You are not logged in.
I would like to see us terraform mars as well but I know that is much more than I could ever hope to see in my lifetime. Terraformation, colonization, mining asteriods, all this is a distracting to the public and leaders as well and it clouds the one true reason we should go to mars. SCIENCE! Just maybe there was life on mars, maybe there still is some kind of life there but the rovers haven't found it and that is why we need to send humans. Also sending humans gives us something to raise our heads higher as we walk.
And Zubrin's plan is absolutely not a flag and footprints mission. He says over and over again in his book that he is against that kind of mission. Mars Direct is designed to be a continuous landing of habitats and equipment on mars.
Also you don't have to increase NASA's budget one cent to pay for Mars Direct. You simply have to redirect NASA's current expenditures away from supporting the space shuttle. Mars Direct could be paid for in 6-7 years.
Offline
Dook,
You are still in the little world , of lets go wagon riding again. The conquest of space needs human beings to go further than anyone has done before, it means that we need to build a permanent space presence, not do what we did to the moon for mars missions.
The Moon is a permanent base of training, including micro-gravity training, vehicle testing, and other systems testing for micro-gravity.
Also we need a better ship design that using the existing rocket designs. We need the next generation of space vessels and we need to let the older systems go.
When we get to mars, we land enough equipment for a permanent settlement establishment ( maximum of 50 people ), that would allow us to move only people to mars and expand the settlement. At the same time, we are going to mars for the journey the next crew is in the micro-gravity training on the moon.
THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX
:band:
Offline
Excuse me? How so?
You should read my post more carefully, going to mars for science is putting humans farther than anyone has gone before and it is the only way you can win public support. They know nothing about terraforming and once you say 1,000 years you will certainly lose their interest. 1,000 years??? Who cares! It may as well be a million.
You are the one in a world of make believe, stuck in a bad science fiction book and star trek re-runs. We don't need the moon to go to mars and even if we did mico-gravity testing would be the last thing we would need it for. Did you even read the book, The Case for Mars?
Also, we don't need a better ship design (Oh, that's right, you haven't read the book). There are enough good ship designs available. What we need is leadership to set a goal of putting humans on mars within a seven year time frame. Anything longer and you lose public interest.
You're suggesting the first landing on mars be an attempt at permanent colonization? Not smart. Not smart at all. Too much risk and for what? Just so some whacked out civilians who can't handle being around people and who aren't happy with the earth have a place to go and hide? You are obviously young and still need to learn that speeding gets you there only a minute or two faster but it also gets you speeding tickets.
Think outside the box? I'm curious what you are suggesting. Should we develop warp drive and phaser's before going to mars? Maybe we could build an actual star trek Enterprise ship and use that to go to mars. Yeah, that's outside the box. Get a grip on reality.
Offline
Dook,
Interesting comments !!!!!
You think I am young, depending on your age , I might be or not. I don't take kindly to insults, Dook, and I don't think that the scifi community would either take kindly to insults.
I know how to get to mars before the current plans, I am starting that road to build the necessary infrastructure for my company to be part of the development of private interstellar industries and only in a few years you might see parts of it (PII) but you will not understand it until it happens.
You might think I am in my own world, but single focused men have changed the world in many ways, just look over the past two hundreds and you will see many names that have built empires ( industrial, transport, financial and technological ) out of nothing, so don't think it can't happen with space development.
If you think that is not possible just add the forbes 500 industrial companies together they are more than that figure in income generating per year. But also they have all the expertise in all the fields necessary to build the private enterprise into space.
Don't think that they can't do it , because they can, as a consortium, and projects out there they can generate wealth to fund more and more development.
Also you can use thousands of smaller non-public companies to do the same and they can split the benefits across the membership.
That Private consortium will have a combined budget of US$125B per year for space development in 2004 terms. ( 8x NASA Budget ).
This will start the countries to realize that they are not only in the race for space but they will need to compete with private enterprise as well. Remember USA is a capitalist Country and most countries worldwide are now capitalist based societies.
Predication 1
That a private consortium will build a complete earth-moon platform including a private launch and re-entry vehicles for earth , private space station/s, transfer vehicles, and lunar base/s with mining and construction facilities to be used to develop large scale vessels for space exploration and frieght transport. This also requires development of a large scale settlement for the lunar workforce.
Predication 2
I will make this prediction that it will not be a country or group of countries that land on mars first, but it will be private enterprise that will land on mars first, to mine the resources and colonize the planet.
--------------oOoOo--------------------
And the Term - THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX
Means that you have limited thoughts / concepts and developments that could expand the interstellar environment for humanity. So , GET OUT of THAT BOX and open your possibilities.
???
Offline
Dook, remember, to quote Zubrin; Columbus didn't wait for trans-atlantic steamships or Boeing 747's before setting off. I think what must be said here is that the reason we don't have a more permanent position in space currently, isn't because we lack the resources, it is because space itself lacks the resources we need.
