Orion Capsule - 2 months to Mars?

[TC_sc]

]And again this view continually pops up. I understand that the risk averse mentality predominates today and that the pioneering spirit has been overshadowed by it, but space flight, either to Mars, to the moon, or to LEO is inherently risky. It is time we set goals that are worthy of the risks of human space flight.

I didn't say that an accident would would delay or end missions to Mars is a view, it's a fact. Of course its risky, most of us that support the space program know there will be more deaths during missions. I am just saying we need to lower the risk factor as much as possible.

A The most important components of the mission are, in fact, reusable: the Hab. And as far as things getting more expensive with each successive mission? I'm not sure how that makes sense. Well, wait. No, it does. With gov't running things. Yes. But normally, when you learn how to do something and put something on the production line, start up costs are always initially more expensive and the costs go down afterward.

Exactly what part of the spacecraft itself is reusable in your scenario. Anything we leave on Mars is hopefully reusable. Thats another thing, the first place we land on Mars may not have the resources we thought it might. The next mission might need to land elsewhere. There is a lot we won't know until we actually set boot to ground. For all forms of space travel we have to lose this single use mentality. It's just too expensive.


I would love to see a mission to Mars in my lifetime, but I'm not sure thats going to happen. This is something we can't rush into. We can't build a Mars ship that will be outdated before its finished. When our government needed to build a new shuttle, despite all the new technology available, they basically built it with spare parts. Not a single change to the the TPS.

With current technology, 50% of the robotic missions to Mars fail. We can't rush. If NASA is not willing to push the envelope of technology, then they have no business attempting a Mars mission.

 

[neutrino78x]

Robert Zubrin should be a senior nasa adviser. With his plan, going to Mars is 1/10th the cost because you use only the fuel to go one way. You send a robotic craft to make the fuel for the return journey, then you send people after that, with only enough fuel for 1 way trip. They go home using the fuel created by the robotic craft.

This plan is called Mars Direct.

Going to Mars with chemical rockets under the Mars Direct plan would take about 6 months. That is a typical mission in the ISS, so it is not as if it is unprecedented to spend this much time in zero gravity.

As far as VASIMR, they are going to test fly it on the ISS, using the ISS solar power, in 2012 I think. VASIMR is capable of high thrust, but to do it in a high thrust configuration you have to use a nuclear reactor. In any case, the initial Mars missions don't need VASIMR. It can all be done with present technology.

--Brian

 

[neutrino78x]

Also the Altair+Orion spacecraft is not that cramped compared to the sleeping quarters on a nuclear submarine, which I would know because I served on one. I thought I posted something about that in this thread, don't know what happened to it...

--Brian

 

[JonClarke]

If we go to Mars using the 2 year chemical rocket timeline, the risks are much greater. The longer the mission the better chance we lose at least one crew member or loss of them all. Look at past missions where we have lost lives, it put the space program on hold and even had some calling for the end of the manned space program. Can we risk that by rushing to Mars with such long duration voyages? Time spent in the spacecraft is not doing science on Mars.

The most dangerous part of any space mission is ascent and descent. Everyone who has be killed on a space mission has been killed during these phases. On a round trip to Mars there are going to be a minimum of two of each, regardless of whether you spendtwo years or two months on the trip. Actual living in space is quite safe by comparison. In more than 30 years of space station operation nobody has needed an emergency evacuation.

In terms of useful time on Mars, yes, this should exceed the amount spent in transit. Which is what you do with a conjunction class mission, where you sped 6 months travelling eaxch way but 18 on the surface.

 

[Pedant]

String 2 or 3 bigelow Space Hotels inside an exoskeleton with thruster on the back.
When you get there, deflate hotel and take it to the surface.

 

[zergnerd]

I for one sure wouldn't want to go to Mars in an Orion capsule. (I'm not real big on Mars either, I'd rather visit an asteroid or the moons/rings of a gas giant to avoid the energy well problem -- and there's more to do around gas giants.)

