What is Digg?20 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6If we go to the moon, and we set up a base there, it would be easier to get to mars. Constructing a ship off-planet is a great idea, in that it would allow the ship to be as MASSIVE as it needs to be to get to mars, and it wouldn't need to escape from Earth's gravity to do it.
- Hazardc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2i read titanium as tiberium and kinda stared blankly at the screen for about 30 seconds.
it's too early - colifis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sounds like there is a chance the Discovery might have to land in New Mexico. If memory serves, they have only used that strip one other time in the history of the shuttle program. It will take an extra month or so to get the shuttle back to Florida if the land at White Sands because they do not keep all of the support equipment there needed to load the shuttle up on the 747.
http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts116/061219fd11pre/index2.html
Best quote from STS116:
"Let's have another 'Beamer shake" - john570, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It would not be easier. It would also be far more expensive and far more difficult. Where would they get the materials? This is a common mis-perception.
- Hazardc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3safe journey home fellas
- Protean1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Some great rationales for going to the Moon first;
It's close, 2-3 day journey home in case of major base system failure, like o2/h2o/power failure
It's a great Earth observation platform
It's got lots of onsite materials for making metal, synthetic polymers, gases, fuels, etc.
It's going to be a good resource base for offworld construction. Instead of lugging girders up from Earth, smelt them on the Moon from local titanium or aluminum
Cheap vacuum allows for more exotic metal production and casting techniques (great for aerospace)
Farside makes a good location for radio astronomy.
Finally, humans have evolved, and most of our construction techniques and equipment require an up and down, with ground underneath. It's psychologically and physiologically easier on humans to inhabit a surface instead of a low-g girder & can style station. - rompom7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It took about 7 months for the rovers to land on mars. A manned mission doesn't seem worth the risk and resources, just for a bit more info on the planet.
- They launch from earth to mars, taking the shortest path possible (eg, predicting when mars' orbit will be close to earth).
- They land 7 months later. They have used 7 months of resources.
- They do whatever they do, spend a few hours exploring, taking samples, planting the flag, blabla.
- They now need enough fuel to escape the Mars atmosphere (which is very cold btw, from +1° F, (-17.2° C) to -178° F (-107° C)) and gravitational pull.
- It has been 7 months since they left, so Mars would be further away from earth. They would need to spend much longer returning to earth (more fuel and resources).
It hardly seems worth it. Sure, when the technology and resources are there.. But right now, I can't see it happening. - EricAnderton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1For all the folks who are talking about settling on the moon to bootstrap interest in space, I respectfully disagree.
Here's how to get industry interested in getting people off of this rock we call 'Earth', and away from low-earth-orbit.
1) Send probes to earth-crossing meteors of significant size.
2) Look for precious metals and minerals
3) Announce to the world: "look at all the platinum, nickel and iron up here".
4) Optional: use it in space to build other things
Platinum value per kilo (at time of this post): $18214.76 (1)
Cost of launching materials into space, via expendible vehicle, per kilo: about $12,000 (2)
Yes, this ignores a *lot* of factors. But it illustrates that mining platinum-class metals offworld is in the same economic ballpark as launching equipment into space, and favors the profit end of the equation. To recover anything of lesser value would require one to operate in orders of magnitude more volume, at a fraction of the launch cost. Competition brought from the ensuing 'platinum rush' will likely drive launch cost and equipment costs down, further favoring other forms of space travel - at worst, space travel would just become more reliable over time as the mining and recovery technology matures.
The moon and mars are fantastic, from a scientific and geologic perspective. For everything else, there needs to be an economic incentive that outweighs the (currently) insane cost of lifiting stuff out of Earth's gravity well. Offworld mining can do this.
(1: http://www.goldcalculator.com/page0040.htm)
(2: http://www.geocities.com/launchreport/blog008.html) - punkorambo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Here is an paper by the International Academy of Astronautics called "The Next Steps in Exploring Deep Space." It explains why going to the Moon again before Mars is a big waste of time and money. It shows how the US can take incremental steps to get to Mars over 20 years while not having to use a huge chunk of money at any one time and while helping to keep our explorers safe. Step one is going to SEL2 (Sun-Earth Lagrange-2), then to a NEO (Near Earth Object or Asteroid), then to a moon of Mars (Phobos and/or Deimos) and then to Mars itself. It's very interesting.
http://iaaweb.org/iaa/Scientific%20Activity/Study%20Groups/SG%20Commission%201/exploringspace.pdf - adame, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It sounds cooler. And it would make a better movie.
- Protean1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1We've got to lay the space industry groundwork now, for it to happen someday. Do some experiments with a solar furnace and some dust, for example...start figuring out HOW to do it, how to protect equipment against dust breakdown closer to spare parts, etc...
Anyway, this whole arguement of Moon OR Mars seems moot to me.
Why not go to the Moon, AND go to Mars, and L2/L5, and so on.
Seems to me, they've got a 'faaiirly' workable plan worked up at NASA for getting the cake and icing too.
Sure, it could be lots better, they could go with a Jupiter-class rocket instead of the Ares, but hey...at least it's in the works. And the other 30% of this equation is SpaceX & Bigelow. If Elon can get his tubes off the ground reliably, we stand a good chance of getting out there permanently this time. - john570, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1You want us to make metal on the moon. Maybe someday but not now. Can someone help me out here? The ignorance displayed in the comments here is astounding. I heard an expert the other day on NPR state exactly what I did earlier. There is no good reason to go to the moon to get to mars. It will be easier and cheaper to do it from the earth.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1You can store more of the raw building materials if the thing isn't assembled, and you can make it 10x as big as you could if you built it on Earth. A mission to mars isn't going to have a shoestring budget, and one of the hurdles to overcome is the length of the trip. A big ship would allow more room for gardens, recreation areas, and room to bring back LOTS of samples.
Plus, there's the He3 on the moon, which would be a VERY nice resource to have access to. - thefaithful, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0We need a moonbase to warn us of Unicron.
- chedabob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"have rewired the space station, managed three spacewalks, and now completed the most difficult task"
Missed out "Let an expensive camera float off into space" - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1But that ignores the point that in addition to going to Mars, we should be trying to build a base on the Moon anyway!
It's a matter of killing two birds with one stone. Go up, build a base on the moon. People who built that base will have low-g building experience. - geekchic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"and now completed the most difficult task of their mission: getting a stubborn, solar array folded up during an impromptu fourth spacewalk."
I thought "landing intact" was the most difficult part. - Meehowski, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Godspeed!!
Mike - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Constructing a ship off-planet is a great idea, in that it would allow the ship to be as MASSIVE as it needs to be to get to mars, and it wouldn't need to escape from Earth's gravity to do it.
http://www.silveradoboysranch.com/ - john570, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2Cool. Now if they would just focus on a mission to mars and forget the (It was done by your grandfathers already) mission to the moon.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is