First of all the focus needs to be on a manned mission to Mars first rather than going to the Moon first and then to Mars. This is true whether we are talking about India the United States Russia or China. If we focus on Mars first it will force the technology to be developed for a truly advanced propulsion system that can get us to Mars in days instead of months. Once this advanced propulsion system is developed affordable missions to the moon will be possible. We need to abandon this crawl before you walk philosophy.

It has been suggested that we already have 70 percent of the equipment existing off of the shelf for a sucessfull Mars mission. For example take a look at the space shuttle. It has been proposed that the existing space shuttle would make a good Mars lander. Since the shuttle has tiles it could withstand the heat of aerobraking manuervers as it enters the Martian atmosphere. A smooth surface on Mars could be chosen for the landing and the wheels would be modified for all terrain or even skis could be chosen. Of course the Martian atmosphere is only 1 percent of Earth's so I would imagine that the shuttle would be traveling at Mach 1 or 2 when it touches the ground however this tricky landing .

Also, in Aldrin's plan the shuttles will be required to transport the elements of his vehicle to orbit and assemble them.  In addition landing on Mars is only half of the problem, you also have get back to orbit.  Anyway as above a specialized Mars vehicle would have to be developed.  My of these quick and dirty plans don't envision landing but rather to focus one of the two moons. 

What I think is interesting is that a "save the Shuttle" movement is starting to form. 

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/03/lawmakers-bill-extend-shuttle-2015-hlv/

The advantage to this is that it works well with COSTs which is a lot cheaper than Ares I.  It is also compative with the Direct alternative for HLV.  It also allows the administration to "win" without actual destroying our space capability.   This not to say there aren't a lot of advantages to continuing with Constellation.  I guess one of the issues is just how much "vehicle life" is left in the three existing orbiters.  Weren't they designed for 100 flights each?

-- Edited by John on Thursday 4th of March 2010 12:32:53 PM

@googlenaut falling rock senario altitude of ~120km where meteoroids begin to ablate on mars entering the martian atmosphere at 30km/sec.

Phoenix spacecraft:

At 125 km above the surface Phoenix begin martian atmosphere entry.
After the lander had decelerated to Mach 1.7, a parachute would be deployed. Shortly thereafter the heat shield was jettisoned, the landing radar was activated, and the lander legs were extended. The lander continued through the Martian atmosphere until it comes within 1 km of the surface. At this point, the lander would release the parachute, throttle up its landing thrusters and decelerate to a soft landing. At an altitude of 12 m or a descent speed of at 2.4 m/s, the spacecraft begins a constant velocity descent. The landing engines are shut down off sensors located on the footpads of the lander detect contact with the surface.

Ballute Reentry Technology with racked mars orbiter crew vehicle on the clam half shell following a rough above scenario. Later landings could involve a shielded racked winged (wings used as building material) lander on skids or wheels lander.

-- Edited by NUKE ROCKY44 on Thursday 4th of March 2010 08:07:56 PM

Of course a lack of air pressure can cause an airplane to stall and to drop dead however planes have been known to land with broken wings as long as sufficient thrust is maintained so that the airplane can continue its vector trajectory for its glide slope landing. Remember Mars has less gravity to overcome than an Earth landing. Also conventional retro rockets like those used on a Lunar landing may not work on Mars for heavy payloads because air turbulence causes instabilities as experienced by Neil Armstrong when he almost got killed operating his Lunar lander on Earth. The space shuttle already has tiles that are good for aero braking manuevers on Mars and can be retrofited with tumbling wheel carriages so that if the wheel assembly hits a rock the whole carriage assembly will simply roll over the rock.

The question is why spend billions to develop a Mars excursion vehicle when we can modify the Space Shuttle for a fraction of the cost? Buzz Aldrin is caught up in the old Lunar lander paradigm which is fine for the Moon but may not work on planets with an atmosphere. Even if a Mars excursion vehicle is approved it will always be in danger of funding cuts. The Space Shuttle cannot be cut because it already exists. Of course a Mars exit vehicle will have to be developed and can be carried in the cargo bay of the Space Shuttle but this will probably be a more simple engineering problem. Also one advantage of the space shuttle is that they can be tethered together and thrown in a spin which generates artificial gravity. Of course a Mars space shuttle is not reusable but the shuttles are going to be junked out anyway so why not give them one last glorious mission?

I think you can view the Bimodal NTR gravity mars mission NASA/Glenn research center DVD this senario is the best I will find out if it's available online.

Or I'll post DVD on youtube after I get clearance from NASA Glenn.

Bruce:  per your post on spacepolitics:

Cmon whats the hold up ! Shuttle fly 4-5 more times done, over with stick a fork in it.

