SpaceShip One date set for final test flight! - History in the making....

deagleninja · 2004-06-02 12:17:22

Here's a link to the news release from Scaled Composites. They are going to make a 100K (62 mile) test flight of SpaceShip One before competing for the X prize!

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.htm … ?pid=14315

Hop · 2004-06-02 18:46:14

The news article says it'll be a solo flight. But if it carries sandbags with the same mass as two passengers, it would be half the X-prize requirement.

The second half would be doing another flight within 14 days.

14 days after June 21st is . . . July 4.

The thought of them winning the X-prize on the 4th of July makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.

Mad Grad Student · 2004-06-02 21:31:52

You don't have to carry any passengers with you to win the X-Prize, actually, just one pilot and two 200-lb weights to prove that your vehicle can do it. Rutan isn't going to try to win the X-Prize with the June 21 shot, he can't. The X-Prize rules say that you have to notify the commite 30 days before the first flight, which he hasn't done. He'll probably file for an X-Prize attempt by the 23rd, provided no weird anomolies, so the X-Prize could be won at earliest around the begining of August.

Hazer · 2004-06-03 16:19:26

Looks like I might have been right, months ago when I made the a-mountain-is-easier-to-climb-the-second-time analogy. Let's cross our fingers and hope that it works out all right.

amandacruising · 2004-06-07 19:59:08

A private Space or Mars initiative?

The writer is an ex airline pilot and professional engineer. He owns a small manufacturing company which produces revolutionary equipment for specialist and military applications.

I now come to the point:-

We all wait with eager fascination to see if Mr. Bert Rutan can again achieve another remarkable milestone. Full credit to the chap for trying.

It must also be said that the wondrous achievements of NASA et.al. are most praiseworthy and indeed, to be supported.

These latter bodies are Quasi Governmental Organisations and are therefore hugely cost inefficient. We should acknowledge, however, that they broke the (mostly, by that time, psychological) technical logjam by proving what can be done by putting men on the Moon.
It has been my long held view that the torch must be carried into the new frontier by private initiative and not by State sponsored bodies - if we are not to wait for another ten generations to see the footprint of man on Mars, which is the only realistic goal available at this time with current chemical propulsion technology.

I have proposed the following scenario to numerous bodies without any response:

It is universally assumed that commercial assistance to any project is wholly dependent upon an expectation of a commercial return on the investment. This is unduly cynical. There are tens of thousands of commercial organisations (including this one) who would be willing to help a "New Frontier" project without the expectation of a commercial or other tangible reward.

In our Western society, altruism does not abound, however, it is not extinct. Many thinking people would willingly assist such a project (provided it were to be realistic) without seeking profit. Their reward is in assisting the advancement of human knowledge and technology for the coming generations. The early explorers of the middle ages did indeed have to hold out hope of rich rewards to potential investors, however not all, as history has shown.

Different companies have different assets, expertise and financial abilities. Large financial institutions have the ability to readily underwrite some parts of the costs without making any appreciable difference whatsoever to their balance sheet. If presented to the shareholders and stakeholders in the correct light by the corporate management, such contributions would be supported.

Certainly in Europe, the chemical and oil industry is very aware of the public (their customers) attitude to energy conservation and supporting socially and technologically responsible projects. Therein lies the source of the propellent for free........

Small technology companies may not be able to afford Dollars, but have an ocean of expertise, equipment and labour skills available to provide requisite physical components, engineering, hardware & software without charge - and be very happy to do so with pride.
Should we assume that there may be half a million components or subassemblies required, it is not beyond the imagination to see five thousand companies making a contribution of one hundred parts. Human nature will guarantee that such components would be lovingly produced, and precisely to specification, for such a prestige project.

Let us examine one small example. It is rumoured that NASA ordered 48 wheels for the Mars Rovers from a small engineering company in (XXXXXXXX?) California. (12 on Mars, 18 for engineering models, 18 development models including units for spares and destructive testing). The cost was suggested to be $24,000 each. These details may be totally untrue, but will suffice as an example.They are not just 10" diameter aluminium wheels — there is a lot more to it than that. Nonetheless it is a straightforward, if complex, machining and / or casting job. That is a $1 Million contract. Of course we are all pleased to see a small machine shop get a profitable job. Good luck to them - great !!!

However, as NASA clearly offers to pay for services and goods, naturally, a contract is correctly and properly treated by those tendering, as a commercial proposition.
Suppose there were a private, voluntary project. In this example, there would be many manufacturing firms who would happily provide (in the above simple instance) those rover wheels free of charge. This example can be demonstrated repeatedly if one could evaluate the engineering schedules for the current Rover programme which cost $437 Million. The writer suggests that the programme could have been done for some $20 Million or less if it were a private project constructed on the basis proposed in this document.

The key to success of such a project is a financially well rewarded, commercially experienced, tough management and media publicity team - not ten thousand functionaries on a payroll.

The nearest project yet to this concept of private initiative, was the British Beagle Mars lander. Sadly, it failed to respond after (crash???) landing on the planet. However, that is not the point - NASA has had it failures also. The real point to be made is that it was essentially a project driven almost single-handedly by Prof. Colin Pillinger and some others. He was obliged to go to anyone and everyone looking for money to keep the project alive. Although construction was on a commercial basis, and thus costly, the lander was delivered to Mars for a cost of $40 Million, i.e., one tenth the of NASA`s cost of delivering two packages to that planet. It may be reasonably assumed that some 80% of NASA`s cost was in the first rover and 20% for the second.
Therefore, a comparison may be made as follows:
First NASA rover (Spirit) $349 Million.
Beagle $40 Million. (and it was commercially produced/manufactured)

How come this huge cost differential? Many private individuals and organizations gave their expertise and skills to the project relatively free of charge or less than commercial rates. An interesting array of people appear to have been involved, from Prof. Pillinger to a handful of laboratory equipment manufacturers, students etc.
The project may have failed for the following reasons:
1/ The management and engineering team apparently spent most of their time, of necessity, trying to raise money - not working on the project. (Source: UK Government committee statement (May 2004) about an unpublished investigation into the failure of the Beagle lander. The reason for non-publication is likely / suggested, to avoid finger pointing at people who gave services or equipment out of best intentions and not for pure commercial reasons. The implied overall conclusion was lack of management and project control).
2/ This could have been avoided if there were a professional marketing team to sell the project in advance and drum up support in industry, the media, and the general public who were for the most part completely unaware of the project until the day before landing.

It was not Prof Pillingers or his colleagues fault - he is a scientist, not a marketeer or manager. You must let scientists science, and marketeers market !!!

For the foregoing reasons, it is submitted that a private enterprise space initiative is not just possible, but essential if those alive today are to see humankind truly step off the Earth. There is no longer much political or military kudos in space exploration. It must be for private innovation to inject the dynamism and thrust which is needed.

Thank you for reading this.

Capt. R. Doblet

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-08 08:38:43

A Mars mission fueled by charity eh? Mmmm I don't think there are enough charitable people or corperations around to pull that one off. A useful mission of any kind will still require quite a bit of "commertial" as you put it construction. If nothing else, you have to buy the launcher and TMI stage.

I think you give entirely too much leeway to Professor Pillinger... the reason Beagle-II, on its shoe-string budget, failed was that it was under-engineerd to perform its task with reasonable probability of sucess (which is bad for ANY Mars mission). He should have recognized this, that if nothing else the safe entry envelope it was designed with was obviously too narrow, and as a good scientist or engineer should when spending $40M of other peoples' money - delay the project. One of the reasons that Nasa's probes are so expensive is that they are well built, with more problems planned for and more tollerances compensated for and more testing done. The absense of which, you end up with Beagle-II.

Ian Flint · 2004-06-08 15:53:41

Always the pessemist GCNR?

$40 million to Mars? Great! With a professional marketing team that could raise $80 million maybe it would have survived landing.

The Mars Society is doing the same sort of thing as Prof. Pillinger. They have been able to raise millions for their projects as well, with great success. They sell advertising space, too, something Pillinger didn't do as far as I know.

amandacruising · 2004-06-08 18:08:29

GCNR:
Thank you for your kindness in reading my posting. However forgive me if I correct an number of negative points you make:

You refer to "Charity". Nowhere did I mention that word. The whole thrust of my posting is that there is a huge well of potential support on a voluntary basis if properly merketed globally. Advancement of Mankind is the noble objective which would be supported - not charity.

