Robert Zubrin and The Mars 90 Day report

Robert Zubrin proposed a manned mission to Mars in 1990. It's cost was at a fraction of other proposed plans to NASA and seemed to be the most logical. So why then did this plan get no other attention from NASA and put on the shelf?

His proposed plan to NASA was Mars Direct. It was very logical and just made sence to NASA. It beat out other planned Manned trips to Mars but a flaw was found. This flaw dealt with the amount of rocket fuel needed to get to mars and back and was later reproposed as the90 Day report.

So why then have we not started this planned mission to Mars? It seemed feasable. And if streatched out to a 10 year plan, would have easily fit into NASA's budget.

Robert Zubrin also has a book out, The Case for Mars where he explains how Mars can eventually be Terra formed and turn into a livable world.

I want to discuss the possibilty of this mission in the future and the terra forming of a planet.

JackCash




[edit on 8-6-2007 by JackCash]

Wow from what i have read it seems amazing i've just ordered his book as well to find out more. As you ask why did Nasa seem to take little notice of the proposed plan was it because certain logistics didn't add up or is there a official explanation already somewhere with the reasons why not? Great post by the way.

With the advancements today in technology and human understanding you have to wonder why Nasa would not be able to expand on Mr Zubins basic ideas and present a real possibilty of getting to Mars.

I've found more info regarding the logistics of the mission and a time line regarding the plan.

www.astronautix.com...

Also, the home page for the Mars Direct mission.

Mars Direct Homepage

[edit on 8-6-2007 by JackCash]

One of the classic myths about a human Mars mission is that the crew will be subjected to long periods of microgravity ("zero-gravity"), and that before the mission, huge amounts of money must be spent on space stations and other projects, so that the effects of microgravity can be studied. The Mars Direct plan employs artificial gravity for the trip through space, which makes this concern invalid. Artificial gravity can be easily created. In traditional rocket launches, all stages of the rocket are abandoned when they burn out. In Mars Direct, the final stage of the rocket is attached to the crew module by a long tether. When the stage runs out of fuel, the tether is unwound, creating a two-body system with a center of mass somewhere along the tether. The system is then rotated around this center of mass, with the burnt-out rocket stage acting as the counter-balance to the crew module.

Source

Interesting post, JackCash. Mars Direct was/is probably the most realistic sort of Mars mission we might expect to be launched in the near future. As for the questions, you and SR are asking, they are closely related:

Originally Posted by JackCash
So why then have we not started this planned mission to Mars? It seemed feasable. And if streatched out to a 10 year plan, would have easily fit into NASA's budget.

Originally Posted by SR
As you ask why did Nasa seem to take little notice of the proposed plan was it because certain logistics didn't add up or is there a official explanation already somewhere with the reasons why not?

I'm afraid you're both oversimplfying the situation. We haven't gone to Mars yet because there isn't the money to do so, not because NASA is somehow disinclined to go. NASA recieves about $16 Billion a year in funding from the Federal government - which sounds like a lot, and is a lot, but it isn't nearly enough. Check out these charts which map out NASA's budget since the agency's inception in 1958.

In constant dollars (figured for FY 1996) NASA was spending about $26 Billion a year in 1966, when the Apollo program was at its height in terms of research and development spending. Even in 1969, the year Apollo 11 landed on the moon, NASA was spending $17.5 Billion - which is $4.5 Billion more than NASA has to budget for fiscal 2007, if you figure it in constant dollars.

NASA could develop Mars Direct if it wanted to, but it doesn't have enough money to do so - we've already seen the first flight for Orion, the capsule which will replace the shuttle, pushed back to 2014 , leaving a ~4 year gap between US-launched manned space missions, and we'll be lucky if that gap doesn't widen. We're pushing back deployment of an Apollo-style capsule because we don't have enough money to develop it "quickly" (i.e. in less than 8 years). Developing the equipment needed for a manned Mars landing would require even more money that NASA doesn't have.

Congress could allocate enough money to NASA to develop Mars Direct, but you're not going to see that happen. It involves too many "hot-button" projects (nuclear reactors designed for use in space/on Mars, for instance), and would cost too much money - well, not too much money, somewhere between $30 and $35 Billion in today's dollars, at least according to Zubrin's estimate. Which isn't too much, but it is far more than Congress is willing to spend on space exploration.

Meanwhile, we are spending about $4.5 Billion a month to fight the war in Iraq...

Thanks for the figures PhloydPhan! Those are some great links you added.


As for NASA and their budget, I'm sure they could "find" a way to secure the funds for a manned trip to Mars given that there was enough public support backing it. Those on the mission would return as heroes and the American public would once again have pride in the US's accomplishment.

True, JackCash, public support is critical when considering the necessity to gain Congressional support and, thus, financial backing. But the U.S. public doesn't support the space program - mostly, in my opinion, because it stopped being entertaining after Armstrong stepped onto the moon. Once our race with the Russians was over, people were happy to move on to more exciting things than landing on the moon ('')


Another reason for the relative dearth of public support, I believe, is that many people believe that we're actually sending people to the moon, Mars, and other planets already. I remember having a conversation with a friend of mine a few years ago, when Cassini entered into orbit around Saturn and started sending back its first pictures.

Now, I'm a space dork, and I readily admit that I'm a space dork, and I really don't expect anyone else to get excited about an unmanned probe making an orbital insertion burn, but I was watching the NASA channel on TV while this was going on and I was happy as a clam. Anyway, my friend pops in and asks what I'm watching, and I explain it while trying to avoid sounding like a complete dork, and he looks at me and says "Oh, cool. How many people are on board?"

My friend is a relatively intelligent person, and he generally has a good amount of common sense, and even HE thought that there were people on Cassini. I sometimes wonder how many of Americans believe that there are people onboard the probes NASA sends out, or that the Mars Rovers are piloted by on-board drivers. I firmly believe that many people are not interested in spaceflight because they assume that many things have already been done.

[edit on 8-6-2007 by PhloydPhan]

PhloydPhan,

I agree with you about the fact that space exploration in the publics eye has dwindled after the moon mission, but I believe that is because what NASA is doing now really isn't that exciting. Who really cares about a probe to Saturn that takes years to get there only to relay back fuzzy pictures?

Something like a manned trip to Mars would IMO reginerate public support for space exploration.

Double post

Sorry

[edit on 8-6-2007 by JackCash]