> In a message dated 4/4/2007 8:33:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> tmayes1999@... writes:
>
>
> > Trying to assemble a giant Mars vehicle with 40 - 250,000 kg
modules in
> > orbit is not the best approach to this.
>
> There will not be 40 modules. It will take 40 launches to get the
necessary
> equipment into orbit.
> Tim, in our studies we had to take into consideration several
thousand plan
> killers and tried to eliminate the factors that would insure short
or long term
> failure.
> While weight and money are real factors there is no future in
sending people
> out to a certain death. More than 500 people have spent more than
20 years on
> deciding which items to use and are always on the look out for new
ways to do
> a job that are less costly and will do a better job.
>
> There is not one ounce of unnecessary equipment in our plans.
Every piece of
> equipment is designed to do at least three different functions.
Part of the
> ship will never land on any planet. It will be used to further
explore the
> neighborhood.
>
> Again every thing that has ever been brought up has been addressed
so that
> people can actually live a real life on Mars and in space.
Anything else would
> be to condemn people to short lives and sure deaths without being
able to
> achieve the goals for which they went there.
>
> If there are any real shortcomings in our plan we will be happy to
know what
> they are. If you have any suggestions to make our plan really more
realistic
> we will listen to your concerns.
> Because we have looked over several hundred proposals we will not
make any
> wholesale changes but will make such changes as will insure
complete success.

Why would you use an on orbit construction of a 'spaceship' instead
of an apollo style module that lands directly on the surface with a
pre flown return module waiting and fueled with Martian air? The
time, complexity, and costs would seem to dramatically favor the
later. Especially since most of the hardware is on shelf or
adjusted current hardware not completely new technology.


> > Also be aware of the fact that Mars escape velocity is just
11,000 miles
> > per hour, and Mars orbital velocity is about 7700 miles per
hour. This means
> > that on Mars an H2 + O2 burning 1 stage chemical propelled
rocket can go
> > anywhere in the solar system to the classical 9 planets given
enough time: if it is
> > launched from Mars instead of Earth.
>
> Our Plan is never to have to land most ships on Mars or any other
major solid
> body. The ships will never have to be resupplied with most
materials.
> The only things it will have to be resupplied with is fuel and
people.

How would they not need resupply except for fuel and people? Fuel
would seem the easiest to resupply from in situ resources. And why
would you want to be in space instead of on the surface of planetary
bodies? All the resources, science, safety, gravity, etc. are on
planetary bodies (moons and asteriods included.)


> > So what you actually want to do is to extract the natural briny
water ice
> > from the Mars environment: and then you want to electrolyze it
and break it
> > into H2 + O2 on site. Then you use compressors to liquefy it and
store it. So
> > then you can refuel on site the terminal rocket stage of an
interplanetary
> > space craft.
>
> There are many different ways to refuel and what you say above can
easily be
> a part of the ways the ships are fueled.

But what is the current plan for refueling? Mars is relatively
straight forward, bring H2, convert CO2 and H2 into CH4 and LOX.


> > Solar cells can provide the electric power source to do that on
site on
> > Mars. So can small nuclear reactors.
>
> We plan on using at least 7 different methods to provide the fuel
necessary
> to provide the necessary power to do all of the different things.
These two
> items will be part of those ways.

Why would 7 different methods be needed to provided electricity and
fuel, this would seem to increase complexity and cost, while
reducing reliability as it is unlikely they are all in current use
in space to test reliability.


> > Let some Mars ships be automated freighters that carry cargo and
equipment
> > to Mars surface on one way trip. Let others carry 2-3 persons
there on 1 way
> > trips. One you start producing rocket fuel on site all the
terminal stages
> > landed on Mars have potential earth return capability if you
want it. But if
> > their colonists-pioneers they should not return. They should
stay on Mars and
> > be pioneers-settlers there.
>
> All of this is standard plan for 98 of every 100 plans we have
read and
> researched.

Is it in your plan though?


> > Energia is currently available to launch the 100,000 kg Mars
ships if you
> > can figure out how to pay for it.
>
> While we may use the Energia the super Ariane V will lift more.
The Russians
> recently used the Ariane V to lift one of its heaver payloads
because they did
> not think that the Energia would lift it.
> By the time we get ready to launch we will have several choices as
to which
> vehicle and launch site to use.

The question remains how will you pay for it?

Brooks