You are not logged in.
Thread title is "The Ultimate Goal Is Mars". Not just Donald Trump has said that, it has been said since the early 1950's to my own personal knowledge. And, since the early 1950's, it was understood the moon was first.
Well, we've been to the moon, but we did NOT exploit that properly! It deserves revisiting and exploration, and bases and settlements, the whole 9 yards. Those do NOT need to precede a Mars mission; operating more in parallel still gets the Mars missions the benefits of lessons learned on the moon. That has also been understood since the 1950's.
That being said, if you return to the moon, then go to the moon! Not some boondoggle space station in orbit around or near the moon! The ONLY reasons for a lunar space station are (1) pork barrel projects for powerful Senators and Congressmen, and (2) not having a lander or a rocket capable of carrying both the capsule and the lander, to the moon.
And by that I mean SLS/Orion. That lunar space station is quite frankly nothing but a way to say "we have sent people to the moon", even if we still cannot actually land there. All for show. Which is all for nothing, and everyone here on these forums knows that.
However, you don't have to have a single rocket take both the men and the lander to the moon. That could be done with something similar to two Falcon-Heavy launches instead, for under a quarter billion $ total launch cost. If so, then what do we need SLS/Orion at over a billion $ per launch for, anyway?
We should just build the lander and fix the Crew Dragon, and then just fly them on the existing rockets while we still have them. That gets you started long before things like the "Starship"/SuperHeavy, the Vulcan, or the New Armstrong are ready. And it gets you started really on the surface (!!!) of the moon, far cheaper and faster than any SLS-launched station near the moon!
Then there's Mars. It WILL be expensive at first no matter what! If chemical, you have to make propellant on Mars in order not to be a one-way trip. You really need some kind of nuclear propulsion to have a two-way capability. And not just NERVA as it was tested in the 1960's and 1970's. Something more advanced. Bounding calculations prove that.
Eventually, you WILL need a long-life reusable orbit-to-orbit transport between Earth and Mars, which will require nuclear propulsion more advanced than NERVA. And you will need appropriate reusable ferry craft at each end of the trip. There are many possibilities for those ferries, but the first ones that come to mind as being ready soonest are Spacex's doing: Starship/SuperHeavy at Earth, and Starship by itself at Mars, but with in-situ propellant production. They have set the pattern for the vehicles by other manufacturers that will follow.
You don't have to have the best of everything just to go and get started, but to maintain a presence on Mars permanently, you will have to get all the transportation right, or you will never be able to afford that presence on Mars. And I just outlined how to do that.
GW
Last edited by GW Johnson (2019-10-05 10:22:26)
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
The space ship example seems to be falling still on deaf ears that still are looking for the pork filled hand outs that keep them afloat. Other than JPL most of Nasa has become irelavent to its goal of going to space it would seem. Maybe there are pockets of good at the other places but lets get them to do something that does not cost billions and are made of unobtainium...
Offline
I keep asking myself--where did this LOP-G, "Tollbooth Gateway" concept originate? It violates Musk's rule about design: If it takes too long, design is wrong. It violates MY own KISS principles. Obviously I'm not alone in my views, as Dr. Zubrin also thinks the LOP-G is a foolish concept. I used KISS in my reaction and experiment design for years; never failed me.
Offline
Oldfart1939,
Corporate executives at Boeing and Lockheed-Martin. They get most of their income from military contracts, they don't see anything NASA does as having value, they see NASA as just a means to funnel money into their pockets. The 90-Day Report of 1989 called for two space stations: one in LEO, the other to act as a shipyard to construct the giant Mars ship. US space station Freedom was cancelled, but we got ISS. Ok, that's one station, now they want to know when they get paid to build the second? Congress rejected the 90-Day Report as soon as they read it in 1990, but corporate executives and certain individuals in NASA think they're still doing it. So they proposed de-orbiting ISS and building a new one to replace it. Congress rejected that. So they proposed building a station in high Earth orbit. Congress rejected that too. So they proposed building a station in Lunar orbit. People at NASA's KSC were worried there's no "manifest" for SLS, were worried SLS would get cancelled because there's nothing for it to do. So Lunar Gateway got approved as a make-work project for SLS.
Commercial corporations don't like anything new. It's risky, no guarantee return on investment. They prefer the known, what has already been done. Exploration of Mars has never been done, but they built ISS. They know how to build a space station. They want more contracts to build more station modules, just to earn more profit. Who cares if it's completely useless, the guys who get paid to build it will earn profit.
Does that explain it?
Offline
Robert-
Yeah, I know how that works, but someone within NASA had to bring this terrible concept forward. I've heard Charles Bolden's name mentioned. It didn't simply spring into being out of nothingness. I just want to know who will "take credit" for spending another $15-$20billion on a piece of space debris.
Offline
The "manifest" for SLS was also in part due to the very snails pace launch schedule which does not boad well for going to the moon which should be quite fast as its only a few days away to play scientist. The schedule for mars was even slower with nothing to keep the building staff busy with...
The Falcon 9 heavy almost killed the program with 2 launches to get to the payload mass of a single sls launch but thats what got argued so as to keep it funded.
Offline
Yes. I've never really understood the concept.
I keep asking myself--where did this LOP-G, "Tollbooth Gateway" concept originate? It violates Musk's rule about design: If it takes too long, design is wrong. It violates MY own KISS principles. Obviously I'm not alone in my views, as Dr. Zubrin also thinks the LOP-G is a foolish concept. I used KISS in my reaction and experiment design for years; never failed me.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
From my post 26 above:
"That being said, if you return to the moon, then go to the moon! Not some boondoggle space station in orbit around or near the moon! The ONLY reasons for a lunar space station are (1) pork barrel projects for powerful Senators and Congressmen, and (2) not having a lander or a rocket capable of carrying both the capsule and the lander, to the moon. "
I believe that pretty much encapsulates the reason for the boondoggle. Boondoggle psychology is rather well-illustrated by the tale of the "emperor's new clothes", and the overlapping government/industry complex has long demonstrated this tendency.
Have the rest of you noticed that until the advent of private concerns outside the favored contractor group entering the space business, absolutely nothing happened that hadn't already been done before (things in LEO)? And a lot of what happened before had become impossible to do now (going to the moon)?
THAT slow decay is exactly what you get when you combine boondoggle thinking (corporate welfare) with emperor's-new-clothes psychology (the government customer is always right, even when he is dead wrong). We've seen this for some 7 decades now. It does kill people, too.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Innovative thinking is pretty cheap. Innovative engineering costs money. The current space program funded by NASA is vendor-driven, and they are fat, dumb, and happy making worthless "stuff" for the space "program."
Then along came Elon Musk, who is highly innovative and super creative. Came running into camp and kicked the campfire where all the normal vendors were sitting around toasting their marshmallows. High Priest, Shaman Shelby screamed NO YOU CAN'T JOIN OUR WEENIE ROAST. So Elon stormed out of camp and proceeded to build reusable rockets, and lowered launch costs that made all the other Chiefs squirm in their seats. He then built a bigger rocket and more capable rocket capable of doing Lunar Missions. High Priest Shelby told Tribal Chief Bridenstine to sit down and STFU about using commercial launchers in place of the Big Boondoggle SLS.
Now Elon the Outcast is aiming directly at the OldSpace Tribe applecart, with visions of upsetting and dumping it on Shaman Shelby.
Offline
Oldfart1939,
I would have deep-sixed Orion and SLS a long, long time ago. There was only one mission that those could have ever been realistically used for, and that was a reprise of the Apollo program. I like the fact that a private company is working on a new mega rocket for colonization purposes, but we have to go to Mars and explore it first to decide where to build a city, and that can be done most economically and expeditiously using existing reusable Falcon Heavy rockets and orbital assembly. On-orbit assembly is how we built ISS, the largest human-built structure in space, bar none. If we can build something with the mass of ISS to send to Mars, then we don't really need mega rockets. In fact, spending the time and money to build mega rockets will probably only slow us down. I wish SpaceX all the luck in the world, but that's how I see mega rockets. They were great when they were the only option, but that was in the distant past. I just want to see some visible / measurable progress, but right now I see little to none.
The life support stuff isn't fully tested, the radiation shielding hasn't been tested, the LOX/LCH4 plant hasn't even been designed, the lander technology hasn't been tested on the moon, the fission reactor hasn't been tested, artificial gravity hasn't been tested, and the long duration space flight stuff in interplanetary space hasn't been tested. All of the stuff needed to actually go anywhere and come back, still doesn't exist at all or hasn't been properly tested yet because we're far too busy monkeying around with mega rockets we don't need. Argh!
Offline
Does the new Nasa + contractors = Not Done... sure seems that way....
Thats what happens when everyone wants to tell them what they want them to do and then sticks all of the restrictions on what the funds can be used on....
Offline
kbd512-
If you go back at my posts over the past couple years, you will see that I espoused something similar. SpaceX shoulda and coulda done the Red Dragon missions, if for no other reason than gaining cheaper experience at landing "something" on a planetary surface. I've been a real fan of the Falcon Heavy concept and orbital assembly, too.
That said, I hope Elon can pull a rabbit out of his hat or some other orifice.
A Red Dragon capsule could carry a ready to operate nuke powerplant, too. And carry a core drill that could actually drill into surface of Mars. A REAL drill rig, not a cackamamie drill system designed by aerospace experts. Need a real well driller to show how it's done.
That covers 2 Red Dragon missions. Use the Red Dragon/Falcon Heavy launches to man-rate the system. Boom! On the way to the moon!
Industrially, it's called vertical integration of systems.
Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2019-10-07 22:39:14)
Offline
In the past I favoured an scaled up Apollo style landing with multiple supplies being parachuted or sky-craned down.
However, it didn't take me long to be convinced by the BFR concept. The Starship will win out because of its multiple capabilities covering satellite launches, Starlink, ISS supply, orbital tourism, point to point Earth travel, lunar tourism, lunar exploration and Mars colonisation. This spreads all the development costs over a huge area and increases economies of scale.
I don't think there really is any serious contender to the Starship as things stand, except for possibly something very like it e.g. from Blue Origin.
kbd512-
If you go back at my posts over the past couple years, you will see that I espoused something similar. SpaceX shoulda and coulda done the Red Dragon missions, if for no other reason than gaining cheaper experience at landing "something" on a planetary surface. I've been a real fan of the Falcon Heavy concept and orbital assembly, too.
That said, I hope Elon can pull a rabbit out of his hat or some other orifice.
A Red Dragon capsule could carry a ready to operate nuke powerplant, too. And carry a core drill that could actually drill into surface of Mars. A REAL drill rig, not a cackamamie drill system designed by aerospace experts. Need a real well driller to show how it's done.
That covers 2 Red Dragon missions. Use the Red Dragon/Falcon Heavy launches to man-rate the system. Boom! On the way to the moon!
Industrially, it's called vertical integration of systems.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Mars model provides method for landing humans on Red Planet
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 … 103915.htm
'Elon Musk Writes About a Life Enhancing Future – But It is in Magazine of China’s Internet Censor'
https://insidebitcoins.com/news/elon-mu … net-censor
The column had been authored in Chinese; however, Yang Liu, a Chinese state press agency journalist, translated it into English and posted the article on his Substack newsletter, Beijing Channel.
https://substack.com/profile/23862321-yang-liu
The column featured Musk’s take on sustainability, humanoid bots, space exploration, and much more. Other local industry leaders, including Ant Group Co. Chairman Eric Jing, pitched their thoughts on inclusivity and accessibility in technology development.
Musk notes that he was invited by the magazine, run by the Cyberspace Administration of China, to write the piece.
https://twitter.com/yangliuxh/status/15 … 9811998720
Kendra Schaefer, head of tech policy research at Trivium China, said, “Musk is trying to walk the same tightrope that Zuckerberg and Pichai walked before him—but these are different times.”
Elon Musk stated in his column, “I want to do everything we can to maximize the use of technology to help achieve a better future for humanity.” To that end, any area that contributes to a sustainable future is worthy of our investment. “
The Space Review: Lunar mining, Moon land claims, and avoiding conflict and damage to spacecraft
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4446/1
It’s been 50 years since humans last visited the Moon, and even robotic missions have been few and far between. But the Earth’s only natural satellite is about to get crowded.
2021 in Space: It was all about NASA, Mars, Virgin, SpaceX, China
https://tech.hindustantimes.com/tech/ne … 80919.html
How NASA will use helicopters to return samples from Mars in 2033
https://www.planetary.org/articles/nasa … elicopters
What dust devils tell us about Mars
https://astrobites.org/2022/09/07/anoth … bout-mars/
25 Years of Continuous Robotic Mars Exploration
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/25-years-o … rseverance
Biden’s space agenda & the ethics of exploration
https://www.wmfe.org/bidens-space-agend … ion/193477
National Space Council
https://spacenews.com/tag/national-space-council/
Swing-state Democrats keep their distance from President Biden
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/swing-state-d … 00241.html
Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2022-09-14 06:28:26)
Offline