usa space program

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2004-01-10 01:32pm

Alas our country is too filled with morons for it to ever happen but if it does somehow work...

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-01-10 01:36pm

Bob McDob wrote:Couldn't the US government institute some sort of "Space Bond" program? I find it hard to believe there would be any opposition to something as politically benign as space exploration if it used private investment.

It costs alot of money with few tangible immediate gains. Neither business nor congress is willing to invest in something that will cost billions of dollars and won't pay much more chump change back for a while and not have a real payback for possibly decades That's why a largely apathetic public needs to won first. I think Russia has the right idea about putting celebrities and honeymooners in space, even if they won't really pull it off much. If America could do that regularly and gets peopled fired up, that will inspire big business to help out with NASAs budget and will spur on the development of vehicles that can carry large amounts of people into orbit and elsewhere, like the Moon.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-01-10 03:02pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:<snip>

Thank you, I shall quote the very first paper:

Description of on-Mars fuel production wrote:As soon as it is landed, the truck is telerobotically driven a few hundred meters away from the lander, and the reactor is deployed to provide power to the compressors and chemical processing unit. The hydrogen brought from Earth is quickly catalytically reacted with Martian CO2 to produce methane and water, thus there is no need for long term storage of cryogenic hydrogen on the Martian surface. The methane is liquefied and stored, and the water electrolyzed to produce oxygen, which is stored, and hydrogen, which is recycled through the methanator. Ultimately these two reaction (methanation and water electrolysis) combined with an auxiliary CO2 reduction unit produce an amount of methane/oxygen bipropellant equal to 18 times the mass of the hydrogen imported from Earth. More than 90% of the bipropellant will be used to fuel the ERV, but 12 tonnes extra is produced to support the use of high powered chemically fueled long range ground vehicles.

As I said, the whole plane is to produce the fuel locally on Mars. Speculate all you want about ice on the moon, but speculation aint gonna make Mars Direct work if the ice isnt there.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-01-10 03:17pm

Kojikun, don't be an idiot.

In the paper I specifically named, he addresses the Lunar varient of Mars Direct. You're being stupid and reading to try and win debate victory points. READ THE WHOLE THING. IT IS ADDRESSED.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-01-10 03:25pm

Because of your dishonest debate tactics, I will quote the appropriate section personally.

[i]Mars Direct: A Simple, Robust, and Cost Effective Architecture for the Space Exploration Initiative[/i], by Robert Zubrin, page 5 (.doc version) wrote:The Mars Direct vehicle systems can also be used to accomplish Lunar missions in the following way. First, an Ares booster launch is used to throw a 59 metric ton payload consisting of a standard hab module plus a cryogenic Lunar orbital capture and lunar descent (LOC/LD) stage onto trans-lunar injection. The LOC/LD stage is then used to land the hab on the Moon. After one or more such habs have been thus enplaced at a given site, the crew is flown out to the Moon within a Mars Direct ERV. The ERV in this case has its (Mars Ascent) first stage deleted, but its second stage is fueled with methane/oxygen bipropellant, and this provides sufficient thrust and delta-V for an Earth return direct from the lunar surface. Landing on the Moon at the prepared site is accomplished with the aid of the same cryogenic LOC/LD module used to land habs and cargo. After landing, the crew exits the ERV and enters the pre-landed hab(s) and proceeds to operate on the Lunar surface for an extended period, after which they re-enter the ERV and execute a direct return to low Earth orbit (LEO).

Prior to Lunar liquid oxygen (LOX) becoming available, the mass of the fully fueled Mars Direct ERV exceeds the Lunar delivery capability of a single Ares launch by 5 tonnes. This problem could be resolved by scaling down the lunar ERV by 20% compared to the Mars version. However if hardware commonality with the Mars ERV is desired, a simple solution would be to pre-land a cargo flight of liquid oxygen at the chosen site. Since such a cargo flight could land about 21 tonnes of LOX, one such flight could support 4 manned missions to that destination (the ERVs would fly out fully fueled with methane and 2/3 fueled with LOX), plus any number of cargo flights. At the conclusion of these missions, Lunar LOX production could be in place and Lunar LOX available at the site, eliminating the need for any further LOX delivery flights.

[/quote]

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-01-10 05:08pm

Dishonest your ass. I addressed the concept of on-Moon fuel production already, dumbass. Or did you kindly forget that i had? It's right there, if you look. No edits, nothing.

Lunar application of the Mars Direct program relies on there being water on the moon. No water has been found, so you're speculating about nonexistant applications. End of debate.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-01-10 05:10pm

And because I know you're going to bitch and moan claiming I should prove theres no ice on the moon (despite the BoP being on you for claiming there might be), I'll point you towards this article from this past November that notes a sever lack of evidence of ice.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-01-10 05:11pm

someone fix the damn link

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-01-10 05:25pm

Bob McDob wrote:Couldn't the US government institute some sort of "Space Bond" program? I find it hard to believe there would be any opposition to something as politically benign as space exploration if it used private investment.

start some sort of trust and collect money from corporation who wish to sponsor the mars lander project. they could have their name associated with the greatest achievement in human history.....having a person set foot on another planet.

Thinkmarble · Post by **Thinkmarble** » 2004-01-11 02:56pm

Found an interesting UPI article about the topic.

Sources said Bush will direct NASA to scale back or scrap all existing programs that do not support the new effort. Further details about the plan and the space agency's revised budget will be announced in NASA briefings next week and when the president delivers his FY 2005 budget to Congress

[cynical]
Seems the motivation of Bush is to stop research into global warming
[/cynical]

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-01-11 05:06pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:
Bob McDob wrote:Couldn't the US government institute some sort of "Space Bond" program? I find it hard to believe there would be any opposition to something as politically benign as space exploration if it used private investment.
start some sort of trust and collect money from corporation who wish to sponsor the mars lander project. they could have their name associated with the greatest achievement in human history.....having a person set foot on another planet.

Welcome to planet "Tositos presents Mars!"

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-01-11 05:25pm

kojikun wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:Bah, Mars Direct can get you to the Moon just as well as Mars, and gives you cheaper costs and operational experience with the mission system.
Uh.. How? The main part of the Mars Direct plan is using local resources to turn into rocket fuel. there is nothing on the Moon that can be broken down into fuel.

You implied that there was no provisions for Mars Direct to be able to return to the Earth from the Moon, and again display you reading comprehension or utter lying dishonesty by selectively nitpicking specific points and using them to dismiss the whole thing.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Prior to Lunar liquid oxygen (LOX) becoming available, the mass of the fully fueled Mars Direct ERV exceeds the Lunar delivery capability of a single Ares launch by 5 tonnes. This problem could be resolved by scaling down the lunar ERV by 20% compared to the Mars version. (bolded emphasis mine)

This retains all the rest of the system while making a slightly minimalist version of the Earth Return Vehicle to make it self-sufficient, which is more than acceptable due to the three-day distance of the Moon vs. the nine month distance at minimum between here and Mars.

The fact that there's no ice on the moon only means that it will take more work to set up oxygen processing from the lunar rock itself. Even supposing that there's no oxygen at all on the Moon, this simply means that the only changed part of Mars Direct would be a 20% reduction on all Lunar-bound ERVs.

Go fuck yourself, nitpicker, and go pick up some Dick and Jane and learn to fucking read. Or better yet, stop nitpicking and lying to win a debate.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-01-11 05:26pm

Fuck me. Mod, could you correct "IP" to "Robert Zubrin" in the quote?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-01-12 08:30pm

Durandal, Vymp, Olrik?