Asked you if you read and you replied yes, but that doesn't mean you read my earlier posts which related to we haven't tried this yet or those by others saying it was too risky for manned flight. So please give me your detailed critic of Mars Direct rather than the handwaiving so typical of those that dismiss Mars Direct. I was a doubter too, but I checked the math. I'm not qualified to judge some of the assumptions used since I'm not an aerospace engineer, but the math works. What I don't see from Zubrin's critics is math or an explanation of why (if his proposal is so off the wall) NASA did an about face and borrowed heavily for its baseline manned mission. As an engineer who often trashes old methods of doing things to achieve faster, better and cheaper production methods the same creative spark in Zubrin is obvious to me.
I can understand and respect people like sawyer who say manned missions are not the right goal. I don't have much respect for handwaiving dismissals of detailed proposals.
Regards,
Mark
Space/Science » in reply to So Did You Just Skim Over Or Forget This Part?
Sorry Kind Of Assumed Something There
The whole thread (33 posts)
- No way to land large fast payloads on Mars
- I still think they should revive the original Project Orion
- re: No way to land large fast payloads on Mars
- If only..
- Quite True Currently
- Falling into Mars.
- Did my reply get deleted?
- Nuclear rockets
- Very interesting!
- If it means a brief stopover in martian parking orbit, before descending, I don't see the problem.