The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

SpaceNut · 2004-08-19 12:29:05

In Many of the discusions of topics we come back to what did the president mean by first the Moon and then beyound. To use the moon as a stepping stone to space.

To sustain a Moon project does this mean a base, colonization and or can it be one shot after the other with nothing permanent ever built.

We can keep looking a startup cost as well as the long term cost but are they really what is important to exploration.

If we go to the moon should we be looking to develope self sufficiency and less dependence on Earths resources.

Should the moon be the next Launching pad to beyound?

The questions keep coming or going and even Nasa is looking for information as to what is meant in the commissions report.

Grypd · 2004-08-19 12:35:47

One great advantage to the Moon is we can get machines to make us a base and facilities.The Moon also it has advantages and disadvantages compared to Mars. I believe we should go there first not to compete with the Mars program but to build the capability to make the main dream of the Mars society possible - COLONISATION

Dook · 2004-08-19 12:55:04

I believe the President decided to make a statement concerning a future mission to the moon and then mars primarily in response to China's putting a man in orbit. It also may have been in response to the shuttle coming apart but if it was it was very late. The President took the easy way out to appease the old Apollo astronauts and their lobby rather than set the sights on a new higher goal. By deciding to go back to the moon he sent us all the way back to 1960. Instead we should have gone full speed ahead with Mars Direct and put an American on mars within seven years.

The moon is the wrong way to mars. We've been there already. The scientists are interested in mars, not the moon. There is nothing on the moon to colonize. It is a much more hostile place than mars. Do you ever wonder why no wars have been fought over Antarctica?

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-19 13:24:23

To be quite frank, I don't think that NASA is ready or able to go to Mars, reguardless what Zubrin thinks. Yes we have the technology more-or-less, but that is about all. Going to Mars requires that NASA learn to re-apply our technology and engineering skills to get the job done with a reasonable chance of sucess and for more than flags/footprints. Also, I don't think that this can be accomplished in any 6-7 year time frame, not by NASA anyway with current reasources, and since it will take long time I don't think there would be political stamina to see the project through.

So, we go back to the Moon.

This gives NASA enough skill (and possibly improved tech) to pull of a Mars mission, which would as you have mentioned, be on a world much harsher than Mars. It would be a worthy "stopover" politicly speaking, so that voters and legislators don't become weary of wating so long for a Mars mission. Plus, yes, we do beat the Chinese to the Moon, which will infuse confidance in NASA from legislators and NASA employees themselves that the Red Planet is within reach, and NASA is competant to get there.

From a purely scientific and technology development standpoint, a trip back to the Moon is not a bad idea. The best place for telescopes anywhere in the inner solar system is on the Moon's far side. Medium-term Lunar operations will require development of compact nuclear systems, which we need for a Mars trip. Training for extended operations in a forbiding, freezing, low-gravity, low-pressure, high radiation, rocky/dusty environment? Check If Astronauts can "do the Moon," then Mars will be a vacation on a sunny beach in comparison... Possibly give our robots a workout too, since we could learn the little nuances in AI programming to make them operate on Moon or Mars differently than an Earthly lab while being only two light seconds away... and if it goes wrong, then safety is only a few days away for the Lunar ERV vehicle.

Finally, I wish to express my doubt in MarsDirect and Dr. Zubrin's plan... I don't think that MarsDirect is really any more than a Martian Apollo, as the entire system is just barely enough to get people to and from, and that is about all. The practical limitations of the Ares or other SDV vehicle demand that MarsDirect have very, very small mass margins, so small that any serious weight creep will doom the mission. So little useful hardware mass can be sent to Mars this way makes the whole proposition of dubious usefulness.

Martian Republic · 2004-08-19 16:01:49

I believe I heard that we are going back to build a base. But, I didn't get any more than that.

But, if all we are doing is going back to the Moon for a visit and that it, then Mars sound good. But, I'm not sure how we would do it though.

But, I suppose that my first choice is going to the Moon and build a base of thousand or more. It would give us a chance to build the infrastructure that we need to launch a Mars mission and to develop the technology and expertise of doing Moons to get ready for the Mars Mission.

As a general rule of thumb, projects this big generally take between one to two generation to pull off after the discussion has been made to do it and make it a reality. The moon we could probably do in a twenty year time frame, because it close to up, but Mars would probably take thirty or forty years to do, because it further away.

With the Moon we can go Direct, But Mars may be a one way ticket for our astronauts if we should send them to Mars. Now I'm sure that we would have plenty of volunteers, but that not the point. We want a reasonable chance of being able to get our astronauts back in reasonable physical shape as when they left. And right not it too much in question to have as a national mission, but it would make a nice next step mission.
Oh we should go to the moon using Fission Powered Rocket instead of Chemical Rocket. It would shave off maybe one day from the trip and help to bring the technology on line that would make Mars Mission achievable and would even be a logical follow through of using this kind of technology for continuing on to Mars.

Larry,

Grypd · 2004-08-19 16:48:37

The problem I have always had with Mars Direct is it creates very good exploration missions of Mars. They are done efficiently with a good load of time to do a very good amount of science on Mars.

This unfortunatly will likely lead to what happened to the apollo program. Prove it is a great success, do some of the science and since we can not get a proper Base as the weight limits are too tight it leads to project cancelled.

The only way that the Colonisation of Mars will be able to happen is if there is infrastructure. We probably cant get it from Earth the launch costs are too high so we have to go elsewhere. It will be a slow process but with luck and sense we will manage it. And im pretty sure that the key to it will be the ability to construct items on the Moon without the need of people being present just in contact from earth-Telerobotics. Its this technology that will allow us to make what we need to allow us to go further.

Commodore · 2004-08-19 19:11:48

The Moon is our space industrial base. We might be able to pull of a Mars Direct type mission without going to the moon, but not much else.

Our long term future in space is dependent on the Moon. Theres no reason delay.

Dook · 2004-08-19 19:18:48

I would agree that NASA is not ready to go to mars but they were not ready to go to the moon in 1962 when JFK made his speech. Seven years later they made it. Going to mars does require technology, skills, but most of all leadership. Someone needs to set the bar higher so we can at least make the attempt. Maybe instead of 7 years it will take us 10, or 12. I can accept that but what I can't accept is seeing the U.S. become a follower. China puts a man in orbit and announces a plan to build a base on the moon and now all of a sudden the U.S. President speaks and we are going back to the moon, then to mars eventually. We beat China to the moon 35 years ago.

The only way I would accept a mission to the moon rather than mars is if we could test the in-situ rocket propellant production there but we can't since the moon doesn't have an atmosphere of CO2.

Mars direct might be just a martian Apollo, but I'll take it. Maybe it's near it's lift limit but we can send more Ares if needed. It's definately better than being stuck in LEO for another 30 years.

Dook · 2004-08-19 19:21:20

The Moon our our space industrial base. We might be able to pull of a Mars Direct type mission without going to the moon, but not much else.
Our long term future in space is dependent on the Moon. Theres no reason delay.

Was wondering if you could elaborate on exactly how the moon is our space industrial base?

Commodore · 2004-08-19 19:55:01

The Moon our our space industrial base. We might be able to pull of a Mars Direct type mission without going to the moon, but not much else.
Our long term future in space is dependent on the Moon. Theres no reason delay.
Was wondering if you could elaborate on exactly how the moon is our space industrial base?

Its the most economical source, given the gravity well, of minerals and fuel, as well as supporting a human population, for any future operations in space.

Asteroids may very well provide the minerals, but lack the ability support a population, and are a lot farthur away.

Mars has the minerals and the ability to support a population, but is far away and has an atmosphere, one we would be trying to thicken.

Michael Bloxham · 2004-08-19 19:58:29

Finally, I wish to express my doubt in MarsDirect and Dr. Zubrin's plan... I don't think that MarsDirect is really any more than a Martian Apollo, as the entire system is just barely enough to get people to and from, and that is about all. The practical limitations of the Ares or other SDV vehicle demand that MarsDirect have very, very small mass margins, so small that any serious weight creep will doom the mission. So little useful hardware mass can be sent to Mars this way makes the whole proposition of dubious usefulness.

MarsDirect was never meant to be an ideal mission plan. But it is something we can afford today, and can implement with current technology. We have to reach a compromise, guys! Colombus didn't set off to colonize America; Hell, he didn't even set off to explore the continent. Rather, he just wanted to see if he could make it all the way to China. Colonization came after exploration, which only came after discovery. Colonization of Mars will probably not happen within our lifetimes. We must face this and set our sights on something we can achieve within our lifetimes. And MarsDirect may just be that something.

