Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

GOM · 2004-02-03 20:03:02

http://space.com/news/europe_moon_040203.html

Europe Plans Human Missions to Moon and Mars
By Jane Wardell
Associated Press
posted: 05:10 pm ET
03 February 2004

LONDON (AP) _ European scientists set out a route map Tuesday for manned missions to Mars that aims to land astronauts on the Red Planet in less than 30 years.

Like U.S. President George W. Bush's proposed mission to Mars, the plan put forward by the European Space Agency involves a "stepping stone'' approach, which includes robotic missions and a manned trip to the Moon first.

"We *** What's this "we" stuff?! *** need to go back to the Moon before we go to Mars. We need to walk before we run,'' said Dr. Franco Ongaro, who heads the ESA's Aurora program for long-term exploration of the solar system, at a meeting of Aurora scientists in London. "These are our stones. They will pave the way for our human explorers.''

The ESA has planned two flagship missions to Mars _ ExoMars would land a rover on the planet in 2009, and Mars Sample Return would bring back a sample of the Martian surface in 2011-14.

Other test missions will include a non-manned version of the flight that would eventually carry astronauts to Mars to demonstrate aerobraking, solar electric propulsion and soft landing technologies.

A human mission to the Moon, proposed for 2024, *** 20 years just to get to the moon! What's the rush??? *** would demonstrate key life-support and habitation technologies, as well as aspects of crew performance and adaptation to long-distance space flight.

1smlstp · 2004-02-03 21:59:44

If both Europe and America are doing misions to the Moon and Mars, why not do a joint mission?

dickbill · 2004-02-04 08:30:30

A human mission to the Moon, proposed for 2024, *** 20 years just to get to the moon! What's the rush??? *** would demonstrate key life-support and habitation technologies, as well as aspects of crew performance and adaptation to long-distance space flight.

Even in Europe the minds are corrupted.

Life support and habitation technologies : the moon is radiations, vacuum, and little gravity. The same as the ISS. Why not using the ISS for that then ? implicitement everybody recogneise that ISS is useless. What a waste.

crew performance : what does it mean more precisely ?

Long space flight : sure, the moon is 3 days from earth.

If they want to go to Mars, they should use every possible Euros to focuse on Mars. The moon will suck their money and just postpone the 'Grand Oeuvre' that has been designed to find the 'philosophical stone' on Mars.

Visited by Moderator 2022/03/08

dickbill · 2004-02-04 08:53:37

An intelligent (normal, it is from New York) article from the NY Times today , authored by William J Broad.

The NYTimes forgives my copy paste, I will buy 2 journals today for repentance. I need to do it, NY Times, because the minds are CORRUPTED:

".....The Moon, experts say, has now taken on the role of steppingstone. "Lifting heavy spacecraft and fuel out of the Earth's gravity is expensive," Mr. Bush said in his speech. "Spacecraft assembled and provisioned on the Moon could escape its far lower gravity using far less energy, and thus, far less cost."

Many experts are skeptical of those claims, saying Mr. Bush overlooked the large energy costs of getting fuel and rockets to the Moon. Previous NASA studies for Mars missions have seldom if ever used the Moon as a launching pad because that would take about twice as much energy as going from the Earth or an Earth outpost.

"The president and some of his advisers appear not to be aware of the implications," said Saunders B. Kramer, a veteran aerospace engineer. "It's worse than a pipe dream. It's nonsense."

Dr. Roland of Duke said the Moon base had the same kind of inflated rhetoric that accompanied the station's debut and could suffer a similar fate.

"One definition of a fanatic is redoubling your effort after losing sight of your objective," he said. "That's NASA's problem. It needs to get back to basics.""

Good to see that some uncorrupted minds are still working.

Title is :
"From Glory to Sideshow, the Space Station's story" by William J Broad.
the link for article is :
[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/03/scien … 3STAT.html]http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/03/scien … 3STAT.html
free registration required

clark · 2004-02-04 10:46:31

Dickbill, at this rate, you're going to be awfully lonely sipping your Martian beer by your martian pool.

At least on the moon, I will be able to get some international cusine's! :laugh:

dickbill · 2004-02-04 10:57:45

Dickbill, at this rate, you're going to be awfully lonely sipping your Martian beer by your martian pool.
At least on the moon, I will be able to get some international cusine's! :laugh:

Better eat the martian dust than festing on a lunar banquet !

clark · 2004-02-04 11:06:41

Better fed, than Red!

Ad Astra · 2004-02-04 18:58:45

My guess is that the European effort will merge into the US space plan, assuming Congress is willing to front the money and that future administrations will accept it. The Bush Administration, long regarded as "unilateralist," has actually shown interest in garnering international support for the space program. In the near term, Europe and NASA should work together on unmanned Mars missions. ExoMars and MSR should complement NASA's missions for 2005/7/9, and NASA's newly-announced Mars communication satellite will assist the Eurpoean missions.

The Americans and Europeans clearly seem to be on the same page. Both plans call for a lunar return before Mars, and the time frames are similar. ISS even plays a role in both plans. Why not merge?

RobS · 2004-02-05 15:30:22

I think it is safe to assume the US and Europe won't be racing to the Moon and Mars. The Europeans have never even launched anything into orbit, and they have no plans to increase their space budget enough to develop such capacities. Aurora is a big plan without money (sound familiar?).

-- RobS

Bill White · 2004-02-05 15:45:03

I think it is safe to assume the US and Europe won't be racing to the Moon and Mars. The Europeans have never even launched anything into orbit, and they have no plans to increase their space budget enough to develop such capacities. Aurora is a big plan without money (sound familiar?).
-- RobS

Maybe they will partner with the Russians. Today it has been reported that final funding has been approved for flying Soyuz from Kouru by 2006 or early 2007.

Using on orbit assembly of component parts, aren't Soyuz and Ariane together sufficient to accomplish a lunar mission?

The ESA had lacked a man-rated launcher. Today they finalized their purchase of one.

clark · 2004-02-05 15:48:36

Using on orbit assembly of component parts, aren't Soyuz and Ariane together sufficient to accomplish a lunar mission?

If that is the case, then isn't the EELV and the new CEV enough to acomplish a lunar mission too?

I read that report on the Soyuz- I think Uncle Sam may have found a way to buy Soyuz rides without running afoul of those pesky nuclear non-proliferation laws...

Bill White · 2004-02-05 16:06:37

Using on orbit assembly of component parts, aren't Soyuz and Ariane together sufficient to accomplish a lunar mission?
If that is the case, then isn't the EELV and the new CEV enough to acomplish a lunar mission too?

I read that report on the Soyuz- I think Uncle Sam may have found a way to buy Soyuz rides without running afoul of those pesky nuclear non-proliferation laws...

Perhaps, but then haven't we allowed the tortoise to catch the hare? I never said you can't send a few scientists to the moon on Delta IV, just how are you going to move the mass needed for a significant moonbase?

Besides, the Russians also have Proton and Energia and the French have designs for a bigger Ariane. We may be facing a "heavy lifter gap" and we are not well situated to run a new "space race" which is why multi-lateral efforts are a good idea.

clark · 2004-02-05 16:12:27

Bill, I have to say I invariably agree with just about every one of your opinions and assessments of space exploration. I often have to work at a plausible point of disagreement to counter your balanced approach.

But this ain't one of em.

Besides, the Russians also have Proton and Energia and the French have designs for a bigger Ariane. We may be facing a "heavy lifter gap" and we are not well situated to run a new "space race" which is why multi-lateral efforts are a good idea.

We spend more on space than all the space faring countries combined.

And again, no one has called for a 'significant' moonbase. All we need to do is get a few people on the Moon at any one time, then give them some time, and a problem to figure out. Results will follow.

Come on, adapt the imagination of Mars exploration to the Moon. Maybe not the science, but the process.

A few people first, then a few more, then have them expand- then send a bunch of people.

GOM · 2004-02-05 18:29:36

I think it is safe to assume the US and Europe won't be racing to the Moon and Mars.
-- RobS

No "racing", that's for sure. Limping is more like it.

20 years....

Sheesh.

And essentially no funding....

Double sheesh.

GOM · 2004-02-05 18:31:20

We spend more on space than all the space faring countries combined.

Then we're not getting our money's worth, as far as manned space flight goes....

RobS · 2004-02-05 22:05:03

Has anyone seen whether the Soyuz rockets to be launched from Kourou are the *man rated* kind? There are several different Soyuzes. I have not yet heard that Kourou would be used for manned flights, just satellite launches.

As for whether a Soyuz capsule and an Ariane can get you to the moon, maybe to a flyby, but I don't think there's enough mass left over for the orbit insertion burn and the trans-Earth injection burn. For that you need more propellant, and for landing as well.

Bill White · 2004-02-05 23:23:06

x
Has anyone seen whether the Soyuz rockets to be launched from Kourou are the *man rated* kind? There are several different Soyuzes. I have not yet heard that Kourou would be used for manned flights, just satellite launches.
You are correct, the current plans are to launch the [http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/soyuzst.htm]Soyuz-ST however I do not see why a crew capsule could not be installed since the R-7 portions seem identical. The rockets will be shipped from Russia by sea therefore once the launch facility is built couldn't they ship any R-7 based system?
As for whether a Soyuz capsule and an Ariane can get you to the moon, maybe to a flyby, but I don't think there's enough mass left over for the orbit insertion burn and the trans-Earth injection burn. For that you need more propellant, and for landing as well.
How many Delta IV launches will we need for our lunar missions? If we allow four Soyuz/Progress/Ariane it seems feasible.

This [http://www.rosbaltnews.com/2003/05/30/62789.html]link asserts that the payload to geo-sync will increase from 1.5 tonnes at 51 degrees to 4.0 tonnes at the equator.

By getting involved in the Kourou project, Russia would be able to occupy a vacant niche on the world market for space launches. Europe has no medium-class rockets, which Russia could provide. For Russia, soyuz launches from Kourou would nearly triple the potential of these rockets, which would be able to put not 1.5 tonnes of payload, as they do when launched from the Baikonur space center, but 4 tonnes into geo- stationary orbit, due to the fact that the launching area is closer to the equator.

RobS · 2004-02-06 00:25:37

The increase from 1.5 to 4 tonnes sounds about right if one considers that in addition to the higher rotatin velocity at the equator, there is no plane change manuever required, as there would be from Baikonur.

How many Delta-IVs: if you used a solar-powered ion tug, a 25.7 tonne Delta-IV heavy could put an 8 to 10-tonne tug and about 16 tonnes of payload into LEO, and the tug could get the 16 tonnes to L1. Or better, launch a reusable tug on one rocket and about 19 tonnes of payload plus 6.7 tonnes of xenon propellant on another one. A 19-tonne stage with fuel could land about 7 to 8 tonnes on the moon and launch it back toward Earth. I suspect a CEV will mass more than that, so maybe you'd need two Delta-IV heavies.

GOM · 2004-02-06 20:57:18

the payload to geo-sync will increase from 1.5 tonnes at 51 degrees to 4.0 tonnes at the equator.

Amazing!

Thanks Bill....

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2004-03-10 09:00:38

I hope they can do it, competition is good for creativity and inventions

Let us hope we can put people on mars someday soon

ruski_canuk · 2004-03-10 18:20:32

Using the moon as a launch base is definetley not an idea to scrap as being suggested by some. Launching from the moon would mean a completley different kind of spacecraft - one which needs a fraction of the fuel and therefore payload of those required to bust earths atmosphere. What would happen is a specialization process: A ship designed for a short journey to the moon from Earth (the heavy lifter) and then a much light craft to go moon to mars. Hauling a cumbersome heavy lifter all the way to mars does not make alot of sense.

And besides how romantic is the idea of a moon base?

Ian Flint · 2004-03-11 09:51:09

Just to remind everyone...

Robert Zubrin (in The Case for Mars) compared how much power, or Delta V, it would take to go from Earth to the Moon vs. from Earth to Mars. Just to get to the moon, it takes more power, more delta V, more fuel, more mass, and more money.

It's simple:

The Moon CANNOT be a stepping stone to Mars, period. It takes more power to get there, period.

The Moon is attractive for other reasons, but it is not a stepping stone.

ruski_canuk,

The idea of a Moon base is definitely romantic! But, it is foolish to think that it will be easier, simpler, or cheaper to get to Mars by launching from the Moon.

ruski_canuk · 2004-03-11 11:10:04

Just because Mr. Zubrin so said his feelings doesn't make it true. I am not saying it is the best idea to launch from the moon but it is something that should be considered and investigated. His comparison to the small difference of cost of launching to the moon with launching to mars is a perfect example - that shows that the majority of the energy (and therefore fuel) is expended on the journey through our atmosphere - only to travel the huge distance to mars on near empty(or a flying box that detaches from a rocket). Also you should account for the time factor. It takes a fraction of the time to get to the moon then to mars so you could amass equipment there and then make low-energy blasts to mars rather than trying to make hole in ones from earth. Remember that once a moon base is setup, a pitstop to mars would be only one of its few possibilities. It would open up a new tourist industry and also the capability to launch spacecraft in a whole new way to other planets besides mars. What would a spacecraft look like that didn't have to break the atmosphere? How much freedom or possibilities would that add? Just some ideas to consider.

John Creighton · 2004-03-11 11:20:20

So, the idea is maybe we could get there faster if we stop at the moon to refuel. Interesting thought?.I wonder why I haven?t heard this suggested before. I also wonder if this idea has merit.

Ian Flint · 2004-03-11 11:55:16

ruski,

Have you read anything space related that was written by an actual engineer? Read 'The Case for Mars' by Zubrin. I don't have a copy with me so I can't quote you hard numbers, but I'm not talking about "Mr. Zubrin's feelings".

You're argument has many flaws:

1. Let's not clutter this conversation talking about the other benefits of a Moon base. We both agree that the Moon is a great destination in and of itself. We only disagree on one point -- using the Moon to launch to Mars.

2. "Hauling a cumbersome heavy lifter all the way to mars does not make alot of sense." --- Of course it doesn't! That's why Heavy Lifters don't even go into orbit. If you know anything about rocketry you will understand that staging is the most efficient way to get things into space -- until better vehicles are developed, of course.

3. "only to travel the huge distance to mars on near empty(or a flying box that detaches from a rocket)" --- Once again, you know very little about rockets or space propulsion. When travelling in space you want to expend all of your fuel in the first few moments. Upon reaching a planet with an atmosphere (Mars), you simply aerobrake -- no fuel needed.

4. "the majority of the energy (and therefore fuel) is expended on the journey through our atmosphere" and "What would a spacecraft look like that didn't have to break the atmosphere?" --- I admit it. Earth's atmosphere creates drag requiring more fuel to get through it. But answer me this -- are there interplanetary spaceships sitting, fully fueled, on the Moon's surface right now? If not, we have to launch them from Earth anyway, atmosphere and all. Everything used in space, for a long time to come, will have to get though the Earth's atmosphere.

5. "His comparison to the small difference of cost of launching to the moon with launching to mars is a perfect example..." --- That's just the point. If it costs about the same to launch to the Moon as it does to launch to Mars then it can only cost more to build a base, produce fuel, and then launch again from the Moon to Mars. If you are going to Mars, the Moon is an unnecessary, costly detour.

6. "I am not saying it is the best idea to launch from the moon but it is something that should be considered and investigated." --- It has been considered, investigated, and ruled out by all (sane) engineers as a way to get to Mars efficiently.

If you want to go to Mars, go to Mars.
If you want to go to the Moon, go to the Moon.

Going from Earth to Mars by way of the Moon is about as logical as going from L.A.to New York by way of Moscow.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-02-03 20:03:02

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#2 2004-02-03 21:59:44

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#3 2004-02-04 08:30:30

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#4 2004-02-04 08:53:37

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#5 2004-02-04 10:46:31

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#6 2004-02-04 10:57:45

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#7 2004-02-04 11:06:41

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#8 2004-02-04 18:58:45

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#9 2004-02-05 15:30:22

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#10 2004-02-05 15:45:03

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#11 2004-02-05 15:48:36

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#12 2004-02-05 16:06:37

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#13 2004-02-05 16:12:27

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#14 2004-02-05 18:29:36

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#15 2004-02-05 18:31:20

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#16 2004-02-05 22:05:03

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#17 2004-02-05 23:23:06

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#18 2004-02-06 00:25:37

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#19 2004-02-06 20:57:18

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#20 2004-03-10 09:00:38

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#21 2004-03-10 18:20:32

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#22 2004-03-11 09:51:09

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#23 2004-03-11 11:10:04

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#24 2004-03-11 11:20:20

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

#25 2004-03-11 11:55:16

Re: Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight....

Board footer