Anyone else feels its redundant for Apollo on steriods?

lysol · Sep 8, 2006

Don't get me wrong, anything that sets us a little further into the cosmic ocean than just ankle deep as Carl Sagan would say. Im absolutely for it. But why the moon, that important step was completed in the cold war by the previous generation. For me just stepping off world would be a dream. But who wants to be Moon man #26 when they can be the Earth Invader #1 on Mars. God give this generation something to really shoot for and not back track. I feel goverment space organizations should be the path finders....and then let the business enterpuers/explorers pave the way in thier wake. Leave the moon to homesteaders. Get our butts to the nieghboring planets NASA...I want a memory of exactly what I was doing when that would happen....or hell I want to remember throwing a mars rock and laughing like a school girl as we dig up fossils. Only "Where was I moments" I have right now is 9/11 and on the bridge of a destroyer bombing the crap out of Baghdad at the begining of the war.

JonClarke · Sep 8, 2006

The Moon is worth going to for its own sake. It will also enable the development of technology and building of skills necessary for Mars. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

nyarlathotep · Sep 8, 2006

I for one would like to know just how many people other than Mike Griffin at NASA are abusing steroids. I personally think we should be going with the EELV's and a lighter capsule and seperate mission module ala GE Apollo, but I'm optimistic that COTS will continue to be funded and will make the entire system redundant.

tomnackid · Sep 8, 2006

But why the moon, that important step was completed in the cold war by the previous generation. For me just stepping off world would be a dream. But who wants to be Moon man #26 when they can be the Earth Invader #1 on Mars. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I find if very funny (or maybe tragic) that so many people born post-apollo can look at a world with a surface area greater than north america and surface conditions completely different from anything humans have experienced in our history and feel that 12 men on 6 expeditions none lasting more than a few days could explore it adequately! Either it shows an amazing (and unrealistic) faith in what Apollo was able to accomplish or a vast underestimation of what it takes to explore a world! We literally just scratched the surface of the moon. We have yet to "live off the land" anywhere but earth. Private business and homesteaders are not going to risk huge sums of money and their lives trying to figure out how to live on the moon. Just as homesteading in the American west depended on help from the US government (to survey the land, make maps, clear out and/or pacify hostile natives, grant legal deeds and protect those deeds) living and working on the moon isn't going to happen until some government establishes a beachhead. And that has always been a legitimate function of government--to do something worthwhile that is too risky for private enterprise alone. I have no doubt that once we have more experience living for long periods away from earth we will set our sites on mars. We have already learned a lot from the ISS. Parts have failed in ways that we never expected--things that would have doomed a mission on its way to mars. On the moon we will learn to set up habitats, engage in long lasting, strenuous EVAs on a daily basis, repair equipment on site far from any factory, even unfortunately learn to treat serious injuries in an off world

scipt · Sep 8, 2006

Going to the moon is fine if there is a comittment to stay there. If it's just apollo again, then there will be six missions, and then another 30 year hiatus. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

tomnackid · Sep 8, 2006

I love it: "Just Apollo" as if it were no big deal. God are people spoiled and complacent today or what?

elguapoguano · Sep 8, 2006

Apollo was a great program and they achieved many things. But I agree, if we are just going to do a "Flags and Footprints" type senario again, why bother. I've got my fingers crossed, and hopefully, I'll get to see a man or woman on Mars in my lifetime... A great man once said, If god intended man to travel the stars, he would have given him, more money... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>) </div>

JonClarke · Sep 8, 2006

Apollo was not flags and foot prints to start with, so I would be quite happy with a continuation from where Apollo left off. Since VSE will start with missions vastly more capable that Apollo I am delighted. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

lysol · Sep 8, 2006

if the intention is to go to the moon and stay put for science, then that changes everything. But i just get the distinct feeling this is now a race against China for stars and stripes with footsteps and maybe some experimients with the "my first chemsitry set". Would be entertaining that the chinese constructed a hug LED on the earth side that turns the moon into a global billboard.

tronchaser · Sep 8, 2006

I agree, did the countries around the world planted flags on undiscovered territories and named the land for their king? It is a start. We do need pickup where Apollo left off. And explore the moon and beyond. If can not survive the Moon, we can not survive Mars. Apollo was getting interesting towards the end of the program, until politics pulled the plug. I believe that if the apollo continued. We would be working for Mars now.

radarredux · Sep 8, 2006

> Apollo was not flags and foot prints to start with/i> I disagree... to a point. Apollo was inspired and driven by politics. It was a flags and footprint effort. When the Kennedy administration was initially putting the plans togother, the NASA administrator was against it. He didn't see value in it. Kennedy himself was not excited about the Moon -- only finding a big enough and splashy enough effort that America could reasonably beat the Russians in. Having said that, there was still plenty of science that was done as part of the race. For example, how much material do we have from any other planetoid in the solar system? If we had as much material from Mars on Earth that we do have of the Moon, scientists would be freaking out. We have sensors to measure Moon quakes. We have sensors to bounce lasers off of it and to measure very accurately the distance to the Moon (and how it is changing). And the detailed maps of the Moon that we do have were largely a byproduct of the race to the Moon. (Note: Today, I believe we have much greater Map details of Mars than we do of the Moon, but LRO should change that). To extend that line, even if this current effort turns out to be a flags and footprints effort (a half dozen short missions), we are going to collect a huge amount of science along the way. LRO will be a huge source of information, including detailed topology data, visual images, radiation maps, and mineral distributions. Also, he LRO will send an impact probe into the cold traps in the pole to hopefully stir up some water/ice. Robotic landers for the 2011-2014 timeframe are also in the early planning stages. And of course several other nations have Lunar robotic missions already on the books. So the redirecting of the manned space program to go to the Moon will, even if just a side effect, dramatically increase our knowledge of the Moon.

JonClarke · Sep 8, 2006

This is the interesting question. "Flags and footprints" gets thrown round a lot as a term of abuse, but is rarely defined. To some it is any misison that does not lead diretcly to the establishment of a permanant, politically independent, commerically viable settlement. Functionally, I would take "flags and footprints" as the space equivalent to Peary or Amdusen at the poles, or mountain climbing. Achieving the goal, documenting it, leaving proof of presence and then leaving perhaps never to return. With respect to Apollo, it's political goals whould have been achieved by a single "flag and footprints mission", Apollo 11, perhaps with another one to show that it was not a fluke. There were those in the US government, in NASA HQ, even among the astronauts, who thought this should have been the case. But Apollo did not stop with Apollo 11 or even 12. There were 7 landing attempts, with steadily improving capabilities and performance. The fact that the same hardware could sustain the growth from Apollo 11 to 17 shows that it was substanially over-engineered for its task. The goals of the Apollos 15-17 were certainly scientfic, not political (like Apollo 11) or even technological development (as was the case with Apollos 12-14). Apollo could have achieved even more, with the political will, another three landings, perhaps one on the farside, and then development of more specialised logistics hardware allowing longer stays, higher latitudes, and greater exploration ranges. But it was not to be. Much the same imprecision exists over the opposite term of abuse "battlestar galactica", applied usually to Mars missions that are larger and more complex than the one preferred by a particular protagonist. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

MeteorWayne · Sep 8, 2006

Excellent point Jon, Apollo's 15-17 were almost pure scientific missions. Look at the science just on Apollo 17 That's what makes the final words spoken from the lunar surface so poignant. "169:47:19 Cernan: And I'll read what that plaque says to you. First of all, it has a picture of the world. Two pictures. One of the North America and one of South America. The other covers the other half of the world including Africa, Asia, Europe, Australia, covers the North Pole and the South Pole. In between these two hemispheres, we have a pictorial view of the Moon, a pictorial view of where all the Apollo landings have been made; so that when this plaque is seen again by others who come, they will know where it all started. The words are, "Here man completed his first exploration of the Moon, December 1972 A.D. May the spirit of peace in which we came be reflected in the lives of all mankind." It's signed, "Eugene A. Cernan, Ronald E. Evans, Harrison H. Schmitt, and most prominently, Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States of America." This is our commemoration that will be here until someone like us, until some of you who are out there, who are the promise of the future, come back to read it again and to further the exploration and the meaning of Apollo. Then: 170:41:00 Cernan: Bob, this is Gene, and I'm on the surface; and, as I take man's last step from the surface, back home for some time to come - but we believe not too long into the future - I'd like to just (say) what I believe history will record. That America's challenge of today has forged man's destiny of tomorrow. And, as we leave the Moon at Taurus- Littrow, we leave as we came and, God willing, as we shall return, with peace and hope for all mankind. "Godspeed the crew of Apollo 17." Edit{ I remember the first and last words Those were the last from the sur <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

