporters working for anti-American western news outlets? Iraqi general's words "translated" from Arabic "imprecisely?" TV news not covering the quiet in Fallujah or Sadr City? The very idea that you believe them, given the radical hate for America, is inconcieveable.

Their country is besieged by FOREIGN terrorists; the majority of captured terrorists are Saudis, Syrians, and other religious fanatics... not that many Sunnis or other Iraqis actually, but the TV channels don't like to report Iraqi government officals when they say things that are positive about the situation. When was the last time you heard anything good from Iraq other then the election? If it takes you more then 30 seconds to answer that question, then is it not obvious you are being lied to by the media outlets? Does NOTHING good happen in that entire country? In towns where these terrorists held power, like in Fallujah, they immediatly imposed Afghan/Iranian style Shari'a law on the people and created a vicious and inhuman police state. We WILL NOT leave the Iraqis to this fate.

And about Al Qaeda... are you really that naieve? Foreign TERRORISTS attacked America on 9-11, terrorists who happend to belong to a particular group called Al Qaeda, of which there are many. There are dozens of terrorist organizations that all pose the same sort of threat as Al Qaeda, and just wiping that one out is strategicly suicidal and is blatantly ignoring reality. Al Qaeda is a particularly powerful terrorist group, but they are more then that, they have become a figure-head for terrorism. It makes no more sense to focus on Bin Laden's Al Qaeda, whom he would be reguarded as a martyr any which way, then it would be to focus on one particular gang in a city full of gangs. Again, you should know better, and there is no excuse for your statement... You know, war on terror etc etc?

"There really is no difference between Iraq today and the Ukraine after Stalin invaded and annexed it to the Soviet Union"

I don't believe this... you actually believe that? Do you buy into the moral equivilence between the evil Communist police state of the Soviet empire and America? ...My first instinct was to reply with a litany of words that would get me censored, but suffice it to say that this position is not just stupid, it is EVIL. This is the mark of someone divorced from reality or morality... maybe both. How DARE you equate my nation with that tyrany run by Stalin?

Edit: Oh yes, and pushing democracy seemed to have worked pretty well with another nation that was formaly a military dictatorship, filled with countless numbers of fearless, literally suicidal warriors... Imperial Japan.

Fledi · 2005-08-20 14:11:34

Rxke, fragmentation?

We will need all types you mentioned at some time (Ok probably with the exception of the Dyson Sphere advocates) and many more. It is a good thing that there are so many ideas out there and people who are working on them.
What we need is to have a plan (like the VSE) that puts these ideas together in the most useful order, then focus on one idea first, then go on to the next when it is done. But everything needs to be researched at the same time with some small resources commited to the ideas that will be needed later on.

John Creighton · 2005-08-20 14:14:47

Rxke, fragmentation?
We will need all types you mentioned at some time (Ok probably with the exception of the Dyson Sphere advocates) and many more. It is a good thing that there are so many ideas out there and people who are working on them.
What we need is to have a plan (like the VSE) that puts these ideas together in the most useful order, then focus on one idea first, then go on to the next when it is done. But everything needs to be researched at the same time with some small resources commited to the ideas that will be needed later on.

Yeah, the VSE did a good job at unifying atleast the moon and the mars group although some in the mars group want to rush though the moon and only repeat Apollo so we can get to mars sooner. But hey, I don’t think you’ll ever get complete agreement.

RobertDyck · 2005-08-20 14:18:05

The different space goals are not competing or contradictory. I'm part of the Mars Society but presented Asteroid Mining at the conference. It was well received. Asteroid Mining is not at all necessary for a manned mission to Mars, it just makes money. By the way, fuel from a near Earth C-type asteroid is easier, more abundant, and cheaper to obtain than from the Moon. You can get oxygen and aluminum from the Moon, but forget about fuel. An HLLV can lift a space hotel just as easily as a habitat to Mars, or a Mars habitat to the Moon. Let commercial interests build their hotel and buy a launch. A reusable space taxi would reduce cost of ISS operations as well as carry crew to an Earth orbit assembled lunar or Martian mission. Such a taxi could be used for space tourism immediately, and to ferry space hotel guests. It would be good if NASA built it, but NASA doesn't have the money.

A Dyson sphere is so far in the future it's just fantasy, but all other space priorities are complimentary, they work together.

