You are not logged in.
This looks to me like the same equipment and mission architecture from that new Science Channel series "Living Mars".
This all seems like major steps back.
What happend to Mars Semi-Direct that would've required only three Ares V type of launches per mission.
It seems like we're going in entirely the wrong direction.
I know that originally, the shuttle was supposed to be capable of carrying up to 65,000 lbs. to LEO.
I know that after Challenger, that capability was derrated to about 55,000 lbs. to LEO.
But IIRC, no shuttle payload (or payloads) has been anywhere near that size.
What is the largest shuttle payload ever carried?
What what is the largest ever returned from space?
IIRC, the shuttle has never actually retrieved a satellite and brought it back to Earth has it?
By the way, I think combining the astronaut carrying capacity and at least some substantial cargo capacity into one spacecraft does have some value.
How large would a shuttle be that had say the same crew capabilities as the current shuttle and minimal cargo carrying capabilities?
Say around 5,000 lbs. to LEO.
Allowing it to carry a crew to the ISS and some of the most vital supplies.
You could eliminate the main engines from the shuttle.
Like Buran.
You could also probably replace many of the heat resistant tiles with todays materials.
And Shuttle has had two major failures in 119 missions. It's not a safe or a reliable system, every flight has to be painstakingly prepared to minimize the risk of another failure. Currently four missions are flown a year using three shuttles. Turnaround time is several months per Orbiter. That's why NASA has decided to return to a capsule design with a launch abort system for crew and to launch cargo separately.
A safe, reliable fully reusable vehicle is still not possible, maybe in ten years one can be built if someone is willing to spend a LOT of money developing it.
What if you built a modernized shuttle today with a launch escape system?
Based on the escape pod concepts from the F-111, B-1A, and B-58 bombers.
Perhaps returning to the original shuttle concept with a reusable, flyback booster stage
What would a system designed today with similiar requirements look like?
That is able to launch normally with a seven man crew, 10 in an emergency.
Able to put into LEO a payload of at least 30,000 lbs.
Orbital duration of about 10 days maximum.
And of course maximized for quick turnaround on the ground.
It would look like this:
Yes that's right because nobody knows how to design a vehicle with Shuttle + capabilities, especially the quick turnaround.
I think you could build one today with a one month turnaround.
Atlantis was once flown again just 50 days after landing.
Nominations are now open for Austin Stanley as the most patient poster willing to untangle and clarify chaotically confused messages.
Seconded
The current STS system was designed 35 years ago and mostly uses technology at least 30 years old.
What would a system designed today with similiar requirements look like?
That is able to launch normally with a seven man crew, 10 in an emergency.
Able to put into LEO a payload of at least 30,000 lbs.
Orbital duration of about 10 days maximum.
And of course maximized for quick turnaround on the ground.
This sounds like a bad idea
Indeed.
Visually it is a very good representation of Mars Direct and the Reference Mission (based on Mars Semi-Direct).
Narration isn't very good, but the program is very tightly directed and stays on topic regarding making the first manned missions.
Kudos to mentioning Bush I's failed SEI and showing Bob Zubrin testifying before Congress. Shows the political dimensions well.
I wish everyone would see it.
or private leaders. Why would any government or private sponsor get involved in a group that only has 4000 members and maybe a only few thousand more internationally? Why would they spend millions or billions on Mars r&d or missions for such a tiny group?
Let's build our numbers, then political and private support will come.
In other words, let's do nothing except post on message boards and endlessly debate the minutiae of mission plans.
Let's create more Five Year Plans than the Soviet Politburo.
Why do we assume that small numbers condemn us to political impotentcy?
Isn't that a self fulfilling prophecy?
For a start, the Political and Education Outreach forums should be overflowing with people starting threads and bouncing ideas around rather than in this forum, debating launch vehicles, tethers, crew size...ad nauseum............
I still think we should do more when it comes to political outreach.
All the efforts made here by members (and I applaud them) will never equal what one committed and connected politician can do in the right circumstances.
All it takes is one or two Congressman or Senators who can be convinced to make the cause of a manned Mars program their own. Who can be coaxed or convinced into believing that they can leave a historic legacy this way.
And who are willing to make a serious gamble politically to do so.
We've got more than half of thousand House and Senate members.
Surely we could find a couple willing and able to bring the issue to the forefront and push for it publicly.
I think if every Congressman and Senator got 10 detailed letters calling for a manned Mars program it would make an impact.
That's only 5350 letters. Which should be achievable I would think.
But we can do better. Target their campaign managers and Chief of Staffs for mailings as well. The people who write their speeches and actually write the bills they introduce.
I would've thought this thread would get some responses by now.
Why do we spend so much time arguing about tether length, the use of inflatables as surface habitats, and whether a drill should be part of the field equipment on the first manned mission?
inflatables.....tethers.....drills.........
answering [b]none or all[/b] of those questions isn't going to do anything to get a Manned Mars program up and running.
We should be looking at political opportunities, media covered anniversary dates, sound bites, spin...all those things that could get us a serious commitment to a manned Mars program.[/b]
If you have a rover range of several hundred kilometers then you have a wide range of possible landing sites.
Personally, I don't see what would be the big deal about landing each mission about 800 kilometers (500 miles) from the last.
You're still covering alot of new ground with each landing while still remaining close enough to access the earlier missions equipment in case it is needed.
You can celebrate your half century when she reaches the first KBO.
Is New Horizons targeted on a specific KBO?
If so, how large is it and how close will the probe pass by it?
How good are the images we are likely to get?
I think all Manned Mission to Mars advocacy organizations should make getting a presidential commitment to a manned Mars Mission on July 20th, 2009 an absolute priority.
That of course will be the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11. The next president will be in their first year, still in the honeymoon period and prone to being willing to make a grand gesture or start a major program.
I think the emphasis should be on getting the new president to commit to putting a manned mission on Mars by 2019. That is, getting it done for the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11.
Such key events. 40th anniversary, 50th anniversary seems more likely to capture peoples imaginations and draw political and public support than more far fetched and nebulous time timelines.
Before someone else posts it first, I should also mention another thought I had: Collapsable crew quarters which fold up into the roof when more floor space is wanted. The crew area can be adjacent to the lounge to extend the living space.
Nice idea.
Could the Ares VII perform Dr. Robert Zubrins four man, Mars Direct Mission with only two launches per landing?
I had to ask.
It is going to hard for me to wait the next 8 & one half years.
I'll be 48 when it reaches Pluto.
And the 2016 Presidential Race will be well under way.
Couldn't the Energyia, expanded to its ultimate size have sent something like 500,000 lbs. into LEO?
A question I was going to ask.
If you had the choices
Option 1-quick and dirty mission to Mars. Two missions to Mars minimum.
50% chance of a continuing series of missions indefinitely.
Option 2-Go big Mars program-80% chance the program will be canceled before
the first mission goes, but if its sustained, a far faster buildup of men
and material on the Martian surface with more advanced technology
used.
Which option would you choose.
I agree.
The ability to return all the humans on Mars in one vehicle at one time isn't necessarily a vital part of a manned program. Though it might require some change to peoples way of thinking.
And to be honest, I think you might have to make your crew two sets of married couples at least.
Then NASA had better say, loud and clear upfront, what it needs to do it and plainly say that it cannot be done for less.
Government agencies do not tend to do that.