Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

cIclops · 2006-01-31 02:50:57

ESAS says very little about the Mars architecture other than hints about NTP and it seems unlikely that NTP will happen for a long time. So how much of a Mars architecture can be put together using HLV, CLV, EDS and CEV components? Clearly a MSAM is needed, but is there enough flexibility in those components to begin Mars exploration and to evolve them into a sustainable system?

PurduesUSAFguy · 2006-01-31 08:10:48

ESAS says very little about the Mars architecture other than hints about NTP and it seems unlikely that NTP will happen for a long time. So how much of a Mars architecture can be put together using HLV, CLV, EDS and CEV components? Clearly a MSAM is needed, but is there enough flexibility in those components to begin Mars exploration and to evolve them into a sustainable system?

I would say cautiously yes, the two big things we need for Mars that are going to come from the first portion of the VSE is a resurrected American heavy lift capability and a (semi)expendable crew capsule. With the resurrected J-2S+ on the upper stages of both the CaLV and HLLV we will have a space startable cryogenic engine that could be used as part of the TMI stage, likely derived from an extended version of the Lunar EDS. One launch to put the upper stage in orbit, one with a payload that docks with it. No on orbit assembly just docks. Crew then goes up on the stick (when applicable) and you’re off.

I'd say on the list you would need to develop is a program wide biconic type aerobrake for landing payloads on the surface, a common landing bus( i.e. same legs and decent engines for every payload), a Mars accent vehicle with ISRU factory, common habs for on the ground and space, a nuclear reactor, and finally a pressurized rover.

The aerobrake would be a deceptively big project since it would be maybe the most mission critical item to be launched. That being said, we've been making ablative heat shields for a long time.

A common landing bus would likely be the most expensive item on the list as it would likely be one of the most complicated; no one to my knowledge has ever landed a 30-40 tone payload on another world before; let alone a soft, upright landing. Hopefully with a common landing system for the surface hab, cargo pallets, MAV, ISRU plant ECT. will help at least partially bring the economies of scale to the problem.

The MAV could just a CEV capsule with tanks and engines mounted under it, and RL10 has already been run on methane so there shouldn't be much problem here.

The ISRU plant, at lest the H2+CO2 part anyways doesn't seem like it would be a problem to develop at all, CO2 cracking for oxygen though might be a trick, also some sort of permafrost water extraction system might be nice. After the landing bus itself I'd think the ISRU plant would be the second biggest development project.

Finally habs for surface and space. The transhab was at a high degree of technical readiness when it was canceled, and dev work continues at Bigelow Aerospace, so with any luck maybe by the time the Mars program happens perhaps we could actually get by buying habs from them on a true commercial basis.

(list assuming a program that at least sort of looks like the DRM)
The one thing we might be able to do to accelerate the program along is the fact that several of these systems would serve to advance the lunar program. The Transhabs could expand a permanent base on the moon, the big mars Common landing bus with less propellant could deliver big payloads to the Martian surface, and I would guess a pressurized rover would be applicable for both the moon and Mars.

The reactor for power on the ground shouldn't be too hard to develop, the Navy has significant expertise in operating small power plants safely for long durations, and the Russians have been flying reactors in space to power their radar reconnaissance sats since the 70s. I think it would be smart to develop a common reactor for both in space use and on the surface.

The other needs of the mars program, like the aerobrake are small enough for their development program to start concurrently with the lunar program to slowly build up the hardware so that by the time we stop making sandcastles out of lunar regolith we can throw them together and go. The one snag I see would be the reactor, but I think if you enlisted the help of the Navy as JIMO was going to and got the national labs with you not only could it be done easily from a technical stand point, but would likely be a political god sent to the labs who are having a major retention problem....guess it's a pretty boring job being a physicist at a weapons lab that isn't designing new weapons. We need to reopen our nuclear weapons production capability but I'll save that for another thread....

Of course and NTR would be nice as well, but, lol, we'll see hopefully enough hippies are dying out by now for people to have a more rational view of nuclear power.

Shit, maybe we aren't getting anything out of the lunar program...especially if the battlestar glactica people get their way and want to use and L2 based fire baton as the start of the program...

GCNRevenger · 2006-01-31 08:48:55

The launch vehicles and a stretch version of the EDS stage are definatly going to be common to both programs, the CEV will work fine for a reentry vehicle, and the LSAM lander might serve as a base for the Mars lander, but most everything else will probobly have to be new. The life support system and/or nuclear reactor for a Lunar base might also be used, if either one of those is actually developed.

The trouble with TransHAB is that it can't aerobrake, and if you are going to wrap it in a rigid biconic heat shield, you might as well skip the TransHAB part and stick with regular rigid walls. NASA's excelent DRM mission plan calls for just this. If you are already building a large rigid HAB for Earth-Mars/Mars-Earth transit, you might as well use it for the surface too and only develop one HAB.

Without aerobraking, it seems kind of unlikly that any NASA plan could suceed without radically new technology (RLV for megaloads of regular fuel or high-energy nuke engine).

I think the HAB modules will be the most expensive componets, followed closely by the landers. Basing them off the LSAM, which is almost the right size, and swapping out Hydrogen for Methane would be about right for Mars. Keep in mind that LSAM will already have to have automatic and precision landing capability.

A nuclear reactor will be quite difficult to develop; such a contraption will be completly different then a navy submarine reactor, smaller, light weight, no ocean for heat sink, high temperature coolant, different power conversion systems, etc. The USAF's old aborted SP-100 reactor would be much closer to what NASA would need, only 4-5MT and able to deliver 100kWe with no moving parts other then the external control mechanism. Being liquid metal cooled however, would be a challenge to develop. Russian space reactors are tiny compared to what NASA needs for Moon/Mars too... and the ones on their satelites keep leaking.

The one thing that could kill a Mars program is any of this L-1 business: the Moon should not be involved in any way for the mounting of a Mars mission other then as a parking orbit for vehicles launched from Earth.

PurduesUSAFguy · 2006-01-31 09:12:19

The launch vehicles and a stretch version of the EDS stage are definatly going to be common to both programs, the CEV will work fine for a reentry vehicle, and the LSAM lander might serve as a base for the Mars lander, but most everything else will probobly have to be new. The life support system and/or nuclear reactor for a Lunar base might also be used, if either one of those is actually developed.
The trouble with TransHAB is that it can't aerobrake, and if you are going to wrap it in a rigid biconic heat shield, you might as well skip the TransHAB part and stick with regular rigid walls. NASA's excelent DRM mission plan calls for just this. If you are already building a large rigid HAB for Earth-Mars/Mars-Earth transit, you might as well use it for the surface too and only develop one HAB.
Without aerobraking, it seems kind of unlikly that any NASA plan could suceed without radically new technology (RLV for megaloads of regular fuel or high-energy nuke engine).
I think the HAB modules will be the most expensive componets, followed closely by the landers. Basing them off the LSAM, which is almost the right size, and swapping out Hydrogen for Methane would be about right for Mars. Keep in mind that LSAM will already have to have automatic and precision landing capability.
A nuclear reactor will be quite difficult to develop; such a contraption will be completly different then a navy submarine reactor, smaller, light weight, no ocean for heat sink, high temperature coolant, different power conversion systems, etc. The USAF's old aborted SP-100 reactor would be much closer to what NASA would need, only 4-5MT and able to deliver 100kWe with no moving parts other then the external control mechanism. Being liquid metal cooled however, would be a challenge to develop. Russian space reactors are tiny compared to what NASA needs for Moon/Mars too... and the ones on their satelites keep leaking.
The one thing that could kill a Mars program is any of this L-1 business: the Moon should not be involved in any way for the mounting of a Mars mission other then as a parking orbit for vehicles launched from Earth.

You are right on the rigid HAB for transfer and the surface, but I still am kind of fond of the idea of packing and inflatable extension into the cargo/isru/accent vehicle lander. There just isn't a solution to the aerobraking issue.

The SP-100 was a truley brilliant design, and it was the product of an age before computer modeling. I know that there was significant development work on inspace nuclear reactors that used liquid metals, and in some cases, multiple liquid metals as their collants. Granted, none of these ever made it off the desktops, but the fact that there was significant dev work done should significantly accelerate the development timeline. I'll grant you it might take a while to revive the reactor program, but I don't see why a program that would essentially have no or very little technolgy development would cost over $1billion.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2007-05-08 18:31:32

Methane Rocket Engine Successfully Tested

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology … ocket.html

SpaceNut · 2015-12-23 19:11:46

Fixing most of the shifting in the topic but the Admin will need to fix a few.

Bump

Went searching for the topics that were part of a moon first discusion before heading on to Mars. The foot hold on the moon would be leverage as a starting point to go even further.

RobertDyck · 2015-12-23 19:50:52

There is some merit to the idea of Moon first, but only if you do it right. First, realize you can't harvest fuel from the Moon. LCROSS found more water than anyone expected, but it is the most concentrated spot on the entire Moon according to data from orbiters.
Download the slides from the Press Briefing on 21 October 2010
The table on the last slide stated total water (gas + ice) 0-23 seconds after impact = 4.5% ± 1.4, 23-30 seconds = 6.4% ± 1.7, 123-180 seconds after impact = 7.2% ± 1.9, average = 5.6% ± 2.9

That is more than expected, but can you harvest fuel from that? And can you justify mining the richest water deposit on the entire Moon for short-term use as fuel?

I've stated before that John Wickman came up with an idea called Lunar Soil Propellant. That is mine lunar soil for igneous ore containing aluminum, smelt aluminum metal producing oxygen as a byproduct, then use aluminum powder in liquid oxygen as mono-propellant. An alternative is bipropellant: aluminum powder in one tank with pressurized nitrogen to blow it into the rocket combustion chamber, and liquid oxygen in a separate tank. He tested this under a NASA SBIR contract; it worked. The little brass board rocket engine worked.

But let's take a step back. The problem with the Moon is attempts to redo Apollo. Any hardware designed like Apollo, or any hardware designed specifically for the Moon, cannot be used for Mars. In fact it cannot be used for an asteroid, or any destination other than the Moon. However, hardware designed for Mars can be easily adapted for the Moon. That's because Mars is hard. Designing hardware for the difficult destination, then adapting for the easy one, is easy. If you design hardware for the easy destination, then it just won't work any place difficult. Robert Zubrin demonstrated this with Mars Direct. His original presentation to NASA in June 1990 included hardware for the Moon: a hab with landing rocket but no heat shield or parachute, and ERV with landing rocket but no heat shield or parachute. Any mission to Mars will use the atmosphere to slow before approaching the ground, and propulsive landing for the final phase. This combination provides the lowest mass, that's why NASA has used it for Viking, Phoenix, Curiosity, and the next lander called InSight. Landing on the Moon will not have an aeroshell/heat-shield or parachute to slow it's descent, but lower gravity means the landing rocket will be about the same as Mars anyway.

Current plans are for Orion, which is a capsule like the Apollo CSM. However, the Orion service module is only able to depart lunar orbit, it does not have enough propellant to enter lunar orbit. Under the Constellation plan, the Altair lunar lander would have an over-size descent stage with sufficient propellant to insert the entire stack (Altair + Orion) into Lunar orbit. Current test plans are for the SLS upper stage to remain attached all the way to the Moon, to insert Orion into Lunar orbit. Apollo could carry 3 men to the Moon and back, or 5 to Skylab; Orion will carry 4 to the Moon and back, or 6 to ISS. Orion has 3 weeks of life support for 4 crew members. And Orion has an AVCOAT heat shield; the same as Apollo. That's sufficient to enter Earth's atmosphere from a trans-lunar trajectory, with healthy safety margin, but just isn't good enough for direct entry from a trajectory returning from Mars. PICA was designed as an upgrade to the Apollo command module to return from Mars, although they didn't have life support back then for a mission of multi-month duration. Dragon has a PICA-X heat shield, but Orion does not. All this means Orion is single purpose: for the Moon or cis-lunar space.

If you want to use the Moon as a stepping stone to Mars, you have to start by designing for Mars, then use the Moon to test Mars hardware. Proceeding with Constellation will not do that.

louis · 2015-12-23 21:21:56

1. There's plenty of water chemically bound in the regolith across the whole of the surface.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_water

Where it's at one part per thousand, that sounds processable to me.

2. Surely if we are Mars-focussed we would be using the Moon for Mars survival testing. We'd have our potential Mars crews doing hundreds of figures of eight around the earth and moon so as to simulate the journey to Mars and then get them to live for an extended period on the lunar surface trying out various bits and pieces designed for Mars. No serious Mars coloniser would want to just throw humans at Mars without first road testing the project on the nearest analogue i.e. the Moon.

RobertDyck wrote:

There is some merit to the idea of Moon first, but only if you do it right. First, realize you can't harvest fuel from the Moon. LCROSS found more water than anyone expected, but it is the most concentrated spot on the entire Moon according to data from orbiters.
Download the slides from the Press Briefing on 21 October 2010
The table on the last slide stated total water (gas + ice) 0-23 seconds after impact = 4.5% ± 1.4, 23-30 seconds = 6.4% ± 1.7, 123-180 seconds after impact = 7.2% ± 1.9, average = 5.6% ± 2.9
That is more than expected, but can you harvest fuel from that? And can you justify mining the richest water deposit on the entire Moon for short-term use as fuel?
I've stated before that John Wickman came up with an idea called Lunar Soil Propellant. That is mine lunar soil for igneous ore containing aluminum, smelt aluminum metal producing oxygen as a byproduct, then use aluminum powder in liquid oxygen as mono-propellant. An alternative is bipropellant: aluminum powder in one tank with pressurized nitrogen to blow it into the rocket combustion chamber, and liquid oxygen in a separate tank. He tested this under a NASA SBIR contract; it worked. The little brass board rocket engine worked.
But let's take a step back. The problem with the Moon is attempts to redo Apollo. Any hardware designed like Apollo, or any hardware designed specifically for the Moon, cannot be used for Mars. In fact it cannot be used for an asteroid, or any destination other than the Moon. However, hardware designed for Mars can be easily adapted for the Moon. That's because Mars is hard. Designing hardware for the difficult destination, then adapting for the easy one, is easy. If you design hardware for the easy destination, then it just won't work any place difficult. Robert Zubrin demonstrated this with Mars Direct. His original presentation to NASA in June 1990 included hardware for the Moon: a hab with landing rocket but no heat shield or parachute, and ERV with landing rocket but no heat shield or parachute. Any mission to Mars will use the atmosphere to slow before approaching the ground, and propulsive landing for the final phase. This combination provides the lowest mass, that's why NASA has used it for Viking, Phoenix, Curiosity, and the next lander called InSight. Landing on the Moon will not have an aeroshell/heat-shield or parachute to slow it's descent, but lower gravity means the landing rocket will be about the same as Mars anyway.
Current plans are for Orion, which is a capsule like the Apollo CSM. However, the Orion service module is only able to depart lunar orbit, it does not have enough propellant to enter lunar orbit. Under the Constellation plan, the Altair lunar lander would have an over-size descent stage with sufficient propellant to insert the entire stack (Altair + Orion) into Lunar orbit. Current test plans are for the SLS upper stage to remain attached all the way to the Moon, to insert Orion into Lunar orbit. Apollo could carry 3 men to the Moon and back, or 5 to Skylab; Orion will carry 4 to the Moon and back, or 6 to ISS. Orion has 3 weeks of life support for 4 crew members. And Orion has an AVCOAT heat shield; the same as Apollo. That's sufficient to enter Earth's atmosphere from a trans-lunar trajectory, with healthy safety margin, but just isn't good enough for direct entry from a trajectory returning from Mars. PICA was designed as an upgrade to the Apollo command module to return from Mars, although they didn't have life support back then for a mission of multi-month duration. Dragon has a PICA-X heat shield, but Orion does not. All this means Orion is single purpose: for the Moon or cis-lunar space.
If you want to use the Moon as a stepping stone to Mars, you have to start by designing for Mars, then use the Moon to test Mars hardware. Proceeding with Constellation will not do that.

Terraformer · 2015-12-24 05:59:47

And can you justify mining the richest water deposit on the entire Moon for short-term use as fuel?

Yes, because it would only be short term. It's justified in the same way using your savings to pay for learning a skill is justified - you can't keep doing it, but it gets you to a point where you don't need to.

It is very likely that Luna can produce fuel. The question is whether it would be economical, given the possibility of skimming oxygen off the top of the Terran atmosphere.

SpaceNut · 2015-12-24 12:17:22

RobertDyck is right about the differences for landing and for return but to start from the gravity well of Earth they are identical, its the amount of up mass that makes them different as well as the life support duration of use and other consumables.
I only see Nasa in the exploratory mode where they will do a single mission or so to either place and that dismal, diappointing and just needs to change.
Getting that change appears to be only obtainable via Cots program and corporate funding at this point in order to keep man going beyond LEO.

Void · 2015-12-24 15:06:54

So far what I see is that the Moon keeps being upgraded. Although it is not equivalent to Mars, it is being discovered that it is more like Mars than the story we were told.

One thing I don't like about this site is that an idea that might be an alternative is almost always murdered in the nursery if possible, by those who have a pet notion of how things should go.

Personally I think that the primary objective of the American space program was to keep the human race from prospering in space. I do not think that that is the intention of the people who work at NASA, at least not most of them, but I do believe that social engineers showed ups just in time to sabotage the plans. Further they kept us away from an achievable objective, and also pointed us to one which was very hard, and then they made sure that not enough resources would exist to implement it.

