Is it on the critical path to Mars?
I think so, if we’re serious about Mars. I think that Phobos and Demos are as well.
[Noon update]
Russian official: “We are coming to the moon, forever.”
But Congress would rather build big rockets.
50 thoughts on “The Moon”
Comments are closed.
“Others at the workshop, though, argued that human missions to the lunar surface are essential to eventually sending humans to Mars. “The Moon is in the critical path for getting back to Mars,” argued Mark Robinson, a professor in the School of Earth and Space Exploration at Arizona State University and principal investigator of the main camera on NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. “If you want to get to Mars with human beings, you’ve got to go to the Moon first so you can learn how to live and work on another planet.””
That may be true but what is NASA’s role? It seems to me that COTS and CCDEV have shown that some functions are best passed on to other partners so that NASA can focus on other things closer to their core competencies. NASA doesn’t need to be the group that is on the surface of the Moon. NASA could build the supporting infrastructure in cislunar space that would allow our partner countries, businesses, and individuals access to the Moon. In exchange, NASA would receive knowledge, technology, money, and manpower which would enable trips to Mars and his moons.
Just need the alpha nerds to pick a spot where the orbital dynamics work for lunar missions and trips to Mars.
I think fuel depots are on critical path to Mars manned exploration.
NASA should not mine the Moon, but NASA should explore the Moon to determine if
there is minable lunar water.
Mining lunar water is not on critical path to begin Mars exploration, but it on critical
path Mars settlements.
NASA focus should be on exploration- not be doing mining in space or making settlements
in space, as these are commercial activities, but rather NASA should explore space
to make mining and space settlement lower costs in terms “start ups” of such commercial
activity.
Or before settlements or before mining in space, one would first require exploration- and NASA
should do such exploration.
So need need operational fuel depots for Mars exploration and commercial lunar water mining.
Agree
Whether the moon is on the critical path or not, even a manned landing is beyond SLS single-launch capability. It’d take two, according to NASA.
An asteroid mission is within SLS single launch capability, provided said asteroid is in lunar orbit. But, there aren’t any asteroids there, so at best, you have to do a launch of some sort to get the asteroid interval craft into space, then use SLS to get a crew there (to an asteroid about the size of their Orion vehicle!).
Mars with SLS? You’d need a multi-launch campaign, which with SLS’s half a vehicle per year production rate isn’t plausible.
Low Earth Orbit? Well, SLS could go there… just like a 747 could be used for a cross-town commute: possible, but hardly practical.
So the ideal mission for this big rocket they just have to have is… um… what?
Fuel depots, on the other hand, are a critical enabling technology that would actually be useful and make all sorts of missions possible. But, they have one fatal flaw; they’d negate the “need” for SLS, so of course they aren’t on the agenda.
If we wanted to go to Mars and Earth didn’t already have a moon, building a moon to use as a test bed would be put on the list of requirements for a successful Mars mission.
Would you really want to set off on a mission to Mars with a newly designed suit that hadn’t been tested anywhere but in a lab, worn by people who’ve never walked in anything but 1G, when there was a harsh, lower-gravity, high-radiation, vacuum environment so close at hand?
But would the Moon actually tell you anything useful about whether a suit would work on Mars?
Half the gravity, no atmosphere, high temperature and greater temperature variation, more abrasive dust, less chemically active dust… what else is dramatically different between the two?
I’m sorry, but without delving into the relevant issues, these questions aren’t really relevant to them.
Given its a much harsher environment, yes. If you are able to make it work on the Moon, its should be much easier to make it work on Mars. Plus its a lot easier and cheaper to test it three days away from Earth than at a site that is years away.
But, as I was pointing out, it’s a very different environment. You can build a suit that works great on the Moon, then find it’s too heavy to work in on Mars, the cooling fails because there’s just enough atmosphere that the system you use on the Moon doesn’t work there, and Martian soil oxidizes suit materials that worked fine on the Moon. I’m sure you’d learn something useful, but I’m not convinced you’d learn anything more useful than you could by spending less money testing suits on Earth.
Quite. The real value of the Moon as a technology development platform is that it is, in almost all respects a harder place to live than Mars surface is. The Moon is going to be a harder place to do water-based IRSU, for instance. But if lunar water-based ISRU proves possible and economic, then the much wetter Mars surface is a slam-dunk and the presence of Martian atmosphere sets expanded ISRU, from a lunar-developed, water-based foundation, off to a big expansionist start.
Understand that I consider the mass future of human space residency to be in artificial cis-lunar, cis-Martian and, eventually cis-everywhere-else colony habs, but people with groundpounder syndrome seem completely in charge at both NASA and SpaceX, so I toss in my two cents worth here.
Put me on the list of those who think asteroid and Phobos/Deimos missions should be high up the list of priorities too as both are direct pathways to the kind of structural mass IRSU needed for nice, clean, free-flyer hab construction away from filthy dirtballs like the Moon and Mars.
Russian official: “We are coming to the moon, forever.”
Little known fact: “Rogozin” is Russian for “Bush.”
The Moon is on the critical path to the Solar System, not just Mars.
But unfortunately the folks with Mars fever like Dr. Zubrin refuse to see that, which is why human flights to Mars are harder to do now that in the 1970’s, mainly because we have to built the systems to return to the Moon first. I view Dr. Zubrin’s book, “The Case for Mars” as being second only to the Space Shuttle in setting back the settlement of the Solar System.
On his last Space Show appearance Zubrin said that he wasn’t opposed to going to the Moon but that it was wrong to think that we have to go to the Moon first. It seemed he was open to the idea of doing both concurrently. His point was that launch windows for Mars are every two years and that the rest of the time SLS would need other missions. I am not sure how that fits in with production rates and the requirements for other missions but that is what he said.
He also downplayed danger from radiation and a good question to ask would have been if his current views on radiation danger take into account the information from Curiosity.
Invisible stuff that can kill you leads to a lot of unrealistic hysteria. We need a more mature view of radiation which includes that fact that without it we die. It’s a requirement for life. Curiosity has brought us nothing but good news about the radiation environment on mars.
People actually living in that environment will learn how… just like people in the Dakotas learn to spend six month of their year preparing to survive the other six month.
Curiosity actually brought us bad news on radiation. Radiation levels were higher than expected and astronauts will have to deal with sustained exposure rather than having it spread out over a career.
IIRC, by current standards, NASA could not make the voyage to Mars, much less return home, without exceeding career caps on radiation exposure.
It may be possible to mitigate radiation exposure and the case can be made for informed risk but the dangers of radiation can’t be dismissed.
The radiation problem is an economic one, of how much shielding mass you can afford.
And/or how fast you can go.
If the surface rad problem is as severe as it seems, then no, how fast you can go has no bearing whatsoever on its long-term solution. This applies to every possible off-Earth destination, by the way, not just Mars. The Moon and my favored free-flyer space habs are both worse in this respect than Mars surface. The necessary work must be done. Trying to ignore the problem will not make it go away.
“If the surface rad problem is as severe as it seems, then no, how fast you can go has no bearing whatsoever on its long-term solution. This applies to every possible off-Earth destination, by the way, not just Mars. The Moon and my favored free-flyer space habs are both worse in this respect than Mars surface. The necessary work must be done. Trying to ignore the problem will not make it go away.”
This not true. One could go to Moon and get less radiation than 6 month on ISS.
And you do it with rad protection equal to spacesuit.
Of course you can’t get to Mars in couple weeks- so you will need more rad protection than a spacesuit. Plus you need solar flare emergency shelter.
Apollo crew could have died if they had had a significant solar event. They had no means of rad protection to prevent this, but shortness of Apollo
made the risk more manageable- probably too much risk with longer Mars- and NASA would not try it.
But if you get to Mars in 3 months, and one has solar flare emergency shelter to handle a unlikely solar flare event [and 3 months less risk of such an event as compared to 6 or more months] then you manage the radiation exposure without adding significant shielding.
Or without solar event, a normal 6 month trip time, has too much radiation unless has significant amounts of shielding. And for shielding it Mars can use material at Mars.
So make base on Mars have same radiation on Earth [traveling on surface not included]. You were always going to have solar flare emergency shelter if you were ever considering going to Mars, but solar flare shelter
not enough protection for long travel times to Mars.
So I would suggest, crew time to Mars being less than 3 months, crew Mars stay times on Mars, more than 2 years. And one manage radiation by extending Mars stay longer than 2 years, assuming one does not have crew traveling much on surface adding to lifetime radiation exposure.
Yes anybody can go to Mars within even a week given the least distance to it on high deltav trajectory of 100-120 million km and speed of just 22-23 km/s (twice the second space speed).Just dont use minimal deltav trajectory(hoffman) and chemical rocket. Already tested nuclear thermo hydrogen 3rd stage with NERVA like engine in 100-200t spacecraft can do it.
Blame Nixon etc like politicians for no such feat in 1970-80. I just dont get why NASA and Roskosmos that had those engines constructed took that space station way to nowhere. 500 day trip on outdated chemical rocket spacecraft of 500-2000t class, when nuclear fission cycler can go to Mars within a month regardless of Earth-Mars position.
Anyone in their right mind can understand that only spacebound nuclear rocket can open any planet within solar system for human exploration. Mars is the upper limit distanation for chemical rocketry for humans with very high cost, long time travel and inability to start anytime in case of emergency. And with new advancement in materials, liquid phase thorium-plutonium hydrogen or fission-ion rocket engine will be possible.
Imho nuclear/thermonuclear energy is the only viable source for intrasolar transportation needed for real spacefaring civilization. There is two benefits of it -constant nuclear tech iprovement and plutonium utilization of its war arsenal/atomic power station stock.
You can park the cycler in lagrange points, moon orbit or earth-planet orbit in the shutdown mode and manage heat waste by radiation plate. Yes some infrastructure will be needed in space for refuelling and fuel processing but it can be teleoperated or done with robots. But just imagine possibilities – human flight to almost all planets wihin months/few years not decades, sample return from anywhere, asteroid mining, goods moving.
Compare it to inefficient h2/o2 rocketry that gain mere 5 km/s with 4-5 times fuel tonnage that of accelerated mass. Not even with 10$/kg on leo you can move million people to Mars without tens of billions of dollars and million tons of processed water. Musk can talk all he wants – its impossible feat without enourmous water mining-fuel storage-processing-fuel depos infrastructure. Even Moon cant provide enough water – Cerera possibly, but solar sails would be cheaper than this type of another universe.
I didnot mention direct nuclear rocket engine that expell nuclei from fine dust with up to million sec of specific impulse and without any additional fuel intermediary. Its extremely effective if neutron flux of up 10E(20-23) can be managed – will have million pounds of thrust and attainable spacecraft speed more 10000 km/s.
The moon was on the critical path because at the time some were arguing we could not do on the moon what we did. That settled that argument. It’s no longer on the critical path. If you claim it is for volatiles you are ignoring easier resources. But any volatiles are an economics market issue that will resolve itself the way they always do: by competition.
Which is the trade off, pay the huge cost of lifting the volatiles from the Earth using rockets or use mass drivers to launch it cheaply from the Moon. Guess which is more sustainable? Also lunar material will be less expensive for massive amount of shielding you will need for it.
The Mars enthusiasts have yet to prove that humans can actually live there. Then there is the trip there. With current technology, it will take months — if not years — to get humans to Mars. 6 months on the ISS causes real health problems.
Then there is the problem that Mars isn’t Earth. To actually live on Mars, some humans have to prove that an independent biosphere can be done. I think eventually humans will be able to do such things — but we haven’t even created a successful independent biosphere here yet.
By sending humans to the Moon, we can get a better idea about ability to live elsewhere than Earth. It’s also only three days away.
The Moon also has resources we can use to benefit humans on Earth. Think space based solar power satellites. What does Mars have to offer humans who do not go there?
I read Zubrin’s book. It made a very unfavorable impression on me.
My personal task these days is fighting for open, democratic reform at NASA and elsewhere. Doing that will benefit our country and world much more than fantasies about Mars.
Chuck,
[[[The Mars enthusiasts have yet to prove that humans can actually live there.]]]
Great point! And the more we learn about how the human body handles Zero-G, the less likely it is humans will be able to survive long term on Mars. Indeed, its becoming questionable they would even be able to leave the spacecraft once they arrive given how rapidly the human body declines.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/28/science/bodies-not-made-for-space.html?_r=0
Beings Not Made for Space
By KENNETH CHANGJAN. 27, 2014
Remember, there won’t be any ground crews to help the explorers get out of their spacecraft when they land and carry them to the nearest hospital for the weeks it takes for folks to recover from microgravity.
That is why the Moon is the critical path to Mars, and the rest of the Solar System. The Moon will allow the research needed to learn how to enable humans to survive in low-G planetary environments. And it won’t be just learning how humans could adapt, its about learning how a design and operate a biosphere on a low-g world. Remember, its just not humans that are impacted by microgravity and low gravity, its also the food plants they depend on, the bacteria that are important to both human survival and also cause disease. We currently have no idea which food plants will be able to survive under Martian gravity.
As the noted astronaut John Young noted at the 2004 ASCE Earth and Space Conference in a keynote speech on the VSE. Its a lot easier to go without food for three days if you have to abandon a malfunctioning lunar facility and run for Earth than to do without it for a year when something goes wrong on Mars.
But humans need to learn the hard way. I will probably be only after some fanatics try to go to Mars without laying a solid technological foundation by learning how to live on the Moon first and die off from the effects on microgravity that folks will understand the importance of the Moon.
But the really sad thing is that if NASA hadn’t been so focused on Mars (and CATS) and followed up Apollo with a lunar base we would already have the answers living and working on Mars…
The more we learn about how the human body handles Zero-G, the less likely it is humans will be able to survive long term on Mars.
The difference between zero-G and anything more is huge and you’re equating them. Just ask a rocket engine and fuel tank.
The Mars enthusiasts have yet to prove that humans can actually live there.
Thank you Chuck. Finally somebody makes the right point.
There is only one critical item and it makes all the others moot.
The moon was on the critical path and we took it. We learned what we had to. It isn’t anymore.
That one critical path is getting enough people on mars to support industrial ISRU. This is at a minimum several dozen people. While fuel depots are a no brainer meaning once we are regularly going places they will have to be established (assuming non morons are involved) and will be; they are not a critical path item because zero g fuel transfer to reusable multi-mission ships doesn’t actually require depots. It just makes sense to have them.
Why martian ISRU is critical should be obvious, but it’s not so people can live there; It’s so that more can arrive at less cost per colonist down the road. To prove that martians can live we have to risk some of them dying. It doesn’t have to be a big risk. We can fully expect most to die of old age but even on earth that isn’t the case. To require it on mars is to permanently eliminate mars and perhaps the rest of the solar system from human habitation beyond circling the earth with just a handful.
Once on mars they must be free independent owners because only that makes mars a new home for humanity. Less than that gives you a small base always tied to earth funding whims.
A thriving mars colony provides markets for developing the rest of the solar system with developments feeding back on each other.
Ken, Thanks for the compliment. Yes, some people are going to die as we explore and develop the Solar System. That’s the way it has been with earlier exploration and development here on Earth. Lots of people died at Jamestown. Lots did as well at the Plymouth Bay colony. But enough survived to make via communities in North America possible. Even Magellan died on his round the world trip — but some of his crew did make it all the way around.
We do need ISRU if we are ever to do anything more than extremely expensive stunts.
We also need to establish colonies that are able to sustain human life for very long times. That hasn’t happened yet. That is crucial to long term space development.
Those people living those distant places will also need to be independent. We don’t want populations essentially dependent upon Earth for their continued existence.
Oh — I will also observe that we have considerable trade even today with the country that founded the first American colonies of the British. Trade is fine. It’s being completely dependent on Earth that’s the real problem. That’s one reason I brought up space based solar power. That could be something our colonists could sell us for mutual benefit.
The Moon is on the critical path to the Solar System…
With respect to what? We’ve already learned what the moon needed to teach us which is not to say we don’t have more to learn but we don’t need the moon to teach it anymore.
For resources? The moon is a relatively big gravity well compared to other places with similar resources. Just one rock put in lunar orbit deprives the moon of any economic incentive other than for developing the moon itself, not the solar system.
To develop the solar system we need long duration reusable ships. Like the ones traveling between earth-mars, not earth-moon.
It is one thing to say you don’t want to go to the Moon and something totally different to say we have learned all we can there. In the first case, there are many different options for destinations and rationals to support them but the second just isn’t true.
Wodun, note I did not say we have learned all we can there. I said we learned what we needed to.
the second just isn’t true
Are you saying we don’t need ships meant for longer duration flights?
Ken,
The Moon has one huge advantage over anywhere else in the Solar System, its close enough to Earth to allow near real time telebotic operation of robots and other systems needed to extract the resources needed to expand into the rest of the Solar System. That is why it is on the critical path and always will be.
As for its gravity well, its no where as bad as Mars since its a near vacuum, so a simple mass driver will deliver anything needed into lunar orbit or beyond for a very modest cost. That is why it will be easier and cheaper to extract resources from the Moon and place them where they are needed.
Your assumptions are right but you’ve drawn the wrong conclusion…
That is why it is on the critical path and always will be.
First you seem to misunderstand what a critical path is (frankly I assume you do know but are just expressing yourself badly. I can give you more credit than some because you’ve earned it.)
A critical path prevents downline paths because you can’t go around it. That’s not the case with moon resources. It’s easy to show you can go forward without them. So you make a reasonable economic case that 3 light seconds works. But others could make the economic case that humans are so much faster than robotics that they make more sense. Both of course is better than either alone.
I think it’s shameful we don’t already have thriving bases on the moon. Kitty Hawk to 1969 gives us a shameful analogy. But we are were we are. Were we are is that mars is viable and economical until proven otherwise, proven otherwise will not happen. Elon is far more positive about it than I am with 100 passenger ships for $500k per, but my more pessimistic estimates get us dozens on mars in the next decade from published information (but only if we actually go ahead and do it which is not prevented by technology and only hindered by cost.)
No the moon is not on the critical path and once we gone down those other paths logically never can be.
You might well be correct. Personally, I favor pursuing lunar ISRU as aggressively as possible in parallel with ISRU exploitation of Earth-grazing asteroids. But your main point that ISRU is not only on the critical path, but pretty much is the critical path stands, whether one’s goal is to muck about on planetary surfaces or develop free-flying habs. Neither can be done without suitable quantities of refined mass. I’m agnostic as to whether the source of such mass is Lunar or asteroidal. The one thing I am convinced of is that it won’t be obtained by going all the way to Mars before making a real start. Even Phobos/Deimos ISRU is not the optimum place to start, though either make hugely more sense than beginning on the Martian surface.
Dick, let me clarify my position. I not only have nothing against exploitation of resources wherever they might be found (which includes lunar and astroidal) but expect competition and economic laws to make it a certainty. The issue is how fast things will happen.
How long and for what cost will it take to turn the moon into a cheap fuel source? When done, will it really speed things up in the short term? How much opportunity cost have we lost by not having a viable independent colony on mars which we can only learn to do by doing?
You’re talking about an upfront cost that will take decades to recover meaning no cheap fuel for decades. That’s after the decades it takes to build it in the first place. So when do we get to mars? We won’t be making the moon into an independent colony during that time. That will happen much later and assumes the moon will be able to compete with other sources of fuel. One rock in lunar orbit could turn the moon into a ghost town (assuming it becomes a town first.)
A mars colony is the forcing function that doesn’t exist otherwise (it’s the market vs. product that Thomas refers to which makes me wonder why he isn’t on board?) Without a forcing function, stagnation is a viable alternative. Not just viable, we’re living it.
a successful independent biosphere
But we don’t need to hamstring ourselves with requirements that aren’t. You can’t say nothing can go in or out. If things can go in and out we can fix any environment that isn’t right. I worked in a toxic environment that could kill you. You just have to know how and do it. We know how. Sending the right people with the right tools is how you start. Requiring that we get it right without ever sending anyone is ridiculous. But there is no reason we can’t get it right.
Take that requirement away from the biosphere 2 experiment and it worked fine.
“That one critical path is getting enough people on mars to support industrial ISRU. This is at a minimum several dozen people. While fuel depots are a no brainer meaning once we are regularly going places they will have to be established (assuming non morons are involved) and will be; they are not a critical path item because zero g fuel transfer to reusable multi-mission ships doesn’t actually require depots. It just makes sense to have them.”
I think if have more than dozen people living on Mars and no one is mining lunar water, then you will get commercial exploration of the Moon to find minable lunar water, and following this commercial lunar water mining.
Other than there is not minable lunar water deposits on the Moon, is there any reason this for this not occur?
Or I think once you start any market in space [in addition the current satellite market] one could expect lunar water mining to begin within a decade or so.
I think the easiest market to start in space is rocket fuel market in which rocket fuel made on Earth is shipped into space.
So if such rocket fuel market were to begin, I would think within a decade or so, one will get commercial lunar water mining.
Can you have have dozen or more people living on Mars, without there being a rocket fuel market in space?
Focussing on mars will enhance moon development. The reverse may not be true. Apollo took one small step, turned around, and went home.
Think of the difference between suborbital and SpaceX. Yes, suborbital over time could incrementally get us out there. SpaceX did incremental as well starting with the F1 but their goals put them leaps beyond where suborbital may ever get.
Make the goal an independent colony on mars and it will drive development everywhere faster than anything I can think of. Otherwise we sit and wait and contemplate our belly buttons.
We could either have a viable colony on mars before I die or we could twiddle our thumbs for a few more centuries. Every middle ground possibility sounds like thumb twiddling to me.
-Focussing on mars will enhance moon development. The reverse may not be true. Apollo took one small step, turned around, and went home.-
A problem with Apollo is we didn’t go to lunar poles.
Today when we explore the lunar poles it could with about 1/2 robotic and 1/2 crew [in terms
total costs], And with Mars it should as much or higher fraction of budget being robotic.
Depending on how one is accounting what is manned vs robotic. But all robotic would
related to manned missions.
-Think of the difference between suborbital and SpaceX. Yes, suborbital over time could incrementally get us out there. SpaceX did incremental as well starting with the F1 but their goals put them leaps beyond where suborbital may ever get.-
I am talking about exploration, which I think is NASA’s job. In terms suborbital vs orbit, SpaceX main advantage is management of the business. Suborbital is building things never done before, and starting market that didn’t exist- and was claimed to not exist.
500 + customers is pretty good evidence that market exists and technology to do it, is still on going. We have had rockets go into orbit for some time, we yet to send customers into space on suborbital ride. If consider number people involved in suborbital, a fire or other accident to could end the whole thing- they could all be in same room. That’s not true of launch market with thousands of satellites launched.
So suborbital is a wait and see, but it could the most significant thing to ever to happen related to topic of space.
-Make the goal an independent colony on mars and it will drive development everywhere faster than anything I can think of. Otherwise we sit and wait and contemplate our belly buttons.-
Problem is this like saying make billion dollars and we will be rich.
The problem is we are not going to Mars- and this has been happening for decades.
I am talking about how to explore Mars- how to get there, politically.
As far I am concerned we have not really explored the Moon or Mars- or in terms of what is important in regards to opening the space frontier, they have not been explored.
I am talking about how to explore Mars- how to get there, politically.
That is a different discussion. I say it’s a trap. We could go their 100% commercially and avoid having government assume they have anything to add to the lives of the colonists. A few hundred people can government themselves without needing nanny to nurse them.
-I am talking about how to explore Mars- how to get there, politically.
That is a different discussion. I say it’s a trap. We could go their 100% commercially and avoid having government assume they have anything to add to the lives of the colonists. A few hundred people can government themselves without needing nanny to nurse them.-
So you don’t want NASA to do a manned Mars program?
Do want NASA to explore anywhere beyond LEO?
I think NASA should should the Moon to find minable lunar water deposits
and it should included crewed trips to Moon.
Once there is any commercial lunar mining, NASA should stop this exploration of the Moon, as the purpose of this NASA exploration is
to start a market for water on the Moon. But assuming such activity doesn’t begin, NASA is to continue exploring the Moon until it’s determine if and where there is minable lunar water. Or identify what is judged the better locations to mine lunar water. So two options, NASA arriving at conclusion than there doesn’t appear to any location on the Moon which is minable, or having explored enough to quantity locations which are- scientifically assess best locations which could be minable.
