Posted on 09/01/2014 1:34:40 PM PDT by lbryce
Back to the Future! :’)
Wernher von Braun’s 1950s plan to get humanity to Mars
http://www.dvice.com/archives/2012/08/wernher_von_bra.php
Wernher von Braun’s Martian Chronicles
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/wernher-von-brauns-martian-chronicles-9845747/?no-ist
Von Braun Mars Expedition - 1952
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/vonn1952.htm
Von Braun Mars Expedition - 1969
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/vonn1969.htm
Obama checked your couch cushions for change.
/johnny
No, where did you see that it does?
The liquid fueling will be hydrogen and oxygen.
The SRBs don’t use liquid fuel.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/664158main_sls_fs_master.pdf
No, in fact, that is not correct. The successor to the STS was in development, but a bit underfunded, and a bit behind schedule, so the anti-American Party of the Single Party State led by Zero himself deep-sixed it.
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/sls0.html
> With NASA’s limited funding spread over an array of programs, the requirement of sending hundreds of millions of NASA dollars to Roscosmos – to purchase seats on the Russian Soyuz, the only means of launching NASA astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS) – is less than ideal.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/08/cctcapnasa-wont-abandon-commercial-crew-loser/
[of course, the $500 million launches/recycles of the Space Shuttle worked out to $71+ million per astronaut...]
NASA is building the largest rocket of all time for a 2018 launch
http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/1/6093189/nasa-is-building-the-largest-rocket-of-all-time-for-a-2018-launch
Truthfully, an Earth ground to Mars ground and back mission is a lot harder in a single vehicle.
A better means is to first assemble a “planetary shuttle” in space, basically a large engine and fuel tank which is filled in orbit. Then, when the Mars destined spaceship gets into Earth orbit, it is refilled with fuel, but then attached to the shuttle which will take it to Mars orbit and back. The shuttle itself never lands.
It would take perhaps 8 missions to get the orbital setup arranged. Four or five of the missions would take large modular parts of the shuttle and its fuel into orbit, where they would be assembled. The last two would be to take a load of fuel up, and then the Mars ship.
Top off the Mars ship, attach it to the shuttle, and away it goes.
Importantly, the first Mars mission should not have humans, but robots on board. Specifically tunneling robots that would burrow into a cliff face to prepare a tunnel habitat for the eventual arrival of the astronauts.
Having a place to stay when they arrive would mean the astronauts could carry a lot more water, food, fuel and equipment. And when they left, they would have improved the site so that the mission after that can build on their success.
If they are not conducting engine static firings and test launches, about oh, now... They probably are not going to make their launch target date.
http://spaceref.com/sls/using-jedi-mind-tricks-to-sell-nasas-next-big-rocket.html
Yawn
Rebaseline, rebudget, recompete...
See ya in a decade, won’t fly until then...if at all
While I tacitly agree, who truly deserves the blame for us not having a space vehicle right now?
You could say Bill Clinton and most certainly George Bush.
Planning for something to have been ready to replace the Space Shuttle should have been planned and going strong by the end of the Bush administration.
Obama didn’t screw us on this one. Granted he dragged his feet too, but if there was every a thing to blame Bush for, perhaps Bill Clinton too, this was it.
Remember, Kennedy’s big push to the moon took place on May 25, 1961. It took eight years and two months for us to land on the moon.
Stay out of the Bushes! LOL
Will SpaceX Super Rocket Kill NASA’s ‘Rocket to Nowhere’? (Op-Ed)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3124070/posts
Saturn V Launch Slow Motion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HcnmthntUo
Launch of Apollo 4 first Saturn V as seen LIVE on CBS w/ Walter Cronkite
[Cronkite later said the paneling fell off the walls, the windows appeared to be ready to shatter, etc; CBS built a concrete pillbox for subsequent launches]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uoVfZpx5dY
and for my fellow fringers:
In the Shadow of the Moon - extra footage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUu6LZXE-uc;t=2506
Yes, I’ve read in the posts somewhere the rocket does in fact exist within the brainy folds of some NASA engineer’s imagination.
I'd prefer multiple private companies competing for the market, and for NASA to stay out.
Last I heard, the total R&D will be $11 billion.
For that we get a 20% improvement in thrust over the Saturn V, which was designed 50 years ago.
Maybe the new one can handle a flush toilet?
I was afraid of that.
I'm going to go find a version of 'Paper Moon' on Youtube.
/johnny
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gapCK5_rMuY
Toe tapping music...
/johnny
Here’s what I’m looking at:
“[George H.]...asked his vice president, Dan Quayle, to prepare a major NEW space initiative. Bush announced what became known as the Space Exploration Initiative in a speech on July 20, 1989”
“There were SEVERAL unsuccessful initiatives during the Clinton administration to develop a replacement for the space shuttle as a way of carrying humans and cargo into space. Most notable was the X-33 single-stage-to-orbit program, which pushed the limits of technological readiness and ultimately was canceled without a test flight.” http://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/10presidents.html
“When President Bush established his NEW space exploration policy to return humans to the moon” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_program#President_Bush
I read those passages to mean that George H. Bush, Clinton and George W. Bush [and Obama as you’ve pointed out] all changed the goal/direction/focus of the Space Program.
A new goal/direction/focus will, at the minimum, require a reevaluation of the proposed hardware, or, more likely, require new hardware.
In my experience, engineering re-evaluation slows (stops?) current engineering efforts as management and senior engineers now have more on their plate.
And that, I think, is my point: Administrations changing the direction of the Space Program prevented the STS follow on.
Put another way: it took 5 years from approval to first flight of the STS. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_program]. If the follow on had been approved and funded during any of the previous Administrations, Obama couldn’t have cancelled it. A lifter follow on wasn’t developed because priorities kept changing.
Senate Boosts NASA Budget, But at What Cost?
By Phil Plait
As I wrote earlier in June, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill for NASA’s funding, restoring quite a bit of money bizarrely taken out by the White House.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/06/18/nasa_funding_new_senate_bill_will_keep_us_relying_on_russians_for_rides.html
> Under a $1.9 billion CRS contract with NASA, Orbital will use Antares and Cygnus to deliver up to 44,000 pounds (20,000 kilograms) of cargo to the ISS over eight missions, including the mission currently underway, through late 2016. For these missions, NASA will manifest a variety of essential items based on ISS program needs, including food, clothing, crew supplies, spare parts and equipment, and scientific experiments.
https://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/MissionUpdates/Orb-2/
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.