It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mission Proposed to Send Astronauts to the Moon's Far Side

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 05:27 AM
link   
Here we go! Something move inside NASA? Maybe. NASA contractor Lockheed Martin has begun pitching an L2-Farside Mission using its Orion spacecraft. If this project 'Stepping Stones' reach its goal, then another little brick will put down to build a human Base on Moon and from that reach..... Mars!.



www.space.com...

While NASA has officially given up its plans to send humans back to the surface of the moon anytime soon, a contractor is proposing a mission to send a crew to a stationary spot in orbit over the far side of Earth's neighbor. Lockheed Martin has begun pitching an L2-Farside Mission using its Orion spacecraft under development.



"We have come up with a sequence of missions that we've named 'Stepping Stones,' which begins with flights in low Earth orbit and incrementally builds towards a human mission to the moons of Mars in the 2030s," said Josh Hopkins of Lockheed Martin's Human Spaceflight Advanced Programs department.



From a halo orbit around that L2 point, a crew would control robots on the lunar surface. Teleoperated science tasks include snagging rock specimens for return to Earth from the moon's South Pole-Aitken basin – one of the largest, deepest, and oldest craters in the solar system – as well as deploy a radio telescope array on the farside.



According to a Lockheed Martin white paper on the proposed concept, a number of benefits stem from such a mission:
- Astronauts on an L2-Farside mission would travel 15 percent farther from Earth than the Apollo astronauts did - and spend almost three times longer in deep space.
- Each flight would prove out the Orion capsule's life support systems for one-month duration missions before attempting a six-month-long asteroid mission
- It would demonstrate the high speed reentry capability needed for return from the moon or deep space – 40 percent to 50 percent faster than reentry from low-Earth orbit.
- The mission would measure astronauts' radiation dose from cosmic rays and solar flares to verify that Orion provides sufficient protection, as it is designed to do. Currently the medical effects of deep space radiation are not well understood, so a one-month mission would improve our understanding without exposing astronauts to excessive risk.


Hurry NASA! Hurry, before its too late!




posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 05:35 AM
link   
Awesome!! I plan on being on of those who helps make this possible!

Heck send me, I will volunteer for free!

I think we should go back and to the other side, maybe we can get some real answers



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by mblahnikluver
 


Beware of what you desire, because sometime your desires became real!



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 07:00 AM
link   
How long will it take for the TPTB to change the contractors plans?



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by DutchBigBoy
How long will it take for the TPTB to change the contractors plans?


My opinion: The Contractors ARE the TPTB!



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 07:55 AM
link   
and then will proabably get cancelled anyway and china beet the u.s to it



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 07:55 AM
link   
All this translates into is more delays before we go to Mars. I don't know about you guys but I'd prefer they didn't do this and put all their resources into the later.

IRM



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
I like this idea, I think going back to the Moon is a must if we are to succeed in going to Mars. Its been 30ish years since we were last on the moon, it would be an ideal testing ground for tech/future missions and would still be close if an emergency arises. It could also be used as a forward base for building and lauching missions further into the solar system.
edit on 24-11-2010 by Kurokage because: spelling



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   
I noticed that the op's article says "moons of Mars" and not Mars itself. Why go to the Moons and not just to Mars? If you are going to spend billions getting there, it would seem logical to make as few stops as possible along the way. Im glad to see the interest but I am not sure about their roadmap.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by DerbyCityLights
 


Right.

Same doubt.
Why Phobos?



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


Oh Oh... haha... Cue the theme song please!!!

2001 - A SPACE ODYSSEY + 10 years (THEATRE VERSION) ?

OR (For the mocumentary addicts out there)

DARK SIDE OF THE MOON - (MEDIA VERSION)


BOTH magnificant HOLLYWOOD productions.

What ever will be will be. The race for a moon base is back on the table I believe. Can we accomplish it this time?



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by DerbyCityLights
I noticed that the op's article says "moons of Mars" and not Mars itself. Why go to the Moons and not just to Mars? If you are going to spend billions getting there, it would seem logical to make as few stops as possible along the way. Im glad to see the interest but I am not sure about their roadmap.

I've heard this before, and wondered the same thing.

The explanation I heard is that the moons of Mars have far less gravity, so the amount of fuel required for the return mission (blasting off from one of those moons) would be FAR less than if we tried to launch from the surface of Mars. Far less fuel = far less weight = much cheaper mission. Supposedly, a human could possibly do more research of Mars from one of Mars' moons than a robotic probe sent to Mars itself and controlled from here.

Of course, any mission to Phobos would most likely be followed up by an eventual manned trip to Mars itself someday.

LA Times - Phobos Mission

New Scientist - Destination Phobos


edit on 11/24/2010 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by DerbyCityLights
I noticed that the op's article says "moons of Mars" and not Mars itself. Why go to the Moons and not just to Mars? If you are going to spend billions getting there, it would seem logical to make as few stops as possible along the way. Im glad to see the interest but I am not sure about their roadmap.

I've heard this before, and wondered the same thing.

The explanation I heard is that the moons of Mars have far less gravity, so the amount of fuel required for the return mission (blasting off from one of those moons) would be FAR less than if we tried to launch from the surface of Mars. Far less fuel = far less weight = much cheaper mission. Supposedly, a human could possibly do more research of Mars from one of Mars' moons than a robotic probe sent to Mars itself and controlled from here.

Of course, any mission to Phobos would most likely be followed up by an eventual manned trip to Mars itself someday.

LA Times - Phobos Mission

New Scientist - Destination Phobos


edit on 11/24/2010 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)


DAMN... Cheapskate NASA!!!!




posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


Interestingly enough, Mars has a greater effective gravity than Earth. Launching a rocket from Mars (especially given its denser atmosphere) would require all of the launch facilities and fuel consumed during a launch from Earth.

This is why any trip to mars on the books right now is a one-way trip. You're not coming back, because you would need to bring Cape Canaveral with you in order to get back.

The moon is a much more practical target, and has far more utility for us than a mission to Mars ever will. The low gravity of the moon, relative metal/mineral composition of the moon, proximity of the moon, and tidally locked nature of the moon make it far more valuable in terms of further exploring space.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Arken
 

Interestingly enough, Mars has a greater effective gravity than Earth. Launching a rocket from Mars (especially given its denser atmosphere) would require all of the launch facilities and fuel consumed during a launch from Earth.

Wrong and wrong.

Mars gravity is only 38% that of Earth, because of its much smaller mass.
The atmosphere on Mars is much less dense than that of Earth.

Launching from the surface of Mars would be more like launching from the Moon than from Earth.

Escape velocity:

- on Moon from Moon's gravity: 2.4 km/s, on Moon from Earth's gravity: 1.4 km/s
- on Mars from Mars' gravity: 5.0 km/s, on Mars from Sun's gravity: 34.1 km/s
- on Earth from Earth's gravity: 11.2 km/s, on Earth/Moon, from Sun's gravity: 42.1 km/s


edit on 25/11/10 by Kailassa because: adding escape velocity figures



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


Agreed!

But before Mars.... we need to Scouting extensively, deeper, publicly, and with heavy (non military) footage... THE MOON!


Maybe some interesting surprise...



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Never going to happen the date will just keep slipping.


Astronauts to be sent to the dark side of the moon for first time in 40 years in pre-Mars mission

Link www.dailymail.co.uk...
40 years is that a joke


This will only happen if the Chinese allow the Americans on there moon
40 years pathetic.

Thanks



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   
If the American contractors were smart they would continue the mission to mars without NASA. Lockheed, Boeing etc... could band together and mine the moon for resources. They should send people there for a month or more along with a sister cargo ship to return what they find and discover. There is bound to be gold up there which in itself could pay for the mission not to mention large quantities of Helium 3 would sell for billions as you would have the only large supply available.

Our large space and defense contractors need to be brave and remove their lips from the nipple of government programs. Take a risk and go for it. They have the money. Bill gates could himself fund several moon missions as well as fund development of the rockets.

How many billions do you need? Bill and Warran Buffet could have thier own space program and not miss a dime. If I were a multi billionair I would definately do something to make a deference in humanity and to put myself in the history books. They cant take the billions into the grave with them.
edit on 25-11-2010 by Xeven because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 12:22 AM
link   
All of the news Nasa publishes to me, is just bullsh!t.

They say ''oh we are doing this and that'' but we all know they have done or are doing much more then they tell us and if they do tell us, its probably years & years behind the real findings and projects. All I can say is, I hope the guys at the top, whoever you are, that are in charge of such decisions don't fu€k things up.


jra

posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xeven
There is bound to be gold up there which in itself could pay for the mission not to mention large quantities of Helium 3 would sell for billions as you would have the only large supply available.


Helium 3 is absolutely worthless at present. It will only become valuable when we have working fusion reactors that use it as a fuel source and with the way things are going, that's still a long ways off. Plus it would be much cheaper and easier to get He3 on Earth than from the Moon right now.

Even if there was gold on the Moon, how much of that raw ore could you ship back at a time? And would it even be profitable to do so? Mining on Earth is a lot cheaper than it would be on the Moon no matter how you look at it, since everything you need is easily available right here on Earth, where as on the Moon, everything needs to be shipped over, including air, water and food. And that's just the basics, I'm sure one will have to send up spare parts and other equipment too. And having to send that stuff all the time will get expensive fast.

But back on topic. This proposal looks good and I hope it happens. Sending people to L2 would be the furthest any one has ever traveled from Earth. Sending people to some invisible point in space may not seem as glamorous as going to the Moon or Mars itself, but I think it's still pretty cool and it will be good practice for long duration missions outside of LEO.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join