Diagram of Lockheed Martin’s Mars Base Camp. Credit: Lockheed Martin
Posted on 10/02/2017 5:11:37 PM PDT by BenLurkin
Mars Base Camp is very simple. Basically, it consists of an orbital outpost where scientist-astronauts will be transported to after leaving Earth and flying from the Deep Space Gateway into orbit around Mars. From this base, crews will be able to conduct real-time scientific exploration of the Martian atmosphere, followed by missions to the surface.
...[T]he major components of their base camp will be launched separately. Some will be pre-positioned in orbit around Mars ahead of time while others will be assembled in cis-lunar space for the journey to Mars. In the end, six astronauts will launch on an Orion spacecraft – which serves as the heart of the Mars Base Camp interplanetary ship – and assemble all the component in orbit around Mars.
This is also consistent with Phase II and Phase III of NASA’s “Journey to Mars”, which are known as the “Proving Ground” and “Earth Independent” phases, respectively. Phase II calls for a series of missions to test the capabilities of the Space Launch System (SLS), Orion spacecraft, and deep space habitats, as well as multiple crewed missions and spacewalks in cislunar space.
Phase III will then consist of the refinement and testing of entry, descent, and landing techniques, as well as in-situ resource utilization. Once these are complete, Phase III will culminate with crewed missions to Martian orbit, followed by landed missions to the Martian surface. The first mission involving the Mars Base Camp are intended to be an extended stay in orbit around the Red Planet.
...This will be followed by the arrival of the surface lander, which would allow the astronauts to land and conduct missions on the surface. The lander would be mated to the base camp between missions and descend to the surface using supersonic retro-propulsion.
(Excerpt) Read more at universetoday.com ...
Mars is a totally uninhabitable rock in space. We are totally broke. Why would we waste more printed money on such a futile worthless endeavor. Take the money and pay down the national debt,
Earth’s moon would be the most logical staging area if we are going to head in that direction.
You make a good point, they will only print more, and more, and still more to make it happen. Without fiscal responsibility we are all doomed to hyper inflation and a lower standard of living caused by big government.
On one of the goofy youtube videos some guy already has a conspiracy going because the Las Vegas shooter used to work at Lockheed Martin (mind control, secret projects, etc.)
And now this report comes out the day afterwards? The conspiracy guys will add this to their BS. (Or they are right!)
Because liberals will move there?
Flashback from 1993: -Steve Paddock, what a coincidence!
Donald Savage
Headquarters, Washington, D.C. September 1, 1993
(Phone: 202/358-1600)
RELEASE: 93-157
NASA NAMES TEAM TO STUDY RETURN TRIP TO MARS
NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin today announced the establishment of a study team at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena, Calif., to explore possibilities for a return mission to Mars to recover some of the scientific objectives of the Mars Observer mission, if communications with that spacecraft cannot be reestablished.
The study team, led by Dr. Charles Elachi, Assistant Laboratory Director at JPL, will look at a variety of low-cost spacecraft, instrument and launch options, with the objective of returning to Mars in 1994 or 1996.
The team will review available spacecraft and instrument options from industry and government, including Mars Observer spares and possible international contributions. The team is expected to present potential mission options to NASA within the next 2 months.
Members of the study team currently include:
Arden Albee California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Carl Sagan Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.
Bruce Murray California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
John Casani JPL
Tom Coughlin Applied Physics Laboratory, Baltimore
STEVE PADDOCK Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.
Eugene Giberson JPL (retired)
Ray Heacock JPL (retired)
Jonathan Lunine University of Arizona, Tucson
Rich Matlock Ballistic Missile Defense Office, Washington, D.C.
Donna Pivirotto JPL
Rob Staehle JPL
John Beckman JPL
Larry Soderblom U.S. Geologic Survey, Flagstaff, Ariz.
Carolyn Porco University of Arizona, Tucson
Bud Wheelon Hughes Aircraft Co. (retired), Los Angeles
https://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msp98/news/news1.htm
The first spacecraft should be full of government officials and liberals, so the job can be done right. Maybe the second, third and fourth spacecraft as well.
I’m for some variation of the A, B, C arks ala Douglas Adams.
And it will cost more money every time they do it over and over.
I agree . They don’t care if we rape the future. They will all be gone when the food riots come to our children. Maybe they kind find a few under their beds.
I hate when the idiots come out of the woods to bitch about the cost of NASA. Totally forgetting all the scientific gains and tech break thrus that resulted from the space race. NASA receives less than half a penny of every government dollar. Go moan about programs that give us nothing back and are more expensive.
The endeavor is not fruitless or worthless and is in fact a neccisty. Humanity must reach out to the stars if it wishes to survive.
It's insane to even think of putting a manned settlement on Mars, when we haven't even proven that we can do it on our own moon.
Thanks BenLurkin. This was rolled out at the conference in Adelaide, Australia, I believe. Elon Musk was also there, with his latest iteration for Mars colonization. In EM's case, I wish he'd concentrate on finishing his bulldozing of his launch business competitors, instead of his untenable Mars imaginings.
Lockheed/Boeing/ULA/Blue Origin/NASA is all part of the military-industrial complex, and space exploration is not what they're about -- they're about pork barrel politics.
The SLS is a system now in development that uses the same liquid-fueled engines as the Shuttle did (for 30 years) and the same solid rocket boosters (SRBs) as the Shuttle did (the new ones will be taller, to burn longer, in order to get the barnacle-like liquid-fueled vehicle off the ground and on its way to orbit) -- so what's the holdup? It uses literally the same *******ed technology as the STS, other than the payload-destroying winged, manned reentry vehicle. And it won't ever go much beyond low Earth orbit, assuming it ever flies at all (which I suspect it won't).
And the Deep Space Gateway is yet another pretext to subsidize the ICBM makers of our enemies -- just as the ISS has always been. [Op-ed: The Deep Space Gateway would shackle human exploration, not enable it]
You and me have a big difference of opinion on this. Why go to Mars, because we ef’ing can. I was a NASA/Air Force designer. I worked on three of the six technologies for hypersonic flight. I’ve walked in on my own work (hypersonics) in the Air Force Museum. Why are we behind the Chinese on this one today, not from major efforts on my part and others, politics as usual. Some would rather spend 100 billion plus a year on illegals instead of employing Americans in high tech jobs.
"NASA is developing the capabilities needed to send humans to an asteroid by 2025 and Mars in the 2030s."
I think:
1. We have a “orbital platform” already; it’s called the moon.
2. The moon can be used for many initial practice, planning and preparation phases of manned exploration of the solar system, including: (a) the engineering and operational questions of landing & constructing, or landing materials & components & constructing, “base camps” on solar system bodies beside the earth; (b) transportation issues from and to manned craft in orbit of solar system bodies besides the earth; (c) energy supplies & production off earth; (d) sustainability (shelf life) of living and non-living elements with neither space-craft-level shielding or a dense earth like atmosphere; (e) materials exploration on other bodies in the solar system besides earth.
3. Deep space exploration vehicles could be constructed in components on the moon’s surface, where, once completed, “take off” to space would be minimal (energy wise) compared to earth and it will also avoid the engineering and energy requirements of a separate man-made platform (which would have many of the same “sustainability” issues as on the lunar surface, with a lot more energy requirements than a lunar base just to maintain it’s artificial earth orbit.
I say - build a “moon base” and from it we will learn, acquire and improve a ton of the engineering that will be needed and useful on some “off world” human exploration of some place like Mars, BEFORE we are expending efforts going the distance to and from Mars.
The moon - our solar system exploration test base.
Meanwhile, a ton of further atmospheric exploration and testing of the Martian atmosphere can proceed with very simple Mars orbiting vehicles/satellites, without any humans yet on board and without the additional costs of getting humans there and back.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.