NASA Advised to Revamp Mars Plans

Space.com on Yahoo ^ | 7/6/06 | Leonard Davis

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

What's an SSTO vehicle?

[King Prout]

there are problems with "sending humans where we find deficiencies in the robotic explorations" which only incremental fleet-building can resolve.

flexibility, speed, reliability, safety, and redundancy.

all of the above require the creation of a fleet of several/many space-only "engines-with-cargo-hooks" ferries, even for lunar exploitation.

bear in mind: such ferries would never land, ever. their sole design function would be to move stuff from Earth orbit to lunar orbit and back, and/or to move stuff between Earth orbits, and to provide standing SAR vehicles for the inevitable mishaps.

[King Prout]

SSTO = single-stage-to-orbit

[Fitzcarraldo]

Unmanned spacecraft and AI will outpace manned efforts over the next 50 years. Manned spaceflight will remain cost-prohibitive until factories in space are established that utilize manufacturing techniques based on bootstrapped nanotechnology factory methods.

[Fitzcarraldo]

First came the Jules Verne paradigm (top-hatted astronauts in cannon shells with with glass-plate cameras, but no radio or electronics), then came the von Braun paradigm (V-2 based space armadas from the Earth's surface). We need to enter the nanotechnology-based space factory paradigm before manned expansion into deep space can economically proceed.

[MikeD]

That's correct. Congress decides what NASA is to do, and year by year. Two years of continuity is achievable, four is barely possible, and six is about the limit. Small, long duration programs such as robot ships to outer planets may survive unnoticed from inception to launch, and then to at least primary goals.

I was in Belgium a few months back to discuss a possible collaboration on an instrument for an upcoming NASA mission. The Belgians were aghast that we did not receive full funding for the program at the start, but had to wait for each year's allotment.

I've also been on sounding rocket programs where NASA decided to cut $50K from the budget every year. Doesn't sound like much, but when the total three-year budget is $500K, that's quite a bit of cost you have to eat...

[King Prout]

I'm not even considering "deep space"
I'm interested in exploiting NEAR space, in a pragmatic and systemmatic manner.

[Phsstpok]

something like, oh... build a fleet of earth-to-moon ferrys/taxis... get a moon-base up and running... make that moon-base dedicated to cranking out more ships for longer-range manned EXPLOITATION...

THEN talk about going to Mars, in STYLE and in FORCE.

ummmmm.... with the exception of not waiting till after they're finished on the Moon to start talking about going to Mars, you've pretty much described the current plan.  Oh, and building vehicles at the bottom of a gravity well, even a relatively small one like the Moons, is right out.  Now, a materials factory for refining raw materials to be hurled up to a manufacturing and assembly facility, probably at one of the Lagrange points, is more like it.

My preference is to use the Moon as a relatively safe place to practice and refine the tools and techniques needed for sustained habitation.  On the Moon you have a hope of rescue in days or weeks, not months, if something goes wrong.  If you wait till you get to Mars to find out a design doesn't work you're toast.  I'd work on setting up a Lunar Cycler system as opposed to a "space taxi."  You build them as hotels and make money on them while they orbit and on every other trip they drop off and pick up stuff at the Moon.  Buzz Aldrin's been pushing this idea for some time and he's got some serious money (folks like Bezos and Branson) interested.  He's also got some major engineering talent working with him. 

I'd like us to postpone Mars in favor of exploring and exploiting the asteroids.  Start with one of the Apollo or Aten asteroids to prove what can be done and, particularly to check to see if you can find one that will be commercially valuable, say one largely made of nickel iron.  Then refine it in orbit for your materials for building larger exploration vehicles.

And if anyone gives you grief you just drop one on them from orbit. 

A little one. 

Going very fast. 

[Phsstpok]

we need to concentrate on developing (AND COMPLETE IT THIS TIME!) a reliable SSTO vehicle

You mean like this one? 

 

Mr Bezos has announced he's building one based on this test model.  Yes, it crashed on landing (when one of it's retractable landing gear did just that... when it wasn't supposed to).  But the sucker works.

Delta Clipper, anyone? 

And Rutan's Transformational Space Corp. is a finalist in the running to get the contract to build and operate a replacement for the Shuttle to send "crew and cargo to the International Space Station."  It would be a fairly conventional rocket carried up to a launch altitude much like Space Ship One was under a ferry vehicle, then dropped and allowed to launch vertically.  They've got a great PDF of the early proposal with some great material.

This is a drop test of a scale model of the rocket being dropped from and existing ferry vehicle.

The full size ferry will be much larger, as will the rocket, and it is supposed to carry 6 to 12 people and/or cargo of equal mass.  One alternative for the ferry is to take a 747 and give it really tall landing gear.  Branson is also involved in this venture and he's apparently talking about setting up the 747 with an observation are and big windows.  After they drop the rocket the 747 would turn and orbit to give a view of the launch.

Woohoo!!

[AntiGuv]

I know we aren't even close to ready for terraforming Mars. Heck, we can't even terraform Earth all that well! All I'm saying really is that terraforming should be the ultimate goal, and BTW I think Venus will ultimately be far easier to terraform than would be Mars.

[hopespringseternal]

IMHO we need a reliable, cheaper way to orbit, and that means man-in-the-can.

"Man-in-the-can" is fine, its the expendable rocket that isn't. It is more "begging the question" than solution.

Reusability is more expensive and partly mythical.

There is nothing mythical about reusability unless you are talking about the way NASA defines and implements reusability. And if your reusability plan is more expensive than your expendable plan, you've missed the point.

We (NASA) have never progressed beyond the artillery mindset of space travel. And the shuttle is little more than reusable artillery -- the ultimate oxymoron.

[driftdiver]

"BTW I think Venus will ultimately be far easier to terraform than would be Mars."

Could be and its fun to think about. But can you imagine the environmental impact study that will be required for some of this?

[King Prout]

I don't advocate building the entire ship as a unit on the ground and then launching it - rather, build it in sections, lob them into orbit, bolt them together, fuel and provision it, and then put into service.

something far smaller, lighter, and less expensive than the ISS. with engines. and with external hardpoints for mounting mission packages.

the firs such craft could be done in a handful of heavy lif launches from Earth, I would think.

[Fitzcarraldo]

in a pragmatic and systematic manner

Is current manned space exploration even remotely "pragmatic", in the economic sense?

I believe we will have a greatly expanded manned presence in space, but not under the current paradigm.

[Fitzcarraldo]

We (NASA) have never progressed beyond the artillery mindset of space travel. And the shuttle is little more than reusable artillery -- the ultimate oxymoron.

Good point - you imply we are still trapped in not only the von Braun paradigm, but the Jules Verne paradism of space exploration also.

For the cost of two shuttles ($1 billion) we might break free and enter the nanotech space paradigm.

[Fitzcarraldo]

know we aren't even close to ready for terraforming Mars. Heck, we can't even terraform Earth all that well! All I'm saying really is that terraforming should be the ultimate goal, and BTW I think Venus will ultimately be far easier to terraform than would be Mars.

The means to terraform Venus and Mars using nanotechnology and bootstrapping factory systems is the essence of the nanotech space paradigm.

Space systems to carry man to the stars will be built in space by automated and self-replicating systems. Any other method is a waste of money and technology.

[Fitzcarraldo]

For the cost of two shuttles ($1 billion)

I mean two shuttle launches.

[King Prout]

does the current space program at all resemble what I advocate?
no.

[Fitzcarraldo]

I'm interested in exploiting NEAR space, in a pragmatic and systemmatic manner.

Viable tools for space exploitation have not even been invented yet.

[SunkenCiv]

"Man-in-the-can" is fine, its the expendable rocket that isn't. It is more "begging the question" than solution.

The expendible rocket is going to cost a fraction of the cost of a Shuttle launch, and will not be stuck in LEO, so yes it is.

There is nothing mythical about reusability unless you are talking about the way NASA defines and implements reusability. And if your reusability plan is more expensive than your expendable plan, you've missed the point.

I have not "missed the point". Reusability is supposed to reduce cost, but it doesn't, because the need for multiple stages (the SRBs being the equivalent of a first stage) increases complexity, and the one-size-fits-all STS isn't an appropriate vehicle for every job. Shuttle derived vehicles were never developed; had they been, there would have been a heavy lift capability (based on the SRBs) for large payloads that didn't need a crew. The orbiter wound up too large; a small reentry vehicle (even a miniature version of the shuttle) for missions where a crew or crew retrieval from orbit was needed would have been appropriate.

Reusability is analogous to the SSTO idea. An SSTO could be built with a sufficient supply of unobtainium. If it could be built, it would still increase the cost per pound to orbit -- and cost reduction (through reusability) is one reason SSTO is touted.

Reusability is mythical. New parts are made to replace stuff that is only good for a handful of launches (or one launch). Reprocessing costs for a launch runs to $500 million (a half billion $) and the 30 year old technology is obsolescent. The engines being developed for the new booster will cost less than the liquid fueled SSMEs, will be more powerful, and will not be retrieved from the drink.