Moon or Mars, I say Mars

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

caper

Guest
I think if your going to spend Billions going to the DESOLUTE moon why not let Dr. Diaz and the Engineering staff at Ben- sheer Universtity design there rockets that can go to there in 6 moths or 2 weeks. We can grow things on Mars . What can we grow on the Moon? Well Im interested in finding out YOUR opinion. Maybe Im wrong . But nevertheless its exciting news.<br /><br />Rob :)
 
R

rfoshaug

Guest
Going to Mars may or may not happen. The technical, economical and political challenges are enormous, so the "Mars and beyond" part of the Vision may at least be postponed for decades.<br /><br />I think NASA has 4 options for the future (after the Shuttle retires):<br /><br />1. Quit the manned spaceflight business<br />2. Build a new vehicle for Low Earth Orbit only (30 more shuttle-years)<br />3. Build vehicles for going to the Moon and possibly Mars. Maybe the Mars part will be cancelled, but at least we get astronauts walking on another world as well as a reliable way to LEO<br />4. Build vehicles specifically for going to Mars. If Mars is abandoned by the politicians, we're left with nothing<br /><br />NASA obviously thinks option 3 is the best choice, and I couldn't agree more. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff9900">----------------------------------</font></p><p><font color="#ff9900">My minds have many opinions</font></p> </div>
 
M

mattblack

Guest
In a perfect world, Mars would be best, I can't disagree with you. But could you imagine how the leftie media would whine about the cost? They're already complaining about the $100 billion spread over 13+plus years, claiming in their inflated editorials that it's "$150 billion".<br /><br />If this was Mars which might actually be $150 billion over 15 years; they'd be claiming it was $250 billion bucks!!!<br /><br />So in this era of war in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina and more Hurricanes to come, we'd better not push our luck. At least having the Heavy Lift booster is half the battle and the notional Lunar Lander could probably be upgraded to Mars specs. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>
 
V

vt_hokie

Guest
Those damn lefties, always worrying about fiscal responsibility...
 
A

astrophoto

Guest
NASA isnt getting any boosts to funding other than inflationary increases. Griffin is just refocusing assets and resources to meet the President's vision with the budget in mind. The fact that he could even come up with a plan to get us on the Moon in that span of time with those budgetary constraints is amazing. Remember he must still fund the shuttle program till 2010.<br /><br />What the hell is all the complaining about?
 
V

vt_hokie

Guest
I'm complaining because $100 billion should be able to get us a NASP or VentureStar type if vehicle to open up the space frontier to more people. But, since we're afraid of new, unproven techology and we're no longer willing to take risks, we're going to spend $100 billion to re-create Apollo so that 4 people can walk around on the moon for a few days.
 
A

astrophoto

Guest
$100 billion over the next 15 years, only 10 of which are shuttle-free (leaving $66 billion or so) to invest in getting to the Moon is a pittance for a governmental agency like NASA.<br /><br />Put $66 billion into private enterprises to get there and you'd go faster and cheaper, but that's not the reality of the situation.
 
T

tap_sa

Guest
<font color="yellow">"we don't have to ship up huge amounts of dirt to the Moon to use in greenhouses, just a concentrated form of it as a seed that brings life to the desolate soil of the Moon. "</font><br /><br />In order to jumpstart a rudimentary carbon and nitrogen cycle on the Moon we have to ship nutrients too. Otherwise the seeds will never grow, even with proper watering. <br /><br />All plants need following macro nutrients (macro meaning for average season you need more than 10kg/hectar of them): carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, potassium, magnesium, calcium, phosphorus and sulfur. Also following micro nutrients are essential (micro = less than 1kg/hectar per season needed): boron, copper, iron, manganese, molybdenum, zinc and chlorine (in some cases cobolt and sodium too).<br /><br />Here on earth we take the first three macro nutrients for granted because there's adundance of them in water and carbon dioxide.There's also abundance of gaseous nitrogen which certain nitrogen fixation bacteria can collect and turn into useable form for plants (leguminous plants like peas, beans, clovers and alfalfa form symbiotic relationship with them, the bacteria lives in their root pods). Farms that don't use commercial N-fertilizer exploit this behaviour to grab the nitrogen from the air. Other plants get their nitrogen from decomposing humus. manure and manmade fertilizers.<br /><br />On the Moon we can take much less for granted. There's plenty of required minerals (but not necessary in a form suitable for plants) and oxygen but almost void of the other volatiles (C, H, N, Cl). Until there's machinery on the Moon to siphon out the trace amounts of volatiles from endless tonnes of regolith, we have to ship them to the moon, probably in a form of ammonia and methane.<br /><br />And it would be a smart move for NASA to try utilize carbon composites in the forthcoming lunar mission hardware so that obsolete descent stages etc might be scavenged for the precious C.
 
C

caper

Guest
There will always be wars, hurricanes, etc,etc. Griffon said;" We dont cancel the fleet when there is floods. Why cancel the space race. We're doomed anyway.
 
S

spacefire

Guest
I think, as far as exploration, Mars is a more worthy goal and we can learn so much more by going there.<br />Even between establishing a permanent base on the Moon, and a mere manned temporary expedition to Mars, I'd still choose the latter.<br />The benefits reaped-science and technology advancements, finding life-would be so much greater. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
 
K

kdavis007

Guest
Once we go back to the moon we will go to Mars and beyond...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts