I think that Alex Brown is misunderstanding the politics of this. It’s not really a partisan issue, except to the degree that Republicans don’t like or trust Obama.
24 thoughts on “Obama Wants An Asteroid”
Comments are closed.
I think that Alex Brown is misunderstanding the politics of this. It’s not really a partisan issue, except to the degree that Republicans don’t like or trust Obama.
Comments are closed.
A lunar base, they say, would allow NASA to test landing technologies and surface operations.
Except it would not. No lunar lander will work on mars.
Also, it’s a false choice. The problem is letting government think it should lead the marching band.
While infrastructure is important long term, it doesn’t prevent us from going directly to mars (and at much lower cost than the numbers being thrown around.)
Infrastructure will happen as a natural result of more activity. The government could take some lead in getting infrastructure in place. Capturing a rock would move in that direction. So would landing on the moon to a lesser degree.
BTW, just read ‘the martian’ which arrived at the local library. His numbers seemed off and his lander was a two piece like the LEM but misnamed MAV leading me to first believe he used a separate lander.
Except it would not. No lunar lander will work on mars.
Elon Musk has said that Dragon can land on “any body that has a solid surface.” That would include the Moon as well as Mars, wouldn’t it?
With respect, Elon Musk has said many things. Some of them have happened, others, not so much.
But that would not be a lunar lander. It would be a mars lander. A mars lander could land on the moon. Not visa versa. So going to the moon does not get you a lander for both.
Ken,
Depends on the lander design. Parachutes and atmospheric braking don’t work well on the Moon 🙂
Parachutes don’t work on mars either. But what’s your point (or are you just trying to help me make mine?)
Both require propulsive braking. Mars requires more automatically making any mars lander a lunar lander.
Atmospheric braking for a mars lander just makes it a wider lunar lander.
So going to the moon first is not justified for going to mars. Going to mars gives you the moon.
If parachutes don’t work on Mars and why do the rovers use them as part of their landing on Mars?
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4233762/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/mars-rover-looks-its-own-junk-heap/
Mars rover looks at its own junk heap
[[[NASA’s Opportunity rover peeked over the rim of the crater in which it landed and was able to see the clamshell holder and parachute it discarded just before hitting the surface of Mars, scientists said Monday. ]]]
They get impractical above a certain landing payload.
NASA is not going to get the funding to send humans to Mars, at least not enough based on what it costs NASA to do anything. The Moon however may be in reach and may be the best hope to move NASA beyond LEO.
We have reached the point where govt. in any form but war is hopeless. It may take time for everyone to come up to speed. NASA lost their hope franchise a long time ago.
While infrastructure is important long term, it doesn’t prevent us from going directly to mars (and at much lower cost than the numbers being thrown around.)
I disagree with the Mars direct approach. But yes it is possible to do this much cheaper than the numbers the regular NASA contractors typically talk about.
A lot of people are probably thinking what can NASA do in manned space if the commercial segment takes over manned LEO activities. I think there is a lot NASA could do. In the near term they could sponsor a lunar ISRU contest with the contest winners getting the chance to test their ISRU gear on the actual Moon itself. This could be done using a small scale robotic mission. After that NASA could make contracts where companies get paid for delivering a certain amount of consumables or energy in space at a price that would force these companies to use ISRU to be profitable. Once large enough depots are established actual manned exploration and settlement could begin by making a competition to transport people and equipment to space. Be it some L point or the Moon.
Solar electric propulsion etc is a worthwhile investment but it could be used for other missions like asteroid mapping without requiring capture per se.
I disagree with the Mars direct approach.
So do I because it’s a round trip for little purpose. All the talk about living in low g (misusing zero g as an example) ignores the fact that we know we could live comfortably for years in low g regardless of the long term health effects. During those years we could learn more than any other way. The colonists would be making an informed consent decision that would have enormous benefit to mankind (and send blog discussion in more promising directions.)
NASA should be doing research and sending probes. If they want to send humans into space they should just buy a ticket like anyone else.
Why does NASA have to do anything in human spaceflight? Why not phase them out of operational human space flight and just turn them into a grant awarding agency like the NSF?
And neither party wants to build a station with different levels of gravity in order to see what humans are compatible with. Let’s build a base on the Moon only to discover it really sucks to live with Lunar gravity. Lets tow an asteroid to a lagrange point and visit it every now and then. Or maybe build a station at a lagrange point that would support both all of these things? And of course all of this will be done without an actual spaceship.
Gravity research is going to take years. We shouldn’t waste those years when we can get better results simply by going forward with other plans.
Yes, let’s pollute the Mars environment with the bodies of dead astronauts who couldn’t survive the micro-gravity.
BTW another study point out possible problems in living in gravities less than 1 G.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news/plos_one/
Thomas, in your world no human has survived low gravity for over a year? Impressive.
Pollution? How many parts per quadrillion are we talking about now?
Let’s suppose they all die after a few years. It would be worth it for the knowledge gained which would take robots centuries. But the fact is, you have no idea how long anyone would live including yourself right here on earth.
The fact is they could easily live a long and happy life.
So like a lefty you want to tell other people what they can or can’t do.
We need martians just to laugh at your ridiculous pollution theory.
Ken,
Yes, they survive, but then they need a month or so under medical care at medical facilities to recover. Last I looked there were no medical facilities on Mars. And some of the changes seem to be permanent if you are in micro-gravity long enough.
http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/10/astronaut-feels-spaces-toll-on-his-body/
[[[Because when Barratt blasted off to the international space station, he needed eyeglasses for distance. When he returned to Earth, his distance vision was fine, but he needed reading glasses. That was more than two years ago. And he’s not getting better.]]]
[[[This raises a red flag for all of NASA’s plans for long-duration human space flight. The space station is supposed to be the test bed for how humans would learn to live in space, but it opens profound questions on whether humans will ever venture to Mars or to an asteroid if they are unable to figure out how the outer-space environment is affecting the eyes.]]]
“Gravity research is going to take years. ”
Everything takes years in space. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do gravity research or build a station that uses variable levels of gravity and it doesn’t mean we have to wait until all the questions are answered before we go to Mars or the Moon.
Absolutely right Wodun… we also don’t use it as an excuse to delay progress.
Not particularly on topic, but it’s interesting that the article mentions using SEP in an underway replenishment architecture for a Mars trip. Has NASA actually started talking about that?
That’s not really a partisan issue either anymore, except to the degree Democrats insist the only possible reason anyone could dislike or distrust Obama is raaaaacism.
And that’s fading away as we speak.
Rushing to Mars would have the same long term impact as Apollo, I’d rather see us getting established on the Moon first. If you have true space vehicles doing the Earth-Moon run on a regular basis, Mars gets a lot easier.
Rushing to Mars would have the same long term impact as Apollo,
If govt. did it you’d probably be right with one exception. Any mission would have to be longer than a few days on the surface. A few days on any surface can be called a stunt. A few months would be entirely different even if not meant as colonization.
You see the same stupid mental attitude permeating Mars One’s plan which otherwise gets a lot of things right. They don’t understand the importance of independence.
Living on mars makes it entirely different from Apollo. Thinking individually takes it the whole way. The colonists attitude should be self dependence. They are responsible for their own lives and mars provides all the resources (with no exception) they need to make it work.