MarsBlog.net

It seems there’s another new X-Prize entrant.

Posted on October 13th, 2003 under Space Commerce. Comments Off

The manned Shenzhou launch really must be on for this week: the propaganda machine is gearing up.

Posted on October 12th, 2003 under Chinese Space. Comments Off

Looking a day into the future, tomorrow’s Sunday Mail has an article on the new research station being built in Australia.

The MARS-OZ project reads like a blueprint for space exploration to the Red Planet – how humans will live and study for weeks and months in a hostile environment.

MARS-OZ will recycle water and waste through chemical and biological devices still to be tried out. Incineration will be used to eliminate human waste.

Those involved in the MARS-OZ project will grow plants under conditions similar to those expected for the first Martian explorers. Soil will be used but some vegetables will be grown hydroponically under simulated Martian light.

Experiments will vary from small-scale test plots to fully self-sufficient gardens.

MARS-OZ will also become a laboratory for a new skin-tight, counter-pressure space suit.
The MarsSkin suit will be insulated against Martian temperatures, which rise to 25C and plunge to -125C.

The project will also study the human factors of life on Mars.

Gender balance, crew dynamics, entertainment, relaxation and workloads will all come under scrutiny.

Posted on October 11th, 2003 under Mars Society. Comments Off

Rand Simberg has tackled the Commercial Space Act of 2003, so I don’t have to.

Which is good, since his take is more informed than mine would have been.

Posted on October 9th, 2003 under Space Policy. Comments Off

It’s looking like the Chinese are aiming for October 15: China eyes mid-October space date.

Posted on October 8th, 2003 under Chinese Space. Comments Off

I don’t want to get my hopes up, but perhaps some big changes are finally in the works at NASA.

The article mentions the resurrection (or is it continued heroic measures?) of Alternate Access, now retitled “Assured” Access, to be online around 2011. The implication is that this capability will take over for Shuttle on the cargo side, while OSP takes over the crew transfer functions.

Also interesting is the mention of the need to preserve the heavy lift capability inherent in the Shuttle stack:

However strong the call NASA hears to stop flying humans aboard Space Shuttles, NASA still sees the need to have a heavy cargo carrying capacity in place – just in case future projects should require it. As such, NASA is still reluctant to do away with the Shuttle system entirely. Alas, NASA has no identified heavy lift requirements after the ISS is completed to actually drive future planning. Discussions are being held at the White House on possible new directions - but so far these discussions are, only discussions.

I know I’m being overly-optimistic here, but one could see this as a promising shift towards privatization of NASA functions (AAS, in the form of Kelly and Constellation), and the beginnings of a move towards Moon or Mars missions.

I see this as an acceptable compromise position between where we are now (NASA monopoly) and where we should be (space as another branch of private industry) — NASA (or some variant/substitute) extending the range of human activities through manned exploration and space R&D activities, and private enterprise taking over the nearer-to-home roles behind it as its focus moves outward.

Posted on October 7th, 2003 under Space Policy. Comments Off

It’s that time of year again:

The Mars Society is requesting volunteers to participate as members of the crew of the Mars Desert Research Station (MDRS) and Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station (FMARS) during extended simulations of human Mars exploration operations in the Utah desert (Nov 2003-April 2004) and on Devon Island (summer 2004).

(more…)

Posted on October 7th, 2003 under Mars Society. Comments Off

Shuttle flights may be delayed again.

Citing interviews with unnamed shuttle engineers, USA Today reported Thursday that an engineer told officials the nose cap was not inspected during the overhaul, because at that time it was not known that the metal beneath the nose cap could corrode. An unknown shuttle worker incorrectly recorded that the inspection had been done, according to USA Today’s account.

Excuse me, but how does NASA not know that the hardware under the nose cap could corrode, when depot overhauls typically include extensive repairs to corroded structure?

In fact, a simple Google search for “shuttle corrosion” led me to a document at JSC, NASA TM-104810, “Space Shuttle Orbiter Corrosion History, 1981-1993″, published in June 1995 by the Orbiter Corrosion Control Review Board. Searching within this document for “nose”, one finds on pg. 31 a table listing 24 corrosion incidents associated with the nose caps, hatches, and doors (though no further breakout by zone is provided), while on page 16, section 4.1 describes corrosion issues with the RCC panel attach hardware and spars along the wing leading edges. One would think someone would have made a connection…

Posted on October 2nd, 2003 under Columbia Accident. Comments Off

A NASA study group has concluded that the Mars Exploration Program’s agenda needs some work.

Of most significant concern are cost growth and contamination issues with the Mars Science Laboratory super-rover.

Posted on October 2nd, 2003 under Space Science. Comments Off