PDA

View Full Version : do you want we go Mars soon? support my proposal and we'll land on Mars within 2030 !



gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-10, 06:06 PM
--
Do you want see the mankind go to Mars soon?
--
Do you REALLY want this?
--
Well, my proposal is the ONLY rational way to go Mars soon and compatibly with our technology, the space agencies budgets and the funds that our governments can give with today's economic crisis.
--
You can read it here: http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/047gotomars.html
--
So, if you want to see a manned Mars mission in your lifetime, you should talk about and STRONGLY SUPPORT my proposal about Mars (reviewing or publishing it, free of charge, on your website or blog) hoping the Augustine Commission will consider and propose it in its final report for the White House.
--
I you really want support my proposal for Mars you have two options:
--
a) review it (in brief) in a post with your name and your opinion about it, just putting a LINK to my article, or...
--
b) republish the full article (but only THIS article and NOT other articles of my blog) with my name (as guest blogger) and a LINK to this blog and to this article, adding your opinions only at its end.
--
If the second option is your choice, you are not allowed to modify the text of the article in no way, also, you should put a copyright notice at the end of the article to show that it always is/will be my property.
--
Of course, if you'll republish my article, you can't resell it to others.
--
Any suggestion from you or spelling correction of my article is welcome.
--
If we will succeed and if this plan adopted you could say (someday) to have been part of the "team" that led the man on planet Mars!!!
--

Tucson_Tim
2009-Aug-10, 06:12 PM
There are too many colors used, too many different fonts, too many different sized fonts, too many exclamation points (none at all would be better), and too much highlighting. Straightforward text would look more professional and get you better results. This looks like a cheap TV ad - not a paper designed to convince people of your point of view.

gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-10, 06:14 PM
There are too many colors used, too many different fonts, too many different sized fonts, too many exclamation points (none at all would be better), and too much highlighting. Straightforward text would look more professional and get you better results. This looks like a cheap TV ad - not a paper designed to convince people of your point of view.

ok, so, we will never go to Mars, due to too much colors in my blog... :(

.

Tucson_Tim
2009-Aug-10, 06:15 PM
ok, so, we will never go to Mars, due to too much colors in my blog... :(

.

Now I didn't say that. But if you want people to read it, it really needs to be changed. You might have some great ideas there but it's too painful to read.

gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-10, 06:17 PM
Now I didn't say that. But if you want people to read it it really needs to be changed.

in some of the latest articles of my blog (like my 11 suggestions for the HSF commission) I've added also the b/w version... I'll do that also in my "Mars soon" article

.

snifferdog
2009-Aug-10, 06:22 PM
I have to agree,it does need to be 'toned down' a little on the colours used,highlights etc etc,just a bit of constructive criticism.

EDIT- I see above that you are going to use/change to the black and white version,that will look more proffesional as a proposal.
Anyway,im gonna go and have a proper read through it.

gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-10, 06:24 PM
I have to agree,it does need to be 'toned down' a little on the colours used,highlights etc etc,just a bit of constructive criticism.

just wait a bit, I'll ADD the b/w version soon

.

R.A.F.
2009-Aug-10, 06:25 PM
I(f) you really want (to) support my proposal for Mars...

To be perfectly blunt...given the "reception" your past ideas have received here, why in the world would you think that "we" would want to support your Mars "proposal"?

thoth II
2009-Aug-10, 06:26 PM
My concern about manned missions to Mars has to do with the practical reality of large groups of people living in spacecraft for maybe 2 year voyage. This is easy on star trek, not easy in the real world. Can people really live in space that long, and can the program be sustained with large groups of people safely? Consider all the practical realities: food, air, waste, not to mention psychology, people living on Mars for extended periods of time.

gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-10, 06:28 PM
To be perfectly blunt...given the "reception" your past ideas have received here, why in the world would you think that "we" would want to support your Mars "proposal"?

no, only if you want to go Mars... :)

.

gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-10, 06:32 PM
My concern about manned missions to Mars has to do with the practical reality of large groups of people living in spacecraft for maybe 2 year voyage. This is easy on star trek, not easy in the real world. Can people really live in space that long, and can the program be sustained with large groups of people safely? Consider all the practical realities: food, air, waste, not to mention psychology, people living on Mars for extended periods of time.

yes, it's not easy, but it will happen... only the (not existing now) A.I. driven Mars rovers can replace the humans in the red planet exploration

.

snifferdog
2009-Aug-10, 06:34 PM
Im just a bit confused as to where you got some of your figures and data,for instance

'This option sounds really CRAZY to me because (nearly) NOTHING (or just 10%) of the Moon-specific vehicles, hardware and know-how could be use for a Mars mission, in fact, it's the preffered and supported choice only of those who want to "make money soon" with the lunar hardware contracts and did NOT want to go Mars soon, to have more and bigger "Mars contracts" in future!'?!

Surely,after sustaining a human presence on the moon for a period of time,several years or so,more than 10% of the knowledge we had gained would be useful in a manned mission to mars?!

R.A.F.
2009-Aug-10, 06:40 PM
no, only if you want to go Mars... :)

The audacity of your statement astounds me...at least you posted it with a smilee.

Ilya
2009-Aug-10, 06:49 PM
OK, I read it. I used "Edit" and "Select All" browser functions, copied the entire page into UltraEdit, which removed all bells ans whistles, then copied into Microsoft Word. MUCH easier to read.

Once you strip off all the exclamation signs and other hoopla -- which I agree is a HUGE turn-off, -- Gaetanomarano's proposal is pretty simple. It boils down to this -- establish a manned presence on Phobos, from where astronauts will teleoperate rovers on Mars in real time. Do not actually land humans on Mars until suitable location is prepared for them.

I hate to say it, but Gaetanomarano does not win any awards for originality -- this idea has been kicking around for years. I actually think it is very sensible, as it combines the best of robotic and manned operations -- robots are FAR more versatile without the time lag, yet huge cost of landing humans onto Mars and later taking off is removed (or at least postponed). And digging deep enough into Phobos to block cosmic rays is probably easier than building a proper radiation shelter on Mars. Unfortunately, it is not politically sexy. The chances of pushing it through Congress are pretty much nil, which is why its supporters, including Planetary Society, had given up on it.

Paul Beardsley
2009-Aug-10, 06:50 PM
ok, so, we will never go to Mars, due to too much colors in my blog... :(

.

This is the post that astonishes me.

You asked for suggestions and Tim gave you some polite and constructive criticism... and you responded with sarcasm.

I'm a proofreader. When I read your first post I thought about proofreading your article... then read on and decided I've got better things to do with my time.

Consider the importance of diplomacy in any major project.

Tucson_Tim
2009-Aug-10, 06:54 PM
I have this fear that if a "Mars race" gets started, in order to be first NASA will opt for a "launch, land, look around, return home" sort of mission. Yes, a great technical achievement but . . .

Argos
2009-Aug-10, 06:55 PM
There are too many colors used, too many different fonts, too many different sized fonts, too many exclamation points (none at all would be better), and too much highlighting. Straightforward text would look more professional and get you better results. This looks like a cheap TV ad - not a paper designed to convince people of your point of view.

I second that. The overall self-congratulatory tone of the blog doesnīt help either [I couldnīt help noticing the "advertisement" for the "Moonrover prize" idea]

gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-10, 06:59 PM
OK, I read it. I used "Edit" and "Select All" browser functions, copied the entire page into UltraEdit, which removed all bells ans whistles, then copied into Microsoft Word. MUCH easier to read.

Once you strip off all the exclamation signs and other hoopla -- which I agree is a HUGE turn-off, -- Gaetanomarano's proposal is pretty simple. It boils down to this -- establish a manned presence on Phobos, from where astronauts will teleoperate rovers on Mars in real time. Do not actually land humans on Mars until suitable location is prepared for them.

I hate to say it, but Gaetanomarano does not win any awards for originality -- this idea has been kicking around for years. I actually think it is very sensible, as it combines the best of robotic and manned operations -- robots are FAR more versatile without the time lag, yet huge cost of landing humans onto Mars and later taking off is removed (or at least postponed). And digging deep enough into Phobos to block cosmic rays is probably easier than building a proper radiation shelter on Mars. Unfortunately, it is not politically sexy. The chances of pushing it through Congress are pretty much nil, which is why its supporters, including Planetary Society, had given up on it.

no, the idea of Phobos is only an option, my suggestion is to invest to develop the Mars hardware WITHOUT know if and when we'll find the money to actually build it

so far, the "standard (and logical) strategy" was "spend money to develop a rocket AND build the rocket"

this can't be done for Mars, since the "costs" are very high and completely unknown

so, instead of wait 30-40 years to find one trillion dollar, I suggest to invest ONLY in a 10-years research, NO MATTER if we'll have the money (and when) to use the results at the end of the research

this is the ONLY way to start NOW a Mars program

.

gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-10, 07:01 PM
[I couldnīt help noticing the "advertisement" for the "Moonrover prize" idea]

it's NOT and "advertising" but a PROTEST

.

gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-10, 07:03 PM
This is the post that astonishes me.

You asked for suggestions and Tim gave you some polite and constructive criticism... and you responded with sarcasm.

no sense of humor here? ... :)

.

Rhaedas
2009-Aug-10, 07:04 PM
I think it's a brilliant idea, using Phobos as a human base, and I'll admit it's a new one to me, but it makes a lot of sense for an initial visit. Certainly the smaller price tag of not having to launch back out of a large gravity well would be a good seller. How much less is a good question.

kleindoofy
2009-Aug-10, 07:05 PM
The first rule for presenting a paper/idea: don't shove the information down the reader's throat, force feeding it with colors, exclamation marks, bold face type, etc.

Always let the information speak for itself. Never insult your reader's intelligence.

Using colors and exclamation marks is the same as yelling at your reader.

People don't listen to presenters who yell at them. :whistle:

samkent
2009-Aug-10, 07:05 PM
So we spend (notice I didn’t say invest) billions if not a trillion on this scheme without the instant gratification of boots on the ground???

It’s a dead deal right there.

I’ll wait for the political stunt mission.

gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-10, 07:06 PM
Surely,after sustaining a human presence on the moon for a period of time,several years or so,more than 10% of the knowledge we had gained would be useful in a manned mission to mars?!

no, only the time of the stay on the Moon looks the same, but nearly all things will be different (especially the very expensive Mars hardware)

.

Paul Beardsley
2009-Aug-10, 07:09 PM
no sense of humor here? ... :)

.

No. If you'd followed your reply to Tim with something along the lines of, "But seriously, thanks for taking the time to comment, I'll think about what you said," that would have been fine.

As it stands, your reply was simply dismissive. That sort of lack of diplomacy will not get people on Mars.

Please consider this post as constructive criticism, because that's how it's intended.

gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-10, 07:09 PM
The first rule for presenting a paper/idea: don't shove the information down the reader's throat, force feeding it with colors, exclamation marks, bold face type, etc.

Always let the information speak for itself. Never insult your reader's intelligence.

Using colors and exclamation marks is the same as yelling at your reader.

People don't listen to presenters who yell at them. :whistle:

I know no one likes my blog's formatting... but it's my pop-art-like blog's style from years... however, I often mitigate it a little bit it by adding a b/w version in some articles

.

gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-10, 07:11 PM
No. If you'd followed your reply to Tim with something along the lines of, "But seriously, thanks for taking the time to comment, I'll think about what you said," that would have been fine.

As it stands, your reply was simply dismissive. That sort of lack of diplomacy will not get people on Mars.

read all my posts... I do MORE, since I've said him that I'll ADD soon the b/w version

.

kleindoofy
2009-Aug-10, 07:14 PM
I know no one likes my blog's formatting... but it's my pop-art-like blog's style from years ...
I thought you wanted to go to Mars.

If nobody likes your formatting, then nobody will read your blog.
If nobody reads your blog, then your suggestion will never be noticed.
If your suggestion is never noticed, then we will not be going to Mars any time soon.

Ergo, the formatting of your blog is keeping man from visiting Mars.

It's all your fault. :lol:

gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-10, 07:15 PM
So we spend (notice I didn’t say invest) billions if not a trillion on this scheme without the instant gratification of boots on the ground???

It’s a dead deal right there.

I’ll wait for the political stunt mission.

1st... they are not trillion$ but (around) 15-20 billion$ in 8-10 years

2nd... we will surely use this know-how someday, just the time to find the funds

3rd... the research can anyhow have a fallout in other space, civil and military programs

so, no money will be really "lost"

.

gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-10, 07:17 PM
I thought you wanted to go to Mars.

If nobody likes your formatting, then nobody will read your blog.
If nobody reads your blog, then your suggestion will never be noticed.
If your suggestion is never noticed, then we will not be going to Mars any time soon.

Ergo, the formatting of your blog is keeping man from visiting Mars.

It's all your fault. :lol:

I've not an exact statistics of how many like or not my blog's formatting... I only know that just a few people say me to change it... however, if the "price" to go Mars is to change my blog... then, I'm sorry, but we will never go to Mars... :)

.

Paul Beardsley
2009-Aug-10, 07:18 PM
read all my posts... I do MORE, since I've said him that I'll ADD soon the b/w version

.

You did more after you'd dismissed him and after he'd protested about it.

And you haven't indicated whether you're going to remove the exclamation marks.

If you want to inspire others into promoting your vision, stop being so precious and defensive.

gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-10, 07:21 PM
And you haven't indicated whether you're going to remove the exclamation marks.

sorry, but I did not want to remove them, I'll just add soon a b/w version of the text

.

Paul Beardsley
2009-Aug-10, 07:31 PM
sorry, but I did not want to remove them, I'll just add soon a b/w version of the text

.

You really don't see that making a good impression goes beyond what you want to do?

I've had a look at it and I recognise it as an infantile fantasy. Nobody is going to read a proposal that includes the words "the speech stops again due to another standing ovation". Making a black and white version is not going to make it any less infantile and unprofessional.

I've wasted enough time on this drivel.

Nicolas
2009-Aug-10, 07:32 PM
The rotational period of Phobos around Mars can be easily expressed in minutes (less than 8 hours).

How are you going to communicate with your rovers if you're on the other side of the planet after a few hours? You could use some erm Marsostationary relay satellites, but wouldn't that result in too large a comms delay?

I don't think it's very practical to do jobs with rovers when you have to pause for hours after each few hours (say two and a half hours if you use 1:3rd of the orbit time as comms ready, and at 6000km that might be a stretch) of work. You can never work continuously on something. The big advantage is that during the hours you can work, you get almost instantaneous feedback. But I don't know whether it outweighs the cons. Space walks tend to take 6-7 hours on ISS, and remote rovers still work more slowly than humans. I don't know whether you can do many things that can be paused for hours after at most a few hours of work. Note that I say "I don't know", not "I don't think that".

In the end, this tradeoff would be related to how much easier it is to have a mission to Phobos than to Mars.

samkent
2009-Aug-10, 07:33 PM
1st... they are not trillion$ but (around) 15-20 billion$ in 8-10 years

So for the price of getting Ares up and going you can put men around Mars?

I'll have what he's having.

gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-11, 02:45 AM
The rotational period of Phobos around Mars can be easily expressed in minutes (less than 8 hours).

How are you going to communicate with your rovers if you're on the other side of the planet after a few hours? You could use some erm Marsostationary relay satellites, but wouldn't that result in too large a comms delay?

I don't think it's very practical to do jobs with rovers when you have to pause for hours after each few hours (say two and a half hours if you use 1:3rd of the orbit time as comms ready, and at 6000km that might be a stretch) of work. You can never work continuously on something. The big advantage is that during the hours you can work, you get almost instantaneous feedback. But I don't know whether it outweighs the cons. Space walks tend to take 6-7 hours on ISS, and remote rovers still work more slowly than humans. I don't know whether you can do many things that can be paused for hours after at most a few hours of work. Note that I say "I don't know", not "I don't think that".

In the end, this tradeoff would be related to how much easier it is to have a mission to Phobos than to Mars.