JonClarke · Sep 9, 2006

Wonderful words! "we leave as we came and, God willing, as we shall return, with peace and hope for all mankind." Cernan is of course echoing the words on the Apollo 11 plaque: "we came in peace for all mankind." Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

halman · Sep 9, 2006

lysol, Thi biggest challenge facing us right now is not the Moon, or Mars, it is our atmosphere. Our atmosphere is the chasm we must cross to go anywhere, and we have yet to build a bridge over that chasm. We have learned how to cross it at great risk and expense, but that is not the definiton of a bridge. Until we can get to and from space on a regular, routine basis, any exploration beyond the Earth-Moon system is questionable, given the amount of resources available to the entire space exploration enterprise. The Moon is a highly visible goal, easy to reach, yet challanging in its own right. The resources we will find on the Moon are still conjecture, but there is no doubt that we will find much of value. Exploiting those resources will generate wealth, wealth which will make the next steps in our exploration much easier. The Moon will likely be the key to opening up the Solar System, as its resources do not lie in the bottom of a deep gravity well. We all want to see new worlds opened up, and the sphere of human activity expanded. But we must build that bridge across the atmosphere first, which requires a regular need to cross it. The Moon gives us that need, right here where everyone can see it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

nyarlathotep · Sep 9, 2006

>"This is the interesting question. "Flags and footprints" gets thrown round a lot as a term of abuse, but is rarely defined." It's defined as any human mission that doesn't have any clear scientific goals which can be traded by merit against a much larger amount of robotic or earth based science. NASA hasn't exactly been very forthcoming to the public about what they're going to do on the moon that is worthy of all those hundreds of billions of dollars. You must understand that their evasiveness in answering these very simple queries gives most people a sneaking suspicion that it's a MASSIVE BOONDOGGLE. />"The Moon will likely be the key to opening up the Solar System, as its resources do not lie in the bottom of a deep gravity well. " Until you have a mass driver, 2.8km/s is a ludicrously large gravity well. I don't really see a lander large enough to deliver a mass driver fitting on an Ares V. Do you? I'd think that a more appropriate vehicle would be in the Sea Dragon, multi-kiloton payload class.

JonClarke · Sep 9, 2006

That's one definition. Is it yours or are you quoting. I see threedifficulties with it though: firstly, it is a negative one, defining a mission by what it isn't rather than what it is. Secondly, it is not clear as to what is mean by "much larger amount of earth-based science". Thirdly, it uses science as the sole criterion for mission worth - there are other legitimate goals for an expedition tnan science alone. Using this definition with respect to Apollo it is clear than none of Apollo landing missions were flag and foot prints missions as all had clear scientific goals, even the early ones where science gain was secondary to the political and technological goals. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

nyarlathotep · Sep 9, 2006

>"there are other legitimate goals for an expedition tnan science alone. " Firstly, economics is best left to private industry and not state planning. The Russians tried that, didn't work so well. Further, if there was money on the moon the market would be on their way developing the technology to get there now. If there are no economic goals and there are no scientific goals, this only leaves nationalistic and political goals. Are we going to the moon because of science, or are we going because of politics? If we are going because of science, enumerate the science objectives, and for each their estimated cost.

JonClarke · Sep 9, 2006

"NASA hasn't exactly been very forthcoming to the public about what they're going to do on the moon that is worthy of all those hundreds of billions of dollars. You must understand that their evasiveness in answering these very simple queries gives most people a sneaking suspicion that it's a MASSIVE BOONDOGGLE." Time and time again over the past 30 years NASA and others have given the scientific and technological justification for returning to the Moon. There has been no evasiveness what so ever on this topic. Anyone who has paid the slightest attention to the literature over this period will be aware of these reasons. Non recongition of this fact implies either ignorance of the subject or a political agenda to undermine NASA's goal of returning to the Moon. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

nyarlathotep · Sep 9, 2006

>"Time and time again over the past 30 years NASA and others have given the scientific and technological justification for returning to the Moon." I'm ignorant, help me with that. ENUMERATE THEM.

qso1 · Sep 9, 2006

You have stated it well RadarRedux, I can only add that flags n footprints is a recent buzzword that distinguishes the difference between going to the moon or mars for short durations as opposed to going to stay to build bases. Bush 1 proposed going to the moon to stay. This ought to be the goal of the current VSE and maybe it is but if so. It hasn't been stated too clearly. This, IMO is what has created the perception of VSE as a flags n footprints mission. Apollo scientific work produced a lot of valuable knowledge about the moon despite its largely political origins and I think the VSE will do much the same. Starting with picking up where Apollo left off and then going from there. My preference was to do both the moon and mars. But if only one can be had for now, I preferred mars mainly because of the potential for microbiological life. However, reality being what it is, I'm okay with going to the moon. And at this point, I think the moon can play a vital role in setting the stage for mars. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

lysol · Sep 9, 2006

eh sorry, I got a bit of a spoonfull of disillusionment when the president was talking about terrorism and the nazi's....trying to scare the american people into supporting the war...grr.. anyways im interested in what they are going to do up there anyways.

halman · Sep 9, 2006

Nyarlathotep, Your comment regarding a "lander large enough to deliver a mass driver fitting on an Areas V" makes me wonder just what understanding of space travel you have. No interplanetary vehicle, lunar base, or mass driver is going to fit on a single rocket. This is the nature of the barrier between us and the rest of space, that we still are not proficient in crossing it. Anything that we do in space is going to take a lot of launches, irregardless of how big the rockets are. But the Moon offers a place to extract resources that can be used in zero gravity processing, which offers some of the earliest possible economic returns of space exploration. Getting big business into space is the single best way to assure that access to space will always be available, and that the cheapest way to do so will be pursued without cease. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

qso1 · Sep 9, 2006

Nothing to be sorry for, your entitled to your opinion. I was actually commenting on the comment that RadarRedux made about people who think we spend too much on human spaceflight. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

JonClarke · Sep 9, 2006

"I'm ignorant, help me with that. ENUMERATE THEM." Certainly. A quick look at my book shelf turns up the following material "New views of the Moon" (ed. Jolliff et al., Mineralogical Society of America, reviews in mineralogy & geochemistry vol. 60, 2006). On page 65 Outstanding questions are listed. What is the cause of gloval assymmetry? How does a magma ocean work? What was the early thermal evolution of the Moon? What is the vertical and lateral structure of the lunar crust? What is the composition & structure of the lunar mantle? What is the size and composition of the postulated core? What was the timing and effects of the basin forming events? What is the nature of the South Pole Aitken basin? Was there a terminal cataclysm? How and why is the Moon different from other planets? Are the Apollo surface geophysical measurements representative? How does the lunar history relate to the early history of Earth? On page 600 there is a table with the main technologies for Mars that could be tested on the Moon. Highly resuable EVA suits - while lunat suits will not be suitable for mars, martian suits should be testable on the Moon. Long range teloperated rover Closed life support systems for planetary surfaces) - Moon is more hostile than Mars and therefore systems and technology that will owrk on the Moon will work on Mars. Nuclear power - reactors should be very similar, although the atmosphere of Mars will need to be taken into account (especially for waste heat disposal) ISRU - detailed process will be different but components will be similar. Human health and performance - Moon harsher than Mars, if people can work on the Moon for long periods they can do so on Mars. I also had an article ju J. O. Burns, N. Duric, G. J. Taylor, and S. W. Johnson titled "Obs <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

Anyone else feels its redundant for Apollo on steriods?

lysol

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

nyarlathotep

Guest

tomnackid

Guest

scipt

Guest

tomnackid

Guest

elguapoguano

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

lysol

Guest

tronchaser

Guest

radarredux

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

halman

Guest

nyarlathotep

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

nyarlathotep

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

nyarlathotep

Guest

qso1

Guest

lysol

Guest

halman

Guest

qso1

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page