Manned Spaceflight - the Next 30 Years
Discussion
That is the kind of issue that surrounded Apollo 8. The original mission plan was a flight out to about half way to the moon and then an accelerated return back into the earth's atmosphere to test the heat shield. After due deliberation they decided, if we're going half way, we may as well go all the way.
Eric, have you read this?
http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/08/how-and-why-spacex-w...
If so, what are your thoughts about what SpaceX is doing now and what appears to be their end game of colonising Mars?
To a laymen like me I think it sounds great and maybe I will see such a thing in my lifetime or within the 30 year time frame your asking about. I'd like to think it possible anyway.
http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/08/how-and-why-spacex-w...
If so, what are your thoughts about what SpaceX is doing now and what appears to be their end game of colonising Mars?
To a laymen like me I think it sounds great and maybe I will see such a thing in my lifetime or within the 30 year time frame your asking about. I'd like to think it possible anyway.
Einion Yrth said:
They'll have to hurry up to manage a mere 50.
Now the Chinese and Indians are lobbing probes around the moon and Mars we're back to a situation where there's a race of sorts; NASA is more likely to get funding for more elaborate willy-waving if it looks like Bejing is going to establish a secret nazi moon base before the US.The principal reason for basing on the moon is if there are the raw materials to make fuel; if there's extractable water then it makes sense, if not then you may as well stick around in LEO while preparing to go to Mars.
The moon can be used as an very good astronomical base - whether we are talking about optical or radio astronomy. The far side especially offers a very good location for looking out into deep space.
Of course, remote automated observatories could be based on the moon so this doesn't automatically mean that humans would need to be on station all the time. But I can foresee a string of radio and optical observatories situated on the far side and humans visiting them every so often to repair and upgrade the facilities - along the lines of the way the Hubble Space Telescope was operated.
Of course, remote automated observatories could be based on the moon so this doesn't automatically mean that humans would need to be on station all the time. But I can foresee a string of radio and optical observatories situated on the far side and humans visiting them every so often to repair and upgrade the facilities - along the lines of the way the Hubble Space Telescope was operated.
Main reason why the Moon makes sense is as a base to launch a long distance rocket from. Most of the fuel and energy in a Earth launched rocket is used to break free of Earth's gravity.
By launching from the Moon you could reach far further with your fuel reserves than by going from Earth.
I think.
By launching from the Moon you could reach far further with your fuel reserves than by going from Earth.
I think.
Thunderhead said:
Main reason why the Moon makes sense is as a base to launch a long distance rocket from. Most of the fuel and energy in a Earth launched rocket is used to break free of Earth's gravity.
By launching from the Moon you could reach far further with your fuel reserves than by going from Earth.
I think.
Only if you make fuel and rockets on the Moon. Otherwise you're just burning up extra fuel going into and out of a gravity well. By launching from the Moon you could reach far further with your fuel reserves than by going from Earth.
I think.
The goal should be a moon base setup to mine and manufacture with permanent occupation and much robotic harvesting of local minerals. Create the infrastructure for Lunar launches, then you can go anywhere else in the solar system for a tiny fraction of the cost of even a single Earth-Mars mission.
This step would take the human race not just to Mars, but every conceivable place of interest in the solar system.
This step would take the human race not just to Mars, but every conceivable place of interest in the solar system.
hidetheelephants said:
Like I said earlier; getting a kilogram into LEO for <£500 is the target to be shooting for, once we have that the possibilities for human exploration/colonisation of the solar system are much more practical.
Im with you on that, in the mean time its a flight of fantasy to think that Manned spaceflight is going to be common place and even if such technology brought the cost of space exploration right down it will inevitably be the domain of the few.......the very few.Simpo Two said:
Only if you make fuel and rockets on the Moon. Otherwise you're just burning up extra fuel going into and out of a gravity well.
Oh dear not sure spaceflight works like that, this is interplanetary travel 101 http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Ex...(I really don't mean to be rude but come on guys lets get a little more science discussion going)
If you land a spacecraft on another planet or moon, you need to use fuel to get off that planet or moon.
That's why you wouldn't land on a particular planet or moon if your ultimate destination was some other planet or moon.
Gravitational sling shots work great precisely because you are making the planet or moons gravity work for you rather than against you.
That's why you wouldn't land on a particular planet or moon if your ultimate destination was some other planet or moon.
Gravitational sling shots work great precisely because you are making the planet or moons gravity work for you rather than against you.
Eric Mc said:
If you land a spacecraft on another planet or moon, you need to use fuel to get off that planet or moon.
That's why you wouldn't land on a particular planet or moon if your ultimate destination was some other planet or moon.
Gravitational sling shots work great precisely because you are making the planet or moons gravity work for you rather than against you.
Indeed.That's why you wouldn't land on a particular planet or moon if your ultimate destination was some other planet or moon.
Gravitational sling shots work great precisely because you are making the planet or moons gravity work for you rather than against you.
If you're going to Mars you don't need to stop for petrol on the Moon.
(unless someone building a sustainable petrol station on the Moon)
MiniMan64 said:
Eric Mc said:
If you land a spacecraft on another planet or moon, you need to use fuel to get off that planet or moon.
That's why you wouldn't land on a particular planet or moon if your ultimate destination was some other planet or moon.
Gravitational sling shots work great precisely because you are making the planet or moons gravity work for you rather than against you.
Indeed.That's why you wouldn't land on a particular planet or moon if your ultimate destination was some other planet or moon.
Gravitational sling shots work great precisely because you are making the planet or moons gravity work for you rather than against you.
If you're going to Mars you don't need to stop for petrol on the Moon.
(unless someone building a sustainable petrol station on the Moon)
tight fart said:
We need a base in the moon for starters.
Its actually more expensive ( in terms of delta vee) to land on the moon than it is to land on Mars...edit - some science..
It takes 3000 m/s from LEO to transfer to the moon. It takes 4500 m/s to transfer to Mars even though Mars is so much farther than the Moon.
Once we get there? On the moon it's powered flight all the way down. About 700 m/s to enter lunar orbit, and about another 1700 m/s from lunar orbit to landing. While at Mars to land takes minimal fuel usage. It can be done straight from the transfer trajectory. Aim for the atmosphere, slow down to 400 m/s relative to surface for free, then deploy a chute and slow down further to about 80 m/s for free. That's how much dV you need to make a soft landing
But to do that soft landing you need heat shields and chutes, sky cranes etc... All that adds weight which the lunar lander can use for fuel/engines.
It took an Atlas V 541 (payload to LEO: 17 tons) to put a 900kg rover on Mars, and a Proton-K (payload to LEO: 19 tons) to put a 750kg rover on the moon. So pretty similar.
Any trip to the moons surface is purely to explore the moon. Not as a staging post. Not as an astronomy spot, much better putting that at L2 or something
Edited by RobDickinson on Monday 26th October 21:56
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff