Moon base for Mars Landing?

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:
Marvin the Martian wrote:
This is utterly stupid. First of all, the NASA plan is to take over 10
years to go back to the moon. It took the 1960's NASA less than 10
years to do it the first time with 1960s technology.

And with 1960s budgets.

And with technology largely based on R&D started in the 50's. It may
have only taken less than 10 years from the formal announcment, but in
actuality it was closer to 15 years from the start of hardware
development to the first bootprint.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

"Jeff Findley" wrote:

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
news
This is utterly stupid. First of all, the NASA plan is to take over 10
years to go back to the moon. It took the 1960's NASA less than 10 years
to do it the first time with 1960s technology.

They had a virtually unlimited budget to do so.

They had no such thing - especially after the cuts in 1967.

So, they need LONGER to do what was done half a century ago?!

The funding today is far less than what it was in the 60's. Also, NASA's
chosen architecture is to build not one, but two brand new launch vehicles
in which to go back to the moon. This won't be cheap or fast.

They developed two new launch vehicles for the 1960's program too...
But they had a bit of a head start on those prior to the formal
announcement. (As well as on other hardware.) NASA had more of a
running start in 1961 than is generally realized.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On Jul 8, 9:03*pm, BURT wrote:
On Jul 8, 4:39*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:
This is utterly stupid. First of all, the NASA plan is to take over 10
years to go back to the moon. It took the 1960's NASA less than 10 years
to do it the first time with 1960s technology.

So, they need LONGER to do what was done half a century ago?!

Secondly, there is no way that you can use the moon as a base to go to
Mars.

* *I am not advocating going to the moon. But... it would be a good
* *place to build the things that are expected to be needed on the
* *moon. And the rescue time is 3+ days.

It is not practical and the longer we wait the less likely we have the
resources required. This is as dumb as Hawking saying we are going to
migrate to space to survive. I say we will never have the resources.

A better argument is that we'll make ourselves extinct before we have
the chance. The resources are here. And in time we'd learn how to use
them for a space exodus. But will we survive long enough? That is the
question.

Eric


Mitch Raemsch

On Jul 8, 9:00*pm, Uncle Al wrote:
Marvin the Martian wrote:

This is utterly stupid. First of all, the NASA plan is to take over 10
years to go back to the moon. It took the 1960's NASA less than 10 years
to do it the first time with 1960s technology.

So, they need LONGER to do what was done half a century ago?!

NASA: *If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't stupidity get us
out? *Not A Space Agency excluded the obvious answer because it was
not recyclable. *NASA is fresh out of Nazis to make it work. *They've
got managers now, not engineers. *Lots of girls and minorities, too.
NASA puts the "no" in innovation (after studies).

The new Constellation lifters will emulsify human cargo into crimson
tapioca according to engineering models. *Werner von Braun had
Fahrvergnügen when his rockets flew. *NASA has "verkackt"
("be****ted").

Secondly, there is no way that you can use the moon as a base to go to
Mars.

[snip]

Sure you can - if money is no object and you don't mind contaminating
the moon's clean vacuum with atmosphere for a few centuries. *Consider
Dolittle's raid on Tokyo that required carrying aviation fuel over the
top of the world with astounding inefficiency; Vietnamese hauling
artillery skyward at Diem Bien Phu. *What is publicity worth to you in
human lives lost directly and through confiscation of personal wealth?

Lastly, there is no point to a Moon base. It's a waste of money. Go to
Mars; that's where the real science is.

Go to Mars and get fried by cosmic radiation. *Mir and ISS FUBAR
incidence of radiation cataracts - merely for being above the yard of
lead shielding equivalent fof the atmosphere - is 95%. *Wanna fly
outside the magnetosphere, too? *You will close your eyes and see
Cerenkov rings texting the cooking of your brain, ditto gonads, bone
marrow, thyroid and, of course, the lenses of your eyes into radiation
cataracts. *Will there be a combat ophthalmologist on board?

Mars is crap. *Go to Pacoima or Darkest Oakland, or down the Nairobi
Highway in Southern California, or through urban Washington, DC.
Unexplored and terrifying yet rich with primitive lifeforms.

If NASA gave a rat's ass about Man In Space it would add some long
fibers to the Space Scuttle's external fuel tank so it wouldn't spall
chunks of Space Scuttle-destroying foam during liftoff. *Uncle Al
suggests NASA loft a few tonnes of surplus ball bearings to make a
nice light show on re-entry, like Space Scuttle Challenger did but at
lower cost/sparkle.

--
Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
*(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

After reading this I was left speechless except for a single word...

curmudgeon

Jeff Findley wrote:
Obviously you're a Mars fanboy, so I'm not going to comment on this
assertion.


I'm thinking gas stations on Phobos and Deimos here. ;-)

Pat

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Findley" wrote:

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
news
This is utterly stupid. First of all, the NASA plan is to take over 10
years to go back to the moon. It took the 1960's NASA less than 10 years
to do it the first time with 1960s technology.

They had a virtually unlimited budget to do so.

They had no such thing - especially after the cuts in 1967.


Compared to today's budget, they did. And by 1967, many would argue it was
pretty much over except for the shouting.



--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:36:43 GMT, (Derek Lyons)
wrote:

They had a virtually unlimited budget to do so.

They had no such thing - especially after the cuts in 1967.

By the time the FY68 budget was passed in mid-1967, Saturn V was five
months from first flight, Apollo Block I was finished (and proven
unsafe) with Block II well along in development (first flight Oct
1968), and the Lunar Module was seven months from first flight (Jan
1968.) So most of the "heavy lifting", budget-wise, had already been
done.

And NASA's budget shrank from $5.4 billion in FY67 to $4.7 billion in
FY68. Most of what was killed was outyears programs like AAP, not
near-term Apollo spending.

$4.7 billion in FY68 is roughly $26.1 billion today, or $9 billion
(60%) more than NASA's FY09 budget. NASA's budget peaked in FY65 at
$5.9 billion, or roughly $33 billion in current dollars.

So, they need LONGER to do what was done half a century ago?!

The funding today is far less than what it was in the 60's. Also, NASA's
chosen architecture is to build not one, but two brand new launch vehicles
in which to go back to the moon. This won't be cheap or fast.

They developed two new launch vehicles for the 1960's program too...

Sort of, using the extant Saturn I (itself derived from Jupiter,
Redstone, and Thor hardware) and the F-1 engine. Apollo already
existed as a spacecraft, sort of, although it was still poorly defined
as a three-man general purpose successor to Mercury. Today, they're
building Ares, derived from extant SRBs, reviving an engine that's
been dormant since 1975, and building an all-new upper stage that
itself is larger than early Thors or Jupiters. And they're doing it
within the existing budget, which still funding not one, but two
manned programs (Shuttle and ISS.)

But they had a bit of a head start on those prior to the formal
announcement. (As well as on other hardware.) NASA had more of a
running start in 1961 than is generally realized.

It certainly didn't hurt that NASA's budget doubled between FY61 and
the first year of Apollo, FY62, from $6.3 billion to $12.2 billion in
current dollars. In the first three years of Constellation (FY05, 06,
and 07), NASA's budget remained flat at around $16 billion. FY08 and
09 have seen a modest increase to around $17 billion, and FY10 is
around $19 billion due to about an extra billion from the economic
stimulus program (assuming Sen. Shelby lets NASA have it.)

Brian

On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:13:27 -0500, Marvin the Martian
wrote:

This is utterly stupid. First of all, the NASA plan is to take over 10
years to go back to the moon. It took the 1960's NASA less than 10 years
to do it the first time with 1960s technology.

So, they need LONGER to do what was done half a century ago?!

They need the same budgets they had half a century ago.

President Kennedy initiated Project Apollo in May, 1961. So Apollo's
first budget was Fiscal Year 1962.

NASA Budgets in 2007 dollars:
FY62: $12.2 billion
FY63: $24.4 billion
FY64: $33.2 billion
FY65: $33.5 billion
FY66: $32.1 billion
FY67: $29.7 billion
FY68: $26.1 billion
FY69: $21.3 billion

President Bush initiated Project Constellation in January, 2004. So
Constellation's first budget was Fiscal Year 2005.

NASA Budgets in 2007 dollars:
FY05: $16.0 billion
FY06: $16.1 billion
FY07: $15.8 billion
FY08: $17.1 billion
FY09: $17.2 billion

And these budgets are also supporting continued expensive Space
Shuttle and Space Station operations.

Secondly, there is no way that you can use the moon as a base to go to
Mars.

Not at first, but it could be a good proving ground for both hardware
and operations, and there is still a lot of moon to explore.

Brian

On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:43:47 -0500, Mumra wrote:

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
news
This is utterly stupid. First of all, the NASA plan is to take over 10
years to go back to the moon. It took the 1960's NASA less than 10
years to do it the first time with 1960s technology.

So, they need LONGER to do what was done half a century ago?!

Microsoft Windows

I still think MS-Dos 3.0 was the high point in Microsoft software.

Now I run Linux.

On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 08:10:38 -0400, Hipupchuck wrote:

A moon base would be a smart investment for future space exploration.
NASA should build it's headquarters there. It's handy.

Why? You can't make fuel on the moon; very little carbon and hydrogen.
Without carbon, it is a fools errand to try and make aluminum; current
processes use carbon electrodes. The moon also has no copper ores, so you
have no copper for lightweight wires.

Just about everything would have to be hauled up from Earth to the moon.
It is very bad location for "future space exploration". And since all the
science you're going to get is more bags of moon rocks, people are going
to get ****ed at the low return on investment and reject space
exploration all together. History will repeat itself; same thing happened
after the Apollo program.