The issue with Shuttle extension at this point is that this is the only way to keep a manned space capability for the U.S. for the next few years.  After the shuttle retires at the end of the 2010 it will be 2015 at the earliest for us to get back into space.  The Augustine Commission estimates that Ares I/Orion won't be flying until 2017.  COTS might beat it by flying in 2016...I doubt it.  The Delta IV/Orion options might just make 2015 but that would mean (most likely) giving up on the Ares I. 

So in this context extending the Shuttle isn't just a pro-Shuttle position.  If is a keep in space position and a having  negotiating leverage with the Russians to keep the cost down on Soyuz flights.  Also, if Ares I goes away the continued Shuttle flights would keep the SRBs in production for use with an Ares V-lite HLV or the Direct/Jupiter HLVs (which would also need the tank).  It also fits in with the Bolden/Garvin expanded COTS that doens't really cost much.  So this is a very real and resonable option.

The choice is extended Shuttle or Ares I.  We can't do both under the current budget.  With extend Shuttle we would either have to eventually retire it in order to fund HLV development or have a large budget.  This would be in the 2016 time frame so either would potentially be possible at that time.   With Ares I we have to accept a five year gap in U.S. flights (taking the mean time between NASA and Augustine).  A hard choice.

-- Edited by John on Wednesday 10th of March 2010 06:08:07 AM

It seems that we are having some developments on the Constellation cancellation. 
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/03/orion-removed-nasa-control-mod-positioning-commercial/

It seems like Constellation itself is in free fall.  Work is continuing but without any urgency.  So one of the main complains against it: schedule, isn't getting any better.  But, on the positive side it seems like NASA has turned Orion over to Lockheed Martin to manage as they see fit in the hopes that they will turn it into a commercial vehicle.  The assumption is that it will be launched with an EELV which is already a commercial operation of the ULA.

Assuming Lockheed Martin goes for it there will be a U.S. LEO crew space capability.  If SpaceX and the others are successful all the better.  It seems to me like Ares I and hence Ares V is dead.  I'm not saying this is a good choice but it looks bad it NASA is just "treading water" with their FY 2010 effort.

The issue of the Shuttle is still open given the jobs and the potential to use Shuttle derived components in the planned HLV, i.e. the SRBs and possibly the tanks.  The trouble is a certain two year gap.  I have heard that Orion might be able to fly as early as 2013 if launched by an EELV.

-- Edited by John on Saturday 13th of March 2010 01:38:57 AM

It looks pretty stuck to me.  The problem is that the opposition hasn't selected a single alternative.  Some want to extend the Shuttle, some want to continue with Ares, and some want change to DIRECT.  Plus it seems that NASA is now dragging their feet under administation "leadership".  

Dr. Bruno Stanek put in a vigorous defense of the Ares on last Sundays Space Show.  http://www.thespaceshow.com/  He didn't really bite on my Earth to LEO concept.  But, he was clearly focused on the Ares.

Yes that was me on the space show.   The post that I made (last June) that you are recalling is this one
http://www.activeboard.com/forum.spark?aBID=33011&p=3&topicID=28785456.

I was considering this issue if our Space Shuttle was the wrong course back in the early 1970s what could/should we have done instead with in the technological and political realities of that period.  I was assuming reusable SRBs like the Shuttles but that the LH2/LOX stage would be expendable. 

The current idea is an attempt to reduce the cost per pound further by making the whole booster resuable.  The choice between a liquid first stage and SRBs would depend on a lot of technical factors.  Can liquid fueled engines and turbo pumps be made reliable enough for multple flights with out complete rebuilding?  If so the liquids would shorten turn around time.  If not the SRBs and expendable second stage might win the trade study (but if so the cost per pound would be higher).

It does look like affordable techiques are at hand to allow intact return of first and second stages of a booster.  The orbiter free from main engines would be much faster to turn around than the existing shuttle.  What is also good is that the same rocket and launch facilities can also be used to orbit much heavier payloads in an unmanned mode.  It can also be used to launch a nuclear rocket upper stage too! 

Another thought that I had today is this system is very compatible with the DIRECT Jupiter 130 which is based on Shuttle components (SRBs, tanks, and maybe engines).  In my concepts above I did n't consider the fact that we already have some of key components.  Since we do have the ATK's SRBs, we could save development time and cost by using them.

Yeah, that about it.   I think this is Obama's way to kill the space program just like his so-called health reform is a way to kill private health insurance.  You eliminate everything that works and then bring in these guys (with the exception of ULA) and watch them fail.  SpaceX has a 40% launch success rate!  That make the Shuttle look very good.

The only "acceptable" out come I see is LMT develops an Orion-minus (probably a scaled back service module) and launch it on a Delta  IV heavy version.  That should provide an workable LEO capability.  NASA according to my post above seems to have transfered control of Orion back to Denver.




-- Edited by John on Thursday 18th of March 2010 04:36:23 AM

Oops!!!

I think I've been censured (filtered) from the Space Politics (wordpress) blog my (red) comments don't appear any more.

I've already been kicked out of NASA Watch they called me a Troll and they would never again post any of my comments.

Yes, yet again the NS site keeps dialog open to all. Never have I filtered comments-never.

 

below comments made to:

Defending Constellation via the FAA

March 19, 2010 at 6:45 am · Filed under Congress, NASA

...don't support the way "Serious Rocket Backbone" at lift-off Thiokol+ATK was treated it was a harbinger of things to come with NASA/Dot Space. Morphing shuttle to C-A-O would not be easy under economic stress. Best to take incremental steps shuttle to C+O for LEO/ISS hold there till economic conditions improve. Then develop Ares HLV then 'super charge' the space program with (in 2016) nukes. 
ATK is a GREAT company that has worked hard to bring SRB's up to indispensable rocket power at the launch pad it's a shame some people are intent on trashing their work. Washington listens to some crazy people with deep pockets.

Again, as a small gov't civil libertarian I know markets are better but markets and governance function best when both apply the right balance.

To fuse NASA helter skelter into Dot Space is not the best plan.

 
support the SIX PRO NASA SENATORS !!!

Sierra Nevada:

Dream Chaser (like Dynasoar concept an alternative to DIRECT concept
<a href="http://www.astronautix.com/craft/dynasoar.htm"</a> ) but not too keen on this hybrid propulsion system.

<a href="http://www.spacedev.com/spacedev_advanced_systems.php" title="Sierra Nevada"></a>

<strong>Show where this EELV (throw away) stack system is cost effective, operational and can effectively scale up from SS1 to capacity shown ?</strong>

SpaceDevs Dream Chaser - Hybrid Propulsion

-Based on our proven hybrid rocket propulsion technology
-Over 10 years of development
-Over 300 firings
-Based on motors designed for SpaceShipOne (SS1)
-Human flight rated motors
-Hybrid propellants are safe, non-toxic, storable & human flight tested
-Propellants: nitrous oxide (N20) & rubber (HTBP)
-Common Space Vehicle Hybrid Propulsion Modules (SVPMs)
-Modular construction simplifies production and handling
-Throttleable & restartable
-Thrust vectoring control (TVC) by N2O injection; no nozzle gimbals
-Reaction Control System (RCS) uses N2O

SPACE X:
<strong>Like the propulsion system but is it rugged enough robust for recovery and turnaround deployment ? More sport car than space locomotive</strong>

The main engine, called Merlin 1C, was developed internally at SpaceX, drawing upon a long heritage of space proven engines. The pintle style injector at the heart of Merlin 1C was first used in the Apollo Moon program for the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) landing engine, one of the most critical phases of the mission.

Propellant is fed via a single shaft, dual impeller turbo-pump operating on a gas generator cycle. High pressure kerosene fuel flows through the walls of the combustion chamber and exhaust nozzle before being injected into the combustions chamber. This provides significant cooling, permitting the engine to operate at a higher level of performance. The turbo-pump also provides the high pressure kerosene for the hydraulic actuators, eliminating the need for a separate hydraulic power system. Additionally, actuating the turbine exhaust nozzle provides roll control during flight.

Combining these three functions into one device, and verifying its operation before the vehicle is allowed to lift off, provides significant improvement in system-level reliability.

Sea Level Thrust : 512 kN (115,000 lbf) 
Vacuum Thrust: 569 kN (128,000 lbf) 
Sea Level Isp:  275s
Vacuum Isp:  304s

With a vacuum specific impulse of 304s, Merlin 1C is the highest performance gas generator cycle kerosene engine ever built, exceeding the Boeing Delta II main engine, the Lockheed Atlas II main engine and on par with the Saturn V F-1.
<a href="http://www.spacex.com/falcon9_heavy.php" title="SpaceX"></a>

Orbital Sciences Corp.
<strong>Yawn... another robotica delivery system. Need to be a midget to fit this system for HSF.</a>

Medium class space launch vehicle utilizes proven systems from Pegasus, Taurus, and Minotaur product lines Rocket incorporates both solid and liquid stages designed to achieve a 98% or greater launch reliability.

