Re: Improved lunar landing architecture

In article <82nff11b2f4bh5ee9pqkpi6mjkks5lnbs7@xxxxxxx>,
Cardman <do-not@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> >In article <dn6af1ts2qljpes6kefh6c54f7r4137gjk@xxxxxxx>,
> > Cardman <do-not@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> >Some people keep talking about Mars which would take money away from the
> >> >Lunar program.
> >>
> >> Mars is the main goal here.
> >
> >According to whom?!?
>
> Basic reality. The one other close location in this solar system,
> where us humans can fit in.

Nonsense. We can fit in wherever our technology enables us to do so --
which it does, on both the Moon and Mars, and in both places, we'll die
pretty much instantly without it.

> Also Mars, unlike the Moon, has a far
> greater volume of resources to exploit.

It also has a ridiculously long and ever-changing travel time. That
negates the value of its in situ resources, in the short- to medium-term
at least.

> Not to forget that the exploration bonus of living Mars is worth a
> hundred cold dead atmosphere-less Moons.

I don't know how one measures "exploration bonus" so I can't argue this
one. But if you're talking about how much it stirs your heart, just be
aware that not all hearts are like yours.

> >Certainly not in the President's speech, which
> >mentioned Mars "and other destinations" only in passing.
>
> Yes, where all of NASA's exploration budget could be killed off by the
> whims of the next president anyway. Most likely under the excuse of
> now actually having to pay for Bush's Wars.

True.

> My point here is that Presidential priory often changes and reflects
> the desire of the population.

Ideally so, though in practice I'm not sure how true that is.

> >And certainly not in my view of how space should be developed, either.
>
> Those people who prefer a direct route to Mars see the Moon as an
> unnecessary distraction that will eat up available resource, and what
> will only become another NASA mini-disaster that will set back any
> further Mars plans by decades.

Right. And those who prefer sustainable development of space see the
Moon as an unnecessary distraction that, if those people you mention had
their way, delay the development of space for decades or more. We need
infrastructure and commercial development, not more flags and footprints.

> >Which would be a very poor choice, resulting in little or no development
> >of space.
>
> Not really. NASA already plans to do two launches to the Moon each
> year by 2018. This could be changed to two launches to Mars easily
> enough, where landing could well be easier.

And would result in pretty much nothing of extended value, exactly like
Apollo. We need to be building communications satellites, orbital
staging facilities, power infrastructure, O2 plants, and so on, not just
visiting and doing science.

> So it is just a question of priority

Right.

> where Mars is clearly a much more desired destination than with the Moon.

Wrong.

> That is why NASA has been
> sending so many probes, landers, and rovers, to it.

Wrong again. They've been doing that because, for the last 30 years
until last year or so, the Moon was taboo at NASA. This was a sort of
cultural/political backlash against Apollo, and in particular against
the plans for serious lunar development that were originally expected to
follow Apollo. Unable to pursue any of the sorely needed (and far more
immediately valuable) lunar research, researchers turned instead to Mars.

The best thing about the President's speech was that, if nothing else,
it lifted the Moon taboo. We still have a lot of Mars missions in the
pipeline -- there are a very long lead times for such things, ESPECIALLY
for interplanetary missions -- but that should be changing in the future
as the many lunar missions now entering the pipeline start to filter
through.

> I am neither a Moon nor Mars person.

Right. And I'm Homer Simpson. :)

Best,
- Joe

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| joe@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hey Homer
    ... pretend the space race and the trips to the moon never happened. ... less than 10% of the estimated NASA cost ... a private company can do, the government can do at 5 times the cost? ... back to the moon or on to Mars and do it cheaper than the government. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • =?windows-1252?Q?Re=3A_=22The_bottom_line=3A_science_a?= =?windows-1252?Q?t_NASA_is_disappea
    ... Some of the most highly promoted missions on NASA's scientific agenda would be postponed indefinitely or perhaps even canceled under the agency's new budget, despite its administrator's vow to Congress six months ago that not "one thin dime" would be taken from space science to pay for President Bush's plan to send astronauts to the Moon and Mars. ... Spaceships for interplanetary travel must have artificial gravity ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Google Cindy Sheehan (was: Re: Peace Mom)
    ... >> shuttle disasters and the relative lack of accomplishment of the next ... We have had rovers on Mars, ... >summation of NASA. ... and unmanned missions and the space ...
    (misc.writing)
  • NASA, spaceflighters living in a dream world
    ... Moon or Mars? ... NASA plans to return astronauts to the moon by 2020, ... Independent panel is reviewing plans and looking at "potential ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Why NASA should focus on the Moon, not Mars - Henry Spencer
    ... Only by Bush 43 saying "and eventually to Mars" in his VSE ... Shuttle budget to ISS, despite Hubble missions and the like). ... The oft-reported "$100 billion" cost figure originates in NASA ...
    (sci.space.policy)