Popular Mechanics Article: Buzz's NASA plan for the future

Status
Not open for further replies.
2

2001Kubrick

Guest
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... 22647.html

I found this article to be quite enlightening. Has anyone else read it? It's out in print in the August 2009 issue of Popular Mechanics.

Buzz Aldrin presents his views on what NASA should do - and not do - for the short term and long term. He also briefly talks about a subject that I think is important: NASA, as well as our country as a whole, does not have the leadership required to undertake any significant goals in space right now.

Aldrin says that we should scrap the Ares 1 project and focus all of our efforts on Orion. I think this is a good idea. From what I've read, I've found that many in the field consider the Ares 1 vehicle to be an ultimately unfulfilling and unjustifiably expensive undertaking. Stretching out the remaining shuttle flights through 2015 is not a bad idea, either.

Also, let's focus on a permanent presence on Mars, with a brief stop on the moon. For political reasons, Buzz states (and I agree) that we should let other countries take a bulk of the moon return work. Why start a spacerace back to the moon, a place we have already been six times? If there is international cooperation, then there will be shared rewards. This will allow us to focus our expertise on getting to Mars.

It's fascinating the way he suggests that we should have permanent "homesteaders" on Mars. This would indeed take a special kind of person, especially in the initial stages. But the upside would mean a tremendous and continuous evolution of the goals of space exploration.
 
B

Booban

Guest
I wouldnt even take a one way ticket to anywhere here on Earth.

But maybe crazy people is the exact type of people that ought to go to Mars.

That or convicts.
 
R

radarredux

Guest
nimbus":1qdx97mc said:
Pioneer is the word you're looking for.
I ran across this photo where one of my great (great?) grandparents lived -- a one-room, dirt floor cabin built during the Oklahoma land rush. Mankind, and certainly American history is full of examples of people selling everything they own to make one-way trips to new lands, scratching a living off the land, and hard living. If we have qualified people who want to make a one way voyage to Mars, I think we should encourage them, not discourage such efforts.

 
A

andrew_t1000

Guest
I just read Buzz Aldrin's article.
A lot of good ideas, but the phrase "American led presence on Mars" really got to me.
With the sums of money and level of expertise involved, the push to Mars really must be an international effort.
This idea of a new space race is a bit of a worry. Why does it need to be another game of one-upmanship between China and the USA?
Haven't we grown as a species? Who cares who has the biggest wang? or the most marbles?
Something this important should not be a competition!
Wasn't it Arthur C. Clarke that said ,"The Earth is too fragile a basket to keep all our eggs in"?
With the engineering expertise of the USA, the EU, Japan, Russia, China, Australia and South America, building a reusable launch vehicle, to build a long term, long haul interplanetary spacecraft or 2, should be well within our grasp.
OK, there are political and ideological differences to sort out, but that didn't stop the US getting a "coalition of the willing" together to battle the dark forces of Iraq and plunging the world into a financial meltdown.

The developed nations of the world need to get together, hammer out a white paper for an International Space Agency.
We need to do it and quickly.
We are well overdue for another mass extinction, if that sounds crazy, I'm sorry, but a Tunguska sized impact would be pretty bad, let alone a bigger impact.

We all trade together, it's time we all learned to play nicely together!
 
N

neutrino78x

Guest
The only thing I don't like about Buzz's plan is how he describes the Exploration Module. I think it is a good idea, but I would do it differently: I would make a standard "tin can" type deal which can go to any given destination and have the power storage for several days. If you need it to go the Moon, you put one propulsion module on it, if you want it to go Mars, a different one, to an asteroid, yet another.

--Brian
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Mod Hat On***

OK folks, this topic is in Missions and Launches and is about Buzz ALdrin's plan for the future. So lets stick to the topic, and leave the nation bashing to another thread in Free Space where it belongs. If this continues, I will remove the off topic posts and place them in their own thread there.

Mod Hat Off***

Wayne

Edit: This has taken place. The political posts are now in free space here:
 
3

3488

Guest
Hi Wayne,

I think it is best to just move the entire topic to Free Space along with the Angry at NASA one. M & L is becoming more like Free Space & is dumbing down every day, since the Augustine Commission thread.

If you agree I'll move all three threads to Free Space.

***Mod Hat On***

General note, please take note, Missions & Launches is about Missions & Launches.

All political diatribe that is infesting this forum belongs in Free Space.

MeteorWayne & Myself will be following developments here closely.

***Mod Hat Off***

Andrew Brown.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
The Nationalistic bashing posts have been moved to a new thread in Free Space. If your post directly is relevant to Buzz's plan, post here. If it is related to bashing nations, please post in the Free Space thread:

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=19701
 
B

bdewoody

Guest
To be honest I have not read Buzz Aldrin's article on the future of manned space flight, but I think I will. My take on why we should proceed to establish bases on the moon is based partially on the following reasons. We should be able to demonstrate that we are capable of building and occupying an encampment on the moon which is only two days away before we send humans to Mars where help is more than six months away. Assuming the a moon base is viable then we should undertake to construct our Mars vehicles on the moon. The amount of space and mass needed for fuel to escape the moon's gravity is significantly less than the earth, therefore more space could be dedicated to life support and less to bulky fuel.

I am aware that this would push back the first manned landing on Mars beyond my chance of seeing it (at least in this life) but I think it will prove to be the only practical way to get there.
 
M

mental_avenger

Guest
2001Kubrick":1k686xvm said:
It's fascinating the way he suggests that we should have permanent "homesteaders" on Mars. This would indeed take a special kind of person, especially in the initial stages. But the upside would mean a tremendous and continuous evolution of the goals of space exploration.
I have been advocating a settlement on Mars since day one. Although my plan was a lot more aggressive than Aldrin’s plan, I agree we should go to Mars to stay.

I advocate relatively large one way missions to Mars. IMO, the first manned mission should be at least 200 people with the training and desire to stay on Mars and set up a viable settlement. Such a mission could be proceeded by a number of robotic cargo ships programmed to land at or near the proposed settlement site. Not only could sufficient supplies and materials for long term survival be waiting for the colonists, but the cargo ships could be pre-fitted to be linked together and used as habitats.
 
A

abq_farside

Guest
mental_avenger":1wi4iuo8 said:
I advocate relatively large one way missions to Mars. IMO, the first manned mission should be at least 200 people with the training and desire to stay on Mars and set up a viable settlement. Such a mission could be proceeded by a number of robotic cargo ships programmed to land at or near the proposed settlement site. Not only could sufficient supplies and materials for long term survival be waiting for the colonists, but the cargo ships could be pre-fitted to be linked together and used as habitats.
I like that idea. I would love to see us start the planing for something like that.
 
A

andrew_t1000

Guest
abq_farside":27vkbb6k said:
mental_avenger":27vkbb6k said:
I advocate relatively large one way missions to Mars. IMO, the first manned mission should be at least 200 people with the training and desire to stay on Mars and set up a viable settlement. Such a mission could be proceeded by a number of robotic cargo ships programmed to land at or near the proposed settlement site. Not only could sufficient supplies and materials for long term survival be waiting for the colonists, but the cargo ships could be pre-fitted to be linked together and used as habitats.
I like that idea. I would love to see us start the planing for something like that.
Hell I would go in a flash!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY