Re: Obama's Space Policy

On Thu, 21 May 2009 15:13:28 -0400, Jeff Findley wrote:

"Marvin the Martian" <marvin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.05.21.17.05.55@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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.

I'm just pointing out that this is not a technology we have in hand.

Which was a pointless thing to do. Every new space program developed the
technology to perform the program. What is required is a look to see if
the technology can reasonably be achieved.


Technology development programs run by NASA tend to be multi-year
multi-billion dollar affairs. If they're related to manned spaceflight,
they tend to be even more schedule and cost intensive.

Note that this isn't something NASA is currently interested in solving.
Their plans to return to the moon include ZERO in orbit assembly, and
are designed to minimize docking events. You can't build a large heat
shield for a Mars mission without tackling this institutional problem at
NASA. Not doing in orbit assembly AT ALL is one of the false "lessons"
NASA "learned" from ISS.

Two things here: the likelihood of life on Mars has already scrapped the
moon base goal. Look for a sea change to Mars by the end of the year.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/04/nasa-likely-to-scrap-plans-
to-build-moon-base.html

"NASA apparently has changed its mind about building a permanent base on
the moon and may instead focus on sending astronauts to Mars, the space
agency's acting head has told Congress,"

The new Hubble will turn an eye towards Mars, and check the isotope
ratios of that methane gas release. If it indicates biological carbon
isotope ratios, we will be going to Mars.

Like I've been saying for months, Mars has the science. The moon has more
bags of rocks.


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.

All that mass (except for what mass is harvested locally) has to be
launched from earth. It's the same sort of problem you run into when
you try to make an upper stage "just a little bigger" when the lower
stages are already at their performance limits.

I don't disagree with what you said. Nor do I see where anything you said
refutes a word about what I said or is relevant to the discussion.

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. .

Mars only starts to look marginally better with in-situ fuel/oxidizer
production, and this is another technology not yet flight demonstrated.

First of all, this is another one of those "we need to develop a
technology, so it can't be done" arguments.

There are several AAIA papers on this. Dr. Zubrin created one device
himself decades ago, and wrote several papers on it. The laws of physics
are the same here as on Mars. The chemistry itself is a hundred years
old.

This is NOT a show stopper.

The trip times are still much longer than for the moon, which means you
have a larger habitat for the travel time.

You'll have more living area and privacy than my ancestors who founded
Quebec did when they came over from France, according to Zubrin's Mars
direct designs.

People have survived in space for the required 6 months, as well.

Again, this would be studied further but it is no show stopper.

This mass must be brought
from Earth and either landed on Mars or left in Mars orbit during the
time spent on the surface. All that extra mass has to be paid for with
extra fuel and oxidizer to send it to Mars. It's like an extra tax on a
Mars mission that a lunar mission doesn't have to pay.

True and irrelevant. The math has been done, and it can be done with
current technology. It could have been done with 1970s technology.

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.

Just because it makes "sense" to you doesn't mean it makes sense to NASA
or to the politicians who hold NASA's purse strings. Your assertion
that a base should be the goal lacks support.

Is your argument really "You're argument is wrong because idiots don't
agree with you?" That's a fallacy. It doesn't preserve the truth.

The reason why we started down President Bush's "return to the moon" is
because it waste the most money and makes the NASA contractors the
richest. It wasn't based on the merits, or lack thereof, of the program.

< snip >

I stopped reading at the second claim that I've given no rational reasons
for going to Mars.

I'm not going to keep repeating myself to someone who's argument is to
pretend not to listen, or throwing "NASA doesn't agree with you" at me.

NASA does what it does for a lot of political and economic reasons that
have nothing to do with the merits of the best run space program.

And if the argument really is that NASA is always correct, then why
discuss space policy at all?
.

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)
  • Re: Improved lunar landing architecture
    ... The one other close location in this solar system, ... For example, in the case of water alone, then on the Moon we do not ... On the other hand Mars has tons of water. ... >> will only become another NASA mini-disaster that will set back any ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • 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: Obamas Space Policy
    ... The loonie here focuses on delta V and using that single basis advocates an empty space at L1, which does no good at all. ... However, as you can see from the opposition to Mars and the pro-lunar loonies, we a majority rational and logical species, and are more closely akin to animals. ... We do not have even remotely the technology to go to Mars. ... That is why people propose the moon, even if we do not need anything ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Improved lunar landing architecture
    ... >> Overlooking the fact that it may not actually have water. ... A noticeable chunk out of NASA's two yearly trips to the Moon. ... No point in going to Mars ... works for NASA to one day land people on Mars. ...
    (sci.space.policy)