"No, we won't go to the Moon; we will visit Mars instead," says Obama

Suspended
Joined
19 Feb 2010
Posts
13,254
Location
London
I was really hoping that I'd get to see a moon-base or some sort of outpost on Mars being built in my lifetime. I'd volunteer to go if I was qualified enough. There's not much point in a moon-base though, I mean, even if you though about mining raw materials there to cover expense, the logistics of getting them back to Earth would prove to be unworkable.

I reckon the Chinese might end up beating them to Mars.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
20 Oct 2004
Posts
13,104
Location
Nottingham
The Daily Mail are no doubt getting excited about the prospect of blasting a rocket full of immigrants into outer space.
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
13 Aug 2008
Posts
410
Rachel Courtland, space reporter
At last, a rough time line has emerged in the White House's new vision for space exploration: new spacecraft ready for deep space by 2025 and forays to Mars by the mid-2030s.
It has been more than two months since the White House unveiled a new plan for NASA.
The proposal, which must still be approved by Congress, calls for scrapping NASA's Constellation programme, which aims take astronauts back to the moon using a pair of new rockets. NASA administrator Charles Bolden has said the new plan maintains the ultimate goal of Constellation, to take humans to Mars. But some critics have said that the lack of a defined time line for exploration will hobble the agency.
Now Obama has revealed more about the new vision in his first speech on the plan, delivered yesterday in Florida. By 2025, the US will have readied the first spacecraft capable of carrying astronauts beyond the moon and into deep space, Associated Press reports. Trips to Mars, beginning with forays to Martian orbit and back, would begin in the mid-2030s. "I expect to be around to see it," Obama said.
Other details matched those released by the White House this week in a preview of the speech. NASA will have until 2015 to finalise plans for a new heavy-lift vehicle that can carry crew capsules and supplies needed to reach deep space. And the Constellation programme's Orion capsule, which would have taken astronauts to low-Earth orbit and eventually the moon, will get new life as an escape pod for astronauts working on the International Space Station.
This decision may be beneficial with those with a stake in Orion's future, but economically impractical. Finishing Orion in its present form will take roughly $8 billion, The New York Times says. The cost could be less, but still a few billion, for a simpler version of the capsule.
Former NASA administrator Mike Griffin tells the Times:
"In the end, this seems like an expensive proposition that makes simply continuing to use the Russians for crew rescue look like a bargain."​
The price for flights aboard Russia's three-person Soyuz capsule is currently about $50 million per astronaut.
A transcript and video of Obama's speech can be found here.
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/04/nasas-deep-space-timeline.html
 
Associate
Joined
9 Jul 2009
Posts
1,905
I thought a deal was made in the 60's or 70's. Which agreed we wouldn't go back to the moon or build a base there as there was already a base there and not to upset things. Or maybe thats too much ATS reading late at night.
Dave
 
Soldato
Joined
4 Dec 2002
Posts
14,520
Location
North Lincolnshire
Should stop with the waste of money on manned flights and send drilling robots to europa to search for life. It's the solar systems best bet for life outside of earths atmosphere and we still don't have the level of technology needed to make a mars journey not take nearly a years flight time.
 
Associate
Joined
13 Aug 2008
Posts
410
Should stop with the waste of money on manned flights and send drilling robots to europa to search for life. It's the solar systems best bet for life outside of earths atmosphere and we still don't have the level of technology needed to make a mars journey not take nearly a years flight time.

Actually we do!

http://www.opennasa.com/2008/03/25/the-amazing-vasmir/

something very similar pushing ESA sat around at the mo too.

Apparently one of these will be fitted to the ISS to keep it boosted / test it.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
4 Nov 2002
Posts
15,508
Location
West Berkshire
Yesterday's speech was what Obama should have given in Feburary (though preferably minus the schoolboy errors like "Urion"). Instead he just cancelled stuff and left with no clue about a replacement. At least we may have those clues now.

How does Obama suggest we get there? He's just cancelled the only rocket program capable of a mission to Mars :confused:

Nonsense. He cancelled a lame duck. Ares 1 was over budget and behind schedule. Ares 5 barely even got off the drawing board because NASA were spending all their resources just getting to LEO.

Fact is, LEO is (comparatively) easy - we've launched thousands of rockets there and 131 shuttle missions too. The challenge to LEO is convincing everyone that your vehicle is safe for human use. No issue with commercial entities doing that (they do most of it already anyway), with NASA oversight on safety. This is Obama's plan.

With the burden of LEO taken away from NASA, they can get on with actually designing and building the technologies to get us to Mars, or the Moon, or wherever whoever is in charge at the time decides to go.

I'd say bring it on, but then again in seven (or maybe even three) years, NASA will probably get pulled some other direction. It's happened several times already so no reason to expect it won't happen again.
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
19 Mar 2003
Posts
1,364
Yesterday's speech was what Obama should have given in Feburary (though preferably minus the schoolboy errors like "Urion"). Instead he just cancelled stuff and left with no clue about a replacement. At least we may have those clues now.



Nonsense. He cancelled a lame duck. Ares 1 was over budget and behind schedule. Ares 5 barely even got off the drawing board because NASA were spending all their resources just getting to LEO.

Fact is, LEO is (comparatively) easy - we've launched thousands of rockets there and 131 shuttle missions too. The challenge to LEO is convincing everyone that your vehicle is safe for human use. No issue with commercial entities doing that (they do most of it already anyway), with NASA oversight on safety. This is Obama's plan.

With the burden of LEO taken away from NASA, they can get on with actually designing and building the technologies to get us to Mars, or the Moon, or wherever whoever is in charge at the time decides to go.

I'd say bring it on, but then again in seven (or maybe even three) years, NASA will probably get pulled some other direction. It's happened several times already so no reason to expect it won't happen again.

Of course it was over budget and behind schedule, it's a NASA project :rolleyes:

I don't quite understand your argument on LEO, in what way were they concentrating on this? Unless you plan on launching everything for a 1+ year mission to Mars in one go, you're going to have to stop off in LEO :confused:

And you neatly sidestepped my question, what on earth are we going to replace Orion with?
 
Back
Top Bottom