New Mars Forums

I agree, the 90 day report was a catastrophe and NASA suffers from it to this day. However, new plans have been developed by NASA over the past decade and the cost estimate for a manned mission to Mars is now $40-60 billion so the politicians should finally show some courage and vision and give NASA the money.

Very interesting news (from nasawatch.com):

"Last weekend NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe and much of NASA HQ senior management went on a retreat at the Minnowbrook Conference Center at Syracuse University. Among the topics discussed: NASA's Integrated Space Transportation Plan (ISTP).

The road ahead? The U.S. is now heading towards a 100% home-grown successor to America's Space Shuttle and alternative to Russia's Soyuz.

For the past several years, NASA's generalized concept for a follow-on to the Space Shuttle has been a smaller vehicle specifically designed to transport humans to and from orbit. Only minimal cargo carrying capability would be provided. This vehicle has gone under the general name/acronym of "CTV" (Crew Transport Vehicle).

Current planning at NASA HQ has now focused and recast the role of the CTV. In its deliberations on re-toolling the ISTP, NASA HQ now refers to it as the "Orbital Space Plane." The current concept favored by NASA HQ involves launching the Orbital Space Plane aboard an EELV (Delta IV and/or Atlas V) rocket. Moreover, this is not just a way to take people to and from orbit, it is also the means whereby they could be removed from the ISS (on short notice) in an emergency. As such, the term "CRV" (Crew Return Vehicle) is used less often these days. There is also little mention of long-term usage of Soyuz "Interim" CRVs beyond current arrangements with Russia.

The Space Shuttle figures very prominently in NASA's future plans - with its life likely to reach well into the next decade with development of advanced 'third' generation reusable launch systems to slip into the future. This focus on Shuttle operations will require increased spending on making the Shuttle system not only safer but more reliable and more economical to operate. These modifications have been referred to as Shuttle "upgrades" in recent years.

Given the somewhat more expansive span of Shuttle modifications anticipated, NASA HQ is now referring to them as Shuttle "enhancements". Also under discussion: increased Shuttle flight rates [excellent idea] and the possible future flight of Space Shuttle vehicles - unpiloted. [What does that mean? Do they want to revive Shuttle C?]Also: look for X-37 orbital tests.

Meanwhile, to set the course for these major changes, modifications to the current FY 2003 Budget request (and future years) are being developed by NASA for forwarding to OMB. If implemented, these changes would result in dramatically decreasing funding for SLI. A substantial portion (billions) of the Space Launch Initiative's $5 billion will be spent in the coming years on other programs such as the Orbital Space Plane and Shuttle "enhancements".

SLI will be reduced to a program of advanced technology demonstration - not one of launch system development as previously envisioned."

NASA's Space Launch Initiative will be massively downgraded (the funds will most likely be diverted to the station and shuttle upgrades) and there is talk about the military getting involved in the development of a new RLV. Then there have been numerous mentions of a so called CTV (crew transfer vehicle) in the past two or three months, on nasawatch.com and elsewhere. What is this CTV? Then there is the X-38/CRV. Looks as if O'Keefe wants to have this program axed at all cost for whatever reason. Link
I'm really a bit confused right now. Where is NASA heading? I just hope Europe sticks to its plans to develop the Hopper.

I don't know about esa's plans to go forward with the X38 (NASA put the program on ice several months ago). There were plans to launch it on top of an Ariane 5 but I think these are outdated by now. At the moment esa is looking into a completely new RLV design: The suborbital Hopper which could be ready by 2015. It makes use of the Ariane 5's vulcain main engines and is launched on a sled from the launch center in south america. It overflies the atlantic and releases a small upperstage when it has reached its maximum altitude of 130 km before gliding to an unpowered landing. The upperstage then pushes the payload the rest of the way to orbit. There is already a small prototype of it which is undergoing testing right now.
At first the Hopper will be unmanned but a manned version is planned later on, too.

Links: Europe's Phoenix: Test Craft Sets Stage For Reusable Rocketry

There aren't many pictures of the Hopper on the net but here is a good one:

Picture

I had the exact same idea. :0  There must be some technical issues though, otherwise NASA would have figured it out by now, too.

What ever became of Robert Zubrin's plan to fly a Mars sample return mission with in situ resource utilization/in situ propellant production? The people who have read "The Case for Mars" will know what I'm talking about.
Dan Goldin was a supporter of this idea but NASA seems to have settled for the risky MOR (Mars Orbital Rendezvous) mission plan. Why???

Link

It seems as if NASA is finally beginning to openly talk about going to the Moon and Mars again. I hope congress and the president support this fantastic new plan. Now Nick Lampson can show that he is serious about his call for a bold new space initiative.

Wait a minute! We don't know yet if they're hiding something. But I agree, sueing NASA/JPL might be the right thing to do now. Either Hoagland's or NASA's credibility and reputation will be severely damaged in the process.

I found this on marsnews.com:

"Hoagland revealed the news on the Thursday night broadcast of COAST TO COAST AM. Hoagland also reported that his website The Enterprise Mission has been "under serious attack" from unknown sources including denial of service attacks and at least one attempted firewall breach (apparently to download or erase their hard drive.) Also reportedly attacked is a company called Research Services, Inc (a division of Kodak) which provided Hoagland with software to enhance the images."

Interesting. Could this be an explanation? I never had problems accessing the Enterprise website before.

Read this article. That's really interesting. Does anyone know how influential the final report of the commission is likely to be?

Wait a minute, it has yet to be decided if VASIMR gets cancelled. Maybe they'll actually get a lot more money by the end of this year.

I'm all for nuclear power in space but in this case I'm not so sure. Political factors will play a major role in getting the mission off the ground, like it or not. And I wonder if it wouldn't be actually a lot cheaper to use solar power since all the required technology already exists. Look at it this way: in the end solar arrays get their power from the most powerful space nuclear reactor known to man: the sun. Why bother with constructing an imperfect and more dangerous miniature version of it?
Of course we'll have to use nuclear power in the long term (e.g. for long duration surface stays) but for the very first mission solar power might be the way to go. Public support for a manned mission to Mars will be weak at best so we shouldn't risk losing even that weak support by going nuclear on the very first mission.
Using electrical propulsion is also a very good idea I think. NTR engines are not an option, first for the reasons listed above and second for the much higher development costs.
The only real problem I see with the mission design is the current lack of an HLV but one is needed anyway if we want to do anything beyond LEO. NASA's planned Magnum booster might be an option, or another Shuttle derived vehicle.