However, the west is still full of inventors and doers. It looks like it may be possible that humans will make it to Mars anyway. On the other hand the cosmic criminals may go to deeper measures to sabotage that effort.

Therefore, it is wise to calculate options, such as Mars if it can happen, and alternately the Moon, Ceres, and Venus. For Venus and Ceres, the Moon will be of great value. Possibly for Mars it may have value. We should keep all options on the table, to make the enemies task harder.

You are at war with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate

The Soviet Union did what it did, thinking that they could simply gather the whole population into it's training facilities, and teach them to be good. Then paradise would occur. It did not.

They are not the only ones. Just remember that the blank slate people want to retain you for their notion of a perfect world, and they most definitely do not want a branch of the human race to escape from their powers. I picked on the Soviet Union, as an example, but their are many other of this type out there, but it would not be P.C. to go into those details.

Options, keep your options open, and don't forget to slap their faces and take their Cigars.

Last edited by Void (2015-12-24 15:22:29)

RobertDyck · 2015-12-24 19:00:01

From Robert Zubrin's PowerPoint:

Notice the Hab has one floor plus landing stage. The same landing stage for both Hab and ERV. And same landing stage for both Lunar and Mars vehicles. Lunar ERV has one stage plus capsule, landed with full propellant tanks. Mars ERV has two stages plus capsule, plus ISPP equipment and hydrogen feed stock.

Initial proposal for Mars Direct, from 1990, included a rover strapped to the under side of the Hab. It didn't have a garage. Propellant tanks and landing engines installed in the deployment frame for an ADEPT heat shield. Presumably the rover would be suspended on cables beneath the hab, tucked between propellant tanks. And the rover could be lowered by a winch, after landing. Later designs enclosed the landing stage, creating a lower deck with garage.

::Edit:: I've said this before, but some at NASA or "Old Space" contractors have claimed that Mars Direct is too spartan. My counter is to point out the upper floor of the Hab is the same floor area as a 60-foot class A motorhome with slide-outs, plus the lower floor is the size of a single car garage plus airlock. The "garage" is packed full of stuff during transit, but unpacked once on Mars or the Moon. Plus there's an inflated greenhouse, the same width as a double car garage and twice as long. This is not spartan, it's a base landed in one piece.

Void talks about making space unnecessarily difficult. I would point out Mars Direct is a plan from Dr. Robert Zubrin and his partner Dr. David Baker from 1990. If done, we could have landed man on Mars by 1999. And it requires 2 launches of an Ares launch vehicle. SLS block 2 is just Ares with the main engines moved to the under side of the core stage tank. Looks like NASA won't build SLS block 2, but we will get SLS block 2B instead, which has the same lift capability to the Moon or Mars. So this Moon mission could be done with 2 launches.

Do you want to integrate this with Constellation hardware currently funded by Congress? Ok. Then one Mars Direct hab can be launched to the Moon. Instead of an ERV which lands an Earth return capsule, instead use Apollo style hardware. That means an Apollo style LM, plus Orion. Orion Exploration Mission 2 will deliver astronauts to Lunar orbit, using one SLS block 1B. The upper stage of SLS will insert Orion into Lunar orbit. Launching Orion and an LM with one SLS block 2B is possible, but somehow I see contractor executives argue for a second launch vehicle for the LM. Actually, Falcon Heavy is big enough to launch a 4-person LM to the Moon.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2015-12-24 20:19:16)

louis · 2015-12-24 19:30:06

NASA is a kind of grand coalition of physicists, astronomers, geologists, politicians, aerospace engineers, technological innovators and pork barrel merchants.

Space colonisers hardly get a look in - which is why we have seen such tortuously slow progress in exploring Mars and the Moon. The rover technology has hardly improved in 30 years. NASA has lost its way on rocket technology, with all the real innovation being done by Space X and other private companies.

I have argued before that the USA should set up a dedicated national agency for lunar and Mars colonisation. BUt that ain't gonna happen. So, we are left with Space X as the standard bearer for space colonisation.

Void wrote:

So far what I see is that the Moon keeps being upgraded. Although it is not equivalent to Mars, it is being discovered that it is more like Mars than the story we were told.
One thing I don't like about this site is that an idea that might be an alternative is almost always murdered in the nursery if possible, by those who have a pet notion of how things should go.
Personally I think that the primary objective of the American space program was to keep the human race from prospering in space. I do not think that that is the intention of the people who work at NASA, at least not most of them, but I do believe that social engineers showed ups just in time to sabotage the plans. Further they kept us away from an achievable objective, and also pointed us to one which was very hard, and then they made sure that not enough resources would exist to implement it.
However, the west is still full of inventors and doers. It looks like it may be possible that humans will make it to Mars anyway. On the other hand the cosmic criminals may go to deeper measures to sabotage that effort.
Therefore, it is wise to calculate options, such as Mars if it can happen, and alternately the Moon, Ceres, and Venus. For Venus and Ceres, the Moon will be of great value. Possibly for Mars it may have value. We should keep all options on the table, to make the enemies task harder.
You are at war with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate
The Soviet Union did what it did, thinking that they could simply gather the whole population into it's training facilities, and teach them to be good. Then paradise would occur. It did not.
They are not the only ones. Just remember that the blank slate people want to retain you for their notion of a perfect world, and they most definitely do not want a branch of the human race to escape from their powers. I picked on the Soviet Union, as an example, but their are many other of this type out there, but it would not be P.C. to go into those details.
Options, keep your options open, and don't forget to slap their faces and take their Cigars.

SpaceNut · 2015-12-24 19:48:11

RobertDyck, I actually remember a Mars Direct topic folder that was setup by the admin's to have a focused select group of individuals that worked heavily to make the plan better but it appears to have been lost in the great crash.

louis, it would be nice to set up an agency for both but my fear is that they would become the same bloated buracratic pile of bull that we hate.....

We would be better off with a civilian run corporate for each.....

SpaceNut · 2015-12-24 20:01:21

The power point slides and be found http://www.marssociety.org/home/about/mars-direct

I think this is an updated version... http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/376589main_04%2 … -30-09.pdf

https://info.aiaa.org/Regions/Western/L … -21-12.pdf

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-04-19 09:26:13

A lunar town first

and Gateway?

but what if China or some other nation or group sends monkeys and rabbits and dogs there first, makes a farm and sticks a flag in it?

Some fear Mars and say Moon

Astronauts will grow artificial STEAK from beef cells on the ISS in a bid to produce 'tender and juicy' meat for humans
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech … ation.html

Chinese astronauts return after six months in space
https://www.phnompenhpost.com/internati … nths-space

the War in Ukraine has people look at Russia and talking about a Spaceforce and 'Sanctions' but China being the second nation to have a successful working Rover on the surface might have also changed things

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2022-04-19 09:36:21)

Calliban · 2022-04-19 10:04:44

The moon is a lot more hard and dangerous than Mars. It is a slag heap, with very little nitrogen, carbon and water and no atmosphere. It is full of abrasive dust and it's surface is subject to hard radiation, micrometeorite rain, and huge temperature swings. But that is besides the point. There are good reasons for going to the moon and good reasons for going to Mars. But they are entirely different. We aren't returning to the moon because it is too hard to go to Mars. The moon is not a good target for colonisation. But it is a good place to mine materials needed for manufacturing in Earth orbit. Mars is a good target for colonisation, but not a good target for mining intended to support space manufacturing.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-05-02 07:10:09

New Zealand is going to the moon.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/wat … 74QG7XUZ4/
Space Review: ‘The moral equivalent of war’ - a new metaphor for space resource utilization
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4345/1
Solar beats nuclear at many potential settlement sites on Mars
https://news.berkeley.edu/2022/04/27/so … s-on-mars/
'How we will travel beyond Mars - shortfilm by Erik Wernquist'
https://www.humanmars.net/2022/05/how-w … -mars.html
Biosphere 2: Story of the Original Design and Building told by Project CoFounders
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3O4-_4OYQ-c
Ceres instead?
http://www.pagef30.com/2009/04/why-cere … n-for.html
Robotic AI Doctors?
https://www.wired.com/story/moxi-hospit … alth-care/
Producing Food in Space – Dr. Thomas Matula
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXR_TP1cEAk
Peter Beck says NZ about to have its 'Apollo moment'
https://twitter.com/RocketLab/

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-06-05 06:26:43

New Instruments for Priority Artemis Science on Moon

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa … ce-on-moon

NASA's CAPSTONE spacecraft will plot course for a lunar space station

https://www.newscientist.com/article/23 … e-station/

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-06-08 04:48:10

Aegis Aerospace and Intuitive Machines team up for lunar science services
https://spacenews.com/south-korea-cance … his-probe/

Officials of space and defense technology company Aegis Aerospace Inc. and pioneering space company Intuitive Machines yesterday formally announced they have entered into the first Texas-based business-to-business contract to deliver a commercial science payload to the Moon.
This unique agreement extends Aegis Aerospace's Space Testing as a Service (STaaS) business model from Earth orbit to the Moon and sets the stage for Intuitive Machines' IM-4 mission, its fourth planned commercial lunar delivery. The announcement was made at a press event at Space Center Houston among industry leaders and government officials, including NASA JSC Director Vanessa Wyche and Congressman Brian Babin (R-TX).
The unique subcontract, issued under Aegis Aerospace's Tipping Point Prime contract with NASA, calls for Intuitive Machines to deliver Aegis Aerospace's Space Science and Technology Evaluation Facility - First Flight (SSTEF-1) to the Moon in 2025. SSTEF is a general-purpose science and testing facility designed to accommodate a variety of experiments in a single package.
The SSTEF-1 experiments come from six U.S. technology companies and an academic institute, and are expected to include a 3D printed antenna and other experimental printed materials, electronic systems, sensors, radiation protective materials, solar cells, a cryogenically-cooled IR sensor, and a novel solar cell-protective cover. SSTEF provides the structure, control and interfacing software and electronics, data management, electronics, cameras, and environmental sensors.

Small NASA lunar probe to hitch ride on commercial moon mission
https://spaceflightnow.com/2022/06/06/s … n-mission/

NASA Moon Mission Set to Break Record in Navigation Signal Test
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/20 … ignal-test

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-06-28 05:00:30

A micrometeorite from a stony asteroid identified in Luna 16 soil
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-022-01623-0

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-07-02 18:28:33

Setting Up a Moon Base – But Where?

https://www.leonarddavid.com/setting-up … but-where/

NASA is eying an Artemis Base Camp, calling it “our first foothold on the lunar frontier.” The ingredients for that encampment are a Lunar Terrain Vehicle – an unpressurized rover – to transport suited astronauts around the site; a habitable mobility platform – a pressurized rover – to enable long-duration treks away from Artemis Base Camp. Lastly there would be the surface habitat itself, capable of housing four humans at a lunar south pole locale.

Negative Article

'It’s time for NASA to cancel the Lunar Gateway'

https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/ … r-gateway/

A recently leaked NASA document shows there is bad news and some good news for the Artemis return to the moon program, according to a recent article in Ars Technica. The bad news is, largely because of costs associated with building the Lunar Gateway, the pace of Artemis missions to the moon slows to an unsustainable crawl, with years between flights and the establishment of a lunar base pushed off to the 2030s. The good news is that many of these problems might be solved by canceling the Lunar Gateway.
The Lunar Gateway, once known as the Deep Space Gateway when it was first envisioned in the Obama administration and then the Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway, is planned for an elliptical lunar orbit and would, as the name implies, serve as a gateway to the lunar surface. Astronauts on board the Orion would dock at the Lunar Gateway and transfer to a Human Landing System (HLS) to travel the rest of the way to the lunar surface.

and

NASA chose to keep the Gateway and repurpose it for Artemis primarily because the Orion cannot enter low-lunar orbit or depart after completing its mission. The Orion can dock with the Lunar Gateway in a higher elliptical polar orbit, passing 3,000 kilometers (about 1,865 miles) above the lunar north pole and 70,000 kilometers (about 43,500 miles) above the lunar south pole. The HLS would depart from the Lunar Gateway and then land on the lunar surface. After the surface mission is completed, the HLS would lift off, dock with the Gateway, and the crew would transfer back to the Orion to return to Earth. Meanwhile, the Lunar Gateway would be a base where the HLS would be refurbished and refueled.
However, as the Ars Technica article suggests, while the initial elements of the Lunar Gateway will launch on the commercial rocket, SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy, much of it will have to use the SLS in the late 2020s and early 2030s, which because of costs, can only launch once a year at best. As a result, “Such an effort, according to NASA’s revised schedules, will require most or all of the capability of the SLS rocket during that time frame, and they could preclude the agency from developing a greater focus on lunar surface activities.” That means expeditions to the lunar surface, including the buildup of a lunar base, simply slow to a crawl for several years.
Ars Technica goes on to say, “The problem with this solution is that, last April, NASA selected SpaceX’s Starship to serve as a lunar lander. Starship is already larger than the proposed Gateway, and it replicates many of its power and propulsion capabilities. So if you already have Starship as part of your lunar architecture, and if NASA is really interested in activities on the lunar surface, why spend a decade and tens of billions of dollars building the Gateway?”
Other issues in the Artemis program could delay its progress. They include space suits and the SLS itself, which recently had a less than optimal wet dress rehearsal. But concerning the Lunar Gateway, we need to paraphrase the question once asked by John Houbolt, the engineer who developed the lunar orbit rendezvous that took Americans to the moon during the Apollo program: Do we want to return to the moon or not? If we do want to return to the moon, then it is time that NASA cancel or at least defer the Lunar Gateway and get on with it.
Some at NASA argue that the Lunar Gateway, which would serve as a human-tended space station in orbit around the moon, is needed to test technologies that would sustain astronauts on the long voyage to Mars. Considering that the International Space Station exists, and several commercial space stations are being planned, this argument seems dubious at best...

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2022-07-02 18:30:06)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-07-10 08:58:05

Jeff Greason
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv9kVJvOVeo

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

LINA (Lunar Infrastructure Asset)

https://www.designboom.com/technology/a … 7-04-2022/

LINA is a humble yet strategic approach that is evocative and adaptive to the native terrain of the Moon. Unlike MARSHA, the Mars surface habitat by AI SpaceFactory (see more here), which was designed as a free-standing object, LINA is extensible from a single structure to a cluster of units that become a larger and more systemic lunar outpost. Its orientation provides self-shading, leveraging topographical features in the lunar landscape to shield it from lethal solar and cosmic radiation.
LINA is a lunar outpost envisioned by AI SpaceFactory with NASA

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2022-08-08 03:30:19)

tahanson43206 · 2022-07-10 10:13:11

For Mars_B4_Moon

I am in favor of preserving the SLS as a monument...

Per Google:

The Washington Monument is tall, but is it the tallest?https://www.washingtonpost.com › local › 2013/06/19
Jun 19, 2013 — Carrie laid out certain facts: The Washington Monument is 555 feet 5.9 inches tall. The Anaconda stack is 585 feet 1.5 inches tall. However, ...
Missing: sls | Must include: sls

Space Launch System | NASAhttps://www.nasa.gov › exploration › systems › sls › sls
Feb 9, 2022 — NASA's Space Launch System, or SLS, is a super heavy-lift launch vehicle ... taller than the Statue of Liberty, and weighs 5.75 million lbs.

Asking Google again:

Statue of Liberty/Height
305′

So! The SLS could be set on a pedastal outside the Air and Space Museum, and it would not overwhelm the Washington Monument.

What it ** would ** do is to show off for the present and future generations, the persistence of the Senate of the United States in keeping thousands of Americans employed in make work activity until Elon Musk could come along to pick up the burden.

It would be an absolute shame to waste this remarkable piece of art on a flight to the Moon that would accomplish nothing.

As a monument, this vehicle could serve for many decades as a reminder of past glory, and as a reminder of the achievements of successor designs.

(th)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-08-07 09:51:48

Musk: "It will be hard living in the beginning on Mars, not a luxury situation ... For the first people that go to Mars, it's going to be dangerous. You might die, food probably not good. It's going to be a long and difficult trip. It's probably, like, a lot of pain and danger."

https://podclips.com/c/QF8nLb?ss=r&ss2= … 2022-08-05

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2006-01-31 02:50:57

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#102 2006-01-31 08:10:48

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#103 2006-01-31 08:48:55

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#104 2006-01-31 09:12:19

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#105 2007-05-08 18:31:32

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#106 2015-12-23 19:11:46

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#107 2015-12-23 19:50:52

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#108 2015-12-23 21:21:56

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#109 2015-12-24 05:59:47

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#110 2015-12-24 12:17:22

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#111 2015-12-24 15:06:54

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#112 2015-12-24 19:00:01

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#113 2015-12-24 19:30:06

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#114 2015-12-24 19:48:11

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#115 2015-12-24 20:01:21

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#116 2022-04-19 09:26:13

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#117 2022-04-19 10:04:44

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#118 2022-05-02 07:10:09

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#119 2022-06-05 06:26:43

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#120 2022-06-08 04:48:10

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#121 2022-06-28 05:00:30

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#122 2022-07-02 18:28:33

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#123 2022-07-10 08:58:05

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#124 2022-07-10 10:13:11

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#125 2022-08-07 09:51:48

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

Board footer