I definitely support the Mars Direct plan myself, although I would want to use existing commercial rockets rather than waiting for a new government rocket, and I would use solar rather than nuclear.
Like Robotbeat, I'm somebody that one would expect to support nuclear power -- I'm a former US Navy submariner -- but it seems like solar is superior in some ways. For example, if you use solar thermal (mirrors concentrate solar power onto a heat engine), it is all very simple mechanical parts, and could, in theory, be fixed if it doesn't work. Solar photovoltaic has few if any moving parts, so it should theoretically be more reliable.
One of the core principles of Mars Direct was that the ERV could sent on ahead and tank up in advance of the manned landing. It's far easier to envisage this happening with nuclear power which is self-contained. A vast solar array would be 'interesting' to deploy robotically/automatically.
2. Martian ISRU would not have to be on the critical path.
3. Lunar landers could be upgraded to fully propulsive Mars landers.
Quote from: Warren Platts on 02/21/2012 12:40 pm2. Martian ISRU would not have to be on the critical path. I think Martian ISRU is a lot lower risk and more straight-forward than Lunar ISRU. Feel free to try to convince me otherwise. I am open to contrary ideas.
But once you have the capability for ISRU, you want to do it in as many places as possible. Mars surface derived propellants are not much help at L1,
Quote from: alexterrell on 03/07/2012 03:01 pmBut once you have the capability for ISRU, you want to do it in as many places as possible. Mars surface derived propellants are not much help at L1,Uhhh.. why? Last I checked, the prospects of making propellant on Mars were a lot better than Lunar ISRU.. so why wouldn't one return propellant from Mars to L1 for a subsequent mission? Especially in a fully reusable architecture.
Because ISRU on Earth is a lot easier unless you're talking about atmospheric skimming.