Mars One - Unethical?

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by Captain Kathryn, Aug 6, 2013.

  1. publiusr

    publiusr Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    I don't know about there no purpose flying around the moon.I want something bsides LEO laps myself--and the rad threat has been overhyped.

    There was no market for any LVs before an oversized ICBM called R-7 began the space race--and R-7 was the SLS of its day. A rocket no one "wanted" (except engineers who built it) that was "too big."

    Well we saw what happened after that. Depots are going to be tricky. This is why I support HLLVs. My hope was that CZ-9 would launch from China, and that a Russian HLLV would also come along.

    Now let's say that all three nations only launched a single 100 ton to LEO vehicle every year. But if they launch all on the same day, and use block II SLS equivalents--that's 300-450 tons to LEO in one day!

    A couple of connections, and you are off to Mars with minimum boil-off. If each nation launches two within a few days of each other--all the better.

    Do only 20 tons at a time, and you are going to hemorrhage LH2. Remember LDEF? That is proof that things do wear in space. The longer a depot stays in orbit, the more likely things can wear out. Lubrican'ts are tough to come by in a vacuum.

    The reason I like HLLVs--however much they cost and whatever the flaws--is that they allow large shrouds, and high volumes. By linking three 100 ton fuel fat mega-modules as quickly as possible, you can stage all that wet mass off as thrust and exchange fuel--which can leak--for momentum (inertia) which can't leak.

    Now there is a movemonet away from storable fuels, like hypergolics, following the satellite shootdown, and I don't think they would allow Musk to amass hundreds of tons of hypergols. If that depot were to get holed and start spewing--you have a big hazard, and there would be no way to keep it from spinning.

    What HLLVs allow is a more starightforward mission, with less of a Rube Goldberg element. That is why aerospace experts favor them--and Congress actually listened. But the one time that Congress actually did the right thing engineering wise, now they get bashed--for supporting SLS. The type to bash Congress for interfering in space was over VentureStar's support. Talk about a costly boondoggle!

    When I moved, I used as big a U-haul as I could drive. I didn't try five hundred trips with a radio flyer--ever if it would have been "cheaper."
     
  2. sojourner

    sojourner Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Location:
    A Long Time Ago...
    You still don't get it. It's not about the size of the vehicle. It's about the COST. What good is a rocket that is too expensive to use?

    It's like buying a Mack truck to move when all you can afford is a U-haul. You're left with a really great transport but no money to buy cargo.

    Sure, logistically an HLV makes missions easier, but if the only way you can afford to do those missions is if you break it down into smaller parts and use some elbow grease, well, I'll take the smaller launchers.

    No bucks, no Buck Rogers.
     
  3. gturner

    gturner Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Location:
    Kentucky
    Cryogenic fuel storage is vastly easier than building a giant rocket to meet NASA specs, which in any event aren't scheduled to fly until sometime near 2030 in the block II configuration, and will only have a cargo launch about once every other year.

    In an Orlando Sentinel article today, Lori Garver said the SLS is going to have some major schedule slips.

    Chris Kraft has been really slamming the program, saying "So what you've got is a beast of a rocket, that would give you all of this capability, which you can't build because you don't have the money to build it in the first place, and you can't operate it if you had it."
     
  4. publiusr

    publiusr Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010

    We've built two HLLVs Saturn and shuttle, which was sustained over 130 or so flights. No one has built a depot in space at all yet.

    Kraft is just mad the orbiter isn't flying anymore. Kranz is more bullish as is Cernan at last report. Money woes are the fault of folks not shelling out enough for space. Any new vehicle will cost up front. Let's say that not only could MCT be done for SLS budget, but that Musk could design upper stages and landers for the initial SLS costs. I don't buy that he can do that--but for the sake of arguement.

    Take Squires testimony
    "SLS and Orion will be highly capable vehicles, and their development is progressing well."
    For a sample return, SLS is a boon. He just wants more money for space in general.


    The robotics folks would still like to rob its budget, and I'm sure they would float some stories against it. And it was ULA's initial kill Ares V propaganda that got folks all to hating SLS to begin with--as if they would be friends to Musk. One of the ways to get one's project funded is to kill the other guys, after all. And Kraft is flat wrong. A nation that can fund a hundred plus flights of shuttle stack with an orbiter can just as easily float as many without.


    SLS is what is on the table now. Kraft also wanted to fly the shuttle more frequently, which safety-first types took issue with Kranz seems more supportive, as does Neil D. Tyson, and carolyn Porco. Garver and others may be trying to kill SLS from within (I was never a fan of hers for all kinds of reasons) So if folks who don't care about human spaceflight try to sack something, and announce delays, they expect you to buy into it.

    Left up to the SLS bashers, the 39 series pads may have an ABANDON IN PLACE placard on it. A lot of folks want to kill NASA in general and just let private industry do what it wants. But I have always been an arsenal method adherant, and will remain so.

    And that drives down the cost of payloads. Golden Spike, which uses existing launchers, will also run into the billions, and will likely have cost overruns as well. But it doesn't give us the added capability SLS allows. Webb alone will cost many SLS cores. Know why it is so costly--because the smaller launcher's payload shroud forces complexity into the design.

    Smaller launchers cost you both money and logistical headaches. Its well woth the money to have a big LV and a sipler monolithic mirror, like ATLAST
    http://www.stsci.edu/institute/atlast/images/ATLAST8m_Telescope_Exterior_v2.jpg

    Here are some interesting links:

    This guy calls Saturn V puny
    http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/08/needed-way-to-plot-design-space-of.html
    http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/08/in-praise-of-large-payloads-for-space.html

    More doable than Aldebaran
    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32763.0
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2013
  5. gturner

    gturner Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Location:
    Kentucky
    We've built a total of 18 HHLV's in the past forty years, 13 Saturn V's and 5 Space Shuttles. We realized we couldn't afford to keep throwing away the Saturn V's, so we came up with a re-usable alternative. When you factor in the weight of the Orion (about 60 to 75 thousand pounds) and its cost (at least $500 million per, not counting development costs) and throwing away two-SRB's and four SSME'S per flight (about $300 million for the engines and probably $200 million for the tanks and other equipment), the SLS is almost like trying to operate the Space Shuttle while throwing away the orbiter after each mission.

    We spent $18 billion developing the Constellation, and look how often it flew. Will the SLS fly much more often? From the budget, it wouldn't appear so.
     
  6. sojourner

    sojourner Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Location:
    A Long Time Ago...
    Dude, give it up. Publiusr is well into the "opponents are just making stuff up" phase.

    When it comes to history SLS will be remembered as either "Spruce Goose" or DC-3. You can guess which is most likely.
     
  7. gturner

    gturner Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Location:
    Kentucky
    Well, I just kind of enjoy finding new ways to try and bring a sense of reality about how bloated the budget is, along with how ridiculously long the schedule is.

    In all previous NASA development efforts, when they announced a new program they selected the initial crew with in a year or two, usually test pilots in their mid 30's. NASA can't introduce us to the flight crew for the first launch of the Block II SLS yet, since the crew isn't yet old enough to have their driver's licenses.

    You look around the neighborhood at the kids just starting high school and think, "One of these kids will have kids this age when he's given command of the first test all up Orion mission, a vehicle we're supposedly building right now.

    At some point the reality of the schedule is bound to cause an epiphany, and at some point she'll realize that there's some kid running around the kitchen with a cereal box on his head going "When I grow up I'm going to be an astronaut!" And the kids father says, "I'm sorry Johnny. We're building you a spaceship at NASA, but by the time it's done you'll be too old to fly it. You'll be older than grandpa."
     
  8. publiusr

    publiusr Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010

    That's because they are making crap up. The 14 billion dollar a launch lie from Zimmerman on Coast-to-Coast AM was proof enough of that: Here's more uncovered by Jason Rhian of America Space:

    I’ve spoken with NASA’s Dan Dumbacher personally, NASA doesn’t want to “farm out” SLS – it wants a launch vehicle which can do two things: 1.) launch large payloads on single launches – not require multiple launches as Dumbacher states the agency views that as being more prohibitive than SLS. 2.) Prepare for a mission to Mars.


    One other thing that makes a NewSpacer – convenient holes in information. It goes back to your comments that prompted me to post this video. You made a lot of statements meant to smear SLS. Thing is? I was present at the same event you cited & your numbers were wrong & this video proved it. It makes one wonder what else you’ve been stating as fact that’s based on factually inaccurate data.

    You asked what defines a NewSpacer? One thing is the unwillingness to accept firms NewSpacers support have no track record, no portfolio in conducting these types of missions & aren’t ready to handle them. I think astronauts would rather fly on a rocket that came from companies who have 50 years experience & who’ve launched 150 crews into space – than those with no experience whatsoever. Despite how rational this argument is – you criticize it.

    The primary problem most supporters of the NewSpace movement have with SLS – is they want those funds to go to their pet companies irregardless of whether-or-not they’ve demonstrated to handle such a project. So what happens? Because I oppose companies that are ill-equipped to handle projects of the scale of SLS get the contract – I’m targeted as an OldSpacer & attacked. My views are based on one thing – accomplishing the mission & getting the crew back home alive. Not which companies say they can do it better or cheaper.
    http://www.americaspace.com/?p=41775

    Neil deGrasse Tyson agrees:
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/...program-wont-be-first-to-send-people-to-mars/

    And a problem with schedule is why Tito is turning towards NASA, not away:

    http://blog.al.com/breaking/2013/04/inspiration_mars_considers_nas.html

    Here is an example of a private outfit that also has problems with schedules, orbits, etc.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2013
  9. sojourner

    sojourner Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Location:
    A Long Time Ago...
  10. publiusr

    publiusr Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    I don't hang out there as often, but I sent the comment you ignored above to the board just now. I guess we will wait and see, and agree to disagree.
     
  11. sojourner

    sojourner Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Location:
    A Long Time Ago...
    You have a bad habit of quoting opinions as fact validation. You should try to focus more on the subject of conversation instead of constantly linking to things that only tangently apply to the topic.
     
  12. publiusr

    publiusr Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    That' was Jasons point actually. right now opinions of FH SLS, etc, are all we have.

    In other news, it looks as if Stratolaunch migh have competition--one hopes
    Заканчивается создание 3D-модели проекта последней советской авиационно-космической системы

    Близка к завершению двухлетняя работа над 3D-моделью туполевской АКС, прорабатывавшейся на рубеже 1980-1990-х годов в ОКБ Туполева и АНТК Антонова. Новая модель позволит нам рассказать об этой АКС подробно и с хорошими иллюстрациями

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  13. gturner

    gturner Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Location:
    Kentucky
    Getting the crew back home alive is secondary to getting them into space before they start drawing Social Security.
     
  14. sojourner

    sojourner Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Location:
    A Long Time Ago...
    Seriously?
     
  15. gturner

    gturner Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Location:
    Kentucky
    ^ I've actually seen that before. It's loosely described in the medical literature as "engine pox", where an airframe erupts in engine boils covering both wing surfaces, massively increasing wetted area. The condition is apparently curable by embedding lots of low bypass engines in the wing, or underneath, where the organism has a chance of lifting an enormous payload and going to high mach.

    As an aside, for pure power to weight ratio to drive a propeller or fan blades, nothing can touch a rocket turbopump divorced from the pump, though you pay a heavy penalty in fuel weight because you have to carry liquid oxidizer. The gain is so significant (perhaps a hundredfold over a piston engine, mayebe 10 or 20 to one with gearing and propellers) that I'm surprised we didn't use it back in the 1950's instead of JATO units, but I assume the expense and difficulty of making a turbopump ruled it out.
     
  16. publiusr

    publiusr Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Hard to beat a solid on simplicity. I found some more on the concept
    http://www.buran.ru/htm/news.htm#15-07-2013

    Looks like we might see a return of the Zonds
    http://www.russianspaceweb.com/ptk_proton.html

    The Russian leadership has been rather nasty to their Rocket Men lately, though.

    Something I was thinking about. The Mars flyby with a Dragon spacecraft on a Falcon Heavy. That would be rather cramped, save for the inflatable segment. But what of a Dragon on SLS?

    There you get an extra 20 tons or so, which might be enough propellant to slow Dragon down, perhaps making a one way aerobrake a little less rigorous.

    In some ways, it takes less to get to Mars surface than the Moon. It took Proton to land the Lunkhods with having to burn all the way down. Current Mars rovers aerobrake really hard, because, unlike Cassini, they can't slow down on their own at all.

    I keep hearing about hypercones, but I wonder if propulsive slowing might allow different designs--at least for a one way mission.

    I wonder if this might be useful in some combination
    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27958.0

    If we ever have asteroid mining, I think the best way to recover large useful bits isn't the small robots talked about now. That is thinking too small.

    A lot of asteroids rotate. If a nickel iron slug can be cut in half with cables, similar to what was done with the sunken Kursk submarine, the cables can then be used to have the two pieces in a bola. The rotational velocity can be turned into translational.

    A second cut can be made, and the process repeated perhaps.

    A bootstrapped bola can then perhaps be a flyby rotovator
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tether_propulsion#Rotovators

    The cable would be shorter with an asteroid flyby rotovators, perhaps allowing something like this:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulton_surface-to-air_recovery_system

    So a bola could deposit a large asteroid frgment, perhaps at near zero velocity, while lifting a very heavy payload. If a bola, a surface naval vessel may have to move along at a good speed, with solid rockets only to reduce cable strain. This may free us from fuel constraints later on.

    What struck me about the skyhook, was that the person rose vertically at a slow rate to about 100 feet, then began to streamline behind the aircraft. If the flyby rotovator is a backspinning bola, that might also reduce the strain of a large object being jerked off the Earth's surface--perhaps if that rotovator bola has a tail and winches up the skyhook while backspinning.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2013
  17. Collingwood Nick

    Collingwood Nick Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2002
    Really?

    I'd tell you but I might get banned for it
     
  18. Collingwood Nick

    Collingwood Nick Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2002
    One that goes longer than thirty seconds would be a good definition.
     
  19. Alpha_Geek

    Alpha_Geek Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2003
    Location:
    Central VA, US
    Everybody is going to die some time or another. Would you rather do it on Earth or Mars?

    As for me; where's the gantry?
     
  20. Storyteller

    Storyteller Ensign Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2013
    Sorry about the bump of an old thread, but it would seem that a blogger has issued a rather cool rebuttal to the original poster. Is Mars One really unethical?
     

Share This Page