Moon, Mars, or Asteroid? Which is the best goal?

[HopDavid]

... proposed that we send 2 pairs of elderly humans (in separate space craft) one way to Mars about 2030. This has the advantage that one way may be less than half as costly as a round trip, so we can get space colonization going sooner.
In my opinion, elderly is wrong; it should be two females age about 25 and 35 plus a sperm bank and embryo bank. That way Mars can be colonized without any trips after the first two. What do you think? Neil

Given a suicide mission for two old folks vs a suicide mission for two women in the prime of their life, the former is the lesser of two evils.

 

[rockett]

If I understood Rush Limbaugh correctly = unlikely: Someone speaking for the Liberals, or perhaps the Obama administration, proposed that we send 2 pairs of elderly humans (in separate space craft) one way to Mars about 2030. This has the advantage that one way may be less than half as costly as a round trip, so we can get space colonization going sooner.
In my opinion, elderly is wrong; it should be two females age about 25 and 35 plus a sperm bank and embryo bank. That way Mars can be colonized without any trips after the first two. What do you think? Neil

Wouldn't do a whole lot of good if you wind up infertile, or with mutations from radiation. We're a long way from having that kind of spacecraft or Mars habitat. Lot of theory, but it's only that, theory. We need practical experience, better done closer to home.

 

[rockett]

Hope for the lunies....

Mission Proposed to Send Astronauts to the Moon's Far Side

While NASA has officially given up its plans to send humans back to the surface of the moon anytime soon, a contractor is proposing a mission to send a crew to a stationary spot in orbit over the far side of Earth's neighbor.
Lockheed Martin has begun pitching an L2-Farside Mission using its Orion spacecraft under development...

..."We have come up with a sequence of missions that we've named 'Stepping Stones,' which begins with flights in low Earth orbit and incrementally builds towards a human mission to the moons of Mars in the 2030s," said Josh Hopkins of Lockheed Martin's Human Spaceflight Advanced Programs department...

...The first Orion missions to the moon's far side, viewed as feasible by 2016 to 2018, would accomplish science goals on the lunar surface using robotic rovers controlled by astronauts in space "as practice for doing the same thing at Mars," Hopkins told SPACE.com.

http://www.space.com/news/moon-far-side-astronaut-mission-101123.html

 

[bdewoody]

Finally they are back to making some sense here. Good for LockMart.

 

[WandererFelix]

The moon is a lot closer so that would definitely be the best place to start. Heck anyone can just use the spent rockets and other space junk thats just floating out there for parts to build the base there.

 

[bdewoody]

The moon is a lot closer so that would definitely be the best place to start. Heck anyone can just use the spent rockets and other space junk thats just floating out there for parts to build the base there.

Not so sure about that idea but we do need to start rounding up our space junk in earth orbit. Whether it could be transferred to a moon orbit and reused is doubtful.

 

[WandererFelix]

The moon is a lot closer so that would definitely be the best place to start. Heck anyone can just use the spent rockets and other space junk thats just floating out there for parts to build the base there.

Not so sure about that idea but we do need to start rounding up our space junk in earth orbit. Whether it could be transferred to a moon orbit and reused is doubtful.

Or turned into scrap metal for other projects depending how bad the material is. But yes mainly to the point of recycling unused objects.

 

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

The only real fly in the ointment I see with Lockmart’s proposal is where are they going to get the 70 to 90MT HLV to put up the TLI booster needed to get Orion to the moon? Are they planning on using a fuel depot, constructing the TLI booster on orbit then fueling it using a Delta IV Heavy to lift the parts and fuel?

My opinion is I think it is great, because NASA has to do something with the Orion once it is finished in 2016 and is awaiting an Asteroid mission in 2020 or 2025. There is two long of a wait 4 to 9 years before using the Orion. This proposal means that Lockmart is worried that once they finish the Orion development program it will be shut down, without ever flying a vehicle! Operational programs develop a lot of inertia to keep using the existing hardware instead of new stuff, but if the hardware is never used then something new will be developed because that inertia will not be there to use the existing. We have seen this already with what has happened with Constellation. Lockmart is worried that Orion will be bypassed by using some other commercially developed vehicle, like say an upgraded CST-100 or Dragon, if there is not a mission that uses Orion as soon as it is available.

 

[vulture4]

Augustine threw out the moon as a goal but kept the Constellation architecture. The moon is still the logical goal. What we need to do is keep the moon as a goal but throw out the Constellation architecture, which is obsolete and unaffordable to its core. Why build the Orion and a booster to send it to an undefined point in space, or an asteroid, when we can only afford to do it as a stunt and it will waste precious tax dollars? The first step is still what we set out to do with the Shuttle, affordable, practical, reusable transportation to LEO. Then we can build outward from there, just as von Braun originally planned. Unfortunately almost no one at NASA knows or even cares why the Shuttle is more expensive to operate than its original specification. Here's a clue. It's not because it's reusable.

 

[Skyskimmer]

You either need to get all three going at once or it's all entirely pointless. would you visit your once to see paris, than come back again to see venice, than once more for london. It makes no sense.

You need to get get nuclear vasmir for any of this to be realistic meaningful goals. Once you can do one you can do all three or need to atleast.

 

[vulture4]

Vasimir or similar nuclear-electric propulsion (and I wouldn't eliminate ion and hall thrusters) could be critical to a reusable vehicle for LEO-to-GEO, LEO-to-lunar, or LEO-to-deep space propulsion. Again the initial prototype could be unmanned. But the current focus on destination as opposed to technology is unfortunate.

 

[rockett]

Are they planning on using a fuel depot, constructing the TLI booster on orbit then fueling it using a Delta IV Heavy to lift the parts and fuel?

Probably not, sounds like they expect an Agena or similar upper stage to be launched full of fuel.

...NASA has to do something with the Orion once it is finished in 2016 and is awaiting an Asteroid mission in 2020 or 2025. There is two long of a wait 4 to 9 years before using the Orion. This proposal means that Lockmart is worried that once they finish the Orion development program it will be shut down, without ever flying a vehicle! Operational programs develop a lot of inertia to keep using the existing hardware instead of new stuff, but if the hardware is never used then something new will be developed because that inertia will not be there to use the existing. We have seen this already with what has happened with Constellation. Lockmart is worried that Orion will be bypassed by using some other commercially developed vehicle, like say an upgraded CST-100 or Dragon, if there is not a mission that uses Orion as soon as it is available.

You hit the nail on the head, I'll bet!

 

[rockett]

The only real fly in the ointment I see with Lockmart’s proposal is where are they going to get the 70 to 90MT HLV to put up the TLI booster needed to get Orion to the moon? Are they planning on using a fuel depot, constructing the TLI booster on orbit then fueling it using a Delta IV Heavy to lift the parts and fuel?

This may be an answer to your questions:

In October, ULA's vice president of business development, George Sowers, told a commercial spaceflight symposium the best way to get Orion flying early is to launch it atop a Delta 4 Heavy.

"Right now the Delta 4 Heavy is the only rocket in the U.S. fleet with the required lift capability," he said in a speech at the International Symposium for Personal and Commercial Spaceflight in Las Cruces, N.M. Oct. 20. "This will get you an un-crewed demo as early as 2013 and crewed flights as early as 2014 or 2015."

Sowers said once Orion is flying, all that is needed to facilitate missions beyond low Earth orbit is the ability to refuel the Centaur upper-stage in space. "One refueling means the capability to go to an Earth-Moon Lagrange point, or to do an Apollo 8-style lunar fly-by,"he said.

http://www.space.com/news/orion-space-capsule-huge-rocket-test-101130.html

 

[vulture4]

Curious what we get out of such a mission. Are we going to fly monthly lunar landings with the Orion? What will the goal be? What about the annual cost? Can the US, a country deeply in debt, afford to keep flying these missions indefinitely? If we do, where will we get the additional funds to develop the advanced technology that might eventually reduce costs? Borrow from China? Raise taxes?

My feeling is that regardless of the destination in space, we should propose an architecture that will permit long-term access at a cost that can provide research, tourism and other activities that actually warrant the cost. It is impossible for me to see how the $1B+ per mission that the Constellation architecture would require can ever be affordable for the US.

 

[MartianChronicle]

Our Lunar companion is our first stepping stone offworld. As previously pointed out, Earth's moon can be colonized to service many purposes. Nuclear Power generation, astronomical observatories, international civilian community, launch point for travel throughout the solar system. This list goes on. Life can be sustained now that we know we have more than an adequate supply of water frozen within the lunar south pole.
I think the most compelling reason to make the moon our next goal is that is is simply the most logical goal of the three. Without a moon base, a manned martian exploration would be much more difficult and hazerdous to the crew. Colonizing the moon will further the cause of our species survival and advancement.