New Moon: Planning the Return to Space

New York Times ^ | January 20, 2004 | KENNETH CHANG

[presidio9]

[hopespringseternal]

The question no one is really answering is how to get the astronauts into space. Use Russian or French hardware? A little absurd given that this is a national security exercise.

Man rate an expendable? Most likely. But very expensive. By the time an existing expendable is man-rated, it may cost a sizable fraction of the shuttle launch.

I see the need to go, but our shortsightedness means we have to walk.

[Frank_Discussion]

Re: Zubrin's comments:

""The right way to do Mars is to design a coherent set of hardware that can do Mars," he said. Along the way, a Moon mission employing some of the Mars equipment might be a worthwhile test."

Really? Wow, Bobby, I think that's the EXACT idea. What an ego-blinded idiot - I'm surprised he doesn't run into walls.

"The key would be developing a rocket with the lifting power of the Saturn 5, either a cargo version of the shuttle or a larger version of the Delta 6 or Atlas 5."

Delta 6? Does he know something I don't know. Delta 4 has let to launch, even.

[hopespringseternal]

ping

[CasearianDaoist]

No there have been Delta Four launches = NSA birds I think. I do not think that we need a bigger booster. Just need to man rate the Delta $

[mvpel]

The tasks for a Mars mission are more challenging. A robotic factory would be sent ahead to make fuel for the astronauts' return trip. Water would have to be efficiently recycled for two and a half years.

Actually, no - water is a byproduct of the fuel production process, the Sabatier reaction:
Mars In Situ Resource Utilization

[Frank_Discussion]

So right you are. There still isn't a Delta 6, though.

Man-Rating is expensive, but that's what I expect for the CEV in the short run, some sort of Saturn variant in the medium run, Fully reusable in the long run.

[So Cal Rocket]

Delta IV Heavy:

First flight is this year. Can lift 50,000lbs to LEO - a real heavy lift capability. Manrating would be expensive, but cheaper than a new design.

Don't invest the money in developing new big dumb boosters... spend it on nuclear engines for the crew exploration vehicle.

[Frank_Discussion]

So many journalists miss this - water is by-product of many, if not most, hydrocarbon reactions. The more hydrocarbons we make (on Moon or Mars) the more water we have. The more water we have, the more oxygen we have, if we need it.

Once we get out into space and force ourself to stay, the easier it will turn out to be to get the necessities.

[Frank_Discussion]

I think that's where my "it hasn't launched yet" thinking came from.

[B-Chan]

My speculation regarding the CEV. (Open the above image in a new wndow to see it full-size.)

[CasearianDaoist]

No I did not mean to say there was a Delta 6. Some of the USAF plans for future EELVs may in fact be more powerful that the 4s but that is still under wraps. There are also some new lifter engine designs going on that may change the game a little (redefine what "heavy" means) but that is further out in time.

For large cargo - especially cargo the has large fareable dimension requirements - they may take a shuttle/fuel tank approach but it will be a wingless mostly dumb module.

What they really need to do is establish space-based, in orbit fabrication if not outright manufacturing and construction, and open that infrastructure up to commercial sat vendors. We would see a whole new generation of architectures if the designs did not have to be lifted into orbit and they could be service from space. I think that they were mum about this for some political reasons as some of these new architectures do not rely on solar power (if you know what I mean.)

Me myself, favor the approach where they are going (I think that it is derived from USAF thinking.) Lots of mid-sized EELVs, keep it cheap and dependable and have lots of launches. Incremetally improve things.

I like what I see with emerging smaller firm solutions like the FALCON.

I think that Bush actually got it right but it is seems to be a hard sell because the solution has such a comprehensive and long term vision to it. I sure hope they can bring it off.

[Frank_Discussion]

"No I did not mean to say there was a Delta 6."

I did not mean to imply that you did, and sorry in advance for any offense.

"We would see a whole new generation of architectures if the designs did not have to be lifted into orbit and they could be service from space. I think that they were mum about this for some political reasons as some of these new architectures do not rely on solar power"

Exactly. That's why the Apollo LEM looked the way it did - why streamline?

"(if you know what I mean.)"

Yes, I do. :-)

"I think that Bush actually got it right but it is seems to be a hard sell because the solution has such a comprehensive and long term vision to it. I sure hope they can bring it off."

And that comprehensive nature is what is throwing people like Zubrin. They don't understand that the CEV starts as a very simple "head unit", then proceeds to a set of specialized add ons for different missions. This achieves multi-mission scope for the CEV system without emulating the compromising approach of Shuttle. Also, it will have support modules that will be Mars-specific in nature.

[CasearianDaoist]

Yep, with you all the way. Let us hope it happens.

[narby]

It's really sad that they're going back to the future with Apollo style throw away hardware. Designed, I'm sure, to guarantee NASA will be the only US pathway to space.

There was a great design concept I saw a couple of years ago. A winged craft, looking very much like the old British Vulcan bomber, that had turbojet engines and one off-the-shelf russian rocket engine.

The concept was to take off with LOX and a bit of JP4 for the turbojets. Hit a tanker and top off with JP4 (kerosene), light the rocket and fly a sub-orbital mission around 60 miles high and mach 10.

For safety, you could build a "crew escape module", like the FB-111 has.

At the apogee, it opens hatches in the top of the vehicle, and kicks out an upper stage that goes on into orbit. That's the only "throw away" part of it.

Granted, you still need a bit of heavy lift for major components of big projects (man rating not necessary). But this thing you could fly litterally every day, boosting components and supplies for bigger missions.

But it would obviously also be able to be copied, or bought outright, by folks like the Saudi's, or whomever. Or even some private individuals. And THEN where would NASA be? Out of a job? Can't have that.

[Centurion2000]

bump

[RightWhale]

Zubrin has done his job. His lobbying, among others, has renewed the Mars goal. If he continues to lobby for specific hardware and specific budgets and schedule, he will be talking to himself. Take a bow, Dr Zubrin, you've done it!

[Frank_Discussion]

I don't know that CEV is an expendable, though the initial launcher will be. The CEV and it's system of modules will be reusable from the get-go, if I understand it correctly.

Not that I find your idea a bad one, it's just another way to get the job done.

[Frank_Discussion]

THAT is a worthy and respectful take on the issue.

I happen to think the guy is a genius in many ways, but his ego is beginning to push his mouth to utter more than he should.

[Frank_Discussion]

I've been meaning to tell you: I think your chart is brilliant. I don't know how close it is to the actual scenario, but it seems very well reasoned to me. Kudos!