Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 03/29/2013 11:01 amQuote from: HappyMartian on 03/29/2013 10:03 amYou can have a costly and unneeded high maintenance white elephant L2 space station and lots of asteroid and Mars fantasies that are loudly supported by NASA's current leadership, or you can have regular, efficient, international, affordable, and direct missions to the Lunar polar surface to do ISRU. Pick one. If you think there are more choices, show us where the money will come from. Ironically, you are missing that the latter of your two 'choices' is not funded either. Show us where the money is coming from for international ISRU-based lunar landing? Here's a clue - it isn't. It's your personal fantasy.Nope. The Europeans aren't building a Service Module for a Lunar mission Orion simply to barter for some ISS benefits. They want to be in on the next big space exploration project.blah, blah, blah.
Quote from: HappyMartian on 03/29/2013 10:03 amYou can have a costly and unneeded high maintenance white elephant L2 space station and lots of asteroid and Mars fantasies that are loudly supported by NASA's current leadership, or you can have regular, efficient, international, affordable, and direct missions to the Lunar polar surface to do ISRU. Pick one. If you think there are more choices, show us where the money will come from. Ironically, you are missing that the latter of your two 'choices' is not funded either. Show us where the money is coming from for international ISRU-based lunar landing? Here's a clue - it isn't. It's your personal fantasy.
You can have a costly and unneeded high maintenance white elephant L2 space station and lots of asteroid and Mars fantasies that are loudly supported by NASA's current leadership, or you can have regular, efficient, international, affordable, and direct missions to the Lunar polar surface to do ISRU. Pick one. If you think there are more choices, show us where the money will come from.
HM: You're absolutely correct that an international ISRU based lunar landing is not solely your personal fantasy.Interestingly, ironically, or else simply ignoring the truth of the matter, you didn't respond to Ben's salient point above:I added the bold.
Sorry, but a L2 station or ISRU landers aren't going to happen anytime soon. Neither will a lunar colony. For the foreseeable future any missions to the moon will be conventional Apollo style landings and maybe an advanced lander that could stay on the surface for a little while longer, anything else is an unfunded dream. We might have a colony on the moon one day, but that will be well into the future. Right now if NASA's exploration program wants to survive it WILL have to be conventional + DSH until at least after humans land on Mars, anything else will just sidetrack that goal.
Quote from: davey142 on 03/29/2013 07:56 pmSorry, but a L2 station or ISRU landers aren't going to happen anytime soon. Neither will a lunar colony. For the foreseeable future any missions to the moon will be conventional Apollo style landings and maybe an advanced lander that could stay on the surface for a little while longer, anything else is an unfunded dream. We might have a colony on the moon one day, but that will be well into the future. Right now if NASA's exploration program wants to survive it WILL have to be conventional + DSH until at least after humans land on Mars, anything else will just sidetrack that goal."Returning to the moon is an important step for our space program. Establishing an extended human presence on the moon could vastly reduce the costs of further space exploration, making possible ever more ambitious missions."From: President Bush Announces New Vision for Space Exploration Program Remarks by the President on U.S. Space Policy January 14, 2004At: http://history.nasa.gov/Bush%20SEP.htm"Although of fairly ordinary composition, the moon contains the resources of material and energy that we need to survive and operate in space. With its resources and proximity to Earth, the moon is a natural logistics and supply base, an offshore island of useful commodities for use there, in space and ultimately back on Earth."And, "Living on the moon will expand the sphere of human and robotic activity in space beyond low-Earth orbit. To become a multiplanet species, we must master the skills of extracting local resources, build our capability to journey and explore in hostile regions, and create new reservoirs of human culture and experience. That long journey begins on the moon -- the staging ground, supply station and classroom for our voyage into the universe."From: Why We're Going Back to the Moon By Paul D. Spudis December 27, 2005At: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/26/AR2005122600648.htmlIf minimizing human BLEO space exploration costs is really an issue, and it is, then human and robotic polar Lunar surface missions to do propellant ISRU make a lot more sense than one, or a few, costly and very high risk "flags and footprints' missions to Mars or Phobos, and then a 'no humans to Mars gap' for five or six decades. And GCRs remain an unresolved issue for the Deep Space Habitat, or DSH, long space missions. GCRs may be addressed with 2 meters of water shielding. If a DSH needs that much water for shielding, the logical place to get it is at the Lunar polar regions. Building a Lunar ISRU base prior to going anywhere with a DSH may be the logical sequence of events. "If this is the case, then a possible solution is to place an ISS US Lab size module within the Skylab II leaving approximately 2 meters between shells (Figure 6). If the void were filled with water the mass of water alone would be 389 mt. For water mass only, this would take 4-5 launches using the 95 mt SLS."From : Skylab II Making a Deep Space Habitat from a Space Launch System Propellant Tank 2012 By Brand N. Griffin, David Smitherman, Kriss J. Kennedy, Larry Toups, Tracy Gill, and A. Scott HoweAt: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120016760_2012017550.pdfEdited.
Hap, seriously, with that number of repetitions of 'may' in any build list you're reaching.And EADS Astrum are building precisely one service module, for EM-1. The spare bits left over are going to be used on EM-2 (and I still haven't figured out how that's supposed to work). Looking at how fast EADS worked on ATV, I really doubt that they could support a flight rate faster than .75/year without a funding boost that simply isn't going to happen, even if they did get an extended contract. The moral? Don't read too much into the Orion SM deal; it isn't a step forward at all, if anything it's a step backwards.
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 03/29/2013 09:09 pmHap, seriously, with that number of repetitions of 'may' in any build list you're reaching.And EADS Astrum are building precisely one service module, for EM-1. The spare bits left over are going to be used on EM-2 (and I still haven't figured out how that's supposed to work). Looking at how fast EADS worked on ATV, I really doubt that they could support a flight rate faster than .75/year without a funding boost that simply isn't going to happen, even if they did get an extended contract. The moral? Don't read too much into the Orion SM deal; it isn't a step forward at all, if anything it's a step backwards.One step forward at a time. Do you have a more useful and logical destination in mind?Why is your destination more useful and logical than the polar regions of the Moon?What is Europe willing to contribute to missions to your more useful and logical destination?The world today is far richer than America was in 1969. At that time, Americans faced many serious issues while we also began to send humans to the Moon. Maybe I just lack the 'befuddled sky is falling vision' that some folks seem to prefer. There are too many complaints and excuses, and unfortunately, not enough focus on what is doable, affordable, and useful.The modern world will support and finance polar Lunar propellant ISRU missions.
Quote from: HappyMartian on 03/29/2013 09:38 pmQuote from: Ben the Space Brit on 03/29/2013 09:09 pmHap, seriously, with that number of repetitions of 'may' in any build list you're reaching.And EADS Astrum are building precisely one service module, for EM-1. The spare bits left over are going to be used on EM-2 (and I still haven't figured out how that's supposed to work). Looking at how fast EADS worked on ATV, I really doubt that they could support a flight rate faster than .75/year without a funding boost that simply isn't going to happen, even if they did get an extended contract. The moral? Don't read too much into the Orion SM deal; it isn't a step forward at all, if anything it's a step backwards.One step forward at a time. Do you have a more useful and logical destination in mind?Why is your destination more useful and logical than the polar regions of the Moon?What is Europe willing to contribute to missions to your more useful and logical destination?The world today is far richer than America was in 1969. At that time, Americans faced many serious issues while we also began to send humans to the Moon. Maybe I just lack the 'befuddled sky is falling vision' that some folks seem to prefer. There are too many complaints and excuses, and unfortunately, not enough focus on what is doable, affordable, and useful.The modern world will support and finance polar Lunar propellant ISRU missions. How many countries have expressed interest in ISRU missions? Is it enough to support an International campaign? Private companies need to do this, not national governments.
Quote from: Warren Platts on 03/28/2013 07:45 amUnfortunately, actually going to the Moon is unfunded blather and will remain so for the foreseeable future, at least as far as the USA is concerned. You'd probably be better off channeling your energies trying to convince the Chinese of the wisdom of Lunar ISRU.You'll have to excuse Hap, Warren. He thinks that, because the pro-SLS faction have inserted pro-Lunar language into at least one bill, that means anyone in a position of authority ought to care about returning to the moon or feel bound to act as if Lunar surface has a mandate for action.FWIW, at the moment, everything beyond EM-2 (HLO orbiter) is unfunded blather at the moment. I have little confidence that this will change during the current presidential cycle.
Unfortunately, actually going to the Moon is unfunded blather and will remain so for the foreseeable future, at least as far as the USA is concerned. You'd probably be better off channeling your energies trying to convince the Chinese of the wisdom of Lunar ISRU.
My understanding from the articles on this site is that the L2 station has quite a lot of support and is likely to be on our roadmap to mars. I haven't seen a glimmer of support for anything like an apollo lander, which would be far more expensive.
Quote from: davey142 on 03/29/2013 07:56 pmSorry, but a L2 station or ISRU landers aren't going to happen anytime soon. Neither will a lunar colony. For the foreseeable future any missions to the moon will be conventional Apollo style landings and maybe an advanced lander that could stay on the surface for a little while longer, anything else is an unfunded dream. We might have a colony on the moon one day, but that will be well into the future. Right now if NASA's exploration program wants to survive it WILL have to be conventional + DSH until at least after humans land on Mars, anything else will just sidetrack that goal.Im not really sure where you are coming from. I might be reading you out of context. My understanding from the articles on this site is that the L2 station has quite a lot of support and is likely to be on our roadmap to mars. I haven't seen a glimmer of support for anything like an apollo lander, which would be far more expensive.When I say "quite a lot of support", I dont mean any particular funding or deadline actually exists, I just mean everything else is even further away and generally now includes a mention of an L2 base as an intermediate step. Currently all that is funded is SLS and Orion. What can you do with that? not much, except visit L2. Anything we put there, another Orion, a bigelo module, whatever, could be defined as our station. I have also heard rumours that the "visit to an asteroid" may become a visit to L2 where we have captured some tiny one meter asteroid using purely robotic means.L2 is the El cheapo option if we dont have anything else.
As for bringing asteroids to L2, that might actually be a smart idea. The key is to bring asteroids that are large enough and interesting enough to demand an SLS launch and several crew members to be put in harms way.
What am I missing concerning the apparent excitement of going to a Near Earth Asteroid?
2) What am I missing concerning the apparent excitement of going to a Near Earth Asteroid? Is it that it does not require a lander? We have little we can do at and with an asteroid with which we could not do much more on the Moon. It seems an overly long and risky mission with minimal returns in comparison to a permanent base on Lunar or Martian surface.
{snip}2) What am I missing concerning the apparent excitement of going to a Near Earth Asteroid? Is it that it does not require a lander? We have little we can do at and with an asteroid with which we could not do much more on the Moon. It seems an overly long and risky mission with minimal returns in comparison to a permanent base on Lunar or Martian surface.