You also doubt that 5,000 commercial entities would provide financial, professional and material support. This, if you will forgive me, is a wholly negative attitude. With such a mind-set, nothing would ever have been achieved in technological advancement if everyone thought like this......
May I offer a tiny example: My company, along with five others who are owned and controlled by persons well known to me would provide some $5,000 cash funding, plus $12,000 in professional / administrative services and some $20,000 in equavilent engineering hardware per annum for a period of 8 to 10 years without a second thought - provided that they believed the project was properly managed and feasible.
If 5,000 corporations were needed. then I alone can raise one eight hundredth of the complete project - and from highly specialised companies within a ten mile radius from where I write this.
I find it difficult to believe that I am a unique maveric. No, there are thousands of people like the writer in the world who are thinking, caring, forward looking, and like me, can raise the equalivent of $370,000 per year for ten years for the right project..... and I am not a politician, nor indeed well known. Imagine what high profile people could do.

Further, please allow the writer to frefer to your disparaging remarks re. Prof. Pillinger. With respect, he has contributed a huge effort and a slice of his life totally dedicated to a space exploration project. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I suspect that he has given a lot more than you or I have to the final frontier.
It is indeed ungracious to be critical of him. He did his best within the constraints imposed on him. What more can be asked of a man......

GCNR, we must follow our dreams or we are nothing after the passing. I have flown around the Globe in a light aircraft, and sailed around it in a yacht I designed and built myself in my back yard, raced formula cars, jumped from aircraft, have successful patented products marketed worldwide - and my technical friends always said "It will never work - if it could, someone would have done it years ago". If we are negative, we will achieve nothing Sir, and we will just become another boring old man on the back porch who talks a lot of hot air - and in reality never did anything of note.......
That scares me.

deagleninja · 2004-06-09 08:24:27

Amandacruising, I too read both your posts so far and am relieved that I am not alone. For some time now I have tried to convince people that putting people on Mars is a task for this generation and not future ones.

All the technilogical hurdles have been leaped and all that remains is a willingness to do the unthinkable. Too often, this is a step that most cannot take. It is frightening to attempt what has not been done before.

I believe that if a coallition were formed comprised of the leading space advocates and their message were clear and united, we could fund and build missions to Mars in ten years.

Bear with me for a moment and imagine this. The Mars Society, Planetary Society and many others unite under the cause of settling the red planet. A grass-roots effort to launch the first of many missions to Mars begins. After choosing a design for a rocket and lander our coallition puts out a call for public support. Design specifications are posted on a website that any company can check on. If a certain company can make a part cheaply or free, then they supply our coallition with said needed part. After ten years, we should have all the needed equipment for our first journey. More importantly, we now have a database of companies can produce the part they excell at in large quantities making future missions very affordable.

As you stated, legitamacy is the key. If our would-be providers believe these missions have a chance, they would do it for the sheer advertising rights alone. Funds would only be needed to pay for advertisers and support staff.

Personally, I could contribute the website to get it all started for a modest fee. I know several people that make eye-poping websites that are beautiful yet easy to navigate and understand.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-09 08:48:23

In a way, you're all right.

The biggest obstacle to a Mars mission is the will to do it. That can be overcome through organization and marketing. If presented properly a great deal of support could be amassed.

But as GCNRevenger has pointed out here and in other threads, space travel and the machinery that makes it possible are extraordinarily complex. A Mars rocket alone requires extensive design, testing, redesign, testing, on and on and massive amounts of capital. Simply contracting out individual parts to the lowest bidders with no coordination might work, but more likely you'll have several parts that don't quite fit. Even with the kinds of tolerances in modern machining, sometimes stuff just doesn't fit. I've seen it many times.

I'm not saying it's impossible to do it all privately, but it is far more difficult than some seem willing to concede.

Not trying to be negative, I'm more than willing to do whatever I can to further a workable plan, but let's not let our optimism drown our realism.

deagleninja · 2004-06-09 09:03:59

I understand and agree with your caution Cobra C. Some funding would be needed even if all the parts were donated to test and re-test as you stated.

The beauty of this idea is that the majority of the costs can be eliminated by avoiding those infamous over-priced contracts that the government is famous for. When you can recieve parts for a rocket or habitat free or nearly free, then you have more money for testing and safety measures.

Yes, I conceed that rockets are complex (often too complex), but we aren't talking about blazing new territory and R&D is where a lot of costs are incurred as you know.

I think it is a beautiful and inspiring idea. Besides the fact that it might prove a way to get to Mars cheaply, it certainly would involve the public as never before, which as regular posters know, is a huge obsticle for any space concept.

clark · 2004-06-09 09:07:45

So I represent Company X, and I provide a rocket motor free of charge to you, so you can blast off to Mars.

My rocket motor, which I provided you for free, explodes, killing you and destroying a billion dollars worth of donated and bought hardware.

Do I and my company now get sued?

deagleninja · 2004-06-09 09:14:00

No.

As part of the bargin for being free, no company is held responcible for accidents that occur.

clark · 2004-06-09 09:28:12

So who is going to give the free money to insure this rocket?

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-09 10:22:39

What? Me? Negative? Aw pishaw, never.

And it is a charity space program... a company giving with no expectation of profit to serve the common good, charity. And yes, I am saying that you won't get 5,000+ (probably a great deal more) companies to donate so much reasources every year for decade(s), I do not think that is a reasonable expectation.

Concept: The creation of such a complex system as a space vehicle requires a large degree of coordination among experienced areospace engineers building the vehicle. This coordination only reaches as far as a CAD file on a website with this donate-your-parts strategy... I don't think it will work, there are too many pieces to fail that would cost too much to test or repair in-house. In fact, this is why building modern rockets costs so much, and why big contractors and big money are needed, because they have their act together, coordinated, and controlled.

Concept: You still need infrastructure that NASA has today in order to keep the costs for such an endeavour within the realm of reason. Nasa will not be keen to let a "Linux Open Source style engineering team" build and launch rockets with their facilities... what if there is a hydrogen fire on the pad, destroying Pad 39? Or an SRB on Ares explodes in the VAB from a careless weekend engineer, flattening the priceless facility and killing hundreds? Who decides who is qualified and who isn't? Tip of the iceberg of trouble...

Spaceflight isn't that easy to engineer, fund, or politic... I don't think this plan has enough credibility that people will jump onboard in signifigant number. Not trying to be excessivly negative, but if you dream too much without being realistic, you'll sooner convince people to build a tunnel to China as a trade shortcut.

As for Professor Pillinger, I don't know if I ought to take him seriously or not, the whole Beagle-II project was farfetched from day-1. Fourty Million Dollars is alot of money, money that he was ultimatly responsable for.

deagleninja · 2004-06-09 12:09:10

GCN, so if I read your post correctly you site two problems: organization and launch facilities.

Organization is VERY important. This is why I recommended that an alliance be formed from already existing organizations like the Mars Society. Before the first requests go out a chain-of-command would have to be established. Surely this is simply a challenge not an impossibility.

As for a launch pad, it need not be reuseable. A supporting structure and a large hole in the ground would suffice quite nicely.

Oops, I see another question, who is qualified? That is also important to consider. It would be nice to see college students volunteer their spare hours to assembling the craft under the supervision of more experienced engineers.

Perhaps the rocket project could be divided into several teams with each team being responcible for only a small part of the rocket. Then each section could be inspected and tested before assembly.

I have to say, I really like the idea of students being involved in a nationwide effort to build a real useable rocket comparable to the Saturn V. Talk about hands on training!!

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-09 12:44:01

Organization, infrastructure, and funding. All of which are harder than you think...

As far as infrastructure, you need much more than a launch tower!

-Launch tower w/ flame pit able to accomdate multimillion pound rocket that is 30+ stories tall. Must have ocean downrange to the east. The USAF shuttle facility in California ate up $5Bn and was only half done, Nasa already has such a facility in Florida.

-Must be able to move said rocket to get into launch position (like the crawler) or an erecter-transporter or a massive crane on the tower or all of the above. Nasa already has this too.

-Rocket fuel facilities, including bulk liquid hydrogen storage near the launch pad since fueling must occur quickly to avoid boiloff. Solid rocket fuel handling facilities may also be required. Nasa's got it.

-Vacuum chaimber with temperature/radiation simulation systems big enough to test space and Mars hardware. Nasa? Check.

-Integration cleanroom for packaging and final assembly of the payload componets? Facilities and experience with making food, packing stuff in zero-G, making sure that everything is as it should be? See, Nasa isn't so useless after all...

-Astronaut training facilities and half-useable suits? Nasa is on a roll here... You get the idea.

...And now the biggie. Where are you going to get enriched Uranium or the permission to build your own experimental space nuclear reactor, and then to shoot in a quasi-home-made rocket over all our heads? Yes I know Uranium poses little harm, but at least the gov't can ignore Greenpeace et al.'s lawsuits to some extent. Solar power won't do the job safely enough until we are much better at living on Mars. Nasa and the USN nuclear people and the DoE are all good buddies now.

---

Now about that organization... trying to get MarSoc & Co to work together on a project of this scale will be a little bit like hearding cats, they'll all want the mouse but they aren't going to cooperate that easily.

You can't make the individual pieces of the rocket too small, in which case I think the minimum size for each componet is entirely too big for this team-based stuff. Building an 8-12m diameter rocket stage is not a job for a college engineering team. And a nuclear reactor? I don't know about putting together a multibillion dollar mission built by undergraduates, supervised or not.

amandacruising · 2004-06-09 21:38:24

As for Professor Pillinger, I don't know if I ought to take him seriously or not, the whole Beagle-II project was farfetched from day-1. Fourty Million Dollars is alot of money, money that he was ultimatly responsable for.

Hello deagleninja
Thank you for your words of support.

In respect of GCNR`s response I would repeat my assertion that a large well of goodwill exists if a realistic project were correctly presented to the world.

Poor old Pillinger:
In respect of GCNR, I would enquire why he is so worried about the $40 million lost on Beagle - he did not contribute one cent. I did...... and I am not complaining. The guys did their best - so what? Better luck next time. Part of a learning curve.
As a (presumably) US taxpayer he did contribute to NASA`s short sighted Hubble, the two botched Mars missions when someone confused miles and kilometers..... His silence is notable on those matters and others. Why point such a hard finger at Pillinger I cannot understand.

I have already stated that my company would provide funding along with five other corporations for a period of 8 to 10 years that I know of.
Now, THAT is the tip of the real iceberg.
deagleninja is absolutely right is his positive attitude.

Mars itself:
My personal view is that there should be no suggestion whatsoever of terrafarming and colonies. That is for coming generations maybe. The only point worth focusing on is getting a human being there and back. That must be the only objective. It is the only possible reality. Anything more ambitious would totally undermine credability.

The impossability of getting people to do the right thing:
On the topic of multiple manufacturers and interfacing problems: May I be allowed to observe that I own (small) manufacturing facilities in Europe, China and the US. Each facility has its own large quota of precision components to produce and they must all smoothly come together and pass test in a final product. My company has no particular difficulties in co-ordinating logistics and production tolerances in manufacturing a range of complex technical devices - AND the three facilities are 120 degrees apart around the globe.
It has never been easier to manage complex programmes with todays communications.

Launch facilities and insurance:
I fail to see why any of NASA`s facilities need be involved. It would cost fortunes and introduce all the mind-sets which we need to get away from. No disrespect to NASA I think they are wonderful - but if we are to actually do something about getting to Mars in our lifetime, a private space program is essential and we really must come from a different place and think outside the box.

What would the writer do?
O.K. if you wish to know, I have my own designs with maximum structural modules of 8 X 3 M. (I have a contract with a well known parcel carrier who may be interested in helping out... and their cargo aircraft which fly the globe every night will neatly handle this size. Maybe..... who knows? nothing ventured, nothing gained) and mathematical models (I am no space scientist - just a humble engineer) and would launch from a barge in the Western Atlantic or Pacific. That gets rid of a whole bunch of problems relating to Governance, Insurance, local authorities etc.

I hear the reader mutter "he`s an idiot".
True maybe.

