You are not logged in.
Yeah thats kind of much
How about this, standard 10m Ares-V core, 4X five-segment SRBs, plus two Delta-IV CBC cores between pairs of boosters? Upgrade the upper stage to 12m and use a pair of J-2X engines.
What would be the LEO capability of that?
You've pretty much convinced me that that the original Mars Direct is not practical.
I've wondered though if it might be better to pursue the middle option you mentioned.
Treat the first Mars Mission as more a "proof of concept" mission than one where you maximize scientific return or maximize base building assets.
And I've wondered.
What if a manned Mars program is "shuttlized"?
That is, the program gets presidential and congressional approval and is in fact mandated...but NASA discovers that they've been given a budget (in the case of the shuttle) where they can only afford to build an orbiter but not a booster?
DRM-III does seem like a reasonable option in many ways. I suppose I could even live with a six man crew. Though for what its worth, I've read somewhere that interpersonal dynamics work best with an odd numbered crew so perhaps five might be a better option.
This of course wasn't necessarily the intent of this thread. I was just suggesting what an absolute barebones mission would look like.
I'm afraid in so many ways that we're all here arguing the wrong thing when we should be over in Political Outreach trying to determine a political strategy for getting presidential and congressional authorization of a manned Mars program.
I thought even in the DRM that the crew traveled in the Hab to Mars, landed in the Hab on Mars, and lived in the Hab on Mars.
To me that makes the most sense.
They aren't going to find evidence of life proof of the lack of it on the first mission to Mars anyway unless its a blind stroke of luck.
The facts remain, until Zubrin came along, NASA didn't have even the remotest possible manned Mars mission architecture.
And I think its vital that space exploration remain "dangerous" to build public support.
No danger. No heroes. No heroes, no budget.
Zubrin's contribution was the concept of "living off the land" and it's unlikely that the first mission will depend on ISRU based fuel for the ascent vehicle.
Space exploration is dangerous enough already, there's no need to add more danger. A three year mission to Mars will have more than enough danger and excitement to keep the public fascinated. It's the next mission and the ones after that that will inevitably lose pubilc support. That's why it is essential to make the architecture affordable and practical. Doing a cheapo mission is the best way to ensure limited results and the effect of a disaster would probably terminate the whole program once the media got their teeth into blaming NASA for not doing it right.
Who says fossils won't be found on the first mission? The site will be carefully chosen to optimize the chances and 18 months exploration by a crew of six will be capable of finding them in a wide area if they exist.
I disagree.
I think a disaster would actually increase public support by the American people by "wanting to show we could get it done".
Challenger and Columbia didn't kill the shuttle program. Thats despite the fact that most NASA observers said after Challenger that "the next shuttle we lose will be the last one that flies".
They aren't going to find evidence of life proof of the lack of it on the first mission to Mars anyway unless its a blind stroke of luck.
The facts remain, until Zubrin came along, NASA didn't have even the remotest possible manned Mars mission architecture.
And I think its vital that space exploration remain "dangerous" to build public support.
No danger. No heroes. No heroes, no budget.
Ah I see.
Dr. Robert Zubrins Mars Direct is too small.
The guy suggesting nuclear powered rovers as big as Hab modules it too big.
But GCNRevenger's mission plan is JUST RIGHT...................
It isn't my plan, its NASA's. The Design Reference Mission, aka "DRM," the third iteration of which is the best and most complete. I like this plan for the most part, with an adjustment or two. And yes, it is just about right.
Why is it so hard to believe that Bob is just wrong?
Because NASA saw fit to junk most all of its previous manned mission architecture and adopt the foundation elements of Mars Direct until they started gold plating it.
NASA dropped opposition class missions.
NASA dropped orbital assembly.
NASA dropped manned orbiting "motherships" at Mars.
NASA adopted in situ resource utilization.
NASA adopted long surface stay times.
NASA adopted the use of large boosters (instead of orbital assembly).
One man effectively altered virtually all NASA mission planning.
All that has gone on since Dr. Zubrin presented Mars Direct has been gold plating.
