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.
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.
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.