<a href="http://www.orbital.com/SpaceLaunch/TaurusII/"</a>

Paragon Space Development: <strong>This is great but this won't happen unless it's delivered, deployed and working on-site. Same for the Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) which again needs to be delivered, deployed, powered and working on site reliably.</strong>
 
Space life support systems developer
<a href="http://www.paragonsdc.com/paragon_projects_09.php"</a>

Boeing/Bigelow Partnership: <strong>Ok, but beach balls spring leaks, shade-sun-shade-sun hope it holds up in space for long periods. Didn't MiR have pressure problems and that was a rigid habitat. How many inflatable stadium roofs have changed to ridged roofs. Do inflatables structures have long life spans ?? replacement/repair costs. Besides the market is on soil firma, EARTH-MOON-ASTEROID-MARS etc.</strong> 

Space Habitiat Developer
<a href="http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/news/"</a>

Blue Origin:
<strong>Aerospike engines tech. button type DCXA maybe linear old X-33 ? Rather ambitious look what happened to those programs-please !!</strong>

Program Overview:
Blue Origin is developing New Shepard, a rocket-propelled vehicle designed to routinely fly multiple astronauts into suborbital space at competitive prices. In addition to providing the public with opportunities to experience spaceflight, New Shepard will also provide frequent opportunities for researchers to fly experiments into space and a microgravity environment.

Mission
The New Shepard vehicle will consist of a pressurized Crew Capsule (CC) carrying experiments and astronauts atop a reliable Propulsion Module (PM). Flights will take place from Blue Origin's own launch site, which is already operating in West Texas. New Shepard will take-off vertically and accelerate for approximately two and a half minutes before shutting off its rocket engines and coasting into space. The vehicle will carry rocket motors enabling the Crew Capsule to escape from the PM in the event of a serious anomaly during launch. In space, the Crew Capsule will separate from the PM and the two will reenter and land separately for re-use. The Crew Capsule will land softly under a parachute at the launch site. Astronauts and experiments will experience no more than 6 g acceleration into their seats and a 1.5 g lateral acceleration during a typical flight. High-quality microgravity environments (<10-3 g) will be achieved for durations of 3 or more minutes, depending on the mission trajectory.

<a href="http://www.blueorigin.com/nsresearch.html"</a>

United Launch Alliance:
<strong>Good solid company for throw away EELV Launch Vehicles Atlas V-Delta IV-Delta II. This is a military SAT delivery system capability going commercial more robotica delivery not HSF. ULA will survive but how far they venture into HSF even with gov't money remains to be seen ?</strong>

Formed in December 2006, United Launch Alliance (ULA) is a 50-50 joint venture owned by Lockheed Martin and The Boeing Company.  ULA brings together two of the launch industrys most experienced and successful teams Atlas and Delta to provide reliable, cost-efficient space launch services for the U.S. government.  U.S. government launch customers include the Department of Defense, NASA, the National Reconnaissance Office and other organizations.

Atlas and Delta expendable launch vehicles have supported Americas presence in space for more than 50 years, carrying a variety of payloads including weather, telecommunications and national security satellites that protect and improve life on Earth, as well as deep space and interplanetary exploration missions that further our knowledge of the universe.

With three families of launch vehicles Atlas V, Delta II, and Delta IV ULA continues the tradition of supporting strategic U.S. space initiatives with advanced robust launch solutions to provide assured access to space and 100 percent mission success.

<a href="http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/pages/About_Overview.shtml"</a>

-- Edited by NUKE ROCKY44 on Saturday 20th of March 2010 09:45:57 PM

The reason why you get banned is simply because you advocate using nuclear power in space. I remember during the 1970's the political emphasis from the environmental community seemed to be on nuclear safety because nuclear shutdown was a hard sell. However after Three Mile Island the mantra was "No Nukes" and even the concept of nuclear safety became taboo. Even my coworkers at the National Ignition Facility do not let me talk about nuclear power in space because they feel so ashamed that they had to compromise their principles in order to earn a living.

I joined a film makers forum and they wanted to ban me when I suggested that the movies 2001 and Avatar used nuclear power to propel the spaceships. Finally a moderator stepped in who filmed "The Astronaut Farmer" and told the members that it was indeed true that an Orion drive was proposed for the movie "2001" and that I could not be censored unless I was off topic.

The fact is that the nuclear genie is already out of the bottle and even if I were totally opposed to nuclear power we still need those fourth generation nuclear power plants in order to get rid of the nuclear waste. And if it is true that runaway global warming is going to make this Earth into a Venus inferno then nuclear power is the only pragmatic solution even if it is a last resort.

Fanatacism is way too light of a term. One of the founders of the anti-nuclear movement Dr. Helen Caldicot initially published a book called nuclear madness. However she must have found this terminology to light and she later denounced all nuclear power engineers as Satanists. Now if a person has to stoop that low and abandon all logic, reason and freedom of speech in order to keep her environmentalist followers in line then she is no different than a cult leader and should be treated as such rather than the well respected scientist and counsel to the President of the United States that she claims on her resume.

However don't get me wrong because I think people like Ralph Nader actually saved my life because I survived a car crash thanks to the Nader crash bar installed in my car door. But does that mean that I am going to stop driving to work in order to feed my family just because cars are unsafe at any speed? Ralph Nader may have saved my life but he does not pay my bills.