Phobos is only an option and two seconds of radio-delay always is better than half hour

however, the goal of my proposal isn't the Phobos station, but "FIND NOW THE FUNDS TO DEVELOP A MARS PROGRAM"

it's not true that all funds for research are given only when there is a sure practical result

lots of billion$ was burned by NASA in projects that never born, the same has been in last 50 years (and a further 50 years in future) for the (never born) fusion reactors, etc.

also, we can't allocate now the right amount of money for a Mars mission, because (simply) we don't know "how much it costs" and never can't know that, if we did not (first) develop it

if many will support my proposal (but it seem no one like the reserch... it's not a big business like sell SRB, RS-68, tanks, etc.......) probably there will be enough money available to start the research now and be ready to build the hardware when the economy will allow a Mars mission (without start from ZERO in 2020, 2025, 2035...)

.

gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-11, 02:48 AM
So for the price of getting Ares up and going you can put men around Mars?

I'll have what he's having.

the exact figure given by NASA to develop the Ares-1 is $35 billion (+ costs overrun...) of which $5 billion already burned... but it's unclear WHERE that money EXACTLY goes... I suspect that 90% of this funds will (simply) pay the NASA, ATK, Boeing and P&WR army of employees' salaries in the next ten years...

.

novaderrik
2009-Aug-11, 03:27 AM
the exact figure given by NASA to develop the Ares-1 is $35 billion (+ costs overrun...) of which $5 billion already burned... but it's unclear WHERE that money EXACTLY goes... I suspect that 90% of this funds will (simply) pay the NASA, ATK, Boeing and P&WR army of employees' salaries in the next ten years...

.
and why, exactly, do they have to pay salaries to those people? what are they doing in exchange for getting paid that money?
i have a cousin that is working at the NASA space center in Alabama. he is part of a team that is (or was) working on the areas between the stages of the Ares rockets. he shows up every day, figures out solutions to problems, designs and builds the parts, assembles them, tests them, and fixes anything he finds wrong with them until they work properly. he will be at the Cape for all of the early launches.
are you saying that people like that shouldn't get paid- because it is money that is just being "burned"?

gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-11, 03:40 AM
and why, exactly, do they have to pay salaries to those people? what are they doing in exchange for getting paid that money?
i have a cousin that is working at the NASA space center in Alabama. he is part of a team that is (or was) working on the areas between the stages of the Ares rockets. he shows up every day, figures out solutions to problems, designs and builds the parts, assembles them, tests them, and fixes anything he finds wrong with them until they work properly. he will be at the Cape for all of the early launches.
are you saying that people like that shouldn't get paid- because it is money that is just being "burned"?

they must be paid, of course, but the money is "burned" if you develop a rocket that have too much problems, needs too much solutions, have a design and test time of over 12 years, etc.

that's why the Ares-1 will be ready to fly only in 2017 and will cost $35 Bn only to develop it!

good project = less money

bad project = money burned

.

gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-11, 03:50 AM
.

I want to further explain WHY the TRUE Mars-landing-fans should SUPPORT my proposal of "Mars research funds NOW"

a space mission like the manned Mars travel is like build a skyscraper

you first need funds and time to develop it and (later) funds and time to actually build it

assuming the first phase needs two years and the second phase four years, you can have the skyscraper finished six years after the day you start design it

well, the Mars mission is like a skyscraper that needs ten years to design and ten years to build

if you start NOW to design it (with enough funds) you have some hope to "finish" it within 2030

if you start design it in 2020, the Mars-skyscraper could be ready not early than 2040

start in 2030 = Mars in 2050... and so on...

you have just ONE DAY to support and advocate my proposal, since, the Augustine Commission, will end its job and decide tomorrow!

.

Nicolas
2009-Aug-11, 07:43 AM
you first need funds and time to develop it and (later) funds and time to actually build it

As is shown time and time again, actually building it is a primary part of developing it. Many problems only become apparent when you build & test the parts. You can't split it up into phase 1 and phase 2, they're completely mixed together after some basic initial design.

gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-11, 09:26 AM
As is shown time and time again, actually building it is a primary part of developing it. Many problems only become apparent when you build & test the parts. You can't split it up into phase 1 and phase 2, they're completely mixed together after some basic initial design.

all fixings can be done when the hardware will be built

however, you seem live out of the reality... there are NOT two, three or more chances to go Mars soon, but just ONE... that's the way I suggest

the Moon program needs $120-150 Bn to land within the next decade, but, due to the NASA budget cut, the first(next) landing is not likely to happen before 2025-2030

a full Mars mission (research AND hardware) could need THREE to FIVE times the Moon program (between $300 Bn and $500 Bn) an huge amount of money that, simply, doesn't exit in the governments' pockets

so, you/we have only TWO realistic options (if we'll be lucky enough, of course) that are:

a) have a small amount ($10-20 Bn) of funds allocated in the next 10 years to do some basic research (that include some basic hardware tests) for a Mars mission, or...

b) nothing

.

ugordan
2009-Aug-11, 09:43 AM
however, you seem live out of the reality...
Oh, the irony...

samkent
2009-Aug-11, 11:41 AM
But you haven't defined a reason to send humans to Mars!

Unless one of the rovers rolls over a dead body, there's just no reason that robots can't do everything we need up there.

NEOWatcher
2009-Aug-11, 12:27 PM
all fixings can be done when the hardware will be built
If that's true, then why are you complaining about Ares-1 development, delays and cost?

If the research or design is not complete, then the fixes will lead to time and cost overruns.

I have been involved (in a minor way) with many large construction projects. Every time they are "fast tracked" (or refined as they go) the project go severely over budget.
They expect that, but the developers also have a way to weigh the overruns against the potential lost income of not being open in time.

Mars is non-monetary and political. There's no way to accurately measure the overruns against a time table.



a) have a small amount ($10-20 Bn) of funds allocated in the next 10 years to do some basic research (that include some basic hardware tests) for a Mars mission, or...
So;
Current money being spent on Mars research doesn't count?
Current development of new hardware and a new infrastructure to allow non-LEO missions doesn't count?
Long term space habitation research being done on the ISS doesn't count?

What kind of hardware tests are you talking about?

I would love to have some extra funds allocated to NASA for some un-bound research (research for the sake of extending knowledge, capabilities, or techniques). Unfortunately, the funding is goal-oriented. Without a clear goal, the politicians are not going to do anything.

Which all takes me back to an earlier post.


so far, the "standard (and logical) strategy" was "spend money to develop a rocket AND build the rocket"
Without new rocket technology and infrastructure, we will go nowhere.

gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-11, 12:46 PM
ok, option b) for you

Damburger
2009-Aug-11, 12:59 PM
If you want to make a case for an alternative route to Mars, you need to spend less time writing imaginary speeches for the President and more time actually researching a mission, and then presenting it in a way that isn't physically painful to read.

NEOWatcher
2009-Aug-11, 01:01 PM
ok, option b) for you
Did you even read my post? Nowhere did I elude to option b. This is not an a or b type of situation. You can't just take your ball and go home.

Did you notice that there are a lot of question marks at the ends of those sentences? (And, there's a lot even though there is only one per sentence)

Those were directed for you to answer.

gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-11, 01:22 PM
If you want to make a case for an alternative route to Mars, you need to spend less time writing imaginary speeches for the President and more time actually researching a mission, and then presenting it in a way that isn't physically painful to read.

the "route to Mars" can't be made now... it starts the day there are funds for R&D and ends with a detailed "plan"... like a "Mars ESAS plan"

of course, when it starts, I'll thinks about some good ideas for it, like I've done for the ESAS plan on my blog

.

gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-11, 01:32 PM
Did you even read my post? Nowhere did I elude to option b. This is not an a or b type of situation. You can't just take your ball and go home.

Did you notice that there are a lot of question marks at the ends of those sentences? (And, there's a lot even though there is only one per sentence)

Those were directed for you to answer.

you still miss the fact that we haven't lots of options, but just three:

1. an huge (up to $500 Bn) investment to do everything we need to go Mars

2. a small (up to $20 Bn) investment to start some basic research about it NOW

3. zero cents for Mars

the first option has no chance to happen, especially with today's economic crisis

the third option is those that has 99.99% of probabilities to happen

just if we are very very very very very very lucky (like the SM4 crew...) we have a 0.01% chance that some funds will be allocated for Mars travels research

now we should do the "Step #1" of the plan: support the allocation of funds for Mars in the next 10 years

then, later, IF the funds will be given, we can discuss about the best and most rational way to use it

it's useless to discuss about "how to use" money that NASA has little or no chances to have!

let support my proposal, first... and cross fingers... :)

.

gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-11, 01:38 PM
.

however, those that want to support my proposal for Mars (that's surely better than NOTHING) can send a mail to the HSF Committee here:

hq-humanspaceflight@mail.nasa.gov

in the message you can write what you want, but add a link to my article or to this thread, so they can know more about the proposal

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/047gotomars.html

.

nauthiz
2009-Aug-11, 02:06 PM
I have a feeling the HSF committee already gets enough emails telling them that the world would be perfect if they allocated more than their entire budget's worth of money to a single project.* I also have a feeling that they remain unconvinced of the viability of these suggestions, for reasons that I hope shouldn't be too difficult to intuit.

If you honestly want NASA to even have the option of dumping $20bn a year on getting humans to Mars, you should probably start by convincing the United States Congress to increase their annual budget allocation by $15-20bn.


*Incidentally, my credit card company often tries to say similar things to me.

NEOWatcher
2009-Aug-11, 02:17 PM
you still miss the fact that we haven't lots of options, but just three:
YOU DID NOT ANSWER MY QUESTIONS (post45). :hand:


the first option has no chance to happen, especially with today's economic crisis
I can agree with that.


the third option is those that has 99.99% of probabilities to happen
How do you arrive at that probability?


now we should do the "Step #1" of the plan: support the allocation of funds for Mars in the next 10 years
I can not respond to that statement without knowing what your answers were in the previous post about what is happening now. Please answer, then I can comment.


then, later, IF the funds will be given, we can discuss about the best and most rational way to use it
That's not how it works, and this is not the place to get into the politics of why.


it's useless to discuss about "how to use" money that NASA has little or no chances to have!
If NASA has a good request, they will get the money.
If NASA just asks for money, they won't get it.
"How to use" is the primary driving factor of trying to fund something.

No business can survive saying "give me some money, and I'll build you something" without telling you what they will build and how they will achieve building it.
And when there are businesses that do that, there is usually someone who ends up in jail.

gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-11, 03:02 PM
.

delays and cost... first launch in 2017 and $35 Bn are too much

cost overruns... all big and complex projects have cost overruns

no way to accurately measure the overruns... true, but I feel the overrun will be much less than with Ares-1 ($5 Bn >>> $35 Bn)

doesn't count... the extra-budget I suggest should be entirely devoted to develop MANNED Mars missions

non-LEO... ISS... everything counts, but Mars need also some specific hardware

hardware tests... new engines, Mars landers, Mars ISRU, etc.

a clear goal... study what we need to go Mars already is a clear goal

new rocket technology... it's one of the research that should be made with the new funds

that probability... it's only a way to say "very small"

a good request... have funds to study what we need to go Mars is a good request, there is no one better than this

businesses... NASA is a space agency not a company, so, it must research also the "unknown"

.

