There is an American shuttle in orbit, a robotic version of the shuttles. Nobody knows its mission and is managed by the USAF. To launch something from the Moon first you have to bring it there with fuel, oxygen, water and astronauts.
The first thing you must bring to the Moon is a nuclear reactor to give you electricity, then some machinery able to dig a cave in which to to install your base. You must make oxygen out of water or ice, provided you find it.
If the Chinese want to go down this gauntlet, let them go.
Tullio

---

The Moon is a potential well. You must spend energy to get out of it. Then you have to spend more energy to transfer to an Earth orbit. But first you have to bring your equipment to the Moon. A rocket fired from the Earth costs much less energy.
Tullio

I would like to see validated proof of that. The earth is many times more massive than the moon and it's gravity well is much deeper. It defies common sense to say that it is easier to launch from the earth than from the moon.

Ouch!

I would like to see validated proof

Double OUCH! (My emphasis.)


Common sense is defied. No validated proof needed: All obvious physics!

There is also a deadly problem of ferociously sharp and charged lunar dust that the Apollo missions were unexpectedly threatened with and which is likely one of the reasons the recent Chinese lander soon failed.


To expand on Tullio's answer:

To drop something somewhere on earth, easiest is to go Earth-to-Earth as is done with ICBMs.

To go out to Mars, by far the easiest is to go Earth-to-Mars as a continuous single launch.

Another way to Mars with less fuel is to loiter first around Earth on a highly elliptical orbit such that you do repeated orbital sling-shots around Earth to gain energy (for the cost of extra time for the Earth orbits) to then continue on your way to Mars.


To go Earth-Land-on-Moon-then-Launch-Mars is a crazy waste of fuel and time unless you are going to use materials mined from the moon for your fuel and equipment.

With present and near term tech, far far easier by far all round is to bypass our moon. You also avoid all the problems of operating in a hostile charged dust and harshly space exposed environment.

Do not forget that the ISS is greatly protected in low Earth orbit by our life-saving magnetic field.


I wonder... Is there any work being done on generating a Star Trek style deflector shield?...


Note that NASA's current plans for their "Orion" craft is a very interesting and clever use of a "transfer orbit" about the Earth to the Lagrange points way beyond the moon so that you can maximize the capability to go anywhere else in the solar system for minimum fuel. Two big pieces missing from that is live crew protection and long endurance life support...


The moon is good politics but in many ways the ISS is far more productive.

Until that is new technology is developed?...


Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

OK, I agree that to go to the moon JUST to go to Mars doesn't make economical sense. But I have never proposed that we just go to the moon as a launch point to travel to Mars. The moon is an important destination by itself regardless of whether humans go to Mars anytime soon. But once a permanent base has been established on the moon the materials exist there to build an interplanetary vehicle to visit Mars and the rest of the solar system. Then a spaceship can be launched from a place with no atmospheric drag to overcome and only 1/6th the gravity. It could even be launched toward the earth and use the earth's gravity well to increase it's velocity on it's journey to Mars or the Jupiter system or that of Saturn, depending on the orbital position of the planets at the time of launch.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

To go out to Mars, by far the easiest is to go Earth-to-Mars as a continuous single launch.

It might be easiest but what if the required ship weighed 10,000 tons exclusive of booster fuel. How many pounds of fuel is required to put 1 lb of material into even low earth orbit, It might very well be better to build the Mars Explorer in orbit and ferry up the components and fuel. We should develop a Ram-Jet carrier to carry the new shuttle to, say, 3000 mph and 100,000 feet where the rocket motors of the ferry/shuttle craft would take over. The Mars ship would be built over a longish period with many ferried loads of components and fuel. While we undertake this, the ferry shuttle should be built to allow a proper space station to be constructed which would serve as the base for constructing the Mars Explorer ship.

How much fuel : maybe anywhere from 100 to 1000 lbs and a cost of $10,000 per pound into LEO. I think we can drop these numbers down drastically using the type of planning that I have outlined herein. Others talk of Rail Guns but don't know if a human could survive these G-forces.

Did anyone else watch the program tonight on the science channel about going to Mars and what it will take to do it?

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

I presume you mean the X-37B Space Plane.

X-37B

Yes. I would not be surprised in learning that a larger craft, with human hosting capabilities, is being developed in some skunkworks. Think of the two Hubble-like telescopes built by the National Reconnaissance Office and now gathering dust. The NRO was offering them to NASA which does not have the money to convert them to astronomy and launch them.
Tullio

---

Why use manned vehicles when they have IKONOS and Quickbird and others?

My alter ego has opined on this important question

There not far of building a scram jet now the problem with the low out has been figured out

Blowout occurs' when you hit mach 2.5 the engine blows out , can't stay lit .

The speed of the air into the engine is to fast and won't combust . But a little ozzy know how fixed that buy adding a longer cone to the engines you can bounce the air off the inside of the cowling and slow it just enough as it enters the engine to combust .

Both N.A.S.A & some ozzy boffins within 1 week of each other tested the idea and i believe it works

Boeing are testing engines now for it now

---

The USA space program has been curtailed because Congress refused to authorise NASA any more money to continue it.

Not to worry; Daddio is advising the President on NASA Policy and Funding.

hehehehehe

the only 1 they mite not want is Maccas , up sizing there food rashons mite make them to big for there space suits by the time it's ready to return

---

The payload (lift capacity) of the Nasa Shuttle was just about 56,000 lbs (28 short tons). I think that it's replacement should double that number to 50 tons at least.

It could be that the shielding required may be the biggest weight component to go to Mars. I am assuming that a feasible and safe solution can be worked out. I sure wish I knew these numbers.

Lately I am thinking that an intense magnetic field might be the answer. I don't know if this would protect from Cosmic Rays which are Alpha Particles (stripped Helium) other stripped atoms, protons and electrons with a smattering of anti-matter.

From Wikipedia: the highest-energy ultra-high-energy cosmic rays have energies comparable to the kinetic energy of a 90-kilometre-per-hour (56 mph) baseball.

Before you run you have to learn to crawl .

We need infrastructure first before going to mars and it's not just Cosmic rays it's meterites solar flares and the effects of no gravity over a long period witch is fine here you go up play around for a few months then come home and so what if you can't walk because you have lost muscles in your legs and there not strong enough to hold you up .

This will also be a major problem with Mars

---

It seems that Curiosity has problems with its aluminium wheels.Maybe they did not choose the right alloy. I spent one year at Istituto Sperimentale Metalli Leggeri near Novara as editor of "Alluminio" magazine and learned a few things about alloys. I even learned to weld aluminium by the TIG and MIG methods. More difficult than solving Lie algebras, as in my thesis.
Tullio

---

That program last night that I mentioned had a pretty good discussion regarding the problem with radiation. One thing they mentioned was a sleeping bag type arrangement where the skin is filled with water from their drinking supply. It would be used if a CME was on it's way. Can you imagine staying wrapped up in a water filled bag for 36 hours or more. There are still a lot of big hurdles that need to be solved before a manned expedition to Mars can be launched. They also mentioned that even with daily exercise on a long term mission astronauts will still become too weak to even stand up on Mars immediately after landing. There was some footage of a soyuz capsule that had just landed and the cosmonauts had to be carried to vehicles to go to a recovery facility. And they had only been in space half the time it will take to get to Mars.

One researcher summed it up by saying that if a multinational group were to start today with the required funding a trip could be launched within 10 years. But with the current attitude toward risk vs. safety it could be several decades before a reasonable level of safety is established. Before then no government or private corporation will be willing to put up the money.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.