Posted on 01/05/2004 9:06:06 AM PST by Pikamax
This makes sense. If a staging area could be built on the moon, it could serve as something of a waystation. Might even be a good way to start a series of International Space Station-style waystations along the way so that the trip to Mars wouldn't be as arduous as current plans suggest.
And no fall ever killed anyone...it was the landing at the end that did 'em in. ; )
If memory serves, the environmentalists tried to use the U.S. courts (via lawsuits) to halt the launch of Cassini because of its plutonium RTG. They'd probably pull the same sort of stunt on the next spacecraft which utilizes a similar fuel source.
Funny how the Left likes to play the courts like a special interest trump card...
As far as the Lunar training vs. Mars training, vis a vis your reference to the Mercury and Gemini missions, what more do we need to do? We know our spacecraft can reach. We know we can supply the necessary living conditions for prolonged periods in space. We know we can set up, in advance, an infrastructure to support life on Mars once it gets there. Mars already has an atmosphere that, through a little of that good old fashioned American technological can-do, can be converted into fuel for a return trip. The polar caps are at least partially water ice, if not mostly so, so water's not a real issue (unless they decide to settle on the equator).
I have yet to see any argument about Mars that is beyond current experience or technological capability. All I hear is, "It's expensive and it's dangerous." Well, la-dee-freakin'-dah! No one said it would be cheap OR easy. None of the greatest exploration and colonization feats in human history have been without cost or difficulty, but that didn't make them any less worthwhile.
If we're really overly-catatonic about sending a Mars mission from LEO, then let's get on the horse and set up a lunar colony. That could very easily be done (as in FINISHED) in the next 5-10 years, if NASA, the gubmint, and the American people had some vision.
However, I fully believe that lack of vision will keep us grounded on Terra Firma for a long, long time to come. You need to look no further than FR threads started by FReeper "Cincinatus' Wife" about future lunar missions to see that.
I'll bet it has one hell of a roaming charge on its cellphone bill...
Well, perhaps, but don't judge from the reactions that you read on those threads that you reference. There will always be a reactionary, Luddite crowd here on FR, whining about the government doing anything -- they are not now, nor have they ever, been a substantive voice in American politics.
However, you are correct in identifying the fundamental problem -- the "lack of vision." The basic reason we have a mediocre space program is that we have no national leadership on it. This is not new -- this has been the fundamental problem for the last 30 years. After Apollo, there was no longer a perceived political need for the space program. Hence, thirty years of neglect, leading to thirty years of space mediocrity.
The problem with manned Mars missions is not the technical difficulty (although I am less sanguine than you are regarding their feasibility -- there are several things we cannot yet do at reasonably low risk levels); it's the lack of a compelling political rationale. With no Cold War and no motivation to "race" anybody to Mars, there's simply no political reason to go there. Hence, small-scale, robotic missions, of limited capability and limited return, as far as the eye can see.
The basic difference with a manned moon mission is that there is a commodity there with value beyond science or exploration (although we get that with a lunar return as well) -- the resources of the moon. The water/hydrogen at the lunar poles can allow us to access Earth-moon space routinely. Thus, a lunar return creates space-faring infrastructure (as opposed to a "one-off" Mars mission system of hardware), a space transport system that can access other places in Earth-moon space, including those involving national security (our strategic assets in orbit) and the national economic infrastructure (commercial satellites of various kinds).
Mars offers none of this -- it is basically a scientific/exploratory expedition. That's fine, but what's the political motivation for policy makers to commit to it? In contrast, they may well commit to a program that promotes important national interests (e.g., project American power in space and create new wealth by expanding access to commercial assets in Earth orbit). A return to the moon to mine water can do all this -- and create the infrastructure to go to the planets later.
That's true. Mars offers no economic benefit in itself. However, it is a high-visibility target, and--this might be important--it is possible to found a settlement on Mars. The first Mars settlers will probably not be groups of gov't scientists, but religious utopias. Just a thought.
Right, merely flying there being one of the riskiest. The radiation experienced by the Apollo astronauts was manageable; the radiation experienced by interplanetary astronauts over a space of several years is quite another thing. I have seen suggestions involving developing an artificial Van Allen belt around the spacecraft but this isn't a developed technology yet.
It isn't an insuperable engineering problem, but it's a significant one. The best place to study this sort of thing would be a moonbase, IMHO, which I would love to see set up on the same basis that Spacelab (remember Spacelab?) was decades ago. From there we can launch 'em.
There is an article from about a month ago concerning NYT distortion of the radiation situation. Nuts and bolts. It might have been discussed on an FR thread.
Moonbase BTT. Dang it, if Martin Landau and Barbara Bain could do it in 1999, why can't we do it now?
Zubrin's piece
Plus, I'm a real big thinker, and I'm thinking about not only colonizing Mars but terraforming it as well. Now, I know that technology is still well beyond our reach, but it is very much possible. I read an absolutely fascinating article about that possibility in Life many years ago, and the concept of Martian terraforming has fascinated me ever since. I think too many people envision any and all exploration/colonization in space as a spacesuit-only affair, but if you show them the BIG picture (i.e. starting up an actual second Earth), and actually strive to meet that goal (meaning actual research put toward practical application) then maybe, just maybe, more people will jump on board.
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.