NEOWatcher
2009-Aug-11, 03:32 PM
delays and cost... first launch in 2017 and $35 Bn are too much
I agree, but that's what we have along with a lot of "paper" proposals. Why would we develop Manned hardware without a way to get man up there?


cost overruns... all big and complex projects have cost overruns
Yes; I think we agree there. Especially in space projects where you are pushing the envelope of technology capabilities.


no way to accurately measure the overruns... true, but I feel the overrun will be much less than with Ares-1 ($5 Bn >>> $35 Bn)
Do you have anything to go by other than a feeling? We can argue until we are blue in the face, but without anything to back up the feelings, it's a useless discussion.



doesn't count... the extra-budget I suggest should be entirely devoted to develop MANNED Mars missions
non-LEO... ISS... everything counts, but Mars need also some specific hardware
Aha; now we get into the meat of the disagreement.


hardware tests... new engines, Mars landers, Mars ISRU, etc.

What kind of new engines do we need?
What do we put into a Mars lander without knowing supply requirements?
I don't disagree that we need to work toward those goals, but I am fairly confident in saying that some of the important variables that may change the requirements are missing.


a clear goal... study what we need to go Mars already is a clear goal
But why, what are we going to accomplish? What kind of technology do we need to make those accomplishments? Are we satisfied with planting a flag?
A broad goal is a good starting point, but somewhere along the line, we need to work out some of the details.


new rocket technology... it's one of the research that should be made with the new funds
Explain. There is currently other research into new rocket technology.
The only thing missing is the application of the technology which requires a maturing of the technology.


that probability... it's only a way to say "very small"
Then please say that. Throwing numbers around is not doing any good.


a good request... have funds to study what we need to go Mars is a good request, there is no one better than this
My whole issue is that statement is way to broad. What we need to go to Mars is what we don't have for manned spaceflight now. So any application beyond LEO is going to help go to Mars. Just because it's not dedicated to a single goal, does not mean it's not moving forward.

I need to see a list of requirements of what we need for Mars. I am not a space expert, so I can not compile that list. But, if I see the details, I can see how we are working toward that goal.


businesses... NASA is a space agency not a company, so, it must research also the "unknown".
That's the whole issue, isn't it. I agree research for the sake of research is necessary in keeping technology moving forward. But; even unknowns need to be narrowed down into fields of studies, and steps of moving forward. Otherwise, it's just science through accidents.

samkent
2009-Aug-11, 03:44 PM
But why do we need to send MAN to MARS?

djellison
2009-Aug-11, 03:56 PM
"I won't explain here my proposal"

Then why in hells name would anyone support it?

WHAT is your proposal, exactly? Is it Mars Direct, is it Mars Semi Direct, is it something else. What, exactly, are you proposing.

Damburger
2009-Aug-11, 04:03 PM
His proposal is sort of explained in his fantasy-Obama speech. It isn't Earth-shattering to be honest.

Considering the quality of presentation and the depth of explanation I am required to submit for a cubesat project which will cost about $100,000 - I can't really see billions of US taxpayers money being spent on the recommendation of one guy and his horridly garish website.

gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-11, 04:09 PM
"I won't explain here my proposal"

read again my article... I haven't "explained my proposal" since the US President in person has done that for me in his speech... :)


Is it Mars Direct, is it Mars Semi Direct, is it something else.

the only opinion I give in my article is about Mars-Direct (that looks like a Mars-suicide) since my article did not show a "new way to go Mars" but a "new way to have funds to go Mars"

the best technologies, vehicles, mission architectures, etc. will be the argument of future articles (or BAUT threads)

.

gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-11, 04:13 PM
billions of US taxpayers money

I hope/suggest that also ESA, Russia, China, India, Japan, etc. will join the Mars program and will add other funds

.

novaderrik
2009-Aug-11, 04:29 PM
But why do we need to send MAN to MARS?
if you even have to ask that question, then there is no way to explain it to you.
the short version is that we need to go there because it's there, and people are explorers by nature. forget all the feel good arguments about "leaving the cradle" and "to learn about where we came from" and all that. in the end, it's just in our nature to go over that next hill and see what's on the other side.

Nicolas
2009-Aug-11, 04:42 PM
all fixings can be done when the hardware will be built

however, you seem live out of the reality...



Remind me who of us it was that has actual experience in space R&D.



so, you/we have only TWO realistic options (if we'll be lucky enough, of course) that are:

a) have a small amount ($10-20 Bn) of funds allocated in the next 10 years to do some basic research (that include some basic hardware tests) for a Mars mission, or...

b) nothing


"Some basic research" may be a nice start, but many show stoppers only show up during detail design, manufacturing and testing. Doing some basic research is a relatively small portion of the total effort required to get us to Mars, and as such isn't giving that much of a head start. Certainly not that much that it would be the only thing that still makes a Mars landing possible.

To really drive a giant effort like a Mars mission and to get the private industries involved, history shows us that you have to have something concrete to look towards if you want people to do their very best. And for a Mars mission, you'd need the best of the best. People are not going to work nights and move half the continent for a paper study, so it just might be that the concrete vision of landing men on Mars would make things go faster than already starting some years earlier without a real drive behind it. I don't know for sure of course.

But I can't see why starting on basic research would be the only way to get us to Mars.

In a sense, the experience we'll get from more advanced moon missions might teach us more about Mars missions than preparing some papers and spreadsheets.

It's not like no basic research to Mars missions has ever been done, and to go to the next step in detail I really feel there should be something concrete waiting at the finish in order to motivate people to do it.

I've done basic research into propulsion systems. We also did some overall design of what the craft should look like (engineering wise). But as the plane would never be built, there wasn't a drive to make sure the wing joint held up, to get that nasty eigenfrequency down, to design a suitable landing gear, etcetc. We were content when we didn't cross an overall MTOW and had positive lift and net thrust. But without the craft being actually built, we couldn't motivate (or fund) the massive amount of people and resources required to actually design the thing.

So in the end the head start for that craft would have been say 10 people working on basic research for 3 years on the engine and general layout. Had we put 100 people into the project, we could have done it in less than 6 months if you organise things well. This method of scaling the effort up would make the head start of conducting lower profile studies in advance quite a lot less important.

Argos
2009-Aug-11, 04:43 PM
forget all the feel good arguments about "leaving the cradle" and "to learn about where we came from" and all that. in the end, it's just in our nature to go over that next hill and see what's on the other side.

Yeah, but the bottom line is that we really have to learn how to live somewhere else in space, because an extinction catastrophe is sure to happen.

gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-11, 05:41 PM
.

"some basic research" includes also "some basic hardware" not just paper & computer simulations

the money I suggest to allocate to develop the Mars programs has EXACTLY the purpose to AVOID to remain in the "paper & computer" stage also in the next 20 years!

one simple example of that is the IXV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_eXperimental_Vehicle) that is ONLY a technology demonstrator (then, LESS than an usable Shuttle) but it's surely MORE than a PowerPoint file!

assuming a "paper & PC project" costs (e.g.) "10", the technology demonstrator costs (e.g.) "100" and the real vehicle costs (e.g.) "1000" or more

I don't know exactly how much is allocated today in the NASA budget for "Mars" but I suppose it could be in the range of a few billion$ in total for the upcoming probes, a few hundreds million$ per year for the structures that manage the existing Mars rovers and probes and a few million$ to "study the manned Mars missions"

it's clear, that, with this level of funds, we will NEVER go Mars, not even in 2100, and everything about a manned Mars mission will remain on paper, PCs ...and blogs!!!

I believe everybody are able to understand the difference between have "million$" or "billion$" to study and develop the Mars program (of course, that only for those who REALLY want that... while, those that are involved in the ESAS, Ares, SRB, Moon "business" did NOT like to see part of the NASA money go elsewhere.........)

with "billion$" you can do much more than some "paper & computer" design

just one example to better explain my point:

with $5 million you can only pay the salaries of the engineers that design a Mars lander CONCEPT

with $50 billion you can develop and build a FLEET of REAL full-scale Mars landers (but you can't have now that money)

while, with (e.g.) $500 million, you can develop, build, test, launch and land ON MARS a TRUE and WORKING scale-model technology demonstrator of the Mars lander, that is MUCH MORE than (simply) "study" it

this is the reason why I suggest to support the allocation of $10-20 BILLION to a manned Mars program, rather than, today's $10-20 million (but probably the real amount allocated today is lower than that!)

.

R.A.F.
2009-Aug-11, 05:56 PM
.it's clear, that, with this level of funds, we will NEVER go Mars, not even in 2100...

No, gaetanomarano, it is NOT "clear", your "pronouncements" notwithstanding.

The one thing in common with everyone of your "arguments" is a lack of evidence. Since you have brought up the subject, when will you be providing evidence that your ideas have merit?

gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-11, 06:03 PM
it is NOT "clear", your "pronouncements" notwithstanding

you forget that the REAL "propellant" to fly to LEO, the Moon, Mars and beyond is "MONEY" (not LOX and LH2...)

no money, no party... :)

.

NEOWatcher
2009-Aug-11, 06:15 PM
read again my article... I haven't "explained my proposal" since the US President in person has done that for me in his speech... :)
If that was a real speech, then you would have a link to it.
If there was a proposal by the president, then there would be links to it.

You have some vague "let's go to Mars" fever, a made up speech to reinforce it, and use it for references. You have not presented anything to go by.


the best technologies, vehicles, mission architectures, etc. will be the argument of future articles (or BAUT threads).
So; you have no clue, and you are using this thread as a way to get ammunition for another NASA slam session?


I don't know exactly how much is allocated today in the NASA budget for "Mars"
That's not how the NASA budget works. The NASA budget is more divided along the lines of operations, not missions.
Mars is not a program, it is a directive. It's not even a major portion of the directive, it is only an end goal with other milestone directives in-between.
NASA is working on those milestones to the best of thier ability, and is not going to reach for later milestones at the expense of the earlier ones.


while, with (e.g.) $500 million, you can develop, build, test, launch and land ON MARS a TRUE and WORKING scale-model technology demonstrator of the Mars lander, that is MUCH MORE than (simply) "study" it
Scale model? So what. We already have practical experience landing things on Mars.
What we need is the real thing, and the specification that will drive the design of the real thing.

gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-11, 06:57 PM
"We already have practical experience landing things on Mars."

so, you want to land the astronauts on Mars with airbags?

.

NEOWatcher
2009-Aug-11, 06:59 PM
"We already have practical experience landing things on Mars."

so, you want to land the astronauts on Mars with airbags?

.
Are you so ignorant to think that an airbag is the only way we have landed things on Mars?

gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-11, 07:06 PM
again... lack of humor... or ignorance... I hope you don't really believe that our experience with robotic landers is enough to land astronauts... :)

.

NEOWatcher
2009-Aug-11, 07:26 PM
again... lack of humor... or ignorance... I hope you don't really believe that our experience with robotic landers is enough to land astronauts... :)
.
That's all we had with the moon. So, sure, I think it's enough.

It's a matter of specifications, and maybe a preliminary supply ship as a final test bed.

gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-11, 07:56 PM
I think it's enough.

or you've seen Red Planet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Planet_%28film%29)... :)

.

Nicolas
2009-Aug-12, 07:34 AM
I don't see the added value of your proposal (develop and land a scale model of a mars mission) over say the sum of a return to the moon and the soft landing of the new Mars rover, combined with general studies of Mars.

djellison
2009-Aug-12, 08:43 AM
The aerodynamics of parachutes, hypersonic entry vehicles etc, do not scale very well. So a scale model would be a waste of time and a significant waste of money. Limited technology tests of elements of an eventual landing vehicle for Mars are, of course, a pre-req for a manned landing. but a 'scale model' - that's nonsense.

gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-12, 09:46 AM
.

you're smart enough to understand EXACTLY what I'm saying

LARGE funds may allow deep researches and true tests in Space or on Mars of what we need for a manned Mars travel and stay

of course, the choice of "lab" or "computer simulation" or "earth" or "space" or "mars" and "full-scale" or "scale-model", etc. will depends of what the NASA's "Mars engineers" need to test or know

but, it's not a matter of discussion here and now... first, the program needs to be funded... later, all the smaller details of each test can be defined

.

Nicolas
2009-Aug-12, 10:01 AM
you're smart enough to understand EXACTLY what I'm saying

And to have an opinion about it.


but, it's not a matter of discussion here and now... first, the program needs to be funded... later, all the smaller details of each test can be defined

Horse, cart... fill in the rest.

Glom
2009-Aug-12, 11:01 AM
The rotational period of Phobos around Mars can be easily expressed in minutes (less than 8 hours).

How are you going to communicate with your rovers if you're on the other side of the planet after a few hours? You could use some erm Marsostationary relay satellites, but wouldn't that result in too large a comms delay?

I believe Arestationary orbit is the term.

Couldn't you just use good old fashion cables to link several comms sites throughout the moon? Phobos isn't very big.

It's the orbit period that requires more concern when it comes to maintaining contact with the ground. To resolve that you'd need to have several satellites distributed across the Phobian orbit.

Nicolas
2009-Aug-12, 11:16 AM
How would having multiple comms stations on Phobos be any help?

edit: I think I used the wrong term. I meant that Phobos orbits around Mars in 8 hours. I don't know if and how fast it rotates around its own axis.

Glom
2009-Aug-12, 11:26 AM
How would having multiple comms stations on Phobos be any help?

edit: I think I used the wrong term. I meant that Phobos orbits around Mars in 8 hours. I don't know if and how fast it rotates around its own axis.

Yes, so you'll need a network of satellites either in the Phobian orbit or in Arestationary orbit. Phobian allows for constant bearing from the Phobos base but requires tracking of the Martian surface equipment. Arestationary orbit works the other way round.

Arestaionary is problem the best option actually because when you include the rotation of Phobos, you'd need to track the satellites anyway. Of course, Arestationary orbit is higher than the Phobian orbit so you would most certainly need a network of ground stations across the moon.

On the topic of the thread, which seems to be about the value of presentation, I'm in agreement with the masses here. Whatever good might be the article is obscurred by a less than stellar effort at professional presentation. It's timely that this spat should erupt as I'm in trouble myself over style-over-substance issues. I'd drafted a manual for my successors out here to do their morning routines. Apparently, while I was off, it got sent to the accountants onshore and they were not pleased with some of the tone. :doh:

Antice
2009-Aug-12, 12:02 PM
what would onshore accountants need offshore morning routines for??? :shifty:
And your tone would not necesearily be considdered bad by your intended target group unless those are accountants too :lol:

Glom
2009-Aug-12, 01:50 PM
what would onshore accountants need offshore morning routines for??? :shifty: And your tone would not necesearily be considdered bad by your intended target group unless those are accountants too :lol:

That's the thing. I wrote it in typical handover style to a fellow offshore petroleum engineer, in a nice relaxed tone laced with generous doses of cynicism due to the grinding nature of these routines. As you can imagine, we have a far less sensitive disposition out here. I didn't intend for it to be sent to the accountants. My back-to-back sent it, the traitor!

So it's not quite the same as the example here. My problem was the reception of an unintended audience, whereas here it is the target audience who are disliking the style of the document they've been shown.

nauthiz
2009-Aug-12, 02:17 PM
but, it's not a matter of discussion here and now... first, the program needs to be funded... later, all the smaller details of each test can be defined

So is that what it boils down to? The core of the plan is ultimately just "ask NASA to ask for more money and maybe they'll get it and everything will get better if they do" with a few speculative details added for color?

Nicolas
2009-Aug-12, 02:58 PM
added for color

Like there was a lack of that. ;)