Comments on: Inspiration Mars pivots, seeks government support and backing

By: Coastal Ron

Coastal Ron — Fri, 29 Nov 2013 18:59:43 +0000

Coastal Ron said:

“Then, do you agree that coming to Moon for other goal than repeat of flags&bootprints is not â€œbeen there, done thatâ€?”

Depends on the goal. If the goal is just to extend the amount of time we’re there from 3 days to 30 days, but we’re still just hopping around picking up gray rocks, then no, I don’t think that changes much.

The Apollo program retired a lot of risk in getting humans to the surface of the Moon and back again safely.

But no one has yet to identify a major reason for us to return to the Moon with humans, and not really much reason for the U.S. Government to return with robotic systems.

Until you and other Moon advocates can come up with a compelling reason for why the U.S. Taxpayer should pay $100B+ to go back to a place we’ve already been to, then the overriding reason for why we’re not going back is because “we’ve been there already”.

Sorry if that hurts your feelings, but that’s reality.

By: Mader Levap

Mader Levap — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 20:57:12 +0000

(…)saying weâ€™ve already sent and returned 12 people to the surface of the Moon is correct. We HAVE been there.
So if money is a precious commodity, Iâ€™d rather spend it doing something new than on something that weâ€™ve already â€œbeen there, done thatâ€.
Then, do you agree that coming to Moon for other goal than repeat of flags&bootprints is not â€œbeen there, done thatâ€?

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 17:57:07 +0000

Here's the piece I was talking about, on my theory of why IM died. It was death by SLS and the big-rocket myth.

By: Neil Shipley

Neil Shipley — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 08:06:24 +0000

Perhaps not. I would have preferred them to keep going under their own steam by bringing together private organisations which could contribute or develop technology toward such a deep space venture.
This is something NASA is failing to do courtesy of Congess and funding directions but something the WH wanted to do.
That is / was I believe where their mission’s best possible contribution lay. It may still eventuate. Who knows?

By: Coastal Ron

Coastal Ron — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 00:55:01 +0000

Chris Castro said:

“True exploration has ALWAYS meant going back to where youâ€™ve gone before, and increasing & expanding upon your capabilities when you do it. ”

You are confusing Exploration with Exploitation. Exploitation is the expansion part, where we dig in to find out what is available and what can be exploited.

From a NASA perspective, which is biased towards solving technical issues for exploration, they already developed the blueprint for getting to the Moon and returning safely. They validated that a number of times – you know, “been there, done that”.

And again, the acknowledged exploration goal is Mars, not the Moon. So if we’re going to Mars, we need to be figuring out the technical solutions for surviving in zero-g for long periods of time with lots of radiation. The Moon is not the right place for that, and is acknowledged to be a distraction – if the goal is Mars.

NASA’s role with the Moon should now be the same as it is for our aviation industry – as a technical resource, but not the lead in implemented solutions.

By: Chris Castro

Chris Castro — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 11:48:16 +0000

@Mader Revap,….Right on, brother! I totally agree with you, on this! True exploration has ALWAYS meant going back to where you’ve gone before, and increasing & expanding upon your capabilities when you do it. Just look at how Antarctic exploration & eventual base occupation went, there. Consider just how the the American West went from the modest survey visits by Lewis & Clark, to the inevitably repeating & retreading overland treks of those who followed. If LEO can be visited literally hundreds of times——the Space Shuttle alone, waltzed thru there 135 times, for three whole decades, each mission doing a full repeat of a manned LEO sortie——what then, could possibly be the problem, with launching a second-generation of manned Moon landings—–a noble enterprise that’ll lead to surface bases??

By: Coastal Ron

Coastal Ron — Mon, 25 Nov 2013 19:31:53 +0000

Mader Levap said:

“In conclusion, â€œbeen there, done thatâ€ argument is one of the most retarded arguments against flying to Moon (or anywhere really) that I know.”

Unless it is used to find out EXACTLY why someone is arguing we should return.

As far as I can tell, most of the Lunar-tics that post here want to go back to the Moon for undefined reasons. So until they define them in such a way that just about anyone can understand the need to spend $100B+ of taxpayer money, saying we’ve already sent and returned 12 people to the surface of the Moon is correct. We HAVE been there.

Have NOT sent humans to the surface of Mars though, or kept humans out beyond the orbit of the Moon for long periods of time. So if money is a precious commodity, I’d rather spend it doing something new than on something that we’ve already “been there, done that”.

By: Mader Levap

Mader Levap — Mon, 25 Nov 2013 16:23:05 +0000

“Well, you do have to remember that weâ€™ve already been there.”
According to this logic, we do not need to go robotically to Mars either. Been there with Vikings, done that, why fly anything anymore there?

Or going to Mars more than once using Apollo-like stunt to place flag and make bootprints on red sand. Once we do it, it will became “Been there, done that, why fly anyone anymore there.”.

In conclusion, “been there, done that” argument is one of the most retarded arguments against flying to Moon (or anywhere really) that I know.

By: Hiram

Hiram — Mon, 25 Nov 2013 14:27:20 +0000

“The Earthian Ionosphere is roughly between 53 miles & 370 miles up.”

Formally, yes, I figured you’d say that. But the F-layer, which is the highest layer, doesn’t really reach to the ISS, except by extrapolation. The effects of the atmosphere at that altitude are really very small, and aren’t relevant to test-bedding for deeper space.

“…the basic result, is identical to the ISS project: our astronauts do nothing more than ‘reach space’ just for that to be the final & only ‘destination’.

As to “reaching space”, that’s exactly what we’re trying to do. You, on the other hand, seem to need to reach rocks (that happen to be in space) I’ll try to read your motivation into that. I have to guess what you’re after is resources that can be derived from those rocks, or maybe a place to hammer in fenceposts. Such resources might be handy for delivering materiel further in the solar system, but the rationale for doing that is hardly obvious.

Are you really suggesting that ISS is considered a “final & only ‘destination'”? I can’t imagine who considers that to be the the case. As to your disdain of reaching space, that disdain doesn’t figure well with our use of free space right now, and the way that facilities in free space have revolutionized our communication, navigation and surveillance industry and benefited mankind. That was where we reached space and harvested from it. No rocks involved.

A technological descendent of the Apollo CSM doesn’t have a lot of relevance to a serious Mars trip. The living volume is just too small. But what would have a lot of relevance to it is a real habitat module, perhaps stationed in lunar orbit, or a Lagrange point. Actually, landing on the Earth has a lot more relevance to landing on Mars than landing on the Moon, because EDL through an atmosphere changes the problem entirely.

By: Chris Castro

Chris Castro — Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:10:00 +0000

@Hiram;…..The Earthian Ionosphere is roughly between 53 miles & 370 miles up. So yeah, those are the altitudes where just about every LEO-only crewed space mission has ever flown. From December 1972 onwards, to the present day.
By the way, I merely bring up Lunar orbit, & a manned spacecraft capable of reaching there & “hovering” there, as important elements to future Moon landing operations. Certainly orbiting the Moon is NOT an end point, but a specific leg of the journey. Under a lunar orbit rendezvous flight plan, the astronauts will need their main trans-lunar vehicle put into a parking orbit, say, 70 miles above the surface, either left attended by a crew person or not attended—-with nobody left on board—-for the duration of the surface landing. The designing of such a vehicle, particularly being capable of orbiting the Moon without a crew & then re-boarded for the Earth-return, would have strong significance for future orbiter-with-specialized-lander expeditions to other planets. Such a spacecraft, the technological descendant of the old Apollo Command & Service Module (CSM), would play a major role in the new Moon program. Plus, it’d be the model for such an analogous craft, used in the future Mars-reaching program.
It is true, I have disdain toward the idea of a Lagrange point station, because the rationale behind it, and the basic result, is identical to the ISS project: our astronauts do nothing more than “reach space” just for that to be the final & only “destination”.