[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.

[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

[B-Chan]

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

[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.

[Captain Rhino]

The following is a link to the RSC Enegia website in Russia that details the company's concept for the vehicle and the mission:

http://www.energia.ru/english/energia/mars/concept.html

Energia, of course, builds the Energia rocket booster. Judging from the detail at the website, they have been working on the project for some time.