Here's the ship I would want to travel in (using mature or nearly mature technolgies)

10 Bigelow Aerospace BA330 habitation modules arranged in a ring and slowly rotated for ~1/10 g.
10 MWe Breeder reactor
VASIMR propulsion

10 BA330's gives 3300 m^3 space or roughly that of an 1100 m^2 (11000 ft^2) house. This gives plenty of room for habitation, recreation, hydroponics, and medical facilities. It also has much thicker walls than Orion providing better puncture resistance. (The Genesis protoypes are in orbit; a full size version is due around 2015)

The use of a breeder reactor means we don't have to send up lots plutonium on fragile rockets. We can send up non-radioactive U-238 and convert it to nuclear fuel in space once a seed amount of plutonium is in space. (Common in Japan, not used in the U.S due to nuclear concerns.)

VASIMR will allow faster travel to other worlds by providing a ~10x ISP boost over chemical. (NASA is considering attaching a prototype to the ISS to verify performance in space matches lab tests.)

This would arguably be cheaper than Orion too.

M - millions, B - billions
$1.5 B - 10 Bigelow modules (expected to be $100M, assume $150M after inflation, development costs)
$3? B - Breeder reactor & fuel
$1? B - Bigelow module connectors
$3? B - Central scaffolding "backbone" of ship, cabling for attaching habitation ring, non-habitable inflatable storage and fuel tanks.
$.5? B - VASIMR system
$2? B - radar, communications, hydroponics and scientific equipment
$5.2 B - 40 Atlas V heavy launches (at $130M per launch); this would drop to $3 B if Falcon 9 heavy comes on line ($75M / launch)
$2 B - Using ISS personnel to assemble the new rocket
--------------
$16 - $18.2 B
2X - fudge factor for inevitable cost overruns and odds and ends
$32 - $36.4 B total cost using Bigelow modules

$4.3 B Orion cost
$40 B Ares I (source: Wikipedia article on Ares I)
$ ?? B Ares V (assume same as Ares I)
--------------
$84 B Total Orion cost

So as I see it we can either spend $80+ billion with Ares / Orion and get a chemically powered rocket with < 60 m^3 living space and nearly 0 space for scientific equipment, or spend ~$40 B and get a nuclear powered, ion-propelled spacecraft with 3300 m^3 living space and lots of cargo room.

Gee, guess which vision I'd prefer for space exploration.

Zergnerd

 

[EarthlingX]

I for one sure wouldn't want to go to Mars in an Orion capsule. (I'm not real big on Mars either, I'd rather visit an asteroid or the moons/rings of a gas giant to avoid the energy well problem -- and there's more to do around gas giants.)

Here's the ship I would want to travel in (using mature or nearly mature technolgies)

10 Bigelow Aerospace BA330 habitation modules arranged in a ring and slowly rotated for ~1/10 g.
10 MWe Breeder reactor
VASIMR propulsion

10 BA330's gives 3300 m^3 space or roughly that of an 1100 m^2 (11000 ft^2) house. This gives plenty of room for habitation, recreation, hydroponics, and medical facilities. It also has much thicker walls than Orion providing better puncture resistance. (The Genesis protoypes are in orbit; a full size version is due around 2015)

The use of a breeder reactor means we don't have to send up lots plutonium on fragile rockets. We can send up non-radioactive U-238 and convert it to nuclear fuel in space once a seed amount of plutonium is in space. (Common in Japan, not used in the U.S due to nuclear concerns.)

VASIMR will allow faster travel to other worlds by providing a ~10x ISP boost over chemical. (NASA is considering attaching a prototype to the ISS to verify performance in space matches lab tests.)

This would arguably be cheaper than Orion too.

M - millions, B - billions
$1.5 B - 10 Bigelow modules (expected to be $100M, assume $150M after inflation, development costs)
$3? B - Breeder reactor & fuel
$1? B - Bigelow module connectors
$3? B - Central scaffolding "backbone" of ship, cabling for attaching habitation ring, non-habitable inflatable storage and fuel tanks.
$.5? B - VASIMR system
$2? B - radar, communications, hydroponics and scientific equipment
$5.2 B - 40 Atlas V heavy launches (at $130M per launch); this would drop to $3 B if Falcon 9 heavy comes on line ($75M / launch)
$2 B - Using ISS personnel to assemble the new rocket
--------------
$16 - $18.2 B
2X - fudge factor for inevitable cost overruns and odds and ends
$32 - $36.4 B total cost using Bigelow modules

$4.3 B Orion cost
$40 B Ares I (source: Wikipedia article on Ares I)
$ ?? B Ares V (assume same as Ares I)
--------------
$84 B Total Orion cost

So as I see it we can either spend $80+ billion with Ares / Orion and get a chemically powered rocket with < 60 m^3 living space and nearly 0 space for scientific equipment, or spend ~$40 B and get a nuclear powered, ion-propelled spacecraft with 3300 m^3 living space and lots of cargo room.

Gee, guess which vision I'd prefer for space exploration.

Zergnerd

I m in love

 

[JonClarke]

I for one sure wouldn't want to go to Mars in an Orion capsule. (I'm not real big on Mars either, I'd rather visit an asteroid or the moons/rings of a gas giant to avoid the energy well problem -- and there's more to do around gas giants.)

Why to people keep repeating the nonsense about going to Mars in Orion. Nobody has suggested doing this. orion may well be used as a ferryy but that is all. How many time to people have to be told this?

Here's the ship I would want to travel in (using mature or nearly mature technolgies)

10 Bigelow Aerospace BA330 habitation modules arranged in a ring and slowly rotated for ~1/10 g.

BA330 modules are not mature technology. Why do you need ten of them? why do you need to spin them?

10 MWe Breeder reactor

Why 10 MW? Why a Breeder reactor? You are aware that the technology for a 10 MW reactor in space does not exist? And that it is about a thousand times more powerful that the most powerful reactor ever flown in space.

VASIMR propulsion

VASIMR is not mature technology. It exists only as a bench top test unit. It has never been flown in space, there are serious questions about its practicality, and would need to be upgraded by a factor of about 10,000 to even appraoch what would be needed for a Mars mission. It is nowhere near "mature technology".

10 BA330's gives 3300 m^3 space or roughly that of an 1100 m^2 (11000 ft^2) house. This gives plenty of room for habitation, recreation, hydroponics, and medical facilities.

Wht do you need so much space? Are you planning on sending 60 people? Bbecause that is the number of people you could take with that size module. And why hydroponics? Growing food in space is slow, messy, bulky, and unreliable. Much better take supplies.

It also has much thicker walls than Orion providing better puncture resistance. (The Genesis protoypes are in orbit; a full size version is due around 2015)

Nobody is using Orion to take people to Mars. It's a ferry. Bigelow modules aren't ferrys. You can't compare two very different spacecraft.

The use of a breeder reactor means we don't have to send up lots plutonium on fragile rockets. We can send up non-radioactive U-238 and convert it to nuclear fuel in space once a seed amount of plutonium is in space. (Common in Japan, not used in the U.S due to nuclear concerns.)

This is would be an insanely difficult and unneccessary. You don't need Plutonium to run a fission reaction, it woulf be easier to launch the elements you needed that try and breed them in space (which needs fissile material to start the reaction anyway). The technology for handling and purifying fuel elements in space does nor exist. And I suspect that people would find the idea of a nuclear reprocessing plant in orbit much more alarming than launching fuel elements

VASIMR will allow faster travel to other worlds by providing a ~10x ISP boost over chemical. (NASA is considering attaching a prototype to the ISS to verify performance in space matches lab tests.)

Faster at immensely increased cost and technical risk. No end to end Marsd mission using VASIMR has even been sketched out. We don't need such technology for initial missions.

This would arguably be cheaper than Orion too.

Very arguably.

M - millions, B - billions
$1.5 B - 10 Bigelow modules (expected to be $100M, assume $150M after inflation, development costs)

OK for construction costs, double this for launching and assembly so $6B

$3? B - Breeder reactor & fuel

More likely to be $300B

$1? B - Bigelow module connectors
$3? B - Central scaffolding "backbone" of ship, cabling for attaching habitation ring, non-habitable inflatable storage and fuel tanks.

Since there would be signifant development to built this, double it, then double again for launch and assembly - $16B

$.5? B - VASIMR system

More likely to be 50 billion since the system is just a test rig.

$2? B - radar, communications, hydroponics and scientific equipment

OK

$5.2 B - 40 Atlas V heavy launches (at $130M per launch); this would drop to $3 B if Falcon 9 heavy comes on line ($75M / launch)

40 Atlas V launches will get you 1000 tonnes into LEO, that is probably a 10th the mass for a mission on this scale. So another 50 billion.

$2 B - Using ISS personnel to assemble the new rocket

The ISS will be long gone b y the time we have this type of technology.

Where is your lander, surface support equipment? They are substantial items.

--------------
$16 - $18.2 B
2X - fudge factor for inevitable cost overruns and odds and ends
$32 - $36.4 B total cost using Bigelow modules

More like $400B, excluding the landers.

$4.3 B Orion cost
$40 B Ares I (source: Wikipedia article on Ares I)
$ ?? B Ares V (assume same as Ares I)
--------------
$84 B Total Orion cost

These are development costs, which will be written off by the time the technology is used for Mars. Operating costs are much less.

Since noby is going to Mars using an Oion only, your estimate is meaningless.

So as I see it we can either spend $80+ billion with Ares / Orion and get a chemically powered rocket with < 60 m^3 living space and nearly 0 space for scientific equipment, or spend ~$40 B and get a nuclear powered, ion-propelled spacecraft with 3300 m^3 living space and lots of cargo room.

Gee, guess which vision I'd prefer for space exploration.

Zergnerd

I would rather see a properly outlined VASIMR mission compared to DRM 5.0 to start with.

Jon

 

[TC_sc]

Here is a thought I just had about the Bigelow modules used in building Mars spacecraft or the Mars surface habitat. Since they are inflatable, they can be inflated with either water or hydrogen for enhanced solar radiation protection.


In response to some other post. Six months, a year or more total travel time to Mars, is not like six months to a year in ISS which lies in the protection of the Earth's magnetic field. Some plans call for at least eight months travel time to and from Mars.

Here is a another problem with 2 year Mars missions. Just how reliable will the main engines be after a year on Mars? Will they restart? There are a lot of things that can and will go wrong in a 2 year mission to Mars.

 

[EarthlingX]

JonClarke you crushed my heart, but i m afraid most of what you are saying, sounds very realistic.
Could we start small, see how big it gets ?
I used data for VF-200 (http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics ... sma_rocket)
and got these numbers, which still require some reading, to be put in perspective:
optimal ISP = 5000s (Argon)
thrust = 5 N
mass = 300 kg
system efficiency (with most loss as heat) = 60 - 65 %
power = 200 kW
specific power = 1.5 kg/kW

20t module would need 13.3 MW and would give 333.3 N thrust.
I must say, this 13.3 MW are annoying, so it would probably have to go down.

Here is info for advanced stirling radioisotope thermal reactor, because it might be able to use heat from the engines:
(Advanced Stirling Technology Development at NASA Glenn Research Center)
http://esto.nasa.gov/conferences/nstc20 ... 7-0138.pdf
from V. Conclusions:

The system specific power (> 7 We/kg) of
the resulting ASRG EU will be a significant
improvement over the state-of-practice RTG.
Phase III continues the development of the ASC
using existing high temperature materials
(MarM-247 @ 850 oC) and has made substantial
progress, providing significantly improved
margins for use with the future ASRG.

This was 3 years ago and it's lab experiment, now are numbers probably better.

As for radiation degradation, i suggest electromagnetic plasma shield with some cloaking tech applied.
Plenty of people doing plasma and electromagnetic shielding is an old tech.

 

[docm]

Franklin Chang-Diaz, VASIMR's inventor, has said that the minimum reactor for a manned Mars mission would be 12MWe.

There is an outfit, Hyperion Power Generation, developing a uranium nitride (+5% U-235) self-regulating reactor for assembly line production whose enclosure is just 1.5 meters wide and provides 70 MWt/25 MWe, and they claim to have a design that could power a lunar base.

Refuel time: 5-10 years.
Heat extraction: heat pipes and heat exchanger inside containment.
Moderator: uranium hydride + H2 gas
No rods. No meltdown possible.
Negative coefficient of reactivity - vent the H2 gas from the core and it stops.

The primary use of their system would be for unattended buried power generation at remote locations. The design originated with Dr. Peterson at Los Alamos then he took it private. Production's supposed to start June 2013 and they have initial orders for 70+.

Price is estimated at $30 million each.

