New Mars Forums

Bloody hell people! This isn't about long-term possibilities, this is about NASA's actual short-term ability and agenda. We will not be going to the moon in the near-term to extract any useful resource, period.

In fact, according to NASA, we will be going to look for water in cold spots, which will help sustain us on our way to search for more water in cold spots, apparently... Oh, and also to study dust.

Don't you see? It's pointless; hopeless. Your wishfull thinking will destroy any chance we have of doing something which may actually be useful, i.e contributing to real science.

Yes, the moon is easier because it is closer. Greenland is closer to Spain (and it had been explored before), so why didn't Columbus go there instead? It would have been a lot quicker. And settlement would have been easier to maintain from England...

This is just ridiculous, and it has to stop.

I found this posted on Marsnews.com today: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005 … rst.htm]En route to Mars, The Moon

Here we are arguing on this forum about whether we should bother to return to the moon, ignoring silly arguments like 'because it will be a great testing ground for Mars', instead looking at serious issues. Issues like the need for ISRU lunar oxygen, solar energy production, mining for PGM's, He3, setting up lunar observatories, and other worthwhile endeavors... And here's NASA, knowing full well these things are beyond their agenda, trying desperately to justify the moon as a first destination.

In other words, NASA, what you are trying to say is that they're both not Florida...?? (This is what I don't understand. The article is supposed to justify the moon as a testing ground for Mars, but then goes into the details of the differences between them...?)

This is just silly, and quite laughable coming from NASA's top people. What makes it even sillier is when the rest of the article goes on about how the moon will be so great because it has dust. Which is just perfect because Mars has dust too. Wow. How insightful.

Do you get it now?

NASA does not expect to go to the moon to mine PGM's, or lunar oxygen, or to set-up observatories, or even to do usefull science.

They are going as practice for Mars.

Which in my opinion, is unjustifiable; the moon is simply too different.

No it won't be easier, it will only be quicker.

My point exactly.

Now here's whats had me worried all along. Look at this, we are now concerned with ensuring an EELV will be economical by creating a work load for it. And as GCNRevenger has himself admitted, EELV's will only be good for lunar operations. So lets construct a sprawling moon-base, made up of small pieces requiring delivery on high flight-rate EELV's; EELV's that would otherwise be unattractively expensive to operate. Yup, sounds like a perfectly sane plan to me...

I don't propose shipping mission critical components on MLV's, just bits and bobs like science equipment, rovers, spares, and extra supplies. It may not be much, but anything helps, right? This way, the core Mars Direct architecture stays exactly as it is.

Delivering extra equipment seperately to the surface might also assist in the productiveness of the crew: I can imagine long-range rovers, mining and ISRU equipment, large inflatable greenhouses, and miscellaneous tools as potential cargoes.

I'm a Mars Direct/SDV-hugger only because I find it a settleable compromise between idealistic visions and realistic expectations. But I also beleive we will go nowhere if we cannot compromise on a plan, even if it means that the plan itself is compromised.

So what you are advocating is an EELV-based lunar program, then develop a clean-sheet HLLV, then top it all off with a DRM based (crew of six) Mars program, with some reusability thrown in? It's starting to look pretty complicated (read expensive) to me.

Yeah okay, you could free up a lot by firing the shuttle army. But I have to argue: Can we really kill The Army? In my opinion, the only sensible option would be to assimilate The Army into a much broader effort. I doubt NASA will ever be in the position (political or otherwise) to simply fire them (again, if that was the case, wouldn't they then be immediately re-hired to work on other projects?). NASA simply cannot do without them. Some may continue work on an SDV, others will be re-assigned to CEV and other projects.

The Army is NASA.

Shall we kill NASA? I'm all for it!

------------------------------------------------

Edit: Sorry, I have to respond directly to some of your statements.

"MarsDirect already has a problem of limited manhours per sortie each given the investment. The marginal cost of increasing the crew is a much better deal infact. Reducing the crew size isn't going to make up for the reactor mass is 400% too low, the rover is impossibly light, and that sort of thing either."

