NASA Unveils Heavy Lift Rocket for Manned Flight to Mars

[Moon]

NASA has unveiled a powerful Saturn V type rocket that will get us to the asteroids and Mars as planned:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/sp ... 50398568/1

Here is what the planned rocket looks like:



The shuttles were used to get us into orbit, but this monster will get us to Mars. I do hope they are working on magnetic or plasma type engines in the future so we can travel to the stars.

[angeloneastralseed]

Saw this on the news today! Thanks for the picture of it, Max!

[Moon]

Saw this on the news today! Thanks for the picture of it, Max!

I figured many here would appreciate a picture as that has been asked what we are going to use to go to Mars.

[cesarnc]

More billions into "burning things at the rear" technology....

[Ace Rimmer]

More billions into "burning things at the rear" technology....

I wonder about this. Why no advances have been made since the German's "invented" this rocket technology. How come nobody has come up with an anti-gravity spaceship or something! To me it is like we are still shooting off bottle rockets.

[Moon]

More billions into "burning things at the rear" technology....

I have been wondering why they aren't working on magnetic or some type of plasma energy to propel us. Then again, I really think they are doing so, but it is in the very early stages of development. They need to use some mode of transportation to get us to the asteroids, Moon and Mars until we get something ready to fly.

[Pons Asinorum]

I wonder about this. Why no advances have been made since the German's "invented" this rocket technology. How come nobody has come up with an anti-gravity spaceship or something! To me it is like we are still shooting off bottle rockets.

Sweet looking rocket, but Metaluna's right. This technology is WWII stuff (for you youngsters -- that's before PC's and the internet ). With all the research money sunk into aerospace projects over the course of half a century...I mean sure, it is probably an awesome rocket, but really, this is the best we can do? -- I think (hope/pray/demand) not.

We went from the Wright Brothers' Flyer to the Saturn V in what, SEVEN decades -- so now we are going from the Saturn V to the Saturn VI in FIVE decades??!!

[Moon]

Given the lack of funding, I am surprised NASA isn't using a huge slingshot.

The rocket does look cool, but as others have stated the technology is one hundred years old. Time for an upgrade:

[isitmeorwhat?]

I don't know what their angle or stradegy is anymore. I beieve all the answers to the heavens are here on earth and I believe they know this too. But as I have said before there is no profit in the truth. It will put alot of people to work and be a profitable venture for all the subbed out contractors involved and our govt. of course. And where do you think all the billions are gonna come from? Our already empty pockets. My God how much more do they want from us? Soon we will be giving them our whole paycheck to cover their budget. (Hmm...Sounds like slavery might make a comeback.) Well it's true history does and will repeat itself. bleep I wish I was partying with King Solomon right now if history is gonna repeat itself!

[Moon]

I don't know what their angle or stradegy is anymore. I beieve all the answers to the heavens are here on earth and I believe they know this too. But as I have said before there is no profit in the truth. It will put alot of people to work and be a profitable venture for all the subbed out contractors involved and our govt. of course. And where do you think all the billions are gonna come from? Our already empty pockets. My God how much more do they want from us? Soon we will be giving them our whole paycheck to cover their budget. (Hmm...Sounds like slavery might make a comeback.) Well it's true history does and will repeat itself. bleep I wish I was partying with King Solomon right now if history is gonna repeat itself!

While there are many people who think going to other planets is a waste, there has been many huge strides in the knowledge gained. From how the Earth formed to scientific and medical advancements, the gains are immeasurable.

Humankind has a thirst for exploration and colonization. Our planet is fast approaching seven billion people and it now takes the Earth 1.3 years to replenish the resources it takes to care for all those people. The only way out of this is through colonization and traveling to the stars.

We can do two things: Spend the resources necessary to terraform and colonize the planets or bury our heads in the sand.

While I do agree we should spend wisely, space exploration is one of those things that we should be increasing in vast amounts.

[isitmeorwhat?]

Thanks Max. Anymore I seem to be caught up in all the Discovery Channel and Science channel shows with their vast opinions and theories and or views from religious views to junk dealers. I think we need a show Called: Throught the Wormhole with Ancient Astronauts digging up Naked Archeology following the Ancient Almanac to History's Mysteries. You know what I mean. At the same time we need to embrace all these shows I would think if we want the Ancient Astronaut Theory to become fact. Your a good dude Max! and I enjoy you answers, opinions and input. Besides it seems you are the only one here at times besides me and I'm new.

