There is some friction in space, so an ion engine would be great for keeping forward momentum. Also, to make the trip half way plausible, we must find faster ways of transporting materials and people. At closest approach, Mars is 39 days away with current technology.
Enlighten me, what materials are there on the moon that would prove valuable? I agree that having a base outside of earths atmosphere would be the best way, but the moon doesn’t seem like a valuable position due to lack of supplies. If we did make it to Mars, we could set up a base like you suggest and then simply “planet hop” from one planet/moon to the next.
We don’t have money to invest into anything anymore due to the debt… Sad…
At any rate, there is nothing of value for the moment on any spatial object within reach for our kind of inefficient rocket technology. Right now it costs $3000 to put something in orbit, and I could not find any price for putting something on the moon, even less on Mars. Maybe diamonds ($11 M a pound), but the price of the extraction hardware transportation probably would defeat the equation.
Having a base on the moon would not be about gathering rocks, but rather to learn what is implied in building, maintaining and operating a construction on another planet. Sort of a proof of concept. So far the only kind we have is the International Space Station, which has nothing to do with a base. A Winebago is not a house.
There are tons of concepts to validate before jumping over Mars : power generation, extraction of water and oxygen, growing/synthesis of food, recycling of athmosphere and water, waste disposal, group management, psychological issues, and so on. The moon is close enough to allow sort of a training ground.
As far as I know, this is what the Chinese are planning.
[quote=175608:@Michel Bujardet]At any rate, there is nothing of value for the moment on any spatial object within reach for our kind of inefficient rocket technology. Right now it costs $3000 to put something in orbit, and I could not find any price for putting something on the moon, even less on Mars. Maybe diamonds ($11 M a pound), but the price of the extraction hardware transportation probably would defeat the equation.
Having a base on the moon would not be about gathering rocks, but rather to learn what is implied in building, maintaining and operating a construction on another planet. Sort of a proof of concept. So far the only kind we have is the International Space Station, which has nothing to do with a base. A Winebago is not a house.
There are tons of concepts to validate before jumping over Mars : power generation, extraction of water and oxygen, growing/synthesis of food, recycling of athmosphere and water, waste disposal, group management, psychological issues, and so on. The moon is close enough to allow sort of a training ground.
As far as I know, this is what the Chinese are planning.[/quote]
The moon and Mars would be great for nuclear waste disposal. The one problem is that many spacecraft have blown up trying to get out of our atmosphere. Could you imagine if one of those was filled with radioactive waste? Bad news bears…
It not so much the “materials on the moon”, although any there could be returned to Earth relatively cheaply (see “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”). What the biggest payback would be (and has been from past space exploration), it the technology that us “Earthlings” benefit from. The inovative things that might not exist today if it were not for NASA and other such organizations.
Sadly, I do not think the moon can offer us much anymore. The real technological gems are further, yet we haven’t been able to replicate anything like the moon missions in quite some time. The mining thing as someone mentioned before isn’t feasible for anything more than iron (maybe) and tin. Either way, The moon is not truly valuable to us…
[quote=175630:@Meade Lewis]Sadly, I do not think the moon can offer us much anymore. The real technological gems are further, yet we haven’t been able to replicate anything like the moon missions in quite some time. The mining thing as someone mentioned before isn’t feasible for anything more than iron (maybe) and tin. Either way, The moon is not truly valuable to us…
Just a barren rock with dents in it.[/quote]
You keep missing the point. It would be folly to envision the moon or any other planet for mining in the current state of technology. But the experience gained by a presence there, as well as proof of concepts and experimentation could be valuable.
I am not too sure of the political feasability of such an endeavor, though. As you say there is absolutely no commercial value whatsoever, so it would be just throwing money into the air (or lack of it), a luxury that not many countries can afford anymore…
An everyday example of that technology that we all take for granted now, would be toothpaste in a tube. I am just old enough to remember the powered toothpaste you had to sprinkled on a brush.
[quote=175612:@Meade Lewis]The one problem is that many spacecraft have blown up trying to get out of our atmosphere. Could you imagine if one of those was filled with radioactive waste? Bad news bears…
[/quote]
Space elevator
[quote=175629:@Dave S]It not so much the “materials on the moon”, although any there could be returned to Earth relatively cheaply (see “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”).
[/quote]
The moon does have an abundance of certain raw materials that could be processed into materials for making craft and supplies.
Illmenite is a titanium based compound that has lots of oxygen tied up in it. They found decent sized deposits on the moon at a few of the Apollo sites. And the 2018 missions, if they still go, should prove fruitful. And there is ice at the lunar poles that could possibly be processed into fuel.
Various sites report slightly varying percentages for the composition of lunar regolith but there seems to be a lot of silicon, aluminum and a host of other elements.
A lunar base would be a great jump off point and possibly a decent manufacturing location
[quote=175629:@Dave S]
What the biggest payback would be (and has been from past space exploration), it the technology that us “Earthlings” benefit from. The inovative things that might not exist today if it were not for NASA and other such organizations.[/quote]
Sadly few in positions of power get that long game.
Senator Inhofe’s speech the other day proved that - “Its cold outside therefore global warming is a hoax”
Seriously ???
I fear it will be some other nation that goes to the moon before the US ever returns
Unless the discovery of some fundamental physics principle beyond rockets, that technology alone is probably the condition to see any mature large colonization of space happen.
In the meantime, not much more than communication satellites (in which GPS can be included) and data acquisition will probably happen.
Exactly. Personally, I believe space exploration is nothing more than an expensive novelty until we are able to accomplish higher speeds and make long voyages feasible. Not much more we can do if the average human will not live long enough for the journeys to take place.
Fact is in the history of sciences it takes in general something like one century for technology to become mainstream. Space technology is less than 50 years old (Sputnik was in 1957), so we probably cannot expect it to become commonplace before the mid century. If nothing breaks our civilization before that.
and Michel ( ) 1957 was 58 years ago… so “less than 60”… I was born in 1956, and remember the excitement of having my mother wake me up at 3am to watch the Mercury, then Gemini and finally Apollo missions. My biggest regret from that time was NOT being allowed to watch the Moon Landing (was at summer camp)
Indeed we have similar memories, although my poor mother never quite grasped what space was all about.
I am trekkie, trek fan and altogether a technology enthusiasm. But after so many years hoping, I have now realized that there are so many forces against progress that it is a miracle we already enjoy the technology we have. And it is not going to improve, as there are so many obscurantists using global warming to push a passeist agenda. That includes people complaining about email consuming power. They will not be satisfied until we have regressed to stone age
The moon landing(s) were a staggering achievement by any measure considering they were borne out of a directive from an ambitious president and a need to fit the LEM landing program into 64kb of ferrite core memory amongst other things. I think that this created a mindset of ‘now we can do anything’. Relatively speaking, our technology to land and set up shop on Mars is still back in 1962. I also think that the days of the clever, big thinkers may be behind us. Budgetary constraints replaces ambition and because the US is not in a national pride competition with the USSR, the need to be the ‘first to put a man there’ is also greatly diminished.
Hopefully the next time mankind sets off to another local body, it will not be in a kerosene powered rocket like we did in '69.
[quote=175774:@chris benton]
Hopefully the next time mankind sets off to another local body, it will not be in a kerosene powered rocket like we did in '69.[/quote]
RP-1 is “kerosene” in about the same way jet fuel is “gasoline”
RP-1 is stable at room temp unlike hydrogen which has a higher specific impulse
It tends to go boom a lot less
Rocket surgeons appreciate that
[quote=175782:@Norman Palardy]RP-1 is “kerosene” in about the same way jet fuel is “gasoline”
RP-1 is stable at room temp unlike hydrogen which has a higher specific impulse
It tends to go boom a lot less
Rocket surgeons appreciate that[/quote]
I think you will find that RP-1 has about the same calorific value as kerosene and the same stability. It is the introduction of LOX that gives it such a high KW value. Its not rocket science Norman (maybe I am wrong?)
The oxidizer is no doubt very important. But RP-1 is highly refined kerosene.
I doubt you could use it as a direct substitute for the kerosene in a lamp or your camping stove.
Either way whats important is that to get from the ground to escaping earths gravity well requires fuel.
Ion engines, solar sails and all manner of other very intriguing interplanetary drives simply don’t have the required capability.
Liquid hydrogen might but it’s hard to handle.
And, not being a rocket scientist or surgeon, I don’t know what else would have the impulse to lift the initial supplies for a moon base. Once on the moon the requirements change drastically.
) 1957 was 58 years ago… so “less than 60”… I was born in 1956, and remember the excitement of having my mother wake me up at 3am to watch the Mercury, then Gemini and finally Apollo missions. My biggest regret from that time was NOT being allowed to watch the Moon Landing (was at summer camp)
