Quote from: wannamoonbase on 06/08/2016 03:24 pmQuote from: ThereIWas3 on 06/07/2016 09:38 pmIn 8 years Elon time, humans will be landing on Mars. I think SpaceX would view any such lunar efforts as a distraction.1) Who cares what SpaceX thinks, if there are contracts for launches and cargo delivery SpaceX would be all over it like a cheap suit.2) You hit the nail on the head with 'Elon time'. I'd comfortably bet everything I own now or in the future that humans to Mars in 2024 has a 0.000000% likelihood of happening.That's a lot of decimal points, what odds are you offering? (I have been known to take the short end of really long odds bets, and I actually hit one once at 100:1)
Quote from: ThereIWas3 on 06/07/2016 09:38 pmIn 8 years Elon time, humans will be landing on Mars. I think SpaceX would view any such lunar efforts as a distraction.1) Who cares what SpaceX thinks, if there are contracts for launches and cargo delivery SpaceX would be all over it like a cheap suit.2) You hit the nail on the head with 'Elon time'. I'd comfortably bet everything I own now or in the future that humans to Mars in 2024 has a 0.000000% likelihood of happening.
In 8 years Elon time, humans will be landing on Mars. I think SpaceX would view any such lunar efforts as a distraction.
{snip}The cabin should be large enough to transport seven (7) crew as this seems to be the design capacity of all the underway crew vehicles. This would allow 7 crew to be transported to or from the surface or any combination of crew and pressurized cargo. This cabin would have a twin, based on the exact same core design, and would serve as a cargo-only vehicle for pressurized cargo. An additional cabin could be mounted in place of the crew/cargo cabin, of similar design, but more of a constraint cage for large unpressurized cargo. For this version I see the cargo cage being offloaded and positioned on the surface and the powered stage returned to lunar orbit/EML-2 to wait where it could be outfitted with additional cargo cages transported from earth by other means. This would allow the SLS, FH or Vulcan, or any other nation's capable launch vehicle to send just the cargo thru TLI because the descent stage would be waiting for them at the cis-lunar destination.All variations of this lander should have provision for refueling either on the lunar surface or in either earth or lunar orbit and for its initial trip to cis-lunar space would make the trip autonomously. Any crew that would be making a surface landing would be transported to cis-lunar space in their respective space-only spacecraft, transfer to the waiting lander and descend. The trip home would be the reverse. No crew should be bringing their lander with them. That creates unnecessarily huge limits on the available earth launch vehicles that could participate.{snip}
The end goal, or overall purpose of going to the Moon matters tremendously, as this alters dramatically what you need to develop to accomplish that end goal. Is it: Further exploration? Colonization? Exploitation of resources? Given a timeline of only 8 years, the most reasonable purpose of going to the Moon is further exploration. (snip)
Quote from: whitelancer64 on 06/08/2016 05:13 pmThe end goal, or overall purpose of going to the Moon matters tremendously, as this alters dramatically what you need to develop to accomplish that end goal. Is it: Further exploration? Colonization? Exploitation of resources? Given a timeline of only 8 years, the most reasonable purpose of going to the Moon is further exploration. (snip)I respectfully disagree. I think exploration of resources is the correct path for a few reasons.1) I think it's important to build up capability in 1 location. Not scatter your equipment out.2) The moon is a big rock, everywhere you go, it's a big rock. I know there is more to it than that and there is valuable science. But, like in Apollo, it's hard to maintain interest in an endless horizon of monotone rock.3) Exploiting resources will allow a bases capacity to grow and support more science over time. [emphasis mine]4) Reduces the cost of missions if ISRU can produce fuels and consumables for crew.
Quote from: Lar on 06/08/2016 03:30 pmQuote from: wannamoonbase on 06/08/2016 03:24 pmQuote from: ThereIWas3 on 06/07/2016 09:38 pmIn 8 years Elon time, humans will be landing on Mars. I think SpaceX would view any such lunar efforts as a distraction.1) Who cares what SpaceX thinks, if there are contracts for launches and cargo delivery SpaceX would be all over it like a cheap suit.2) You hit the nail on the head with 'Elon time'. I'd comfortably bet everything I own now or in the future that humans to Mars in 2024 has a 0.000000% likelihood of happening.That's a lot of decimal points, what odds are you offering? (I have been known to take the short end of really long odds bets, and I actually hit one once at 100:1)Whatever odds you want. I'm comfortable adding a few hundred more zero's to that percentage. Although to clarify I meant on the surface of Mars. There's maybe a 0.1% chance they do a free return style trip Mars by 2024.
Quote from: wannamoonbase on 06/08/2016 07:41 pmQuote from: whitelancer64 on 06/08/2016 05:13 pmThe end goal, or overall purpose of going to the Moon matters tremendously, as this alters dramatically what you need to develop to accomplish that end goal. Is it: Further exploration? Colonization? Exploitation of resources? Given a timeline of only 8 years, the most reasonable purpose of going to the Moon is further exploration. (snip)I respectfully disagree. I think exploration of resources is the correct path for a few reasons.1) I think it's important to build up capability in 1 location. Not scatter your equipment out.2) The moon is a big rock, everywhere you go, it's a big rock. I know there is more to it than that and there is valuable science. But, like in Apollo, it's hard to maintain interest in an endless horizon of monotone rock.3) Exploiting resources will allow a bases capacity to grow and support more science over time. [emphasis mine]4) Reduces the cost of missions if ISRU can produce fuels and consumables for crew.It is an admirable goal, but it's not achievable in 8 years.
{snip}Edit: Rover endurance and ruggedness over sexiness and complexity. something that can survives years of lunar day/night cycles.
Quote from: whitelancer64 on 06/08/2016 09:06 pmIt is an admirable goal, but it's not achievable in 8 years. All of the dream: No.Some of the dream in 8 years: Yes.We should be able to land small robotic rovers within 8 years.A communications and power hub for the robots is possible.Sophisticated robotic rovers - depends on their current state.Medium cargo lander able to land many tons - I suspect that sufficient preliminary work has been done to make this possible, other people do not.A single habitat - may be possible if something very similar is already in orbit and the medium cargo lander works.Manned rover - possible but would need funding.People - likely to take longer. Need reusable lander with cabin. Spacestations and propellant depots in lunar orbit and LEO probably needed.Small scale ISRU may be possible in 8 years using robotic systems. Large scale will have to wait for a bigger lunar base.
It is an admirable goal, but it's not achievable in 8 years.
Isn't the entire point of your OP "what can be done in 8 years"?Accomplishing the staging of resources which the next administration may decide to abandon isn't really what you'd like to see, is it?
No, but to live is to risk.One of the reasons for pushing prospecting rovers and ISRU equipment is to get away from the high risk situation of having a monopoly suppler of money.The next president can be offered the opportunity of going down in history as the founder of a robotic Moon base.NASA offers the president after that a manned Moon base as his legacy.Simply because presidents tend to plan 8 years ahead does not prevent rocket men from planning 16 years ahead. Just ensure that there is something to impress the voters ever 3-4 years.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 06/09/2016 10:26 pmNo, but to live is to risk.One of the reasons for pushing prospecting rovers and ISRU equipment is to get away from the high risk situation of having a monopoly suppler of money.The next president can be offered the opportunity of going down in history as the founder of a robotic Moon base.NASA offers the president after that a manned Moon base as his legacy.Simply because presidents tend to plan 8 years ahead does not prevent rocket men from planning 16 years ahead. Just ensure that there is something to impress the voters ever 3-4 years.NASA makes recommendations to the President, the President makes recommendations to Congress, and Congress is the one who decides what NASA is going to do. If half of Congress doesn't like the president (as seems will be the case at least for the next president), they really don't have any motivation to make him / her look good to the voters.
One of the main skills of US presidents is building support for his / her policies in Congress. So that is normal politics.If each rover gets built in a different state a good negotiator may be able to gain a few friends in the Senate.ItemStatesRovers: 4 sizes, 2 per size8Solar array hub1Communications hub1Types of lander3Types of launch vehicles2Launch sites3Total18
<snip> deep space radar looking for rogue asteroids.