- Mike, Member of the [b][url=http://cleanslate.editboard.com]Clean Slate Society[/url][/b]
Offline
Michael,
I agree, and I think we will over come the lack of resources in space in the near future. It will be ongoing at the start ( just like startup corporation then it will become self sustaining ) we will have an upper hand by 2050-2065 for solar system expansion sustainable.
Offline
So you think a group of Forbes 500 companies are going to commit billions towards colonization of the moon, then get to mars and beat NASA! Yeah, that's definately outside the box thinking. First, why would a successful company put billions on such a risky scheme? The best and brightest people work for NASA, you think they are going to leave NASA for your group? And all of the infrastructure belongs to NASA. What money are you going to make mining the moon? The cost of the launch, habitat, and constantly supplying the workers with food and water would be much more than you could hope to make. You're not just outside of the box, you're outside in the rain.
Reply to Michael's post: I think the one main reason we do not have more lofty goals in space is leadership. The President is simply repeating what someone told him about what our goals in space should be. He doesn't know, or care, about mars direct and likely was briefed from his father about the 90 day report. Also there is the director of NASA who, in my opinion, is playing it safe. He is the one person who should have been all over the idea of mars direct but instead he is taking the easy road, trying to keep everyone happy, all the engineers working on their projects that have nothing to do with humans on mars in seven years. The guy wants to let the Hubble burn up! He has no idea how to win public's attention. I couldn't believe they gave a press conference a few months ago to let everyone know that NASA believes that mars had water at some point. I was so disappointed.
No lofty goals with reasonably close timeframes that the people can really rally around. 30 years to land on mars? Be lucky if I'm around to see it.
Offline
Dook,
I see your mind is still closed, I outlined that many organizations, associations and consortiums could build into space without the countries doing it. ( meaning corporations, groups of wealthy individuals) They could setup a space foundation that would provide non-profit and taxation advantages, it depends on the country.
Acquire existing launching facilities in Russia, or Australia ,( they have been up for sale or lease and convert to a private launch facility) and improve the existing facilities or build new facilities in an appropriate location.
You don't need to go near NASA, Ground stations are inexpensive today to assembly for tracking and communication purposes. Training facilities could be developed with some outlay, but could be developed with a private college as well, for paid students therefore getting educated graduates at a lower cost base to feel part of the space industry. Again not NASA, Dook.
Other Reasons for Business to be involved - New Processes, new technologies, and other activities that come out of developments and exploration of the moon, mars and beyond can be divided based on the involvement of the investors. As well, the raw materials, and new compounds created in micro-gravity environments.
I will tell you that, starting today, you could have all the ground based infrastructure for a global space enterprise fully operational within 10 years and Moon in Five after that and Mars in 10 years after that ( by 2019 Moon and by 2029 on Mars) . By the way that is from scratch with limited resources, But if the new income streams come online then additional funds are available for space development it could be 8 years for earth operations and 4 years for Moon operations and 6 years for Mars operations. (improved to - by 2016 Moon and by 2022 Mars )
Don't think it can't happen , because it can !!!!!!!!!!
???
Offline
Great concept for private companies to buy Russian launch sites and to upgrade. Would not be a probable if you were using 30 to 40 year old rocket technology. Aside from the location and less regulation hopefully not much else would be gained though.
I vote for Space bonds, Lotteries for a journey to LEO and any other thoughts but Nasa can do none of these because it is a government agency only the private industry could get away with these.
Offline
SpaceNut,
We are currently using 20+ year technology, What I was talking about was the upgrade of Thirty year + to current materials and developments, But the cost for the launch pad and structure would be cost effective.
I have just found out the Energia - Buran Systems are still intact and also the russians are start using the energia (HLV) for heavy lift launches with a new large scale satellite launch recently. That would mean that the current launch facilities are active and could be use without upgrade from the russians. The Buran on the other hand would take alot of work to come back into working order.
But the Energia is the largest HLV currently working, thus use it and it could be use it large scale development in space into lunar missions. The costs are similar to owners of ocean liners , supertankers, or large real estate properties. Fund them the same.
Offline
A Humanity Survival fund could have Tax Free status.
And it would become fashionable to contribute.
Taxes are generated by lotteries;
a percentage could go towards space efforts.
-
I would like to see numerous Mars Direct missions;
but safety concerns and large colonization efforts
need the building of space hotels and a Moon base.
Some of the space hotels could be put into Earth Mars cycler orbits.
The Mars landing, similar to the Moon, where a seperate landing craft was used.
Offline
For reference what did the president want from his vision?
Well this is where we started in January of this year with articles of the vision leaked to the press.
Space Plan Envisions Apollo As Model Versatile Craft Is Key to Bush Program
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2....nd=true
Nasa returns to Apollo in quest for the perfect craft
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/interna....00.html
Whitehouse announcement
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/space/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/space/toc.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/space/renewed_spirit.html
http://www.projectconstellation.us/arti … o-cev.html
And many more links followed by the commission Hearing and there final report handed out after a slight delay in June.
http://www.projectconstellation.us/news … sions.html
Where are we now? Well after a little hedging on the direction of change, a little restructuring internally and a lot of haggling over the Budget not being passed by congress for the vision. We are still stuck in LEO with no way to get there and looks like Nasa is reverting back to its old self.
Where will we be in the near future? Well with continued under funding of Nasa projects, I forsee that more Items will be cancelled before they can be stated, Less will be done with the ISS and that we will be stuck in LEO for a lot longer than we all want to be after hearing the vision announcement earlier this year.
Offline
Dook,
I agree. We can get Mars Direct to Mars in 7 years or so.
Comstar03,
I like your desire to plan long term and use private industry, but how do you convince private industry to take the plunge?
To whom it may concern,
If you compare Apollo's flags and footprints missions to Mars Direct you're missing a lot. Apollo left on the Moon the bottom half of its landers, some flags, and a couple rovers. Mars Direct will leave habitats, greenhouses, propellant production facilities, vehicles, powerplants, labs, and stockpiles of food, water, and oxygen.
Even if NASA were to pull the plug after funding a few Mars Direct missions, any other country or company could go back and use what NASA left behind. Mars Direct is not a self-sustaining colony but it is much more than flags and footprints.
Offline
But the Energia is the largest HLV currently working, thus use it and it could be use it large scale development in space into lunar missions.
Except that Energia is not currently working. A few broken parts, a couple of mix-n'-match RD-0120 engines, the factory for making parts gone, the VAB collapsed, the Russian "Pad 39" out of comission... Energia is about as dead and buried as the Saturn-V.
"If you compare Apollo's flags and footprints missions to Mars Direct you're missing a lot... Mars Direct will leave habitats, greenhouses, propellant production facilities, vehicles, powerplants, labs, and stockpiles of food, water, and oxygen."
Uhhh. No it doesn't. The reactor on the fuel plant will probobly be low on Uranium, no more Hydrogen left to operate the Sabatier reactor, a HAB which is barely a big closet that has been lived in for three years and sitting for 2-6 years more, no ERV or acent vehicle, only a little food and left over LSS supplies, worn out vehicles (heck, MER spirit has almost had it after only 180 days), and best of all said HABs will all but surely be spaced hundred of miles apart, since you want to visit multiple sites. MarsDirect's hair-thin mass margins are so tight, being that its mass is restricted by the payload of the SDV, that I think that a greenhouse is absolutely out of the question and its a big if concerning the vehicles and drilling rig.
Since you will be needing a new nuclear reactor, more Hydrogen, more food/LSS supplies, and oh yeah a new ERV, you might as well just bring the whole ERV flight new from Earth.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Most of the cost is in the first mission:
http://www.marsnews.com/archives/2004/0 … able.html] ESA costing models show Mars Direct costs for development plus first mission as $26.6 billion, with each follow on mission costing $5.2 billion
-
No use planning for only one mission. Just keep on sending one after another. There may be a few accidents, but then, the wagon trains used in colonizing USA were not without risk. Leave an astronaut or two behind to greet the new arrivals.
-
It is critical that the landing site be well chosen. We need to hold off on manned trips untill a permanent settlement site can be determined by the use of rovers.
Offline
ian i think wer can still use the old lunar equipment. that`s one of the justifications for a MoonReturn. no matter what shape it`s in due to meteors, etc., it`s still refined metal, far better than mining. the only problem with it is it`s spread over a large area. some ppl tend to think of what we`re gonna do in OuterSpace are too often grandiose. we have plaenty of Lunar resources.
Offline
GCNRevenger,
Then what I was reading on the russian websites that relate to the russian space agency and the companies that relate to the launch vehicles are in your terms "crap". Please provide proof of what you are saying !!!!
I am not saying that it won't take some work to bring they back into operation but it would be better to bring them back for private enterprise launches and wait for an opening on the nasa space shuttle launch schedule.
We need to expand the launch and landing facilities globally not centralize in NA for HLVs I also think that the Australian Launch Facilities should be upgraded for HLVs providing a backup capacity.
Also the Energia - and variations could be used to expand the LEO acitivities and one-way cargo transport to moon and mars, while the space shuttle launch schedule would be uneffected.
Example 1 :
We could design a modified module to tag onto the energia then launched from LEO for mars carrying a hab module to start the settlement development. all up launch 6-12 modules that provide 4 hab modules , 2 mars to orbit return crafts, and several supply modules with rovers, remote vehicles, food, and hydroponic supplies and more, to establish marsbase 1, then send the humans on a CEV that is built from variation payloads luanched via the HLV ( Energia or sister vehicles)
Example 2 : LEO and Lunar Development
We need a larger ISS to expand the movement between earth and moon, Firstly you developent a large modules that could be added to the space station (ISS) to supersize the platform for LEO space command operations ( including space assembly and construction activities ) and lunar transfer operations, including a larger personnel presence and transfer activities ( including space tourism ) , Then do the same for Mars but for the moon, use one-way modules to transfer hab modules, supplies, and equipement to moon.
Also using the main booster of the energia to be used in the core of larger vessels, remember this - recycle, recycle , recycle everything from each launch that leaves the earth. Use the same concepts that spaceislandgroup.com have for space shuttle external tank to the energia booster.
These are the sites :
http://www.energia.ru]http://www.energia.ru and also http://www.buran.ru]http://www.buran.ru
Offline
comstar03
I like the thoughts in Example 2 : LEO and Lunar Development
I do feel that we should be doing more than we are with an orbiting platform in the ISS.
Learning how to do all sort of construction techniques in less gravity or in none is important to any base survival on the moon or on Mars.
We must learn how to do things the old fashion way anew in order to keep all the high tech stuff working longer.
Offline
I'm tired of hearing 'Let's do this first, let's do that first'. How about: 'Let's just do it and see what happens.' It might end up being a lot easier than you think. :;):
- Mike, Member of the [b][url=http://cleanslate.editboard.com]Clean Slate Society[/url][/b]
Offline
The Energia with its Energia Upper Stage (EUS) could throw somewhere around 27.7 tonnes into transmars trajectory. The original habitat defined at the http://www.marssociety.org/images/direc … 0.gif]Mars Society web site was 28.42 tonnes, including the artificial gravity tether system. That sound pretty close to me. That habitat had a single floor (http://www.marssociety.org/images/direct/marsd11.gif]floor plan) with pressurized rover and surface science stored benieth. The http://www.marssociety.org/images/direct/marsd6.gif]ERV would mass 28.36 tonnes at launch from Earth. Again, that's pretty damn close. Upgrading Energia by replacing the aluminum alloy with weldalite (lithium-aluminum alloy) could make it work. If comstar03 is part of a group that can actually make it happen, I say let him.
Using the core module for space station modules: you'ld have to modify the core module and reduce its lift capacity. Normally the Shuttle ET or Energia core module does not quite achieve orbit. You'ld have to either consume propellant to boost it into orbit or consume cargo mass to carry little booster rockets to insert it into orbit. Furthermore, I don't know what the insulation is on the Energia core module, but the foam of ET doesn't even survive launch, it certainly wouldn't survive micrometeoroids in orbit. The Saturn V 3rd stage, called Saturn IVB, was modified with an outer skin when they built Skylab. A durable micrometeor/thermal layer would be heavier than Shuttle ET foam; more cargo mass reduction. It could be done but cargo mass is a significant cost. I think it would be easier to recycle upper stages; smaller stage means less weight creep.
Offline
I had remembered seeing an article earlier this year about one of the European launchers having foam problems as well. It was on there Ariane 5 rocket. So the shuttle ET tank is not the only place that has had this happen.
http://www.spacedaily.com/2004/04022712 … spbqj.html
As far as the weight of the mars habitat and such, switching to lighter alloys where ever possible in the construction is definitely the way to go.
Offline
Good points SpaceNut.
Anyone know if Mars Direct has been revised since its publish? It's been several years and I'm sure a lot has changed in the way of materials.
Offline
I'm tired of hearing 'Let's do this first, let's do that first'. How about: 'Let's just do it and see what happens.' It might end up being a lot easier than you think. :;):
Do you have any suggestion?
Or what kind of plan do you have to go either here or there or both?
Then how were you going to pay for it or have it financed?
Larry,
Offline
A basic stepping stone approach was layed out in the vision but each step needs to be reviewed for we do not want lots of little expense baby steps. When larger steps are needed in order to keep the timeline of manned flight in the future nearer to our present thoughts for justification for even beginning down the road of the vision.
Offline
Well,
It depends on the Presidential election in 2004, because the race for space will have a big speed bump called Kerry and could limit space funding for other activities, thus throwing out the Moon timeline and then Mars timeline. ( it could cost 4-10 years for the road ahead in timeline)
That would add the non-us space programs, unless they get the same speedbump in their political climates, and I don't think that would happen in china.
Offline
![http://www.marssociety.org/images/direc … 0.gif]Mars](http://www.marssociety.org/images/direct/marsd10.gif]Mars){kind=link}
![http://www.marssociety.org/images/direct/marsd6.gif]ERV](http://www.marssociety.org/images/direct/marsd6.gif]ERV){kind=link}