New Mars Forums

Brought to you by Josh Cryer, Forums Admin and James Burk, Webmaster and Server Admin.

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: In order to combat spam, all users who have never posted are removed after 90 days.

#26 2005-06-13 23:42:25

Fledi
Member
From: in my own little world (no,
Registered: 2003-09-14
Posts: 325

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

[color=#000000:post_uid0]Yep, difficult to tell what will be then, even though there was not such a big change politically between 1965 and 1985 for example.
Only thing we can do is try to work towards making it happen as soon as possible. We must push open this gate for all who come after us. (sorry if this sounds too theatric, but it just seems that important to me)[/color:post_uid0]

Offline

#27 2005-06-13 23:46:41

Dook
Member
From: USA
Registered: 2004-01-09
Posts: 1,002

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

[color=#000000:post_uid0]Great so a return to the Moon between 2015 and 2020 what does this do to a Mars mission well where talking likely now to be 2030 at the minimum.[/color:post_uid0][/quote:post_uid0]
[color=#000000:post_uid0]How does this come as a surprise to you? 

The Presidents Vision for Space Exploration, or actually lack of, schedule for a moon landing is intended to be between 2015 and 2020 and a mars landing around 2030.[/color:post_uid0]

Offline

#28 2005-06-14 00:09:40

Grypd
Member
From: Scotland, Europe
Registered: 2004-06-07
Posts: 1,829

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

[color=#000000:post_uid0]I believed wrongly that is that Griffin would speed the schedule up. Certainly his statement that CEV would be antied up gave that impression.

Well at least when im retired I will be able to sit back and watch the first man or woman on Mars. Maybe as i believe it will likely get put back by at least ten years due to the USA having other priorities.

Still other countries may have better luck and be faster.[/color:post_uid0]


Ad Astra per aspera...

Offline

#29 2005-06-16 11:31:14

clark
Member
Registered: 2001-09-20
Posts: 6,120

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

[color=#000000:post_uid0]Any of you smart people know what the fuel requirements are for a slow 1-2 week trip to the Moon?

How much radiation shielding would be needed to safely transit the radiation belt around earth and a longer trip to the Moon?

Could an ion engine be modified for a human transport to the Moon for a 1-3 month journey to the Moon?

The reason I ask is that all the data for humans to the Moon, or even the plans themselves, call for a quick 2-3 day journey. Why rush?

Besides, it might be ideal to slow down the trip to the Moon in order to better practice the routines and procedures for a long duration mission to Mars.

Any answers or comments are welcome.  smile[/color:post_uid0]

Offline

#30 2005-06-16 14:26:58

Fledi
Member
From: in my own little world (no,
Registered: 2003-09-14
Posts: 325

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

[color=#000000:post_uid0]Slowly spiraling out via ion engine requires double the delta v of a direct fast sling shot with chemical rockets. It can still be more fuel effective (see SMART 1), depending on the ISP of the ion engine. With LH2 propulsion you can reach an ISP of about 450s, that means total spacecraft weight after translunar injection burn : before is about 1 : 2.
This does not include the fuel needed to go into a low lunar orbit or down to the surface (where an ion engine is of no use anyway).
Then there are these low stability trajectories mentioned before in this forum. I don't know anything about those, but they were not mentioned when a prof explained spiraling out on the example of SMART-1, which I'd think would be relevant for that (but then maybe I just wasn't listening well enough, can happen smile).
If you go fast, you don't need special radiation protection (see Apollo), although they were lucky not to have catched any severe solar storm during the trips back then.
When you go slower you need lot's of radiation protection, especially outside of the van Allen belts. And even then, the crew will receive a much higher radiation dosage than on a quick trip.
Also if you want to go with an ion engine and spiral out in the standard way, you will need a very heavy one, or else the trip would take years.[/color:post_uid0]

Offline

#31 2005-06-16 21:54:04

Rxke
Member
From: Belgium
Registered: 2003-11-03
Posts: 3,626

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

[color=#000000:post_uid0]

Why an 8 hour period for extraction?[/quote:post_uid0]
(very late reply, heh...)

I guess because that's about the time limit for EVA activity... They want to make it 'real-life,' so calculate in the time it needs to set the stuff up etc?[/color:post_uid0]

Offline

#32 2005-06-16 22:06:27

GCNRevenger
Member
From: Earth
Registered: 2003-10-15
Posts: 6,056

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

[color=#000000:post_uid0]Eight hours would be about the length of one working day with a bit of time for setup.

Another possibility, that since US space suits operate at reduced air pressure to improve mobility, you would ideally spend eight hours breathing reduced-pressure atmosphere to prevent getting the bends.[/color:post_uid0]


"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw

The glass is at 50% of capacity

Offline

#33 2005-06-17 12:18:27

SpaceNut
Moderator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 6,305

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

[color=#000000:post_uid0]While we here are all dreaming of the day there are those that see no vantage for space and that they beleave that it is totally worthless.
Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) : Moon, Mars Missions Not a Priority for Taxpayers

Everyone is entitled to there own opinion but it would appear that they are hung on the trillion dollar mission costs, which are most likely way off.[/color:post_uid0]

Offline

#34 2005-06-17 12:57:47

GCNRevenger
Member
From: Earth
Registered: 2003-10-15
Posts: 6,056

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

[color=#000000:post_uid0]"Most likely?" The entire history of the space program probobly didn't cost a trillion dollars.

"...currently lacks the ability to launch a shuttle beyond Earth orbit" That would be because Shuttle was never intended to go beyond Earth orbit, genius.

"sucess of space ship one" Haha![/color:post_uid0]


"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw

The glass is at 50% of capacity

Offline

#35 2005-06-17 14:11:28

RobS
Member
From: South Bend, IN
Registered: 2002-01-16
Posts: 1,448
Website

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

[color=#000000:post_uid0]Regarding the question of going to the moon in 1-2 weeks instead of 2-3 days: the difference in fuel consumption is very small. Here's a very simple and crude way to figure it out (in the English system, not the metric, system, sorry; I lapsed):

Escape velocity from Earth = 25,000 mph

Average Velocity needed to go to the moon in 3 days = 250,000 miles divided by 72 hours = 3,500 mph.

Delta-v needed to attain the extra 3,500 mph: 25,000 squared plus 3,500 squared = 625 million plus 12.25 million = 637.25 million; square root of 637.25 million = 25,250 mph.

One would think that to leave the Earth's gravitational field with 3,500 mph, one would need a delta-v of 28,500 mph. But if one leaves the Earth's gravitational field more quickly, the Earth has less time to pull you back and slow you down, so a small extra delta-v translates into a large "hyperbolic excess velocity." For a flight to Mars, a delta-v just 0.7 km sec (2,000 mph) more than escape velocity yields a hyperbolic excess velocity of something like 3.5 km/sec (7,000 mph) whiich is the velocity needed to elongate the Earth's orbit into an ellipse that touches the orbit of Mars.

So there is no reason to fly to the moon in 1-2 weeks, one would consume more oxygen and water needlessly for a small extra amount of fuel. Furthermore, the trajectory chosen for the Apollo vehicle was a "free return trajectory," which means if the astronauts did nothing the moon would whip the Apollo spacecraft back to the Earth automatically. I don't know whether free return trajectories exist at high or lower transit times.

                   -- RobS[/color:post_uid0]

Offline

#36 2005-06-17 14:25:25

BWhite
Member
From: Chicago, Illinois
Registered: 2004-06-16
Posts: 2,635

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

[color=#000000:post_uid0]For crew I agree with RobS - - among other things the crew needs to pass through the van Allen belts quickly.

For cargo, a 90 day slow road spiral seems to be more efficient, to a significant degree.[/color:post_uid0]


Give someone a sufficient [b:sig_uid][i:sig_uid]why[/i:sig_uid][/b:sig_uid] and they can endure just about any [b:sig_uid][i:sig_uid]how[/i:sig_uid][/b:sig_uid]

Offline

#37 2005-06-18 04:24:53

RobS
Member
From: South Bend, IN
Registered: 2002-01-16
Posts: 1,448
Website

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

[color=#000000:post_uid0]Yes, a slow spiral out for cargo using ion engines MAY be better. The problem is:

1. The ion engines plus solar array will cost a lot and if they are only reusable two or three times because of radiation damage, you won't have much cargo to spread the vehicle cost over.

2. Xenon propellant costs something like $10 million per tonne; about the same as gold. If we can switch to argon we save a lot of money, but we need solar arrays and engines about twice as big for the same thrust.

3. Development cost of the ion engine system is several billion dollars.

Overall, for now chemical may be cheaper, unfortunately. Dennis Wingo, who knows a lot about this, is undecided whether ion is cheaper in his book *Moonrush.*

                            -- RobS[/color:post_uid0]

Offline

#38 2005-06-19 13:18:04

Martin_Tristar
Member
From: Earth, Region : Australia
Registered: 2004-12-08
Posts: 305

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

[color=#000000:post_uid0]The Main point is that we must move into Space permanently, to gather more resources and develop new ideas and technology. The Moon is the best place to start developing humanity into space. It gets the public aware of the frequent movement between earth - orbit - and moon showing the permanent human presence in space. 

The complex issues around getting their in the shortest time from now ( 2005) to fully operational moon base and resource extraction facility ( 2018-2025 ?). In the mid-21st Century development of fusion power  this will give raise to Ion drive and more frequent flights at a low cost base to the moon and L Points around our space.

Yes, this is a huge cost in development and progression of the human race into space but it is required to elevate the human race to the next step on our road of evolution.[/color:post_uid0]

Offline

#39 2005-06-19 15:22:36

Dook
Member
From: USA
Registered: 2004-01-09
Posts: 1,002

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

[color=#000000:post_uid0]The Main point is that we must move into Space permanently, to gather more resources and develop new ideas and technology. The Moon is the best place to start developing humanity into space. It gets the public aware of the frequent movement between earth - orbit - and moon showing the permanent human presence in space. 

The complex issues around getting their in the shortest time from now ( 2005) to fully operational moon base and resource extraction facility ( 2018-2025 ?). In the mid-21st Century development of fusion power  this will give raise to Ion drive and more frequent flights at a low cost base to the moon and L Points around our space.

Yes, this is a huge cost in development and progression of the human race into space but it is required to elevate the human race to the next step on our road of evolution.[/color:post_uid0][/quote:post_uid0]
[color=#000000:post_uid0]There is no urgent or long term need to move into space.  We don't need resources and new ideas and technology are not developed in space.  They are developed on the earth.

Don't use the moon as an excuse to gain the public's attention.  They are only partially interested in any of our space voyages because it has nothing to do with their daily lives.  Landing on the moon gained interest because American's wanted to be the first to get there.  "They care about the glory of Rome!" 

Space is hardly the next step in our evolution.  You think God wants us to live on asteroids after He created the earth for us? 

Becoming less selfish and more interested in doing good for all is the next step in our evolution. 

Terraforming mars so life can flourish there would be a tremendous achievement for humans.  No other effort in space compares to that.[/color:post_uid0]

Offline

#40 2005-06-19 16:47:57

Fledi
Member
From: in my own little world (no,
Registered: 2003-09-14
Posts: 325

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

[color=#000000:post_uid0]

There is no urgent or long term need to move into space.  We don't need resources and new ideas and technology are not developed in space.  They are developed on the earth.
[/quote:post_uid0]

On the one side you say there is no need to rush going into space, on the other you bash away at GCN for him having a more realistic view about the political cost of simply abandoning the ISS to rush on with VSE?
Space is the inspiration behind many new technologies like microchips, telerobotics or advanced material research (current example: nanotubes).
And I'd say there is a lot of urgent need to rush on, because we can do it now, but who knows how long we will still be able to do it.
Besides, it is also a control issue, in the long run Mars and the gas giants' moons could very well become what the new world was in 17th century, a place to go for people who seek more freedom of the mind as allowed in a world where that sort of thing seems to be constantly shrinking away.

Terraforming mars so life can flourish there would be a tremendous achievement for humans.  No other effort in space compares to that.[/quote:post_uid0]

Agreed on the first one, though there are surely even bigger challenges waiting as the sky is full of these little sparkling dots.[/color:post_uid0]

Offline

#41 2005-06-19 18:26:01

Dook
Member
From: USA
Registered: 2004-01-09
Posts: 1,002

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

[color=#000000:post_uid0]GCN and I argue just for the sake of arguing.  We agree more than we disagree, we just never admit it.  He doesn't want the ISS or the space shuttle anymore than I do. 

Space is an inspiration to geeks and trekkies, the rest of us find literature, music, nature, and other people inspirational.  You see space and living on asteriods as the ultimate goal but nothing beats the earth.  You think there is a more beautiful place out there?  They're all dark with temperature extremes, bathed in radiation, and drenched in deadly gasses.

Whatever problems you are trying to get away from will follow you there.  Rather than seeing the moon as the end to all your problems maybe you should confront them head on. 

Those sparkling dots are not ours.  The earth is ours.  You'd better start getting used to it.[/color:post_uid0]

Offline

#42 2005-06-19 19:16:26

Fledi
Member
From: in my own little world (no,
Registered: 2003-09-14
Posts: 325

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

[color=#000000:post_uid0]

Space is an inspiration to geeks and trekkies, the rest of us find literature, music, nature, and other people inspirational.  You see space and living on asteriods as the ultimate goal but nothing beats the earth.  You think there is a more beautiful place out there?  They're all dark with temperature extremes, bathed in radiation, and drenched in deadly gasses.
[/quote:post_uid0]

Translation: "The open land is an inspiration to runners and those who can't climb, the rest of us find bananas, trees and the others inspirational. You see the savannah and living in caves as the ultimate goal, but nothing beats the trees. You think there is a more beautiful place out there? They're all dark with no water, no protection from the sun and full of dangerous animals."

Sorry, just couldn't resist big_smile[/color:post_uid0]

Offline

#43 2005-06-19 22:38:09

Dook
Member
From: USA
Registered: 2004-01-09
Posts: 1,002

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

[color=#000000:post_uid0]A life in the trees is full of fresh air, various foods, washing in clean river or lake water surrounded by friends and family.

But that's not what you want.  Instead you prefer living in an area the size of your bedroom for the rest of your life, seeing the same people every day.  No animal life.  No weather.  Recycled air and water.  No family.  Nothing new, just pressure suits full of sweat and the same few vegetables, fruit, and preserved meats day after day.   

You call that evolution?[/color:post_uid0]

Offline

#44 2005-06-19 23:19:51

Martin_Tristar
Member
From: Earth, Region : Australia
Registered: 2004-12-08
Posts: 305

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

[color=#000000:post_uid0]Dook,

Its interesting that your comments directed to me, revolved around asteroids. I said that humanity going permanently into space means a move to Moon then Mars then other moons of Jupiter, and Saturn and beyond. The only thing I see the asteroids for are raw materials for our expansion into space and a space station and repair facilities for spacecrafts.

We are currently hear on earth, So the bulk of our technological advancements will be on earth, but when we go into space we will find a new environment with new and complex issues for humanity. Our Residence environments need to be similar to the current earth environment ( even artifical gravity, artiifical sky, real tall trees, animals pets and wild, fields of food, wind machines that circulate airflow to feel at home )  - Colony Size Habitat holding up to 10,000 humans positioned at an Earth L Point.

The second place for creating a human centric environment would be on the planets and Moons. Mars can be terraformed and the Moon could have artifical underground environment created for the lunar personnel.

Our working environments may vary from space stations, space platforms / factories to bases on moon, mars or beyond.

Development of Space means a total rethink of the way we do space activities and the reasons behind our space activities. We still have earth as our centric model for space. When we start to move away from theat centric type model to a open model that pushes us to develop human centric environments

Currently Dook, you have an arguementative attitude against new ideas and thoughts on what we are doing in space and where this will lead the future of humanity. I feel that the fame grabbers that land on a planet are not the real heroes for space, but the real heroes are the one's that will live and colonize them places for humanity.[/color:post_uid0]

Offline

#45 2005-06-19 23:56:44

Fledi
Member
From: in my own little world (no,
Registered: 2003-09-14
Posts: 325

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

[color=#000000:post_uid0]

But that's not what you want.  Instead you prefer living in an area the size of your bedroom for the rest of your life, seeing the same people every day.  No animal life.  No weather.  Recycled air and water.  No family.  Nothing new, just pressure suits full of sweat and the same few vegetables, fruit, and preserved meats day after day.   
[/quote:post_uid0]

Even the ISS is bigger than my bedroom, the living space there must be at least 5 times as big, or even bigger. Ok, that is all working space shared by the crew, but why would you need anything much bigger than a bedroom for personal space?
Hmm, most of the time I see the same people every day now, aside from sitting in the train and walking in the city, but those I don't know anyway, so what's the point about that?
Haven't had a pet for years now, ok I admit they can be a pleasure to live with, but you can also live without them.
No weather? For space stations you still have such exciting events as a failing oxygen generator, with the O2 candles causing some sort of weather. And don't forget about ventilators for air circulation and most important, solar storms.
There will be a family if you go for colonization. Either you go with a family in the first place or the other colonists will become sort of a family anyway.
For food, add some bread and it will be fine for me. Some chickens might be worth a try, too, so there is a supply of eggs and fresh meat. But it's not a must to hurry on with such luxury.

These conditions are still quite a luxury compared to the living conditions of a large percentage of the population here on Earth.[/color:post_uid0]

Offline

#46 2005-06-20 00:55:53

Dook
Member
From: USA
Registered: 2004-01-09
Posts: 1,002

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

[color=#000000:post_uid0]Martin:
I hate to tell you this but all of those Star Trek and other fantasy science fiction movie were not real.  We aren't going to have 'warp drive' for another 1,000 years, if at all.  So all of this talk about mining asteroids and outer moons is not practical until then.  Even then we will never need 10,000 humans 'positioned' at a lagrange point.  It's a completely laughable idea. 

And I'll let you in on something, it may not be even possible to terraform mars.  We won't know until we get there and do extensive testing. 

You know all of this reminds me of a friends dog.  The darn animal had it made.  He slept on his own little bed.  Got table scraps now and then.  Went for walks and got to play in the park a lot.  Then one day the dog got out and ran down the street.  He got hit by a car because he was a stupid animal and didn't know that what he had was about as good as it gets for a dog.  Lets see, now you want humans to leave the earth in huge numbers just to live in space boxes?

I don't have an argumentative attitude against new ideas and thoughts but what I am against are stupid ideas and thoughts.  Mine asteroids?  Sheesh!  Put the comic books down.

Fledi:
Why would you need a living space larger than your bedroom?  Sigh...If you don't know then there is no point in trying to describe it to you.  Wait about twenty years, then you'll know.  As for the rest, well, I think you are missing out on a great deal of what life on the earth has to offer.  If bread and ventilators is enough for you then you definately are.[/color:post_uid0]

Offline

#47 2005-06-20 02:12:45

Martin_Tristar
Member
From: Earth, Region : Australia
Registered: 2004-12-08
Posts: 305

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

[color=#000000:post_uid0]Dook,

I think you live in a little world of your own. I don't I have seen work being down on various technologies that will create this world I have been explaining to you over the next century. Not all of it will be there but the start will be. With larger power systems for space vessels large information systems can be added to these vessels. Again our current computer technologies needs to change for space. we need TB Size computer cores that function as virtual memory stores based on EPROM technologies and not current magnetic drive systems.  These need computer systems would add the control of automated systems for construction in earth orbit or on surface or mining facilities attached to asteroids.

You have a limited view on the capacity of the human forsight to but unique solutions for these complex issues in space.

Note on Science Fiction

Science Fiction has been some of the driving force behind the creation of Real Space Science for the 100 years. Alot of the ideas first started as SF comics or stories and eventually became reality. Don't putdown people that watch the Sci-Fi programs because they have a wider understanding of possibilities then you do and the ability to open their minds to new ideas. You are the stupid one that doesn't open his mind to new ideas and thoughts.[/color:post_uid0]

Offline

#48 2005-06-20 12:32:23

Dook
Member
From: USA
Registered: 2004-01-09
Posts: 1,002

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

[color=#000000:post_uid0]I have a realistic view, your's is based on childish fantasy. 

Why do you argue so for humans to risk so much to go to the asteroids when there is nothing there that we need?  You call that advancement or evolution when it would simply be a waste of lives, money, and resources.  All of that for what, more rocks. 

Why don't humans live in antarctica?  Because it would be stupid.  But still you argue for it. 

It's a good thing you trekkies never get what you want or a lot of people would die needlessly.[/color:post_uid0]

Offline

#49 2005-06-20 12:46:14

Martin_Tristar
Member
From: Earth, Region : Australia
Registered: 2004-12-08
Posts: 305

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

[color=#000000:post_uid0]Dook,

Get your eyes checked !!!!!!!!

I didn't say that humans live on Asteroids, I said that we need to advance our computer and information systems to automate these functions to extract the mineral resources required.

I also said that humans should live in human centric environments and we could establish training facilities on earth for this process and permanent facilities that would function as mock outer space bases, conduct research and provide data on material and supply requirements for these bases, while we test the building of a larger base infrastructure for humans in space.

I didn't say that the complex issues for moving humans into space are not risky or dangerous but the explorers have courage to go into space. You try to eliminate the major of risks and dangers but also a chance to have an injury or death but we must learn and move forward for those that gave their lives.[/color:post_uid0]

Offline

#50 2005-06-20 16:20:09

Fledi
Member
From: in my own little world (no,
Registered: 2003-09-14
Posts: 325

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

[color=#000000:post_uid0]

As for the rest, well, I think you are missing out on a great deal of what life on the earth has to offer.  If bread and ventilators is enough for you then you definately are.[/quote:post_uid0]

So now we are back at trees and singing birds again?
I don't say living on Earth is not more comfortable than in space or on Mars, only that it is not impossible to live there.

Why don't humans live in antarctica? [/quote:post_uid0]

It would be interesting to see how fast a raw materials extracting industry would develop at Antarctica if all restrictions were lifted and anyone could go there and set up a business.
Of course it makes no sense to go there as long as there are rules that in effect guarantee that you can't establish a self sustaining colony there.
For colonies on Moon, Mars and beyond it would be far more difficult for state power to hold that sort of tight grip on.[/color:post_uid0]

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB