Human Mars Landing Mission for 2033

JET MANGA · 2006-05-14 10:29:07

Hi,

In front of JET MANGA Ltd. for space transport and services, it is my honour to present you new book
"Human Mars Landing Mission for 2033"
written by test pilot and aircraft designer - Air Force General (ret.) Zlatko Rendulic D.Sc. (more about author http://www.yuairwar.com/images/mars2.jpg)

More about book check on: http://www.yuairwar.com/mars.asp

Book promotion will be held on May 18th, 2006 at 20.30h, in "012 STATION" (JET MANGA Ltd. business unit no.01). On that occasion author will sign the books and answer on your questions.

Address:

JET MANGA Ltd.
PJ01 "012 STATION"
Svetice 24
10000 Zagreb
CROATIA (Hrvatska)

Location: http://www.012station.hr/pictures/karta.jpg

All the best

Tino Jelavic M.S. in Aeronautics - pilot

JET MANGA · 2006-05-19 04:43:15

Last evening we had book promotion and great opportunity to discuss with living legend - Air Force General (ret.) Zlatko Rendulic Dr.Sc.

Among other he was "The Man" who designed almost all ex-Yugoslav warbirds since 1960's such Soko's Galeb G-2, Kraguj J-20, Jastreb J-21 and also was involved in development of YUROM Orao J-22 and SuperGaleb G-4.

As lifetime member of International Astronautic Academy he was more than competent to made great analysis and give us most realistic predictions for human Mars mission. The public was highly interested in topic so presentation ended after 23.00 h.

Soon you will see link to photos.

JET MANGA · 2006-05-22 05:28:32

JET MANGA · 2006-05-23 02:30:18

5. SELECTION OF THE EARTH-MARS SPACESHIPS TRAJECTORIES

5.1. General considerations

When a spaceship is assembled and ready for launch from Earth orbit toward Mars the basic mission sequence is simple and straight forward as follows:-

– Interplanetary transfer to Mars
– Capture in Mars orbit
– Descent to the surface using a Lander
– Surface mission operations
– Ascent to Mars orbit
– Rendezvous with the orbiting ship
– Interplanetary transfer back to Earth
– Capture in Earth orbit
– Descent to the surface of Earth

While the basic mission sequence is simple enough, the complexity arises from the choice of mission profile and the choice of interplanetary systems. Many considerations are necessary to determine a range of launch dates, from Earth for the Earth-Mars transfer and from Mars for the Mars-Earth return transfer, which will be compatible with the goals and constraints of a manned Mars mission. There are two basic mission profiles:-

– A slow, minimum energy transfer
– A fast, high energy transfer

The second one is more costly, but only in terms of propellant required. The selection of a mission profile hinges on the selection of the propulsion system. If the mission is manned, short flight times are desirable and the possibility of mission aborts must be considered. Since the goals of the mission include performing experiments and data collection on Mars, a sufficient stay time must be allowed. Mission flexibility, which provides for various options on the types of trajectories to be used for the mission, must be considered. The selections of a particular mission profile, along with the required propulsion systems, are constrained by an array of mission requirements. Any discussion of Mars mission begins by looking at the flight mechanics, trajectory selection and the astronautic-dynamic constraints for reaching Mars.

VTTFSH_V · 2006-05-23 05:23:20

I'm just gonna watch and wait for the Zubrin zealots to start complaining "no Battlestar Galactica mothership crud!"

JET MANGA · 2006-05-23 07:07:17

Why?

Maybe because of YT-1300 Transport (Millennium Falcon) desk model positioned on LED clock (on first pic)?

However in book are described:

9. SPACECRAFT FOR MANNED MARS MISSIONS

9.1. Description

From the outset of the spaceship design study, the concept of a modular space vehicle was used. Modularity provides the ability to disconnect parts of the vehicle for auxiliary function, for example Mars excursion. Modularity affords a safety margin by allowing the crew flexibility in deciding between abort modes, in case of failure of part of the ship.

The early concept of a Mars space vehicle has three man operated modules; the Earth entry module, the Mars excursion module and the Command module. The modern concept of an interplanetary spacecraft is to use nuclear-thermal propulsion to propel a crew capsule/habitat to Mars together with the Mars excursion module. It will not be encumbered with the Earth entry module. A new version of the Space Shuttle will be used for carrying people to and from Earth to the interplanetary ship.

The command module will be the major module of the ship, in which the crew will spend most of its time during the long flight to Mars. Most of the communication, guidance and data processing will be done in it, and it will remain the mission command centre until just before Earth orbit entry.

The command module will be divided into three major areas: Mission Control Centre, Living Area and Berthing Area. The spaces between decks will be used to house the auxiliary equipment and stores.

The mission control centre will contain the guidance and navigation equipment, control and monitoring equipment.

The second compartment will be the living area, containing the galley, recreation space, medical facility, repair shop and airlock. Those members of the crew not standing in the control centre will spend most of their waking hours on this deck.

Sleeping quarters, with hygiene compartment, will be located in the berthing area. Spacious rooms will be provided to allow the crew some privacy, which is of great importance on such a long trip.
The life support system equipment will be located between the living and berthing areas in the space directly below the galley and above the bathroom.

Clothing and personal equipment is not a problem since the crew will be living in a controlled environment that will be more decorative than functional. Pressure suits will be provided for use in out-of-ship excursions.

The life support system must provide an environment which reproduces terrestrial environment within rather small tolerances. To minimize possible physiological problems, a sea level equivalent oxygen mixture should be provided. Therefore an inert gas such as nitrogen should be added to the spaceship atmosphere. The design of the spacecraft’s life support system must achieve the characteristics as described in the Chapter 8.

VTTFSH_V · 2006-05-23 22:33:58

JET MANGA, you are absolutely right about modular craft, and there is so much more to say.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a Zubrin zealot. What I meant was that the hard-core Mars Direct fans were probably going to have argured against having a mothership that stays in space. I'm surprised that they haven't yet.

Austin Stanley · 2006-05-24 00:52:25

I don't consider myself a hard-core Zubranite, but the mission plan proposes (Mars Direct), and the refined version adopted by NASA with their DRM is clearly supperior to that which had come before it. Namely the earlier Mars Plans going as far back to Von Braun and typified by George Bush Sr. so called "90 day report."

The line of reasoning is simple. For a Mars Mission to be carried out the cost of the mission must be brought down to realistic levels. The simplest way to do this is to minimise the number of launches necessary, and minimising the total mass of the mission. This rules out large 1000MT spacecraft. This is not to say that I do not belive that a Mars Mission could not be carried out in such a manner, simply that it would be extreamly difficult to get it funded, and it would be very wasteful in space of the alternatives.

But the primary reason I (and probably other members of this board) have ignored this post is that it provides little of the concreat details necessary to critique its mission plan. Without the necessary details, it's little more than a book advertisment, something these boards are realy not the place for.

JET MANGA · 2006-05-24 06:05:41

But the primary reason I (and probably other members of this board) have ignored this post is that it provides little of the concreat details necessary to critique its mission plan. Without the necessary details, it's little more than a book advertisment, something these boards are realy not the place for.

True and false.

True is that I am trying to inform people about new book. It is not typical book because it have different stand about time-frame announced by GB Sr. and Jr. for Mars mission. Because of that, you probably wouldn't find it in your neighbouring bookstores.

And if I would be in your place - I definitely wouldn't stand aside when somebody give me such information. Definitely I would ask for more details that I'm interested in.

From my previous experience in forums you usually have 90%of people who cant and 10% who can ask some meaningful question. Because of that my post can't be more marketing besides simple information for that 10%.

JET MANGA · 2006-05-24 06:14:32

12.2. The recent uncertainties in prediction of the manned Moon and Mars missions

The chaos theory tell us that we can newer be too sure what is going to happen in the field of big manned space mission just a few decades into the future. There are a lot of examples they confirm this theory.

In 1953 von Braun published the first engineering study an a human expedition to Mars with 10 spaceships with 7 crew per craft.

Between 1961 and 1966 NASA awarded as many as 60 contracts to aerospace companies requesting investigations of methods and technologies for human excursions to Mars. As early as 1962 and lasting for a decade specific hardware system were examined for a Mars-Venus fly-by by humans during the 1970-1972 time frame. By the mid-60's, NASA studies indicated that the capabilities for a human Mars mission could be initiated utilizing Apollo-class technologies although such a mission would be quite expensive, highly complex and would have a long flight time. In 1969 a recommendation by von Braun to a space Task Group appointed by the President of the US presented a Space Program plan including a human Mars mission for 1982 which would utilize systems and experience from Apollo lunar program.

In January 1988 US President Ronald Reagan announced a National Space Policy that included Solar System exploration and the Mars trip.

In 1989, the 20th anniversary of Apollo 11, President George Bush (senior) announced a new vision of America in the 21st century with intention to go back on the Moon but this time back to stay as step before manned mission to Mars. Following this path president George Bush fixed plan for the first manned Moon Base in 2010 and first manned Mars landing in 2019 NASA released the "Report of Study on Human Exploration of the Moon and Mars". So the new vision of the president G. Bush from NASA was accepted. But that ambitious plan was dead on arrival after NASA estimated it would cost 400 billion dollars.

Dr.Sc. Ivan Bekey director of the Office of Exploration NASA in about 1990 thought that it was probably not feasible to go to Mars before 2000 but to leave it until after 2010 was probably unnecessary. President G. Bush statement was politically motivated, but Dr.Sc. Ivan Bekey knows all the mathematical methods for the technological forecasting and made a big mistake just for the reasons not taking into account political and economic reasons which are dominant that his forecasting about manned Mars mission has nothing to do with real life.

In January 2004 President of USA, George W. Bush (junior) announced a new directive for changes at NASA designed to get the US out of Earth orbit, by developing a new modular space vehicle for a return to the Moon to practice for an eventual landing on Mars.

Space Shuttle flights would be halted after about 2010. Right now shuttle remains grounded while engineers try to meet standards for repair and for a return to flight. NASA in 2004 still has at least 25 more Space Shuttle mission to go before it retires the venerable vehicle, but the agency and its contractors are shifting quickly to begin developing a replacement in the wake of President Bush's call for a return to the Moon.
The main focus of the new space policy would be on the vehicle that sustains humans in Earth orbit and transports them to the Moon and beyond. Getting to orbit with loads would be left to the existing fleet of evolved expandable launch vehicles already developed-Lockheed Martin Atlas and Boeing's Delta IV.

In fact NASA would use reprogrammed money to begin work on Project Constellation the effort to develop a modular spaceship capable of taking humans beyond low-Earth orbit by 2014 and to begin plotting a return to the Moon as a proving ground for a technology that will eventually enable human exploration of Mars. Plan of the human return to the Moon as early as 2014 does not include permanent human habitation, by setting up a permanent base. Instead the Moon would serve as a nearby proving ground for the modular components that would be needed for a mission to Mars.

The new space plan does not set a top line cost or target date for a Mars landing.

The problem to these plans will be budged restriction for NASA. Spending on other programs would be slowed or halted as the agency focuses on its new primary mission. For example the Space Shuttle mission to service the Hubble Space Telescope is cancelled. That means effectively killing the huge popular space telescope and that is not a popular move for scientific circlets in US. Contractors are worried that Bush plan lowball at the front end, leaving it for a latter administration to find funds for the major spending. In an election year it would be perceived as a Bush political plan.

Summary:
• President G. Bush (senior) 1989 "…back to the Moon with manned Moon Base 2010 and first manned Mars landing in 2019". The plan was dead after NASA estimated it would cost 400 billion dollars.
• President G. W. Bush 2004, return to the Moon 2014 not to set up a permanent base but to test components for a mission to Mars. Target date for Mars landing is not defined. The plan will face an uphill battle in an election year by a nagging conflict abroad and record budget deficits at home.

Austin Stanley · 2006-05-25 00:48:05

Well you continue to post sizeable portions of what I assume is the text of your book, but it has little relevant details, such as how much mass is going to be sent to mars, how, and what this mass will consist of.

JET MANGA · 2006-05-25 06:29:00

such as how much mass is going to be sent to mars, how, and what this mass will consist of

You expect discussion about such technical details in situation when NASA send its astronauts to ISS with Soyuz TM's and when USA administration cant predict the end of Iraq occupation which consumes most of DoD budget.

I think you should look movie "Right stuff" (again?) and remember the saying "No bucks, no buck-Rogers"

And of course I am posting here only introductions in chapters to show you scientific level of author's approach to the problem.

Unfortunately it seems I must still wait for mentioned 10% of forum members

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-25 07:02:01

One of the greatest obsticles to actually doing a Mars mission is get over whats been termed the "giggle factor," which is basically that people don't believe NASA can do it beacuse its so gradiose and so elaborate that its way beyond what they can do.

This absolutely has to be overcome to secure and protect monies for a Mars program from congressional raiding years down the road, and the most effective way to do this is to show exactly how it could actually be done. Not hand-waving, pretty pictures and huge space ships but practical ships that could ride on rockets the public has no problem believing that NASA could do.

The most effective presentation would be practical Mars mission, nothing overly ambitious, which would actually work. Then talk about how wonderful it would be, and imagining what could be learned and accomplished with it beyond simply landing and coming back. The public especially needs to be sold on doing more than simply getting our boots red and coming back home like Apollo did on the Moon, or else we risk the same fate. Only the third mission to the Moon, Apollo 13, was barely televised before its accident... the public just wasn't that interested.

What shouldn't be done is to come up with these grandiose and enormous plans for huge ships and bases, especially without any discussion of the smaller precursors that would have to be built first. If not, all you are accomplishing is to stoke up the "giggle factor" even more, and people (especially congressmen) simply won't believe that its possible, and perhaps with good reason. Then they will simply stop funding a Mars program when they find something better they want to spend money on.

=VT= · 2006-05-25 21:52:52

If we are going to rely on NASA, the government should just burn the taxpayers' money. At least they won't be risking any lives.

If nothing that NASA has done has proved their incompetence to you, I guess nothing will. Having them done the pathetic Ranger probe missions, Apollo 1, Challenger, Columbia, totaling 17 dead astronauts, and many more nearly killed, and the manifestly absurd ISS, what else COULD?

On another note, these so-called “practical” ships, which I will assume are (or are similar to) Zubrin’s Mars Direct ships, are jokes. They would do nothing to develop orbital infrastructure, and, for what they ARE to do, they would do horribly. Zubrin speaks of humankind spreading to Mars, then, of course, as far out as it can go. Curious. We are going to colonize the universe with little Apollo-sized rockets, whose missions do nothing for financial profit, and nothing for orbital infrastructure? Are we going to fight Earth’s gravity well all the way to Alpha Centauri? I don’t think so. It’s just so amusing. Zubrin blabs about advanced propulsion systems (nuke-pulse, fusion, especially solar sails, or what have you), yet opposes orbital infrastructure, at least in the short term, i.e., he just wants no go to Mars NOW.

What I’m trying to get across here is that Zubin zealots don’t see the whole picture. They only see narrowly down the path that will, yes, get them to Mars NOW. They don’t seem to realize if significant orbital infrastructure can be attained, then the expansion into space can proceed at exponential rates that, without it, would be impossible.

So, I will now move on to what is directly relevant in this topic. Once such orbital infrastructure is attained, then large ships could be built, out of lunar or other space resources. They could, themselves, set up orbital infrastructure somewhere else, such as Mars. Then, huge masses could be transported between Earth and other destinations. Mars Direct-style missions have no hope doing this. They could only move a few people and things to Mars, as Apollo did to the moon. But hey, at least they get us to Mars NOW.

Also, little Zubrin ships have insignificant radiation shielding. Zubrin himself admits that one would have a 2% chance of getting fatal cancer on a to-Mars voyage, on his ships. So as we colonize Mars, we can expect 1 of 50 people to get picked off. But Zubrin could care less. He’ll marginalize anything (or apparently anyone) so long as we get to Mars NOW. Large interplanetary vessels would have no problem carrying radiation shielding, such as lead, attained from space resources (hence, the lead never goes up a gravity well). Zubrin’s ships simply couldn’t lift that on top of everything else.

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-26 06:46:29

Wow VT, your post is crammed full of ignorance, straw-men, and the exact same kind of wild irrational optimism as Zubrin... except in reverse.

First of all, NASA is really, honestly the only game in town. China is just now figuring out how to repeat what Gemini did ages ago, and even with copied Russian technology it will be a looong time before they could do anything. Russia has also had a string of accidents too (multiple Soyuz crashes, airlock failures, MIR collision, habitual space suit & life support failures), but you didn't mention them, so are the Russians incompetant too? Getting to Mars is difficult, but it really isn't a whole lot harder relativly speaking then getting to the Moon in the 1960s as far as the technology goes.

And did I say that I advocated Zubrin's specific arcitecture? I don't believe I did, and if you are a member of this board for any length of time you would know that I am about as anti-MarsDirect as they come. Its a crazy plan that will never work... But, it won't work because its vehicles are too small, not because the arcitecture itself is inherintly flawed. NASA realized this and put together the Design Reference Mission version three, which calls for much multiples more mass then Zubrin's plan, but still has many of the bennefits.