However consider this: the writer designed and built a boat in his back yard in which he circumnavigated the world, and then followed that by designing and building a single engine aircraft in his garage and then flew that around the world.

Hummmm........ Not exactly Mars, but it demonstrates a point that we can do anything if we are sufficiently focused........

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-09 22:58:48

Idiot? No, I don't think you are an idiot at all, just a little too optimistic about the scale of this project...

Why point such a finger to Pillinger? Because he and his colleages were in over their heads and either did not or would not realize or own up to it, ultimatly making a $40M error of judgement... not a simple error of engineering. If it was his fault or not, Professor Pillinger is responsable for the failure of the mission.

A Mars mission or any manned spaceflight is really a project not far removed in scale from the building of a Pyramids or whatnot. It would be like you in your back yard building the SR-71 Black Bird! No entities outside military-grade contractors or national space agencies can coordinate and integreate the thousands or millions of componets that would comprise a Mars mission. Could your company coordinate with thousands of others to build such a thing? No no, it won't work, coordinating such an effort and getting so many people together to build somthing of this scale is beyond an "open source" style effort.

I fail to see why you don't think Nasa is nessesarry... not using their facilities, equipment, and experience will multiply the cost of a Mars mission several fold. That magic $30Bn figure Doc Zubrin made for MarsDirect, the simplest and smallest credible mission, was for Nasa to do much of the work... the cost and years for a private endeavour to make all the stuff you need that they have for free right now would kill the project dead.

8m x 3m that must be light enough to fit in a plane? No no, that is a fast-track to failure. You must build a bigger rocket, otherwise it will not be efficent enough to have enough payload without becoming truely monsterous. I'm talking rocket parts that are 8-12m WIDE, not long.

You have to think inside the box, because rocket fuel only gives you so much push per-pound and outter space or Mars are not easy places to get to or live. This forces you to build a very large and complicated vehicle to get to Mars, which in-turn forces you to make it very complex and very expensive... This is a limitation of our current technological state as a species, the chemical limitations of fuels and materials, and the physical limitations of gravity, distance, and environment... and cannot be wished away. It is too complex and too expensive for anything short of a national superpower-scale investment.

Actually, since nobody has a prayer of even putting people in orbit without government help, I would say that is pretty good proof that willpower, focus, and determination are not enough.

deagleninja · 2004-06-10 05:56:09

Gosh, look at Mr. Grumpy-face in the morning

Just kidding GCN, I know you love to play devil's advocate and we do need to counter these kinds of arguements if an effort like this is to come true.

I think both of you, GCN & amanda, have valid points about Pillinger. Yes, he was taking chances with $40M of others people money, but any mission to Mars is a risk or Mission Control wouldn't go bonkers everytime a rover touches down safely. I think it is unfair to blame him exclusivly for the failure, but as project leader it was his responcibility on the whole. Just think how different the world's reaction would have been had it succeeded. 'NASA spent 820 million and they can do the job for 40 million?'

On NASA's resources:
In a perfect world, it would indeed be wonderful to have all of NASA's resources at our disposal, but it is not a perfect world. All the extra facilities that NASA uses to store and test components cost millions and millions of dollars. Is it really all necessary? I know that it is not. Most of NASA's accidents or failed missions have not been hardware failure, but rather human error.

As far as a crawler goes, why? What use would you have for a rocket transporter if your rocket is assembled on site?

NASA uses the complicated launch pads that they have because they are reuseable. Decades ago it was believed that space travel would be an easy, consistant task with shuttles going up several times a month. We now know this isn't the case, so launch pads as complicated as NASA's aren't needed.

A mission to Mars does not require nuclear reactors. I don't know why nuclear is being held up as the 'Holy Grail To Mars'. Everyone seems to think that we must have this stuff, why? What is so wrong with solar power? If dust storms kicking debris into the atmosphere and blocking sunlight are such a concern, then beam microwaves from space to the surface with a modest unfolding solar panel array.

Recently, a new breed of rocket was designed that uses CO2 and I believe methane for fuel. Mars has plenty of CO2, and we can make methane rather easily so there you go.

Judging from hundred of images of what appears to be water leaking onto the surface from underground and traces of methane in the atmosphere that need constant replacement, I think it is safe to say that Mars is still geologically active. This is also a possible source of energy for our would-be explorers.

I believe what amandacruising is saying is that the status quo has done nothing to move us closer to landing people on a different planet for the first time. It is time to think outside the box, because what we have now isn't working. Should we mount the support and funding needed for NASA to send people to Mars I think we will just have a repeat of the Apollo era because the public losses interest rather quickly and we can't sustain an expenditure like this for long.

Here's a story that helps put thing into perspective. Several years ago Nissan decided to reduce the number of parts in their cars by 1/3. Their cars are now made with dozens of fewer parts and are more reliable for it.

The space shuttle is THE most complicated machine ever built by humans. It literally has to be taking apart, each part inspected, and reassembled after each flight. It is simply too complicated to ever be the quick-turn-around vehicle that it was meant to be. The more parts and people a project requires, the more that can go wrong with it.

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-10 08:30:52

Mmmmm frankly Beagle-II wouldn't have done that much compared to the MERs even if it did work other than copy Viking.

Has it occured to anyone that the high cost of spaceflight is actually justified and not inflated because of profit or buracracy? It seems to be the default position of many people around here that big-biz/big-gov "unessesarrily raises" the cost of spaceflight a great deal, perhaps by many fold. I am happy to grant you that the Space Shuttle is a monster that is more complex and expensive than it ought to be, but doesn't reprisent the norm. Space flight is really hard! Its not unfair to say that Apollo was one of the greatest feats of humankind ever, and it cost over a hundred billion dollars just to get us to the Moon, using the same rocket fuel and materials as we use today.

And you think there would not be human error in a giant decentralized space program? Nasa spends a great deal of its time and money to avoid human error, and they've gotten pretty good at it. Proposing to do better than them as you would have to for a Mars trip with a "distributed space program" and little experience is frankly pretty silly.

Speaking of risks, the reason why a nuclear power plant is a requirement and not an option is that it is safe. Without energy, the crew will die, and without alot of energy you cannot produce rocket fuel for the return trip. Such a mission to Mars will be dangerous and bare-bones enough as it is, carrying large solar arrays + batteries or relying on a untried SSPS system is suicidal. The more the things you have to carry and the more the things to go wrong, the less likly the mission is to ever make it to the pad and the more likly it is you'll be sending those men to die. Heavy batteries? SSPS satellite? Are you mad?

Yes you can reduce the complexity of a spacecraft and its launch facilities, but not by much. You need some kind of large transporter to move the rocket stages, which will be too big to fit on a truck. You will need the liquid hydrogen plant, you will need the vacuum test chaimber, and you will need an expensive launchpad even if it is simpler than the SSTS/Apollo one. There is a minimum amount of complexity, this is not like building cars, boats, or airplanes!

A minimum amount of complexity that no hodge-podge over-the-internet program will ever suceed.

clark · 2004-06-10 08:40:04

This is why I generally have a hard time disagreeing with GNC... I tend to agree with the overall view.

But I still think he is mistaken here and there.

amandacruising · 2004-06-10 09:20:06

Thank you, GCNR for your kindness in reading my posting.

You refer to some points:

Radioactive materials:
None are required. period. Chemical and photovoltaics are possibly adequate at a pinch for a Mars-and-back project. I believe that you are correct in your thinking that a radioactive element is required for anything much more than a brief pause.
The SI of propellent is well documented, and indeed as I manufacture photovoltaic equipment among other things, I do well understand at least that bit, and what is required.

Hydrogen:
There are less dramatically dangerous ways to do things. Not as effective, I grant you, but more do-able.

NASA:
They would never play ball for a million reasons - from their perspective every one valid. I would not expect them to. If I were NASA CEO, I would not either......

Rockets:
You are thinking of a huge monolithic rocket. Being an eccentric, I have a completely different approach. Not worth going into here as everyone would laugh at me. They always have done - until each time the silly idea comes to fruition and is shown to work well.
Odd thing about human nature - they never remember being very kind by advising with sincerity not to do this thing........ They seem to remember, erroneously, that they always knew that you would pull it off......

Number of components:
I believe that the number would definitely not exceed 300 to 500,000 components and discrete sub-assemblies.

