Author Topic: Mars For Less (Read 5898 times)

AndyMc · « **on:** 03/02/2006 08:03 pm »

Hi,

As noted on the 1st March 06 in this Blog by 'The Flying Singer' http://flyingsinger.blogspot.com/ the MarsDrive Consortium has released an interesting 1.9Mb PDF of a reference mission, detailing a Mars Direct type mission to mars using medium lift capacity launchers, such as the proposed Falcon 9. http://marsdrive.com/files/MDC_ReferenceMission.zip

"Mars for Less is essentially Robert Zubrin’s Mars Direct mission architecture, divided into smaller components and delivered to orbit by smaller launch vehicles. "

simonbp · « **Reply #1 on:** 03/05/2006 01:09 pm »

a) how on earth [orbit] do you rendezvous and dock all those little chem stages?

b) how do you insure that they separate after burning?

c) why do it on Falcon 9's? or any mid-size launcher, for that matter? Four Ares V's and an Ares I could do the same mission profile, but with larger landers...

Simon

publiusr · « **Reply #2 on:** 03/08/2006 07:41 pm »

Not to mention boil off, delays between modules, etc. BFR all the way.

Jim · « **Reply #3 on:** 03/08/2006 08:15 pm »

Quote

publiusr - 8/3/2006 2:41 PMNot to mention boil off, delays between modules, etc. BFR all the way.

That is taken into account

Ad Astra · « **Reply #4 on:** 03/09/2006 01:08 am »

This isn't vastly different to the MTV, but with the MTV you have ready made vehicle compatability with the CEV.

publiusr · « **Reply #5 on:** 03/15/2006 06:48 pm »

Just because they say its taken into account doesn't make it so. I'll support a smaller number of HLLVs with engine out to a larger number of pad-sitting Delta IVs without. At least Falcon V is to have some engine out.

Jim · « **Reply #6 on:** 03/15/2006 07:48 pm »

Quote

publiusr - 15/3/2006 1:48 PMJust because they say its taken into account doesn't make it so. I'll support a smaller number of HLLVs with engine out to a larger number of pad-sitting Delta IVs without. At least Falcon V is to have some engine out.

CaLV won't necessarily have engine out capability.

publiusr · « **Reply #7 on:** 03/23/2006 07:08 pm »

It'll have a sight more than Delta IV. One of those go out and you will certainly go into the water--or come back down on the pad. I don't think CaLV will have to worry about that with the SRBs at least getting it to the coast. It wouldn't hurt me at all if Delta IV were axed. It's 'heavy' version (that folks wanted to count as three launches due to its three CBCs--when it should only be counted as one launch) has failed to show that it can orbit as much as Titan IV. CaLV and Atlas V for me, please.

Jim · « **Reply #8 on:** 03/23/2006 07:55 pm »

Quote

publiusr - 23/3/2006 2:08 PM It'll have a sight more than Delta IV. One of those go out and you will certainly go into the water--or come back down on the pad. I don't think CaLV will have to worry about that with the SRBs at least getting it to the coast. It wouldn't hurt me at all if Delta IV were axed. It's 'heavy' version (that folks wanted to count as three launches due to its three CBCs--when it should only be counted as one launch) has failed to show that it can orbit as much as Titan IV. CaLV and Atlas V for me, please.

That was one and only mission that failed. There are payloads that are bigger than a TIV's slated to fly on the Delta IV heavy in the near term. There is no comparable Atlas V that can lift the weight