Lots of talk lately concerning the moon

[caper]

Lots of talk lately concerning the moon. But are we wasting money. Why not develop cheaper rocket systems/ propulsion systems and go to Mars instead. And "No" I dont want to hear that the moon is the next development or step either. Im not interested in that statement.

 

[lunatic133]

The reason there is talk of going to the moon is that the moon is more politically feasible. They sell it under the excuse that we are going to the moon in preparation for Mars. This is mostly a lie, as the moon and mars have little to do with one another. However, the masses don't know that, and to the masses, it just sounds better than "We're going off to Mars without sufficient preparation." Also, going to the moon gives the general idea that we're doing something worthwhile, but it gives the impression that we are spending less money than going to Mars. Politics often gets in the way of logic. I myself think that there are many practical reasons to go to the moon in the future, however, none of those reasons are practical now, and it would be more practical to go to Mars first and use leftover equipment to build a base on the moon. Then again, if we tell people we're going to the moon because Helium-3 will solve the energy crisis tomorrow, "normal people" would probably believe us.

 

[scottb50]

If we could get to the Moon cheap enough to use it to fine tune a mission to Mars alright. The problem is it will cost pretty much as much to do the Moon as Mars, when you factor out the time difference in transit. The most expensive part is getting to LEO, which you have to do for either. From there getting to the Moon or to Mars is basically the same, as far as energy requirements and such are concerned. <br /><br />There is absolutely no reason to go back to the Moon to get to Mars, but there are a lot of reasons to go to the Moon itself. It's apples and oranges and I don't thing apple and oranges make a very good drink. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mikejz]

I have a theroy about this: Its based on the idea that when it comes to politics, its always best to ask for more then you really want, or is cost effect--that way, when they cut stuff down, you can just ditch what never wanted. M2M is basically that idea--Sell the program, and when congress asks Nasa to scale back the program, they just ditch the moon part.

 

[blacknebula]

"M2M is basically that idea--Sell the program, and when congress asks Nasa to scale back the program, they just ditch the moon part. "<br /><br />Makes no sense. You meant to say "Mars," correct?

 

[scottb50]

"Makes no sense. You meant to say "Mars," correct?"<br /><br />Why go to the Moon if it isn't part of going to Mars? Why do we have to go to the Moon before we can go to Mars?<br /><br />The problem is getting to LEO, once we are there we can go anywhere for about the same amount of energy. Ther are reasons to go back to the Moon, but if you tie that into going to Mars, or Near Earth Asteroids then your just adding another step that isn't needed. You can go from LEO to Mars a lot cheaper than going from LEO to the Moon then to Mars. Or does that only make sense to me? There is nothing on the Moon that will help us get to Mars, tha we know of for sure, or we can exploit, in the near future, to accomplish the mission, so why does that have to be a part of it? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Going mars would be something new.

 

[nacnud]

The main difference I can see between going to the moon and going to mars is the amount of time each mission lasts and the time between re-supplies. What is the current maximum length of time that has been achieved without re-supply, a month, three months? A trip to mars will take years, are you confident enough that a new design for a mars ship will work first time for this length of time? Ok so we are learning a lot about long duration designs with the ISS but I would have thought it prudent to test propulsion systems, landing craft etc as well as life support. So while we iron out the bugs why not uses these designs to do something useful and go to the moon? <br /><br />Its not only the hardware that would benefit, if a prospective mars crew had already experienced moon landing etc I'm sure the experience gained would be invaluable.<br />

 

[halman]

caper,<br /><br />Wasting money is when you don't get anything of value in return. Now, value is a relative term, which means that everyone will not value all of the things that you value. You value going to Mars now. What things of value do you expect to find there to make it worth the expense, time, resources, and danger involved in going there? Do you think that a lot of other people will find the same things valuable? Unless there is something there in great quantities which the majority of the people would value very highly, a lot of people are going to say that you are wasting money by going to Mars at this point in our learning to use the Solar System.<br /><br />For the whole Solar System is out there for us to use. Learning how to travel oraund out in space is a very important part of being able to use space. Right now, the United States does not have access to space that humans can use. If we get the shuttle flying again, our manned access to space will be via a 20 year old vehicle which was designed in the 1970's. We will not have access to anywhere outside of Low Earth Orbit. To be able to travel anywhere beyond LEO, we have to design and build a totally new space ship.<br /><br />We must keep in mind that there are a number of people who believe that there is nothing of value in outer space that humans are needed to get. So they oppose spending any money on sending humans anywhere in space. But they are probably in the minority, because a lot of people do believe that we will find something of value in outer space. Some believe that factories in orbit will be able to mass produce certain goods which a lot of people will value. Others believe that there is great value in bing able to take people to outer space. Still others believe that there are many things of value to be discovered on the Moon. And there are people who believe that the only things of any value to be found in space will be found by sending humans to Mars.<br /><br />Learning t <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[spayss]

Moon or Mars? Ha! Ha!<br /><br /> How about a man in space. Any man on any American spacecraft?

 

[thinice]

<i>private industry is very anxious to get involved in the space program</i><br /><br />They are rather anxious to get involved in spending public money.

 

[spacester]

<i>They are rather anxious to get involved in spending public money. </i><br /><br />Some are, no doubt about it. They tend to start with Boe and Loc IIRC. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />Others are more interested in co-investing with the government to develop the wilderness of space into commercial real estate. Those are the ones we need to support.<br /><br />You can often tell the difference by their language: if they talk about their "plans", they get my respect; if they talk about "programs" then they just want to spend money aimlessly. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[lunatic133]

Rhymes whith Schmoeing and Schmockheed, eh? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[meteo]

Valid points nacund. I think we couldgo to the moon first because of the points you raised. It is arguable that a moon base cold be built first and would be safer in terms of resupply. To me settlement on Mars has the allure of being more self-sustainable. Not that I'm nieve enough to think that Mars is easy.<br /><br />Maybe by going to the moon first we would have this large infrastructure suitable to settling Mars. I'm afraid of getting stuck on the moon; the moon tieing up Nasa's budget for a long time.

 

[scottb50]

"So while we iron out the bugs why not uses these designs to do something useful and go to the moon?"<br /><br />Ideally that would be the best approach, but realistically it costs so much to get to LEO and we would spend so much just getting back and forth to the Moon that we couldn't afford to go to Mars. If we develop hardware for Mars we could apply it to the Moon at some point and to asteroid missions. <br /><br />We have already done an initial survey of the Moon, we need to do the same to Mars and to the asteroids we can get to before we decide where to focus our energy and money in exploring. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[robotical]

<i>Going mars would be something new.</i><br /><br />Precisely why the moon needs to be the first step. If we go to Mars immediately it will likely be nothing more than flags and footprints and we'd end up in the same position as after Apollo (actually we'd be worse off, since we would not have a real destination). We've been to the moon on the other hand, thus we would not be going there just to go there. If we want to develop space we need to develop it, not go there and come back just so we can say we've done it.<br /><br />Another reason to go to the moon first: We have absolutely no experience running a base on another world (I know basic characteristics are not the same, I'm talking simple logistics and procedures); we need to learn how to drive before we fly. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mikejz]

I think applying the Apollo argument--that once we go, we'll never go back does not hold water when it comes to Mars. Bottom line, spending 2 years on Mars is a PLUS that translates to only a few launches per year to sustain the effort. While the costs of building and launching the hardware may be high, the fact that the missions are LONG means that over time it could only cost as much as the shuttle would of cost to operate in a similar time span. In addition, a simple psychological trick could be used—instead of having a crew go to Mars and then go back, have a few of the crew stay behind and serve 4 years on Mars with the second crew, this will build the idea in public that this is a permanent station.

 

[radarredux]

There are certainly a number of very good reasons for bypassing the moon and going directly to Mars, and Zubrin and others have made good cases for these. Some reasons include: because Mars has some atmosphere, it actually takes less fuel to land on Mars than on the Moon; because of Mars's atmosphere and recently discovered (presumably) water under the surface (plus other chemicals), it will be easier to live off the land on Mars than on the Moon; because the Moon has a 28-day day (with 14 days of night), with huge swings in temperature, life support on the Moon will probably be more difficult/complex than on Mars; Mars is more likely to have (or had) life; and so on.<br /><br />But I am still in favor of a Moon-first approach. Here are my arguments (which most of you have seen before):<br /><br />(1) <font color="yellow">Near-Constant Launch Window.</font> For Mars, there are only a few weeks every two years in which we can launch a mission. Schedule slips, technical difficulties, bad weather, loss of a rocket, etc. could doom 2 years of progress towards a Mars effort. Opportunity, which has had the most spectacular finds on Mars so far, came within a few days of being shipped to a museum instead of going to Mars because of delays at the last minute. The moon, on the other hand, has a near-constant window of opportunity, so you launch when ready.<br /><br />(2) <font color="yellow">Continuous Progress.</font> With Mars, because of the launch once every 2 years restriction, there is a lot of "down time" in which the effort will be out of the public eye. This puts it at risk of funding cuts. With a Moon-first approach, if done right (a big "if"), we could get something substantially new every few months or at least every year, thus keeping the effort in the public's mind.<br /><br />(3) <font color="yellow">Building a Space Industry.</font>IMHO, our goal isn't so much to go somewhere but to build a space industry that can enable us

 

[robotical]

Simply rotating a crew will not fly with anyone (including myself), you need to actually do something on Mars. <br /><br /><i>Bottom line, spending 2 years on Mars is a PLUS that translates to only a few launches per year to sustain the effort. While the costs of building and launching the hardware may be high, the fact that the missions are LONG means that over time it could only cost as much as the shuttle would of cost to operate in a similar time span.</i><br /><br />And get even less return. You'd basically being throwing money at Mars without any justification whatsoever for the investment (unless you actually plan on building a colony, in which case your costs increase exponentially).<br /><br /><i>In addition, a simple psychological trick could be used—instead of having a crew go to Mars and then go back, have a few of the crew stay behind and serve 4 years on Mars with the second crew, this will build the idea in public that this is a permanent station.</i><br /><br />A station that you had best show is actually doing something. If you're simply keeping it there to keep it there with a little research on the side, the public and congress are going to get very unenthusiastic very fast. <br /><br />So far I have seen nothing in your post that convinces me that this is somehow better than simply going there and coming back. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mikejz]

I’m talking more minimalist rather then idealistic

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Bottom line, spending 2 years on Mars is a PLUS that traslates to only a few launches per year to sustain the effort.</font>/i><br /><br />A *huge* percentage of launch costs is keeping the expertise around. The shuttle program costs pretty much the same per year whether we launch 5 missions per year, 3 missions per year, or 0 missions per year.<br /><br />Also, with only a small number of launches, there is no drive to automate the process of building each rocket, so each rocket is essentially a hand-built and very expensive vehicle.<br /><br />Most of the small businesses trying to reduce the launch costs are not using exotic launch technologies (OK, JP Aerospace's idea is pretty wild); they are focusing on lowering the cost of building and operating rockets.<br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">instead of having a crew go to Mars and then go back, have a few of the crew stay behind and serve 4 years on Mars with the second crew, this will build the idea in public that this is a permanent station.</font>/i><br /><br />Zubrin's model is a little along this line, where each new mission contributes to the "colony", so a large capability is built up over time.</i></i>

 

[mikejz]

I am not really talking about the steps behind designing an executing a mission to mars—I am assuming that these things have been achieved, I am talking only about the public willingness to sustain such a mars base; to keep us there and not leave like Apollo. Basically, I am pointing out that if the initial mission is done correctly all that will be required after that to sustain the presence (mind you I am not referring to expanding it, just sustaining it) would be a change of crews and a care package from earth now and then).

 

[robotical]

And I'm talking realistically. Most people are not going to be happy spending billions just to keep people on another planet. If we're not getting something in return, it would be a simple exercise for congress to simply slash the Mar's budget and order NASA to bring them home. Simply being there is not going to hold water with anyone (nor should it). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">if the initial mission is done correctly all that will be required after that to sustain the presence (mind you I am not referring to expanding it, just sustaining it) would be a change of crews and a care package from earth now and then).</font>/i><br /><br />Ah, I see now. This is pretty close to the Zubrin plan. Every two years two ships are launched -- an unfueled return ship that would manufacture fuel in situ and a crew and living quarters. A third smaller launch of a "care package" would also make sense to provide additional supplied for people remaining from the previous mission.<br /><br />Yes, I think this could be done relatively inexpensively (assuming there is a heavy launch capability), perhaps even less than the current annual shuttle/ISS effort.<br /><br />However, I still have a number of concerns (see previous posting), the most important one being that this would only be a government-run and controlled program and not a private enterprise effort open to a much greater percentage of the population.</i>

 

[mikejz]

Call me crazy, but "just being there" sure sounds a lot like ISS--And last I checked efforts to kill it never pan out.