Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

Palomar · 2004-07-28 06:42:18

http://www.space.com/news/rtm_nasa_040728.html]Mars getting preferred status?

*Doesn't seem that way to me. Comments from Apollo 16 commander John Young in this article, as well as another "Moon First" person named Andrew Chaikin (author).

Someone has yet to step forward and offer as persuasive a plea to return to the Moon as Zubrin has for going to Mars, because I haven't seen it.

Ah well, the debate rages on.

--Cindy

::EDIT:: Then there's this gem:

"Gump said that NASA has learned little over the years in dealing with the private sector and alternative space companies during the space shuttle and space station programs. He likened NASA to Agent Orange - the herbicide employed by the U.S. military during the Viet Nam War to destroy plants by interfering with their normal metabolism.

'Any seed of commercial activity that lands on it...immediately dies,' Gump pointed out."

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-28 07:29:35

Someone has yet to step forward and offer as persuasive a plea to return to the Moon as Zubrin has for going to Mars, because I haven't seen it.

Well, in all fairness Zubrin's arguments generally only persuade those that already want to go. It's kind of like Thomas Aquinas and his "Proofs for the Existence of God." If you have the faith, it strengthens it. Otherwise... :hm:

Mars is a better move from a settlement angle, but then the realities of business and politics gum up the works.

As much as it irks me, we may need the moon as proof of concept/short-term win before we can do anything beyond flags and footprints with Mars.

And any quote that starts with "Gump says..." is a must read. :laugh:

NASA's like a box of... well, not chocolates anyway.

Gennaro · 2004-07-28 08:23:20

LOL! The entire problem with the Moon-on-to-Mars "vision" is that the poor president didn't mean anything in particular. He's just heard of a place in space somewhere called the moon and another called Mars and perhaps you could go there.
And doing it in a "Crew Exploration Vehicle", assumingly powered by a sewing machine. It's hilarious.
What's needed to amend the confusion of his cabinet from showing is simply letting Zubrin step in as speech writer, but DON'T TELL THE PUBLIC!

So my fine feathered would-be Martian friend, what did Bush say? Mars or the Moon?

Aha! So we're quoting Anita Pallenberg now, are we?

Palomar · 2004-07-28 08:28:44

Well, in all fairness Zubrin's arguments generally only persuade those that already want to go. It's kind of like Thomas Aquinas and his "Proofs for the Existence of God." If you have the faith, it strengthens it. Otherwise...

*Mmmmm...not entirely. I've been pro-space exploration most of my life. Mars was always there in the background -- but along with everything else (including considering space colonies) and as part of a greater whole. Of course, most of the 1990s were spent otherwise (newly married, career really taking off, buying a home, on and on...). My ideas of where to FIX near-future exploration solidified after reading _The Case for Mars_.

And any quote that starts with "Gump says..." is a must read.
NASA's like a box of... well, not chocolates anyway.

Lol!! I know, I thought of Forrest too. :laugh: Momma always said you never know what you're gonna get.

--Cindy

Ian Flint · 2004-07-28 09:03:45

Well, in all fairness Zubrin's arguments generally only persuade those that already want to go. It's kind of like Thomas Aquinas and his "Proofs for the Existence of God." If you have the faith, it strengthens it. Otherwise...

*Mmmmm...not entirely. I've been pro-space exploration most of my life. Mars was always there in the background -- but along with everything else (including considering space colonies) and as part of a greater whole. Of course, most of the 1990s were spent otherwise (newly married, career really taking off, buying a home, on and on...). My ideas of where to FIX near-future exploration solidified after reading _The Case for Mars_.

I'm with Cindy on this one. I've always been pro space, but I didn't care much for Mars in particular until reading Zubrin's book. It seems he's been converting the general space crowd into Mars people.

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-28 09:11:44

I'm with Cindy on this one. I've always been pro space, but I didn't care much for Mars in particular until reading Zubrin's book. It seems he's been converting the general space crowd into Mars people.

Okay, I'll amend my original statement. Zubrin effectively persuades devout or wavering space advocates to focus more on Mars in particular. He's bringing doctrine to the faithful.

The heathen masses still deride the preaching and hear not the call of Mars.

SpaceNut · 2004-07-28 09:18:47

Well we only have so many planets that would even be considered hospitable though teraforming. Mars would be the easier of the two; Venus being the other.

clark · 2004-07-28 10:00:03

Bah. Bradbury, Robinson, and a whole slew of other writers did this to us. Zubrin? He just started a club.

Palomar · 2004-07-28 10:00:29

I'm with Cindy on this one. I've always been pro space, but I didn't care much for Mars in particular until reading Zubrin's book. It seems he's been converting the general space crowd into Mars people.
Okay, I'll amend my original statement. Zubrin effectively persuades devout or wavering space advocates to focus more on Mars in particular. He's bringing doctrine to the faithful.
The heathen masses still deride the preaching and hear not the call of Mars.

*Erm...I still think you're missing the point.

As for your last sentence: If other people want to go back to the Moon that's their prerogative. I may not agree with them, but what the heck; that's life.

Again, _The Case for Mars_ focused my attention on Mars.

I'm also still greatly in support of O'Neill type colonies/cylinders. That has such phenomenal potential.

I agree with Ian's comments about Mars and Venus. ::edit:: Whoops, that was SpaceNut's comment. Sorry.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-28 10:21:04

*Erm...I still think you're missing the point.
...
Again, _The Case for Mars_ focused my attention on Mars.

I got it. :;):

Zubrin elevated Mars from the general mess of space enthusiast fare by giving it specific why's and hows is what I was trying to say.

REB · 2004-07-28 10:46:15

Moon vs Mars

Sounds like a good name for a reality TV show.

Maybe we could set up bases on both and do a competition.

Each week views tune in and see which base is doing better. What the winner needs to do to win could be something like gaining self sufficiency, or something like that.

PurduesUSAFguy · 2004-07-28 10:52:16

I agree that Zubrins biggest effect has been one of organization and credibility. I would say it is because of him more then anyone else that we can talk about H2M with out (at least no too much) laughing in the backround.

As far as the BSI (speeking of, what are we calling it, the Bush Space Initive? the Moon Mars Initiive? Opperation why the Hell not?, lol) I don't see why Moon/Mars are necessarily first one then the other. It seems like they are alike and different enough to run the program in Paralell. Once you get the building block of heavy lift launch vehicles, inflatable habitiats and nuclear reactors it's like a lego set, you need very few specific parts for either set. In the case of Mars you need to develop aerobrakes for decelloration and orbital insertion and a ISRU plant. On the moon you would need a different ISRU plant to extract oxygen and aluminum from the regolith and possible a system to extract ice from the south pole. You might be able to get away with using the same 'landing bus' assembly with the same leggs and rockets on both the moon and mars, just on mars it goes in a aeroshell and has parachutes as well.

In either event I think a big enabler will be the increased cost effectiveness of the new space start ups. You get Bigelow building the habs and if you give SpaceX the contract for a 120-140mt booster you'll be getting alot more bang from your buck compared to LockMart or Boieing. Hell, just switch over to true bidding and not cost plus and I would say we can do Lunar and Martian missions simultaniously without a problem.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-28 11:04:20

Yeah, handing over development of a massive 120MT payload rocket to the little dinky private outfits that, thus far, haven't launched a single payload of consequence into space of any size, and most of them driven to bankruptsy trying to build tiny dinky rockets... what a greaaat idea. Elon Musk is the only one of the bunch that might just be able to build a launch vehicle, Bigelow isn't in the rocket business at all, and Elon's little tiny dinky 1000lbs rocket still hasn't flown even one time. Zero. The engines for his rocket are so small, that he will have to cluster five of them to make a vehicle that will equal the puny Delta-II, and he is going to buy RL-10 engines for the upper stage of the "B model."

How, pray tell, would he ever build a rocket that is a hundred times as powerful? To be frank, getting Lockheed or Boeing (or both as the United Space folks) to do it requires them to have assurance of profit when you start talking tens of millions and billions of dollars... there really isn't a whole lot of choice.

clark · 2004-07-28 11:08:52

How, pray tell, would he ever build a rocket that is ten times as powerful?

GNC, you harp and harp on the prospects of Musk, I have to ask you, have you done any research into what they are doing over at SpaceX?

The fact that they have secured several launch contracts, BEFORE any actual launch ought to demonstrate that people are taking him seriously. You can view most of their development of the rocket- which was designed and built in house.

If Elon can build a basic rocket from nothing, then develop a second generation version that is larger and more robust, why shouldn't we believe he can do even more? Especially given that Musk has stated that his company would build ever larger rockets if the market is there?

Rxke · 2004-07-28 11:28:00

If the market is there...

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-28 11:58:59

Yes I do know... they have paraded their tiny dinky rocket around for almost a year, and still haven't launched it... So what if they got a USAF contract or two? The USAF has Boeing/LM wraped around their little finger and could launch all of them on a Delta... I don't see the contracts as much more than tacit, passing "if he can, great" support.

And now, using the little home made rocket engines, he wants to cluster them together plus use RL-10's to make a rocket thats almost as powerful as the Delta-II. Clustering engines is a sure sign that Elon's technology has reached the edge of its performance and can go no further. The Soviet Moon rocket with its 30 first stage engines ought to be clear enough proof of the stupidity of scaling up small rocket technology too far.

And Elon is supposed to come up with a super engine, far more powerful? And build rocket stages dozens of times larger? No no... he will be lucky to even make the Falcon-VB fly.

This time, market forces are not enough to overcome the sheer magnetude of the investment required to develop such a huge vehicle...

Edit: The Saturn-V cost roughly $40Bn to develop. Shuttle at least $20-25Bn, perhaps more. EELVs probobly around $5Bn. How exactly is Elon going to do this for only tens or maybe hundreds of millions? He is charging only pocket change for each flight on his rockets, certainly not enough to fund such a development.

The cost of a launch vehicle using turbopump engines and light metal construction becomes exponentially more expensive with its size, mass, and reliability.

PurduesUSAFguy · 2004-07-28 12:04:43

Yes I do know... they have paraded their tiny dinky rocket around for almost a year, and still haven't launched it... So what if they got a USAF contract or two? The USAF has Boeing/LM wraped around their little finger and could launch all of them on a Delta... I don't see the contracts as much more than tacit, passing "if he can, great" support.
And now, using the little home made rocket engines, he wants to cluster them together plus use RL-10's to make a rocket thats almost as powerful as the Delta-II. Clustering engines is a sure sign that Elon's technology has reached the edge of its performance and can go no further. The Soviet Moon rocket with its 30 first stage engines ought to be clear enough proof of the stupidity of scaling up small rocket technology too far.
And Elon is supposed to come up with a super engine, far more powerful? And build rocket stages dozens of times larger? No no... he will be lucky to even make the Falcon-VB fly.
This time, market forces are not enough to overcome the sheer magnetude of the investment required to develop such a huge vehicle.,

I wasn't implying that they would develop and HLV of on their own since I don't see there being many customers outside of NASA and the DOD, but if NASA is requestin bids on developing a new launcher the I just think the SpaceX makes sense.

clark · 2004-07-28 12:04:48

Okay. I'll just wait for him to make you eat your words then.

~Eternal~ · 2004-07-28 12:30:38

Moon Colonization is obviously more important than Martian colonization but definetly not exploration, mates.

SpaceNut · 2004-07-29 09:25:34

Now here is an article of interest for mining of in-situ materials to make rocket fuel on the moon. The same could be true of mars as well.

NASA Grant To Tap Lunar Resources
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/lunar-04zf.html

jefferywinkler · 2004-08-06 15:47:27

You want to know the truth about this Moon-Mars thing? Within the Manned Flight to Mars advocacy community, there has always been a subgroup that sincerely believed that we should go to the Moon first, first of all, because they like the Moon, unlike most people who think it's boring to go back there, and second of all, because they think that perfecting technologies for long term manned spaceflight on the Moon will then make it easier to then go to Mars. For some reason, these people got ahold of one of Bush's speechwriters, and they put this Moon-Mars goal in Bush's speech.