 

[cec937]

NASA is not going to Mars. For that matter, NASA is not going back to the moon. I have been a fervent supporter of space exploration since January, 1958 when Explorer 1 discovered the Van Allen belt and there is no comparison to the budgetary support and engineering ingenuity of the 1960's and today. I worked for a Federal bureaucracy for thirty years and I can recognize a bureaucracy when I see one and NASA is a bureaucracy; pure and simple. And, as a bureaucracy, its' bureaucrats are dedicated to self-preservation. NASA has done next to nothing in the area of manned space exploration since the end of the Apollo lunar missions and Skylab, and has wasted time and billions of dollars on unproductive programs. NASA has done more to hinder manned space exploration then move it forward. If Americans return to the moon, it will be as members of an international space effort and the Chinese will be waiting for us as they will have gotten there using everybody else's technology. The Chinese understand the benefit to international prestige that a viable space program gives them. NASA has wasted twenty years and over a $100 billion dollars on the ISS and they have yet to give a viable reason for its' existence and don't say that it is proving that humans can live in space as the Soviets proved that with the Salyut missions of the '70's and '80's and the Mir station. If NASA wants a manned lunar spacecraft, they should take their budget and establish a prize for the private company that can produce a safe and productive system. Any company worth their salt would want such a system in their possession and NASA can buy rides when they need them. Until then, NASA should stand for; "Not A Space Agency" because they certainly aren't doing anything for manned space exploration.

 

[zergnerd]

There is an outfit, Hyperion Power Generation, developing a uranium nitride (+5% U-235) self-regulating reactor for assembly line production whose enclosure is just 1.5 meters wide and provides 70 MWt/25 MWe, and they claim to have a design that could power a lunar base.

I wasn't aware of Hyperion, but I like the look of them. I had been thinking of converting a submarine reactor design to space use, but this looks like it might be cheaper and more effective. It also provides 2.5X the power I had been envisioning.

BA330 modules are not mature technology. Why do you need ten of them? why do you need to spin them?

Bigelow Aerospace has proven that inflatable modules are practical with their Genesis modules. They are planning to put Sundancer in orbit in 2012 I believe, which will validate all the life support systems and hold a crew of 3. Their time line is mostly determined by funding and manpower, I understand, rather than by fundamental technical issues. Since, in practicality, the first launches wouldn't begin until the 2018 to 2019 time frame, BA330 will likely be online by then. Why 10? Lab space mostly. If we're going to do exploring, we might as well have the scientific equipment to improvise new experiments based on discoveries we make. It will also give room for decent medical facilities (e.g. cat scan machine, operation table) as this is one major impediment to long term space travel. I'd envision a crew size of about 10-15 people.

Why 10 MW? Why a Breeder reactor? You are aware that the technology for a 10 MW reactor in space does not exist? And that it is about a thousand times more powerful that the most powerful reactor ever flown in space.

The technology exists but has never been put into space for political reasons, I believe. We have plenty of reactors on subs and the above mentioned Hyperion system that could be adapted for space. The largest generator in space I know of is the Cassini RTG. IMO comparing an RTG to a modern reactor is sorta like comparing a coal steam engine to internal combustion and then claiming that cars can never be made practical. They wouldn't be if we we're still using steam engines. These small reactors aren't the breeder type, but would work for a single mission. For multiple missions we'd want to adapt breeder technology to a size / weight comparable to the Hyperion. Why? If a rocket launch with a nuclear reactor ever fails to reach orbit you can kiss reactors in space goodbye for the next 50 years. If a rocket launch with inert U-238 ever fails, its not a big deal. Japan (Mitsubishi) and India are the main countries researching and using breeder technology. I am not aware of any portable units. I guess we would need a non-breeder reactor, unless we started reactor development now and planned to launch after 2030. I still think nuclear reactors could be used for $3 billion, rather than $300 b.

VASIMR is not mature technology. It exists only as a bench top test unit. It has never been flown in space, there are serious questions about its practicality, and would need to be upgraded by a factor of about 10,000 to even appraoch what would be needed for a Mars mission. It is nowhere near "mature technology".

The main problem I have heard voiced about VASIMR is power availability. Only nuclear can supply the power needed to generate decent thrust. My understanding is that NASA plans to add a prototype VASIMR drive to the ISS for station orbit maintenance in 2012 using the station solar panels to provide power, so it can't be too immature. I assume your 10000 factor upgrade is to allow surface to orbit launches with VASIMR. This would never be practical, however, orbit to interplanetary flight should be very reasonable

The ISS will be long gone b y the time we have this type of technology.

The ISS is slated to be around until 2015. You would have to plan a lifetime extension for another decade at least. I have heard talk of extending it, but don't know the proposed duration.

Nobody is using Orion to take people to Mars. It's a ferry. Bigelow modules aren't ferrys. You can't compare two very different spacecraft.

Agreed, Orion is a ferry. This simply means actual costs will be even higher once you build the Ares compatible habitation vehicle.

Where is your lander, surface support equipment? They are substantial items.

I don't really have an interest in Mars and would much rather visit an asteroid or orbit a gas giant. Hence, the lander costs become much smaller. I did forget to include lander costs. You would need a reusable lander. Assuming you visit a gas giant you would have ready access to water, ammonia and other volatiles from which fuel could be made. I don't know what such a lander would cost, but it would be similar to the Apollo moon landers and could probably be done for less than $5 billion.

I still think such a mission could be done for under $50 billion. Much less than what is proposed using Ares /orion / etc.
The main problems are political, not technical. Many of the products needed exit development (mature) in the 2010 -2015 time frame, so it's unlikely we'd see things completed until the 2020 - 2025 time frame.

Ultimately, I don't think the political will exists to do this as the primary goal of the current Ares program is to satisfy political constituents and keep jobs in the congressional districts that supported the shuttle. After all it wasn't the Spanish people who ponied up for Columbus's crazy idea (they thought it was impossible), it was funded by a rich king and queen who hoped to get even richer and immortalize their names and who could ignore red tape. Most likely this will someday be done by a Bill Gates-type, or by some rich sultan in Arabia. But that won't happen until the price drops from $50 billion to under $15 billion or we find something out there that makes it worth their investment.

 

[TC_sc]

Post by cec937 » Mon Aug 24, 2009 1:56 pm

Sadly, that post was so dead on. The post made me think about where NASA is directing a huge chunk of funding, and that's Earth sciences. We already have government agencies doing similar work. Earth science should be an international adventure. Image the spacecraft and space science we could do with that extra money. NASA is looking downward, when it should be looking outward.

NASA is getting $1 billion in stimulus money and 1/3 is going to Earth science. With a budget of $17.6 billion, NASA's budget includes $5.78 billion for the space shuttle and space station programs, $4.44 billion for science, $3.5 billion for development of new manned spacecraft systems and $447 million for aeronautics research. We need to direct as much money to space science and manned spaceflight as possible. NASA needs a single focus. For Earth sciences, let NOAA and the GEO do it. Without focus, NASA will not get a manned craft to Mars in 2 months, or 2 centuries. This focus can be in the form of more COTS programs.

Orion isn't, and never will be, a Mars vehicle. Since we are building Orion, Apollo redo, we might as well focus on the moon since thats all NASA will ever be able to afford.

I'll wait for the greenies to flame me on this one :lol:

 

[EarthlingX]

I think NASA must find a way for its head and spine to live together without killing it's body and we should somehow keep focus. They will have to do it much longer.

One Hyperion can then feed two 20t VASIMR engines, correct ? I could not find it's mass though, but we can assume it's less than fuel for same kick and get to it later. From the looks of it i would say you could put one in 20t module. Maybe in 10t ?

How Bigelow compares to ATV ? Could they work together ?

For lander let's evolve what's been done on Altair and keep it in one piece. Or are there any better solutions ?

BTW how far can we get with 666 N thrust and 120t mass in 5 years ?

 

[kbmtexas]

New Horizons passed Jupiter in 6 months, it is the fastest thing that has ever left Earth. But 2 months in a sardine can, no thanks. They need to build the ship for the Mars mission @ ISS or one of the LaGrange points. Most of the assembly of a segmented vehicle could occur autonimously, the trick is getting all the fuel, water, oxygen and supplies needed to sustain a crew for what I would say needs to be about an 18 month mission. I don't think Mars Direct is viable because of the small crew quarters unless they can hibernate.

 

[MaxWithershins]

The basis for this forum is ridiculous. Two months in a NASA "Orion" (someone should be shot for stealing that name in the first place!) is absurd. The only way to go to Mars that makes any sense (using current or near-current technology) is via Aldrin's "Cycler" concept. FWIW, the REAL [Ulan / Everett / Dyson] Orion ... designed in the mid-50s ... would have made the trip in a matter of days, with a crew of up to 150.

 

[zergnerd]

FWIW, the REAL [Ulan / Everett / Dyson] Orion ... designed in the mid-50s ... would have made the trip in a matter of days, with a crew of up to 150.

Assuming you don't mind nukes going off and kicking you in the rear time and time again. :mrgreen:

 

[EarthlingX]

I would just like to point out some of the conclusions we came to this far :
- Use Altair for the lander, make it very Single Stage To Surface and Single Stage To Orbit, fix what's missing (evolve) for atmosphere landing a bit later.
- 660 m3 (2xBA 330) would be enough for 6 people, if we stay close. If working modular, we can always plug in more a bit later. There will probably also be some pressurized space in other modules, but BA 330 k***s a*s, if it can stand radiation.
- Hyperion (http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/) for power generation, we could add more, if(when) we need them.
- 670 N thrust (2x VF-13000) engine per one generator.
There is still open question about mass of argon (VASIMR propellant), so i ll just plug in another 20t tank for it, see where we can get with it, add more if it's too small.

7 modules, 140t, 660 m3 space, 5 years refuel. How mucho dinero ?
1. 1x SSTO Altair = 5 G$ ?
2. 2x BA 330 = 200 M$
3. 1x Hyperion = 30 M$
4. 1x Argon tank = ?
5. 2x VF-13000 = ?
6. 140t to LEO, assuming 4k$/kg = 560 M$

As for the cycler, i love the idea, but you have to get there first and this is how. Plus Mars is not the only target, 'all your base are belong to us!' In same discussion we would probably discover 'Moon ferry' in some other existing plan.

I also got some strange numbers for delta V using
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_V
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton
from the above data, they say 'starship', so please, put me down gently. :roll:
Here it comes: 150 km/s :shock:

 

[docm]

Hyperion says their buried reactor, which would have a concrete containment shell, weighs 18 mT total. One would imagine without the concrete but with targeted directional shielding (in the direction of the crew mainly) it would be much lighter.

 

[none12345]

The biggest disappointment of my life would be if we went to mars, planted a flag or 2, then didnt return for 50 years.

If we do mars we should do it right or not bother. This means taking risks. This means a space ship with a design life of at least 20(preferably 50+) years in space.

If we want to limit ourselves to proven technology i think we shouldn't even bother. What we will get is a very expensive flag planting, with no real benefit other then to say we did it.

Id rather see us spend 80 billion on trying to develop a serious nuclear reactor in space, scaling up vasimer, inflatable modules etc....and FAIL, then spend 80 billion dollars to plant a flag and succeed. We need to emulate apollo as far as taking risks on new technology, and then unlike apollo, follow through.

Bottom line is we do NOT have the technology to get to mars the correct way. We can get there, we can plant a flag, but we wont go there to stay with chemical rockets. Not that vasmir is the answer either, its not enough, not even close.

The only possible way we could go there to stay today would be one way trips. Focus on getting as much mass as you can to mars, then try to live off the land, rather then trying to take a few pounds of people back later. Could probably increase the mass to mars 10 fold i we dont plan to leave.

And the only reason to do that would be to build another world for the future. But no nation can do it alone, it would take the effort of this planet as a whole to do it. Just think of what we could build if we redirected the military might of the world into space instead. That is with current technology.

As much as id ilke to go to mars, its really a dream at this point. I would much rather see all the effort poured into tech research. Just think if we could crack the nut of inertial engineering. We need to figure out why exactly mass resists acceleration(inerta), and more importantly how to significantly modify the resistance. You want to open up space, crack that nut. That would be bigger then discovering fire. Not only would it open up space, but it would massively change our world. Is it even possible? I don't know, i believe so, however i have no idea how to do it.

 

[kravjar666]

Seriously, with the nuclear option, we have the possibility of creating something that can visit the entire solar system in very very realistic timelines. With the ISS, we have the location to park it etc. The commercial people can start figuring out earth to orbit with people, while US, Russia, and Europe have heavy lift for components.

 

[NoDozRequiem]

The biggest disappointment of my life would be if we went to mars, planted a flag or 2, then didnt return for 50 years.

If we do mars we should do it right or not bother. This means taking risks. This means a space ship with a design life of at least 20(preferably 50+) years in space.

If we want to limit ourselves to proven technology i think we shouldn't even bother. What we will get is a very expensive flag planting, with no real benefit other then to say we did it.

Id rather see us spend 80 billion on trying to develop a serious nuclear reactor in space, scaling up vasimer, inflatable modules etc....and FAIL, then spend 80 billion dollars to plant a flag and succeed. We need to emulate apollo as far as taking risks on new technology, and then unlike apollo, follow through.

