Who will win the Mars race?

[mindlight]

I am one of the most ardent proponents of the human race getting to Mars...
And I'm a huge Elan Musk fanboy and I wish him all the best...

But the reality is, It will take a governmental agency to lay the ground work to provide the "initial" trip to Mars. Reason being, the initial infrastructure required to support a trip and risks are just too high for a commercial entity to absorb into their Return on Investment calculations. One could quite literally burn through a tens of billions of dollars and a dozen human lives prior to getting a successful Mars mission. And then, once we get a successful Mars mission, turning an actual profit is going to take some time as well.

It is my hope the Elan Musk basically shames the worlds' governments into paving the way to Mars. As RDKirk says, we need a permanent launch station in orbit. In addition, a boatload of equipment needs to be sent ahead of the mission.

Funny, I was just watching some documentaries about the whole Housing Market Meltdown in 2008. Some estimate that as much as 19 TRILLION dollars evaporated from the world economy due to that incident.

Imagine what the space program would look like if we invested 19 Trillion dollars into it. We could have a thriving Lunar Colony, Space station, and Mars Colony as well as a colony on an Asteroid and maybe even an outpost orbiting Jupiter... We could have a huge low Earth orbit manufacturing facility producing high tech components for a fraction of the cost that it takes to produce them on Earth ( High tech clean rooms would be orders of magnitude cheaper in space than on Earth)

What a shame really...

I agree a whole load of money has been wasted which could have been better spent on space.

Not sure I agree that an intermediary station is necessary and in fact it just seems to add to costs and potential bureaucracy, jurisdiction disputes etc.

NASA and the FKA have done alot of groundwork and testing which spacex could draw on , they could even logically be involved in cooperative ventures. But it would be a mistake to put NASA in the driving seat cause it would never get the job done with its current culture, budgeting etc.

 

[mindlight]

SpaceX would go broke on a one way unmanned mission, never mind a manned mission. As for "martian materials" so suddenly, these hypothetical crews are going to be doing mining or who knows what else along side scientific research? Specially when it's a civilian concern? Please.

Also Trump's been in office 8 months and hasn't done a thing about either NASA or any space program. Give me a break.

SpaceX and MarsOne can draw on different kinds of financing than NASA and if the popular desire and subscriptions are there this could be enough to sponsor Mars missions. Add in some government support and this is distinctly possible. The biggest upfront costs are with the initial missions and set up of the start up infrastructure. The main risks are with that first mission. Involving space agencies makes sense cause they have a lot of experience and know how but they should not be in the driving seat because their instinct is to stall and bureaucratise rather than to enable. Most of the problems already have some sort of solution worked out. It is about improving those not plucking them out of empty space.

Trump has not improved NASAs budget but he has refocused the agency on manned space flight and shifted its focus from Low earth orbit where much of its activity has been stuck for the last 50 years. I think he is the kind of president who could make bold decisions about NASA financing. Obama clearly was not such a president. His best legacy was the encouragement of private companies to take on NASA responsibilities in LEO. These may well end up replacing NASA in the wider solar system also unless there is a radical rethink of the value of NASA by the Whitehouse and how involved the American government wants to be in the solar system.

 

[Radagast]

However, I have to ask, is this not like saying we used to go to the village by bike, now the bike is broken and we are designing a car to take us to the city

That's exactly right. The bike is broken, so we can't go now, but we have the capacity to design and build a car (which would go both places).

Basically, it's really hard to make old tech work again, because it's hard to get the parts. And it's hard to get the machines to make the parts. And it's hard to get the parts for the machines to make the parts.

 

[Radagast]

The ISS is underwater, the astronauts are on green screen, the vomit comet, and hung by slings in a studio. The girls hair is ridiculous.

You're kidding, right?

 

[Targaryen]

SpaceX and MarsOne can draw on different kinds of financing than NASA and if the popular desire and subscriptions are there this could be enough to sponsor Mars missions. Add in some government support and this is distinctly possible. The biggest upfront costs are with the initial missions and set up of the start up infrastructure. The main risks are with that first mission. Involving space agencies makes sense cause they have a lot of experience and know how but they should not be in the driving seat because their instinct is to stall and bureaucratise rather than to enable. Most of the problems already have some sort of solution worked out. It is about improving those not plucking them out of empty space.

First of all, I don't know why I was quoted again on this thread but, as has been stated in the thread. You assume the cost is going to be feasible for private companies but, this article:

Should NASA Ditch Manned Missions to Mars?

Well it says that a low ball number for NASA even would be 100 Billion US over 30 to 40 years. That the ISS was projected to cost 10 billion over ten years and that was ten times less then what it actually ended up costing. So people think that 100 Billion is too low yet.

You want a civilian concern to pocket, let's low-ball a more feasible number of say 450 Billion over 30-40 years. This is again a for-profit company and there is no way that they'd take a 450 Billion dollar hit. No company would and really survive. Any first manned mission to Mars will be scientific in aspect, so how are they going to make profit on a strictly scientific endeavour?

Trump has not improved NASAs budget but he has refocused the agency on manned space flight and shifted its focus from Low earth orbit where much of its activity has been stuck for the last 50 years. I think he is the kind of president who could make bold decisions about NASA financing. Obama clearly was not such a president. His best legacy was the encouragement of private companies to take on NASA responsibilities in LEO. These may well end up replacing NASA in the wider solar system also unless there is a radical rethink of the value of NASA by the Whitehouse and how involved the American government wants to be in the solar system.

See, in this article right here: Trump's Fiscal Plans for NASA , not only is Trump's budget barely any bigger then Obama's last requested NASA budgeting figure, Trump: 19.1 Billion Obama: 19 Billion, but Trump also plans some cute cuts across most of NASA's programs. How exactly does that equate with "big plans" for NASA. If anything it's a reduction and lessening of scope.

I know you have a zeal for this, but try to line up some credible theory to go along with the zeal.

 

[JacksBratt]

I actually have a little more respect for you because even though I believe you are wrong, you are logically consistent and I always find merit in logically consistent arguments.

I don't think you understand about technological levels though. A jet plane is way more complex than a car, however, they are the same "level" of technology. The technological processes, science, and engineering that enables you to build a BMW is within the same "realm" as building a car.

Thus, if we can put a satellite into orbit, and build submarines, and build an A-bomb, and build the Empire State building and Golden Gate Bridge and supersonic jets... then we can go to the moon. I've already made that point so I will stop there.

Lastly, one of the reasons why I firmly believe we went to the moon is because I've built and designed complex systems. I've gone through the equations required to get to the moon. And basically, if I can do it, then other scientists and engineers way smarter than me with billions of dollars backing them can do it. So it is plausible. It's not some impossible thing that needs to be faked.

For instance, launching probes into space can all be tracked by Earth with telescopes. So how do you "fake" that? How do you fake out thousands of people and governmental agencies tracking items in space with radar and telescopes? You could see the space station with a telescope so how do you fake that?

In any event, this discussion has run its course. I'm sorry I could not dissuade you.

Thanks for your respect. I also respect you and your views, even though I believe differently.

 

[JacksBratt]

That's exactly right. The bike is broken, so we can't go now, but we have the capacity to design and build a car (which would go both places).

But, that's not what he said.... he said they "cannot go" due to lost technology that would be "painful" to get back...

My question is if they can go to mars why can they not go to the moon?

Basically, it's really hard to make old tech work again, because it's hard to get the parts. And it's hard to get the machines to make the parts. And it's hard to get the parts for the machines to make the parts.

Especially when the old parts never existed and the whole thing was done in a studio....

Again... they can build technology to go to mars..... but the moon, which is right there..... nope can't go there...lost technology..

I used to believe that they went to the moon. Full on believer. How ridiculous to believe otherwise... right?

Then, I took a good look and cannot believe how blind I was.

 

[KCfromNC]

It fell, perfectly aligned so that the heat shield took the friction....due to their "designing it that way"

Yep. see e.g. https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/docs/Day 2_04_Capsule Stability During Planetary Re-Entry_final.pdf for a basic introduction to the engineering involved.

As for "attitude Thrusters"........again....where was the fuel for such devices?

https://history.nasa.gov/afj/aoh/aoh-v1-2-05-rcs.pdf

They would have had to be very powerful to combat the incredible wind shear of their thrust

Wind shear of their thrust? I don't know what you think you mean here. I'm not even sure you do.

and there is no way that the computer technology at that time could compensate for the intricate adjustments that would have been necessary.

Citation needed.

relating to or subject to ablation through melting or evaporation.

Whoa........ now that explains it..... well not really.... well not at all.....

Seems like a pretty straightforward definition to me. Which words are you having trouble with?

Yet, there are still brilliant people at NASA that cannot go to the moon today due to this "lost" technology and computers that are billions of times faster and DO NOT have to run windows to operate.

Or more realistically, we "can't" go to the moon because today there's no political will to spend >2% of our GDP for year after year on a race to beat the Soviets.

Can you please post a picture of this "ascent stage" showing where it hid these "rocket engines"?

No, mostly because the ascent stage motor wasn't hidden : https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/176058main_image_feature_821_ys_full.jpg

Nice math. However, the mass of the Saturn V was all FUEL. Fuel needed to get the small tiny payload out of earths gravitational pull.

You'll remember that the lunar ascent stage wasn't trying to get out of earth's gravitational field. The hint is right there in the name. So I have no idea what your point is here.

So, showing math is a brilliant smoke screen but still does not negate the fact that you would need significantly more rocket fuel than is in the tiny little compartment above the impressive but useless nozzel shown in the fake ascent vehicle.

Weren't you just pretending there was no rocket on the ascent stage?

when someone asks a tough question...... hit them with "MATH". I don't fall for that nonsense.

Yeah, all those delusional engineers and their math. Why don't they know they can do rocket science just by their feelings?

 

[KCfromNC]

Seriously? They are trying to go to mars but the moon would be, how did he put it... "painful" to get that ability back.

It'll also be painful to get the ability to go to mars. What's your point?

Maybe you could give me an example of something we no longer have the technology to accomplish.

Why? How is that relevant here?

Reading though other peoples replies.... they are "hell bent on believing a lie"

If everyone else is telling you are wrong, maybe your first instinct shouldn't be to assuming they're all lying to you.

My replies should state that I see flaws, impossibilities, facts and physical limitations that are still problematic even today that prove that it never has been possible.

They should state those things if you want to be taken seriously. Unfortunately they read more like half-baked conspiracy theories and avoiding obvious answers to your supposed stumper questions.

 

[KCfromNC]

That's exactly right. The bike is broken, so we can't go now, but we have the capacity to design and build a car (which would go both places).

Basically, it's really hard to make old tech work again, because it's hard to get the parts. And it's hard to get the machines to make the parts. And it's hard to get the parts for the machines to make the parts.

Pretty much. If I gave you an 8-track tape and you couldn't play it because no one has an 8-track player in their car, would that mean that we never had the technology to play recorded music and it was all a hoax? Of course not, but that's the level of thinking being displayed by deniers here.

 

[KCfromNC]

My question is if they can go to mars why can they not go to the moon?

OK, no problem. Send me your billing address and I'll get right on it.

 

[KCfromNC]

Fake fake fake Fake fake fake... all the images are nothing but CGI. Want to prove me wrong? Have them zoom in on Pluto or Jupiter

OK, here you go : Hubble Takes Close-up of Jupiter.

 

[Radagast]

Pretty much. If I gave you an 8-track tape and you couldn't play it because no one has an 8-track player in their car, would that mean that we never had the technology to play recorded music and it was all a hoax? Of course not, but that's the level of thinking being displayed by deniers here.

I've got a few 5¼-inch floppy disks and QIC tapes at home, but they're pretty much dead tech too.

 

[naveed]

who is moving the camera?

 

[RDKirk]

I've got a few 5¼-inch floppy disks and QIC tapes at home, but they're pretty much dead tech too.

I've got an old ST-506 Seagate hard drive. I'm sure someone has a way to connect its proprietary interface to a modern Intel motherboard. Surely someone has.

 

[RDKirk]

who is moving the camera?

The last three missions had cameras on the rovers remotely controlled from Houston.

 

[mindlight]

First of all, I don't know why I was quoted again on this thread but, as has been stated in the thread. You assume the cost is going to be feasible for private companies but, this article:

Should NASA Ditch Manned Missions to Mars?

The article illustrates very well why NASA should not be in the driving seat. Not only is it probably unable to raise the finance for Mars by itself, but its preoccupation with science as opposed to manned space flight is one of its key problems. You can do the science with robots but that is not the point and most of what is needed has already been done. We need Mars to establish a multi-planetary footprint that can survive most predictable cosmic catastrophes and as a chance to build a new and better world and as a way to make money.

Well it says that a low ball number for NASA even would be 100 Billion US over 30 to 40 years. That the ISS was projected to cost 10 billion over ten years and that was ten times less then what it actually ended up costing. So people think that 100 Billion is too low yet.

ISS was a public sector project without cost discipline or proper accountability and as with all international partnerships the politics cost extra also. A private company might manage this better. Noone has done a proper cost estimate given the Falcon Heavy or ITS and I would be more interested in missions based on these platforms which seem more cost effective in concept. The timescales NASA propose are also ludicrous. This is happening in the next 10-20 years so how are you going to spread costs over 40 years unless you never really mean to go. The robots have landed, done excellent work and we have enough now to launch a human expedition.

You want a civilian concern to pocket, let's low-ball a more feasible number of say 450 Billion over 30-40 years. This is again a for-profit company and there is no way that they'd take a 450 Billion dollar hit. No company would and really survive. Any first manned mission to Mars will be scientific in aspect, so how are they going to make profit on a strictly scientific endeavour?

You seem to think cost discipline is better in the public sector!! Maybe in Germany but not in the USA. Also the finance model is important. This is a popular movement to which millions of people may subscribe 10 euros here, 10 dollars there. The interest is such that funds can come from a wide variety of sources. Government may well be better loaning scientists and funds to a privately managed initiative that doing this by themselves. A first manned mission to Mars is more a proof of concept that a science expedition. It is a proof that a man can stand on Mars and an attempt to discern what the key challenges of living there are. If you take the one stop trip option then there is little point in going at all beyond national pride. The vision for Mars is much larger than just one trip.

See, in this article right here: Trump's Fiscal Plans for NASA , not only is Trump's budget barely any bigger then Obama's last requested NASA budgeting figure, Trump: 19.1 Billion Obama: 19 Billion, but Trump also plans some cute cuts across most of NASA's programs. How exactly does that equate with "big plans" for NASA. If anything it's a reduction and lessening of scope.

You misread what I wrote. But to repeat what I actually said. Trump has not increased NASAs budget but he has refocused it outside of low earth orbit. So there are more funds available for the kinds of development necessary for manned flights across the solar system. If the ITS comes in on schedule the issues with Trumps funding plans will be whether developing the SLS is worth it at all. Maybe then NASA should then hitch a ride with SpaceX and develop plans for the spaceship modules ,or aspects of them, or for the habitats on Mars or elsewhere in the solar system. Trump is more likely to be bold and visionary when it comes to space than Obama was and to make the grand decisions. But right now a lot hinges on whether the Falcon Heavy and then ITS concept is proven in practice. If it is not then the SLS might be the way forward if not then perhaps there is duplication of effort to consider there.

I know you have a zeal for this, but try to line up some credible theory to go along with the zeal.

Too right I and millions others have a zeal about this. Yes we are tired of the worldweary no hopers who say it cannot be done for no good reason. It can be done with the right people driving it and Elon Musk and SpaceX are blazing the trail right now not NASA the FKA or other established agencies. The Falcon 9 was a success and essentially uses the same raptor engines that the larger rockets will use. We have good reason to believe that the transportation issues of getting to Mars are on the brink of resolution.

 

[JacksBratt]

OK, no problem. Send me your billing address and I'll get right on it.

LOL. But you forget, the astronaut didn't say they can't due to the cost. He said they can't due to lost technology....

So, they are trying to go to mars, can't go to the moon, but can't go to mars because of issues that were not issues when they went to the moon, still can't go to the moon........Why not develop the tech to go out of earth orbit.... then decide where to go..

The moon is closer.. why not try that first. Set up a base, go to mars from the moon. Less rocket power needed to leave the moon.... just look at the Appolo mission.... I could of picked that thing up and threw it back out of the moons gravity, or believe that that little puff of a blast got them out.

How about..... didn't go to the moon but won't admit it.... still try to over come problems with going any farther than low earth orbit without frying the people inside.

 

[KCfromNC]

LOL. But you forget, the astronaut didn't say they can't due to the cost. He said they can't due to lost technology....

Which kinda goes against your point that they never went in the first place.

The moon is closer.. why not try that first.

Probably because the Moon's already been done so Mars is the next unconquered target.

Set up a base, go to mars from the moon. Less rocket power needed to leave the moon.... just look at the Appolo mission.... I could of picked that thing up and threw it back out of the moons gravity

I thought you were just saying it needed way more oomph than the lander could have given.

That's what I love about conspiracy theories. People can come up with any excuse to ignore each individual point they don't like. But the hard part is building a consistent story which doesn't contradict itself or reality.

How about..... didn't go to the moon but won't admit it.... still try to over come problems with going any farther than low earth orbit without frying the people inside.

I'm not sure why anyone would seriously believe this.

 

[JacksBratt]

Which kinda goes against your point that they never went in the first place.

Well, my view has absolutely no connection to this scenario at all.

Probably because the Moon's already been done so Mars is the next unconquered target.

Ahh..... "probably" ......sounds so certain.

Or, they never went, still can't go and will drain the pockets of the US citizens while trying to go where they, according to them,,,, went before..... but cannot do it now.

I thought you were just saying it needed way more oomph than the lander could have given.

I did, and they would have.... The Saturn V needed all that mass as fuel. The payload was small.

However, if you can believe that the little puff of energy got them out of the moon's gravity which was 1/6 of the earths...... then you could probably have just thrown it yourself..... about as plausible.

That's what I love about conspiracy theories. People can come up with any excuse to ignore each individual point they don't like. But the hard part is building a consistent story which doesn't contradict itself or reality.

Well, conspiracy theories are initiated by people who don't just swallow all the lies that the world tells them. You know... one guy shot JFK three times from 3 different directions.... that sort of stuff.

If you really look..... I mean really look... there are far more inconsistencies in the NASA story than in the concepts of the moon landing deniers.

I'm not sure why anyone would seriously believe this.

me neither.....Oh... sorry you mean believe the fact that we didn't go or that we did?