Originally posted by HIFIGUY
If budgets like this are the obstacle towards putting men on planets, were never going to hit mars, because our own commercialization will be the limiting factor.

Robotic geological surveys could be used to indicate whether there would be viable mining assets to be had, that way there would be a potential income from the exploitation of minerals to offset the vast initial costs involved...

What most people forget is that the Apollo program was part of the Cold War. We had to go to the moon before the USSR, so we did, at enormous risk. We are insanely lucky that we haven't lost more people to space exploration. It's a dangerous undertaking in a hostile and unforgiving enviorment.

Our nation lacks the national will to pursue a vigorous space program. We won't spend enough. We won't risk people to get it done. The public is too dumbed down to understand the need or to think ahead for the future.

When I was younger, I had hoped to retire in space eventually, perhaps in an orbital colony or the moon base. No, really. In the naive era of the 60's and 70's it seemed within our grasp. Then came the 80's and we all became too selfish to look outwards anymore. I'm not sure the pioneer spirit still exists in sufficent quantities in the US to get us off of this planet permenantly, but it's the most important thing we could do as country.

104 Billion? It's not enough. 2018? Too far away.

We already did this once, in the 60's, in less time (and I bet dollar for dollar less cost) and it was the first time. Going back to the moon again all these years later, big deal. NASA is just a make work program for PhD's.

A work program indeed for PHds. All of the points above are exactly valid although Im not sure about the 104 Billion not being enough. Maybe so.

If we can spend 300 Billion on oil, why not 500 billion on mankind and space opportunitys. Space mining. Thats a great idea, I never really though about is. But I sure as heck wouldnt want to be under a returning mineral payload that went astray...LOL

As for retiring in space, I think it has already been concluded that extended waitlessness is not good for the human form. Issues with circulation, and muscle atrophy set in. Althouth , I do think having a space station that allows us to see space and earth from a different perspective is a great idea.

Lets face it, there is going to be a day, in the billions of years from now or earlier, that man is going to face some real obsticles. A near earth asteroid thats is on trajectory, think of the fear that would be created there with an uncontrollable doomsday heading towards us.

Or the Sun acting odd and we suddenly realize that earth isnt going to last as long as we thought it would. The survival of mankind, plus a little help from the creator, hopefully will get us out of those messes.

One statement did catch my eye about space. It is indeed, unforgiving. Cold, hot, radiation, and projectiles that are insane if youve ever seen some of the extended durability tests from that were done on skylab. I saw a piece of acrylic that had something like an 8 inch deep hole that was created by a piece of supersonic space dust. Imagine getting hit by that?
But space is indeed hostile.

It makes you appreciatte the comfort that we enjoy here on earth that we take for granted so much.

Peace

The problem with all this manned space exploration to other celetial bodies is that we are still using liquid fuel rockets with solid rocket boosters to do so. This is not the way to travel back to the moon if there were anything of value there. The best way to hit it would be in style with either laser, microwave, plasma or nuclear propulsion systems. Not this dinky and massive liquid fuel.

The cost of going to Mars would be in the trillions. The cost to bring back anything from the moon in signifcant quantities (for all you pyschonaut he-3 people) would be in the billions. Besides, why shoot men into space to find fusion fuels with no working reactors when we have a nearly unlimited supply of heavy water (deuterium) here on earth, a thermonuclear fuel? 70% of the earth is covered in this substance called water, which is where heavy water is made from. He-3 is in very limited quantities on a barren rock with no other resources nearly 250k miles from earth.

Keep hitting the pipe if you think this is anything other than a publicity stunt to pull in contractors and raise the interest of the general public and legislature.

Originally posted by Frosty
The problem with all this manned space exploration to other celetial bodies is that we are still using liquid fuel rockets with solid rocket boosters to do so. This is not the way to travel back to the moon if there were anything of value there. The best way to hit it would be in style with either laser, microwave, plasma or nuclear propulsion systems. Not this dinky and massive liquid fuel.

It appears I should have read everyones comments before I posted, I seem like the only one who likes there plan.

Frosty - Thats all we got, we still use rockets, whats wrong with that? Until the Space Elevator comes to be, it will have to be done using rockets...does rocket tech seem old...yes...is it...yes...but really, there are no other choices for now. You have to think realisticly.

I hope we build a permanent moon base, and have it be operationaly manned 24/7 by humans. I'm glad were moving away from the ISS, its kind if a rut, although...yes, it has had some good come from it. I think we will learn much more from the moon then we did on the ISS. Theres tons of opertonities on the moon, they could build a HUGE telescope there with a 100 meter mirror, and never worry about weather, or put a large solar cell farm to collect the suns energy and beam it back down to earth, Or perhaps build a library there, of basically "who we are", and what we have done so far, so other creatures can find out about us long after were gone, and theres always the opportunity to mine it, other then just Helium-3, it has a large quantity of titanium, and i'm sure other things yet to be found out, or intuitively used, hopefully in the next few years we will learn it it has any water/ice, and if it does then it will gain much more interest.

I really hate the people with the "been there, done that" attitude.
We need to expand our reach, currently its only in Low-Earth-Orbit, we need to expand that to the moon, and move onto Mars when we have the technology.

Rockets are fine for the moon, but I think unacceptable for Mars...Theres no way you could make a 7 month jouney there and 7 more back feasable. But theres interesting concepts out there that claim we can get to Mars in just 45 days...so if we could get that type of infastructure set-up, then I would also support Mars missions.

1. They could go back to the Moon in 2015, but don't want to rush it too much and make possible (disastrous) mistakes.

2. $104 billion is coming out of NASA's budget. And thats the total cost for the whole Lunar program. The annual DoD budget is over $400 billion...

3. We need to go to the Moon and try living there for a few months at a time. To see if it can even be done on Mars.

4. The Chinese and Russians aren't going to the Moon till 2025.

3. We need to go to the Moon and try living there for a few months at a time. To see if it can even be done on Mars.

Ultralight and superstrong Nanocomposites will make living on the Moon relatively easy compared to Mars. In order to really get a Marsian Colony up and running we will need a Space Tether up and running on both Earth and Mars to make the transfer of supplies as painless, cheap and safe as possible. I see trade routs being set up, say He-3 and Titanium going to earth and other supplies go to the moon and mars. It could become self-sufficient by 2050 if everything goes according to plan and the technology develops as I expect(that another topic all together though)

I'm in New Orleans and I have had only Katrina news for the past 3 weeks on raidona nd on my TV. all 2 sattions of it ( I never left home )

I am a space buff and I toatly missed all of this news. This is awesome.

Who is making the booster? Halluburton?

A few of you are talking about how we did this already in the 60's because of the cold war and blah blah. It was really the people that pushed kenedy to go for the moon, and actually kenedy did not have a big eye for the space programe it was his vice pres and later president Jhonson. THe people were tired of being surpassed technologically by other countries. THey let russia get a hold on them after WWII with atomic tech in 39 I believe Germanay made the first TV broadcast to show technological superority. And the Russians were persuing an active space programthat was conastantly beating us out. Americans didn't likt to loose. And not to mention the fact that when Sputnik was launched people in the US went crazy ove its porpose. SO the clammored for us to catch up.

Any way. It is highly important taht we get to the moon. Its only natural to move Our productiona nd industry to space where there is no such thing as pollution. Also for teh technological standpoint. I mean in a basic principal there are hundreds of thisng that you can do in space that you can't do on earth. LIke say you wanted to smelt Pb and Al

Everyone knows lead is denser so on earth when the two were moletn the lead would be mores so highly concentrated in the bottom of th emixture where as in space that doesnt matter and you have a complelty homogenous compound.

I'm proablyl rambling now because I havent talked to people in weeks so I'm gona go....

Originally posted by sardion2000

3. We need to go to the Moon and try living there for a few months at a time. To see if it can even be done on Mars.

Ultralight and superstrong Nanocomposites will make living on the Moon relatively easy compared to Mars. In order to really get a Marsian Colony up and running we will need a Space Tether up and running on both Earth and Mars to make the transfer of supplies as painless, cheap and safe as possible. I see trade routs being set up, say He-3 and Titanium going to earth and other supplies go to the moon and mars. It could become self-sufficient by 2050 if everything goes according to plan and the technology develops as I expect(that another topic all together though)

Yeah, with no weather the moon is much easier to live on...but the basics can be learned there.

Even if the space elevator is built on earth and on Mars...that wont make shipping much easier...considering its still a long ways away. Thats why I like the Mag-beam, is promises to get you to & from Mars in a total of 90 days...thats damn fast.

Originally posted by Frosty

The cost of going to Mars would be in the trillions.

Every estimate for a Mars mission I have seen have ranged from a conservatie $80 if you produced return fuel on mars to $500 billion for bringing everything you need with you.

Its highly likely that a manned mars mission would make return fuel on mars since its got all the need supplies. That would vastly decrease the price of the mission.

I have never seen a estimate for a mars mission in the Trillions. Would you care to share some information on how you came up with your estimates on the price tag of a mars mission?

