Actually the moon is rarely on the way to Mars.
Seriously, I don't think hitting a rock orbiting the earth does much for teaching or training the hitting of Mars with a returning lander.
So long SST, hello Apoll...oops, Orion
- Thread starter Neeyik
- Start date
Actually the moon is rarely on the way to Mars.
Seriously, I don't think hitting a rock orbiting the earth does much for teaching or training the hitting of Mars with a returning lander.
Again, a matter of completely losing perspective.
The moon stays at a (rather) constant distance of 384000 km from earth. That's about 600 times further away than the space shuttle has gone. But it's still about 150 times closer than Mars (when mars is at its closest point).
What can we get from that?
The most advanced vessel we (earthlings) have managed to hurl anywhere near the moon is Apollo. The space shuttle have never been in the intense radiation that a moon trip means.
Going to Mars is a magnitude of order (or two) harder than going to the moon. If we can't go to the moon blindfolded in our sleep, don't bother with Mars. If you think it's too expensive to send someone to the moon, why think about Mars?
The moon stays at a (rather) constant distance of 384000 km from earth. That's about 600 times further away than the space shuttle has gone. But it's still about 150 times closer than Mars (when mars is at its closest point).
What can we get from that?
The most advanced vessel we (earthlings) have managed to hurl anywhere near the moon is Apollo. The space shuttle have never been in the intense radiation that a moon trip means.
Going to Mars is a magnitude of order (or two) harder than going to the moon. If we can't go to the moon blindfolded in our sleep, don't bother with Mars. If you think it's too expensive to send someone to the moon, why think about Mars?
The issue isn't being able to intersect the orbits with payloads. We've proven we're capable of doing that will the many probes we've sent out to even the outer planets (which trajectories involved slingshotting around several planets along the way).
Its an issue of infrastructure and cost. The moon has resources (regolith, for example, is full of oxygen), and lesser gravity, making it a good staging ground for the longer trips to the other planets. It also helps us learn how to make outposts, etc. without putting our people 6 months from rescue.
Last edited:
Blazkowicz
Legend
yes.. that would require to build some big infrastructure on the moon. The biggest things we've done till now (Apollo, Mir, ISS) are nothing more than camping, how exactly would we move from camping to building a real moon base with mining, industry, big energy, life support from regolith, by 2020-ish no less.
what I can see is assembling a space ship in low earth orbit : tin cans that include nuclear reactors, ion drives, and the landing module.
Or, another idea : do nothing till the day we are able to produce antimatter in microgram quantities (or more, dunno), then start designing an interplanetary mission. that might be worth it cost-wise, even if one microgram costs $50 millions, you'd eliminate the hassle of sending either an awful lot of chemical fuel or nuclear reactors with their shielding.
what I can see is assembling a space ship in low earth orbit : tin cans that include nuclear reactors, ion drives, and the landing module.
Or, another idea : do nothing till the day we are able to produce antimatter in microgram quantities (or more, dunno), then start designing an interplanetary mission. that might be worth it cost-wise, even if one microgram costs $50 millions, you'd eliminate the hassle of sending either an awful lot of chemical fuel or nuclear reactors with their shielding.
Last edited by a moderator:
With the technology we currently have in terms of materiels science [ ie the stuff that space craft are built of ] and propulsion technology, it is a complete and utter waste of resources to send people in to space, like e.g. what can a robotic mission to Mars not do that a human can do? In the long term, it may well be possible to send humans in to space at reasonable cost and e.g. space tourism [ e.g. an orbital space station as seen in the film 2001 as a hotel ] could be a new commercial development and in respect of issues like that, it is worth keeping on developing the shuttle concept but e.g. it should be done with new build unmanned vehicles.
Saludos Amigos
Zapata
Saludos Amigos
Zapata