Slashdot Mirror
Moon is Stepping Stone, Not Alternative To Mars, NASA Chief Says (scientificamerican.com)
The moon has not superseded Mars as a human-spaceflight target, despite NASA's current focus on getting astronauts to Earth's nearest neighbor, agency officials stressed. From a report: The Red Planet remains the ultimate destination, and the moon will serve as a stepping stone along the way, Jim Bridenstine, NASA administrator, and Bill Gerstenmaier, associate administrator of NASA's Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate, said during congressional hearings Wednesday. "The moon is the proving ground, and Mars is the goal," Bridenstine said during testimony before the Subcommittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness, part of the U.S. Senate's Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. "The glory of the moon is that it's only a three-day journey home," Bridenstine added. "So, we can prove all of the technologies, we can reduce all of the risks, we can try all of the different maturations that are necessary to live and work on another world. And we can do it all at the moon, where, if there is a problem, if there is an emergency, we know that we can get people home." He cited NASA's Apollo 13 mission in 1970, which famously managed to make it safely back to Earth despite experiencing a serious problem on the way to the moon.
So, we can prove all of the technologies, we can reduce all of the risks, we can try all of the different maturations that are necessary to live and work on another world.
If this guy thinks that Mars has no "surprises" up its sleeve he is going to be proved sorely mistaken. Possibly fatally so.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It's about time somebody stated this. We supposedly went to the moon in the 60's/70's. Haven't been back in nearly 50 years? WTF?
Now they talk about going to Mars! I've always thought that it would make more sense to build a moon base to launch spacecraft further into space. Finally someone else says it.
We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, because they are easy, not because they are hard, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept. Going to Mars we are willing to postpone, which we intend to lose, and let others, do.
We have been lacking in the space exploration for a while now. A lot of people think we can just go to Mars now, while in reality we are in a Space Age Dark Age so we are actually kinda stupid on Space Travel, and we are back to thinking of it in Science fiction terms vs practical.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Between the Lunar Gateway and the Space Launch System, NASA won't have any money left over to go to the Moon's surface itself.
Which is why you propose going there, try to get some popular support, then go ask Congress for money.
For the foreseeable future, NASA isn't even planning to go to the moon. They're planning to be a space station in cislunar orbit. It will be mad expensive, will not help in any way with actually getting to the Moon or Mars, isn't even really all that close to the Moon at all, and is generally going to be a huge waste of money. Between the Lunar Gateway and the Space Launch System, NASA won't have any money left over to go to the Moon's surface itself.
Thank you, I came here to say just about the same thing.
This is a jobs program for NASA employees and contractors, that's all. It's simply meant to maintain the status quo. NASA has no real intentions of going anywhere with manned missions. NASA, like all large organizations, especially large bureaucratic government agencies, has become far, far too risk-averse to ever do anything bold or novel. As someone who was alive to watch the first Mercury missions, it's very sad.
US manned space exploration has become the exclusive domain of private corporations like SpaceX. Bureaucracy whose first priority is CYA combined with PC politics and crony-capitalism has destroyed NASA as a space pioneering organization.
The SLS and the cis-Lunar station proposed will be useless for going to Mars. The most efficient method is going direct from Earth orbit to Mars. Now, an orbiting Mars station would be extremely useful but again, it's a risk-bridge far too far for an enormous risk-averse US government bureaucracy.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Mars is interesting, no doubt, but it's not where we should be going.
Venus is Earth's twin.
For the foreseeable future, NASA isn't even planning to go to the moon. They're planning to be a space station in cislunar orbit. It will be mad expensive, will not help in any way with actually getting to the Moon or Mars, isn't even really all that close to the Moon at all, and is generally going to be a huge waste of money. Between the Lunar Gateway and the Space Launch System, NASA won't have any money left over to go to the Moon's surface itself.
Man you should of posted that with a log in. Just from an orbital mechanics standpoint having the way station in earth orbit always was just as good as in lunar orbit and considerably cheaper as well. This goes back to Von Braun's original plans for lunar exploration. Anyway I would be willing to bet the team in Huntsville manages to suck enough money from the NASA budget that even the Lunar Gateway never happens.
We have been lacking in the space exploration for a while now. A lot of people think we can just go to Mars now, while in reality we are in a Space Age Dark Age so we are actually kinda stupid on Space Travel, and we are back to thinking of it in Science fiction terms vs practical.
Meh, technology-wise I think we're in good shape. Even though the people on the ISS haven't been going anywhere we have long term experience with living in space. Basically it's not about where you are, it's about keeping the conditions on the inside habitable. We also have decades more experience sending satellites and probes. What's missing is money, lots and lots of money. Look at Falcon Heavy, there's still just the demo flight and no more heavy launches scheduled this year. There's two next year, but the market is like 1/10th of the F9.
What's the market for the BFR? Today, none. Musk was guessing $2-10 billion to develop, most likely $5 billion but that's just 10-50% of NASA's budget for a single year. If you had Apollo level funding with 4.5% of the federal budget it'd be $200 billion in the peak year. With that and the same "beat the Ruskies at any cost" attitude we'd be on Mars by 2025, no doubt in my mind. But since that's not happening we need something a lot cheaper. I hope Musk will fly the first re-re-used booster soon.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Radiation protection is something humans need to figure out. I don't know that we need a moon orbiting space to learn that, but we definitely need to be outside LEO.
We also need some artificial gravity - spin the damn thing most of the time to have .8G to 1.0G - there are lots and lots of reasons for that too.
But spending too much money on the lunar crap to "be there for 50+ yrs" isn't needed. NASA needs to learn to build what you need and nothing more. Their budgets get fucked with every year because they have so much extra built-in. NASA is welfare for scientists.
BTW, I was a NASA contractor at JSC for 7 yrs and worked on some amazing programs, but even back then I knew that most of NASA was welfare for scientists.
NASA needs to become more focused on other planets. Boeing and Airbus are big enough to pick up fundamental science work. Same for the USAF - if they think supersonic craft are necessary to their mission, the AF should do that research, not NASA.
NOAA needs to have their budget doubled and they should be doing all the space-based observations of Earth.
There's a lot of places on Earth that are a lot more hospitable than the Moon -- the middle of the Sahara, Antactica, the seafloor -- that are still pretty inaccessible to us. Yeah, we can get there, and with a continuous supply chain we can stay there a while, but we're not going to have a continuous supply chain to Mars. Whoever goes to Mars has to be able to make it there on their own. So we need to be able to at least have permanent self-sustaining settlements in the most inhospitable places on Earth, if we're ever going to have permanent self-sustaining settlements off-Earth.
And by the time we're able to do that, we've eliminated one of the biggest reasons to have people off-Earth in the first place, because if we have "colonies" on Earth that are capable of surviving Martian conditions, they'll also survive everything that could ever happen to Earth short of the death of the sun. Climate change? Nuclear holocaust? Giant meteor? Living in the aftermath of those is a cake walk compared to living on Mars.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
To have a supply chain anywhere. Fuel can be really cheap if done well.
[($)]
A fee days ago Ariane 5 had its 100ds launch.
So much to "dark space age" ...
"so we are actually kinda stupid on Space Travel" ... landing is hard. And it takes some time to get to the destination. Oh, and if you want to live there, you probably need a habitate ....
Actually we are not. Space travel is super simple
Nevertheless: most of this is centuries old tech.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The most efficient method is going direct from Earth orbit to Mars.
Define "efficient".
In terms of energy, most certainly not.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
WTF is cislunar orbit and how does it differ from any other lunar orbit?
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
You are making some wrong assumptions here. The goal is not to save the human race but the civilisation and Earth itself. Even in the worst case scenarios of asteroid strikes or supervulcano eruption the human race will survive, the human civilization or the earth ecosystem not.
Technologically we can do any time a self-sustainable earth “colony” anywhere on Earth but there is no need for it. Nobody will invest in a self-sustained outpost in Artic or desert when is much cheaper just to haul supplies from earth.
Having a permanent presence outside the gravity well is having both short and long term benefits.
Short time:
- Having a fuel resupply station in space will decrease the costs of longer range missions and at the same time making impossible missions possible.
- Have a platform from where you are not only observing the space outside the atmosphere and electromagnetic interference but also a place from where you can launch “strike” missions against dangerous asteroids.
- A place from where you can launch missions for controlling climate via a solar shade against global warming for example
Medium time:
- Start making a self-sustainable habitat step by step by harvesting resources from asteroids and make an artificial biome at the same time
- Make an industrial base in zero-g which could manufacture some materials which will be more expensive in earth gravity or even impossible
- Get rid of nuclear waste or even make experiments which are too dangerous on earth like a damned big nuclear weapon able to pulverise an asteroid
Long time:
- Create a network of habitats which will help us colonize space and planets.
- Whatever will make us to not keep all the eggs in the same basket.
At this moment I’m against focusing on mission to Mars because even if it is technically possible now if you throw a lot of money, it will be nothing more than a gimmick and a onetime shot like the moon landing was. It was an engineering marvel but was written off because of lack of long time vision (politically).
The SLS and the cis-Lunar station proposed will be useless for going to Mars. The most efficient method is going direct from Earth orbit to Mars.
I disagree. I won't argue for the SLS except to say that NASA does what they are told with the money they are given that is already earmarked for those goals. However, a Lunar station is an important part of the mission to Mars. There is a lot about deep space habitats we don't know. There is a lot of engineering that needs to be applied and have the bugs worked out. There is a lot of research that needs to be done about humans in deep space for long periods with regards to radiation, gravity, sustainability, etc. There's more needed for applications such as using sufficient propulsion on a structure as would be needed to go to Mars. Apollo 1 didn't land people on the Moon. Mercury was needed before that. There is still plenty of work needed before we can go to Mars.
It takes barely any more delta v to go to Mars than it does to go to Moon orbit.
The point was about starting from Earth or starting from the Moon,
not about going to the Moon or going to Mars.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.