Originally posted by HIFIGUY
As for retiring in space, I think it has already been concluded that extended waitlessness is not good for the human form. Issues with circulation, and muscle atrophy set in. Althouth , I do think having a space station that allows us to see space and earth from a different perspective is a great idea.

Correct, but gravity can be simulated. Put people on the outer edge of a ring habitat, and set it spinning. The centripetal (or centrifugal) force can simulate gravity at the right speed. Good point though.... The way there probably won't be too good for you. Yuri Gagarin didn't look to good after his trip in space.

Originally posted by Murcielago
Yeah, with no weather the moon is much easier to live on...but the basics can be learned there.

Even if the space elevator is built on earth and on Mars...that wont make shipping much easier...considering its still a long ways away. Thats why I like the Mag-beam, is promises to get you to & from Mars in a total of 90 days...thats damn fast.

With Solar Sail the trip can be cut down to as little as 30 days, just because it takes a while doesn't really make unmanned cargo trips any more complicated. Remember the majority of the cost comes from the launch, with the space elevator up and running things would happen allot quicker and easier then lobbing stuff up on glorified ICBMs.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by Frosty

The cost of going to Mars would be in the trillions.

Every estimate for a Mars mission I have seen have ranged from a conservatie $80 if you produced return fuel on mars to $500 billion for bringing everything you need with you.

Its highly likely that a manned mars mission would make return fuel on mars since its got all the need supplies. That would vastly decrease the price of the mission.

I have never seen a estimate for a mars mission in the Trillions. Would you care to share some information on how you came up with your estimates on the price tag of a mars mission?

Mars is 55 million miles away, the moon is 1/220 that distance. 1 billion x 220 would be 220 trillion, in dollars. I know that it is rather absurd but so is planning manned missions to celestial bodies with nothing to give back mankind. We went to the moon: nothing there. Went to mars with rovers: so far nothing there.

Originally posted by Frosty
Mars is 55 million miles away, the moon is 1/220 that distance. 1 billion x 220 would be 220 trillion, in dollars. I know that it is rather absurd but so is planning manned missions to celestial bodies with nothing to give back mankind. We went to the moon: nothing there. Went to mars with rovers: so far nothing there.

this is one of the most shortsighted statements you have ever made period.

And where did you pull those figures out of you know where?

[edit on 20-9-2005 by sardion2000]

Originally posted by Frosty


Mars is 55 million miles away, the moon is 1/220 that distance. 1 billion x 220 would be 220 trillion, in dollars. I know that it is rather absurd but so is planning manned missions to celestial bodies with nothing to give back mankind. We went to the moon: nothing there. Went to mars with rovers: so far nothing there.

LoL that has to be one of the most uneducated statements I have ever seen concerning space travel.

Do you really think thats how the cost of Missions to space is calculated? If so thats very sad.

What is it you guys hope that NASA finds on the moon that they didn't the first time or accomplish from this $100+ billion project?

The figures I used are actual numbers. The moon is a quarter million miles from earth and mars from earth is 55 million miles. And I said it is rather absurd but is used to show that it will cost more to go to mars than the moon.

There is nothing on the moon by the way people, what exactly do you think will happen once NASA arrives for a second time? Moon bases?

And for you moon bases enthusiast...

Consider this: about 80% of a rocket's weight is propelant, a mixture of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. 10% of the weight is structural. The remaining 10% is cargo capacity. If a rocket launched from the moon only needs to be 1/8 the size of the rocket which semt it there, based on moon's mass to earth's in relation to the escape velocity of the moon compared to earth's (so I assume 1/8 of the earth's), then it would take a minimum of two trips for this moon launched rocket to reach the moon.

So if a rocket is launched from the moon, there have really been 3 rockets launched and not one. This is a ratio of 1:3 in terms of rockets launched from the earth to explore outerspace to rockets launched from the moon to explore outerspace (remember to count the two it took to get there).

Is this a good ratio?

Now consider that in order for the rocket to land on the moon there will be additional fuel needed in the landing module to make a safe landing, but I will disregard this as I don't have the specs on any of this, though if I find them... Now, there will also be needed a rocket launched with men to the moon (or robots as some have proposed) to assemble the rocket (assuming 3 men/robots in one trip could do this) and two rockets launched to carry materials to build the launch pad (assuming the original crew/robots are able to assemble this as well and that it only takes two rockets with material to build a launch pad).

So now the ration is 1:6.

Is this a good ratio? No, because I doubt the 1 succeeds in cost, time, effort and energy what the 6 will take.


[edit on 20-9-2005 by Frosty]