tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post2695381543894739832..comments2024-03-28T00:36:19.403-07:00Comments on Rocketpunk Manifesto: A Visit To VestaRickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comBlogger95125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-37128272267291676072021-07-11T00:16:11.976-07:002021-07-11T00:16:11.976-07:00As far as going to Mars without a landing, I agree...As far as going to Mars without a landing, I agree Phobos or Deimos make great destinations... from a space enthusiast's point of view. To the Congressional types who took political science because they couldn't pass a real science class, or to the headline-driven general pubic for that matter, going *near* Mars is probably not considered a worthy use of taxpayer dollars.<br /><br />And yes, we did flybys for the Moon ...a few thousand miles rather than a few million miles away, a duration of days instead of a year or more.<br /><br />I doubt we'd send humans unless it was to actually put boots in the red dust. And I don't think any nation would. Sending us and our crap (life support mass) is just too expensive to blow on what would be perceived as a near-miss. <br /><br />Now, we'd have a lot of loads to send before any human Mars mission, to set up survival conditions and return fuel. So we'll still get a good chance to probe those moons and cis-Martian orbit while we do the prep work. We'll have to basically build a pipeline of heavy-lift and perhaps LEO facilities (maybe possibly) to accomplish the task of human crew landing and return from the surface. But it'd be a side project to the pols.Saint Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-69792380573239572302021-07-10T23:50:55.392-07:002021-07-10T23:50:55.392-07:00"Falcon Heavy is pieced together mickey mouse..."Falcon Heavy is pieced together mickey mouse junk. Private space has been hyped beyond belief. Very little of what they are promising is going to work or be worthwhile." = Gary Church<br /><br />Just a little note from 2021:<br /><br /> "HA, ha!"Saint Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-60457995203955277542011-08-13T10:49:21.343-07:002011-08-13T10:49:21.343-07:00If you want all the amenities, then you are indeed...If you want all the amenities, then you are indeed looking at an ISS sized spacecraft (800+ tons), with al that implies.<br /><br />If you prune away <b>al</b>l the excess, you could probably get to Mars on an Apollo+ sized rig, although the astronauts might not be in very good shape by the time they got to their destination. I am pretty sure the 1960's Boeing proposals built around a three stage NERVA had something like that in mind.<br /><br />Since mass is the limiting factor, the first expeditions will probably go with some form of MRE. Later, semi recycling might e seen as appropriate, I'm sure that reclaiming 50-80% of the water or air used is probably quite doable without breaking the mass budget and lowering some of your consumables to carry.<br /><br />The other tradeoff will be how fast you want to get there; a VASMIR powered ship that can reach Mars in 39 days will have a disproportionate amount of mass devoted to the electrical system, limiting the ability to carry a greenhouse "(as well as the need). If you want a garden, then a permanent structure like the ISS or an Earth Mars Cycler would be the best place for one.Thucydideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09828932214842106266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-15208683466967477922011-08-13T07:14:34.934-07:002011-08-13T07:14:34.934-07:00That is a good question, and IMHO largely a matter...That is a good question, and IMHO largely a matter of human factors.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-76990269344761794442011-08-13T04:11:10.165-07:002011-08-13T04:11:10.165-07:00Well, there's what's nice to have, and the...Well, there's what's nice to have, and there's what you can afford, or convince people to pay for. An ecohab would probably add a lot to the mass of the ship, though I guess there's a range: fully redundant biological oxygen and food recycling would at a wild guess at least double things, while a little additional module could allow for psychological greenery, herbs, and the occasional high-productivity vegetable.<br /><br />Of course, there's what a multi-month ship would look like. Slightly bigger than Apollo, or something more like Mir or ISS being pushed between orbits?Damien Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13321329197063620556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-43478495580562618032011-08-12T17:33:40.201-07:002011-08-12T17:33:40.201-07:00Milo, I don't know about you, but every once i...Milo, I don't know about you, but every once in a while I like fresh veggies; prepackaged food (no matter how much 'variety'), gets old after a while. A tangerine, tomato, cucumber, or even a radish or two would go far in bolstering my morale during a multi-month interplanetary voyage.<br /><br />FerrellAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-31178337673492150982011-08-12T10:04:16.072-07:002011-08-12T10:04:16.072-07:00=Milo=
Rick:
"I doubt that a self-contain...=Milo=<br /><br /><br /><br />Rick:<br /><br /><i>"I doubt that a self-contained ecohab would save substantial mass over stored supplies until duration is in years, quite apart from the fact that we don't know how to do it yet."</i><br /><br />Yeah, I see that as something you'd do in a planetside dome or maybe a space station, not a ship.<br /><br /><br /><br />Ferrell:<br /><br /><i>"give the crew a break from rations every once-in-a-while,"</i><br /><br />I don't think so. Farming is easier if you have a monoculture, or at least only a few types of (easily-kept) plants to worry about. It's easier to have a large variety of foods if they're prepackaged.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-27667996756675661072011-08-11T20:32:01.461-07:002011-08-11T20:32:01.461-07:00Oops, that should read 'standard' life sup...Oops, that should read 'standard' life support system.<br /><br />FerrellAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-90983122998015102802011-08-11T20:29:33.434-07:002011-08-11T20:29:33.434-07:00I'd say an 'ecohab' would be a good ad...I'd say an 'ecohab' would be a good addition to a Mars mission; it would give the crew someplace for some down-time, give some redundency to the 'sandard' life support system, give the crew a break from rations every once-in-a-while, and if part of the support (unmanned) lander would help to expand the Mars ground base.<br /><br />FerrellAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-7830570057479153092011-08-11T10:51:20.180-07:002011-08-11T10:51:20.180-07:00I tend to agree. I doubt that a self-contained eco...I tend to agree. I doubt that a self-contained ecohab would save substantial mass over stored supplies until duration is in years, quite apart from the fact that we don't know how to do it yet.<br /><br />At some point in the 'plausible midfuture' we will probably develop this technology, but not in the early interplanetary era.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-85229311385652441042011-08-10T12:00:59.546-07:002011-08-10T12:00:59.546-07:00Re: Rick
I think the life support question for a ...Re: Rick<br /><br />I think the life support question for a lot of people boils down to the perceived inefficiency of just adding up the consumables mass and sending that much stuff, plus a contingency amount, along for the ride. There's a strong faction that wants more recycling and onboard food production. They think that will reduce mass and make the mission more doable. Of course, it is by no means established that all of the recycling equipment and a gardening environment would mass any less than bulk supplies, especially when necessary redundancies are considered. Also, it would add all sorts of complexity that could endanger the crew, especially if any single points of failure were accepted in the design.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-76004498326662721092011-08-10T11:37:00.014-07:002011-08-10T11:37:00.014-07:00My problem with 'emotions' is when they ti...My problem with 'emotions' is when they tip over into flaming. For a long time the comments here were almost uniquely pleasant to read, by internet standards. More recently there's been occasional snarling that detracts a lot from the reading experience.<br /><br />I did one full post on life support, way back: <a href="http://www.rocketpunk-manifesto.com/2009/10/spaceship-design-102-life-support_31.html" rel="nofollow">Spaceship Design 102: Life Support</a>.<br /><br />But more to the immediate point, as I've noted a couple of times: The ISS, and Mir before it, are best seen as interplanetary training missions, specifically testing life support, and living and working in space.<br /><br />The results are pretty positive - the ISS has operated for more than a decade without any emergency that would have endangered the crew if they were in Mars orbit instead of Earth orbit. By the time we actually send a human mission to Mars we will likely have at least a generation of similar experience.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-10601909786539279282011-08-10T08:49:00.076-07:002011-08-10T08:49:00.076-07:00Re: Horselover Fat
Simplistically, Progress M car...Re: Horselover Fat<br /><br />Simplistically, Progress M cargo flights deliver about 12 tons a year of consumables to the ISS. So for a two year mission with three or four crew, figure around 25 tons of consumables. Figure somewhere in the neighborhood of 35-40 tons of consumables for a full duration mission. That's a lot, but it's not unmanageable. And the actual mass of consumables would probably be less, because a Mars transit hab would have a lot smaller internal volume than the ISS to fill up with atmosphere gas, which is a big part of your consumables.<br /><br />A lander would double your mission mass because it has to land on and launch from the surface of Mars, meaning it needs a lot more propellant and tankage than the Apollo LM. It also should cary a surface stay capability for a month or two, because the time from Mars arrival to Mars departure is going to be in that neighborhood.<br /><br />WRT mission design, you seem to be all over the place. You keep going on about expense and risk, but you reject lower cost, lower risk precursor missions prior to a landing attempt. Please, take a deep breath, reread what I have said, and give it some thought before responding.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-68923862151956520222011-08-10T04:05:24.424-07:002011-08-10T04:05:24.424-07:00Without incremental targets worth achieving and wi...Without incremental targets worth achieving and with no realistic final target, incrementalism has turned into a dreadfully inefficient welfare program (not for astronauts of course: they get killed).<br />So yeah, I'm skeptical.<br /><br />Yes, life support is technically doable. The problem is that the cost would be outrageous with current technology and practices and there is little benefit.<br />The ISS level of life support is also inadequate if you don't want people to die.<br />How do you double mission mass by including a lander if you assume an ISS type of life support anyway?<br /><br />Your mission plans belie your principles. You are making people depend on untested stuff for no good reason.<br />The one thing you need live bodies to test is life support and you're proposing to do it in the most dangerous way possible: by putting people where they can't abort and they can't get help.<br />Orbital transfer tests can meanwhile be done without a crew, carrying supplies and maybe the lander prototype to Mars orbit.<br /><br />It seems you're willing to spend extra and to increase the health risks as long as resources are spent on manned spaceflight, as if it was the end and not the means.<br />If you genuinely want to avoid deaths, minimize the health risks. Don't just waste inordinate amounts of resources on rockets so that astronauts have a chance to come back.<br />Potentially getting people killed as part of a string of demonstrations but refusing them the opporunity to achieve something by comitting to a riskier mission (or even a suicide mission) makes no sense to me and will not get you the right volunteers.<br />I guess that's the kind of thing politicians and generals would force on the mission. Maybe it's for the best that there's no manned space program at this stage. Robots can be managed rationally.<br /><br />Life support can be in large part developed and tested on Earth, Ferrell. Some of it would actually be worthwhile work outside of the space context.<br />Once you get that part right, you can do a cheaper test in orbit or at an L point and the test can last a lot longer than a month (unless it's aborted) to make the expense worthwhile.<br /><br />-Horselover FatAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-1256761232611567842011-08-09T19:54:03.471-07:002011-08-09T19:54:03.471-07:00Re: Horselover Fat
You're really overcomplica...Re: Horselover Fat<br /><br />You're really overcomplicating the discussion here. Exploration missions are taken incrementally in series so that you don't depend on too much untested hardware or too many untested procedures on any given mission. It's as simple as that. For Mars, I would suggest the following set of mission types:<br /><br />A: 2-year flyby on a free return trajectory. This demonstrates both human and life support system endurance over interplanetary distances.<br /><br />B: Full duration mission with a Mars orbit insertion. This demonstrates a Mars orbit insertion and Earth transfer orbit insertion. It also extends the life support technology to a full mission duration.<br /><br />C: Same as the B mission plus a landing. THis demonstrates a landing and return to orbit capability.<br /><br />Just like with Apollo, the rule is that one type of mission has to be successfully completed before attempting the next. If a B type mission has too many problems -- even if it successfully returns the crew -- at the next opportunity another B type mission is attempted. If every mission is completed satisfactorily, then the third mission will be a landing mission.<br /><br />Note that the A class mission is a minimal mass mission, because one only has to throw a hab and an Earth return vehicle into an interplanetary orbit. The B class mission requires a little more interplanetary mass, because you need a Mars arrival stage and a Mars departure stage. The C class mission requires even more propulsion, in order to throw the lander and stop it in Mars orbit. So each mission only requires the propulsion necessary to accomplish its objectives, meaning you only get into megaships or multiple flights at the end, when you take the lander along.<br /><br />As far as life support is concerned, between ISS and Mir we've got literally years of experience in life support management and consumption rates. We know plenty about how many consumables to send along for X number of months. With Mars one doesn't have the luxury of resupply flights, so of course you have to send all consumables along. But that's entirely doable. It's no big mystery.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-16519764432059337512011-08-09T19:29:28.020-07:002011-08-09T19:29:28.020-07:00Horselover Fat said:" think the life support ...Horselover Fat said:" think the life support problem needs to be addressed explicitely, Rick. Did you address it in another blog entry? Unless I'm missing something, it hasn't been solved and so you can't plan manned missions like you would plan robotic missions or even manned missions to the Moon. Not with proven and scalable propulsion technologies, that is."<br /><br />Let me say something on this subject: life support research has been progressing for decades; everything from hydroponics to bio-reactors have been proposed and tested, with varied amounts of success for long term sustainability. As far as radiation protection goes, physical shielding may be augmented with magnetic fields, if a British study is anything to go on. As far as I can tell, the life support tech is at the point where a long term (a month or more) space mission would do much to advance the state of the art.<br /><br />FerrellAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-32545466532819831962011-08-09T14:38:58.976-07:002011-08-09T14:38:58.976-07:00I don't understand what problem you have with ...I don't understand what problem you have with emotions.<br /><br />I think the life support problem needs to be addressed explicitely, Rick. Did you address it in another blog entry? Unless I'm missing something, it hasn't been solved and so you can't plan manned missions like you would plan robotic missions or even manned missions to the Moon. Not with proven and scalable propulsion technologies, that is.<br /><br />The robotic campaign is being carried out in the fashion you're suggesting, Tony. And that's reasonable.<br />But as far as I can see, you're ignoring the problem with manned spaceflight entierly and therefore proposing something which I fear would turn out to be impossible to fund over the long haul, even by the most prosperous dictatorship on the planet.<br /><br />If you're unwilling to explain the nature of the pre-landing tests you're talking about (which would somehow require no lander but live bodies in Mars orbit instead) or why you seem to be assuming free life support, perhaps you could volunteer an order of magnitude for the total cost and duration of the stunt-less but ultimately successful campaign you're envisioning.<br /><br />-Horselover FatAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-81425865817653597032011-08-09T12:52:17.553-07:002011-08-09T12:52:17.553-07:00I guess I should write a front page post about goi...I guess I should write a front page post about going to Mars.<br /><br />And thanks to everyone for keeping some strong emotions pretty much in check.<br /><br />It is a valid and interesting point that the complexity and cost of robotic missions tends to go up as the low hanging fruit gets picked. After all, the first mission to a given planet can produce spectacular results just by taking a few snapshots. Filling in the picture takes more work = more money.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-49497997699136694532011-08-09T09:59:56.079-07:002011-08-09T09:59:56.079-07:00"one mission every 22 months" should rea..."one mission every 22 months" should read: "one mission every 26 months"Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-57688619861207810532011-08-09T07:27:20.752-07:002011-08-09T07:27:20.752-07:00Re: Horselover Fat
It's very simple -- a land...Re: Horselover Fat<br /><br />It's very simple -- a lander just about doubles Mars mission mass. That means more launches to put both the lander and extra propulsion resources in space. There's no point in doing that until you're sure the rest of the hardware works. That means you run one or two (or even three, if it takes that many time to get everything right) Mars orbit and return missions before you go with a landing. It's just like everything else done in space -- you build up capabilities carefully, incrementally.<br /><br />And what I mean by "stunt" is doing something outside of a careful, incremental plan. An all-up mission first mission that included every capability, including a landing, even if it successfully returned the crew to Earth, would be a stunt. It would also be extremely dangerous and not very likely to succeed, because too much untested hardware would be sent on one mission.<br /><br />WHich leads me to my point about mission duration not being a factor in deciding how big an advance to make with each mission. The figure of merit is added complexity, not duration. So what if you can only run one mission every 22 months, and that mission is very expensive? Mars is a long way away, and difficult to engage. You take a measured approach and put everything together over time, making sure each new capability is demonstrated and well understood before moving on. You don't just go for the landing on the first mission because it costs less money to do so.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-35449224633028266112011-08-09T03:57:50.387-07:002011-08-09T03:57:50.387-07:00We seem to be talking about different things.
You&...We seem to be talking about different things.<br />You're talking about the first mission while I'm talking about the whole campaign. <br />And you seem to be talking about a different sort of operation.<br /><br />I see how you could have a stunt where you send people to die on Mars without having done much robotic groundwork, without much equipment to get work done and barely more supplies than they need to reach the place. If you're trying for a stunt, I figure that could be a good bit cheaper than a proper mission.<br />I also figure the cost of productive Moon mission would differ even more relative to a Moon stunt.<br />But you're talking about bringing people back from Mars. How much would you save relative to the mission cost by downscoping it to a stunt?<br />You say mission duration is irrelevant. Does that mean you are assuming a relatively low mass cost for extending life support way beyond the duration of a Moon trip? Or are you envisioning some kind of new propulsion technology that could make Mars a month-long trip or something?<br />Or maybe we have a different definition of "stunt". I'm not sure what you'd expect the follow-up on a successful mission to be.<br />The way I envisioned it, the length of the trip dominates the mission costs (either because of the duration or because you need a huge acceleration) and that factors in basically everything.<br />Which is to say I don't understand why landing and launching would double the mission mass either. I'm not envisionning landing with the deep-space life support "module" for instance, again a decision in part driven by the mission duration.<br />Maybe I'm missing something simple.<br /><br />With regards to testing, what tests could you do safely on the lightweight Mars orbit trip that you couldn't do on Earth, on Earth orbit, without a live crew or, if that was the only way, in the course of a first complete mission?<br />I don't think there would be a rationale for a manned Apollo 10 today but I don't understand how Mars could be done with that approach anyway. Apollo could afford a ridiculous number of missions due in part to the short mission duration. Mars has different economics.<br /><br />-Horselover FatAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-46200715502058500992011-08-08T15:06:23.728-07:002011-08-08T15:06:23.728-07:00Landing on Mars is not an incidental or marginal e...Landing on Mars is not an incidental or marginal expense. Nor does it involve only a marginal increase in risk. Yet from the capabilities point of view, it's just the next increment beyond getting a crew there and back safely. But adding that capability to the flight plan probably doubles the mission mass, meaning bigger or more Earth departure stages and bigger or more Mars orbit insertion stages. Or maybe it means prepositioning the lander in Mars orbit with a cargo flight (adding a Mars orbit rendezvous to the flight plan). Or maybe it means prepositioning the Earth return vehicle on the Martian surface, a la Mars Direct (adding a precision landing to the flight plan).<br /><br />However you do it, it's a big step that should not be integrated into the flight plan until all the previous steps are demonstrated adequately. And the length of the mission actually has little bearing on how much you try to do on a mission. Interplanetary transit takes time, and involves big risk, that's true, but overloading on mission objectives that involve untested hardware* is even a bigger risk. <br /><br />*Earth orbit and Lunar testing can only go so far. Ask Neil and Buzz how much they <i>didn't</i> know even after Apollo 9 did Earth orbit testing of the LM and Apollo 10 flew the whole mission profile minus actually going the final ten miles to the surface. The same will apply to manned Mars landing equipment -- until you actually take one down to the surface and back, it's not going to be fully tested.<br /><br />Finally, let's not get to wrapped up in fears of Mars orbit being a dead end. It's an incremental step towards landing, not a non-destination. So what if it costs more money and takes more time? If the political commitment is there, Mars orbit will be just a stage in the process. If the long term commitment doesn't exist, a landing mission -- even a successful one -- will, in the final analysis, just be a stunt.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-61957798354715910072011-08-08T13:38:43.210-07:002011-08-08T13:38:43.210-07:00It might be worthwhile to try a robotic version of...It might be worthwhile to try a robotic version of that lander/launched first to see if it can be made to work reliably if the terrain turns out not to be ideal (guiding it precisely would require more rockets or at least more fuel I imagine) among other things but my uninformed opinion is that launching from Mars' surface, while very challenging, isn't even the biggest obstacle.<br />The big deal about a manned return trip from Mars seems to be that you'd need to use up A LOT more fuel (with all that it implies) than you'd otherwise need to in order to keep the journey's length reasonably short.<br />So the first thing to develop in view of a Mars return trip might be optimizing recycling and otherwise improving on the mass requirements of life support (including keeping the astronauts in decent health, psychologically and otherwise). It seems to me (uninformed speculation) that it would allow an optimization of fuel use which would make a Mars return trip much more practical (but more of an ordeal due to the length of the trip). Much of this work could be done on Earth without paying launch costs or risking lives. Maybe you could devise a prize for that?<br />Robots which can produce some of the supplies required for life support on Mars' surface might also improve on the mass requirements of a fuel-efficient return trip which would I understand imply a very, very long stay on Mars on top of the actual travel time.<br /><br />Aside from how agitated it drives me to even contemplate people orbiting Mars aimlessly before returning to Earth, I really don't understand the argument for not landing.<br />Yes, it would be easier not to land and yes, it would be a useful test... if it was economical. But please explain to me what scenario would make such an approach less expensive than landing at once you consider the total cost of the campaign. The only such scenario I can see is precisely the one I would want to avoid at all costs: people are sent to Mars orbit but no subsequent mission lands.<br />If you're going to land at some point, try landing on the first run and you'll save one trip if get it right. If you botch the landing or the launch, a crew is dead either way. And if you botch the return trip, the radiation shielding or the life support (but not so badly that the crew doesn't reach Mars alive), a crew is dead or terminally ill but their lives would not have been thrown away for nothing.<br />It's not like the Moon: it's a long, long trip! Sending people all the way out there would be extraordinarily expensive and taxing for them as well, not to mention dangerous. Such a voyage shouldn't be pointless!<br />On the other hand, an unmanned test of every aspect of the mission you can test without a live payload should be much cheaper and could be worthwhile.<br /><br />But the best argument for landing is of course that the astronauts' job is done once their work on the surface is finished. At that point their lives are obviously not worth even 1% of the cost of bringing them back, assuming you could even return them in good health.<br /><br />-Horselover FatAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-27010045530001479332011-08-08T07:42:33.431-07:002011-08-08T07:42:33.431-07:00Damien Sullivan:
"I was responding to the pr...Damien Sullivan:<br /><br /><i>"I was responding to the prize for going to and from Mars orbit, and then the statement that that wasn't safely technically possible. I may have misunderstood the latter. Certainly getting a human back from Mars *surface* seems much harder, given the higher gravity than Luna where we were able to send a viable return rocket."</i><br /><br />The impulse for getting off the surface of Mars isn't all that much. ISTR it's about four times that to get off the Moon, for a given payload. That's manageable in a two piece lander.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-66210776379635168742011-08-08T07:12:12.791-07:002011-08-08T07:12:12.791-07:00Horselover Fat:
"Now that's just pervers...Horselover Fat:<br /><br /><i>"Now that's just perverse!<br />You want to get humans THAT close to walking on another planet and not do it?"</i><br /><br />Demonstrating that humans can be projected across interplanetary distances and returned safely would in itself be an exceptional achievement. I'd certainly be willing to invest in doing it two or three times to make sure it could be done reliably.Tonynoreply@blogger.com