http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/opportunity/20040125a/Pancam_So l1_Postcard_part.jpg

It's pretty amazing stuff, really.

Think we'll ever get there?

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:bv1pee$1ap4$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/opportunity/20040125a/Pancam_So
> l1_Postcard_part.jpg
>
>

There are two fundamental problems that must be solved:

1) a cheaper way to push mass into orbit

2) create a self-sustaining base on Mars at least as far as air, water, and food goes. It is so far away that if people there are totally dependent on resupply from Earth, it will be a dead-end, literally and figureatively.


(1) is impossible as long as NASA remains committed to the inefficient shuttle concept. The whole idea of pushing that great big mass into orbit, only to bring it down again just to get the people back, just makes no sense. A sensible approach would be to build the space station out of shuttle hulls, and drop the astronauts back to earth in light, disposable (and relatively safe) apollo-type capsules. (Think of all the weight savings by not having to push into orbit things like tiles, wings, rudders, wheels, etc.) In fact, the rockets pushing people into orbit should be different from those pushing mass into orbit. The former can be made safe and would be safe if all they do is push a minimal capsule up. The latter can be much less safe, therefore cheaper, and it pushes up all the equipment, living space, supplies, etc.

But no, politics rules the space program, not common sense. So (1) will not
happen.

(2) I see little progress in that direction.


"Matthew" <matthew.hat@stlsoft.dot.org> wrote in message news:bv7220$10gh$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> It's pretty amazing stuff, really.
>
> Think we'll ever get there?
>
> "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:bv1pee$1ap4$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >
>
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/opportunity/20040125a/Pancam_So
> > l1_Postcard_part.jpg
> >
> >
>
>

There has been several articles in New Scientist and Scientitic American on space transports etc.

There are simpler method for (1).  It is possible to have transporter planes
that flies into very high altitudes high for cargos/fuels, and rocket propelled
"shuttles" that remain permanent in orbit that flies "down" to transfer cargo
from planes to shuttles and back to space/orbit.  Back in the 70's when
NASA was testing the shuttles, the Columbia was piggy back on a 747
anyway.  Except the technology of the 70's never got changed.  It is
always the re-entry that is the problem - the brute force approach.



"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:bv7iev$1se8$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> There are two fundamental problems that must be solved:
>
> 1) a cheaper way to push mass into orbit
>
> 2) create a self-sustaining base on Mars at least as far as air, water, and food goes. It is so far away that if people there are totally dependent on resupply from Earth, it will be a dead-end, literally and figureatively.
>
>
> (1) is impossible as long as NASA remains committed to the inefficient shuttle concept. The whole idea of pushing that great big mass into orbit, only to bring it down again just to get the people back, just makes no sense. A sensible approach would be to build the space station out of shuttle hulls, and drop the astronauts back to earth in light, disposable (and relatively safe) apollo-type capsules. (Think of all the weight savings by not having to push into orbit things like tiles, wings, rudders, wheels, etc.) In fact, the rockets pushing people into orbit should be different from those pushing mass into orbit. The former can be made safe and would be safe if all they do is push a minimal capsule up. The latter can be much less safe, therefore cheaper, and it pushes up all the equipment, living space, supplies, etc.
>
> But no, politics rules the space program, not common sense. So (1) will not
> happen.
>
> (2) I see little progress in that direction.

"KarL" <karl@kimay.net> wrote in message news:bv7k1c$1upb$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> There has been several articles in New Scientist and Scientitic American
on
> space transports etc.
>
> There are simpler method for (1).  It is possible to have transporter
planes
> that flies into very high altitudes high for cargos/fuels, and rocket
propelled
> "shuttles" that remain permanent in orbit that flies "down" to transfer
cargo
> from planes to shuttles and back to space/orbit.  Back in the 70's when NASA was testing the shuttles, the Columbia was piggy back on a 747 anyway.  Except the technology of the 70's never got changed.  It is always the re-entry that is the problem - the brute force approach.

The question I have is why worry about reentry? The only thing that *needs* reentry are the people. They can reenter with simple, proven apollo type capsules. Adding reentry capability to anything else adds enormous cost and complexity.

It surely must be far cheaper to just build another one than build one capable of reentry. Look at the shuttle, and strip it of its reentry capability. There's probably only 10% of it left!

Walter a écrit :
> http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/opportunity/20040125a/Pancam_So
> l1_Postcard_part.jpg
> 
> 
here some from Mars Express

http://asimov.esrin.esa.int:8766/queryIG.html?rf=3&searchType=general&tipo=Image&tx0=Image&tx1=&col=mmg&qp=&qs=&qc=&ws=1&nh=12&lk=1&vf=0&ql=a&op0=%2B&fl0=ContentType%3A&ty0=p&op1=%2B&fl1=category%3A&ty1=p&op2=%2B&fl2=showcase%3A&ty2=p&tx2=SEMU775V9ED&showcase=Mars+Express

Amazing images. If you have a pair of 3d glasses, even better.
The hi-res images are worth downloading if you have a broadband connection. Incredible details.

It is almost like nothing gets done without Microsoft linkage....

As SpaceShipOne demonstrated in this historical flight,  the concept I
quoted
back in January was demonstrated by Paul Allen's pet project.  The
difference
is that we don't have billions of dollars to play.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/22/1087669926764.html

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:bv92ve$1c7h$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > There has been several articles in New Scientist and Scientitic American
> on
> > space transports etc.
> >
> > There are simpler method for (1).  It is possible to have transporter
> planes
> > that flies into very high altitudes high for cargos/fuels, and rocket
> propelled
> > "shuttles" that remain permanent in orbit that flies "down" to transfer
> cargo
> > from planes to shuttles and back to space/orbit.  Back in the 70's when NASA was testing the shuttles, the Columbia was piggy back on a 747 anyway.  Except the technology of the 70's never got changed.  It is always the re-entry that is the problem - the brute force approach.
>
> The question I have is why worry about reentry? The only thing that
*needs*
> reentry are the people. They can reenter with simple, proven apollo type capsules. Adding reentry capability to anything else adds enormous cost
and
> complexity.
>
> It surely must be far cheaper to just build another one than build one capable of reentry. Look at the shuttle, and strip it of its reentry capability. There's probably only 10% of it left!

Fantastic!

Hmm, just pondering how I can get Paul Allen's email so I can offer my services - at very modest rates - to the project.

Well, I can dream, can't I?


"Kar G Lim" <klim@machealth.com.au> wrote in message news:cb8f4c$m8m$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> It is almost like nothing gets done without Microsoft linkage....
>
> As SpaceShipOne demonstrated in this historical flight,  the concept I
> quoted
> back in January was demonstrated by Paul Allen's pet project.  The
> difference
> is that we don't have billions of dollars to play.
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/22/1087669926764.html
>
> "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:bv92ve$1c7h$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > > There has been several articles in New Scientist and Scientitic American
> > on
> > > space transports etc.
> > >
> > > There are simpler method for (1).  It is possible to have transporter
> > planes
> > > that flies into very high altitudes high for cargos/fuels, and rocket
> > propelled
> > > "shuttles" that remain permanent in orbit that flies "down" to transfer
> > cargo
> > > from planes to shuttles and back to space/orbit.  Back in the 70's when NASA was testing the shuttles, the Columbia was piggy back on a 747 anyway.  Except the technology of the 70's never got changed.  It is always the re-entry that is the problem - the brute force approach.
> >
> > The question I have is why worry about reentry? The only thing that
> *needs*
> > reentry are the people. They can reenter with simple, proven apollo type capsules. Adding reentry capability to anything else adds enormous cost
> and
> > complexity.
> >
> > It surely must be far cheaper to just build another one than build one capable of reentry. Look at the shuttle, and strip it of its reentry capability. There's probably only 10% of it left!
>
>

It's an impressive achievement. But it did not go fast enough to have to deal with reentry heat. I wonder what Rutan plans to do about that. And I also think that there's nothing better that Allen could be doing with his money than investing in this. My hat is off to him.

"Kar G Lim" <klim@machealth.com.au> wrote in message news:cb8f4c$m8m$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> It is almost like nothing gets done without Microsoft linkage....
>
> As SpaceShipOne demonstrated in this historical flight,  the concept I
> quoted
> back in January was demonstrated by Paul Allen's pet project.  The
> difference
> is that we don't have billions of dollars to play.
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/22/1087669926764.html
>
> "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:bv92ve$1c7h$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > > There has been several articles in New Scientist and Scientitic
American
> > on
> > > space transports etc.
> > >
> > > There are simpler method for (1).  It is possible to have transporter
> > planes
> > > that flies into very high altitudes high for cargos/fuels, and rocket
> > propelled
> > > "shuttles" that remain permanent in orbit that flies "down" to
transfer
> > cargo
> > > from planes to shuttles and back to space/orbit.  Back in the 70's
when
> > > NASA was testing the shuttles, the Columbia was piggy back on a 747 anyway.  Except the technology of the 70's never got changed.  It is always the re-entry that is the problem - the brute force approach.
> >
> > The question I have is why worry about reentry? The only thing that
> *needs*
> > reentry are the people. They can reenter with simple, proven apollo type capsules. Adding reentry capability to anything else adds enormous cost
> and
> > complexity.
> >
> > It surely must be far cheaper to just build another one than build one capable of reentry. Look at the shuttle, and strip it of its reentry capability. There's probably only 10% of it left!
>
>

"Matthew" <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message news:cb8m7a$10r5$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Fantastic!
>
> Hmm, just pondering how I can get Paul Allen's email so I can offer my
services -
> at very modest rates - to the project.
>
> Well, I can dream, can't I?

I think Rutan is in charge of the engineering, not Allen, so he'd be the person to contact. I also bet he's a lot more accessible!