Jumping off point for mars and beyond, helium 3.......
of course nothing significant will happen on the first trip back but there are plenty of reasons to go and stay.
Jumping off point for mars and beyond, helium 3.......
of course nothing significant will happen on the first trip back but there are plenty of reasons to go and stay.
MmmSkyscraper
Diamond Member
- Jul 6, 2004
- 9,472
- 1
- 76
Originally posted by: jjones
It would be nice if they don't fake it this time.
ATOT in 2015:
"Moon landing: real or rendered?
***now with 200% extra pics + pohl!!1eoenesnensnones edit I suck at teh linking
"quit whining about how much it will cost...we could either spend it on going to the moon, or fight another pointless war or two, or give it to fat lazy americans living off of welfare social security etc
Not really the moon is a good start to train for something like Mars. (test out station design, logistics and reliability of supplies etc.) Dont think a Mars trip would be something like the original moonlanding. After all a Mars trip would be several years with about 1.5 years on the surface (thats how long it takes to until a favorable launch window comes around again.) I would say some training and tech exploration is required for something as bold as this. It also took alot of years of experience building before the ISS was really feasable.
Safeway
Lifer
- Jun 22, 2004
- 12,075
- 11
- 81
Originally posted by: MmmSkyscraper
Originally posted by: jjones
It would be nice if they don't fake it this time.
ATOT in 2015:
"Moon landing: real or rendered?
***now with 200% extra pics + pohl!!1eoenesnensnones edit I suck at teh linking
Laugh @ Linking
is there anything that can be done on the moon that can't be done from a bigger better ISS? most of the research done at the ISS is because it has 0 gravity, which the moon doesn't. the ISS could serve as a closer, cheaper launching point for mars missions.
bush only want's to start a mission to get his name in the history books.
bush only want's to start a mission to get his name in the history books.
If you plan on going to MARS, you don't go to the MOON first:
Q: Wouldn't launches from or refueling stops at a Moon base be easier than going straight from Earth to Mars?
A: As it turns out, the Delta-V (change in velocity; the energy needs of a mission go up as the Delta-V required goes up) required to get from Low Earth Orbit (LEO) to the surface of the Moon is actually greater than to get from LEO to the surface of Mars! This is because spaceships going to Mars can use a technique called aerobraking -- using the resistance from a planet's atmosphere to slow a moving body -- whereas Moon ships must expend more energy to slow themselves down.
In order to get to the surface of the Moon, a Delta-V of 6 km/s is required -- 3.2 km/s to get from LEO to the Moon, 0.9 km/s to slow into Lunar orbit, and 1.9 km/s to slow from orbit into actual landing. To get to the surface of Mars (given a launch with Mars at conjunction), a Delta-V of 4.5 km/s is required -- 4.1 km/s to get to Mars, 0.1 km/s for post-aerocapture orbit adjustments, and 0.4 km/s to slow from post-atmospheric-entry speeds. Therefore, using the Moon as a refueling point is pointless, as simply getting there is more difficult than going straight to Mars.
Since the raw materials and infrastructure necessary to construct spaceships do not exist on the Moon, everything that would be launched from the Moon would have to come from Earth to start with. Again, given the fact that stopping by the Moon is more difficult than going straight to Mars, it makes no sense to move the necessary materials to the Moon on their way to Mars.
Q: Wouldn't launches from or refueling stops at a Moon base be easier than going straight from Earth to Mars?
A: As it turns out, the Delta-V (change in velocity; the energy needs of a mission go up as the Delta-V required goes up) required to get from Low Earth Orbit (LEO) to the surface of the Moon is actually greater than to get from LEO to the surface of Mars! This is because spaceships going to Mars can use a technique called aerobraking -- using the resistance from a planet's atmosphere to slow a moving body -- whereas Moon ships must expend more energy to slow themselves down.
In order to get to the surface of the Moon, a Delta-V of 6 km/s is required -- 3.2 km/s to get from LEO to the Moon, 0.9 km/s to slow into Lunar orbit, and 1.9 km/s to slow from orbit into actual landing. To get to the surface of Mars (given a launch with Mars at conjunction), a Delta-V of 4.5 km/s is required -- 4.1 km/s to get to Mars, 0.1 km/s for post-aerocapture orbit adjustments, and 0.4 km/s to slow from post-atmospheric-entry speeds. Therefore, using the Moon as a refueling point is pointless, as simply getting there is more difficult than going straight to Mars.
Since the raw materials and infrastructure necessary to construct spaceships do not exist on the Moon, everything that would be launched from the Moon would have to come from Earth to start with. Again, given the fact that stopping by the Moon is more difficult than going straight to Mars, it makes no sense to move the necessary materials to the Moon on their way to Mars.
Schadenfroh
Elite Member
- Mar 8, 2003
- 38,416
- 4
- 0
Fritzo
Lifer
- Jan 3, 2001
- 41,920
- 2,161
- 126
People that say this have no idea of the potential of the moon. The moon is very rich in minerals, and could be used as a fueling station for ships to go to Mars/elsewhere. Since one side always faces the Earth, there's been talk of putting a solar reflector on the moon to beam solar energy to Earth, making a limitless energy supply. There are so many possibilities that could happen that would benefit all of mankind, but we have to perfect getting there first. If we don't keep pushing ourselves, we will never grow.
Gibsons
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2001
- 12,530
- 35
- 91
NASAs budget hasn't been increased significantly to pay for this. So it's not a question of how much we're spending on space exploration, but how we spend it.
Budgets for things like Hubble and Mars Explorer will (and have been) cut, although they are a much more fiscally conservative means of exploring and learning about space. I think we'll likely see less innovation and exploration as a result.
Gibsons
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2001
- 12,530
- 35
- 91
The Earth is very rich in minerals too. It's hard to think of a more expensive way to get minerals than getting them from the moon.
If you want a fueling station for Mars/elsewhere, let's see what the actual ships look like before we think about building gas stations for them. Maybe they won't use gas stations and maybe putting the gas station in the moon's gravity well is a bad idea compared to putting it in orbit.
As for the reflector, if you made a reflector the size of the state of New York, you don't get enough energy to power New York City. The amount of energy you would consume in constructing such a thing would be considerable. Not to mention the money.
The reflector is a bad idea but helium 3 isn't. Reactors capable of using helium 3 should be around in 30 years. I don't think we should wait until the reactors are available to start setting up a way to get fuel for them.
Even if you assume it's true that nobody is starving, you know a lot of children are malnourished.
So
Lifer
- Jul 2, 2001
- 25,923
- 17
- 81
Ah, but that's pretending that there are no materials already there. If we can get people to the Moon and start a self sustaining facility, then we could eventually use the resources already present on the moon to build the vehicles and THAT would be far superior. Plus, going to the moon is a far more achievable goal, and going there permanently will give us knowledge that will make the trip to mars that much easier. Besides, there is no point if we're not colonizing the solar system.
this is retarded. we should spend money on science in schools and support researchers. there is no sensible reason to go to the moon or mars unless we have cheap methods of propultion into the earth's orbit. if bush were halfway smart we would spend this money on college science and engineering programs, carbon nanotube reaserch to allow a cable strong enough for a space elevator, or alternatives to chemical rocket propultion
So
Lifer
- Jul 2, 2001
- 25,923
- 17
- 81
Look, I'm a HUGE fan of the space elevator, but we can't gamble on technoligies that don't yet exist. There may well be problems with the space elevator that we don't yet forsee. Also, taking money from Nasa will do nothing to help educators.
Read what I;ve said above, It is NOT an either/or proposition, and not going to space won't realistically improve things here on Earth.
yes, if not helping the poor or oppressed, then education is much more reasonable than what these crackpots are doing. sadly, their agendas we can never overcome..
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter