Why a manned mission to an asteroid?

[a_lost_packet_]

The key is that conditions are very different, not “harsher”. There is almost nothing that could be tested on the Moon, that could not be tested here on Earth much faster, a LOT less expensive, and inherently a lot safer.

You have a ticket for a ride on a submarine. There are two available. One has never even seen water, much less been in it. The other has extensively been tested at deep depths. Your ride is going to be in a lake... which submarine do you want to go on?

*Note: We're starting to focus more on the Moon vs Mars argument than anything to do with Asteroids. Perhaps the discussion should be moved?

 

[EarthlingX]

Despite indications to the opposite, i think a bit more info would be beneficial, at least for those who are not afraid of reading. This is presentation by NASA Chief Technologist Robert D. Brown :
www.nasa.gov :Braun MSFC Talk May 27, 2010

www.nasa.gov : Office of the Chief Technologist

I suggest at least skimming through the pages 5 and 7.

I think it shows, that before solving at least a couple of basic problems, nobody is going anywhere, so why argue ?

I think that main reason to do asteroid mission is to gradually push envelope, step by step, with no too big out of reach leaps, like going down a gravity well, which causes most of the expense and trouble at the beginning of any current mission. There has been a lot of talk about this topic in SB&T.

Most of moons in our Solar system (about 168 planetary moons at the last count) are more like the Moon, with no atmosphere, low gravitation, and not so many are very similar to Mars, therefore lessons learned on Luna have wider applications, but we can learn a huge amount without landing people, or at least before.

I prefer small promises for which i know that can be kept, than big dreams which at the end amount to nothing, except for disappointment, and frustration.
One solution is international cooperation, which makes politicking with missions a bit more complicated.

I think Russians are making a decent proposal, for which i as of yet have not noticed any official reply from NASA, but that would be hard amidst current hot winds, rumble and noise.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Despite indications to the opposite, i think a bit more info would be beneficial, at least for those who are not afraid of reading. This is presentation by NASA Chief Technologist Robert D. Brown :
http://www.nasa.gov :Braun MSFC Talk May 27, 2010

http://www.nasa.gov : Office of the Chief Technologist

I suggest at least skimming through the pages 5 and 7.

Sweet! Nice information.

I think it shows, that before solving at least a couple of basic problems, nobody is going anywhere, so why argue ?

It's a forum... We're forum-goers... it's in our blood. Besides, if nobody argued about anything nothing would ever get done! Can't have things getting done without a good argument.. ain't natural...

I think that main reason to do asteroid mission is to gradually push envelope, step by step, with no too big out of reach leaps, like going down a gravity well, which causes most of the expense and trouble at the beginning of any current mission. There has been a lot of talk about this topic in SB&T.

True. I think some would contest that an asteroid is man's next logical tentative step. Is it? For a very interesting mission and of a type that has only rarely been tried by even robot explorations, it's certainly an attention getter. But, when comparing that to the perceived importance of Moon or Mars missions, how do we "sell it" to the public? Pure Science doesn't always connect with public opinion. Asteroid defense? Perhaps.

Most of moons in our Solar system (about 168 planetary moons at the last count) are more like the Moon, with no atmosphere, low gravitation, and not so many are very similar to Mars, therefore lessons learned on Luna have wider applications, but we can learn a huge amount without landing people, or at least before.

I agree. But, if one is discussing test-bed situations, the Moon certainly offers an exploitable opportunity, doesn't it?

I prefer small promises for which i know that can be kept, than big dreams which at the end amount to nothing, except for disappointment, and frustration. One solution is international cooperation, which makes politicking with missions a bit more complicated.

True, about promises. But, Big Dreams drive us like nothing else. Think big - Plan small. International cooperation is a bit of a sticking point, politically speaking, right now. Sure, it's completely necessary. But, in the US, people like to negotiate from a position of strength and with the loss of near-term capability for human spaceflight by the US comes some criticisms that extend to having to "rely" on other nations as taxi services.

I think Russians are making a decent proposal, for which i as of yet have not noticed any official reply from NASA, but that would be hard amidst current hot winds, rumble and noise.

Interesting. Will check it out.

 

[EarthlingX]

You are correct about arguing, at least to the extent where there are evidences that support ones position.

I'm kinda reluctant to accept ideas or conclusions based on weight of authority or size of the gun. Not very smart i guess, and various bumps on my head remind of that.

My big dream is to get to space, preferably with a regular transport, and i ain't gonna pay more than ticket from London to New York, and have no intention to dedicate all of my life and thoughts for those perhaps couple of days if.

I want cheap access to space, that is my big dream, and then i have a couple of ideas where to go, and yesterday is a bit late, in my opinion.

Asteroid missions require most basic capabilities for anything else, and it is a move out, hugely better than nothing or if or maybe perhaps, not to mention that missions to NEOs are cheapest in the dV requirement.

Orbital refueling makes possible and cheaper many more missions, and after this is done, most likely COTS-like solution will get us deep-well lander.

 

[MeteorWayne]

*Note: We're starting to focus more on the Moon vs Mars argument than anything to do with Asteroids. Perhaps the discussion should be moved?

I've been pondering that as well. I'll probably split that discussion off to it's own thread later today; have to reread the last page or so to figure out exactly where we ran off the rails

 

[mental_avenger]

Ok. That is a pretty strong negative then, isnt it? You have already discounted the possibility of learning anything. :roll:

btw Im the strongest proponent of the 'classroom earth' concept that I know of. I wouldn't be at all surprised if you are quoting me.

On the contrary, I learn something almost every time I visit SDC, and virtually every time I research something.

If I quote anyone, I will always give credit. It is unlikely that I am quoting you on anything. My opinions are my own, which I have developed over the past twenty years or so.

 

[mental_avenger]

Immaterial. One can't fall off of the Moon. I agree that deleterious health effects of low gravity effects have to be considered. But, we have means to combat some of the effects already.

The effects of gravity are immaterial? I think many people would disagree with that. The point is, there are more differences between Mars and our Moon, than there are between Mars and some places on Earth.

Get's lots of sunlight though... Wind isn't the only source for power.

That was only one small aspect of the atmosphere.

I fail to see why the Moon being a harsher location is detrimental at all to it being used as a learning environment. Learning at a harder school is generally considered to be an advantage.

As noted above, it isn’t necessarily “harsher”, it is just very different. But the real disadvantages of the Moon as noted above is that it would be enormously more expensive, take a LOT longer for each test, and be more dangerous than doing the same testing on Earth.

Err.. not necessarily. There is possibly more available than one thinks - bound within the regolith and also deep within the crust.

Operations of every kind will be a lot more difficult off Earth, and the ready availability of water ice on Mars will make life a lot easier, and free up more time for other necessary activities.

Maybe... Surface deposition of carbon in trace amounts from the solar wind are present. There is carbon on the Moon. Regardless, we can enrich the regolith and alter it to use it as a base soil if necessary.

Importing any substances to either the Moon or Mars will be extremely expensive. Having it already there will be a huge advantage.

We can shield against radiation and, what's more, work on developing materials for a harsher environment than what would be expected on Mars.

It is almost certain that habitats will be underground on either the Moon or on Mars. The real issue with radiation is surface time in a protective suit. The less radiation, the lighter and more flexible the suit.

Are you saying that the Apollo missions couldn't have gotten around such extremes in temperature? Have you looked at the backpack unit on an Apollo suit? Shepherd and Mitchell spent 9 hours collecting rocks on the Moon... Are you saying that didn't happen?

Not at all. But long term habitation would be a lot easier if such temperature extremes did not have to be constantly compensated for. Again, protective gear could be a LOT lighter.

Immaterial unless one is planning on taking Moonlit strolls on the beach.. sans surf.. sans ocean..

Moons in orbit can be used as convenient transfer points and temporary storage of supplies for return trips.

I'm a very enthusiastic supporter for a Mars First program but, not for any of the reasons you give. That's because there is no logically supportable argument that discredits a test-bed use for the Moon in favor of one for Mars. That position is simply not supportable.

I never advocated using Mars directly for testing Mars equipment. I advocate doing most of the testing for Mars on Earth, instead of on the Moon. Cost, time, safety all are advantages of testing here on Earth instead of the Moon. Remember, we also have swimming pools on Earth.

 

[kelvinzero]

(sorry yes this is off topic MW.. shovel me off to the moon vs mars thread )

Ok. That is a pretty strong negative then, isnt it? You have already discounted the possibility of learning anything. :roll:

btw Im the strongest proponent of the 'classroom earth' concept that I know of. I wouldn't be at all surprised if you are quoting me.

On the contrary, I learn something almost every time I visit SDC, and virtually every time I research something.

If I quote anyone, I will always give credit. It is unlikely that I am quoting you on anything. My opinions are my own, which I have developed over the past twenty years or so.

Speaking of which, do you have a reference on this?

Most scientist agree that the .38G of Mars is probably sufficient for indefinite habitation. However, the low gravity of the Moon will probably cause problems for long term exposure.




Anyway you have been on these threads for a while so you will certainly have stumbled across me advocating "Build our moon and mars bases on earth first" several times. It is definitely one of my hobby horses from long before I came to this site.

However two of my key points of "build our moon and mars bases on earth first" were:

(1) It is not yet a moon vs mars issue. Show me people living in a self sufficient enclosed environment, including the ability to manufacture and repair the technology required and the solar system is our oyster. You can build your rockets at the same time if you like, but this project should be ongoing even while there are no rockets or plans for them, or a destination chosen.
Most of the technology for a self sufficient moon or mars colony has nothing to do with the moon or mars. Most of it concerns keeping an enclosed earthlike environment balanced. Not just the production of food and air but also the manufacture and repair of all the technology. Yes at some time you have to absorb some outside materials, wanted and unwanted : lunar ice and probable hydrocarbons along with a heap of moon dust, mars CO2, ice and perclorates. But these are very small details compared to the complexity of earth life and our global-spanning technological infrastructure.

(2) It is not a space nerds issue. The money should not come from the space budget.. Greenpeace should be demanding we prove our moon/mars bases now. Even if we were to burn our rockets and stay on earth, we must solve this problem. The earth is an enclosed environment and we are already faced with recycling our own city's drinking water, managing our own CO2 levels, developing solar and nuclear energy sources. Rather than experimenting on the earth it is only common sense to prove we can manage the earth using smaller scale experiments.

 

[neilsox]

Hi kelvenzero: Are you suggesting we do something like the Earth 2 dome again, with manufacturing inside the the dome from artificial regolith? That would also be helpful for a long term human presence inside a NEO asteroid. Unfortunately considerable air conditioning is needed to avoid too hot inside the dome in New Mexico, Arizona or during the two weeks of daylight near the Equator of the Moon. That is ok as air conditioning is one of several differences. Certainly we should test as much as we can under simulated conditions on Earth. At some point we need to test in space as some surprise are all but certain. As I suggested elsewhere, two space craft in LEO tethered together with a kilometer of tether produce 1/6 g in the more massive spacecraft and 0.38g in the less massive, when spun around each other at less than one RPM. We could even give the ISS about one millionth of a g to simulate an asteroid habitat, by spinning about one ton around the ISS on a short tether. We would have to adjust the attitude if the ISS continuously to keep the tether from wrapping around the ISS, but that is likely easy. Alternately we could use ion engines or other mass ejection to accelerate the ISS at one millionth g, to be sure the millionth of one g of an asteroid is negligible for all practical purposes. Approximately is close enough as the gravity will be less at the mass center of an asteroid and more than one millionth g at some surface locations of all but the tiniest asteroids. Neil

 

[mental_avenger]

Speaking of which, do you have a reference on this?

