To the moon first... - then to Mars and asteroids...

jabe · 2004-01-14 11:33:36

well,
the [http://www.marsdaily.com/2004/040114165 … 9ehsq.html]Russian's say ..again..that they can get to Mars by 2014 and will cost $14 billion compared to the States $150 billion..
hate it when figures are pulled out of the air!!
lets see what happens with the press conference today...

Palomar · 2004-01-14 12:26:46

*I am getting so tired of politics.

I read a Yahoo! article pertaining to Bush's announced plan. I was reminded that Bush Sr. included -no- plans to go to the moon...just on to Mars. I suppose the China factor is influencing Bush Jr. to return to the moon first.

I really am discouraged about the date set. 2030...::EDIT:: Actually, the article says *after* 2030...yeah, that's comforting.

A friend at New Mars and I discussed this; by 2030 we will have many elderly baby boomers...and the strain on healthcare and etc. that will pose. This has been brought up here before.

One a brighter note, the article mentioned Sean O'Keefe carefully pointing out: "We're spending less than 1 percent of the federal budget on the science and technology that NASA employs for exploration objectives."

Let's just get this show on the road. Try Mars by 2020, not an entire decade later.

--Cindy

Byron · 2004-01-14 14:55:44

Let's just get this show on the road. Try Mars by 2020, not an entire decade later.

I agree! We need to do it *sooner* rather than later....

B

Cobra Commander · 2004-01-14 15:05:24

Like so many other things with this Administration, It's both encouraging and disappointing at the same time. At least Mars is on the table, that's gotta count for something.

mck · 2004-01-15 16:23:35

back to the moon by 2020!! Fifty years and we're back where we started. After all the inventions of the last century how could this happen. Well, I know why - money, but it's a shame.

Arthur C Clarke and Patrick Moore were both hoping to live to see a man on Mars, they've got no chance now.

Will any of us live to see a man on mars?, I'm beginning to doubt it unless the can find and fix the aging gene.

wgc · 2004-01-15 23:21:36

back to the moon by 2020!! Fifty years and we're back where we started. After all the inventions of the last century how could this happen. Well, I know why - money, but it's a shame.
Arthur C Clarke and Patrick Moore were both hoping to live to see a man on Mars, they've got no chance now.
Will any of us live to see a man on mars?, I'm beginning to doubt it unless the can find and fix the aging gene.

This exploration paradym seems to be mirroring the exploration of the artic and antartic, first came the loan explorers than after some time lag came the longer duration better equipped expiditions.

In the history books of 500 years hence, that 50 year gap will seem quite insignificant. there may be a paragraph as to how the exploration of the solar system was affected by the politics of the time.

Also timeframes are pretty meaningless, in 1946, who would of guessed that by 1969 the us would have a man on the moon.

The infrastructure wasn't in place.

This small step is the start of building a new infrasturture, the technology of today is much better than what was in 1969. I suspect when they talk about a lunar program the're thinking in terms of several flights a year. something a shuttle schedule.

And Besides

For all you know some in some little research center could be deriving the basis for a warp drive, who knows.

postscript: don't take that last paragraph too seriously and start flaming me.

Palomar · 2004-01-16 16:02:27

[=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3403581.stm]Yo, Uncle Sam: Here's Mud in Your Eye!

*World press "pans" Dubya's plans. (And it isn't pretty)

--Cindy

wgc · 2004-01-16 18:35:29

[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3403581.stm]Yo, Uncle Sam: Here's Mud in Your Eye!
*World press "pans" Dubya's plans. (And it isn't pretty)
--Cindy

Yea, I was thinking about some of these online anti space sites. I'm a web developer, and when look at a few of these sites you notice not all but some of them use what is clearly copyrighted materal, some make use of web portal without giving proper recognition to the developer. phpnuke.

there's this little unpopular law in the US called the digital milenium copyright act , if someone say a space advocate who was really preterb by these sites were to report the violations to the original copyright holders, who of course would probably report the violation to the isp.

Site comes down or account canceled, and/or lawsuit.

And you think only politicians can play dity... Of course we wouldn't resort to anything like that would we. :laugh: :laugh:

wgc · 2004-01-16 18:47:26

The NASA web page on their [http://exploration.jsc.nasa.gov/marsref/contents.html]Design Reference Mission was last updated July, 1997. However, the addendum page isn't working today, and that's where I read about use of VASIMR. The entire Mars section of NASA's manned spaceflight web site has been taken down. Maybe they'll bring much of it back now.
Scientific American had an article about Mars a few years ago, and it listed all sorts of engines, including VASIMR. NASA does still have a web site about VASIMR [http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/sup … asimr.html]here, and another one [http://aerospacescholars.jsc.nasa.gov/H … /11/30.cfm]here.
If you want to read my correspondence with Russian companies, you can find it at the [http://chapters.marssociety.org/winnipeg/russian.html]Winnipeg Chapter web site. You can find out more about the Russian companies [http://www.kbkha.ru/eng/1.php]KBKhA, [http://www.energia.ru/english/index.html]Energia, or [http://www.buran.ru/htm/molniya.htm]Molniya (manufacturer of the Buran orbiter).

I'll bet you that there will be a big web push by Nasa, presentation wise. There's probably a lot of work that hasn't seen the light of day because moon/mars were 4 letter words for awhile.

Maybe thats why the site is down.

mck · 2004-01-17 12:42:57

postscript: don't take that last paragraph too seriously and start flaming me.

why would I need to flame you, I think your statement says everything about you, in fact you flame yourself by using it.

Anyway I can't flame your posts because they are so dull that I don't even bother to read them.

wgc · 2004-01-17 14:29:21

postscript: don't take that last paragraph too seriously and start flaming me.
why would I need to flame you, I think your statement says everything about you, in fact you flame yourself by using it.
Anyway I can't flame your posts because they are so dull that I don't even bother to read them.

What have you done for the effort so far, I've been involved in one way or another with the space community since 1979.

As for the part about flaming is was just adding some humor.

quasar777 · 2004-03-06 16:35:27

howdy folks, i haven`t been here in awhile. i was hoping someone would bringup the moon. there are many ways in which marscrew would interact w/ the Moon. i doubt in the near future mission controllers (from whatever nation) would allow permanent residency of Mars. that is unless there`s mutiny or exile. so i really think returning marscrew to earth is cruel & unusual punishment as the gravity would be too high, & there would be cultureshock. this is one of the biggest reasons i believe we should do MoonBase.

Dennis Gutknecht · 2004-03-06 18:26:23

if the goal for the moon is science, let's use robots, they can make the job better and much cheaper than human. Otherwise the moon base will become a second ISS in concept.

I'm sorry, but time and time again, the idea that robots can do a job better than humans has been proven ENTIRELY wrong, ESPECIALLY in an area like exploration.

SpaceNut · 2020-12-07 21:31:17

It was this long ago that the direction of going in circles around the earth changed to going back to the moon. The great crash erased another topic which asked why and what we would do but this topic will do.

In the 188-page report, NASA set seven scientific objectives for the Artemis III mission including understanding planetary processes.

The astronauts will only have a maximum of six and a half days on the Moon

The US space agency NASA published a voluminous report on Monday outlining the scientific priorities for the Artemis III astronauts it intends to send to the Moon in 2024.
One of the goals will be to bring back a total of 85 kilograms (187 pounds) of lunar samples, both from the surface and sub-surface, more than the average 64 kilograms brought back by Apollo mission members between 1969 and 1972.

The several versions of the rocket with various hardware to make this happen has eaten up a huge amount of Nasa's budgets over the years and unless its going to actually be used for a long period of time we will not get anything for the investment.

SpaceNut · 2020-12-09 21:05:22

wow got to fix this topic...
Eighteen astronauts — nine men and nine women — have been selected to begin training for upcoming Artemis missions to the moon, NASA announced Wednesday. The list includes the as-yet-unnamed next man and first woman who will set foot on the lunar surface later this decade.

The Artemis astronauts are:
Joe Acaba, 53 (3 previous flights; 3 spacewalks)
Kayla Barron, 33 (rookie)
Raja Chari, 43 (rookie)
Matthew Dominick, 39 (rookie)
Victor Glover, 44 (1 flight)
Woody Hoburg, 35 (rookie)
Jonny Kim, 36 (rookie)
Christina Koch, 41 (1 flight; 6 spacewalks)
Kjell Lindgren, 47 (1 flight; 2 spacewalks)
Nicole Mann, 43 (rookie)
Anne McClain, 41 (1 flight; 2 spacewalks)
Jessica Meir, 43 (1 flight; 3 spacewalks)
Jasmin Moghbeli, 37 (rookie)
Kate Rubins, 42 (2 flights (2 spacewalks)
Frank Rubio, 43 (rookie)
Scott Tingle, 55 (1 flight; 1 spacewalk)
Jessica Watkins, 32 (rookie)
Stephanie Wilson, 54 (3 flights)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-04-04 12:35:40

Winning rovers of lunar polar challenge
https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Sp … B9I-8.link

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-04-13 04:27:16

NASA defends decision to proceed with modified SLS countdown test

https://spacenews.com/nasa-defends-deci … down-test/

a previous discussion on newmars forums which had some negative critical points

'
The Lunar Folly - NASA Scientists give their reasons.
'

https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=2192

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2022-04-13 04:45:24)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-03-20 12:04:23

SA companies join NASA’s moon, Mars mission
https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sou … bce0ab17af
South Australian companies are in the race to send their expertise to the moon

NASA selects Firefly Aerospace for mission to moon's far side in 2026
https://www.msn.com/

How NASA Got Price Gouged on the SLS, According to Its Former Second-in-Command
https://futurism.com/lori-garver-nasa-sls

Perth-based AROSE chosen to design lunar rover for Australia’s first Moon mission
https://thewest.com.au/business/perth-b … c-10095079

NASA Begins Assembling its First 1,000 Pound Robotic Moon Rover for Future Missions
https://spacecoastdaily.com/2023/03/nas … -missions/

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2023-03-20 12:05:35)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-08-04 06:32:20

better than 'Lunokhod'?

MOON DAILY
Russia to launch first lunar station in nearly 50 years
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Russ … s_999.html
Russia's first lunar station in nearly 50 years, Luna-25, will fly to the Moon local media reported

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-08-22 13:38:09

Failures driven by political warmongering rather than a clear focus on exploration?

The Luna-25 Russian failure. They think they know where it crashed

The Indian mission by ISRO might land soon, the Chinese Lander is working, the NASA Lunar Laser Ranging experiment and French / Soviet reflector mission might be still working but modern Russia no longer has the ability to go to the Moon.

TASS reports that KIAM has modelled the impact trajectory of Luna-25: impact was at 1158 UTC Aug 19 in the crater Pontecoulant G

https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1 … 8491843994

(Pontecoulant G is at 60.1 E 57.2S )

'Russian space agency chief blames decades of inactivity for Luna-25 lander's crash on the moon'
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/ap-r … 96859.html

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2023-08-22 14:00:19)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-09-05 05:51:18

NASA Satellite Spots the Crash Site for Luna 25

https://www.universetoday.com/163003/na … r-luna-25/

Grypd · 2023-09-07 09:14:33

Japan is sending a mission again (its last 2 have failed)

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/2 … er-mission

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-10-31 12:31:53

Space rocks and asteroid dust are pricey, but these aren’t the most expensive materials used in science
https://www.space.com/expensive-science … eroid-dust

NASA's OSIRIS-REx mission collected more Bennu asteroid samples than first thought
https://www.yahoo.com/news/nasas-osiris … 05172.html

a historical discussion from over 2 years ago

Why was there a gap in the number of asteroid detections between 1807 and 1845?
https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/que … -and-1845/

Dwarf planet Ceres may have alien life; researchers hopeful to find organic molecules
https://www.livemint.com/science/news/d … 74884.html

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-12-29 06:26:15

Japan may send its first astronaut to the moon aboard Artemis

https://bgr.com/science/japan-may-send- … d-artemis/

SpaceNut · 2024-03-17 17:04:58

giving the going to the moon topics before mars a bump to create a topic index.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-01-14 11:33:36

Re: To the moon first... - then to Mars and asteroids...

#52 2004-01-14 12:26:46

Re: To the moon first... - then to Mars and asteroids...

#53 2004-01-14 14:55:44

Re: To the moon first... - then to Mars and asteroids...

#54 2004-01-14 15:05:24

Re: To the moon first... - then to Mars and asteroids...

#55 2004-01-15 16:23:35

Re: To the moon first... - then to Mars and asteroids...

#56 2004-01-15 23:21:36

Re: To the moon first... - then to Mars and asteroids...

#57 2004-01-16 16:02:27

Re: To the moon first... - then to Mars and asteroids...

#58 2004-01-16 18:35:29

Re: To the moon first... - then to Mars and asteroids...

#59 2004-01-16 18:47:26

Re: To the moon first... - then to Mars and asteroids...

#60 2004-01-17 12:42:57

Re: To the moon first... - then to Mars and asteroids...

#61 2004-01-17 14:29:21

Re: To the moon first... - then to Mars and asteroids...

#62 2004-03-06 16:35:27

Re: To the moon first... - then to Mars and asteroids...

#63 2004-03-06 18:26:23

Re: To the moon first... - then to Mars and asteroids...

#64 2020-12-07 21:31:17

Re: To the moon first... - then to Mars and asteroids...

#65 2020-12-09 21:05:22

Re: To the moon first... - then to Mars and asteroids...

#66 2022-04-04 12:35:40

Re: To the moon first... - then to Mars and asteroids...

#67 2022-04-13 04:27:16

Re: To the moon first... - then to Mars and asteroids...

#68 2023-03-20 12:04:23

Re: To the moon first... - then to Mars and asteroids...

#69 2023-08-04 06:32:20

Re: To the moon first... - then to Mars and asteroids...

#70 2023-08-22 13:38:09

Re: To the moon first... - then to Mars and asteroids...

#71 2023-09-05 05:51:18

Re: To the moon first... - then to Mars and asteroids...

#72 2023-09-07 09:14:33

Re: To the moon first... - then to Mars and asteroids...

#73 2023-10-31 12:31:53

Re: To the moon first... - then to Mars and asteroids...

#74 2023-12-29 06:26:15

Re: To the moon first... - then to Mars and asteroids...

#75 2024-03-17 17:04:58

Re: To the moon first... - then to Mars and asteroids...

Board footer