John Glenn Speaks Out Against Future Moon Base
Written by Ian O'Neill
Moonbase rover concept - could be used for long-term missions (NASA)
NASA's first man to orbit the Earth, John Glenn has said a plan to set up a Moon base to facilitate the manned exploration of interplanetary space is a very bad idea. Under the current US government direction, NASA hopes to (eventually) establish the manned outpost for future launches to Mars and beyond, thus avoiding the huge gravity well of the Earth. But Glenn has cited the plan as "questionable," pointing out that to pack the huge amount of equipment on board the future Ares V rocket will be "enormously expensive." So what's the alternative? Build a vehicle in Earth orbit and accelerate it to the Red Planet…
Legendary astronaut and former senator John Glenn isn't one to keep his opinions to himself, especially when the future of the US space agency is on the line. Back in May, Glenn sent a strong message to Washington: Extend the life of the Shuttle and re-commit to long-term investment in the International Space Station (after all, extending the Shuttle's lifetime is a bit better than some of the alternatives). His warnings come at a time when there is increased concern about NASA's "five-year gap" in its ability to ferry astronauts into space from Shuttle decommissioning in 2010 and first scheduled Orion module/Ares rocket launch in 2015. Glenn is not the only ex-astronaut speaking out about NASA's future. Buzz Aldrin, second man on the Moon and Apollo 11 lunar module pilot, also came forward in June with his worries that NASA will be overtaken by the space efforts of the international community.
So why is John Glenn against the establishment of a lunar base? He was addressing US President George Bush's vision to set up a Moon base so it can be prepared as a launch pad to further explore space. "It seems to me the moon is questionable as a way station [to Mars]," Glenn said when addressing a congressional committee on July 30th. The hearing was held for a House Science and Technology Committee, in light of NASA's 50 years of operation and future direction of the agency. "If that's what we're doing - which I don't believe it is - but if that's what we're thinking about doing, that is enormously expensive," he continued. From a financial standpoint, such a lunar outpost will be prohibitively expensive as thousands of tonnes of equipment will need to be launched to the Earth's only natural satellite.
The alternative would be to build a large space vehicle in Earth orbit and then accelerate it toward Mars, bypassing the need for a lunar outpost. "That to me would be the cheapest way to go," he added.
Source: Aviation Week
Filed under: Moon, Space Exploration
August 1st, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Glenn was NASA's first man in space?
Ummm…
August 1st, 2008 at 3:55 pm
The Moon Will Most Likely Be A Base Some Time In The Future.
Why Stop Now. & My Tax Money Goes To NASA & I Am Hoping My Tax Money Will Be Part Of NASA Moon Program! I Hope To Live On The Moon Some Day!
August 1st, 2008 at 4:11 pm
>>Glenn was NASA's first man in space?
…Technically.
It depends on how you define "space", otherwise it would be Shepard or Kittenger.
Personally I think we need a moon base. Theres alot to long term surface operations we have not considered and, because of its distance, mars is a bad place to learn.
Even with a mars direct plan we will still come back to a moon base because of its proximity and the local resources.
Its an easier place to start humanities permanent life in space, all things considered.
August 1st, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Cheers! Ian
August 1st, 2008 at 4:51 pm
I'm inclined to agree with Glenn on this one. A moon base is just an unnecessary diversion on the path to Mars.
The moon has many uses, but a stopover or a training base for the Red Planet is not one of them. In fact, because you can't aerobrake into lunar orbit, stopping of at the moon to refuel on the way to Mars actually requires MORE fuel than if you just skipped the moon all together.
August 1st, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Since when is Mars THE GOAL? Did I not get that memo?
I thought that the Solar system was the goal. When it comes to practicing for that challenge, there is no better place to practice for the challenge than the Moon.
And of course you wouldn't launch your deeper space missions (like to Mars, amongst other destinations) from the Moon. You'd do that from EML-1, duh. You'd just be getting parts and supplies from the Moon.
I am so tired of the "Mars is the goal" meme. It might be your goal, but it most certainly is not mine. I'll take our beautiful Moon any day.
August 1st, 2008 at 4:54 pm
We'll need a moon base eventually, might as well hop to it.
Yet again though, everyone is all up in arms about what to do when we get out there, and not solving the biggest problem - cheap lifting to orbit. Until we can ship lots of girders and struts and workers to orbit safely and cheaply, we ain't going anywhere fast.
August 1st, 2008 at 5:03 pm
No one said he was the first in space, the author of the article said Glenn was the first to orbit the earth. The other two were launched and recovered without making full orbits.
The most logical way to build on the moon would be to figure out ways to use the moons resources to build with, then we only have to bring the tools.
Granted, thats a simple explanation, but I believe we should use it as a guideline when designing the mission. Similar to the trans global explorers of old we need to be able to utilize resources where we travel to in order to survive for any substantial amount of time.
Run the mission like a construction site on earth; with men there on site(moon) and unmanned deliveries to resupply them with essential life support, and seperate deliveries for the materials used in construction. With the involvement of the entire modern world it should be doable, but not easy(understatement)
August 1st, 2008 at 5:47 pm
John Glenn's thinking seems to be a little bit the old school: go plant a flag, pretend to do some science and go home. The so called "Vision" is about exploration, not just proving the point "we can do it". Of course we can do it, even right now, but the last time we did a quick-in-quick-out session on the Moon it brought us a 50 year hiatus in the manned exploration of the Solar system. Let's not make the same mistake again. Let's do a thorough job this time. I'm sure lots of people are impatient and are just itching to go to Mars as soon as possible but doing it this way (the way proposed by NASA) is likely to be better in the long run. IMHO.
Kind regards,
/Adam
August 1st, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Even with the technology of the most advanced thing set to fly this year (the X-37B) and fly return boosters, the cost of leaving earth is still extremely high.
At that theres nothing in low orbit to build with.
The moon gives you a safe harbor for housing a long term workforce. If it can be developed, it could become the cheapest source of labor and material in space.
You can skip the moon if you only plan to go to mars a few times. But I suspect mars fans will want alot more than that.
…Which would require alot more infrastructure.
August 1st, 2008 at 6:23 pm
The moon 'thing' is a ruse for us 'sheep'… For us that don't know any better…..
Of course it would be easier for us to go to Mars from Earth orbit -financially- but the goal (in my opinion) is to show the Chinese that "We are here. You can't annex the moon".. And also to say to everybody on the planet: "Yep. we're still number one".. Its a politics and pride thing… This will go on for a few more decades, I think…
But hey…It motivates our species to progress, right?.. Yes, it does….
August 1st, 2008 at 6:37 pm
I think the point of going back to the moon is to test out all our new technology. Once we learn what works and what doesn't, then we can apply that to future Mars missions (and beyond).
The moon is more of a testing ground (and a good one at that; nice and close) than a stopover or launching pad.
August 1st, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Awesome, thanks Ian
August 1st, 2008 at 11:39 pm
I think Glenn is right. Once again I get to say that we should build in orbit and use the ISS as the platform to build with. Lots of space junk up there to use for parts, too. A moon base would be neat, true, but if we are to go anywhere else in this great solar system, galaxy, or universe of ours then we will need big ships to do it with.
August 2nd, 2008 at 4:30 am
The moon is an important step in humanities exploration of space.
We can not expect to be able to carry all resources needed to explore space from Earth. The further afield we explore the more fuel we need to lift from Earth and the more expensive the launch.
As explorers we need to learn to be able to utilise the local resources we have at hand.
The lunar regolith can be used to build a base (instead of carrying all that material from Earth) the regolith can also be refined to extract Helium3 an abundant Lunar material in comparison to the amount we have here on Earth.
A Helium3-Helium3 fusion reaction would provide completely clean nuclear fuel. Currently valued at $1 billion USD per tonne.
Have a look at the moon society website:
http://www.moonsociety.org
A lunar base is an essential step in space exploration, the message here is:
'Don't run before you can walk'
August 2nd, 2008 at 5:09 am
SUGARAT makes an important point. Use materials found on the moon to fabricate & build necessary habitats & create useful resources. The Japanese lunar exploration effort has studied this concept extensively. Multinational cooperation also plays a large part in this endeavor. Also, meaningful astronomical science is possible using the moon as a platform. Let's not forget the engineering & technical knowledge gained from lunar activities will be invaluable in future space (including interplanetary) missions. There seems a lot to be gained by going back to the moon.
August 2nd, 2008 at 5:34 am
Moon bases are inevitable:
1) moons dark-side, with its 6000km natural shield from earth radio interference, is an unbeatable place for radio astronomy
2) if water can be mined out of lunar regolith than the cheapest way to go to mars repeatedly is to have Earth-Mars shuttles that are built on earth, fueled-up in moon orbit and then refueled (once per trip) by docking with disposable fuel tankers launched from moon orbit, and restaffed by docking (withou having to decelerate) with man rated earth/moon shuttles.
3) temporary mankind backup until Mars is terraformed
But then again the Space Elevator might just render 2) unnecessary.
August 2nd, 2008 at 8:12 am
I am ot opposed to moon base that will
begin a lunar colony, but it makes no since
to launch to mars from the moon because
of the fact that you first have to accelerate
to 25000 miles per hour to go the moon .
You also have to accelerate to 25000
miles per hour to go to mars .
tim
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:49 am
I think the travel to Mars is the way to, as with the Shuttle, slow down the progress in space.
Along the History, the frontiers were broken by enterpeneurs that wanted some profit for that. Vikings, Greeks, Romans, Spanish, English, Americans, and others… always was a profit effort in their vision.
The vision in NASA and other national space programs is to waste, to waste, to waste going to neither site.
We go to Mars, and then what? Another 40 years waiting?
Best masterize our skills in LEO, Lagrange and in Moon and let the rich people pay the new advances with their "pleasure travels".
In some years we'll have infraestructure in the Moon not to be moved, we'll have better spacesuits, better materials, discoveries to make the travel cheaper and the best, a new group of companies that will invest money continuosly in Space.
When Fussion reactor get ready, we'll be able to start to mine He3 in just months, not decades.
And in that moment, the cost to go to Mars (and to stay longer) should be cheaper and safer.
If we put all the money and research in the travel to Mars, that should be also international, think in all the cost overruns and delays it will have. Mars is too far and National Agencies so much wasteful to be reliable.
If you want to run marathon, you don-t start to run 42 km the first day.
August 2nd, 2008 at 11:08 am
Thanks again for posting this. - I'm not sure the context, including the headline, for this story is the real story, here.
Former Senator John Glenn (D-Ohio), the first American to orbit Earth in 1962 and later a mission specialist on-board Discovery in 1998 (at age 77 - easily the oldest American ever to orbit Earth) - is closing in on being 90 years old.
Reading the opinions scratched out here, I see some solid critical thinking going on.
Stong testimony to the level of sound thinking among those who read Universe Today!
But reading John Glenn's quote, I'm wondering whether the headline and the story are accurate. Looking back, he is quoted in the context of being questioned whether Earth's Moon is suited to be an actual, physical stepping stone to Mars.
Of course it's not.
But, as a metaphorical, progressive stepping stone, the Moon is THE natural stepping stone to Mars and beyond. That is the position taken by NASA today, and present national policy is specifically NOT to leap ahead swiftly, but to always advance, steadily.
Glenn is a strong supporter of NASA, "love it or leave it," so the context of this story is just plain wrong.
""If that's what we're doing - which I don't believe it is…" Glenn is quoted as saying.
What he does believe is what NASA believes, and the National Space Council believes and the National Academy of Sciences (where NASA goes for guidance) believes.
Everyone should read "Scientific Context for Exploration of the Moon," (2007) available at the cost of your Email address from NAP, National Academies Press.
http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11954
Then read "Managing Space Radiation Risk in the New Era of Space Exploration," (2008) both of these very influential reports commissioned and repeatedly cited by NASA.
http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12045
Both should be required reading, and for the savvy crowd at Universe Today, interesting and important reading.
All you need to own you own invaluable copy of these exceptionally influential books is to give them an Email address, and you can have the pdf for free…
These ought to especially be required reading for every Member of Congress with even a shred of interest in NASA.
August 2nd, 2008 at 11:49 am
Component integration in space seems to be not very efficient when you watch the clumsiness of the mechanists in their typical "working cloths" called spacesuits.
An orbital integration facility would be nice, so the handiwork could be done "indoors". If Bigelow Aerospace could construct something like a very large Genesis II (the very modern descendant of Echo I), an inflatable shell that could provide an orbital work environment?
It wouldn't even be necessary to have respirable air inside such a bubble, but it should provide barometric pressure and warmth, so that the spacesuit could be exchanged with the respiratory mask, with which an astronaut could work much more efficient and faster. The necessary gas could be brought into orbit by a variety of the space elevator, which is a space "vacuum cleaner": a tube diving into the upper parts of the atmosphere to drain atmospheric molecules to the facility.
August 2nd, 2008 at 12:11 pm
The Moon and Mars are two related and separate goals. Each is important on it's own. The moon comes first because it's closest. We're at the point now that we can soon establish a base and begin to exploit the Moon for He3 and titanium, etc. We can do good science on the Moon. Entrepreneurs can start tourism and mining ventures. That will eventually result in permanent settlements on the Moon. That's really exciting stuff. People who say, "let's bypass the Moon because Mars is the main objective," are missing the bigger picture. Our conquest of the Moon is inevitable, and we can start it now, even if Mars were not also a goal.
Mars will take more time and effort and money. As a previous post points out, raw materials on the Moon can be used to make a Mars mission more feasible. Of course it doesn't make sense to launch to Mars from the Moon. I have complete confidence that NASA will get to Mars the best way possible - whatever that may be.
As for Glen… I think we're jumping to conclusions and over hyping what was said. Even Glen said, "If that's what we're doing - which I don't believe it is… " The main thing is that we need to support and fully fund Nasa so they can accomplish their goals. I hope that was Glen's main point.
August 2nd, 2008 at 12:41 pm
We need bases and even a colony on the Moon for numerous reasons: Long-term storage of archived cultural treasures, vital economic data, and military data, the archives kept underground where they won't be affected by solar flares. Remaining at least at par with other space-going nations — sorry, folks, but "it ain't gonna war no more" is less than a pipe dream, and we'd better get up there, or get edged out. For the same reason, we should at least be able to field some Moon-based kinetic energy weapons, just in case. Then there is the need to rescue as much as possible of Earth's life before global warming or some other catastrophe wipes most of it out — seeds, computer storage of the information content of genes (not physically, but representationally), tissues frozen in liquid nitrogen, and precious live representatives of kingdoms Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, etc., for company as well as for host mothers and food sources. When the balloon goes up on Earth — a given, because it's bound to happen in some way, probably sooner rather than later — Earthly *life* and all our cultures and scientific knowledge could still be going strong offworld, and the Moon is the first place to make that happen.
August 2nd, 2008 at 2:03 pm
what about an space elevator for the moon? have anyone done the numbers? I think it could be a lot easier doing that, than the one space elevator for the the earth, because of low gravity…
August 2nd, 2008 at 2:34 pm
"I think Glenn is right. Once again I get to say that we should build in orbit and use the ISS as the platform to build with. Lots of space junk up there to use for parts, too. A moon base would be neat, true, but if we are to go anywhere else in this great solar system, galaxy, or universe of ours then we will need big ships to do it with."
There IS lots of space junk up there, but none of it is viable as a source of parts for building a space vehicle. In order to get to that junk you'd have to expend massive amounts of fuel in course changes to bring you to rendezvous with those pieces of metal.
LEO seems like a small place, but it isn't. There are hundreds of thousands of miles of cubic kilometers for the junk to occupy, so the pieces are very far apart.
If we do decide to build a space vehicle in orbit we should in fact use items such as the Hubble and the ISS as parts. It beats letting them fall into the atmosphere and burn up.
I like the idea of a moon base, more so than even just a manned mission to Mars. We could never * live * on Mars in my lifetime. But the Moon is right here, a stone's throw away in astronomical measure, and we've recently discovered WATER on the Moon.
Which means not only do we have a viable fuel source (Helium-3) we also have the possibility of extracting oxygen and H20.
The lunar habitats can be built from lunar rock. The only things we'll need to send to the moon is scientific equipment, backup life support in case the water basins run dry, and food - at least until we can get hydroponic farming going.
That's actually a * lower * amount of mass that needs to be shipped out of Earth's gravity well than what we're currently sending to the ISS.
August 2nd, 2008 at 2:35 pm
*Ignore my "hundreds of thousands of miles of cubic kilometers" statement:
should just be hundreds of thousands of cubic kilometers.
August 2nd, 2008 at 3:13 pm
His comments should not bare any reasonable weight. This kind of progress takes money duh! he hasn't said anything new.
Yes, everyone knows its exepensive, so was his travel to space (he should knw better).
Breakthrough if not by chance happens because someone spends a lot of money in it.
August 2nd, 2008 at 7:01 pm
I heard and saw all of John Glenn's Congressional testimony on 30 July. It was my take then, and still is, that he was not objecting to a lunar return trip or even a lunar base. Rather, he is of the opinion that that is NOT the way to go to Mars.
August 2nd, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Capturing orbital debris to fabricate turbines or toilets is science fiction. It would be incredibly difficult and expensive to build a toy truck, much less an engine, in orbit.
Take the ISS. The parts were made on Earth in a comfortable environment, designed to fit together and be responsive to the hands and tools of men in space suits, and the work is still a tough job. Foundries in orbit to build and fuel spacecraft make no sense in the 21st century.
Autonomous docking, however, is something Earthlings can do, but the actual designing, construction and testing is something done here at home.
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:55 pm
I think the best use of a moon base would be learning how to use the available resources to be as self-sufficient as possible. Once we learn that, we can go to Mars (probably without having to stop at the Moon first like Glenn says).
Also, if the base fails, home is only three days away.
August 2nd, 2008 at 11:03 pm
In any case, humans will be uploading their minds into robotic bodies in thirty to fourty years. At that point, manned space travel becomes as easy as unmanned space travel.
No heavy life-support equipment, minimal radiation protection.
August 3rd, 2008 at 9:52 am
Showing the world powers that the United States can go to the moon and maybe Mars one day is strictly " don't mess with us" politics." Beyond this premise will be the development of a few gadgets that may benefit mankind and nothing more. Colonizing the moon or Mars or beyond is nothing more than a "pipe dream." If Einstein is correct, and I believe he is, we will never leave the immediate neighborhood of our solar system.
August 3rd, 2008 at 10:46 am
btw said among others: "Autonomous docking, however, is something Earthlings can do, but the actual designing, construction and testing is something done here at home."
Surely not!
1st, "testing is something done here at home"
Guess the exact opposite is the case. Especially the ISS was thought as a place to do TESTS on new materials, machines, methods IN SPACE.
2nd, "Foundries in orbit to build … spacecraft make no sense in the 21st century."
Materials processing in space is a regular part of contemporary missions. On earth the influence of gravity to each smelting is inevitable. In orbit there is nearly no gravitational pull. Of course, the goal of nowadays material science practiced in a lab at ISS or on a Space shuttle flight is only to improve fabrication processes down on earth, but it shows that foundries in orbit are already reality, although on the smallest scale.
3rd, repairing a damaged solar panel, recovering of an explosive bolt or cleaning damaged joint has nothing to do with "parts … designed to fit together and be responsive to the hands and tools of men in space suits", because these are runtime errors but no compilation errors.
4th, "to … fuel spacecraft make no sense in the 21st century"
Why certainly! Fact is, the ISS depends on regular deliveries of fuel, otherwise the 100 billion dollar investigation would have fallen from the sky a long time ago. And that is nothing else but a sort of refueling in space
With the two spaceships ASTRO (Autonomous Space Transfer and Robotic Orbiter) and NextSat automated refueling tests were already conducted in orbit.
Welcome to the year 2008!
August 3rd, 2008 at 11:19 am
Hello Chuck Lam, you wrote: "If Einstein is correct, and I believe he is, we will never leave the immediate neighborhood of our solar system."
The ISS orbits Earth maybe 15 times each day in a hight of about 400 km since ten years.
One orbit has a length of approximately
2*PI*6.800 km = 43.000 km
times 15 -> 645.000 km each day
times 365 -> 235.425.000 km each year
since 1998 -> 2.354.250.000 km
This are already more than two light hours. If the direction would have been different and the whole thing would reference a little bit more on itself, then it would now be beyond Saturn and in the path of Uranus.
August 3rd, 2008 at 1:49 pm
I also have to disagree with Chuck Lam. We won't be leaving our solar system anytime soon, but I'll never say it's impossible. I don't see how you can say settling the Moon and Mars is a pipe dream. It's very doable, especially if it's profitable. (But unlike Dollhopf, I'll leave Uranus out of this.)
August 4th, 2008 at 4:55 am
Joel I have to agree with you. I too wonder if Mr. Glenn's comments weren't published out of context.
I agree Mr. Glenn. Using a the moon as a launch pad with current resources and technology is wasteful and foolish. Perhaps when we are at the point where we have re-usable vehicles for travelling w/n the solar system, but this is far off yet.
However, if building on the moon is for science and its resources, then I am all for it. Afterall, we need to perfect living on the moon, before we can perfect building huge projects on the moon.
August 4th, 2008 at 8:44 am
John Glenn was a Senator from Ohio and an Astronaut at the very beginning of or space program and on TO the Shuttle as well in his more mature time .
He understands the fickle mind of the public and the politicians who change course and flow with the wind sometimes for little or no reason.
Mars is the the hope for a second home for our species as needed if mass extinctions occur and as the most optimal place where water and oxygen and carbon and all other necessary ingredients are waiting for us to adapt ,transform and colonize .
John Glenn knows the importamce of it and that we may not have time to follow the scenic route and play with the Moon for awhile first and then possibly forget the main goal …. MARS.
A parallel shotgun approach would be even better since many nations will be involved and by sharing information between the two paths we can arrive at both destinations .
August 4th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
I think it makes plenty of sense to have a moon base for its own sake besides supporting a mars mission.
The reason I think this is the presence of water on the moon just discovered and maybe even ice in craters always in shadow. If so, solar powered electrolysis would give H2 and O2 for rocket fuel, breathing and of course water to drink. The H2 and O2 can also be stored and used in a fuel cell for power during the long lunar night.
Eventually, space missions could even be launched by solar power using magnetic sleds, an ideal situation because of the low gravity and lack of atmosphere. These magnetic sling shots could be placed on the lunar equator and the time of launch would be just where the moon is in its orbit and the destination.
August 4th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Bah! A moonbase is a goal in itself.
August 4th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Senator Glenn is a TOP GUN style fighter Jockey and NOT a scientist; do NOT take this man's advise its stupid!
THE MOON MUST COME FIRST!
the Chinese want the Helium 3 istopes that are abundant in the moon's regolith; this will NOT only save the Earth from dangerous politcal and envrionmental foissile fuels, but it will also pay for the scientific reserach….killing two birds with one stone.
once the phsyicists develop a reactor that can achieve about 70% energy efficiency with the Helium 3 isotope than it will become the most important element in the solar system..tHe russians already knew how to do this back in the 1950's, but since helium 3 does NOT exists on Earth in any significant natural quantities it never gained much attention; TOKAMAK
HELIUM 3
that's why need to go and do it fast before the world destroys itself over oil, and don't short term costs ruin long term thinking.