In terms of absolutes, one can not expect NASA to find best places to mine lunar water, but can expect “best guesses” in this regard.
When NASA has gotten to this point is a bit tricky- requires judgement, but if idea generally is that there two purposes- find minable lunar water and use the Moon as “practice” for Manned Mars so exploring Moon is step towards other exploration of other destination. Then that help. Though another more practical guide, could be a limited budget for Lunar exploration. So there should it should limited by given time and a given budget. For example this lunar exploration should occur in period less than
10 year. Or a part where crew go to moon should be limited to 2 years from start to stop. So by 8 year into program you should have crew on the Moon, and maybe it’s 4 or 6 years, and then up to 2 years after crew first land, the program is finished or transitions to Mars program.
Beginning of Mars program should focus on where on Mars one should have bases- and I would include Mars moons as a possible location,.
Important aspect of Mars base will a location one get water at low cost, and requirement is a Mars base which have low levels of radiation.
The whole purpose of NASA Mars program is to determine if and where on Mars would be better for future Mars settlements. And like the Moon- if there already is mars settlements on Mars, NASA should focus on another destination other than Mars. As a Mars settlement is objective and once this objective is reached, the job is done.
Apollo was about Lunar development, merely racing the Russians there. And you have it backward. Without the Moon being developed first settlement of Mars will not be sustainable, merely a stunt at best, more likely a suicide mission given the barriers to returning to Earth.
It’s sustainable now (assuming 2,500 kg for $150m to martian surface which I got from you.) If we move a big rock into lunar orbit it may never be economical to use lunar resources other than on the moon itself.
2500 kg is enough to sustain 3 people for a year because there is plenty of easy to get water on mars already. So that’s $600m for a dozen. Even $2.4b for four dozen which is easily sustainable forever.
That’s assuming they can’t grow their own food which is ridiculous.
Sustainability is the wrong argument if you want to oppose a colony on mars. Better to argue “they’ll all die” which can’t be refuted until we actually show how ridiculous that argument is by actually doing it.
Before we have the infrastructure on the moon to support mars we could have hundreds of people already on mars sustaining themselves which makes a case for developing the moon more.
Probably not, especially without lunar resources. That is why the Moon comes first. Then the Solar System.
I am talking about exploration, which I think is NASA’s job.
No, NASA’s written job is to encourage commercial development of space. We’ve had the wrong administers that never took that to heart. Instead of building big rockets they should be looking at what commercial ventures are already doing and put out requests for things things just a bit beyond those capabilities. That’s how you build sustainable infrastructure.
I am talking about exploration, which I think is NASA’s job.
–No, NASA’s written job is to encourage commercial development of space.–
How can NASA encourage commercial development of space, other than by the
exploration of space?
How can NASA encourage commercial development of space, other than by the
exploration of space?
gbaikie, I’m surprised at you. I expect you to show more imagination.
First, almost anything can be described as exploration which makes it a meaningless term.
Second, by not sucking all of the air out of industry and letting others take the lead. NASA should be doing the research that commercial entities could then exploit as SpaceX has done with PicaX and other such things. The SLS has no reasonable argument for its existence. The money spent on SLS and the already obsolete before it ever gets flown Orion, if put into the hands of others would put us leaps ahead of this disaster. Give me 10% of that money and I’ll have an independent colony on mars in ten years or so. Make that 10% of just one year of that money.
Just turn NASA’s budget into X-prize money would do the trick.
Explore happens by accident. Exploit requires intelligent action. Competitive exploitation benefits everybody.
–How can NASA encourage commercial development of space, other than by the
exploration of space?
gbaikie, I’m surprised at you. I expect you to show more imagination.
First, almost anything can be described as exploration which makes it a meaningless term.–
I think I made it clear that NASA should explore the Moon to determine whether there was minable deposit of lunar water.
So as general matter NASA should explore space with goal of finding near terms markets which related to exploiting resources in space.
So lunar water could be a near term market.
And rocket fuel depots in space are necessary for rocket fuel markets in Space.
Mars could a location of human settlements in future. And such settlements would be various kinds of markets.
-Second, by not sucking all of the air out of industry and letting others take the lead. NASA should be doing the research that commercial entities could then exploit as SpaceX has done with PicaX and other such things. The SLS has no reasonable argument for its existence. The money spent on SLS and the already obsolete before it ever gets flown Orion, if put into the hands of others would put us leaps ahead of this disaster. Give me 10% of that money and I’ll have an independent colony on mars in ten years or so. Make that 10% of just one year of that money.
Just turn NASA’s budget into X-prize money would do the trick.-
It would be useful if you would explain what “sucking all of the air out of industry and letting others take the lead”. In a bit more detail.
Not that I am doubting that NASA has been at time and tends to be what one call hostile to competitive markets. Or one could say that NASA suffers from what could be called socialist delusions.
Or it’s somewhat comforting that FAA is involved in suborbital travel rather than NASA. Not that I am saying that FAA is perfect, but they tend to be more connected to the real world.
So I am not saying NASA is not “sucking all of the air out of industry”, but I don’t think NASA is stopping Lunar water mining or Mars settlements, rather I think more accurate to say NASA has failed to adequately explore space, and such failure has not been encouraging . NASA generally more of a red light than green light.
But I believe it’s the lack of markets in space which larger barrier to Musk and his ideas of creating Mars settlements, than anything else.
As for SLS, I was against it, and I believe it is failure. But at this point in time, I want SLS getting to point of having there first launch as soon as possible- which probably be after Obama leaves office.
As for: “Give me 10% of that money and I’ll have an independent colony on mars in ten years or so”
I don’t think a billionaire with 1 billion dollars to spend could get independent colony on mars in ten years or so. Such billionaire might be able leverage such money to make happen faster than otherwise- one could say this is what Musk intents to do.
Or what might cheapest and simplest way to do this is offer a 1 billion dollar prize
for a crew landing on Mars within say 10 years. One billion dollars prize might cause Musk to do, what is wants to try to do. Or it might lower risks. But if that worked, one would have 2 billion or more dollars spent. And possible that other billionaire may want to be involved in seeking such a prize.
But I don’t think it’s certainty it would happen. Or 5 billion dollar prize would be more likely to cause it to happen. But whether it’s 1 or 5 or 10 billion dollar prize, and if someone wins the prize, one still doesn’t have an “independent colony on mars”
So I don’t think 1 billion dollars would be enough to land on Mars, but it could important element involved. Nor I think one can mine lunar water for 1 billion dollars, but 1 billion prize would encourage such an effort.
But if I had 1 billion dollars to spend, I think I would spend it, building a spaceport- and probably take about 5 to 10 years. And this spaceport would have fuel depot in LEO.
I don’t think NASA is stopping Lunar water mining or Mars settlements
Not stopping, but hindering. If NASA didn’t exist we’d focus more on how to accomplish these goals without looking outward toward NASA for solutions.
But I believe it’s the lack of markets in space which larger barrier to Musk and his ideas of creating Mars settlements, than anything else.
Bingo! You have nailed it. Musk’s mars vision is not about creating markets although it will. Musk just wants to sell tickets. He’s a very traditional businessman in this instance. Basic economics tells us markets are created mostly by people that own property. The problem is it’s other people getting the property making it hard for most to embrace the idea. It takes a real idiot to say you can’t have property because it’s all a con. That would make all property ownership a con, but I’ve heard that people do own property (less than they think because government takes pieces of it.) We will never stop going in circles if we don’t embrace this fundamental economic principle.
So you don’t want NASA to do a manned Mars program?
I don’t think it matters what NASA does with respect to mars.
I believe we could go to mars with PROFIT for everyone involved without NASA.
I know SpaceX with profit because Elon’s just planning to sell tickets.
The latest iteration of my plan only requires time to pass for it to work. It will work because it reaches any level of funding required. The only thing that prevents it from going forward now is getting the 200,000+ to embrace it. Once enough money is in trust somebody is going to want to do the job to get it. It’s an X-prize on steroids.
The whole purpose of NASA Mars program is to determine if and where on Mars would be better for future Mars settlements.
Really? It’s their job, their whole job, to tell other people where they should live?
Nannies just can’t help themselves, can they?