missions to moon and bases before mars underway?

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bonzelite

Guest
are there any timely news reports or releases about any such pending neo-Apollo missions? news about any hardware or craft in development? anything at all? <br /><br />we need to jump on this project pronto or we ain't going to Mars anytime soon. and if i'm just in a cave and ignorant of the latest moonshot news, then my apologies ahead of time. <br /><br />
 
D

docm

Guest
Those plans are in a huge state of flux, though if I were NASA I'd keep working with Bigelow given how well Genesis I is going. If all goes well they could end up being the Winnebago of aerospace <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Q

qso1

Guest
They have built a mockup of the CEV IIRC. And were still several years away from a 2011 launch if its launched that soon. Using Apollo as a baseline, its comparable to where Apollo was in 1961-62. Right around the time the EOR method was dumped for LOR at the suggestion of an engineer named John Houboult. By 1967, Apollo 1 was ready to launch but unfortunately ended up in tragedy. Were still in the phase where big changes are still likely to occur. Programs like this appear quite chaotic in the early stages but as they move on, they kind of gel.<br /><br />As for Mars. I wouldn't hold my breath. Mars was only outlined as a post 2020 goal of sorts. In fact, I'd say this whole proposal will have to survive what will likely be an incoming Democratic Administration. With any luck, NASA will get it entrenched enough for it to survive, or maybe commercial spaceflight will begin to develop inroads to the moon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>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.</em></p> </div>
 
S

salamander

Guest
We have the technology, we have the hardware and we have the plan, it's now a matter of mobilising the governments and private sector to prioritise a mission. You can see Grant Bonin's, from MarsDrive.com, plans at http://marsdrive.com/drm
 
B

bdewoody

Guest
Just wait until Japan or China has a successful moon landing, manned or robotic. Then Congress will get off their collective dead arses and fund a return to the moon in earnest. He who sits on the moon only needs to know how to throw rocks to dominate earth.<br /><br />It may be sort of pessimistic to think that the only way we will have bases on the moon is the fear of someone else being there but I think it is realistic.<br /><br />Treaty or no treaty, space will be used for military reasons, it's just a question of who will be there first. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">Bob DeWoody</font></em> </div>
 
D

dlee0708

Guest
<i>Treaty or no treaty, space will be used for military reasons, it's just a question of who will be there first. </i><br /><br />Personally I think that is the only reason for the Earth to moon and then moon to Mars plan (military). If we really want to get a human to Mars, direct flight is way faster/cheaper.<br /><br />If we want to use the moon as a launch pad throughtout the rest of the solar system, I would say wait until we have better technology and right now use the money to build BETTER/BIGGER/BADDER telescopes in the sky (we have a ton to learn there) and unmanned missions to Mars and Europa (and get back to Titan, we still have more to learn there).
 
B

bonzelite

Guest
i agree wit you, man. if you look back on the history of the space program, it's all initiated by political and military competition between superpowers. that's all it really is. <br /><br />
 
S

salamander

Guest
And I think that Mars makes a much better platform for further planetary missions than the moon. Mars has the right environment and building blocks to easily produce rocket fuel from the atmosphere - the moon doesn't. Plus sustained human habitation would be much easier on Mars as a result of better solar radiation shielding, hospitible regolith (soil) amoung other things.
 
Q

qso1

Guest
Checked out the posted link just below my last posting. This is an example of an idea that is long rejected that finally gets its day in court if you will.<br /><br />Whether you go HLLV or as this idea proposes, smaller launchers, both have their merits and drawbacks. Its now a matter of which one will win out. Marsdrives plans, or NASAs? As I mentioned earlier, I don't really hold out too much hope of actually seeing the Mars missions materializing under current NASA plans due in part to an incoming Administration.<br /><br />Maybe the time for this kind of plan has come. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>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.</em></p> </div>
 
B

bonzelite

Guest
yes, i'm beginning to think that a manned mission to mars, let alone the moon, is just yet another thing that will become delayed and delayed and delayed. like we will all be in our 80s or 90s before we see a 2-day stayover on mars. <br /><br />but as someone mentioned earlier, these things have a way of being very chaotic at the outset and then they come together.
 
Q

qso1

Guest
My main reason for thinking Mars is almost the same as vaporware is the fact that NASA has been trying since the Von Braun plan was rejected, and rejected because of the popular but flawed cost argument that has been echoed from time to time every since.<br /><br />But once a plan starts to gel if you will, the chaos is replaced with a kind of coming together. This may or may not happen in the current plans but were probably moving along better than at any time since the post Apollo plan.<br /><br />The chaos to coming together comment was one I made not too long ago somewhere here in SDC. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>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.</em></p> </div>
 
3

3488

Guest
Moon bases are a must before large scale human habitation of Mars.<br /><br />1). The moon is close, so any problems in design can be sorted fairly quickly.<br /><br />2). Lunar surface gravity is 17% of Earth's, Mars is 38%, so low gravity research can be accomplished on the moon first. Mars will be easier in the long run.<br /><br />3). Simply there is much that we do not know about the moon, despite several very capable orbiters (Lunar Orbiters 1,2,3,4 & 5, Clementine, Lunar Prospector, Smart 1 & of course the Apollo CMs). Several capable landers, (Surveyors 1,3,5,6, & 7, several Soviet Lunar landers, Lunokhods 1 & 2 & of course the twelve Apollo astronauts). <br /><br />The moon is a planetary sized body (if was in orbit around the sun instead of the Earth, the moon would be a major planet, more so than Pluto).<br /><br />The moon has had a history as interesting & varied as about everything else in our solar system. We must fully explore & understand the moon, with both astronauts & robotic craft. <br /><br />The Lunar Recon orbiter will help with this in generating high resolution images of the entire moon.<br /><br />Mars I think can still be explored by robotic craft for the foreseeable. <br /><br />I have heard of a rumour (I hope true) that the test bed MER at the JPL, could be uprated to be flight capable & sent as MER C to Mars. Given the success of Spirit & Opportunity, I think that this would work. JPL give it a mission for goodness sake. How about the caldera of Apollonaris Patera volcano or the lower slopes of Olympus Mons or Melas Chasma or Ma'adim Vallis??<br /><br />I know that the MSL is due for launch at some point, but MER C could be sent in the mean time, along with the Mars Phoenix Lander (does anyone actually know the landing site, name of area / feature & co-ordinates)???<br /><br />Human exploration of Mars is an inevitability in the long term, just as life found its way out of the oceans & onto land.<br /><br />I <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>
 
Q

qso1

Guest
I don't necessarily agree that the moon is a must. If Congress told NASA it couldn't do both the Moon and Mars, NASA would probably have to do Mars to avoid an Apollo repeat. But...since the moon is there, closer, may as well use it in part as a training ground for Mars. Right now, the moon is the object of NASAs VSE program while Mars is still more or less a nebulous goal of VSE.<br /><br />I would like to see a MER-C mission.<br /><br />Hopefully, both NASA and private enterprise will develop missions to the Moon and Mars. Terraforming Mars I would say its too early to tell if it can be done. We are probably terraforming the Earth as it is (Greenhouse gassing). Were just not in control of it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>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.</em></p> </div>
 
3

3488

Guest
I still think that a return to the moon of some sort is necessary. I agree, that we do not ned a programme like Apollo again (showing promise than suddenly ended, my favourites were Apollos 15 & 17 because of their geological locations, & I have actually met the late Col James Irwin, Apollo 15 when he visited the Marlowe Theatre, Canterbury, Kent, United Kingdom some years ago).<br /><br />As you say I think that human exploration of Mars at the moment is a moot point with NASA, but the MER C Destiny mission if it ever happens will be of immense value. <br /><br />Your point of terraforming Earth is interesting. I really do not think that Man Made Global Warming is happening (Climate Change though is, for example we are having a very powerful heatwave here in the UK & western Europe), but the effects of man made activities are without doubt, particularly Urban Heat islands (Dallas / Fort Worth, Texas, USA being a good example as is London, UK, even my home town, Ashford, Kent, United Kingdom is an effective heat island, some 2 Celsius warmer at least than the surrounding countryside). Pollution form Cars & Factories needs to be tackled for th sake of Human & Wildlife Health. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>
 
Q

qso1

Guest
If a Mars mission had come within twenty years of Apollo, I'd say that going to the moon after Apollo 17 would not be necessary. But if we'd gone to Mars that soon. Apollo would probably have continued long enough to establish procedures.<br /><br />Now, after almost four decades from Apollo. The need for establishing procedures has increased. But technically speaking, we could go to Mars without going to the moon.<br /><br />It would however, entail additional risks, unknowns.<br /><br />3488:<br />I really do not think that Man Made Global Warming is happening...<br /><br />Me:<br />IMO, too early to tell but the evidence, much of which you have cited, tells me that we should err on the side of caution and err on the side of taking whatever reasonable measures we can now take to prevent any further warming. Rather than wait till we have to resort to unreasonable preventative measures. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>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.</em></p> </div>
 
3

3488

Guest
Hi, I am of the opinion that whilst I doubt large scale Man made Global Warming, I do beleive that certain activities are not helping. The urban heat island is proven fact & must be tackled.<br /><br />I agree, that if a manned Mars Mission happened within an acceptable time fram after Apollo, we could have gone straight to Mars. However I now think that far too much time has now passed since Apollo 17 (nearly 34 years ago now), that a return to the moon is a must, at least as a dress rehearsal for Mars (to iron out any problems that there may be). <br /><br />I still think that there is much to be learnt about the moon as well, so a return there is scientifically justifiable. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>
 
Q

qso1

Guest
I agree that going back to the moon for science would be a good thing. Problem is convincing Congress and the public. Our biggest obstacles are that and the cost which is what Congress and the public look at more than anything else. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>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.</em></p> </div>
 
B

bonzelite

Guest
isn't the next neo-Apollo shot to the moon supposed to be like 2015? so this means that manned flight beyond earth, return to the moon, technologically capable since the 1960s, is then 45 to 50 years delayed in getting back up? <br /><br />45 years? so Mars, then, is yet another 50 years away from that? to just see two or three people step onto the surface for about 30 minutes? in the year 2065? with this pace of change, then, human colonies anywhere outside of earth are at least 1000 to 2000 years away from being anywhere near a reality. the ISS as a perma-colony in low earth orbit is not yet finished. and it's been nearly 10 years.
 
Q

qso1

Guest
For the moon, I was under the impression we were returning to the moon in 2018. But either way, it will be roughly 50 years from Apollo when we finally land. The exploration of Antarctica is a close analogy. We first went sometime in the 1800s IIRC. Then didn't go back for decades before finally going back and making it slowly a more permanent outpost.<br /><br />As for Mars, Under the present plan, I think they would be looking at being on Mars 10-15 years after the initial lunar mission. The timeline gives NASA the necessary experience with operating the vehicle systems and if the lunar base becomes a base. Operating a base on the moon will be beneficial to a base on Mars. Using chemical or NTR to Mars will result in approximately 30 day stays as this is due to the planetary alignments. In the long transit scenario (Conjunction class or opposition class mission, can't recall which), the stay times are 30 days. In the shorter transit scenarios, the stay times can be two years because of the requirement to wait for planetary alignments to favor return trajectories.<br /><br />The pace of change you describe is possible, but the more likely scenario is change itself. Change brings variables we don't see at the beginning. The big variable here is...How much will private enterprise be involved?<br /><br />ISS is an example of being in the model-T phase of permanent space occupancy. What we learn from ISS and future efforts will move us further forward at a more accellerated pace.<br /><br />I would agree that full blown human colonies may take some time to come about. Think of it this way. Imagine what a futurist in 1776 might have though we'd be like in 2006 and how much would he/she actually get right if they could see what actually came about.<br /><br />Another is the era I came up in. In 1968, fresh from the movie "2001, A Space Odyssey" and Apollo 11. Hardly anyone imagined we'd be as "Throttled back" as we are now. It seems that whenever we try to predict something, we ge <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>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.</em></p> </div>
 
Y

yoda9999

Guest
Both MarsDrive and MarsDirect propose a technique to make fuel from Martian resources. Has this been tested in the lab or on Mars?<br /><br />I wish the governments and private institutions want to go to Mars simply because "it's there". Mankind's first landing on another planet is an important achievement. I don't mind going back to the Moon; I just hope it doesn't delay the manned Mars missions.
 
Q

qso1

Guest
yoda9999:<br />Both MarsDrive and MarsDirect propose a technique to make fuel from Martian resources. Has this been tested in the lab or on Mars?<br /><br />Me:<br />IIRC, it has been tested and is actually based on chemical distillation techniques dating back to the 1800s. Those of us who want to see humans on Mars before too long wish the government thought this way. Unfortunately the government has agendas that only include space when it benefits the person holding office. At least Bush is one the right track where trying to keep the U.S. in space is concerned and he is from Texas, a large pro space constituency.<br /><br />Private enterprise chief motivation is profit. If a profit cannot be made, or is believed not possible for any reason, P.E. won't invest in it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>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.</em></p> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts