Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

In the 50s sci-fi was filled with millionaire industrialists building their own spaceships. Usually nuclear powered. Businessmen and Engineers were always the heros with square jaws and can-do attitudes. See Destination Moon for a good example.

It would be good to see a modern updated version of such a film.

Posted by rjschwarz at February 6, 2006 09:34 AM

This sounds like Salvage 1 in 2006!

I loved that movie!

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Wingo at February 6, 2006 10:00 AM

...calling Robert Heinlein, Robert A. Heinlein.

Professor Asimov call on line 2.

We have sattelite telemetry for Dr. A C. Clark at the printer console.

Bill Whittle, please call your agent!! This idea is saleable!!

Do it Bill, we need a good scifi movie without the typical hollyweird liberal bent. Good luck getting it made too.

Posted by Steve at February 6, 2006 10:49 AM

Of course the problem with a film idea without a typical hollyweird liberal bent is that is usually has to be sold to hollyweird liberals. Also, I am little concerned Bill is selling the concept as a message and not as a story. There's an old adage in the movies that states, "If you want to send a message, use Western Union." A little obsolete, perhaps, but the princible still holds.

Mind, a modern version of Destination Moon would be pretty cool.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at February 6, 2006 11:49 AM

Meanwhile, the Fox Network has announced a new pilot, "Beyond," about a new space race. For reasons known only to Hollywood, the series is set at JPL -- surely the leader in human exploration of space, yes?

Posted by Edward Wright at February 6, 2006 12:14 PM

Edward - I suspect that is because JPL is in California. Hollywood folks would rather die than to set up a TV production in Houston, with us red necks and our insupportable weather (g).

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at February 6, 2006 12:19 PM

Well, I would love to see a movie with those elements in it. Serenity is the only movie I can think of that goes against the government in space meme.

Posted by B.Brewer at February 6, 2006 01:22 PM

Hmmm, the base looks like an inflatable.

I'm assuming the lines at the top are a tether to a counterweight for AG.

Posted by Big D at February 6, 2006 01:32 PM

http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/hab32.jpg

Hmmm...from that image I'd say it shows a Zubrin style 'Mars Direct' manned-habitat-module in mid flight from Earth to Mars. Tether lines are visable in the foreground that probably attach the hab to a counterweight of an expended Earth Departure Stage. The big blue balloon like structure visible in the background is no doubt an inflatable aeroshell used for MOC and Mars descent.

Nuclear power is mentioned as having a part in the movie script. Well the Mars Direct Earth-Return-Vehicle uses nuclear power for ISRU so that fits too.

So is Robert Zubrin getting any money out of this movie project? Zubrin did write the book "The Case for Mars". Does Zubrin have any intellectual property rights relevant to the movie script? I wonder.

Posted by Brad at February 6, 2006 02:37 PM

Brad: you can't copyright concepts or methods. Someone else could write a novel based on a technology Zubrin proposed and he'd have no legal leg to stand on.

Posted by Paul Dietz at February 6, 2006 02:53 PM

More on Mars Direct and the hab-jpg

One thing missing from the image is a deployed solar power system for the hab module. But that really doesn't surprise me. When looked at real closely some things about the Zubrin hab module don't add up. The solar power system is one of them.

According to the book, "The Case for Mars", the hab module has a one tonne 5 kWe solar power system. This presumably would provide power for such vital needs as the life support system. Yet in the artwork this SPS is only shown deployed on the surface of Mars; which begs the question what powers the life support before Mars landing?

Another problem with the hab module is the artificial gravity system. Tether lines attach the hab to the expended Earth-Departure-Stage, the EDS serving as a counterweight to the hab. But if the tether lines are attached to the top of the hab module then the hab module would be mounted 'upside-down' on top of the EDS in the launch stack. For the crew of the hab not to undergo launch acceleration 'eyes out' the acceleration couches would have to be mounted on the 'ceiling' of the hab module instead of the floor! There are other ways around this problem but they aren't very elegant either.

Another problem with the hab module is the lack of any Launch-Escape-System. It's hard to see how any LES could be integrated with the hab launch stack. Ejection seats might be the least compromising to the hab design, but also of limited usefullness.

As much as Zubrin is fond of limiting his Mars architecture to direct-only launches from Earth or from Mars, for reasons of economy of mass and for safer abort options it makes more sense to modify his plan to semi-direct architecture. It's better to have his manned- Mars lander hab launched unmanned into LEO and then crewed after EOR with a small manned transfer capsule. Likewise the mass assumptions for the Earth-Return-Vehicle are way too optimistic for the habitat portion. It makes more sense for the ERV to leave it's habitat and Earth return heatshield in Mars orbit rather than land the entire massive ERV onto the Martian surface.

Posted by Brad at February 6, 2006 03:17 PM

So is Robert Zubrin getting any money out of this movie project?

Why do you assume that this project has anything at all to do with Bob Zubrin, or Mars? Certainly neither I nor Bill have indicated anything of the sort.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 6, 2006 03:20 PM

"Why do you assume that this project has anything at all to do with Bob Zubrin, or Mars?"

Because the image looks just like a Zubrin Mars Direct hab in mid flight.

Posted by Brad at February 6, 2006 03:24 PM

The ship looks like an interplanetary ship. Some designs simply make sense. It's called convergent evolution.

Go read the teasers again. Bob Zubrin certainly doesn't believe that we will do it without the help of the US government--he is a vocal proponent of a NASA mission to Mars.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 6, 2006 03:32 PM

"Go read the teasers again."

I did.

"The ship looks like an interplanetary ship. Some designs simply make sense. It's called convergent evolution."

Sorry, I just don't see that. It looks like a Zubrin hab to me. The Zubrin architecture is pretty unique and doesn't look like much else. That in combination with other information, such as nuclear power, private funding and flight within ten years, still lead me to believe it is a Mars Direct ship.

If you have a specific example of 'convergent evolution' design interplanetary-ship that fits the image as well or better that the Mars Direct ship, please post a link.

"Bob Zubrin certainly doesn't believe that we will do it without the help of the US government--he is a vocal proponent of a NASA mission to Mars."

Zubrin believes a lot of things, it doen't make it true or limit what is possible. I don't see why Mars Direct could only be done by NASA or some other governments' large agency. Because of it's low mass and low technology requirements Mars Direct would be one of the easiest ways for a privately-funded near-term interplanetary mission to proceed.

Posted by Brad at February 6, 2006 04:09 PM

All right, believe whatever nonsense you want to believe, but at least stop indulging yourself in fantasies that (your hero?) Bob Zubrin should get royalties anytime someone does a screenplay about interplanetary space travel.

I can tell you with absolute assurance that this script was influenced in no way whatsoever by Bob Zubrin.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 6, 2006 04:50 PM

Zubies hab design has been around for decades. The first flight experiment of a rotating tether connecting two manned habs was during the Gemini program. Do a search on Paul Penzo from JPL and some of the tether conferences of the past.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Wingo at February 6, 2006 04:58 PM

"All right, believe whatever nonsense you want to believe, but at least stop indulging yourself in fantasies that (your hero?) Bob Zubrin should get royalties anytime someone does a screenplay about interplanetary space travel."

Yikes. Touchy touchy touchy! Zubrin is no hero to me, as should have been obvious by the detailed criticism I posted of Zubrin's Mars Direct. Nor do I think Zubrin is entitled to royalties. I'm no expert in copyright law or intellectual property rights, which is why I posted my musings about that issue in the form of a question. I'm genuinely curious about the issue.

Posted by Brad at February 6, 2006 05:12 PM

"Zubies hab design has been around for decades."

You are not very clear. Are you claiming cylindrical habitats have been around for decades? (Which is a real 'duh' sort of thing to say considering Skylab and whatnot) Or are you claiming Zubrin conceived of his hab design decades ago? Because Zubrin's own book (pages 56, 62, 65) describes the Mars Direct 'tuna can' hab shape being conceived in 1990, not 'decades ago'.

"The first flight experiment of a rotating tether connecting two manned habs was during the Gemini program. Do a search on Paul Penzo from JPL and some of the tether conferences of the past."

The Gemini tether experiment was between a Gemini spacecraft and the unmanned Agena spacecraft. So far as I know there has never been an experiment connecting by tether two manned spacecraft which were rotating.

Posted by Brad at February 6, 2006 05:28 PM

Didn't Robert Zubrin invent sliced bread? Perhaps not. He did invent three player chess, though.

Naked link due to Rand's filter"

http://www.chessvariants. org/multiplayer.dir/three_player/three_player_chess.html

I also concur with Mark Whittington. The tough part is finding a good story notwithstanding whatever message is to be conveyed.

Posted by Bill White at February 6, 2006 06:57 PM

The tough part is finding a good story notwithstanding whatever message is to be conveyed.

We are talking about Bill Whittle here...

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 6, 2006 07:06 PM

In that case, he surely knows this point already. Which is good for building anticipation.

= = =

Is it Mars? I mean you can tell me. No one comes here, do they? /snark

Posted by Bill White at February 6, 2006 07:11 PM

Stated clearly

The concept of a rotating tether is not new to manned spaceflight design. Here is from the log of the Gemini 11 mission.

Following the sleep period, the Agena primary propulsion system was fired for 25 seconds at 7:12:41 UTC on September 14, raising the docked spacecraft apogee to 1374.1 km (a record altitude for an astronaut mission that would stand until Apollo 8 went to the moon). After two orbits, the Agena was fired again for 22.5 seconds to lower the Gemini-Agena back down to a 287x304 km orbit. At 12:49, Gordon opened his hatch to begin a 2 hour 8 minute standup EVA during which he conducted photographic experiments. The hatch was closed at 14:57 and shortly afterwards the spacecraft were undocked and Gemini 11 moved to the end of the 30 meter tether attaching the two spacecraft. At 16:55, Conrad initiated a slow rotation of the Gemini capsule about the GATV which kept the tether taut and the spacecraft a constant distance apart at the ends of the tether. Oscillations occurred initially, but damped out after about 20 minutes. The rotation rate was then increased; oscillations again occurred but damped out and the combination stabilized. The circular motion at the end of the tether imparted a slight artificial "gravitational acceleration" within Gemini 11, the first time such artificial gravity was demonstrated in space. After about three hours the tether was released and the spacecraft moved apart. A fuel cell stack failed at 21:13, but the remaining stacks took over the load satisfactorily. At 9:22 UTC on September 15, a final re-rendezvous maneuver without use of the rendezvous radar, which had malfunctioned, was accomplished.

You are correct that it was not between two Gemini vehicles but there is not any functional difference when one is manned and the other is not.

The clear part is that a rotating tether is the only innovation that Zube brought to that architecture other than the use of ISRU methane from the Sabatier process (which Gordon Woodcock of Boeing had described years earlier).

This is not to dis Bob or Mars direct. We all stand on the work of others and all borrow liberally. That is the point, There are so many aspects of Mars direct that are either from the late Apollo studies, many AIAA papers, or other research that Bob can hardly call it unique.

To give him proper credit, it is a great thing to pick and choose among many many technologies to put together a systems engineering solution that passes the smell test. Bob is a good systems engineer but the devil is always in the details.

Rand's original post stands, there is nothing that is so unique to his idea that is patentable (he is not claiming that), nor is it improper to borrow from other's work, especially at the conceptual stage. The patent licenses can be drawn up after the first billion in funding.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Wingo at February 6, 2006 07:58 PM

Beyond that, there's nothing in my post, or Bill's, that has anything whatsoever to do with Bob Zubrin, or Mars.

Some people apparently think, for some unfathomable reason (perhaps due to their limited knowledge and experience), that it's not possible to talk about humans exploring space with Bob Zubrin or Mars not involved. There were many people writing on this topic before anyone ever heard of Bob Zubrin.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 6, 2006 08:23 PM

> Edward - I suspect that is because JPL is in California. Hollywood folks would
> rather die than to set up a TV production in Houston, with us red necks and
> our insupportable weather (g).

Houston? Mark, I know you're going to find this shocking, but human spaceflight is not limited to Houston. California has an actual working spaceport, just about an hour's drive from Hollywood.

Posted by Edward Wright at February 6, 2006 08:42 PM

Some people apparently think, for some unfathomable reason (perhaps due to their limited knowledge and experience)

This nails it, for me. Limited knowledge and experience when "Case for Mars" hit my reading list, entirely by accident.

If you would indulge a vampire metaphor, Zubrin is the guy who got me hooked on this space exploration stuff. For better or worse, Case for Mars "brought me over" and although I now have a number of disagreements with Zubrin there remains a primal loyalty.

Back in 1998 I was a happy civilian real estate lawyer fully convinced that NASA was truly at the cutting edge and they were doing the very best that was humanly possible.

Then, during a trip to DisneyWorld with my wife and daughter (age 5) - - my wife arranged for us to all go see John Glenn's space shuttle launch and the next day we did the NASA facilities tour. That evening while the women in my family were buying freeze-dried strawberries, refrigerator magnets and NASA PJs for all the young cousins, I browsed the bookshelf and by happenstance purchased "Case for Mars" - - then back at DisneyWorld I read the book in two nights.

I told my wife - "Wow! We really can go to Mars, like right now!"

She said "What do you mean "we" - you don't change your own oil"

I meant the collective "we" of course, as in Americans or humans. :-)

Back home, I started reading and web-surfing and started getting really PO-ed at the space shuttle and ISS and NASA and all that stuff. Google is awesome, by the way.

Back to Zubrin. No matter what he is the vampire that got me into all this and there will be loyalty no matter what. As a matter of fact, I have heard George Whitesides tell a similiar story.

So there you go, as far as Zubrin's popularity. I think my story is more typical than you might realize, Rand.

Posted by Bill White at February 6, 2006 08:54 PM

Back to the project at hand . . .

Beyond that, there's nothing in my post, or Bill's, that has anything whatsoever to do with Bob Zubrin, or Mars.

If the destination is not Mars, then a tethered craft to be spun up for simulated gravity is essentially a fixed station at a LaGrange point, IMHO, or maybe asteroid prospecting.

Artificial gravity is not needed for lunar missions. Venus? Nah.

Further out? Not in ten years, unless some tooth fairy engineers show up.

Not Mars, Rand says? Then I say asteroid prospecting is the most likely scenario.

= = =

Place your bets . . .

Posted by Bill White at February 6, 2006 09:02 PM

What I want to know is who we have to get talk to to get 'Salvage 1' and 'Plymouth' on DVD. There's gotta be someone at ABC who knows where they are in the archives.

The logical complaint is that no one buys the 'real' stuff, but it's not like there's a whole lot out there to find, space films being mostly bug hunts, contact with aliens or something else having a kind of 'trans-human' quality. Who said there has to be aliens or magic technology to make a space story? I yearn for realistic near-Earth, near-future stories.

I think I'm gonna go watch an episode of 'Planetes'.

Posted by Ken Murphy at February 6, 2006 09:05 PM

"* PROTESTORS and CELEBRITIES as LAUGHING STOCKS!"

When's it coming out? I'll go see it just for that alone! :-D

Posted by Barbara Skolaut at February 6, 2006 09:13 PM

O ye of little imagination! Folks, it's not a "Zubrin hab". It's a Medusa, for Pete's sake. Those long lines are sheets, not tethers. That's "sheets" as in sails.

Big, honking, nuclear-powered sails.

(I hate Medusa, by the way. I'm strictly a pusher-plate man.)

Still, I'm DYING to know more of this project...

Posted by B-Chan at February 6, 2006 10:07 PM

Bill,

So there you go, as far as Zubrin's popularity. I think my story is more typical than you might realize, Rand.

My impression is that there is a big crowd of Zubrin readers out there. Just put forth (ie, troll) one of the classic arguments (eg, "We need to go to the Moon in order to go to Mars."), that Zubrin prepped against, and they'll come out of the woodwork.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at February 7, 2006 07:08 AM

Good point--that could be a zero-g ship with solar sail. AG was just the first thing that popped into my mind.

As far as the Mars Direct thing goes--that's about like saying that the 747 was conceived by the Wrights. OK, that's an exaggeration, but my point is that we stand on the shoulders of concepts and planning done in the past. Some of Zubrin's ideas should and will make it into reality, because they just plain make sense. They've entered the general lexicon on space, and many of them were themselves built on what others had conceived before him. So, let's all calm down about ownership of ideas.

As far as the missing solar panels go... personally, I never saw the problem with using a small reactor on a large ship. Heck, one is required to get long-distance/short-duration flights (NTR, VASIMR, etc). I just assumed by their lack that this mission used a nuc plant.

Destination? That belongs to the script. I would guess Mars or asteroids, because those are both the nearest unexplored frontiers and potential great sources of cash. However, it could conceiveably be a station in an L-point, but I'd doubt that; it would be too static for a movie script.

I'm still curious as to whether the blue section is an inflatable hab or a balut.

Posted by Big D at February 7, 2006 07:14 AM

Some of Zubrin's ideas should and will make it into reality. . .

For some reason, this line just makes me want to chuckle.

Posted by Bill White at February 7, 2006 09:22 AM

Well, I was thinking specifically of his shuittle-derived HLV... I think that you can safely assume that Martian fuel manufacturing and several of his bigger innovations are going to happen at some point.

The one thing of his I would most love to see work is the magsail (preferably the M2P2). I don't understand why nobody's bothered building a minisat to piggyback on a launch and test out the concept.

Posted by Big D at February 7, 2006 09:49 AM

I was thinking specifically of his shuttle-derived HLV

His Shuttle-derived HLV?

Do you really believe that no one conceived of a Shuttle-derived HLV prior to the advent of the great Bob Zubrin?

You know, just because he may have introduced you to a concept, doesn't mean that he invented it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 7, 2006 10:11 AM

Sorry Rand, we're talking about 2 different things here. My earlier post was on the topic, covering the ownership of concepts.

My last post was off-topic and strictly based on the "Some of Zubrin's ideas..." line that tickled Bill. No claim was intended that the Magnum was in any way an original concept. Shuttle-C well pre-dates Magnum, for starters.

Apologies for the confusion; didn't realize how it read in context of the previous threads.

My bad.

Back on the *original* topic--any hints you can drop us? Sail or AG tether? :)

Posted by Big D at February 7, 2006 11:06 AM

No, I'll leave that to Bill. All that I'll say is that it has nothing to do with Zubrin.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 7, 2006 11:28 AM

Who is this Zubrin guy anyway? I remember reading about all this from Jerry Pournelle in the 70s before none of it came to pass and I lost interest.

Posted by Some guy at February 7, 2006 01:06 PM

Everybody should have a copy of Jerry's "A step farther out." A great book, but I think I lost my copy.

"It makes more sense for the ERV to leave it's habitat and Earth return heatshield in Mars orbit rather than land the entire massive ERV onto the Martian surface."

Brad, I beg to differ (that could be my tagline except I hate to be so disagreeable ;)

I understand why you might want to save some weight but don't you think the astronauts would like to check out all systems before lighting any fires? What if they have a problem in orbit putting things together before the flight home? If they find a problem on the surface they can wait for another ERV. In orbit they are S.O.L.

Posted by ken anthony at February 9, 2006 03:30 AM

Steve: Asimov's earlier books weren't libertarian. He did not believe that humans left on their own would act much better than any other ape. Foundation: His Galactic Empire was rotten but far better than the alternative. Nightfall: Humans cannot withstand the shock of understanding their true place in the universe. I, Robot: Humans are less sensible than machines programmed with ethics.

In the 1980s he seems to have taken this to its logical extreme, that we should become one with Greater Gaia or some such rot.

Posted by David Ross at February 11, 2006 10:02 PM

Engineers and businessmen as heroes? Engineers maybe, but greedy, selfish, profit-whoring robber barons can't be heroes. I bet they cut the pay in half for their engineer minions on Mars when they land. Just watch!

Posted by X at February 12, 2006 08:02 AM

Post a comment