Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

Grypd · 2006-12-18 17:38:23

Are you seriously suggesting that a geologist and biochemist spending 500 days on Mars assisted by two engineers and advised by the best scientists on Earth can't do one heck of alot of exploration and good science?!?!?! For that matter they could also explore thousands of square miles.
The FIRST mission isn't supposed to explore EVERYTHING.
Sure, we could always send more scientists. More equipment. Explore a larger area.

Yes they could do a lot but it only depends if they are able to function and that number of crew is at risk of having the mission scrubbed due to crew loss and incapacitation. A very fundamental risk.

But part of any initial mission is just to prove we can get there and back safetly. That the basic equipment works.

Yes the basic equipment in that we will use the same equipment again. This is where your arquement falls Dayton. If we use a technique and decide to use it the first time we will have to use that same technique for follow up missions. Politically you would have to go to congress to ask not only for money for a new vehicle but also you could well need a new launch vehicle.

We would be stuck using the same material the same mass limits the same lack of expansion we would in effect be in apollo country again. Apollo was limited by its capability and so is Mars direct. If we want to go to Mars and to develop Mars and hope to colonise then we will have to use another mission design.

Shannon Lucid walked off the shuttle after six months in the cramped confines of Mir. She did that coming into a ONE G gravity field.

Yes and one major difference is the space that Shannon had available to her for those simple things like exercise. The space on the outward trip would be a lot lot less and there just is no way to change that in Mars direst those are basic supplies and loss of any of them dooms the Mission and incidentally the crew.

Not enough mass fraction and certainly too little space is the best way to describe Mars Direct.

ftlwright · 2006-12-18 19:09:25

Unfortunately, we cannot go to Mars with "the aerospace establishment that we have" to paraphrase Donald Rumsfield. You must develop the hardware that will competently achieve the mission requirement to be undertaken by a manned mission to Mars. This can not be done with Mars Direct.

The most glaring error of Mars Direct is that the survival of the crew depends on unproven technologies. In-situ fuel production and inflateable structures may prove viable for successive mission, but an evolving exploration architecture cannot depend upon them. The lack of redundancy and low factor of safety pose too great a risk to mission and crew, forgiving the fact that there is no margin for a mission commander, physician or necessary overlap in task functionality. Honestly, if the Mars Direct method is not used on a precursor mission - like the moon - there is little chance that any of its technologies will be used as a framework for a manned Mars mission.

Finally, Zubrin has done little to garner the support of the aerospace community outside of a few enthusiast groups. No government, corporate or academic organizations have any seriously involvement into the Mars Direct architecture. Mars Society seems unable to pick its batttles, and in several ways is more restrictive than the aerospace establishment it detest. Mars Direct does have a couple of good ideas in there, but there are too many single points of failure engineers would have to agree to in order to go forward with MD as is.

GCNRevenger · 2006-12-18 19:14:00

What GCN is advocating is a very "Von Brauning" idea of space exploration.
That we build all the hardware to do it "right" and that the act of building the hardware will show just how committed we are.
Thats backwards.
Its like building a military force and then deciding what kind of war we want to fight.
Makes alot more sense to decide what war you plan on fighting and THEN build the military thats capable of it.
We want to get to Mars. Lets build what we can ASAP and just go. If the long term political will dies after two or three missions............then at least we've gotten two or three of the most productive manned space missions in human history.
My short term goal is to see that first manned mission to Mars and back.
My long term goal is to string a bunch of short term goals together in sequence.

Hey, it would be really swell if you'd stop this "so what you really meant" game and actually read my posts Dayton.

Your military metaphor doesn't fit very well at all, we know that there is an immense number of things to learn about Mars, its history, and its possible future (as a colony) and many of these things aren't going to be laying around the surface conveniently near a suitable landing site. Life, or fossils from its passing, would be one of the most exciting discoveries of the modern era... but it won't be hiding under any rocks to just tip over.

The point is, to have any chance of finding it or other important things, we have to be able to cover a lot of ground and have the equipment to know the significance of what we've found if we do get lucky an encounter it. And I am sure Mars holds some surprises, so not everything there will "look just like" what we have in mind so we won't know "what enemy we face" until we get there. So, we need to be well equipped, well prepared, and have as many boots on the ground as is affordable.

Yes I want to see us get to Mars, but if we get in a rush like Apollo (for whatever reason) then our stay will be temporary, brief, and useless. Mars will not render its secrets nearly as easily as the Moon did. Listen to me, these itty-bity-tiny missions won't be productive, you can't look for underground microbes without a good sized (and heavy) drill, you can't explore far from the landing site without rovers large enough to navigate the terrain, and with so much less manpower will seriously hamper missions. Even with a good sized unpressurized rover, you are talking about an area the size of South Carolina! "At least" nothing!

And we can do so much more if we wait a little longer and go a little bigger, no "table scraps" of kicking over rocks and taking pictures, if thats all we are going to do then leave Mars to the robots and save the money for when we do have the will and discipline to go for real.

A bunch of short-term missions? Is that your plan? Thats silly, each one will be equally impotent and unproductive as the last, throwing away real discoveries and exploration so we can shave a few years or at most a few dozen percent off the cost of doing it right. And what will come of the long term with a bunch of little short term missions? The same thing that happened to Apollo, they couldn't show much for the massive expense incurred to get there, and so it was stopped. Short-term missions the rockets used to send them won't have the capacity to build anything either, the fewer pieces you have to send the infrastructure to make rocket fuel the better.

They will leave nothing behind but scattered worn out HABs and flags, just like we did on the Moon fifty years ago. Don't you dare auction off the future of Mars for another generation or two just so you can see pretty pictures of red footprints a little bit sooner.

GCNRevenger · 2006-12-18 19:54:07

Are you seriously suggesting that a geologist and biochemist spending 500 days on Mars assisted by two engineers and advised by the best scientists on Earth can't do one heck of alot of exploration and good science?!?!?! For that matter they could also explore thousands of square miles.
The FIRST mission isn't supposed to explore EVERYTHING.
Sure, we could always send more scientists. More equipment. Explore a larger area.
But part of any initial mission is just to prove we can get there and back safetly. That the basic equipment works.
Shannon Lucid walked off the shuttle after six months in the cramped confines of Mir. She did that coming into a ONE G gravity field.
Why should be think that Mars bound astronauts setting foot into a ONE THIRD G field after six months in the HAB would have any problems? And if that issue, rotating the HAB and upper stage via tether to produce one third G is hardly a show stopper.

No!

I'm not interested, not interested at all in "quite a bit of science." What I am interested in is can we learn the secrets of Mars, is there life? Was there life? What happened to the water? The atmosphere? Tectonics? Can we drill for permafrost? Can we live on Mars? Etc etc etc... or at the very least, are we giving it our best shot for what we can afford?

If we are in a big rush to get our boots red, then the plan that will come of it clearly cannot. And explore "everything?" It takes years to plan, mount, and execute any sort of mission from Earth, and much of Mars will be out of reach of a future "Hopper" rocket. That means for the foreseeable future there is probably going to be only one or two missions to a particular site. So no, two scientists for 500 days isn't enough, we ought to get as much as we can from one landing as possible, which means six crew and much more payload. We can get more, so we should get more.

Send more explorers, send more scientists? How? When? How much more will they cost? Send two missions with two "full time explorers" thats costs 70% as much each as one mission one time with four "full timers" and actual equipment beyond hammers and magnifying glasses is obviously a better deal. And can be done in half the time too.

No! No tiny "initial mission" to "prove that it works," we aren't going to build two separate kinds of rockets/ships just so we can test the little kind a few years sooner (which won't be testing the big kind either).

Discipline and patience will pay off, impatience will be rewarded with congressional cuts and losing Mars for another generation.

GCNRevenger · 2006-12-18 20:53:58

Unfortunately, we cannot go to Mars with "the aerospace establishment that we have" to paraphrase Donald Rumsfield. You must develop the hardware that will competently achieve the mission requirement to be undertaken by a manned mission to Mars. This can not be done with Mars Direct.
The most glaring error of Mars Direct is that the survival of the crew depends on unproven technologies. In-situ fuel production and inflateable structures may prove viable for successive mission, but an evolving exploration architecture cannot depend upon them. The lack of redundancy and low factor of safety pose too great a risk to mission and crew, forgiving the fact that there is no margin for a mission commander, physician or necessary overlap in task functionality. Honestly, if the Mars Direct method is not used on a precursor mission - like the moon - there is little chance that any of its technologies will be used as a framework for a manned Mars mission.
Finally, Zubrin has done little to garner the support of the aerospace community outside of a few enthusiast groups. No government, corporate or academic organizations have any seriously involvement into the Mars Direct architecture. Mars Society seems unable to pick its batttles, and in several ways is more restrictive than the aerospace establishment it detest. Mars Direct does have a couple of good ideas in there, but there are too many single points of failure engineers would have to agree to in order to go forward with MD as is.

I think that the technologies behind MarsDirect are okay, there is nothing seriously wrong with them. What is wrong with MD can be summed up simply "its too dang small." The HAB is too small, the ERV is too small, the pressurized rover is too small, the surface science payload is too small, the launch vehicle is too small, the radiation shielding is perhaps too small, payload mass too small for base building, the mass budget for the nuclear reactor is too small, the mass margins are too small, and the launch vehicle is too small. Too small.

But Bob persists on either earnestly believing or else lying to us that it isn't.

Dayton Kitchens · 2006-12-18 21:22:14

Why do people consider the Mars Direct Hab & ERV too small.

IIRC, for a four man crew, its 250 square feet per crewman overall in the Hab.

In the ERV its about 125 square feet per crewman (and on the ERV, you are returning to Earth so you get the morale advantage of more real time communications the longer you are into the return).

Why do people think thats too cramped for whats only a six month mission? I believe a number of Salyut cosmonauts stayed stayed in similiar conditions for six months. And they weren't making history while doing it.

If you go to Mars with what you have as I suggested, you can go to Congress (and the American people) with a solid achievement that builds your case for an expansion of future Mars missions.

Zubrin was absolutely right about the fact that you can't go more than 10 years from when the program is approved to actual landing.

You can't continue to go to Congress and the American people with nothing but cool pictures about what you hope to build on Mars "some day" and hope to continue to obtain funding.

You've got to make history or at least have flight capable hardware well underway as soon as humanly possible.

Dayton Kitchens · 2006-12-18 21:26:06

[
They will leave nothing behind but scattered worn out HABs and flags, just like we did on the Moon fifty years ago.

It might well be that.........or nothing.

I much prefer to gamble on a deeply flawed program in 2020 than an eternally hypothetical "perfect" program in 2040 or whenever.

GCNRevenger · 2006-12-18 22:15:09

Have you even looked at the MD HAB? Its terribly claustrophobic, its more cramped than my little apartment if you look at it, especially how little of the volume is contiguous and how the airlock is internal. You just can't expect four people to stay properly glued together for years in such a little tin can. And the ERV is much worse! Enough with the "suck it up soldier!" attitude, this stupid excuse of "oh their morale will be so high, they won't even notice!" is nuts. Its endemic of the disregard for safety, margin, and effectiveness that pushes MD over the threshold beyond credibility.

I think Zubrin is wrong, that the running disaster that has been NASA's last 30 years of manned flight shows that the bedrock support for exploration is fairly strong (for whatever reason), and there will be enough time to save for, develop, and test really effective Mars ships.

Like the modern VSE Moon missions, the first ship we go in is going to be the ONLY ship we're going in for a long time, there won't be money to develop a new one while flying the second (proof? see Space Shuttle), and congress will rightly frown upon a large request for a new Mars ship to replace the one we just spent a heap building. Ships that are big enough aren't vastly more expensive either, so the logical thing to do is wait and just build the larger ones.

Dayton Kitchens · 2006-12-18 22:29:12

Have you even looked at the MD HAB? Its terribly claustrophobic, its more cramped than my little apartment if you look at it, especially how little of the volume is contiguous and how the airlock is internal. You just can't expect four people to stay properly glued together for years in such a little tin can. And the ERV is much worse! Enough with the "suck it up soldier!" attitude, this stupid excuse of "oh their morale will be so high, they won't even notice!" is nuts. Its endemic of the disregard for safety, margin, and effectiveness that pushes MD over the threshold beyond credibility.
.

The heroic "suck it up soldier" attitude of sacrifice, hardship, and yes even danger is one of the things that makes space travel appealing to the average American.

Americans I would say don't give a rip about spending 100 billion dollars putting the average scientist down the street on Mars.

If perceived danger and sacrifice helps get our first mission to Mars, promote it on that basis.

You are way overstating the problems of astronauts staying for six months in such and enclosed space.

Once they get to Mars, they also have the ERV and for that matter, the pressurized rover for space. So its not like they'll spend "years" cooped up in a tiny space.

GCNRevenger · 2006-12-18 22:51:55

You make it sound like NASA's job is to amuse and entertain the population with a "real life reality TV show!" with real astronauts and real danger. Why don't we hire some tabloid writers to spread rumors about the crew on board during the boring cruise phases while we're at it?

The "average American" doesn't much care about the Shuttle or the ISS, yet they are there and being built, in fact nothing after the Apollo-XI landing and the Mars robots have really excited people. If Shuttle/ISS keep getting funding for producing zilch, and NASA's website gets overloaded for an overgrown toy RC car (Pathfinder actually DID use D-cell batteries), do you have any idea how much more people will be interested in Americans going to Mars? Regardless who they are?

But this is a double-edged sword, that if they DIE (or being babbling straight jacketed drugged psychos from the ordeal), the consequences are more dire.

The very notion that we're having to argue over the tiny tin can that is the MD HAB shows that you need to get some perspective Dayton. Stop trying to stick up for Bob and support his position, he's wrong, his plan is beyond the realm of the reasonable and should be left in the dust.

You can't treat the Martian surface as "the great outdoors" either, going out in a space suit won't ever be as simple as just slipping on a coat and a hat, crew members won't be running around without a good reason. The ERV's supplies and wear & tear must also be kept in top condition for the trip home, particularly since the ERV has the worst mass budget numbers of the whole shebang probably. But I digress, the surface is not the big problem, the problem is transit to & from. The HAB and even moreso the ERV are just too small, and there is no way to make them big enough and still come in under the mass budget. Even the present arrangement is too heavy for Ares-V.

Dayton Kitchens · 2006-12-18 23:12:10

Its only six months there. Six months back.

And once again, the Salyut cosmonauts did okay with that amount of space IIRC and seemed to get by okay.

And if Ares-V is too small, then I say just build a larger booster.

As Zubrin pointed out in The Case For Mars, there have been literally hundreds of designs for viable superboosters (larger than the Saturn V capability) over the years.

If Mars Direct really needs a superbooster, then it can get one.

Better than launching a fleet of rockets with multiple in space dockings required.

As Dr. Zubrin has pointed out, its better to do your "docking" on the ground where if you are off a hundred meters or so, you can simply "walk over".

In space, miss docking by a single meter, and your mission is screwed.

ftlwright · 2006-12-18 23:29:46

The heroic "suck it up soldier" attitude of sacrifice, hardship, and yes even danger is one of the things that makes space travel appealing to the average American.
Americans I would say don't give a rip about spending 100 billion dollars putting the average scientist down the street on Mars.
If perceived danger and sacrifice helps get our first mission to Mars, promote it on that basis.
You are way overstating the problems of astronauts staying for six months in such and enclosed space.
Once they get to Mars, they also have the ERV and for that matter, the pressurized rover for space. So its not like they'll spend "years" cooped up in a tiny space.

You'll have an extremely difficult time find any of my collegues agreeing with such a sentiment. It is irresponsible to build a mission architecture on such an approach. It is the goal of any responsible engineering to minimize risk, not assess acceptable levels of risk; these are the same conditions that created the "robust and adaptable" shuttle. I know two astronauts who left the program because of such an attitude and it would be inconceiveable to allow that to happen again.

GCNR, I as I was alluding to there fundamentally aren't any problems with the technologies presented in MD. I do have issue in designing an architecture around technology that hasn't been proven on the scale needed for a manned mars mission. Should it prove to be a viable alternative, the mission would benefit from great power capabilities as well as a larger science payload. These technologies have a low TRL (tTechnology Readiness Level) with little indication of development. Anyway, keep it up. Mars Society can definite mobilize general public, but needs more vetting of ideas and information that come through.

GCNRevenger · 2006-12-18 23:39:51

There you go again, only six months? Six whole months? Even submariners aren't kept cooped up half that.

The poor guys imprisoned on the Salyut missions for really long periods never were really whole again any of them, or at least not recovered for some years following. The long-term missions were classic Soviet "we don't give a rip, suck it up soldier" mentality. They were also military men. Making Mars ships that only military men can survive the mental rigors of is crazy.

Ares-V is the largest practical rocket that can probably be built, anything much larger then it (more than say 150MT) would need new launch facilities, and Zubrin's plan needs something that size or more just to make his dinky little toy exploration missions fly. The cost of these new facilities and developing a massive super-heavy lifter would simply exceed the cost of launching more Ares-V's.

Since man power is still the bulk of the cost, so long as a reasonably sized labor force is kept busy launching rockets then Ares-V's of comparable payload shouldn't cost more than a mega-super-launcher where the labor force sits on its hand half the year. Once you delete the Shuttle and buy cheap RS-68 engines in bulk, the hardware cost of two Ares-V's ought to be comparable to a 200MT+ mega rocket. And we will already have Ares-V plus the EDS stage developed!

There is nothing wrong with a little docking, docking maneuvers have been performed hundreds of times over the history of manned flight with only one serious incident, and that as a result of shoddy equipment and human error. And this scary business about "if you miss!" is nonsense, then you give a little tap on the RCS and you work your in close again. Its not a big deal, three measly docking events is the least of the failure modes.

A chemical-powered DRM-III is the way to go, forget Plan Bob

Edit: In reference to ftlwrights' post, DRM-III offers enough payload to do away with ISRU altogether if need be, at the cost of the pressurized rover. MarsDirect doesn't offer that insurance.

ftlwright · 2006-12-19 08:05:12

^^^ agreed :-D ^^^

Dayton Kitchens · 2006-12-19 08:23:43

I could go with some of your reasoning GCN if you would not keep trying to gold plate your mission planning.

While a crew of six might be reasonable (though on a first mission why not risk the fewest astronauts possible) and some orbital rendevous might be acceptable, I don't see why the FIRST mission has to throw in everything.

Why must be have deep drilling rigs, reusable ascent vehicles, multiple pressurized rovers, vast amounts of lab space, the nucleus of a base complex.........all on the very first manned mission?

Dayton Kitchens · 2006-12-19 09:32:38

By the way GCN just how much space do you think astronauts need for a manned mission to Mars and back?

And you've spoken about Salyut and Mir cosmonauts being crippled or disabled or life.

Where is the evidence of this?

GCNRevenger · 2006-12-19 11:27:47

I could go with some of your reasoning GCN if you would not keep trying to gold plate your mission planning.
While a crew of six might be reasonable (though on a first mission why not risk the fewest astronauts possible) and some orbital rendevous might be acceptable, I don't see why the FIRST mission has to throw in everything.
Why must be have deep drilling rigs, reusable ascent vehicles, multiple pressurized rovers, vast amounts of lab space, the nucleus of a base complex.........all on the very first manned mission?

Come now, you aren't that dense

If its safe enough for one astronaut, its safe enough for six too. And the first mission doesn't "do it all" obviously, so stop preening over that, but since the next mission is only two years after the first then the rover, drill, etc would have to be ready soon thereafter anyway, so why not on the first mission? That would also save one landing site that we don't have to agonize about not having explored later on.

We probably won't nor could we start building a base on the first mission out either, we should send several missions to likely sites where there is underground water and interesting sites close by so we can decide where best to put the base, plus explore areas where future missions mounted from the base wouldn't be able to reach. Furthermore, NASA will have to spend a lot of money to develop the Mars ships, so there probably won't be much left over for base parts until after initial missions begin.

GCNRevenger · 2006-12-19 11:52:51

By the way GCN just how much space do you think astronauts need for a manned mission to Mars and back?
And you've spoken about Salyut and Mir cosmonauts being crippled or disabled or life.
Where is the evidence of this?

I think the DRM-III arrangement is pretty good, offering a bit under double what MD does, and more contiguous space.

What is your evidence that they're not? Not Soviet film clips and carefully scripted propaganda. Its pushing it for Submariners for three months, but six in much smaller quarters?

Prove that they can live and work after 6mo cooped up in a tin can without significant side-effects, don't challenge for proof that there are none! Thats the same kind of inhuman calculation that we have got to avoid.

Dayton Kitchens · 2006-12-19 12:50:40

By the way GCN just how much space do you think astronauts need for a manned mission to Mars and back?
And you've spoken about Salyut and Mir cosmonauts being crippled or disabled or life.
Where is the evidence of this?
I think the DRM-III arrangement is pretty good, offering a bit under double what MD does, and more contiguous space.
What is your evidence that they're not? Not Soviet film clips and carefully scripted propaganda. Its pushing it for Submariners for three months, but six in much smaller quarters?
Prove that they can live and work after 6mo cooped up in a tin can without significant side-effects, don't challenge for proof that there are none! Thats the same kind of inhuman calculation that we have got to avoid.

You made the assertion GCN that Soviet cosmonauts have suffered real physical and psychological damage from their stays aboard Salyut.

You've offered no evidence to back this up.

You made the assertion, by most accepted rules of debate (and logic) its incumbent upon you to provide evidence.

Not me.;

And for that matter, I am not obligated to prove a negative in any case.

And submariners during the Cold War have stayed down longer than 3 months. Much of it without any kind of regular communications with loved ones.

C M Edwards · 2006-12-19 13:23:35

My two cents:

I don’t know where GCNRevenger gets his information about the mental health of the Salyut cosmonauts – it contradicts some studies I’ve seen about crews on US naval vessels, installations and arctic expeditions – but anything where you have a 50/50 chance of being carried away in a stretcher upon your return cannot be good for you. People who clamber spryly out of the capsule and walk around the landing site after > 6 months in space are the exceptions to the rule. Since it has been proven that this can be done, we must assume that the health difficulties are related to more than just zero gravity. If small space and high workload prohibit the crew from getting sufficient exercise, it really won’t matter if they have 1G artificial gravity all the way to Mars – they’re still going to be in no shape to conduct their mission.

I don't see why the FIRST mission has to throw in everything.
Why must be have deep drilling rigs, reusable ascent vehicles, multiple pressurized rovers, vast amounts of lab space, the nucleus of a base complex.........all on the very first manned mission?

Well, I sure say we should start trying as soon as possible.

I think that continual use of the same central base, starting as soon as possible and preferrably even before the first humans arrive, is the best way to begin exploring Mars. It’s the only way to materially capitalize on the expenditures of previous missions. That’s so important that I think mission segments and even crew positions on each of the first missions should be dedicated to setting up camp rather than running around the surface, even if it means trading science for ditch digging.

If DRM-III is too small to do that, then it’s too small, too. But that’s all right.

Personally, I think something the size of the Mars Direct Hab would be just fine as a people mover. The problems come when trying to cram all of the equipment for an entire mission into one little sardine can with them. As though everything had to arrive at once with a 3 year + mission duration.

Not everything has to go on only one rocket, or even two, and we’d be crazy to try it that way.

If the Mars Direct hardware was sufficient to get the crew safely to Mars (unlikely, but just pretend for a moment…), keep them alive all by itself with some minimum of function for 2-3 years in the event of a mission failure, and get them back to Earth, it has done everything we should ask it to do. As far as is practical, nothing else necessary to a successful mars mission should be sent onboard the Hab. As far as is practical, everything else should come in its own car.

“As far as is practical” must include allowances for redundancy and robustness, including the ability to limp ahead without substantial portions of the various accompanying payloads, so in reality no stripped down people mover would be sufficient. The Mars Direct Hab really is too small. The hardware outlined in DRM-III, without the pretense that it is large enough to do anything beyond limp along by itself if need be, could serve as a crew transport in a larger mission to establish a permanent base.

Mars Direct can't be all we send any more than DRM-III can.

Dayton Kitchens · 2006-12-19 13:35:25

That does sound more reasonable.

Now, I'm not a strict adherent of Mars Direct.

I think the "Semi-Direct" methology would be okay.

But what I do object to is a half dozen launches for ONE manned mission.

I don't care how much it makes sense from an "engineering" standpoint.

Engineers don't vote in Congressional committees on budgets.

Politicians do. And a politician is likely to say something like "why do you need all these launches for one Mars mission? Can't you do it in less".

C M Edwards · 2006-12-19 14:22:44

But what I do object to is a half dozen launches for ONE manned mission.

Well, I have no objection whatsoever to half a dozen launches for one manned mission. In fact, allowing the use of EELV, I'd say twelve or more was perfectly reasonable.

What would be utterly ridiculous, and politically untenable, would be to send that many for the next mission (or each mission, God forbid).

RedStreak · 2006-12-19 15:27:52

I don’t know where GCNRevenger gets his information about the mental health of the Salyut cosmonauts

He can have an interesting POV but often I just wonder about his mental health.

Submariners can go for a good year as a minimum in their crampt conditions.

RedStreak · 2006-12-19 15:30:54

I think the "Semi-Direct" methology would be okay.
But what I do object to is a half dozen launches for ONE manned mission.
I don't care how much it makes sense from an "engineering" standpoint.
Engineers don't vote in Congressional committees on budgets.

I blatantly agree. The reverred VaunBraun of early NASA was far far FAR too elaborate in his plans; just look at the Disney movie of his designs. Clearly he didn't anticipate Vietnam or that Congress would insist on a budget cap!

3 tops should be all that's required, and that's complex enough.

C M Edwards · 2006-12-19 16:24:20

I don’t know where GCNRevenger gets his information about the mental health of the Salyut cosmonauts
He can have an interesting POV but often I just wonder about his mental health.

Regarding questions of GCNRevenger's sanity: Just accept the fact that he's a forum member on New Mars - there's no cause to wonder after that.

Frankly, I find his skepticism refreshing. The constant refrain of "Impossible!" never added one thing to my opinions, but finding honest responses to it sure did. So, let GCNRevenger bitch - it's good for you.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2006-12-18 17:38:23

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#127 2006-12-18 19:09:25

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#128 2006-12-18 19:14:00

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#129 2006-12-18 19:54:07

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#130 2006-12-18 20:53:58

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#131 2006-12-18 21:22:14

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#132 2006-12-18 21:26:06

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#133 2006-12-18 22:15:09

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#134 2006-12-18 22:29:12

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#135 2006-12-18 22:51:55

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#136 2006-12-18 23:12:10

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#137 2006-12-18 23:29:46

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#138 2006-12-18 23:39:51

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#139 2006-12-19 08:05:12

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#140 2006-12-19 08:23:43

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#141 2006-12-19 09:32:38

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#142 2006-12-19 11:27:47

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#143 2006-12-19 11:52:51

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#144 2006-12-19 12:50:40

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#145 2006-12-19 13:23:35

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#146 2006-12-19 13:35:25

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#147 2006-12-19 14:22:44

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#148 2006-12-19 15:27:52

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#149 2006-12-19 15:30:54

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#150 2006-12-19 16:24:20

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

Board footer