Coherent Mars plan

srmeaney · 2005-08-20 22:30:43

"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.

Quite so. Lunar mining is not the same as Mars. Now if you want to test something to mine an asteroid, lets test our mining equipment on of those big rocks in Mars orbit...

srmeaney · 2005-08-20 22:41:04

Bugger it! There are six billion people on this planet. Abandon all the Unmanned missions, give the little buggers a year of food and start launching them to Mars to do the job of a rover. If they die they die...Human life is totaly expendable and we can start with all the smart educated types.

RobertDyck · 2005-08-20 23:51:42

The FLQ was found to have explosives and plans to take down the tallest building in downtown Montreal. It would have worked too, as effective as the World Trade Towers. But they were treated as criminals and captured after the first terrorist act. Clinton responded to the bombing of US embassies by Al Qaeda with a cruise missile. The only difference between a cruise missile and a truck bomb is cost; he simply justified terrorist acts and one-upped them. He failed to arrest the criminals. That resulted in more embassy bombings, then the USS Cole which Clinton responded by bombing a camp with a B52, then 9/11. I'm sure there are other incidents. Responding to terrorism with terrorism just results in escalation. I saw a US congressman say on TV that they tried to treat it as a crime but reality is they never did; the US responded with terrorist acts of their own and that just escalated until the atrocity of 9/11. Now with US forces tied down in Iraq, Al Qaeda is free to rebuild and increase its support among Arab countries. Not good.

As for spending tens of billions of dollars on a pissing contest with a tiny country like North Korea, why? They're not worth it. Leave them alone with one simple threat that if they attack US soil you saturation bomb their country with thermo-nuclear bombs. That means any attack on the US is suicide for North Korea. Done. What they do with a nuclear reactor is irrelevant. You do realize they only reprocessed spent reactor fuel rods because the US demanded they dismantle their reactor. The mouse is roaring at the lion, and for some reason the lion is quaking so badly it wants to waste 10s of billions of dollars on a useless project. Ah hah! If the US proceeds then North Korea has already won the bluffing contest.

srmeaney · 2005-08-21 03:32:00

To: RobertDyck & GCNRevenger

I realize you are both having problems with a planet governed and populated by short people with naponeonic egos, and you would make ideal letter writers to the Foreign Affairs magazine.

Certainly the july/august issue http://www.foreignaffairs.org covers the current discussion and all the US policy decisions, aftereffects, consequences, ect.

My favourite quote is "Regime change allows a state to solve its problems with another state by removing the offensive regime there and replacing it with a less offensive one."

Unfortunatly for a lot of people I can shoot a rabbit throught the eye in a cross wind from half a mile. Now unless you two offensive regimes wish to be replaced less offensive ones, I Suggest you focus on the topic.

Stormrage · 2005-08-21 04:48:27

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?

I really don't want this thread to be a political but i have to answer this. Terrorists never attack without a reason. If they do they lose support from the people like they did when they killed innocent muslims in Saudi Arabia. All you have to do is remove the reason they exist for.

8 million out of 26 million voting isn't something to be proud about. Thats 30% of the population. It seems that the iraqi aren't enthusiatics about democracy what with all the bombings and the killings. And no there never was a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam. Osama didn't like the fact that Saddam was killing and toruting and invading muslim countries. He was in support of the first gulf war.

Now can we move on from the politics?

GCNRevenger · 2005-08-21 07:47:20

That 26M population figure includes children. Eight million people is a larger fraction of the voting age population then 30%, and would not be too bad for most western states considering that thousands of armed men promised to kill you for it.

I believe that there is no excuse grave enough to justify terrorism, and that their reasoning is irrelivent, they need to be destroyed to ensure that they don't come up with a new supposed offense, and as a matter of justice. I also think that terrorist who claim to be muslims, like those we have witness the acts of, that use their religious tenants to justify their mass murder cannot be satisfied. In their mind their god condemns democracy, personal freedom, etc and paradise awaits them if they kill us... Whatever grevience they cite is a lie to reduce rousing the ire of the whole free world. If ever there were a time or case when negotiations or concessions were pointless, this is it!

And thank you for not comparing my country to one where you would be arrested, exiled to a short death by hard labor and starvation, in a frozen prison hell for saying this sort of thing as other board patrons have.

Yes, I am weary of discussing the politics here.

RobertDyck · 2005-08-21 14:48:30

Ok, getting back to space plans. I propose some simple things:
- complete ISS quickly
- include the US habitation module and improve its life support system to be a prototype for Mars
- encourage Russia to replace their toilet with their vacuum desiccator and install Russia's wash water recycling system, compare that system to America's
- use a heavy lift vehicle to complete ISS quickly, I proposed Shuttle-C because it can be completed quickly, an alternative is Energia
- decommission Shuttle as soon as ISS complete
- build a lunar habitat as a prototype Mars habitat, prove Mars equipment on the Moon
- keep CEV very small to be a crew taxi to/from the Moon base
- launch a Mars sample return mission in 2011 (earliest launch date) as a technology demonstrator for ISPP

I would like to talk about details of the Mars or Moon mission plans and their vehicles, but we first have to agree on these basic points. The current plan for SDV appears to be the full-up big version with axial configuration. Great for a Mars mission but won't be available until 2010 earliest. How do we get ISS complete by late 2007? When I said I want Shuttle-C ready to launch by this Christmas, I wasn't kidding. If we can't do that then it's time to talk to the Russians about giving them money for their Energia. We need ISS complete quickly and we need Shuttle decommissioned. Can we agree on that?

By the way, Chris Shank said he was responsible for shuffling NASA's budget to ensure priority projects are funded. Shuttle return to flight and Hubble were principle priorities. He also said a propulsion module was not necessary for Hubble. That's a very telling statement if you understand the engineering involved. A propulsion module is required to de-orbit Hubble for controlled entry into the atmosphere, since this service mission will not deliver a propulsion module there must be at least one more service mission after that even if it does nothing but de-orbit the telescope. HSM5 here we come. He kept stumbling over his words as if he wanted to say something more, but simply repeated that a propulsion module isn't necessary. I would still like to see HSM5 be the last Shuttle orbiter mission, preferably late 2007.

John Creighton · 2005-08-21 15:00:11

Ok, getting back to space plans. I propose some simple things:
- complete ISS quickly
- include the US habitation module and improve its life support system to be a prototype for Mars
- encourage Russia to replace their toilet with their vacuum desiccator and install Russia's wash water recycling system, compare that system to America's
- use a heavy lift vehicle to complete ISS quickly, I proposed Shuttle-C because it can be completed quickly, an alternative is Energia
- decommission Shuttle as soon as ISS complete
- build a lunar habitat as a prototype Mars habitat, prove Mars equipment on the Moon
- keep CEV very small to be a crew taxi to/from the Moon base
- launch a Mars sample return mission in 2011 (earliest launch date) as a technology demonstrator for ISPP
I would like to talk about details of the Mars or Moon mission plans and their vehicles, but we first have to agree on these basic points. The current plan for SDV appears to be the full-up big version with axial configuration. Great for a Mars mission but won't be available until 2010 earliest. How do we get ISS complete by late 2007? When I said I want Shuttle-C ready to launch by this Christmas, I wasn't kidding. If we can't do that then it's time to talk to the Russians about giving them money for their Energia. We need ISS complete quickly and we need Shuttle decommissioned. Can we agree on that?
By the way, Chris Shank said he was responsible for shuffling NASA's budget to ensure priority projects are funded. Shuttle return to flight and Hubble were principle priorities. He also said a propulsion module was not necessary for Hubble. That's a very telling statement if you understand the engineering involved. A propulsion module is required to de-orbit Hubble for controlled entry into the atmosphere, since this service mission will not deliver a propulsion module there must be at least one more service mission after that even if it does nothing but de-orbit the telescope. HSM5 here we come. He kept stumbling over his words as if he wanted to say something more, but simply repeated that a propulsion module isn't necessary. I would still like to see HSM5 be the last Shuttle orbiter mission, preferably late 2007.

So why should we agree to a plan just because you propose it. The small CEV may turn the moon into another Apollo and developing the shuttle C may mean the inline booster never gets developed. Also the ISS stuff you propose may be nice if we have the money but you really have to question if it is worth the dollars invested. You also have to ask what we can do with that money instead of spending it on the ISS. As for the Hubble service mission, do you really think we should be funding a Hubble service mission when JWST is having funding issues.

RobertDyck · 2005-08-21 17:28:31

I would like a small reusable CEV, Robert Zubrin called for a small CEV with the implication of being expendable. We can debate details, but George W. said go to the Moon so we have to go to the Moon. The point is to shrink as small as possible any lunar hardware that isn't a prototype for Mars.

Hubble is just about the most useful mission NASA conducted during the Shuttle era, cancelling it would be a very bad idea. If JWST is having trouble then keeping Hubble up there becomes more important.

ISS modules including the US Hab are already constructed, the primary remaining cost is launch. Fine, let's get it up there. Most importantly, cancelling Shuttle early will free a lot of funds for Moon/Mars. The longer we argue the more delays getting a heavy launcher to complete ISS. Shuttle-C may not be optimal for Mars, but if we can cancel the orbiter early enough it won't compete with the inline booster. Remember my ambitious/optimistic flight schedule called for Atlantis flight in September, HSM4 in November, and the last ISS construction flight in September 2006. The only remaining orbiter flights would be 5 MPLM missions, some of which could be done by ATV, and HSM5. This is definitely 2007 orbiter retirement. Ending the Shuttle program 3 years early would free funds for the inline heavy lifter and direct focus to exploration equipment.

This plan isn't hard and fast, but does accept certain NASA realities. Only the president or congressional office in charge of NASA's budget could cancel ISS, and that would have dire consequences on international relations. That's a boat best not rocked. Congress has already recognized there is strong voter support to keep Hubble, to fighting that does not make us appear to represent the majority of space advocate voters. Let's stick with politically positive stuff. Providing NASA a roadmap to cancel Shuttle early without cancelling projects congress has already decided to fund would get congressional support, and I think Mike Griffin would like it as well.

John Creighton · 2005-08-21 18:59:58

I would like a small reusable CEV, Robert Zubrin called for a small CEV with the implication of being expendable. We can debate details, but George W. said go to the Moon so we have to go to the Moon. The point is to shrink as small as possible any lunar hardware that isn't a prototype for Mars.

What does that mean? Why do it in the first place if you downgrade it enough that is not worth while. I don't think this is plan the moon people will get behind and I think the consequences are good for the future space exploration.

Hubble is just about the most useful mission NASA conducted during the Shuttle era, cancelling it would be a very bad idea. If JWST is having trouble then keeping Hubble up there becomes more important.

It makes no since do dump endless money trying to prop a dying telescope at the expensive of new superior telescopes. It is like selling out astronomy for the future generations so a few over the hill has-beens might be able to squeeze one more paper out over there long accomplished carriers. Pathetic. And all this talk about Hubble and JWST. What ever happened to HOP. Is that another causality of mob of senseless Hubble huggers.

ISS modules including the US Hab are already constructed, the primary remaining cost is launch. Fine, let's get it up there. Most importantly, cancelling Shuttle early will free a lot of funds for Moon/Mars. The longer we argue the more delays getting a heavy launcher to complete ISS. Shuttle-C may not be optimal for Mars, but if we can cancel the orbiter early enough it won't compete with the inline booster. Remember my ambitious/optimistic flight schedule called for Atlantis flight in September, HSM4 in November, and the last ISS construction flight in September 2006. The only remaining orbiter flights would be 5 MPLM missions, some of which could be done by ATV, and HSM5. This is definitely 2007 orbiter retirement. Ending the Shuttle program 3 years early would free funds for the inline heavy lifter and direct focus to exploration equipment.

You want to end it sooner send up less modules and then we will have money fried up sooner. The modules aren't free to launch and the shuttle-C is not free to develop. How much more money will we waste at the expense of space exploration to justify past mistakes. Eventually we have to stop and say this isn't working. This doesn't make sense. Griffin has a plan, you have a plan and hopefully one of them will be successful in knocking a big chuck of that millstone of NASA's neck.

Also I noticed you said, "The longer we argue the more delays getting a heavy launcher to complete ISS". First do you really think our debates are going to cause Grifin to needlessly delay. That is pretty egocentric. Second, we don't want the heavy launcher to complete the ISS. We want it to go to the Moon and mars. Get your priorities straight.

This plan isn't hard and fast, but does accept certain NASA realities. Only the president or congressional office in charge of NASA's budget could cancel ISS, and that would have dire consequences on international relations. That's a boat best not rocked. Congress has already recognized there is strong voter support to keep Hubble, to fighting that does not make us appear to represent the majority of space advocate voters.

If a leader can't explain a simple cost benefit analysis to the public then they are in a questionable position to begin with.

Let's stick with politically positive stuff. Providing NASA a roadmap to cancel Shuttle early without cancelling projects congress has already decided to fund would get congressional support, and I think Mike Griffin would like it as well.

I'm behind Griffin and I understand the need to be smart politically. But if there ever appears to be no light at the end of the tunnel it is important to make a stand. Griffin will either be able to stick to the current schedule or he won't and if he can't he has to revaluate his position.

RobertDyck · 2005-08-21 19:49:07

I'm saying we need one single full size Mars surface hab on the Moon. The majority of not all lunar missions can go to that spot. It will be the lunar base. This will demonstrate the Mars hab and we can evaluate its performance in space where our return launch window is always, and the return trip only takes 4 1/2 days. Very safe. We can demonstrate harvesting lunar oxygen, and perhaps use that oxygen to fuel the return vehicle. It would be partial ISPP. A Soyuz size CEV would act as a crew taxi to and from the Moon. After all, the Apollo LM wasn't any bigger. The surface hab would be sent one-way to the Moon, a small CEV would be the two way taxi. Moon guys would get a permanent base with lunar mining.

Maintaining Hubble keeps space astronomy in business. I never heard of HOP before so looked it up. A duplicate of Hubble, eh? I really doubt that will ever happen. JWST is schedule for launch August 2011, so there's a real need to keep Hubble operational most of the time between now and then. Large space projects always get pushed back so expect even more time. We need Hubble until then. Finally, JWST isn't even an optical telescope, it's strictly infrared.

Notice my schedule doesn't cancel any ISS modules, and actually restores Node 3 and US Hab. That makes it capable of the full 7 crew compliment and all the experiments it was designed for. That would make the station relevant and actually do the work it was built for. It isn't working because more than half of it is still on the ground, nothing will work until you use it. It's time to stop kibitzing and finish the thing. NASA's public statements continue to call for assembly with the orbiter only, the only alternative is to beg international partners for help. They aren't even thinking of using a heavy lift vehicle to send multiple modules at once. We need a united voice to talk loudly enough to get them to think that way. Astronauts even said the only way to launch is on the orbiter. That just isn't so, you could even send some modules on a Proton rocket with a Progress service module and docking radar. But Russia would want to get paid for that, and we run into the Iran thing again. Shuttle-C with the orbiter is a way to do a year's worth of assembly in a single mission. Do 3 such missions at 2-month intervals and you've completed 3 years work in 6 months.

Even if Shuttle-C is never used for anything after ISS, just canceling the orbiter 3 years early would free over $5 billion per year for those 3 years to build other stuff, such as your big launcher for Mars. But Shuttle-C would be also be able to lift heavy modules to LEO for other purposes. Space hotels need one, so the space tourism guys would love it. NASA DRM called for 6 launches of Magnum per manned Mars mission: 2 for each launch to Mars, vehicle plus TMI stage. Shuttle-C could do the job if an inline booster wasn't available. However, if you drag the orbiter out to 2010 then not much work on any heavy lifter will start before then.

I've tried to leave details open for debate so we could hammer this out together rather than dictating. Is it possible to get congress to completely end the Iran nuclear thing so we could hire Russia to build Energia to launch ISS modules while NASA works on the big inline HLLV? Americans could answer that better than me. Energia primarily involves repairing the building at Baikonur, in Kazakhstan. The strap-on boosters are built in Ukraine. Only the core module is built in Russia. But they're all CIS countries so I doubt congress would care.

John Creighton · 2005-08-21 20:07:42

Maintaining Hubble keeps space astronomy in business. I never heard of HOP before so looked it up. A duplicate of Hubble, eh? I really doubt that will ever happen. JWST is schedule for launch August 2011, so there's a real need to keep Hubble operational most of the time between now and then. Large space projects always get pushed back so expect even more time. We need Hubble until then. Finally, JWST isn't even an optical telescope, it's strictly infrared.

Have you been ignoring the Hubble debate here. Hubble origins probe is superior to the Hubble because it is new, and has the wide field camera. It is estimated that the replacement mission with HOP would cost the same as the servicing mission yet it would keep Hubble in business much longer. Yes JWST is not optical but infrared telescopes are superior because dust does not attenuate infrared light as much. Couldn't of you brake all these issues up into different threads instead of pretending you are presenting a coherent set of ideas here. Anyway, I am going to let someone else argue you other points. I am tiered of debating this tonight. My impression though is your dancing in the daisies. Looking though rose coloured glasses. Yada Yada Yada

RobertDyck · 2005-08-21 20:46:04

I don't want to debate Hubble. It was debated before and the decision is to service it. I approve of that and considering the big public outcry to get congress to save Hubble, reversing that would send mixed messages to congress. You don't want to confuse congressmen. I want rapid completion of ISS, servicing Hubble, and using a the Moon to prove Mars hardware as given. The question now is how to rapidly complete ISS and exactly what the Moon/Mars architecture should look like.

Dancing on daisies? You want something more firm? Ok
1) I prefer Shuttle-C because it's the only one I think can be ready for test launch this Christmas. It should have started last spring, the longer we delay starting the longer we delay finishing. There are several options to complete ISS, I think this is the best one. I also think using the orbiter is the worst option, most expensive and dragged out the longest.
2) I prefer a manned service mission to Hubble. Robotic service missions add increased risk, the Shuttle orbiter has proven it's still the vehicle it always was.
3) Any Moon mission architecture has to start with the Mars architecture. Once you design Mars equipment you can then use that for the Moon. I presented Mars Orbit Rendezvous at the conference, where you there? This is the same mission plan that has been called "Hybrid Direct". I didn't intend to create a hybrid of Mars Direct and NASA DRM, my intent was to correct weaknesses of Mars Direct and update it with new technology. My slides don't have many pictures, mostly bullet points. It's the same architecture I talked about on this board before. The lunar hardware doesn't change much though, the question is an inflatable lunar habitat or a tuna can. I would prefer a reusable lunar taxi but discussions in another thread convinced me that is a significant development project, I could accept an expendable lunar vehicle if it's small. This ends up being Robert Zubrin's current plan for the Moon, the only question is detailed design of the hab.

It's not talk for the sake of talk, it's not "Yada Yada Yada". Do you want diagrams, time tables, and engineering drawings?

GCNRevenger · 2005-08-21 23:13:22

"The small CEV may turn the moon into another Apollo and developing the shuttle C may mean the inline booster never gets developed. Also the ISS stuff you propose may be nice if we have the money but you really have to question if it is worth the dollars invested. You also have to ask what we can do with that money instead of spending it on the ISS.

Why do it in the first place if you downgrade it enough that is not worth while."

I quite agree with you John,

To go to all the trouble to get back to the Moon and not do anything with it but play with Mars hardware is incomprehensible. If it costs a bit more to make a larger, more capable CEV & lander to actually do things, then so be it, the extra cost versus an "Apollo 2.0" are worthwhile... even if it delays a Mars mission.

Asside all the blood, treasure, and political capital spent on Shuttle missions to the ISS, construction of the ISS itself, the mounting cost of Return to Flight... The future cost of remaining ISS construction & tending may run in excess of forty billion dollars, so I think that it is fair to DEMAND a recconing of just what bennefit we will get from it. That includes comparing it to the political cost of NASA embarresment and telling the ESA/RSA that it isn't worth it. Bluntly, the space programs of their countries aren't important enough that offending them would be a very dire consequence.

The money that would be spent on the ISS would pay for the entire development and preliminary missions to the Moon, about half of a Mars program of suitable scale, a robotic probe & telescope program that would drawf all previous work done, or even build a true Shuttle-II and an orbital cargo depot for it... And perhaps, just maybe, build a twin-cable space elevator and a space station for it. All that money, for what? What really?

Edit: Don't forget, that just about every penny spent, every pad modification, and engineer man-hour on Shuttle-C is spent on a booster that is too small for Mars and too small for efficent Lunar expeditions. I think it is safe to say that building the Shuttle-C is a step backwards away from the Moon or Mars.

GCNRevenger · 2005-08-21 23:41:29

The Hubble Origins Probe is only a deviant and outlandish sounding idea because of the prevelence of Hubble-huggers and NASA "realpolitik-icans" who want to exploit the name for PR value... HOP is a relativly low-risk plan because it is based on flight-proven designs, which mitigates the chance of cost overruns or engineering problems. Much of the development has already been done on HST, and HOP would fly with the replacement cameras intended for SM4.

HOP would be brand new, and not yet another repair job on HST, which has now outlived its reliable design life where many of its componets cannot be fixed on orbit. There is a signifigant chance that Hubble will die perminantly before Shuttle can be sortied to fix it, hence all mission preperation expenses going to waste. The biggies though are these:

-HOP will last 2-3 times as long as HST w/ SM4 with its brand new parts, higher orbit, and superior construction.

-HOP will be far more powerful than HST with the wide field imager, incompatible with HST and is something earthly adaptive optics telescopes can't do.

-HOP does not require Shuttle launch, which considering the number of Shuttle flights remaining may be below ten, this is kind of nice.

I also wish to reiterate my opinion that Hubble astronomy should not be sacred and beyond an objective cost/bennefit analysis. Depriving astronomers of a UV/vis space telescope for a while versus the very very poor investment in SM4, there is nothing to debate, it is obvious that delaying their science is not imporant enough to throw away so much money. A few years without a super-scope is a small price to pay.

Even Johns Hopkins University who runs Hubble supports HOP... saving Hubble is obviously just PR

RobertDyck · 2005-08-22 00:52:40

To go to all the trouble to get back to the Moon and not do anything with it but play with Mars hardware is incomprehensible. If it costs a bit more to make a larger, more capable CEV & lander to actually do things, then so be it, the extra cost versus an "Apollo 2.0" are worthwhile... even if it delays a Mars mission.

You really don't want to go to Mars, do you? We have a wonderful opportunity with George W.'s VSE to get out of LEO and start exploring space again, but the trap is to get stuck on the Moon. If lunar equipment is not designed from the beginning to be Mars equipment then Mars just won't happen.

Edit: Don't forget, that just about every penny spent, every pad modification, and engineer man-hour on Shuttle-C is spent on a booster that is too small for Mars and too small for efficent Lunar expeditions. I think it is safe to say that building the Shuttle-C is a step backwards away from the Moon or Mars.

Money spent to build a simple heavy launcher will be more than regained by preventing 3 years of shuttle operation and stopping the construction phase of ISS.

I started this thread to call for unity and a cohesive plan. Hacking and slashing existing assets will not get you to Mars. Destroying multi-billion dollar space projects would simply tell congress that NASA is too irresponsible to be permitted another multi-billion dollar project. You are arguing against Mars. The first thing you have to prove to congress is that you can be responsible with the assets already paid for. If you're not responsible, you get nothing! If Shuttle wasn't so old I wouldn't call for it's demise either, but it is time. ISS isn't even complete yet, hasn't even started operation. I'm having trouble staying calm; you just don't get it. The alternative to rapidly completing ISS to to drag it out for the full duration. If Atlantis launches in September and if they get another launch in 2005, and if they can maintain 6 launches per year it will be spring 2009 by the time it's finished. Delays are bound to happen which is why 2010 is the earliest retirement of Shuttle. The current budget shows costs for Shuttle jumped up from about $5 billion per year to $7.5 billion for return to flight, but after it's budgetted to remain at $7.5 billion. Chris Shank said they cut several programs to pay for RTF. With on-going shuttle operation increased to that level they won't have anything left for an inline heavy launcher. That means the heavy launcher won't start development until 2010. Initial design work for Saturn V started in 1959, and the F1 engine in 1958, Apollo 4 launched an unmanned test of the Saturn V in 1967. An SDV should take less time but a major redesign like the inline vehicle will take time. That really will mean the first manned mission to the Moon in 2018. I expect all hardware will be dedicated to the Moon, not at all usable on Mars. That means another major project and starting over again for Mars. After spending all that money on the Moon, politicians will take a hiatus before proceeding on to Mars. Even the inline SDV heavy launcher used for the Moon will be old and decommissioned by the time they get around to Mars. That means starting everything over again. How many decades? Will there be a manned mission to Mars within our lifetime?

RobertDyck · 2005-08-22 10:18:40

Have you been ignoring the Hubble debate here.

Mike Griffin's confirmation made the decision firm and final, we got the best solution possible: a manned mission on the Shuttle orbiter to service Hubble. No further debate is necessary or useful. So, no, I haven't followed any Hubble debate here after that.

John Creighton · 2005-08-22 10:49:19

Have you been ignoring the Hubble debate here.
Mike Griffin's confirmation made the decision firm and final, we got the best solution possible: a manned mission on the Shuttle orbiter to service Hubble. No further debate is necessary or useful. So, no, I haven't followed any Hubble debate here after that.

As far as I can tell the stick is more a done deal then the Hubble servicing mission. So if we are not going to argue things because they are a done deal you might as well give up on the small CEV, as a small CEV would waste the lift capacity of the stick. If NASA chose an EELV approach I might be more inclined to agree with building a smaller CEV.

John Creighton · 2005-08-22 11:36:51

GCNRevenger wrote:
To go to all the trouble to get back to the Moon and not do anything with it but play with Mars hardware is incomprehensible. If it costs a bit more to make a larger, more capable CEV & lander to actually do things, then so be it, the extra cost versus an "Apollo 2.0" are worthwhile... even if it delays a Mars mission.
You really don't want to go to Mars, do you?

Yes, Yes he does

Come on you can write better then that can't you.

We have a wonderful opportunity with George W.'s VSE to get out of LEO and start exploring space again, but the trap is to get stuck on the Moon. If lunar equipment is not designed from the beginning to be Mars equipment then Mars just won't happen.

You seem to be the advocating a booster that is too small for a mars mission. Anyway, I would rather get stuck on the moon then go to mars once and never go beyond LEO from then on. Clearly we should look for ways to reduce costs by seeing what aspects can have enough commonality that research and development in one reduces the cost of the other. This is happening anyway. NASA is planning to use methane fuel and exploring ISRU in particular lunar oxygen production.

I don't think GCNRevenger is auguring against it. I think he is saying is don't do it at the expensive of an efficient moon program. Otherwise it will make the moon and mars program more expensive combined; all in the name of hiding mars exploration costs under the lunar program. I think such an approach would be sneaky underhand and dishonest. If we are going to go to the moon lets do it right, otherwise lets skip it and go straight to mars. The president wanted to go to the moon first so lets not try to turn it into a joke. I don't think such conduct is the best strategy to keep momentum up for a successful mars mission.

:
Edit: Don't forget, that just about every penny spent, every pad modification, and engineer man-hour on Shuttle-C is spent on a booster that is too small for Mars and too small for efficent Lunar expeditions. I think it is safe to say that building the Shuttle-C is a step backwards away from the Moon or Mars.
Money spent to build a simple heavy launcher will be more than regained by preventing 3 years of shuttle operation and stopping the construction phase of ISS.
I started this thread to call for unity and a cohesive plan. Hacking and slashing existing assets will not get you to Mars. Destroying multi-billion dollar space projects would simply tell congress that NASA is too irresponsible to be permitted another multi-billion dollar project. You are arguing against Mars. The first thing you have to prove to congress is that you can be responsible with the assets already paid for. If you're not responsible, you get nothing! If Shuttle wasn't so old I wouldn't call for it's demise either, but it is time. ISS isn't even complete yet, hasn't even started operation. I'm having trouble staying calm; you just don't get it. The alternative to rapidly completing ISS to to drag it out for the full duration.

It is unfortunate that NASA is stuck with a program created from outdated ideas for all the wrong reasons. I could see the ISS being a useful platform for other nations to test out their rocket technology and other space systems but it is of questionable value to the US both from a science and engineering perspective. I agree that the United States does not have the best diplomacy in terms of international relations but I wonder if the rest of the world is at fault for expecting big daddy to take care of everything.

The united states has invested a disproportionate amount of dollars in a space station that serves them little use. All this for what? Keep Russian engineers from not building weapons for poor countries, to keep the congress men happy that have NASA facilities in there states, to justify all the earlier outdated engineering work on space station "freedom", to keep aerospace engineers employed in case they are need for future war efforts?

If you want congress to trust NASA with a big program do you think that they are going to gain more trust by playing all the same political games before which lead to ISS or do you think they are going to gain more trust by giving an honest assessment of the true costs and benefits.

If Atlantis launches in September and if they get another launch in 2005, and if they can maintain 6 launches per year it will be spring 2009 by the time it's finished. Delays are bound to happen which is why 2010 is the earliest retirement of Shuttle. The current budget shows costs for Shuttle jumped up from about $5 billion per year to $7.5 billion for return to flight, but after it's budgetted to remain at $7.5 billion. Chris Shank said they cut several programs to pay for RTF. With on-going shuttle operation increased to that level they won't have anything left for an inline heavy launcher. That means the heavy launcher won't start development until 2010. Initial design work for Saturn V started in 1959, and the F1 engine in 1958, Apollo 4 launched an unmanned test of the Saturn V in 1967. An SDV should take less time but a major redesign like the inline vehicle will take time. That really will mean the first manned mission to the Moon in 2018. I expect all hardware will be dedicated to the Moon, not at all usable on Mars. That means another major project and starting over again for Mars. After spending all that money on the Moon, politicians will take a hiatus before proceeding on to Mars. Even the inline SDV heavy launcher used for the Moon will be old and decommissioned by the time they get around to Mars. That means starting everything over again. How many decades? Will there be a manned mission to Mars within our lifetime?

I'm a bit confused here weren’t you the one advocating using the same hardware for the moon and mars.

GCNRevenger · 2005-08-22 11:53:03

In light of the continuing foam problem, and the pins-and-needles operational pace that NASA has adopted due to the complexity of the Orbiter, I think that the number of flights remaining in the Shuttle program have signifigantly declined with the flight of Discovery. The program will only have three and a half years left, and a maximum flight rate of four anually, thats only about 14-15 flights left. If the flight rate falls to only three per year, then there are oun 11-12 flights left.

This being the case, I think that the chances of another HST servicing mission are substantially slimmer, and as far as I know Griffin has made no such decision to go through with SM4, since he expressly stated that he would make no decision until Shuttle had returned to safe flight. This is not the case at the moment. Therefore, non-Shuttle solutions like HOP are certainly not out of the running.

Of all the options to repair Hubble, Shuttle is the best option, but it is obvious from a science value standpoint and at current with Shuttle schedule & safety pressure, that HOP is the better choice then SM4.

John Creighton · 2005-08-22 11:58:12

As for using shuttle C to complete the ISS if it can be shown to be cheaper and faster then using the shuttle then I would support it. I believe NASA is studying this possibility. However, I am not going to relay on the unreviewed work of on person unless you can show me great errors in the way NASA does it's planning and costing of such operations.

Forgive me if I am sceptical but lots of people claim lots of things and why should I just believe one person over another. And I think it shows a complete lack of maturity in you writing and debating skills to say things like: "You really don't want to go to Mars, do you? ", "You are arguing against Mars.". Such unsupported and unsubstantiated speculation has no place in good technical writing. I would advise you to increase the level of sophistication in your writing by dropping these silly statements. I would also suggest that you work harder at staying to the point. Good writing is concise. Do your comments about Apollo and Saturn V really add much to what you are trying to say? Do they add Enough to warrant the extra words? I have a tendency to want to throw in a lot of math when I write and a professor once said to me that people aren’t interested in you background. I think the same applies to you. In this case your irrelevant use of history. I have noticed you have a tendency to include a lot of extraneous information in your posts and that is why I said Yada Yada Yada. You aren’t as long winded as Martien Republic but I think it is something you can work on.

SpaceNut · 2005-08-22 12:08:13

I don't think GCNRevenger is auguring against it. I think he is saying is don't do it at the expensive of an efficient moon program. Otherwise it will make the moon and mars program more expensive combined; all in the name of hiding mars exploration costs under the lunar program. I think such an approach would be sneaky underhand and dishonest. If we are going to go to the moon lets do it right, otherwise lets skip it and go straight to mars.

I think I can give an example of what is not lunar versus mars, space suits those for lunar use can and should not be used on mars or vise verse since neither meets the others extreme useage.

It is unfortunate that NASA is stuck with a program created from outdated ideas for all the wrong reasons. I could see the ISS being a useful platform for other nations to test out their rocket technology and other space systems but it is of questionable value to the US both from a science and engineering perspective.

But though it may not be for exploration or for science it does hold a value for a manufacturing and service station.

John Creighton · 2005-08-22 12:27:21

SpaceNut wrote:

But though it may not be for exploration or for science it does hold a value for a manufacturing and service station.

Manufacturing will require more advances in zero g material science. It also may require a RLV to be economical. Using the ISS as a service station strikes me as a slightly dubious use of it.

RobertDyck · 2005-08-22 13:16:09

I'm a bit confused here weren’t you the one advocating using the same hardware for the moon and mars.

Shuttle-C can be used for the 2-launch per transit to Mars mission plan of NASA's DRM. It isn't preferred but also remember I called for a line of SDVs. One thing the space industry is finally beginning to realize is you can't just build one single rocket without any flexibility to payload and expect everyone will adapt their mission to your vehicle. A reasonable launch vehicle must be configurable to mission requirements. The Russian Proton has various upper stages available, Energia was designed to work with varying numbers of strap-on boosters, and the Angara has options to mix-and-match modules. Delta IV and Atlas V also have varying configurations. The new SDV must do the same. Shuttle-C is the smallest configuration of the family, but the easiest and quickest to get operational. The larger SDV you want is simply another member of that family. We need something that can be operational quickly and inexpensively to finish ISS. The small one optimized for LEO is ideal for ISS.

RobertDyck · 2005-08-22 13:32:19

The reason I mentioned the Saturn V development time frame is so you understand how long it will take to develop a big inline SDV that's significantly different than the current Shuttle stack. Time frame will be comparable. Saturn V took 8 years to complete, the inline SDV will take something similar. Considering work will not start until Shuttle is decommissioned and NASA says they expect that in 2010, the first mission on the new big rocket would be expected in 2018. NASA said the first manned mission to the Moon is expected in 2018, that's consistent. Get it? I quoted hard facts to justify these conclusions, I'm not pulling numbers of thin air.

If you don't like getting bawled out then behave responsibly. I do get very impatient with people who demand scrapping every project other than their pet project. NASA has several tasks to perform and is judged by those who provide money. If NASA were to do what you suggest and de-orbit ISS and Hubble that only demonstrates lack of responsibility. NASA already has a credibility problem because several big projects have been started and cancelled: VentureStar/X-33, space station Freedom, the crash of DC-XA, and others. Congress has stated they're worried a Mars mission will incrementally increase the budget to the $450 billion figure from the 90-day report. NASA is on trial to prove they can finish what they start and won't escalate costs. Scrapping ISS will only demonstrate NASA isn't capable of completing a major project. Scrapping ISS will only get the whole manned space program cancelled so NASA is stuck with unmanned probes. Those are the ones that have shown success, we now have to demonstrate success with manned flight. If you don't want the manned space program to be judged by Shuttle and ISS, it's too late. It is. Now we have to demonstrate success before we can move on to Moon and Mars. I've explained this several times, being intransigent will not get anyone to Mars.

As for my inclusion of references and numbers, I quote Robert A. Heinlein who said "Any opinion, no matter how expert, is only opinion unless it's expressed in numbers."

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-08-20 22:30:43

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#27 2005-08-20 22:41:04

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#28 2005-08-20 23:51:42

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#29 2005-08-21 03:32:00

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#30 2005-08-21 04:48:27

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#31 2005-08-21 07:47:20

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#32 2005-08-21 14:48:30

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#33 2005-08-21 15:00:11

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#34 2005-08-21 17:28:31

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#35 2005-08-21 18:59:58

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#36 2005-08-21 19:49:07

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#37 2005-08-21 20:07:42

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#38 2005-08-21 20:46:04

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#39 2005-08-21 23:13:22

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#40 2005-08-21 23:41:29

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#41 2005-08-22 00:52:40

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#42 2005-08-22 10:18:40

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#43 2005-08-22 10:49:19

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#44 2005-08-22 11:36:51

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#45 2005-08-22 11:53:03

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#46 2005-08-22 11:58:12

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#47 2005-08-22 12:08:13

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#48 2005-08-22 12:27:21

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#49 2005-08-22 13:16:09

Re: Coherent Mars plan

#50 2005-08-22 13:32:19

Re: Coherent Mars plan

Board footer