New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: We've recently made changes to our user database and have removed inactive and spam users. If you can not login, please re-register.

#1 2005-04-14 07:04:47

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 15,793

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

Before the other thread crashes and knowing that this discusion will continue on at least until the SEV is cancelled or we actually get to go.

I thought it was just time to give some Moon facts.

The Moon, by contrast as come pared to Earth 23º tilt, sits more upright, being tilted at just 1.5º relative to the Earth's path around the Sun. Moon's environment is definitely harsh. Without an appreciable atmosphere to distribute heat, most lunar regions swing from -180°C to 100°C as the Moon rotates in and out of sunlight every 29.5 days. The Moon's poles are thought to be less extreme as to regards to the wild temperature swings. Unlike the Earth, the Moon spins nearly vertically with respect to the plane of its orbit around the Sun and so the poles never experience a sunset - the Sun just skims around the horizon as the Moon rotates. This constant light should provide stable temperatures is estimated to range between minus 40 and minus 60°Celsius (minus 40 to minus 76° Fahrenheit), which by lunar standards is relatively balmy and stable.

[url=http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7263]
Sunny spot picked out for future lunar base[/url]

US President George W Bush announced a plan in 2004 to build a permanent lunar base from which people can explore the moon, and then go on to Mars.

But did he really say this or is this just the wishes of all?


Moon images reveal bright spots for lunar base

A handful of spots on the rim of the Peary crater were lit for the entire lunar day.

Sunny Moon Spot Found for Colony

The spot is located on a highland close to the lunar north pole, between three large impact craters called Peary, Hermite

Offline

#2 2005-04-14 07:05:45

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 15,793

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

Sounds like it is time to revisit this old plan of attack.

NASA's future lies on moon, Mars

Griffin In a previous job at NASA about a decade ago, championed a mission called "First Lunar Outpost" that the Congressional Budget Office says would cost $35 billion now. The 45-day manned mission would propel an astronaut habitat and four-person lander to the moon. Astronauts would test to see whether lunar soil can generate oxygen for breathing and rocket fuel.

Offline

#3 2005-04-14 11:41:21

dicktice
Member
From: Nova Scotia, Canada
Registered: 2002-11-01
Posts: 1,764

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

It seems odd, at first, that the Moon's rotational axis is tilted hardly at all (1.5 degrees) relative to its orbital plane. But then if it was formed by an impact by a planetoid, which arrived from the plane of the ecliptic of the Solar System, perhaps knocking Earth's axis of rotation off in the process (?) maybe not so odd after all. Constant solar-electric power generation, derived from structures built on those mountain tops, should be possible on the Moon after all.

Offline

#4 2005-04-14 17:48:08

RobS
Member
From: South Bend, IN
Registered: 2002-01-15
Posts: 1,701
Website

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

I think the vertical axis of the moon has nothing to do with the original impact. The Earth's axis changes its tilt because of gravitational perturbations by Jupiter and other planets. Mars even more so, from near zero degrees to as much as 60 degrees (!). The earth changes its tilt less because the main angular momentum in the Earth-moon system is in the moon whizzing around the Earth once a month. The moon pulls on the axis of the Earth and tries to stand it up vertically; the rotating earth responds by trying to increase the inclination of the moon's orbit. The result is that the moon's orbit has a tilt, but less than the earth's axis, and probably not even tilted in the same direction. I guess somehow all this dampens out the various pulls on the moon's axis, but I don't know enough physics to know how.

          -- RobS

P.S.: I should add that Phobos and Deimos are helpless in the face of Mars's strong pull. They orbit the Martian equator and their polar axes tilt in the same direction and by the same amount as Mars. So they have no polar ice deposits.

Offline

#5 2005-04-14 19:02:58

dicktice
Member
From: Nova Scotia, Canada
Registered: 2002-11-01
Posts: 1,764

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

I was just trying to rationalize, what otherwise seemed almost too fortuitous to believe, that the Moon was erect, so to speak, enough to enable continuous sunlight on mountains of a fortuitous crater, near fortuitous smaller craters having floors in continuous darkness capablle of storing water-ice.

Offline

#6 2005-04-15 04:48:38

John_Frazer
Member
From: Boulder, Co. USA
Registered: 2002-05-29
Posts: 75
Website

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

Fear and Dread
(the 2 horses which pulled Mars' war chariot)

RobS (April 14 2005)
> I should add that Phobos and Deimos are helpless in the
face of Mars's strong pull. They orbit the Martian equator and
their polar axes tilt in the same direction and by the same
amount as Mars. So they have no polar ice deposits.

They don't need it. It's strongly indicated that they're a lot like extinct comet cores -enough regolith covering them to protect them from the Sun, but underneath it, they're weak foamy ices. Probably ten meters of regolith at the poles, maybe 30 in their equatorial regions. Their average density is about .28g/cc (water is 1g/cc)

And what possible use is ice at the poles on our Moon? how do we get it? How do we process it and get it back up to where it can be of any use? Far more infrastructure than anything foreseeable in the near future. Maybe 30 years down the line, if NASA gets off it's bureaucratic butt and decides to actually get something done besides meet political obligations and fly circles in LEO.

There have been proposals to get to Mars since before Von Braun's, and some bits of merit in all of them. One nearly forgotten one was to team up with the Soviets before the turn of the century.
Dr.Brian O'Leary wrote a book called "Mars 1999". It was what Zubrin in his book "the Case for Mars" would have called a grandiose mega-plan, with a "Battlestar Galactica" sized behemoth being built in orbiting hangars and such.
One thing O'Leary proposed that makes sense is to build up an initial presense at Mars' moons, for ice. Fuel for exploration, consumeables, and return to who-ever is in LEO and needs water or H2/O2 or CH4 or nitrates.
His first manned mission might not even have tried to set foot on Mars, instead concentrating on making a return on the investment ASAP by collecting ices. Tele-operate rovers and flyers and explore Mars that way, to prepare and pick a site, maybe place transponders to aid the first landing.
The key was that the first crew rotation back to Earth and every further one brought back a tank of water and other ices.

For each payload we place in LEO which is bound for GEO or interplanetary trajectories, about 45% of the mass we've put up is the oxidiser in the upper stage for kicking it beyond LEO. That goes for future Mars-bound payloads too.

Using aerobraking to get into Martian orbit, far less delta-V is needed to get to these ice-rich moons, and given their low gravity, and using aerobraking to get back into Earth orbit, even less is needed to get back than our own Moon. Add to this the ices, and even regolith if you want to process it, and they are far better targets than our Moon.

Our Moon has been called the slag-pile of the solar system, because it's "ores" are about what an asteroid miner would throw away as not economical to process further. Zubrin said that if there were concrete on the Moon, they'd mine it for the water. permanent.com reported that for every item we make out of metals from Lunar resources, we need 7 to 10 times the finished mass in water and process chemicals.

Zubrin also said the the Moon was not a stepping stone to Mars -more of a stumbling block.

Given the absolute fundamental differences, the Moon is a worse training ground for Mars explorers than the Earth, and given the delta-V needed to get there, even if there were free fuel and oxidiser waiting on the Moon, it would make more sense to go directly from Earth to Mars.

Why are we here even considering it?
I'd much rather see a first mission go to an NEA for ices and science, and maybe experience with asteroid deflection, mining, and eventual space industry.
Given that Mars is a big sexy politically popular target (with a huge science bonanza), Fear and Dread are our best hopes.

It makes no sense to use EELVs based on adaptations of designs based on 1960s long-range artillery to do orbital docking and assembly to get to our Moon. We need a true HLV to lift real payloads to Mars orbit, and the Shuttle stack -minus the orbiter- is what we've got now. Shuttle-C can start us, the Ares or Shuttle-Z can continue until we get something else.

