Slashdot Mirror


Preview of Moon-To-Mars Report

schnarff writes "Space.com has obtained a sneak preview of the Moon-To-Mars commission report, which will be officially released June 16. The report calls for spinning off NASA centers as FFRDCs, establishing an independent cost estimation bureau, and otherwise streamlining NASA's bureaucracy."

33 of 170 comments (clear)

  1. Don't worry, I got a copy of the *real* report: by Skyshadow · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Here's how the Moon-to-Mars report should actually read:

    "It's not going to happen. This whole deal is just election-year BS from your friends at the Bush Administration who are still trying to distract you from the gigantic fucking mess they've created in the middle east by waving around some cool-sounding ideas that they have no intention of following up on. Oh sure, we'll spend a whole lot of tax dollars coming up with reports (like this one!) and let some worthwhile science projects fall by the wayside, but in the end absolutely jack will come of it. Hey! Look at that shiney thing! And have a nice day."

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    1. Re:Don't worry, I got a copy of the *real* report: by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While your political analysis is generally correct, I think that we should remember that the famous speech given by president Kennedy to the joint session of Congress in May 1961 - "I believe that this nation should commit itself, before this decade is out, to landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth", can also be translated in your way to:

      "Well, a month ago the Soviets launched Gagarin to the first manned orbital flight and all the PR spin doctoring in the world cannot make Alan Shepard's flight a match for that. Also just a few days ago the guys from CIA made complete morons of themselves in Bay Of Pigs, Cuba. It looks like we'll count another humiliating defeat in Indochina. To make things worse to me, I won the election by a very narrow margin and the Republicans can hit me that I'm soft on communism. Oh, and I need that whole civil rights movement on the South like a pain in the a** - if I'll support them, the Southern Democrats no longer support me, if I'll oppose them, all the other Democrats no longer support me. Damn, I have no movement. To the left, to the right, to the north, to the south, obstacles everywhere. So maybe I'll just move up, up and away?".

      Yeah, for Kennedy the Apollo Project was nothing but a clever PR-stunt, a brilliant escape from his political problems. But decades ago all that counts is that it was one of the greatest achievements of mankind in the twentieth century. In politics, major achievements are often made thanks to petty reasons. Even if the Moon-to-Mars project is also a PR-BS for Bush, it doesn't prove nothing will come of it.

  2. Acronym abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    FFRDC? WTF?

    (JK. I RTFA.)

  3. rumor by maxbang · · Score: 5, Funny

    I heard a rumor that R. Daneel Olivaw will be helping out here and there, especially with a new technology that can capture approaching comets and mine them for minerals. Can anyone confirm this?

    --
    I also reply below your current threshold.
  4. Obligatory Chappelle "Balck Bush" quote by MightyPez · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Y'all need to stop worrying about the middle east and the economy. I got that under control! And we aint stoppin' at the moon. Write this down. M-A-R-S, Mars bitches. We're going to Mars. Red Rocks!"

    "Yeai yeaaaaii!"


    /very ad-libbed

    1. Re:Obligatory Chappelle "Balck Bush" quote by commodoresloat · · Score: 3, Funny

      Doesn't the last line technically make this a Howard Dean quote?

  5. Article Text before ./ Mars Attacks by bigdady92 · · Score: 3, Informative

    commission chartered by U.S. President George W. Bush to advise him on implementing a broad new space exploration vision is recommending streamlining the NASA bureaucracy, relying more heavily on the private sector, and maintaining more oversight of the nation's space program at the White House.

    The President's Commission on Implementation of U.S. Space Exploration Policy is scheduled to release its final report June 16. A copy of that report, "A Journey to Inspire, Innovate, and Discover", was obtained by Space News .

    The 60-page report outlines the organizational changes the commission says NASA needs to make if it is to achieve the space exploration goals laid out by Bush in January. Those goals include returning humans to the moon by 2020 in preparation for eventual human expeditions to Mars.

    The nine-member commission, headed by former U.S. Air Force Secretary Edward (Pete) Aldridge, said if those goals are to be met, the nation needs to commit to space exploration for the long haul, and that the private sector must be given a much larger role in the U.S. space program.

    "The Commission believes that commercialization of space should become the primary focus of the vision, and that the creation of a space-based industry will be one of the principal benefits of this journey," the report states. "Today an independent space industry does not really exist. Instead, we have various government funded space programs and their vendors. Over the next several decades -- if the exploration vision is implemented to encourage this -- an entirely new set of businesses can emerge that will seek profit in space."

    The commission calls upon NASA to reach out to small, entrepreneurial firms through business opportunities targeted to them. The commission also endorses NASA's plans to award large cash prizes to encourage technological innovation. And the commission encourages the U.S. Congress to enact tax incentives, provide regulatory relief and clarify and protect property rights in space to encourage commercial exploitation of the final frontier.

    In the more immediate future, the commission wants NASA to turn over nearly all launch activity to private firms.

    "The Commission believes that the private sector is willing and capable of providing the initial boost into low-Earth orbit for the payloads associated with the vision," the report states. "To foster the continued development of this emerging market, the Commission believes that NASA should procure all of its low-Earth orbit launch services competitively on the commercial market."

    The commission specifically exempts the launching of human crews from this recommendation, saying in the report that it realizes this responsibility "will likely remain the providence of the government for at least the near-term."

    NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe said June 9 that he had neither seen the commission's report nor been briefed on its recommendations. But during a speech delivered at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce earlier that same day, O'Keefe pledged to heed the commission's recommendations on transforming the space agency.

    "The Aldridge commission has given a great deal of thought to how we should be organized in order to achieve these objectives," O'Keefe said. "We will be willing participants in implementing their recommendations. We are determined to transform the agency and our way of doing business to put these goals within reach."

    The report says NASA needs to transform its organizational structure, business culture and management processes "all largely inherited from the Apollo era" if it is to accomplish the multi-decade exploration agenda laid out by the president.

    The commission wants NASA to transform itself into "a leaner, more focused agency" starting with a major headquarters reorganization that reduces the number of mission-focused departments or what NASA calls enterprises.

    Planning for such a reorganization is already well underway at NASA. A draft organ

    --
    Wheel of Time: Book by Book and Sumview (summary review) Bigdady92 style: http://bigdady92.blogspot.com/
    1. Re:Article Text before ./ Mars Attacks by anzha · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The FFRDCs can be good and bad. I work for one. I have worked for another. I'm lucky that I work for one run by a university with a rather good track record. However, ones run by private companies as contracts often get uber paranoid about the almighty dollar. The oversight of the contractor gets to be insane. The research in the end suffers.

      I worked at a DOD equivalent of the DOE lab. Not so fun. At all. Defense contractors are evil to work for and the blood sucking that I saw to get as much money out of the contract made me sick.

      If NASA can get past the problems associated with the privately run labs, then kewl, go for it.

      However, wasn't there a problem with this legally? Something to do with the NASA employees being unable to do the same job when transitioning straight from being a government employee to a contractor (which technically they'd be if they worked for a FFRDC). IIRC, it had to do with this bill waaaay back: hence why teh bill died. I might be just misremembering though.

      --
      Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
  6. Why not... by bigattichouse · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why not run it like Venture capital? Where each project is like a "business" that has to develop and sell a plan, with intended payoffs (exactly what kind of information they will be looking for), potential bonus performance beyond the life expectancy, etc.

    --
    meh
    1. Re:Why not... by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Why not run it like Venture capital? Where each project is like a "business" that has to develop and sell a plan, with intended payoffs (exactly what kind of information they will be looking for), potential bonus performance beyond the life expectancy, etc.
      Here's a free clue for you. That's *exactly* how mission selection and planning has worked for oh, nearly fifty years now.
  7. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    NASA announced today that with the privatization effort in full gear, Halliburton had been awarded a no bid contract to adminster the entire US Space Program...

  8. Summary by k4_pacific · · Score: 4, Funny

    Basically, the report concludes that moving the Moon to Mars is both impossible and pointless.

    --
    Unknown host pong.
  9. To infinity and beyond! by CommanderData · · Score: 3, Interesting

    While I don't have any love for the Bush administration I would really like to see a Mars mission happen. It doesn't necessarily need to be a national budget buster, as Robert Zubrin has pointed out in his detailed plans in the books 'The Case For Mars' and 'Entering Space'...

    --
    Urge to post... fading... fading... RISING!... fading... fading... gone.
  10. Contracts to private industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "The Commission believes that commercialization of space should become the primary focus of the vision, and that the creation of a space-based industry will be one of the principal benefits of this journey," the report states.

    If I could, I would mod this "+1 Insightful". When government research is done only in-house, the trickle-down effect of new technology is slower. I think that by harvesting the efforts of private industry you can drive down the costs of space exploration while opening up that technology for use in the private sector. And given that one of the main ways people justify space exploration is through the use of space tech for other applications, I see this as a good move.

    (Disclaimer: Being an astrophysics student, I'm all for the exploration of space for it's own sake, but I'm not the one funding it...)

  11. Nail. Head. by Rob+Carr · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From the article:

    "The Commission believes that commercialization of space should become the primary focus of the vision, and that the creation of a space-based industry will be one of the principal benefits of this journey...."

    This one point seems so obvious. It has been said many, many times. Yet it's so hard for "The Powers That Be" to implement.

    When the history of the airplane is considered, one has to be thankful that the Wrights did not work for the National Aeronautic Administration in 1904.

    I am grateful for all that NASA has given us. But if we are to truly make the next step, the financial incentives for space must be given a chance to exercise their power.

    It's hard to allow a child to move out on it's own, but for the good of both the child and the parent, it must be done. Yes, there will be mistakes and risk and danger. But the alternative is a stunted, deformed life that is nothing but tragedy.

    --
    This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
    1. Re:Nail. Head. by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The obvious rebuttal, which has also been said many times, is that businesses are not going to commit significant amounts of money to space until they see the profit potential, and we're not there yet.

      Look, I'm a huge believer in the commercial possibilities of space, and I don't mean just for the people who build the rockets. I want, and hope, to see space tourism, 0-g manufacturing, asteroid mining, and eventually permanent colonization, and I even have some hope of seeing these things before I'm too decrepit to have a chance of getting on a rocket myself. But the suits aren't going to pour their money into making these things possible, no matter how much we might wish otherwise. NASA, or something like it, has to build the infrastructure. And we've got a lot of infrastructure to go before corporate investment on a massive scale is even a remote possibility. At the very least, we need launch vehicles that can reliably move people to and from orbit for no more than a few thousand dollars per trip per passenger, and can haul cargo at similarly reduced rates.

      IIRC, the Wright Brothers' first paying customer was the Army ...

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  12. Re:Going to the moon only happened to "hurt" Russi by aron_wallaker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now the enemy is Islamic fundamentalists, and none of them are going to compete in a race to Mars.

    China announced they were going to put a man in space and on the moon. Suddenly the US announced they were going to the moon and to Mars. It's not hard to connect the dots when there are only two.

  13. They're trying to! by Pi_0's+don't+shower · · Score: 4, Funny
    Did you RTFA? Check this out, from the link, taken from the lips of head-of-commission Pete Aldridge:
    "The Commission believes that commercialization of space should become the primary focus of the vision, and that the creation of a space-based industry will be one of the principal benefits of this journey," the report states. "Today an independent space industry does not really exist. Instead, we have various government funded space programs and their vendors. Over the next several decades -- if the exploration vision is implemented to encourage this -- an entirely new set of businesses can emerge that will seek profit in space."
    This is almost truly like the obligatory /. joke: 1. Go to Moon 2. Go to Mars 3. Profit! Too bad it doesn't come with a plan on how industry will benefit from space applications.
    1. Re:They're trying to! by Loudog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      [SNIP]

      Too bad it doesn't come with a plan on how industry will benefit from space applications.

      [SNIP]

      Too bad the Internet didn't either. And after quite a bit of hype, folks are actually making money on it in ways that no one ever anticipated.

      Do you know what the "killer app" is for space? I can assure you NASA doesn't. The civilian sector initially saw that communications was the big thing and now they're making money on it. Imagine that. What will happen if we can radically drop the cost of getting to LEO?

      I worked as a contractor to NASA for a year. I have friends that worked there for almost a decade. We were all unsurprised that NASA is having the safety problems it is. Inevitable, really. It's the most ineffective org I've ever seen -- and I've been in the USAF and worked for DOE for a few years. Corporate politics is polite conversation in a tea room to the full combat that is NASA.

      One of the most useless things I've ever seen is a NASA civil servant. Not that they aren't nice, but useless. Now look at what Rutan is doing over at Scaled Composites, how badly the Air Force shocked NASA when they ran the Clemantine mission, and tell me why we shouldn't get NASA out of the way and put the space program where it belongs: the universities, the private sector, and the military.

      Find out how many people got fired for the shuttles blowing up and you'll start to get the picture.

      -- Lou

  14. Streamlining bureaucracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The report calls for spinning off NASA centers as FFRDCs, establishing an independent cost estimation bureau, and otherwise streamlining NASA's bureaucracy.

    Only in the federal government would "streamlining bureaucracy" involve "FFRDCs" and a "cost estimation bureau."

  15. Don't bother RTFA.... by Unnngh! · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ...all you need to see is:

    [the commission] is recommending streamlining the NASA bureaucracy, relying more heavily on the private sector, and maintaining more oversight of the nation's space program at the White House.

    My leap to a conclusion leads me to believe that this is just another chapter in killing NASA completely. This means that more funding previously routed to NASA/JPL will go to the private sector. Whitehouse oversight further implies that the administration does not trust NASA with what little self-governance it has remaining to it, particularly after the most recent shuttle disaster.

    Which all just points to the private sector being the future of spaceflight for all practical applications. Hopefully companies will do a better job than our government has been doing.

    1. Re:Don't bother RTFA.... by GileadGreene · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Uh, JPL is an FFRDC. Which is what the commission is apparently recommending should be done with the other NASA centers.

      That said, I agree that more Whitehouse oversight is probably a bad idea. Having worked at an FFRDC (not JPL) involved in the DoD side of the space game, I've witnessed first hand what happens when the idiots at the executive level try to make trench-level decisions. The folks at the executive level should be making strategic decisions, and evaluating the results of trade studies and analyses to make those decisions. Instead, they had a tendency to try to make decisions at the level of individual projects (often overriding those they had appointed to run the project in the first place), and to mandate their pet designs instead of looking at what the results of the trade studies actually showed. I'd hate to see NASA get stuck in the same kind of mess.

  16. time to payoff by kippy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The problem with space exploration is that even if you go out to space with the most greedy intentions, the payoff is decades (asteroid mining) or centuries (terraforming) off. I'm all for it but getting capitalists to buy into it will be tough. Of course there is Microsoft with it's $40 billion nest egg.

    Space exploration is really a public works project. This is a pretty interesting paper on the subject. The thing is that it ends up being a benefit to the entire human race but some the up front costs are so much, the payoff so distant and the effort so demanding, it's basically relegated to government bodies (or perhaps Bill Gates).

  17. Launch services! by Lord+Grey · · Score: 5, Insightful
    In the more immediate future, the commission wants NASA to turn over nearly all launch activity to private firms.
    This is a great step in the right direction, and it should have been done long ago. Allowing private businesses to supply launch services will dramatically increase our use of space. The current demand for getting things into orbit far outstrips NASA's ability to send them there. The competition among the private companies supplying those services will drive the costs down and force innovation at breakneck speed, compared to what we have now.

    As an added bonus, people who complain about their tax dollars being "wasted on space" will have much less to bitch about.

    --
    // Beyond Here Lie Dragons
  18. Not NASA's fault by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While I agree that the Moon To Mars mission is just a PR stunt, and that they haven't even approached a reasonable budget for it, I have some real problems with the report. Namely, the "NASA As A Punching Bag" style.

    I'm probably going to get jumped on for this, but *every* national space agency has had huge problems of every type. NASA being the biggest, it's no shock that we seem to have more than our share. But seriously - look at the ESA. Ariane has been a disaster. How many more bailouts are they going to need? How many more times is Ariane 5 going to explode? The Soviets, in their hayday, were even more unsuccessful than us; look at their appalling mars record, for example. We've got some newcomers on the scene - China, Japan, and India - for whom it is too soon to judge. However, don't hold your breath for a miracle.

    Private industry? What a laugh. First off, much of NASA's work *IS* done by private industry. The company I used to work for, Rockwell-Collins, had a major shuttle contract when it was being developed. They abused the hell out of it. Whenever any project ran out of hours, they charged it to the shuttle, even if it was unrelated. Private industry is supposed to *save* us money?

    Small startups? Not even the slightest bit of success. Hundreds of millions of dollars were poured into private space startups during the dotcom boom, and all they have to show for it is a bunch of loping along companies and half-completed projects of bankrupt companies.

    Is everyone just doing a bad job? Of course not. The problem is that the engineering challenges are *massive*, and there are so many variables that it is almost impossible to see what realistically could go wrong. On the really big projects, it gets even worse: not only do you have so many more things that could get wrong, but you have so many more people who have their ideas of what could pose a problem, most of which are not real threats. And now, if you don't investigate each of them, you're accused of suppressing whistleblowers.

    This probably isn't going to be a popular post. I'm OK with that. But I don't like the typical Bash-NASA threads that these usually turn into, so I thought I'd add my two cents. Mod me as you will.

    --
    Carbon, made, only wants to be unmade.
    1. Re:Not NASA's fault by Xzzy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Whenever any project ran out of hours, they
      > charged it to the shuttle, even if it was
      > unrelated. Private industry is supposed to *save*
      > us money?

      It will when private industry is footing the bill. There's a difference in the situation you described of a contractor stealing money from a government agency, and a company being paid by customers to get something into space, competing with other companies offering to do the same thing.

      It will at that point be in their best interests to spend less. Not that it would matter, because if they experience overruns it won't show up in our taxes.

      At least until they gets so large and integral to the economy that the government bails them out with huge grants whenever the economy goes tits up, aka the airline industry. ;)

    2. Re:Not NASA's fault by wronkiew · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Private industry? What a laugh. First off, much of NASA's work *IS* done by private industry. The company I used to work for, Rockwell-Collins, had a major shuttle contract when it was being developed. They abused the hell out of it. Whenever any project ran out of hours, they charged it to the shuttle, even if it was unrelated. Private industry is supposed to *save* us money?

      Government contractors are not the end-all and be-all of private industry in space. Plenty of companies, for example XM Radio, are making money in space, and they aren't tied to cost-plus contracts. The kind of waste you are talking about is what happens when privatization goes bad, but it isn't any worse than what is happening right now inside of NASA. What the article was talking about looked to me like a new direction for private participation in the space program: NASA stops building and owning billion dollar spaceships, and instead buys rides from "spacelines". A subsidized airline industry did wonders for the prosperity of the world in the last century, and a real space launch industry, freed from reliance on government interest, will do the same in this one.

  19. Distraction? Where's the elements? by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So if this program is all a distraction, where are all the ads? Where is the heavy press covering the thing?

    If one in a hundred people in the US could not even tell you anything about the program, could you really consider it a "distraction"? Or instead is this just another mindless attack agaist Bush, the content of which you post weither the topic is caterpillar reform or what kind of hot dog to include in the national school lunch program?

    Perhaps you should get off your high horse and read the report to see if it's a good idea, regardless of who is elected. NASA needs an overhaul and at least this is a start. Otherwise you are really just an off-topic wanker.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  20. Re:So True! by kfg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "oh-my-God-it's-a-conspiracy"

    No, not a conspiracy. A plot. It's just Bush's attempt to make himself appear "Kennedyesque," ingnorant of the fact that Kennedy launched the space program because he was already Kennedyesque. It doesn't work the other way around.

    Not that it matters, because a project of this magnitude is going to take the continued support of multiple administrations, these aren't Kennedy's times either, and that continued support will not be forthcoming. This project is essentially doomed. It's a shame, but that's the reality on the ground. We'll get to Mars when a canditate runs on the "We're going to Mars" platform and wins, and not before.

    But that's ok. The point of the project is exactly where you say it is, and where the real conspiracy lies. Spinning off tax dollars into the private sector, into the hands of cronies.

    Make hay while the sun shines, as it were.

    KFG

  21. Re:Going to the moon only happened to "hurt" Russi by I+confirm+I'm+not+a · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Slightly off-topic, but when the USA and the USSR were planning to dock two space-craft for the first time, neither power would agree to their craft being "penetrated" by the other - if I remember correctly a "female-to-female" adaptor was the eventual diplomatic solution.

    Ironically, the Soviet Union was reasonably progressive in terms of putting women in space.

    --
    This is where the serious fun begins.
  22. Moon First? by Paulrothrock · · Score: 3, Interesting
    How is there any logic in going to the moon BEFORE going to Mars? If we're going to Mars, we can build a ship in LEO with four or five shuttle flights. Why build a base on the moon to get a craft to Mars? The moon isn't anything like Mars; you can't grow your own food without a big nuclear reactor, the temperature swings are greater, dust is less of a problem, it's bombarded with radiation half the time, and the methods for using local materials are extremely different.

    We can't learn anything about living on Mars by living on the moon, except maybe how people respond to being so far away from Earth.

    Going to Mars AND going to the moon makes more sense, since the only related operations are leaving Earth orbit. Of course, since the moon is close enough for unmanned craft to do really good, long-term science, maybe we should set up unmanned craft on the moon, and send people to Mars where they can do the most good.

    --
    I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    1. Re:Moon First? by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 3, Informative
      If you anticipate the Mars flight to a one-off effort, then sure, going from Earth to Mars directly is the thing to do.

      If your Mars flight is one of many, then the Moon is the oply sensible place to setup such a thing. (There must be corresponding stations in Earth and Lunar orbits, too. Gotta do these things right, by damn.)

      The availability of vast Lunar regolith components can reduce Earth shipments to Luna to things like hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon and other trace elements, as well as specific equipment and personnel (who, you will note, are mostly made up of hydrogen, nitrogen and carbon). Very acceptable, even luxurious ships made from aluminum, steel and titanium can be built upon the Moon, stocked with oxygen and powdered aluminum as fuel components, and (more to the point) they can be launched from the Lunar surface via extremely long mass drivers, saving most of the fuel load for maneuvering and deceleration (although I'd like to see designs that use anti-slingshot and aerobraking). And the ships can be enormous to boot, avoiding a resource crunch that can kill a crew that is 110 million miles from the nearest assistance.

      I haven't run the numbers, but a line of accelerator/restraining EM rails can probably be built around the Moon's entire circumference, and the acceleration of the cradle holding a Mars ship can be very gentle before slinging the ship off on a Mars trajectory at many klicks per second. If we choose 30km/s (which could result in a 1-2 month trip to Mars) and 1g launch acceleration:

      V = AT
      X = (1/2)AT^2
      1g = 9.81 m/s^2
      lunar circum. = 10920 km = X
      30 km/s = V
      T = V/A = (30000 m/s) / (9.81 m/s^2)
      T = 3060 sec (almost an hour)
      X = (.5) (9.81 m/s) (3060 x 3060) s^2
      X = 45900 km (over 4 lunar circum. trips)

      ... well, this is too long. 1g is rather light, expecially since the launch phase is so short (about 50 minutes). Most Humans lose consciousness at 10g, so let's choose a 4g launch:

      V = AT
      X = (1/2)AT^2
      A = 4g = 39.2 m/s^2
      T = V/A = (30000 m/s) / (39.2 m/s^2)
      T = 765 sec (about 12 min.)
      X = (.5) (39.2 m/s) (765 x 765) s^2
      X = 11500 km

      ... which is about right. In fact, since the launch is only about 12 minutes at a little over (to compensate for the lesser X) 4g, we can try 6g for the same length (Lunar circum.) to get a higher launch velocity:

      V = AT
      X = (1/2)AT^2
      T = (2X/A)^.5 = [(2) (10920000 m) / (6) (9.81 m/s^2)]^.5
      T = 609 sec (about 10 min.)
      V = AT = (6) (9.81 m/s^2) (609 s) = 35800 m/s
      V = ~36km/s

      ... which is 20% faster.

      30km/s or more can get the craft to Mars in 1 to 2 months depending upon relative positions of Mars and the Moon, less braking time. Since the launch was 6g for about 18 minutes, I imagine that the deceleration could be done at 10g for about 11 minutes. Since it really didn't matter how much fuel load was launched (since the Lunar launch ring should be built to launch many thousands of tons at once), burning fuel to produce 10g for 11 minutes shouldn't be much of a problem, fuel-quantity wise.

      One thing that could be done is the construction of a launch system upon Phobos, which is about 20km long. It may be worthwhile using Phobos for this purpose. Since it's so tiny compared to the Lunar launcher, it would have to use higher force to be useful. Let's say we can use a 20km length (through it?) with various steering mechanisms to make sure of proper aim. Since it's so short, let's choose a relatively high force for launching: 8g. (Mercury program launches involved 6g, and 12g upon reentry.)

      X = 20000 m
      A = 8g = (8) (9.81) m/s^2 = 78.5 m/s^2
      T = [(2) (20000 m) / (78.5 m/s^2)]^.5
      T = 22.6 s
      V = AT = (78.5 m/s^2) (22.6 s) = 1770 m/s =~ 1.8 Km/s

      ... which is a little low, but the launch time is of very short duration. Let's try for a rough launcher at

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
  23. my reaction now is... by zogger · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... the same I have had for a few years now. I think the government is trying to gradually remove the civilian space program, turn that over to private sources at an almost "hobby" level, and concentrate on pure classified military useages of space. They can claim "streamlined government" and "grand opportunities for the private sector" and so on, then go back to space being the military's job, which has always been the real #1 reason to even have a "space" program, ie, it's the high ground, who rules there wins.. It also can have a blacker budget even beyond what they have now. In adition, we've gotten to the point that international "cooperation" has gotten seriously into the giving away the family jewels level, it is no longer prudent to do so.

    IMO anyway

    Private space launches will continue,like now, and the normal commercial satellites etc, but that is old hat tech now. I am guessing even the best of them will be at the grade B level of technology, grade A will be held closer by the mil complex guys, and that will be the stealthing of "man in space" to the public. they might blather on about some mars mission in 10-20 years, in the meantime I bet they will be doing a lot more manned missions using more exotic craft than what they let on to.