A Trip to the Moon or Mars: Necessary or Waste of Cash?

[vonGarvin]

If one was able to poll 15th Century versions of "Joe Six Pack" most would probably have had no idea what you were talking about or would cross themselves and offer prayers for the fools who would assuredly fall off the edge of the Earth.

Mild aside about the whole "flat Earth" thing.
From around 500 BC, the Greeks had not only figured the Earth was round, but they also pretty well calculated its size.  Anyway, the Dark Ages were indeed Dark, but things turned around later.  Here is a good website describing this.

This is rather relevant, as this site talks about expanding our world, as it were.  Going to the Moon would be the next logical step for a jumping-off point for further space travel.  From Earth to the ISS, thence to the Moon, and then beyond.  With each step it's less taxing to escape various gravities, etc.

 

[Harley Sailor]

This is rather relevant, as this site talks about expanding our world, as it were.  Going to the Moon would be the next logical step for a jumping-off point for further space travel.  From Earth to the ISS, thence to the Moon, and then beyond.  With each step it's less taxing to escape various gravities, etc.

The problem with using the moon as a jumping off point is that there is no fuel on the moon.  we would have to use too much fuel to get fuel to the moon.  Which would make the moon a bad location to jump off from.  Mars on the other hand looks like it may have fuel on it.

 

[vonGarvin]

The problem with using the moon as a jumping off point is that there is no fuel on the moon.  we would have to use too much fuel to get fuel to the moon.  Which would make the moon a bad location to jump off from.  Mars on the other hand looks like it may have fuel on it.

There may be fuel on the moon.  Remember their search for water?  If there is indeed water there, then we can turn that into fuel.  If not, then we could stockpile it there in a few trips, vice hauling it all up in one go.

 

[blacktriangle]

The great thing about the moon is that it is 3-4 days away vice 6 months. I think we need to gain as much experience there as possible and use it to test the technologies and crews that will one day head to Mars.

For those interested...Mars Direct was a plan put forward in the 90's to take astronauts to Mars with existing technology. Interesting reading on the logistics of it all.

http://www.nss.org/settlement/mars/zubrin-promise.html

 

[Harley Sailor]

Very good reading indead.  Time line is a bit off but still do-able.  The thing I see about Mars is that who ever gets there first will have the advantage of setting the rules.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

My google-fu is weak and beatable, but I recall at one time seeing a documentary on TV about lunar living and its feasibility.  I was of the impression that by way of using concentrated, unrestricted solar radiation one could blast the moons dust/rocks (? that part is fuzzy) and extract carbon and oxygen molecules, thus creating raw material for both water and rocket fuel?  Maybe it was all theoretical, but I was of the impression that it was something that was doable.

 

[blacktriangle]

My google-fu is weak and beatable, but I recall at one time seeing a documentary on TV about lunar living and its feasibility.  I was of the impression that by way of using concentrated, unrestricted solar radiation one could blast the moons dust/rocks (? that part is fuzzy) and extract carbon and oxygen molecules, thus creating raw material for both water and rocket fuel?  Maybe it was all theoretical, but I was of the impression that it was something that was doable.

Speaking of solar radiation...that is what I think the major issue will be. I think with our technology, the hardest part will not be getting there. Once a spacecraft leaves the protection of the Earth's magnetic field, the astronauts are exposed to all kinds of nasty radiation. For a mission that will take anywhere up to 3 years, that could become a major issue for our astronauts.

I gave up being a science geek years ago (big mistake) but I recall that astronauts in the Apollo program were not away from Earth long enough to be exposed to fatal doses of the solar radiation.

 

[a_majoor]

Reviving an old thread as this seems to be the best place for this link: the GIF's are of a new American rocket engine being test fired. This engine is in the same class as the F-1 engine used to power the SaturnV of Apollo fame, and the SLS, if ever built, will use these engines and be a Saturn V class booster.

The only other engines even close to this category are a revised version of the actual F-1 engine (using modern design and building techniques to reduce the weight), the SpaceX "Raptor" under development and the RD-170 class engines used by the Russian "Zenit" boosters.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/g2131/the-engine-that-will-take-us-to-mars-in-5-glorious-gifs/

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Nice pics.

But the RS-25 is nowhere near "Saturn V" levels.

The RS-25 are the main engines of the space shuttle. The new generation in production for the SLS are exactly the same. The launch velocity of the SLS will be achieved as a combination of those engines with a large number (likely 6) of solid fuel boosters - again of the same type that was used for the space shuttles.

Comparison with the Saturn V booster engine (the F-1):

RS-25: Thrust of 1860 kN at sea level.     

F-1: Thrust of 6670 kN at sea level (more than 3 times the thrust of a RS-25.)