Slashdot Mirror
Why NASA's Road To Mars Plan Proves That It Should Return To the Moon First
MarkWhittington writes: NASASpaceFlight.com published the results of current NASA thinking concerning what needs to be launched and when to support a crewed mission to Phobos and two crewed missions to the Martian surface between 2033 and 2043. The result is a mind-numbingly complex operation involving dozens of launches to cis-lunar space and Mars using the heavy lift Space Launch System. The architecture includes a collection of habitation modules, Mars landers, propulsion units (both chemical rockets and solar electric propulsion) and other parts of a Mars ship.
It doesn't "prove" a damn thing. NASA has been saying that a lunar base is a step to Mars for a decade at least .
From this article published in 2006 on NASA's website regarding why we should return to the moon:
Exploration Preparation
Test technologies, systems, flight operations and exploration techniques to reduce the risks and increase the productivity of future missions to Mars and beyond.
source: http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/home/why_moon.html
But I think it would take an awful lot of launches to get the fuel production up and running on the moon. And you'd need to design a new, hopefully reusable, moon launched vehicle/fuel depot.
I think the real problem is how expensive the SLS will be to launch, not the number of launches. Build a truly reusable vehicle, orbit the fuel depots around Earth. Send ISRU equipment to Mars (with lots of backups) and produce the fuel for the return trip. Then the cost of launching large payloads is reduced and there is no need to build a Moon base.
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
Actually there is a lot to be gained by going to the moon. a stable construction site for one.
Any mars vessel is going to be dozens of big parts. Think not only ISS size, but three times that size.
You need a massive rocket to get to mars, and a second one to get back. The return rocket actually has to get there first too. You need extra fuel tanks, a mars base which has to be big enough to grow food in. You need a rocket to go from mars ground to orbit to dock with the return rocket etc.
Even if you were smart and combined a shuttle orbiter type vessel and just kept picking up extra boosters and fuel tanks, you still have to get those parts out there to begin with. Once built just putting the support equipment in place is a decade long job, before you launch people.
having a Moon base would help with construction, and more importantly storage. Even better is if the moon actually has water with which we can use as fuel. as lunar orbit is cheaper to reach than earth orbit by a significant margin.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
"no it doesn't. it proves it should not go at all."
Have you read the article at all? Its main point is quite simple, the moon could be used as a refuelling stop for a Mars mission. Since most of the mass involved in a trip to Mars consists of fuel, the use of the Moon as a sort of interplanetary gas station would greatly reduce the number of trips need to rocket people to Mars.
This is the point you should rebut to support your assertion it's bullocks to go to Mars.
There is one big reason why the US should: Technology. And being the number 1 technology country. Or rather, becoming it again.
The US technology advantage was evident in the early 50s. It eroded quickly by the time the 60s came around. By 1970, the US were again the leading technology powerhouse of the planet, with US companies being the top, not among the top, but actually being THE top, of technology development. The US industry drew from this technological advantage until long into the 1980s and in some areas until the turn of the millennium. Even without any large scale investment in that area.
Screw the moon. And the mars while we're at it. Both are scientifically at best a curiosity, at worst a disappointment. But they give technology development a focus. Never before, or after, the moon program we made such incredibly fast developments in so many technological fields. Electronics. Computers. Propulsion. Metallurgy. Synthetic materials. But also some other, less "tangible" fields, from process management (which was pretty much invented back then) to organization structuring, people management and medical advances. And let's not forget the very real domestic and international boost the esteem of the United States got.
Yes, the cost was prohibitive. And one can of course argue that if you apply that money to researching these things directly, you will end up with cheaper results. But very synthetic results. Not to mention that you cannot justify those expenses to the population. And the results, as well as their value, is not immediately identifiable to those that should copy these results and put them to good use.
So yes, the direct use of such programs is insignificant. But the value of the indirect benefits is incredible.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The problem is the politicians giving the missions. We've already been to the Moon, logically, Mars is next. Except we all know there is nothing logical about it. I won't even get into the real reasons we went to the Moon; you all know them.
I might ask NASA what they think we should do. As the politician in charge, I'd take that with a grain of salt, but certainly give it due consideration. The main saltiness would be that they want to do exactly what the appropriating politicians want to do.
In the last thread a guy suggested a real spaceship. Sort of like a space station, except able to attach enough thrusters to go somewhere. A rotating habitat surrounded by a meter of water. Sounds damned expensive, but peanuts I think, compared to all this Mars shit.
Rich people would pay, scientists could study, astronauts could explore; and you don't die from being in it too long.
Then, after it's been a killer space station for a while, and perhaps looped the Moon and orbited an asteroid or something else neat; you have the option of firing it off towards Mars if you must.
That beats the shit out of focusing all our wealth on disposable stuff for the one single purpose of placing a footprint on red dirt.
"cis" literally means "on this side of", just as "trans" literally means "on the other side of".
cis-lunar space can be loosely defined as that part of space that is within half a million km from Earth (which includes the Moon itself, as well as all the Earth-Moon Lagrange points).
First, while Mars requires a longer journey, it actually isn't substantially harder to send a rocket to than the Moon. If you use aerobraking, it's about the same delta-v. Yes, more consumables would be needed because the flight is months instead of days, which does affect the mass of the payload, but it may also be easier to build a sustainable colony on Mars (presence of an atmosphere and maybe water, higher gravity). So I don't think Luna is even really useful as a practice run.
Second, a launch schedule like this is pretty much the only thing I've heard that could justify the development of SLS. The entire project has smelled like "big bucks on development, goes over budget or budget gets slashed so it only gets used a few times" from the beginning. If they can get Congress to give them the budget for this, yes, that would be worth making SLS for. Will Congress spring for thirty-plus Saturn V-class rockets, for only three missions? I don't think so, but I hope they will anyway.
First of all, the proposed SLS plan has nothing at all to do with getting to Mars, and everything to do with giving the illusion that SLS has a nice full launch manifest. The mission profile is deliberately designed to require the maximum number of launches of an insanely expensive rocket - so basically, the point is to take as long as possible and spend the maximum amount of money to get to Mars.
Instead, using technology that exists today (no on-orbit ship manufacturing or propellant depots) we could get to Mars in 10 or so years using something like Mars Direct. The only reason NASA isn't pursuing this, or a plan very much like it, is because it completely obviates the need for many of NASA's pet projects, and SLS. Also, it doesn't funnel maximum $$$ into certain congressional districts.
The reason we can't get shit done in space is because the politics of NASA are broken. The moon is just a distraction - it's like taking off from Kansas and stopping at Iceland on your way to Australia. There might be some things of interest on the moon, but it makes absolutely no sense as a Mars stepping stone.
Considering that current operational flight rate of the SLS averages around zero per decade - I don't see that as being much of a constraint.
Seriously, the Senate Launch System exists only to funnel pork - there are no payloads funded, let alone manifested.
We've been probing the Moon for half a century and have no conception of how to make meaningful quantities of water there.
Wait a minute! Let's not forget the first A in NASA. They do some serious aeronautics research that Musk likely would not be interested in doing. I'd hate to see vital research be dropped because all the money went to SpaceX instead.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Yes, they remain unsettled for a reason, but are still much more hospitable, than any other body of the Solar system. And the Internet latency will not suck.
Oh, and almost forgot, there is also ocean floor — roughly 2/3rds of the planet's surface... Today's 7 billion humans can grow to 40 or 60 before we really should start spending serious efforts to spilling over to another rock...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Check your privilege terranlord. Your humansplaining is hurtful to those that identify as other-celestial or planet-fluid.
More seriously, thank for the info. Was curious about the term, but not enough to rtfa - everyone knows a Mun base isn't helpful. Now Minmus...
But they give technology development a focus.
I think that's it right there. Technology development on its own largely depends on profit/loss market forces to shape its direction and development. As just one example, pharmaceutical research is biased towards therapies that are profitable, not necessarily ideal therapies or even cures, since cured people don't buy medicine.
A major space exploration program focuses technology development on its utility, first and its economics later. And it's not always the technologies the space program has developed, it's the practical research done developing them that's often the enduring value.
"Worst president of all time" sounds like a statement that needs a little bit of backup. Care to actually have evidence for the things you say?
1. He's black.
2. Er, that's it.
I think that's all the evidence most of the Trumpeteers need.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it