Don't We Need To Go Back To The Moon In Order To Practice For Going To Mars ???

[WillyT]

I mean... if we get something wrong, it's a much shorter trip to correct, no?

Just wondering.

:shrug:

[Newest Reality]

1. It might help if

we come down to Earth first.

Right now, things are way out there.

[Oregone]

2. Im so glad we are going to Mars

Ill never have to worry about putting gas in my car anymore!

[flyarm]

3. check this out..and the lies keep on comin'..........

Per MSNBC:

"Tamron Hall, anchorette, says to reporter Jay Barbree, "In just about 45 minutes Obama will speak to NASA workers to explain why he's deciding to end plans for America's return to the moon, at least for now. The administration feels there's a time to reassess and reset the situation. It is not his quest to end our attempts to go to the moon, correct?"

BARBREE: He's messing up the sandbox if you will. But you said there in the introduction that he's coming here to speak to the workers. And what I've just been told, he's going to speak before about 200 select people in the building where they will build the Orion and not a single worker, I'm told, has been invited.

HALL: Wow.

BARBREE: I wonder if the President knows that. Maybe he'll be told that when he gets over to the building and maybe we'll find him pulling in some workers because, after all, that was the purpose of his trip, as you said."

[WillyT]

5. Whoa...

Need more on that, but... Ho... Lee... Shit!!!

Either somebody just out-stage-managed the White Houes, Or...

:wow:

[Rage Inc.]

50. "anchorette?"

Step into the latter half of the 20th century, at least!

[onehandle]

4. I saw a special on cable a while back about launching from Earth's orbit.

It was far easier and cheaper than building a 'moonbase' and launching from there.

As for a shorter trip from the moon, if it was in the right position it would cut off maybe a couple of days of a nearly year long trip. Negligible at best.

[csziggy]

9. Yeah, the moon may have lower gravity, but it is still a gravity well

From orbit, a Mars trip could possibly use a slingshot effect to gain momentum, going around the Earth or maybe the Moon. I don't have the math for the orbital paths, just have read science (and science fiction) all my life so know it can be done in some circumstances.

From the surface of the Moon, there would be fewer options for launch. and you would start out in a hole, gravity wise.

The biggest problem with construction in space is working in zero-g and the long-term health effects. But the trip to Mars would have the same problem so it will have to be solved somehow.

[niceypoo]

59. The solution is simple, Spock...

Antimatter!

[Confusious]

68. The moon has less then a fifth of the gravity of earth

If you farted to hard, you could send yourself out into space.

[csziggy]

71. It would take a bit more than a fart

And it is still a gravity well, even if the well is not as deep as Earth's.


From the internet, various sources:
The escape velocity for the Earth is about 11.2 km/s, or roughly 7 mi/s.
The escape velocity for the Moon is about 2.38 km/s, or about 1.5 mi/s.

And in reality since the Moon has no atmosphere, there a slight more advantage for the Moon than the gravitational calculations allow.

From a Lagrangian point, particularly L1 (see diagram), equilibrium between Earth and the Moon, the escape velocity for the Earth-Moon system would be less than from low Earth orbit or from the Moon surface, but I do not know if that would make enough difference to make up for the incon1venience of having to haul construction materials and crews that much farther from Earth's surface.



Where a Moon base or the L1 orbit would make the most sense is if we were mining the materials to construction the Mars mission vessels on the surface of the Moon. Then it probably would be better to build them there and launch from the surface or from the L1 point.

[Confusious]

72. I know, I was being a doofus

"Where a Moon base or the L1 orbit would make the most sense is if we were mining the materials to construction the Mars mission vessels on the surface of the Moon. Then it probably would be better to build them there and launch from the surface or from the L1 point."

I like that plan the best. Even though building things there would take time, it would be permanent, and other things could be built there as well, which would, in the long run, be less expensive then building them on earth and shooting them up.

Besides that, I don't think people will ever really see how alone we are until they can stand on the surface of the moon and see the earth from far away. At that point, people may soften and come to some sort of understanding.

[csziggy]

73. That does add one reason to go back to the Moon - resources

I've read estimates that at our current rate of usage, we only have radioactive materials for fuel for reactors for 150-200 years. Maybe we can extend that by reprocessing spent fuel rods, but it is still a limited resource. There is a good chance that radioactive materials could be found on the Moon. Probably metal ores could be found too that could be used for making the vehicles for space travel. The hard part will be developing the technology to mine and smelt on an airless planet - but we would not be polluting our environment with that industry.

If radioactive fuels are used for propulsion, launching from the moon or L1 would be more acceptable than from the Earth's surface or even low Earth orbit.

And the Moon would be a great tourist destination!

[Confusious]

74. The 150-200 year number is anti-nuke propaganda

thorium can be used in reactors, is 4x times more abundant then uranium, and doesn't need reprocessing so every bit can be used.

[csziggy]

76. That figure came from an article in Scientific American

I haven't seen an obvious bias in that publication, but I could be missing something.

[Confusious]

77. I don't know how they got it

and I don't consider them biased, except maybe on the side of science.

They are human, it could be a mistake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium

[csziggy]

78. It's been a while since I read it - they could have been talking about current technology

As presently used, even though it does seem as though thorium could be used in the more advanced reactors.

Much of what I read in SA goes far over my head, anyway. I read as much as I can and absorb as much as is possible, but I do not have the foundation in the hard sciences for much of what they cover. I am better at understanding the anthropology and social science articles since that is where my background is.

Any mistakes are bound to be mine.

[WillyT]

14. No... I'm Talking About Landing And Spending Time On Mars...

If (at present) it's gonna take a year to get there, we can't do the Apollo routine.

Launch and orbit unmanned. Launch and orbit manned. Etc...

Apollo Mission types

In September 1967, the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston, Texas, proposed a series of missions that would lead up to a manned lunar landing. Seven mission types were outlined, each testing a set of components and tasks; each previous step needed to be completed successfully before the next mission type could be undertaken. These were:

* A - Unmanned Command/Service Module (CSM) test
* B - Unmanned Lunar Module (LM) test
* C - Manned CSM in low Earth orbit
* D - Manned CSM and LM in low Earth orbit
* E - Manned CSM and LM in an elliptical Earth orbit with an apogee of 4600 mi (7400 km)
* F - Manned CSM and LM in lunar orbit
* G - Manned lunar landing

Later added to this were H missions, which were short duration stays on the Moon with two lunar EVAs ("moonwalks"). These were followed by the J missions, which were longer three day stays, with three LEVAs, using the lunar rover.<25> Apollo 18 to 20 would have been J missions, as Apollo 15 to 17 were.

Another group of flights — the I missions — were planned, which would have been long duration orbital missions using a Scientific Instrument Module (SIM) which included a panoramic camera, gamma ray spectrometer, mapping camera, laser altimeter, mass spectrometer, and lunar sub-satellite. When it became obvious that later flights were being cancelled, this was incorporated into the J missions and operated by the Command Module Pilot during the lunar surface operations. After trans-earth injection, the CMP had to perform an EVA to retrieve the film.

Just wondering what sort of caution is being planned for a Mars trip. And if we get there after a year long flight, won't we stay for some serious length of time? And wouldn't practicing that on the moon be prudent?

:shrug:

[Warpy]

6. No, they are totally different and the problems involved with the

much longer voyage to Mars can't be solved on short hops to the Moon. They will more likely be solved as the ISS matures.

Using the Moon as a base is less satisfactory, also, since escaping the considerable gravity there would waste fuel that starting the voyage from the ISS would not.

The only use I can see for the Moon in such a project is plotting a slingshot route around it to use its gravity to aid propulsion toward Mars and save fuel.

[tridim]

7. No IMO. The Earth is more similar to Mars than the Moon.

The Moon doesn't have an atmosphere so the landing is completely different.

[pscot]

8. I'll bet a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken

no human ever sets foot on mars.

[defendandprotect]

22. Yep . . . I'm with you . . .

PLUS manned flights aren't the way to go --

even if we could!

[Statistical]

41. Ever? As in not in 100 years, not in 1000 years, not in a million years?

Human species goes extinct before a single human steps foot on another planet?

I certainly hope not.

[Uncle Joe]

46. I'll see your bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken and raise you with one heart attack special..

Any nation that can create this, can find a way to Mars.

[LeftyMom]

10. We're not going to Mars.

We don't have the technology to protect astronauts from solar radiation outside of the Earth's magnetic field. Nobody's even proposed a workable possibility. Until somebody comes up with an idea for how to do that, a manned mission to Mars is and will remain firmly in the realm of science fiction.

Obama is blowing smoke up our collective ass with this Mars crap, to distract from a space program that's less capable than it was forty years ago, and everybody at NASA, and for that matter everybody with even a casual interest in space exploration knows it.

The fact of the matter is, forty years ago, using less computing power than your kid's calculator, NASA put men on the moon, repeatedly. Soon they won't be able to put men into orbit without asking Russia for a lift.

[defendandprotect]

25. We put men on the moon, "using less computing power than your kid's calculator" ...!!

Sure we did --

:evilgrin:

[LeftyMom]

32. Oh god, not one of those...

*click*

There, that's better.

[defendandprotect]

35. "Only fools never doubt" --

[ecstatic]

60. cynical much?

:P

[Orsino]

75. No, I'm afraid we're not.

If not, though, it won't be the radiation that will have stopped us. It will have been the pressure of eight to ten billion people on the edge of starvation, fighting over the last of the natural resources.

We can't afford to start going to the moon now--and haven't felt the need to do so for nearly four decades. Another decade or two past Peak Oil? We'll be lucky to maintain a GPS constellation.

[Rage Inc.]

11. "A much shorter trip?"

:rofl:

Yeah, we'd be 1/98th of the way!

[NYC_SKP]

12. No, worse. It's 593 times further to Mars than to the Moon.

:think:

384,403 km to the Moon versus 227,939,100 km to Mars.

We do not need to go to the Moon.

We need to go ahead and let the shuttle program sunset, as planned, and develop new technologies for heavy lifting to low Earth orbit and launching constructed spacecraft from there to targets further than our Moon.

:hi:

[Motown_Johnny]

15. and Mars is moving around the sun at a different rate than we are

so we only get close to it about once every 2 years

[NYC_SKP]

18. True. The range is about 55 million km to 400 million km.

In 2003 we were about 55.6 million km from Mars.

2018 and 2020 looks good (forgive the formatting, link below these figures):

Opposition Closest Approach
Date UT L_hel RA Dec m_max Date UT dist AU Mkm diam
2012 Mar 3 20:04 163:29 11:52 +10:17 -1.23 2012 Mar 5 17:01 0.67368 100.78 13.89
2014 Apr 8 20:57 198:44 13:14 -05:08 -1.48 2014 Apr 14 12:54 0.61756 92.39 15.16
2016 May 22 11:11 241:34 15:58 -21:39 -2.06 2016 May 30 21:36 0.50321 75.28 18.60
2018 Jul 27 05:07 303:53 20:33 -25:30 -2.78 2018 Jul 31 07:51 0.38496 57.59 24.31
2020 Oct 13 23:20 20:12 01:22 +05:26 -2.62 2020 Oct 6 14:19 0.41492 62.07 22.56
2022 Dec 8 05:36 75:47 04:59 +25:00 -1.87 2022 Dec 1 02:18 0.54447 81.45 17.19
2025 Jan 16 02:32 115:52 07:56 +25:07 -1.38 2025 Jan 12 13:38 0.64228 96.08 14.57
2027 Feb 19 15:45 150:23 10:18 +15:23 -1.21 2027 Feb 20 00:14 0.67792 101.42 13.81
2029 Mar 25 07:43 184:32 12:23 +01:04 -1.34 2029 Mar 29 12.56 0.64722 96.82 14.46
2031 May 4 11:57 223:25 14:46 -15:29 -1.80 2031 May 12 03:50 0.55336 82.78 16.91
2033 Jun 27 01:24 275:39 18:30 -27:50 -2.51 2033 Jul 5 11:19 0.42302 63.28 22.13
2035 Sep 15 19:33 352:19 23:43 -08:01 -2.84 2035 Sep 11 14:21 0.38041 56.91 24.61
2037 Nov 19 09:04 56:51 03:37 +20:16 -2.16 2037 Nov 11 08:00 0.49358 73.84 18.96
2040 Jan 2 15:21 101:16 06:50 +26:41 -1.53 2039 Dec 28 14:47 0.61092 91.39 15.32
2042 Feb 6 11:59 137:14 09:25 +19:50 -1.24 2042 Feb 5 07:57 0.67174 100.49 13.93
2044 Mar 11 12:44 170:59 11:33 +06:56 -1.26 2044 Mar 14 06:07 0.66708 99.79 14.03
2046 Apr 17 18:01 207:15 13:44 -09:00 -1.58 2046 Apr 24 04:33 0.59704 89.32 15.68
2048 Jun 3 14:45 253:01 16:45 -24:45 -2.22 2048 Jun 12 01:41 0.47366 70.86 19.76
2050 Aug 14 07:46 321:02 21:43 -20:44 -2.87 2050 Aug 15 12:55 0.37405 55.96 25.02
2052 Oct 28 06:28 34:49 02:12 +11:58 -2.46 2052 Oct 20 05:12 0.44091 65.96 21.23
2054 Dec 17 22:09 85:25 05:40 +26:20 -1.73 2054 Dec 11 11:44 0.57015 85.29 16.42
2057 Jan 24 01:26 123:44 08:28 +23:27 -1.32 2057 Jan 21 09:03 0.65552 98.06 14.28
2059 Feb 27 05:25 157:48 10:44 +12:20 -1.22 2059 Feb 28 10:32 0.67681 101.25 13.83
2061 Apr 2 12:47 192:27 12:50 -02:38 -1.41 2061 Apr 7 13:54 0.63199 94.54 14.81

http://seds.org/~spider/spider/Mars/marsopps.html

:patriot:

[Statistical]

42. Except projects like this take a decade.

Since we aren't starting now we won't be launching in 2020.

2035 looks like first possible window. If we miss that either trip will be much longer (30% to 50% longer) or we don't launch until 2050.

[WillyT]

16. But How Are We To Practice Being On Another Planet ???

If we're gonna spend all that time and money just to plant a flag and collect a few rocks, I think that's idiotic.

If we are going to go there and set up camp, stay a while and do some research, then don't we need to practice that somewhere... close?

:shrug:

[Motown_Johnny]

17. Mars and the Moon are not similar at all

Practicing the piano won't help you play guitar

[WillyT]

23. Yeah... But Apollo 13 Might Be A Sober Reminder That We Are Not Infallible...

Just like we've been practicing extended time in space with the space station, shouldn't we be practicing extended time on celestial bodies by doing that a bit closer to Earth at first?

I mean, maybe they have some grand plan that I haven't heard about, but I DO remember one of our explorer/robotic missions to Mars getting totally hosed because one team used metric math while the others used the "Royal" system.

Wouldn't want to do THAT with Humans aboard would we???

:shrug:

:hi:

[Motown_Johnny]

29. they do that on earth.

http://space-exploration.suite101.com/article.cfm/simulating_mars_exploration_on_earth


^snip^



Mars Mission Simulation
It was decided to simulate a Mars mission as comprehensively as possible. A prototype habitat unit would be built, consisting of up to three decks of working and living space. There would be individual sleeping quarters, a common mess area, and - in the lowest deck - laboratory facilities. The crew would live and work in the habitat module for a number of weeks. They would undertake field work, mainly geologic surveys. While working externally to the module, they would wear a simulated spacesuit, complete with helmet etc. Samples would be collected and analysed in the laboratory housed in the habitat, using microscopes and other equipment.



Read more at Suite101: Simulating Mars Exploration on Earth: Using Earth-Based Habitats to Emulate Living and Working on Mars http://space-exploration.suite101.com/article.cfm/simulating_mars_exploration_on_earth#ixzz0lEHrGgYU

[Statistical]

43. Exactly. You build a mockup on earth.

If something goes wrong the "astronaut" takes off helmet and walks out of simulator.
It is a "failure" but nobody gets hurt. The equivalent on Mars would be a casualty.

There is little reason we need to go to the Moon to go to Mars.

There are some benefits but they are small.

[NYC_SKP]

20. Practice on the moon isn't going to replicate any of the conditions of Mars very well.

That couldn't be done here.

Mars has an atmosphere, the moon doesn't.

The gravity on Mars is 38% that of Earth, but more than twice that of the Moon.

The challenges of going 56 million km from the Earth involves challenges we haven't even begun to solve.

We need to launch from space, and need to learn how to do that.

That's what this new effort is all about.

[Cleobulus]

28. Oh, that won't happen, unless they are willing to burn a lot of fuel for the trip back...

The Earth and Mars will have to be positioned just right to make it practical for the return trip, just like the trip there in the first place, that could take place months, even up to a year after landing.

[Posteritatis]

30. To be fair, the first few thousand kilometers are half the trip

Gravity wells are jerks, after all. ;)

[Motown_Johnny]

13. only if riding your tricycle will help you get your driver's license

[eppur_se_muova]

19. The Moon's not "on the way" to Mars, it's a big change in delta-v to stop there.

See Robert Zubrin's "Mars Direct" for more arguments why we should skip Luna -- no atmosphere and no water means no aerobraking and no raw materials for fuel. Also no balloons or airfoils for exploration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct

[Better Believe It]

26. And we're not about to build and fuel a rocket on the Moon that will get us to Mars!

[SPedigrees]

21. Been there, done that already.

That's pretty much what President Obama said today in his speech. On to better things, and places farther away.

[backscatter712]

24. No, the current idea is to go to asteroids instead.

That way, we don't have such a huge gravity well to deal with.

And we'll probably be landing on Mars's moons, Deimos and Phobos (which are tiny compared to Earth's moon) before we land on Mars itself.

[Better Believe It]

27. I was hoping that Obama would propose an international "On to Mars" project

that could get us there in less than 10 or 15 years.

If it's not an international project, the United States will may have a human expedition to Mars in about 25 years .... a decade or so after Chinese astronauts return from Mars!

[Warren DeMontague]

34. The Chinese aren't getting anyone to Mars any time soon.

One thing I will say, in Obama's defense and everyone else who tries to approach this problem for real- getting people to Mars & back is a massive logistical challenge. We did the moon in 10 years, but that's several orders of magnitude simpler, even with 1960s technology.

We can do it; I don't know about 10 years, if we really threw everything we had at it (which we won't do- it doesn't matter how much we waste on the Military, or the Drug War, or "abstinence only" education, NASA can't get 5 fucking cents without the peanut gallery caterwauling about the money) we might be able to do it in 10, more like 12-15... but given that NASA (and manned space exploration) will continue to have to scrape by, it's going to take longer than that IMHO.

[defendandprotect]

36. Unfortunately, there are the Van Allen Radiation belts . . .

and humans are likely earthbound --

If we ever sent a man to the moon, they likely died before getting there ---

as the Cosmonauts have seemingly let us know about their own attempts.

They are even finding that commercial airline pilots at the elevations of airplane

traffic have developed long term effects.

Astronauts coming off the MIR space station are often unable to walk --

and the MIR is in "low earth orbit."

[Statistical]

44. Science is dead. n/t

[SidDithers]

48. Moon landing deniers are right up there with Homeopaths...

as my favourite purveyors of fantasy.

Sid

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren DeMontague]

56. Pretty much every single sentence in your post is demonstratably wrong.

Let's start with the MIR; the MIR hasn't been in low earth orbit for quite some time.




Astronauts routinely come off the International Space Station from long trips slightly weakened- from Zero G- but they're in much better shape than the old MIR astronauts; why? Because we've learned exercise regimens that can help with the effects of long term weightlessness.

Even those cosmonauts "unable to walk" were able to walk once they re-adjusted to Earth's gravity.

I suggest you try spewing that gibberish about the Van Allen Belts to someone like Jim Lovell, who put his life on the line more than once out there.

And, yeah, we did go to the moon.

[FarCenter]

31. A big challenge is turning feces and urine back into food and water during a 2 year duration trip

Mars is a long way away.

[Statistical]

45. Water Yes. Food not so much.

Compared to the amount of fuel required for return trip 3 years worth of food is a rounding error.

Carrying 100% of water needs would be foolish so likely some sort of reclimation system will be needed. I believe they are doing work on that on ISS.

[Warren DeMontague]

33. I think the argument could be made either way. That focusing on going back to the moon will divert

resources from focusing on Mars.

I think that's the position Bob Zubrin of the Mars Society has been taking for the past few years- that if the destination is Mars, we should focus on Mars, not detour to the moon for how ever many years.

It's arguable that the moon would make an excellent test area for things like suits, landers, rovers, etc. Although, as others have noted, Mars and the Moon are not identical.

But, it should be remembered that we went to the moon with no experience landing on another world, and brought back a wealth of data on things like spacesuit functionality (the Apollo suits were anything but practical for long term use and surface work, although they and the Astronauts performed admirably)

I actually thought the layout for Constellation wasn't a bad plan, but the truth is that the money wasn't there, and the delays were starting to build up- which could have meant, sticking with plan "A", a long detour on the moon before going to Mars. If NASA is going to get serious about a heavy lift vehicle, and things like next-generation propulsion systems, I think this may actually be a better, faster road for human exploration into the solar system.

But the devil is in the details, and the details, if you ask me, are the hardware. To land on Mars, you're going to need a lander, you're going to need long duration habitats, you're going to need a lot of stuff.

I think that stuff can be tested out in a number of ways, but it would surprise me if it all got built and nobody did even one "dry run" on the moon before setting out to Mars. I mean, that would make a lot of sense, but we're talking about a decision that is many years away.

[BagongBansa]

40. keep 'em at home

There's really no point in going to Mars at all, except to prove it can be done and to be the first to do it. Same as there wasn't much point in going to the Moon. The robotic missions do scienticic explorations of the Solar Ssytem much better than any manned mission can, and more safely. It's sad to see China and India wanting to spend their money going to the Moon. It's just their way of saying, hey, we can do it too. It has no other point. Let's put all our resources into robotic missions.

[Warren DeMontague]

49. I disagree wholeheartedly.

Man will expand into the solar system, it's just a matter of when.

[BagongBansa]

64. other stars yes

I think there's a chance Earth life will travel to other stars some day. There there is a chance it could live. But on Mars, no. We might as well build a colony on the top of Everest or at the bottom of the Marianas Trench.

[One_Life_To_Give]

61. Keeping humanity one asteroid strike from oblivion?

Statistically this planet will be hit again. If humanity still only exists on this rock. Then our entier existence, that of our for fathers etc. Will overnight become nothing more than a footnote in galactic history. Seems like a waste to let that happen.

[pscot]

65. If that's the concern

maybe we should devote some resources to averting the impending environmental collapse associated with anthropogenic global warming. The Mars planning is like fantasizing about the lavish vacation retreat you're going to build while while the only home you have is falling down around your ears. If we go to Mars it will be as a forlorn hope; a futile gesture in the face of impending catastrophe. I'm beginning to think the President doesn't really get it.

[defendandprotect]

37. Another positive about this is it would delay any theory of junking one planet and

moving on to junk another !!

[Warren DeMontague]

55. Actually, the idea is to speed up exploration beyond low Earth orbit, and get to Mars sooner.

Sorry!

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

38. I refuse to support a manned mission to Mars

until the so-called "scientists" reinstate Pluto as a planet.
:hi:

I think we could spend our money on more pressing needs, like education and health care.

[Warren DeMontague]

51. We could spend our money on more pressing needs. But NASA isn't getting a big chunk of "our money"

I find it astounding that NASA can't get 5 cents without legions of bean-counters putting on the green eyeshade and getting their knickers in a twist. We lost -LOST!- $9 Billion in Iraq. We spend half a trillion on the Military Industrial Complex a year, and that's just what we KNOW about. We spend $40 Billion a year keeping POT illegal. Where the fuck is the "dammit, we could be doing better things with our money" outrage on that??? Every time the Hubble or Cassini sends back priceless data and pictures about our universe, the media feels obligated to give us a running price tag. When the DEA kicks down the door of a pot club and arrests a gaggle of cancer grannies, do they tell us exactly how much the swat team equipment cost? The helicopter? No, they don't.

It's ridiculous.

And I will also say, that anyone genuinely pissed about Pluto's "demotion" hasn't been paying attention. Fact is, we don't live in the solar system most of us were taught in grade school. If Pluto is a planet, then so is Eris. So is MakeMake. So is Sedna. Etc. Etc. Etc.

[old mark]

39. The argument for "continuity" in NASA seems to be coming from the

old line - I believe this is code for "Keep the old guys employed", when I believe it may be time for some younger people to take over...I am an older Boomer, but man, isn't it time to get out of the way?


mark

[defendandprotect]

67. It's a corporate NASA, evidently, just as much as our coporate MIC . . .

and waaaaaaaaaaaaay back there were complaints about that --

and the influence they were having -- on agenda and crap they were producing.

See "lemon" and Gus Grissom.

[SidDithers]

47. We can get to Mars in about 40 days using an ion engine...

it's technology that's already been used by both the US and Japan.

Good thread discussing the science and technology from last year
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=7014067

Also: http://www.universetoday.com/2009/10/06/trips-to-mars-in-39-days/

Basically, ion engines take advantage of low, continuous acceleration to allow the spacecraft to reach speeds 10x that of a conventionally fueled rocket.

Sid

[dorkulon]

63. I though Ion drives took a really long time to get going.

Didn't it take like a year for one to get to the moon? I know they eventually reach insane speeds but I'm not sure if Mars is far away enough to make it faster than a conventional engine.

Oh, never mind, just read your links. :)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

52. The moon is kinda passe as a photo op.

[dorkulon]

53. What is the point of either?

We've seen both. Let's go somewhere else. And there's really no point in sending people along anyway. If we take people out of the equation, we can go farther and take more risks.

[Warren DeMontague]

54. We can do both. And there was direct, on the spot science done on Apollo that could not have been

done by robots, even with today's technology.

In terms of decision making, in terms of inquisitive, on-the-spot exploring, in terms of simply experiencing it in ways that the rest of humanity can relate to; humans need to go.

And humans will go. Our future is beyond this one planet. Like it or not, eventually, people will go out there. There is value to it we haven't even found yet. When sputnik first went up, I'm sure there were people who said "Yeah, it's cool, but so what- what is it good for?"

We use satellites every day. Eventually we will be living on the moon and other places, and using the resources there, too.

[dorkulon]

62. Why would we live on the moon?

Aside from the novelty of it, of course.

I'm all for exploring and exploiting space as much as possible; but there really isn't anywhere in this solar system that is even marginally hospitable to life that we know of. What would be the point of living on the moon when the tip of Mt Everest is much more survivable?

I just think that sci-fi has inflated our expectations way too much. The nearest star would take many thousands of years to reach by conventional means, and a century by the fastest theoretically possible means we can come up with. It's not as easy as we think it is, and we can't just use space colonization as some kind of escape hatch for when we ruin this planet. Even a devastated, irradiated earth is likely to be a much better place to live than any other body in this system.

Again, I hope we put a lot of effort into exploring space, but barren rocks are not all that interesting, especially as places to live.

EDIT: And besides that, I'd like to hear an example of this science that only humans can perform that was done on Apollo.

[defendandprotect]

70. One of the main interests in the moon and those who controlled space agenda ...

was the Moon "as the highest hill" -- worthy from a military stand point.

Like Star Wars - militarization of the skies.

This view was actually spoken by LBJ for those who shared that view back in .... 1957?

Think that's pretty close.

[defendandprotect]

69. Agree re "no point in sending people along anyway" --

[One_Life_To_Give]

57. Wouldn't construct the ship on the moon.

For interplanetary missions, beyond sending probes. We would probably build the ship somewhere between the two in near zero gravity. Perhaps near the ISS although a higher orbit would offer advantages.

I would think more than going to the moon. We might want to take a Mars vehical and practice Orbit/De-orbit and landing/recovery operations, in the months or few years prior to actually launching her to Mars.

[krispos42]

58. In this case, distance is irrelevent.

There is no rescue if something goes wrong, period. The Coast Guard can't pull the astronauts' bacon out of the fire if something bad happens. The only advantage is that the moon is a lot faster in terms of radio communication. The delay is only about 1.5 seconds each way. It's several minutes each way to Mars, depending on where Mars it relative to Earth.

But that's it in terms of advantages.