Why is it so hard for you to believe he is right?
Oh yeah, the "numbers".
Why is it so hard for you to accept high risk to astronauts?
As though Manned Mars Missions should be like taking the subway downtown.
Come now GCN,
go big or not at all.
Surely then bigger is better.
How snide of you.
Big is good, too big is bad.
Ah I see.
Dr. Robert Zubrins Mars Direct is too small.
The guy suggesting nuclear powered rovers as big as Hab modules it too big.
But GCNRevenger's mission plan is JUST RIGHT...................
Come now GCN,
go big or not at all.
Surely then bigger is better.
There are alot of people less interested in what a manned Mars mission would accomplish on Mars than what it would do on Earth.
Specifically for the United States.
If we don't go to Mars "Zubrinesque" then in all likelihood we will never go.
You saw how far President Bush #41 "Space Exploration Initiative" got with a "go big or not at all approach.
Thirty billion a year price tags over the course of 30 years. Permanent lunar bases. Orbital assembly.
While Bob Zubrin didn't get everything right he got one thing right that is in my mind nonnegotiable.
From the moment that a manned Mars mission is approved.......you've got ten years to accomplish the landing. Every year after that the chances of the program dying increase by an order of magnitude.
I'll refine it even further.
A manned Mars program once approved, probably should accomplish a manned landing OF SOME KIND ON MARS...within 6 to 8 years. As that might give it a hope of happening within the presidency of the president who set the goal.
Sure, a pressurized rover would be great.
But lets not kid ourselves. A nonpressurized rover on the first mission could help the crew explore hundreds of square miles. Especially given that they'll be using it for more than a year.
And a large drill would be good for exploring. But there is one heck of alot of exploring to do on the Mars surface alone before drilling many meters into the surface.
GCN.
Give up with "Go big or not at all" and try to accomplish the possible dream.
No it really wouldn't, because it would all be from one small area.
Any future sample return missions are going to be from an even smaller area.
And I've never considered a 10% chance of dying to be that significant when it comes to a history making spaceflight.
Certainly, but they could be sent all over the globe.
And 10%, I feel, is much too high. Yes I'm sure you can find hero-complex lemming astronauts, but that doesn't make it allright.
You will never be able to fund more than three or four unmanned sample return missions over the next 50 years in all likelihood.
And I suppose you would call Alan Shephard, John Glenn, Neil Armstrong, Frank Borman, Jim Lovell, John Young......as "hero-complex lemming astronauts".
I think they did just fine.
I'm sure we could find a qualified pilot/geologist, biologist/medical doctor, and flight engineer/medic/meteorologist who would be willing to take the chance on such a Mars mission
No it really wouldn't, because it would all be from one small area.
Any future sample return missions are going to be from an even smaller area.
And I've never considered a 10% chance of dying to be that significant when it comes to a history making spaceflight.
Of course, a few thousand well chosen surface photographs, a sustained period of weather observations, and about 100 kilos of carefully selected samples would be more exploration science wise than we've had with all previous unmanned missions combined.
Say in 2013, we have a new president. No manned Mars program as such. And the president notices that the Chinese intend to land a manned mission on the moon (and set up a permanent base there) to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the Communists victory over the nationalists in 2019.
The President wants desperately to upstage the Chinese.
Assuming that he allocates yearly resources of roughly the equivalent to the current yearly budget of NASA every year solely for a Manned Mars program, how does the United States put a manned mission on Mars by the time the Chinese get to the moon?
Assume that the U.S. is willing to run a substantial risk of crew deaths and/or mission failure.
I've given up the effort to organize manned Mars mission advocates to inundate capitol hill with hundreds if not thousands of copies of "The Case For Mars" along with a letter outlining what we want to see done.
So I've decided to take a stab at it myself. I want to send a copy of "The Case For Mars" to people like the president, VP, Senator McCain, Senator Brownback, and various others who either have lots of political power or may achieve it in the future.
Where do I get my hands on 10 (at minimum) or 20 copies of "The Case For Mars" as cheaply as possible (I'm a school teacher).?
Half of the Republican Party membership doesn't agree with them, either.
Vote your conscience, then lobby for what you want.
A manned Mars program isn't part of your "conscience"?
What do you think launch vehicles will like in the year 2100?
Assuming that there are no operating space elevators and that there is a need to send up at least a few thousand tons of payload to LEO every year and hundreds or even thousands of people.
I was wondering if by then some kind of nuclear thermal rocket engines might be acceptable for launch vehicles.
And if commerically viable fusion powerplants are developed by 2050, is it possible that fusion engines for launch vehicles would be available four decades later?
I supposed it would be reasonable to cut the crew size and payload bay.
Cut the bay down to 20,000 lbs. perhaps.
And wasn't the original shuttle sized for 65000 lbs. because the Air Force wanted it capable of lifting a next generation of spy satellites that were projected to be that big?
Just wondering.
Because I know that generally, it seems the Republicans are more enthusiasstic for space exploration. Mainly for nationalistic reasons.
Yet many of the space programs biggest advocates don't agree with their positions on things like the environment, the war on terror, etc.
Because elections can affect politically influenced space program budgeting, liable to be changed within time periods shorter than space program times-to-complete: that's why. Politics got us into the present mess, which is analogous to the Vietnam mess. Besides, politicians aren't educated enough, as a rule, to make sensible decisions when it comes to making interplanetary decisions on their own. Kennedy plus von Braun were an oddity, which I fail to see occurring until the next presidential election. If Kennedy had lived, perhaps we'd be on Mars by now. Quite the contrary with G W Bush: his continued existence is of no consequence re. Mars.
I won't necessarily debate the "present mess" since things are pretty good for the United States overall by most standards.
But in regards to "if Kennedy had lived" that is flat wrong.
Kennedy was never a major supporter of the space program. His administrations support of the space program was largely the result of Lyndon Johnsons enthusiastic support of the space program.
Kennedy in fact during his presidency told the NASA Admin. that "we really shouldn't be spending all this money in space".
The Manned Mars program must take political realities into serious consideration.
Politics is what got us into the present mess.
Politics is what will get funding for a manned Mars mission. And beyond.
Not science.
Not engineering.
Not economics.
Not private industry
Not private interest groups.
Politics.
Why is this idea abhorrent to so many people?
Lets say that within five years or so, someone made the decision that the U.S. needed a new space shuttle system.
The criteria for it would be:
1) completely reusable
2) two stage to orbit
3) Standard crew of 6, 10 in an emergency.
4) crew escape capability including Zero-Zero (that is an escape means that will work at zero altitude, zero velocity-that is sitting on the ground).
5) Two week turnaround time from landing to relaunch.
6) Maximum to LEO payload of 50,000 lbs.
7) Standard duration of 10 days in orbit, ability to be extended to 30 days.
8) Use existing Kennedy Space Center facilities.
9) Ability to fit modular payloads in the payload bay. Including a personnel module that could carry up to 50 people .
How would such a craft be built and launched? What would it look like?
Assume use of 21rst century technology and materials.
Six (preferably with option for eight sans science) crewmen is a good number; NASA's DRM plan is probably the biggest Mars mission affordable with present day technology, and is also the smallest plan that could credibly lead to a permanent base. And that changes all the rules when you only have to get crew & cargo to Mars orbit and back instead of the surface. Its the right size.
As for sending the crew up in a HAB instead of on a taxi vehicle (Ares-I probably), thats just classic "SUCK IT UP SOLDIER!" attitude, which isn't pertinent nor welcome.
What do you have against the "Suck it up soldier" attitude anyway?
If it gets Americans to Mars, then thats fine with me.
And why is a permanet base on Mars required anyway? You haven't even addressed that.
I've been doing a bit of research on manned missions beyond Mars to Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Nepture, and Pluto.
How do you figure what the optimal departure times from Earth orbit are? What the travel times and stay times on the target worlds would be?
I'm assuming the most advanced propulsion systems available would be nuclear thermal or nuclear electric systems.