Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in

Expand Messages
  • frank_stratford
    I posted this in our forums today guys, basically as a way forward for us. For mission design the outcome is positive as a peer reviewed design (or design of
    Message 1 of 27 , May 31, 2010
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      I posted this in our forums today guys, basically as a way forward for us. For mission design the outcome is positive as a peer reviewed design (or design of individual "chunks"- as David has been studying) can serve this goal as well.

      I was having some discussions with one of our advisors recently (Brian Enke) and it was great to get some positive feedback on my consortium ideas. He has arranged for Robert Zubrin to give me a call soon as well as we think we may be onto something now in the effort to get humans to Mars.

      I knew that there were many holes in my consortium idea but it wasn't until someone pointed them out in a balanced "non flame" manner that I started to see those areas. So I will start with an outline/plan and explain it from there-

      1. Mars and space advocates organize a "consortium conference" to bring together the potential players for such a consortium- Boeing, Lockheed, SpaceX, etc etc.
      2. Unlike my previous proposal for them to get to work straight away on a Mars mission this time we would be getting them to form a consortium to advance near term earth relevant technologies in line with human space exploration needs. In short- develop with their combined resources many technologies needed for Mars in a much faster way than the current speed of R&D.

      This means that profits are the goal in the immediate and near term and it keeps investors happy because it can sink its teeth into some "already developing" ideas in various areas.

      I know that almost all space companies around today are servicing real market needs here on earth with real applications for people on earth and it is the only way they can make any money.

      To ask such companies to start suddenly investing in an idea (humans to Mars) that has no defined market (governments are not fully committed yet) was short sighted and unrealistic of me so I'm changing that.

      The problem with governments is that they are very risk averse and when it comes to humans to Mars the risks are very high. So if the consortium can remove some of these risk areas, or at least show how they can be removed (and governments do the heavy lifting), governments would start to show more interest.

      But areas like life support, radiation protection, EDL and energy production can all have earth based spin offs that will give profits to companies here and now, and the beauty of a consortium is that together they could hit their targets more quickly than on their own.(as they are today)

      I have no doubt that space companies want governments to go to Mars as they will get the contracts, but in the meantime, something more than theories must be produced to change the stance of governments to this whole idea.

      So what IS realistic?

      That we can get these companies together to begin talking about ways they can produce technologies that will bring them profits here and now, but give them the humans to Mars program as the central goal/focus.

      This can also include R&D into cheap space access tech as well as the benefits from that are obvious.

      If we had 2 or 3 peer reviewed humans to Mars designs for them to coalesce around, this would be needed as no focus will result in no outcomes.

      For example- reliable food supplies and production- good for earth here and now but also vital to crew health and safety- one of those "risk" areas governments worry about. If the consortium could patent and put together something in this area the applications are obvious.

      The same with EDL- applications for military use are obvious and far more likely to be invested in by governments than pure space exploration (sadly).

      Radiation shielding techs will also have immediate applications for earth. There are many areas like this.

      As advocates we can and do organize conferences every year with representatives from space companies and space agencies. So we can do this. We can get them in a room discussing a way forward for Mars via immediate profits now.

      But we would have to have some very clearly defined areas for them to sink their collective teeth into and several proposals would be good to start it off. Proposals for individual pieces of tech or systems that can have dual use on Earth and Mars.

      My mistake was to expect these companies to invest in a "maybe" a "build it and they will come" assumption, but I was wrong. With immediate profits as the focus I am certain that we can begin to make real progress towards humans to Mars because right now that is the only way any space company is operating.The power of a consortium is that together they can advance R&D and profits more quickly than on their own.

      I think this can be done, that it is in line with current realities in how this sector gains investment- based on serving real market needs (but with dual applications).

      The difference with a consortium is the sheer resources brought to bear on these R&D areas versus the sporadic and slow go it alone approach we have today.

      Plus we already have one consortium- ULA- United Launch Alliance, so it is not an idea these companies are foreign to.

      If these companies want a committment from governments on humans to mars, but they don't want to lose money to get this committment then it's time they got together and figured out some areas they could advance as a spark for governments to "get interested" in Mars. The part we play as advocates is to organize this effort and "drive" it from behind seeing we are the ones with the vision and passion for the future of humanity in space. If not us then who?

      So the question is, can we make a compelling enough case to these companies to "get them interested"?
    • Darren Oliveiro-Priestnall
      Well that all sounds like good sense to me. Consortiums built in this way aren t new of course, in other sectors its very common for the main players to form
      Message 2 of 27 , May 31, 2010
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment

        Well that all sounds like good sense to me.

        Consortiums built in this way aren’t new of course, in other sectors its very common for the main players to form consortiums to jointly develop standards and shared base technologies to further the sector while giving an early lead to the companies involved with the consortium.

        A lot of money goes into running these consortiums and furthering their goals but the driving force is ultimately profit for those companies that are involved.

         

        And as you point out, ultimately it’s applying space based technologies to solve Earth based problems that often underpins these endeavours.

        In the UK there are many government backed incubators for just this. Down the road from my office theres a new incubator being set up by ESA with a very large government cash investment for building and running the new centre while the whole purpose of this incubator is for ESA to work with non-space based companies, especially startup’s and SME’s to transfer knowledge and newly developed technologies away from ESA and into these companies, ultimately encouraging startups and SME’s to create new Earth based products from these large government backed space investments.

         

        On a slightly unrelated note, if looking for investment for specific research projects or just looking to identify potential partners, a few good places to start are below.

         

        http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/understand_en.html

        https://ktn.innovateuk.org/web/space

        http://iap.esa.int/iap-themes

        http://www.fp7-space.eu/fp7-space-info-2.phtm

        http://www.meetup.com/Space-Entrepreneurs/

         

        Darren

         

        From: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com [mailto:marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of frank_stratford
        Sent: 01 June 2010 2:51 AM
        To: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [marsdrivemission] Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in

         

         

        I posted this in our forums today guys, basically as a way forward for us. For mission design the outcome is positive as a peer reviewed design (or design of individual "chunks"- as David has been studying) can serve this goal as well.

        I was having some discussions with one of our advisors recently (Brian Enke) and it was great to get some positive feedback on my consortium ideas. He has arranged for Robert Zubrin to give me a call soon as well as we think we may be onto something now in the effort to get humans to Mars.

        I knew that there were many holes in my consortium idea but it wasn't until someone pointed them out in a balanced "non flame" manner that I started to see those areas. So I will start with an outline/plan and explain it from there-

        1. Mars and space advocates organize a "consortium conference" to bring together the potential players for such a consortium- Boeing, Lockheed, SpaceX, etc etc.
        2. Unlike my previous proposal for them to get to work straight away on a Mars mission this time we would be getting them to form a consortium to advance near term earth relevant technologies in line with human space exploration needs. In short- develop with their combined resources many technologies needed for Mars in a much faster way than the current speed of R&D.

        This means that profits are the goal in the immediate and near term and it keeps investors happy because it can sink its teeth into some "already developing" ideas in various areas.

        I know that almost all space companies around today are servicing real market needs here on earth with real applications for people on earth and it is the only way they can make any money.

        To ask such companies to start suddenly investing in an idea (humans to Mars) that has no defined market (governments are not fully committed yet) was short sighted and unrealistic of me so I'm changing that.

        The problem with governments is that they are very risk averse and when it comes to humans to Mars the risks are very high. So if the consortium can remove some of these risk areas, or at least show how they can be removed (and governments do the heavy lifting), governments would start to show more interest.

        But areas like life support, radiation protection, EDL and energy production can all have earth based spin offs that will give profits to companies here and now, and the beauty of a consortium is that together they could hit their targets more quickly than on their own.(as they are today)

        I have no doubt that space companies want governments to go to Mars as they will get the contracts, but in the meantime, something more than theories must be produced to change the stance of governments to this whole idea.

        So what IS realistic?

        That we can get these companies together to begin talking about ways they can produce technologies that will bring them profits here and now, but give them the humans to Mars program as the central goal/focus.

        This can also include R&D into cheap space access tech as well as the benefits from that are obvious.

        If we had 2 or 3 peer reviewed humans to Mars designs for them to coalesce around, this would be needed as no focus will result in no outcomes.

        For example- reliable food supplies and production- good for earth here and now but also vital to crew health and safety- one of those "risk" areas governments worry about. If the consortium could patent and put together something in this area the applications are obvious.

        The same with EDL- applications for military use are obvious and far more likely to be invested in by governments than pure space exploration (sadly).

        Radiation shielding techs will also have immediate applications for earth. There are many areas like this.

        As advocates we can and do organize conferences every year with representatives from space companies and space agencies. So we can do this. We can get them in a room discussing a way forward for Mars via immediate profits now.

        But we would have to have some very clearly defined areas for them to sink their collective teeth into and several proposals would be good to start it off. Proposals for individual pieces of tech or systems that can have dual use on Earth and Mars.

        My mistake was to expect these companies to invest in a "maybe" a "build it and they will come" assumption, but I was wrong. With immediate profits as the focus I am certain that we can begin to make real progress towards humans to Mars because right now that is the only way any space company is operating.The power of a consortium is that together they can advance R&D and profits more quickly than on their own.

        I think this can be done, that it is in line with current realities in how this sector gains investment- based on serving real market needs (but with dual applications).

        The difference with a consortium is the sheer resources brought to bear on these R&D areas versus the sporadic and slow go it alone approach we have today.

        Plus we already have one consortium- ULA- United Launch Alliance, so it is not an idea these companies are foreign to.

        If these companies want a committment from governments on humans to mars, but they don't want to lose money to get this committment then it's time they got together and figured out some areas they could advance as a spark for governments to "get interested" in Mars. The part we play as advocates is to organize this effort and "drive" it from behind seeing we are the ones with the vision and passion for the future of humanity in space. If not us then who?

        So the question is, can we make a compelling enough case to these companies to "get them interested"?

      • David
        Frank, It sounds like good sense to me too. In terms of where we re going here with the mission design effort, it sounds like you want us to develop one (or
        Message 3 of 27 , Jun 1, 2010
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Frank,

          It sounds like good sense to me too.

          In terms of where we're going here with the mission design effort, it sounds like you want us to develop one (or more!) mission designs.

          Previously you indicated/implied you wanted a mission design around a Falcon 9 heavy (i.e. in small chunks). However, others more knowledgable than me suggested that this was not possible. So, in the absence of anything else, we dusted off DRM 2.5 and started looking at that again. Is that how you want us to proceed here on the mission design group?

          Frank, I feel that if we're going to get anywhere with the mission design we need some leadership here.

          At the moment I feel I'm just fumbling around in the dark. I've been looking at the DRM 2.5 ISRU process but I'm not sure if (1) DRM 2.5 is the right way to go or (2) if I'm doing the right thing anyway.

          Who's in charge here? With some strong direction I do feel we might actually get somewhere with a mission design. I could probably find a number of good competent engineers prepared to do some work on this, but I doubt if they could be persuaded to give up their free time unless they could see this going somewhere. But, like me, they wouldn't be space mission design experts, they'd need a framework to work within and some hands-on direction. At the moment I don't see this.

          Help!

          Dave G

          --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, Darren Oliveiro-Priestnall <darrenop@...> wrote:
          >
          > Well that all sounds like good sense to me.
          > Consortiums built in this way aren't new of course, in other sectors its very common for the main players to form consortiums to jointly develop standards and shared base technologies to further the sector while giving an early lead to the companies involved with the consortium.
          > A lot of money goes into running these consortiums and furthering their goals but the driving force is ultimately profit for those companies that are involved.
          >
          > And as you point out, ultimately it's applying space based technologies to solve Earth based problems that often underpins these endeavours.
          > In the UK there are many government backed incubators for just this. Down the road from my office theres a new incubator being set up by ESA with a very large government cash investment for building and running the new centre while the whole purpose of this incubator is for ESA to work with non-space based companies, especially startup's and SME's to transfer knowledge and newly developed technologies away from ESA and into these companies, ultimately encouraging startups and SME's to create new Earth based products from these large government backed space investments.
          >
          > On a slightly unrelated note, if looking for investment for specific research projects or just looking to identify potential partners, a few good places to start are below.
          >
          > http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/understand_en.html
          > https://ktn.innovateuk.org/web/space
          > http://iap.esa.int/iap-themes
          > http://www.fp7-space.eu/fp7-space-info-2.phtm
          > http://www.meetup.com/Space-Entrepreneurs/
          >
          > Darren
          >
          > From: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com [mailto:marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of frank_stratford
          > Sent: 01 June 2010 2:51 AM
          > To: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [marsdrivemission] Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
          >
          >
          >
          > I posted this in our forums today guys, basically as a way forward for us. For mission design the outcome is positive as a peer reviewed design (or design of individual "chunks"- as David has been studying) can serve this goal as well.
          >
          > I was having some discussions with one of our advisors recently (Brian Enke) and it was great to get some positive feedback on my consortium ideas. He has arranged for Robert Zubrin to give me a call soon as well as we think we may be onto something now in the effort to get humans to Mars.
          >
          > I knew that there were many holes in my consortium idea but it wasn't until someone pointed them out in a balanced "non flame" manner that I started to see those areas. So I will start with an outline/plan and explain it from there-
          >
          > 1. Mars and space advocates organize a "consortium conference" to bring together the potential players for such a consortium- Boeing, Lockheed, SpaceX, etc etc.
          > 2. Unlike my previous proposal for them to get to work straight away on a Mars mission this time we would be getting them to form a consortium to advance near term earth relevant technologies in line with human space exploration needs. In short- develop with their combined resources many technologies needed for Mars in a much faster way than the current speed of R&D.
          >
          > This means that profits are the goal in the immediate and near term and it keeps investors happy because it can sink its teeth into some "already developing" ideas in various areas.
          >
          > I know that almost all space companies around today are servicing real market needs here on earth with real applications for people on earth and it is the only way they can make any money.
          >
          > To ask such companies to start suddenly investing in an idea (humans to Mars) that has no defined market (governments are not fully committed yet) was short sighted and unrealistic of me so I'm changing that.
          >
          > The problem with governments is that they are very risk averse and when it comes to humans to Mars the risks are very high. So if the consortium can remove some of these risk areas, or at least show how they can be removed (and governments do the heavy lifting), governments would start to show more interest.
          >
          > But areas like life support, radiation protection, EDL and energy production can all have earth based spin offs that will give profits to companies here and now, and the beauty of a consortium is that together they could hit their targets more quickly than on their own.(as they are today)
          >
          > I have no doubt that space companies want governments to go to Mars as they will get the contracts, but in the meantime, something more than theories must be produced to change the stance of governments to this whole idea.
          >
          > So what IS realistic?
          >
          > That we can get these companies together to begin talking about ways they can produce technologies that will bring them profits here and now, but give them the humans to Mars program as the central goal/focus.
          >
          > This can also include R&D into cheap space access tech as well as the benefits from that are obvious.
          >
          > If we had 2 or 3 peer reviewed humans to Mars designs for them to coalesce around, this would be needed as no focus will result in no outcomes.
          >
          > For example- reliable food supplies and production- good for earth here and now but also vital to crew health and safety- one of those "risk" areas governments worry about. If the consortium could patent and put together something in this area the applications are obvious.
          >
          > The same with EDL- applications for military use are obvious and far more likely to be invested in by governments than pure space exploration (sadly).
          >
          > Radiation shielding techs will also have immediate applications for earth. There are many areas like this.
          >
          > As advocates we can and do organize conferences every year with representatives from space companies and space agencies. So we can do this. We can get them in a room discussing a way forward for Mars via immediate profits now.
          >
          > But we would have to have some very clearly defined areas for them to sink their collective teeth into and several proposals would be good to start it off. Proposals for individual pieces of tech or systems that can have dual use on Earth and Mars.
          >
          > My mistake was to expect these companies to invest in a "maybe" a "build it and they will come" assumption, but I was wrong. With immediate profits as the focus I am certain that we can begin to make real progress towards humans to Mars because right now that is the only way any space company is operating.The power of a consortium is that together they can advance R&D and profits more quickly than on their own.
          >
          > I think this can be done, that it is in line with current realities in how this sector gains investment- based on serving real market needs (but with dual applications).
          >
          > The difference with a consortium is the sheer resources brought to bear on these R&D areas versus the sporadic and slow go it alone approach we have today.
          >
          > Plus we already have one consortium- ULA- United Launch Alliance, so it is not an idea these companies are foreign to.
          >
          > If these companies want a committment from governments on humans to mars, but they don't want to lose money to get this committment then it's time they got together and figured out some areas they could advance as a spark for governments to "get interested" in Mars. The part we play as advocates is to organize this effort and "drive" it from behind seeing we are the ones with the vision and passion for the future of humanity in space. If not us then who?
          >
          > So the question is, can we make a compelling enough case to these companies to "get them interested"?
          >
        • frank_stratford
          If I remember correctly Dave we decided upon 2.5 from a particular philosophy, and that philosophy has always remained the same with Marsdrive- What is the
          Message 4 of 27 , Jun 1, 2010
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            If I remember correctly Dave we decided upon 2.5 from a particular philosophy, and that philosophy has always remained the same with Marsdrive- "What is the most realistic path forward given technical, financial and political hurdles".

            This is also why Falcon 9 was considered along the same lines (as it is a rocket in development now). We have never veered off that path. The discussions on mobile habs etc were useful, but with such a risk averse culture as we have today, we have to design for this whether we like it or not.

            You may be right in saying 2.5 is not the way to go, but in keeping with our guiding philosophy, what other LV system is realistically on the horizon that we can design around? I don't see any others at this stage. We will never interest "players in a consortium" with unrealistic designs based on completely new LV systems, not when we haven't addressed some of the major issues yet like a working EDL concept, radiation protection that we can bank on, life support that is believeable, etc

            So in keeping with our philosophy can I suggest the following way forward-

            1. List out all the things we don't like about 2.5 now
            2. See if we can modify those within the constraints of that LV faring etc
            3. List out what improvements we would like to make/could be made
            4. Publish a design after this for peer review
            5. Hold consortium conference at this point

            If the Atlas development path takes a dive, we may have to switch to Falcon 9 H, but that is not my doing Dave, it is just the way this game is played. It is ever changing. But I think if we keep to our guiding philosophy, we won't go wrong.

            We do need to keep our eye on certain areas, and the biggest I think is Mars EDL concepts. The better ours is, the more seriously our design will be taken. This part could indeed be a major point of difference with our design if we created some detail around it. I'm not saying we will get it right here, but we do need to show that we are on the cutting edge of Mars design thinking, and ignoring this aspect is ignoring the elephant in the room.

            The same applies to radiation protection and life support. In a risk averse culture these are the areas that will win us support- if we address them sufficiently, and your work in ISRU is extremely helpful along these lines Dave.

            So I have laid out a way forward here Dave and everyone,and to some extent I do think you are on this path already, so by all means continue to these goals. If you want to set timelines and deadlines to all this you can, but we will need the resources to meet such deadlines (which is why I left it open at this time).


            --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, "David" <davidgooding16@...> wrote:
            >
            > Frank,
            >
            > It sounds like good sense to me too.
            >
            > In terms of where we're going here with the mission design effort, it sounds like you want us to develop one (or more!) mission designs.
            >
            > Previously you indicated/implied you wanted a mission design around a Falcon 9 heavy (i.e. in small chunks). However, others more knowledgable than me suggested that this was not possible. So, in the absence of anything else, we dusted off DRM 2.5 and started looking at that again. Is that how you want us to proceed here on the mission design group?
            >
            > Frank, I feel that if we're going to get anywhere with the mission design we need some leadership here.
            >
            > At the moment I feel I'm just fumbling around in the dark. I've been looking at the DRM 2.5 ISRU process but I'm not sure if (1) DRM 2.5 is the right way to go or (2) if I'm doing the right thing anyway.
            >
            > Who's in charge here? With some strong direction I do feel we might actually get somewhere with a mission design. I could probably find a number of good competent engineers prepared to do some work on this, but I doubt if they could be persuaded to give up their free time unless they could see this going somewhere. But, like me, they wouldn't be space mission design experts, they'd need a framework to work within and some hands-on direction. At the moment I don't see this.
            >
            > Help!
            >
            > Dave G
            >
            > --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, Darren Oliveiro-Priestnall <darrenop@> wrote:
            > >
            > > Well that all sounds like good sense to me.
            > > Consortiums built in this way aren't new of course, in other sectors its very common for the main players to form consortiums to jointly develop standards and shared base technologies to further the sector while giving an early lead to the companies involved with the consortium.
            > > A lot of money goes into running these consortiums and furthering their goals but the driving force is ultimately profit for those companies that are involved.
            > >
            > > And as you point out, ultimately it's applying space based technologies to solve Earth based problems that often underpins these endeavours.
            > > In the UK there are many government backed incubators for just this. Down the road from my office theres a new incubator being set up by ESA with a very large government cash investment for building and running the new centre while the whole purpose of this incubator is for ESA to work with non-space based companies, especially startup's and SME's to transfer knowledge and newly developed technologies away from ESA and into these companies, ultimately encouraging startups and SME's to create new Earth based products from these large government backed space investments.
            > >
            > > On a slightly unrelated note, if looking for investment for specific research projects or just looking to identify potential partners, a few good places to start are below.
            > >
            > > http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/understand_en.html
            > > https://ktn.innovateuk.org/web/space
            > > http://iap.esa.int/iap-themes
            > > http://www.fp7-space.eu/fp7-space-info-2.phtm
            > > http://www.meetup.com/Space-Entrepreneurs/
            > >
            > > Darren
            > >
            > > From: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com [mailto:marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of frank_stratford
            > > Sent: 01 June 2010 2:51 AM
            > > To: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com
            > > Subject: [marsdrivemission] Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > I posted this in our forums today guys, basically as a way forward for us. For mission design the outcome is positive as a peer reviewed design (or design of individual "chunks"- as David has been studying) can serve this goal as well.
            > >
            > > I was having some discussions with one of our advisors recently (Brian Enke) and it was great to get some positive feedback on my consortium ideas. He has arranged for Robert Zubrin to give me a call soon as well as we think we may be onto something now in the effort to get humans to Mars.
            > >
            > > I knew that there were many holes in my consortium idea but it wasn't until someone pointed them out in a balanced "non flame" manner that I started to see those areas. So I will start with an outline/plan and explain it from there-
            > >
            > > 1. Mars and space advocates organize a "consortium conference" to bring together the potential players for such a consortium- Boeing, Lockheed, SpaceX, etc etc.
            > > 2. Unlike my previous proposal for them to get to work straight away on a Mars mission this time we would be getting them to form a consortium to advance near term earth relevant technologies in line with human space exploration needs. In short- develop with their combined resources many technologies needed for Mars in a much faster way than the current speed of R&D.
            > >
            > > This means that profits are the goal in the immediate and near term and it keeps investors happy because it can sink its teeth into some "already developing" ideas in various areas.
            > >
            > > I know that almost all space companies around today are servicing real market needs here on earth with real applications for people on earth and it is the only way they can make any money.
            > >
            > > To ask such companies to start suddenly investing in an idea (humans to Mars) that has no defined market (governments are not fully committed yet) was short sighted and unrealistic of me so I'm changing that.
            > >
            > > The problem with governments is that they are very risk averse and when it comes to humans to Mars the risks are very high. So if the consortium can remove some of these risk areas, or at least show how they can be removed (and governments do the heavy lifting), governments would start to show more interest.
            > >
            > > But areas like life support, radiation protection, EDL and energy production can all have earth based spin offs that will give profits to companies here and now, and the beauty of a consortium is that together they could hit their targets more quickly than on their own.(as they are today)
            > >
            > > I have no doubt that space companies want governments to go to Mars as they will get the contracts, but in the meantime, something more than theories must be produced to change the stance of governments to this whole idea.
            > >
            > > So what IS realistic?
            > >
            > > That we can get these companies together to begin talking about ways they can produce technologies that will bring them profits here and now, but give them the humans to Mars program as the central goal/focus.
            > >
            > > This can also include R&D into cheap space access tech as well as the benefits from that are obvious.
            > >
            > > If we had 2 or 3 peer reviewed humans to Mars designs for them to coalesce around, this would be needed as no focus will result in no outcomes.
            > >
            > > For example- reliable food supplies and production- good for earth here and now but also vital to crew health and safety- one of those "risk" areas governments worry about. If the consortium could patent and put together something in this area the applications are obvious.
            > >
            > > The same with EDL- applications for military use are obvious and far more likely to be invested in by governments than pure space exploration (sadly).
            > >
            > > Radiation shielding techs will also have immediate applications for earth. There are many areas like this.
            > >
            > > As advocates we can and do organize conferences every year with representatives from space companies and space agencies. So we can do this. We can get them in a room discussing a way forward for Mars via immediate profits now.
            > >
            > > But we would have to have some very clearly defined areas for them to sink their collective teeth into and several proposals would be good to start it off. Proposals for individual pieces of tech or systems that can have dual use on Earth and Mars.
            > >
            > > My mistake was to expect these companies to invest in a "maybe" a "build it and they will come" assumption, but I was wrong. With immediate profits as the focus I am certain that we can begin to make real progress towards humans to Mars because right now that is the only way any space company is operating.The power of a consortium is that together they can advance R&D and profits more quickly than on their own.
            > >
            > > I think this can be done, that it is in line with current realities in how this sector gains investment- based on serving real market needs (but with dual applications).
            > >
            > > The difference with a consortium is the sheer resources brought to bear on these R&D areas versus the sporadic and slow go it alone approach we have today.
            > >
            > > Plus we already have one consortium- ULA- United Launch Alliance, so it is not an idea these companies are foreign to.
            > >
            > > If these companies want a committment from governments on humans to mars, but they don't want to lose money to get this committment then it's time they got together and figured out some areas they could advance as a spark for governments to "get interested" in Mars. The part we play as advocates is to organize this effort and "drive" it from behind seeing we are the ones with the vision and passion for the future of humanity in space. If not us then who?
            > >
            > > So the question is, can we make a compelling enough case to these companies to "get them interested"?
            > >
            >
          • Jordan P.
            Just to throw in something from someone who has been constantly getting e-mails regarding misson designs, plans, etc, in his email for the past several
            Message 5 of 27 , Jun 1, 2010
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Just to throw in something from someone who has been constantly getting e-mails regarding misson designs, plans, etc, in his email for the past several months...
              Whenever I see the [marsdrivemission] tag followed by some question about the stage 2 boosters or the LOX intakes or whatnot, I have to ask the question; why? Why bother with planning anything beyond baby steps at this point, when you don't even have a market to sell to? I read through Frank's message, and he's said he wants to do something that I think I mentioned a year or two ago: focus on profitable ventures with Earth applications, stop focusing on different mission design plans to get from here to Mars, because you never will. We have the technology and we have the knowledge to go to another solar body - we did it about 40 years back. The thing that never came out of Apollo, and the subsequent obsession with landing on other solar bodies, is what is the point of it? So I say again; MarsDrive needs to stop focusing on the Mars and start focusing on the Drive. Get together all those smart minds you have developing answers to problems we're 30 years away from facing, and start figuring out how to apply space to Earth based issues, from global warming, to food and water starvation, to clean power generation. Then you will have a market, because those issues are what's in demand right now.
              If MD or anyone else keeps focusing on the "We need to design a way to go to space and then present it to companies with money to fund it for us!" then they will all fail. Focus on low-cost, low-budget, way out of the ballpark ideas for assisting our current needs, and you will not only have the infrastructure, credit, and manpower thirty years from now to actually go to Mars permanently, but you'll accomplish Frank's stated goal of R+D for a Mars mission while you're making real money.
              Yes I have ideas, no they're not what MD is focusing on right now, and yes I believe if we follow at least some of them we'd have a real shot. Otherwise the MD mission will stay on the Internet and cycling around and around in endless Mars planning discussions.

              Cheers.

              --- On Tue, 6/1/10, frank_stratford <frank_stratford@...> wrote:

              From: frank_stratford <frank_stratford@...>
              Subject: [marsdrivemission] Re: Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
              To: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Tuesday, June 1, 2010, 7:11 PM

               

              If I remember correctly Dave we decided upon 2.5 from a particular philosophy, and that philosophy has always remained the same with Marsdrive- "What is the most realistic path forward given technical, financial and political hurdles".

              This is also why Falcon 9 was considered along the same lines (as it is a rocket in development now). We have never veered off that path. The discussions on mobile habs etc were useful, but with such a risk averse culture as we have today, we have to design for this whether we like it or not.

              You may be right in saying 2.5 is not the way to go, but in keeping with our guiding philosophy, what other LV system is realistically on the horizon that we can design around? I don't see any others at this stage. We will never interest "players in a consortium" with unrealistic designs based on completely new LV systems, not when we haven't addressed some of the major issues yet like a working EDL concept, radiation protection that we can bank on, life support that is believeable, etc

              So in keeping with our philosophy can I suggest the following way forward-

              1. List out all the things we don't like about 2.5 now
              2. See if we can modify those within the constraints of that LV faring etc
              3. List out what improvements we would like to make/could be made
              4. Publish a design after this for peer review
              5. Hold consortium conference at this point

              If the Atlas development path takes a dive, we may have to switch to Falcon 9 H, but that is not my doing Dave, it is just the way this game is played. It is ever changing. But I think if we keep to our guiding philosophy, we won't go wrong.

              We do need to keep our eye on certain areas, and the biggest I think is Mars EDL concepts. The better ours is, the more seriously our design will be taken. This part could indeed be a major point of difference with our design if we created some detail around it. I'm not saying we will get it right here, but we do need to show that we are on the cutting edge of Mars design thinking, and ignoring this aspect is ignoring the elephant in the room.

              The same applies to radiation protection and life support. In a risk averse culture these are the areas that will win us support- if we address them sufficiently, and your work in ISRU is extremely helpful along these lines Dave.

              So I have laid out a way forward here Dave and everyone,and to some extent I do think you are on this path already, so by all means continue to these goals. If you want to set timelines and deadlines to all this you can, but we will need the resources to meet such deadlines (which is why I left it open at this time).

              --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, "David" <davidgooding16@...> wrote:
              >
              > Frank,
              >
              > It sounds like good sense to me too.
              >
              > In terms of where we're going here with the mission design effort, it sounds like you want us to develop one (or more!) mission designs.
              >
              > Previously you indicated/implied you wanted a mission design around a Falcon 9 heavy (i.e. in small chunks). However, others more knowledgable than me suggested that this was not possible. So, in the absence of anything else, we dusted off DRM 2.5 and started looking at that again. Is that how you want us to proceed here on the mission design group?
              >
              > Frank, I feel that if we're going to get anywhere with the mission design we need some leadership here.
              >
              > At the moment I feel I'm just fumbling around in the dark. I've been looking at the DRM 2.5 ISRU process but I'm not sure if (1) DRM 2.5 is the right way to go or (2) if I'm doing the right thing anyway.
              >
              > Who's in charge here? With some strong direction I do feel we might actually get somewhere with a mission design. I could probably find a number of good competent engineers prepared to do some work on this, but I doubt if they could be persuaded to give up their free time unless they could see this going somewhere. But, like me, they wouldn't be space mission design experts, they'd need a framework to work within and some hands-on direction. At the moment I don't see this.
              >
              > Help!
              >
              > Dave G
              >
              > --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, Darren Oliveiro-Priestnall <darrenop@> wrote:
              > >
              > > Well that all sounds like good sense to me.
              > > Consortiums built in this way aren't new of course, in other sectors its very common for the main players to form consortiums to jointly develop standards and shared base technologies to further the sector while giving an early lead to the companies involved with the consortium.
              > > A lot of money goes into running these consortiums and furthering their goals but the driving force is ultimately profit for those companies that are involved.
              > >
              > > And as you point out, ultimately it's applying space based technologies to solve Earth based problems that often underpins these endeavours.
              > > In the UK there are many government backed incubators for just this. Down the road from my office theres a new incubator being set up by ESA with a very large government cash investment for building and running the new centre while the whole purpose of this incubator is for ESA to work with non-space based companies, especially startup's and SME's to transfer knowledge and newly developed technologies away from ESA and into these companies, ultimately encouraging startups and SME's to create new Earth based products from these large government backed space investments.
              > >
              > > On a slightly unrelated note, if looking for investment for specific research projects or just looking to identify potential partners, a few good places to start are below.
              > >
              > > http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/understand_en.html
              > > https://ktn.innovateuk.org/web/space
              > > http://iap.esa.int/iap-themes
              > > http://www.fp7-space.eu/fp7-space-info-2.phtm
              > > http://www.meetup.com/Space-Entrepreneurs/
              > >
              > > Darren
              > >
              > > From: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com [mailto:marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of frank_stratford
              > > Sent: 01 June 2010 2:51 AM
              > > To: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com
              > > Subject: [marsdrivemission] Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > I posted this in our forums today guys, basically as a way forward for us. For mission design the outcome is positive as a peer reviewed design (or design of individual "chunks"- as David has been studying) can serve this goal as well.
              > >
              > > I was having some discussions with one of our advisors recently (Brian Enke) and it was great to get some positive feedback on my consortium ideas. He has arranged for Robert Zubrin to give me a call soon as well as we think we may be onto something now in the effort to get humans to Mars.
              > >
              > > I knew that there were many holes in my consortium idea but it wasn't until someone pointed them out in a balanced "non flame" manner that I started to see those areas. So I will start with an outline/plan and explain it from there-
              > >
              > > 1. Mars and space advocates organize a "consortium conference" to bring together the potential players for such a consortium- Boeing, Lockheed, SpaceX, etc etc.
              > > 2. Unlike my previous proposal for them to get to work straight away on a Mars mission this time we would be getting them to form a consortium to advance near term earth relevant technologies in line with human space exploration needs. In short- develop with their combined resources many technologies needed for Mars in a much faster way than the current speed of R&D.
              > >
              > > This means that profits are the goal in the immediate and near term and it keeps investors happy because it can sink its teeth into some "already developing" ideas in various areas.
              > >
              > > I know that almost all space companies around today are servicing real market needs here on earth with real applications for people on earth and it is the only way they can make any money.
              > >
              > > To ask such companies to start suddenly investing in an idea (humans to Mars) that has no defined market (governments are not fully committed yet) was short sighted and unrealistic of me so I'm changing that.
              > >
              > > The problem with governments is that they are very risk averse and when it comes to humans to Mars the risks are very high. So if the consortium can remove some of these risk areas, or at least show how they can be removed (and governments do the heavy lifting), governments would start to show more interest.
              > >
              > > But areas like life support, radiation protection, EDL and energy production can all have earth based spin offs that will give profits to companies here and now, and the beauty of a consortium is that together they could hit their targets more quickly than on their own.(as they are today)
              > >
              > > I have no doubt that space companies want governments to go to Mars as they will get the contracts, but in the meantime, something more than theories must be produced to change the stance of governments to this whole idea.
              > >
              > > So what IS realistic?
              > >
              > > That we can get these companies together to begin talking about ways they can produce technologies that will bring them profits here and now, but give them the humans to Mars program as the central goal/focus.
              > >
              > > This can also include R&D into cheap space access tech as well as the benefits from that are obvious.
              > >
              > > If we had 2 or 3 peer reviewed humans to Mars designs for them to coalesce around, this would be needed as no focus will result in no outcomes.
              > >
              > > For example- reliable food supplies and production- good for earth here and now but also vital to crew health and safety- one of those "risk" areas governments worry about. If the consortium could patent and put together something in this area the applications are obvious.
              > >
              > > The same with EDL- applications for military use are obvious and far more likely to be invested in by governments than pure space exploration (sadly).
              > >
              > > Radiation shielding techs will also have immediate applications for earth. There are many areas like this.
              > >
              > > As advocates we can and do organize conferences every year with representatives from space companies and space agencies. So we can do this. We can get them in a room discussing a way forward for Mars via immediate profits now.
              > >
              > > But we would have to have some very clearly defined areas for them to sink their collective teeth into and several proposals would be good to start it off. Proposals for individual pieces of tech or systems that can have dual use on Earth and Mars.
              > >
              > > My mistake was to expect these companies to invest in a "maybe" a "build it and they will come" assumption, but I was wrong. With immediate profits as the focus I am certain that we can begin to make real progress towards humans to Mars because right now that is the only way any space company is operating.The power of a consortium is that together they can advance R&D and profits more quickly than on their own.
              > >
              > > I think this can be done, that it is in line with current realities in how this sector gains investment- based on serving real market needs (but with dual applications).
              > >
              > > The difference with a consortium is the sheer resources brought to bear on these R&D areas versus the sporadic and slow go it alone approach we have today.
              > >
              > > Plus we already have one consortium- ULA- United Launch Alliance, so it is not an idea these companies are foreign to.
              > >
              > > If these companies want a committment from governments on humans to mars, but they don't want to lose money to get this committment then it's time they got together and figured out some areas they could advance as a spark for governments to "get interested" in Mars. The part we play as advocates is to organize this effort and "drive" it from behind seeing we are the ones with the vision and passion for the future of humanity in space. If not us then who?
              > >
              > > So the question is, can we make a compelling enough case to these companies to "get them interested"?
              > >
              >

            • frank_stratford
              Thanks for the support Jordan. Well here is one small example of what I am talking about- http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1329/ Right now we have a
              Message 6 of 27 , Jun 1, 2010
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Thanks for the support Jordan. Well here is one small example of what I am talking about- http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1329/

                Right now we have a consortium that is working on developing fusion power, 8 nations working together for a program with no clear promise and nothing for around the next 30 years. Solutions are needed now.

                A consortium that works to accelerate current R&D (through sheer funding power) to me seems attractive for a world hungry for solutions to energy woes. Note how with the government consortium it is open ended with no clear result, etc, sounds very similar to space programs if you ask me.

                The private sector consortiums we see have a much narrower focus and cannot afford "flights of fancy", so you can bank on them focusing on very near term market solutions.

                Food supplies is another area of great need in this world. We want a continuous and robust food supply for people going to Mars, something that can exist in the harshest environments possible, a self contained system of sorts. The applications to something like this on Earth are obvious. Yet it receives little R&D funding.

                What about materials research for longer lasting spacecraft, space suits, etc? There will be many earth based applications in this area.

                What about more efficient recycling technologies? Another much needed area for Earth and a future on Mars.

                What about cheap space access vehicles? I know this is the holy grail of our sector but so far almost no investment is there to develop such vehicles (though it is now growing).

                I know this may not sound like a Mars mission, but in the end, money is what will make it all possible, and so far, no one, not private or government can justify the cost. What we need to do is eliminate these "costs" where we can.

                By creating a new generation of technologies for earth that can be used for Mars, we overcome so many of our barriers to Mars. The problem we have now is that there are alot of small scale R&D efforts in many of these areas going slowly, but a consortium could accelerate this progress.

                As to launch vehicles, this will develop too, and we already have one small consortium working on that- ULA. Boeing and Lockheed are already working together.

                This is why we have designed around the Atlas, because it's development path is the most trusted to date.

                Think of it this way. What paid for Apollo missions? People's taxes. And taxes are generated from every day men and women's economic activities in a wide variety of fields. It is appropriate that the most economically powerful nation (at that time) was capable of funding this program.

                The consortium that focuses on development of near term profit making technologies for real markets now will have the funding needed for R&D in many areas, and if space advocates are deeply involved in this effort guess what? We will benefit too.

                It is an effort worth our very best.

                So where does Mars fit in? Mars is a potential future home for humanity. To settle there we are going to need advances in so many technology areas. Governments do have an interest in Mars that is unrivalled.

                So will a simple mission design cause a government or private sector entity to suddenly break out the cash and pay for it all? If you know engineering, you know the answer to this. Concepts (especially those with not much earth application) must be proved first before major investment comes.That is the world we live in now.

                If a need is there, investors will pay. If you can prove a market exists, investors will pay. With that payment will come the long sought after money our sector needs to develop anything. Without money we will be stuck on the internet indefinitely hashing all these things out with no actual implementation, and one thing I said in our charter was a "Mars mission that will actually be implemented".

                Is it a sideline to focus on individual components of the program that have earth applications? No. First it develops technology needed for the mission, second it creates profits and investment without which we cannot move forward.

                If Mars advocates can harness this kind of drive to better technologies, it is going to have clear benefits to us, including acceleration of a humans to Mars program- because the money will be there.

                As to mission design, this is why we need ever evolving designs. Because things do change and solutions are created. If we have no designs, then it has to all start from scratch years from now, or they can simply and quickly adapt the tech of that time to a mission design that is relevant and up to date. That is where you can fit in.

                There is no one currently doing the work we do, so that is a plus for us. Not even NASA. But what we need to do now is identify specific areas that will have earth based markets and benefits and get the focus on those areas as a way to start all this moving towards Mars.



                --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, "Jordan P." <unknown_target01@...> wrote:
                >
                > Just to throw in something from someone who has been constantly getting e-mails regarding misson designs, plans, etc, in his email for the past several months...Whenever I see the [marsdrivemission] tag followed by some question about the stage 2 boosters or the LOX intakes or whatnot, I have to ask the question; why? Why bother with planning anything beyond baby steps at this point, when you don't even have a market to sell to? I read through Frank's message, and he's said he wants to do something that I think I mentioned a year or two ago: focus on profitable ventures with Earth applications, stop focusing on different mission design plans to get from here to Mars, because you never will. We have the technology and we have the knowledge to go to another solar body - we did it about 40 years back. The thing that never came out of Apollo, and the subsequent obsession with landing on other solar bodies, is what is the point of it? So I say again;
                > MarsDrive needs to stop focusing on the Mars and start focusing on the Drive. Get together all those smart minds you have developing answers to problems we're 30 years away from facing, and start figuring out how to apply space to Earth based issues, from global warming, to food and water starvation, to clean power generation. Then you will have a market, because those issues are what's in demand right now.If MD or anyone else keeps focusing on the "We need to design a way to go to space and then present it to companies with money to fund it for us!" then they will all fail. Focus on low-cost, low-budget, way out of the ballpark ideas for assisting our current needs, and you will not only have the infrastructure, credit, and manpower thirty years from now to actually go to Mars permanently, but you'll accomplish Frank's stated goal of R+D for a Mars mission while you're making real money.Yes I have ideas, no they're not what MD is focusing on right
                > now, and yes I believe if we follow at least some of them we'd have a real shot. Otherwise the MD mission will stay on the Internet and cycling around and around in endless Mars planning discussions.
                > Cheers.
                >
                > --- On Tue, 6/1/10, frank_stratford <frank_stratford@...> wrote:
                >
                > From: frank_stratford <frank_stratford@...>
                > Subject: [marsdrivemission] Re: Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                > To: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com
                > Date: Tuesday, June 1, 2010, 7:11 PM
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >  
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > If I remember correctly Dave we decided upon 2.5 from a particular philosophy, and that philosophy has always remained the same with Marsdrive- "What is the most realistic path forward given technical, financial and political hurdles".
                >
                >
                >
                > This is also why Falcon 9 was considered along the same lines (as it is a rocket in development now). We have never veered off that path. The discussions on mobile habs etc were useful, but with such a risk averse culture as we have today, we have to design for this whether we like it or not.
                >
                >
                >
                > You may be right in saying 2.5 is not the way to go, but in keeping with our guiding philosophy, what other LV system is realistically on the horizon that we can design around? I don't see any others at this stage. We will never interest "players in a consortium" with unrealistic designs based on completely new LV systems, not when we haven't addressed some of the major issues yet like a working EDL concept, radiation protection that we can bank on, life support that is believeable, etc
                >
                >
                >
                > So in keeping with our philosophy can I suggest the following way forward-
                >
                >
                >
                > 1. List out all the things we don't like about 2.5 now
                >
                > 2. See if we can modify those within the constraints of that LV faring etc
                >
                > 3. List out what improvements we would like to make/could be made
                >
                > 4. Publish a design after this for peer review
                >
                > 5. Hold consortium conference at this point
                >
                >
                >
                > If the Atlas development path takes a dive, we may have to switch to Falcon 9 H, but that is not my doing Dave, it is just the way this game is played. It is ever changing. But I think if we keep to our guiding philosophy, we won't go wrong.
                >
                >
                >
                > We do need to keep our eye on certain areas, and the biggest I think is Mars EDL concepts. The better ours is, the more seriously our design will be taken. This part could indeed be a major point of difference with our design if we created some detail around it. I'm not saying we will get it right here, but we do need to show that we are on the cutting edge of Mars design thinking, and ignoring this aspect is ignoring the elephant in the room.
                >
                >
                >
                > The same applies to radiation protection and life support. In a risk averse culture these are the areas that will win us support- if we address them sufficiently, and your work in ISRU is extremely helpful along these lines Dave.
                >
                >
                >
                > So I have laid out a way forward here Dave and everyone,and to some extent I do think you are on this path already, so by all means continue to these goals. If you want to set timelines and deadlines to all this you can, but we will need the resources to meet such deadlines (which is why I left it open at this time).
                >
                >
                >
                > --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, "David" <davidgooding16@> wrote:
                >
                > >
                >
                > > Frank,
                >
                > >
                >
                > > It sounds like good sense to me too.
                >
                > >
                >
                > > In terms of where we're going here with the mission design effort, it sounds like you want us to develop one (or more!) mission designs.
                >
                > >
                >
                > > Previously you indicated/implied you wanted a mission design around a Falcon 9 heavy (i.e. in small chunks). However, others more knowledgable than me suggested that this was not possible. So, in the absence of anything else, we dusted off DRM 2.5 and started looking at that again. Is that how you want us to proceed here on the mission design group?
                >
                > >
                >
                > > Frank, I feel that if we're going to get anywhere with the mission design we need some leadership here.
                >
                > >
                >
                > > At the moment I feel I'm just fumbling around in the dark. I've been looking at the DRM 2.5 ISRU process but I'm not sure if (1) DRM 2.5 is the right way to go or (2) if I'm doing the right thing anyway.
                >
                > >
                >
                > > Who's in charge here? With some strong direction I do feel we might actually get somewhere with a mission design. I could probably find a number of good competent engineers prepared to do some work on this, but I doubt if they could be persuaded to give up their free time unless they could see this going somewhere. But, like me, they wouldn't be space mission design experts, they'd need a framework to work within and some hands-on direction. At the moment I don't see this.
                >
                > >
                >
                > > Help!
                >
                > >
                >
                > > Dave G
                >
                > >
                >
                > > --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, Darren Oliveiro-Priestnall <darrenop@> wrote:
                >
                > > >
                >
                > > > Well that all sounds like good sense to me.
                >
                > > > Consortiums built in this way aren't new of course, in other sectors its very common for the main players to form consortiums to jointly develop standards and shared base technologies to further the sector while giving an early lead to the companies involved with the consortium.
                >
                > > > A lot of money goes into running these consortiums and furthering their goals but the driving force is ultimately profit for those companies that are involved.
                >
                > > >
                >
                > > > And as you point out, ultimately it's applying space based technologies to solve Earth based problems that often underpins these endeavours.
                >
                > > > In the UK there are many government backed incubators for just this. Down the road from my office theres a new incubator being set up by ESA with a very large government cash investment for building and running the new centre while the whole purpose of this incubator is for ESA to work with non-space based companies, especially startup's and SME's to transfer knowledge and newly developed technologies away from ESA and into these companies, ultimately encouraging startups and SME's to create new Earth based products from these large government backed space investments.
                >
                > > >
                >
                > > > On a slightly unrelated note, if looking for investment for specific research projects or just looking to identify potential partners, a few good places to start are below.
                >
                > > >
                >
                > > > http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/understand_en.html
                >
                > > > https://ktn.innovateuk.org/web/space
                >
                > > > http://iap.esa.int/iap-themes
                >
                > > > http://www.fp7-space.eu/fp7-space-info-2.phtm
                >
                > > > http://www.meetup.com/Space-Entrepreneurs/
                >
                > > >
                >
                > > > Darren
                >
                > > >
                >
                > > > From: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com [mailto:marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of frank_stratford
                >
                > > > Sent: 01 June 2010 2:51 AM
                >
                > > > To: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com
                >
                > > > Subject: [marsdrivemission] Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                >
                > > >
                >
                > > >
                >
                > > >
                >
                > > > I posted this in our forums today guys, basically as a way forward for us. For mission design the outcome is positive as a peer reviewed design (or design of individual "chunks"- as David has been studying) can serve this goal as well.
                >
                > > >
                >
                > > > I was having some discussions with one of our advisors recently (Brian Enke) and it was great to get some positive feedback on my consortium ideas. He has arranged for Robert Zubrin to give me a call soon as well as we think we may be onto something now in the effort to get humans to Mars.
                >
                > > >
                >
                > > > I knew that there were many holes in my consortium idea but it wasn't until someone pointed them out in a balanced "non flame" manner that I started to see those areas. So I will start with an outline/plan and explain it from there-
                >
                > > >
                >
                > > > 1. Mars and space advocates organize a "consortium conference" to bring together the potential players for such a consortium- Boeing, Lockheed, SpaceX, etc etc.
                >
                > > > 2. Unlike my previous proposal for them to get to work straight away on a Mars mission this time we would be getting them to form a consortium to advance near term earth relevant technologies in line with human space exploration needs. In short- develop with their combined resources many technologies needed for Mars in a much faster way than the current speed of R&D.
                >
                > > >
                >
                > > > This means that profits are the goal in the immediate and near term and it keeps investors happy because it can sink its teeth into some "already developing" ideas in various areas.
                >
                > > >
                >
                > > > I know that almost all space companies around today are servicing real market needs here on earth with real applications for people on earth and it is the only way they can make any money.
                >
                > > >
                >
                > > > To ask such companies to start suddenly investing in an idea (humans to Mars) that has no defined market (governments are not fully committed yet) was short sighted and unrealistic of me so I'm changing that.
                >
                > > >
                >
                > > > The problem with governments is that they are very risk averse and when it comes to humans to Mars the risks are very high. So if the consortium can remove some of these risk areas, or at least show how they can be removed (and governments do the heavy lifting), governments would start to show more interest.
                >
                > > >
                >
                > > > But areas like life support, radiation protection, EDL and energy production can all have earth based spin offs that will give profits to companies here and now, and the beauty of a consortium is that together they could hit their targets more quickly than on their own.(as they are today)
                >
                > > >
                >
                > > > I have no doubt that space companies want governments to go to Mars as they will get the contracts, but in the meantime, something more than theories must be produced to change the stance of governments to this whole idea.
                >
                > > >
                >
                > > > So what IS realistic?
                >
                > > >
                >
                > > > That we can get these companies together to begin talking about ways they can produce technologies that will bring them profits here and now, but give them the humans to Mars program as the central goal/focus.
                >
                > > >
                >
                > > > This can also include R&D into cheap space access tech as well as the benefits from that are obvious.
                >
                > > >
                >
                > > > If we had 2 or 3 peer reviewed humans to Mars designs for them to coalesce around, this would be needed as no focus will result in no outcomes.
                >
                > > >
                >
                > > > For example- reliable food supplies and production- good for earth here and now but also vital to crew health and safety- one of those "risk" areas governments worry about. If the consortium could patent and put together something in this area the applications are obvious.
                >
                > > >
                >
                > > > The same with EDL- applications for military use are obvious and far more likely to be invested in by governments than pure space exploration (sadly).
                >
                > > >
                >
                > > > Radiation shielding techs will also have immediate applications for earth. There are many areas like this.
                >
                > > >
                >
                > > > As advocates we can and do organize conferences every year with representatives from space companies and space agencies. So we can do this. We can get them in a room discussing a way forward for Mars via immediate profits now.
                >
                > > >
                >
                > > > But we would have to have some very clearly defined areas for them to sink their collective teeth into and several proposals would be good to start it off. Proposals for individual pieces of tech or systems that can have dual use on Earth and Mars.
                >
                > > >
                >
                > > > My mistake was to expect these companies to invest in a "maybe" a "build it and they will come" assumption, but I was wrong. With immediate profits as the focus I am certain that we can begin to make real progress towards humans to Mars because right now that is the only way any space company is operating.The power of a consortium is that together they can advance R&D and profits more quickly than on their own.
                >
                > > >
                >
                > > > I think this can be done, that it is in line with current realities in how this sector gains investment- based on serving real market needs (but with dual applications).
                >
                > > >
                >
                > > > The difference with a consortium is the sheer resources brought to bear on these R&D areas versus the sporadic and slow go it alone approach we have today.
                >
                > > >
                >
                > > > Plus we already have one consortium- ULA- United Launch Alliance, so it is not an idea these companies are foreign to.
                >
                > > >
                >
                > > > If these companies want a committment from governments on humans to mars, but they don't want to lose money to get this committment then it's time they got together and figured out some areas they could advance as a spark for governments to "get interested" in Mars. The part we play as advocates is to organize this effort and "drive" it from behind seeing we are the ones with the vision and passion for the future of humanity in space. If not us then who?
                >
                > > >
                >
                > > > So the question is, can we make a compelling enough case to these companies to "get them interested"?
                >
                > > >
                >
                > >
                >
              • Michael Bloxham
                I have to agree with Jordan here on the idea of focusing on the Drive rather than the Mars . We should be selling a vision: Why we should go as well as the
                Message 7 of 27 , Jun 2, 2010
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  I have to agree with Jordan here on the idea of focusing on the "Drive" rather than the "Mars". We should be selling a vision: Why we should go as well as the how. 
                   
                  It's funny but I've been spending a great deal of my time lately engaging with members of the growing eco-conscious community. There is definitely a growing grass-roots sense of the need for change as far as economic and political thinking is concerned. Naturally, this reminds me of the originial sense of romance that Zubrins tried to instill with the idea of Mars being the new 'frontier', and the opportunities for redevelopment and ingenuity that such 'frontierism' allows. I wonder whether there is an opportunity here for us to make the idea of Mars relevant to the concerns of this huge and fast-growing group of people.
                   
                  At the same time, I find myself banging my head against the wall in frustration in consideration of more immediate matters: I just can't help but think that we're missing out on some huge opportunities right now. 
                   
                  For example, now that CxP is effectively dead, the fight for a shuttle-derived HLLV is at a critical stage. I wonder whether we could throw together a technically practical humans-to-mars architecture (which could be DRM2.5 derived), which utilizes SDLV-equivalent performance, in quick enough time to be able to present it as a concept to show how valuable such an HLLV is, and how it can be used, in a real practical sense, toward the development of a humans-to-mars architecture.
                   
                  I see this as being of absolutely crucial importance: The cost of developing HLLV capability from shuttle infrastructure sooner rather than later (or likely not at all) needs proper justification in terms of mission: If it can't be shown that a practical humans-to-mars architecture can be evolved from SDLV capabilities then the likelihood of such an HLLV system being developed goes down quite significantly, IMHO. But if it can be shown that an SDLV is sufficient... Is it possible that we could influence the trade-space somehow? I think it's possible. But we would have to be quick!
                   
                  - Mike

                  --- On Tue, 1/6/10, Jordan P. <unknown_target01@...> wrote:

                  From: Jordan P. <unknown_target01@...>
                  Subject: Re: [marsdrivemission] Re: Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                  To: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com
                  Received: Tuesday, 1 June, 2010, 4:55 PM

                   
                  Just to throw in something from someone who has been constantly getting e-mails regarding misson designs, plans, etc, in his email for the past several months...
                  Whenever I see the [marsdrivemission] tag followed by some question about the stage 2 boosters or the LOX intakes or whatnot, I have to ask the question; why? Why bother with planning anything beyond baby steps at this point, when you don't even have a market to sell to? I read through Frank's message, and he's said he wants to do something that I think I mentioned a year or two ago: focus on profitable ventures with Earth applications, stop focusing on different mission design plans to get from here to Mars, because you never will. We have the technology and we have the knowledge to go to another solar body - we did it about 40 years back. The thing that never came out of Apollo, and the subsequent obsession with landing on other solar bodies, is what is the point of it? So I say again; MarsDrive needs to stop focusing on the Mars and start focusing on the Drive. Get together all those smart minds you have developing answers to problems we're 30 years away from facing, and start figuring out how to apply space to Earth based issues, from global warming, to food and water starvation, to clean power generation. Then you will have a market, because those issues are what's in demand right now.
                  If MD or anyone else keeps focusing on the "We need to design a way to go to space and then present it to companies with money to fund it for us!" then they will all fail. Focus on low-cost, low-budget, way out of the ballpark ideas for assisting our current needs, and you will not only have the infrastructure, credit, and manpower thirty years from now to actually go to Mars permanently, but you'll accomplish Frank's stated goal of R+D for a Mars mission while you're making real money.
                  Yes I have ideas, no they're not what MD is focusing on right now, and yes I believe if we follow at least some of them we'd have a real shot. Otherwise the MD mission will stay on the Internet and cycling around and around in endless Mars planning discussions.

                  Cheers.

                  --- On Tue, 6/1/10, frank_stratford <frank_stratford@ yahoo.com> wrote:

                  From: frank_stratford <frank_stratford@ yahoo.com>
                  Subject: [marsdrivemission] Re: Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                  To: marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com
                  Date: Tuesday, June 1, 2010, 7:11 PM

                   
                  If I remember correctly Dave we decided upon 2.5 from a particular philosophy, and that philosophy has always remained the same with Marsdrive- "What is the most realistic path forward given technical, financial and political hurdles".

                  This is also why Falcon 9 was considered along the same lines (as it is a rocket in development now). We have never veered off that path. The discussions on mobile habs etc were useful, but with such a risk averse culture as we have today, we have to design for this whether we like it or not.

                  You may be right in saying 2.5 is not the way to go, but in keeping with our guiding philosophy, what other LV system is realistically on the horizon that we can design around? I don't see any others at this stage. We will never interest "players in a consortium" with unrealistic designs based on completely new LV systems, not when we haven't addressed some of the major issues yet like a working EDL concept, radiation protection that we can bank on, life support that is believeable, etc

                  So in keeping with our philosophy can I suggest the following way forward-

                  1. List out all the things we don't like about 2.5 now
                  2. See if we can modify those within the constraints of that LV faring etc
                  3. List out what improvements we would like to make/could be made
                  4. Publish a design after this for peer review
                  5. Hold consortium conference at this point

                  If the Atlas development path takes a dive, we may have to switch to Falcon 9 H, but that is not my doing Dave, it is just the way this game is played. It is ever changing. But I think if we keep to our guiding philosophy, we won't go wrong.

                  We do need to keep our eye on certain areas, and the biggest I think is Mars EDL concepts. The better ours is, the more seriously our design will be taken. This part could indeed be a major point of difference with our design if we created some detail around it. I'm not saying we will get it right here, but we do need to show that we are on the cutting edge of Mars design thinking, and ignoring this aspect is ignoring the elephant in the room.

                  The same applies to radiation protection and life support. In a risk averse culture these are the areas that will win us support- if we address them sufficiently, and your work in ISRU is extremely helpful along these lines Dave.

                  So I have laid out a way forward here Dave and everyone,and to some extent I do think you are on this path already, so by all means continue to these goals. If you want to set timelines and deadlines to all this you can, but we will need the resources to meet such deadlines (which is why I left it open at this time).

                  --- In marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com, "David" <davidgooding16@ ...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Frank,
                  >
                  > It sounds like good sense to me too.
                  >
                  > In terms of where we're going here with the mission design effort, it sounds like you want us to develop one (or more!) mission designs.
                  >
                  > Previously you indicated/implied you wanted a mission design around a Falcon 9 heavy (i.e. in small chunks). However, others more knowledgable than me suggested that this was not possible. So, in the absence of anything else, we dusted off DRM 2.5 and started looking at that again. Is that how you want us to proceed here on the mission design group?
                  >
                  > Frank, I feel that if we're going to get anywhere with the mission design we need some leadership here.
                  >
                  > At the moment I feel I'm just fumbling around in the dark. I've been looking at the DRM 2.5 ISRU process but I'm not sure if (1) DRM 2.5 is the right way to go or (2) if I'm doing the right thing anyway.
                  >
                  > Who's in charge here? With some strong direction I do feel we might actually get somewhere with a mission design. I could probably find a number of good competent engineers prepared to do some work on this, but I doubt if they could be persuaded to give up their free time unless they could see this going somewhere. But, like me, they wouldn't be space mission design experts, they'd need a framework to work within and some hands-on direction. At the moment I don't see this.
                  >
                  > Help!
                  >
                  > Dave G
                  >
                  > --- In marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com, Darren Oliveiro-Priestnall <darrenop@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Well that all sounds like good sense to me.
                  > > Consortiums built in this way aren't new of course, in other sectors its very common for the main players to form consortiums to jointly develop standards and shared base technologies to further the sector while giving an early lead to the companies involved with the consortium.
                  > > A lot of money goes into running these consortiums and furthering their goals but the driving force is ultimately profit for those companies that are involved.
                  > >
                  > > And as you point out, ultimately it's applying space based technologies to solve Earth based problems that often underpins these endeavours.
                  > > In the UK there are many government backed incubators for just this. Down the road from my office theres a new incubator being set up by ESA with a very large government cash investment for building and running the new centre while the whole purpose of this incubator is for ESA to work with non-space based companies, especially startup's and SME's to transfer knowledge and newly developed technologies away from ESA and into these companies, ultimately encouraging startups and SME's to create new Earth based products from these large government backed space investments.
                  > >
                  > > On a slightly unrelated note, if looking for investment for specific research projects or just looking to identify potential partners, a few good places to start are below.
                  > >
                  > > http://cordis. europa.eu/ fp7/understand_ en.html
                  > > https://ktn. innovateuk. org/web/space
                  > > http://iap.esa. int/iap-themes
                  > > http://www.fp7- space.eu/ fp7-space- info-2.phtm
                  > > http://www.meetup. com/Space- Entrepreneurs/
                  > >
                  > > Darren
                  > >
                  > > From: marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of frank_stratford
                  > > Sent: 01 June 2010 2:51 AM
                  > > To: marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com
                  > > Subject: [marsdrivemission] Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > I posted this in our forums today guys, basically as a way forward for us. For mission design the outcome is positive as a peer reviewed design (or design of individual "chunks"- as David has been studying) can serve this goal as well.
                  > >
                  > > I was having some discussions with one of our advisors recently (Brian Enke) and it was great to get some positive feedback on my consortium ideas. He has arranged for Robert Zubrin to give me a call soon as well as we think we may be onto something now in the effort to get humans to Mars.
                  > >
                  > > I knew that there were many holes in my consortium idea but it wasn't until someone pointed them out in a balanced "non flame" manner that I started to see those areas. So I will start with an outline/plan and explain it from there-
                  > >
                  > > 1. Mars and space advocates organize a "consortium conference" to bring together the potential players for such a consortium- Boeing, Lockheed, SpaceX, etc etc.
                  > > 2. Unlike my previous proposal for them to get to work straight away on a Mars mission this time we would be getting them to form a consortium to advance near term earth relevant technologies in line with human space exploration needs. In short- develop with their combined resources many technologies needed for Mars in a much faster way than the current speed of R&D.
                  > >
                  > > This means that profits are the goal in the immediate and near term and it keeps investors happy because it can sink its teeth into some "already developing" ideas in various areas.
                  > >
                  > > I know that almost all space companies around today are servicing real market needs here on earth with real applications for people on earth and it is the only way they can make any money.
                  > >
                  > > To ask such companies to start suddenly investing in an idea (humans to Mars) that has no defined market (governments are not fully committed yet) was short sighted and unrealistic of me so I'm changing that.
                  > >
                  > > The problem with governments is that they are very risk averse and when it comes to humans to Mars the risks are very high. So if the consortium can remove some of these risk areas, or at least show how they can be removed (and governments do the heavy lifting), governments would start to show more interest.
                  > >
                  > > But areas like life support, radiation protection, EDL and energy production can all have earth based spin offs that will give profits to companies here and now, and the beauty of a consortium is that together they could hit their targets more quickly than on their own.(as they are today)
                  > >
                  > > I have no doubt that space companies want governments to go to Mars as they will get the contracts, but in the meantime, something more than theories must be produced to change the stance of governments to this whole idea.
                  > >
                  > > So what IS realistic?
                  > >
                  > > That we can get these companies together to begin talking about ways they can produce technologies that will bring them profits here and now, but give them the humans to Mars program as the central goal/focus.
                  > >
                  > > This can also include R&D into cheap space access tech as well as the benefits from that are obvious.
                  > >
                  > > If we had 2 or 3 peer reviewed humans to Mars designs for them to coalesce around, this would be needed as no focus will result in no outcomes.
                  > >
                  > > For example- reliable food supplies and production- good for earth here and now but also vital to crew health and safety- one of those "risk" areas governments worry about. If the consortium could patent and put together something in this area the applications are obvious.
                  > >
                  > > The same with EDL- applications for military use are obvious and far more likely to be invested in by governments than pure space exploration (sadly).
                  > >
                  > > Radiation shielding techs will also have immediate applications for earth. There are many areas like this.
                  > >
                  > > As advocates we can and do organize conferences every year with representatives from space companies and space agencies. So we can do this. We can get them in a room discussing a way forward for Mars via immediate profits now.
                  > >
                  > > But we would have to have some very clearly defined areas for them to sink their collective teeth into and several proposals would be good to start it off. Proposals for individual pieces of tech or systems that can have dual use on Earth and Mars.
                  > >
                  > > My mistake was to expect these companies to invest in a "maybe" a "build it and they will come" assumption, but I was wrong. With immediate profits as the focus I am certain that we can begin to make real progress towards humans to Mars because right now that is the only way any space company is operating.The power of a consortium is that together they can advance R&D and profits more quickly than on their own.
                  > >
                  > > I think this can be done, that it is in line with current realities in how this sector gains investment- based on serving real market needs (but with dual applications) .
                  > >
                  > > The difference with a consortium is the sheer resources brought to bear on these R&D areas versus the sporadic and slow go it alone approach we have today.
                  > >
                  > > Plus we already have one consortium- ULA- United Launch Alliance, so it is not an idea these companies are foreign to.
                  > >
                  > > If these companies want a committment from governments on humans to mars, but they don't want to lose money to get this committment then it's time they got together and figured out some areas they could advance as a spark for governments to "get interested" in Mars. The part we play as advocates is to organize this effort and "drive" it from behind seeing we are the ones with the vision and passion for the future of humanity in space. If not us then who?
                  > >
                  > > So the question is, can we make a compelling enough case to these companies to "get them interested"?
                  > >
                  >


                   
                • Brian Enke
                  Just wanted to clarify one of the points that Frank and I discussed, leading to this thread and the excellent thoughts and ideas posted thus far (thanks,
                  Message 8 of 27 , Jun 2, 2010
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Just wanted to clarify one of the points that Frank and I discussed, leading to this thread and the excellent thoughts and ideas posted thus far (thanks, everyone!!). Note - Frank might have even better things figured out by now, but I think we're on the same page with most of this.

                    Regarding the linkage between Mars mission studies (past and future) and the formation and workings of the future business consortium....

                    My initial thought was to have a few barebones, high level Mars mission proposals ready for the consortium to study. Several subtle reasons behind this:

                    1) The consortium members can eventually flesh out most of the detailed engineering decisions (launch rockets, required masses, etc) for any or all of the plans, based on their own profit motives.

                    2) While filling in those details, new earth-based techs will spill out of the process naturally. In other words, the mission plans serve initially (and mostly) as a catalyst for generating ideas. Without some constraints and assumptions to hold everyone together, we have no consortium... and the mission plans provide those basic constraints/assumptions.

                    3) Developing these barebones plans doesn't preclude us from continuing our current, in-depth studies into the mission proposals that we favor (for whatever reasons). It could, but it doesn't have to.

                    So..... by high level Mars mission proposal, I really mean that we lay out a basic set of assumptions and goals for a Mars mission, list some of the perceived needs (which leads to earthly consortium opportunities), etc. I'm mostly interested these days in the "cultural" roadblocks at NASA and elsewhere (for example, risk aversion) and the consequences of the current paradigms. We should strive to establish a healthy culture up-front within each mission proposal.

                    I'll elaborate below with part of the precursor discussion thread that might spell out these thoughts better (including an example). It's not intended to be a perfect proposal for what we should do... it's merely meant to get thoughts flowing.

                    As for the "Drive" vs the "Mars," by all means... but this sounds like a separate effort aimed more at the public. Within this concept, a consortium should provide its own "Drive" (probably profits and patents?) if we form it with the right partners and set them off in a good direction. :)

                    One final thought - traveling down this road, I'm pretty sure we won't be alone. In particular, the 4Frontiers corporation aims for something similar. They're taking a different path toward making it happen and are very close to reaching critical mass... but I'm pretty sure they'll work with us to make a consortium idea happen. They might eventually become both a partner and customer.

                    Cheers,

                       - Brian

                    -------------
                    Earlier snippet:

                    I really like this idea [consortium].... BUT ONLY IF THEY DO NOT DICTATE THE FUNDAMENTAL ASSUMPTIONS!! Sorry for shouting in capital letters, but I feel this is the key to making the whole concept work. If we let a large group dictate fundamental assumptions, we'll get nowhere. We can ask for feedback in the early stages... but we should start out with a few well-defined, basic Mars mission proposals, complete with the necessary technological, cultural, investment, and reward assumptions spelled out in advance. Then we can see where the interest lies and get the consortium partners talking about ways to move forward on the ones they are interested in.

                    For example, let's use my favorite Mars mission plan, a small (3-person?) one-way sortee to Mars to establish basic engineering and environmental knowledge in-situ on Mars.
                    Investment target is $3 billion, capped at $5 billion.
                    Available tech assumptions are 1) heavy lift to LEO; 2) 90% efficient CELSS; 3) Mars EDL system capable of landing ~20 metric tonne payloads; 4) periodic resupply shipment capability, i.e. no fixed end-date.
                    Cultural assumptions include 1) higher mission risk level than shuttle flights; 2) focus on systems simplicity i.e. few bells & whistles, little mobility; 3) little initial science; 4) engineering focus on in-situ; 5) one-way paradigm requires a commitment to resupply the crew indefinitely and/or send new crew at a future date.
                    Rewards are 1) immediate patent rights; 2) advertising and promotional rights; 3) rights to involvement in future missions; 4) tangible property and mineral rights(?); 5) full sharing of technical information and lessons learned between consortium partners but limited release externally.

                    Other options could be a high-mobility early mission focused on geology (Mike's?), an initial two-way science mission to search for life (Jon's?), etc etc etc... maybe have a half-dozen preselected missions in the portfolio. The key again is to nail down the basic assumptions for each mission, especially w.r.t. risk, system/mission complexity, and investment. We want to avoid up-front thrashing and get people diving in deep, quickly.

                    Note - this may answer some of the questions being pondered in the MarsDrive mission forum about the end product of that forum? Perhaps they could back off from the engineering nuts & bolts, though some of that is still necessary to flesh out the concepts. Rather, the end product becomes a concrete analysis of the assumptions... then let the consortium members flesh out the technical details.

                    Just thinking out loud here, mostly. Feel free to take harsh pot-shots at this... :) :)

                  • Jordan P.
                    Er, sorry Michael but that s not what I meant. What you re proposing is we (yet again) start developing another launch architecture and hope that some big
                    Message 9 of 27 , Jun 2, 2010
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Er, sorry Michael but that's not what I meant. What you're proposing is we (yet again) start developing another launch architecture and hope that some big corporation jumps on it and gives us money instead of just doing it themselves.
                      Sorry to be blunt, but you're missing the point of what I said; I didn't mean for us to start finding ways to make Mars relevant, I was saying find a way to make space relevant. There is no reason to go to Mars right now. Face it, there is absolutely, positively, unequivocal no way that Mars is anywhere near anyone's list of priorities right now, what with global warming, political crises, economic crises, etc - it's just not on the table. Furthermore, trying to develop a human to Mars plan and somehow making it seem "relevant" to the (really not grassroots at all) eco-concious movement (I will say it again, it is NOT grassroots, it is definitely mainstream at this point) will only end up with another two years of round table discussion on all the various idiosyncratic technicalities of various booster and launch systems. In short, it'll put us right back where we started.

                      What I am really saying is, or rather, asking everyone in Mars Drive to do is to ask themselves this question:

                      "What is more important? That humanity go to Mars, or that I go to Mars?"

                      ...because if your answer is yourself, then yes, the whole "we will plan our own Mars mission so that we can go and don't have to rely on the government" ideology is what would follow that train of thought - ignoring all the realities of that train of thought. If your answer is humanity, then you would be willing to put aside Mars mission planning, discussions on the best way to get to Mars, the best way to live on Mars, the best way to get funds for our mission to Mars, and start focusing on "What can we do to lay the groundwork for someone to go to Mars". You might not go. I might not go. But the important result is that humanity goes, and it's because of your efforts.

                      This obsession with Mars is what's killing any chance MarsDrive has, in my opinion. Right now is the absolute best time to propose space as an answer to the world's current problems, because people are willing to pay for almost any idea. We are at a crossroads in history and technology - there are so many options on the table right now, it's a free for all as to who will end up winning and become the dominant player over the next 100 years. If any of you really truly want to go to Mars, you should see this opportunity and take it, and not squander it on endless mission planning debates.

                      --- On Wed, 6/2/10, Michael Bloxham <michaeljbloxham@...> wrote:

                      From: Michael Bloxham <michaeljbloxham@...>
                      Subject: Re: [marsdrivemission] Re: Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                      To: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com
                      Date: Wednesday, June 2, 2010, 8:48 AM

                       

                      I have to agree with Jordan here on the idea of focusing on the "Drive" rather than the "Mars". We should be selling a vision: Why we should go as well as the how. 
                       
                      It's funny but I've been spending a great deal of my time lately engaging with members of the growing eco-conscious community. There is definitely a growing grass-roots sense of the need for change as far as economic and political thinking is concerned. Naturally, this reminds me of the originial sense of romance that Zubrins tried to instill with the idea of Mars being the new 'frontier', and the opportunities for redevelopment and ingenuity that such 'frontierism' allows. I wonder whether there is an opportunity here for us to make the idea of Mars relevant to the concerns of this huge and fast-growing group of people.
                       
                      At the same time, I find myself banging my head against the wall in frustration in consideration of more immediate matters: I just can't help but think that we're missing out on some huge opportunities right now. 
                       
                      For example, now that CxP is effectively dead, the fight for a shuttle-derived HLLV is at a critical stage. I wonder whether we could throw together a technically practical humans-to-mars architecture (which could be DRM2.5 derived), which utilizes SDLV-equivalent performance, in quick enough time to be able to present it as a concept to show how valuable such an HLLV is, and how it can be used, in a real practical sense, toward the development of a humans-to-mars architecture.
                       
                      I see this as being of absolutely crucial importance: The cost of developing HLLV capability from shuttle infrastructure sooner rather than later (or likely not at all) needs proper justification in terms of mission: If it can't be shown that a practical humans-to-mars architecture can be evolved from SDLV capabilities then the likelihood of such an HLLV system being developed goes down quite significantly, IMHO. But if it can be shown that an SDLV is sufficient.. . Is it possible that we could influence the trade-space somehow? I think it's possible. But we would have to be quick!
                       
                      - Mike

                      --- On Tue, 1/6/10, Jordan P. <unknown_target01@ yahoo.com> wrote:

                      From: Jordan P. <unknown_target01@ yahoo.com>
                      Subject: Re: [marsdrivemission] Re: Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                      To: marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com
                      Received: Tuesday, 1 June, 2010, 4:55 PM

                       
                      Just to throw in something from someone who has been constantly getting e-mails regarding misson designs, plans, etc, in his email for the past several months...
                      Whenever I see the [marsdrivemission] tag followed by some question about the stage 2 boosters or the LOX intakes or whatnot, I have to ask the question; why? Why bother with planning anything beyond baby steps at this point, when you don't even have a market to sell to? I read through Frank's message, and he's said he wants to do something that I think I mentioned a year or two ago: focus on profitable ventures with Earth applications, stop focusing on different mission design plans to get from here to Mars, because you never will. We have the technology and we have the knowledge to go to another solar body - we did it about 40 years back. The thing that never came out of Apollo, and the subsequent obsession with landing on other solar bodies, is what is the point of it? So I say again; MarsDrive needs to stop focusing on the Mars and start focusing on the Drive. Get together all those smart minds you have developing answers to problems we're 30 years away from facing, and start figuring out how to apply space to Earth based issues, from global warming, to food and water starvation, to clean power generation. Then you will have a market, because those issues are what's in demand right now.
                      If MD or anyone else keeps focusing on the "We need to design a way to go to space and then present it to companies with money to fund it for us!" then they will all fail. Focus on low-cost, low-budget, way out of the ballpark ideas for assisting our current needs, and you will not only have the infrastructure, credit, and manpower thirty years from now to actually go to Mars permanently, but you'll accomplish Frank's stated goal of R+D for a Mars mission while you're making real money.
                      Yes I have ideas, no they're not what MD is focusing on right now, and yes I believe if we follow at least some of them we'd have a real shot. Otherwise the MD mission will stay on the Internet and cycling around and around in endless Mars planning discussions.

                      Cheers.

                      --- On Tue, 6/1/10, frank_stratford <frank_stratford@ yahoo.com> wrote:

                      From: frank_stratford <frank_stratford@ yahoo.com>
                      Subject: [marsdrivemission] Re: Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                      To: marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com
                      Date: Tuesday, June 1, 2010, 7:11 PM

                       
                      If I remember correctly Dave we decided upon 2.5 from a particular philosophy, and that philosophy has always remained the same with Marsdrive- "What is the most realistic path forward given technical, financial and political hurdles".

                      This is also why Falcon 9 was considered along the same lines (as it is a rocket in development now). We have never veered off that path. The discussions on mobile habs etc were useful, but with such a risk averse culture as we have today, we have to design for this whether we like it or not.

                      You may be right in saying 2.5 is not the way to go, but in keeping with our guiding philosophy, what other LV system is realistically on the horizon that we can design around? I don't see any others at this stage. We will never interest "players in a consortium" with unrealistic designs based on completely new LV systems, not when we haven't addressed some of the major issues yet like a working EDL concept, radiation protection that we can bank on, life support that is believeable, etc

                      So in keeping with our philosophy can I suggest the following way forward-

                      1. List out all the things we don't like about 2.5 now
                      2. See if we can modify those within the constraints of that LV faring etc
                      3. List out what improvements we would like to make/could be made
                      4. Publish a design after this for peer review
                      5. Hold consortium conference at this point

                      If the Atlas development path takes a dive, we may have to switch to Falcon 9 H, but that is not my doing Dave, it is just the way this game is played. It is ever changing. But I think if we keep to our guiding philosophy, we won't go wrong.

                      We do need to keep our eye on certain areas, and the biggest I think is Mars EDL concepts. The better ours is, the more seriously our design will be taken. This part could indeed be a major point of difference with our design if we created some detail around it. I'm not saying we will get it right here, but we do need to show that we are on the cutting edge of Mars design thinking, and ignoring this aspect is ignoring the elephant in the room.

                      The same applies to radiation protection and life support. In a risk averse culture these are the areas that will win us support- if we address them sufficiently, and your work in ISRU is extremely helpful along these lines Dave.

                      So I have laid out a way forward here Dave and everyone,and to some extent I do think you are on this path already, so by all means continue to these goals. If you want to set timelines and deadlines to all this you can, but we will need the resources to meet such deadlines (which is why I left it open at this time).

                      --- In marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com, "David" <davidgooding16@ ...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Frank,
                      >
                      > It sounds like good sense to me too.
                      >
                      > In terms of where we're going here with the mission design effort, it sounds like you want us to develop one (or more!) mission designs.
                      >
                      > Previously you indicated/implied you wanted a mission design around a Falcon 9 heavy (i.e. in small chunks). However, others more knowledgable than me suggested that this was not possible. So, in the absence of anything else, we dusted off DRM 2.5 and started looking at that again. Is that how you want us to proceed here on the mission design group?
                      >
                      > Frank, I feel that if we're going to get anywhere with the mission design we need some leadership here.
                      >
                      > At the moment I feel I'm just fumbling around in the dark. I've been looking at the DRM 2.5 ISRU process but I'm not sure if (1) DRM 2.5 is the right way to go or (2) if I'm doing the right thing anyway.
                      >
                      > Who's in charge here? With some strong direction I do feel we might actually get somewhere with a mission design. I could probably find a number of good competent engineers prepared to do some work on this, but I doubt if they could be persuaded to give up their free time unless they could see this going somewhere. But, like me, they wouldn't be space mission design experts, they'd need a framework to work within and some hands-on direction. At the moment I don't see this.
                      >
                      > Help!
                      >
                      > Dave G
                      >
                      > --- In marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com, Darren Oliveiro-Priestnall <darrenop@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > Well that all sounds like good sense to me.
                      > > Consortiums built in this way aren't new of course, in other sectors its very common for the main players to form consortiums to jointly develop standards and shared base technologies to further the sector while giving an early lead to the companies involved with the consortium.
                      > > A lot of money goes into running these consortiums and furthering their goals but the driving force is ultimately profit for those companies that are involved.
                      > >
                      > > And as you point out, ultimately it's applying space based technologies to solve Earth based problems that often underpins these endeavours.
                      > > In the UK there are many government backed incubators for just this. Down the road from my office theres a new incubator being set up by ESA with a very large government cash investment for building and running the new centre while the whole purpose of this incubator is for ESA to work with non-space based companies, especially startup's and SME's to transfer knowledge and newly developed technologies away from ESA and into these companies, ultimately encouraging startups and SME's to create new Earth based products from these large government backed space investments.
                      > >
                      > > On a slightly unrelated note, if looking for investment for specific research projects or just looking to identify potential partners, a few good places to start are below.
                      > >
                      > > http://cordis. europa.eu/ fp7/understand_ en.html
                      > > https://ktn. innovateuk. org/web/space
                      > > http://iap.esa. int/iap-themes
                      > > http://www.fp7- space.eu/ fp7-space- info-2.phtm
                      > > http://www.meetup. com/Space- Entrepreneurs/
                      > >
                      > > Darren
                      > >
                      > > From: marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of frank_stratford
                      > > Sent: 01 June 2010 2:51 AM
                      > > To: marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com
                      > > Subject: [marsdrivemission] Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > I posted this in our forums today guys, basically as a way forward for us. For mission design the outcome is positive as a peer reviewed design (or design of individual "chunks"- as David has been studying) can serve this goal as well.
                      > >
                      > > I was having some discussions with one of our advisors recently (Brian Enke) and it was great to get some positive feedback on my consortium ideas. He has arranged for Robert Zubrin to give me a call soon as well as we think we may be onto something now in the effort to get humans to Mars.
                      > >
                      > > I knew that there were many holes in my consortium idea but it wasn't until someone pointed them out in a balanced "non flame" manner that I started to see those areas. So I will start with an outline/plan and explain it from there-
                      > >
                      > > 1. Mars and space advocates organize a "consortium conference" to bring together the potential players for such a consortium- Boeing, Lockheed, SpaceX, etc etc.
                      > > 2. Unlike my previous proposal for them to get to work straight away on a Mars mission this time we would be getting them to form a consortium to advance near term earth relevant technologies in line with human space exploration needs. In short- develop with their combined resources many technologies needed for Mars in a much faster way than the current speed of R&D.
                      > >
                      > > This means that profits are the goal in the immediate and near term and it keeps investors happy because it can sink its teeth into some "already developing" ideas in various areas.
                      > >
                      > > I know that almost all space companies around today are servicing real market needs here on earth with real applications for people on earth and it is the only way they can make any money.
                      > >
                      > > To ask such companies to start suddenly investing in an idea (humans to Mars) that has no defined market (governments are not fully committed yet) was short sighted and unrealistic of me so I'm changing that.
                      > >
                      > > The problem with governments is that they are very risk averse and when it comes to humans to Mars the risks are very high. So if the consortium can remove some of these risk areas, or at least show how they can be removed (and governments do the heavy lifting), governments would start to show more interest.
                      > >
                      > > But areas like life support, radiation protection, EDL and energy production can all have earth based spin offs that will give profits to companies here and now, and the beauty of a consortium is that together they could hit their targets more quickly than on their own.(as they are today)
                      > >
                      > > I have no doubt that space companies want governments to go to Mars as they will get the contracts, but in the meantime, something more than theories must be produced to change the stance of governments to this whole idea.
                      > >
                      > > So what IS realistic?
                      > >
                      > > That we can get these companies together to begin talking about ways they can produce technologies that will bring them profits here and now, but give them the humans to Mars program as the central goal/focus.
                      > >
                      > > This can also include R&D into cheap space access tech as well as the benefits from that are obvious.
                      > >
                      > > If we had 2 or 3 peer reviewed humans to Mars designs for them to coalesce around, this would be needed as no focus will result in no outcomes.
                      > >
                      > > For example- reliable food supplies and production- good for earth here and now but also vital to crew health and safety- one of those "risk" areas governments worry about. If the consortium could patent and put together something in this area the applications are obvious.
                      > >
                      > > The same with EDL- applications for military use are obvious and far more likely to be invested in by governments than pure space exploration (sadly).
                      > >
                      > > Radiation shielding techs will also have immediate applications for earth. There are many areas like this.
                      > >
                      > > As advocates we can and do organize conferences every year with representatives from space companies and space agencies. So we can do this. We can get them in a room discussing a way forward for Mars via immediate profits now.
                      > >
                      > > But we would have to have some very clearly defined areas for them to sink their collective teeth into and several proposals would be good to start it off. Proposals for individual pieces of tech or systems that can have dual use on Earth and Mars.
                      > >
                      > > My mistake was to expect these companies to invest in a "maybe" a "build it and they will come" assumption, but I was wrong. With immediate profits as the focus I am certain that we can begin to make real progress towards humans to Mars because right now that is the only way any space company is operating.The power of a consortium is that together they can advance R&D and profits more quickly than on their own.
                      > >
                      > > I think this can be done, that it is in line with current realities in how this sector gains investment- based on serving real market needs (but with dual applications) .
                      > >
                      > > The difference with a consortium is the sheer resources brought to bear on these R&D areas versus the sporadic and slow go it alone approach we have today.
                      > >
                      > > Plus we already have one consortium- ULA- United Launch Alliance, so it is not an idea these companies are foreign to.
                      > >
                      > > If these companies want a committment from governments on humans to mars, but they don't want to lose money to get this committment then it's time they got together and figured out some areas they could advance as a spark for governments to "get interested" in Mars. The part we play as advocates is to organize this effort and "drive" it from behind seeing we are the ones with the vision and passion for the future of humanity in space. If not us then who?
                      > >
                      > > So the question is, can we make a compelling enough case to these companies to "get them interested"?
                      > >
                      >


                       

                    • David
                      Thanks Frank. Sorry for the moan before - it s just that I don t really know what I m doing and nobody is saying to me do this or do that . Regarding
                      Message 10 of 27 , Jun 2, 2010
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Thanks Frank.

                        Sorry for the moan before - it's just that I don't really know what I'm doing and nobody is saying to me "do this" or "do that".

                        Regarding technology, another example is the hydrogen storage problem that we have. This is also topical as an Earth-based technology and much work has been done in recent years relation to hydrogen storage particularly for vehicle applications. We'll likely need to acheive better than the current state-of-the art for hydrogen storage on Mars for our ISRU plant. I note that the technology for insulating the liquid hydrogen tank on the BMW hydrogen-7 car is space-derived.

                        My skepticism is - what can we add to the work already being done with millions or billions of dollars by companies and governments?

                        DaveG

                        --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, "frank_stratford" <frank_stratford@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > If I remember correctly Dave we decided upon 2.5 from a particular philosophy, and that philosophy has always remained the same with Marsdrive- "What is the most realistic path forward given technical, financial and political hurdles".
                        >
                        > This is also why Falcon 9 was considered along the same lines (as it is a rocket in development now). We have never veered off that path. The discussions on mobile habs etc were useful, but with such a risk averse culture as we have today, we have to design for this whether we like it or not.
                        >
                        > You may be right in saying 2.5 is not the way to go, but in keeping with our guiding philosophy, what other LV system is realistically on the horizon that we can design around? I don't see any others at this stage. We will never interest "players in a consortium" with unrealistic designs based on completely new LV systems, not when we haven't addressed some of the major issues yet like a working EDL concept, radiation protection that we can bank on, life support that is believeable, etc
                        >
                        > So in keeping with our philosophy can I suggest the following way forward-
                        >
                        > 1. List out all the things we don't like about 2.5 now
                        > 2. See if we can modify those within the constraints of that LV faring etc
                        > 3. List out what improvements we would like to make/could be made
                        > 4. Publish a design after this for peer review
                        > 5. Hold consortium conference at this point
                        >
                        > If the Atlas development path takes a dive, we may have to switch to Falcon 9 H, but that is not my doing Dave, it is just the way this game is played. It is ever changing. But I think if we keep to our guiding philosophy, we won't go wrong.
                        >
                        > We do need to keep our eye on certain areas, and the biggest I think is Mars EDL concepts. The better ours is, the more seriously our design will be taken. This part could indeed be a major point of difference with our design if we created some detail around it. I'm not saying we will get it right here, but we do need to show that we are on the cutting edge of Mars design thinking, and ignoring this aspect is ignoring the elephant in the room.
                        >
                        > The same applies to radiation protection and life support. In a risk averse culture these are the areas that will win us support- if we address them sufficiently, and your work in ISRU is extremely helpful along these lines Dave.
                        >
                        > So I have laid out a way forward here Dave and everyone,and to some extent I do think you are on this path already, so by all means continue to these goals. If you want to set timelines and deadlines to all this you can, but we will need the resources to meet such deadlines (which is why I left it open at this time).
                        >
                        >
                        > --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, "David" <davidgooding16@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > Frank,
                        > >
                        > > It sounds like good sense to me too.
                        > >
                        > > In terms of where we're going here with the mission design effort, it sounds like you want us to develop one (or more!) mission designs.
                        > >
                        > > Previously you indicated/implied you wanted a mission design around a Falcon 9 heavy (i.e. in small chunks). However, others more knowledgable than me suggested that this was not possible. So, in the absence of anything else, we dusted off DRM 2.5 and started looking at that again. Is that how you want us to proceed here on the mission design group?
                        > >
                        > > Frank, I feel that if we're going to get anywhere with the mission design we need some leadership here.
                        > >
                        > > At the moment I feel I'm just fumbling around in the dark. I've been looking at the DRM 2.5 ISRU process but I'm not sure if (1) DRM 2.5 is the right way to go or (2) if I'm doing the right thing anyway.
                        > >
                        > > Who's in charge here? With some strong direction I do feel we might actually get somewhere with a mission design. I could probably find a number of good competent engineers prepared to do some work on this, but I doubt if they could be persuaded to give up their free time unless they could see this going somewhere. But, like me, they wouldn't be space mission design experts, they'd need a framework to work within and some hands-on direction. At the moment I don't see this.
                        > >
                        > > Help!
                        > >
                        > > Dave G
                        > >
                        > > --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, Darren Oliveiro-Priestnall <darrenop@> wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > > Well that all sounds like good sense to me.
                        > > > Consortiums built in this way aren't new of course, in other sectors its very common for the main players to form consortiums to jointly develop standards and shared base technologies to further the sector while giving an early lead to the companies involved with the consortium.
                        > > > A lot of money goes into running these consortiums and furthering their goals but the driving force is ultimately profit for those companies that are involved.
                        > > >
                        > > > And as you point out, ultimately it's applying space based technologies to solve Earth based problems that often underpins these endeavours.
                        > > > In the UK there are many government backed incubators for just this. Down the road from my office theres a new incubator being set up by ESA with a very large government cash investment for building and running the new centre while the whole purpose of this incubator is for ESA to work with non-space based companies, especially startup's and SME's to transfer knowledge and newly developed technologies away from ESA and into these companies, ultimately encouraging startups and SME's to create new Earth based products from these large government backed space investments.
                        > > >
                        > > > On a slightly unrelated note, if looking for investment for specific research projects or just looking to identify potential partners, a few good places to start are below.
                        > > >
                        > > > http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/understand_en.html
                        > > > https://ktn.innovateuk.org/web/space
                        > > > http://iap.esa.int/iap-themes
                        > > > http://www.fp7-space.eu/fp7-space-info-2.phtm
                        > > > http://www.meetup.com/Space-Entrepreneurs/
                        > > >
                        > > > Darren
                        > > >
                        > > > From: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com [mailto:marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of frank_stratford
                        > > > Sent: 01 June 2010 2:51 AM
                        > > > To: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com
                        > > > Subject: [marsdrivemission] Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > I posted this in our forums today guys, basically as a way forward for us. For mission design the outcome is positive as a peer reviewed design (or design of individual "chunks"- as David has been studying) can serve this goal as well.
                        > > >
                        > > > I was having some discussions with one of our advisors recently (Brian Enke) and it was great to get some positive feedback on my consortium ideas. He has arranged for Robert Zubrin to give me a call soon as well as we think we may be onto something now in the effort to get humans to Mars.
                        > > >
                        > > > I knew that there were many holes in my consortium idea but it wasn't until someone pointed them out in a balanced "non flame" manner that I started to see those areas. So I will start with an outline/plan and explain it from there-
                        > > >
                        > > > 1. Mars and space advocates organize a "consortium conference" to bring together the potential players for such a consortium- Boeing, Lockheed, SpaceX, etc etc.
                        > > > 2. Unlike my previous proposal for them to get to work straight away on a Mars mission this time we would be getting them to form a consortium to advance near term earth relevant technologies in line with human space exploration needs. In short- develop with their combined resources many technologies needed for Mars in a much faster way than the current speed of R&D.
                        > > >
                        > > > This means that profits are the goal in the immediate and near term and it keeps investors happy because it can sink its teeth into some "already developing" ideas in various areas.
                        > > >
                        > > > I know that almost all space companies around today are servicing real market needs here on earth with real applications for people on earth and it is the only way they can make any money.
                        > > >
                        > > > To ask such companies to start suddenly investing in an idea (humans to Mars) that has no defined market (governments are not fully committed yet) was short sighted and unrealistic of me so I'm changing that.
                        > > >
                        > > > The problem with governments is that they are very risk averse and when it comes to humans to Mars the risks are very high. So if the consortium can remove some of these risk areas, or at least show how they can be removed (and governments do the heavy lifting), governments would start to show more interest.
                        > > >
                        > > > But areas like life support, radiation protection, EDL and energy production can all have earth based spin offs that will give profits to companies here and now, and the beauty of a consortium is that together they could hit their targets more quickly than on their own.(as they are today)
                        > > >
                        > > > I have no doubt that space companies want governments to go to Mars as they will get the contracts, but in the meantime, something more than theories must be produced to change the stance of governments to this whole idea.
                        > > >
                        > > > So what IS realistic?
                        > > >
                        > > > That we can get these companies together to begin talking about ways they can produce technologies that will bring them profits here and now, but give them the humans to Mars program as the central goal/focus.
                        > > >
                        > > > This can also include R&D into cheap space access tech as well as the benefits from that are obvious.
                        > > >
                        > > > If we had 2 or 3 peer reviewed humans to Mars designs for them to coalesce around, this would be needed as no focus will result in no outcomes.
                        > > >
                        > > > For example- reliable food supplies and production- good for earth here and now but also vital to crew health and safety- one of those "risk" areas governments worry about. If the consortium could patent and put together something in this area the applications are obvious.
                        > > >
                        > > > The same with EDL- applications for military use are obvious and far more likely to be invested in by governments than pure space exploration (sadly).
                        > > >
                        > > > Radiation shielding techs will also have immediate applications for earth. There are many areas like this.
                        > > >
                        > > > As advocates we can and do organize conferences every year with representatives from space companies and space agencies. So we can do this. We can get them in a room discussing a way forward for Mars via immediate profits now.
                        > > >
                        > > > But we would have to have some very clearly defined areas for them to sink their collective teeth into and several proposals would be good to start it off. Proposals for individual pieces of tech or systems that can have dual use on Earth and Mars.
                        > > >
                        > > > My mistake was to expect these companies to invest in a "maybe" a "build it and they will come" assumption, but I was wrong. With immediate profits as the focus I am certain that we can begin to make real progress towards humans to Mars because right now that is the only way any space company is operating.The power of a consortium is that together they can advance R&D and profits more quickly than on their own.
                        > > >
                        > > > I think this can be done, that it is in line with current realities in how this sector gains investment- based on serving real market needs (but with dual applications).
                        > > >
                        > > > The difference with a consortium is the sheer resources brought to bear on these R&D areas versus the sporadic and slow go it alone approach we have today.
                        > > >
                        > > > Plus we already have one consortium- ULA- United Launch Alliance, so it is not an idea these companies are foreign to.
                        > > >
                        > > > If these companies want a committment from governments on humans to mars, but they don't want to lose money to get this committment then it's time they got together and figured out some areas they could advance as a spark for governments to "get interested" in Mars. The part we play as advocates is to organize this effort and "drive" it from behind seeing we are the ones with the vision and passion for the future of humanity in space. If not us then who?
                        > > >
                        > > > So the question is, can we make a compelling enough case to these companies to "get them interested"?
                        > > >
                        > >
                        >
                      • Jordan P.
                        Nothing really; that s why it s important to try to strike out in new areas and focus on low cost solutions. Trying to plan multi million dollar launchers with
                        Message 11 of 27 , Jun 2, 2010
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Nothing really; that's why it's important to try to strike out in new areas and focus on low cost solutions. Trying to plan multi million dollar launchers with the big boys will only end up with us still having no money, them having a lot of money, and them using that money to build said multi-million-dollar launchers.

                          Focus on things MD actually has a chance of succeeding at, instead of just playing tag along with big industry.

                          --- On Wed, 6/2/10, David <davidgooding16@...> wrote:

                          From: David <davidgooding16@...>
                          Subject: [marsdrivemission] Re: Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                          To: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com
                          Date: Wednesday, June 2, 2010, 5:58 PM

                           

                          Thanks Frank.

                          Sorry for the moan before - it's just that I don't really know what I'm doing and nobody is saying to me "do this" or "do that".

                          Regarding technology, another example is the hydrogen storage problem that we have. This is also topical as an Earth-based technology and much work has been done in recent years relation to hydrogen storage particularly for vehicle applications. We'll likely need to acheive better than the current state-of-the art for hydrogen storage on Mars for our ISRU plant. I note that the technology for insulating the liquid hydrogen tank on the BMW hydrogen-7 car is space-derived.

                          My skepticism is - what can we add to the work already being done with millions or billions of dollars by companies and governments?

                          DaveG

                          --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, "frank_stratford" <frank_stratford@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > If I remember correctly Dave we decided upon 2.5 from a particular philosophy, and that philosophy has always remained the same with Marsdrive- "What is the most realistic path forward given technical, financial and political hurdles".
                          >
                          > This is also why Falcon 9 was considered along the same lines (as it is a rocket in development now). We have never veered off that path. The discussions on mobile habs etc were useful, but with such a risk averse culture as we have today, we have to design for this whether we like it or not.
                          >
                          > You may be right in saying 2.5 is not the way to go, but in keeping with our guiding philosophy, what other LV system is realistically on the horizon that we can design around? I don't see any others at this stage. We will never interest "players in a consortium" with unrealistic designs based on completely new LV systems, not when we haven't addressed some of the major issues yet like a working EDL concept, radiation protection that we can bank on, life support that is believeable, etc
                          >
                          > So in keeping with our philosophy can I suggest the following way forward-
                          >
                          > 1. List out all the things we don't like about 2.5 now
                          > 2. See if we can modify those within the constraints of that LV faring etc
                          > 3. List out what improvements we would like to make/could be made
                          > 4. Publish a design after this for peer review
                          > 5. Hold consortium conference at this point
                          >
                          > If the Atlas development path takes a dive, we may have to switch to Falcon 9 H, but that is not my doing Dave, it is just the way this game is played. It is ever changing. But I think if we keep to our guiding philosophy, we won't go wrong.
                          >
                          > We do need to keep our eye on certain areas, and the biggest I think is Mars EDL concepts. The better ours is, the more seriously our design will be taken. This part could indeed be a major point of difference with our design if we created some detail around it. I'm not saying we will get it right here, but we do need to show that we are on the cutting edge of Mars design thinking, and ignoring this aspect is ignoring the elephant in the room.
                          >
                          > The same applies to radiation protection and life support. In a risk averse culture these are the areas that will win us support- if we address them sufficiently, and your work in ISRU is extremely helpful along these lines Dave.
                          >
                          > So I have laid out a way forward here Dave and everyone,and to some extent I do think you are on this path already, so by all means continue to these goals. If you want to set timelines and deadlines to all this you can, but we will need the resources to meet such deadlines (which is why I left it open at this time).
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, "David" <davidgooding16@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > Frank,
                          > >
                          > > It sounds like good sense to me too.
                          > >
                          > > In terms of where we're going here with the mission design effort, it sounds like you want us to develop one (or more!) mission designs.
                          > >
                          > > Previously you indicated/implied you wanted a mission design around a Falcon 9 heavy (i.e. in small chunks). However, others more knowledgable than me suggested that this was not possible. So, in the absence of anything else, we dusted off DRM 2.5 and started looking at that again. Is that how you want us to proceed here on the mission design group?
                          > >
                          > > Frank, I feel that if we're going to get anywhere with the mission design we need some leadership here.
                          > >
                          > > At the moment I feel I'm just fumbling around in the dark. I've been looking at the DRM 2.5 ISRU process but I'm not sure if (1) DRM 2.5 is the right way to go or (2) if I'm doing the right thing anyway.
                          > >
                          > > Who's in charge here? With some strong direction I do feel we might actually get somewhere with a mission design. I could probably find a number of good competent engineers prepared to do some work on this, but I doubt if they could be persuaded to give up their free time unless they could see this going somewhere. But, like me, they wouldn't be space mission design experts, they'd need a framework to work within and some hands-on direction. At the moment I don't see this.
                          > >
                          > > Help!
                          > >
                          > > Dave G
                          > >
                          > > --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, Darren Oliveiro-Priestnall <darrenop@> wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > > Well that all sounds like good sense to me.
                          > > > Consortiums built in this way aren't new of course, in other sectors its very common for the main players to form consortiums to jointly develop standards and shared base technologies to further the sector while giving an early lead to the companies involved with the consortium.
                          > > > A lot of money goes into running these consortiums and furthering their goals but the driving force is ultimately profit for those companies that are involved.
                          > > >
                          > > > And as you point out, ultimately it's applying space based technologies to solve Earth based problems that often underpins these endeavours.
                          > > > In the UK there are many government backed incubators for just this. Down the road from my office theres a new incubator being set up by ESA with a very large government cash investment for building and running the new centre while the whole purpose of this incubator is for ESA to work with non-space based companies, especially startup's and SME's to transfer knowledge and newly developed technologies away from ESA and into these companies, ultimately encouraging startups and SME's to create new Earth based products from these large government backed space investments.
                          > > >
                          > > > On a slightly unrelated note, if looking for investment for specific research projects or just looking to identify potential partners, a few good places to start are below.
                          > > >
                          > > > http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/understand_en.html
                          > > > https://ktn.innovateuk.org/web/space
                          > > > http://iap.esa.int/iap-themes
                          > > > http://www.fp7-space.eu/fp7-space-info-2.phtm
                          > > > http://www.meetup.com/Space-Entrepreneurs/
                          > > >
                          > > > Darren
                          > > >
                          > > > From: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com [mailto:marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of frank_stratford
                          > > > Sent: 01 June 2010 2:51 AM
                          > > > To: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com
                          > > > Subject: [marsdrivemission] Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > I posted this in our forums today guys, basically as a way forward for us. For mission design the outcome is positive as a peer reviewed design (or design of individual "chunks"- as David has been studying) can serve this goal as well.
                          > > >
                          > > > I was having some discussions with one of our advisors recently (Brian Enke) and it was great to get some positive feedback on my consortium ideas. He has arranged for Robert Zubrin to give me a call soon as well as we think we may be onto something now in the effort to get humans to Mars.
                          > > >
                          > > > I knew that there were many holes in my consortium idea but it wasn't until someone pointed them out in a balanced "non flame" manner that I started to see those areas. So I will start with an outline/plan and explain it from there-
                          > > >
                          > > > 1. Mars and space advocates organize a "consortium conference" to bring together the potential players for such a consortium- Boeing, Lockheed, SpaceX, etc etc.
                          > > > 2. Unlike my previous proposal for them to get to work straight away on a Mars mission this time we would be getting them to form a consortium to advance near term earth relevant technologies in line with human space exploration needs. In short- develop with their combined resources many technologies needed for Mars in a much faster way than the current speed of R&D.
                          > > >
                          > > > This means that profits are the goal in the immediate and near term and it keeps investors happy because it can sink its teeth into some "already developing" ideas in various areas.
                          > > >
                          > > > I know that almost all space companies around today are servicing real market needs here on earth with real applications for people on earth and it is the only way they can make any money.
                          > > >
                          > > > To ask such companies to start suddenly investing in an idea (humans to Mars) that has no defined market (governments are not fully committed yet) was short sighted and unrealistic of me so I'm changing that.
                          > > >
                          > > > The problem with governments is that they are very risk averse and when it comes to humans to Mars the risks are very high. So if the consortium can remove some of these risk areas, or at least show how they can be removed (and governments do the heavy lifting), governments would start to show more interest.
                          > > >
                          > > > But areas like life support, radiation protection, EDL and energy production can all have earth based spin offs that will give profits to companies here and now, and the beauty of a consortium is that together they could hit their targets more quickly than on their own.(as they are today)
                          > > >
                          > > > I have no doubt that space companies want governments to go to Mars as they will get the contracts, but in the meantime, something more than theories must be produced to change the stance of governments to this whole idea.
                          > > >
                          > > > So what IS realistic?
                          > > >
                          > > > That we can get these companies together to begin talking about ways they can produce technologies that will bring them profits here and now, but give them the humans to Mars program as the central goal/focus.
                          > > >
                          > > > This can also include R&D into cheap space access tech as well as the benefits from that are obvious.
                          > > >
                          > > > If we had 2 or 3 peer reviewed humans to Mars designs for them to coalesce around, this would be needed as no focus will result in no outcomes.
                          > > >
                          > > > For example- reliable food supplies and production- good for earth here and now but also vital to crew health and safety- one of those "risk" areas governments worry about. If the consortium could patent and put together something in this area the applications are obvious.
                          > > >
                          > > > The same with EDL- applications for military use are obvious and far more likely to be invested in by governments than pure space exploration (sadly).
                          > > >
                          > > > Radiation shielding techs will also have immediate applications for earth. There are many areas like this.
                          > > >
                          > > > As advocates we can and do organize conferences every year with representatives from space companies and space agencies. So we can do this. We can get them in a room discussing a way forward for Mars via immediate profits now.
                          > > >
                          > > > But we would have to have some very clearly defined areas for them to sink their collective teeth into and several proposals would be good to start it off. Proposals for individual pieces of tech or systems that can have dual use on Earth and Mars.
                          > > >
                          > > > My mistake was to expect these companies to invest in a "maybe" a "build it and they will come" assumption, but I was wrong. With immediate profits as the focus I am certain that we can begin to make real progress towards humans to Mars because right now that is the only way any space company is operating.The power of a consortium is that together they can advance R&D and profits more quickly than on their own.
                          > > >
                          > > > I think this can be done, that it is in line with current realities in how this sector gains investment- based on serving real market needs (but with dual applications).
                          > > >
                          > > > The difference with a consortium is the sheer resources brought to bear on these R&D areas versus the sporadic and slow go it alone approach we have today.
                          > > >
                          > > > Plus we already have one consortium- ULA- United Launch Alliance, so it is not an idea these companies are foreign to.
                          > > >
                          > > > If these companies want a committment from governments on humans to mars, but they don't want to lose money to get this committment then it's time they got together and figured out some areas they could advance as a spark for governments to "get interested" in Mars. The part we play as advocates is to organize this effort and "drive" it from behind seeing we are the ones with the vision and passion for the future of humanity in space. If not us then who?
                          > > >
                          > > > So the question is, can we make a compelling enough case to these companies to "get them interested"?
                          > > >
                          > >
                          >

                        • Brian Enke
                          Hi Jordan - Always appreciate hearing new viewpoints! If you don t like the focus on Mars, my best suggestion is to get more involved with one of the
                          Message 12 of 27 , Jun 3, 2010
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hi Jordan -

                            Always appreciate hearing new viewpoints! If you don't like the focus on Mars, my best suggestion is to get more involved with one of the non-Mars-focused groups, like NSS or the Planetary Society. You'll find more like-minded people there... and that's one reason why multiple organizations exist, after all.

                            By the way, try not to be so pessimistic about public relevance of Mars. Many good reasons for going to Mars DO exist already... and different people latch onto different reasons. It's fine if we come up with more (new) reasons that more (new) people can latch onto... so I don't want to discourage you from thinking in this direction (if that's your intent)...

                            To answer your question, I'm squarely in the "that humanity go to Mars" camp... but I don't follow your later reasoning as to why this question matters w.r.t. what MarsDrive should - or shouldn't - be working on.

                            Cheers,

                                - Brian


                            On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Jordan P. <unknown_target01@...> wrote:
                             

                            Er, sorry Michael but that's not what I meant. What you're proposing is we (yet again) start developing another launch architecture and hope that some big corporation jumps on it and gives us money instead of just doing it themselves.
                            Sorry to be blunt, but you're missing the point of what I said; I didn't mean for us to start finding ways to make Mars relevant, I was saying find a way to make space relevant. There is no reason to go to Mars right now. Face it, there is absolutely, positively, unequivocal no way that Mars is anywhere near anyone's list of priorities right now, what with global warming, political crises, economic crises, etc - it's just not on the table. Furthermore, trying to develop a human to Mars plan and somehow making it seem "relevant" to the (really not grassroots at all) eco-concious movement (I will say it again, it is NOT grassroots, it is definitely mainstream at this point) will only end up with another two years of round table discussion on all the various idiosyncratic technicalities of various booster and launch systems. In short, it'll put us right back where we started.

                            What I am really saying is, or rather, asking everyone in Mars Drive to do is to ask themselves this question:

                            "What is more important? That humanity go to Mars, or that I go to Mars?"

                            ...because if your answer is yourself, then yes, the whole "we will plan our own Mars mission so that we can go and don't have to rely on the government" ideology is what would follow that train of thought - ignoring all the realities of that train of thought. If your answer is humanity, then you would be willing to put aside Mars mission planning, discussions on the best way to get to Mars, the best way to live on Mars, the best way to get funds for our mission to Mars, and start focusing on "What can we do to lay the groundwork for someone to go to Mars". You might not go. I might not go. But the important result is that humanity goes, and it's because of your efforts.

                            This obsession with Mars is what's killing any chance MarsDrive has, in my opinion. Right now is the absolute best time to propose space as an answer to the world's current problems, because people are willing to pay for almost any idea. We are at a crossroads in history and technology - there are so many options on the table right now, it's a free for all as to who will end up winning and become the dominant player over the next 100 years. If any of you really truly want to go to Mars, you should see this opportunity and take it, and not squander it on endless mission planning debates.

                            --- On Wed, 6/2/10, Michael Bloxham <michaeljbloxham@...> wrote:

                            From: Michael Bloxham <michaeljbloxham@...>

                            Subject: Re: [marsdrivemission] Re: Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                            To: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com
                            Date: Wednesday, June 2, 2010, 8:48 AM


                             

                            I have to agree with Jordan here on the idea of focusing on the "Drive" rather than the "Mars". We should be selling a vision: Why we should go as well as the how. 
                             
                            It's funny but I've been spending a great deal of my time lately engaging with members of the growing eco-conscious community. There is definitely a growing grass-roots sense of the need for change as far as economic and political thinking is concerned. Naturally, this reminds me of the originial sense of romance that Zubrins tried to instill with the idea of Mars being the new 'frontier', and the opportunities for redevelopment and ingenuity that such 'frontierism' allows. I wonder whether there is an opportunity here for us to make the idea of Mars relevant to the concerns of this huge and fast-growing group of people.
                             
                            At the same time, I find myself banging my head against the wall in frustration in consideration of more immediate matters: I just can't help but think that we're missing out on some huge opportunities right now. 
                             
                            For example, now that CxP is effectively dead, the fight for a shuttle-derived HLLV is at a critical stage. I wonder whether we could throw together a technically practical humans-to-mars architecture (which could be DRM2.5 derived), which utilizes SDLV-equivalent performance, in quick enough time to be able to present it as a concept to show how valuable such an HLLV is, and how it can be used, in a real practical sense, toward the development of a humans-to-mars architecture.
                             
                            I see this as being of absolutely crucial importance: The cost of developing HLLV capability from shuttle infrastructure sooner rather than later (or likely not at all) needs proper justification in terms of mission: If it can't be shown that a practical humans-to-mars architecture can be evolved from SDLV capabilities then the likelihood of such an HLLV system being developed goes down quite significantly, IMHO. But if it can be shown that an SDLV is sufficient.. . Is it possible that we could influence the trade-space somehow? I think it's possible. But we would have to be quick!
                             
                            - Mike

                            --- On Tue, 1/6/10, Jordan P. <unknown_target01@ yahoo.com> wrote:

                            From: Jordan P. <unknown_target01@ yahoo.com>
                            Subject: Re: [marsdrivemission] Re: Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                            To: marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com
                            Received: Tuesday, 1 June, 2010, 4:55 PM

                             
                            Just to throw in something from someone who has been constantly getting e-mails regarding misson designs, plans, etc, in his email for the past several months...
                            Whenever I see the [marsdrivemission] tag followed by some question about the stage 2 boosters or the LOX intakes or whatnot, I have to ask the question; why? Why bother with planning anything beyond baby steps at this point, when you don't even have a market to sell to? I read through Frank's message, and he's said he wants to do something that I think I mentioned a year or two ago: focus on profitable ventures with Earth applications, stop focusing on different mission design plans to get from here to Mars, because you never will. We have the technology and we have the knowledge to go to another solar body - we did it about 40 years back. The thing that never came out of Apollo, and the subsequent obsession with landing on other solar bodies, is what is the point of it? So I say again; MarsDrive needs to stop focusing on the Mars and start focusing on the Drive. Get together all those smart minds you have developing answers to problems we're 30 years away from facing, and start figuring out how to apply space to Earth based issues, from global warming, to food and water starvation, to clean power generation. Then you will have a market, because those issues are what's in demand right now.
                            If MD or anyone else keeps focusing on the "We need to design a way to go to space and then present it to companies with money to fund it for us!" then they will all fail. Focus on low-cost, low-budget, way out of the ballpark ideas for assisting our current needs, and you will not only have the infrastructure, credit, and manpower thirty years from now to actually go to Mars permanently, but you'll accomplish Frank's stated goal of R+D for a Mars mission while you're making real money.
                            Yes I have ideas, no they're not what MD is focusing on right now, and yes I believe if we follow at least some of them we'd have a real shot. Otherwise the MD mission will stay on the Internet and cycling around and around in endless Mars planning discussions.

                            Cheers.

                            --- On Tue, 6/1/10, frank_stratford <frank_stratford@ yahoo.com> wrote:

                            From: frank_stratford <frank_stratford@ yahoo.com>
                            Subject: [marsdrivemission] Re: Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                            To: marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com
                            Date: Tuesday, June 1, 2010, 7:11 PM

                             
                            If I remember correctly Dave we decided upon 2.5 from a particular philosophy, and that philosophy has always remained the same with Marsdrive- "What is the most realistic path forward given technical, financial and political hurdles".

                            This is also why Falcon 9 was considered along the same lines (as it is a rocket in development now). We have never veered off that path. The discussions on mobile habs etc were useful, but with such a risk averse culture as we have today, we have to design for this whether we like it or not.

                            You may be right in saying 2.5 is not the way to go, but in keeping with our guiding philosophy, what other LV system is realistically on the horizon that we can design around? I don't see any others at this stage. We will never interest "players in a consortium" with unrealistic designs based on completely new LV systems, not when we haven't addressed some of the major issues yet like a working EDL concept, radiation protection that we can bank on, life support that is believeable, etc

                            So in keeping with our philosophy can I suggest the following way forward-

                            1. List out all the things we don't like about 2.5 now
                            2. See if we can modify those within the constraints of that LV faring etc
                            3. List out what improvements we would like to make/could be made
                            4. Publish a design after this for peer review
                            5. Hold consortium conference at this point

                            If the Atlas development path takes a dive, we may have to switch to Falcon 9 H, but that is not my doing Dave, it is just the way this game is played. It is ever changing. But I think if we keep to our guiding philosophy, we won't go wrong.

                            We do need to keep our eye on certain areas, and the biggest I think is Mars EDL concepts. The better ours is, the more seriously our design will be taken. This part could indeed be a major point of difference with our design if we created some detail around it. I'm not saying we will get it right here, but we do need to show that we are on the cutting edge of Mars design thinking, and ignoring this aspect is ignoring the elephant in the room.

                            The same applies to radiation protection and life support. In a risk averse culture these are the areas that will win us support- if we address them sufficiently, and your work in ISRU is extremely helpful along these lines Dave.

                            So I have laid out a way forward here Dave and everyone,and to some extent I do think you are on this path already, so by all means continue to these goals. If you want to set timelines and deadlines to all this you can, but we will need the resources to meet such deadlines (which is why I left it open at this time).

                            --- In marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com, "David" <davidgooding16@ ...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Frank,
                            >
                            > It sounds like good sense to me too.
                            >
                            > In terms of where we're going here with the mission design effort, it sounds like you want us to develop one (or more!) mission designs.
                            >
                            > Previously you indicated/implied you wanted a mission design around a Falcon 9 heavy (i.e. in small chunks). However, others more knowledgable than me suggested that this was not possible. So, in the absence of anything else, we dusted off DRM 2.5 and started looking at that again. Is that how you want us to proceed here on the mission design group?
                            >
                            > Frank, I feel that if we're going to get anywhere with the mission design we need some leadership here.
                            >
                            > At the moment I feel I'm just fumbling around in the dark. I've been looking at the DRM 2.5 ISRU process but I'm not sure if (1) DRM 2.5 is the right way to go or (2) if I'm doing the right thing anyway.
                            >
                            > Who's in charge here? With some strong direction I do feel we might actually get somewhere with a mission design. I could probably find a number of good competent engineers prepared to do some work on this, but I doubt if they could be persuaded to give up their free time unless they could see this going somewhere. But, like me, they wouldn't be space mission design experts, they'd need a framework to work within and some hands-on direction. At the moment I don't see this.
                            >
                            > Help!
                            >
                            > Dave G
                            >
                            > --- In marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com, Darren Oliveiro-Priestnall <darrenop@> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > Well that all sounds like good sense to me.
                            > > Consortiums built in this way aren't new of course, in other sectors its very common for the main players to form consortiums to jointly develop standards and shared base technologies to further the sector while giving an early lead to the companies involved with the consortium.
                            > > A lot of money goes into running these consortiums and furthering their goals but the driving force is ultimately profit for those companies that are involved.
                            > >
                            > > And as you point out, ultimately it's applying space based technologies to solve Earth based problems that often underpins these endeavours.
                            > > In the UK there are many government backed incubators for just this. Down the road from my office theres a new incubator being set up by ESA with a very large government cash investment for building and running the new centre while the whole purpose of this incubator is for ESA to work with non-space based companies, especially startup's and SME's to transfer knowledge and newly developed technologies away from ESA and into these companies, ultimately encouraging startups and SME's to create new Earth based products from these large government backed space investments.
                            > >
                            > > On a slightly unrelated note, if looking for investment for specific research projects or just looking to identify potential partners, a few good places to start are below.
                            > >
                            > > http://cordis. europa.eu/ fp7/understand_ en.html
                            > > https://ktn. innovateuk. org/web/space
                            > > http://iap.esa. int/iap-themes
                            > > http://www.fp7- space.eu/ fp7-space- info-2.phtm
                            > > http://www.meetup. com/Space- Entrepreneurs/
                            > >
                            > > Darren
                            > >
                            > > From: marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of frank_stratford
                            > > Sent: 01 June 2010 2:51 AM
                            > > To: marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com
                            > > Subject: [marsdrivemission] Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > I posted this in our forums today guys, basically as a way forward for us. For mission design the outcome is positive as a peer reviewed design (or design of individual "chunks"- as David has been studying) can serve this goal as well.
                            > >
                            > > I was having some discussions with one of our advisors recently (Brian Enke) and it was great to get some positive feedback on my consortium ideas. He has arranged for Robert Zubrin to give me a call soon as well as we think we may be onto something now in the effort to get humans to Mars.
                            > >
                            > > I knew that there were many holes in my consortium idea but it wasn't until someone pointed them out in a balanced "non flame" manner that I started to see those areas. So I will start with an outline/plan and explain it from there-
                            > >
                            > > 1. Mars and space advocates organize a "consortium conference" to bring together the potential players for such a consortium- Boeing, Lockheed, SpaceX, etc etc.
                            > > 2. Unlike my previous proposal for them to get to work straight away on a Mars mission this time we would be getting them to form a consortium to advance near term earth relevant technologies in line with human space exploration needs. In short- develop with their combined resources many technologies needed for Mars in a much faster way than the current speed of R&D.
                            > >
                            > > This means that profits are the goal in the immediate and near term and it keeps investors happy because it can sink its teeth into some "already developing" ideas in various areas.
                            > >
                            > > I know that almost all space companies around today are servicing real market needs here on earth with real applications for people on earth and it is the only way they can make any money.
                            > >
                            > > To ask such companies to start suddenly investing in an idea (humans to Mars) that has no defined market (governments are not fully committed yet) was short sighted and unrealistic of me so I'm changing that.
                            > >
                            > > The problem with governments is that they are very risk averse and when it comes to humans to Mars the risks are very high. So if the consortium can remove some of these risk areas, or at least show how they can be removed (and governments do the heavy lifting), governments would start to show more interest.
                            > >
                            > > But areas like life support, radiation protection, EDL and energy production can all have earth based spin offs that will give profits to companies here and now, and the beauty of a consortium is that together they could hit their targets more quickly than on their own.(as they are today)
                            > >
                            > > I have no doubt that space companies want governments to go to Mars as they will get the contracts, but in the meantime, something more than theories must be produced to change the stance of governments to this whole idea.
                            > >
                            > > So what IS realistic?
                            > >
                            > > That we can get these companies together to begin talking about ways they can produce technologies that will bring them profits here and now, but give them the humans to Mars program as the central goal/focus.
                            > >
                            > > This can also include R&D into cheap space access tech as well as the benefits from that are obvious.
                            > >
                            > > If we had 2 or 3 peer reviewed humans to Mars designs for them to coalesce around, this would be needed as no focus will result in no outcomes.
                            > >
                            > > For example- reliable food supplies and production- good for earth here and now but also vital to crew health and safety- one of those "risk" areas governments worry about. If the consortium could patent and put together something in this area the applications are obvious.
                            > >
                            > > The same with EDL- applications for military use are obvious and far more likely to be invested in by governments than pure space exploration (sadly).
                            > >
                            > > Radiation shielding techs will also have immediate applications for earth. There are many areas like this.
                            > >
                            > > As advocates we can and do organize conferences every year with representatives from space companies and space agencies. So we can do this. We can get them in a room discussing a way forward for Mars via immediate profits now.
                            > >
                            > > But we would have to have some very clearly defined areas for them to sink their collective teeth into and several proposals would be good to start it off. Proposals for individual pieces of tech or systems that can have dual use on Earth and Mars.
                            > >
                            > > My mistake was to expect these companies to invest in a "maybe" a "build it and they will come" assumption, but I was wrong. With immediate profits as the focus I am certain that we can begin to make real progress towards humans to Mars because right now that is the only way any space company is operating.The power of a consortium is that together they can advance R&D and profits more quickly than on their own.
                            > >
                            > > I think this can be done, that it is in line with current realities in how this sector gains investment- based on serving real market needs (but with dual applications) .
                            > >
                            > > The difference with a consortium is the sheer resources brought to bear on these R&D areas versus the sporadic and slow go it alone approach we have today.
                            > >
                            > > Plus we already have one consortium- ULA- United Launch Alliance, so it is not an idea these companies are foreign to.
                            > >
                            > > If these companies want a committment from governments on humans to mars, but they don't want to lose money to get this committment then it's time they got together and figured out some areas they could advance as a spark for governments to "get interested" in Mars. The part we play as advocates is to organize this effort and "drive" it from behind seeing we are the ones with the vision and passion for the future of humanity in space. If not us then who?
                            > >
                            > > So the question is, can we make a compelling enough case to these companies to "get them interested"?
                            > >
                            >


                             

                          • Darren Oliveiro-Priestnall
                            Hi, I don t really see how MarsDrive can exist without having Mars central to the agenda. That s not to say Mars is everything but it has to remain the focus
                            Message 13 of 27 , Jun 3, 2010
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment

                              Hi,

                              I don’t really see how MarsDrive can exist without having Mars central to the agenda.

                              That’s not to say Mars is everything but it has to remain the focus for MarsDrive simply because that’s why it was founded and what so many members are interested in and looking to support.

                               

                              Having said that I support a number of groups including the Planetary Society, BIS, UK Rocketry Association, Star Chaser, several groups focussed on Astrophysics research and public education as well as a number of space sector business groups.

                              Each of these have different central goals which distinguish them, all worthy and of importance and all which impact on each other in a range of ways.

                               

                              I do think MarsDrive needs to shake off some cobwebs and return to some grass root principles but to move away from Mars as being central would be a mistake in my personal opinion.

                              The DRM is important and possibly needs more focus. There’s clearly a lot of interest and skill around the DRM which probably needs to be focussed more effectively to turn the DRM into something more concrete and complete.

                              We also need to revisit public awareness programs because if MarsDrive isn’t striving to raise public awareness and interest then what’s the point of MarsDrive? As far as I can tell, MarsDrive was founded to educate and raise public awareness but I can’t remember the last big campaign or effective strategy to get people interested.

                              MarsDrive EXPO I feel is also of real importance or if not then working to get stands at other major Expo events. We have members around the world so we should design a program we can present at different events and expo’s to get the name MarsDrive and the idea of going to Mars out there.

                              This consortium idea is important in the same way as the DRM is important, it’s working towards practical solutions to the problems with going to Mars.

                              Then there are countless other ideas from campaigns and stunts to get people thinking about Mars, I’m thinking of naming a model rocket MarsDrive DRM or something just to try to get some free local press for MarsDrive. If people see a rocket named MarsDrive and enjoy the experience then maybe they’ll look further and get inspired to join MarsDrive. Small steps but all about public awareness.

                               

                              That’s just my thoughts at least. With NASA in its current condition, groups like MarsDrive need to be working harder in all these areas to keep the goals of all its members and its founding principles alive.

                              Darren

                               

                              From: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com [mailto:marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Brian Enke
                              Sent: 03 June 2010 6:22 PM
                              To: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: Re: [marsdrivemission] Re: Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in

                               

                               

                              Hi Jordan -

                              Always appreciate hearing new viewpoints! If you don't like the focus on Mars, my best suggestion is to get more involved with one of the non-Mars-focused groups, like NSS or the Planetary Society. You'll find more like-minded people there... and that's one reason why multiple organizations exist, after all.

                              By the way, try not to be so pessimistic about public relevance of Mars. Many good reasons for going to Mars DO exist already... and different people latch onto different reasons. It's fine if we come up with more (new) reasons that more (new) people can latch onto... so I don't want to discourage you from thinking in this direction (if that's your intent)...

                              To answer your question, I'm squarely in the "that humanity go to Mars" camp... but I don't follow your later reasoning as to why this question matters w.r.t. what MarsDrive should - or shouldn't - be working on.

                              Cheers,

                                  - Brian

                              On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Jordan P. <unknown_target01@...> wrote:

                               

                              Er, sorry Michael but that's not what I meant. What you're proposing is we (yet again) start developing another launch architecture and hope that some big corporation jumps on it and gives us money instead of just doing it themselves.
                              Sorry to be blunt, but you're missing the point of what I said; I didn't mean for us to start finding ways to make Mars relevant, I was saying find a way to make space relevant. There is no reason to go to Mars right now. Face it, there is absolutely, positively, unequivocal no way that Mars is anywhere near anyone's list of priorities right now, what with global warming, political crises, economic crises, etc - it's just not on the table. Furthermore, trying to develop a human to Mars plan and somehow making it seem "relevant" to the (really not grassroots at all) eco-concious movement (I will say it again, it is NOT grassroots, it is definitely mainstream at this point) will only end up with another two years of round table discussion on all the various idiosyncratic technicalities of various booster and launch systems. In short, it'll put us right back where we started.

                               

                              What I am really saying is, or rather, asking everyone in Mars Drive to do is to ask themselves this question:

                               

                              "What is more important? That humanity go to Mars, or that I go to Mars?"

                               

                              ...because if your answer is yourself, then yes, the whole "we will plan our own Mars mission so that we can go and don't have to rely on the government" ideology is what would follow that train of thought - ignoring all the realities of that train of thought. If your answer is humanity, then you would be willing to put aside Mars mission planning, discussions on the best way to get to Mars, the best way to live on Mars, the best way to get funds for our mission to Mars, and start focusing on "What can we do to lay the groundwork for someone to go to Mars". You might not go. I might not go. But the important result is that humanity goes, and it's because of your efforts.

                               

                              This obsession with Mars is what's killing any chance MarsDrive has, in my opinion. Right now is the absolute best time to propose space as an answer to the world's current problems, because people are willing to pay for almost any idea. We are at a crossroads in history and technology - there are so many options on the table right now, it's a free for all as to who will end up winning and become the dominant player over the next 100 years. If any of you really truly want to go to Mars, you should see this opportunity and take it, and not squander it on endless mission planning debates.

                              --- On Wed, 6/2/10, Michael Bloxham <michaeljbloxham@...> wrote:


                              From: Michael Bloxham <michaeljbloxham@...>


                              Subject: Re: [marsdrivemission] Re: Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                              To: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com

                              Date: Wednesday, June 2, 2010, 8:48 AM

                               

                               

                              I have to agree with Jordan here on the idea of focusing on the "Drive" rather than the "Mars". We should be selling a vision: Why we should go as well as the how. 

                               

                              It's funny but I've been spending a great deal of my time lately engaging with members of the growing eco-conscious community. There is definitely a growing grass-roots sense of the need for change as far as economic and political thinking is concerned. Naturally, this reminds me of the originial sense of romance that Zubrins tried to instill with the idea of Mars being the new 'frontier', and the opportunities for redevelopment and ingenuity that such 'frontierism' allows. I wonder whether there is an opportunity here for us to make the idea of Mars relevant to the concerns of this huge and fast-growing group of people.

                               

                              At the same time, I find myself banging my head against the wall in frustration in consideration of more immediate matters: I just can't help but think that we're missing out on some huge opportunities right now. 

                               

                              For example, now that CxP is effectively dead, the fight for a shuttle-derived HLLV is at a critical stage. I wonder whether we could throw together a technically practical humans-to-mars architecture (which could be DRM2.5 derived), which utilizes SDLV-equivalent performance, in quick enough time to be able to present it as a concept to show how valuable such an HLLV is, and how it can be used, in a real practical sense, toward the development of a humans-to-mars architecture.

                               

                              I see this as being of absolutely crucial importance: The cost of developing HLLV capability from shuttle infrastructure sooner rather than later (or likely not at all) needs proper justification in terms of mission: If it can't be shown that a practical humans-to-mars architecture can be evolved from SDLV capabilities then the likelihood of such an HLLV system being developed goes down quite significantly, IMHO. But if it can be shown that an SDLV is sufficient.. . Is it possible that we could influence the trade-space somehow? I think it's possible. But we would have to be quick!

                               

                              - Mike


                              --- On Tue, 1/6/10, Jordan P. <unknown_target01@ yahoo.com> wrote:


                              From: Jordan P. <unknown_target01@ yahoo.com>
                              Subject: Re: [marsdrivemission] Re: Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                              To: marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com
                              Received: Tuesday, 1 June, 2010, 4:55 PM

                               

                              Just to throw in something from someone who has been constantly getting e-mails regarding misson designs, plans, etc, in his email for the past several months...

                              Whenever I see the [marsdrivemission] tag followed by some question about the stage 2 boosters or the LOX intakes or whatnot, I have to ask the question; why? Why bother with planning anything beyond baby steps at this point, when you don't even have a market to sell to? I read through Frank's message, and he's said he wants to do something that I think I mentioned a year or two ago: focus on profitable ventures with Earth applications, stop focusing on different mission design plans to get from here to Mars, because you never will. We have the technology and we have the knowledge to go to another solar body - we did it about 40 years back. The thing that never came out of Apollo, and the subsequent obsession with landing on other solar bodies, is what is the point of it? So I say again; MarsDrive needs to stop focusing on the Mars and start focusing on the Drive. Get together all those smart minds you have developing answers to problems we're 30 years away from facing, and start figuring out how to apply space to Earth based issues, from global warming, to food and water starvation, to clean power generation. Then you will have a market, because those issues are what's in demand right now.

                              If MD or anyone else keeps focusing on the "We need to design a way to go to space and then present it to companies with money to fund it for us!" then they will all fail. Focus on low-cost, low-budget, way out of the ballpark ideas for assisting our current needs, and you will not only have the infrastructure, credit, and manpower thirty years from now to actually go to Mars permanently, but you'll accomplish Frank's stated goal of R+D for a Mars mission while you're making real money.

                              Yes I have ideas, no they're not what MD is focusing on right now, and yes I believe if we follow at least some of them we'd have a real shot. Otherwise the MD mission will stay on the Internet and cycling around and around in endless Mars planning discussions.

                               

                              Cheers.


                              --- On Tue, 6/1/10, frank_stratford <frank_stratford@ yahoo.com> wrote:


                              From: frank_stratford <frank_stratford@ yahoo.com>
                              Subject: [marsdrivemission] Re: Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                              To: marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com
                              Date: Tuesday, June 1, 2010, 7:11 PM

                               

                              If I remember correctly Dave we decided upon 2.5 from a particular philosophy, and that philosophy has always remained the same with Marsdrive- "What is the most realistic path forward given technical, financial and political hurdles".

                              This is also why Falcon 9 was considered along the same lines (as it is a rocket in development now). We have never veered off that path. The discussions on mobile habs etc were useful, but with such a risk averse culture as we have today, we have to design for this whether we like it or not.

                              You may be right in saying 2.5 is not the way to go, but in keeping with our guiding philosophy, what other LV system is realistically on the horizon that we can design around? I don't see any others at this stage. We will never interest "players in a consortium" with unrealistic designs based on completely new LV systems, not when we haven't addressed some of the major issues yet like a working EDL concept, radiation protection that we can bank on, life support that is believeable, etc

                              So in keeping with our philosophy can I suggest the following way forward-

                              1. List out all the things we don't like about 2.5 now
                              2. See if we can modify those within the constraints of that LV faring etc
                              3. List out what improvements we would like to make/could be made
                              4. Publish a design after this for peer review
                              5. Hold consortium conference at this point

                              If the Atlas development path takes a dive, we may have to switch to Falcon 9 H, but that is not my doing Dave, it is just the way this game is played. It is ever changing. But I think if we keep to our guiding philosophy, we won't go wrong.

                              We do need to keep our eye on certain areas, and the biggest I think is Mars EDL concepts. The better ours is, the more seriously our design will be taken. This part could indeed be a major point of difference with our design if we created some detail around it. I'm not saying we will get it right here, but we do need to show that we are on the cutting edge of Mars design thinking, and ignoring this aspect is ignoring the elephant in the room.

                              The same applies to radiation protection and life support. In a risk averse culture these are the areas that will win us support- if we address them sufficiently, and your work in ISRU is extremely helpful along these lines Dave.

                              So I have laid out a way forward here Dave and everyone,and to some extent I do think you are on this path already, so by all means continue to these goals. If you want to set timelines and deadlines to all this you can, but we will need the resources to meet such deadlines (which is why I left it open at this time).

                              --- In marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com, "David" <davidgooding16@ ...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Frank,
                              >
                              > It sounds like good sense to me too.
                              >
                              > In terms of where we're going here with the mission design effort, it sounds like you want us to develop one (or more!) mission designs.
                              >
                              > Previously you indicated/implied you wanted a mission design around a Falcon 9 heavy (i.e. in small chunks). However, others more knowledgable than me suggested that this was not possible. So, in the absence of anything else, we dusted off DRM 2.5 and started looking at that again. Is that how you want us to proceed here on the mission design group?
                              >
                              > Frank, I feel that if we're going to get anywhere with the mission design we need some leadership here.
                              >
                              > At the moment I feel I'm just fumbling around in the dark. I've been looking at the DRM 2.5 ISRU process but I'm not sure if (1) DRM 2.5 is the right way to go or (2) if I'm doing the right thing anyway.
                              >
                              > Who's in charge here? With some strong direction I do feel we might actually get somewhere with a mission design. I could probably find a number of good competent engineers prepared to do some work on this, but I doubt if they could be persuaded to give up their free time unless they could see this going somewhere. But, like me, they wouldn't be space mission design experts, they'd need a framework to work within and some hands-on direction. At the moment I don't see this.
                              >
                              > Help!
                              >
                              > Dave G
                              >
                              > --- In marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com, Darren Oliveiro-Priestnall <darrenop@> wrote:
                              > >
                              > > Well that all sounds like good sense to me.
                              > > Consortiums built in this way aren't new of course, in other sectors its very common for the main players to form consortiums to jointly develop standards and shared base technologies to further the sector while giving an early lead to the companies involved with the consortium.
                              > > A lot of money goes into running these consortiums and furthering their goals but the driving force is ultimately profit for those companies that are involved.
                              > >
                              > > And as you point out, ultimately it's applying space based technologies to solve Earth based problems that often underpins these endeavours.
                              > > In the UK there are many government backed incubators for just this. Down the road from my office theres a new incubator being set up by ESA with a very large government cash investment for building and running the new centre while the whole purpose of this incubator is for ESA to work with non-space based companies, especially startup's and SME's to transfer knowledge and newly developed technologies away from ESA and into these companies, ultimately encouraging startups and SME's to create new Earth based products from these large government backed space investments.
                              > >
                              > > On a slightly unrelated note, if looking for investment for specific research projects or just looking to identify potential partners, a few good places to start are below.
                              > >
                              > > http://cordis. europa.eu/ fp7/understand_ en.html
                              > > https://ktn. innovateuk. org/web/space
                              > > http://iap.esa. int/iap-themes
                              > > http://www.fp7- space.eu/ fp7-space- info-2.phtm
                              > > http://www.meetup. com/Space- Entrepreneurs/
                              > >
                              > > Darren
                              > >
                              > > From: marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of frank_stratford
                              > > Sent: 01 June 2010 2:51 AM
                              > > To: marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com
                              > > Subject: [marsdrivemission] Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > I posted this in our forums today guys, basically as a way forward for us. For mission design the outcome is positive as a peer reviewed design (or design of individual "chunks"- as David has been studying) can serve this goal as well.
                              > >
                              > > I was having some discussions with one of our advisors recently (Brian Enke) and it was great to get some positive feedback on my consortium ideas. He has arranged for Robert Zubrin to give me a call soon as well as we think we may be onto something now in the effort to get humans to Mars.
                              > >
                              > > I knew that there were many holes in my consortium idea but it wasn't until someone pointed them out in a balanced "non flame" manner that I started to see those areas. So I will start with an outline/plan and explain it from there-
                              > >
                              > > 1. Mars and space advocates organize a "consortium conference" to bring together the potential players for such a consortium- Boeing, Lockheed, SpaceX, etc etc.
                              > > 2. Unlike my previous proposal for them to get to work straight away on a Mars mission this time we would be getting them to form a consortium to advance near term earth relevant technologies in line with human space exploration needs. In short- develop with their combined resources many technologies needed for Mars in a much faster way than the current speed of R&D.
                              > >
                              > > This means that profits are the goal in the immediate and near term and it keeps investors happy because it can sink its teeth into some "already developing" ideas in various areas.
                              > >
                              > > I know that almost all space companies around today are servicing real market needs here on earth with real applications for people on earth and it is the only way they can make any money.
                              > >
                              > > To ask such companies to start suddenly investing in an idea (humans to Mars) that has no defined market (governments are not fully committed yet) was short sighted and unrealistic of me so I'm changing that.
                              > >
                              > > The problem with governments is that they are very risk averse and when it comes to humans to Mars the risks are very high. So if the consortium can remove some of these risk areas, or at least show how they can be removed (and governments do the heavy lifting), governments would start to show more interest.
                              > >
                              > > But areas like life support, radiation protection, EDL and energy production can all have earth based spin offs that will give profits to companies here and now, and the beauty of a consortium is that together they could hit their targets more quickly than on their own.(as they are today)
                              > >
                              > > I have no doubt that space companies want governments to go to Mars as they will get the contracts, but in the meantime, something more than theories must be produced to change the stance of governments to this whole idea.
                              > >
                              > > So what IS realistic?
                              > >
                              > > That we can get these companies together to begin talking about ways they can produce technologies that will bring them profits here and now, but give them the humans to Mars program as the central goal/focus.
                              > >
                              > > This can also include R&D into cheap space access tech as well as the benefits from that are obvious.
                              > >
                              > > If we had 2 or 3 peer reviewed humans to Mars designs for them to coalesce around, this would be needed as no focus will result in no outcomes.
                              > >
                              > > For example- reliable food supplies and production- good for earth here and now but also vital to crew health and safety- one of those "risk" areas governments worry about. If the consortium could patent and put together something in this area the applications are obvious.
                              > >
                              > > The same with EDL- applications for military use are obvious and far more likely to be invested in by governments than pure space exploration (sadly).
                              > >
                              > > Radiation shielding techs will also have immediate applications for earth. There are many areas like this.
                              > >
                              > > As advocates we can and do organize conferences every year with representatives from space companies and space agencies. So we can do this. We can get them in a room discussing a way forward for Mars via immediate profits now.
                              > >
                              > > But we would have to have some very clearly defined areas for them to sink their collective teeth into and several proposals would be good to start it off. Proposals for individual pieces of tech or systems that can have dual use on Earth and Mars.
                              > >
                              > > My mistake was to expect these companies to invest in a "maybe" a "build it and they will come" assumption, but I was wrong. With immediate profits as the focus I am certain that we can begin to make real progress towards humans to Mars because right now that is the only way any space company is operating.The power of a consortium is that together they can advance R&D and profits more quickly than on their own.
                              > >
                              > > I think this can be done, that it is in line with current realities in how this sector gains investment- based on serving real market needs (but with dual applications) .
                              > >
                              > > The difference with a consortium is the sheer resources brought to bear on these R&D areas versus the sporadic and slow go it alone approach we have today.
                              > >
                              > > Plus we already have one consortium- ULA- United Launch Alliance, so it is not an idea these companies are foreign to.
                              > >
                              > > If these companies want a committment from governments on humans to mars, but they don't want to lose money to get this committment then it's time they got together and figured out some areas they could advance as a spark for governments to "get interested" in Mars. The part we play as advocates is to organize this effort and "drive" it from behind seeing we are the ones with the vision and passion for the future of humanity in space. If not us then who?
                              > >
                              > > So the question is, can we make a compelling enough case to these companies to "get them interested"?
                              > >
                              >


                               

                               

                            • David
                              Hi, Darren has very clearly articulated what are precisely my views, too, and also, I am sure, the views of many others. I, and I am sure many others, are here
                              Message 14 of 27 , Jun 3, 2010
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hi,

                                Darren has very clearly articulated what are precisely my views, too, and also, I am sure, the views of many others.

                                I, and I am sure many others, are here precisely because we want to see humanity extend its reach beyond Earth to Mars. That must always be our end objective.

                                The means to get to that end are of course up for debate - the problem is that we haven't yet found a means to that end that actually works. I am happy to see debate here on how best to acheive that end result, so long as we don't abandon that end objective of actually expanding humanity's reach beyond Earth.

                                However, if all we do is solve some of the many problems that face a manned Mars mission, even in a small way, we can at least feel that we've done our bit and progressed one more small step on that long at difficult path. And that's more than many can say they've acheived.

                                If we develop a robust and realistic DRM, that provides a convincing and detailed way to get to Mars that shows a route through, and solutions to, the multitude of technical problems that currently block the path, then that is a considerable acheivement. This would be a real step on the way to Mars even if the DRM in the form that we have defined it is not in itself implemented.

                                Further, if by doing this, we can reach out to a wider audience, raise public awareness of the feasibility of reaching Mars, and capture the imagination with a realistic and feasible mission, that will be another very significant step.

                                This is certainly feasible. People here may criticize Zubrin's Mars Direct - but it was his book "The Case for Mars" which I read, by chance, which motivated me and which I am sure has motivated many, many others. By doing this he pushed Mars up the agenda - perhaps not far enough, but enough that government space agencies took Mars seriously. By doing this he did more than many others have managed. If we, collectively, can give things another push like that, we might, just might, get to see a man on Mars in our lifetimes.

                                Here in the mission design team our role is to develop a mission design (what else can it be?). MarsDrive as a wider organisation may push other avenues as well. But here, in the mission design team, let's get a credible mission together, attempt to find ways through the various technical obstacles, flesh out some details, map out the forward development route and so on.

                                At the moment all we have is DRM 2.5. Maybe you like it, maybe you don't. If it needs changing, lets change it.

                                This means actually doing some work. We might not all be Mars mission design experts - I'm certainly not - but then who has successfully designed Mars missions? Nobody has. Nobody ever designed a manned Mars mission that actually got there. And a lot of what needs doing right now does not, in my view, require enormous amounts of detailed technical expertise (that comes later).

                                I previously suggested a number of specific tasks that could be undertaken right now, and probably most of us here would probably be capable of undertaking one or more of these.

                                Nobody significantly disagreed with my initial list of things to do. People offered to pick up several of these things and run with them.

                                I picked up ISRU, pretty much at random, just because it was there, there was very little detail in the DRM, and nobody else seemed to want to look at it. I'm not a chemist or chemical engineer - I have a physics degree and I work as an engineer - but I felt I could at least track down papers on the subject, review the current state of knowledge and lay out in a summary document roughly what the options were and the various pros and cons, so that we collectively could decide if what the current DRM specifies for ISRU is the right way, or not, and how we might want to change it. My report will be posted here within 24 hours - I'm doing final checks and corrections today. I'm quite happy to have it criticised, if it's rubbish, say so. We can bin it if it's no good - there's nothing lost except a bit of my time.

                                Others said that they would look at some of the other items (I won't name them here!). These included the physiological things that Frank is concerned about; radiation protection, zero-g. And other items - the inflatable module in the DRM, crew safety (including a preliminary hazard analysis), etc. How are these getting on? Is anybody still looking at these things?

                                If we can move forward with the mission design, we might actually be able to attract more people to us to help.

                                Please, if this is not the right way to move forward, please say so. If it is the right way, then please, please, have a go, pick an aspect that needs further detail in the DRM, research the subject, and do your best. There's nothing lost by trying - but we won't get anything done if we don't have a go. And those who do know something about designing space missions - please help those of us who don't!

                                Dave G

                                PS - Sorry for the long message but I just had to get that off my chest!


                                --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, Darren Oliveiro-Priestnall <darrenop@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Hi,
                                > I don't really see how MarsDrive can exist without having Mars central to the agenda.
                                > That's not to say Mars is everything but it has to remain the focus for MarsDrive simply because that's why it was founded and what so many members are interested in and looking to support.
                                >
                                > Having said that I support a number of groups including the Planetary Society, BIS, UK Rocketry Association, Star Chaser, several groups focussed on Astrophysics research and public education as well as a number of space sector business groups.
                                > Each of these have different central goals which distinguish them, all worthy and of importance and all which impact on each other in a range of ways.
                                >
                                > I do think MarsDrive needs to shake off some cobwebs and return to some grass root principles but to move away from Mars as being central would be a mistake in my personal opinion.
                                > The DRM is important and possibly needs more focus. There's clearly a lot of interest and skill around the DRM which probably needs to be focussed more effectively to turn the DRM into something more concrete and complete.
                                > We also need to revisit public awareness programs because if MarsDrive isn't striving to raise public awareness and interest then what's the point of MarsDrive? As far as I can tell, MarsDrive was founded to educate and raise public awareness but I can't remember the last big campaign or effective strategy to get people interested.
                                > MarsDrive EXPO I feel is also of real importance or if not then working to get stands at other major Expo events. We have members around the world so we should design a program we can present at different events and expo's to get the name MarsDrive and the idea of going to Mars out there.
                                > This consortium idea is important in the same way as the DRM is important, it's working towards practical solutions to the problems with going to Mars.
                                > Then there are countless other ideas from campaigns and stunts to get people thinking about Mars, I'm thinking of naming a model rocket MarsDrive DRM or something just to try to get some free local press for MarsDrive. If people see a rocket named MarsDrive and enjoy the experience then maybe they'll look further and get inspired to join MarsDrive. Small steps but all about public awareness.
                                >
                                > That's just my thoughts at least. With NASA in its current condition, groups like MarsDrive need to be working harder in all these areas to keep the goals of all its members and its founding principles alive.
                                > Darren
                                >
                                > From: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com [mailto:marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Brian Enke
                                > Sent: 03 June 2010 6:22 PM
                                > To: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com
                                > Subject: Re: [marsdrivemission] Re: Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Hi Jordan -
                                >
                                > Always appreciate hearing new viewpoints! If you don't like the focus on Mars, my best suggestion is to get more involved with one of the non-Mars-focused groups, like NSS or the Planetary Society. You'll find more like-minded people there... and that's one reason why multiple organizations exist, after all.
                                >
                                > By the way, try not to be so pessimistic about public relevance of Mars. Many good reasons for going to Mars DO exist already... and different people latch onto different reasons. It's fine if we come up with more (new) reasons that more (new) people can latch onto... so I don't want to discourage you from thinking in this direction (if that's your intent)...
                                >
                                > To answer your question, I'm squarely in the "that humanity go to Mars" camp... but I don't follow your later reasoning as to why this question matters w.r.t. what MarsDrive should - or shouldn't - be working on.
                                >
                                > Cheers,
                                >
                                > - Brian
                                >
                                > On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Jordan P. <unknown_target01@...<mailto:unknown_target01@...>> wrote:
                                >
                                > Er, sorry Michael but that's not what I meant. What you're proposing is we (yet again) start developing another launch architecture and hope that some big corporation jumps on it and gives us money instead of just doing it themselves.
                                > Sorry to be blunt, but you're missing the point of what I said; I didn't mean for us to start finding ways to make Mars relevant, I was saying find a way to make space relevant. There is no reason to go to Mars right now. Face it, there is absolutely, positively, unequivocal no way that Mars is anywhere near anyone's list of priorities right now, what with global warming, political crises, economic crises, etc - it's just not on the table. Furthermore, trying to develop a human to Mars plan and somehow making it seem "relevant" to the (really not grassroots at all) eco-concious movement (I will say it again, it is NOT grassroots, it is definitely mainstream at this point) will only end up with another two years of round table discussion on all the various idiosyncratic technicalities of various booster and launch systems. In short, it'll put us right back where we started.
                                >
                                > What I am really saying is, or rather, asking everyone in Mars Drive to do is to ask themselves this question:
                                >
                                > "What is more important? That humanity go to Mars, or that I go to Mars?"
                                >
                                > ...because if your answer is yourself, then yes, the whole "we will plan our own Mars mission so that we can go and don't have to rely on the government" ideology is what would follow that train of thought - ignoring all the realities of that train of thought. If your answer is humanity, then you would be willing to put aside Mars mission planning, discussions on the best way to get to Mars, the best way to live on Mars, the best way to get funds for our mission to Mars, and start focusing on "What can we do to lay the groundwork for someone to go to Mars". You might not go. I might not go. But the important result is that humanity goes, and it's because of your efforts.
                                >
                                > This obsession with Mars is what's killing any chance MarsDrive has, in my opinion. Right now is the absolute best time to propose space as an answer to the world's current problems, because people are willing to pay for almost any idea. We are at a crossroads in history and technology - there are so many options on the table right now, it's a free for all as to who will end up winning and become the dominant player over the next 100 years. If any of you really truly want to go to Mars, you should see this opportunity and take it, and not squander it on endless mission planning debates.
                                >
                                > --- On Wed, 6/2/10, Michael Bloxham <michaeljbloxham@...<mailto:michaeljbloxham@...>> wrote:
                                >
                                > From: Michael Bloxham <michaeljbloxham@...<mailto:michaeljbloxham@...>>
                                >
                                > Subject: Re: [marsdrivemission] Re: Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                                > To: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com<mailto:marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com>
                                > Date: Wednesday, June 2, 2010, 8:48 AM
                                >
                                >
                                > I have to agree with Jordan here on the idea of focusing on the "Drive" rather than the "Mars". We should be selling a vision: Why we should go as well as the how.
                                >
                                > It's funny but I've been spending a great deal of my time lately engaging with members of the growing eco-conscious community. There is definitely a growing grass-roots sense of the need for change as far as economic and political thinking is concerned. Naturally, this reminds me of the originial sense of romance that Zubrins tried to instill with the idea of Mars being the new 'frontier', and the opportunities for redevelopment and ingenuity that such 'frontierism' allows. I wonder whether there is an opportunity here for us to make the idea of Mars relevant to the concerns of this huge and fast-growing group of people.
                                >
                                > At the same time, I find myself banging my head against the wall in frustration in consideration of more immediate matters: I just can't help but think that we're missing out on some huge opportunities right now.
                                >
                                > For example, now that CxP is effectively dead, the fight for a shuttle-derived HLLV is at a critical stage. I wonder whether we could throw together a technically practical humans-to-mars architecture (which could be DRM2.5 derived), which utilizes SDLV-equivalent performance, in quick enough time to be able to present it as a concept to show how valuable such an HLLV is, and how it can be used, in a real practical sense, toward the development of a humans-to-mars architecture.
                                >
                                > I see this as being of absolutely crucial importance: The cost of developing HLLV capability from shuttle infrastructure sooner rather than later (or likely not at all) needs proper justification in terms of mission: If it can't be shown that a practical humans-to-mars architecture can be evolved from SDLV capabilities then the likelihood of such an HLLV system being developed goes down quite significantly, IMHO. But if it can be shown that an SDLV is sufficient.. . Is it possible that we could influence the trade-space somehow? I think it's possible. But we would have to be quick!
                                >
                                > - Mike
                                >
                                > --- On Tue, 1/6/10, Jordan P. <unknown_target01@ yahoo.com<http://yahoo.com>> wrote:
                                >
                                > From: Jordan P. <unknown_target01@ yahoo.com<http://yahoo.com>>
                                > Subject: Re: [marsdrivemission] Re: Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                                > To: marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com
                                > Received: Tuesday, 1 June, 2010, 4:55 PM
                                >
                                > Just to throw in something from someone who has been constantly getting e-mails regarding misson designs, plans, etc, in his email for the past several months...
                                > Whenever I see the [marsdrivemission] tag followed by some question about the stage 2 boosters or the LOX intakes or whatnot, I have to ask the question; why? Why bother with planning anything beyond baby steps at this point, when you don't even have a market to sell to? I read through Frank's message, and he's said he wants to do something that I think I mentioned a year or two ago: focus on profitable ventures with Earth applications, stop focusing on different mission design plans to get from here to Mars, because you never will. We have the technology and we have the knowledge to go to another solar body - we did it about 40 years back. The thing that never came out of Apollo, and the subsequent obsession with landing on other solar bodies, is what is the point of it? So I say again; MarsDrive needs to stop focusing on the Mars and start focusing on the Drive. Get together all those smart minds you have developing answers to problems we're 30 years away from facing, and start figuring out how to apply space to Earth based issues, from global warming, to food and water starvation, to clean power generation. Then you will have a market, because those issues are what's in demand right now.
                                > If MD or anyone else keeps focusing on the "We need to design a way to go to space and then present it to companies with money to fund it for us!" then they will all fail. Focus on low-cost, low-budget, way out of the ballpark ideas for assisting our current needs, and you will not only have the infrastructure, credit, and manpower thirty years from now to actually go to Mars permanently, but you'll accomplish Frank's stated goal of R+D for a Mars mission while you're making real money.
                                > Yes I have ideas, no they're not what MD is focusing on right now, and yes I believe if we follow at least some of them we'd have a real shot. Otherwise the MD mission will stay on the Internet and cycling around and around in endless Mars planning discussions.
                                >
                                > Cheers.
                                >
                                > --- On Tue, 6/1/10, frank_stratford <frank_stratford@ yahoo.com<http://yahoo.com>> wrote:
                                >
                                > From: frank_stratford <frank_stratford@ yahoo.com<http://yahoo.com>>
                                > Subject: [marsdrivemission] Re: Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                                > To: marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com
                                > Date: Tuesday, June 1, 2010, 7:11 PM
                                >
                                > If I remember correctly Dave we decided upon 2.5 from a particular philosophy, and that philosophy has always remained the same with Marsdrive- "What is the most realistic path forward given technical, financial and political hurdles".
                                >
                                > This is also why Falcon 9 was considered along the same lines (as it is a rocket in development now). We have never veered off that path. The discussions on mobile habs etc were useful, but with such a risk averse culture as we have today, we have to design for this whether we like it or not.
                                >
                                > You may be right in saying 2.5 is not the way to go, but in keeping with our guiding philosophy, what other LV system is realistically on the horizon that we can design around? I don't see any others at this stage. We will never interest "players in a consortium" with unrealistic designs based on completely new LV systems, not when we haven't addressed some of the major issues yet like a working EDL concept, radiation protection that we can bank on, life support that is believeable, etc
                                >
                                > So in keeping with our philosophy can I suggest the following way forward-
                                >
                                > 1. List out all the things we don't like about 2.5 now
                                > 2. See if we can modify those within the constraints of that LV faring etc
                                > 3. List out what improvements we would like to make/could be made
                                > 4. Publish a design after this for peer review
                                > 5. Hold consortium conference at this point
                                >
                                > If the Atlas development path takes a dive, we may have to switch to Falcon 9 H, but that is not my doing Dave, it is just the way this game is played. It is ever changing. But I think if we keep to our guiding philosophy, we won't go wrong.
                                >
                                > We do need to keep our eye on certain areas, and the biggest I think is Mars EDL concepts. The better ours is, the more seriously our design will be taken. This part could indeed be a major point of difference with our design if we created some detail around it. I'm not saying we will get it right here, but we do need to show that we are on the cutting edge of Mars design thinking, and ignoring this aspect is ignoring the elephant in the room.
                                >
                                > The same applies to radiation protection and life support. In a risk averse culture these are the areas that will win us support- if we address them sufficiently, and your work in ISRU is extremely helpful along these lines Dave.
                                >
                                > So I have laid out a way forward here Dave and everyone,and to some extent I do think you are on this path already, so by all means continue to these goals. If you want to set timelines and deadlines to all this you can, but we will need the resources to meet such deadlines (which is why I left it open at this time).
                                >
                                > --- In marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com, "David" <davidgooding16@ ...> wrote:
                                > >
                                > > Frank,
                                > >
                                > > It sounds like good sense to me too.
                                > >
                                > > In terms of where we're going here with the mission design effort, it sounds like you want us to develop one (or more!) mission designs.
                                > >
                                > > Previously you indicated/implied you wanted a mission design around a Falcon 9 heavy (i.e. in small chunks). However, others more knowledgable than me suggested that this was not possible. So, in the absence of anything else, we dusted off DRM 2.5 and started looking at that again. Is that how you want us to proceed here on the mission design group?
                                > >
                                > > Frank, I feel that if we're going to get anywhere with the mission design we need some leadership here.
                                > >
                                > > At the moment I feel I'm just fumbling around in the dark. I've been looking at the DRM 2.5 ISRU process but I'm not sure if (1) DRM 2.5 is the right way to go or (2) if I'm doing the right thing anyway.
                                > >
                                > > Who's in charge here? With some strong direction I do feel we might actually get somewhere with a mission design. I could probably find a number of good competent engineers prepared to do some work on this, but I doubt if they could be persuaded to give up their free time unless they could see this going somewhere. But, like me, they wouldn't be space mission design experts, they'd need a framework to work within and some hands-on direction. At the moment I don't see this.
                                > >
                                > > Help!
                                > >
                                > > Dave G
                                > >
                                > > --- In marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com, Darren Oliveiro-Priestnall <darrenop@> wrote:
                                > > >
                                > > > Well that all sounds like good sense to me.
                                > > > Consortiums built in this way aren't new of course, in other sectors its very common for the main players to form consortiums to jointly develop standards and shared base technologies to further the sector while giving an early lead to the companies involved with the consortium.
                                > > > A lot of money goes into running these consortiums and furthering their goals but the driving force is ultimately profit for those companies that are involved.
                                > > >
                                > > > And as you point out, ultimately it's applying space based technologies to solve Earth based problems that often underpins these endeavours.
                                > > > In the UK there are many government backed incubators for just this. Down the road from my office theres a new incubator being set up by ESA with a very large government cash investment for building and running the new centre while the whole purpose of this incubator is for ESA to work with non-space based companies, especially startup's and SME's to transfer knowledge and newly developed technologies away from ESA and into these companies, ultimately encouraging startups and SME's to create new Earth based products from these large government backed space investments.
                                > > >
                                > > > On a slightly unrelated note, if looking for investment for specific research projects or just looking to identify potential partners, a few good places to start are below.
                                > > >
                                > > > http://cordis. europa.eu/ fp7/understand_ en.html<http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/understand_en.html>
                                > > > https://ktn. innovateuk. org/web/space<https://ktn.innovateuk.org/web/space>
                                > > > http://iap.esa. int/iap-themes<http://iap.esa.int/iap-themes>
                                > > > http://www.fp7- space.eu/ fp7-space- info-2.phtm<http://www.fp7-space.eu/fp7-space-info-2.phtm>
                                > > > http://www.meetup. com/Space- Entrepreneurs/<http://www.meetup.com/Space-Entrepreneurs/>
                                > > >
                                > > > Darren
                                > > >
                                > > > From: marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of frank_stratford
                                > > > Sent: 01 June 2010 2:51 AM
                                > > > To: marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com
                                > > > Subject: [marsdrivemission] Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > > I posted this in our forums today guys, basically as a way forward for us. For mission design the outcome is positive as a peer reviewed design (or design of individual "chunks"- as David has been studying) can serve this goal as well.
                                > > >
                                > > > I was having some discussions with one of our advisors recently (Brian Enke) and it was great to get some positive feedback on my consortium ideas. He has arranged for Robert Zubrin to give me a call soon as well as we think we may be onto something now in the effort to get humans to Mars.
                                > > >
                                > > > I knew that there were many holes in my consortium idea but it wasn't until someone pointed them out in a balanced "non flame" manner that I started to see those areas. So I will start with an outline/plan and explain it from there-
                                > > >
                                > > > 1. Mars and space advocates organize a "consortium conference" to bring together the potential players for such a consortium- Boeing, Lockheed, SpaceX, etc etc.
                                > > > 2. Unlike my previous proposal for them to get to work straight away on a Mars mission this time we would be getting them to form a consortium to advance near term earth relevant technologies in line with human space exploration needs. In short- develop with their combined resources many technologies needed for Mars in a much faster way than the current speed of R&D.
                                > > >
                                > > > This means that profits are the goal in the immediate and near term and it keeps investors happy because it can sink its teeth into some "already developing" ideas in various areas.
                                > > >
                                > > > I know that almost all space companies around today are servicing real market needs here on earth with real applications for people on earth and it is the only way they can make any money.
                                > > >
                                > > > To ask such companies to start suddenly investing in an idea (humans to Mars) that has no defined market (governments are not fully committed yet) was short sighted and unrealistic of me so I'm changing that.
                                > > >
                                > > > The problem with governments is that they are very risk averse and when it comes to humans to Mars the risks are very high. So if the consortium can remove some of these risk areas, or at least show how they can be removed (and governments do the heavy lifting), governments would start to show more interest.
                                > > >
                                > > > But areas like life support, radiation protection, EDL and energy production can all have earth based spin offs that will give profits to companies here and now, and the beauty of a consortium is that together they could hit their targets more quickly than on their own.(as they are today)
                                > > >
                                > > > I have no doubt that space companies want governments to go to Mars as they will get the contracts, but in the meantime, something more than theories must be produced to change the stance of governments to this whole idea.
                                > > >
                                > > > So what IS realistic?
                                > > >
                                > > > That we can get these companies together to begin talking about ways they can produce technologies that will bring them profits here and now, but give them the humans to Mars program as the central goal/focus.
                                > > >
                                > > > This can also include R&D into cheap space access tech as well as the benefits from that are obvious.
                                > > >
                                > > > If we had 2 or 3 peer reviewed humans to Mars designs for them to coalesce around, this would be needed as no focus will result in no outcomes.
                                > > >
                                > > > For example- reliable food supplies and production- good for earth here and now but also vital to crew health and safety- one of those "risk" areas governments worry about. If the consortium could patent and put together something in this area the applications are obvious.
                                > > >
                                > > > The same with EDL- applications for military use are obvious and far more likely to be invested in by governments than pure space exploration (sadly).
                                > > >
                                > > > Radiation shielding techs will also have immediate applications for earth. There are many areas like this.
                                > > >
                                > > > As advocates we can and do organize conferences every year with representatives from space companies and space agencies. So we can do this. We can get them in a room discussing a way forward for Mars via immediate profits now.
                                > > >
                                > > > But we would have to have some very clearly defined areas for them to sink their collective teeth into and several proposals would be good to start it off. Proposals for individual pieces of tech or systems that can have dual use on Earth and Mars.
                                > > >
                                > > > My mistake was to expect these companies to invest in a "maybe" a "build it and they will come" assumption, but I was wrong. With immediate profits as the focus I am certain that we can begin to make real progress towards humans to Mars because right now that is the only way any space company is operating.The power of a consortium is that together they can advance R&D and profits more quickly than on their own.
                                > > >
                                > > > I think this can be done, that it is in line with current realities in how this sector gains investment- based on serving real market needs (but with dual applications) .
                                > > >
                                > > > The difference with a consortium is the sheer resources brought to bear on these R&D areas versus the sporadic and slow go it alone approach we have today.
                                > > >
                                > > > Plus we already have one consortium- ULA- United Launch Alliance, so it is not an idea these companies are foreign to.
                                > > >
                                > > > If these companies want a committment from governments on humans to mars, but they don't want to lose money to get this committment then it's time they got together and figured out some areas they could advance as a spark for governments to "get interested" in Mars. The part we play as advocates is to organize this effort and "drive" it from behind seeing we are the ones with the vision and passion for the future of humanity in space. If not us then who?
                                > > >
                                > > > So the question is, can we make a compelling enough case to these companies to "get them interested"?
                                > > >
                                > >
                                >
                              • frank_stratford
                                I had some discussions with Jordan a little while back and we were both expressing the realization that practical solutions are needed to advance our goals.
                                Message 15 of 27 , Jun 3, 2010
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  I had some discussions with Jordan a little while back and we were both expressing the realization that practical solutions are needed to advance our goals. This is what we agreed upon.

                                  I think we all agree on this point. The one area that has much skepticism from Jordan (and about 99% of the world) is "where" does a Mars mission fit in for relevance? Zubrin has done some great work to show us why, as I have also developed my own thoughts, and we agree that space is a vast new frontier full of untapped potential.

                                  But the problem is, and always has been, we have to work within the constraints of current political and financial priorities. None of those include Mars, and now, not even manned programs are getting much support.

                                  So I can understand the view that it seems irrelevant, but I can also understand the view that giving up on it(humans to Mars) is not what some want to do.

                                  There is a middle path.

                                  The one area that I focus on as you know most of all is funding for this, and I have studied what works and what doesn't work for many years now. I know that to advance our (or any other design) will at some point require more than an online discussion format. Resources will be needed.

                                  That's where Jordan and others I speak to come in. He and others (including myself) are simply proposing that we look to the financial side of things and support efforts in this area. The consortium no doubt will have many R&D ideas of various scales, but for now it would be great if we had some initial revenue generating ideas to give us the financial strength needed to take all the steps we need to take.

                                  I have learned the hard way that if you want money for R&D, a non profit space group is NOT the way to go. Many non profit space groups would agree with me. So I am proposing that we change our ways and put together some business ideas that will support our aims, no matter how non space or non Mars they may be. We need to be financially strong on our own. So anyone who is willing to be part of this effort please let me know, as we will be putting together a small and selected group of people to start the "profit" or business side of MarsDrive, something long overdue(a completely independent entity). These businesses will operate just like any normal business too- if you work in it, you will share in the profits. The difference is, we can control where the money goes, and some will go to consortium building, some to better ideas and designs, etc. Send me an email if you are interested.

                                  As to work on the design, I have never said to abandon it. Right now, no one is working on these sorts of designs. To create that "point of focus" for a consortium we do need something, and this is an excellent future looking project which can bring out many technological developments and revenue streams.I mean look at the CERN project currently in Europe trying to crack the secrets of the universe but with no certain outcomes. With Mars it is the same, there will be obvious benefits, and not so obvious benefits. We can't abandon it because it is "irrelevant" today. In 50 years it won't be, but that 50 years will remain 50 years if we don't push it along now.

                                  Apollo had one major side effect we need to remember- It inspired a generation of engineers and scientists to create the modern world of technology we enjoy today. You can try to dispute this, but I have researched this issue and it does stand up. You can be as cynical as you like, but the fact remains- something as risky and "crazy" as sending men to a dead rock in space inspired the modern world to advance in so many ways.

                                  Mars will have a similar effect in the 21st century, if we can achieve it. It truly is a history making event we are talking about. Let's not forget that.

                                  So for us, for now the direction should be clear-

                                  1. Consortium and business avenue to be started- those who want to join can.
                                  2. The design moves forward
                                  3. Assumptions and goals need to be set in stone now from our side
                                  4. DRM 2.5 needs to be examined and modified where it needs it- or abandoned, but we need a decision on this. My view is that with some modifying it can serve as one of maybe 2 or 3 good designs we can produce.

                                  --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, "David" <davidgooding16@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Hi,
                                  >
                                  > Darren has very clearly articulated what are precisely my views, too, and also, I am sure, the views of many others.
                                  >
                                  > I, and I am sure many others, are here precisely because we want to see humanity extend its reach beyond Earth to Mars. That must always be our end objective.
                                  >
                                  > The means to get to that end are of course up for debate - the problem is that we haven't yet found a means to that end that actually works. I am happy to see debate here on how best to acheive that end result, so long as we don't abandon that end objective of actually expanding humanity's reach beyond Earth.
                                  >
                                  > However, if all we do is solve some of the many problems that face a manned Mars mission, even in a small way, we can at least feel that we've done our bit and progressed one more small step on that long at difficult path. And that's more than many can say they've acheived.
                                  >
                                  > If we develop a robust and realistic DRM, that provides a convincing and detailed way to get to Mars that shows a route through, and solutions to, the multitude of technical problems that currently block the path, then that is a considerable acheivement. This would be a real step on the way to Mars even if the DRM in the form that we have defined it is not in itself implemented.
                                  >
                                  > Further, if by doing this, we can reach out to a wider audience, raise public awareness of the feasibility of reaching Mars, and capture the imagination with a realistic and feasible mission, that will be another very significant step.
                                  >
                                  > This is certainly feasible. People here may criticize Zubrin's Mars Direct - but it was his book "The Case for Mars" which I read, by chance, which motivated me and which I am sure has motivated many, many others. By doing this he pushed Mars up the agenda - perhaps not far enough, but enough that government space agencies took Mars seriously. By doing this he did more than many others have managed. If we, collectively, can give things another push like that, we might, just might, get to see a man on Mars in our lifetimes.
                                  >
                                  > Here in the mission design team our role is to develop a mission design (what else can it be?). MarsDrive as a wider organisation may push other avenues as well. But here, in the mission design team, let's get a credible mission together, attempt to find ways through the various technical obstacles, flesh out some details, map out the forward development route and so on.
                                  >
                                  > At the moment all we have is DRM 2.5. Maybe you like it, maybe you don't. If it needs changing, lets change it.
                                  >
                                  > This means actually doing some work. We might not all be Mars mission design experts - I'm certainly not - but then who has successfully designed Mars missions? Nobody has. Nobody ever designed a manned Mars mission that actually got there. And a lot of what needs doing right now does not, in my view, require enormous amounts of detailed technical expertise (that comes later).
                                  >
                                  > I previously suggested a number of specific tasks that could be undertaken right now, and probably most of us here would probably be capable of undertaking one or more of these.
                                  >
                                  > Nobody significantly disagreed with my initial list of things to do. People offered to pick up several of these things and run with them.
                                  >
                                  > I picked up ISRU, pretty much at random, just because it was there, there was very little detail in the DRM, and nobody else seemed to want to look at it. I'm not a chemist or chemical engineer - I have a physics degree and I work as an engineer - but I felt I could at least track down papers on the subject, review the current state of knowledge and lay out in a summary document roughly what the options were and the various pros and cons, so that we collectively could decide if what the current DRM specifies for ISRU is the right way, or not, and how we might want to change it. My report will be posted here within 24 hours - I'm doing final checks and corrections today. I'm quite happy to have it criticised, if it's rubbish, say so. We can bin it if it's no good - there's nothing lost except a bit of my time.
                                  >
                                  > Others said that they would look at some of the other items (I won't name them here!). These included the physiological things that Frank is concerned about; radiation protection, zero-g. And other items - the inflatable module in the DRM, crew safety (including a preliminary hazard analysis), etc. How are these getting on? Is anybody still looking at these things?
                                  >
                                  > If we can move forward with the mission design, we might actually be able to attract more people to us to help.
                                  >
                                  > Please, if this is not the right way to move forward, please say so. If it is the right way, then please, please, have a go, pick an aspect that needs further detail in the DRM, research the subject, and do your best. There's nothing lost by trying - but we won't get anything done if we don't have a go. And those who do know something about designing space missions - please help those of us who don't!
                                  >
                                  > Dave G
                                  >
                                  > PS - Sorry for the long message but I just had to get that off my chest!
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, Darren Oliveiro-Priestnall <darrenop@> wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > > Hi,
                                  > > I don't really see how MarsDrive can exist without having Mars central to the agenda.
                                  > > That's not to say Mars is everything but it has to remain the focus for MarsDrive simply because that's why it was founded and what so many members are interested in and looking to support.
                                  > >
                                  > > Having said that I support a number of groups including the Planetary Society, BIS, UK Rocketry Association, Star Chaser, several groups focussed on Astrophysics research and public education as well as a number of space sector business groups.
                                  > > Each of these have different central goals which distinguish them, all worthy and of importance and all which impact on each other in a range of ways.
                                  > >
                                  > > I do think MarsDrive needs to shake off some cobwebs and return to some grass root principles but to move away from Mars as being central would be a mistake in my personal opinion.
                                  > > The DRM is important and possibly needs more focus. There's clearly a lot of interest and skill around the DRM which probably needs to be focussed more effectively to turn the DRM into something more concrete and complete.
                                  > > We also need to revisit public awareness programs because if MarsDrive isn't striving to raise public awareness and interest then what's the point of MarsDrive? As far as I can tell, MarsDrive was founded to educate and raise public awareness but I can't remember the last big campaign or effective strategy to get people interested.
                                  > > MarsDrive EXPO I feel is also of real importance or if not then working to get stands at other major Expo events. We have members around the world so we should design a program we can present at different events and expo's to get the name MarsDrive and the idea of going to Mars out there.
                                  > > This consortium idea is important in the same way as the DRM is important, it's working towards practical solutions to the problems with going to Mars.
                                  > > Then there are countless other ideas from campaigns and stunts to get people thinking about Mars, I'm thinking of naming a model rocket MarsDrive DRM or something just to try to get some free local press for MarsDrive. If people see a rocket named MarsDrive and enjoy the experience then maybe they'll look further and get inspired to join MarsDrive. Small steps but all about public awareness.
                                  > >
                                  > > That's just my thoughts at least. With NASA in its current condition, groups like MarsDrive need to be working harder in all these areas to keep the goals of all its members and its founding principles alive.
                                  > > Darren
                                  > >
                                  > > From: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com [mailto:marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Brian Enke
                                  > > Sent: 03 June 2010 6:22 PM
                                  > > To: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com
                                  > > Subject: Re: [marsdrivemission] Re: Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > Hi Jordan -
                                  > >
                                  > > Always appreciate hearing new viewpoints! If you don't like the focus on Mars, my best suggestion is to get more involved with one of the non-Mars-focused groups, like NSS or the Planetary Society. You'll find more like-minded people there... and that's one reason why multiple organizations exist, after all.
                                  > >
                                  > > By the way, try not to be so pessimistic about public relevance of Mars. Many good reasons for going to Mars DO exist already... and different people latch onto different reasons. It's fine if we come up with more (new) reasons that more (new) people can latch onto... so I don't want to discourage you from thinking in this direction (if that's your intent)...
                                  > >
                                  > > To answer your question, I'm squarely in the "that humanity go to Mars" camp... but I don't follow your later reasoning as to why this question matters w.r.t. what MarsDrive should - or shouldn't - be working on.
                                  > >
                                  > > Cheers,
                                  > >
                                  > > - Brian
                                  > >
                                  > > On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Jordan P. <unknown_target01@<mailto:unknown_target01@>> wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > > Er, sorry Michael but that's not what I meant. What you're proposing is we (yet again) start developing another launch architecture and hope that some big corporation jumps on it and gives us money instead of just doing it themselves.
                                  > > Sorry to be blunt, but you're missing the point of what I said; I didn't mean for us to start finding ways to make Mars relevant, I was saying find a way to make space relevant. There is no reason to go to Mars right now. Face it, there is absolutely, positively, unequivocal no way that Mars is anywhere near anyone's list of priorities right now, what with global warming, political crises, economic crises, etc - it's just not on the table. Furthermore, trying to develop a human to Mars plan and somehow making it seem "relevant" to the (really not grassroots at all) eco-concious movement (I will say it again, it is NOT grassroots, it is definitely mainstream at this point) will only end up with another two years of round table discussion on all the various idiosyncratic technicalities of various booster and launch systems. In short, it'll put us right back where we started.
                                  > >
                                  > > What I am really saying is, or rather, asking everyone in Mars Drive to do is to ask themselves this question:
                                  > >
                                  > > "What is more important? That humanity go to Mars, or that I go to Mars?"
                                  > >
                                  > > ...because if your answer is yourself, then yes, the whole "we will plan our own Mars mission so that we can go and don't have to rely on the government" ideology is what would follow that train of thought - ignoring all the realities of that train of thought. If your answer is humanity, then you would be willing to put aside Mars mission planning, discussions on the best way to get to Mars, the best way to live on Mars, the best way to get funds for our mission to Mars, and start focusing on "What can we do to lay the groundwork for someone to go to Mars". You might not go. I might not go. But the important result is that humanity goes, and it's because of your efforts.
                                  > >
                                  > > This obsession with Mars is what's killing any chance MarsDrive has, in my opinion. Right now is the absolute best time to propose space as an answer to the world's current problems, because people are willing to pay for almost any idea. We are at a crossroads in history and technology - there are so many options on the table right now, it's a free for all as to who will end up winning and become the dominant player over the next 100 years. If any of you really truly want to go to Mars, you should see this opportunity and take it, and not squander it on endless mission planning debates.
                                  > >
                                  > > --- On Wed, 6/2/10, Michael Bloxham <michaeljbloxham@<mailto:michaeljbloxham@>> wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > > From: Michael Bloxham <michaeljbloxham@<mailto:michaeljbloxham@>>
                                  > >
                                  > > Subject: Re: [marsdrivemission] Re: Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                                  > > To: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com<mailto:marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com>
                                  > > Date: Wednesday, June 2, 2010, 8:48 AM
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > I have to agree with Jordan here on the idea of focusing on the "Drive" rather than the "Mars". We should be selling a vision: Why we should go as well as the how.
                                  > >
                                  > > It's funny but I've been spending a great deal of my time lately engaging with members of the growing eco-conscious community. There is definitely a growing grass-roots sense of the need for change as far as economic and political thinking is concerned. Naturally, this reminds me of the originial sense of romance that Zubrins tried to instill with the idea of Mars being the new 'frontier', and the opportunities for redevelopment and ingenuity that such 'frontierism' allows. I wonder whether there is an opportunity here for us to make the idea of Mars relevant to the concerns of this huge and fast-growing group of people.
                                  > >
                                  > > At the same time, I find myself banging my head against the wall in frustration in consideration of more immediate matters: I just can't help but think that we're missing out on some huge opportunities right now.
                                  > >
                                  > > For example, now that CxP is effectively dead, the fight for a shuttle-derived HLLV is at a critical stage. I wonder whether we could throw together a technically practical humans-to-mars architecture (which could be DRM2.5 derived), which utilizes SDLV-equivalent performance, in quick enough time to be able to present it as a concept to show how valuable such an HLLV is, and how it can be used, in a real practical sense, toward the development of a humans-to-mars architecture.
                                  > >
                                  > > I see this as being of absolutely crucial importance: The cost of developing HLLV capability from shuttle infrastructure sooner rather than later (or likely not at all) needs proper justification in terms of mission: If it can't be shown that a practical humans-to-mars architecture can be evolved from SDLV capabilities then the likelihood of such an HLLV system being developed goes down quite significantly, IMHO. But if it can be shown that an SDLV is sufficient.. . Is it possible that we could influence the trade-space somehow? I think it's possible. But we would have to be quick!
                                  > >
                                  > > - Mike
                                  > >
                                  > > --- On Tue, 1/6/10, Jordan P. <unknown_target01@ yahoo.com<http://yahoo.com>> wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > > From: Jordan P. <unknown_target01@ yahoo.com<http://yahoo.com>>
                                  > > Subject: Re: [marsdrivemission] Re: Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                                  > > To: marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com
                                  > > Received: Tuesday, 1 June, 2010, 4:55 PM
                                  > >
                                  > > Just to throw in something from someone who has been constantly getting e-mails regarding misson designs, plans, etc, in his email for the past several months...
                                  > > Whenever I see the [marsdrivemission] tag followed by some question about the stage 2 boosters or the LOX intakes or whatnot, I have to ask the question; why? Why bother with planning anything beyond baby steps at this point, when you don't even have a market to sell to? I read through Frank's message, and he's said he wants to do something that I think I mentioned a year or two ago: focus on profitable ventures with Earth applications, stop focusing on different mission design plans to get from here to Mars, because you never will. We have the technology and we have the knowledge to go to another solar body - we did it about 40 years back. The thing that never came out of Apollo, and the subsequent obsession with landing on other solar bodies, is what is the point of it? So I say again; MarsDrive needs to stop focusing on the Mars and start focusing on the Drive. Get together all those smart minds you have developing answers to problems we're 30 years away from facing, and start figuring out how to apply space to Earth based issues, from global warming, to food and water starvation, to clean power generation. Then you will have a market, because those issues are what's in demand right now.
                                  > > If MD or anyone else keeps focusing on the "We need to design a way to go to space and then present it to companies with money to fund it for us!" then they will all fail. Focus on low-cost, low-budget, way out of the ballpark ideas for assisting our current needs, and you will not only have the infrastructure, credit, and manpower thirty years from now to actually go to Mars permanently, but you'll accomplish Frank's stated goal of R+D for a Mars mission while you're making real money.
                                  > > Yes I have ideas, no they're not what MD is focusing on right now, and yes I believe if we follow at least some of them we'd have a real shot. Otherwise the MD mission will stay on the Internet and cycling around and around in endless Mars planning discussions.
                                  > >
                                  > > Cheers.
                                  > >
                                  > > --- On Tue, 6/1/10, frank_stratford <frank_stratford@ yahoo.com<http://yahoo.com>> wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > > From: frank_stratford <frank_stratford@ yahoo.com<http://yahoo.com>>
                                  > > Subject: [marsdrivemission] Re: Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                                  > > To: marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com
                                  > > Date: Tuesday, June 1, 2010, 7:11 PM
                                  > >
                                  > > If I remember correctly Dave we decided upon 2.5 from a particular philosophy, and that philosophy has always remained the same with Marsdrive- "What is the most realistic path forward given technical, financial and political hurdles".
                                  > >
                                  > > This is also why Falcon 9 was considered along the same lines (as it is a rocket in development now). We have never veered off that path. The discussions on mobile habs etc were useful, but with such a risk averse culture as we have today, we have to design for this whether we like it or not.
                                  > >
                                  > > You may be right in saying 2.5 is not the way to go, but in keeping with our guiding philosophy, what other LV system is realistically on the horizon that we can design around? I don't see any others at this stage. We will never interest "players in a consortium" with unrealistic designs based on completely new LV systems, not when we haven't addressed some of the major issues yet like a working EDL concept, radiation protection that we can bank on, life support that is believeable, etc
                                  > >
                                  > > So in keeping with our philosophy can I suggest the following way forward-
                                  > >
                                  > > 1. List out all the things we don't like about 2.5 now
                                  > > 2. See if we can modify those within the constraints of that LV faring etc
                                  > > 3. List out what improvements we would like to make/could be made
                                  > > 4. Publish a design after this for peer review
                                  > > 5. Hold consortium conference at this point
                                  > >
                                  > > If the Atlas development path takes a dive, we may have to switch to Falcon 9 H, but that is not my doing Dave, it is just the way this game is played. It is ever changing. But I think if we keep to our guiding philosophy, we won't go wrong.
                                  > >
                                  > > We do need to keep our eye on certain areas, and the biggest I think is Mars EDL concepts. The better ours is, the more seriously our design will be taken. This part could indeed be a major point of difference with our design if we created some detail around it. I'm not saying we will get it right here, but we do need to show that we are on the cutting edge of Mars design thinking, and ignoring this aspect is ignoring the elephant in the room.
                                  > >
                                  > > The same applies to radiation protection and life support. In a risk averse culture these are the areas that will win us support- if we address them sufficiently, and your work in ISRU is extremely helpful along these lines Dave.
                                  > >
                                  > > So I have laid out a way forward here Dave and everyone,and to some extent I do think you are on this path already, so by all means continue to these goals. If you want to set timelines and deadlines to all this you can, but we will need the resources to meet such deadlines (which is why I left it open at this time).
                                  > >
                                  > > --- In marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com, "David" <davidgooding16@ ...> wrote:
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Frank,
                                  > > >
                                  > > > It sounds like good sense to me too.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > In terms of where we're going here with the mission design effort, it sounds like you want us to develop one (or more!) mission designs.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Previously you indicated/implied you wanted a mission design around a Falcon 9 heavy (i.e. in small chunks). However, others more knowledgable than me suggested that this was not possible. So, in the absence of anything else, we dusted off DRM 2.5 and started looking at that again. Is that how you want us to proceed here on the mission design group?
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Frank, I feel that if we're going to get anywhere with the mission design we need some leadership here.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > At the moment I feel I'm just fumbling around in the dark. I've been looking at the DRM 2.5 ISRU process but I'm not sure if (1) DRM 2.5 is the right way to go or (2) if I'm doing the right thing anyway.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Who's in charge here? With some strong direction I do feel we might actually get somewhere with a mission design. I could probably find a number of good competent engineers prepared to do some work on this, but I doubt if they could be persuaded to give up their free time unless they could see this going somewhere. But, like me, they wouldn't be space mission design experts, they'd need a framework to work within and some hands-on direction. At the moment I don't see this.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Help!
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Dave G
                                  > > >
                                  > > > --- In marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com, Darren Oliveiro-Priestnall <darrenop@> wrote:
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > Well that all sounds like good sense to me.
                                  > > > > Consortiums built in this way aren't new of course, in other sectors its very common for the main players to form consortiums to jointly develop standards and shared base technologies to further the sector while giving an early lead to the companies involved with the consortium.
                                  > > > > A lot of money goes into running these consortiums and furthering their goals but the driving force is ultimately profit for those companies that are involved.
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > And as you point out, ultimately it's applying space based technologies to solve Earth based problems that often underpins these endeavours.
                                  > > > > In the UK there are many government backed incubators for just this. Down the road from my office theres a new incubator being set up by ESA with a very large government cash investment for building and running the new centre while the whole purpose of this incubator is for ESA to work with non-space based companies, especially startup's and SME's to transfer knowledge and newly developed technologies away from ESA and into these companies, ultimately encouraging startups and SME's to create new Earth based products from these large government backed space investments.
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > On a slightly unrelated note, if looking for investment for specific research projects or just looking to identify potential partners, a few good places to start are below.
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > http://cordis. europa.eu/ fp7/understand_ en.html<http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/understand_en.html>
                                  > > > > https://ktn. innovateuk. org/web/space<https://ktn.innovateuk.org/web/space>
                                  > > > > http://iap.esa. int/iap-themes<http://iap.esa.int/iap-themes>
                                  > > > > http://www.fp7- space.eu/ fp7-space- info-2.phtm<http://www.fp7-space.eu/fp7-space-info-2.phtm>
                                  > > > > http://www.meetup. com/Space- Entrepreneurs/<http://www.meetup.com/Space-Entrepreneurs/>
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > Darren
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > From: marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of frank_stratford
                                  > > > > Sent: 01 June 2010 2:51 AM
                                  > > > > To: marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com
                                  > > > > Subject: [marsdrivemission] Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > I posted this in our forums today guys, basically as a way forward for us. For mission design the outcome is positive as a peer reviewed design (or design of individual "chunks"- as David has been studying) can serve this goal as well.
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > I was having some discussions with one of our advisors recently (Brian Enke) and it was great to get some positive feedback on my consortium ideas. He has arranged for Robert Zubrin to give me a call soon as well as we think we may be onto something now in the effort to get humans to Mars.
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > I knew that there were many holes in my consortium idea but it wasn't until someone pointed them out in a balanced "non flame" manner that I started to see those areas. So I will start with an outline/plan and explain it from there-
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > 1. Mars and space advocates organize a "consortium conference" to bring together the potential players for such a consortium- Boeing, Lockheed, SpaceX, etc etc.
                                  > > > > 2. Unlike my previous proposal for them to get to work straight away on a Mars mission this time we would be getting them to form a consortium to advance near term earth relevant technologies in line with human space exploration needs. In short- develop with their combined resources many technologies needed for Mars in a much faster way than the current speed of R&D.
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > This means that profits are the goal in the immediate and near term and it keeps investors happy because it can sink its teeth into some "already developing" ideas in various areas.
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > I know that almost all space companies around today are servicing real market needs here on earth with real applications for people on earth and it is the only way they can make any money.
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > To ask such companies to start suddenly investing in an idea (humans to Mars) that has no defined market (governments are not fully committed yet) was short sighted and unrealistic of me so I'm changing that.
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > The problem with governments is that they are very risk averse and when it comes to humans to Mars the risks are very high. So if the consortium can remove some of these risk areas, or at least show how they can be removed (and governments do the heavy lifting), governments would start to show more interest.
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > But areas like life support, radiation protection, EDL and energy production can all have earth based spin offs that will give profits to companies here and now, and the beauty of a consortium is that together they could hit their targets more quickly than on their own.(as they are today)
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > I have no doubt that space companies want governments to go to Mars as they will get the contracts, but in the meantime, something more than theories must be produced to change the stance of governments to this whole idea.
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > So what IS realistic?
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > That we can get these companies together to begin talking about ways they can produce technologies that will bring them profits here and now, but give them the humans to Mars program as the central goal/focus.
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > This can also include R&D into cheap space access tech as well as the benefits from that are obvious.
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > If we had 2 or 3 peer reviewed humans to Mars designs for them to coalesce around, this would be needed as no focus will result in no outcomes.
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > For example- reliable food supplies and production- good for earth here and now but also vital to crew health and safety- one of those "risk" areas governments worry about. If the consortium could patent and put together something in this area the applications are obvious.
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > The same with EDL- applications for military use are obvious and far more likely to be invested in by governments than pure space exploration (sadly).
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > Radiation shielding techs will also have immediate applications for earth. There are many areas like this.
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > As advocates we can and do organize conferences every year with representatives from space companies and space agencies. So we can do this. We can get them in a room discussing a way forward for Mars via immediate profits now.
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > But we would have to have some very clearly defined areas for them to sink their collective teeth into and several proposals would be good to start it off. Proposals for individual pieces of tech or systems that can have dual use on Earth and Mars.
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > My mistake was to expect these companies to invest in a "maybe" a "build it and they will come" assumption, but I was wrong. With immediate profits as the focus I am certain that we can begin to make real progress towards humans to Mars because right now that is the only way any space company is operating.The power of a consortium is that together they can advance R&D and profits more quickly than on their own.
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > I think this can be done, that it is in line with current realities in how this sector gains investment- based on serving real market needs (but with dual applications) .
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > The difference with a consortium is the sheer resources brought to bear on these R&D areas versus the sporadic and slow go it alone approach we have today.
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > Plus we already have one consortium- ULA- United Launch Alliance, so it is not an idea these companies are foreign to.
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > If these companies want a committment from governments on humans to mars, but they don't want to lose money to get this committment then it's time they got together and figured out some areas they could advance as a spark for governments to "get interested" in Mars. The part we play as advocates is to organize this effort and "drive" it from behind seeing we are the ones with the vision and passion for the future of humanity in space. If not us then who?
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > So the question is, can we make a compelling enough case to these companies to "get them interested"?
                                  > > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                • David
                                  Frank (and others), Regarding possible commercial ventures: I am happy to participate in any way that might be useful - noting that I am in full time
                                  Message 16 of 27 , Jun 6, 2010
                                  View Source
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Frank (and others),

                                    Regarding possible commercial ventures:

                                    I am happy to participate in any way that might be useful - noting that I am in full time employment and live on the other side of the world to you. I have tried to send you an email with my initial thoughts on possible opportunities here.

                                    Regarding Mission Design:

                                    Frank has here (as previously) suggested developing two or three mission designs, of which a (possibly modified) DRM 2.5 could be one.

                                    My suggestion for three mission designs would be to cover a range from cheap/low capability to expensive/high capability. My thoughts would be:

                                    1. A small mission perhaps around the size of the Mars-Oz - crew of 4, limited capability, lowest mass, shortest development time, maximum use of the "off the shelf" equipment etc. Perhaps even a development of the Mars-Oz, given that we have with us Jon Clarke and David Willson, who developed Mars-Oz in the first place.

                                    2. A mid-sized mission - perhaps a developed DRM 2.5 (as we've been trying to do recently)

                                    3. A high capability mission. I really liked what was previously proposed by Ron as "mission plan 2" with a very high degree of surface mobility, allowing estensive exploration over a substantial range (~ 1000 km +)

                                    What do people think? Could we put together a set of objectives for each of these?

                                    My only reservation with proceeding with three designs is that we have recently been struggling to proceed with one.

                                    Regarding commercial ventures to raise funds - I am happy to be part of anything

                                    Regards,

                                    Dave G

                                    --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, "frank_stratford" <frank_stratford@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > I had some discussions with Jordan a little while back and we were both expressing the realization that practical solutions are needed to advance our goals. This is what we agreed upon.
                                    >
                                    > I think we all agree on this point. The one area that has much skepticism from Jordan (and about 99% of the world) is "where" does a Mars mission fit in for relevance? Zubrin has done some great work to show us why, as I have also developed my own thoughts, and we agree that space is a vast new frontier full of untapped potential.
                                    >
                                    > But the problem is, and always has been, we have to work within the constraints of current political and financial priorities. None of those include Mars, and now, not even manned programs are getting much support.
                                    >
                                    > So I can understand the view that it seems irrelevant, but I can also understand the view that giving up on it(humans to Mars) is not what some want to do.
                                    >
                                    > There is a middle path.
                                    >
                                    > The one area that I focus on as you know most of all is funding for this, and I have studied what works and what doesn't work for many years now. I know that to advance our (or any other design) will at some point require more than an online discussion format. Resources will be needed.
                                    >
                                    > That's where Jordan and others I speak to come in. He and others (including myself) are simply proposing that we look to the financial side of things and support efforts in this area. The consortium no doubt will have many R&D ideas of various scales, but for now it would be great if we had some initial revenue generating ideas to give us the financial strength needed to take all the steps we need to take.
                                    >
                                    > I have learned the hard way that if you want money for R&D, a non profit space group is NOT the way to go. Many non profit space groups would agree with me. So I am proposing that we change our ways and put together some business ideas that will support our aims, no matter how non space or non Mars they may be. We need to be financially strong on our own. So anyone who is willing to be part of this effort please let me know, as we will be putting together a small and selected group of people to start the "profit" or business side of MarsDrive, something long overdue(a completely independent entity). These businesses will operate just like any normal business too- if you work in it, you will share in the profits. The difference is, we can control where the money goes, and some will go to consortium building, some to better ideas and designs, etc. Send me an email if you are interested.
                                    >
                                    > As to work on the design, I have never said to abandon it. Right now, no one is working on these sorts of designs. To create that "point of focus" for a consortium we do need something, and this is an excellent future looking project which can bring out many technological developments and revenue streams.I mean look at the CERN project currently in Europe trying to crack the secrets of the universe but with no certain outcomes. With Mars it is the same, there will be obvious benefits, and not so obvious benefits. We can't abandon it because it is "irrelevant" today. In 50 years it won't be, but that 50 years will remain 50 years if we don't push it along now.
                                    >
                                    > Apollo had one major side effect we need to remember- It inspired a generation of engineers and scientists to create the modern world of technology we enjoy today. You can try to dispute this, but I have researched this issue and it does stand up. You can be as cynical as you like, but the fact remains- something as risky and "crazy" as sending men to a dead rock in space inspired the modern world to advance in so many ways.
                                    >
                                    > Mars will have a similar effect in the 21st century, if we can achieve it. It truly is a history making event we are talking about. Let's not forget that.
                                    >
                                    > So for us, for now the direction should be clear-
                                    >
                                    > 1. Consortium and business avenue to be started- those who want to join can.
                                    > 2. The design moves forward
                                    > 3. Assumptions and goals need to be set in stone now from our side
                                    > 4. DRM 2.5 needs to be examined and modified where it needs it- or abandoned, but we need a decision on this. My view is that with some modifying it can serve as one of maybe 2 or 3 good designs we can produce.
                                    >
                                    > --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, "David" <davidgooding16@> wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > Hi,
                                    > >
                                    > > Darren has very clearly articulated what are precisely my views, too, and also, I am sure, the views of many others.
                                    > >
                                    > > I, and I am sure many others, are here precisely because we want to see humanity extend its reach beyond Earth to Mars. That must always be our end objective.
                                    > >
                                    > > The means to get to that end are of course up for debate - the problem is that we haven't yet found a means to that end that actually works. I am happy to see debate here on how best to acheive that end result, so long as we don't abandon that end objective of actually expanding humanity's reach beyond Earth.
                                    > >
                                    > > However, if all we do is solve some of the many problems that face a manned Mars mission, even in a small way, we can at least feel that we've done our bit and progressed one more small step on that long at difficult path. And that's more than many can say they've acheived.
                                    > >
                                    > > If we develop a robust and realistic DRM, that provides a convincing and detailed way to get to Mars that shows a route through, and solutions to, the multitude of technical problems that currently block the path, then that is a considerable acheivement. This would be a real step on the way to Mars even if the DRM in the form that we have defined it is not in itself implemented.
                                    > >
                                    > > Further, if by doing this, we can reach out to a wider audience, raise public awareness of the feasibility of reaching Mars, and capture the imagination with a realistic and feasible mission, that will be another very significant step.
                                    > >
                                    > > This is certainly feasible. People here may criticize Zubrin's Mars Direct - but it was his book "The Case for Mars" which I read, by chance, which motivated me and which I am sure has motivated many, many others. By doing this he pushed Mars up the agenda - perhaps not far enough, but enough that government space agencies took Mars seriously. By doing this he did more than many others have managed. If we, collectively, can give things another push like that, we might, just might, get to see a man on Mars in our lifetimes.
                                    > >
                                    > > Here in the mission design team our role is to develop a mission design (what else can it be?). MarsDrive as a wider organisation may push other avenues as well. But here, in the mission design team, let's get a credible mission together, attempt to find ways through the various technical obstacles, flesh out some details, map out the forward development route and so on.
                                    > >
                                    > > At the moment all we have is DRM 2.5. Maybe you like it, maybe you don't. If it needs changing, lets change it.
                                    > >
                                    > > This means actually doing some work. We might not all be Mars mission design experts - I'm certainly not - but then who has successfully designed Mars missions? Nobody has. Nobody ever designed a manned Mars mission that actually got there. And a lot of what needs doing right now does not, in my view, require enormous amounts of detailed technical expertise (that comes later).
                                    > >
                                    > > I previously suggested a number of specific tasks that could be undertaken right now, and probably most of us here would probably be capable of undertaking one or more of these.
                                    > >
                                    > > Nobody significantly disagreed with my initial list of things to do. People offered to pick up several of these things and run with them.
                                    > >
                                    > > I picked up ISRU, pretty much at random, just because it was there, there was very little detail in the DRM, and nobody else seemed to want to look at it. I'm not a chemist or chemical engineer - I have a physics degree and I work as an engineer - but I felt I could at least track down papers on the subject, review the current state of knowledge and lay out in a summary document roughly what the options were and the various pros and cons, so that we collectively could decide if what the current DRM specifies for ISRU is the right way, or not, and how we might want to change it. My report will be posted here within 24 hours - I'm doing final checks and corrections today. I'm quite happy to have it criticised, if it's rubbish, say so. We can bin it if it's no good - there's nothing lost except a bit of my time.
                                    > >
                                    > > Others said that they would look at some of the other items (I won't name them here!). These included the physiological things that Frank is concerned about; radiation protection, zero-g. And other items - the inflatable module in the DRM, crew safety (including a preliminary hazard analysis), etc. How are these getting on? Is anybody still looking at these things?
                                    > >
                                    > > If we can move forward with the mission design, we might actually be able to attract more people to us to help.
                                    > >
                                    > > Please, if this is not the right way to move forward, please say so. If it is the right way, then please, please, have a go, pick an aspect that needs further detail in the DRM, research the subject, and do your best. There's nothing lost by trying - but we won't get anything done if we don't have a go. And those who do know something about designing space missions - please help those of us who don't!
                                    > >
                                    > > Dave G
                                    > >
                                    > > PS - Sorry for the long message but I just had to get that off my chest!
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, Darren Oliveiro-Priestnall <darrenop@> wrote:
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Hi,
                                    > > > I don't really see how MarsDrive can exist without having Mars central to the agenda.
                                    > > > That's not to say Mars is everything but it has to remain the focus for MarsDrive simply because that's why it was founded and what so many members are interested in and looking to support.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Having said that I support a number of groups including the Planetary Society, BIS, UK Rocketry Association, Star Chaser, several groups focussed on Astrophysics research and public education as well as a number of space sector business groups.
                                    > > > Each of these have different central goals which distinguish them, all worthy and of importance and all which impact on each other in a range of ways.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > I do think MarsDrive needs to shake off some cobwebs and return to some grass root principles but to move away from Mars as being central would be a mistake in my personal opinion.
                                    > > > The DRM is important and possibly needs more focus. There's clearly a lot of interest and skill around the DRM which probably needs to be focussed more effectively to turn the DRM into something more concrete and complete.
                                    > > > We also need to revisit public awareness programs because if MarsDrive isn't striving to raise public awareness and interest then what's the point of MarsDrive? As far as I can tell, MarsDrive was founded to educate and raise public awareness but I can't remember the last big campaign or effective strategy to get people interested.
                                    > > > MarsDrive EXPO I feel is also of real importance or if not then working to get stands at other major Expo events. We have members around the world so we should design a program we can present at different events and expo's to get the name MarsDrive and the idea of going to Mars out there.
                                    > > > This consortium idea is important in the same way as the DRM is important, it's working towards practical solutions to the problems with going to Mars.
                                    > > > Then there are countless other ideas from campaigns and stunts to get people thinking about Mars, I'm thinking of naming a model rocket MarsDrive DRM or something just to try to get some free local press for MarsDrive. If people see a rocket named MarsDrive and enjoy the experience then maybe they'll look further and get inspired to join MarsDrive. Small steps but all about public awareness.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > That's just my thoughts at least. With NASA in its current condition, groups like MarsDrive need to be working harder in all these areas to keep the goals of all its members and its founding principles alive.
                                    > > > Darren
                                    > > >
                                    > > > From: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com [mailto:marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Brian Enke
                                    > > > Sent: 03 June 2010 6:22 PM
                                    > > > To: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com
                                    > > > Subject: Re: [marsdrivemission] Re: Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Hi Jordan -
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Always appreciate hearing new viewpoints! If you don't like the focus on Mars, my best suggestion is to get more involved with one of the non-Mars-focused groups, like NSS or the Planetary Society. You'll find more like-minded people there... and that's one reason why multiple organizations exist, after all.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > By the way, try not to be so pessimistic about public relevance of Mars. Many good reasons for going to Mars DO exist already... and different people latch onto different reasons. It's fine if we come up with more (new) reasons that more (new) people can latch onto... so I don't want to discourage you from thinking in this direction (if that's your intent)...
                                    > > >
                                    > > > To answer your question, I'm squarely in the "that humanity go to Mars" camp... but I don't follow your later reasoning as to why this question matters w.r.t. what MarsDrive should - or shouldn't - be working on.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Cheers,
                                    > > >
                                    > > > - Brian
                                    > > >
                                    > > > On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Jordan P. <unknown_target01@<mailto:unknown_target01@>> wrote:
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Er, sorry Michael but that's not what I meant. What you're proposing is we (yet again) start developing another launch architecture and hope that some big corporation jumps on it and gives us money instead of just doing it themselves.
                                    > > > Sorry to be blunt, but you're missing the point of what I said; I didn't mean for us to start finding ways to make Mars relevant, I was saying find a way to make space relevant. There is no reason to go to Mars right now. Face it, there is absolutely, positively, unequivocal no way that Mars is anywhere near anyone's list of priorities right now, what with global warming, political crises, economic crises, etc - it's just not on the table. Furthermore, trying to develop a human to Mars plan and somehow making it seem "relevant" to the (really not grassroots at all) eco-concious movement (I will say it again, it is NOT grassroots, it is definitely mainstream at this point) will only end up with another two years of round table discussion on all the various idiosyncratic technicalities of various booster and launch systems. In short, it'll put us right back where we started.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > What I am really saying is, or rather, asking everyone in Mars Drive to do is to ask themselves this question:
                                    > > >
                                    > > > "What is more important? That humanity go to Mars, or that I go to Mars?"
                                    > > >
                                    > > > ...because if your answer is yourself, then yes, the whole "we will plan our own Mars mission so that we can go and don't have to rely on the government" ideology is what would follow that train of thought - ignoring all the realities of that train of thought. If your answer is humanity, then you would be willing to put aside Mars mission planning, discussions on the best way to get to Mars, the best way to live on Mars, the best way to get funds for our mission to Mars, and start focusing on "What can we do to lay the groundwork for someone to go to Mars". You might not go. I might not go. But the important result is that humanity goes, and it's because of your efforts.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > This obsession with Mars is what's killing any chance MarsDrive has, in my opinion. Right now is the absolute best time to propose space as an answer to the world's current problems, because people are willing to pay for almost any idea. We are at a crossroads in history and technology - there are so many options on the table right now, it's a free for all as to who will end up winning and become the dominant player over the next 100 years. If any of you really truly want to go to Mars, you should see this opportunity and take it, and not squander it on endless mission planning debates.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > --- On Wed, 6/2/10, Michael Bloxham <michaeljbloxham@<mailto:michaeljbloxham@>> wrote:
                                    > > >
                                    > > > From: Michael Bloxham <michaeljbloxham@<mailto:michaeljbloxham@>>
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Subject: Re: [marsdrivemission] Re: Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                                    > > > To: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com<mailto:marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com>
                                    > > > Date: Wednesday, June 2, 2010, 8:48 AM
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > > I have to agree with Jordan here on the idea of focusing on the "Drive" rather than the "Mars". We should be selling a vision: Why we should go as well as the how.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > It's funny but I've been spending a great deal of my time lately engaging with members of the growing eco-conscious community. There is definitely a growing grass-roots sense of the need for change as far as economic and political thinking is concerned. Naturally, this reminds me of the originial sense of romance that Zubrins tried to instill with the idea of Mars being the new 'frontier', and the opportunities for redevelopment and ingenuity that such 'frontierism' allows. I wonder whether there is an opportunity here for us to make the idea of Mars relevant to the concerns of this huge and fast-growing group of people.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > At the same time, I find myself banging my head against the wall in frustration in consideration of more immediate matters: I just can't help but think that we're missing out on some huge opportunities right now.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > For example, now that CxP is effectively dead, the fight for a shuttle-derived HLLV is at a critical stage. I wonder whether we could throw together a technically practical humans-to-mars architecture (which could be DRM2.5 derived), which utilizes SDLV-equivalent performance, in quick enough time to be able to present it as a concept to show how valuable such an HLLV is, and how it can be used, in a real practical sense, toward the development of a humans-to-mars architecture.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > I see this as being of absolutely crucial importance: The cost of developing HLLV capability from shuttle infrastructure sooner rather than later (or likely not at all) needs proper justification in terms of mission: If it can't be shown that a practical humans-to-mars architecture can be evolved from SDLV capabilities then the likelihood of such an HLLV system being developed goes down quite significantly, IMHO. But if it can be shown that an SDLV is sufficient.. . Is it possible that we could influence the trade-space somehow? I think it's possible. But we would have to be quick!
                                    > > >
                                    > > > - Mike
                                    > > >
                                    > > > --- On Tue, 1/6/10, Jordan P. <unknown_target01@ yahoo.com<http://yahoo.com>> wrote:
                                    > > >
                                    > > > From: Jordan P. <unknown_target01@ yahoo.com<http://yahoo.com>>
                                    > > > Subject: Re: [marsdrivemission] Re: Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                                    > > > To: marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com
                                    > > > Received: Tuesday, 1 June, 2010, 4:55 PM
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Just to throw in something from someone who has been constantly getting e-mails regarding misson designs, plans, etc, in his email for the past several months...
                                    > > > Whenever I see the [marsdrivemission] tag followed by some question about the stage 2 boosters or the LOX intakes or whatnot, I have to ask the question; why? Why bother with planning anything beyond baby steps at this point, when you don't even have a market to sell to? I read through Frank's message, and he's said he wants to do something that I think I mentioned a year or two ago: focus on profitable ventures with Earth applications, stop focusing on different mission design plans to get from here to Mars, because you never will. We have the technology and we have the knowledge to go to another solar body - we did it about 40 years back. The thing that never came out of Apollo, and the subsequent obsession with landing on other solar bodies, is what is the point of it? So I say again; MarsDrive needs to stop focusing on the Mars and start focusing on the Drive. Get together all those smart minds you have developing answers to problems we're 30 years away from facing, and start figuring out how to apply space to Earth based issues, from global warming, to food and water starvation, to clean power generation. Then you will have a market, because those issues are what's in demand right now.
                                    > > > If MD or anyone else keeps focusing on the "We need to design a way to go to space and then present it to companies with money to fund it for us!" then they will all fail. Focus on low-cost, low-budget, way out of the ballpark ideas for assisting our current needs, and you will not only have the infrastructure, credit, and manpower thirty years from now to actually go to Mars permanently, but you'll accomplish Frank's stated goal of R+D for a Mars mission while you're making real money.
                                    > > > Yes I have ideas, no they're not what MD is focusing on right now, and yes I believe if we follow at least some of them we'd have a real shot. Otherwise the MD mission will stay on the Internet and cycling around and around in endless Mars planning discussions.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Cheers.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > --- On Tue, 6/1/10, frank_stratford <frank_stratford@ yahoo.com<http://yahoo.com>> wrote:
                                    > > >
                                    > > > From: frank_stratford <frank_stratford@ yahoo.com<http://yahoo.com>>
                                    > > > Subject: [marsdrivemission] Re: Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                                    > > > To: marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com
                                    > > > Date: Tuesday, June 1, 2010, 7:11 PM
                                    > > >
                                    > > > If I remember correctly Dave we decided upon 2.5 from a particular philosophy, and that philosophy has always remained the same with Marsdrive- "What is the most realistic path forward given technical, financial and political hurdles".
                                    > > >
                                    > > > This is also why Falcon 9 was considered along the same lines (as it is a rocket in development now). We have never veered off that path. The discussions on mobile habs etc were useful, but with such a risk averse culture as we have today, we have to design for this whether we like it or not.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > You may be right in saying 2.5 is not the way to go, but in keeping with our guiding philosophy, what other LV system is realistically on the horizon that we can design around? I don't see any others at this stage. We will never interest "players in a consortium" with unrealistic designs based on completely new LV systems, not when we haven't addressed some of the major issues yet like a working EDL concept, radiation protection that we can bank on, life support that is believeable, etc
                                    > > >
                                    > > > So in keeping with our philosophy can I suggest the following way forward-
                                    > > >
                                    > > > 1. List out all the things we don't like about 2.5 now
                                    > > > 2. See if we can modify those within the constraints of that LV faring etc
                                    > > > 3. List out what improvements we would like to make/could be made
                                    > > > 4. Publish a design after this for peer review
                                    > > > 5. Hold consortium conference at this point
                                    > > >
                                    > > > If the Atlas development path takes a dive, we may have to switch to Falcon 9 H, but that is not my doing Dave, it is just the way this game is played. It is ever changing. But I think if we keep to our guiding philosophy, we won't go wrong.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > We do need to keep our eye on certain areas, and the biggest I think is Mars EDL concepts. The better ours is, the more seriously our design will be taken. This part could indeed be a major point of difference with our design if we created some detail around it. I'm not saying we will get it right here, but we do need to show that we are on the cutting edge of Mars design thinking, and ignoring this aspect is ignoring the elephant in the room.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > The same applies to radiation protection and life support. In a risk averse culture these are the areas that will win us support- if we address them sufficiently, and your work in ISRU is extremely helpful along these lines Dave.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > So I have laid out a way forward here Dave and everyone,and to some extent I do think you are on this path already, so by all means continue to these goals. If you want to set timelines and deadlines to all this you can, but we will need the resources to meet such deadlines (which is why I left it open at this time).
                                    > > >
                                    > > > --- In marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com, "David" <davidgooding16@ ...> wrote:
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Frank,
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > It sounds like good sense to me too.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > In terms of where we're going here with the mission design effort, it sounds like you want us to develop one (or more!) mission designs.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Previously you indicated/implied you wanted a mission design around a Falcon 9 heavy (i.e. in small chunks). However, others more knowledgable than me suggested that this was not possible. So, in the absence of anything else, we dusted off DRM 2.5 and started looking at that again. Is that how you want us to proceed here on the mission design group?
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Frank, I feel that if we're going to get anywhere with the mission design we need some leadership here.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > At the moment I feel I'm just fumbling around in the dark. I've been looking at the DRM 2.5 ISRU process but I'm not sure if (1) DRM 2.5 is the right way to go or (2) if I'm doing the right thing anyway.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Who's in charge here? With some strong direction I do feel we might actually get somewhere with a mission design. I could probably find a number of good competent engineers prepared to do some work on this, but I doubt if they could be persuaded to give up their free time unless they could see this going somewhere. But, like me, they wouldn't be space mission design experts, they'd need a framework to work within and some hands-on direction. At the moment I don't see this.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Help!
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Dave G
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > --- In marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com, Darren Oliveiro-Priestnall <darrenop@> wrote:
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > Well that all sounds like good sense to me.
                                    > > > > > Consortiums built in this way aren't new of course, in other sectors its very common for the main players to form consortiums to jointly develop standards and shared base technologies to further the sector while giving an early lead to the companies involved with the consortium.
                                    > > > > > A lot of money goes into running these consortiums and furthering their goals but the driving force is ultimately profit for those companies that are involved.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > And as you point out, ultimately it's applying space based technologies to solve Earth based problems that often underpins these endeavours.
                                    > > > > > In the UK there are many government backed incubators for just this. Down the road from my office theres a new incubator being set up by ESA with a very large government cash investment for building and running the new centre while the whole purpose of this incubator is for ESA to work with non-space based companies, especially startup's and SME's to transfer knowledge and newly developed technologies away from ESA and into these companies, ultimately encouraging startups and SME's to create new Earth based products from these large government backed space investments.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > On a slightly unrelated note, if looking for investment for specific research projects or just looking to identify potential partners, a few good places to start are below.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > http://cordis. europa.eu/ fp7/understand_ en.html<http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/understand_en.html>
                                    > > > > > https://ktn. innovateuk. org/web/space<https://ktn.innovateuk.org/web/space>
                                    > > > > > http://iap.esa. int/iap-themes<http://iap.esa.int/iap-themes>
                                    > > > > > http://www.fp7- space.eu/ fp7-space- info-2.phtm<http://www.fp7-space.eu/fp7-space-info-2.phtm>
                                    > > > > > http://www.meetup. com/Space- Entrepreneurs/<http://www.meetup.com/Space-Entrepreneurs/>
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > Darren
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > From: marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of frank_stratford
                                    > > > > > Sent: 01 June 2010 2:51 AM
                                    > > > > > To: marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com
                                    > > > > > Subject: [marsdrivemission] Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > I posted this in our forums today guys, basically as a way forward for us. For mission design the outcome is positive as a peer reviewed design (or design of individual "chunks"- as David has been studying) can serve this goal as well.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > I was having some discussions with one of our advisors recently (Brian Enke) and it was great to get some positive feedback on my consortium ideas. He has arranged for Robert Zubrin to give me a call soon as well as we think we may be onto something now in the effort to get humans to Mars.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > I knew that there were many holes in my consortium idea but it wasn't until someone pointed them out in a balanced "non flame" manner that I started to see those areas. So I will start with an outline/plan and explain it from there-
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > 1. Mars and space advocates organize a "consortium conference" to bring together the potential players for such a consortium- Boeing, Lockheed, SpaceX, etc etc.
                                    > > > > > 2. Unlike my previous proposal for them to get to work straight away on a Mars mission this time we would be getting them to form a consortium to advance near term earth relevant technologies in line with human space exploration needs. In short- develop with their combined resources many technologies needed for Mars in a much faster way than the current speed of R&D.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > This means that profits are the goal in the immediate and near term and it keeps investors happy because it can sink its teeth into some "already developing" ideas in various areas.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > I know that almost all space companies around today are servicing real market needs here on earth with real applications for people on earth and it is the only way they can make any money.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > To ask such companies to start suddenly investing in an idea (humans to Mars) that has no defined market (governments are not fully committed yet) was short sighted and unrealistic of me so I'm changing that.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > The problem with governments is that they are very risk averse and when it comes to humans to Mars the risks are very high. So if the consortium can remove some of these risk areas, or at least show how they can be removed (and governments do the heavy lifting), governments would start to show more interest.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > But areas like life support, radiation protection, EDL and energy production can all have earth based spin offs that will give profits to companies here and now, and the beauty of a consortium is that together they could hit their targets more quickly than on their own.(as they are today)
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > I have no doubt that space companies want governments to go to Mars as they will get the contracts, but in the meantime, something more than theories must be produced to change the stance of governments to this whole idea.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > So what IS realistic?
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > That we can get these companies together to begin talking about ways they can produce technologies that will bring them profits here and now, but give them the humans to Mars program as the central goal/focus.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > This can also include R&D into cheap space access tech as well as the benefits from that are obvious.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > If we had 2 or 3 peer reviewed humans to Mars designs for them to coalesce around, this would be needed as no focus will result in no outcomes.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > For example- reliable food supplies and production- good for earth here and now but also vital to crew health and safety- one of those "risk" areas governments worry about. If the consortium could patent and put together something in this area the applications are obvious.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > The same with EDL- applications for military use are obvious and far more likely to be invested in by governments than pure space exploration (sadly).
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > Radiation shielding techs will also have immediate applications for earth. There are many areas like this.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > As advocates we can and do organize conferences every year with representatives from space companies and space agencies. So we can do this. We can get them in a room discussing a way forward for Mars via immediate profits now.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > But we would have to have some very clearly defined areas for them to sink their collective teeth into and several proposals would be good to start it off. Proposals for individual pieces of tech or systems that can have dual use on Earth and Mars.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > My mistake was to expect these companies to invest in a "maybe" a "build it and they will come" assumption, but I was wrong. With immediate profits as the focus I am certain that we can begin to make real progress towards humans to Mars because right now that is the only way any space company is operating.The power of a consortium is that together they can advance R&D and profits more quickly than on their own.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > I think this can be done, that it is in line with current realities in how this sector gains investment- based on serving real market needs (but with dual applications) .
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > The difference with a consortium is the sheer resources brought to bear on these R&D areas versus the sporadic and slow go it alone approach we have today.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > Plus we already have one consortium- ULA- United Launch Alliance, so it is not an idea these companies are foreign to.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > If these companies want a committment from governments on humans to mars, but they don't want to lose money to get this committment then it's time they got together and figured out some areas they could advance as a spark for governments to "get interested" in Mars. The part we play as advocates is to organize this effort and "drive" it from behind seeing we are the ones with the vision and passion for the future of humanity in space. If not us then who?
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > So the question is, can we make a compelling enough case to these companies to "get them interested"?
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > >
                                    >
                                  • Michael Bloxham
                                    I m glad you asked!  ;-)   The most minimal mission that I can envision, with consideration to both lightweight small-diameter landers and lowest possible
                                    Message 17 of 27 , Jun 7, 2010
                                    View Source
                                    • 1 Attachment
                                    • 142 KB
                                    I'm glad you asked!  ;-)
                                     
                                    The most minimal mission that I can envision, with consideration to both lightweight small-diameter landers and lowest possible IMLEO, would be something like the mission plan attached (which is obviously derived from earlier discussions of "MP4"):
                                     
                                    This is your traditional 4-crew Semi-Direct architecture, but instead of having 3 very large vehicles, you have 6 smaller ones instead:
                                     
                                    By adding mobility to the habs, using two tiny dual-crew habs becomes a viable option. And because these smaller vehicles are mobile, you both eliminate the need for a normal large rover and (more importantly) have the opportunity to maximise the use of consumables that are generated by ISRU processes aboard the MAV. That both minimises the mass of each component and potentially vastly decreases total IMLEO.
                                     
                                    Likewise, the MAV can also be split into two smaller vehicles: One with the ascent vehicle and ISRU equipment, and the other with a very large unfurlable solar array. This may allow the seed hydrogen to be consumed faster, while allowing greater power to be directed towards refigeration of stored cryogens; thus increasing the mass-leveraging capability of the MAV system which benefits the whole architecture.
                                     
                                    The ERV may also be split into two vehicles, but this is more likely to be accomplished by orbital assembly of the capsule with its TEI stage rather than splitting the vehicle up in a parallel manner. This can be done because the ERV only aerocaptures into orbit; it doesn't land on the surface and can thus get away with a higher packaging density.
                                     
                                    Possibly, with such an architecture, you could get away with entry vehicles in the 10m diameter range or perhaps less if you want to go down the exotic EDL-technology route (folding heatshields and the like) and restrict the range-capability of the mobile habs to something more reasonable than was discussed last year.
                                     
                                    Perhaps you could even get these vehicles small enough to be launched via a Falcon-9 Heavy or equivalent; so long as you could fit it within a 'doable' PLF volume. Although the amount of launches and orbital assembly that would be required for that would be a little insane, IMHO.
                                     
                                    Is there an architecture which could be squeezed into smaller vehicles and lower total IMLEO than the one presented above? If there is, I haven't seen it!
                                     
                                    Honestly, I think this is a really solid architecture that is worth looking into some more. This might be fun: How low can we go?
                                     
                                    - Mike

                                    --- On Sun, 6/6/10, David <davidgooding16@...> wrote:

                                    From: David <davidgooding16@...>
                                    Subject: [marsdrivemission] Re: Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                                    To: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com
                                    Received: Sunday, 6 June, 2010, 2:38 PM

                                     
                                    Frank (and others),

                                    Regarding possible commercial ventures:

                                    I am happy to participate in any way that might be useful - noting that I am in full time employment and live on the other side of the world to you. I have tried to send you an email with my initial thoughts on possible opportunities here.

                                    Regarding Mission Design:

                                    Frank has here (as previously) suggested developing two or three mission designs, of which a (possibly modified) DRM 2.5 could be one.

                                    My suggestion for three mission designs would be to cover a range from cheap/low capability to expensive/high capability. My thoughts would be:

                                    1. A small mission perhaps around the size of the Mars-Oz - crew of 4, limited capability, lowest mass, shortest development time, maximum use of the "off the shelf" equipment etc. Perhaps even a development of the Mars-Oz, given that we have with us Jon Clarke and David Willson, who developed Mars-Oz in the first place.

                                    2. A mid-sized mission - perhaps a developed DRM 2.5 (as we've been trying to do recently)

                                    3. A high capability mission. I really liked what was previously proposed by Ron as "mission plan 2" with a very high degree of surface mobility, allowing estensive exploration over a substantial range (~ 1000 km +)

                                    What do people think? Could we put together a set of objectives for each of these?

                                    My only reservation with proceeding with three designs is that we have recently been struggling to proceed with one.

                                    Regarding commercial ventures to raise funds - I am happy to be part of anything

                                    Regards,

                                    Dave G

                                    --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, "frank_stratford" <frank_stratford@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > I had some discussions with Jordan a little while back and we were both expressing the realization that practical solutions are needed to advance our goals. This is what we agreed upon.
                                    >
                                    > I think we all agree on this point. The one area that has much skepticism from Jordan (and about 99% of the world) is "where" does a Mars mission fit in for relevance? Zubrin has done some great work to show us why, as I have also developed my own thoughts, and we agree that space is a vast new frontier full of untapped potential.
                                    >
                                    > But the problem is, and always has been, we have to work within the constraints of current political and financial priorities. None of those include Mars, and now, not even manned programs are getting much support.
                                    >
                                    > So I can understand the view that it seems irrelevant, but I can also understand the view that giving up on it(humans to Mars) is not what some want to do.
                                    >
                                    > There is a middle path.
                                    >
                                    > The one area that I focus on as you know most of all is funding for this, and I have studied what works and what doesn't work for many years now. I know that to advance our (or any other design) will at some point require more than an online discussion format. Resources will be needed.
                                    >
                                    > That's where Jordan and others I speak to come in. He and others (including myself) are simply proposing that we look to the financial side of things and support efforts in this area. The consortium no doubt will have many R&D ideas of various scales, but for now it would be great if we had some initial revenue generating ideas to give us the financial strength needed to take all the steps we need to take.
                                    >
                                    > I have learned the hard way that if you want money for R&D, a non profit space group is NOT the way to go. Many non profit space groups would agree with me. So I am proposing that we change our ways and put together some business ideas that will support our aims, no matter how non space or non Mars they may be. We need to be financially strong on our own. So anyone who is willing to be part of this effort please let me know, as we will be putting together a small and selected group of people to start the "profit" or business side of MarsDrive, something long overdue(a completely independent entity). These businesses will operate just like any normal business too- if you work in it, you will share in the profits. The difference is, we can control where the money goes, and some will go to consortium building, some to better ideas and designs, etc. Send me an email if you are interested.
                                    >
                                    > As to work on the design, I have never said to abandon it. Right now, no one is working on these sorts of designs. To create that "point of focus" for a consortium we do need something, and this is an excellent future looking project which can bring out many technological developments and revenue streams.I mean look at the CERN project currently in Europe trying to crack the secrets of the universe but with no certain outcomes. With Mars it is the same, there will be obvious benefits, and not so obvious benefits. We can't abandon it because it is "irrelevant" today. In 50 years it won't be, but that 50 years will remain 50 years if we don't push it along now.
                                    >
                                    > Apollo had one major side effect we need to remember- It inspired a generation of engineers and scientists to create the modern world of technology we enjoy today. You can try to dispute this, but I have researched this issue and it does stand up. You can be as cynical as you like, but the fact remains- something as risky and "crazy" as sending men to a dead rock in space inspired the modern world to advance in so many ways.
                                    >
                                    > Mars will have a similar effect in the 21st century, if we can achieve it. It truly is a history making event we are talking about. Let's not forget that.
                                    >
                                    > So for us, for now the direction should be clear-
                                    >
                                    > 1. Consortium and business avenue to be started- those who want to join can.
                                    > 2. The design moves forward
                                    > 3. Assumptions and goals need to be set in stone now from our side
                                    > 4. DRM 2.5 needs to be examined and modified where it needs it- or abandoned, but we need a decision on this. My view is that with some modifying it can serve as one of maybe 2 or 3 good designs we can produce.
                                    >
                                    > --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, "David" <davidgooding16@> wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > Hi,
                                    > >
                                    > > Darren has very clearly articulated what are precisely my views, too, and also, I am sure, the views of many others.
                                    > >
                                    > > I, and I am sure many others, are here precisely because we want to see humanity extend its reach beyond Earth to Mars. That must always be our end objective.
                                    > >
                                    > > The means to get to that end are of course up for debate - the problem is that we haven't yet found a means to that end that actually works. I am happy to see debate here on how best to acheive that end result, so long as we don't abandon that end objective of actually expanding humanity's reach beyond Earth.
                                    > >
                                    > > However, if all we do is solve some of the many problems that face a manned Mars mission, even in a small way, we can at least feel that we've done our bit and progressed one more small step on that long at difficult path. And that's more than many can say they've acheived.
                                    > >
                                    > > If we develop a robust and realistic DRM, that provides a convincing and detailed way to get to Mars that shows a route through, and solutions to, the multitude of technical problems that currently block the path, then that is a considerable acheivement. This would be a real step on the way to Mars even if the DRM in the form that we have defined it is not in itself implemented.
                                    > >
                                    > > Further, if by doing this, we can reach out to a wider audience, raise public awareness of the feasibility of reaching Mars, and capture the imagination with a realistic and feasible mission, that will be another very significant step.
                                    > >
                                    > > This is certainly feasible. People here may criticize Zubrin's Mars Direct - but it was his book "The Case for Mars" which I read, by chance, which motivated me and which I am sure has motivated many, many others. By doing this he pushed Mars up the agenda - perhaps not far enough, but enough that government space agencies took Mars seriously. By doing this he did more than many others have managed. If we, collectively, can give things another push like that, we might, just might, get to see a man on Mars in our lifetimes.
                                    > >
                                    > > Here in the mission design team our role is to develop a mission design (what else can it be?). MarsDrive as a wider organisation may push other avenues as well. But here, in the mission design team, let's get a credible mission together, attempt to find ways through the various technical obstacles, flesh out some details, map out the forward development route and so on.
                                    > >
                                    > > At the moment all we have is DRM 2.5. Maybe you like it, maybe you don't. If it needs changing, lets change it.
                                    > >
                                    > > This means actually doing some work. We might not all be Mars mission design experts - I'm certainly not - but then who has successfully designed Mars missions? Nobody has. Nobody ever designed a manned Mars mission that actually got there. And a lot of what needs doing right now does not, in my view, require enormous amounts of detailed technical expertise (that comes later).
                                    > >
                                    > > I previously suggested a number of specific tasks that could be undertaken right now, and probably most of us here would probably be capable of undertaking one or more of these.
                                    > >
                                    > > Nobody significantly disagreed with my initial list of things to do. People offered to pick up several of these things and run with them.
                                    > >
                                    > > I picked up ISRU, pretty much at random, just because it was there, there was very little detail in the DRM, and nobody else seemed to want to look at it. I'm not a chemist or chemical engineer - I have a physics degree and I work as an engineer - but I felt I could at least track down papers on the subject, review the current state of knowledge and lay out in a summary document roughly what the options were and the various pros and cons, so that we collectively could decide if what the current DRM specifies for ISRU is the right way, or not, and how we might want to change it. My report will be posted here within 24 hours - I'm doing final checks and corrections today. I'm quite happy to have it criticised, if it's rubbish, say so. We can bin it if it's no good - there's nothing lost except a bit of my time.
                                    > >
                                    > > Others said that they would look at some of the other items (I won't name them here!). These included the physiological things that Frank is concerned about; radiation protection, zero-g. And other items - the inflatable module in the DRM, crew safety (including a preliminary hazard analysis), etc. How are these getting on? Is anybody still looking at these things?
                                    > >
                                    > > If we can move forward with the mission design, we might actually be able to attract more people to us to help.
                                    > >
                                    > > Please, if this is not the right way to move forward, please say so. If it is the right way, then please, please, have a go, pick an aspect that needs further detail in the DRM, research the subject, and do your best. There's nothing lost by trying - but we won't get anything done if we don't have a go. And those who do know something about designing space missions - please help those of us who don't!
                                    > >
                                    > > Dave G
                                    > >
                                    > > PS - Sorry for the long message but I just had to get that off my chest!
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, Darren Oliveiro-Priestnall <darrenop@> wrote:
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Hi,
                                    > > > I don't really see how MarsDrive can exist without having Mars central to the agenda.
                                    > > > That's not to say Mars is everything but it has to remain the focus for MarsDrive simply because that's why it was founded and what so many members are interested in and looking to support.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Having said that I support a number of groups including the Planetary Society, BIS, UK Rocketry Association, Star Chaser, several groups focussed on Astrophysics research and public education as well as a number of space sector business groups.
                                    > > > Each of these have different central goals which distinguish them, all worthy and of importance and all which impact on each other in a range of ways.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > I do think MarsDrive needs to shake off some cobwebs and return to some grass root principles but to move away from Mars as being central would be a mistake in my personal opinion.
                                    > > > The DRM is important and possibly needs more focus. There's clearly a lot of interest and skill around the DRM which probably needs to be focussed more effectively to turn the DRM into something more concrete and complete.
                                    > > > We also need to revisit public awareness programs because if MarsDrive isn't striving to raise public awareness and interest then what's the point of MarsDrive? As far as I can tell, MarsDrive was founded to educate and raise public awareness but I can't remember the last big campaign or effective strategy to get people interested.
                                    > > > MarsDrive EXPO I feel is also of real importance or if not then working to get stands at other major Expo events. We have members around the world so we should design a program we can present at different events and expo's to get the name MarsDrive and the idea of going to Mars out there.
                                    > > > This consortium idea is important in the same way as the DRM is important, it's working towards practical solutions to the problems with going to Mars.
                                    > > > Then there are countless other ideas from campaigns and stunts to get people thinking about Mars, I'm thinking of naming a model rocket MarsDrive DRM or something just to try to get some free local press for MarsDrive. If people see a rocket named MarsDrive and enjoy the experience then maybe they'll look further and get inspired to join MarsDrive. Small steps but all about public awareness.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > That's just my thoughts at least. With NASA in its current condition, groups like MarsDrive need to be working harder in all these areas to keep the goals of all its members and its founding principles alive.
                                    > > > Darren
                                    > > >
                                    > > > From: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com [mailto:marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Brian Enke
                                    > > > Sent: 03 June 2010 6:22 PM
                                    > > > To: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com
                                    > > > Subject: Re: [marsdrivemission] Re: Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Hi Jordan -
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Always appreciate hearing new viewpoints! If you don't like the focus on Mars, my best suggestion is to get more involved with one of the non-Mars-focused groups, like NSS or the Planetary Society. You'll find more like-minded people there... and that's one reason why multiple organizations exist, after all.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > By the way, try not to be so pessimistic about public relevance of Mars. Many good reasons for going to Mars DO exist already... and different people latch onto different reasons. It's fine if we come up with more (new) reasons that more (new) people can latch onto... so I don't want to discourage you from thinking in this direction (if that's your intent)...
                                    > > >
                                    > > > To answer your question, I'm squarely in the "that humanity go to Mars" camp... but I don't follow your later reasoning as to why this question matters w.r.t. what MarsDrive should - or shouldn't - be working on.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Cheers,
                                    > > >
                                    > > > - Brian
                                    > > >
                                    > > > On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Jordan P. <unknown_target01@<mailto:unknown_target01@>> wrote:
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Er, sorry Michael but that's not what I meant. What you're proposing is we (yet again) start developing another launch architecture and hope that some big corporation jumps on it and gives us money instead of just doing it themselves.
                                    > > > Sorry to be blunt, but you're missing the point of what I said; I didn't mean for us to start finding ways to make Mars relevant, I was saying find a way to make space relevant. There is no reason to go to Mars right now. Face it, there is absolutely, positively, unequivocal no way that Mars is anywhere near anyone's list of priorities right now, what with global warming, political crises, economic crises, etc - it's just not on the table. Furthermore, trying to develop a human to Mars plan and somehow making it seem "relevant" to the (really not grassroots at all) eco-concious movement (I will say it again, it is NOT grassroots, it is definitely mainstream at this point) will only end up with another two years of round table discussion on all the various idiosyncratic technicalities of various booster and launch systems. In short, it'll put us right back where we started.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > What I am really saying is, or rather, asking everyone in Mars Drive to do is to ask themselves this question:
                                    > > >
                                    > > > "What is more important? That humanity go to Mars, or that I go to Mars?"
                                    > > >
                                    > > > ...because if your answer is yourself, then yes, the whole "we will plan our own Mars mission so that we can go and don't have to rely on the government" ideology is what would follow that train of thought - ignoring all the realities of that train of thought. If your answer is humanity, then you would be willing to put aside Mars mission planning, discussions on the best way to get to Mars, the best way to live on Mars, the best way to get funds for our mission to Mars, and start focusing on "What can we do to lay the groundwork for someone to go to Mars". You might not go. I might not go. But the important result is that humanity goes, and it's because of your efforts.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > This obsession with Mars is what's killing any chance MarsDrive has, in my opinion. Right now is the absolute best time to propose space as an answer to the world's current problems, because people are willing to pay for almost any idea. We are at a crossroads in history and technology - there are so many options on the table right now, it's a free for all as to who will end up winning and become the dominant player over the next 100 years. If any of you really truly want to go to Mars, you should see this opportunity and take it, and not squander it on endless mission planning debates.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > --- On Wed, 6/2/10, Michael Bloxham <michaeljbloxham@<mailto:michaeljbloxham@>> wrote:
                                    > > >
                                    > > > From: Michael Bloxham <michaeljbloxham@<mailto:michaeljbloxham@>>
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Subject: Re: [marsdrivemission] Re: Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                                    > > > To: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com<mailto:marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com>
                                    > > > Date: Wednesday, June 2, 2010, 8:48 AM
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > > I have to agree with Jordan here on the idea of focusing on the "Drive" rather than the "Mars". We should be selling a vision: Why we should go as well as the how.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > It's funny but I've been spending a great deal of my time lately engaging with members of the growing eco-conscious community. There is definitely a growing grass-roots sense of the need for change as far as economic and political thinking is concerned. Naturally, this reminds me of the originial sense of romance that Zubrins tried to instill with the idea of Mars being the new 'frontier', and the opportunities for redevelopment and ingenuity that such 'frontierism' allows. I wonder whether there is an opportunity here for us to make the idea of Mars relevant to the concerns of this huge and fast-growing group of people.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > At the same time, I find myself banging my head against the wall in frustration in consideration of more immediate matters: I just can't help but think that we're missing out on some huge opportunities right now.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > For example, now that CxP is effectively dead, the fight for a shuttle-derived HLLV is at a critical stage. I wonder whether we could throw together a technically practical humans-to-mars architecture (which could be DRM2.5 derived), which utilizes SDLV-equivalent performance, in quick enough time to be able to present it as a concept to show how valuable such an HLLV is, and how it can be used, in a real practical sense, toward the development of a humans-to-mars architecture.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > I see this as being of absolutely crucial importance: The cost of developing HLLV capability from shuttle infrastructure sooner rather than later (or likely not at all) needs proper justification in terms of mission: If it can't be shown that a practical humans-to-mars architecture can be evolved from SDLV capabilities then the likelihood of such an HLLV system being developed goes down quite significantly, IMHO. But if it can be shown that an SDLV is sufficient.. . Is it possible that we could influence the trade-space somehow? I think it's possible. But we would have to be quick!
                                    > > >
                                    > > > - Mike
                                    > > >
                                    > > > --- On Tue, 1/6/10, Jordan P. <unknown_target01@ yahoo.com<http://yahoo.com>> wrote:
                                    > > >
                                    > > > From: Jordan P. <unknown_target01@ yahoo.com<http://yahoo.com>>
                                    > > > Subject: Re: [marsdrivemission] Re: Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                                    > > > To: marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com
                                    > > > Received: Tuesday, 1 June, 2010, 4:55 PM
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Just to throw in something from someone who has been constantly getting e-mails regarding misson designs, plans, etc, in his email for the past several months...
                                    > > > Whenever I see the [marsdrivemission] tag followed by some question about the stage 2 boosters or the LOX intakes or whatnot, I have to ask the question; why? Why bother with planning anything beyond baby steps at this point, when you don't even have a market to sell to? I read through Frank's message, and he's said he wants to do something that I think I mentioned a year or two ago: focus on profitable ventures with Earth applications, stop focusing on different mission design plans to get from here to Mars, because you never will. We have the technology and we have the knowledge to go to another solar body - we did it about 40 years back. The thing that never came out of Apollo, and the subsequent obsession with landing on other solar bodies, is what is the point of it? So I say again; MarsDrive needs to stop focusing on the Mars and start focusing on the Drive. Get together all those smart minds you have developing answers to problems we're 30 years away from facing, and start figuring out how to apply space to Earth based issues, from global warming, to food and water starvation, to clean power generation. Then you will have a market, because those issues are what's in demand right now.
                                    > > > If MD or anyone else keeps focusing on the "We need to design a way to go to space and then present it to companies with money to fund it for us!" then they will all fail. Focus on low-cost, low-budget, way out of the ballpark ideas for assisting our current needs, and you will not only have the infrastructure, credit, and manpower thirty years from now to actually go to Mars permanently, but you'll accomplish Frank's stated goal of R+D for a Mars mission while you're making real money.
                                    > > > Yes I have ideas, no they're not what MD is focusing on right now, and yes I believe if we follow at least some of them we'd have a real shot. Otherwise the MD mission will stay on the Internet and cycling around and around in endless Mars planning discussions.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Cheers.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > --- On Tue, 6/1/10, frank_stratford <frank_stratford@ yahoo.com<http://yahoo.com>> wrote:
                                    > > >
                                    > > > From: frank_stratford <frank_stratford@ yahoo.com<http://yahoo.com>>
                                    > > > Subject: [marsdrivemission] Re: Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                                    > > > To: marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com
                                    > > > Date: Tuesday, June 1, 2010, 7:11 PM
                                    > > >
                                    > > > If I remember correctly Dave we decided upon 2.5 from a particular philosophy, and that philosophy has always remained the same with Marsdrive- "What is the most realistic path forward given technical, financial and political hurdles".
                                    > > >
                                    > > > This is also why Falcon 9 was considered along the same lines (as it is a rocket in development now). We have never veered off that path. The discussions on mobile habs etc were useful, but with such a risk averse culture as we have today, we have to design for this whether we like it or not.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > You may be right in saying 2.5 is not the way to go, but in keeping with our guiding philosophy, what other LV system is realistically on the horizon that we can design around? I don't see any others at this stage. We will never interest "players in a consortium" with unrealistic designs based on completely new LV systems, not when we haven't addressed some of the major issues yet like a working EDL concept, radiation protection that we can bank on, life support that is believeable, etc
                                    > > >
                                    > > > So in keeping with our philosophy can I suggest the following way forward-
                                    > > >
                                    > > > 1. List out all the things we don't like about 2.5 now
                                    > > > 2. See if we can modify those within the constraints of that LV faring etc
                                    > > > 3. List out what improvements we would like to make/could be made
                                    > > > 4. Publish a design after this for peer review
                                    > > > 5. Hold consortium conference at this point
                                    > > >
                                    > > > If the Atlas development path takes a dive, we may have to switch to Falcon 9 H, but that is not my doing Dave, it is just the way this game is played. It is ever changing. But I think if we keep to our guiding philosophy, we won't go wrong.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > We do need to keep our eye on certain areas, and the biggest I think is Mars EDL concepts. The better ours is, the more seriously our design will be taken. This part could indeed be a major point of difference with our design if we created some detail around it. I'm not saying we will get it right here, but we do need to show that we are on the cutting edge of Mars design thinking, and ignoring this aspect is ignoring the elephant in the room.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > The same applies to radiation protection and life support. In a risk averse culture these are the areas that will win us support- if we address them sufficiently, and your work in ISRU is extremely helpful along these lines Dave.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > So I have laid out a way forward here Dave and everyone,and to some extent I do think you are on this path already, so by all means continue to these goals. If you want to set timelines and deadlines to all this you can, but we will need the resources to meet such deadlines (which is why I left it open at this time).
                                    > > >
                                    > > > --- In marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com, "David" <davidgooding16@ ...> wrote:
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Frank,
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > It sounds like good sense to me too.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > In terms of where we're going here with the mission design effort, it sounds like you want us to develop one (or more!) mission designs.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Previously you indicated/implied you wanted a mission design around a Falcon 9 heavy (i.e. in small chunks). However, others more knowledgable than me suggested that this was not possible. So, in the absence of anything else, we dusted off DRM 2.5 and started looking at that again. Is that how you want us to proceed here on the mission design group?
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Frank, I feel that if we're going to get anywhere with the mission design we need some leadership here.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > At the moment I feel I'm just fumbling around in the dark. I've been looking at the DRM 2.5 ISRU process but I'm not sure if (1) DRM 2.5 is the right way to go or (2) if I'm doing the right thing anyway.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Who's in charge here? With some strong direction I do feel we might actually get somewhere with a mission design. I could probably find a number of good competent engineers prepared to do some work on this, but I doubt if they could be persuaded to give up their free time unless they could see this going somewhere. But, like me, they wouldn't be space mission design experts, they'd need a framework to work within and some hands-on direction. At the moment I don't see this.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Help!
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Dave G
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > --- In marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com, Darren Oliveiro-Priestnall <darrenop@> wrote:
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > Well that all sounds like good sense to me.
                                    > > > > > Consortiums built in this way aren't new of course, in other sectors its very common for the main players to form consortiums to jointly develop standards and shared base technologies to further the sector while giving an early lead to the companies involved with the consortium.
                                    > > > > > A lot of money goes into running these consortiums and furthering their goals but the driving force is ultimately profit for those companies that are involved.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > And as you point out, ultimately it's applying space based technologies to solve Earth based problems that often underpins these endeavours.
                                    > > > > > In the UK there are many government backed incubators for just this. Down the road from my office theres a new incubator being set up by ESA with a very large government cash investment for building and running the new centre while the whole purpose of this incubator is for ESA to work with non-space based companies, especially startup's and SME's to transfer knowledge and newly developed technologies away from ESA and into these companies, ultimately encouraging startups and SME's to create new Earth based products from these large government backed space investments.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > On a slightly unrelated note, if looking for investment for specific research projects or just looking to identify potential partners, a few good places to start are below.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > http://cordis. europa.eu/ fp7/understand_ en.html<http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/understand_en.html>
                                    > > > > > https://ktn. innovateuk. org/web/space<https://ktn.innovateuk.org/web/space>
                                    > > > > > http://iap.esa. int/iap-themes<http://iap.esa.int/iap-themes>
                                    > > > > > http://www.fp7- space.eu/ fp7-space- info-2.phtm<http://www.fp7-space.eu/fp7-space-info-2.phtm>
                                    > > > > > http://www.meetup. com/Space- Entrepreneurs/<http://www.meetup.com/Space-Entrepreneurs/>
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > Darren
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > From: marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of frank_stratford
                                    > > > > > Sent: 01 June 2010 2:51 AM
                                    > > > > > To: marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com
                                    > > > > > Subject: [marsdrivemission] Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > I posted this in our forums today guys, basically as a way forward for us. For mission design the outcome is positive as a peer reviewed design (or design of individual "chunks"- as David has been studying) can serve this goal as well.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > I was having some discussions with one of our advisors recently (Brian Enke) and it was great to get some positive feedback on my consortium ideas. He has arranged for Robert Zubrin to give me a call soon as well as we think we may be onto something now in the effort to get humans to Mars.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > I knew that there were many holes in my consortium idea but it wasn't until someone pointed them out in a balanced "non flame" manner that I started to see those areas. So I will start with an outline/plan and explain it from there-
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > 1. Mars and space advocates organize a "consortium conference" to bring together the potential players for such a consortium- Boeing, Lockheed, SpaceX, etc etc.
                                    > > > > > 2. Unlike my previous proposal for them to get to work straight away on a Mars mission this time we would be getting them to form a consortium to advance near term earth relevant technologies in line with human space exploration needs. In short- develop with their combined resources many technologies needed for Mars in a much faster way than the current speed of R&D.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > This means that profits are the goal in the immediate and near term and it keeps investors happy because it can sink its teeth into some "already developing" ideas in various areas.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > I know that almost all space companies around today are servicing real market needs here on earth with real applications for people on earth and it is the only way they can make any money.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > To ask such companies to start suddenly investing in an idea (humans to Mars) that has no defined market (governments are not fully committed yet) was short sighted and unrealistic of me so I'm changing that.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > The problem with governments is that they are very risk averse and when it comes to humans to Mars the risks are very high. So if the consortium can remove some of these risk areas, or at least show how they can be removed (and governments do the heavy lifting), governments would start to show more interest.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > But areas like life support, radiation protection, EDL and energy production can all have earth based spin offs that will give profits to companies here and now, and the beauty of a consortium is that together they could hit their targets more quickly than on their own.(as they are today)
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > I have no doubt that space companies want governments to go to Mars as they will get the contracts, but in the meantime, something more than theories must be produced to change the stance of governments to this whole idea.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > So what IS realistic?
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > That we can get these companies together to begin talking about ways they can produce technologies that will bring them profits here and now, but give them the humans to Mars program as the central goal/focus.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > This can also include R&D into cheap space access tech as well as the benefits from that are obvious.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > If we had 2 or 3 peer reviewed humans to Mars designs for them to coalesce around, this would be needed as no focus will result in no outcomes.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > For example- reliable food supplies and production- good for earth here and now but also vital to crew health and safety- one of those "risk" areas governments worry about. If the consortium could patent and put together something in this area the applications are obvious.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > The same with EDL- applications for military use are obvious and far more likely to be invested in by governments than pure space exploration (sadly).
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > Radiation shielding techs will also have immediate applications for earth. There are many areas like this.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > As advocates we can and do organize conferences every year with representatives from space companies and space agencies. So we can do this. We can get them in a room discussing a way forward for Mars via immediate profits now.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > But we would have to have some very clearly defined areas for them to sink their collective teeth into and several proposals would be good to start it off. Proposals for individual pieces of tech or systems that can have dual use on Earth and Mars.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > My mistake was to expect these companies to invest in a "maybe" a "build it and they will come" assumption, but I was wrong. With immediate profits as the focus I am certain that we can begin to make real progress towards humans to Mars because right now that is the only way any space company is operating.The power of a consortium is that together they can advance R&D and profits more quickly than on their own.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > I think this can be done, that it is in line with current realities in how this sector gains investment- based on serving real market needs (but with dual applications) .
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > The difference with a consortium is the sheer resources brought to bear on these R&D areas versus the sporadic and slow go it alone approach we have today.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > Plus we already have one consortium- ULA- United Launch Alliance, so it is not an idea these companies are foreign to.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > If these companies want a committment from governments on humans to mars, but they don't want to lose money to get this committment then it's time they got together and figured out some areas they could advance as a spark for governments to "get interested" in Mars. The part we play as advocates is to organize this effort and "drive" it from behind seeing we are the ones with the vision and passion for the future of humanity in space. If not us then who?
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > So the question is, can we make a compelling enough case to these companies to "get them interested"?
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > >
                                    >


                                     
                                  • spacenutnewmars
                                    Hello all and I am sorry that I have not gotten back to Frank s new approach to the consortium. I have been shifting from days to second shift and now I am
                                    Message 18 of 27 , Jun 8, 2010
                                    View Source
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Hello all and I am sorry that I have not gotten back to Frank's new approach to the consortium. I have been shifting from days to second shift and now I am back on Days. This response will seem like a rant but it is not meant to be that way.

                                      It is good to hear that you have been discussing this important MarsDrive topic with the advisors in Brian Enke. Another plus for MarsDrive is the chance to have your first meeting with Robert Zubrin soon as well.

                                      The consortium will always seem to have holes depending on others view point so do not let that fret you into not continuing with the throught process. Setting up a conference of space experts with have positives and negatives regardless of whom is invited or who is not.
                                      Such as what the coalition for space is....been done and they are going no where....As Darren said Consortiums are not new and we have lots of examples of them. Each has there own unique methods of funding and power structure.
                                      Agreed that the needs of people are what currently are blocking or getting the loudest voice for the fund which space missions would need. But what are those advanced near term earth relevant items be? I think this is what Frank and Brian Enke were thinking when they were talking about new earth-based techs that will or would spill out of the process naturally.
                                      First I think what can be are those items that help people with the needs to survive here on earth. While jobs are high on the list it is not a space technology path to a human mission. So what would they be? In everyday life we need clean water, power (electric, gas, oil ect...), Food, shelter and clean air to breath. Everything else would fall under possessions.... In space we will need lots of power, clean water, Food and water to be created from what can be brought, built from insitu resources and just made from the combinations of both.
                                      I have suggested making energy effienct sheltes modeled after the mars habitats of the analog staions of Mars Society as a step. The need for power, clean air and water can be made from a combination of say a wood stove to provide CO2 and a source of water to create methane and clean water from the Mars Society planned Sabitier reactor. Trap the excess heat from the wood stove for hot water and for heating. Capture the clean water from the reaction and use the fuel to power home and vehicles as needed.
                                      Waste can be put though a multi step process that would use algea and gardening composting as ways to take care of it. Use the compost to fertilize the garden which is a must for Space but in no way can a earth greenhouse be the same as what will be on mars so this is just a way to quite the loud voices that would be asking for the same dollars that are needed for space.
                                      I think that what I have put forth meets the aim of profit creation and finally for job creation, giving a leverage point for science and so much more.
                                      Those space manufacturing companies are not something that fits into single categories of rockets.... so for each there is a different business model and that includes not just the area of profit but a source of seed money as well. As such what would be a straight forward service market it becomes one of selective parts and not to a complete sector. So the people of earth do not have just a specific application from rocket launching regardless of what it carries as a payload.
                                      I am not sure with this quoted section "To ask such companies to start suddenly investing in an idea (humans to Mars) that has no defined market (governments are not fully committed yet) was short sighted and unrealistic of me so I'm changing that." as the answer is not black and white for profit as it requires limits and justification for expenditure.
                                      Risk is part of the nature of space businesses in general and to lower the chances usually mean higher expense in all facets.



                                      --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, "frank_stratford" <frank_stratford@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > I posted this in our forums today guys, basically as a way forward for us. For mission design the outcome is positive as a peer reviewed design (or design of individual "chunks"- as David has been studying) can serve this goal as well.
                                      >
                                      > I was having some discussions with one of our advisors recently (Brian Enke) and it was great to get some positive feedback on my consortium ideas. He has arranged for Robert Zubrin to give me a call soon as well as we think we may be onto something now in the effort to get humans to Mars.
                                      >
                                      > I knew that there were many holes in my consortium idea but it wasn't until someone pointed them out in a balanced "non flame" manner that I started to see those areas. So I will start with an outline/plan and explain it from there-
                                      >
                                      > 1. Mars and space advocates organize a "consortium conference" to bring together the potential players for such a consortium- Boeing, Lockheed, SpaceX, etc etc.
                                      > 2. Unlike my previous proposal for them to get to work straight away on a Mars mission this time we would be getting them to form a consortium to advance near term earth relevant technologies in line with human space exploration needs. In short- develop with their combined resources many technologies needed for Mars in a much faster way than the current speed of R&D.
                                      >
                                      > This means that profits are the goal in the immediate and near term and it keeps investors happy because it can sink its teeth into some "already developing" ideas in various areas.
                                      >
                                      > I know that almost all space companies around today are servicing real market needs here on earth with real applications for people on earth and it is the only way they can make any money.
                                      >
                                      > To ask such companies to start suddenly investing in an idea (humans to Mars) that has no defined market (governments are not fully committed yet) was short sighted and unrealistic of me so I'm changing that.
                                      >
                                      > The problem with governments is that they are very risk averse and when it comes to humans to Mars the risks are very high. So if the consortium can remove some of these risk areas, or at least show how they can be removed (and governments do the heavy lifting), governments would start to show more interest.
                                      >
                                      > But areas like life support, radiation protection, EDL and energy production can all have earth based spin offs that will give profits to companies here and now, and the beauty of a consortium is that together they could hit their targets more quickly than on their own.(as they are today)
                                      >
                                      > I have no doubt that space companies want governments to go to Mars as they will get the contracts, but in the meantime, something more than theories must be produced to change the stance of governments to this whole idea.
                                      >
                                      > So what IS realistic?
                                      >
                                      > That we can get these companies together to begin talking about ways they can produce technologies that will bring them profits here and now, but give them the humans to Mars program as the central goal/focus.
                                      >
                                      > This can also include R&D into cheap space access tech as well as the benefits from that are obvious.
                                      >
                                      > If we had 2 or 3 peer reviewed humans to Mars designs for them to coalesce around, this would be needed as no focus will result in no outcomes.
                                      >
                                      > For example- reliable food supplies and production- good for earth here and now but also vital to crew health and safety- one of those "risk" areas governments worry about. If the consortium could patent and put together something in this area the applications are obvious.
                                      >
                                      > The same with EDL- applications for military use are obvious and far more likely to be invested in by governments than pure space exploration (sadly).
                                      >
                                      > Radiation shielding techs will also have immediate applications for earth. There are many areas like this.
                                      >
                                      > As advocates we can and do organize conferences every year with representatives from space companies and space agencies. So we can do this. We can get them in a room discussing a way forward for Mars via immediate profits now.
                                      >
                                      > But we would have to have some very clearly defined areas for them to sink their collective teeth into and several proposals would be good to start it off. Proposals for individual pieces of tech or systems that can have dual use on Earth and Mars.
                                      >
                                      > My mistake was to expect these companies to invest in a "maybe" a "build it and they will come" assumption, but I was wrong. With immediate profits as the focus I am certain that we can begin to make real progress towards humans to Mars because right now that is the only way any space company is operating.The power of a consortium is that together they can advance R&D and profits more quickly than on their own.
                                      >
                                      > I think this can be done, that it is in line with current realities in how this sector gains investment- based on serving real market needs (but with dual applications).
                                      >
                                      > The difference with a consortium is the sheer resources brought to bear on these R&D areas versus the sporadic and slow go it alone approach we have today.
                                      >
                                      > Plus we already have one consortium- ULA- United Launch Alliance, so it is not an idea these companies are foreign to.
                                      >
                                      > If these companies want a committment from governments on humans to mars, but they don't want to lose money to get this committment then it's time they got together and figured out some areas they could advance as a spark for governments to "get interested" in Mars. The part we play as advocates is to organize this effort and "drive" it from behind seeing we are the ones with the vision and passion for the future of humanity in space. If not us then who?
                                      >
                                      > So the question is, can we make a compelling enough case to these companies to "get them interested"?
                                      >
                                    • spacenutnewmars
                                      Ok so no replies to the topic since my last..... I have rearranged the thoughts put forth indicated in the quotes to allow for a reply. Franks new spin on the
                                      Message 19 of 27 , Jun 22, 2010
                                      View Source
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Ok so no replies to the topic since my last.....

                                        I have rearranged the thoughts put forth indicated in the quotes to allow for a reply. Franks new spin on the consortium under "advanced near term earth relevant items" that have implications for "areas like life support, radiation protection, EDL and energy production can all have earth based spin offs that will give profits to companies here and now" that would be of benifut for space travel to beyond LEO and to other places is just the rock and hard place that is why we are not advancing I feel. Since the list is continued on a new topic I will post response there as these are part of that list.

                                        I too agree that space companies would be all for missions to mars as well as others if governments put up the cash but that is what just stopped the Constellation project cold in its steps as we have a leader that does not believe in what was determined as a way forward by yet another president.

                                        So what IS realistic? Is a great question but to what specific topic area that is stopping a mission from going forward. Is it really profits, is it the will to produce R&D technolgies that is lacking, or is just a needs for a cheaper faster means to get us there.

                                        As for peer reviewed human mars mission I kind of feel that some of the best plans have already been put forward by the likes of Mars Society, Nasa and others so having more do not really change all that much the efforts to get to Mars. We are all just defining or refining the numbers, contents of science and goals to be achieved by those that make the trip. But we are also defining what is acceptable risk areas and what are needed backups or proventions that come in under the limitations of the mission. Its not until the money is put forth that missions will happen.


                                        --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, "spacenutnewmars" <spacenutnewmars@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > Hello all and I am sorry that I have not gotten back to Frank's new approach to the consortium. I have been shifting from days to second shift and now I am back on Days. This response will seem like a rant but it is not meant to be that way.
                                        >
                                        > It is good to hear that you have been discussing this important MarsDrive topic with the advisors in Brian Enke. Another plus for MarsDrive is the chance to have your first meeting with Robert Zubrin soon as well.
                                        >
                                        > The consortium will always seem to have holes depending on others view point so do not let that fret you into not continuing with the throught process. Setting up a conference of space experts with have positives and negatives regardless of whom is invited or who is not.
                                        > Such as what the coalition for space is....been done and they are going no where....As Darren said Consortiums are not new and we have lots of examples of them. Each has there own unique methods of funding and power structure.
                                        > Agreed that the needs of people are what currently are blocking or getting the loudest voice for the fund which space missions would need. But what are those advanced near term earth relevant items be? I think this is what Frank and Brian Enke were thinking when they were talking about new earth-based techs that will or would spill out of the process naturally.
                                        > First I think what can be are those items that help people with the needs to survive here on earth. While jobs are high on the list it is not a space technology path to a human mission. So what would they be? In everyday life we need clean water, power (electric, gas, oil ect...), Food, shelter and clean air to breath. Everything else would fall under possessions.... In space we will need lots of power, clean water, Food and water to be created from what can be brought, built from insitu resources and just made from the combinations of both.
                                        > I have suggested making energy effienct sheltes modeled after the mars habitats of the analog staions of Mars Society as a step. The need for power, clean air and water can be made from a combination of say a wood stove to provide CO2 and a source of water to create methane and clean water from the Mars Society planned Sabitier reactor. Trap the excess heat from the wood stove for hot water and for heating. Capture the clean water from the reaction and use the fuel to power home and vehicles as needed.
                                        > Waste can be put though a multi step process that would use algea and gardening composting as ways to take care of it. Use the compost to fertilize the garden which is a must for Space but in no way can a earth greenhouse be the same as what will be on mars so this is just a way to quite the loud voices that would be asking for the same dollars that are needed for space.
                                        > I think that what I have put forth meets the aim of profit creation and finally for job creation, giving a leverage point for science and so much more.
                                        > Those space manufacturing companies are not something that fits into single categories of rockets.... so for each there is a different business model and that includes not just the area of profit but a source of seed money as well. As such what would be a straight forward service market it becomes one of selective parts and not to a complete sector. So the people of earth do not have just a specific application from rocket launching regardless of what it carries as a payload.
                                        > I am not sure with this quoted section "To ask such companies to start suddenly investing in an idea (humans to Mars) that has no defined market (governments are not fully committed yet) was short sighted and unrealistic of me so I'm changing that." as the answer is not black and white for profit as it requires limits and justification for expenditure.
                                        > Risk is part of the nature of space businesses in general and to lower the chances usually mean higher expense in all facets.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, "frank_stratford" <frank_stratford@> wrote:
                                        > >
                                        > > I posted this in our forums today guys, basically as a way forward for us. For mission design the outcome is positive as a peer reviewed design (or design of individual "chunks"- as David has been studying) can serve this goal as well.
                                        > >
                                        > > I was having some discussions with one of our advisors recently (Brian Enke) and it was great to get some positive feedback on my consortium ideas. He has arranged for Robert Zubrin to give me a call soon as well as we think we may be onto something now in the effort to get humans to Mars.
                                        > >
                                        > > I knew that there were many holes in my consortium idea but it wasn't until someone pointed them out in a balanced "non flame" manner that I started to see those areas. So I will start with an outline/plan and explain it from there-
                                        > >
                                        > > 1. Mars and space advocates organize a "consortium conference" to bring together the potential players for such a consortium- Boeing, Lockheed, SpaceX, etc etc.
                                        > > 2. Unlike my previous proposal for them to get to work straight away on a Mars mission this time we would be getting them to form a consortium to advance near term earth relevant technologies in line with human space exploration needs. In short- develop with their combined resources many technologies needed for Mars in a much faster way than the current speed of R&D.
                                        > >
                                        > > This means that profits are the goal in the immediate and near term and it keeps investors happy because it can sink its teeth into some "already developing" ideas in various areas.
                                        > >
                                        > > I know that almost all space companies around today are servicing real market needs here on earth with real applications for people on earth and it is the only way they can make any money.
                                        > >
                                        > > To ask such companies to start suddenly investing in an idea (humans to Mars) that has no defined market (governments are not fully committed yet) was short sighted and unrealistic of me so I'm changing that.
                                        > >
                                        > > The problem with governments is that they are very risk averse and when it comes to humans to Mars the risks are very high. So if the consortium can remove some of these risk areas, or at least show how they can be removed (and governments do the heavy lifting), governments would start to show more interest.
                                        > >
                                        > > But areas like life support, radiation protection, EDL and energy production can all have earth based spin offs that will give profits to companies here and now, and the beauty of a consortium is that together they could hit their targets more quickly than on their own.(as they are today)
                                        > >
                                        > > I have no doubt that space companies want governments to go to Mars as they will get the contracts, but in the meantime, something more than theories must be produced to change the stance of governments to this whole idea.
                                        > >
                                        > > So what IS realistic?
                                        > >
                                        > > That we can get these companies together to begin talking about ways they can produce technologies that will bring them profits here and now, but give them the humans to Mars program as the central goal/focus.
                                        > >
                                        > > This can also include R&D into cheap space access tech as well as the benefits from that are obvious.
                                        > >
                                        > > If we had 2 or 3 peer reviewed humans to Mars designs for them to coalesce around, this would be needed as no focus will result in no outcomes.
                                        > >
                                        > > For example- reliable food supplies and production- good for earth here and now but also vital to crew health and safety- one of those "risk" areas governments worry about. If the consortium could patent and put together something in this area the applications are obvious.
                                        > >
                                        > > The same with EDL- applications for military use are obvious and far more likely to be invested in by governments than pure space exploration (sadly).
                                        > >
                                        > > Radiation shielding techs will also have immediate applications for earth. There are many areas like this.
                                        > >
                                        > > As advocates we can and do organize conferences every year with representatives from space companies and space agencies. So we can do this. We can get them in a room discussing a way forward for Mars via immediate profits now.
                                        > >
                                        > > But we would have to have some very clearly defined areas for them to sink their collective teeth into and several proposals would be good to start it off. Proposals for individual pieces of tech or systems that can have dual use on Earth and Mars.
                                        > >
                                        > > My mistake was to expect these companies to invest in a "maybe" a "build it and they will come" assumption, but I was wrong. With immediate profits as the focus I am certain that we can begin to make real progress towards humans to Mars because right now that is the only way any space company is operating.The power of a consortium is that together they can advance R&D and profits more quickly than on their own.
                                        > >
                                        > > I think this can be done, that it is in line with current realities in how this sector gains investment- based on serving real market needs (but with dual applications).
                                        > >
                                        > > The difference with a consortium is the sheer resources brought to bear on these R&D areas versus the sporadic and slow go it alone approach we have today.
                                        > >
                                        > > Plus we already have one consortium- ULA- United Launch Alliance, so it is not an idea these companies are foreign to.
                                        > >
                                        > > If these companies want a committment from governments on humans to mars, but they don't want to lose money to get this committment then it's time they got together and figured out some areas they could advance as a spark for governments to "get interested" in Mars. The part we play as advocates is to organize this effort and "drive" it from behind seeing we are the ones with the vision and passion for the future of humanity in space. If not us then who?
                                        > >
                                        > > So the question is, can we make a compelling enough case to these companies to "get them interested"?
                                        > >
                                        >
                                      • Darren Oliveiro-Priestnall
                                        I do sometimes worry that MarsDrive is at risk of losing direction, aimlessly recompiling missions to Mars without much realistic hope of those missions
                                        Message 20 of 27 , Jun 23, 2010
                                        View Source
                                        • 0 Attachment

                                          I do sometimes worry that MarsDrive is at risk of losing direction, aimlessly recompiling missions to Mars without much realistic hope of those missions becoming realised.

                                           

                                          The Mars Society, NASA and many independent groups have put together general mission designs for going to Mars and I’m sure that over the coming years, many more designs will be put together by other agencies and groups.

                                          The best we can hope for from such a design is to influence another design which may or may not be adopted at some later date by a space agency.

                                           

                                          That’s not to say it’s wasted time, if new insight is reached and published then it’s never wasted time.

                                           

                                          I look at MarsDrive as a reminder of the end goal, keeping the dream of going to Mars alive but I don’t personally look at MarsDrive as being a major contributor to the final strategy.

                                          As I write this there are companies all over the world developing new technologies for the space sector from new solar panels to new propulsion systems new new electronics.

                                          Many of these will be intended for different areas of the space sector but will feed into the larger goal of going to Mars.

                                          As the technology matures it makes going to Mars more affordable and less of a technelogical risk or leap so in 20 years we could well be going to Mars but it won’t be with today’s rockets or technologies but derivitives of these and new developments.

                                          At that point a mission design will be developed which will look at available legacy designs, possibly including the DRM and a new design for the available technology and understanding will be drawn up.

                                           

                                          So I’d say the DRM is of value but it has to be realised that the DRM is just that, a reference mission for a future new mission design.

                                          I would argue that it’s more important for MarsDrive to educate and excite the general public about Mars because agencies won’t be going anywhere until voters show a real interest in going to Mars.

                                          At the same time any specific areas of research such as the ISRU study are of value because it yields possible technologies which can be developed.

                                           

                                          I’d suggest the following.

                                           

                                          1.       Continue with the DRM but decide whether theres the skills or interest in revising it again or taking it through to a fully published state. There’s no point in publishing something half cooked or which just gives a marginally new angle to MarsDirect or another design squeezed into out dated design concepts and technologies.

                                          2.       Put together a strategy for bringing in a lot of new people and generating a lot of new interest in the general public around Mars. MarsDrive needs to grow if it’s to really affect change.

                                          3.       Continue with specific areas of research such as ISRU which is yielding some valuable results. I would even say ISRU should be taken through to a developed prototype possibly. If the research is sound and a design can be created then funding should be sought to build a working model at least. If there’s collective agreement at some point that the ISRU design has matured to a point that a working model could be constructed then we can approach some sponsors to get the funds to build it.

                                          4.       Work more closely with the private sector which is where I feel the technology will come from for going to Mars. Franly going to Mars is expensive and risky which isn’t a natural government strength. When I look at the private sector I feel very excited about all the innovate new development from startups and established companies. I really do believe that Mars will reached by private investors and business while governments are still pondering the merits of going.

                                          I don’t know whether MarsDrive is really suitable for running its own business. A business succeeds by rapid reaction to market conditions, a clear business plan and commited workers and management. A public advocacy group by contrast has much more freedom to pursue non-profit ideas over a longer period so for instance we can debate the DRM over several years while a company cannot afford such activity. What MarsDrive could do is support and work on the exchange of ideas with the private sector, looking at whos’ working in what technology and seeing how it can be applied to a future Mars mission.

                                          It may be that MarsDrive could run its own business but a business is very different to an advocacy group and has to ultimately be profitable to be of any value.

                                           

                                          Just some of my thoughts which can be ignored but I do support and encourage the underlying goals and ambitions of MarsDrive. If groups like MarsDrive dissapear then there’s little hope of any of us seeing a man or woman walk on Mars.

                                          If we don’t re-evaluate our own strategy at intervals then we become obsolete and that goal will slip further from our grasp.

                                           

                                          Darren

                                           

                                           

                                          From: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com [mailto:marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of spacenutnewmars
                                          Sent: 23 June 2010 4:26 AM
                                          To: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com
                                          Subject: [marsdrivemission] Re: Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in

                                           

                                           

                                          Ok so no replies to the topic since my last.....

                                          I have rearranged the thoughts put forth indicated in the quotes to allow for a reply. Franks new spin on the consortium under "advanced near term earth relevant items" that have implications for "areas like life support, radiation protection, EDL and energy production can all have earth based spin offs that will give profits to companies here and now" that would be of benifut for space travel to beyond LEO and to other places is just the rock and hard place that is why we are not advancing I feel. Since the list is continued on a new topic I will post response there as these are part of that list.

                                          I too agree that space companies would be all for missions to mars as well as others if governments put up the cash but that is what just stopped the Constellation project cold in its steps as we have a leader that does not believe in what was determined as a way forward by yet another president.

                                          So what IS realistic? Is a great question but to what specific topic area that is stopping a mission from going forward. Is it really profits, is it the will to produce R&D technolgies that is lacking, or is just a needs for a cheaper faster means to get us there.

                                          As for peer reviewed human mars mission I kind of feel that some of the best plans have already been put forward by the likes of Mars Society, Nasa and others so having more do not really change all that much the efforts to get to Mars. We are all just defining or refining the numbers, contents of science and goals to be achieved by those that make the trip. But we are also defining what is acceptable risk areas and what are needed backups or proventions that come in under the limitations of the mission. Its not until the money is put forth that missions will happen.

                                          --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, "spacenutnewmars" <spacenutnewmars@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > Hello all and I am sorry that I have not gotten back to Frank's new approach to the consortium. I have been shifting from days to second shift and now I am back on Days. This response will seem like a rant but it is not meant to be that way.
                                          >
                                          > It is good to hear that you have been discussing this important MarsDrive topic with the advisors in Brian Enke. Another plus for MarsDrive is the chance to have your first meeting with Robert Zubrin soon as well.
                                          >
                                          > The consortium will always seem to have holes depending on others view point so do not let that fret you into not continuing with the throught process. Setting up a conference of space experts with have positives and negatives regardless of whom is invited or who is not.
                                          > Such as what the coalition for space is....been done and they are going no where....As Darren said Consortiums are not new and we have lots of examples of them. Each has there own unique methods of funding and power structure.
                                          > Agreed that the needs of people are what currently are blocking or getting the loudest voice for the fund which space missions would need. But what are those advanced near term earth relevant items be? I think this is what Frank and Brian Enke were thinking when they were talking about new earth-based techs that will or would spill out of the process naturally.
                                          > First I think what can be are those items that help people with the needs to survive here on earth. While jobs are high on the list it is not a space technology path to a human mission. So what would they be? In everyday life we need clean water, power (electric, gas, oil ect...), Food, shelter and clean air to breath. Everything else would fall under possessions.... In space we will need lots of power, clean water, Food and water to be created from what can be brought, built from insitu resources and just made from the combinations of both.
                                          > I have suggested making energy effienct sheltes modeled after the mars habitats of the analog staions of Mars Society as a step. The need for power, clean air and water can be made from a combination of say a wood stove to provide CO2 and a source of water to create methane and clean water from the Mars Society planned Sabitier reactor. Trap the excess heat from the wood stove for hot water and for heating. Capture the clean water from the reaction and use the fuel to power home and vehicles as needed.
                                          > Waste can be put though a multi step process that would use algea and gardening composting as ways to take care of it. Use the compost to fertilize the garden which is a must for Space but in no way can a earth greenhouse be the same as what will be on mars so this is just a way to quite the loud voices that would be asking for the same dollars that are needed for space.
                                          > I think that what I have put forth meets the aim of profit creation and finally for job creation, giving a leverage point for science and so much more.
                                          > Those space manufacturing companies are not something that fits into single categories of rockets.... so for each there is a different business model and that includes not just the area of profit but a source of seed money as well. As such what would be a straight forward service market it becomes one of selective parts and not to a complete sector. So the people of earth do not have just a specific application from rocket launching regardless of what it carries as a payload.
                                          > I am not sure with this quoted section "To ask such companies to start suddenly investing in an idea (humans to Mars) that has no defined market (governments are not fully committed yet) was short sighted and unrealistic of me so I'm changing that." as the answer is not black and white for profit as it requires limits and justification for expenditure.
                                          > Risk is part of the nature of space businesses in general and to lower the chances usually mean higher expense in all facets.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, "frank_stratford" <frank_stratford@> wrote:
                                          > >
                                          > > I posted this in our forums today guys, basically as a way forward for us. For mission design the outcome is positive as a peer reviewed design (or design of individual "chunks"- as David has been studying) can serve this goal as well.
                                          > >
                                          > > I was having some discussions with one of our advisors recently (Brian Enke) and it was great to get some positive feedback on my consortium ideas. He has arranged for Robert Zubrin to give me a call soon as well as we think we may be onto something now in the effort to get humans to Mars.
                                          > >
                                          > > I knew that there were many holes in my consortium idea but it wasn't until someone pointed them out in a balanced "non flame" manner that I started to see those areas. So I will start with an outline/plan and explain it from there-
                                          > >
                                          > > 1. Mars and space advocates organize a "consortium conference" to bring together the potential players for such a consortium- Boeing, Lockheed, SpaceX, etc etc.
                                          > > 2. Unlike my previous proposal for them to get to work straight away on a Mars mission this time we would be getting them to form a consortium to advance near term earth relevant technologies in line with human space exploration needs. In short- develop with their combined resources many technologies needed for Mars in a much faster way than the current speed of R&D.
                                          > >
                                          > > This means that profits are the goal in the immediate and near term and it keeps investors happy because it can sink its teeth into some "already developing" ideas in various areas.
                                          > >
                                          > > I know that almost all space companies around today are servicing real market needs here on earth with real applications for people on earth and it is the only way they can make any money.
                                          > >
                                          > > To ask such companies to start suddenly investing in an idea (humans to Mars) that has no defined market (governments are not fully committed yet) was short sighted and unrealistic of me so I'm changing that.
                                          > >
                                          > > The problem with governments is that they are very risk averse and when it comes to humans to Mars the risks are very high. So if the consortium can remove some of these risk areas, or at least show how they can be removed (and governments do the heavy lifting), governments would start to show more interest.
                                          > >
                                          > > But areas like life support, radiation protection, EDL and energy production can all have earth based spin offs that will give profits to companies here and now, and the beauty of a consortium is that together they could hit their targets more quickly than on their own.(as they are today)
                                          > >
                                          > > I have no doubt that space companies want governments to go to Mars as they will get the contracts, but in the meantime, something more than theories must be produced to change the stance of governments to this whole idea.
                                          > >
                                          > > So what IS realistic?
                                          > >
                                          > > That we can get these companies together to begin talking about ways they can produce technologies that will bring them profits here and now, but give them the humans to Mars program as the central goal/focus.
                                          > >
                                          > > This can also include R&D into cheap space access tech as well as the benefits from that are obvious.
                                          > >
                                          > > If we had 2 or 3 peer reviewed humans to Mars designs for them to coalesce around, this would be needed as no focus will result in no outcomes.
                                          > >
                                          > > For example- reliable food supplies and production- good for earth here and now but also vital to crew health and safety- one of those "risk" areas governments worry about. If the consortium could patent and put together something in this area the applications are obvious.
                                          > >
                                          > > The same with EDL- applications for military use are obvious and far more likely to be invested in by governments than pure space exploration (sadly).
                                          > >
                                          > > Radiation shielding techs will also have immediate applications for earth. There are many areas like this.
                                          > >
                                          > > As advocates we can and do organize conferences every year with representatives from space companies and space agencies. So we can do this. We can get them in a room discussing a way forward for Mars via immediate profits now.
                                          > >
                                          > > But we would have to have some very clearly defined areas for them to sink their collective teeth into and several proposals would be good to start it off. Proposals for individual pieces of tech or systems that can have dual use on Earth and Mars.
                                          > >
                                          > > My mistake was to expect these companies to invest in a "maybe" a "build it and they will come" assumption, but I was wrong. With immediate profits as the focus I am certain that we can begin to make real progress towards humans to Mars because right now that is the only way any space company is operating.The power of a consortium is that together they can advance R&D and profits more quickly than on their own.
                                          > >
                                          > > I think this can be done, that it is in line with current realities in how this sector gains investment- based on serving real market needs (but with dual applications).
                                          > >
                                          > > The difference with a consortium is the sheer resources brought to bear on these R&D areas versus the sporadic and slow go it alone approach we have today.
                                          > >
                                          > > Plus we already have one consortium- ULA- United Launch Alliance, so it is not an idea these companies are foreign to.
                                          > >
                                          > > If these companies want a committment from governments on humans to mars, but they don't want to lose money to get this committment then it's time they got together and figured out some areas they could advance as a spark for governments to "get interested" in Mars. The part we play as advocates is to organize this effort and "drive" it from behind seeing we are the ones with the vision and passion for the future of humanity in space. If not us then who?
                                          > >
                                          > > So the question is, can we make a compelling enough case to these companies to "get them interested"?
                                          > >
                                          >

                                        • frank_stratford
                                          You do have a lot of valid points there Darren. From my view, mission design and the ongoing review of designs is a worthwhile task as it helps to keep this
                                          Message 21 of 27 , Jun 24, 2010
                                          View Source
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            You do have a lot of valid points there Darren.

                                            From my view, mission design and the ongoing review of designs is a worthwhile task as it helps to keep this all "realistic" which is very important to outreach as well.

                                            As to outreach and getting the public on board, this is something Hal and I worked on for some time (and many others), and while we tried many things this is a complex area.

                                            It has been very hard to show the public the relevance of this whole subject area but I think my mistake was I ended up arguing the point with other space advocates rather than reaching out to the non space public.

                                            The space community is terribly divided, everyone has their own goal, all of which are "the best way" into space etc. It is no wonder we can't reach the public with such divided messages.

                                            I have written many articles on why we should go to Mars, and each time I hope I have improved my reasoning, but still it is not a perfect case, and may never be. So, in accord with the old engineering rule of K.I.S.S (keep it simple stupid), I think the original reasons are still the best-

                                            1. The search for life on Mars
                                            2. To settle on Mars
                                            2a) Continuation of our species/spreading life to new worlds
                                            2b) Resources mining and R&D (Deuterium for example)
                                            2c) Development of cheap space transport
                                            2d) Development of new energy technologies and other areas as well
                                            3. Mars is still the most likely near term candidate for all of the above and no serious scientist doubts this.
                                            4. Comparitive Planetology- comparing the development of Mars to Earth, an area of great value to us.

                                            Spin offs from this effort will occur, and the history making aspect will inspire the people, despite what my critics say, maybe not in the vast numbers as I predict, but I am 100% certain many young and old will be inspired by the drive to Mars.

                                            How we get to Mars is to me looking like a gradual development path as you say, where many technologies are now being developed that will speed up and cheapen the program some day. But on the question of who pays for it, this is something we need to keep our finger on. If we can influence governments or the private sector, our job is done.






                                            --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, Darren Oliveiro-Priestnall <darrenop@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            > I do sometimes worry that MarsDrive is at risk of losing direction, aimlessly recompiling missions to Mars without much realistic hope of those missions becoming realised.
                                            >
                                            > The Mars Society, NASA and many independent groups have put together general mission designs for going to Mars and I'm sure that over the coming years, many more designs will be put together by other agencies and groups.
                                            > The best we can hope for from such a design is to influence another design which may or may not be adopted at some later date by a space agency.
                                            >
                                            > That's not to say it's wasted time, if new insight is reached and published then it's never wasted time.
                                            >
                                            > I look at MarsDrive as a reminder of the end goal, keeping the dream of going to Mars alive but I don't personally look at MarsDrive as being a major contributor to the final strategy.
                                            > As I write this there are companies all over the world developing new technologies for the space sector from new solar panels to new propulsion systems new new electronics.
                                            > Many of these will be intended for different areas of the space sector but will feed into the larger goal of going to Mars.
                                            > As the technology matures it makes going to Mars more affordable and less of a technelogical risk or leap so in 20 years we could well be going to Mars but it won't be with today's rockets or technologies but derivitives of these and new developments.
                                            > At that point a mission design will be developed which will look at available legacy designs, possibly including the DRM and a new design for the available technology and understanding will be drawn up.
                                            >
                                            > So I'd say the DRM is of value but it has to be realised that the DRM is just that, a reference mission for a future new mission design.
                                            > I would argue that it's more important for MarsDrive to educate and excite the general public about Mars because agencies won't be going anywhere until voters show a real interest in going to Mars.
                                            > At the same time any specific areas of research such as the ISRU study are of value because it yields possible technologies which can be developed.
                                            >
                                            > I'd suggest the following.
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > 1. Continue with the DRM but decide whether theres the skills or interest in revising it again or taking it through to a fully published state. There's no point in publishing something half cooked or which just gives a marginally new angle to MarsDirect or another design squeezed into out dated design concepts and technologies.
                                            >
                                            > 2. Put together a strategy for bringing in a lot of new people and generating a lot of new interest in the general public around Mars. MarsDrive needs to grow if it's to really affect change.
                                            >
                                            > 3. Continue with specific areas of research such as ISRU which is yielding some valuable results. I would even say ISRU should be taken through to a developed prototype possibly. If the research is sound and a design can be created then funding should be sought to build a working model at least. If there's collective agreement at some point that the ISRU design has matured to a point that a working model could be constructed then we can approach some sponsors to get the funds to build it.
                                            >
                                            > 4. Work more closely with the private sector which is where I feel the technology will come from for going to Mars. Franly going to Mars is expensive and risky which isn't a natural government strength. When I look at the private sector I feel very excited about all the innovate new development from startups and established companies. I really do believe that Mars will reached by private investors and business while governments are still pondering the merits of going.
                                            >
                                            > I don't know whether MarsDrive is really suitable for running its own business. A business succeeds by rapid reaction to market conditions, a clear business plan and commited workers and management. A public advocacy group by contrast has much more freedom to pursue non-profit ideas over a longer period so for instance we can debate the DRM over several years while a company cannot afford such activity. What MarsDrive could do is support and work on the exchange of ideas with the private sector, looking at whos' working in what technology and seeing how it can be applied to a future Mars mission.
                                            >
                                            > It may be that MarsDrive could run its own business but a business is very different to an advocacy group and has to ultimately be profitable to be of any value.
                                            >
                                            > Just some of my thoughts which can be ignored but I do support and encourage the underlying goals and ambitions of MarsDrive. If groups like MarsDrive dissapear then there's little hope of any of us seeing a man or woman walk on Mars.
                                            > If we don't re-evaluate our own strategy at intervals then we become obsolete and that goal will slip further from our grasp.
                                            >
                                            > Darren
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > From: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com [mailto:marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of spacenutnewmars
                                            > Sent: 23 June 2010 4:26 AM
                                            > To: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com
                                            > Subject: [marsdrivemission] Re: Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > Ok so no replies to the topic since my last.....
                                            >
                                            > I have rearranged the thoughts put forth indicated in the quotes to allow for a reply. Franks new spin on the consortium under "advanced near term earth relevant items" that have implications for "areas like life support, radiation protection, EDL and energy production can all have earth based spin offs that will give profits to companies here and now" that would be of benifut for space travel to beyond LEO and to other places is just the rock and hard place that is why we are not advancing I feel. Since the list is continued on a new topic I will post response there as these are part of that list.
                                            >
                                            > I too agree that space companies would be all for missions to mars as well as others if governments put up the cash but that is what just stopped the Constellation project cold in its steps as we have a leader that does not believe in what was determined as a way forward by yet another president.
                                            >
                                            > So what IS realistic? Is a great question but to what specific topic area that is stopping a mission from going forward. Is it really profits, is it the will to produce R&D technolgies that is lacking, or is just a needs for a cheaper faster means to get us there.
                                            >
                                            > As for peer reviewed human mars mission I kind of feel that some of the best plans have already been put forward by the likes of Mars Society, Nasa and others so having more do not really change all that much the efforts to get to Mars. We are all just defining or refining the numbers, contents of science and goals to be achieved by those that make the trip. But we are also defining what is acceptable risk areas and what are needed backups or proventions that come in under the limitations of the mission. Its not until the money is put forth that missions will happen.
                                            >
                                            > --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com<mailto:marsdrivemission%40yahoogroups.com>, "spacenutnewmars" <spacenutnewmars@<mailto:spacenutnewmars@>> wrote:
                                            > >
                                            > > Hello all and I am sorry that I have not gotten back to Frank's new approach to the consortium. I have been shifting from days to second shift and now I am back on Days. This response will seem like a rant but it is not meant to be that way.
                                            > >
                                            > > It is good to hear that you have been discussing this important MarsDrive topic with the advisors in Brian Enke. Another plus for MarsDrive is the chance to have your first meeting with Robert Zubrin soon as well.
                                            > >
                                            > > The consortium will always seem to have holes depending on others view point so do not let that fret you into not continuing with the throught process. Setting up a conference of space experts with have positives and negatives regardless of whom is invited or who is not.
                                            > > Such as what the coalition for space is....been done and they are going no where....As Darren said Consortiums are not new and we have lots of examples of them. Each has there own unique methods of funding and power structure.
                                            > > Agreed that the needs of people are what currently are blocking or getting the loudest voice for the fund which space missions would need. But what are those advanced near term earth relevant items be? I think this is what Frank and Brian Enke were thinking when they were talking about new earth-based techs that will or would spill out of the process naturally.
                                            > > First I think what can be are those items that help people with the needs to survive here on earth. While jobs are high on the list it is not a space technology path to a human mission. So what would they be? In everyday life we need clean water, power (electric, gas, oil ect...), Food, shelter and clean air to breath. Everything else would fall under possessions.... In space we will need lots of power, clean water, Food and water to be created from what can be brought, built from insitu resources and just made from the combinations of both.
                                            > > I have suggested making energy effienct sheltes modeled after the mars habitats of the analog staions of Mars Society as a step. The need for power, clean air and water can be made from a combination of say a wood stove to provide CO2 and a source of water to create methane and clean water from the Mars Society planned Sabitier reactor. Trap the excess heat from the wood stove for hot water and for heating. Capture the clean water from the reaction and use the fuel to power home and vehicles as needed.
                                            > > Waste can be put though a multi step process that would use algea and gardening composting as ways to take care of it. Use the compost to fertilize the garden which is a must for Space but in no way can a earth greenhouse be the same as what will be on mars so this is just a way to quite the loud voices that would be asking for the same dollars that are needed for space.
                                            > > I think that what I have put forth meets the aim of profit creation and finally for job creation, giving a leverage point for science and so much more.
                                            > > Those space manufacturing companies are not something that fits into single categories of rockets.... so for each there is a different business model and that includes not just the area of profit but a source of seed money as well. As such what would be a straight forward service market it becomes one of selective parts and not to a complete sector. So the people of earth do not have just a specific application from rocket launching regardless of what it carries as a payload.
                                            > > I am not sure with this quoted section "To ask such companies to start suddenly investing in an idea (humans to Mars) that has no defined market (governments are not fully committed yet) was short sighted and unrealistic of me so I'm changing that." as the answer is not black and white for profit as it requires limits and justification for expenditure.
                                            > > Risk is part of the nature of space businesses in general and to lower the chances usually mean higher expense in all facets.
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > > --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com<mailto:marsdrivemission%40yahoogroups.com>, "frank_stratford" <frank_stratford@> wrote:
                                            > > >
                                            > > > I posted this in our forums today guys, basically as a way forward for us. For mission design the outcome is positive as a peer reviewed design (or design of individual "chunks"- as David has been studying) can serve this goal as well.
                                            > > >
                                            > > > I was having some discussions with one of our advisors recently (Brian Enke) and it was great to get some positive feedback on my consortium ideas. He has arranged for Robert Zubrin to give me a call soon as well as we think we may be onto something now in the effort to get humans to Mars.
                                            > > >
                                            > > > I knew that there were many holes in my consortium idea but it wasn't until someone pointed them out in a balanced "non flame" manner that I started to see those areas. So I will start with an outline/plan and explain it from there-
                                            > > >
                                            > > > 1. Mars and space advocates organize a "consortium conference" to bring together the potential players for such a consortium- Boeing, Lockheed, SpaceX, etc etc.
                                            > > > 2. Unlike my previous proposal for them to get to work straight away on a Mars mission this time we would be getting them to form a consortium to advance near term earth relevant technologies in line with human space exploration needs. In short- develop with their combined resources many technologies needed for Mars in a much faster way than the current speed of R&D.
                                            > > >
                                            > > > This means that profits are the goal in the immediate and near term and it keeps investors happy because it can sink its teeth into some "already developing" ideas in various areas.
                                            > > >
                                            > > > I know that almost all space companies around today are servicing real market needs here on earth with real applications for people on earth and it is the only way they can make any money.
                                            > > >
                                            > > > To ask such companies to start suddenly investing in an idea (humans to Mars) that has no defined market (governments are not fully committed yet) was short sighted and unrealistic of me so I'm changing that.
                                            > > >
                                            > > > The problem with governments is that they are very risk averse and when it comes to humans to Mars the risks are very high. So if the consortium can remove some of these risk areas, or at least show how they can be removed (and governments do the heavy lifting), governments would start to show more interest.
                                            > > >
                                            > > > But areas like life support, radiation protection, EDL and energy production can all have earth based spin offs that will give profits to companies here and now, and the beauty of a consortium is that together they could hit their targets more quickly than on their own.(as they are today)
                                            > > >
                                            > > > I have no doubt that space companies want governments to go to Mars as they will get the contracts, but in the meantime, something more than theories must be produced to change the stance of governments to this whole idea.
                                            > > >
                                            > > > So what IS realistic?
                                            > > >
                                            > > > That we can get these companies together to begin talking about ways they can produce technologies that will bring them profits here and now, but give them the humans to Mars program as the central goal/focus.
                                            > > >
                                            > > > This can also include R&D into cheap space access tech as well as the benefits from that are obvious.
                                            > > >
                                            > > > If we had 2 or 3 peer reviewed humans to Mars designs for them to coalesce around, this would be needed as no focus will result in no outcomes.
                                            > > >
                                            > > > For example- reliable food supplies and production- good for earth here and now but also vital to crew health and safety- one of those "risk" areas governments worry about. If the consortium could patent and put together something in this area the applications are obvious.
                                            > > >
                                            > > > The same with EDL- applications for military use are obvious and far more likely to be invested in by governments than pure space exploration (sadly).
                                            > > >
                                            > > > Radiation shielding techs will also have immediate applications for earth. There are many areas like this.
                                            > > >
                                            > > > As advocates we can and do organize conferences every year with representatives from space companies and space agencies. So we can do this. We can get them in a room discussing a way forward for Mars via immediate profits now.
                                            > > >
                                            > > > But we would have to have some very clearly defined areas for them to sink their collective teeth into and several proposals would be good to start it off. Proposals for individual pieces of tech or systems that can have dual use on Earth and Mars.
                                            > > >
                                            > > > My mistake was to expect these companies to invest in a "maybe" a "build it and they will come" assumption, but I was wrong. With immediate profits as the focus I am certain that we can begin to make real progress towards humans to Mars because right now that is the only way any space company is operating.The power of a consortium is that together they can advance R&D and profits more quickly than on their own.
                                            > > >
                                            > > > I think this can be done, that it is in line with current realities in how this sector gains investment- based on serving real market needs (but with dual applications).
                                            > > >
                                            > > > The difference with a consortium is the sheer resources brought to bear on these R&D areas versus the sporadic and slow go it alone approach we have today.
                                            > > >
                                            > > > Plus we already have one consortium- ULA- United Launch Alliance, so it is not an idea these companies are foreign to.
                                            > > >
                                            > > > If these companies want a committment from governments on humans to mars, but they don't want to lose money to get this committment then it's time they got together and figured out some areas they could advance as a spark for governments to "get interested" in Mars. The part we play as advocates is to organize this effort and "drive" it from behind seeing we are the ones with the vision and passion for the future of humanity in space. If not us then who?
                                            > > >
                                            > > > So the question is, can we make a compelling enough case to these companies to "get them interested"?
                                            > > >
                                            > >
                                            >
                                          • Michael Bloxham
                                            That s a great list!   Lately, I have also been inspired by the idea of Mars as humanities future  gateway to the rest of the universe. I think Zubrin
                                            Message 22 of 27 , Jun 24, 2010
                                            View Source
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              That's a great list!
                                               
                                              Lately, I have also been inspired by the idea of Mars as humanities future "gateway" to the rest of the universe. I think Zubrin talks about this as well. It is from the fact that this planet has only 1/3rd the gravity of Earth, but shares many of its resources (such as water) that it may be used as a proper "stepping stone" to destinations throughout the solar system. The fact that material strength and delta-V are functional to the root of gravity means that the advantages gained from Mars' lower gravity are much greater: Isn't it something like a factor of 5 increase in payload (at least) for a rocket launched from Mars' surface (compared with the Earth)? That would go a long way to make reusable SSTOs viable with even current technology. And likewise it could make "space elevators" viable too. This makes a big difference, IMHO. So Mars could be a great 'springboard', so to speak, to the rest of the solar system.
                                               
                                              - Mike

                                              --- On Thu, 24/6/10, frank_stratford <frank_stratford@...> wrote:

                                              From: frank_stratford <frank_stratford@...>
                                              Subject: [marsdrivemission] Re: Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                                              To: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com
                                              Received: Thursday, 24 June, 2010, 4:09 PM

                                               
                                              You do have a lot of valid points there Darren.

                                              From my view, mission design and the ongoing review of designs is a worthwhile task as it helps to keep this all "realistic" which is very important to outreach as well.

                                              As to outreach and getting the public on board, this is something Hal and I worked on for some time (and many others), and while we tried many things this is a complex area.

                                              It has been very hard to show the public the relevance of this whole subject area but I think my mistake was I ended up arguing the point with other space advocates rather than reaching out to the non space public.

                                              The space community is terribly divided, everyone has their own goal, all of which are "the best way" into space etc. It is no wonder we can't reach the public with such divided messages.

                                              I have written many articles on why we should go to Mars, and each time I hope I have improved my reasoning, but still it is not a perfect case, and may never be. So, in accord with the old engineering rule of K.I.S.S (keep it simple stupid), I think the original reasons are still the best-

                                              1. The search for life on Mars
                                              2. To settle on Mars
                                              2a) Continuation of our species/spreading life to new worlds
                                              2b) Resources mining and R&D (Deuterium for example)
                                              2c) Development of cheap space transport
                                              2d) Development of new energy technologies and other areas as well
                                              3. Mars is still the most likely near term candidate for all of the above and no serious scientist doubts this.
                                              4. Comparitive Planetology- comparing the development of Mars to Earth, an area of great value to us.

                                              Spin offs from this effort will occur, and the history making aspect will inspire the people, despite what my critics say, maybe not in the vast numbers as I predict, but I am 100% certain many young and old will be inspired by the drive to Mars.

                                              How we get to Mars is to me looking like a gradual development path as you say, where many technologies are now being developed that will speed up and cheapen the program some day. But on the question of who pays for it, this is something we need to keep our finger on. If we can influence governments or the private sector, our job is done.

                                              --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, Darren Oliveiro-Priestnall <darrenop@...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              > I do sometimes worry that MarsDrive is at risk of losing direction, aimlessly recompiling missions to Mars without much realistic hope of those missions becoming realised.
                                              >
                                              > The Mars Society, NASA and many independent groups have put together general mission designs for going to Mars and I'm sure that over the coming years, many more designs will be put together by other agencies and groups.
                                              > The best we can hope for from such a design is to influence another design which may or may not be adopted at some later date by a space agency.
                                              >
                                              > That's not to say it's wasted time, if new insight is reached and published then it's never wasted time.
                                              >
                                              > I look at MarsDrive as a reminder of the end goal, keeping the dream of going to Mars alive but I don't personally look at MarsDrive as being a major contributor to the final strategy.
                                              > As I write this there are companies all over the world developing new technologies for the space sector from new solar panels to new propulsion systems new new electronics.
                                              > Many of these will be intended for different areas of the space sector but will feed into the larger goal of going to Mars.
                                              > As the technology matures it makes going to Mars more affordable and less of a technelogical risk or leap so in 20 years we could well be going to Mars but it won't be with today's rockets or technologies but derivitives of these and new developments.
                                              > At that point a mission design will be developed which will look at available legacy designs, possibly including the DRM and a new design for the available technology and understanding will be drawn up.
                                              >
                                              > So I'd say the DRM is of value but it has to be realised that the DRM is just that, a reference mission for a future new mission design.
                                              > I would argue that it's more important for MarsDrive to educate and excite the general public about Mars because agencies won't be going anywhere until voters show a real interest in going to Mars.
                                              > At the same time any specific areas of research such as the ISRU study are of value because it yields possible technologies which can be developed.
                                              >
                                              > I'd suggest the following.
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > 1. Continue with the DRM but decide whether theres the skills or interest in revising it again or taking it through to a fully published state. There's no point in publishing something half cooked or which just gives a marginally new angle to MarsDirect or another design squeezed into out dated design concepts and technologies.
                                              >
                                              > 2. Put together a strategy for bringing in a lot of new people and generating a lot of new interest in the general public around Mars. MarsDrive needs to grow if it's to really affect change.
                                              >
                                              > 3. Continue with specific areas of research such as ISRU which is yielding some valuable results. I would even say ISRU should be taken through to a developed prototype possibly. If the research is sound and a design can be created then funding should be sought to build a working model at least. If there's collective agreement at some point that the ISRU design has matured to a point that a working model could be constructed then we can approach some sponsors to get the funds to build it.
                                              >
                                              > 4. Work more closely with the private sector which is where I feel the technology will come from for going to Mars. Franly going to Mars is expensive and risky which isn't a natural government strength. When I look at the private sector I feel very excited about all the innovate new development from startups and established companies. I really do believe that Mars will reached by private investors and business while governments are still pondering the merits of going.
                                              >
                                              > I don't know whether MarsDrive is really suitable for running its own business. A business succeeds by rapid reaction to market conditions, a clear business plan and commited workers and management. A public advocacy group by contrast has much more freedom to pursue non-profit ideas over a longer period so for instance we can debate the DRM over several years while a company cannot afford such activity. What MarsDrive could do is support and work on the exchange of ideas with the private sector, looking at whos' working in what technology and seeing how it can be applied to a future Mars mission.
                                              >
                                              > It may be that MarsDrive could run its own business but a business is very different to an advocacy group and has to ultimately be profitable to be of any value.
                                              >
                                              > Just some of my thoughts which can be ignored but I do support and encourage the underlying goals and ambitions of MarsDrive. If groups like MarsDrive dissapear then there's little hope of any of us seeing a man or woman walk on Mars.
                                              > If we don't re-evaluate our own strategy at intervals then we become obsolete and that goal will slip further from our grasp.
                                              >
                                              > Darren
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > From: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com [mailto:marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of spacenutnewmars
                                              > Sent: 23 June 2010 4:26 AM
                                              > To: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com
                                              > Subject: [marsdrivemission] Re: Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > Ok so no replies to the topic since my last.....
                                              >
                                              > I have rearranged the thoughts put forth indicated in the quotes to allow for a reply. Franks new spin on the consortium under "advanced near term earth relevant items" that have implications for "areas like life support, radiation protection, EDL and energy production can all have earth based spin offs that will give profits to companies here and now" that would be of benifut for space travel to beyond LEO and to other places is just the rock and hard place that is why we are not advancing I feel. Since the list is continued on a new topic I will post response there as these are part of that list.
                                              >
                                              > I too agree that space companies would be all for missions to mars as well as others if governments put up the cash but that is what just stopped the Constellation project cold in its steps as we have a leader that does not believe in what was determined as a way forward by yet another president.
                                              >
                                              > So what IS realistic? Is a great question but to what specific topic area that is stopping a mission from going forward. Is it really profits, is it the will to produce R&D technolgies that is lacking, or is just a needs for a cheaper faster means to get us there.
                                              >
                                              > As for peer reviewed human mars mission I kind of feel that some of the best plans have already been put forward by the likes of Mars Society, Nasa and others so having more do not really change all that much the efforts to get to Mars. We are all just defining or refining the numbers, contents of science and goals to be achieved by those that make the trip. But we are also defining what is acceptable risk areas and what are needed backups or proventions that come in under the limitations of the mission. Its not until the money is put forth that missions will happen.
                                              >
                                              > --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com<mailto:marsdrivemission%40yahoogroups.com>, "spacenutnewmars" <spacenutnewmars@<mailto:spacenutnewmars@>> wrote:
                                              > >
                                              > > Hello all and I am sorry that I have not gotten back to Frank's new approach to the consortium. I have been shifting from days to second shift and now I am back on Days. This response will seem like a rant but it is not meant to be that way.
                                              > >
                                              > > It is good to hear that you have been discussing this important MarsDrive topic with the advisors in Brian Enke. Another plus for MarsDrive is the chance to have your first meeting with Robert Zubrin soon as well.
                                              > >
                                              > > The consortium will always seem to have holes depending on others view point so do not let that fret you into not continuing with the throught process. Setting up a conference of space experts with have positives and negatives regardless of whom is invited or who is not.
                                              > > Such as what the coalition for space is....been done and they are going no where....As Darren said Consortiums are not new and we have lots of examples of them. Each has there own unique methods of funding and power structure.
                                              > > Agreed that the needs of people are what currently are blocking or getting the loudest voice for the fund which space missions would need. But what are those advanced near term earth relevant items be? I think this is what Frank and Brian Enke were thinking when they were talking about new earth-based techs that will or would spill out of the process naturally.
                                              > > First I think what can be are those items that help people with the needs to survive here on earth. While jobs are high on the list it is not a space technology path to a human mission. So what would they be? In everyday life we need clean water, power (electric, gas, oil ect...), Food, shelter and clean air to breath. Everything else would fall under possessions.... In space we will need lots of power, clean water, Food and water to be created from what can be brought, built from insitu resources and just made from the combinations of both.
                                              > > I have suggested making energy effienct sheltes modeled after the mars habitats of the analog staions of Mars Society as a step. The need for power, clean air and water can be made from a combination of say a wood stove to provide CO2 and a source of water to create methane and clean water from the Mars Society planned Sabitier reactor. Trap the excess heat from the wood stove for hot water and for heating. Capture the clean water from the reaction and use the fuel to power home and vehicles as needed.
                                              > > Waste can be put though a multi step process that would use algea and gardening composting as ways to take care of it. Use the compost to fertilize the garden which is a must for Space but in no way can a earth greenhouse be the same as what will be on mars so this is just a way to quite the loud voices that would be asking for the same dollars that are needed for space.
                                              > > I think that what I have put forth meets the aim of profit creation and finally for job creation, giving a leverage point for science and so much more.
                                              > > Those space manufacturing companies are not something that fits into single categories of rockets.... so for each there is a different business model and that includes not just the area of profit but a source of seed money as well. As such what would be a straight forward service market it becomes one of selective parts and not to a complete sector. So the people of earth do not have just a specific application from rocket launching regardless of what it carries as a payload.
                                              > > I am not sure with this quoted section "To ask such companies to start suddenly investing in an idea (humans to Mars) that has no defined market (governments are not fully committed yet) was short sighted and unrealistic of me so I'm changing that." as the answer is not black and white for profit as it requires limits and justification for expenditure.
                                              > > Risk is part of the nature of space businesses in general and to lower the chances usually mean higher expense in all facets.
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > > --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com<mailto:marsdrivemission%40yahoogroups.com>, "frank_stratford" <frank_stratford@> wrote:
                                              > > >
                                              > > > I posted this in our forums today guys, basically as a way forward for us. For mission design the outcome is positive as a peer reviewed design (or design of individual "chunks"- as David has been studying) can serve this goal as well.
                                              > > >
                                              > > > I was having some discussions with one of our advisors recently (Brian Enke) and it was great to get some positive feedback on my consortium ideas. He has arranged for Robert Zubrin to give me a call soon as well as we think we may be onto something now in the effort to get humans to Mars.
                                              > > >
                                              > > > I knew that there were many holes in my consortium idea but it wasn't until someone pointed them out in a balanced "non flame" manner that I started to see those areas. So I will start with an outline/plan and explain it from there-
                                              > > >
                                              > > > 1. Mars and space advocates organize a "consortium conference" to bring together the potential players for such a consortium- Boeing, Lockheed, SpaceX, etc etc.
                                              > > > 2. Unlike my previous proposal for them to get to work straight away on a Mars mission this time we would be getting them to form a consortium to advance near term earth relevant technologies in line with human space exploration needs. In short- develop with their combined resources many technologies needed for Mars in a much faster way than the current speed of R&D.
                                              > > >
                                              > > > This means that profits are the goal in the immediate and near term and it keeps investors happy because it can sink its teeth into some "already developing" ideas in various areas.
                                              > > >
                                              > > > I know that almost all space companies around today are servicing real market needs here on earth with real applications for people on earth and it is the only way they can make any money.
                                              > > >
                                              > > > To ask such companies to start suddenly investing in an idea (humans to Mars) that has no defined market (governments are not fully committed yet) was short sighted and unrealistic of me so I'm changing that.
                                              > > >
                                              > > > The problem with governments is that they are very risk averse and when it comes to humans to Mars the risks are very high. So if the consortium can remove some of these risk areas, or at least show how they can be removed (and governments do the heavy lifting), governments would start to show more interest.
                                              > > >
                                              > > > But areas like life support, radiation protection, EDL and energy production can all have earth based spin offs that will give profits to companies here and now, and the beauty of a consortium is that together they could hit their targets more quickly than on their own.(as they are today)
                                              > > >
                                              > > > I have no doubt that space companies want governments to go to Mars as they will get the contracts, but in the meantime, something more than theories must be produced to change the stance of governments to this whole idea.
                                              > > >
                                              > > > So what IS realistic?
                                              > > >
                                              > > > That we can get these companies together to begin talking about ways they can produce technologies that will bring them profits here and now, but give them the humans to Mars program as the central goal/focus.
                                              > > >
                                              > > > This can also include R&D into cheap space access tech as well as the benefits from that are obvious.
                                              > > >
                                              > > > If we had 2 or 3 peer reviewed humans to Mars designs for them to coalesce around, this would be needed as no focus will result in no outcomes.
                                              > > >
                                              > > > For example- reliable food supplies and production- good for earth here and now but also vital to crew health and safety- one of those "risk" areas governments worry about. If the consortium could patent and put together something in this area the applications are obvious.
                                              > > >
                                              > > > The same with EDL- applications for military use are obvious and far more likely to be invested in by governments than pure space exploration (sadly).
                                              > > >
                                              > > > Radiation shielding techs will also have immediate applications for earth. There are many areas like this.
                                              > > >
                                              > > > As advocates we can and do organize conferences every year with representatives from space companies and space agencies. So we can do this. We can get them in a room discussing a way forward for Mars via immediate profits now.
                                              > > >
                                              > > > But we would have to have some very clearly defined areas for them to sink their collective teeth into and several proposals would be good to start it off. Proposals for individual pieces of tech or systems that can have dual use on Earth and Mars.
                                              > > >
                                              > > > My mistake was to expect these companies to invest in a "maybe" a "build it and they will come" assumption, but I was wrong. With immediate profits as the focus I am certain that we can begin to make real progress towards humans to Mars because right now that is the only way any space company is operating.The power of a consortium is that together they can advance R&D and profits more quickly than on their own.
                                              > > >
                                              > > > I think this can be done, that it is in line with current realities in how this sector gains investment- based on serving real market needs (but with dual applications).
                                              > > >
                                              > > > The difference with a consortium is the sheer resources brought to bear on these R&D areas versus the sporadic and slow go it alone approach we have today.
                                              > > >
                                              > > > Plus we already have one consortium- ULA- United Launch Alliance, so it is not an idea these companies are foreign to.
                                              > > >
                                              > > > If these companies want a committment from governments on humans to mars, but they don't want to lose money to get this committment then it's time they got together and figured out some areas they could advance as a spark for governments to "get interested" in Mars. The part we play as advocates is to organize this effort and "drive" it from behind seeing we are the ones with the vision and passion for the future of humanity in space. If not us then who?
                                              > > >
                                              > > > So the question is, can we make a compelling enough case to these companies to "get them interested"?
                                              > > >
                                              > >
                                              >


                                               
                                            • Brian Enke
                                              Sorry I missed your original post... thanks for resending and rephrasing (though I agree with pretty much everything in both versions and have few additional
                                              Message 23 of 27 , Jun 25, 2010
                                              View Source
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Sorry I missed your original post... thanks for resending and rephrasing (though I agree with pretty much everything in both versions and have few additional comments). I've been away for a while and have fallen behind, so my apologies if something below isn't current.

                                                Just saw Darren's post with more good comments too... but on yours, I'll offer the following thoughts.

                                                As for peer reviewed human mars mission I kind of feel that some of the best plans have already been put forward by the likes of Mars Society, Nasa and others so having more do not really change all that much the efforts to get to Mars. We are all just defining or refining the numbers, contents of science and goals to be achieved by those that make the trip. But we are also defining what is acceptable risk areas and what are needed backups or proventions that come in under the limitations of the mission...

                                                In a word, yes.

                                                Here's a silly thought process to step through: is there a single optimal Mars mission plan? Let's assume for a moment there is. If true, it means the Mars Society, us, and everyone else except NASA is probably wasting their time because NASA would have already come up with it.

                                                Obviously NASA hasn't written the whole book on Mars missions yet and never will. So... what is actually different between all the various plans? It's things like risk, cost, complexity, goals, capabilities, plus secondary concerns (I call these "modifiers") like use of local resources, bureaucracy, technology, and plan innovations.... all the elements in the "space calculus" I've been developing over the past decade and presented for the first time at the last Mars Society conference in DC. These are the details I was alluding to in a previous message... and I think it would be great if MarsDrive's could contribute a study of these "assumptions."

                                                We could include mission plans from others, but put each through the same rigorous analysis and expose these assumptions in crystal clear detail. Hopefully we could pick (or develop) plans that fall into the six-or-so broad camps that we discussed before (one/two way, simple, more complex, very complex)?

                                                I feel this approach is within our capabilities, if we decide we want to do it. We have the right people - good critical thinkers who have honed their Mars planning skills by going through the earlier exercises (which we should continue too, IMHO). We've been asking and debating these issues all along... now it's time to put that experience to even better use? :)

                                                I'll be away for a few days, taking care of an ongoing family crisis here... but hopefully this will help keep the discussion going.

                                                Cheers,

                                                    - Brian



                                                On 6/22/2010 9:26 PM, spacenutnewmars wrote:
                                                 

                                                Ok so no replies to the topic since my last.....

                                                I have rearranged the thoughts put forth indicated in the quotes to allow for a reply. Franks new spin on the consortium under "advanced near term earth relevant items" that have implications for "areas like life support, radiation protection, EDL and energy production can all have earth based spin offs that will give profits to companies here and now" that would be of benifut for space travel to beyond LEO and to other places is just the rock and hard place that is why we are not advancing I feel. Since the list is continued on a new topic I will post response there as these are part of that list.

                                                I too agree that space companies would be all for missions to mars as well as others if governments put up the cash but that is what just stopped the Constellation project cold in its steps as we have a leader that does not believe in what was determined as a way forward by yet another president.

                                                So what IS realistic? Is a great question but to what specific topic area that is stopping a mission from going forward. Is it really profits, is it the will to produce R&D technolgies that is lacking, or is just a needs for a cheaper faster means to get us there.

                                                As for peer reviewed human mars mission I kind of feel that some of the best plans have already been put forward by the likes of Mars Society, Nasa and others so having more do not really change all that much the efforts to get to Mars. We are all just defining or refining the numbers, contents of science and goals to be achieved by those that make the trip. But we are also defining what is acceptable risk areas and what are needed backups or proventions that come in under the limitations of the mission. Its not until the money is put forth that missions will happen.

                                                --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, "spacenutnewmars" <spacenutnewmars@...> wrote:
                                                >
                                                > Hello all and I am sorry that I have not gotten back to Frank's new approach to the consortium. I have been shifting from days to second shift and now I am back on Days. This response will seem like a rant but it is not meant to be that way.
                                                >
                                                > It is good to hear that you have been discussing this important MarsDrive topic with the advisors in Brian Enke. Another plus for MarsDrive is the chance to have your first meeting with Robert Zubrin soon as well.
                                                >
                                                > The consortium will always seem to have holes depending on others view point so do not let that fret you into not continuing with the throught process. Setting up a conference of space experts with have positives and negatives regardless of whom is invited or who is not.
                                                > Such as what the coalition for space is....been done and they are going no where....As Darren said Consortiums are not new and we have lots of examples of them. Each has there own unique methods of funding and power structure.
                                                > Agreed that the needs of people are what currently are blocking or getting the loudest voice for the fund which space missions would need. But what are those advanced near term earth relevant items be? I think this is what Frank and Brian Enke were thinking when they were talking about new earth-based techs that will or would spill out of the process naturally.
                                                > First I think what can be are those items that help people with the needs to survive here on earth. While jobs are high on the list it is not a space technology path to a human mission. So what would they be? In everyday life we need clean water, power (electric, gas, oil ect...), Food, shelter and clean air to breath. Everything else would fall under possessions.... In space we will need lots of power, clean water, Food and water to be created from what can be brought, built from insitu resources and just made from the combinations of both.
                                                > I have suggested making energy effienct sheltes modeled after the mars habitats of the analog staions of Mars Society as a step. The need for power, clean air and water can be made from a combination of say a wood stove to provide CO2 and a source of water to create methane and clean water from the Mars Society planned Sabitier reactor. Trap the excess heat from the wood stove for hot water and for heating. Capture the clean water from the reaction and use the fuel to power home and vehicles as needed.
                                                > Waste can be put though a multi step process that would use algea and gardening composting as ways to take care of it. Use the compost to fertilize the garden which is a must for Space but in no way can a earth greenhouse be the same as what will be on mars so this is just a way to quite the loud voices that would be asking for the same dollars that are needed for space.
                                                > I think that what I have put forth meets the aim of profit creation and finally for job creation, giving a leverage point for science and so much more.
                                                > Those space manufacturing companies are not something that fits into single categories of rockets.... so for each there is a different business model and that includes not just the area of profit but a source of seed money as well. As such what would be a straight forward service market it becomes one of selective parts and not to a complete sector. So the people of earth do not have just a specific application from rocket launching regardless of what it carries as a payload.
                                                > I am not sure with this quoted section "To ask such companies to start suddenly investing in an idea (humans to Mars) that has no defined market (governments are not fully committed yet) was short sighted and unrealistic of me so I'm changing that." as the answer is not black and white for profit as it requires limits and justification for expenditure.
                                                > Risk is part of the nature of space businesses in general and to lower the chances usually mean higher expense in all facets.
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, "frank_stratford" <frank_stratford@> wrote:
                                                > >
                                                > > I posted this in our forums today guys, basically as a way forward for us. For mission design the outcome is positive as a peer reviewed design (or design of individual "chunks"- as David has been studying) can serve this goal as well.
                                                > >
                                                > > I was having some discussions with one of our advisors recently (Brian Enke) and it was great to get some positive feedback on my consortium ideas. He has arranged for Robert Zubrin to give me a call soon as well as we think we may be onto something now in the effort to get humans to Mars.
                                                > >
                                                > > I knew that there were many holes in my consortium idea but it wasn't until someone pointed them out in a balanced "non flame" manner that I started to see those areas. So I will start with an outline/plan and explain it from there-
                                                > >
                                                > > 1. Mars and space advocates organize a "consortium conference" to bring together the potential players for such a consortium- Boeing, Lockheed, SpaceX, etc etc.
                                                > > 2. Unlike my previous proposal for them to get to work straight away on a Mars mission this time we would be getting them to form a consortium to advance near term earth relevant technologies in line with human space exploration needs. In short- develop with their combined resources many technologies needed for Mars in a much faster way than the current speed of R&D.
                                                > >
                                                > > This means that profits are the goal in the immediate and near term and it keeps investors happy because it can sink its teeth into some "already developing" ideas in various areas.
                                                > >
                                                > > I know that almost all space companies around today are servicing real market needs here on earth with real applications for people on earth and it is the only way they can make any money.
                                                > >
                                                > > To ask such companies to start suddenly investing in an idea (humans to Mars) that has no defined market (governments are not fully committed yet) was short sighted and unrealistic of me so I'm changing that.
                                                > >
                                                > > The problem with governments is that they are very risk averse and when it comes to humans to Mars the risks are very high. So if the consortium can remove some of these risk areas, or at least show how they can be removed (and governments do the heavy lifting), governments would start to show more interest.
                                                > >
                                                > > But areas like life support, radiation protection, EDL and energy production can all have earth based spin offs that will give profits to companies here and now, and the beauty of a consortium is that together they could hit their targets more quickly than on their own.(as they are today)
                                                > >
                                                > > I have no doubt that space companies want governments to go to Mars as they will get the contracts, but in the meantime, something more than theories must be produced to change the stance of governments to this whole idea.
                                                > >
                                                > > So what IS realistic?
                                                > >
                                                > > That we can get these companies together to begin talking about ways they can produce technologies that will bring them profits here and now, but give them the humans to Mars program as the central goal/focus.
                                                > >
                                                > > This can also include R&D into cheap space access tech as well as the benefits from that are obvious.
                                                > >
                                                > > If we had 2 or 3 peer reviewed humans to Mars designs for them to coalesce around, this would be needed as no focus will result in no outcomes.
                                                > >
                                                > > For example- reliable food supplies and production- good for earth here and now but also vital to crew health and safety- one of those "risk" areas governments worry about. If the consortium could patent and put together something in this area the applications are obvious.
                                                > >
                                                > > The same with EDL- applications for military use are obvious and far more likely to be invested in by governments than pure space exploration (sadly).
                                                > >
                                                > > Radiation shielding techs will also have immediate applications for earth. There are many areas like this.
                                                > >
                                                > > As advocates we can and do organize conferences every year with representatives from space companies and space agencies. So we can do this. We can get them in a room discussing a way forward for Mars via immediate profits now.
                                                > >
                                                > > But we would have to have some very clearly defined areas for them to sink their collective teeth into and several proposals would be good to start it off. Proposals for individual pieces of tech or systems that can have dual use on Earth and Mars.
                                                > >
                                                > > My mistake was to expect these companies to invest in a "maybe" a "build it and they will come" assumption, but I was wrong. With immediate profits as the focus I am certain that we can begin to make real progress towards humans to Mars because right now that is the only way any space company is operating.The power of a consortium is that together they can advance R&D and profits more quickly than on their own.
                                                > >
                                                > > I think this can be done, that it is in line with current realities in how this sector gains investment- based on serving real market needs (but with dual applications).
                                                > >
                                                > > The difference with a consortium is the sheer resources brought to bear on these R&D areas versus the sporadic and slow go it alone approach we have today.
                                                > >
                                                > > Plus we already have one consortium- ULA- United Launch Alliance, so it is not an idea these companies are foreign to.
                                                > >
                                                > > If these companies want a committment from governments on humans to mars, but they don't want to lose money to get this committment then it's time they got together and figured out some areas they could advance as a spark for governments to "get interested" in Mars. The part we play as advocates is to organize this effort and "drive" it from behind seeing we are the ones with the vision and passion for the future of humanity in space. If not us then who?
                                                > >
                                                > > So the question is, can we make a compelling enough case to these companies to "get them interested"?
                                                > >
                                                >

                                              • Brian Enke
                                                Hi Mike - Good ponderings, and I d have to agree, though (like most people) I m not nearly as familiar with the issues of launching something from Mars since
                                                Message 24 of 27 , Jun 25, 2010
                                                View Source
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Hi Mike -

                                                  Good ponderings, and I'd have to agree, though (like most people) I'm not nearly as familiar with the issues of launching something from Mars since it has never been done before. :)

                                                  I've heard the payoff would actually be more like 10x over Earth launches... the square of the 1/3rd gravity (1/9th?) plus some extra savings in fuel from the thin atmosphere. We lose a little in equatorial velocity, (since Mars has a smaller radius than Earth, a point along the equator isn't moving as fast), but the difference there is pretty minor.

                                                  Cheers,

                                                      - Brian


                                                  On 6/25/2010 12:33 AM, Michael Bloxham wrote:
                                                   

                                                  That's a great list!
                                                   
                                                  Lately, I have also been inspired by the idea of Mars as humanities future "gateway" to the rest of the universe. I think Zubrin talks about this as well. It is from the fact that this planet has only 1/3rd the gravity of Earth, but shares many of its resources (such as water) that it may be used as a proper "stepping stone" to destinations throughout the solar system. The fact that material strength and delta-V are functional to the root of gravity means that the advantages gained from Mars' lower gravity are much greater: Isn't it something like a factor of 5 increase in payload (at least) for a rocket launched from Mars' surface (compared with the Earth)? That would go a long way to make reusable SSTOs viable with even current technology. And likewise it could make "space elevators" viable too. This makes a big difference, IMHO. So Mars could be a great 'springboard' , so to speak, to the rest of the solar system.
                                                   
                                                  - Mike

                                                  --- On Thu, 24/6/10, frank_stratford <frank_stratford@ yahoo.com> wrote:

                                                  From: frank_stratford <frank_stratford@ yahoo.com>
                                                  Subject: [marsdrivemission] Re: Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                                                  To: marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com
                                                  Received: Thursday, 24 June, 2010, 4:09 PM

                                                   
                                                  You do have a lot of valid points there Darren.

                                                  From my view, mission design and the ongoing review of designs is a worthwhile task as it helps to keep this all "realistic" which is very important to outreach as well.

                                                  As to outreach and getting the public on board, this is something Hal and I worked on for some time (and many others), and while we tried many things this is a complex area.

                                                  It has been very hard to show the public the relevance of this whole subject area but I think my mistake was I ended up arguing the point with other space advocates rather than reaching out to the non space public.

                                                  The space community is terribly divided, everyone has their own goal, all of which are "the best way" into space etc. It is no wonder we can't reach the public with such divided messages.

                                                  I have written many articles on why we should go to Mars, and each time I hope I have improved my reasoning, but still it is not a perfect case, and may never be. So, in accord with the old engineering rule of K.I.S.S (keep it simple stupid), I think the original reasons are still the best-

                                                  1. The search for life on Mars
                                                  2. To settle on Mars
                                                  2a) Continuation of our species/spreading life to new worlds
                                                  2b) Resources mining and R&D (Deuterium for example)
                                                  2c) Development of cheap space transport
                                                  2d) Development of new energy technologies and other areas as well
                                                  3. Mars is still the most likely near term candidate for all of the above and no serious scientist doubts this.
                                                  4. Comparitive Planetology- comparing the development of Mars to Earth, an area of great value to us.

                                                  Spin offs from this effort will occur, and the history making aspect will inspire the people, despite what my critics say, maybe not in the vast numbers as I predict, but I am 100% certain many young and old will be inspired by the drive to Mars.

                                                  How we get to Mars is to me looking like a gradual development path as you say, where many technologies are now being developed that will speed up and cheapen the program some day. But on the question of who pays for it, this is something we need to keep our finger on. If we can influence governments or the private sector, our job is done.

                                                  --- In marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com, Darren Oliveiro-Priestnall <darrenop@...> wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  > I do sometimes worry that MarsDrive is at risk of losing direction, aimlessly recompiling missions to Mars without much realistic hope of those missions becoming realised.
                                                  >
                                                  > The Mars Society, NASA and many independent groups have put together general mission designs for going to Mars and I'm sure that over the coming years, many more designs will be put together by other agencies and groups.
                                                  > The best we can hope for from such a design is to influence another design which may or may not be adopted at some later date by a space agency.
                                                  >
                                                  > That's not to say it's wasted time, if new insight is reached and published then it's never wasted time.
                                                  >
                                                  > I look at MarsDrive as a reminder of the end goal, keeping the dream of going to Mars alive but I don't personally look at MarsDrive as being a major contributor to the final strategy.
                                                  > As I write this there are companies all over the world developing new technologies for the space sector from new solar panels to new propulsion systems new new electronics.
                                                  > Many of these will be intended for different areas of the space sector but will feed into the larger goal of going to Mars.
                                                  > As the technology matures it makes going to Mars more affordable and less of a technelogical risk or leap so in 20 years we could well be going to Mars but it won't be with today's rockets or technologies but derivitives of these and new developments.
                                                  > At that point a mission design will be developed which will look at available legacy designs, possibly including the DRM and a new design for the available technology and understanding will be drawn up.
                                                  >
                                                  > So I'd say the DRM is of value but it has to be realised that the DRM is just that, a reference mission for a future new mission design.
                                                  > I would argue that it's more important for MarsDrive to educate and excite the general public about Mars because agencies won't be going anywhere until voters show a real interest in going to Mars.
                                                  > At the same time any specific areas of research such as the ISRU study are of value because it yields possible technologies which can be developed.
                                                  >
                                                  > I'd suggest the following.
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > 1. Continue with the DRM but decide whether theres the skills or interest in revising it again or taking it through to a fully published state. There's no point in publishing something half cooked or which just gives a marginally new angle to MarsDirect or another design squeezed into out dated design concepts and technologies.
                                                  >
                                                  > 2. Put together a strategy for bringing in a lot of new people and generating a lot of new interest in the general public around Mars. MarsDrive needs to grow if it's to really affect change.
                                                  >
                                                  > 3. Continue with specific areas of research such as ISRU which is yielding some valuable results. I would even say ISRU should be taken through to a developed prototype possibly. If the research is sound and a design can be created then funding should be sought to build a working model at least. If there's collective agreement at some point that the ISRU design has matured to a point that a working model could be constructed then we can approach some sponsors to get the funds to build it.
                                                  >
                                                  > 4. Work more closely with the private sector which is where I feel the technology will come from for going to Mars. Franly going to Mars is expensive and risky which isn't a natural government strength. When I look at the private sector I feel very excited about all the innovate new development from startups and established companies. I really do believe that Mars will reached by private investors and business while governments are still pondering the merits of going.
                                                  >
                                                  > I don't know whether MarsDrive is really suitable for running its own business. A business succeeds by rapid reaction to market conditions, a clear business plan and commited workers and management. A public advocacy group by contrast has much more freedom to pursue non-profit ideas over a longer period so for instance we can debate the DRM over several years while a company cannot afford such activity. What MarsDrive could do is support and work on the exchange of ideas with the private sector, looking at whos' working in what technology and seeing how it can be applied to a future Mars mission.
                                                  >
                                                  > It may be that MarsDrive could run its own business but a business is very different to an advocacy group and has to ultimately be profitable to be of any value.
                                                  >
                                                  > Just some of my thoughts which can be ignored but I do support and encourage the underlying goals and ambitions of MarsDrive. If groups like MarsDrive dissapear then there's little hope of any of us seeing a man or woman walk on Mars.
                                                  > If we don't re-evaluate our own strategy at intervals then we become obsolete and that goal will slip further from our grasp.
                                                  >
                                                  > Darren
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > From: marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of spacenutnewmars
                                                  > Sent: 23 June 2010 4:26 AM
                                                  > To: marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com
                                                  > Subject: [marsdrivemission] Re: Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > Ok so no replies to the topic since my last.....
                                                  >
                                                  > I have rearranged the thoughts put forth indicated in the quotes to allow for a reply. Franks new spin on the consortium under "advanced near term earth relevant items" that have implications for "areas like life support, radiation protection, EDL and energy production can all have earth based spin offs that will give profits to companies here and now" that would be of benifut for space travel to beyond LEO and to other places is just the rock and hard place that is why we are not advancing I feel. Since the list is continued on a new topic I will post response there as these are part of that list.
                                                  >
                                                  > I too agree that space companies would be all for missions to mars as well as others if governments put up the cash but that is what just stopped the Constellation project cold in its steps as we have a leader that does not believe in what was determined as a way forward by yet another president.
                                                  >
                                                  > So what IS realistic? Is a great question but to what specific topic area that is stopping a mission from going forward. Is it really profits, is it the will to produce R&D technolgies that is lacking, or is just a needs for a cheaper faster means to get us there.
                                                  >
                                                  > As for peer reviewed human mars mission I kind of feel that some of the best plans have already been put forward by the likes of Mars Society, Nasa and others so having more do not really change all that much the efforts to get to Mars. We are all just defining or refining the numbers, contents of science and goals to be achieved by those that make the trip. But we are also defining what is acceptable risk areas and what are needed backups or proventions that come in under the limitations of the mission. Its not until the money is put forth that missions will happen.
                                                  >
                                                  > --- In marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com<mailto:marsdrivemis sion%40yahoogrou ps.com>, "spacenutnewmars" <spacenutnewmars@<mailto:spacenutnewm ars@>> wrote:
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Hello all and I am sorry that I have not gotten back to Frank's new approach to the consortium. I have been shifting from days to second shift and now I am back on Days. This response will seem like a rant but it is not meant to be that way.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > It is good to hear that you have been discussing this important MarsDrive topic with the advisors in Brian Enke. Another plus for MarsDrive is the chance to have your first meeting with Robert Zubrin soon as well.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > The consortium will always seem to have holes depending on others view point so do not let that fret you into not continuing with the throught process. Setting up a conference of space experts with have positives and negatives regardless of whom is invited or who is not.
                                                  > > Such as what the coalition for space is....been done and they are going no where....As Darren said Consortiums are not new and we have lots of examples of them. Each has there own unique methods of funding and power structure.
                                                  > > Agreed that the needs of people are what currently are blocking or getting the loudest voice for the fund which space missions would need. But what are those advanced near term earth relevant items be? I think this is what Frank and Brian Enke were thinking when they were talking about new earth-based techs that will or would spill out of the process naturally.
                                                  > > First I think what can be are those items that help people with the needs to survive here on earth. While jobs are high on the list it is not a space technology path to a human mission. So what would they be? In everyday life we need clean water, power (electric, gas, oil ect...), Food, shelter and clean air to breath. Everything else would fall under possessions. ... In space we will need lots of power, clean water, Food and water to be created from what can be brought, built from insitu resources and just made from the combinations of both.
                                                  > > I have suggested making energy effienct sheltes modeled after the mars habitats of the analog staions of Mars Society as a step. The need for power, clean air and water can be made from a combination of say a wood stove to provide CO2 and a source of water to create methane and clean water from the Mars Society planned Sabitier reactor. Trap the excess heat from the wood stove for hot water and for heating. Capture the clean water from the reaction and use the fuel to power home and vehicles as needed.
                                                  > > Waste can be put though a multi step process that would use algea and gardening composting as ways to take care of it. Use the compost to fertilize the garden which is a must for Space but in no way can a earth greenhouse be the same as what will be on mars so this is just a way to quite the loud voices that would be asking for the same dollars that are needed for space.
                                                  > > I think that what I have put forth meets the aim of profit creation and finally for job creation, giving a leverage point for science and so much more.
                                                  > > Those space manufacturing companies are not something that fits into single categories of rockets.... so for each there is a different business model and that includes not just the area of profit but a source of seed money as well. As such what would be a straight forward service market it becomes one of selective parts and not to a complete sector. So the people of earth do not have just a specific application from rocket launching regardless of what it carries as a payload.
                                                  > > I am not sure with this quoted section "To ask such companies to start suddenly investing in an idea (humans to Mars) that has no defined market (governments are not fully committed yet) was short sighted and unrealistic of me so I'm changing that." as the answer is not black and white for profit as it requires limits and justification for expenditure.
                                                  > > Risk is part of the nature of space businesses in general and to lower the chances usually mean higher expense in all facets.
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > > --- In marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com<mailto:marsdrivemis sion%40yahoogrou ps.com>, "frank_stratford" <frank_stratford@> wrote:
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > I posted this in our forums today guys, basically as a way forward for us. For mission design the outcome is positive as a peer reviewed design (or design of individual "chunks"- as David has been studying) can serve this goal as well.
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > I was having some discussions with one of our advisors recently (Brian Enke) and it was great to get some positive feedback on my consortium ideas. He has arranged for Robert Zubrin to give me a call soon as well as we think we may be onto something now in the effort to get humans to Mars.
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > I knew that there were many holes in my consortium idea but it wasn't until someone pointed them out in a balanced "non flame" manner that I started to see those areas. So I will start with an outline/plan and explain it from there-
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > 1. Mars and space advocates organize a "consortium conference" to bring together the potential players for such a consortium- Boeing, Lockheed, SpaceX, etc etc.
                                                  > > > 2. Unlike my previous proposal for them to get to work straight away on a Mars mission this time we would be getting them to form a consortium to advance near term earth relevant technologies in line with human space exploration needs. In short- develop with their combined resources many technologies needed for Mars in a much faster way than the current speed of R&D.
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > This means that profits are the goal in the immediate and near term and it keeps investors happy because it can sink its teeth into some "already developing" ideas in various areas.
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > I know that almost all space companies around today are servicing real market needs here on earth with real applications for people on earth and it is the only way they can make any money.
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > To ask such companies to start suddenly investing in an idea (humans to Mars) that has no defined market (governments are not fully committed yet) was short sighted and unrealistic of me so I'm changing that.
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > The problem with governments is that they are very risk averse and when it comes to humans to Mars the risks are very high. So if the consortium can remove some of these risk areas, or at least show how they can be removed (and governments do the heavy lifting), governments would start to show more interest.
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > But areas like life support, radiation protection, EDL and energy production can all have earth based spin offs that will give profits to companies here and now, and the beauty of a consortium is that together they could hit their targets more quickly than on their own.(as they are today)
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > I have no doubt that space companies want governments to go to Mars as they will get the contracts, but in the meantime, something more than theories must be produced to change the stance of governments to this whole idea.
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > So what IS realistic?
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > That we can get these companies together to begin talking about ways they can produce technologies that will bring them profits here and now, but give them the humans to Mars program as the central goal/focus.
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > This can also include R&D into cheap space access tech as well as the benefits from that are obvious.
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > If we had 2 or 3 peer reviewed humans to Mars designs for them to coalesce around, this would be needed as no focus will result in no outcomes.
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > For example- reliable food supplies and production- good for earth here and now but also vital to crew health and safety- one of those "risk" areas governments worry about. If the consortium could patent and put together something in this area the applications are obvious.
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > The same with EDL- applications for military use are obvious and far more likely to be invested in by governments than pure space exploration (sadly).
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > Radiation shielding techs will also have immediate applications for earth. There are many areas like this.
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > As advocates we can and do organize conferences every year with representatives from space companies and space agencies. So we can do this. We can get them in a room discussing a way forward for Mars via immediate profits now.
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > But we would have to have some very clearly defined areas for them to sink their collective teeth into and several proposals would be good to start it off. Proposals for individual pieces of tech or systems that can have dual use on Earth and Mars.
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > My mistake was to expect these companies to invest in a "maybe" a "build it and they will come" assumption, but I was wrong. With immediate profits as the focus I am certain that we can begin to make real progress towards humans to Mars because right now that is the only way any space company is operating.The power of a consortium is that together they can advance R&D and profits more quickly than on their own.
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > I think this can be done, that it is in line with current realities in how this sector gains investment- based on serving real market needs (but with dual applications) .
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > The difference with a consortium is the sheer resources brought to bear on these R&D areas versus the sporadic and slow go it alone approach we have today.
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > Plus we already have one consortium- ULA- United Launch Alliance, so it is not an idea these companies are foreign to.
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > If these companies want a committment from governments on humans to mars, but they don't want to lose money to get this committment then it's time they got together and figured out some areas they could advance as a spark for governments to "get interested" in Mars. The part we play as advocates is to organize this effort and "drive" it from behind seeing we are the ones with the vision and passion for the future of humanity in space. If not us then who?
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > So the question is, can we make a compelling enough case to these companies to "get them interested"?
                                                  > > >
                                                  > >
                                                  >


                                                   

                                                • Brian Enke
                                                  ooops - sorry - in my haste I got sloppy with the numbers. Mars gravity is actually about 37.9% of Earth s, so squaring it gives you about 14% of Earth s
                                                  Message 25 of 27 , Jun 25, 2010
                                                  View Source
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    ooops - sorry - in my haste I got sloppy with the numbers. Mars gravity is actually about 37.9% of Earth's, so squaring it gives you about 14% of Earth's launch fuel required? Yet the escape velocity is just under half (5 vs 11 km/sec). Exact numbers are here: http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?planet_phys_par

                                                    I'm sure someone (probably Bob Z) has offered some good conclusions about Mars launches... I'd check Case for Mars or Entering Space.

                                                    Cheers,

                                                        - Brian


                                                    On 6/25/2010 8:27 AM, Brian Enke wrote:
                                                    Hi Mike -

                                                    Good ponderings, and I'd have to agree, though (like most people) I'm not nearly as familiar with the issues of launching something from Mars since it has never been done before. :)

                                                    I've heard the payoff would actually be more like 10x over Earth launches... the square of the 1/3rd gravity (1/9th?) plus some extra savings in fuel from the thin atmosphere. We lose a little in equatorial velocity, (since Mars has a smaller radius than Earth, a point along the equator isn't moving as fast), but the difference there is pretty minor.

                                                    Cheers,

                                                        - Brian


                                                    On 6/25/2010 12:33 AM, Michael Bloxham wrote:
                                                     

                                                    That's a great list!
                                                     
                                                    Lately, I have also been inspired by the idea of Mars as humanities future "gateway" to the rest of the universe. I think Zubrin talks about this as well. It is from the fact that this planet has only 1/3rd the gravity of Earth, but shares many of its resources (such as water) that it may be used as a proper "stepping stone" to destinations throughout the solar system. The fact that material strength and delta-V are functional to the root of gravity means that the advantages gained from Mars' lower gravity are much greater: Isn't it something like a factor of 5 increase in payload (at least) for a rocket launched from Mars' surface (compared with the Earth)? That would go a long way to make reusable SSTOs viable with even current technology. And likewise it could make "space elevators" viable too. This makes a big difference, IMHO. So Mars could be a great 'springboard' , so to speak, to the rest of the solar system.
                                                     
                                                    - Mike

                                                    --- On Thu, 24/6/10, frank_stratford <frank_stratford@ yahoo.com> wrote:

                                                    From: frank_stratford <frank_stratford@ yahoo.com>
                                                    Subject: [marsdrivemission] Re: Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                                                    To: marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com
                                                    Received: Thursday, 24 June, 2010, 4:09 PM

                                                     
                                                    You do have a lot of valid points there Darren.

                                                    >From my view, mission design and the ongoing review of designs is a worthwhile task as it helps to keep this all "realistic" which is very important to outreach as well.

                                                    As to outreach and getting the public on board, this is something Hal and I worked on for some time (and many others), and while we tried many things this is a complex area.

                                                    It has been very hard to show the public the relevance of this whole subject area but I think my mistake was I ended up arguing the point with other space advocates rather than reaching out to the non space public.

                                                    The space community is terribly divided, everyone has their own goal, all of which are "the best way" into space etc. It is no wonder we can't reach the public with such divided messages.

                                                    I have written many articles on why we should go to Mars, and each time I hope I have improved my reasoning, but still it is not a perfect case, and may never be. So, in accord with the old engineering rule of K.I.S.S (keep it simple stupid), I think the original reasons are still the best-

                                                    1. The search for life on Mars
                                                    2. To settle on Mars
                                                    2a) Continuation of our species/spreading life to new worlds
                                                    2b) Resources mining and R&D (Deuterium for example)
                                                    2c) Development of cheap space transport
                                                    2d) Development of new energy technologies and other areas as well
                                                    3. Mars is still the most likely near term candidate for all of the above and no serious scientist doubts this.
                                                    4. Comparitive Planetology- comparing the development of Mars to Earth, an area of great value to us.

                                                    Spin offs from this effort will occur, and the history making aspect will inspire the people, despite what my critics say, maybe not in the vast numbers as I predict, but I am 100% certain many young and old will be inspired by the drive to Mars.

                                                    How we get to Mars is to me looking like a gradual development path as you say, where many technologies are now being developed that will speed up and cheapen the program some day. But on the question of who pays for it, this is something we need to keep our finger on. If we can influence governments or the private sector, our job is done.

                                                    --- In marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com, Darren Oliveiro-Priestnall <darrenop@...> wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    > I do sometimes worry that MarsDrive is at risk of losing direction, aimlessly recompiling missions to Mars without much realistic hope of those missions becoming realised.
                                                    >
                                                    > The Mars Society, NASA and many independent groups have put together general mission designs for going to Mars and I'm sure that over the coming years, many more designs will be put together by other agencies and groups.
                                                    > The best we can hope for from such a design is to influence another design which may or may not be adopted at some later date by a space agency.
                                                    >
                                                    > That's not to say it's wasted time, if new insight is reached and published then it's never wasted time.
                                                    >
                                                    > I look at MarsDrive as a reminder of the end goal, keeping the dream of going to Mars alive but I don't personally look at MarsDrive as being a major contributor to the final strategy.
                                                    > As I write this there are companies all over the world developing new technologies for the space sector from new solar panels to new propulsion systems new new electronics.
                                                    > Many of these will be intended for different areas of the space sector but will feed into the larger goal of going to Mars.
                                                    > As the technology matures it makes going to Mars more affordable and less of a technelogical risk or leap so in 20 years we could well be going to Mars but it won't be with today's rockets or technologies but derivitives of these and new developments.
                                                    > At that point a mission design will be developed which will look at available legacy designs, possibly including the DRM and a new design for the available technology and understanding will be drawn up.
                                                    >
                                                    > So I'd say the DRM is of value but it has to be realised that the DRM is just that, a reference mission for a future new mission design.
                                                    > I would argue that it's more important for MarsDrive to educate and excite the general public about Mars because agencies won't be going anywhere until voters show a real interest in going to Mars.
                                                    > At the same time any specific areas of research such as the ISRU study are of value because it yields possible technologies which can be developed.
                                                    >
                                                    > I'd suggest the following.
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > 1. Continue with the DRM but decide whether theres the skills or interest in revising it again or taking it through to a fully published state. There's no point in publishing something half cooked or which just gives a marginally new angle to MarsDirect or another design squeezed into out dated design concepts and technologies.
                                                    >
                                                    > 2. Put together a strategy for bringing in a lot of new people and generating a lot of new interest in the general public around Mars. MarsDrive needs to grow if it's to really affect change.
                                                    >
                                                    > 3. Continue with specific areas of research such as ISRU which is yielding some valuable results. I would even say ISRU should be taken through to a developed prototype possibly. If the research is sound and a design can be created then funding should be sought to build a working model at least. If there's collective agreement at some point that the ISRU design has matured to a point that a working model could be constructed then we can approach some sponsors to get the funds to build it.
                                                    >
                                                    > 4. Work more closely with the private sector which is where I feel the technology will come from for going to Mars. Franly going to Mars is expensive and risky which isn't a natural government strength. When I look at the private sector I feel very excited about all the innovate new development from startups and established companies. I really do believe that Mars will reached by private investors and business while governments are still pondering the merits of going.
                                                    >
                                                    > I don't know whether MarsDrive is really suitable for running its own business. A business succeeds by rapid reaction to market conditions, a clear business plan and commited workers and management. A public advocacy group by contrast has much more freedom to pursue non-profit ideas over a longer period so for instance we can debate the DRM over several years while a company cannot afford such activity. What MarsDrive could do is support and work on the exchange of ideas with the private sector, looking at whos' working in what technology and seeing how it can be applied to a future Mars mission.
                                                    >
                                                    > It may be that MarsDrive could run its own business but a business is very different to an advocacy group and has to ultimately be profitable to be of any value.
                                                    >
                                                    > Just some of my thoughts which can be ignored but I do support and encourage the underlying goals and ambitions of MarsDrive. If groups like MarsDrive dissapear then there's little hope of any of us seeing a man or woman walk on Mars.
                                                    > If we don't re-evaluate our own strategy at intervals then we become obsolete and that goal will slip further from our grasp.
                                                    >
                                                    > Darren
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > From: marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of spacenutnewmars
                                                    > Sent: 23 June 2010 4:26 AM
                                                    > To: marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com
                                                    > Subject: [marsdrivemission] Re: Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > Ok so no replies to the topic since my last.....
                                                    >
                                                    > I have rearranged the thoughts put forth indicated in the quotes to allow for a reply. Franks new spin on the consortium under "advanced near term earth relevant items" that have implications for "areas like life support, radiation protection, EDL and energy production can all have earth based spin offs that will give profits to companies here and now" that would be of benifut for space travel to beyond LEO and to other places is just the rock and hard place that is why we are not advancing I feel. Since the list is continued on a new topic I will post response there as these are part of that list.
                                                    >
                                                    > I too agree that space companies would be all for missions to mars as well as others if governments put up the cash but that is what just stopped the Constellation project cold in its steps as we have a leader that does not believe in what was determined as a way forward by yet another president.
                                                    >
                                                    > So what IS realistic? Is a great question but to what specific topic area that is stopping a mission from going forward. Is it really profits, is it the will to produce R&D technolgies that is lacking, or is just a needs for a cheaper faster means to get us there.
                                                    >
                                                    > As for peer reviewed human mars mission I kind of feel that some of the best plans have already been put forward by the likes of Mars Society, Nasa and others so having more do not really change all that much the efforts to get to Mars. We are all just defining or refining the numbers, contents of science and goals to be achieved by those that make the trip. But we are also defining what is acceptable risk areas and what are needed backups or proventions that come in under the limitations of the mission. Its not until the money is put forth that missions will happen.
                                                    >
                                                    > --- In marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com<mailto:marsdrivemis sion%40yahoogrou ps.com>, "spacenutnewmars" <spacenutnewmars@<mailto:spacenutnewm ars@>> wrote:
                                                    > >
                                                    > > Hello all and I am sorry that I have not gotten back to Frank's new approach to the consortium. I have been shifting from days to second shift and now I am back on Days. This response will seem like a rant but it is not meant to be that way.
                                                    > >
                                                    > > It is good to hear that you have been discussing this important MarsDrive topic with the advisors in Brian Enke. Another plus for MarsDrive is the chance to have your first meeting with Robert Zubrin soon as well.
                                                    > >
                                                    > > The consortium will always seem to have holes depending on others view point so do not let that fret you into not continuing with the throught process. Setting up a conference of space experts with have positives and negatives regardless of whom is invited or who is not.
                                                    > > Such as what the coalition for space is....been done and they are going no where....As Darren said Consortiums are not new and we have lots of examples of them. Each has there own unique methods of funding and power structure.
                                                    > > Agreed that the needs of people are what currently are blocking or getting the loudest voice for the fund which space missions would need. But what are those advanced near term earth relevant items be? I think this is what Frank and Brian Enke were thinking when they were talking about new earth-based techs that will or would spill out of the process naturally.
                                                    > > First I think what can be are those items that help people with the needs to survive here on earth. While jobs are high on the list it is not a space technology path to a human mission. So what would they be? In everyday life we need clean water, power (electric, gas, oil ect...), Food, shelter and clean air to breath. Everything else would fall under possessions. ... In space we will need lots of power, clean water, Food and water to be created from what can be brought, built from insitu resources and just made from the combinations of both.
                                                    > > I have suggested making energy effienct sheltes modeled after the mars habitats of the analog staions of Mars Society as a step. The need for power, clean air and water can be made from a combination of say a wood stove to provide CO2 and a source of water to create methane and clean water from the Mars Society planned Sabitier reactor. Trap the excess heat from the wood stove for hot water and for heating. Capture the clean water from the reaction and use the fuel to power home and vehicles as needed.
                                                    > > Waste can be put though a multi step process that would use algea and gardening composting as ways to take care of it. Use the compost to fertilize the garden which is a must for Space but in no way can a earth greenhouse be the same as what will be on mars so this is just a way to quite the loud voices that would be asking for the same dollars that are needed for space.
                                                    > > I think that what I have put forth meets the aim of profit creation and finally for job creation, giving a leverage point for science and so much more.
                                                    > > Those space manufacturing companies are not something that fits into single categories of rockets.... so for each there is a different business model and that includes not just the area of profit but a source of seed money as well. As such what would be a straight forward service market it becomes one of selective parts and not to a complete sector. So the people of earth do not have just a specific application from rocket launching regardless of what it carries as a payload.
                                                    > > I am not sure with this quoted section "To ask such companies to start suddenly investing in an idea (humans to Mars) that has no defined market (governments are not fully committed yet) was short sighted and unrealistic of me so I'm changing that." as the answer is not black and white for profit as it requires limits and justification for expenditure.
                                                    > > Risk is part of the nature of space businesses in general and to lower the chances usually mean higher expense in all facets.
                                                    > >
                                                    > >
                                                    > >
                                                    > > --- In marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com<mailto:marsdrivemis sion%40yahoogrou ps.com>, "frank_stratford" <frank_stratford@> wrote:
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > I posted this in our forums today guys, basically as a way forward for us. For mission design the outcome is positive as a peer reviewed design (or design of individual "chunks"- as David has been studying) can serve this goal as well.
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > I was having some discussions with one of our advisors recently (Brian Enke) and it was great to get some positive feedback on my consortium ideas. He has arranged for Robert Zubrin to give me a call soon as well as we think we may be onto something now in the effort to get humans to Mars.
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > I knew that there were many holes in my consortium idea but it wasn't until someone pointed them out in a balanced "non flame" manner that I started to see those areas. So I will start with an outline/plan and explain it from there-
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > 1. Mars and space advocates organize a "consortium conference" to bring together the potential players for such a consortium- Boeing, Lockheed, SpaceX, etc etc.
                                                    > > > 2. Unlike my previous proposal for them to get to work straight away on a Mars mission this time we would be getting them to form a consortium to advance near term earth relevant technologies in line with human space exploration needs. In short- develop with their combined resources many technologies needed for Mars in a much faster way than the current speed of R&D.
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > This means that profits are the goal in the immediate and near term and it keeps investors happy because it can sink its teeth into some "already developing" ideas in various areas.
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > I know that almost all space companies around today are servicing real market needs here on earth with real applications for people on earth and it is the only way they can make any money.
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > To ask such companies to start suddenly investing in an idea (humans to Mars) that has no defined market (governments are not fully committed yet) was short sighted and unrealistic of me so I'm changing that.
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > The problem with governments is that they are very risk averse and when it comes to humans to Mars the risks are very high. So if the consortium can remove some of these risk areas, or at least show how they can be removed (and governments do the heavy lifting), governments would start to show more interest.
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > But areas like life support, radiation protection, EDL and energy production can all have earth based spin offs that will give profits to companies here and now, and the beauty of a consortium is that together they could hit their targets more quickly than on their own.(as they are today)
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > I have no doubt that space companies want governments to go to Mars as they will get the contracts, but in the meantime, something more than theories must be produced to change the stance of governments to this whole idea.
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > So what IS realistic?
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > That we can get these companies together to begin talking about ways they can produce technologies that will bring them profits here and now, but give them the humans to Mars program as the central goal/focus.
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > This can also include R&D into cheap space access tech as well as the benefits from that are obvious.
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > If we had 2 or 3 peer reviewed humans to Mars designs for them to coalesce around, this would be needed as no focus will result in no outcomes.
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > For example- reliable food supplies and production- good for earth here and now but also vital to crew health and safety- one of those "risk" areas governments worry about. If the consortium could patent and put together something in this area the applications are obvious.
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > The same with EDL- applications for military use are obvious and far more likely to be invested in by governments than pure space exploration (sadly).
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > Radiation shielding techs will also have immediate applications for earth. There are many areas like this.
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > As advocates we can and do organize conferences every year with representatives from space companies and space agencies. So we can do this. We can get them in a room discussing a way forward for Mars via immediate profits now.
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > But we would have to have some very clearly defined areas for them to sink their collective teeth into and several proposals would be good to start it off. Proposals for individual pieces of tech or systems that can have dual use on Earth and Mars.
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > My mistake was to expect these companies to invest in a "maybe" a "build it and they will come" assumption, but I was wrong. With immediate profits as the focus I am certain that we can begin to make real progress towards humans to Mars because right now that is the only way any space company is operating.The power of a consortium is that together they can advance R&D and profits more quickly than on their own.
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > I think this can be done, that it is in line with current realities in how this sector gains investment- based on serving real market needs (but with dual applications) .
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > The difference with a consortium is the sheer resources brought to bear on these R&D areas versus the sporadic and slow go it alone approach we have today.
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > Plus we already have one consortium- ULA- United Launch Alliance, so it is not an idea these companies are foreign to.
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > If these companies want a committment from governments on humans to mars, but they don't want to lose money to get this committment then it's time they got together and figured out some areas they could advance as a spark for governments to "get interested" in Mars. The part we play as advocates is to organize this effort and "drive" it from behind seeing we are the ones with the vision and passion for the future of humanity in space. If not us then who?
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > So the question is, can we make a compelling enough case to these companies to "get them interested"?
                                                    > > >
                                                    > >
                                                    >


                                                     

                                                  • Michael Bloxham
                                                    Can I just add to that that I think that what we have mentally constructed already is a huge advance over previous architectures, in terms of safety,
                                                    Message 26 of 27 , Jun 25, 2010
                                                    View Source
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      Can I just add to that that I think that what we have 'mentally constructed' already is a huge advance over previous architectures, in terms of safety, capability, and technology assumptions. All it needs is a bit of 'fleshing out' and then we could have something really game-changing, IMHO. Let's not forget that.
                                                       
                                                      - Mike

                                                      --- On Fri, 25/6/10, Brian Enke <brian.enke@...> wrote:

                                                      From: Brian Enke <brian.enke@...>
                                                      Subject: Re: [marsdrivemission] Re: Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                                                      To: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com
                                                      Received: Friday, 25 June, 2010, 7:21 AM

                                                       
                                                      Sorry I missed your original post... thanks for resending and rephrasing (though I agree with pretty much everything in both versions and have few additional comments). I've been away for a while and have fallen behind, so my apologies if something below isn't current.

                                                      Just saw Darren's post with more good comments too... but on yours, I'll offer the following thoughts.

                                                      As for peer reviewed human mars mission I kind of feel that some of the best plans have already been put forward by the likes of Mars Society, Nasa and others so having more do not really change all that much the efforts to get to Mars. We are all just defining or refining the numbers, contents of science and goals to be achieved by those that make the trip. But we are also defining what is acceptable risk areas and what are needed backups or proventions that come in under the limitations of the mission...

                                                      In a word, yes.

                                                      Here's a silly thought process to step through: is there a single optimal Mars mission plan? Let's assume for a moment there is. If true, it means the Mars Society, us, and everyone else except NASA is probably wasting their time because NASA would have already come up with it.

                                                      Obviously NASA hasn't written the whole book on Mars missions yet and never will. So... what is actually different between all the various plans? It's things like risk, cost, complexity, goals, capabilities, plus secondary concerns (I call these "modifiers") like use of local resources, bureaucracy, technology, and plan innovations. ... all the elements in the "space calculus" I've been developing over the past decade and presented for the first time at the last Mars Society conference in DC. These are the details I was alluding to in a previous message... and I think it would be great if MarsDrive's could contribute a study of these "assumptions. "

                                                      We could include mission plans from others, but put each through the same rigorous analysis and expose these assumptions in crystal clear detail. Hopefully we could pick (or develop) plans that fall into the six-or-so broad camps that we discussed before (one/two way, simple, more complex, very complex)?

                                                      I feel this approach is within our capabilities, if we decide we want to do it. We have the right people - good critical thinkers who have honed their Mars planning skills by going through the earlier exercises (which we should continue too, IMHO). We've been asking and debating these issues all along... now it's time to put that experience to even better use? :)

                                                      I'll be away for a few days, taking care of an ongoing family crisis here... but hopefully this will help keep the discussion going.

                                                      Cheers,

                                                          - Brian



                                                      On 6/22/2010 9:26 PM, spacenutnewmars wrote:
                                                       
                                                      Ok so no replies to the topic since my last.....

                                                      I have rearranged the thoughts put forth indicated in the quotes to allow for a reply. Franks new spin on the consortium under "advanced near term earth relevant items" that have implications for "areas like life support, radiation protection, EDL and energy production can all have earth based spin offs that will give profits to companies here and now" that would be of benifut for space travel to beyond LEO and to other places is just the rock and hard place that is why we are not advancing I feel. Since the list is continued on a new topic I will post response there as these are part of that list.

                                                      I too agree that space companies would be all for missions to mars as well as others if governments put up the cash but that is what just stopped the Constellation project cold in its steps as we have a leader that does not believe in what was determined as a way forward by yet another president.

                                                      So what IS realistic? Is a great question but to what specific topic area that is stopping a mission from going forward. Is it really profits, is it the will to produce R&D technolgies that is lacking, or is just a needs for a cheaper faster means to get us there.

                                                      As for peer reviewed human mars mission I kind of feel that some of the best plans have already been put forward by the likes of Mars Society, Nasa and others so having more do not really change all that much the efforts to get to Mars. We are all just defining or refining the numbers, contents of science and goals to be achieved by those that make the trip. But we are also defining what is acceptable risk areas and what are needed backups or proventions that come in under the limitations of the mission. Its not until the money is put forth that missions will happen.

                                                      --- In marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com, "spacenutnewmars" <spacenutnewmars@ ...> wrote:
                                                      >
                                                      > Hello all and I am sorry that I have not gotten back to Frank's new approach to the consortium. I have been shifting from days to second shift and now I am back on Days. This response will seem like a rant but it is not meant to be that way.
                                                      >
                                                      > It is good to hear that you have been discussing this important MarsDrive topic with the advisors in Brian Enke. Another plus for MarsDrive is the chance to have your first meeting with Robert Zubrin soon as well.
                                                      >
                                                      > The consortium will always seem to have holes depending on others view point so do not let that fret you into not continuing with the throught process. Setting up a conference of space experts with have positives and negatives regardless of whom is invited or who is not.
                                                      > Such as what the coalition for space is....been done and they are going no where....As Darren said Consortiums are not new and we have lots of examples of them. Each has there own unique methods of funding and power structure.
                                                      > Agreed that the needs of people are what currently are blocking or getting the loudest voice for the fund which space missions would need. But what are those advanced near term earth relevant items be? I think this is what Frank and Brian Enke were thinking when they were talking about new earth-based techs that will or would spill out of the process naturally.
                                                      > First I think what can be are those items that help people with the needs to survive here on earth. While jobs are high on the list it is not a space technology path to a human mission. So what would they be? In everyday life we need clean water, power (electric, gas, oil ect...), Food, shelter and clean air to breath. Everything else would fall under possessions. ... In space we will need lots of power, clean water, Food and water to be created from what can be brought, built from insitu resources and just made from the combinations of both.
                                                      > I have suggested making energy effienct sheltes modeled after the mars habitats of the analog staions of Mars Society as a step. The need for power, clean air and water can be made from a combination of say a wood stove to provide CO2 and a source of water to create methane and clean water from the Mars Society planned Sabitier reactor. Trap the excess heat from the wood stove for hot water and for heating. Capture the clean water from the reaction and use the fuel to power home and vehicles as needed.
                                                      > Waste can be put though a multi step process that would use algea and gardening composting as ways to take care of it. Use the compost to fertilize the garden which is a must for Space but in no way can a earth greenhouse be the same as what will be on mars so this is just a way to quite the loud voices that would be asking for the same dollars that are needed for space.
                                                      > I think that what I have put forth meets the aim of profit creation and finally for job creation, giving a leverage point for science and so much more.
                                                      > Those space manufacturing companies are not something that fits into single categories of rockets.... so for each there is a different business model and that includes not just the area of profit but a source of seed money as well. As such what would be a straight forward service market it becomes one of selective parts and not to a complete sector. So the people of earth do not have just a specific application from rocket launching regardless of what it carries as a payload.
                                                      > I am not sure with this quoted section "To ask such companies to start suddenly investing in an idea (humans to Mars) that has no defined market (governments are not fully committed yet) was short sighted and unrealistic of me so I'm changing that." as the answer is not black and white for profit as it requires limits and justification for expenditure.
                                                      > Risk is part of the nature of space businesses in general and to lower the chances usually mean higher expense in all facets.
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > --- In marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com, "frank_stratford" <frank_stratford@> wrote:
                                                      > >
                                                      > > I posted this in our forums today guys, basically as a way forward for us. For mission design the outcome is positive as a peer reviewed design (or design of individual "chunks"- as David has been studying) can serve this goal as well.
                                                      > >
                                                      > > I was having some discussions with one of our advisors recently (Brian Enke) and it was great to get some positive feedback on my consortium ideas. He has arranged for Robert Zubrin to give me a call soon as well as we think we may be onto something now in the effort to get humans to Mars.
                                                      > >
                                                      > > I knew that there were many holes in my consortium idea but it wasn't until someone pointed them out in a balanced "non flame" manner that I started to see those areas. So I will start with an outline/plan and explain it from there-
                                                      > >
                                                      > > 1. Mars and space advocates organize a "consortium conference" to bring together the potential players for such a consortium- Boeing, Lockheed, SpaceX, etc etc.
                                                      > > 2. Unlike my previous proposal for them to get to work straight away on a Mars mission this time we would be getting them to form a consortium to advance near term earth relevant technologies in line with human space exploration needs. In short- develop with their combined resources many technologies needed for Mars in a much faster way than the current speed of R&D.
                                                      > >
                                                      > > This means that profits are the goal in the immediate and near term and it keeps investors happy because it can sink its teeth into some "already developing" ideas in various areas.
                                                      > >
                                                      > > I know that almost all space companies around today are servicing real market needs here on earth with real applications for people on earth and it is the only way they can make any money.
                                                      > >
                                                      > > To ask such companies to start suddenly investing in an idea (humans to Mars) that has no defined market (governments are not fully committed yet) was short sighted and unrealistic of me so I'm changing that.
                                                      > >
                                                      > > The problem with governments is that they are very risk averse and when it comes to humans to Mars the risks are very high. So if the consortium can remove some of these risk areas, or at least show how they can be removed (and governments do the heavy lifting), governments would start to show more interest.
                                                      > >
                                                      > > But areas like life support, radiation protection, EDL and energy production can all have earth based spin offs that will give profits to companies here and now, and the beauty of a consortium is that together they could hit their targets more quickly than on their own.(as they are today)
                                                      > >
                                                      > > I have no doubt that space companies want governments to go to Mars as they will get the contracts, but in the meantime, something more than theories must be produced to change the stance of governments to this whole idea.
                                                      > >
                                                      > > So what IS realistic?
                                                      > >
                                                      > > That we can get these companies together to begin talking about ways they can produce technologies that will bring them profits here and now, but give them the humans to Mars program as the central goal/focus.
                                                      > >
                                                      > > This can also include R&D into cheap space access tech as well as the benefits from that are obvious.
                                                      > >
                                                      > > If we had 2 or 3 peer reviewed humans to Mars designs for them to coalesce around, this would be needed as no focus will result in no outcomes.
                                                      > >
                                                      > > For example- reliable food supplies and production- good for earth here and now but also vital to crew health and safety- one of those "risk" areas governments worry about. If the consortium could patent and put together something in this area the applications are obvious.
                                                      > >
                                                      > > The same with EDL- applications for military use are obvious and far more likely to be invested in by governments than pure space exploration (sadly).
                                                      > >
                                                      > > Radiation shielding techs will also have immediate applications for earth. There are many areas like this.
                                                      > >
                                                      > > As advocates we can and do organize conferences every year with representatives from space companies and space agencies. So we can do this. We can get them in a room discussing a way forward for Mars via immediate profits now.
                                                      > >
                                                      > > But we would have to have some very clearly defined areas for them to sink their collective teeth into and several proposals would be good to start it off. Proposals for individual pieces of tech or systems that can have dual use on Earth and Mars.
                                                      > >
                                                      > > My mistake was to expect these companies to invest in a "maybe" a "build it and they will come" assumption, but I was wrong. With immediate profits as the focus I am certain that we can begin to make real progress towards humans to Mars because right now that is the only way any space company is operating.The power of a consortium is that together they can advance R&D and profits more quickly than on their own.
                                                      > >
                                                      > > I think this can be done, that it is in line with current realities in how this sector gains investment- based on serving real market needs (but with dual applications) .
                                                      > >
                                                      > > The difference with a consortium is the sheer resources brought to bear on these R&D areas versus the sporadic and slow go it alone approach we have today.
                                                      > >
                                                      > > Plus we already have one consortium- ULA- United Launch Alliance, so it is not an idea these companies are foreign to.
                                                      > >
                                                      > > If these companies want a committment from governments on humans to mars, but they don't want to lose money to get this committment then it's time they got together and figured out some areas they could advance as a spark for governments to "get interested" in Mars. The part we play as advocates is to organize this effort and "drive" it from behind seeing we are the ones with the vision and passion for the future of humanity in space. If not us then who?
                                                      > >
                                                      > > So the question is, can we make a compelling enough case to these companies to "get them interested"?
                                                      > >
                                                      >


                                                       
                                                    • Darren Oliveiro-Priestnall
                                                      Certainly nothing should be wasted, MarsDrive has achieved a lot and that work should be continued. Its just a case of evaluating the current strategy at
                                                      Message 27 of 27 , Jun 26, 2010
                                                      View Source
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        Certainly nothing should be wasted, MarsDrive has achieved a lot and that work should be continued.
                                                        Its just a case of evaluating the current strategy at intervals to ensure we're making the best use of members and resources available IMO.

                                                        Darren

                                                        Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device


                                                        From: Michael Bloxham <michaeljbloxham@...>
                                                        Sender: "marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com" <marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com>
                                                        Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 12:48:35 -0700
                                                        To: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com<marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com>
                                                        ReplyTo: "marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com" <marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com>
                                                        Subject: Re: [marsdrivemission] Re: Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in

                                                         

                                                        Can I just add to that that I think that what we have 'mentally constructed' already is a huge advance over previous architectures, in terms of safety, capability, and technology assumptions. All it needs is a bit of 'fleshing out' and then we could have something really game-changing, IMHO. Let's not forget that.
                                                         
                                                        - Mike

                                                        --- On Fri, 25/6/10, Brian Enke <brian.enke@gmail. com> wrote:

                                                        From: Brian Enke <brian.enke@gmail. com>
                                                        Subject: Re: [marsdrivemission] Re: Earth Space Consortium- where we fit in
                                                        To: marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com
                                                        Received: Friday, 25 June, 2010, 7:21 AM

                                                         
                                                        Sorry I missed your original post... thanks for resending and rephrasing (though I agree with pretty much everything in both versions and have few additional comments). I've been away for a while and have fallen behind, so my apologies if something below isn't current.

                                                        Just saw Darren's post with more good comments too... but on yours, I'll offer the following thoughts.

                                                        As for peer reviewed human mars mission I kind of feel that some of the best plans have already been put forward by the likes of Mars Society, Nasa and others so having more do not really change all that much the efforts to get to Mars. We are all just defining or refining the numbers, contents of science and goals to be achieved by those that make the trip. But we are also defining what is acceptable risk areas and what are needed backups or proventions that come in under the limitations of the mission...

                                                        In a word, yes.

                                                        Here's a silly thought process to step through: is there a single optimal Mars mission plan? Let's assume for a moment there is. If true, it means the Mars Society, us, and everyone else except NASA is probably wasting their time because NASA would have already come up with it.

                                                        Obviously NASA hasn't written the whole book on Mars missions yet and never will. So... what is actually different between all the various plans? It's things like risk, cost, complexity, goals, capabilities, plus secondary concerns (I call these "modifiers") like use of local resources, bureaucracy, technology, and plan innovations. ... all the elements in the "space calculus" I've been developing over the past decade and presented for the first time at the last Mars Society conference in DC. These are the details I was alluding to in a previous message... and I think it would be great if MarsDrive's could contribute a study of these "assumptions. "

                                                        We could include mission plans from others, but put each through the same rigorous analysis and expose these assumptions in crystal clear detail. Hopefully we could pick (or develop) plans that fall into the six-or-so broad camps that we discussed before (one/two way, simple, more complex, very complex)?

                                                        I feel this approach is within our capabilities, if we decide we want to do it. We have the right people - good critical thinkers who have honed their Mars planning skills by going through the earlier exercises (which we should continue too, IMHO). We've been asking and debating these issues all along... now it's time to put that experience to even better use? :)

                                                        I'll be away for a few days, taking care of an ongoing family crisis here... but hopefully this will help keep the discussion going.

                                                        Cheers,

                                                            - Brian



                                                        On 6/22/2010 9:26 PM, spacenutnewmars wrote:
                                                         
                                                        Ok so no replies to the topic since my last.....

                                                        I have rearranged the thoughts put forth indicated in the quotes to allow for a reply. Franks new spin on the consortium under "advanced near term earth relevant items" that have implications for "areas like life support, radiation protection, EDL and energy production can all have earth based spin offs that will give profits to companies here and now" that would be of benifut for space travel to beyond LEO and to other places is just the rock and hard place that is why we are not advancing I feel. Since the list is continued on a new topic I will post response there as these are part of that list.

                                                        I too agree that space companies would be all for missions to mars as well as others if governments put up the cash but that is what just stopped the Constellation project cold in its steps as we have a leader that does not believe in what was determined as a way forward by yet another president.

                                                        So what IS realistic? Is a great question but to what specific topic area that is stopping a mission from going forward. Is it really profits, is it the will to produce R&D technolgies that is lacking, or is just a needs for a cheaper faster means to get us there.

                                                        As for peer reviewed human mars mission I kind of feel that some of the best plans have already been put forward by the likes of Mars Society, Nasa and others so having more do not really change all that much the efforts to get to Mars. We are all just defining or refining the numbers, contents of science and goals to be achieved by those that make the trip. But we are also defining what is acceptable risk areas and what are needed backups or proventions that come in under the limitations of the mission. Its not until the money is put forth that missions will happen.

                                                        --- In marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com, "spacenutnewmars" <spacenutnewmars@ ...> wrote:
                                                        >
                                                        > Hello all and I am sorry that I have not gotten back to Frank's new approach to the consortium. I have been shifting from days to second shift and now I am back on Days. This response will seem like a rant but it is not meant to be that way.
                                                        >
                                                        > It is good to hear that you have been discussing this important MarsDrive topic with the advisors in Brian Enke. Another plus for MarsDrive is the chance to have your first meeting with Robert Zubrin soon as well.
                                                        >
                                                        > The consortium will always seem to have holes depending on others view point so do not let that fret you into not continuing with the throught process. Setting up a conference of space experts with have positives and negatives regardless of whom is invited or who is not.
                                                        > Such as what the coalition for space is....been done and they are going no where....As Darren said Consortiums are not new and we have lots of examples of them. Each has there own unique methods of funding and power structure.
                                                        > Agreed that the needs of people are what currently are blocking or getting the loudest voice for the fund which space missions would need. But what are those advanced near term earth relevant items be? I think this is what Frank and Brian Enke were thinking when they were talking about new earth-based techs that will or would spill out of the process naturally.
                                                        > First I think what can be are those items that help people with the needs to survive here on earth. While jobs are high on the list it is not a space technology path to a human mission. So what would they be? In everyday life we need clean water, power (electric, gas, oil ect...), Food, shelter and clean air to breath. Everything else would fall under possessions. ... In space we will need lots of power, clean water, Food and water to be created from what can be brought, built from insitu resources and just made from the combinations of both.
                                                        > I have suggested making energy effienct sheltes modeled after the mars habitats of the analog staions of Mars Society as a step. The need for power, clean air and water can be made from a combination of say a wood stove to provide CO2 and a source of water to create methane and clean water from the Mars Society planned Sabitier reactor. Trap the excess heat from the wood stove for hot water and for heating. Capture the clean water from the reaction and use the fuel to power home and vehicles as needed.
                                                        > Waste can be put though a multi step process that would use algea and gardening composting as ways to take care of it. Use the compost to fertilize the garden which is a must for Space but in no way can a earth greenhouse be the same as what will be on mars so this is just a way to quite the loud voices that would be asking for the same dollars that are needed for space.
                                                        > I think that what I have put forth meets the aim of profit creation and finally for job creation, giving a leverage point for science and so much more.
                                                        > Those space manufacturing companies are not something that fits into single categories of rockets.... so for each there is a different business model and that includes not just the area of profit but a source of seed money as well. As such what would be a straight forward service market it becomes one of selective parts and not to a complete sector. So the people of earth do not have just a specific application from rocket launching regardless of what it carries as a payload.
                                                        > I am not sure with this quoted section "To ask such companies to start suddenly investing in an idea (humans to Mars) that has no defined market (governments are not fully committed yet) was short sighted and unrealistic of me so I'm changing that." as the answer is not black and white for profit as it requires limits and justification for expenditure.
                                                        > Risk is part of the nature of space businesses in general and to lower the chances usually mean higher expense in all facets.
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        > --- In marsdrivemission@ yahoogroups. com, "frank_stratford" <frank_stratford@> wrote:
                                                        > >
                                                        > > I posted this in our forums today guys, basically as a way forward for us. For mission design the outcome is positive as a peer reviewed design (or design of individual "chunks"- as David has been studying) can serve this goal as well.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > I was having some discussions with one of our advisors recently (Brian Enke) and it was great to get some positive feedback on my consortium ideas. He has arranged for Robert Zubrin to give me a call soon as well as we think we may be onto something now in the effort to get humans to Mars.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > I knew that there were many holes in my consortium idea but it wasn't until someone pointed them out in a balanced "non flame" manner that I started to see those areas. So I will start with an outline/plan and explain it from there-
                                                        > >
                                                        > > 1. Mars and space advocates organize a "consortium conference" to bring together the potential players for such a consortium- Boeing, Lockheed, SpaceX, etc etc.
                                                        > > 2. Unlike my previous proposal for them to get to work straight away on a Mars mission this time we would be getting them to form a consortium to advance near term earth relevant technologies in line with human space exploration needs. In short- develop with their combined resources many technologies needed for Mars in a much faster way than the current speed of R&D.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > This means that profits are the goal in the immediate and near term and it keeps investors happy because it can sink its teeth into some "already developing" ideas in various areas.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > I know that almost all space companies around today are servicing real market needs here on earth with real applications for people on earth and it is the only way they can make any money.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > To ask such companies to start suddenly investing in an idea (humans to Mars) that has no defined market (governments are not fully committed yet) was short sighted and unrealistic of me so I'm changing that.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > The problem with governments is that they are very risk averse and when it comes to humans to Mars the risks are very high. So if the consortium can remove some of these risk areas, or at least show how they can be removed (and governments do the heavy lifting), governments would start to show more interest.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > But areas like life support, radiation protection, EDL and energy production can all have earth based spin offs that will give profits to companies here and now, and the beauty of a consortium is that together they could hit their targets more quickly than on their own.(as they are today)
                                                        > >
                                                        > > I have no doubt that space companies want governments to go to Mars as they will get the contracts, but in the meantime, something more than theories must be produced to change the stance of governments to this whole idea.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > So what IS realistic?
                                                        > >
                                                        > > That we can get these companies together to begin talking about ways they can produce technologies that will bring them profits here and now, but give them the humans to Mars program as the central goal/focus.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > This can also include R&D into cheap space access tech as well as the benefits from that are obvious.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > If we had 2 or 3 peer reviewed humans to Mars designs for them to coalesce around, this would be needed as no focus will result in no outcomes.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > For example- reliable food supplies and production- good for earth here and now but also vital to crew health and safety- one of those "risk" areas governments worry about. If the consortium could patent and put together something in this area the applications are obvious.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > The same with EDL- applications for military use are obvious and far more likely to be invested in by governments than pure space exploration (sadly).
                                                        > >
                                                        > > Radiation shielding techs will also have immediate applications for earth. There are many areas like this.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > As advocates we can and do organize conferences every year with representatives from space companies and space agencies. So we can do this. We can get them in a room discussing a way forward for Mars via immediate profits now.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > But we would have to have some very clearly defined areas for them to sink their collective teeth into and several proposals would be good to start it off. Proposals for individual pieces of tech or systems that can have dual use on Earth and Mars.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > My mistake was to expect these companies to invest in a "maybe" a "build it and they will come" assumption, but I was wrong. With immediate profits as the focus I am certain that we can begin to make real progress towards humans to Mars because right now that is the only way any space company is operating.The power of a consortium is that together they can advance R&D and profits more quickly than on their own.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > I think this can be done, that it is in line with current realities in how this sector gains investment- based on serving real market needs (but with dual applications) .
                                                        > >
                                                        > > The difference with a consortium is the sheer resources brought to bear on these R&D areas versus the sporadic and slow go it alone approach we have today.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > Plus we already have one consortium- ULA- United Launch Alliance, so it is not an idea these companies are foreign to.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > If these companies want a committment from governments on humans to mars, but they don't want to lose money to get this committment then it's time they got together and figured out some areas they could advance as a spark for governments to "get interested" in Mars. The part we play as advocates is to organize this effort and "drive" it from behind seeing we are the ones with the vision and passion for the future of humanity in space. If not us then who?
                                                        > >
                                                        > > So the question is, can we make a compelling enough case to these companies to "get them interested"?
                                                        > >
                                                        >


                                                         

                                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.