h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

'There is only one way the iss is a success, and that is in terms of positive public relations' -- Actually quite exactly how I see it: It's not about scientific results, it's a big show. However, it's way too expensive for that. May I remind you that we're talking about *billions* of euros? Some powers of ten bigger than other scientific projects. And very most projects of the ISS have the level of an ordinary master thesis.

As for the Mars project: I would make sense if we didn't go to Mars because we wanted to show that we could do it, but because there was something on Mars that justified the effort. I can't see that.

I know that Lindbergh(sp?) made his flight without such justification, well, and we had the flight to the Moon. We have to many problems on Earth ... why spending further billions of euros for a project that can only prove that we can survive on Mars until we run out of nourishments?

I am right about not going to the moon first, but I don't see any problem with doing them simultaniously.

we are well past the point when we should have had the farside lunar telescopes installed. (more than a plan the flag mission, but with robot scopes and an L5 communications link, well within our current technology)

The rockets are indeed old fashioned, but why replace mature technology when you don't have to. still, you can always use more powerfull rockets.

shelters are currently under test. they are using mars habitation modules in near mars environments, on long stay missions. provisional results show no surprises.

food is trickier, but the russians had that mostly solved for their moon program. it was the restof the technology they had problems with.

finally, mars direct plans multiple launches, with overlap of equipment and excursion range. it was always envisiged as a part of a full scale colonisation program using nothing more then minor improvements to current technology.

of course it can easily make use of significant advances in any of the techniques needed for a colonisation program.

You have a good point about a farside observatory, but since Mars has better resources for colonists to use, it would be easier and allow us to develop the technology to maintian a luner base more effectively--a lunar base would make sence perhaps 5 or 10 years after Mars exploration began.

Actually, the Mars Direct plan was designed so thast the same equipment used to go to mars culd be used on the moon.

Why's everyone so desprate to get to the moon. I mean, we've been there, done that, bought the gargleblaster. Mars is something we've never done. And the people asking "why bother with mars", to see what there is there clearly! We can't do that yet (long-range romote control cars don't show us anything). and also to see if we can! After that we don't need to bother with the moon, we can just set up a telescope near a mars base.

Actually, the one thing the moon is good for is a telescope. Mars, like Earth, has an atmosphere which limits visability. The moon, on the other hand has no atmosphere and lower gravity, allowing larger mirrors. But then, why not build a telescope on Phobos or Deimos? They have no atmosphere and practivly no important gravity. In fact, why not just hollow them out and turn them into space stations, while mining any useful minerals. Another good reason to go to Mars!

Why not build the telescope in space?

What the hell are Phobos and Demiria!?!

Phobos and Deimos are the moons of mars. Ugly little potatoes.

Demiria is a very seldom female forename.

"Why not build the telescope in space? "

because there is a practical limit in how big and stable a platform you can build without using a land based observatory.

there is no sensible way you can make a space telescope with a 200 inch mirror for example. also trying to do detailed comparisons of time seperated images when the platform changes position every day adds an unnecessary level of difficulty.

by setting up a robot telescope on the farside of the moon (only just over the edge) and by using a satellite at the l5 point to communicate with it, you get a lot of advantages.

however there is a common assumption that keeps croping up in this thread. mars and the moon are seriously different, and so are the problems for setting up a manned base. while some of the technology will be independant of which one you do first, most will be destination specific.

because of this there is an advntage to doing mars first. they can't easily cut the budget and force you to go for a massively cheaper lifting body. they can with a moon shot, and you are then left with something that is mainly good for going to the moon.

Why is stability in a force-free environment an issue?

And a telescope on moon would change its position continuously, too.

But actually I argue against myself. I like such projects, also on the moon (not on Mars). And their realisation and maintenance is 100 times cheaper than any habitat project.

stability is an issue for a number of reasons.

the sensitivity of the optics is one. if you keep moving your platform (especially using thrusters) then you cause massive amounts of vibration which cause your optics to go out of allignment. this is why you should recalibrate your 'scope after you move it, just like retuning your piano after movinghouse.

the other thing with stability is that a land based telescope has a standard location, with minor differences in orientation. we already correct for this for any observatory we have on earth, and it is a simple correction.

with a satellite based system, the satellite moves, so not only do you have to record where it was looking and when, you have to record where it was, and then when comparing 2 pictures from this telescope you have to correct for the change in position and orientation as well.

as you can imagine, this makes the fundamental operation of blink comparison between frames much more complex and generally harder to do well. with a stable location, you just stick the two frames into a simple viewer and flick between them.

In essence, a satellite based system is like having your telescope mounted in a trailor, and then setting it up in a new place every night. (the sidewalk astronomers movement does this). it is possible, but not desirable for astrophotography or other forms of astrometrics.

Robot telescopes from stable locations are now an established technology, and while there will undoubtably be some differences with one on the moon, they will be relatively minor.

Yes,a telescope needs a stable platform. However scientist are also discussing the possibility of making a very large array system with a group of telescopes orbiting in space at great distances apart and synchronized to work together.

But should'nt we focus on more things of direct human interest? We humans are making a mess and are destroying forests, turning the landscape into deserts, fouling the atmosphere, poisoning the water with toxic waste, etc. Perhaps it is high time to start building a colony - a life boat - in space, preferably on the moon or mars, before we have made earth inhabitable. The same urgent need can occur if an asteroid hits our planet and creates havoc. In that case a colony would be even more urgent.

So what we need is to start making a colony - preferably on the moon, because it is nearby, and start establishing dwellings underground, with air, water, hydroponics,airlocks, everything that is needed. And we need to make it BIG, designed for hundreds of thousands of people, otherwise it is no use. After that, when we are settled in, we can look for other places to settle, like mars.

It is an ambitiuous plan, I agree, but I think we should look into it with some urgency, because it takes a long time to realise it.

You have a good point, but mars is a better location for a lifeboat. There are more indigionous supplies, so it would be easier to make it self sufficient. On the moon, there is little or no Hydrogen, iron, or cabron. As a reasult, it would be hard to set up a self sufficient moon base. Anyway, why does distance really matter unless you're interested in speed? A satern V could have sent people to Mars! If we send a few thousand people to Mars to set up a colony, they could probably be self-sufficient in 30 years. The moon might take longer and who knows how long earth will remain interested and able to supply a colony?

I for one really want us to get up and out there asap but I do think we should set up a set of goals so that we do not run before we can walk.

goal one: a better, post ISS outpost around the earth

goal two: permanant or semi-permanant base on the moon

goal three: a manned quick return mars trip, poss after sending drone ships with the return fuel

goal four: manned trip to create permanant mars base

for preference we should get a space lift built. this would be really expensive but would revolutionise the conquest of space in the long run in terms of cost and safety.

any ideas on how to improve this list, stuff I missed out or are unnecassary?

how to improve the list?

1,forget the moon base. it takes a lot of resources, and long term commitment. it is also way too easy to summarily cancel, leaving you with the same problem that we had after the moon landings.

2,forget the space lift. it would help, but it isn't necessary.

3,forget the "plant the flag" mission. using atmospheric fuel generators you don't need to send fuel supplies, and plant the flag missions are completely pointless.

we can connect together existing technology to have a valid manned mars exploration program within a decade, with a mars base soon after.

It also has the advantage of being very hard to cut back gradually and shutdown quitely.

this is not to be argumentitive but I had the moon base there for safeties sake.
ie it would be better to perfect permanant base technology on a place a couple of days away rather than a year or so away.
if this technology can be tested elsewhere then I agree with your points.

good point on the plant the flag mission. cant see why I put it in there now.

how much more near mars exploration would be needed before a manned base becomes feasable. given the lack of recent success in that area?

Well if a flag has to be hoisted on a planet or moon, it should not be a national flag, but a WORLD flag! Please, lets do away with that nonsense of national pride. If space exploration is to have any validity it should be a world embracing job with all countries having an imput into the overall effort.

And, yes, lets start by putting a base on the moon. Lets make sure that base is working well before starting going things we will regret afterwards. Please, no New Frontier bravery before we really know what the odds are. Lets not make foolish rash decisions, but lets make cool well thought steps, one at a time. Better take some more time to achieve a goal than to regret it afterwards because it was illfounded or too hasty.

how much more needs to be done before a manned mars base?

well, they are currently testing the habitation modules in various "mars analogue" environments here on earth.

the atmospheric fuel generators were proven technology in the seventies.

heavy lift capability is well on the way to where it needs to be, and once it reaches 125 tons, you can go any time.

exploration for a base could use the latest orbital surveys for choosing landing sites, and then you use a rover powered by a small amount of the generated fuel to search the surrounding 500KM or so.

if that isn't good enough, you drop another habitation module 500KM away, and that expands your search range a lot.

As for proving the base technology, that is best done by using the overspecification of food and water to give you a bigger reserve, and then proving the bits that you can't do on earth on mars.

as has been pointed out earlier, the moonbase is just too disimilar.

The lack of success around Mars hasn't had anything to do with Mars, the problems have been ground control stupidity (Climate orbiter team confused mi and km), or spacecraft trupble, that is just as possible around the moon as Mars. It only seems like the problem is with Mars because NASA has been sending a lot there.

Those who participated in this discussion may be interested in this survey:
A1110727