Most scientist agree that the .38G of Mars is probably sufficient for indefinite habitation. However, the low gravity of the Moon will probably cause problems for long term exposure.

The reference is me. I made that post back in 2003 when I did the research. I don’t have the references that I used handy, and some of them may no longer exist. Those comments were valid back then, and they are still valid. The basic parameters haven’t change much in the past 7-10 years.

Anyway you have been on these threads for a while so you will certainly have stumbled across me advocating "Build our moon and mars bases on earth first" several times. It is definitely one of my hobby horses from long before I came to this site.

It is quite possible, but I don’t remember specifically. I have read and posted a lot of comments here in the past 10 years.

However two of my key points of "build our moon and mars bases on earth first" were……:

Not uncommon viewpoints. But different phases of the program will require different solutions. If we wait until we can maintain a completely self-sufficient colony on another planet, we won’t leave for a long time. The initial phases of colonies can certainly begin using robotic supply ships from Earth. We do have to solve the CELSS problem eventually, but we can start colonization without it being completed.

 

[mental_avenger]

You have a ticket for a ride on a submarine. There are two available. One has never even seen water, much less been in it. The other has extensively been tested at deep depths. Your ride is going to be in a lake... which submarine do you want to go on?

That is a strawman, no one is suggesting any such thing. The analogy would be that one submarine was tested in the ocean at various depths, while the other was tested in a deep inland tank at the same various depths. The tank is large enough to maneuver the submarine and do speed runs, and the water temperature, salt content, temperature layering, and currents can all be simulated to duplicate conditions found in the ocean itself.

Answer, under those more realistic condition, either submarine will do.

 

[robnissen]

*Note: We're starting to focus more on the Moon vs Mars argument than anything to do with Asteroids. Perhaps the discussion should be moved?

I've been pondering that as well. I'll probably split that discussion off to it's own thread later today; have to reread the last page or so to figure out exactly where we ran off the rails

I'm not sure I agree that the Moon/Mars discussion is off-topic. Although not the original title of the thread, it seems to me that that the thread is actually about "Why a manned mission to as asteroid, instead of a manned mission to Mars, or a manned mission to the moon." So discussions about whether the Moon or Mars is better at least broadly fit this thread.

To return to my favorite hobby-horse, I still believe that a manned mission to Aphophis is a nice middle ground between the (relatively) easier mission to the moon and the (relatively) harder mission to Mars. Although there were numerous posters who disagreed with me, in my opinion no poster really addressed what I see as the two biggest problems with a mission to Apophis.

1. The mission cannot take place until 2029, and a mission to the moon, but probably not Mars, can take place much earlier.

2. To me, the biggest problem with a mission to Apohphis, is the incredibly precise timing that would be needed for such a mission (as numerous posters have stated, matching speeds and orbits between a ship and Aphophis is very complicated). Missions regularly get scrubbed and moved back, days, weeks or even months because of weather or mechanical or other problems. But we will only get one chance to go to Apohphis (maybe 2036, but one of the reasons for going in 2029 is to get more detail on Apophis in case we have to do something to prevent it from hitting us in 2036, if it hits the gravitational keyhole in 2029). While it might be possible to build in a few days of delay (by tweaking the orbit of the space ship to be a little longer than necessary to build in a few days of delay), it would probably be impossible to handle a delay of months or maybe even weeks. Thus, it could be the case that we would wait 19 years for the mission, then due to bad weather or mechanical problems, have to scrub the entire mission. Thus, if NASA puts all its eggs in the Aphophis basket, 2030 could arrive and the only non NEO manned missions would still be the Apollo program. That is certainly not a result that I, or I believe most posters here, would welcome.

 

[bdewoody]

*Note: We're starting to focus more on the Moon vs Mars argument than anything to do with Asteroids. Perhaps the discussion should be moved?

I've been pondering that as well. I'll probably split that discussion off to it's own thread later today; have to reread the last page or so to figure out exactly where we ran off the rails

I agree, I started this thread to compare the merits of a manned mission to an asteroid to returning to the moon, since the moon mission has been dropped in favor of the asteroid mission. No Mars mission is on the books and really isn't relevant to this discussion. I even let myself get drawn into the Mars vs. Moon debate that started up here.

Again I will state the announcement about going to an asteroid was not properly thought out and the idea is riddled with problems that current technology cannot solve whereas on the other hand a series of mission to the moon with the end result of having a working scientific and engineering base of operations can be done with existing technology if properly applied.

 

[mental_avenger]

Are you suggesting we do something like the Earth 2 dome again, with manufacturing inside the the dome from artificial regolith? That would also be helpful for a long term human presence inside a NEO asteroid.

What would be the purpose of long term presence of humans inside a NEO? There has to be some reason to spend all that money and put the lives of people in danger. As has been shown, one trip around the Sun would take about a year. That means a lot of supplies, and a year in essentially zero G. Burrowing into the asteroid to create living spaces would be time consuming and very difficult.

At some point we need to test in space as some surprise are all but certain. As I suggested elsewhere, two space craft in LEO tethered together with a kilometer of tether produce 1/6 g in the more massive spacecraft and 0.38g in the less massive, when spun around each other at less than one RPM.

Rotating two spacecraft around a common center with a tether is a bad idea. There are better ways to simulate gravity that are a lot safer and much more flexible.

Alternately we could use ion engines or other mass ejection to accelerate the ISS at one millionth g,

You don’t want to mess with the ISS.

 

[mental_avenger]

Again I will state the announcement about going to an asteroid was not properly thought out and the idea is riddled with problems that current technology cannot solve whereas on the other hand a series of mission to the moon with the end result of having a working scientific and engineering base of operations can be done with existing technology if properly applied.

Again, what is the goal? Why go to the Moon? One of the reasons to establish a colony off Earth is to prevent the total annihilation of the human race in the event of an extinction level event on Earth. Such a self-sufficient colony is not practical on the Moon. The reason people bring up Mars at this point in the discussion is because Mars is the most practical place to establish viable self-sufficient colonies for the long term.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

...I never advocated using Mars directly for testing Mars equipment. I advocate doing most of the testing for Mars on Earth, instead of on the Moon. Cost, time, safety all are advantages of testing here on Earth instead of the Moon. Remember, we also have swimming pools on Earth.

The point is that one can not argue against the suitability of the Moon as a test-bed for new techniques by using environmental comparisons. Financial, maybe. Human motivation, certainly. But, not by maintaining it is somehow unqualified because of its differences.

I do think we should go back. But, I think it's going to have to be as a part of a different project.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

///Again, what is the goal? Why go to the Moon? One of the reasons to establish a colony off Earth is to prevent the total annihilation of the human race in the event of an extinction level event on Earth. Such a self-sufficient colony is not practical on the Moon. The reason people bring up Mars at this point in the discussion is because Mars is the most practical place to establish viable self-sufficient colonies for the long term.

We're not going to be establishing any self-sufficient colony off-planet anywhere within the next 100 years or so. Even if we ramped up existing efforts to a fever pitch we couldn't do it.

But, we do need to get to Mars and we do need to learn as much as we can about it as soon as we are able. The ultimate goal would be Colonization. But, that's several hundred years in the future, I would imagine. Still, we have to do the groundwork now.

 

[kelvinzero]

I agree, I started this thread to compare the merits of a manned mission to an asteroid to returning to the moon, since the moon mission has been dropped in favor of the asteroid mission. No Mars mission is on the books and really isn't relevant to this discussion. I even let myself get drawn into the Mars vs. Moon debate that started up here.

Sorry about going off topic also.

Yes I really dont like the flexible path compared to VSE ( I mean VSE using existing launchers and fuel depots, not constellation which I consider responsible for killing VSE.)

What I really disliked about HSF before VSE, ie low earth orbit missions, was that it really seemed about finding reasons to justify the shuttle. There seemed to be very little progress on life support and zero gravity health etc. Also everything gets dropped back to earth as soon as interest wanes. You would think some sort of reuse was possible but it never turned out that way.

I really liked the idea of a permanent base on the moon, because the focus could then be on permanence, ISRU, lifesupport, reusing/repairing the existing infrastructure, and exploration. Human space flight by itself is just shooting clowns from cannons. Setting distance records does not interest me at all.

The asteroid mission really just seems like an attempt to make testing out the deep space abilities interesting while gearing up for mars mission decades and decades away. It adds a lot of danger for very little gain as far as I can see.

 

[mental_avenger]

Again, what is the justification for permanent bases on the Moon? What is the pay back? What is the incentive to fund it? How will they directly assist in Mars missions, especially initially? What specifically would bases on the Moon be used for? And please, let’s see those justifications without the “testbed for Mars” angle.

 

[EarthlingX]

news.discovery.com : Visiting an Asteroid: What's the Point?

Analysis by Ian O'Neill

Tue Jun 29, 2010 05:38 PM ET



Why should we, as a race, support human spaceflight? This is one of the key questions hanging over the world's space agencies in these hard economic times. It turns out that one answer is very simple:

Recently, President Obama spoke at NASA's Kennedy Space Center (KSC) to announce his new proposed direction for the US space agency: skip the moon, send man to a near-Earth asteroid (NEO) by the mid 2020's and use this new technological know-how to get humans to our ultimate goal -- Mars.

Although the reasons for landing astronauts on asteroids are sound, NASA's proposed redirection has been met with fierce opposition. Most of this opposition is purely political, but the message is clear: We're no closer to replacing the space shuttle and there's no clear incentive to support an expensive manned space program.

Just because we've proven we can live in space for long periods, for many policy makers, it doesn't mean we need to do it. Unfortunately, we probably won't understand the need to push into space until it is far too late.

Steering an asteroid away from a collision course with Earth would be a huge endeavor, I'd argue that it would be a critical technique for our race to master if we are to defend our civilization for centuries to come (although the next 100 years may prove to be our undoing without the help of any errant space rock).

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Again, what is the justification for permanent bases on the Moon? What is the pay back?

Well, several have pointed out (IIRC) the Moon's suitability as an observation platform. Also, if we can master techniques to mine lunar material, we could also use it as a fueling/supply station for additional expansion.

What is the incentive to fund it? How will they directly assist in Mars missions, especially initially? What specifically would bases on the Moon be used for? And please, let’s see those justifications without the “testbed for Mars” angle.

In relation to Mars, there's only the fueling/resupply angle and being able to avoid hoisting all that mass into orbit. But, we'd still have to put a great deal of effort to get something like that started on the Moon.

 

[bdewoody]

Again, what is the justification for permanent bases on the Moon? What is the pay back? What is the incentive to fund it? How will they directly assist in Mars missions, especially initially? What specifically would bases on the Moon be used for? And please, let’s see those justifications without the “testbed for Mars” angle.

There is plenty of justification for establishing what will end up being a permanent base on the moon.
Solar power generatrors that could microwave that energy to the earth in sufficient quantities to make a difference down here.
Using the hydrogen and water that is now known to be much greater than originally thought to make rocket fuel for the vehicles that will explore the rest of the solar system, including Mars.
Perfecting the tecniques that will be needed to shield against solar and cosmic radiation on long range missions in the future.
Construction of vacation facilities for when we build commercial space craft to take passengers into space and to the moon. It is concieveable to send the wealthy up for a short stay on the moon. Something that is centuries away with Mars or an asteroid. The moon is in space just like an asteroid or the moons of Mars or Jupiter and it is only two days away.

In every way the moon makes so much more sense as a place to go FIRST. I want us to go to the other places and I would have liked for it to happen before I die. When I was 18 and when "2001 a Space Odessy" came out I was so willing to believe we were going to see it happen. As I got older I began to realize that none of what was in the movie would happen in my lifetime with possibly the exception of a base on the moon.

 

[mental_avenger]

Solar power generatrors that could microwave that energy to the earth in sufficient quantities to make a difference down here.

At one time I thought that solar power satellites would be a great idea, until I found out how impractical they would be. Beaming microwave energy from the Moon would be orders of magnitude less practical.

Using the hydrogen and water that is now known to be much greater than originally thought to make rocket fuel for the vehicles that will explore the rest of the solar system, including Mars.

“Much greater than originally thought” is still miniscule. While there is a lot (43%) of oxygen in the crust of the Moon, 50ppm of hydrogen is very little.

Perfecting the tecniques that will be needed to shield against solar and cosmic radiation on long range missions in the future.

Which can be done much cheaper and safer on Earth or in Earth orbit.

Construction of vacation facilities for when we build commercial space craft to take passengers into space and to the moon. It is concieveable to send the wealthy up for a short stay on the moon.

Now there is a pipe dream. Since any base on the Moon will be underground, the only real draw would be the low gravity, which can be simulated on a proper space station in Earth orbit. The “I’ve been to the Moon” aspect could hardly support “vacation facilities” and the enormous costs that would entail. It would be difficult if not impossible to make such a venture break even, let alone make a profit. Imagine the cost of keeping just one maid or one waiter on the Moon. Now multiply that by the entire staff that would be required, plus all the infrastructure.

The moon is in space just like an asteroid or the moons of Mars or Jupiter and it is only two days away.

So is a space station in Earth orbit. The most practical first step is a large wheel station in Earth orbit, similar to the 2001: A Space Odyssey Station V.

In every way the moon makes so much more sense as a place to go FIRST.

Not in every way. While there would be advantages for eventual bases on the Moon, they would be dependent upon the need for their services, that need necessarily being required to be established first. You don’t build a 300 pump truck stop in the middle of nowhere in the hope that a freeway will be passing by in 100 years. You at least wait until construction of the freeway has actually started , and there are some guarantees that it will actually require a truck stop. For instance, what if you build a 300 pump station with all the tanks, pumps, and controls, and there is a break through that makes it practical for everyone to go electric?

When some regular traffic has been established to Mars, or somewhere else out there, then we can begin to establish appropriate service facilities on the Moon.

 

[EarthlingX]

A nice link from Re: POLL: Will NASA Ever Go to Mars?

unless they've worked out a way to land heavy payloads its not going to happen anytime soon.
The Mars Landing Approach: Getting Large Payloads to the Surface of the Red Planet

 

[mental_avenger]

A nice link from Re: POLL: Will NASA Ever Go to Mars?

Great article, thanks. That really puts all the cards on the table at once.

Of course, safely landing large payloads on Mars would be critical to any mission. That includes my proposal of sending robotic cargo vessels ahead of any manned mission.

However, I see a possible solution. Using a high ratio lifting body, come in initially like the space shuttle does, coming in low and fast, bleeding off as much velocity as possible. Then rotate and go ballistic, straight up. The vehicle will eventually stop. When the vehicle begins to drop, there will be plenty of altitude to deploy a large parachute. Complete a soft touchdown with thrusters.

This approach converts all that unwanted horizontal velocity into vertical velocity, which uses gravity to then bleed off that positive vertical velocity. You are then left with only one component, negative vertical velocity. The parachute should then be able to keep the vehicle well below the troublesome Mach 1 velocity on descent.