Orbital infrastructure, what a tired refrain... it is really ever so simple, so simple that nobody has any excuse to stubbornly stand their ground and defend "orbital infrastructure" without reservation: orbital infrastructure does not in any way reduce the amount of fuel needed to go to or return from Mars. Infact, it makes it worse, because assembling ships at an orbital shipyard probably involves building/fueling with smaller payloads, which because of their area/volume ratio will inherintly weigh more then a big HLLV load.

And if there is a question about the efficiency of multiple medium rockets versus fewer HLLVs, that question has long since been answerd: as long as we are limited to rocket technology, heavier rockets are more efficient then lighter ones. Bigger rockets means better wet/dry mass ratio due to the area/volume relationship, less redundancy of expensive non-engine components, plus overall comperable (or even better maybe with fault tollerance) reliability then multiple smaller rockets.

Speaking of masses, one of the biggest items in the mass budget is the fuel required to get astronauts & samples off the Martian surface and back to Earth, plus the fuel required to get that fuel there in the first place. This is not trivial, and amounts of many tonnes, but there is a partial solution to the problem: producing fuel on Mars does indeed decrease the "fuel bill" and enable a modestly sized Mars mission to do much more and prepares the way for more economical bigger missions later.

It only makes sense to go to Mars and get this supply of fuel, by combining Martian water with carbon dioxide processed by solar or nuclear power. This will nessesitate a fairly signifigant contingent of surface infrastructure, which will not need the same upkeep as orbital infrastructure, but getting this payload to Mars and set it up will not be easy. Therefore, NASA should use the smallest least expensive mission plan to do this, which will efficiently serve it new charter to explore and learn as well.

Zubrin's plan is too small, but he had the right idea: splitting the mission into seperate pieces instead of one big mothership makes it possible to execute the mission using only HLLV rockets without orbital construction or assembly. We don't need infrastructure for modestly sized missions, its simply not needed, and its quite expensive so it should not be built.

"What I'm trying to get across here is that JetManga/=VT= zealots don't see the whole picture. They only see the path that will get them to Mars in BIG ships built at BIG shipyards, because they think its better. They don't seem to realize if a good HLLV rocket can be attained, then initial expansion into space can proceed more efficiently then with orbital infrastructure tended by medium rockets."

Later, later when we are established on Mars with modestly sized infrastructure, when the money and will finally reaches the critical point when colonization is seriously supported, later when technology has improved to bring this critical point closer, then we talk about infrastructure. HLLV rockets are efficient enough to support small numbers of modest missions to Mars, sufficient to explore it and set up the initial "beach head" base. They are however not efficient enough for serious colonization. In this future time, we will either have space elevators on one or both planets, or at least fully reuseable launch vehicles. A TSTO spaceplane on the Earth end perhaps, and a reuseable SSTO Mars lander fueled exclusively from native propellants. By then, something better then present rockets would also be available, and absolutely nessesarry too. The GCNR engine perhaps.

Then you would need orbital infrastructure, to collect and distribute payloads to and from the surface of either world (maybe the Moon too), and then is its time... but not today. Not yet. Not now. We don't need huge ships, so we don't need space ship yards to build and support them.

So, why do we need big ships now?

Why really? Radiation shielding is almost exclusively a matter of mass, not volume, so infact smaller ships would have better shielding because they have less area to cover. So why do we need big ships now? People live in the cramped, clutterd, not-at-all-ergonomic ISS for six months too without ill effect. So why? What are the reasons?

JET MANGA · 2006-05-26 07:41:31

NASA can't do it without more serious founding because in this moment estimated mission price is 400 billion USD. Today's US i.e. Republican administration with heavy financial anchor around its neck in form of Middle East Oil-wars can't fund it. That is reason why Mars mission must be internationally accepted mission. That is one of thesis of General Rendulic book.

Also for humans it is necessary to use high energy transfers during Earth-Mars opposition (every two years). In that case voyage would last 1 year and 3 month while first mission crew could stay on Mars for one month period. Of course before them on Mars must land robotic Landers with necessary cargo for establishment of first Mars base and that cargo would came by slower and cheaper trajectories.

Of course this is not right place for revealing technical details such is design of Outpost habitat modules, Rovers, Nuclear Power Module and Greenhouse Inflatable Blader which will be parts of first Mars base. Also Mars Base problems such is Regolith Shielding, Berms, Multi-use surface Construction Equipment, Recycle/Reusability Engineering, Martian Wind Storms and environment, Astronaut Health, Strength and Dexterity - we also can't solve here. It is too complex problem for anybody who can't understand realistic time and cost frame for such mission.

mr.sc. Tino Jelavic

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-26 08:04:30

"this moment estimated mission price is 400 billion USD"

Yes it is... for the original "90 day study" SEI initiative plan under Bush-I years ago. It called for a massive mothership just like the one you and =VT= want. I believe that a mission plan like NASA's DRM-III will cost around $100Bn for development and the first mission or two.

International cooperation is a red-herring, it has never worked, and never will. If other countries want to help build science payloads or base parts, then swell I'd be happy to trade seats and a share of the base. But the mission-critical parts all should be built by or at least available from only one country.

"for humans it is necessary to use high energy transfers"

Why? Plus, seperating crew from cargo is not acceptable for exploration, and the whole idea of only staying one month on Mars for such a huge investment is insane.

"It is too complex problem for anybody who can't understand realistic time and cost frame for such mission"

Which, of course, you can and I cannot?

Rxke · 2006-05-27 03:05:48

Of course this is not right place for revealing technical details ...

Why not?

Martin_Tristar · 2006-05-27 04:22:58

Yes, Large scale movement of cargo and humans to mars will cost alot of money depending on the design of the vessels, the cargo to the martian surface and transport of humans to the surface.

But, before we leave earth orbit we need large scale infrastructure for the development of the cargo vessels and also the human transport ship for the missions. We are not developing down a settlement model we are travelling down an explorer / visitor / tourist model that means we take little and fly-in and then leave.

We need to build the larger vessels and use them in the expansion of the moon to test the use of them and test the onboard systems and transportation systems and return systems before we leave the lunar-earth space zone. Again It costs money that most government and corporate haven't got individually but combined could do with various space laws including property / mining laws be setup for the benefit for expansion into space until then we will have the tourist missions and nothing else.

GCNR,

Will go on about that a star trek or star wars or buck rogers or some other sci-fi ideas but it isn't everyone in the industry wants to go into space but under the current treaties the property / mining rights are not prohibited thus we need to bring everything from earth including the outpost / settlement components.

On earth we have started large scale mining operations on project finance in the 10-50B mark the development of space mining could be into the hundreds of billions in project finance but the returns would be in the trillions of dollars for the future viability of the settlements on Mars, and the outer planets and manufacturing stations.

We need a pro movement on the property rights including mining rights and a taxation framework for each planetary body setup for the expansion of settlements for these planetary bodies or we will never become a spacefaring race with permanent presence in this star system and beyond.

Austin Stanley · 2006-05-27 04:42:43

such as how much mass is going to be sent to mars, how, and what this mass will consist of
You expect discussion about such technical details in situation when NASA send its astronauts to ISS with Soyuz TM's and when USA administration cant predict the end of Iraq occupation which consumes most of DoD budget.
I think you should look movie "Right stuff" (again?) and remember the saying "No bucks, no buck-Rogers"

Well I don't know about you, but I don't see ANY plan that doesn't have concrete details (or even a vague estimate) of WHAT exactly it is going to launch, and HOW is going to get funded. No one is going to hand over 300 billion (or whatever) to you with vaguly wordered notions about "modular ships" and "high energy transfers." And of course without those details I'm not going to take your plan seriously either.

And of course I am posting here only introductions in chapters to show you scientific level of author's approach to the problem.

Interesting, I would have though the meat & potato details of things like the total program mass, diffrent components mass, propulsion method, estimates of fuel and consumables necessary, and so on would have been a much better selection to show a scientific level of approach. Or MAYBE you just achived your goal of 'showing you the scientific level of the author's approach to the problem.' a bit TO well.

JET MANGA · 2006-05-27 13:20:42

Or MAYBE you just achived your goal of 'showing you the scientific level of the author's approach to the problem.' a bit TO well.

Author fruitful life is speaking enough for his scientific references. How many aircraft designers are visiting this forum, D.Sc. in Aeronautics or even test pilots?

I knew what kind of people are visiting forums such this and I already told you "it is just information about new book" for maybe 10% visitors of forum who are serious.

All the best

to all

Over&out

publiusr · 2006-06-09 11:05:32

Less assembly=greater chance of success.

CaLV should be just one of a line of larger LVs, with Rombus, Sea Dragon or Nexus coming 20 yrs afterwards. Thats how you assemble big ships--with big modules. CaLV for high value articles, Sea Dragon for propellant, tankage, etc.

SpaceNut · 2022-11-20 17:46:00

While a lot has changed from the development of sls to a partially flying starship the end result is still a desire to land man to stay on Mars in the future.

SpaceNut · 2024-01-20 12:34:50

Opinion: Why not Mars in 2033?

For decades, mission planners, advocates and policymakers have pointed to the year 2033 as an attractive window to launch the first such mission to the red planet. Indeed, former U.S. Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo), frequently advocated this date to his colleagues on Capitol Hill, producing “Mars by 2033” bumper stickers that were distributed at congressional hearings and conferences.
2033 is not an arbitrary target. Due to orbital mechanics, it will require far less energy than is usually the case to propel a mission to Mars that year. While being able to achieve a human landing on Mars in 2033 is now highly unlikely, the unusually favorable 2033 launch window (that only occurs roughly every 15 years) should not be wasted.
NASA and its partners should commit to a mission in 2033 that will take a solid step forward toward our goal of landing humans on Mars during the 2030s. Needed. accelerated the development of a Mars transit habitat, that component could potentially be placed in cislunar space in 5-7 years.
The last time a favorable launch window was available was in 2018. In the years leading up to that opportunity, a Mars flyby concept called Inspiration Mars was proposed by Dennis Tito, who took the first private sector paid trip to outer space, and Taber MacCallum, an original Biosphere2 crew member and current and co-CEO of Space Perspectives.
Inspiration Mars would have sent two crew members on a 500-day mission to test vital systems in advance of a human landing on the surface of Mars as well as to provide an inspiring intermediate step to engage the public. Unfortunately, the concept failed to garner sufficient support — and launch technology had not matured sufficiently at that time to succeed.
There is also a backup opportunity for a short-duration flyby mission to Mars and Venus in 2034.
Such a mission could demonstrate and prove major systems required for human missions to Mars. It could also serve as a significant early milestone to captivate the public’s imagination and accelerate momentum for surface missions later that same decade.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2006-05-14 10:29:07

Re: Human Mars Landing Mission for 2033

#2 2006-05-19 04:43:15

Re: Human Mars Landing Mission for 2033

#3 2006-05-22 05:28:32

Re: Human Mars Landing Mission for 2033

#4 2006-05-23 02:30:18

Re: Human Mars Landing Mission for 2033

#5 2006-05-23 05:23:20

Re: Human Mars Landing Mission for 2033

#6 2006-05-23 07:07:17

Re: Human Mars Landing Mission for 2033

#7 2006-05-23 22:33:58

Re: Human Mars Landing Mission for 2033

#8 2006-05-24 00:52:25

Re: Human Mars Landing Mission for 2033

#9 2006-05-24 06:05:41

Re: Human Mars Landing Mission for 2033

#10 2006-05-24 06:14:32

Re: Human Mars Landing Mission for 2033

#11 2006-05-25 00:48:05

Re: Human Mars Landing Mission for 2033

#12 2006-05-25 06:29:00

Re: Human Mars Landing Mission for 2033

#13 2006-05-25 07:02:01

Re: Human Mars Landing Mission for 2033

#14 2006-05-25 21:52:52

Re: Human Mars Landing Mission for 2033

#15 2006-05-26 06:46:29

Re: Human Mars Landing Mission for 2033

#16 2006-05-26 07:41:31

Re: Human Mars Landing Mission for 2033

#17 2006-05-26 08:04:30

Re: Human Mars Landing Mission for 2033

#18 2006-05-27 03:05:48

Re: Human Mars Landing Mission for 2033

#19 2006-05-27 04:22:58

Re: Human Mars Landing Mission for 2033

#20 2006-05-27 04:42:43

Re: Human Mars Landing Mission for 2033

#21 2006-05-27 13:20:42

Re: Human Mars Landing Mission for 2033

#22 2006-06-09 11:05:32

Re: Human Mars Landing Mission for 2033

#23 2022-11-20 17:46:00

Re: Human Mars Landing Mission for 2033

#24 2024-01-20 12:34:50

Re: Human Mars Landing Mission for 2033

Board footer