GCNRevenger · 2005-08-20 14:19:38

"the ISS is a firm commitment and becoming adult means learning to fulfill your commitments"

Not all commitments are created equal

If we try and fulfill this commitment, it will mean a severe toll on our space program for essentially no bennefit. There is just not any science really worth doing on the ISS... some metalurgy, playing with bugs and mice... big deal. It is a tragedy to the scientific community, a horrible and truely terrible waste, compared to what even HALF that money were to go to Earthly science. To date, NOBODY can come up with an experiment worth that kind of money. Nobody.

It is the same deal with our partners... there never was any science worth lugging up there considering the scope of the ISS, and so what would they be losing if their modules were not flown? ...The ISS never was about science or engineering, it was all about politics. The political cost of trying to finish and tend the station is rising rapidly considering the problems with Shuttle and the difficulty of getting cargo to/from the station... So offer our partners something just as good, or better: access to the Moon and Mars.

The ISS isn't worth it, not to us, and not worth much to our partners either beyond saving political face. Trade them something just as bennefical politically - ESA/JAXA astronauts and payloads - and everybody's happy. No more ISS dragging us down, and they get even more political points.

"launch both Node 3 and the US Hab module... Then you have a prototype of a Mars life support system tested on ISS."

Again, there is no good reason to send one more componet to the ISS. None. Send the system to the Moon with a NASA-DRM type HAB, or just put the HAB into LEO and fly it in circles for a while. Either way, it is FAR cheaper then finishing and propping up the ISS for years to come, and that is money spent developing Moon/Mars hardware!

John Creighton · 2005-08-20 14:38:29

"the ISS is a firm commitment and becoming adult means learning to fulfill your commitments"
Not all commitments are created equal
If we try and fulfill this commitment, it will mean a severe toll on our space program for essentially no bennefit. There is just not any science really worth doing on the ISS... some metalurgy, playing with bugs and mice... big deal. It is a tragedy to the scientific community, a horrible and truely terrible waste, compared to what even HALF that money were to go to Earthly science. To date, NOBODY can come up with an experiment worth that kind of money. Nobody.

I think that studying both life science and material science in a zero G environment is worthwhile but I do wonder if the ISS is too expensive a platform to do this kind of science. I suppose we could just as well do the life science on a trip to the moon or mars. The material since could probably be done autonomously on a specialized satellite much cheaper and with much less vibrations then on the ISS. Also perhaps the majority of the science will just have to wait until the launch cost comes down given that we have a limited budget for science and there are just so many things that can be researched.

GCNRevenger · 2005-08-20 14:56:40

You want low-cost zero-G science? Call up the USAF, and see if you can buy a few copies of their X-37 SMV. Its not huge, but its more then big enough to accomodate an ISS payload rack I imagine, fly it on a Delta, Atlas, or even a Falcon-V and it would give you a month of clean, quiet zero-G... and come back for a soft runway landing. Did I mention it was reuseable?

You ought to be able to buy 15-20 flights for the same price as what we spend - not counting Shuttle - on the ISS anually.

Although bringing non-Moon/Mars science on a Moon/Mars trip sounds like a nifty idea, payload is critical... although, it might give the astronauts something to do except stare out the portholes.

There is so much we could do with $2.0-2.5Bn a year! JWST funding headaches would not be a problem, restore the MTO for Mars, build a copy of Hubble, build a half a dozen upgraded MERs (NASA still has 16 Delta-II's contracted), and yes - zero gravity research - on X-37.

Fledi · 2005-08-20 15:11:27

That hotel thing, what about just using the ISS as a hotel from now on?
Get one or two astronauts up to do the maintenance and the rest could be tourists. There must be a market for this after all, as weird it seems to be, if there are people trying to build their own hotel. Why not use the ISS or parts of it then instead?

John Creighton · 2005-08-20 15:11:49

You want low-cost zero-G science? Call up the USAF, and see if you can buy a few copies of their X-37 SMV. Its not huge, but its more then big enough to accomodate an ISS payload rack I imagine, fly it on a Delta, Atlas, or even a Falcon-V and it would give you a month of clean, quiet zero-G... and come back for a soft runway landing. Did I mention it was reuseable?
You ought to be able to buy 15-20 flights for the same price as what we spend - not counting Shuttle - on the ISS anually.
Although bringing non-Moon/Mars science on a Moon/Mars trip sounds like a nifty idea, payload is critical... although, it might give the astronauts something to do except stare out the portholes.
There is so much we could do with $2.0-2.5Bn a year! JWST funding headaches would not be a problem, restore the MTO for Mars, build a copy of Hubble, build a half a dozen upgraded MERs (NASA still has 16 Delta-II's contracted), and yes - zero gravity research - on X-37.

The X-37 is a very good point, I didn’t know the thing actually was built and worked that well. It does seem like the ISS is a highly questionable use of dollars. As for the Moon/Mars science as a minimum medical equipment like an EKG could be brought along to monitor mussel loss. There could also be equipment to take blood pressure and what ever else was thought suitable. And if we want to do science on animals we can always have them as a snack later sometime in the mission. Say by by fluffy bunny. Lol Oh where is Clark, Cindy and Cobra, hehe.

RobertDyck · 2005-08-20 15:17:14

The Iraqi general I saw interviewed in English, no translation. If you want to talk about misinformation then I remind you that I saw a CIA representative on an American news program before the Iraq war stated that Iraq had nothing what so ever to do with the attack of 9/11, and there was no compelling evidence of weapons of mass destruction. George W. and his cronies said there were WMD, so they concocted excuses. Reality is Dubya wanted to "finish" his daddy's war. Actually, George Bush Sr. had ensured there was an exit strategy before going in and didn't micro-manage the generals; the result was complete success. When American General Norman Schwarzkopf said the war was over and it was time to go home, that meant the war was over and it was time to go home. George Bush Sr.'s plan to ensure an exit strategy worked. Unfortunately someone in Washington screwed it up and created "No Fly Zones" in direct contradiction to the UN. The UN Security Council not only said no to the war in Iraq, the Council president said if the US proceeds anyway the Security Council may have to take measures to stop it. Luckily first world nations chose not to go to war against the US, after all who wants to defend Saddam!? After all these US violations of the UN, the US is hardly in a position to accuse anyone of UN violations.

Yes, I do believe what's happening in Iraq right now is the equivalent of what the Soviet Union did to Ukraine. It's not supposed to be like that, the US is not supposed to be an evil empire, but it's time to stop and look at what your own government is doing. Hold your own government accountable. Acting like the proverbial ostrich and burying your head in the sand does not make it go away. I know you don't want your country to be "evil", but evil is as evil does.

As for Al Qaeda, I remind you that we in Canada had a terrorist group called the FLQ. RCMP intelligence kept track of them but no one seriously thought anything would happen until after the first attack. After the first attack it was only 85 days until it was all over. The Canadian response was marshal law; fast firm and effective. We didn't let it drag out. Today Al Qaeda is still at large and Osama bin Laden is still free. Why the hell are you wasting military assets on Iraq or elsewhere when Al Qaeda still hasn't been neutralized?

Ps. I never heard of MoveOn.org, perhaps I should check it out.

I don't want this to be a dragged-out political fight. The only reason I brought up Iraq is to say scrapping ISS is not only an irresponsible failure to meet commitments, it wastes billions of dollars and isn't a significant saving of money compared to the war in Iraq. As for ballistic missile defence, Al Qaeda's attack on 9/11 demonstrated terrorists won't use an ICBM. The attack on USS Cole and yesterday's attempted attack of the USS Ashland emphasized terrorist attacks are happening and not with intercontinental missiles. The billions of dollars on that military boondoggle are better spent anywhere else; obviously my preference is a manned Mars program.

Now to direct this back to space, there are many things we can do to reduce the cost of a space program. I still think the OSP is a prime example of contractor price gouging. Keeping costs under control is a priority. Create a cohesive plan with space hardware for early steps that can be used for later steps. For example a heavy lifter to complete ISS that can also lift a space hotel or modules for Earth orbit assembly of lunar or Mars spacecraft. A Mars surface habitat that forms a lunar base. Lunar oxygen production for return to Earth as a precursor to ISPP for the Mars ERV.

RobertDyck · 2005-08-20 15:46:49

You want low-cost zero-G science? Call up the USAF, and see if you can buy a few copies of their X-37 SMV. Its not huge, but its more then big enough to accomodate an ISS payload rack I imagine, fly it on a Delta, Atlas, or even a Falcon-V and it would give you a month of clean, quiet zero-G... and come back for a soft runway landing. Did I mention it was reuseable?
You ought to be able to buy 15-20 flights for the same price as what we spend - not counting Shuttle - on the ISS anually.

Good idea, we need more ideas like that. Let's see, what I found on the web is that X-37 is an unmanned OSP with experiment bay:
7' x 4'
500 lb (227 kg) to LEO @ 28.7° inclination
Launch mass 13,090 lb (5,940 kg); an Atlas V 401 or Delta IV Medium+(4,2) could lift that to an ISS orbit. The small Atlas V is cheaper so guess which I prefer. The X-37 is designed to be an on-orbit manoeuvring demonstrator so it should be able to rendezvous with ISS. Great idea! A small cargo vehicle off-the-shelf.

John Creighton · 2005-08-20 17:20:51

I started another thread about the x-37
http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3809
I agree that it would be much cheaper in the short term to develop the x-37 to do zero gravity testing then continue supporting the ISS. In the short term it is suppose to be able to stay in orbit for 2 months as you said. However, future military plans for the vehicle are for it to stay in orbit for over a year. The program seems to be unusually successful for an aerospace program. Only about 300 million was spent on the program and they say it is about 85% done. To me it looks pretty much finished already and it is just a matter of doing the drop tests but maybe I am being overly optimistic.

The vehicle is suppose to reduce the cost to LEO by a facto of 10. So in the long term when it can stay in space for more then 2 months and it brings down launch costs by a factor of 10 then maybe supporting the ISS will be cheap enough for the science done on it to be worth while. However, to me the ISS seems to be built to early. By the time we have a reusable launch vehicle like the x-37 or an even more cable vehicle using scram jet technology we could probably build a better cheaper space station in only a few launches of a heavy lift launch vehicle. Moreover, the savings from not propping up the ISS would help pay for the future costs of replacing it. To me the ISS seems all about politics. I just hoped that even though the science done on it was of limited value that enough engineering that was learned on the way helped justify the cost.

GCNRevenger · 2005-08-20 18:53:01

There is evidence that the (notoriously liberal) CIA man was wrong about the lack of Iraq/9-11 link, Iraqi intel agents being in German cities the same time as the 9/11 hijackers, 9/11 planners on the Saddam Fedayeen payrolls, and so on. But if there is or not is irrelivent, since Iraq was beyond doubt an ally of terrorism. Thats reason enough... I also seem to recall Saddam breaking about 16 UN resolutions, and basically all the NATO and Russian intel agencies were also pretty sure about WMDs, and that darndest habit that Saddam had of putting large quantities of "pesticide" in bunkers we found after the invasion. Now why would he do that? Hmmmmm...

As far as missile defense, its an expensive but worthwhile bargaining chip against North Korea, for better or worse. We don't say so out loud of course because of the ongoing attempts by negotiators, but that is what its for. North Korean experience with Russian missile technology could lead to them making a copy of the SS-18 or cobbling together smaller rockets to make a practical ICBM. Their nukes are plutonium based, so they are probobly already missile-sized.

Impose "martial law?" I'm pretty sure that these monsters are a little bit more dangerous then the FLQ... Suicide airliners, ricin lab in London, large CW bomb in Jordan, Iraqi nerve gas expertise, and now Iranian nukes on the way... Unless terrorist operations are weakend in other countries, no law enforcement action can ever be sufficent, to believe otherwise is the height of naieveity... Unless we infiltrate, bomb, and even invade them and disrupt where they thrive, they will win.

Considering how utterly unrepentant for your absurd and vile slander against my country, I think I am offended with you Dyckhead, and we don't hold enough in common to continue having a civil debate... not that it was much of one to begin with.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-08-19 00:38:44

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#2 2005-08-19 01:22:29

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#3 2005-08-19 02:22:46

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#4 2005-08-19 07:58:05

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#5 2005-08-19 08:17:52

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#6 2005-08-20 09:56:20

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#7 2005-08-20 10:08:14

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#8 2005-08-20 10:26:26

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#9 2005-08-20 10:31:34

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#10 2005-08-20 10:52:32

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#11 2005-08-20 11:24:57

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#12 2005-08-20 11:30:59

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#13 2005-08-20 13:58:44

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#14 2005-08-20 14:11:34

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#15 2005-08-20 14:14:47

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#16 2005-08-20 14:18:05

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#17 2005-08-20 14:19:38

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#18 2005-08-20 14:38:29

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#19 2005-08-20 14:56:40

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#20 2005-08-20 15:11:27

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#21 2005-08-20 15:11:49

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#22 2005-08-20 15:17:14

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#23 2005-08-20 15:46:49

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#24 2005-08-20 17:20:51

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#25 2005-08-20 18:53:01

Re: Coherent Mars plan

Board footer