Print 77 comment(s) - last by Mint.. on Jun 18 at 11:27 AM

  (Source: Touchstone Pictures)
Report suggest U.S. partner with China to embark on a joint mission to the Moon or risk failure

Mars is a daunting goal.  At 139,808,518 miles from Earth -- on average -- Mars is nearly 600 times farther from Earth than the Moon (~238,900 miles).  With the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) racing to reach Mars under Obama and Bush administration edicts, a new Congressionally funded report is taking a critical look at the latest plan to achieve that objective.  That plan -- formulated by the Obama administration -- scrapped plans for a Lunar landing, instead opting for an unusual mission to capture an asteroid, haul to it to Lunar orbit, and then send astronauts to it.
In order to understand the report, let's first examine how plans have progressed and how they've changed in the past decade, under the past two presidents.
I. Bush's Plan: a New Lunar Landing, Then Mars
Many believe that a manned Mars landing is too ambitious a goal if we can't establish a semi-permanent manned presence on the Moon.
President George W. Bush (R) was of this mindset.  In a January 2004 speech President Bush called on The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to launch a new wave of lunar exploration, establishing a permanent presence on Earth's rocky satellite.  He stated:

Establishing an extended human presence on the moon could vastly reduce the cost of further space exploration, making possible ever more ambitious missions... With the experience and knowledge gained on the moon, we will then be ready to take the next steps of space exploration -- human missions to Mars and to worlds beyond.

President Bush pointing
A decade ago President Bush called on the U.S. to colonize the Moon. [Image Source: EPA]

The speech set a key policy, which would come to be known as the Vision for Space Exploration, a policy that would be initially funded under the NASA Authorization Act of 2005.  The funding bill planned to from 2006 to 2010 slowly grow NASA's funding from $16.5B USD to $18.5B USD, in order to keep up with costs of funding the preparation for a Moon mission.
As the bill was delivered shortly after the tragic destruction of Space Shuttle Columbia, a key pillar of the plan involved retiring the Space Shuttle in 2010 and replacing it with a new spacecraft.  That spacecraft was dubbed "Orion", while the program to develop was dubbed the "Constellation Program".
Constellation logo
Contracted to Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT), the proposed Orion design marked a return to reusable capsule craft.  It would include:
  • Crew Module (CM)
    • 4-6 astronauts
  • Launch Abort System (LAS)
    • Minimal propulsion systems to allow crew module to escape botched launch
  • Service Module (CM)
    • Cylindrical
    • Propulsion systems
    • Consumable supplies
Each Orion craft would be reusable for up to 10 missions.  Orion was to use the Ares I rocket, which featured a solid fuel first stage with a 150 second burn time for its first sage.  A more advanced variant of Orion , Altair, was planned for Moon missions -- it would have used the heavier Ares V rocket.

A 2006 render of the planned Orion manned capsule [Image Source: NASA]

A modified Altair would be eventually used around 2030 for the Mars mission.  The plan was to spend several months traveling to Mars during the conjunction period, spend a year or so exploring the planet, and then spend four months returning to Earth via the orbiting return module.  A backup return module would also be sent to Mars orbit, in case the first return module malfunctioned.
The Bush administration proposed that the program would cost $97B USD [PDF] (in 2008 dollars) from 2008 through 2020 -- or roughly $8B USD per year.
From 2006 to 2009, development commenced on Constellation, with only $8B USD being spent by 2010.  That number meant one of two things -- either the project was running into dangerous delays, or it was coming in (incredibly) under budget.  Unfortunately for Orion, the former was the case.  In fact, in 2007 NASA admitted that China might beat the U.S. in returning to the Moon because of the growing delays.
Orion's defenders acknowledge there were delays and budget overruns, but they argue that these were no more severe than those that the Apollo program faced (the Apollo program saw a 55 percent estimated lifetime budget overrun).
II. Obama's Plan: Asteroid in Lunar Orbit, Then Mars
President Bush's starry-eyed vision was critiqued by the Augustine Committee in 2009.  The culmination of a six-month review ordered by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the 156-page report [PDF] suggested that the current path to Mars might be infeasible.
A key claim of the Committee's resulting report was the claim that by fiscal 2010 a budget deficit would arise out of the Constellation program, a shortfall of around $225M USD.  This deficit was forecast to rapidly rise to $1.62B USD by 2013.
Hence in Feb. 2010, President Obama announced the controversial decision to effectively scrap most of the Constellation program by cutting its funding.  In April 2010 he suggested a new objective -- towing an Asteroid into Lunar orbit, and using manned exploration of that body as a stepping-stone for Mars exploration.

Obama NASA 2010
Obama visits Kennedy Space Center to deliver his April 2010 speech.
[Image Source: Getty Images]

The backbone of that plan came in the form of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010, which covered funding for 2011, 2012 and 2013.  It called for a budget of $19B USD in 2011, with a ramp back up to $20B USD by 2013.

In a speech President Obama stated:

Now, I understand that some believe that we should attempt a return to the surface of the Moon first, as previously planned. But I just have to say pretty bluntly here: We’ve been there before....

Early in the next decade, a set of crewed flights will test and prove the systems required for exploration beyond low Earth orbit.  And by 2025, we expect new spacecraft designed for long journeys to allow us to begin the first-ever crewed missions beyond the Moon into deep space.  So we’ll start -- we’ll start by sending astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in history.  By the mid-2030s, I believe we can send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth. And a landing on Mars will follow. And I expect to be around to see it.

Under the President's plan, development of the Orion craft partially continued, even if the greater Constellation program was scrapped.  NASA is hoping to in Dec. 2014 send the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) on its first unmanned test flight (aboard a Delta IV Heavy rocket).  A manned test flight is tentatively planned for 2020.  Some testing of the solid phase Ares rockets has continued, albeit at a diminished pace.
Meanwhile the President is also pursuing alternatives such as SpaceX's seven-passenger Dragon V2 capsule, which appears to have sizeable cost and capability advantages over Orion, on paper at least.  SpaceX CEO Elon Musk is targeting 2017 or 2018 for a manned test launch of the capsule.  Boeing, Blue Origin, and Sierra Nevada also have been contracted by NASA to produce candidate craft, but it appears that they are trailing NASA's in-house (Lockheed Martin contracted) Orion effort and SpaceX's Dragon capsule.

Dragon v2
SpaceX's manned  Dragon v2 capsule is expected to launch in 2017-2018. [Image Source: SpaceX]

President Obama's hope for making his asteroid mission a reality rests on his ability to convince congress to fund it.  With that in mind, a year and a half ago Congress allocated $3.2M USD to the U.S. National Research Council (NRC) -- a group of government-funded industry and academic experts -- to study the President's claims.
President Obama has claimed that the so-called "ARM" (asteroid redirect mission) objective would cost only $2.6B USD [PDF] and was already included in the current and projected budgets -- including the cost of developing a craft to put astronauts on the asteroid.  Most believe that the project funds would only cover the cost of developing and launching the probe to tow an asteroid into Moon orbit. They estimate that when the development of the manned module is factored in, costs would creep closer to the projected cost of the Constellation program -- $150B USD.
While it appears he may have fudged the numbers of the cost of the ARM project, President Obama does have some firepower when it comes to holding off on full commitment to Orion.  The 2009 Augustine Committee's suggested the cost of an Ares I launch (of Orion) would be around $1B USD, dropping to $138M USD eventually (versus a cost of around $153M USD to launch a Russian Soyuz capsule).
However, in 2011 NASA administrator Charlie Bolden suggested that the updated projections estimate a cost of $4–4.5B a year, and $1.6B USD per flight.  If accurate, that total hints that SpaceX (or another private contractor) may represent the only fiscally feasible path to achieving the plans for the ARM program and Mars mission.  If that's true, perhaps the President -- whether intentionally or accidentally -- made the right move in shelving the majority of the Constellation program development.

Asteroid mining
ARM takes mankind closer to mining asteroids, but not to colonizing the Moon.
[Image Source: Planetary Society]

Furthermore, some have suggested that the resources mined from a well-picked asteroid, including precious metals could be worth as much as $500M USD, helping to offset a small fraction of the mission costs.
So that's where things stand today.
The NRC has just returned with a 286-page report and its conclusions range from scathing to skeptical of President Obama's plan, particularly on the point of the controversial decision to ditch the Moon landing in lieu of "ARM".
III. The Commission’s Findings
i. China and the Moon
The report acknowledges that the ARM program is chasing the correct objective (pg. 20):

[T]he technical analysis completed for this study shows clearly that for the foreseeable future, the only feasible destinations for human exploration are the Moon, asteroids, Mars, and the moons of Mars. Among this small set of plausible goals for human space exploration,1 the most distant and difficult is a landing by human beings on the surface of Mars—requiring overcoming unprecedented technical risk, fiscal risk, and programmatic challenges. Thus the horizon goal for human space exploration is Mars. All long-range space programs, by all potential partners, for human space exploration converge on this goal.

But the report doesn't dally in getting to one of its critical and most controversial suggestions -- that the U.S. should not only consider returning to its original goal of a Moon landing, but should also consider partnering with frienemy China to do it.  The report acknowledges that current federal law may prevent that, but urges Congress to move proactively to change that.

Chinese Taikonauts
China's space program has exploded into the realm of manned space flight over the last decade, even as the NASA has struggled to unite behind a new path. [Image Source: AFP]

The authors write (pg. 20):

It is evident that U.S. near-term goals for human exploration are not aligned with those of our traditional international partners. While most major spacefaring nations and agencies are looking toward the Moon and, specifically, the lunar surface, U.S. plans are focused on redirection of an asteroid into a retrograde lunar orbit, where astronauts would conduct operations with it. It is also evident that given the rapid development of China’s capabilities in space, it is in the best interests of the United States to be open to its inclusion in future international partnerships.

In particular, current federal law preventing NASA from participating in bilateral activities with the Chinese serves only to hinder U.S. ability to bring China into its sphere of international partnerships and reduces substantially the potential international capability that might be pooled to reach Mars.

The report repeatedly states that its objective is not to recommend or dissuade Congress and the White House from a specific plan, but at the same time it doesn't exactly hide its disdain for President Obama's asteroid mission.  It writes (pg. 23):

While this report’s recommendation for adoption of a pathways approach is made without prejudice as to which particular pathway might be followed, it was, nevertheless, clear to the committee from this report’s independent analysis of several pathways that a return to extended surface operations on the Moon would make significant contributions to a strategy ultimately aimed at landing people on Mars and that it is also likely to provide a broad array of opportunities for international and commercial cooperation.

It repeats that partnering with the Chinese -- who have accomplished much on a relatively small budget -- could alleviate some of the budget issues.  But here, again, it characterizes the policies of Congress and the White House as somewhat bipolar and inconsistent (pg. 27):

The prohibition on NASA speaking to Chinese space authorities has left open opportunities for collaboration that are being filled by other spacefaring nations. The recent docking of a piloted Chinese vessel to a new orbital module, and the first robotic rover operations by China on the Moon, are the latest in a program that marches steadily and strategically toward what might eventually become a lead role among the nations in spaceflight. In contrast to the failure-prone early histories of the U.S. and USSR human spaceflight programs, China has proceeded methodically, deliberately, and with little in the way of visible failure.

The U.S. government’s response to this has been inconsistent, regarding China as a potential partner in certain areas and a threat in others.

Indeed, China recently joined the U.S. and former USSR as the only nations to have accomplished a soft Lunar landing.  But what's incredible is how China did it.
Forget that the Yutu rover was short-lived -- take in this fact: at the height of its Cold War era prowess, it took the U.S. 16 Moon shots before it succesfully completed a soft Moon landing with Surveyor 1.  Russia required 21 launches, including 11 failed lander launches, before it accomplished a soft landing with Luna 9.  

China's Yutu rover accomplished in just three Moon missions, what it took the U.S. 16 missions and Russia 21 missions to achieve. [Image Source: China Daily]

China was able to achieve a soft landing on the Moon in only its third mission -- Chang'e 3.  And its overly ambitious space exploration program appears to be at least three years ahead of schedule based on the objectives the Chines government proposed a decade ago.
ii. Slim Budgets, Apathetic Public
The report is rather merciless in blasting the lack of financial commitment from both President Bush and President Obama.   The authors again write (pg. 25):

Pronouncements by multiple presidents of bold new U.S. ventures to the Moon, to Mars, and to an asteroid in its native orbit, summarized in Section 1.2 of this chapter, have not been matched by the same commitment that accompanied President Kennedy’s now fabled 1961 speech—namely, the substantial increase in NASA funding needed to make it happen. In the view of many observers, the human spaceflight program conducted by the U.S. government today has no strong direction and no firm timetable for accomplishments.


[T]o set course on such an endeavor, the nation will need its investment in the human spaceflight program to grow annually over the coming decades. To continue on the present course—pursuit of an exploration system to go beyond low Earth orbit (LEO) while simultaneously operating the ISS through the middle of the next decade as the major partner, all under a budget profile that fails even to keep pace with inflation—is to invite failure, disillusionment, and the loss of the longstanding international perception that human spaceflight is something the United States does best.

Here's some quick statistics to back up that claim.

First let's look at NASA's budget.

NASA budget
[Image Source: LeadingSpace Blog]

...notice the budget looks to be increasing, until you adjust for inflation.  Adjusting for inflation and the budget has yet to recover to 1990 levels.  Another way of looking at the budget is as a percentage of the total budget.
NASA budget by year
[Image Source: NASA]

And it's not just the NASA budget.  The percentage of military spending on space technologies was much higher during the Apollo era, helping the program cope with its major cost overruns.

NASA military supplements

(The red line represents the defense spending, not adjusted for inflation.)

Looking at budget plans, both Presidents Bush and Obama relied overly on the supposed savings of shuttering the Shuttle program.  But those gains just manage to keep the program a bit ahead of inflation, and definitely do not return it to its relative peak around 1990, let alone its Apollo era heyday.

NASA budget plans
[Image Source: NASA via Martian Chronicles Blog]

A major cause of the lack of direction and lack of funding the panel concludes is simply public apathy.  It asserts (pg. 46):

At any given time, a relatively small proportion of the U.S. public pays close attention to space exploration. Survey data collected over the years indicate that on average, about one in four U.S. adults tend to say that they have a high level of interest in space exploration (Figure 1.7).

Interest in the issue of space exploration is relatively low when compared to that in other policy issues. For example, the 2010 General Social Survey, which placed the estimate of those who are “very interested” in space exploration at 21 percent, found that this issue was at the bottom of a list of 10 issues it asked about, trailing related topics such as new technologies and inventions (38 percent) and new scientific discoveries (39 percent).

The report paints a fairly dire picture in terms of American interest in being a manned space flight leader.  The report notes that this may be due, in part to America's lack of a clear rival, although China is emerging to potentially take on that role.
The report is also relatively skeptical of help coming from a commercial firm like SpaceX.  Comments the panel:

It is currently impossible to assess whether commercial capabilities will develop to the point that they can create significant cost savings (on the order of tens of billions of dollars) for NASA human space exploration efforts beyond LEO. In addition, investments to foster new commercial partners may create a tension in NASA as the goal of facilitation of new commercial ventures can compete with that of exploration (that is, the goal of answering the enduring questions) in making decisions about program priorities.

The issue of tension between public employees and commercial firms is indeed well documented and worth considering.  However, it seems foolish to write off commercial aerospace so quickly, given the terrific results SpaceX has been showing, albeit almost single-handedly.
iii. Hope
Rivalries aside, the report does note another silver lining -- there appears to be growing public sentiment that a return to the Moon is worth it.  Unfortunately, the U.S. has killed that plan under President Obama.

NASA public opinion
Lunar exploration is gaining ground in public sentiment. [Image Source: CBS/NRC]

The report sounds hopeful that a redirect from the asteroid mission to the moon could yield not only gains in public perception of the mission, but stoke commercial development as well, writing:

Should the U.S. terminate all government involvement in NASA beyond-LEO exploration— including an asteroid redirect mission, the Moon, and Mars—human space exploration beyond LEO would likely slow by decades, placing Mars out of reach until late in the century or early in the next, and only when other entities emerge with significant investment to take the place of U.S. contributions. With regard to the Moon, the situation is less clear because it is possible that intense commercial development or substantial investment by another country could facilitate lunar exploration, although there is no way to predict such an eventuality.

It is noted that the asteroid mission is more affordable...

NASA asteroid plan
NASA's asteroid plan is affordable, but a dead end. [Image Source: NRC]

...but it is suggested that if the NASA budget can be made to keep pace with inflation, a Moon mission followed by a Mars shot could be fiscally feasible.  But the report suggests that a hybrid mission model involving first a mission to a "near Earth" asteroid followed by a Moon mission and then a Mars mission might be the best path of all, as it offers smaller steps toward the big goal of Mars exploration.

NASA exploration roadmap
The "enhanced exploration" path of landings on a near-Earth asteroid, followed by a Lunar landing appears to be the best practice approach. [Image Source: NRC]

The biggest advice from the report?  Don't do what President Obama did; don't change objectives midway through the program.  The report warns (pg. 208):

Probably the most significant single factor in allowing progress beyond LEO is the development of a strong national (and international) consensus about the pathway to be undertaken and sustained discipline in not tampering with that plan over many administrations and Congresses.

Without that consensus and discipline, it seems all too likely that the potential of SLS will be wasted, human spaceflight to LEO will become increasingly routine (though still with risk to life), and the horizons of human existence will not be expanded, at least not by the United States. With such a consensus, however, and with strict adherence to the pathways approach and principles outlined in this report, the United States could maintain its historic position of leadership in space exploration and embark on a program of human spaceflight beyond LEO that, perhaps for the first time in the more than half-century of human spaceflight, would be sustainable.

NASA enhanced exploration
[Image Source: NRC]

The report has a handful of other helpful tips, as well:

3. ... d.  Increasing NASA’s budget to allow increasing the human spaceflight budget by 5 percent per year would enable pathways with potentially viable mission rates, greatly
reducing technical, cost, and schedule risk.


5. Highest-Priority Capabilities. The highest-priority capabilities that are needed to enable
human surface exploration of Mars are related to:
a. Entry, descent, and landing for Mars
b. Radiation safety
c. In-space propulsion and power

To summarize, the report suggests there is hope of a U.S. Mars mission seeing success.  However, it also sets for a sharp set of criticisms and a highly detailed summary of hard (technical/scientific) challenges and soft (money/public sentiment) challenges that could derail the project.  And it suggests maintaining the status quo in terms of the President's asteroid mission and Congress's funding of NASA is an invitation for failure.
The President, Congress, and NASA will now have to decide whether to take the experts' advice.  Some tough decisions are in store.

Sources: NRC via The Washington Post [report], The Washington Post

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

We’ve been there before....
By kattanna on 6/11/2014 10:14:58 AM , Rating: 3

and imagine if thats what columbus, and the rest of europe had said

we have NO knowledge or experience of living on the surface of another body in space.

there are many systems that need to be tested and even designed to do such a thing, and one of the beauties of the moon is.. WHEN, not IF, something goes wrong, its close enough you can almost hold your breath to get back home.

RE: We’ve been there before....
By Reclaimer77 on 6/11/2014 10:16:44 AM , Rating: 1

The idea that we're going to explore and colonize other planets, when we can't even master our own freaking Moon, is insanity!

RE: We’ve been there before....
By Mint on 6/12/2014 4:01:59 PM , Rating: 2
The Moon is easier in terms of distance, but it's harder to colonize in other ways, at least if you want to take it much further than the Apollo missions did.

The 708-hour day makes temperature regulation a big problem, unlike the averaging we get from the ~24h day of Earth and Mars. Plants will get 354h of sunlight and 354h of darkness, and artificial light at night needs huge amounts of power to be stored. You'd need an order of magnitude more batteries, which probably cancels out the savings of not going to Mars. Mars' atmosphere is thin, but it at least blocks out some of the Sun's radiation and solar flares. Resources are much greater on Mars also.

I don't know which path is better, but it's not obvious. I need to hear from more experts.

RE: We’ve been there before....
By Reclaimer77 on 6/13/2014 2:26:34 PM , Rating: 2
Plants will get 354h of sunlight and 354h of darkness


Yeah...if only we had the technology to like create a greenhouse type structure with a way to block out the sunlight for certain intervals so plants don't get too much light.

and artificial light at night needs huge amounts of power to be stored.

If only we had a way to harness sunlight, store it, then use it when needed!! Any ideas??

Or how about we use a nuclear reactor? I know, that's just so crazy it might work!

RE: We’ve been there before....
By Mint on 6/17/2014 5:04:31 PM , Rating: 2
LOL you think blocking sunlight is the issue?

Do you have any idea how hard it is to make a greenhouse that maintains reasonable temperatures inside when all the land around you is -380 deg F during the night and blackbody radiation is cooling everything off?

I assume you're talking about solar cells -> electrolysis -> fuel cells, but that'll increase the weight of power generation equipment by a factor of 10 at least. Mars doesn't even need twice the fuel per kg of payload.

A nuclear reactor? Even the smallest naval reactors are well over 1000 tonnes, and nowhere the power density of space solar panels. The Saturn V had a payload of only 45 tonnes to the moon.

I wasn't pointing out hurdles for a moon base that are impossible to overcome. I was pointing out things that increase difficulty and cost, quite possibly above that of doing so on Mars.

RE: We’ve been there before....
By Bateluer on 6/18/2014 12:15:22 AM , Rating: 2
> A nuclear reactor? Even the smallest naval reactors are well over 1000 tonnes, and nowhere the power density of space solar panels. The Saturn V had a payload of only 45 tonnes to the moon.

A Naval nuclear reactor is about the size of a 55gal drum. Additional weight for shielding and coolant.

RE: We’ve been there before....
By Mint on 6/18/2014 11:27:45 AM , Rating: 2
That's the reactor core. You can't generate power from that alone.

RE: We’ve been there before....
By thesaxophonist on 6/12/2014 4:27:23 PM , Rating: 2
Can someone explain to me what natural resources the Moon has to offer? Last I checked, it was nearly all basalt rock, with some ice in a few isolated polar craters. Mars, on the other hand, has an atmosphere, albeit of carbon dioxide, just about every metal one could need, and it's a great place to access the asteroid belt from. (Far less delta-v required to reach asteroids, although it does have a longer synodic period with them.)
Some asteroids also have huge mineral concentrations. Its soil, with some potassium enrichment that could be sourced from salt deposits, can be used to grow crops inside greenhouse domes. An in-situ propellant production based mission could reach mars, on conjunction outbound and inbound trajectory, with 2 Saturn V-class launches, six-month trip times, and a two-year surface stay.
In any case, if you wanted to go to the Moon, the exact same hardware could be used, just carrying the fuel along instead of making it on the surface. Because you can't do that on the Moon.

RE: We’ve been there before....
By tamalero on 6/17/2014 12:54:40 AM , Rating: 2
Probably mostly will be used as staging.. due of low gravity and proximity to earth, it might be used to build bigger rockets without the liftoff limitation of earth's gravity to get to mars and beyond.

RE: We’ve been there before....
By w8gaming on 6/11/2014 11:10:35 AM , Rating: 3
Well, that's the reason I support Moon first before other planets. It is the only testing ground not on Earth that actually is not sending off others on a suicide mission. Sadly it is still considered way too expensive by many, and we end up keep arguing and arguing and has achieved almost nothing since the 70s.

Meanwhile, the orbital debris is increasing and sending off spaceship may get even more costly and riskier.

RE: We’ve been there before....
By Griffinhart on 6/11/2014 1:03:27 PM , Rating: 3
IMHO, the biggest advantage to a moon base first is that it can effectively act as a reasonable proving ground for human habitation. It is a good place to master the construction, maintenance and life in such a structure. We know we can get people and equipment to and from the moon. The same can't be said for Mars.

Using the moon as a test lab for habitation design would significantly improve the possibility of Mars colonization.

RE: We’ve been there before....
By Arkive on 6/11/2014 1:44:50 PM , Rating: 2
That isn't completely true if the Moon isn't representiative of the conditions you'd face when colonizing the planet of your choice. That would like learning how to colonize on a moon that was made completely of water just because it was the closest thing to us.

RE: We’ve been there before....
By Nexos on 6/11/2014 7:00:06 PM , Rating: 2
The biggest advantage of a moon base is its plentiful supply of Vacuum. There are quite a few propulsion systems in development right now all of whom would LOVE to have access to a vacuum chamber of infinite size. Some test simply cannot be performed on earth or even in earths orbit.

By marvdmartian on 6/12/2014 7:11:03 AM , Rating: 2
There's also the advantage of having 1/6th the gravity you'll find on Mother Earth, so you can build a larger/heavier craft, which can then take off from the surface of the moon, than you could easily do from our planet's surface.

Meanwhile, over at NASA, someone's saying, "Oh yeah? We'll show them! We'll just fake this one, like we did back in 69!!" ;)

RE: We’ve been there before....
By BRB29 on 6/12/2014 8:24:25 AM , Rating: 1
sending off others on a suicide mission.

I'll be glad to volunteer for this suicide mission even if death probability is over 90%.

By Reclaimer77 on 6/12/2014 9:46:54 AM , Rating: 2

Colonization is always a "suicide mission", even on Earth. Look at history, early settler mortality rate was crazy.

Having said that, I can't imagine a worst death than dying in space, alone in the dark, zillions of miles from home lol.

RE: We’ve been there before....
By tayb on 6/11/2014 5:54:24 PM , Rating: 2
People are still treating space exploration as just simply exploration. "Let's see what is on Mars, we've already seen what is on the moon."

Nobody is taking seriously the idea that to save the human race we have to solve interstellar travel and leave this planet. Nobody is thinking about space exploration for colonization.

Until the dialogue changes from exploration to colonization I don't think we are really going to make any progress.

By YearOfTheDingo on 6/11/2014 6:30:30 PM , Rating: 3
Incidentally, we have no knowledge about towing asteroid into lunar orbit either. Why the eff are we trying to do this? If something goes wrong, we're looking at potentially an extinction event.

By OS on 6/11/2014 10:59:28 AM , Rating: 1
A manned mission to Mars is just fantasy circle jerk, the US gov is basically bankrupt and wastes more money on social programs than defense and space combined.

RE: budget
By Vertigo2000 on 6/11/2014 11:14:14 AM , Rating: 2
A manned mission to Mars is just fantasy circle jerk, the US gov is basically bankrupt and wastes more money on social programs than defense and space combined.

One could argue those social programs benefit mankind more than national defense or space programs.

What have you got against social programs? Would you like to live in a city without police? Firefighters? EMT? Libraries? What about your highway system? Guess what, all social programs. You hate them until you need them.

RE: budget
By arazok on 6/11/2014 12:22:50 PM , Rating: 2
He’s not saying those programs are a waste of money. Obviously they are important.

Administering those programs through a centrally planned monopoly is the waste. If society can’t figure out a way of funding social services through a more decentralized system that’s both efficient and responsive to users needs, then it’s going to be nearly impossible to ever pool enough money for ANY large public works project. There’s simply to many people drawing from the same pool.

RE: budget
By Vertigo2000 on 6/11/2014 12:34:58 PM , Rating: 1
I don't think he actually stated anything. At best, he was extremely vague as to what his point was, other than that the US is broke. He then seemingly went on to blame social programs. He didn't specify which ones.

But I do agree that the US is broke and I think we have a better chance of colonizing Mars than we do of coming up with "a way of funding social services through a more decentralized system that's both efficient and responsive to user needs". There's simply too much politics for that to ever happen.

Pessimist out.

RE: budget
By Reclaimer77 on 6/11/14, Rating: 0
RE: budget
By tng on 6/11/2014 1:02:49 PM , Rating: 4
Would you like to live in a city without police? Firefighters? EMT? Libraries?

All these are locally funded/controlled (mostly) and not really social programs.

As to if social programs have benefited mankind more than money spent on military/space programs, that is highly unlikely. Spinoffs of technology first developed for military/space programs are more tangible than benefits from social engineering.

RE: budget
By thesaxophonist on 6/12/2014 4:31:55 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed; many of us wouldn't be reading this if it weren't for communications satellites, whose launch technology was developed by space programs, or the networking protocols for internet traffic, which started development with ARPAnet(a military program).

By TETRONG on 6/11/2014 3:06:13 PM , Rating: 1
I think we should focus our attention on our own planet, which in many respects is still a mystery.

As for all of this space exploration..yawn.. we could easily send robots to mine and build bases on the moon or mars right now for a tiny fraction of the costs being thrown around here.

Not sure what this obsession is with sticking humans in tiny capsules and having them?? What are they doing exactly???

Humans are pathetic compared to robots and we'd all get a 24/7 front-row seat rather than a handful of dudes. If you think about it, humans and all of our attendant needs, are the element holding everything back.

RE: Ocean?
By w8gaming on 6/12/2014 3:55:27 AM , Rating: 2
I think if our robots can really mine and build bases on the Moon or Mars, we would have done it. The reason humans are sent now is to do what our robots cannot at the moment, to experience first hand and to understand the constraints on other planets. All those readings and data from the robots cannot fully substitute the human intuition, observation and experiences. Imagine if we have never sent human to Moon, would our robot detect the moon dust is actually very hazardous to us and our equipment? Those who build those robots on Earth might not have forseen that such a thing would happen and would not understand why all those robots seemingly just mulfunction on Moon after awhile.

And the reason to go to space, is to prepare for the eventual disaster that will one day destroy Earth. Hiding under the ocean is not going to save us if we do not master the technology in outer space.

RE: Ocean?
By thesaxophonist on 6/12/2014 4:33:50 PM , Rating: 2
Humans don't have a time-delay. Humans are sentient and self aware. Humans can solve problems on their own. Show me a robot that does that.

Built on the lowest tender.
By drycrust3 on 6/11/2014 4:26:10 PM , Rating: 2
The funding bill planned to from 2006 to 2010 slowly grow NASA's funding from $16.5B USD to $18.5B USD, in order to keep up with costs of funding the preparation for a Moon mission.

I'm not an American, so I try to avoid making comments that have a political overtone, but with America's current debt problems wouldn't it be better to just send robots to Mars or Saturn or Jupiter (I think those other two are much more interesting places)?
The big problem I see with sending people to anywhere is you have a moral obligation towards them, and getting them back from Mars or a rescue mission is far easier, far cheaper, and far more likely to have success on warm comfortable breathable air earth than millions of miles away in a freezing cold vacuum. Yes, I know Mars isn't a vacuum, but it may as well be. The air there isn't breathable, so people there would need to live in conditions much the same as they do in the International Space Station.
Yes, there is something special about having people go to another planet, but that is for the future, when we have mastered gravity. We are stuck with using rockets until we come up with a better system, and rockets are expensive.
One really important thing about Chang'e 3, the failed robots on Mars, and the whole host of other dead space exploration vehicles like Pioneer 10 is that they are a whole host of dead vehicles that most people didn't care much about when the world was told "It's dead".
It is much easier and much cheaper and much healthier for your conscience to send a high quality robot to Mars that you plan to leave behind when things go wrong or the power runs out than to send a bunch of people on a "built on the lowest tender" mission to a cold lifeless place with only boredom, routine, and prayers to keep them alive.

RE: Built on the lowest tender.
By w8gaming on 6/12/2014 2:58:03 AM , Rating: 2
Our robot is not that smart to really achieve much if sending them alone to such a far away place. The transmissions from Mars to Earth take 3 minutes one way, when the distance between two planets are most favorable. Jupiter and Saturns and their moons are so much further that the lag time is even higher. Not to mention we understand the landing conditions of those outer planets a lot less compared to Mars. Sure we can try to send landers and robots, but there are a lot of factors that have not been properly accounted for so the time really is not right. Currently Mars rover missions are used to understand such constraints better. Personally I think the next target after Mars would have been Venus instead of the outer planets. But all this are just idle talk because we really have not achieved much. We are at the stage like some ancient people going out to the ocean for the first time on a rowing boat.

By BifurcatedBoat on 6/11/2014 7:34:56 PM , Rating: 2
The US and USSR had 1960s technology to work with to make their lunar landings; China accomplished their landing much more recently, and obviously technology and robotics have improved since the '60s.

How far?
By delphinus100 on 6/11/2014 8:00:04 PM , Rating: 2
139,808,518 miles from Earth -- at its closest point -

No, the closest Mars can get is about 34 million miles.

On the shoulders of giants...
By jwitty on 6/11/2014 8:35:14 PM , Rating: 2
I think it is misguided to compare the time it has taken China to land a rover on the moon to the US and Russia.

While the rover landing by China on the moon is a great accomplishment it has been done using the knowledge, research, and know-how developed by the USA and Russia. Every step/milestone made by humans is based on the hard work and success/failure of previous scientists. The US and Russian space programs wouldn't be where they are without the work of Wernher von Braun (a German). We can keep going on and on back to Newton (Englishman) and the development of Calculus, without which, none of this would be possible.

"Bernard of Chartres used to compare us to dwarfs perched on the shoulders of giants. He pointed out that we see more and farther than our predecessors, not because we have keener vision or greater height, but because we are lifted up and borne aloft on their gigantic stature"

So many errors in this article
By voronwe on 6/13/2014 1:53:54 PM , Rating: 2
I appreciate that a lot of work went into this article, but it's so riddled with errors that anyone reading it would come away with a lot of weird ideas. Few of the numbers mentioned, especially dates or prices, actually relate to the sentences they're in, and the various vehicles mentioned are pretty botched up.

I'm not going to take the time to go through the article with a red pen. Sorry, Jason, you'll either have to get an editor or do your research more carefully.

If you'd like to know more about, well, virtually anything mentioned here, including what's real, go on over to nasaspaceflight, spacepolitics, spacepolicyonline, spaceref or hobbyspace. The first site, nasaspaceflight, contains the most accurate information.

To be fair, spaceflight is a tough topic because it requires a lot of knowledge to write about it accurately.

So many errors in this article
By voronwe on 6/13/2014 1:55:43 PM , Rating: 2
I appreciate that a lot of work went into this article, but it's so riddled with errors that anyone reading it would come away with a lot of weird ideas. Few of the numbers mentioned, especially dates or prices, actually relate to the sentences they're in, and the various vehicles mentioned are pretty botched up.

I'm not going to take the time to go through the article with a red pen. Sorry, Jason, you'll either have to get an editor or do your research more carefully.

If you'd like to know more about, well, virtually anything mentioned here, including what's real, go on over to nasaspaceflight, spacepolitics, spacepolicyonline, spaceref or hobbyspace. The first site, nasaspaceflight, contains the most accurate information.

To be fair, spaceflight is a tough topic because it requires a lot of knowledge to write about it accurately.

fund Nasa, not Iraq
By CalaverasGrande on 6/17/2014 2:19:50 PM , Rating: 2
If we had spent on NASA what we squandered in Iraq we would already have a moon base!
Priorities are very backwards.

By Reclaimer77 on 6/11/14, Rating: -1
By MozeeToby on 6/11/2014 9:56:13 AM , Rating: 1
Can we be done with the idea of a lunar base for refueling on interplanetary flights already? Lets actually do the Delta-V math:

Earth to LEO: 10 km/s
LEO to Lunar Orbit: 4.8 km/s
Lunar Orbit to the surface: 1.6 km/s
surface back to Lunar Orbit: 1.6 km/s
Lunar Orbit to Mars Orbit: 3.6 km/s

Total Delta-V required with a moon base refueling: 21.6 km/s
Now lets say you just blast off straight to Mars:

Earth to LEO: 10 km/s
LEO to Mars Orbit: 6.1 km/s

Total Delta-V required with a asteroid base refueling in LEO: 16.1 km/s

Do note: it takes 16.4 km/s of total Delta-V to land on the moon, vs 16.1 km/s to insert into orbit around Mars. In other words: even if there were a giant lake of pre-refined rocket fuel sitting on the Moon, it still would be more efficient to just blast off straight to mars.

By Reclaimer77 on 6/11/2014 10:03:52 AM , Rating: 2
Why are you adding all those trips? The Moon would be colonized, you'll leave straight from the Moon to Mars. Hellooo, wtf...

In other words: even if there were a giant lake of pre-refined rocket fuel sitting on the Moon, it still would be more efficient to just blast off straight to mars.

You can't just go straight from Earth to Mars, silly! Going to Mars realistically requires infrastructure in space. And the ISS won't be around much longer. So that's where a Moon base comes in.

Going straight from Earth to Mars, with current technology, isn't even on the table. By comparison establishing a presence on the Moon is child's play.

By w8gaming on 6/11/2014 11:05:16 AM , Rating: 2
It does seem colonizing Moon is currently facing a big challenge at the moment though. I have no idea how they are going to address the moon dust issue which seems to wear down everything quickly. And if they dig into cave or live underground, how much money has to be spent in order to create a living space to cater for the colonists need. Last time Russia tried to create an underground "safe zone" on Earth to survive a possible nuclear war fizzled out due to high cost. On moon the cost will be way higher.

I do fully support human must find ways to live on other planetary bodies or we will all eventually perish on Earth. But I have not come across any solid plan that can really make it happen at the moment. Should we try having a colony on Moon? Sure, but not for the reason to reach Mars because the cost involved just to colonize Moon will be far more expensive than a simple trip to Mars. As for those plans trying to colonize Mars now, they all sound like suicide missions.

By Reclaimer77 on 6/11/2014 11:13:56 AM , Rating: 2
And if they dig into cave or live underground, how much money has to be spent in order to create a living space to cater for the colonists need.


But realistically? Far less than trying to pull an asteroid into Earth orbit for colonization probably.

Like I said, colonizing the Moon is plausible. Meaning it might take a metric ton of money, and lots of time. It might be the hardest most ambitious thing Mankind has ever done, but it's absolutely 100% doable with current technology.

The asteroid plan? It's a pipe dream. It's not workable at all, there's not even a blueprint for such a thing. Something with that much mass, traveling at that's untenable.

By guacamojo on 6/11/2014 11:10:08 AM , Rating: 2
You can't just go straight from Earth to Mars, silly! Going to Mars realistically requires infrastructure in space. And the ISS won't be around much longer. So that's where a Moon base comes in.
The moon base is cool-sounding, but a Mars vehicle could be assembled in LEO, couldn't it? Why do you need a space station or moon base to assemble it?
It means you don't have to lug rocket fuel from Earth to the Moon.
Hydrogen on the moon is great, but you also need oxygen to burn it. You use 6x as much oxygen (by mass), which would indicate even more need to have a local source of oxidizer.

I'm not sure why capturing an asteroid is such a great idea, but the moon seems like an cool-sounding but unnecessary side-trip.

By w8gaming on 6/11/2014 11:13:03 AM , Rating: 2
I am hoping that the eventual plan is to remake the asteriod into a spaceship. Then you solve a lot of problem of having to launch a heavy object from Earth to space. Just need to launch lighter objects to be attached on the asteriod and there will be bigger room inside.

By Schrag4 on 6/11/2014 12:52:58 PM , Rating: 2
I suppose if you magically have enough energy to slow one down and bring it into Earth's orbit, then you can also magically accelerate it again to send it to Mars. The difference in mass would be huge - think ant vs blue whale.

By Reclaimer77 on 6/11/2014 11:23:31 AM , Rating: 1
The moon base is cool-sounding, but a Mars vehicle could be assembled in LEO, couldn't it?

Realistically? No. Constructing things in a zero gravity environment is extremely awkward and difficult. We have NO idea how to even do it. Look at how long it takes performing even simple repairs in EVA suits to accomplish.

Sure I guess we *could* build a giant shipyard in space with an atmosphere and maybe induce enough rotation to provide for *some* gravity....but I can't really see us building Babylon 5 at this point lol.

By comparison the Moon is an extremely stable planetary body with enough gravity to allow for comfortable human movement.

Hydrogen on the moon is great, but you also need oxygen to burn it. You use 6x as much oxygen (by mass), which would indicate even more need to have a local source of oxidizer.

Did you miss the part where the Hydrogen is in the ice? Where you have water, you have Oxygen by definition. Problem solved.

By guacamojo on 6/11/2014 11:40:22 AM , Rating: 2
Realistically? No. Constructing things in a zero gravity environment is extremely awkward and difficult. We have NO idea how to even do it.
The ISS was assembled in LEO. Heck, even Apollo did some re-arranging in LEO.
Assembly of modules that have been independently launched is perfectly feasible. You don't need to build a spacecraft from scratch in a space dock or on the moon. I'm not suggesting astronauts with welding gear and screwdrivers.
Did you miss the part where the Hydrogen is in the ice?
Yes, I did. I need more coffee. Good point.
However, I hold that you still don't need a moon base to assemble the vehicle. I suppose you could mine ice from the moon and mass-drive it into LEO for fueling, but you'd have to weigh the delta-V advantage vs. the cost and complexity of the lunar operation.

By Reclaimer77 on 6/11/2014 11:44:50 AM , Rating: 1
The ISS didn't have to fly millions of miles, land on a planet, then come back. Just saying, that's a whole different ballgame.

However, I hold that you still don't need a moon base to assemble the vehicle.

Well to be fair, I never said we NEEDED one either :)

By voronwe on 6/13/2014 2:22:55 PM , Rating: 2
The ISS is a spacecraft, just like any other spacecraft.

It's regularly reboosted because its orbit decays.

There is very little difference between the ISS and what would be required to go to Mars, and in fact, if you took the time to learn about it, it's been proposed that modules designed for ISS be retasked for lunar and Mars missions.

It is, in fact, technically foolhardy to imagine refueling on the Moon to get to Mars. You didn't read the preceding post carefully, or you would have seen that it is much easier to get to Mars from Earth orbit rather than go to the Moon.

In addition, you should know that fairly large asteroids can be brought to Earth orbit simply by flying a small satellite in formation with them. Over many millions of miles, gravity can work wonders. Yes, before you go off, even a small satellite has a gravitational attraction, and it's enough to perturb the orbit of something thousands of times larger to send it where we want it.

You should also be informed that serious mission planners have pointed out that lunar and Mars missions are much easier if they're assembled first at the ISS and checked out before the expedition crew even leaves Earth. And you should know that ISS has taught us to assemble large spacecraft in orbit.

I'll just add that virtually any satellite launcher can launch expedition modules for assembly in space, for $30-100M per launch, rather than spending $40-50B to develop the SLS and paying $2.5B per launch to fly it.

By Hakuryu on 6/11/2014 12:17:44 PM , Rating: 2
Why would going to Mars require infrastructure in space?

Any infrastructure for support like fuel would actually be a waste, because you'd have to orbit and dock which uses fuel.

Doing a straight journey to Mars would be the most economical way, in terms of dollars and fuel.

The reasons this isn't being done, is the sheer length of the trip (astronaut health issues from prolonged exposure to zero gravity and radiation). A permanent Moon base could give us the expertise to handle these issues, but even with a Moon base, any Mars mission would launch from Earth and go straight to Mars, unless there were other scientific purposes to docking 'on the way'.

By Reclaimer77 on 6/11/2014 12:30:19 PM , Rating: 1
Don't you understand? You'll burn like 85-90% of your fuel JUST getting off Earth. For such a long trip, it would be extremely advantageous if you could refuel near the Moon. Then you can do a much longer burn and have a shorter trip to Mars.

Also with access to a Moon base, you could take on more supplies for the trip to Mars. Supplies you DIDN'T have to haul from Earth on your rocket. Weight savings is beyond crucial.

I don't understand why I'm getting so much pushback here on this. It's just common sense!

A permanent Moon base could give us the expertise to handle these issues

Yes. A Moon base would also be extremely important for doing sciences and actually LEARNING what we need to do to survive and thrive off-world.

By MozeeToby on 6/11/2014 12:53:31 PM , Rating: 2
Then you can do a much longer burn and have a shorter trip to Mars.
Ahh, I see the problem now. This is not how chemical rockets work. Orbital transfers are done using Hohmann transfer orbits, anything else is either horribly inefficient fuel-wise or horribly inefficient time-wise. So long as you have enough fuel to do the transfer, that's all that matters. Now, more fuel would allow you to bring more mass with you, which is still highly important. The point is that the time frames are set by orbital mechanics, not the amount of fuel you have to burn (again, so long as you have enough to do the transfers).

The part that you continue to miss is that going Earth to Lunar orbit is every bit as difficult, in terms of fuel used, as going from Earth to Mars orbit. If you can get your ship, with all the supplies and equipment needed for your Mars mission, to lunar orbit, you could just as easily have gone straight for Mars.

Yes, the burn from Lunar orbit to Mars takes a little bit less fuel than LEO to mars so if you totally topped up your fuel tanks in Lunar orbit you'll have a bit more to work with when you arrive at Mars. But it would be at the expense of a huge increase in complexity: two otherwise unneeded long duration burns, mining/refining base on mars, ferry system to lunar orbit, orbital transfer of fuel, etc.

By Reclaimer77 on 6/11/2014 3:05:00 PM , Rating: 2
The only problem here is a serious lack of vision by the readership of Daily Tech.

I hold out no hope of man EVER exploring deep space and colonizing worlds if this is the majority opinion....

If you go to carpentry school, are you expected to build a house on the first day? Establishing a human colony on the Moon is FAR more important than nitpicking orbital transfers and Hohmann cycles. It would be a momentous crucial step!

By w8gaming on 6/12/2014 3:43:59 AM , Rating: 2
I think many are merely arguing about the efficiency of a direct launch from Earth to Mars vs a launch that requires a refueling near Moon. They are not saying a moon base is pointless. It should be obvious that Moon base is a good testing ground for eventual colonizations in space. But as it stands, it is expensive and difficult. And more importantly, past missions have not showed any affordable mean that we could harvest resources on Moon to benefit ourselves, comparing to just getting the same materials from Earth. Lets just hope that the private research will lower the launch cost significantly that it will make economical sense to mine the Moon, then we should see a gold rush to space to set up colonies. Meanwhile, someone should really clean up the space debris by forcing them to burn up in the atmosphere.

By Mint on 6/12/2014 4:28:43 PM , Rating: 2
Sometimes it just makes more sense to skip the intermediate step. In exploration, consider Columbus sailing to the Caribbean before colonizing the much closer Greenland.

Mars and the Moon are as different as Greenland and the Caribbean. There's not a lot settlers would have learned going to Greenland first.

By thesaxophonist on 6/12/2014 4:38:22 PM , Rating: 2
You're getting pushback because the Moon lack the raw material you are talking about! It's just a large piece of basalt! If you want rocket fuel that isn't LH2/LOX, you have to bring it from Earth. You can use electrolysis to produce LH2/LOX on the Moon from ice, but you waste more fuel there than a direct launch. A proposition that does make sense in a nuclear thermal rocket, with around 900 seconds Isp(double that of the best chemical rockets)which would allow us to sling far larger payloads to Mars.

By Reclaimer77 on 6/12/2014 6:22:04 PM , Rating: 2
You're getting pushback because the Moon lack the raw material you are talking about!

Once again idiots on Daily Tech force arguments nobody ever made.

If you think I'm suggesting the Moon has raw materials to build ships to go to Mars with, you are illiterate!!!!!

By thesaxophonist on 6/13/2014 10:04:16 AM , Rating: 2
Once again, Reclaimer resorts to name-calling. So you are saying that we instead haul all the needed materials off to the Moon, build a Mars ship there, and then send it off to Mars? What's the point? Direct launches make far more sense.And don't tell me a Moon base is practice for Mars. The Moon is a polar opposite from a Mars mission, and we wouldn't learn anything we could apply to Mars. I'm not saying a Moon base is useless-it's prime real estate to set up a manned telescope. It's just that it would have no bearing whatsoever on a Mars mission.

By Reclaimer77 on 6/13/2014 10:52:16 AM , Rating: 2
Why don't you read my OP? I just said the Moon was a more feasible plan than pulling an asteroid in LEO. That's all.

Now yes, it's my fault I let this side-argument people created to go on this long. But it was never my intention to suggest the Moon was the bestest thing evar. Just that it's better, and I believe it's worthwhile and crucial compared to other solutions.

By thesaxophonist on 6/14/2014 11:57:47 AM , Rating: 1
Well... at least we agree that putting an asteroid anywhere near Earth is bullshit. :)

By voronwe on 6/14/2014 8:21:26 PM , Rating: 1're both wrong. It's straightforward to bring small asteroids of solid composition near the Earth. It's tougher if the asteroid is actually in pieces to bag it, but comparable in complexity if gravitational attraction is used.

This mission class has received a great deal of study for the past several years, not only by folks at Planetary Resources, and other would-be asteroid miners, but by NASA's mission planners. It's actually turned out to be less problematic than many originally thought, and more targets keep turning up.

As long as I'm posting I'll point out that there isn't a single other country on Earth with thoughts of a commercial space industry or a regulatory structure to support it. We've reached a point where the U.S. government could solicit bids on private expeditions to space destinations, with private astronauts, rather than doing exploration with defense contractors, FARs and large volumes of pork. The Chinese, the Russians, ESA, Japan et al have to do it the way we did it thirty years ago, but the U.S. has finally allowed a nascent market to evolve. It's fragile (see Dick Shelby's attempt this month to kill it), but it exists. And that's a rare piece of good news.

By delphinus100 on 6/11/2014 7:54:13 PM , Rating: 2
Why are you adding all those trips? The Moon would be colonized, you'll leave straight from the Moon to Mars. Hellooo, wtf...

For certain definitions of 'you.' These things matter for those of us not born on the Moon. (Nor is it yet clear if humans can live and reproduce normally in Lunar or Martian gravity...and even then, guess what category of humans will best tolerate high thrust launch/departure and arrival/landing accelerations? I'd say it's humans raised in a one Earth gravity field...)

You can't just go straight from Earth to Mars, silly! Going to Mars realistically requires infrastructure in space. And the ISS won't be around much longer. So that's where a Moon base comes in.

I'm sorry. you're clearly under the impression that ISS will be the last space station in Earth orbit, ever. Listen up: Going to the Moon in a regular, commercial manner (and you need that to support a 'Lunar colony') requires infrastructure in Earth orbit, as well.

You go straight from Earth orbit. That's what it's for. 'Halfway to Anywhere,' and all that.

ELE put numbers to something I've been saying to this notion for ages: You don't leave one gravity well, to go down into another nearby one, to go to yet another one, much farther away...

Now, an argument can be made for a Lunar facility producing liquid oxygen and sending that back to staging areas in LEO to go elsewhere. You can (with considerable effort) get all the LOX you want from the Lunar regolith. (What's that? Hydrogen and oxygen from Lunar polar ice? Sounds nice, but we still don't have directly measured, ground-truth data on just how much is in those eternally shadowed areas. It may not be as much as you think. And the rarer it is, the more important it will be to keep that water on the Moon for human life support purposes, and not blow it out rocket nozzles into interplanetary space.)

But you don't drive to Saudi Arabia to refuel your car (though in principle, this may be more like mid-air refueling), you go to where it's been brought to you.

By thesaxophonist on 6/12/2014 4:42:34 PM , Rating: 2
Riiiiiight.. and you get to run resupply missions to that base to supply it with all of its resources (and shipbuilding materials), because the Moon has none. Not even water, because that's at the poles. And a polar launch means you screw up timetables even more to go to Mars.

By Flunk on 6/11/2014 10:36:21 AM , Rating: 2
I'm confused as to why you have the rocket actually landing on the moon instead of rendezvousing with another vessel to refuel in Moon orbit.

I'm not supporting either the LEO or Moon base ideas. It just seems like the choice of operations you laid out doesn't make sense.

By MozeeToby on 6/11/2014 10:44:35 AM , Rating: 2
Read the last paragraph again, just inserting into lunar orbit requires more Delta-V than inserting into Mars orbit, especially if you take aerobraking into account. It's true that you can save some fuel by using a ferry to ship fuel into lunar orbit, but even that ferry is going to burn fuel doing so and the rocket equation pretty much limits the efficiencies you can gain.

Unless the refueling point is in LEO, there's simply not much point. The Delta V to go pretty much anywhere in the solar system just isn't much higher than the Delta V required to get to and insert into orbit around the moon.

By Reclaimer77 on 6/11/14, Rating: -1
By Arkive on 6/11/2014 1:32:01 PM , Rating: 1

What he is saying is that the Delta-V required to go from Earth -> Moon -> Mars is significantly higher than going from Earth -> Mars because of the efficiencies gained by leveraging a Hohmann transfer from LEO. If you just look up "Hohmann transfers" you'll understand why he's saying what he's saying.

Why so many sources may believe the moon is a better launching point than LEO is probably due to the refueling aspect. While you can get to Mars more efficiently from LEO, you would be doing so with significantly less fuel since so much of it will have been spent getting you into LEO. A lunar launch would allow you to build a slightly smaller vehicle since you'd staging your way to Mars instead of going directly there. That said, a moon base doesn't address how you're going to get the one component you'll need more than any other, oxidizer.

By thesaxophonist on 6/12/2014 4:51:27 PM , Rating: 2
Oxidizer isn't really the problem; you can get that from ice in polar craters(theoretically). The problem is heavy metals, which the Moon is devoid of.

By thesaxophonist on 6/12/2014 4:47:23 PM , Rating: 1
Yep, they do. Because the politicians give them more money that way. Use your own brain for a change! For those who buck this trend, see:
Robert Zubrin
Dan Goldin
David Baker
Ben Clark

By Vertigo2000 on 6/11/2014 11:10:00 AM , Rating: 2
It means you don't have to lug rocket fuel from Earth to the Moon. The Moon HAS it's own fuel just waiting to be used.

True, but you do have to haul the building materials to the moon in order to build the infrastructure to "harvest" the resources. How many trips is that going to take?

I still prefer the idea of an elevator to LEO built on Earth. Seems more practical, long-term.

By ebakke on 6/11/2014 1:21:17 PM , Rating: 2
Yes! Elevator, FTW.

By Arkive on 6/11/2014 1:41:01 PM , Rating: 2
This isn't meant to be an insult, but anyone who actually understands what's involved in building that and still thinks it's a practical idea is bordering on completely loco.

By rlandess on 6/11/2014 2:11:12 PM , Rating: 2
Enlighten us.

By Arkive on 6/11/2014 4:20:31 PM , Rating: 2
The counterweight in space would have to be tremendous, to the point that a captured asteroid is the only [currently] feasible option, and no one who's prosing this is really talking about how much thrust would be required for such a capture, much less how you would get that much thrust to the asteroid and securely attach it.

But let's say we could do that, or an asteroid of significant size was kind enough to aerobrake itself into an orbit that we could more easily adjust. Despite the advances in carbon nanotubes it's still argued that they would lack sufficient strength to actually sustain the loads associated with not only being tethered to the counterweight but also the non-uniform loads exerted on the cable by the ascent vehicles (such as wobble courtesy of the Coriolis effect). This is also completely ignoring the fact that the longest carbon nanotube we've made (to my knowledge) is less than a meter long and maybe a millimeter thick.

But let's say we could create a cable strong enough to sustain these loads in sufficient length and width. It would likely have to be completely solid (jointless) to allow an even distribution of the load from top to bottom so that no single points could give way to the enormous load being distributed. That would mean you would either have to lay the cable during launch (which is impossible since you cannot efficiently launch into GSO while maintaining GSO during launch) or carry the entire cable into space first. It's estimated a cable of sufficient strength would be approximately 750+ tons. You could launch strands of the cable individually and then extend them down one after the other and shore them together but this sound logistically terrible and likely a compromise of the strength required (to be honest, I'm hypothesizing on this one, but it's worth mentioning).

All that said, these are mostly technical hurdles that could, with enough time, be overcome. But even if they were, the biggest issue to me is space debris. Think about how much dust and debris from asteroids burn up in our atmosphere everyday and then think about the liklihood of some of that cutting across the path of a 23,000 mile long cable.

By voronwe on 6/14/2014 8:28:54 PM , Rating: 2
What counterweight? I've been to a few space elevator conferences, read quite a few papers, and even refereed a few. Never have I seen the need for a "counterweight".

Perhaps you need to do a little light reading on the topic.

Regarding materials, nanotubes are theoretically strong enough, but long ones of sufficient strength haven't been easy to produce in bulk. Luckily, there have been some recent patent filings which may indicate the problem has been solved.

By delphinus100 on 6/11/2014 8:09:05 PM , Rating: 2
I still prefer the idea of an elevator to LEO built on Earth. Seems more practical, long-term.

Except that it's a stationary target for every object orbiting Earth, functional or debris, any inclination, any altitude (below the most distant point of the elevator), except for objects in geostationary orbit (which the space elevator itself [or its center of mass, at least, not unlike a see-saw] technically is, it just happens to be long enough to touch the ground) that would theoretically stay the same distance from it, all the time.

Not to mention that climbing it is a slow ride through the VanAllen belts, and it's unhelpful for anyone wanting/needing to get to some orbit other than geostationary. If you want LEO, you can't just step off at 200 miles or so, and be in orbit.

I believe space elevators are technically possible, but just not practical.

By voronwe on 6/14/2014 8:35:47 PM , Rating: 2
They're great for freight, but not, in my opinion, for passengers.

My take on elevators is that the technology will catch up soon, but there will be a big paradigm shift when people finally get that the resources we need are out there in orbit. We need to stop thinking of asteroids as bullets coming to get us and start thinking of them as resources waiting to be used.

If ARM makes it through the next administration, it'll go a long way toward laying the foundation for a permanent, self-sufficient presence in space. Given that we have no replacement planned for ISS, it's easy to imagine that if we don't get busy, we'll lose our foothold. ARM gives us a path toward permanence.

By voronwe on 6/13/2014 2:05:20 PM , Rating: 1
Really? A 500-ton asteroid is an extinction level event?

Really? We've been able to compute accurate orbital elements for every object we could detect in the solar system for the past hundred years, and we can make accurate probe landings on Mars, but we can't compute an accurate orbit for a small asteroid?

Really? We don't know how gravity works?

Really? A small orbiting asteroid isn't worth anything as an orbital platform for research on mining, refinement and other industrial operations in space?

Really? A small orbiting asteroid isn't easier to get to and supply than the gravity well of the Moon?

Much of what we could do on the Moon, as it happens, we can do more easily in orbit above the Moon. Reclaimer77, I wish, just once, you'd wait to speak until you'd done some research.

"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki