Elon Musk discusses making Mars more habitable by nuking thepoles

In article ,
says...
it would be a mistake to send a crew to mars and have them die. it would set back exploration a lot.

No, it wouldn't. We've lost two shuttle crews and the shuttle program
proceeded despite your chicken little protests at the time.

no magic pixie dust, just solid research........

No, you're delusional. There is no known current tech that would enable
a "fast" return from Mars which is fast enough to deal with any sort of
real emergency. Just as there is no way to deal with the same during
the Antarctic winter at the manned South Pole base.

hopefully saner heads will rule before we spend probably over a trillion bucks and possibly kill a crew.

Sorry Bob, but you are not on the side of "saner heads" on this issue.
You never have been.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article om,
says...

On 2015-10-01 10:04, Fred J. McCall wrote:

And so you will never send them, because there is always a chance of
death...



Apollo 13 and Apollo 1 demonstrated the risk of death. However, the
Apollow programme was designed to send a man to the moon and return him
safely back to Earth.

So there is a huge difference between having a plan for return trip
which is disrupted by failures, and a plan to send people to mars
without a plan to return them.

No one said anything about not having a plan to return them. But Bob is
saying we need a "fast return" capability in case of emergencies. It's
not going to happen. Current propulsion tech, and even near term tech
like nuclear propulsion, won't be fast enough to prevent death in all
cases.

But, the very same situation exists at the manned South Pole base during
the winter and we don't abandon the base in the winter, do we? So, we
already accept very similar risks on earth. Bob is overreacting, as
usual.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article ,
says...
True, but most Americans couldn't name a single Antarctic researcher. I'll
bet come a Mars mission they'll be able to name at least one if not most of
them.

I doubt most Americans could name 1/4 of the US astronauts who died
during Apollo 1, on Challenger, and on Columbia. Astronauts were a hell
of a lot easier to name when they were the Mercury 7 and we were behind
the Soviet Union in space. Today, not so much.

And this is the problem. If some anonymous American dies at the South Pole,
it'll make the news for one evening and then folks will move on. If an
astronaut dies, it's a national tragedy and commissions will be formed.

And based on past experience, it might set back the program a year or
two at most. And after several more years, the public will have
forgotten the names of most of the astronauts who died.

I don't always agree with this, but I think it's the reality we're in.

It's one reason in a sense I both think a private mission is more and more
likely before a government one, but I favor it. I think fewer questions
will be asked and fewer people held responsible.

I disagree. America isn't that sensitive to death. History has proven
this.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
m says...
True, but most Americans couldn't name a single Antarctic researcher.
I'll
bet come a Mars mission they'll be able to name at least one if not most
of
them.

I doubt most Americans could name 1/4 of the US astronauts who died
during Apollo 1, on Challenger, and on Columbia. Astronauts were a hell
of a lot easier to name when they were the Mercury 7 and we were behind
the Soviet Union in space. Today, not so much.

At the time of the incidents I'd bet many could. Of course naming 1/4 of
the astronauts on Apollo 1 might be though. :-)

Seriously, with Challenger, I bet most still could name 1/7th though.
Columbia though, now... I'm sure none could.



And this is the problem. If some anonymous American dies at the South
Pole,
it'll make the news for one evening and then folks will move on. If an
astronaut dies, it's a national tragedy and commissions will be formed.

And based on past experience, it might set back the program a year or
two at most. And after several more years, the public will have
forgotten the names of most of the astronauts who died.


I don't think we're too far apart on this. But, I think a setback of 2 years
(or more likely at least 1-2 launch cycles given Mars' orbit) could severely
constrain any program. It could easily push it off into another
administration which could easily kill it.

There is also the cost of the program that makes it a very easy target,
especially if something goes wrong. A death at the South Pole and most
people wouldn't question the budget. A death on Mars and people are going
to immediately ask if the billions spent are worth it.


I don't always agree with this, but I think it's the reality we're in.

It's one reason in a sense I both think a private mission is more and
more
likely before a government one, but I favor it. I think fewer questions
will be asked and fewer people held responsible.

I disagree. America isn't that sensitive to death. History has proven
this.

In part yes, but in reality, we spend millions more on construction projects
to avoid deaths, we expect safer cars.

We spend more and more money on saving lives (and not just in total, but per
capita).

In a wealthy country, I don't have a big problem with this. But I do think
it constrains us at times.


Jeff

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

In article ,
says...
I disagree. America isn't that sensitive to death. History has proven
this.

In part yes, but in reality, we spend millions more on construction projects
to avoid deaths, we expect safer cars.

Yes, but in both cases, deaths are inevitable. Injury and death in
general is inevitable on large scale projects. If it weren't, insurance
wouldn't be such a huge business.

We spend more and more money on saving lives (and not just in total, but per
capita).

In a wealthy country, I don't have a big problem with this. But I do think
it constrains us at times.

It only constrains us if we let it. Again, none of the past NASA
astronaut tragedies have stopped the then current manned space program.
If these programs are more likely to be canceled today than in the past,
perhaps you should consider factors other than "safety" and the deaths
of astronauts and focus on those issues.

For example, you mention the high cost (e.g. many billions of dollars
for manned Mars missions). Focusing on ways to get those costs, and
schedules, down would be more productive than allowing such an
expensive, admittedly financially fragile, programs to go forward as
they are.

And as Fred noted in another post, cutting mass of Mars Reference
Missions reduces redundancies. That can impact the safety of a mission.
This seems to me to be a product of focusing too much on a
transportation architecture too heavily based on "heavy lift" (i.e. Ares
V and now SLS).

Other than in what feels like the distant past (e.g. the NASA Fastrac
engine R&D that SpaceX then used as a solid basis for the Merlin
engine), NASA has not done anything "big" in the way of successfully
reducing costs through technology development. Again, IMHO.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...
I disagree. America isn't that sensitive to death. History has proven
this.

In part yes, but in reality, we spend millions more on construction
projects
to avoid deaths, we expect safer cars.

Yes, but in both cases, deaths are inevitable. Injury and death in
general is inevitable on large scale projects. If it weren't, insurance
wouldn't be such a huge business.

True, but the rate of deaths has definitely dropped. There are many major
projects now that are completed without a single death.


We spend more and more money on saving lives (and not just in total, but
per
capita).

In a wealthy country, I don't have a big problem with this. But I do
think
it constrains us at times.

It only constrains us if we let it. Again, none of the past NASA
astronaut tragedies have stopped the then current manned space program.

Really? You don't think Columbia's breakup had anything to do with Bush
cancelling the program? Prior to the accident there were no firm plans to
end the program.

And several of the higher ups in NASA during the Apollo era later said that
Apollo 1 and 13 made them very nervous to continue.

If these programs are more likely to be canceled today than in the past,
perhaps you should consider factors other than "safety" and the deaths
of astronauts and focus on those issues.

For example, you mention the high cost (e.g. many billions of dollars
for manned Mars missions). Focusing on ways to get those costs, and
schedules, down would be more productive than allowing such an
expensive, admittedly financially fragile, programs to go forward as
they are.

Oh, I agree 100%. I think the best thing we can do is continue to reduce
launch costs. The more mass we can toss at the problem, the easier it is to
solve.

For example I'd advocate that one of the simplest things we can do to
greatly increase the safety of a Mars mission is to basically fly two craft
that can be independent so either can be a lifeboat. This is probably
easier, and if launch costs come down, cheaper than trying to make sure we
have a single space craft that "can't fail".


And as Fred noted in another post, cutting mass of Mars Reference
Missions reduces redundancies. That can impact the safety of a mission.
This seems to me to be a product of focusing too much on a
transportation architecture too heavily based on "heavy lift" (i.e. Ares
V and now SLS).

Agreed.


Other than in what feels like the distant past (e.g. the NASA Fastrac
engine R&D that SpaceX then used as a solid basis for the Merlin
engine), NASA has not done anything "big" in the way of successfully
reducing costs through technology development. Again, IMHO.


I'd agree. As I think most of us here would agree, SLS is a mistake. It's
a solution in search of a problem. NASA really should be funding stuff
engine designs. Tank designs (can we use different/better materials?) etc.
I don't want to see them building a super lifter and then trying to find
missions.

It's one reason I really think Musk will get there before Uncle Sam.


Jeff

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

In article m,
says...

On 2015-10-04 14:07, Jeff Findley wrote:

Other than in what feels like the distant past (e.g. the NASA Fastrac
engine R&D that SpaceX then used as a solid basis for the Merlin
engine), NASA has not done anything "big" in the way of successfully
reducing costs through technology development. Again, IMHO.


What about the engines on DC-X ? ( forget what they were called).

RL-10. Absolutely nothing special there. Completely off the shelf.
Still used in the Centaur upper stage. DC-X did prove you could "gas
and go" with them, which many people doubted was possible (because space
and rocket engines are somehow "special" because space is "hard").

It's the VTVL of DC-X that was truly special. It paved the way for the
Falcon 9-R first stage and for Blue Origin's first stage as well. But
NASA abandoned VTVL when it picked the "winner" for the X-33 design.

:-P

Just because the project didn't pan out doesn't mean that R&D wasn't
done on it. Sometimes, testing a solution to find out it doesn't work is
just as valuable since it helps draw the roadmap to avoid this tech.

According to NASA, X-33 "proved" we didn't have the tech for SSTO. That
was complete B.S. They abandoned the then proven VTVL of DC-X and went
for VTHL because it was cool (everyone knows spaceships land on runways,
like the shuttle right?), despite the fact that it is harder to meet
mass fractions with a horizontal lander.

With the failure of X-33, all that DC-X investment went into the $hitter
and NASA went back to warmed over 1960s and 1970s tech for Ares I and
Ares V, which has morphed into SLS. It's a technological throwback to
an era when everyone "knew" you dropped spent stages into the ocean,
because "performance uber alles" said the former German engineers.

Too bad "performance uber alles" is the antithesis of low cost access to
space. :-P

If we look at the Shutle engines, I know NASA improved their
performance
(allowing them to go to something like 105% of originally rated
performance). Didn't they also manage to substantially reduce their
operating cost over the years ?

Fat lot of good that did. They're still too expensive for SLS to be
thrown away after every flight. NASA is going a$$ backwards
technologically, and the US Congress is at the controls.

Obviously, when you start with something very very expensive, reducing
the costs may only bring it down to "expensive". But it could still be a
substantial reduction.

Nope, not when NASA plans to literally drop every flyable SSME to the
bottom of the ocean along with the rest of the very expensive SLS core
stage. The shuttles in museums are now left with non-flyable engines
and mock-ups, not that most of the viewing public would notice or even
care.

I've little love for SLS these days. It's a multi-billion dollar
launcher to absolutely nowhere.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article m,
says...

On 2015-10-04 14:07, Jeff Findley wrote:

Other than in what feels like the distant past (e.g. the NASA Fastrac
engine R&D that SpaceX then used as a solid basis for the Merlin
engine), NASA has not done anything "big" in the way of successfully
reducing costs through technology development. Again, IMHO.


What about the engines on DC-X ? ( forget what they were called).

RL-10. Absolutely nothing special there. Completely off the shelf.
Still used in the Centaur upper stage. DC-X did prove you could "gas
and go" with them, which many people doubted was possible (because space
and rocket engines are somehow "special" because space is "hard").

Yeah, the RL-10 has a great history and shows that a fairly simple engine
JFW.


It's the VTVL of DC-X that was truly special. It paved the way for the
Falcon 9-R first stage and for Blue Origin's first stage as well. But
NASA abandoned VTVL when it picked the "winner" for the X-33 design.


Politics uber alles

:-P

Just because the project didn't pan out doesn't mean that R&D wasn't
done on it. Sometimes, testing a solution to find out it doesn't work is
just as valuable since it helps draw the roadmap to avoid this tech.

According to NASA, X-33 "proved" we didn't have the tech for SSTO. That
was complete B.S. They abandoned the then proven VTVL of DC-X and went
for VTHL because it was cool (everyone knows spaceships land on runways,
like the shuttle right?), despite the fact that it is harder to meet
mass fractions with a horizontal lander.

And in that sense ayup, it proved we probably can't build a VTHL SSTO. On
the same token, we probably can't build a usable 747 helicopter hybrid.

Might be why Boeing not only hasn't built one, they haven't even suggested
it. ;-)



With the failure of X-33, all that DC-X investment went into the $hitter
and NASA went back to warmed over 1960s and 1970s tech for Ares I and
Ares V, which has morphed into SLS. It's a technological throwback to
an era when everyone "knew" you dropped spent stages into the ocean,
because "performance uber alles" said the former German engineers.

Too bad "performance uber alles" is the antithesis of low cost access to
space. :-P

At some point one has to optimize for performance, but agreed, definitely
after you've optimized for cost (unless performance is such a huge
improvement. But given where we stand with modern rocket engines, it's not
like someone is suddenly going to come up with an main engine with 10x the
ISP of anything out there!)



If we look at the Shutle engines, I know NASA improved their
performance
(allowing them to go to something like 105% of originally rated
performance). Didn't they also manage to substantially reduce their
operating cost over the years ?

Fat lot of good that did. They're still too expensive for SLS to be
thrown away after every flight. NASA is going a$$ backwards
technologically, and the US Congress is at the controls.

I'm actually a fan of the later versions of the SSME. They did show that
once you had plenty of flight time (an simplified the more complex parts of
the design) you can build a high performance engine. For a disposable,
it's far to expensive. If I were building a reusable, I might consider it,
other than LH2 probably isn't a good choice.


Obviously, when you start with something very very expensive, reducing
the costs may only bring it down to "expensive". But it could still be a
substantial reduction.

Nope, not when NASA plans to literally drop every flyable SSME to the
bottom of the ocean along with the rest of the very expensive SLS core
stage. The shuttles in museums are now left with non-flyable engines
and mock-ups, not that most of the viewing public would notice or even
care.

I've little love for SLS these days. It's a multi-billion dollar
launcher to absolutely nowhere.

Agreed, 100%



Jeff

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net