You are not logged in.
Until recently, I've never thought of Mars Direct as a plan that could be adopted to a Sagan-like, international approach to Mars exploration. The crew size was too small to allow for true diversity, and the price was affordable enough for the United States to launch it alone. But the recent study by Russia's Space Agency has made me reconsider an international approach.
The Russian Space Program has many advantages over NASA's current program. Russians hold the records for the longest manned spaceflights, and the Russian aerospace industry has unparalleled experience with building space habitats. An enlarged Soyuz capsule would be perfect for MD, and only the Russians could build one quickly (unless Boeing could ressurect Apollo in a hurry.) The Russian RD-170 is still the most powerful engine in production. And all of the nuclear thermal rockets NASA is currently studying are based on a Russian design.
European and Japanese cooperation could also be useful. For instance, the ESA's spaceport in French Guiana is the ideal place to launch Ares.
To avoid the problems that have beset the ISS, an international Mars expedition should be organized by corporate entities, not the foreign governments. If Boeing and Energomash formed an alliance, for example, they could sell payload space on board the lander for experiments from NASA, ESA, and other space agencies. The profits from these experiments, in addition to a cash prize from the U.S. government would fund the mission.
This new plan actually combines the "Gingrich Model" and the "Sagan Model." However, today's current state of financial instability and America's timidness in space just might warrant this approach.
"I'm not much of a 'hands-on' evil scientist."--Dr. Evil, "Goldmember"
Offline
Until recently, I've never thought of Mars Direct as a plan that could be adopted to a Sagan-like, international approach to Mars exploration. The crew size was too small to allow for true diversity, and the price was affordable enough for the United States to launch it alone. But the recent study by Russia's Space Agency has made me reconsider an international approach.
I don't think an international effort would be so bad either considering that a lot of technology being developed for Mars missions, from propulsion to waste disposal, is currently being worked on by a lot of countries. I also think if you have a lot of countries involved, and they agree to set up something of a permament outpost on Mars like Mars Direct calls for, such an outpost would be safer from the economic and political axe of any one country and would be more apt to survive.
To avoid the problems that have beset the ISS, an international Mars expedition should be organized by corporate entities, not the foreign governments. If Boeing and Energomash formed an alliance, for example, they could sell payload space on board the lander for experiments from NASA, ESA, and other space agencies. The profits from these experiments, in addition to a cash prize from the U.S. government would fund the mission.
I hope sometime in the future it becomes possible for private interests to gather the resources they need for a mission to Mars. If spaceflight remains the monopoly of government I doubt if the opportunity for the masses to migrate into space will ever happen.
To achieve the impossible you must attempt the absurd
Offline
Dealing with the Russians may have many advantages. They too signed the treaty to reduce strategic missiles. To me that equals boosters that they have to get rid of and so might help launch payloads to Mars. PR benefits there are "Look what we can do!" AND "See, we launched them into space, so yes we did reduce our inventory." That might make Uncle Sam willing to give up one or two of the old Titan missiles they can't really use anyway.
Anybody know where the "Conestoga One" folks got theirs?
MIR must have had great CO2 scrubber systems, so the technology is there.
Hmmm, a Siberian Hab?
Offline
I've been doing some thinking about Mars Direct and how to avoid becoming another "flags-and-footprints" expedition.
As I've said before, America has the resources to "go it alone" on Mars Direct. What it doesn't have, however, is the resources (or political will) to launch SUSTAINED expeditions to Mars. Remember that the goal of Mars Direct is to build a base by landing subsequent missions in the same area and drawing upon the accomplishments of the previous missions.
International support is crucial for sustained space exploration. It provides a redundancy that any national space program would not have. If a particular launch system was grounded, or if Kennedy Space Center was attacked by terrorists, we would always have another launch system to fall back on. It is in the best interests of the human species to not put all of its eggs in the basket of one nation.
All space efforts until Apollo 11 were driven by a Khrushchev-Kennedy spirit of national competition and prestige. The subsequent Apollo missions, Skylab, STS, and ISS were all driven by science instead of national pride. The problem is that science is not a funding priority for most governments. It remains to be seen whether these governments will change and support more space science, of if we will need to move to a corporate-driven motvation for exploring space.
"I'm not much of a 'hands-on' evil scientist."--Dr. Evil, "Goldmember"
Offline
MIR must have had great CO2 scrubber systems, so the technology is there.
The Service Module of the ISS is an exact copy of the Core Module of Mir. It is just another unit of exactly the same model of module and manufactured at the same factory. The Russian engineer who designed it likes to refer to the ISS as Mir2. So yes, the technology is there.
Offline
The best way to divide the crew assignments on an international Mars Direct is not to use multi-national crews during the initial landings, which form the building phase of the base. Instead, the country that acts as "prime integrator" will launch Mars Direct 1. The other countries involved will launch Mars Direct 2, Mars Direct 3, etc. Each space agency would pay for its own mission, but the hardware development and mission control would be centralized. This avoids the ISS situation of one country not meeting the schedule expectations of the others, and it divides the hardware costs evenly. If one country misses its launch opportunity, then the next country in the rotation gets a turn in two years. Each mission can stand independent of the others, although the final base will depend on all of the missions.
"I'm not much of a 'hands-on' evil scientist."--Dr. Evil, "Goldmember"
Offline
Yes, and after the last country is done, Mars is empty because they don't plan to let poeple there for more than one rotation (2 years)...
This is like the moon, come, have a (long) seeing, and forget...
Sorry, I don't trust them.
CC
Offline
After the rotation has gone through several times, and each partner has landed several times on Mars, there should be a sufficient infrastructure to start a colony. A one-way, multi-national mission could then be sent to reactivate the base and continue with the exploration. Occasional resupply would be necessary, but the base is designed to have enough supplies to last for two resupply periods.
Eventually cyclers will take large numbers of people to Mars, and new engines (ion, plasma, and nuclear pulse) will make it easier and faster to send supplies to Mars. Mankind is capable of starting anew on Mars. It's just a matter of mustering the will to do it.
"I'm not much of a 'hands-on' evil scientist."--Dr. Evil, "Goldmember"
Offline