[cesarnc]

With this present technology, colonization of another planet is out of reach. The trip to Mars itself will last 6 months and astronauts will be stuck there until the next window to Earth (because of fuel limitations). It will be a 2 years trip carrying 3 or 4 guys and a handful of equipments.

And then, 2 years later, we will have 20 pounds of Marcial rocks and maybe we will find a microbe. A huge achievement but with little implications for the "average joe".

By burning liquid hydrogen we can't go much further than that.

Why not developing asteroid mining, nuclear waste disposal in space (in space, not in orbit), orbit trash cleanse, definite solar energy technology. I don't know, so many things to do in space and we will burn liquid hydrogen to catch rocks in Mars....

I say, leave Mars to the probes. It is much easier to develop a technology to retrieve rocks and send them back to the Earth remotely than sending people over there.

[Moon]

NASA is developing a space taxi to replace the shuttle:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/story/2011-09-25/nasa-funds-space-taxis/50531522/1

It won't be operational for quite a while and will be built by private contractors. I can't wait to see the designs of the craft even though there are many of them already out on the internet.

[Bob137]

With the cost of taking off from the earth to go anywhere, it still baffles me, why they wouldn't mine the moon first, and make it the leaping off point for space travel, at a much cheaper cost, than from the earth. I read from some who are against that, and from some who are for it, and I personally am for it. I think trying to just send rockets from earth is such a costly business, that for the small immediate benefits, is so costly without also utilizing the benefits from the moon, is not as logical. We could mine the moon, and build on the moon, and utilize factories there to build parts of the spaceships, and they would not have to be of these conventional designs, since they would not have to leave our earth's gravity, and that in turn would save on fuel costs, and possibly utilizing solar energy as the Japanese have proposed on the moon, and not be burning those fuels much from here to go to the moon once it is inhabited. Then they could utilize more civilian space flight, and contract out instead of NASA doing it all, and it would probably get done faster and a lot cheaper than what NASA can do.

[Saxoneer]

It now appears that NASA has to re-learn what it already knew in the 1960s. Never mind 'A giant Leap For Mankind', how about a giant step backwards!

WASHINGTON (AP) — NASA says it will flight test its Orion crew space capsule three years earlier than planned.

The capsule will replace the retired space shuttle fleet. It will eventually be used to take four astronauts to nearby asteroids, the moon or Mars.

The first unmanned test flight of the capsule is now set for 2014 and will be on a commercial rocket. Originally, NASA was going to wait until 2017 when its own large rocket would be ready to launch a test of Orion.

But NASA officials said Tuesday they wanted to determine earlier how the Apollo-like capsule returns to Earth after two orbits and how NASA teams recover it from an ocean landing. The capsule will be reused. The additional test will cost about $370 million.

[Sunrisepony]

What about , since there is already a Space Station, using that to build ships that only go in space and immediately eliminate the necessity to have to get "into" space, and then have another type of shuttle/space taxi that goes from the planet to the space station. That's how they did it in Star Trek, and eventually when they developed the class of Ships that Voyager comes from they had figured out a way to have ships that can come from space to land, then take off again.

The reality is, they've HAD the technology to explore space, at least within our own galaxy for decades. They just don't want to admit it. When there is full declaration in the next year or so, it'll all come out.

[Saxoneer]

Good point Sunrise, my wife and I have said the same thing in the past. Why not build a ship or ships in orbit, that way you don't need to use vast amounts of energy just to escape from Earths gravity. And as you say, we need to develope another shuttle type craft to ferry things from the ground to the Space Station and let's say...a space dock!

[Moon]

I see what you are saying, Saxoneer, but I think the new capsule might be different than the one used for the Apollo program. It might be more of finding lighter and stronger materials and testing how it all works.

I personally can't wait to see one of those badboys lift off.

[Saxoneer]

I would think we have lighter and stronger materials Maxmercury and I would hope that the design is far different from the Apollo Program. But I would think the methods of recovering a capsule at sea are no different now than they were in the Apollo era, don't you think?

I remember watching the rockets lift off and the capsules being recovered, but I never imagined we'd be do the same thing in the 21st century. I guess like many people I thought technology would have advanced to a point where space travel was commonplace by now, maybe that's why I feel disapointed in the space program?

[Bob137]

I to am disappointed in the space program. We should have built a bigger and better space station, and also a base on the moon, utilizing the space station for docking, then onto the moon, and I think building space ships on the moon, and utilizing it for our main space program, where they are built and take off from and return to. They could then still utilize not only NASA, but commercial assets on building space craft on the moon. They could still use conventional rockets if they think they have to to get off earth to the space station, but I would reconsider utilizing more advanced designed craft instead to leave earth and to dock with the space station. The craft from the moon could then go to the space station and pick people up and either, return to the moon,or go on to other planets, asteroids for mining, and moons of other planets, until they can eventually go on to other Solar Systems once they get even more advanced technology. To me this would be a logical step by step program of action.

[Pons Asinorum]

Good point Sunrise, my wife and I have said the same thing in the past. Why not build a ship or ships in orbit, that way you don't need to use vast amounts of energy just to escape from Earths gravity. And as you say, we need to develope another shuttle type craft to ferry things from the ground to the Space Station and let's say...a space dock!

Yeah, i am all for building ships in space, but...

...right now, we would have to lift all the materials needed to build those ships, so it would be prohibitively expensive doing that.

If we could come up with a cheaper way to lift things into orbit (Burt Rutan anyone ), then it might be possible, but with conventional means, it might cost more to get the materials to a "space dock" than what the ship itself might cost.

[Bob137]

That is why we need a moon base, for mining and for mining asteroids, and put manufacturing and industrial plants on the moon to build the ships, and that would also be utilized for employment of people and more exploration possibilities. Commercialized moon base system for space exploration, and mining, and discovery of aliens, and alien artifacts, and alien bases, etc....

[Pons Asinorum]

Absolutely Bob, presumably that would lower the cost of materials (the energy to ship stuff from Moon to an Earth orbit is quite low). However, we still have the chicken-and-the-egg problem: how to get that infrastructure started. Low cost vehicles that lift from the surface of the Earth to an orbit will still be needed (initially as envisioned above, and permanently if one wishes to establish a trade network)

[Saxoneer]

Absolutely Bob, presumably that would lower the cost of materials (the energy to ship stuff from Moon to an Earth orbit is quite low). However, we still have the chicken-and-the-egg problem: how to get that infrastructure started. Low cost vehicles that lift from the surface of the Earth to an orbit will still be needed (initially as envisioned above, and permanently if one wishes to establish a trade network)

We will have to rely on private enterprise for any of this to happen. As Earths resources dwindle, it will be the thought of profits to be made that will spur mining on the moon or elsewhere and to accomplish this they will have to quickly develope a cheap method of getting into orbit. With the way things are going, China will be there before anyone else. If you have humans on the moon the first thing you see will be the golden arches selling MacMoon burgers and let's not forget galactic Walmart.

[Bob137]

Also the blue moonlight special from the KMart moon store. The Quik Trip helium station, where you can get those power moon drinks, and moon QT coffee while you fill up your moon rover! There could be a Crater Lake amusement park too!

[Moon]

We need a huge space station orbiting close to our Earth and a few bases on the Moon. But as Pons stated, we need to get the materials there first to do so. This new rocket system being tested will be used for huge payloads and also not cost as much as before.

I also want to see craft which run on alternative power sources such as magnetic energy. But that probably won't happen for a while.

[Bob137]

I also wouold like to see them utilizing magnetic power, so as to free us up from this energy corporate greed.

[Saxoneer]

We need a huge space station orbiting close to our Earth and a few bases on the Moon. But as Pons stated, we need to get the materials there first to do so. This new rocket system being tested will be used for huge payloads and also not cost as much as before.

I also want to see craft which run on alternative power sources such as magnetic energy. But that probably won't happen for a while.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure I read that NASA said the heavy lift rocket was for landing on an asteroide or mars. Meanwhile they are waiting on a private company to develope something capable of ferrying men and materials to the space station?

[Pons Asinorum]

Using conventional rockets, there are two extremes: go far or go heavy. The size of payload is the determining factor.

The larger the payload, the less the range (and visa-versa).

This rocket could launch a relatively small payload to Mars, or even smaller payload to the Main Belt, or even smaller payload to beyond the Solar System (go far), or it could put a much larger payload in Earth's orbit (go heavy).

Here is a comparison I put together from Wikipedia sources:

• Saturn V: payload to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) -- 262,000 pounds
• Space Launch System: payload to LEO -- 280,000 pounds

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System

(Yes, the official name for this new rocket is the lame: "Space Launch System." Note to NASA: Don't try to sell it fellas, instead find the least imaginative name possible .)

So the new rocket does seem a bit more powerful than the 1960's Saturn V, which means we could send larger payloads than the Sat V for any given distance. (A 12,000 pound advantage for LEO, but not sure if that percentage would translate in a linear fashion for further distances.)

--

This was, to me, the most incredible thing in American private aviation in three decades: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXNkUNP75-Q

[mahalla2]

hmmmmm, I wonder which California studio they will be using for embellishing this space flight.

[Moon]

Six men living in a windowless environment of modules said they had no problems doing so for the full 18 months of the mission:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/story/2011-11-08/mock-mars-mission/51121626/1

This shows the early crews will be able to stand the psychological stresses of such a mission while the bases are being built for future colonists.

[theseeker189]

Why don't we the new generation build a heaven earth bond device.
I'm thinking massive electromagnetic roller trains that speed them up and send them into orbit. Then of course establish a moon base to organize and build/send deeper into space.

And there is a modern day fuel system called ion fusion that uses xenon as its fuel, NASA does use it in some of their missions (ie. Dawn) It's pretty interesting. I can't remember so correct me if I'm wrong, xenon is rare on earth but is abundant on the moon? And that's why NASA doesnt use it but on smaller space flights that go deep into the solar system and further into space.

[Pons Asinorum]

And there is a modern day fuel system called ion fusion that uses xenon as its fuel,..

The ion drive is not based on fusion, but electromagnetism. Here is what I found (apologies for any mistakes, would appreciate any corrections, thanks):


An ion-drive garners its thrust like a conventional rocket (action/reaction), but instead of using a chemical combustion-reaction to provide the propulsion thrust, it uses an electromagnetic process to eject a series of ions in the exhaust direction to provide thrust.

Since each ion has little mass, the generated thrust (from the action/reaction law) is quite small, so the ship's initial speed is small. In space, however, each ion-ejection adds thrust in a cumulative manner becasue there is no air friction to rob a ship of its momentum and therefore it continually increases its velocity; given enough time and fuel (and the laws of inertia), it can obtain high velocities.

This is relatively new technology and NASA is testing it with the Dawn probe mentioned by seeker189. It appears to be working quite well. This is a most promising technology, in particular for long-range probes, because of the long periods of time required.

Although it is not a fusion reaction, the Dawn's ion-drive does use xenon as the medium to ionize. In a nutshell:

• electricity (from solar panels) is used to ionize xenon
• the ions are then accelerated via magnets
• the accelerated ions are then ejected into the exhaust direction
• action/reaction law provides thrust per each ejected ion

Here is a comparison for similar deep space propulsion engines (thrust figure done by NASA, with my conversions):

An ion drive:

• burns its fuel slowly over time
• provides a small initial velocity
• powered by electricity
• Thrust = 0.09 N = 0.02 pounds

(great for long-range voyages, but not for launching)

A conventional chemical-rocket:

• burns its fuel quickly
• provides a large initial velocity
• powered by chemical combustion reaction
• Thrust = 500 N = 112 pounds

(great for launching, but not for long-range voyages).

http://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/ion_prop.asp

--

I can't remember so correct me if I'm wrong, xenon is rare on earth but is abundant on the moon?

I do not think so Seeker. Xenon is a rare element and is usually in gaseous form. Here on Earth, it is typically found in and extracted from the atmosphere. In the Solar System, only Jupiter's atmosphere has a much larger concentration.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000JGR...10515061M

It seems without an atmosphere, xenon is just not going to be present in any significant fashion.

[Bob137]

So I guess we will jsut have to mine the other planets as well as asteroids to get what we need to succeed in space.

[theseeker189]

Pons, that's some good info there! I did do some more research to refresh my memory, I was thinking when it went through the magent part it created a fusion reaction and propelled the craft. No wonder I coudlnt find much on ion fusion.

So I guess we will jsut have to mine the other planets as well as asteroids to get what we need to succeed in space.

I believe that's what we should already be doing with probes and such. Might as well waste all of ours here on the planet so when we do have to, it will be a huge crisis!