Look over this one for info on mining and transporting ices from NEAs and Mars' moons.
www.neofuel.com

See this for realistic ways Phobos and Diemos can be useful, and why they may be prefered
The Diemos Water Company
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/the_ … pany.shtml

Offline

#7 2005-04-15 05:39:44

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 15,793

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

Practice on the moon is fine but practice it with the intent that you are on Mars as if you were simulating each step of a mars voyage.
Design ships (CEV and Cargo) to size for the journey as if you were going for the duration of a 9 month trip to mars the 15 months on the surface to be followed by the 9 month return. Just do not fill it as full or just stay longer on the moon with what you do bring.

Offline

#8 2005-04-15 08:39:55

GCNRevenger
Member
From: Earth
Registered: 2003-10-14
Posts: 6,056

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

So John, are you just incidentally clueless, or are you trying to be intentionally deceptive?

"And what possible use is ice at the poles on our Moon? how do we get it? How do we process it and get it back up to where it can be of any use? Far more infrastructure than anything foreseeable in the near future."

Completly false. Utterly untrue... If there is water there deposited from comet impacts, then it will not be deeply buried. Simply heating up the soil would volitize the water, where it could be very easily condenced with a Lunar-shadow cold trap. And it would already be completly pure as it is distilled during extraction. Use solar thermal or small nuclear reactors little bigger then trashcans to split the water in a Copper/Chlorine cycle, prechill the gas in the shadow, and liquify it. Not very hard at all, and even a small plant could make signifigant amounts if operated continuously. Your statement to the contrary is simply without merit.

Selling rocket fuel is never going to be economical for a long, long time. What it is good for though is radically reducing the cost if you don't have to lift all your fuel from Earth.

And the big, huge, elephant-in-the-room difference between the difficulty in getting to the Moon and to the Martian moons is very simple: The Moon is not 30,000,000mi away. The short flight times to the Moon permit you to radically reduce the size of vehicles required since you need not develop the vehicles big enough, robust enough, and stocked enough for three years... a month would do for the Moon.

"permanent.com reported that for every item we make out of metals from Lunar resources, we need 7 to 10 times the finished mass in water and process chemicals."

They are wrong. Microwave-heated smelting for bulk metals wouldn't require a drop of anything. Permanent.com bases this statement on an outdated apraisel of available technologies. Their opinion is obsolete. Your opinion is obsolete... And if you are talking about PGMs, as we are running out of them on Earth right now, then lifting a few pounds of volitiles to bring back a pound of PGMs is a real steal.

"Our Moon has been called the slag-pile of the solar system, because it's "ores" are about what an asteroid miner would throw away"

Another ignorant statement. Say John, why do you think that the Moon has craters, and is not flat as a marble? Whats that you say? Because asteroids hit the Moon, and thanks to its gravity, are still there. Doubly thanks to Lunar gravity, its much easier to set up a mining base because you have gravity, and all your construction and mining doesn't have to bother with zero-gravity. This is a huge huge advantage, as proven with the ISS that even the simplest tasks are a major operation without gravity.

And last but not least, the most stupidly ignorant statement in your post: "It makes no sense to use EELVs based on adaptations of designs based on 1960s long-range artillery to do orbital docking and assembly to get to our Moon."

The EELVs are not derivitives of ICBMs. The above statement is especially devoid of merit, as it is factually untrue. That was the whole point of building the EELVs rather then glueing together missiles, that they are specifically designed for space launch from the ground up, everything about them. And they can do this with high efficency, since they take advantage of modern automation and new fabrication techniques a generation beyond the manpower-intensive Shuttle-derived vehicles. It is pretty clear that SDV will have a very difficult time offering a lower price then a modestly updated EELV+, which will have much more flexibility for resupply, medium military payloads, and heavy probes too.

Edit: Oh, and the EELVs actually fly, unlike SDV, and would need relativly little development to build a heavy Delta-IV HLV compared to a big SDV.

Edit edit: Oh, and you know all that "worthless Lunar slag?" Well guess what? It happens to be full of oxygen, in the event there isn't enough water in the soil to dig up.


"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw

The glass is at 50% of capacity

Offline

#9 2005-04-15 10:03:28

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 15,793

Offline

#10 2005-04-15 11:13:42

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 15,793

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

While we have been talking about the best place to start a moon colony as well as one of the first places to explore the ESA SMART-1 will search for lunar peaks of eternal light that we have made note of before.

“If we can confirm peaks of eternal light”, adds Bernard Foing, SMART-1 Project Scientist, “these could be a key locations for possible future lunar outposts”.

Offline

#11 2005-04-16 16:51:10

John_Frazer
Member
From: Boulder, Co. USA
Registered: 2002-05-29
Posts: 75
Website

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

> So John... are you trying to be intentionally deceptive?

:angry: Damn! foiled again... I hate it when my nefarious schemes get derailed like that.

Lunar polar ice in a near-term scenario:
I'm going by many various NASA and scholarly sponsored symposia, the AIAA, and a lot of other qualified observers and writers.
So, what are your qualifications, besides being a cock-sure opinionated internet poster (poser?) who doesn't even put their real name in a profile? Where have you seen things published in these peer-reviewed aerospace journals that sucessfully completeely overturns all this?

How do you get to/from the poles? With cargo? What's the delta-V penalty for plane change? On top of the Delta-V just to get to/from the Moon's surface?

> The short flight times to the Moon permit you to radically reduce the size of vehicles required since you need not develop the vehicles big enough, robust enough, and stocked enough for three years... a month would do for the Moon.

Sorry, but by expert opinions I've seen for decades, the benefit of the vastly lower delta-V to get to them far outweighs the "benefit" of being closer. The only doubt is in communications delay, and possibly emegency medical evac back to Earth, but most qualified engineers and flight planners don't place too much stock in that.
And like Mars Direct, you don't go fully stocked for 3&1/2 years, except for provision for direct-to-Earth interplanetary abort. "Live off the land" is how it's been put, and at Mars' moons, you've got 24/7 sunlight, H2O, CO, CO2, CH4, NH3, and cosmic ray shielding.

(funny, I could have sworn that the Atlas, Delta, and Titan were ICBMs... But I shouldn't poo-poo them. Even the SS-18 has been used to put up comsats, and the Delta heavies have a pretty good record.)

Offline

#12 2005-04-17 12:25:19

GCNRevenger
Member
From: Earth
Registered: 2003-10-14
Posts: 6,056

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

Sure, large-scale water mining/conversion on an industrial scale is a ways off, no argument there. I'm talking about setting up a small plant that would be used to refuel resueable explorer-class vehicles to build, supply, and crew a small base for mining tech testing and expansion.

Penalty for plane-change? You are going to have to that anyway unless the crew rides on the HLLV. You would have to rendevous in LEO if the lander is sent seperatly or together with the HLLV. CEV sounds like it is being massed to ride on the Atlas-V or Thiokol-SRB along with its TEI stage.

"...the benefit of the vastly lower delta-V to get to them far outweighs the "benefit" of being closer."

Nonsense! The stuff that is worth digging up isn't that heavy (PGMs, He3), bulk contruction metals are worthless. And any sort of base will not be self-sufficent for a long long time. It would be like trying to operate an oil derrick off the coast of Antarctica instead of Florida, the distance and conditions (zero-g) make a huge difference. Six months one way or three days? It ain't rocket science... I am also very interested to know how you intend to mine without any gravity. That alone would take a long, long time to learn to do, if it can be done at all. And you want to grow you own food too without gravity? Lovely.


"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw

The glass is at 50% of capacity

Offline

#13 2005-04-17 13:35:44

Commodore
Member
From: Upstate NY, USA
Registered: 2004-07-25
Posts: 1,021

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

Well the Moon has lots of low tech stuff that could be used immediately. The mined water could be used for fuel, either for lunar exploration, or for storage and launch later for cyclers and other craft, that now don't have to launched with all that fuel.

The regolith itself can be baked into bricks for surface installations, or sent up on a RLV and applied to a manned interplanetary craft for radiation protection. Again, something we don't have to launch from earth.

Mineral deposits can be smelted, though not in large quantities right off. But much metal do we need to produce, say, a trust section for the ISS? What about Solar Panels?

Later on, large, empty metal tanks resembling the current ET’s can be built and pressurized, and made into habitats by astronauts using nothing more advanced than the stuff you see on "This Old House".

If we stick with it, gravity will allow us to grow some food up there, removing the need to send such expendables to the ISS form Earth. If its still there.

All these can be done on the Moon, and would make a Mars mission a little easier, both in the execution of the mission, and in testing the technologies we need anyway. A moon base will reduce the cost of launching from earth. Or at least give us more bang for our buck.


"Yes, I was going to give this astronaut selection my best shot, I was determined when the NASA proctologist looked up my ass, he would see pipes so dazzling he would ask the nurse to get his sunglasses."
---Shuttle Astronaut Mike Mullane

Offline

#14 2005-04-17 14:23:16

GCNRevenger
Member
From: Earth
Registered: 2003-10-14
Posts: 6,056

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

I'm comparing a Lunar PGM/Volitiles mine to one on the Martian moons.

1: You can get there easier since its so close, that you can put people in a 6MT capsule for three days easier instead of a 30MT multi-deck mothership for six months. The resupply and reuse of the mothership alone would be a big cost just from the complexity/reliability standpoint. There also wouldn't be any quick abort to Earth I would imagine. Its easier to get to the Moon then Mars.

2: The Delta-V difference isn't such a big deal when you have Lunar rocket fuel or oxidizer, especially considering the stuff you mine won't be needed in ton quantities.

3: Gravity is a HUGE bennefit to mining and construction, operating in zero-G is difficult for even simple tasks.


"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw

The glass is at 50% of capacity

Offline

#15 2005-04-19 06:02:14

Grypd
Member
From: Scotland, Europe
Registered: 2004-06-07
Posts: 1,847

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

Seems the ESA probe Smart 1 has found an area of the Lunar North Pole that could well be a peak of almost eternal sunshine.

SpaceDaily article

Needless to say added with this article

Nature Article

With this and the possible nearby Hydrogen indications this is one of the most important spots for space explorers and the development of the Moon ever found.


Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.

Offline

#16 2005-04-19 06:07:17

Grypd
Member
From: Scotland, Europe
Registered: 2004-06-07
Posts: 1,847

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

Japans intention is to go to the Moon and take telerobotic robots. The Robots would do the regolith moving and infrastructure creation while leaving the Human crew to do the science and exploration.

Asahi article

Of course this needs funding and public approval but with the Japanese love of all things robotic(just look at Manga) and it could well happen.


Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.

Offline

#17 2005-04-22 07:33:25

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 15,793

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

Don't Breathe the Moondust

When humans return to the Moon and travel to Mars, they'll have to be careful of what they inhale.

In 1972, Apollo astronaut Harrison Schmidt sniffed the air in his Lunar Module, the Challenger. "[It] smells like gunpowder in here," he said. His commander Gene Cernan agreed. "Oh, it does, doesn't it?"

The two astronauts had just returned from a long moonwalk around the Taurus-Littrow valley, near the Sea of Serenity. Dusty footprints marked their entry into the spaceship. That dust became airborne--and smelly.

Just one more reason to give a though plan for the habitat to crew entrance to have some sort of dust removal system. One type for mars we have discused was the Co2 compressed gas system. But any source of a gas of any type might do the job just as well.

Offline

#18 2005-05-19 13:22:53

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 15,793

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

But then again breath the air that is trapped within.
NASA Challenge: Pull Oxygen from Moon Dirt, Win $250,000 the latest award in the space agency's Centennial Challenges program.

Gee another contest...

The cash prize is the reward for winners of the agency's Moon Regolith Oxygen (MoonROx) challenge, the third contest set by NASA to encourage commercial space industry.

In the MoonROx contest, NASA and the Florida Space Research Institute (FSRI) challenge inventors to pull at least 11 pounds (five kilograms) of breathable oxygen from a volcanic ash-derived lunar soil substitute called JSC-1.

But it doesn't end there. Participants not only have to extract the oxygen, but must accomplish the feat within eight hours. The competition expires June 1, 2008.

