New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and

You are not logged in.


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 2017-08-08 14:28:25

From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 5,389

Are current Moon plans trying to copy 1950s movies?

I just wanted a movie from 1953: Project Moonbase. Written by Robert A. Heinlein, author of many great science fiction books. The movie is disappointingly cheesy for something from him. But 1950s movies did that. But I have to ask if certain individuals in NASA and "Old Space" contractors are trying to implement those movies.

Movie lunar lander:


Movie space station in Earth orbit, with 1 rockets from Earth docked, another docking lower right, and lunar lander upper right:

NASA's Deep Space Gateway. A space station in cis-Lunar space, presumably at Earth-Moon L1.
NASA 28-March-2017: Deep Space Gateway to Open Opportunities for Distant Destinations

Ok, the Deep Space Gateway looks different than the 1953 movie, but the function is the same. Actually, the station in the movie was used for Earth observation, so the same jobs as ISS and same location. But NASA wants a second station, with lunar missions based from there.


#2 2017-08-10 18:56:54

From: Philadelphia, PA
Registered: 2006-07-05
Posts: 469

Re: Are current Moon plans trying to copy 1950s movies?

Full film Project Moonbase available on the net:

Project Moonbase.

  Bob Clark

Nanotechnology now can produce the space elevator and private orbital launchers. It now also makes possible the long desired 'flying cars'. This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:
Nanotech: from air to space. … 13319568#/


#3 2017-08-11 14:06:46

GW Johnson
From: McGregor, Texas USA
Registered: 2011-12-04
Posts: 3,029

Re: Are current Moon plans trying to copy 1950s movies?

Well,  I don't know if current planners are trying to emulate the 1950's movies,  but they would be smart to consider the concepts advanced by the better science fiction and science fact writers of those times.  A lot of those concepts are very hard to beat,  even after more than half a century of technical progress.  They were very well thought-out by some very knowledgeable and disciplined thinkers.  The only shortfall is that they had less to go on,  than we do today.  But that does not negate variations on the concepts they offered.

I don't much like the idea of NASA's Gateway space station concept at the moon or in cis-lunar space as a "springboard to going elsewhere".  LEO serves quite well for that,  thank you very much!  False advertising,  which is supposed to be illegal.

But,  a single temporary (for maybe a few years) station in lunar orbit serves as an exploration gateway for multiple sites around the moon,  until a final "best" base location (or maybe two) is (are) identified.  Once that is done,  moving everything to the lunar surface makes sense, and not one moment before.  This is because you only have to do it once if one location,  twice if two.  Not 6+ times for 6+ sites.  And don't tell me there aren't more than 6 sites to consider.  Probably a lot more.

I haven't seen anybody look at it from that viewpoint.  But they should.  Why build 6+ bases and land all that stuff 6+ times,  when we only need one or two?  After they're established,  we can use surface rocket hoppers and surface transportation to spread out as the need arises.   

Actually,  I think the very same thing is true of Mars.  And pretty much any other destination with an appreciable gravity well.  As did the writers of 1940's and 1950's science fiction and science fact. 


Last edited by GW Johnson (2017-08-11 14:11:52)

GW Johnson
McGregor,  Texas

"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew,  especially one dead from a bad management decision"


Board footer

Powered by FluxBB