Artemis 2

billvon said:
Agreed - although Mars is considerably better in that respect (ISRP.)



In terms of delta-V - yes. But in terms of ease - definitely not. Consider how many holds and launch cancellations there are in the US, where we have almost every resource imaginable to ensure things go smoothly and to quickly fix problems when they occur. Now consider having those same problems on the Moon.
Click to expand...
Consider having them on Mars...
 
James R said:
I also like the symbolism in sending both a woman and a person of colour to break the record for the furthest any human has ever travelled away from our home planet.

That's a nice side effect. It's not so much of a reason though..."let's do it for symbolism"?
Click to expand...
 
Seattle said:
Consider having them on Mars...
Click to expand...
That is EXACTLY right.

You can put complexity on either end; you can't have no complexity at either end. Which is why launching from the Moon for a Mars mission is a very bad idea. At least for the next 50 years or so; once we have a city full of scientists and engineers, and manufacturing capability, and a fuel farm on the Moon, it will become possible.

Consider that launching a Saturn V was one of the most complex and expensive undertakings we have ever attempted. Compare that to the launch of the ascent stage of the LM. Dead simple; in fact, if everything else failed, astronauts could manually open two valves and launch that way.

You can't have that level of simplicity on both ends.
 
billvon said:
That is EXACTLY right.

You can put complexity on either end; you can't have no complexity at either end. Which is why launching from the Moon for a Mars mission is a very bad idea. At least for the next 50 years or so; once we have a city full of scientists and engineers, and manufacturing capability, and a fuel farm on the Moon, it will become possible.

Consider that launching a Saturn V was one of the most complex and expensive undertakings we have ever attempted. Compare that to the launch of the ascent stage of the LM. Dead simple; in fact, if everything else failed, astronauts could manually open two valves and launch that way.

You can't have that level of simplicity on both ends.
Click to expand...
What would you say are the chances that we never successfully send someone to Mars, stay there 2 years and come back alive?
 
billvon said:
That is EXACTLY right.

You can put complexity on either end; you can't have no complexity at either end. Which is why launching from the Moon for a Mars mission is a very bad idea. At least for the next 50 years or so; once we have a city full of scientists and engineers, and manufacturing capability, and a fuel farm on the Moon, it will become possible.
Click to expand...
Aye. This is what I was alluding to. Once you have the sunk costs and safety ironed out with regard launching from the moon, it becomes more practical. Until then it'll only ever be a launch from LEO, as far as I can tell through my murky "Crystal Ball of Infallibility Mk II".
 
Seattle said:
What would you say are the chances that we never successfully send someone to Mars, stay there 2 years and come back alive?
Click to expand...
Low. "Never" is a loooong time. ;)
There are reports and papers suggesting that it isn't feasible within the next 10-20 years - i.e. with current tech - but technology improves. And maybe waiting a long while will give us time on the moon to develop the tech needed... although the needs are very different (things can be resupplied to the moon relatively quickly in case of breakdowns).
 
Sarkus said:
Low. "Never" is a loooong time. ;)
There are reports and papers suggesting that it isn't feasible within the next 10-20 years - i.e. with current tech - but technology improves. And maybe waiting a long while will give us time on the moon to develop the tech needed... although the needs are very different (things can be resupplied to the moon relatively quickly in case of breakdowns).
Click to expand...
OK, 100 years.
 
exchemist said:
I'm afraid there is also a bit of the reverse Midas touch of Trump's America. Everything that man touches turns to shit - and it is he that is responsible for the change in NASA's priorities that lies behind this. So people like me start from a jaundiced standpoint, wondering how he will use it to enrich his family or boost his insufferable ego.

But as a pure exercise in technology it will certainly be interesting to see what they do differently this time round as a result of the advances in space flight since the 1960s.
Click to expand...
With me it's nothing to do with who put this mission on the table, but simply with the fact that this first stage is regurgitating "old news". I'll reserve my enthusiasm for when they start doing something new. Building a manned outpost on the moon? Sure. But that would pale compared to going to Mars.
I got excited when I saw SpaceX launch their first, and the series of booster landings were jaw-dropping because they were revolutionary. Starship launches because, again, they're trying something new, and the raptor engines are incredible.

But a flight round the moon? That is similar to what we were doing c.60 years ago? It's not cynicism, and not even apathy, but rather underwhelming anticipation. A cautious realism. Simply put, it's interesting, as I find most things space related, but it's not revolutionary, and I'll reserve my enthusiasm for those things.
 
Sarkus said:
But a flight round the moon? That is similar to what we were doing c.60 years ago? It's not cynicism, and not even apathy, but rather underwhelming anticipation. A cautious realism. Simply put, it's interesting, as I find most things space related, but it's not revolutionary, and I'll reserve my enthusiasm for those things.
Click to expand...
Certainly! But not any the less dangerous and risky in the extreme.
 
I think it makes more sense to let the ISS just end. Spend the money on a permanent Moon Base and only send unmanned flights to Mars and build a base there using robotics and AI..
 
Seattle said:
There has to be the will to do it as well.
Click to expand...
The two things that need to balance are effort and will. The more effort required, the more will you need.

Right now it's a 10-15 year project, with the missions spread out over the next 10 years after that. But in 20 years it will be easier; SpaceX boosters will be more advanced/reliable. In 30 years we may have VASIMR, advanced ion or NERVA engines which will make the trip much easier. In 40 years we may have a cycler for Lunar personnel transfer.

And in 50 years we may even have a mass driver on the Moon or a Skyhook on Earth. Then it's almost trivial.

At some point it becomes an 8 year project, then a 4 year project. That's within one administration. And the will becomes much easier to sustain.

So it will happen at some point.
 
billvon said:
The two things that need to balance are effort and will. The more effort required, the more will you need.

Right now it's a 10-15 year project, with the missions spread out over the next 10 years after that. But in 20 years it will be easier; SpaceX boosters will be more advanced/reliable. In 30 years we may have VASIMR, advanced ion or NERVA engines which will make the trip much easier. In 40 years we may have a cycler for Lunar personnel transfer.

And in 50 years we may even have a mass driver on the Moon or a Skyhook on Earth. Then it's almost trivial.

At some point it becomes an 8 year project, then a 4 year project. That's within one administration. And the will becomes much easier to sustain.

So it will happen at some point.
Click to expand...
At some point there will be a flying car in every garage. That was the thinking in the early 60's. 65 years later, I don't see many flying cars.

There isn't even a real need for manned flights to Mars. You might just be too old school. Unmanned (robot) flight is the future, man, get with the program:)
 
Seattle said:
There isn't even a real need for manned flights to Mars.
Click to expand...
Very true. Just as there was no need for Columbus to go to America in 1492. It wasn't even his goal; he was aiming for the East Indies and he missed.

That started a whole bunch of attempts at colonization that also failed, and that there was no need for. Lucas Vázquez de Ayllón tried in 1526; that failed after two months due to disease. Tristán de Luna y Arellano tried again in 1559. He failed after a hurricane destroyed his settlement. The English tried in 1587 with Roanoake - they all died. It wasn't until 1607 that the Jamestown colony survived.

All unneeded; there was plenty of land in Europe, and almost all those attempts were miserable failures. Still, it seems to be something we are driven to do, and it's often a good thing.
 
billvon said:
Very true. Just as there was no need for Columbus to go to America in 1492. It wasn't even his goal; he was aiming for the East Indies and he missed.

That started a whole bunch of attempts at colonization that also failed, and that there was no need for. Lucas Vázquez de Ayllón tried in 1526; that failed after two months due to disease. Tristán de Luna y Arellano tried again in 1559. He failed after a hurricane destroyed his settlement. The English tried in 1587 with Roanoake - they all died. It wasn't until 1607 that the Jamestown colony survived.

All unneeded; there was plenty of land in Europe, and almost all those attempts were miserable failures. Still, it seems to be something we are driven to do, and it's often a good thing.
Click to expand...
We don't seem all that compelled to explore the ocean depths all that much. The Marianas Trench has been visited only twice as I recall. Are we going to the Andromeda Galaxy in a couple of hundred years?
 
Sigh. This is far more unlike than like anything historical. The riches not being the ones being aimed for are the historical example supposedly to spur us to greater effort (pull, pull harder in those boats towing the becalmed ships through the Doldrums), but riches were there waiting for any conquistador in the face of a susceptible native populace to extract in those times. The success of colonial America very much depended on cheap shipping and exploitable opportunities.

The historical example says more about the boundless wealth of this world than fantasies of boundlessness of opportunity in space. That kind of opportunity is not to be found on the moon; the moon is more akin to exploring the deep Antarctic, where there were no false expectations. Which would be best done with crewless probes if we were starting from here and now, to avoid unnecessary loss of life.

I do think Artemis fails upfront with the essential question of 'why?'. Fantasies about what might be possible, one day maybe, aren't really good enough for me. (but it ain't up to me, not even American here). When NASA's chief cites finding extraterrestrial life as an overarching goal for NASA when starting out explaining how good Artemis 2 is it seems like a distraction from answering that question. I expect even within NASA they know crewless is how space exploration and planetary science is really done.

Showing Americans that NASA are showing those Chinese is another matter and that is what it looks like to me. The Chinese aren't in a rush to compete and I suspect a borrowing from Napoleon, not interrupting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top