Great articles! Both good reads and gave me slight goosebumps as this is the first I've seen what look like actual planning for Mars.I know the plans are of the "this is what we could do if the cash were available" and I do wonder if a cost estimate is also in the works.One thing did occur to me after reading this: They spend all this time and money and effort to get a few people to Mars and after landing one of the expedition turns to the others and says "now what?"
Honestly... I find it really hard to get excited about any of this anymore. Twenty four years...
Like demonstrated for the Moon, human observation and sampling for geology and potential biology will be vastly more efficient than robotic investigations.
Quote from: NovaSilisko on 09/24/2015 10:53 pmHonestly... I find it really hard to get excited about any of this anymore. Twenty four years...And at the same tim the whole scenario looks totally overly optimistic to me. Look at all these payloads that would have to be built and developed.This is something at least three times the size of the Apollo program.I'm afraid it's simply not going to happen.So let's see whether Elon's approach of simply throwing mass at the problem is more realistic.
24 years
2040 is ridiculous.
Thanks!I think that looks interesting. There aren't many different elements actually.5x18t landers. Small but apparently sufficient in size. The smaller the better if you ask me.6xHSP. One for every lander and one for the Hab.+ lots of Tanker vehicles.Now I'm a bit surprised they launch so many tankers for the first Mars mission. Shouldn't the HSPs still be full in cis-lunar space when launched with SLS Block 2?Either way, they're within 2 SLS launches per year. As other threads have shown repeatedly (and yet people refuse to listen), 1 or 2 SLS launches per year won't make a big difference in terms of cost.I like it.Quote from: FinalFrontier on 09/25/2015 12:04 am2040 is ridiculous.It has been clear for quite a while that there won't be a Mars landing before 2039 at the earliest. Not sure why everyone is acting so surprised.
before 2039
This does not just add up. They cannot get away from grandiose, large scale, multi-flight schemes as put forth by von Braun in the 1950s. The "Battlestar Galactic" scheme and its epic failure of planning and fiscal responsibility certainly does not seem to have driven any lessons learned.With one pad and a slow production rate, they think they can craft multi-year launch campaigns of 10, 12, or 14 boosters to send stuff to Mars? While Mars Direct with 2 or 3 launches may be too small and optimistic, this once again goes over the top.I have to think with using a combination of SLS, Vulcan, and Falcon Heavy, a plan could be executed using around 6 of those boosters (if any of them are ever built), launched in less than a nine-month window to meet the most favorable orbital departure time to send a mission to Mars. I could even support a precursor campaign of 3 launches 2 years prior to the "main event" to preposition logistics and other systems at the destination for a nine vehicle launch campaign.Of course, I am no rocket scientist (my dad was though), so I my plan is worthless...
This does not just add up. They cannot get away from grandiose, large scale, multi-flight schemes as put forth by von Braun in the 1950s. The "Battlestar Galactic" scheme and its epic failure of planning and fiscal responsibility certainly does not seem to have driven any lessons learned.
Quote from: mike robel on 09/25/2015 12:17 amThis does not just add up. They cannot get away from grandiose, large scale, multi-flight schemes as put forth by von Braun in the 1950s. The "Battlestar Galactic" scheme and its epic failure of planning and fiscal responsibility certainly does not seem to have driven any lessons learned.There's nothing grandiose about this plan. Since when is a 18t ton lander grandiose? That's the smallest possible lander. In total 80t on the Martian surface. What's grandiose about that? You realize Musk wants to land 100t on the surface with a super monstrous Earth-Mars SSTO vehicle?Jeez people, look at the stuff before making such statements.
I have been reading the old Mars plans from the 1960s in DSFP's blog, and to be honest the main difference is that in the current plan we know more about Mars. Otherwise, while some of the required items for development have a higher TRL than on the first plans in the 1960s, most materials are still somewhere on the wish list rather than the developed list. The biggest issue is that it has proven very difficult to commit the future administrations 20+ years down the line on your plan. When Nixon approved the space shuttle in 1972 it strongly implied a space station down the line. Bill Clinton did give the final approval to the ISS in 1993, after he had already cancelled it and after it turned into a merger of the world's space programs. This is the exception, not the rule.This plan is useful, it tells you what is necessary to go to Mars. It lacks budgetary realism considering that getting 1 SLS per year is difficult, let alone 2. Also down the line it will be revised, and usually revisions tend to be towards more complexity rather than less. Personally I see the next president, whoever he or she is, asking for a status report and then cancelling ARM but moving up the DRO station. I also him or her developing a lunar lander and potentially a lunar base. He or she can realistically expect a return to the moon around the end of his or her second term. A Mars trip though is several presidents down the line especially if we decide to extend the ISS beyond 2024.
several presidents down the line
Great way to inspire the youth of our country. Inspire them to have kids so that their grandkids might live to see an SLS launch to Mars.