Launch pad:
I have already made clear my thinking. A NASA or Balkinour launch pad complex is wholly unnecessary.

deagleninja:
He is absolutely correct in much of what he says. Further, his comments on methane / Co2 are possibly valid. Also, he has a positive and open mind which acccepts the gargantuan challenges involved. This is crucial. I have extensive experience in bringing completely new technology from concept, through patent, into global commercial products - I know what can be achieved and the pitfalls of any new project. Mars is just the usual innumerable project pitfalls multiplied a hundred-fold, but as deagleninja implies, this does not mean that the endeavour should not be made.
Why do people climb mountains? As we all know, it is because they are there.

Thank you.

clark · 2004-06-10 09:27:18

Captain, you sound motivated and in the enviable position to have the skills and resources at your disposal to perhaps make some headway towards landing and returning a person to Mars. What are you looking for here?

Bill White · 2004-06-10 09:38:10

Another reason to obtain the help of NASA or the Russians is that you need a national territory to launch from.

A private mission to Mars would be illegal to launch from United States territory, without appropriate permits and approvals.

Once you get federal permission, why not add nuclear power for life support? And once you get federal permission, why not fly on shuttle derived heavy lifters?

MarsDirect by the way, NEEDS a nuclear reactor to run the Sabatiers. The energy budgets fail otherwise.

Okay, go Russian (if you have the money to pay them, in cash) but they will sell you nuclear reactors IF you demonstrate the ability to use them in a responsible manner and the US Department of State doesn't shut you down.

Bottom line, IMHO? No one is going to Mars unless the Pentagon gives its tacit acceptance, whether or not there is public permission.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-06-02 12:17:22

Re: SpaceShip One date set for final test flight! - History in the making....

#2 2004-06-02 18:46:14

Re: SpaceShip One date set for final test flight! - History in the making....

#3 2004-06-02 21:31:52

Re: SpaceShip One date set for final test flight! - History in the making....

#4 2004-06-03 16:19:26

Re: SpaceShip One date set for final test flight! - History in the making....

#5 2004-06-07 19:59:08

Re: SpaceShip One date set for final test flight! - History in the making....

#6 2004-06-08 08:38:43

Re: SpaceShip One date set for final test flight! - History in the making....

#7 2004-06-08 15:53:41

Re: SpaceShip One date set for final test flight! - History in the making....

#8 2004-06-08 18:08:29

Re: SpaceShip One date set for final test flight! - History in the making....

#9 2004-06-09 08:24:27

Re: SpaceShip One date set for final test flight! - History in the making....

#10 2004-06-09 08:48:23

Re: SpaceShip One date set for final test flight! - History in the making....

#11 2004-06-09 09:03:59

Re: SpaceShip One date set for final test flight! - History in the making....

#12 2004-06-09 09:07:45

Re: SpaceShip One date set for final test flight! - History in the making....

#13 2004-06-09 09:14:00

Re: SpaceShip One date set for final test flight! - History in the making....

#14 2004-06-09 09:28:12

Re: SpaceShip One date set for final test flight! - History in the making....

#15 2004-06-09 10:22:39

Re: SpaceShip One date set for final test flight! - History in the making....

#16 2004-06-09 12:09:10

Re: SpaceShip One date set for final test flight! - History in the making....

#17 2004-06-09 12:44:01

Re: SpaceShip One date set for final test flight! - History in the making....

#18 2004-06-09 21:38:24

Re: SpaceShip One date set for final test flight! - History in the making....

#19 2004-06-09 22:58:48

Re: SpaceShip One date set for final test flight! - History in the making....

#20 2004-06-10 05:56:09

Re: SpaceShip One date set for final test flight! - History in the making....

#21 2004-06-10 08:30:52

Re: SpaceShip One date set for final test flight! - History in the making....

#22 2004-06-10 08:40:04

Re: SpaceShip One date set for final test flight! - History in the making....

#23 2004-06-10 09:20:06

Re: SpaceShip One date set for final test flight! - History in the making....

#24 2004-06-10 09:27:18

Re: SpaceShip One date set for final test flight! - History in the making....

#25 2004-06-10 09:38:10

Re: SpaceShip One date set for final test flight! - History in the making....

Board footer