I too would like to see a bigger crew size, but only if the cost really was marginal, and its not (Last time I checked DRM was nearly twice as expensive as MD, both for development and recurring missions). But four is good enough for me, and we could still use MLV's to deliver smaller bits and pieces integral to the mission, if need be.

"It will be even worse since the astronauts will have no direct contact to anyone Earthside for about 2.5yrs. Nor will they have internet access, and nor will they have stars over their heads... it will just be a rarely-changing blackness through the small windows in their never-changing claustraphobic tin can."

Whatever happened to the days of posted letters? Actually, replying to your post has taken longer than the time delay expected from the marsian surface to the earth (you could imagine I'm already there, yippee). Internet access will be limited, due to the delay, but there will be workarounds. As far as the blackness of space? That's a silly conspiracy; short exposure film created that one. You can see stars in space, I assure you. But nevermind, I'm sure they'll survive.

"I also strongly side with the camp of psychiatrists that reccomend large CONTIGUOUS spaces, not the collection of closets that Zubrin wants, and not the extremely cramped ERV. In this respect, MarsDirect is simply unworkable, a single-deck HAB or the <6m ERV is just unacceptable."

DRM hab is not much bigger, considering the larger crew size, and there's no artificial gravity, a huge disadvantage both to mental and physical health.

"Zubrin says things that are at best dishonest and deceptive, and at worst, outright lies. If you support what he says about EELV, then you are too."

I am at best, unimformed, . But what I don't understand is that on one hand you advocate EELV's all the way, but then concede an HLV is needed for a 6-crew mars mission?  ???

You know what? Maybe your right. But if you are, there are a few things that might be done. The most obvious: Reduce the crew size from 4 to 3. Whoopee, all problems solved! In addition, smaller less critical components of the Mars Direct hardware could be launched separately on an MLV (or an additional launch of an SDV?).

Okay, this is one argument I simply can't agree with. Crew psychological health is way over-rated, IMO. During transit, the crew will have access to the internet, huge music libraries, movies, a nights sky full of stars, each others company, etc. And during their 1.5 year surface stay, they will have a comfortable day/night cycle, freedom to roam on the surface, a stimulating work routine, etc. Damn, I'll volunteer!

I have yet to see a mission plan that is more capable than Mars Direct. Do you have something in mind, GCNRevenger?
Zubrin repeats in his book: Destination drives Transportation. I would personally like to get there before we start thinking about permanent human habitation and terraformation, which are about the only two things Mars Direct doesn't cover.

Damnit! I am so sick of hearing this! Why is it so damn critical SDV must be 'cheap enough to fly'? Is the space shuttle cheap enought to fly? Was the Saturn V cheap enough to fly? What is cheap enough to fly? Again, stop obsessing over launch costs and look at the bigger picture.

Yes, and I don't blame him 'cause its the damn truth.

Yes, he is hell bent (I will give you that one!), but how can he put thought to something that, most optimistically, might occur 50 years or more from now? He will not even be alive. And in all likelyhood, neither will you

NASA will not be returning to the Moon to mine platinum, Damnit! Yes, that might be a great idea, but no matter how logical it may seem, IT WILL NOT HAPPEN!

I promise.

Now let us please be realistic in the context of NASA's near-term capability and agenda.

Will Griffin have the power as chief to scrap the shuttle? Might it be possible to speed development of the CEV, and launch it, with ISS payloads, on a quickly adapted SDV? If it could be done, this would certainly be a good start to the Moon-Mars program. A good compromise which should satisfy everyone, no? ???

Nah... 

Never underestimate the stupidity (bureaucracy?) of NASA. They did it to Hubble, they can do it to the MER's. 

Why not an architecture which uses both medium and heavy lift? A hybrid of sorts; it could utilize the best attributes from both. Maybe a cargo only SDV for heavy lift items like the hab, then send the crew up for rendezvous on a man-rated CEV/MLV... Or keep the SDV man-rated, launched with a crewed hab, and send the other bits and pieces on a conventional MLV. Mars Direct might also benefit from a similar architecture. Sending small stuff like science equipment, rovers, supplies etc. on an MLV might give you a little extra mass to play with.  :;):

Those 6 reasons are complete BS, IM'H'O. Quite laughable, actually.