Sander Vesik wrote:
George William Herbert wrote:
Sander Vesik wrote:
In situ resources? Hahahahaha. And just how were you planning to test it
works?

Have you read Zubrin's books or refereed publications on Mars Direct?

A test program including both subscale tests and then sending an
unmanned return vehicle 2 years ahead of the crew, to manufacture
its return fuel before the crew leave Earth, are both planned.
If the first return vehicle fails to successfully manufacture its
return fuel for any reason, you don't send the crew until the
second ERV has landed and manufactured *its* fuel, etc.

Note that earlier in the thread, a sample return mission was mooted
(not by me) as going to cost more or less as much as the manned
mission anyways and thus not worth it... Which at least appears to
rule that scenario out.

It's not going to cost more or less as much as a
manned mission; the numbers I have seen are mostly in
the $1-2 billion range, though $5b has been whispered
on really bad days. This is not theoretical; It's
been on NASA's long term Mars exploration planning
since they got serious about Mars in the middle of
the 90s. It was likely to fly in 07 or 09 until
we lost the two missions in one year, and the
plans all got screwed up.

I missed that earlier comment. I don't know who said
it but it does not reflect either the estimated costs of
a sample return by the teams doing long range planning
to do one nor does it reflect the scientific priorities
and planning process, which has sample return as a major
midterm goal for the program.


-george william herbert