Zubrin's version of VSE

[radarredux]

I finally got around to reading Robert Zubrin's view of the Vision for Space Exploration:<br />"Getting Space Exploration Right"<br />http://www.marssociety.org/docs/TNA08-Zubrin.pdf<br /><br />Zubrin is feisty as usual, heaping criticism on NASA, contractors, Congress, the Aldridge Commission, and particularly O'Keefe. Nevertheless, his plan is interesting and I wouldn't be surprised to see Griffin's team's plan coming out fairly similar. To summarize:<br /><br /><b><font color="yellow">(1) Build a shuttle-derived inline heavy launch vehicle.</font>/b> This is the most critical component, because without it everything becomes more complex and increases risks. And the SDHLV allows the same solutions used for Lunar missions to be also used for Mars missions.<br /><br />It is <i>critical</i> that this starts right away because you don't want to lose the expertise and manufacturing capability of the existing shuttle technology base. If come 2014 someone says, "Hey, we need an HLV to launch a Mars mission", it will cost a <b><i>lot</i></b> more to start building one at that point (4+ years after shutting down the shuttle) than it would now.<br /><br /><b><font color="yellow">(2) Launch a Lunar habitat followed by a manned mission.</font>/b> Zubrin thinks it is crazy to send humans to the Moon just for a few days. Send a habitat first (on a single SDHLV launch), followed by a manned mission (also on a single SDHLV launch) for a Lunar Surface Rendezvous. This would allow the humans to stays for months and get some real science done.<br /><br />This (a Lunar mission) is a change from Zubrin's past positions, but he does acknowledge that a Lunar mission (a) could be done sooner, (b) allows a quick abort to Earth, and (c) allows us to test and gain confidence in the equipment to be used on Mars.<br /><br />To explore different parts of the Moon, Zubrin suggests using a small rocket</b></b>

 

[lunatio_gordin]

not 2016, that's too early. i won't be done with Astronaut candidate school by then <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br />well, my opinion:<br />Zubrin for President!

 

[kdavis007]

Smart....

 

[thinice]

<i>This would allow the humans to stays for months and get some real science done.</i><br /><br />How many crew members is neccessary to do this "real science" for months? We know that 3 is not enough for ISS.

 

[JonClarke]

I suspect the people who complain that 3 is not enough for "real" science on the ISS will likewise complain that 6 is not enough. The fact is that real science is being done on the ISS with only two people - experiments are being peformed and tended by the crew, papers are being published. Furthermore real science was done on the moon during the Apollo missions by only two astronauts. Three astronauts on the lunar surface is a great start.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">How many crew members is neccessary to do this "real science" for months? We know that 3 is not enough for ISS.</font>/i><br /><br />Good question. Before Columbia I remember reading a report from NASA that said 2.5 people were required to maintain ISS, so with the 3 person crew on ISS, only 1/2 a person was dedicated to science. Obviously the numbers are a little slippery since ISS is now being maintained with less than 2 people.<br /><br />However, I think having a habitat that is easy to maintain will be important. Also, it seem obvious that a 90 day stay will probably get more science done than a 10 day stay. In addition to an extended period of time, the habitat would presumably include scientific equipment. Here are Zubrin's words:<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The primary distinction between these two spirals is that Spiral 3 missions have a habitation module on the lunar surface, and therefore crews can stay on the surface much longer than in Spiral 2 missions, which would offer only the limited living space of the lunar module (as in the Apollo missions). Now it is obvious that a mission that operates on the surface for forty days will accomplish much more exploration than one that stays for four days. This advantage of the longer Spiral 3 missions is amplified much further by the fact that the habitation module will have lab facilities, allowing astronauts to perform preliminary analysis of large numbers of field samples while they are on the Moon, selecting only the most interesting samples to return to Earth for further study.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote></i>

 

[john_316]

I propose a crew of 6+ (6 to 18)<br /><br />Use of either the SDHLV to supply cargo and potential landers and a Nuclear Propulsion Stage to deliver a crew and possibly another lander.<br /><br />I have some rough drawings that I might post at a later time so they may not capture any hearts and minds.<br /><br />Haha....

 

[ehs40]

i think that a crew of 6-18 is good but not all at once because anything that could be launched would at most probally hold 3 people unless a lot of stuff was lauched and then people put the "base"together like a jigsaw puzzle

 

[john_316]

Ok here is a basic illustration of a HLV configuration for the MSL (Mars Surface Lander).... <br /><br />Ok the second one is a long shot though... <br /><br />

 

[john_316]

Now this post has the the NPS or Nuclear Propulsion Stage <br /><br />All are just rough ideas that I can put on here.. If I had a scanner I'd draw them by hand and trust me I can draw line drawings better than in paint...<br /><br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

"To explore different parts of the Moon, Zubrin suggests using a small rocket powered ballistic flight vehicle (a "hopper") and making sorties from the Lunar base. This would be more efficient than sending multiple launches from Earth to different locations on the Moon."<br /><br />This is very like the Lockheed-Martin moon plan except LM also includes manned and unmanned rovers. <br />

 

[lunatio_gordin]

h e also advocates it in the case for mars, i believe. he's been with it for some time.

 

[grooble]

Can't you just use a buggy to travel around the moon?

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Can't you just use a buggy to travel around the moon? "<br /><br />If you are referring to a rover such as the Apollo astronauts used the answer is no. A small manned rover could venture only small distances from the lunar base before supplies would run out. A large nuclear powered unmanned rover could circumnavigate the moon in theory, but it would be a long while before samples could be returned to base.<br /><br />A manned suborbital hopper allows manned visits all over the moon from one central location. Anything farther from the lunar base than one days travel time by ground rover is probably better done by a suborbital hopper. Best of all it simplifies the exploitation of lunar resources. A small fuel processing plant could support hopper operations or at least a smaller plant than one needed to support a lunar orbital ferry.<br /><br />I imagine you could combine operations of a large rover and a small suborbital hopper. The rover could travel unmanned to a preprogrammed location some distance from the lunar base. Once the rover arrived, the hopper could transport 2 to 4 men to the location of the rover. Then using the rover the men could explore the nearby region. The rover could contain enough supplies and living space to support the men for a few days. Once the supplies are expended the men use the hopper to return to lunar base and the rover could then turn around and return to base unmanned.<br /><br />And that's just one mission plan. I imagine there are many other possible mission plans that could exploit the abilities of manned and unmanned systems working together as a team.<br /><br />One other thing that occurs to me is that you could design a hopper to double as an emergency lunar base orbital transport. A hopper with enough fuel to take a two-way suborbital hop to another place on the moon might have enough fuel to take a one way trip from lunar base to lunar orbit. So in a desperate circumstance the hopper could provide a backup to the stand

 

[skywalker01]

One idea I've always liked is the long distance rover with rocket motor. The rocket motor for traveling to the area of interest and then wheels (which also act as landing gear) for traveling around on the ground before returning to base via the rocket motor.

 

[scottb50]

Whatever vehicle you use to get from orbit to the surface of either the moon or Mars should work just as well for traversing the surface. What atmosphere ther is on Mars would make little difference, they would operate basically the same. A balllistic launch would be the simplest, with adjustable landing pads you could tilt the vehicle in the desired direction and launch. Once in the descent it would be no different than a normal surface landing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[john_316]

<br />how much thrust would be required to launch from the surfce of mars compared to earth? <br /><br />and how much fuel for a say 13-16 ton vehicle for a crew of 6 in suits?<br />