Take That, Mars Society

thebigcat · Dec 6, 2006

While you people have been using pseudo space tourism in your "habitation modules" in the Canadian arctic and Utah desert to fund and publicize your irresponsiblely optimistic dream of a human presense on the red planet with the technology currently on hand, NASA, the organization your members have dismissed as a "trucking company" have taken the long view and decided, rightly in MHO, that a permanent human presence on our moon is the next step on the road to the cosmos. You wanted to do the same thing to Mars as Apollo did to the moon. Apollo was bold. Apollo was daring. Apollo was a testimony to what a group of people guided by a visionary can accomplish. And in the long run, Apollo was a mistake. We went there, planted a flag and brought home some rocks. We studied the rocks and decided that we knew all there was to know about the moon. Lifeless, barren, no atmosphere worth mentioning. So we stopped looking at it. Some people, cultural graffittists, even took the daring step of pronouncing the Apollo landings a hoax. That they even recieved serious attention for their gibberish testifies to the failure in the long run of Apollo. We thought we knew all there was to know about the moon. We had more missions, more money spent looking at Europa than at own moon because we believed that was nothing more to learn. We were wrong. There's a lot still to be learned on the moon,the most important of which is learning about ourselves. Look at all of the proposed projects for the planned lunar polar base. The greatest thing we need to learn is in the area of life support systems. We need to have practical knowlege of what systems work for long duration in the area of oxygen generation, food supply and waste removal in a relativly close, accessible location. Yes, accessible. Remember a few years ago, the doctor in the antarctic who had breast cancer? They had to preform a risky airdrop flight from Chile to deliver her the equipment need to perform <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mithridates · Dec 6, 2006

I agree, you just can't argue with a six-month flight no matter how much you might want to go. My preferred order for exploration is as follows: 1)Permanent presence on the Moon 2)Exploration from time to time of near-Earth asteroids as we see fit 3)Aerostat habitats 50 km in the air on Venus 4)Mars 3 and 4 are much harder than 1 and 2, but in the meantime there's no reason we can't continue a robust robotic exploration program. Solar flyers and orbiting probes for Venus, rovers and orbiting probes for Mars. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----- http://mithridates.blogspot.com </div>

dreada5 · Dec 6, 2006

What is 3? I'd go 2 to 4.

spacefire · Dec 6, 2006

Helloow? Moon has a gravity well. And gets bombed quite a lot by meteorites. There's no way it will ever be a waystation to Mars. It might make a colony if we can build underground, and I agree with establishing a permament presence there, but getting to the Moon and getting to Mars are two separate endeavors, some that do not share significant technology. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

j05h · Dec 6, 2006

I'm with both Dread and Spacefire on this: Luna, NEOs and Mars are all very different. NEOs first then Mars, if you were a commercial interest or consortia. This really is a new space age, there will not be a Monolithic Goal. Sure, maybe NASA is going to build a base at Shackleton, but that is neither the Worlds Only Space Place (tm) but there will be many others. There is every chance (better than 50/50 IMHO) that a consortia of US businesses and US/Russian launch hardware beat NASA or China back to the moon. Bigelow is about to offer a reasonably priced (for big biz) set of components that can build pretty much any station you need: inflatable space, a baseblock and a node. Do whatever you want with it. By 2020 there could be dozens of space facilities. We can do this. From a commercial perspective it's Phobos First, in my opinion - it combines the best of those approaches. The moon is a harsh dustball. We can just as easily (though takes longer) get to Phobos, working in freefall the whole time. Phobos is a harsh dustball as well, but is within tele-op range of all cis-Mars space. If there aren't water pockets on Phobos or Deimos, use your robots on known Martian water sources (Polar cap and Elysium). Mars is much closer to Earth conditions than Luna, we could use regular mining and earth-moving equipment (all-electric Catepillar) in Mars. Personally, the Moon is a backwater, Mars and NEOs are where the money and adventure will be. Speaking of which, have you seen this image? Look on the lower right side of the hill. Looks like someone already mined it. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/marsexpress/0573D201JuventaeChasma_H.jpg Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

mako71 · Dec 6, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> crazyeddie: I say we should go to Mars first....for the simple reason that the public will support a Mars mission, whereas a lunar colony will never survive Washington politics and budget-cutters. Without public support, any manned space venture is doomed, and the public just can't get excited about a return to some place we've already been to. <hr /></blockquote> Argh, without first testing and researching long journeys in our near-space (LEO, Moon), there's a risk to have some (even minor) accident in the long manned Mars-journey and because they would be out of reaching any help, it could lead to a true catastrophe for that mission - think how much would the space exploration get funding after that? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ________________ reaaliaika.net </div>

dreada5 · Dec 6, 2006

Good post JO5H. Totally agree. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Originally posted by crazyeddie: whereas a lunar colony will never survive Washington politics and budget-cutters<hr /></blockquote> IMO a lunar colony may not need Washington politics. Private industry/tourism may do just fine! I'm still in awe at Virgin Galactic and very proud to come from the same home country as Branson! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> http://www.virgingalactic.com/

trailrider · Dec 6, 2006

TBC: "While you people have been using pseudo space tourism in your "habitation modules" in the Canadian arctic and Utah desert to fund and publicize your irresponsiblely optimistic dream of a human presense on the red planet with the technology currently on hand, NASA, the organization your members have dismissed as a "trucking company" have taken the long view and decided, rightly in MHO, that a permanent human presence on our moon is the next step on the road to the cosmos." Me: "Pseudo space tourism"? The work being done by volunteers, in conjunction with several scientific organizations in both the Arctic and at the Mars Desert Research Station is aimed at developing procedures and techniques for the day when humans do walk on the surface of Mars. The Mars Society undertook these programs before VSE was ennuciated by President Bush, and before there was a Project Constellation/Ares I/Orion! "Mars Direct" got people thinking! So far as "an irresponsibly optimistic dream of a human presence on Mars" is concerned, the same could be said of many of the concepts dreamed up by Leonardo Da Vinci! It was 500 years before the required technology caught up to some of his concepts. What is irresponsible about the concepts for a space station and a lunar base espoused by Wernher von Braun in "Das Mars Projeck" and published in Collier's magazine and shown on "The Wonderful World of Disney"? A bunch of us who made careers in aerospace were inspired by those "irresponsible dreams" long before the word "aerospace" had been coined! So far as calling NASA a "trucking company" is concerned, some in the Mars Society may have called NASA that. And, for about 34 of the last 35 years that's about all it has been! But that's not NASA's fault. That's the American public's fault and the fault of a lack of leadership from the Oval Orifice until Bush II came along! TBC: "You wanted to do the same thing to Mars as Apollo did to the moon. Apoll

JonClarke · Dec 6, 2006

While you people have been using pseudo space tourism in your "habitation modules" in the Canadian arctic and Utah desert to fund and publicize your irresponsiblely optimistic dream of a human presense on the red planet with the technology currently on hand The purpose of FRMARS on Devon Island and MDRS at Utah are not "pseudo space tourism" but research and education. The facilities don't fund anything, quite the opposite, they are expensive to run. Much the basic technology necessary to going to Mars is to hand. Specific hardware does need to be developed and tested, different options need to be explored, new areas need to be researched. FMARS and MDRS are a small part of this process. How is this irresponsible? NASA, the organization your members have dismissed as a "trucking company" have taken the long view and decided, rightly in MHO, that a permanent human presence on our moon is the next step on the road to the cosmos. Most members of the Mars Societies do not dismiss NASA as "a trucking company", many in fact work for NASA, and, most are highly supportive of the return to the Moon. There are society members involved in NASA lunar projects. You wanted to do the same thing to Mars as Apollo did to the moon. No they don't. The Societies are interested in all the options for long term human presence of Mars, including precursor missions, initial crewed exploration, research stations settlements, and perhaps terraforming. Apollo was bold. Apollo was daring. Apollo was a testimony to what a group of people guided by a visionary can accomplish. And in the long run, Apollo was a mistake. Ee went there, planted a flag and brought home some rocks. We studied the rocks and decided that we knew all there was to know about the moon. Lifeless, barren, no atmosphere worth mentioning. So we stopped looking at it. Some people, cultural graffittists, even took the daring step of p <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

telfrow · Dec 6, 2006

And just to put that last post in perspective, Dr. Jonathan Clarke. (Sorry Jon. Sometimes it just has to be posted. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

rocketman5000 · Dec 6, 2006

mako, We already have testing on a long distance spacecraft. To my recollection its called the ISS. Not sure of the distance it has traveled (I am sure someone here could tell me), but it has survived just fine. It has given us expirence in oxygen generation. As for the risk of catastrophe. I think it is proven on the ISS to have backups. Believe me we have answers to almost every questions on how to get there, some of the answers would require a lot of money to fix at the moment, but are doable.

MeteorWayne · Dec 6, 2006

But the ISS is only a day or two away. And it's been a decade and it's still not done being built yet. The moon is only a week away. Mars is a year way. NO safety net <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

ldyaidan · Dec 6, 2006

First, I do want to emphasize that I too think the moon is the next logical step. Yes, I also want to go to Mars, but we need to take things one step at a time. Contrary to some beliefs, I strongly feel that the systems and infrastructure we build on the moon will have a huge effect on the success or failure of a Mars mission. However, I also strongly support the Mars Society. They have a goal, and a plan, and are working to make it happen. More power to them! The more people we have trying to get us into space, regardless of the destination once we're there, the better. The Mars Society is taking a different path, but they are doing good research, and are reaching for the stars. We all have the same goal for the big picture: Human exploration, colonization, and exploitation of space. I don't see this as opposite or competing goals. They are merely aspects of the same larger goal. The work that the Mars Society is doing may very well be used to get us to Mars, when NASA is ready. If they do it before then, that's great! The work NASA does on the lunar base will also help when we get to Mars. They all go hand in hand, but no one group can do everything alone. Rae

mako71 · Dec 6, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> rocketman5000: We already have testing on a long distance spacecraft. To my recollection its called the ISS. <hr /></blockquote> Hey, I know - it has been mentioned practically in every ISS/Mars stories ;-D I have followed the progress of ISS from the time the plan was announced, and I remember how I hailed for a great unity of countries to set up a permanent space station. For me, ISS (with the preceding Shuttle-Mir experiments) is one of the great achievements in the space exploration, amongst Pioneers/Voyagers and Hubble. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> rocketman5000: I think it is proven on the ISS to have backups. Believe me we have answers to almost every questions on how to get there, some of the answers would require a lot of money to fix at the moment, but are doable. <hr /></blockquote> Yes, we have experience from ISS, but ISS (and Moon, too) are in the range that if something goes wrong, the Earth can help. If my memory serves, the ISS people/equipment luckily hasn't had any big accidents or similar - not all risks have been realized yet. Can we expect that the Mars trip doesn't encounter one? I'd first try with Moon- but I'm not the one making that decision. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ________________ reaaliaika.net </div>

trailrider · Dec 6, 2006

Mako: "Yes, we have experience from ISS, but ISS (and Moon, too) are in the range that if something goes wrong, the Earth can help. If my memory serves, the ISS people/equipment luckily hasn't had any big accidents or similar - not all risks have been realized yet. Can we expect that the Mars trip doesn't encounter one? I'd first try with Moon- but I'm not the one making that decision." Me: There is NO DOUBT that a Mars trip(s) will encounter problems which might be easier helped if it were "as close as the ISS" or "as close as the Moon". No matter where you are, there can be non-recoverable situations. Lewis and Clark had NO COMMUNICATIONS at ALL! They might as well have been on the back side of the Moon, or Mars, etc., for all the help they could have gotten from "the gub'mint", or anyone else. It may be a horrible pill to swallow if there is a problem and because of distance/time we on Earth can do nothing for the explorers on a Mars mission. (In point of fact, we may not know of a disaster or be able to even communicate a recommendation until 40 minutes after the first messages are sent from Mars (at conjunction). That is a risk that a dynamic, inquisitive civilization MUST BE WILLING TO TAKE! Americans USED to be like that! Unfortunately, we seem to be more and more risk adverse. But, rest assured! If Western civilization no longer has the guts to put up with the dangers of exploration, the Chinese and Indians and who knows who else WILL! Don't get me wrong! Experience gained with maintenance, operations, and emergency repairs aboard the ISS and on a lunar base will be INVALUABLE in increasing the likelihood for success for a Mars expedition. Vital! If we can learn to operate in a 1/6th-g, dusty, airless environment on the Moon, it will be easier in a 1/3rd-g, even though "help" is much farther away. Don't forget that we will not always be so "far" away from Mars. It used to take months to cross the Atlantic Ocean. It

john_316 · Dec 6, 2006

Um I have been gone quite awhile but I have to comment on this post. Where should I start.... Anyways pseudo space tourism? I think many people in NASA think the Virgin Galactic is pseudo space tourism. Of course I think they are wrong to think that. NASA is trying to get out of the trucking business and expand its interests. Like purchase its cargo and other products from other bidders not always being the lowest. Of course building a "CLV" using the SRB primarily is not the best but not really bad science when you can test other space vehicles now and man rate them would be more obvious but thats another subject. Apollo was indeed grand and in the end helped put America on the Stage for good. But it wasn't a total failure even when the SSTS came along it was still a bolder program. I think NASA has learned alot from Apollo and SSTS and got an idea of each others faults and failures. SSTS wasnt what it should have been and Apollo was less grand than what Von Braun wanted. Accept it and move on... Well I for one do not accept the total approach of NASA or big space companies, I also do not accept everything the Mars Society and others say. But thats personal opinion like most of us have here. You are correct to surmise that we still have alot to learn on the moon. We do indeed however we also have alot of learning on Mars to do as well. I don't think the benefits of all the NEO's and all the moon stuff will greatly enhance that of the Mars missions but in many engineering areas it probably will even if marginally. You talk about life support systems. I think the US Navy has much knowledge in this area as they require that for nuclear submarines and this system is all closed loop for the most part. It has exceptions but primarily is closed loop. Those systems and subsystems to used on the moon and Mars will have some latitude differences in them. Especially when it comes to weight, shieldin

mithridates · Dec 6, 2006

This is 3: http://powerweb.grc.nasa.gov/pvsee/publications/venus/VenusColony_STAIF03.pdf (it's a pdf) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----- http://mithridates.blogspot.com </div>

mako71 · Dec 6, 2006

Trailrider, yes, not all risks can be taken care in advance, some level of risks need to be taken to do something. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> Trailrider: That is a risk that a dynamic, inquisitive civilization MUST BE WILLING TO TAKE! Americans USED to be like that! Unfortunately, we seem to be more and more risk adverse. <hr /></blockquote> Maybe two really sad shuttle disasters has had some influence... You're starting to resemble more us Europeans ;-D <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> Trailblazer: If Western civilization no longer has the guts to put up with the dangers of exploration, the Chinese and Indians and who knows who else WILL! <hr /></blockquote> So let them do the "dirty job"? ;-) Well, seriously said, if I look this Mars-thing here near from polar circle, it really does not matter who will get first - they are definitely not we :-D Or let's say that they are we, no matter which nationality are they "officially" representing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ________________ reaaliaika.net </div>

earth_bound_misfit · Dec 6, 2006

Wow Jon, you must be a busy bloke, with writing all those books, work stuff, home stuff and keeping an eye on this place <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?Go here to see how: SDC Eye saver </div>

radarredux · Dec 6, 2006

> 1)Permanent presence on the Moon/i> I think the goal is a semi-long-term outpost on the Moon to shakeout the hardware, software, processes, etc. IF there is enough interest from the US Government, other government space programs, or commercial groups, the outpost could be extended and expanded, or additional outposts could be built. However, as far as I can tell, NASA is only promising a 2020-2025 timeframe for the Moon with moderate size crews staying for up to 180 days.

radarredux · Dec 6, 2006

> My preferred order for exploration is as follows: ... 4)Mars/i> By the time the US has a semi-permanent presence on the Moon (~2024), the US will have launched probably another 9 robotic missions to Mars (and several other government groups will probably have launched some as well). Considering how much we have learned about Mars with MGS, Odyssey, MERs, and MOC, can you imagine how much more we will know after 9 more missions? The next 15-20 years are going to be exciting. Ahh... to be young and just entering college now would be wonderful.

j05h · Dec 7, 2006

> The Mars Society and Mars advocates would be best served supporting the development of cislunar space, and actually investing in it with their pooled funds, so as to build a base of capital directly tied to what they want to do. Umm... they'd be the "Moon Society" in that case. There is a lot of room in this game, much more than any single player can stake out, in terms of both market and places. I'm with you about Ceres, though, fascinating place. Especially that warm spot. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

alokmohan · Dec 7, 2006

That warm spot?

3488 · Dec 7, 2006

There is a BRIGHT spot on 1 Ceres, just north of the equator, possibly an impact crater, maybe though unlikely a cryovolcano, but I too, like alokmohan was unaware of a WARM spot??? 1 Ceres is a fascinating object. The HST images & the Keck AO images posted by Jon Clarke for my benefit on another thread, show that 1 Ceres indeed has had an interesting past!! Also 2 Pallas & 4 Vesta are of added interest too. Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "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". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

cuddlyrocket · Dec 7, 2006

"We already have testing on a long distance spacecraft. To my recollection its called the ISS." But what the ISS has demonstrated is that we do not know how to maintain life support in a spacecraft without re-supply from Earth for the periods of time a Mars mission would take! (And that includes not being able to rely on spares pre-placed on the spacecraft.)

Take That, Mars Society

thebigcat

Guest

mithridates

Guest

dreada5

Guest

spacefire

Guest

j05h

Guest

mako71

Guest

dreada5

Guest

trailrider

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

telfrow

Guest

rocketman5000

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

ldyaidan

Guest

mako71

Guest

trailrider

Guest

john_316

Guest

mithridates

Guest

mako71

Guest

earth_bound_misfit

Guest

radarredux

Guest

radarredux

Guest

j05h

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

3488

Guest

cuddlyrocket

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page