Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

sonoma95436 t1_ixrgue9 wrote

Reply to comment by Zhurial in NASA’s Orion capsule captures gorgeous close-up pictures of the moon by Miguenzo

Your right. The mission objective is to line pockets in Congress and the aerospace industry. The moon is not a stepping stone to mars. Other then a gravity assist, it would take far more fuel then a direct route from earth orbit. Although I'm no fan of musk, orbital refueling could have been funded resulting in far larger capabilities in the future.

−4

Zhurial t1_ixrje0h wrote

Your post history would suggest otherwise. Your comment was a jab at the mission that we are only paying for photos, but now you are changing your argument. Your ignorance in the industry doesnt even justify a response, someone else can feed this troll.

4

sonoma95436 t1_ixrkyn9 wrote

My post history shows a intense interest in going to mars. You already did answer and if you read my posts know that I feel that the moon is not a stepping stone to mars. Fuel needed is far more then a trip straight from earth. I grew up during Apollo and was a big fan but that doesn't make me a fan of every mission. Do you think this mission was conducted properly with consideration to the taxpayers of our country. You can't justify a response based on facts. That's obvious. Lets go to mars as I have commented dozens of times. Same argument every time. I had to mention a few facts, the mission is 7 years late. So far between 24 billion has been spent with 93 billion total mission cost. Bechtel is years late with mobile launch platform 2. The damage from the launch will take months to fix. Every hydrogen line will have to be tested and many replaced. While I share and appreciate your love for space, insulting someone who has carefully watched missions since the 60s shows that you are still a child with myopic vision when it comes to nasa. Oh BTW, I worked for Hughes aircraft in the 80s in El Segundo, CA before I started my own business. I might know a bit more then you think.

0

Zhurial t1_ixrnh87 wrote

The reason Im not responding is because you are the type of person who shifts the conversation when confronted or corrected. There is no point discussing this further. But know that I am choosing not to continue because of your responses, not based on my lack of knowledge. I say this as someone who has worked on Artemis for the past ten years, as someone who has discussed topics like this with executives and as someone who has hardware on Artemis-I as we speak.

1

sonoma95436 t1_ixs9qqm wrote

Your right. Your time is better spent fixing that mess rather then trying to change the minds of former aerospace workers like me. Best Wishes.

−1

Zhurial t1_ixsvru3 wrote

I realize that my comments were a bit aggressive toward you, personally. Sorry for that. I get a bit tired of reading all of the pro-SpaceX propaganda when a lot of folks outside the industry don't realize how much help Elon has received from NASA and indirectly from all of the companies that they disparage. When NASA contracts ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. they end up sharing all of that knowledge with other competitors for future contracts. Combine that with an aggressive risk posture for cargo missions and you get companies advancing quickly (SpaceX, Blue Origin). Human Spaceflight takes time, hence the delays to the mission. We can't fly crew on Artemis-I because SLS is unproven. Artemis-I was delayed because of SLS delays. I think a lot of the mission gets discredited for the fault of one company and all of the other companies supporting the launch take the flak. The idea behind the moon is that we need a lot of unproven technologies to get us to Mars. Living and having a base on the moon allows us to experience all of those problems and solve them while being relatively close to home. Similar to ISS. I wish we still had the budget that NASA once had, we would be so much farther along than we are now.

Regardless of whether you agree or not, I wish you happy holidays.

1

robit_lover t1_ixstdnn wrote

There is nobody who uses the term "stepping stone to Mars" in the literal sense that a mission to Mars will first go to the moon. The term is used to describe using the moon as a test bed to develop the technology needed for Mars in a more forgiving environment. In terms of launch vehicle performance, the moon is almost exactly as difficult to reach as mars, and the life support systems needed for the long duration missions planned will be directly transferrable to Mars.

3

piggyboy2005 t1_ixtoowo wrote

Also I hate that a lot of people assume the stepping stone idea means it will land on the moon, instead of rendezvous with something launched from the moon, like in high earth orbit for example, which would reduce the delta v needed immensely compared to landing on the moon.

1

piggyboy2005 t1_ixtp1oq wrote

>The moon is not a stepping stone to mars. Other than a gravity assist, it would take far more fuel than a direct route from earth orbit.

Under what mission plan? Landing on the moon? What about rendezvous in high earth orbit, one spacecraft launched from earth with people and one spacecraft launched from the moon, without people?

1

sonoma95436 t1_ixtq5zy wrote

You would need to send fuel to lunar orbit or the surface to launch from there. It takes fuel to get it there. More to continue. The cheapest mission is direct from Earth's surface but limits payload to mars. The most effective all around mission is to refuel in earth orbit and go straight to mars. High earth avoids some debris. So launch fuel ers either with a small crew or automated and rendezvous with a manned ship to refuel and head to mars possibly a gravity assist from the moon.

1

piggyboy2005 t1_ixx52rb wrote

>You would need to send fuel to lunar orbit or the surface to launch from there. It takes fuel to get it there.

Not if you make the fuel with lunar water.

​

>The cheapest mission is direct from Earth's surface but limits payload to mars.

I mean, if you send less payload, it's going to be cheaper. ROI of a moon base would be pretty awful if you sent a normal sized ship or only one ship, rather than a giant ship or a fleet of ships.

​

>The most effective all around mission is to refuel in earth orbit and go straight to mars.

That's kind of what I'm saying, but I would source the fuel (and more) from the moon rather than earth, and it would be in high earth orbit or earth-moon L5(or L4)

1