Comments on: “Mars is under attack!” http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/06/21/mars-is-under-attack/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=mars-is-under-attack Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway... Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:35:41 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.38 By: “Mars is under attack!” - Medium Cool http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/06/21/mars-is-under-attack/#comment-276890 Sun, 06 Dec 2009 00:51:31 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/06/21/mars-is-under-attack/#comment-276890 […] strange is happening to the red planet. The response by one reader of the Space Politics blog to this post gives me pause. “[…]we have maps of Mars that are an order of magnitude better then those […]

]]> By: Space Politics » Mars Society continues its counterattack http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/06/21/mars-is-under-attack/#comment-16210 Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:41:36 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/06/21/mars-is-under-attack/#comment-16210 […] you may recall, last week The Mars Society went to battle stations in response to a provision in a House appropriations bill that would prevent NASA from spending any […]

]]> By: Donald F. Robertson http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/06/21/mars-is-under-attack/#comment-16143 Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:33:53 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/06/21/mars-is-under-attack/#comment-16143 Thanks for the details, Jim.

— Donald

]]> By: Jim Muncy http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/06/21/mars-is-under-attack/#comment-16126 Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:15:28 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/06/21/mars-is-under-attack/#comment-16126 Donald,

my point is that the LSAM design process is still at the concept level, and *no* decision has been made to use storables. the ESAS study said use LOX-Methane.

a decision was made to use storables for the Orion service module (instead of LOX-Meth) for “block 1″, i.e. to ISS. LOX-methane can be inserted for block 2 of Orion, i.e. to the Moon.

NASA has indeed made huge progress with LOX-Methane this year working with multiple contractors. It is one of the real success stories that a precursor engine for the lunar module ascent stage has been fired nearly 40 times. Amidst all the understandable focus on Ares 1 and Orion, there’s actual moonship hardware being tested.

(I don’t always get to be positive about NASA, so when I can, I try to indulge the opportunity…)

– Jim

]]> By: Donald F. Robertson http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/06/21/mars-is-under-attack/#comment-16125 Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:53:27 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/06/21/mars-is-under-attack/#comment-16125 Jim, I fully and absolutely agree. I opposed the decision to go with storable propellants, and you make a key point about contaminating any water that I hadn’t thought of. That said, I’d rather go back to the moon with storable propellants than not go at all, and that decision has been made far above my pay grade. I hope that the combination of the delay in lunar infrastructure development, and progress in methane rocketry, will cause this decision to be reversed later on.

— Donald

]]> By: Adrasteia http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/06/21/mars-is-under-attack/#comment-16081 Wed, 27 Jun 2007 05:51:51 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/06/21/mars-is-under-attack/#comment-16081 Um, where exactly did that bullshit $2000/kg cost for Ares V come from? The support infrastructure alone on that monster costs $3B per year, they would have to launch 100 per year to get down to those rates.

]]> By: Jim Muncy http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/06/21/mars-is-under-attack/#comment-16057 Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:30:13 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/06/21/mars-is-under-attack/#comment-16057 Donald,

why ever use storables in a lunar module? why spray hypergolic poison into the cold shadowed craters at the poles, where it will condense out, turning whatever water ice (or volatiles) is there from precious real estate into a Superfund site?

instead, design the LSAM with LOXLH2 for descent and LOXCH4 for ascent and then plug in lunar lox when it is available. otherwise, you’re talking an entire redesign of the LSAM, which would require money NASA won’t have (different propulsion=different sized tanks, etc…) .

– Jim

]]> By: J.B. http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/06/21/mars-is-under-attack/#comment-15948 Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:06:26 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/06/21/mars-is-under-attack/#comment-15948 “the Appropriators put this language in as a symbolic slap at Bush and to avoid a floor amendment that would have done the same thing.”

Quite true. But by adopting an attitude of VSE=Bush, the Democrats will make it harder for Nick Lampson to win re-election next year.

]]> By: Donald F. Robertson http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/06/21/mars-is-under-attack/#comment-15935 Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:26:06 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/06/21/mars-is-under-attack/#comment-15935 Thomas, I agree with your moon versus Mars rhetoric, although, as usual, I’d emphasize returning humans and leave rovers to private efforts or nothing. Mars is too difficult a goal to tackle without the all-or-nothing crash-program-funding kind of effort that Apollo got and is not in the cards today.

Kert: Refueling is not something you “tack on” to your transportation architecture later on.

Why not, especially if you have a modular architecture? So, the first generation lunar lander uses storable propellants (a mistake, I think, but let’s move on). What’s to prevent you from replacing it with a methane stage later on?

— Donald

]]> By: gburke http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/06/21/mars-is-under-attack/#comment-15917 Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:01:01 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/06/21/mars-is-under-attack/#comment-15917 “the Appropriators put this language in as a symbolic slap at Bush and to avoid a floor amendment that would have done the same thing.”

Absolutely.
Was this even mentioned in the mainstream news at all?
Maybe the senators can give Griffin a few pointers about running an effective stealth progran.
If in fact Griffin really had one in the first place.

]]>