Commodore · 2004-08-19 20:15:44

Finally, I wish to express my doubt in MarsDirect and Dr. Zubrin's plan... I don't think that MarsDirect is really any more than a Martian Apollo, as the entire system is just barely enough to get people to and from, and that is about all. The practical limitations of the Ares or other SDV vehicle demand that MarsDirect have very, very small mass margins, so small that any serious weight creep will doom the mission. So little useful hardware mass can be sent to Mars this way makes the whole proposition of dubious usefulness.
MarsDirect was never meant to be an ideal mission plan. But it is something we can afford today, and can implement with current technology. We have to reach a compromise, guys! Colombus didn't set off to colonize America; Hell, he didn't even set off to explore the continent. Rather, he just wanted to see if he could make it all the way to China. Colonization came after exploration, which only came after discovery. Colonization of Mars will probably not happen within our lifetimes. We must face this and set our sights on something we can achieve within our lifetimes. And MarsDirect may just be that something.

True exploration will take time, and on site infrastructure.

We need an outpost from which to launch further local expeditions. Anything that doesn't directly support that goal a waste of money.

MarsDog · 2004-08-19 20:43:17

In an interview, Zurbin stated that people will go to where the resources are.
-
Mars has them and not the Moon. The Moon needs Hydrogen to be imported. However, as a manufacturing base, the Moon is conveniently close. For a quick trip to Mars, the Moon will not be useful. Over the longer term, the Moon will be the supplier of parts for large spaceships.
-
Mars Direct utilizes awailable Martian resources.
Easy jump in imagination is a Martian base with gradually increasing number settlers.
-
http://www.marsnews.com/archives/2004/0 … e.html]ESA only 26.6 billion with additional resupply possible for 5.1 Billion.

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-19 21:01:54

"This unfortunatly will likely lead to what happened to the apollo program. Prove it is a great success, do some of the science and since we can not get a proper Base as the weight limits are too tight it leads to project cancelled.

The only way that the Colonisation of Mars will be able to happen is if there is infrastructure... And im pretty sure that the key to it will be the ability to construct items on the Moon without the need of people being present just in contact from earth-Telerobotics."

I agree that MarsDirect runs a horrible risk of being a one-time or limited deal... think about this, when the first MD mission is done from its 500 day trip to Mars... how much will there be left to accomplish that needs humans?

But getting there from the Moon? I don't know about that... The Moon makes a fine launch pad if your rocket is already up there, but building a rocket in space is not going to happen for several decades after perminant bases are started... and definatly not by telerobotics alone, even today cars need some assembly by hand.

The infrastructure really requires only one thing... a truely reuseable launch vehicle. Large rockets like Shuttle-Z, Energia, or a mix of technologies in a new HLLV can launch the larger items like space stations, while RLVs bring people, supplies, and smaller payloads up on a regular basis.

"I would agree that NASA is not ready to go to mars but they were not ready to go to the moon in 1962 when JFK made his speech. Seven years later they made it. Going to mars does require technology, skills, but most of all leadership. Someone needs to set the bar higher so we can at least make the attempt."

The fact that Apollo worked, that our technology matured so quickly and our experience so good, that it truely was in the literal sense, extra-ordinary. In other words, don't expect it to happen again... I think we have the leadership to get from the Earth to the Moon right now, but not Mars, the Moon really is easier. Then once we have "done the Moon," Mars will not sound so far away to politicians... Then we will be ready to go to Mars for real.

The mass margin issue with MarsDirect is more serious than many realize I think: if the mass gets much higher than what Zubrin (optimisticly) estimates.. and/or if Ares-SDV hits a snag and runs a little heavy, then the MarsDirect mission will never fly. MarsDirect relies on the whole thing being done in only two flights to keep its costs low and make Mars-surface landing accuracy less important. It can't handle being devided into 3+ pieces.

I still think that MD will turn into another Apollo... is that really worth it? A "compromise" to get our boots red only to come back to Earth for another 50 years?

Dook · 2004-08-19 21:34:22

I will concede that if we go to the moon simply to test Mars Direct equipment, mars hab, mars pressurized rover, ERV, (can't test the on site production of propellant unfortunately), Ares launch vehicle, then it would be acceptable to me. If the reason to go to the moon is to build a base then I am completely against it. Why build a moon base at all? So we can build an interferometer on the dark side? That's not reason enough for me. There is very little scientific interest in the moon. Mars may have life, not the moon and that is the whole purpose of space exploration. Not to go to a rock to dig up minerals, we have enough minerals here, but to find life surviving in the crevaces of another planet.

Mars Direct is intended to be a sustained landing and exploration of the red planet but it is possible for the politicians to make it into an Apollo. Is it worth it? Yes, even Apollo was better than 35 years of LEO, sacrificing astronauts for what? Just to take high altitude pictures?

Dook · 2004-08-19 23:45:03

However, as a manufacturing base, the Moon is conveniently close. For a quick trip to Mars, the Moon will not be useful. Over the longer term, the Moon will be the supplier of parts for large spaceships.

I disagree with the 'colonization before science' idea whether it's applied to the moon or mars. I think we very well may manufacture things on the moon but it will be far into the future, maybe as much as 100 years. There is no pressing reason to spend billions on that kind of infrastructure any time soon. Colonization? I doubt 10% of the population would approve of any money spent to colonize the moon or mars. Science yes but it depends on how much.

Also how are you going to feed a population of 1,000 on the moon? Supply water? Oxygen? Non-stop rockets sent from the earth? What are they going to build there? Solar panels? Do you really think the enormous cost and risk to begin and maintain something like this even comes close to making it beneficial? The desire for humans to spread out and populate the universe shouldn't override common sense.

RobS · 2004-08-20 00:31:27

NASA was also concerned with the overall mass of Mars Direct, so they created Mars Semidirect based on three launches. So the plan can be modified. The main likely changes: a separate interplanetary transit vehicle with its own trans-Earth injection stage (reducing the mass of the ERV and in situ prpollant manufacturing).

Mars Direct is not meant to be anything but an opening exploration phase. After a few missions, you then decide where your "Martian McMurdo" will be (McMurdo is the central staging point for all Antarctic exploration). You can build up infrastructure there by replacing the Hab with cargo; the 25-tonne hab has a landing system massing about 15 tonnes. In fact, the cargo can take a minimum energy trajectory, so the lander could put 28 tonnes of cargo on Mars. If one launched a third Ares with 28 tonnes of cargo, after four oppostions that would be 112 tonnes of infrastructure in one place; quite a lot.

The comment was made that scientists are no longer interested in the moon. This is most definitely NOT the case. There remains substantial science about the moon to do. The moon is worthy of a permanent manned scientific exploratory effort, just like Mars and that "useless icebox" of a continent, Antarctica.

The moon almost certainly has one thing to offer a Mars trip, also: hydrogen/oxygen fuel, available at L1 or even eventually in LEO. The evidence for disseminated ice at the lunar poles (not solid ice, but a few percent ice in regolith) is pretty good. The technology for using 1% icy regolith can be developed, according to various people.

-- RobS

Rxke · 2004-08-20 01:12:43

And the thing that's often overlooked: there is a (very small) percentage of hydrogen in the surfacelayer on the Moon *everywhere*
Deposited by solarwind through the millenia, it is very small, so harvesting regolith purely for H will not be realistic, but if they ever start surface-mining for other stuff (like the -sigh- He) it would make sense to extract the H, too (and other stuff of course)

deagleninja · 2004-08-20 02:39:06

Here's a thought, split NASA up!

Our military doesn't fall under one office and their tasks are relatively simple by comparison. Our Armed forces are made up of the Navy, Air Force, Army, Marines, National Guard and Coat Guard with each having their own specific goals.
Perhaps NASA would be better off if we had a Moon, Mars, Beyond, and Earth Science branch. This way each department could focus on their specific goals instead of fighting amongst each other for much needed funding.
NASA worked great when THE goal was entering space, then orbiting the planet, then going to the Moon. However, these days NASA does so much more. Like solar missions like SoHo, telescopes like Hubble, deep space missions like Voyager and JIMO, rovers like Spirit, not to mention all the PR work they do with schools across the nation and other tidbits.
Perhaps this is what is really wrong with NASA, we are asking them to do too much at one time....

Personally, I say leave the Moon for private industry. It is a goal that they can realistically reach in a few years. Anyways, it's so 60's......

comstar03 · 2004-08-20 04:06:50

I find this funny, reading about your comments, To build a long term viable space exploration for humans into space we need facilities each or greater than we have on earth, and you can not do that from orbit. However we could do that from the surface of the moon. Also we can do scientific research about the cosmos from the farside of the moon where it is shield from earth background noise. Low gravity on the moon allows creation of large spacecrafts up to 100s of meters long also allows mass production using rebotics, the Honda robotics ( humanized versions ) on the moon would be far better and run alot longer. With the new chip developments and smarter ways to assembly silicon based processors we could but an automated workforce for space construction and assembly the earth spacecrafts in record time with cost reductions.

All this is current technology, using microwave tramsitting solar power platform in geo-stationery orbit above the moon providing continuous power the development could go around the clock in workteams of of 32 robots per shift and the control centers would be in USA, Australia, and Europe. Eventually expanding to 3 teams of 32 robots per shift.

All this means that we are running things efficiently and creative, then when the lunar facilities are ready for habitation for 100+ personnel then you move the construction crews onsite and expand the development of the site, for spacedock facilities from the habitats and landing facilities.

All this is capable right now, because you don't need to bring to robots and droids back to earth its one way. One satellite at earth and one communication satellite in lunar orbit, simple planning. Think possibilities using practical technology of today with a low budget, not Nasa's budget.

At the end of the Day, The Moon is the place to test more powerful space drive systems, build larger vessels to expand the frontier, and to get personnel conditioned for life in outer space.

deagleninja · 2004-08-20 04:51:59

I take it you are reffering to my comments? Which did you find humorous?

I have no doubt, one day, we will use the Moon for its resources and it will have its own space capabilities. However, this is far into the future.

Mars offers the possibilities of a smaller colony that can be built up to something you describe. The Moon requires a huge investment initially to be doing the things you suggest in 20-50 years.

Why you may ask? Well, plants grown for food on Mars can take advantage of its natural 24 hour day and atmospheric protection. CO2 can also be easily pumped into greenhouses where on the Moon it needs to be manufactured or imported. The Moon requires that greenhouses be built underground and therefore a lot of that energy you talked about would be needed to grow plants for people to eat. Perhaps most importantly, plants need Nitrogen. While early information suggests that Mars is short on Nitrogen, it is not devoid of it like the Moon is. Even with a heavily robotic society, the Moon would require at least several hundred or a few thousand people to do what you suggested.

I will grant you that the farside of the Moon is a wonderful place for radio and optical obsevatories. However, if your point was to illustrate that the Moon is perfect for creating next generation spacecraft and develop needed skills for expanding humans through the solar system, I am afraid you are mistaken. It makes much more sense to use NEO (Near Earth Orbit) asteroids and comets for resources and experience. Asteroids offer all the benefits of the Moon's resources (plus even lower gravity) with none of the drawbacks.

MarsDog · 2004-08-20 09:21:16

http://www.moonsociety.org/]Moon Society

There are http://www.crystalinks.com/our_moon3.html]places on the Moon with constant sunlight.
Relatively easy to have a permanent Moon base.

Grypd · 2004-08-20 09:32:05

The Moon is the perfect place for the science of Telerobotics to be used and Improved. Modern advanced societies run on only one thing that is generated electrical power. This the Moon can do easily and with a very simple use of the points on the Moon which are almost in constant Sunlight and more power points located across the circumfrance of the Moon this allows almost 100% power generation.

The one problem is when the Earth obscures the Sun but again as this a short event using so called Gyro farms can easily solve this problem. Other means to increase power is to use a satelite mirror redirecting sunlight to the surface.

But in the end we dont really have to worry about this problem at first as the initial simple Lunar base will be created by use of Telerobotic robots and these when the sun goes down simply power down. Its not as if they will rust if left idle as to the possible problems with lunar regolith Dust and tempature swings simple put them in a garage come car wash.

It makes sense for any initial Lunar base to be located to be very far north or south. These places being where we have ready access to minerals and prime power collection points also with the possibility of water in the permanently dark deep craters. But it also allows for circumfrential facilities to be made easier and this will allow 24 hours constant improvement of the Moons facilities.

Dook · 2004-08-20 10:09:37

It's not relatively easy to have a permanent moon base. How are you going to feed, supply water, and oxygen, to all these people?

Robots working non-stop to build a long term space exploration for humans into space? Where are you planning to send all these humans?

MarsDog · 2004-08-20 10:38:22

We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard

US will choose Mars because it is hard, and leave the easy Moon to Norh Korea, Pakistan, China, India, or Europe ?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-08-19 12:29:05

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#2 2004-08-19 12:35:47

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#3 2004-08-19 12:55:04

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#4 2004-08-19 13:24:23

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#5 2004-08-19 16:01:49

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#6 2004-08-19 16:48:37

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#7 2004-08-19 19:11:48

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#8 2004-08-19 19:18:48

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#9 2004-08-19 19:21:20

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#10 2004-08-19 19:55:01

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#11 2004-08-19 19:58:29

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#12 2004-08-19 20:15:44

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#13 2004-08-19 20:43:17

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#14 2004-08-19 21:01:54

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#15 2004-08-19 21:34:22

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#16 2004-08-19 23:45:03

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#17 2004-08-20 00:31:27

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#18 2004-08-20 01:12:43

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#19 2004-08-20 02:39:06

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#20 2004-08-20 04:06:50

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#21 2004-08-20 04:51:59

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#22 2004-08-20 09:21:16

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#23 2004-08-20 09:32:05

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#24 2004-08-20 10:09:37

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#25 2004-08-20 10:38:22

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

Board footer