In the English language, people use the phrase "stepping stone" as a metaphor meaning by doing something first, it makes it easier to do something else later. Cloning a sheep was a "stepping stone" to cloning a human. Learning BASIC is a "stepping stone" to learning C++ or FORTRAN. Learning phi^4 theory is a "stepping stone" to learning QED. The bosinic string was a "stepping stone" to superstring theory. Now, advocates of the Moon-Mars strategy claim that going to the Moon is a "stepping stone" to going to Mars, meaning that we will develop technologies while going to the Moon that we could then use to go to Mars, and it supposedly would make it easier to go to Mars.

What happened next is that president Bush, all the pundits on television, the media, TIME magazine, etc. were all so stupid that they totally and utterly misunderstood this expression "stepping stone" to meaning that going to the Moon would be some sort of literal "stepping stone" to Mars, as if the astronauts, on their way to Mars, would somehow stop off at the Moon, while on their way to Mars. In TIME magazine they literally say, with a streight face, that the ship that would carry humans to Mars would be built on the surface of the Moon, and then launched from the surface of the Moon, which is absolute sheer insanity. I'm sure Bush thinks that the astronauts would go from the Earth to the Moon, and then from the Moon to Mars, and that stopping off at the Moon on their way to Mars would somehow make it easier to go to Mars, like stopping at a rest stop while driving a long distance on vacation. This is absolute sheer insanity, and shows how mind boggingly stupid these people. This is absolutely not what the Moon-Mars advocates intended when they whispered in the ear of Bush's speechwriter.

I think we should absolutely go the Mars, but a manned flight to Mars would cost about 30 billion dollars, and Bush only appropriated one million dollars for his combined program of going to both the Moon and Mars, which is as insulting as delibrately leaving a waitress a tip of one penny.

Keep in mind, Bush's father, George Herbert Walker Bush, also declared that he was going to have a manned flight to Mars, but after publically declaring it, nothing ever happened.

Jeffery Winkler

http://www.geocities.com/jefferywinkler … erywinkler

Grypd · 2004-08-06 18:36:46

Mr Bush's father did not expect the collossall disaster that was the 90 day plan. It has seriously damaged the lunar and Mars advocates ever since.

Why should we go to the Moon, the best reply is its close.

On the Moon we can try out real time tele-robotics that can allow us to create a real Industrial base to allow colonisation of the rest of the solar system. Zubrins plan lends itself to Flag and Footprints missions ie once the mission is finished they go home. We in the Mars society want more than that we want colonisation. It is a harsh word I grant you but in the end it is a true word. Why go out and explore if not to develop new places for the species to live.

So this is one reason the space Advocacy groups joined to give there backing to the bush plan. We all may be singing from different hymn sheets but our aims are so similar we can agree and the tune will be the same.

comstar03 · 2004-08-07 06:50:47

Truth is we need a large off- earth training facility for exploration crews. The Moon is a good place as well as the place for raw materials and also good scientific platform.

So the logical method is to but the infrastructure for a space corp , not lets get out the space wagons and ride across the space hoping to find supplies.

You first build settlements close to home and further out and further out. I know that some groups within this society wants to go direct to Mars, but they require training on low gravity planets and extreme conditions. We need to have larger scale facilities to build the spacecrafts that we can use for mulitple mars and beyond missions.

And I think that we need to come out with a detailed plan, with bold objectives that are needed. Not the singular ideas that we are running on.

From the 21 st Century onwards the human race is a space race as well.

With that statement, then how do we build our large scale settlements, then we work out the crafts that can will service those needs for humanity.

Why are we discussing Moon first or Mars first , because the real question is how can we have a base of the Mars surface , how do we train the crews and base staff, and the fleet of larger vessels and smaller vessels to do this job of exploration.

The resources will be found, but the correct plan is the most important document that we need to get things done correctly for humanity. The is the first major step for humanity into space and each decade should but on this until the human race is populating all the planets, moons in this solar system and getting technology that will take use to the next planetary system and beyond.

deagleninja · 2004-08-07 13:20:04

I like the Moon.......really.
It is pretty in our night sky and seems so close you can almost touch it!

My car has racked up enough miles that it could have 'driven' there! Wow! That is pretty close if a car could reach it!

But what does the Moon really offer us? Real-time telerobotics? Ok, and how does this prepare us for landing humans on Mars where real-time has no meaning due to the speed-of-light?

Perhaps we can practice aero-braking? Oh wait, there's no atmosphere is there....

Oh, I know! We can practice growing our food on another world! But with the 2 week cycle of day and night, couldn't we practice this on Earth in a garage somewhere?

So maybe what the Space Vision intends is for our astronauts to get their space legs back with practicing landings and lift-offs on another world....but couldn't this be done much cheaper with simulators?

The Moon is pretty and some day we should go back and perhaps build a radio observatory on the 'darkside', but clearly the lessons we learn from traveling there and back are more useful as practice for going to say Mercury or Europa and manned missions like these are about 100 years away.

Going to Mars is not only inspiring, it is safer for our astronauts. Too big a deal is made about radiation concerns and the distance that seperates Mars and Earth (as if we could really do anything to rescue Lunar travelers).

I know hindsight is 20/20, but I really wish Bush would of left out the part about returning to the Moon first. The public would be much more supportive if Bush had let Zubrin pitch Mars Direct. Just imagine telling Congress that you already have a plan that doesn't require new spaceships, can be done for a 6% increase of NASA's budget, and can be achieved in ten years time....

Grypd · 2004-08-07 17:44:34

Quote Deagleninja Aug 07 2004, 15:20

But what does the Moon really offer us? Real-time telerobotics? Ok, and how does this prepare us for landing Humans on Mars where real time has no meaning due to the speed-of-light?

Best way to answer this is. What the problem with Humans building anything is that to make things happen they require a lot of logistics. These logistics cost a lot to send from the only source we have the Earth. What telerobotics give us is the ability to control from Earth machines that will build what we need for man so that when we send our people there they can walk into premade bases ready for them. This will drastically reduce our costs in the long run and more importantly give us more resources available for use in space. Telerobotics will also have a major use on the face of Mars as well as we can use this same technigues to send a second generation of brighter robots with human overseership capability to make bases and resources available for the Human colonists on Mars. And there is a time lag between the Moon and Earth its about 3 seconds each way.

One thing that the Moon has which Mars does not have is energy it has a lot more solar energy arrive than the same on Mars. There are spots on both poles that will allow almost continous power to be generated by solar panels. When we get a chance we will circumvent the Moon so as to have almost a continous power supply coming in. (we may well be able to use superconducting materials as in the Shade on the Moon being so cold and this will give a real increase in power collection). Energy is what makes modern civilisation without it we would be living in caves and with abundance it gives the Moon an edge when it comes to Industrial concerns.

I can almost certainly garuantee that the Zubrin Mars direct or Nasa Semi direct will without there being a continued increasing prescence on the Moon turn into an Appollo type situation where the there would be a few visits to Mars but when the public got bored they would cancel the program. They will even say it was NOT a flag and footprints mission as they had done so much research when there.

The only way that this can be stopped is if there is a drive to Colonize Mars and that takes more infrastructure than the Earth could realistically do. (We are talking large cycler type spacecraft) if we wish to send a decent amount of people to Mars. TeleRobotics will build us these behamoths in space and to get the materials from the Moon and Asteroids that will allow us to make the components and supplies to launch them.

This is why the Moon is important and why Telerobotics are an essential advance that we need to do to be able to really become a spacefairing race.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-07-28 06:42:18

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#27 2004-07-28 07:29:35

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#28 2004-07-28 08:23:20

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#29 2004-07-28 08:28:44

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#30 2004-07-28 09:03:45

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#31 2004-07-28 09:11:44

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#32 2004-07-28 09:18:47

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#33 2004-07-28 10:00:03

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#34 2004-07-28 10:00:29

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#35 2004-07-28 10:21:04

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#36 2004-07-28 10:46:15

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#37 2004-07-28 10:52:16

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#38 2004-07-28 11:04:20

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#39 2004-07-28 11:08:52

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#40 2004-07-28 11:28:00

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#41 2004-07-28 11:58:59

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#42 2004-07-28 12:04:43

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#43 2004-07-28 12:04:48

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#44 2004-07-28 12:30:38

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#45 2004-07-29 09:25:34

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#46 2004-08-06 15:47:27

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#47 2004-08-06 18:36:46

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#48 2004-08-07 06:50:47

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#49 2004-08-07 13:20:04

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

#50 2004-08-07 17:44:34

Re: Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend?

Board footer