NASA Vision of Space Exploration

You're totally discounting long-term effects of things like cosmic radiation

Did you think the idea is to throw a simple glass dome over a crater and walk around in the sunlight? Why would you think I'd discount any radiation hazard since that is paramount importance to all forms of space travel? Radiation is a problem, but that can be overcome.

the psychological effects of isolation

If you can't get to a small base and back easily then perhaps that becomes a concern. But building such a thing will require regular transit back an forth meaning if one gets island fever they can just go back to Earth. We are also talking long term with large open spaces.

degenerative bone loss, etc

I have not seen a single study that says one sixth gravity will have any harmful effect on the human body.

We're talking thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people.

That's correct.

How expensive would that be

Expensive right now, but it can still be done right now if the money were there. Long term, it will be far cheaper than it is now, especially when using materials already there in abundance.

and how unlikely would it be that we'd get qualified, psychologically well-balanced people in sufficient numbers?

Those who want to go certainly can, but no one is forcing anyone, and no one is going to force anyone to stay.

there's going to be at least one catastrophic event. A critical systems failure, mass psychosis, etc. There are too many variables, and too many stresses, for it not to happen. Once something goes wrong (and it will)

There is no certainty that there will be a horrid event unless one is writing a scifi novel and assuming the people who would make such a colony would create anything other than a robust system.

You don't see people rushing to colonize the Gobi Desert, or Antarctica, and either of those places is many levels of magnitude more hospitable than the Moon or Mars.

That's not really true. The Moon has no air and anything settling there needs radiation protection, the same basically goes for Mars, but there are far more recources on those two worlds than there is in the Antarctic which is nothing more than alot of ice deeply covering land, and the desert is just that, a desert. But there are quite a few people living in the desert, and there are alot of people who venture to the Antarctic and do just fine.

Building a permanent colony is a great deal more complicated than the basic life support technology. You have to take into account huge logistics issues, long-term environmental exposure issues, and (crucially) psychological and social issues which we are nowhere near tackling.

Which I did take into account, and so will anyone who goes to build such a thing.

Humans are simply not built to survive off-planet, and they will need to become something else to realistically do so in the long term.

There is no reason to become anything else to survive and then thrive off world.

 

Here is a wonderful article discussing non-terrestrial exploitation and endorsing non-planeary living.

A Space Roadmap: Mine the Sky,
Defend the Earth, Settle the Universe

Something important to note; Mars is described as a monument of power and prestige target. This is not only true for the article itself but I think it explains the whole CEV program, also called the Bush Space Plan. Way back in the days of Bush Sr. he called for a bold new space plan to get to Mars. A study was drawn up now notoriously called "The 90 Day Report". A $450 billion dollar price tag killed it. Then we got the ISS. And what did we get with the current President? Another bold plan to get to Mars. Right now it is nothing more than a publicity stunt for Presidents. Mars can wait.

 

A great article. Must bookmark that site. I think I've heard you citing it a few times now.

I'll post my thoughts later, but I thought Venus was our sister planet, not Mars?

 

I've heard Venus called our sister planet as well, but since it would be far harder to explore let alone colonize and terraform some folks would rather call Mars our sister planet.

Hobbyspace.com is my first space news stop, not to mention it has a huge database of links. Space.com, spacetoday.net, and sometimes Universetoday and the Badastronomer message boards that are now located at Universetoday are my other choices.

 

First an opinion on the new 'shuttle derived' system:

Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining

And a link in the article to a group inside NASA wanting somethign better:

Direct Launcher

Basically it uses the external tank, the SRB's, and ditches the shuttle orbiter and replaces it with a large capsule system on top of the external tank. The cost of development appears cheaper since anything new is minimal, and the launch budget drops by one third. I assume it's not too late to change to this but I imagine it will not come to pass.

I have to disagree with the blogger above though. Even if NASA does not get back to the Moon as it's current timeline says, with Lockheed joining up with Bigelow, Musk and his Falcon X, and Rutan with Virgin Galactic, we will probably see a human back on the Moon well before 2020.

Make sure to check out the image gallery at Directlauncher.

 

It's slick, I'll give it that. The SRB's would have to be reconfigured; they don't have any directional control now, the SSME's provide that in the shuttle (I believe). It's doable in my estimation, and off the shelf is always good.

That said, I have a lot of confidence in Griffin. He knows what he's doing; he's an expert in the field, and he's not just a budget man. I don't think Orion would go forward unless Griffin supported it.

 

I agree wholeheartedly that a single launch system just makes more sense. I agree with Neo-Paladin that it needs some sort of directional control...which leads me to ask how the Apollo missions controlled their vectors. Wouldn't a similar method work, given that it's the same basic principle in this case?

 

The Saturn V's engines were gimbaled (they could move the nozzles to direct thrust). On the Space Shuttle the SSME's are gimbaled, but the SRB's are fixed.

Upon further review, on the Direct Launcher pictures there were some rocket engines directly below the tank, but they looked to be a pretty small package, I'd be curious to know how much thrust they expect to get out of engines that small.

 

The engines on the bottom of the tank are the RS-68 which are very powerful rocket engines. Intead of the fuel from the tank going through an orbiter they go through the RS-68's. The capsule, at an easy guess, is quite a bit lighter than a shuttle orbiter, so you have the thrust of the SRB's and the thrust from the ET and 68's getting the whole thing to the Moon.

Look at the proposal page and you get a better idea.

The RS-68 can be gimballed and has 80% less parts than the SSME. K.I.S.S.

The whole thing is still a big rocket that will need a pretty good sized support crew. But I'll take $400 million a launch over $600 a launch any day.

EDIT:

HUBBLE SAVED!!

 

Awesome! Long live Hubble.

 

Lifted from Hobbyspace.com

The primary news from the NASA press conference today is that NASA will focus its Moon program on developinig "a solar-powered lunar base and to locate it near one of the poles of the moon" : NASA Unveils Global Exploration Strategy and Lunar Architecture - NASA. This differs from an excursion approach as in the Apollo program where each mission went to a different location.
With such an outpost, NASA can learn to use the moon's natural resources to live off the land, make preparations for a journey to Mars, conduct a wide range of scientific investigations and encourage international participation.
The goal is gradually to lengthen stays until the base becomes permanently occupied.

They have not yet decided where to put the base but the rim of the Shackleton Crater at the southern pole looks promising in studies so far. The poles offer the advantages of long periods of sunlight (perhaps permanent in some high spots) and the strong possibility of water ice. (See recent Space Review article by Paul Spudis on lunar water.) This area is also little explored so is of considerable interest scientifically.

My own perspective on this is that there can be alot learned just from a base set up, but beyond that it must become a manufacturing center. If the polar area holds alot of water then that right there is good rocket fuel. If not, then the Moon does have alot of aluminum which can be used for solid rockets. Either way, the Moon must become a jumping off point for Near Earth Asteroid exploitation, and then trips to Mars can be considered that will be safer and much more than flags and footprints.

 

I don't have the article off hand, but a recent study of the moon showed that there were no traces of ice water in polar craters, thus ruling out one potential resource. I've got other things to be doing so I can't find the article right now, but I think that article was liked to in the Bad Astronomy Blog not too long ago.

 

That's why I made sure to include the Space Review link since it points out that the existence of lunar polar ice in inconclusive. There is still alot of water on the Moon, but if it is not there in large quantities at the poles it will just be harder to get, but it is there.

 

I hasen to point out that, via regolith mineing much of these required materials can be obtained. Not only H, H2O, O, CO, and N; but also materials of some value on Earth, such as He3 and Xe. Both China and India have stated in their respective space agency's goals that retrevial of lunar He3 is a program mission.

Of course if we could just dig up some ice, obtaining water would be less energy intensive, but if we're not making the trip because it's easy...

 

NASA Stresses Global Participation in New Lunar Plan

Nations coming together sounds so good. As I mentioned earlier an imminent threat could really bring everyone together. But in this case it sounds a bit too much like the talk that was occuring when the ISS was getting started up. One hundred billion dollars later it still is not finished and the U.S. has picked up the tab where other countries fell short.

 

Don't forget that the US is pulling out of the ISS once we retire the shuttle. Also, Russia has been paying for a good deal of the tab, and Canada has made some smaller contributions.

 

The United States will celebrate a half century of progress in space exploration since the first moon landing by...landing on the moon.

2061, the century mark of man in space is almost certainly going to hit without a Mars landing.

 

I would say by 2061 humanity will have been going to Mars for at least a couple of decades, if not through NASA then through the ever growing private space sector. And my bet is on the latter.

 

I think the private sector is great, but they are very overrated when it comes to space. They can barely make it 65 miles off the ground, much less to space-shuttle distances.

 

And they have done so only twice with just a pilt and no passengers, and one put up a test module for his space station and is putting up another early in the new year.

Bigelow will have Lockheed to get his station up, any passengers who will pay the initially high prices, and so on. He may get Musk with pasenger service as well. Rutan and gang have already said they can make an orbital craft but first they must make profit with suborbital shots then they will go ahead with orbital service. There are already plans surfacing to use Bigelow modules for Moon shots and for setting up landing sights for permanence. Bigelow has even stepped up his schedule due to the success of his test module launch. By the time Bigelow's stattion is getting set up NASA will just be retiring the shuttles but will not yet have a Moon shot vehicle ready. It will not take much more for Bigelow, or anyone else, to buy a module in orbit and ride it to the Moon from there. Through some combination of Bigelow/Rutan/Lockheed/Musk someone will beat NASA to the Moon or have a sort of joint venture with NASA. All of this before 2020. Will a decent hold on orbit, near Earth, and the Moon it will not be much of a jump to Mars other than time to get there. I say it will happen before 2030.

The private groups already have the tech and know-how. All they have to do is develope and launch which is exactly what they are doing.

 

I'm as happy as the next sci fi nut about all the unmanned exploration of Mars that's been going on since the 1970s. It's wonderful from the pure perspective of expanding human knowledge.

One interpretation of three decades of unmanned exploration of Mars is that it's paving the way for manned exploration of Mars.

The other is that it's an expression of the the nearly insurmountable difficulties of a manned Mars shot.

I believe we could achieve a brute force assault on Mars tomorrow if we threw enough money at the problem. However, no one has the political will or influence to accomplish it, unless it's the Chinese. It would almost certainly bankrupt anyone who tried it.

So what has happened is that we have sat around waiting for an elegant technological solution that will dramatically reduce the cost. It has not arrived and shows no signs of arriving.

Like affordable free energy from fusion, the date for a manned Mars mission keeps slipping perpetually into the future. 1990 at the earliest, 2000 at the earliest. 2020 at the earliest. 2040 at the earliest. 2080 at the earliest. And so on, ad infinitum. I'm not an old man, but I no longer believe it will happen in my lifetime, even if I live to a ripe old age.

Cost of blasting stuff off the ground is the number one challenge, followed by cost of life support and radiation shielding, with those second two tied back to the first cost.

My sense of it is that a manned Mars mission would take a 25 year sustained effort. A decade of highly focused technology development followed by an intensive 15 year program. Meaning the political will to maintain focus and budget on a quarter-century program might be the biggest challenge of all.

25 years, starting...when? Not before 2020, certainly. The question is whether a single nation can focus on an unprecedented scaled non mission-critical cultural project that will last beyond the lifetime of some of the people who start it.

No corporation will do it. I guarantee it. The "Starbucks Stellarsphere" is not going to be headed to Mars anytime soon. No corporation has the resources or can justify the cost. No consortium of multinational companies could possibly justify a project like this to shareholders. The idea that the private sector could or would take on a Mars mission is laughable.

but first they must make profit with suborbital shots then they will go ahead with orbital service.

There's the rub. All this stuff will remain the fantasy of slighly unhinged entrepreneurs because the market is so absurdly limited for space tourism, or even private sector space science.

If you don't want to be ridiculed into low earth orbit, you're first going to have to show me the business plan for a profitable trip to Mars.

 

You're thinking in NASA terms. This new program, if it continues, will just as you say take well over 15 years from beginning to actual Moon landing. That is not at all how Bigelow, Rutan, Musk and many others are doing things. Virgin Galactic already has over 12,000 people who have signed up and layed down money to go on sub orbital hops. That's 2.4 billion dollars right there. Lockheed already knows they cannot charge people the amounts they charge NASA. Bigelow will spend half a billion for his completed station in orbit which is far less than the hundred billion spent on the non-complete ISS, and that includes development, fabrication, launch and assembly. It's only a pipe dream if you let it remain a pipe dream.

 

Well, I know I've heard it said taht we could go to Mars right now, if you didn't care about what condition the astronauts got there in. That, and they still need to sort out what the risks of cosmic rays are. The range for how much it increases cancer is immense right now.

 

You could go to Mars right now if you didn't care about cost. Shielding from radiation and cosmic rays is a problem but it can be overcome. Launch costs are the key to all of it.

 

How's the space elevator idea coming along? I would think that would dramatically reduce launching costs, especially if we could find a way to slingshot the spaceships from earth.

Also, my physics is a little lacking, but how much does earth's gravity diminish the further we get off the ground. Would a space ship assembled in space using the space elevator still need to burn up most of its fuel getting away from earth's gravity?