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

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Also, as far as whether 'vision' is the private sector's job or the public sector's - it seems to me the most ideal partnership between NASA and commercial spaceflight is that the public space program take the lead, developing the technology to reach and survive on different destinations, and then for the private companies to apply that technology and create infrastructure in NASA's wake. Or to put it simply - NASA blazes the trail, commercial spaceflight paves a highway behind them.

Commercial is governed by law of "Supply and Demand". If there is a Demand then comercial will develop the technology to provide the supply. To have NASA do the technology first then based on the technology they developed make a demand is not the way to go. All that is required is a request for fixed price bid to lift a certain mass to LEO, no restrictions other than mass, LEO and being a US company, say 5000MT and 350NM. Companies and bids will climb out of the woodwork with every imaginable configuration of launch vehicle. Total value of contract less than $25 billion depending on selected contractor, low bid most likely around $15 billion or $3000 per kg.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

I agree that they should all be done, the question here is which one should we do first. When they said asteroid I was hoping they would explore a huge one like Eros that could hold trillions of dollars worth of precious metals and would be a nice big target to land on. Now they are talking about tiny ones and honestly I think a lunar base program would just be a lot more practical. Take what you can get I guess...

 

[neutrino78x]

I agree that they should all be done, the question here is which one should we do first. When they said asteroid I was hoping they would explore a huge one like Eros that could hold trillions of dollars worth of precious metals and would be a nice big target to land on.

Yeah but the government doesn't care about the precious metals. That is for private enterprise to mine. The government would go to an asteroid for practice in terms of controlling its movement, etc., so as to avoid the Earth being hit by one in the future.

--Brian

 

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

The difference between the three I see is that the Lunar mission was an infrastructure building program like ISS. $100 billion was spent on ISS. The asteriod and Mars missions are pure exploration Apollo like missions with no lasting infrastructure except an HLV. With the HLV existing then Lunar missions would be cheap enough they may get funded anyway the same way that ISS got funded, the Shuttle already existed and ISS was a use for something that already was developed.

 

[rockett]

The difference between the three I see is that the Lunar mission was an infrastructure building program like ISS. $100 billion was spent on ISS. The asteriod and Mars missions are pure exploration Apollo like missions with no lasting infrastructure except an HLV. With the HLV existing then Lunar missions would be cheap enough they may get funded anyway the same way that ISS got funded, the Shuttle already existed and ISS was a use for something that already was developed.

Good point. You don't see Wal-Mart distributing stuff in pickup trucks.
Same applies for hauling up new modules for refueling, building translunar or interplanetary craft, or anything else halfway ambitious.

 

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

After thinking about it, that makes the Asteriod mission probably the better choice. It has a higher chance of being funded because it is more sensational than back to the moon, has the same initial costs as the lunar mission and results in a HLV that can be used for lunar missions. Mars would be the last choice because it has much higher initial costs and lower chances of funding because of that higher cost.

 

[rockett]

After thinking about it, that makes the Asteriod mission probably the better choice. It has a higher chance of being funded because it is more sensational than back to the moon, has the same initial costs as the lunar mission and results in a HLV that can be used for lunar missions. Mars would be the last choice because it has much higher initial costs and lower chances of funding because of that higher cost.

If there's one thing Apollo taught us, sensational missions and achievements don't have staying power. (from what I've read of your posts, you should know that)

We do it. We pack up. We go home. Pat ourselves on the back awhile, and it fades into the history books. What we need HLV for is to build a sustainable infrastructure to go anywhere in the solar system.

 

[rockett]

The government would go to an asteroid for practice in terms of controlling its movement, etc., so as to avoid the Earth being hit by one in the future.

And while "practicing" possibly preciptate the very disaster they want to prevent. I really don't think that would be a good idea. Nudging asteroids around is a possible strategy only when you have nothing to lose. Just touching down on an NEO with a substantial spacecraft and possibly altering it's orbit actually makes me nervous (as it should any sane person).

 

[kelvinzero]

No you don't have to be worried about that.

Most asteroids could not hit the earth any time soon without a massive push.
Of the small number that are close enough to earth to possibly hit, well there is nothing stopping them hitting the earth. There is no balance to upset. It is all statistics and a change in a random direction does not affect those statistics.
Even were we to attempt to deliberately nudge an asteroid, this isnt a small undertaking.

I think we could nudge a 10meter asteroid by one meter per second moderately easily, eg assuming it weighs about 10*10*10 tons then you could hit it with one ton at 1km/s. Those are all very rough, order-of-magnitude figures. Nudging a 1km asteroid by a mere 1m/s would be 1000,000 times harder because it is 100 times wider and therefore 100*100*100 times as massive.

 

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Good point. You don't see Wal-Mart distributing stuff in pickup trucks.
Same applies for hauling up new modules for refueling, building translunar or interplanetary craft, or anything else halfway ambitious.

Now only if we could get someone besides NASA to design the HLV for minimum manufacturing and operation costs, instead of the maximum performance minimum weight design philosophy. Example Ares I and Ares V -NASA high cost, Falcon 9 and Falcon XX-SpaceX low cost.

 

[DarkenedOne]

After thinking about it, that makes the Asteriod mission probably the better choice. It has a higher chance of being funded because it is more sensational than back to the moon, has the same initial costs as the lunar mission and results in a HLV that can be used for lunar missions. Mars would be the last choice because it has much higher initial costs and lower chances of funding because of that higher cost.

If there's one thing Apollo taught us, sensational missions and achievements don't have staying power. (from what I've read of your posts, you should know that)

We do it. We pack up. We go home. Pat ourselves on the back awhile, and it fades into the history books. What we need HLV for is to build a sustainable infrastructure to go anywhere in the solar system.

Human spaceflight all comes down to cost. That is the reason why Apollo was cancelled. That is the reason why have not been to Mars. That is the reason we do not already have moon and mars bases right now.

The problem with the large heavy lift vehicles is that they represent the majority of the costs to going to these destinations. Personally I do not think we will have any real human spaceflight until things like VASIMR are used.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Do solar sails have any place in manned space flight? I'd think that they would not be capable of hauling any decent sized crew or cargo shipment, but I may be wrong.

 

[vulture4]

Now only if we could get someone besides NASA to design the HLV for minimum manufacturing and operation costs, instead of the maximum performance minimum weight design philosophy. Example Ares I and Ares V -NASA high cost, Falcon 9 and Falcon XX-SpaceX low cost.

It would be hard to conclude that Ares was designed for minimum weight or maximum performance, as it is overweight and not even powerful enough to launch the Orion into orbit. Falcon and Delta are both designed for high performance but are much less costly than Ares because, well, they are just better designed; both were planned with careful consideration of operational costs. Ares was designed with no attempt to control costs because Mike Griffin had decided (with no legitimate trade study supporting his choice) to put a higher priority on reusing the SRBs, VAB, MLPs, crawlers, etc. It is almost always a mistake to reuse legacy hardware, particularly if one expects different results. Particularly puzzling to me is the lack of any questioning inside NASA of the entire Ares/Orion program.

 

[DarkenedOne]

Do solar sails have any place in manned space flight? I'd think that they would not be capable of hauling any decent sized crew or cargo shipment, but I may be wrong.

These low cost, low thrust methods of space transportation is that they would be great at transporting cargo. If you want the cheapest way to get a given mass to a given destination solar sails and ion propulsion are the way to go.

 

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Now only if we could get someone besides NASA to design the HLV for minimum manufacturing and operation costs, instead of the maximum performance minimum weight design philosophy. Example Ares I and Ares V -NASA high cost, Falcon 9 and Falcon XX-SpaceX low cost.

It would be hard to conclude that Ares was designed for minimum weight or maximum performance, as it is overweight and not even powerful enough to launch the Orion into orbit. Falcon and Delta are both designed for high performance but are much less costly than Ares because, well, they are just better designed; both were planned with careful consideration of operational costs. Ares was designed with no attempt to control costs because Mike Griffin had decided (with no legitimate trade study supporting his choice) to put a higher priority on reusing the SRBs, VAB, MLPs, crawlers, etc. It is almost always a mistake to reuse legacy hardware, particularly if one expects different results. Particularly puzzling to me is the lack of any questioning inside NASA of the entire Ares/Orion program.

Ok so I stand corrected - Use good business and engineering design philosophies instead of NASA's political design philosophy.

 

[rockett]

Use good business and engineering design philosophies instead of NASA's political design philosophy.

And if the House version of the budget bill wins out, it will be back. Reading between the lines it's a transparent effort to revive Constellation.

 

[rockett]

If the poll is to be believed, the majority seem to think a lunar base is the favored option. Can some people let us know why they think so, as per the OP?

 

[SteveCNC]

If the poll is to be believed, the majority seem to think a lunar base is the favored option. Can some people let us know why they think so, as per the OP?

I look at the moon as an opportunity to learn . It's the best place to create a self sustainable base utilizing the resources on the moon so it does not need constant supply runs . We need to develop refining techniques to extract usable oxygen and hydrogen from the moon itself which will be no easy task I'm sure . Developing and then refining our techniques is important for long term survivability on mars . Plus we need to develop off planet farming techniques as well . Perhaps by then we will have a realistic way to land a ship on mars (powered decent seems like the only option to me) and lift back off again . I think that until we can actually do all that we shouldn't go for mars , that far away it would be a steep learning curve with lots of potential for disaster and very expensive .

 

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

If the poll is to be believed, the majority seem to think a lunar base is the favored option. Can some people let us know why they think so, as per the OP?

I look at the moon as an opportunity to learn . It's the best place to create a self sustainable base utilizing the resources on the moon so it does not need constant supply runs . We need to develop refining techniques to extract usable oxygen and hydrogen from the moon itself which will be no easy task I'm sure . Developing and then refining our techniques is important for long term survivability on mars . Plus we need to develop off planet farming techniques as well . Perhaps by then we will have a realistic way to land a ship on mars (powered decent seems like the only option to me) and lift back off again . I think that until we can actually do all that we shouldn't go for mars , that far away it would be a steep learning curve with lots of potential for disaster and very expensive .

Lunar materials processing is much more mature than asteriod materials processing. Designs for extraction equipment and some tests of actual Lunar material processing has beend done.

http://www.wickmanspacecraft.com/moon1.html

 

[SteveCNC]

To date no method has been demonstrated for deriving usable oxygen from moon regolith , now we all know it can be derived from water using electric current but even with a centenial prize of $1million wasn't enough to get the job done . Maybe someday it will happen but so far nothing has come close .

 

[rockett]

To date no method has been demonstrated for deriving usable oxygen from moon regolith , now we all know it can be derived from water using electric current but even with a centenial prize of $1million wasn't enough to get the job done . Maybe someday it will happen but so far nothing has come close .

Have to disagree with you on this one SteveCNC:

How astronauts could 'harvest' water on the moon
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17861-how-astronauts-could-harvest-water-on-the-moon.html
(Just pop it in the microwave method)

And a whole bunch more...
How to Get Oxygen from the Moon
http://www.asi.org/adb/04/03/10/04/oxygen-extraction.html
PAYDIRT!
http://www.moonminer.com/Lunar_regolith.html
Scientists Make Oxygen Out of Moon Rock
http://www.physorg.com/news169216598.html
Abstract for Colorado School of Mines�
Lunar Ice Robot Team serving the
Center for Commercial Applications of Combustion in Space in Engineering Senior Design
http://engineering.mines.edu/course...ts-F2001/abstract_for_csm_lunar_ice robot.htm

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

A lunar base will definitely be a good thing and I hope to see one soon. Keep in mind that several other space agencies have their eyes set on the moon and their bases could be going up in a decade or two.

The sad thing about the moon is that while it is closeby and (relatively) easy to get to, it can never be self sufficient in the way that Mars can. I'm kind of split now between a lunar base and a mars outpost. After reading The Case for Mars by Robert Zubrin I think that in the long run Mars is what we should be focusing on. He has some very good explanations for how Mars can be terraformed into an Earth-like planet. These conditions would not come about in our life time, but we would still see a huge amount of progress to the point where all you would need to walk around on Mars in is a breathing apparatus.

The moon is a dead barren rock, its resources far less plentiful than those that can be found on Mars. It's helium 3 deposits will no doubt prove useful to fusion research, but the large amount of deuterium on Mars will be very beneficial as well. If we only had a leader like JFK who was willing to get to Mars quickly and defended it appropriately then we could see some real results. Sadly with our space program in the state it is now and the current leadership I do not see a Mars outpost in the next 10 years. Hopefully Obama's prediction will come true and we will go there by the 2030's.

But predictions simply don't cut it. We won't be going anywhere without the political clout and funding necessary for such a huge undertaking. The engineering, technical, economic, and psychological aspects are all sound. Mars direct or Mars semi direct would end up costing less than Apollo. What we lack is the political leadership and drive necessary to get us there.

 

[DarkenedOne]

Use good business and engineering design philosophies instead of NASA's political design philosophy.

And if the House version of the budget bill wins out, it will be back. Reading between the lines it's a transparent effort to revive Constellation.

Are you kidding. Constellation was never sound financially. That is why it got cancelled.

 

[SteveCNC]

If there is a workable method of extracting oxygen from regolith then why didn't they win the $1million dollar prize ?

Seems to me if there is a method that works well , why wouldn't you want to pocket a cool million ?

From what I see so far these are mostly just proposals of a potential method that has yet to be worked out , if these are working models then take one and build it so you can take home the prize the next time it comes up .

From what I read most of the oxygen in regolith is bound to silicates which makes it difficult to seperate . I always wondered why some chemisty major person didn't come up with a good method of extraction , I only took one year of chem in college so my knowledge of reaction chains is limited but it seems like it shouldn't be that tough so I must be missing something in the process . I would almost consider going back and taking more chemistry classes just so I can win the million bucks but my luck I would just figure it out and someone else would walk away with the prize .

 

[DarkenedOne]

To date no method has been demonstrated for deriving usable oxygen from moon regolith , now we all know it can be derived from water using electric current but even with a centenial prize of $1million wasn't enough to get the job done . Maybe someday it will happen but so far nothing has come close .

Have to disagree with you on this one SteveCNC:

How astronauts could 'harvest' water on the moon
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17861-how-astronauts-could-harvest-water-on-the-moon.html
(Just pop it in the microwave method)

And a whole bunch more...
How to Get Oxygen from the Moon
http://www.asi.org/adb/04/03/10/04/oxygen-extraction.html
PAYDIRT!
http://www.moonminer.com/Lunar_regolith.html
Scientists Make Oxygen Out of Moon Rock
http://www.physorg.com/news169216598.html
Abstract for Colorado School of Mines�
Lunar Ice Robot Team serving the
Center for Commercial Applications of Combustion in Space in Engineering Senior Design
http://engineering.mines.edu/course...ts-F2001/abstract_for_csm_lunar_ice robot.htm

Rockett is right. There have been many methods demonstrated for getting oxygen out of the lunar regolith. The problem with all of them is that they have been tested to the greatest extent here on Earth.

What NASA really needs to do right now is some robotic technology demonstrator missions to test the technology out on a small scale. The same needs to be done with Robert Zubrin's idea of converting the atmosphere of Mars into fuel.

Unfortunately I do not believe these things will happen at least in the manned space program. NASA absolutely refuses any innovative approaches.