Space Wars, Part II

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-01-15 01:07am

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:Only by harassing the uncontrolled power of the atomic chain reaction shall we achieve the Martian surface.
What's wrong with Mars Direct? (Which, for anyone who reads the proposal, has additional provisions for a NTR-version).

I actually don't have a problem with Mars Direct. Its a good way to get things going. After a definate supply chain gets going it'll have to change alot but the idea of sending a bunch of cargo ships and equipment ships there first is a good idea even for the moon. Not quite the same cargo and equipment but the idea is sound.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-01-15 01:12am

2. Develope a CEV and start testing it by 2008 and put into service by 2014

What is a CEV ?

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-01-15 01:39am

evilcat4000 wrote:
2. Develope a CEV and start testing it by 2008 and put into service by 2014
What is a CEV ?

According to Bush, a Crew Exploration Vehicle. Where the term came from, I don't know.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-01-15 10:19am

Illuminatus Primus wrote:What's wrong with Mars Direct? (Which, for anyone who reads the proposal, has additional provisions for a NTR-version).

I think that Sea Skimmer is proposing building Orion. Something I'm very much in favor of, because Orion is the coolest thing ever.

But really I think that Mars Direct is the best way to get there.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-01-15 12:29pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:What's wrong with Mars Direct? (Which, for anyone who reads the proposal, has additional provisions for a NTR-version).
I think that Sea Skimmer is proposing building Orion. Something I'm very much in favor of, because Orion is the coolest thing ever.

But really I think that Mars Direct is the best way to get there.

Keep in mind a nuclear powered ship would be reusuable and could make many trips to and from Mars. It could prove vital if we establish a permanent presence on Mars in the future.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-01-15 12:59pm

evilcat4000 wrote:Keep in mind a nuclear powered ship would be reusuable and could make many trips to and from Mars. It could prove vital if we establish a permanent presence on Mars in the future.

Of course they are, but nuclear powered ships (like Orion or NERVA) cost the big bucks, and the infrastructure doesn't exist to implement them. Mars Direct can do it much cheaper and more technically feasible, which is more vital to establishing a foot on Mars to prepare to receive there-and-back again reusable ships. For a trip like Mars, you want some infrastructure on Mars, if at the very least to produce fuel and supplies for the return trip back (rather than the ship eating up valuable real estate carrying supplies for the entire voyage), plus for the astronauts to stay at while the Mars-Earth launch window comes up again.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-01-15 01:02pm

evilcat4000 wrote:
Keep in mind a nuclear powered ship would be reusuable and could make many trips to and from Mars. It could prove vital if we establish a permanent presence on Mars in the future.

I agree with you but for such a thing to work there has to be an infrastructure for such a large ship to operate. Thats were a moon base and to a limited extent the Mars Direct comes in. It starts setting up an infrastructure for such projects as large scale reusable vessels.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-01-15 04:35pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:Of course they are, but nuclear powered ships (like Orion or NERVA) cost the big bucks, and the infrastructure doesn't exist to implement them. Mars Direct can do it much cheaper and more technically feasible, which is more vital to establishing a foot on Mars to prepare to receive there-and-back again reusable ships.

Can't you do Mars Direct with a nuclear drive anyways?

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-01-15 04:37pm

Chardok wrote:Crap, I went on one my famous tangents.

Anyway, warp back to the part where the prez gets the 87 billion. plus nasa's current budget, plus other countries' involvement, plus sponsorship, and we could have easily afforded it. Especially considering the relative ease with which Shrub got the 87 billion dollar appropriation. I say, if we're gonna go bankrupt, DO IT ON THE DAMNED MOON. and cram a spiky steel dildo up the world bank and IMF's collective asses with their doomsday, "The U.S. will bankrupt the world with their debt" Prophecies.

don't worrry it was a good thing, I am still picturing trojan manufacturing hte new insulation for the solid fuel booster rockets.....

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-01-15 04:44pm

phongn wrote:
Gil Hamilton wrote:Of course they are, but nuclear powered ships (like Orion or NERVA) cost the big bucks, and the infrastructure doesn't exist to implement them. Mars Direct can do it much cheaper and more technically feasible, which is more vital to establishing a foot on Mars to prepare to receive there-and-back again reusable ships.
Can't you do Mars Direct with a nuclear drive anyways?

Yup. Zubrin's plan has privisions for everything for setting up the beginnings of a Moon Base to NTR-boosted trips to Mars.

Mars Direct Homepage.

Read Mars Direct: A Simple, Robust, and Cost Effective Architecture for the Space Exploration Initiative. Its a good paper (I find .doc most servicable in this case, by the way) and explains everything about the Mars Direct concept.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-01-15 04:47pm

phongn wrote:Can't you do Mars Direct with a nuclear drive anyways?

I suppose, but I always thought of Mars Direct as being done with the sort of technology we have now.