New Mars Forums

$250 million isn't all that bad considering that a CaLV flight of chemical fuel will easily be double that. Depending on the weight of the container, and the feasability of actually launching it, and the fact that a DRM sized transit hab is actually practical for a 45 day trip, this should be seriously considered.

Still, launching it from Earth is an extremely tricky proposition.

There are other options.

How difficult would it be to place recirculation systems in orbit? Something that would allow a tankload of fuel to dock and stay in orbit indefinately, minus orbital maintainance.

At the risk of making GCNRevenger explode, its the first step towards a fuel depot.  When spacex finally gets the Falcon 9 off the ground we'll be able to send up several expendable loads of fuel for much less moeny.

Space may be the only way European countries can perserve their ethnic heritage. Otherwise its only a matter of time before they are outbred by Muslim immigrants.

They imagine themselves on the moon growing tulips?

Whats next? Trees for wooden shoes?

A definate, I'd say likely explanation of the current situation on Mars.

I don't think its a problem limited to Mars either. A large imported satillite around Venus could have a similar effect by speeding up the molten core and curtailing the apparently constant volcanism, effect the day period, and improve the magnetic field. Other bodies orbiting the gas giants could benefit as well.

Of course the process of moving large celestial bodies is well beyond our current abilities, As is likely to be for centuries to come. And by the time we do, life support capabilies will probably be at the point that we can overcome all but the gravity issue on the larger bodies without reengineering planetary systems.

Mars is still aways off, and the intervening decades are going to be Moon heavy. A MSR is going to be less important for a long time, and when the time comes we can be far more productive a decade or two down the road than we can by breaking the bank now.

I'd like to see a series of combination missions featuring peices of previous missions. A MSL rover and long lasting RTG powered weather station on the surface, and a MRO/MTO style orbiter with surface communications and GPS capability launched in a single package. If you launch one every launch window, you can keep cost low, with only moderate, evoloutionary upgrades in instruments, while covering several, if not dozens of sites.

I was right!

I think each agency/nation/block should build their own, ideally.

Other than that, I think that the ISS has taught us that the chief user has to build it themselves, in big, self-seffiecnt chunks and be capable of being expanded. Others can add pieces in a supporting, or add-on role.

NASA: No canisters -- no spacewalks

CO2 filters missing and handrails falling off. Wonderfull.

You want a super expensive Shuttle to ferry bulk minerals out of the sky? Natures been doing it since the beginning of time. Just strap one of those cheap inflatable heat shields and a parachute on it and your good to go.

Our NY politicians have done just the opposite by pandering to the unions and chasing business out with some of the highest taxes in the country. People are having to leave to find jobs. Pataki is trying to stem the tide with nano-technology development, but little is going to change as long as the NYC controlled Assembly views everything north of Westchester county as a giant cash farm.

Chucky and his Bride have no interests beyond progressing their own political dreams.

Anyway the point is its not outsourcing when the CEO suddenly wears a turbine instead of a crown. Nor is it outsourcing when the ESA, or NASA, or ISRO pool resources to perform better missions.

It is outsourcing when companies can not operate a competitively profitable manufacturing base in this country. And its not the fault of the Chinese or Indians.

The other "downside" mentioned was the requirement to retool the VAB and other support facilities becuase the existing shuttle hardware would be unusable. But if we are going to save $200mil a flight on the engines alone, I would think it would pay for itself many times over its lifetime.