Slashdot Mirror
Glenn Urges Direct-to-Mars Trip
Geno Z Heinlein writes "Reuters reports that astronaut John Glenn testified March 4 before the President's Commission on Moon, Mars and Beyond, saying that Bush's plan 'pulls the rug out from under our scientists' and that 'It just seems to me the direct-to-Mars [route] is the way to go.' Referring to the Moon as an 'enormously complex' Cape Canaveral, Glenn said that NASA might spend all the money getting to the Moon and never get to Mars."
Isn't it obvious why $800billion of stuff sitting on the moon is better than $800billion of stuff sitting on Mars?
No, it's not. Military-related paranoia aside, the potential for long-term residency is far better on Mars because of the higher gravity and existing atmosphere--even if it's not breathable, it still provides some protection from solar radiation.
The ISS budget is not 2.5 million, but 2.5 BILLION!
Glenn wasn't talking about the complete ISS budget, just the science portion that's projected to be cut.
From His NASA Bio Page
He attended Muskingum College in New Concord and received a Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering.....
When astronauts were given special assignments to ensure pilot input into the design and development of spacecraft, Glenn specialized in cockpit layout and control functioning, including some of the early designs for the Apollo Project.
Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein
You missed a big physics fact. The orbit that the ISS sits in is totally wrong for launching anything. Originally the orbit was to be just off the equator, but in order for the Russians to help and launch from the Cosmodrome in Khazakstan, the orbit was changed to 51 degrees. That meant a change in the mission of the ISS from a "jumping off point to outer space" to an international scientific outpost. Here's a NASA quote: "NASA spokesperson Phil West says the ISS' inclination of 51 degrees was chosen as a compromise to accommodate all of the international partners who will be launching from different latitudes. For example, Russia's launch site in Kazakhstan is further north than the Florida site, making lower inclinations difficult to achieve."
ISS History article
Space Station History
Here's a page that describes the international treaty covering Antarctica:s /Internationa l/ATCM.msa
http://www.antarcticanz.govt.nz/Page
Here's part of it:
" The key elements of the treaty are:
1. Antarctica is to be used for peaceful purposes only. All military activities are banned, although military personnel can be used to support scientific programmes in such things as transportation of people, and equipment to Antarctica
2. There is freedom of scientific investigations and discoveries. Scientific plans, information and staff are regularly exchanged. This scientific cooperation has been genuinely successful among the treaty nations. The Cape Roberts Drilling Project is an example of successful collaborative scientific work.
3. All political claims for territory are frozen for the duration of the treaty and no new claims or enlargements can be made
4. Nuclear explosions or dumping of nuclear waste in Antarctica is banned
5. All stations/bases and equipment are open to inspection be observers appointed by Antarctic Treaty nations."
In "The Case for Mars". Moon bases and space stations increase cost and complicate missions and crucially will push back the date by which we get there. Direct to Mars is clearly the best approach but who is going to convince Nasa? Or Bush?!
I don't read your sig, why do you read mine?
I think the "useful source of material resources" is kind of key. Using a space station for interplanetary vehicle construction means that the vehicle, the station, the scaffolding, the blast shield in csae the fuel goes up, etc. all have to be hauled up from Earth, at huge cost.
With a moonbase, you have space, a stable framework, and ample supplies aluminium silicate dirt, from which you might be able to refine something useful. Even if you can't, you can pile it up to provide bracing, shielding and the like.
If you just want to dock three or four pieces of Mars mission together you might as well just do it, in LEO with no station. If you really want to start building, you want to be somewhere with some ground to lean on.
Of course if Earth->orbit costs come down by a couple of orders of magnitude, for instance with an elevator, then it's a different game entirely, but I think we're probably 20-30 years away from that, if we're lucky.
I remember, a few years ago (5?) that the various Mars programs being fronted by the U.S. government were in direct opposition to the way Zubrin and his Mars Society were proposing we do it - with the "Mars Direct Program".
... and thats good news.
Now, it seems that there are a significant number of Washington players who are getting behind the scientific thinking that Zubrin's program has produced for us
When I think about where we are currently at, evaluating the Mars situation, and where we've come as a result of an independent organization, it warms my heart. The Mars Society have done a lot to get humans thinking about going to Mars properly, and finally it seems like their momentum is having a great effect.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
There is a UN treaty banning the militarization of space. I'm pretty sure the US signed on as well.
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
Um, John Glenn never went to the moon. His only flights were on Friendship 7 (as part of the Mercury program) and on STS-95.
blog |
The Apollo spacecraft made the trip there in three days. Six days is a round trip.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
I can see you aren't an astrophysicist. The dark side of the moon is called that because it faces away from the Earth, not from the Sun. It gets the same semi-lunar worth of daytime as the near side.
2 seconds? Dude, the lightspeed delay between earth and the moon is just over 1 second. How the heck are you going to launch a projectile at 50% of c?
At this point, the military believes they can build an EM-cannon that will (in a vacum) give a muzzle velocity of about 2 miles (3.2km) per second. Not counting accelaration, that's 34 hours.
I'll leave it to someone else more motivated than I to calculate the velocity added by the rock 'falling' to the earth.
I'm not crazy,I'm actively irresponsible.
OK,
. ......6.0.........4.5
I keep hearing this idea of using the moon as a refueling station. If you haven't looked at the numbers, t seems like a good idea. However, a quick look at the actual orbital mechanics shows that the Moon is a big waste of time. Here's the breakdown for ow much Delta V is needed to get to the Moon and Mars:
Moon.........Mars
LEO to Moon/Mars..3.2.........4.0
Orbital Insertion.......0.9.........0.1
Orbit to Surface.......1.9.........0.4
Total.............
Yes, it actually takes LESS fuel to get to Mars primarily because it has an atmosphere you can use to aerobrake. The Moon has no atmosphere and so you have to carry fuel to bleed off your transorbital speed. Furthermore, Landing on Mars is assited by being able to use the aerobrake to bleed off speed on the way down unlike the Moon. Those figures even assume that you don't use a parachute and rely upon retrorockets to come to a stop.
OK, what about the idea of the Lunar refuelling station? You now lose the 1.9km/s of energy you need to get back off the lunar surface. (you still pay for it but the refuelling barge now pays that cost) The problem is that the cost of getting to the Moon and in and out of Lunar orbit is as expensive as getting to Mars to begin with. Sure, you now havea refuelled ship that can go to Mars from lunar orbit which is cheap BUT you just spent as much fuel getting to the Moon as it would have taken to go to Mars without stopping!
To use an analogy, I want to drive to New York from Seattle. Now, would it a be a good idea to send a bunch of my friends out to Washington DC to build a gas station for me so that I can drive there, gas up and then drive up to New York? NO! The only way it would make sense is if we were building a spaceship in lunar orbit which is simply insane - we can't even do that in LEO right now. Hell, we have enough trouble doing it on the ground right now.
Furthermore, as the other respondant mentioned, you can't make fuel on the Moon. All rockets that aren't ion drives (which have no need to refuel at the Moon anyways) need an oxidizer and fuel. There's plenty of O2 on the moon in the form of metal oxides. The Moon's something like 70% oxygen. There's plenty of metal and O2 if we want to expend the energy to get it. However, O2 is the oxidizer - we still need the fuel. All our fuels use (to my knowledge) carbon, nitrogen or hydrogen. That includes everything from gasoline and candle wax to hydrazine and liquid H2. The moon has no large supplies of H2, C or N. You'll have to haul all of those in anyways. It really makes no sense to refuel there.
There's plenty of good reasons to go to the Moon, refuelling on the way to Mars is NOT one of them.
It doesn't even make much sense to build the thing in orbit. Especially not for the first few exploratory missions. Orbital construction costs are still exorbitantly expensive. In a few decades, when it's significantly cheaper, it might make sense. But it doesn't right now.
In his book The Case For Mars, Dr. Robert Zubrin explains his plan for Mars exploration, called Mars Direct. Zubrin does a much better job of explaining it than I could, so I'll just say this: he figures that getting to Mars is doable with a low-earth-orbit mass of 70-100 tons. This is in the same range as the Saturn V's heavy lift capabilities, so it's achievable using common rocketry knowledge.
Y'know, you blow up one sun and suddenly everyone expects you to walk on water.