"Oxygen extraction technologies will be critical for both robotic and human missions to the moon," said Sam Durrance, executive director for FSRI. "Like other space-focused prize competitions, the MoonROx challenge will encourage a broad community of innovators to develop technologies that expand our capabilities."

Why an 8 hour period for extraction?

Other challenges are mentioned in the article.

Offline

#19 2005-05-26 06:44:38

Grypd
Member
From: Scotland, Europe
Registered: 2004-06-07
Posts: 1,847

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

NASA to make a map of the Moon.

Spacedaily article

This shows that we have actually a very poor base knowledge of our nearest neighbour. Until this probe is operational and its data added to Smarts and clementines we will have +or- of 300 km in knowing where an object actually is.


Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.

Offline

#20 2005-05-26 07:08:47

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 15,793

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

Yup previously mentioned Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter spacecraft to be launched in 2008. But that had reduced funding in 2005 an 2006 I believe, so any Lunar Orbiter Laser Altimeter LOLA measurements that work by bouncing pulses of laser light off the lunar surface as it orbits the Moon.

It works by measuring the time it takes for light to travel to the surface and back, LOLA can calculate the roundtrip distance. LOLA is capable of timing pulses with a precision of 0.6 nanoseconds, corresponding to a distance error of no more than 10 cm.

Sort of like the new radar speed trap guns that law enforment uses.

Offline

#21 2005-06-13 12:42:18

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 15,793

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

Say this is not trueNASA sees earliest manned moon landing in 2015. Why? ???

5 years after shuttle is retired, why are we finally busy on the Iss or is there another reason, groan but no later than 2020.

"We have enough money to put people back on the moon in that timeframe," he said. "The model that I have is that we should build a lunar outpost similar to the kinds of multinational outposts we have in Antarctica."

oh I see now, we are saving the money to build with. not...

Offline

#22 2005-06-13 13:02:37

GCNRevenger
Member
From: Earth
Registered: 2003-10-14
Posts: 6,056

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

NASA won't actually have much real money until about 2010 to spend on VSE, and even after that the ISS will still be sucking up about 1/4th of NASA's budget until the thing is finally abandoned.


"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw

The glass is at 50% of capacity

Offline

#23 2005-06-13 13:08:14

Grypd
Member
From: Scotland, Europe
Registered: 2004-06-07
Posts: 1,847

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

Great so a return to the Moon between 2015 and 2020 what does this do to a Mars mission well where talking likely now to be 2030 at the minimum.

Of course this is an estimate and does not allow for any funds to be removed from NASA anything like this to happen and there estimates will be put back a lot more.

From an alternative perspective this actually will allow the other agencies time to be able to get there own attempts to go. Will it be the USA or ESA or even the Chinese, of course there are the outside chancers like Russia or India.


Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.

Offline

#24 2005-06-13 16:24:41

Fledi
Member
From: in my own little world (no,
Registered: 2003-09-14
Posts: 325

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

Don't forget about private enterprise. Ok they don't have much more than promises now, but 2030 is a long time away and somehow I have the feeling that lots of people think they've waited long enough for governments to start developing space and now they're beginning to take matters into their own hands.

Offline

#25 2005-06-13 16:46:01

Grypd
Member
From: Scotland, Europe
Registered: 2004-06-07
Posts: 1,847

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

Don't forget about private enterprise. Ok they don't have much more than promises now, but 2030 is a long time away and somehow I have the feeling that lots of people think they've waited long enough for governments to start developing space and now they're beginning to take matters into their own hands.

Possibly, but then again in 20 years time do we really know what is to happen. Look at 1985 for an example this was when we still thought the USSR was going to come and destroy the western world and our only hope was the Reagan sponsored star wars! In fact things where so bad that the USA was not even going to go to the olympics as a result of the USSR invading afghanistan.

Oh and the best film in the animated section of the Oscars was when the wind blows a tale about the effect of a nuclear war.

So for us to look 20 years in the future and hope things turn out all right is shear lunacy. We have no way of knowing what is to or will happen. So by the time they get round to their flights to destination beyond LEO I wonder what will be awaiting them.


Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB