Total Members Voted: 102
Voting closed: 02/12/2016 08:01 pm
Refits of in-space vessels should be done at EML-1 (or maybe EML-2). Easily accessed from Earth, Moon, interplanetary, minimal energy to maintain position, top of gravity well for departure (w/ Oberth burn advantages). In-spac ship assembly could also be done here -- avoids ships having to be structurally strong enough (and small enough) to depart Lunar surface as well as eliminating the delta-v penalty discussed above.
Quote from: AncientU on 03/12/2017 12:02 amRefits of in-space vessels should be done at EML-1 (or maybe EML-2). Easily accessed from Earth, Moon, interplanetary, minimal energy to maintain position, top of gravity well for departure (w/ Oberth burn advantages). In-spac ship assembly could also be done here -- avoids ships having to be structurally strong enough (and small enough) to depart Lunar surface as well as eliminating the delta-v penalty discussed above.Yes, minor refits and normal maintenance could be done at EML-1/2 but mind you that would require a large facility orbiting the Lagrange point. That's a big deal. Why have a surface base and a big orbiting shipyard? Being structurally strong enough to to depart the lunar surface is a good thing. Even the Apollo LM's did that so that's not a big deal. The only reason we do on-orbit assembly is because we can't lift enough mass in a single lift to build it on the ground. That would not be the case in lunar gravity. What could we put in LEO if our engines were 6 times as powerful as they are now and only had to go 43% the altitude (98 km vs 250 km) and only 22% the velocity (5,800 k/h vs 27,360 k/h) to orbit? That's the lift advantage the lunar surface offers. Think big AncientU, think big.
What would we do on the moon? Think L-O-N-G T-E-R-M. I would suggest that the eventual goal would be a functioning interplanetary exploration center and shipyard, where interplanetary spacecraft are built, launched, recovered, refurbished, restocked, re-crewed and launched again. Absence of the deep earth gravity well will eventually enable far more efficient spacecraft designs that what we can build on earth, work real hard to put tiny pieces of it into LEO and then assemble in zero-g. Fighting only only 1/6 g it shouldn't be much problem to outfit engines strong enough to lift the vehicles into LLO before mission departure.This is, of course, a long term vision, but one that I believe, if you think long term, is practical.
COLORADO SPRINGS — With NASA’s long-term strategy for human missions to Mars in flux, heads of several space agencies said they supported initial missions to the moon as a key step before going to Mars.During an April 4 panel session during the 33rd Space Symposium that featured representatives from 15 agencies, many expressed support for going to Mars only after building up experience at the moon first.“We think that the moon is also a very important step. Mars is not the ultimate goal,” said Jan Woerner, director general of the European Space Agency. “The moon is an intermediate step to go to Mars, but the moon can also offer some special opportunities.”Woerner, as he has done in recent years, promoted his vision for a “Moon Village,” a lunar facility that would include contributions from various countries and companies. “Moon Village is part of our overall strategy,” he said.
Moon first is consensus of space agency leads:QuoteCOLORADO SPRINGS — With NASA’s long-term strategy for human missions to Mars in flux, heads of several space agencies said they supported initial missions to the moon as a key step before going to Mars.During an April 4 panel session during the 33rd Space Symposium that featured representatives from 15 agencies, many expressed support for going to Mars only after building up experience at the moon first.“We think that the moon is also a very important step. Mars is not the ultimate goal,” said Jan Woerner, director general of the European Space Agency. “The moon is an intermediate step to go to Mars, but the moon can also offer some special opportunities.”Woerner, as he has done in recent years, promoted his vision for a “Moon Village,” a lunar facility that would include contributions from various countries and companies. “Moon Village is part of our overall strategy,” he said.http://spacenews.com/space-agency-heads-see-the-moon-on-the-path-to-mars/
Quote from: AncientU on 04/05/2017 03:19 pmMoon first is consensus of space agency leads:QuoteCOLORADO SPRINGS — With NASA’s long-term strategy for human missions to Mars in flux, heads of several space agencies said they supported initial missions to the moon as a key step before going to Mars.During an April 4 panel session during the 33rd Space Symposium that featured representatives from 15 agencies, many expressed support for going to Mars only after building up experience at the moon first.“We think that the moon is also a very important step. Mars is not the ultimate goal,” said Jan Woerner, director general of the European Space Agency. “The moon is an intermediate step to go to Mars, but the moon can also offer some special opportunities.”Woerner, as he has done in recent years, promoted his vision for a “Moon Village,” a lunar facility that would include contributions from various countries and companies. “Moon Village is part of our overall strategy,” he said.http://spacenews.com/space-agency-heads-see-the-moon-on-the-path-to-mars/Surprisingly the head of the Italian space agency disagreed and suggested going straight for Mars. Zubrin would be proud.
Answer to the original question...The US should adopt a policy of "Lunar COTS" at 7% of NASA's budget for a lunar program involving full-sized landers (e.g. Masten Xeus & ULA ACES-DTAL).
I think yes, it should. There are many reason, but an important one is that, while there's no solid business case for Mars at this moment, there are solid business cases for returning to and start exploiting the Moon with reasonable funding and reasonable expectations of return. NASA (and other public space agencies) can't do everything but should encourage private industry to step in.
It’s official: Trump administration turns NASA back toward the Moon Mike Pence: America Will Return to the Moon—and Go Beyond
Quote from: jpo234 on 10/05/2017 01:29 pm It’s official: Trump administration turns NASA back toward the Moon Mike Pence: America Will Return to the Moon—and Go BeyondIf BFR is ready by 2022 then NASA should send cargo by commercial , crew one or two years later. Then cargo to Mars by 2024 and crew by 2030.A little late for CxP timing for Lunar but could be back on track for crew for Mars.If NASA pays SX for BFS landing on Lunar then SX could possible then afford to send BFS to Mars. It is a matter of how much NASA would pay. Even if NASA payed $500M for each landing that would be cheaper than SLS with NASA Lunar lander. A bargain for NASA and good enough that that would pay for the BFS and the sortie to Lunar and a trip to Mars.
Quote from: RocketmanUS on 10/05/2017 07:50 pmQuote from: jpo234 on 10/05/2017 01:29 pm It’s official: Trump administration turns NASA back toward the Moon Mike Pence: America Will Return to the Moon—and Go BeyondIf BFR is ready by 2022 then NASA should send cargo by commercial , crew one or two years later. Then cargo to Mars by 2024 and crew by 2030.A little late for CxP timing for Lunar but could be back on track for crew for Mars.If NASA pays SX for BFS landing on Lunar then SX could possible then afford to send BFS to Mars. It is a matter of how much NASA would pay. Even if NASA payed $500M for each landing that would be cheaper than SLS with NASA Lunar lander. A bargain for NASA and good enough that that would pay for the BFS and the sortie to Lunar and a trip to Mars.Are you implying NASA will develop a way to land crew on the Moon by 2023-2024, since this is the earliest SLS/Orion could carry crew on EM-2? Same question about Mars 6 years later? IMO, if/when BFS lands cargo on the Moon, the crewed flights on BFS will only be 6-12 months behind.