Bush to announced manned mission to Mars and permanent base on moon

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
Additionaly the US mannned mission to Mars would be a willy wangling competition designed to coincide with China landing its first man on the Moon.

Isn't that how the space program got started in the first place?

[KrazyHorse]

EDIT: this is aimed at mrmitchell

More likely he thinks he's JFK

[mrmitchell]

Mazarin, the only thing that ever mattered.

BRAGGING RIGHTS

[PLATO]

mining camps could be set up to gather helium-3 for conversion into fuel for use back on Earth.

The next centuries oil??

Haliburton Helium announces 4th Lunar Colony!

[KrazyHorse]

I call bull****.

Why the **** would you look for He-3 on the moon? There's less helium there than here because of smaller mass.

[Edan]

could some of you elaborate what the potential benefits of a base on the mars would be? just wondering.

We'd have access to Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulators?

Holy crap. As generally neat as those things would be, personally I'd rather have my $1500. But that's just me.

No Space Modulators for you...

[Tiamat]

Husband says the moon has 1\6 of our gravity. Theres less gravity and atmosphere on the moon which would in turn make it a great place to launch missions. You're not gonna do it from the earth, and besides the Chinese are gonna beat us anyway because they bought all the Russian parts to do it!

[KrazyHorse]

It's a stupid place to launch missions from, unless you're building the stuff on the moon.

[KrazyHorse]

And moon is notoriously lacking in heavier elements (i.e. all the metals).

What shall we do with silicon dioxide
What shall we do with silicon dioxide
What shall we do with silicon dioxide
And no iron?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Edan


We'd have access to Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulators?

Shh...everybody will want one.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
And moon is notoriously lacking in heavier elements (i.e. all the metals).

What shall we do with silicon dioxide
What shall we do with silicon dioxide
What shall we do with silicon dioxide
And no iron?

Polymer ships to cover interplanetary distance? Couldn't complex polymer chains be easily manufatured there?

[KrazyHorse]

Polymer ships? Polymers are usually made with carbon (IIRC). Silicon makes glass and semiconductors, not much else.

Spaceships use a lot of metal.

Plus where does the fuel come from? The moon has no water.

And if you're going to build stuff off earth then why waste the delta-v to put it on the moon instead of a nice high orbit?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Mordoch

I'm going to firmly diagree here. A basic issue with simply sticking things in orbit is that they are still experiencing a minimal amount of atmospheric friction from our atmosphere and over time slow down and fall out of orbit without further intervention. This means they need a substancial amount of fuel to act as boosters for satelites, or they need period boosts from rockets, i.e. the ISS. Any equipment we place as part of a base on the moon would be permenent. We could stick an elaborate telescope on the far side of the moon, which would give us great pictures, but we wouldn't have to worry about it burning up with time.

Less than 2% of all manned mission space costs are fuel costs, of which nearly all is consumed during launch. Saving on fuel is not an issue.

A key advantage would be great testing for a potential future base on mars. Many of the issues involved would be similar, but if a self contained system starts to fail on the moon, we can send a resupply trip up their fairly quickly (assuming we develope such a capability again), while it would take far longer for an expedition to reach Mars. I suspect that a strategy of drilling and digging into the moon and then sealing and reinforcing the dug out areas would be easier for expansion than assembling things in orbit. It might be more effort to transport things to the moon, but there are benefits to doing so once you get there.

I still think the capital outlay at the present time is not worth the potential rewards when compared to other potential space endeavours.

Finally the moon could potentially be a way station for longer journeys, i.e. to Mars. Fuel can be transported to the moon base, and then craft that expended alot of fuel escaping Earth's gravity could refuel at the moon. Since the moon's gravity is much less than the moon's {Earth's?} far less energy would be expanded escaping.

If you plan on sending fuel from Earth to the Moon, the fuel ships will have to escape the Earth's gravity anyway. You are not making any net savings by sending up the fuel seperately.

A base on the moon certainly doesn't do everything but it does have some useful utility.

I can see advantageous uses, but I don't see it as the best option.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Big Crunch


Less than 2% of all manned mission space costs are fuel costs, of which nearly all is consumed during launch. Saving on fuel is not an issue.

2% is the actual fuel, but then there's a ****load associated with building something that actually has to provide 5 gravities of thrust.

There's a reason a pound of stuff in orbit costs 1000$

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


2% is the actual fuel, but then there's a ****load associated with building something that actually has to provide 5 gravities of thrust.

There's a reason a pound of stuff in orbit costs 1000$

Point being that its not keeping things up that's the costly bit.