Re: Obama's Space Policy

On Wed, 20 May 2009 16:34:48 -0400, Jeff Findley wrote:

< snip >
So, your anti-Mars arguments boil down to this:
1) We’ve never landed anything bigger than 533 kg on Mars, and we need to
land something about 120 times that mass. That can’t be done, you say.
(or why are you saying it?) Of course it can be done. It is simply a
matter of how much mass ratio you have to sacrifice in doing it. Worse
case, you can brute force rocket your way down to the surface, but that’s
worse case and there are better ways. To say that we cannot accomplish
something because we've not perfected the technology is the kind of
thinking that would have left us living in caves.

2) It is true that it cost more energy to go back from Mars to earth than
moon to earth. To go back cost 6.1 km/s-kg, compared with 1.6 km/s-kg to
come back from the surface of the moon, which is true enough. However,
the masses coming back, and the mass ratios required, are trivial
compared with the cost of the masses going to each destination. Consider,
for example, the Saturn V rocket size needed to go to the moon, and the
size of the Apollo module required to return.

The case for Mars is improved in this area because it is possible to use
in situ materials to make the oxidizer and fuel for even a “flags and
footprint” mission to Mars. The return vehicle can be unfueled. Given the
mass ratios, this puts the advantage on the side of Mars. .

3) You claim the goal is not to set up a base anywhere off earth. False
claim, so lets not bother with that further. Long term, the goal is to
set up a base. Queen Isabella did not send Christopher Columbus out to
collect rocks. Up until April 29, when NASA abandoned their moon base
concept for further Mars exploration, bases were the concept. It makes
sense to have a base on Mars, given that the optimal mission duration
would be several months on the surface.

4) Regarding the trivial amount of polar lunar water: You yourself
dismissed the need for water on any trivial flag and footprints mission,
so this is a strange argument you debunked yourself. In a long term
presence, water and carbon certainly are requirements. It is illogical to
argue short term requirements for long term mission, and then long term
requirements for short term missions.

5) You claim the climatology science argument is “bogus”. Actually, you
said “The CO2 argument is bogus”, which is cryptic at best and not
responsive. Studying the climate of another planet would increase our
understanding of climate science. So what I said isn’t bogus. Are you
talking about CO2 caused global warming is bogus? Well, yeah, Mars is a
fraken frozen planet and it has more CO2 than earth does. It sort of
proves the point, doesn’t it?

6) The point being, you don’t need a power plant on Mars to make light
for plants to grow, you can use natural sunlight. Energy is a costly
commodity and using local resources is an advantage. On the moon, you
need artificial lights.

7) No volcanic activity, no ore. No need to look on the moon.

8) Mars makes sense because it has all you need for a human colony that
would be needed to support building rockets to mine the asteroids. You
can’t build the infrastructure from nothing, and it would cost a great
deal to build it on earth. The mass ratios are very high, up near the
“forget it” range.

9) Mars has all the elements needed to support human life. Man is very
good at using raw materials to fabricate habitats in which to live. If it
was not for this ability of humans, we’d be confined to a small area in
Kenya, where our species first arose. This flippant “yet to be proven”
reply is thus dismissed. While we can’t make mass from nothing, or
transmute matter, we can build habitats and live in space when the
resources are there.

10) This last one, go to the moon because it’s easier, even if it isn’t
where we want to go, is akin to the joke about the man looking for his
lost wallet under the lamp post because he could see there when he knew
he lost in the dark some distance away. The logical destination is Mars,
not the moon. Going to the moon because of a false impression it is
easier is even worse. We don’t want to go to the moon; where we want to
go is Mars. .




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: In Situ Propellant Production
    ... mass requirements for Mars return missions has been investigated. ... utilizing indigenous materials for the production of propellant on the ... sample return mission requires 4000 kg less estimated earth launch ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: Whole Earth and Roamer
    ... the moon was taboo at NASA since the Apollo ... But that doesn't mean that "rock hounds" wouldn't shell out what is needed ... mission to Mars, and you really have some value. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Space exploration for the rest of us
    ... the moon inside of fifty years. ... Let alone mars. ... in the same way.....they can't justify either mission. ... And if we could launch 'X' number of them, for the cost of one shuttle launch, and the money were to re-allocated in that manner...they'll still make signifigant money on it. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Space travel by humans is not possible now
    ... Earth/Moon system, ... Problem with going back to the moon is we've been there, ... Returning to the moon is supposedly a stepping stone to Mars. ... mission to Mars doesn't make sense, then there is no reason for the moon ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: ....Question? Have They Found a Reason to go To the Moon and Mars Yet???
    ... The Moon is about 3 light-seconds away, ... projected for a manned mission to Mars. ... You are comparing costs of lunar and Mars missions, ... Mars is about a 30 minute signal delay. ...
    (sci.space.history)
Quantcast