Bottom line is we do NOT have the technology to get to mars the correct way. We can get there, we can plant a flag, but we wont go there to stay with chemical rockets. Not that vasmir is the answer either, its not enough, not even close.

The only possible way we could go there to stay today would be one way trips. Focus on getting as much mass as you can to mars, then try to live off the land, rather then trying to take a few pounds of people back later. Could probably increase the mass to mars 10 fold i we dont plan to leave.

And the only reason to do that would be to build another world for the future. But no nation can do it alone, it would take the effort of this planet as a whole to do it. Just think of what we could build if we redirected the military might of the world into space instead. That is with current technology.

As much as id ilke to go to mars, its really a dream at this point. I would much rather see all the effort poured into tech research. Just think if we could crack the nut of inertial engineering. We need to figure out why exactly mass resists acceleration(inerta), and more importantly how to significantly modify the resistance. You want to open up space, crack that nut. That would be bigger then discovering fire. Not only would it open up space, but it would massively change our world. Is it even possible? I don't know, i believe so, however i have no idea how to do it.

I can sympathize with some of your sentiments and concerns--You are absolutely correct. If we go to Mars, we should do it right. That covers about 2 of your statements though. The rest of your post simply tells me that you are not in any way familiar with the Mars Direct achitecture since it, in fact, is inherently designed to be sustainable with NASA's current budget and done with current technology--in order to establish a permanent human presence on the red planet, a permanent foot hold instead of a evanescent boot print.

If you are aware of the specifics of Mars Direct, I would like to know what details of it you disagree with and on what basis. Of course, you don't owe me (or anyone else on here for that matter) anything--not reply nor explanation. You only owe it to yourself.

 

[scottb50]

I like the paradigm many of you are espousing. IMHO, the creation of an Interplanetary Exploration Vehicle would be much more beneficial to our long term interests in space than any kind of destination based program.

There is clear benefit in Apollo-style, one-off missions, but they provide little in the way of sustainability and affordability over the long term. What is needed is a space transportation infrastructure that would allow us to go anywhere in the Solar System in reasonable comfort, speed and safety. This vehicle could clearly be a follow-up to the research and development that went into the International Space Station, though it might more econimically be based on newer technologies. This vehicle would be a test bed for advanced propulsion and power technologies, as well as a laboratory for human health and adaptation to long duration spaceflight and our ability to manage it. The ability to add landers and surface support equipment at some future time, when we're ready for that step (and can afford it), would be useful.

I'm quite aware of the current technological impediments to the realization of such a vehicle, but I believe it would provide us with much more flexibility than current sortie-based architectures can manage and would, in the long run, greatly reduce the cost of interplanetary exploration and exploitation. It might take 20 years to work out the bugs and develop such a vehicle, but it appears that we are not going anywhere near the Moon or Mars within that time so why not invest that time in something that would take us a major step forward in our spacefaring capabilities?

Yes, we would need LEO shuttles of some sort, both passenger and cargo versions and a launch vehicle capable of lifting the largest pieces of the Interplanetary Exploration Vehicle, but that technology exists. It's only a matter of using what is available in the market place and putting the pieces together. NASA's job would be to coordinate with commercial and international partners and assist in the development of required technologies.

Your thinking pretty much parallels what I have been proposing for a number of years here. Building on what we have accomplished to find out what we need to change, perfect or rethink. Cyclers to bodies we want to maintain a presence at and one off missions of exploration can use the same technology, in different ways, o begin with. Smaller, and cheaper launchers and orbital assembly makes the most sense especially when they are used for various LEO payloads and robotic missions as well as long duration manned missions.

My idea has been two TSTO vehicles, on with two liquid and two solid first stage and the other four liquid and two solid stage and various second stages with one or two engines. The key is the first stage is a flyback re-usable vehicle while the upper stage is dismantled and the tanks used to build further structures and vehicles in LEO and the engine reused, on vehicles or returned for overhaul and re-use.

 

[EarthlingX]

Could we start another thread called something like 'Space.com Heliosphere Explorer' ?

Discuss what happens if we move from 20t modules to 100t ?

Because, if the ship we discussed can (politically) fly, i see solutions to all sorts of problems and would very much like your input ?

My 'guessculator' shows less then 10 G$ for SHE-1 and i wonder how big would be market ?

I also invite you to keep eye on this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=19490