August 5th, 2008 at 6:06 am
He thinks Bush wants a moon base for military purposes…
I agree…
August 5th, 2008 at 6:21 am
Wow! Some good responses. However, I'll say it again. Permanently colonizing the moon or Mars is a pipe dream. The dreamers who think colonization is technically and financially simply don't have a clue. Folks, colonization anywhere from planet earth ain't going to happen! Oh! We'll land a few scientists on the moon and probably Mars for a fews days or weeks stay, but that will be it. The world will also enjoy the development of a few gadgets resulting from the billions and billions of dollars spent to prove to the world we can spend some extended time away from planet earth. Am I a nay-sayer? Yep, I am when considering mostly the economics and politics surrounding a colonization effort as significant as putting a permanent colony somewhere away from our planet. If an attempt is ever made to colonize the moon; It will most likely be driven by military considerations. Then the billions and billions of dollars of expense will be justified by Washington in the name of science
August 5th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Yes, Yes I agree if and when colonization of another planet or moon is granted it will be on a military platform. There is no other way, a civilian project would never be accepted by the world super powers. Can you imagine a country on the moon declaring independence?
The wars would be catastrophic!!!!
August 5th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Buzz Aldrin and John Glenn and many other astronauts have stated that we should send humans to MARS directly and not after the Moonbase has been constructed.
They can see the big picture because of their backgrounds as test pilots , military combat experience and Apollo experience and education.
The rest of you are not qualified to analyze this subject.
The Moon will have to wait for the knowledge obtained from going to MARS first and by international commercial interests………….. like Space X.
August 5th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Chuck Lam wrote:
"Am I a nay-sayer? Yep, I am when considering mostly the economics and politics surrounding a colonization effort"
Well, to fathom the economical aspect of colonization, the following consideration could give a clue. To value the feasability of those projects on moon and mars one could value the involved companies and their stocks.
It is remarkable that the first privately owned spaceports are to come into existance. Private money all around the world already flows into their buildup in New Mexico, Oklahoma, Florida, Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, Singapore, Sandy Mines in Canada, Kiruna in Sweden. This is a very interesting indication. We see the cornerstones of a sound new economic activity.
Let me tell you what happens next. It is inevitable and nearly a law of nature that the used technologies will improve. Thus, the range of space tourism will increase from suborbital travel to orbital flights, and from there to flights one time around the moon. Then several orbits around the moon will become usual and at a certain moment in this development the first private trip to the surface of the moon will be made.
As soon as the subortbital tourism is established this development will be inevitable. The overall travel time will grow and so will the length of stay on ships and in space hotels and other establishments. It is foreseeable that the entrepreneurs will provide their "space products" with additional services. So additional staff will be on location. These men and women will stay in space hotels or at moon hotels for several weeks or month.
Among them will be doctors and medical staff. The first medical emergencies will occur and will be handled. And then there will be the first pregnant woman and the first birth away from earth. And if all goes well, this woman will become as famous as the biblical Eve.
"Permanently colonizing the moon or Mars is a pipe dream."
On the other hand, when we look back on our history we can't avoid to admit that our daily life is the best prove for the feasibility of the impossible.
August 5th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Robert H wrote:
"The rest of you are not qualified to analyze this subject."
And nobody asked you for your unqualified opinion.
August 5th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
To: Robert H., Aldren, Glenn and others, while educated space heroes, are just a little more qualified than you or I on the subject of colonizing other planetary bodies. Because the United States spent untold billions of dollars on the space programs these guys were trained to work within (specifically operating equipment) qualifies them for not much more than driving and fixing the space bus that took them to the moon. Colonization of the moon doesn't make sense unless, of course, it is for 'pork barrel profit' and military purposes. As for an attempt to colonizing Mars, that may happen in the next century, if at all. And humans leaving the solar system on a non-suicide mission to our nearest star system just ain't going to happen. Mankind will live out its destiny in the solar system. We're not going to venture much beyond a few light-hours distance from earth.
August 5th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
To Chuck Lam :
Dr. Buzz Aldrin has come up with technical plans for a "Cycler" to orbit between Earth and Mars …
Neil Armstrong teaches at a university .
Who are you to judge their knowledge of aspects of colonization of Mars .
The MIT Mars Homesteading Group is into fine details regarding this topic..
Dr. Buzz Aldrin and other Astronauts are members of many Space organizations and he in particular is seriously involved with the above ideas on the colonization of Mars…
and Chuck Lam labels him as only a space fixer upper and bus driver ?
Furthermore , if you all learn from History , the conservative estimates of what humans can or can not do are almost always wrong…
Humans probably migrated to Anerica by water before the path was taken from Siberia …
The Clovis civilization may have come by water from Siberia in 15000 bc or even Europe … their arrow heads found in Virginia are A SPECIFIC TYPE found only in Europe (france)
Today all kinds of water craft including Kon Tiki and rowboats are capable of crossing the oceans… there are always those daring explorers who will just get up and go … even on a log if necessary …
just as there will be those daring educated Astronaut types who will colonize MARS .
Many of them have Phd's !
There are and will be those who VOLUNTEER to go one way to MARS or anywhere for that matter , regardless of the risk..
In Holland , explorers were given a funeral before they left for America in the 15th century.
Vikings went everywhere …
In Peru , there are Indians who look like Japanese and some of there dialects are partially understood by visiting Japanese.
I know a physician from Ayacucho who looks Japanese and he believes that his ancestors came by boat from the Pacific area 30,000 years ago long before the Clovis people entered America.
In Merida in the Yucatan , one archeologist believes the Mayans came from India by boat in 4000 b.c.
A child was asked "Why should we go to Mars ?"
He replied "Because its there !"
You , with your condervative extimates of future progress are not in tune with History or Reality ,
You are obviously quite lacking in your judgement of others without doing a little background investigation as to their education and accomplishments in the academic and scientific area especially.
You must be only a bus driver yourself to make such foolish statements…
People like you never take risks … and risk is what its all about …
There are always risk taking explorer types and you can never hold them back …and thats the human spirit …
And , of course , there are always "Nay Sayers" and thats what many of you are all about…and you will push pencils in your little offices and be politicians and lawyers and such and be assigned behind the front lines where you don't have to take risks…and you will keep on saying endlessly "It can't be done " …
August 8th, 2008 at 1:50 am
August 10th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
To: Robert H. I don't believe Aldrin, Armstrong and the other educated astronauts really qualify as "daring risk taking explorers." You forget the astronaut is a paid employee of the United States government. It was the John Kennedy administration that decided our country should "go to the moon", not Aldrin or Armstrong. And the real lunar heros were the unsung equipment designers and engineers that made it all possible for the astronauts to walk on the moon. I was wrong in addressing the astronauts as "bus drive." Actually they are more like "passengers" except for a few minutes of actual flying the landing craft to and from the lunar surface. They did a remarkably good job! That, however, is what they were paid for. And finally, the average "bus driver" has more "souls on board" responsibility than the astronauts ever had who landed on the moon. Oh . . . one last thing, read up on Dr. Rita Colwell, she will do your thinking a world of good.
August 14th, 2008 at 12:34 am
heres the order we should explore space
1: build a space lift to reduce cost by 50000%
2: build a large ship in sections on earth
3: send sections up with space lift
4: assemble sections
5: send ships on long voyages with manned crews
or the pipe dream that people dream about here
1: send hundreads of fueled rockets to the moon costing billions maybe trillions to set up a moon base
2: send fueled rockets to the moon
3: send fueld rockets to mars
pipe dream
wont happen, what i do see happening is manned missions to the moon, probably to prepare for a manned mission to mars, but no outpost, nasa … no america cant afford it 
August 14th, 2008 at 10:25 am
But honestly, Stephen, the elevator is the pipe dream while the common rocket technology is well understood and an approved concept, used by industry and military in a ten thousands of undertakings.