Posted on 01/11/2009 9:22:32 AM PST by MyTwoCopperCoins
AWESOME! DIRECT to the Moon and Mars!
Direct ascent to Mars will work, provided the crew doesn’t go nuts because of the austere conditions of travel (limited food, no recreation, insufficient food). :’) Assembly of a Mars mission in LEO still makes the most sense, but of course, all human spaceflight goals require heavy lift capability. :’)
If you haven’t, read The Case for Mars by Robert Zubrin. Best mission profile I’ve ever seen.
I’m not a fan of that scenario; Zubrin’s plan (such as it is) calls for “Saturn V or better” and there isn’t either in existence per se. He suggested a shuttle derived vehicle, based on (if memory serves) three solid rocket boosters, which would reproduce the Saturn V lift capability (give or take). The SRBs are already man-rated, and building a heavy booster using those probably makes sense in general. There is, however, a lot of resistance to using them, because of pollutants, the Challenger disaster, and cost (even with reuse).
Von Braun stated that *one* mission to Mars would require the equivalent of twelve Saturn V launches, and I have a lot more confidence in him than I do in Zubrin. Zubrin sez, wanna get there sooner, just go faster. Yeah, and that requires fuel, which means more pad weight, or less payload, which means less capability. I really doubt that he knows what he’s talking about most of the time, or is so fixed on his idea that he hasn’t thought through, that there’s just no shiftin’ it.
There may be some merit to building an automated system to produce (and store) fuel, which could be sent ahead of the crew launch in order to provide for the return trip. If the automated system malfunctions when the crew is partway there, a follow-on launch from Earth to send the needed stuff would be required, or the crew could be sacrificed. I don’t think the latter case is acceptable, and the former case suggests that it probably didn’t make sense to try the riskier approach.
I’d like to see a durable rolling habitat, basically a big motorhome style rover, which could be sent ahead and landed, and have its systems checked out remotely. The return vehicle for the trip back to Earth, as well as the lander for deorbit-reorbit, could be sent on ahead, and again checked out remotely. The crew would be in the fourth (or fifth) launch, and take advantage of the shortest time of transit available.
Before the crew got to Mars, a second crew, second return vehicle, and second lander would begin their separate trips in the appropriate order.
As long as this is entirely imaginary, I think it would be ideal to first put a station in orbit around Mars, and thereby give the human crews someplace to go and to work on remote (but near-realtime) exploration of the surface. It would also give them practice and experience for making the journey before taking the risk of going down to the surface and back. Ultimately I think the use of an orbital station and remote robotic exploration makes the best sense — however, we also need to make a plant-the-flag mission at some point, and do it before anyone else.
All this is IMHO, of course. :’)
First liquid water may have been spotted on Mars
(Photo of “droplets” on rover leg?)
New Scientist | 2-18-09 | David Shiga
Posted on 02/21/2009 11:13:49 PM PST by puffer
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2191210/posts
[snip] The controversial observation could be explained by the mission’s previous discovery of perchlorate salts in the soil, since the salts can keep water liquid at sub-zero temperatures. [end]
Zubrin actually proposed a SDV that had 3 disposable SSMEs and 2 SRBs. The Shuttle Stack is a heavy-lift vehicle, it’s just that useless mass of the orbiter itself that limit’s it’s payload.
The beauty in Zubrin’s plan is that the ENTIRE amount of fuel needed for the return trip is manufactured before the manned half of the mission is launched.
The big issue with von Braun’s ideas is that they were massive undertakings. He didn’t want to do anything small, he wanted to send crews of 50 or more all at once.
Send me up there.
I’ll work on space carpentry.
“WHat? No more space shuttle?”
Retirment looms. A gap between vehicles approaches.
Shuttle will not take us beyond low earth orbit and the space station is also almost complete. Shuttles job is nearly done and safety is a huge concern to keep flying them.
A dual rocket system is the plan. One rocket to take up astronauts in the new Orion capsule (safer then shuttle as it has an escape rocket), and a larger cargo rocket to carry the advanced lunar lander to orbit where the Orion docks to it and back to the moon, and eventually Mars.
At least unless Obama effs things up.
Ugh, NASA’s “man rated” systems are just a beauracrat’s system of providing more make-work jobs to build legacy equipment.
If they had a simple reliability rating based on empirical; rather than predicted failure rates, the shuttle probably wouldn’t have been “man rated”.
Cant you just bolt on bigger rockets and tanks to the shuttle?
“Cant you just bolt on bigger rockets and tanks to the shuttle?”
The orbiter itself is extremely costly to fly as it ages, and obviously safety is a huge issue, it has killed 14 people.
The two new rockets will split the job and do them better, safer for astronauts, and more lift capability for large cargo.
I should also add, the orbiter itself is not designed for anything but low earth orbit, sending it to orbit the moon isn’t something it can do.
So? Put an orbiter that can in the payload bay of a shuttle.
TADA, problem solved...I think. Did I just make any sense?
The big issue with von Braun's ideas is that they were massive undertakings. He didn't want to do anything small, he wanted to send crews of 50 or more all at once.I've read his proposals, and don't remember that. But wouldn't that be right up Zubrin's alley? He wants to colonize Mars, after all.
“So? Put an orbiter that can in the payload bay of a shuttle.
TADA, problem solved...I think. Did I just make any sense?”
But your still using shuttle to get it to orbit, too expensive to try to keep the remaining orbiter fleet going (there are three left), and safety is still an issue.
If you look at the graphic someone posted, you will see there is thinking similar to what you suggesting.
Putting the new Orion crew capsule on top of a modified shuttle external tank and boosters.
The Space Shuttle system has several componants, the winged orbiter is the big problem.
They are trying to reuse designs what they can from the shuttle launch system, but there are other ideas to utilize it even more then is currently planned and that is what this thread was about.
I can’t believe they are down to only 3 left. THat’s pathetic.
Truthfully at the present flight rate, three is plenty.
Columbia would have been set for retirement soon anyways had she not been lost, she was the first shuttle and weighed too much for space station missions.
Challenger was replaced with Endeavour.
Shuttle is amazing, but the flight rate that was intended and projected back in the seventies when she was designed never came to be.
Cheap and frequent access to space is a mission sadly the shuttle failed to deliver on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.