Advice to NASA: Skip the Moon

[Saxman]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33435155/ns/technology_and_science-space

An independent commission is recommending that NASA skip a return to the moon, and aim directly for either an asteroid nearby or one of the Martian moons. Among the reasons cited is the expense of sending a rocket into space with the amount of fuel necessary to complete the trip.

My own thought is:

Why are we still so attached to earth-launched vehicles? If we expect to expand our space program beyond Earth orbit, it's damn time we developed a self-propelled manned space craft that remains permanently in orbit.

If such a vessel were docked at the ISS when not on a mission I'd imagine it would substantially reduce the fuel requirements since you don't need to worry about escaping earth's atmosphere. That means more fuel that can be devoted to the mission. Also, IIRC, the majority of the fuel needed by the Apollo missions was, once again, to escape EARTH'S atmosphere. The rocket on the lunar modules didn't need anything near the same amount of power to jet back up to the command module after the surface mission was completed. You could then use "away modules" to jet down to the moon while the main ship remains in orbit in a similar fashion.

Different components could be assembles and tested on earth, then sent into space for assembly in a similar manner as the ISS.

[gyrene81]

I'm still waiting for the mothership to pick us up... 

[Dragon]

Although, assembly on Earth and launching uses 1 qty of fuel.  Assembly in space requires multiple launches using multiples of the same qty of fuel.  The only savings would come into play after the "orbiting spacecraft" completes it's Nth mission where N = the number of trips the shuttle took to assemble it.  And by then the craft would be obsolete and the whole process would have to start over again.

[Bosco123]

Get to the moon again so we know that we can still do it. Then make the mission to Mars.

[Saxman]

Although, assembly on Earth and launching uses 1 qty of fuel.  Assembly in space requires multiple launches using multiples of the same qty of fuel.  The only savings would come into play after the "orbiting spacecraft" completes it's Nth mission where N = the number of trips the shuttle took to assemble it.  And by then the craft would be obsolete and the whole process would have to start over again.

Dragon,

Keep in mind propulsion models like electrodynamic drives that have high specific impulse but low thrust-to-weight ratios become much more feasible once you no longer have to worry about escaping atmosphere (highly efficient drives like electrodynamic/static don't have the thrust to escape atmosphere). The capability of greater fuel efficiency under these propulsion models would at least appear to lead to a quicker return on the investment than if conventional chemical rockets were used.

[Plazus]

Deep Space One is a space probe that was sent in space a few years back. I believe it was the first man-made probe to use the Ion Drive. It collects solar energy from the sun and stars and converts it to usable energy. The energy can then be used to power the Ion Drive. The Ion Drive uses no chemical fuel cell, so endurance is not a significant issue. Dont quote me on this, I heard about this on a documentary years ago on the History Channel.

[APDrone]

We should install a salvage wing on the ISS to fetch space debris/junk/expired satellites/ broken motherships.. and use those parts to build new probes and expand the ISS.

[Chalenge]

The people at MSNBC said this? Its always interesting to me that someone that has no credentials other than their natural facial features (and some of them not so natural) makes up to $2000000 a year for reading off a piece of paper. Then they have the audacity to think that makes them smarter than the people that planned space missions step-by-step.

[Skuzzy]

Deep Space One is a space probe that was sent in space a few years back. I believe it was the first man-made probe to use the Ion Drive. It collects solar energy from the sun and stars and converts it to usable energy. The energy can then be used to power the Ion Drive. The Ion Drive uses no chemical fuel cell, so endurance is not a significant issue. Dont quote me on this, I heard about this on a documentary years ago on the History Channel.

Actually, Deep Space One was launched in 1998.  In 1970 NASA launched an ion test drive in a rocket and it ran for 161 days.  In 1997 Boeing launched two geosynchronous satelites (Boeing 601HP and Boeing702) which use ion propulsion systems.  However, Deep Space One is the first space craft to use ion drive as a primary means of propulsion.  NASA ran the engine for 200 days.  The longest sustained engine run in spacecraft history.

Deep Space One's ion drive produced from 20 to 90 mN of thrust.  The electricity needed for the ion drive comes from the 2.5kW solar array attached to DS1.  The mass was provided by a store of Xenon gas aboard the ship. 

EDIT:  Russia also has several satellites in orbit which also use ion drive systems.  I do not have data on when they were launched.

[Die Hard]

Deep Space One is a space probe that was sent in space a few years back. I believe it was the first man-made probe to use the Ion Drive. It collects solar energy from the sun and stars and converts it to usable energy. The energy can then be used to power the Ion Drive. The Ion Drive uses no chemical fuel cell, so endurance is not a significant issue. Dont quote me on this, I heard about this on a documentary years ago on the History Channel.

An ion drive uses reaction mass just like a conventional rocket, so it has a finite endurance. However since it uses solar power to propel the reaction mass it is a lot more fuel efficient than chemical rocket engines.

[Chalenge]

Okay having read the article I cant slam MSNBC except for backing the loons on the commission by publishing that (slanted) article.

[DaCoon]

Where's the starship Enterprise when we need it?     

[john9001]

a permanent moon base is needed next. And the path is not earth to moon , it is earth to space station to moon to mars.

[Saxman]

Where's the starship Enterprise when we need it?    

That's basically what I think is REALLY needed to move manned space exploration forward: Some form of permanently space-based vessel for long-distance manned missions, serviced by cheap expendable rockets lifting supplies and crew to the ISS until a more feasible reusable vessel can be developed.

And unlike what Dragon is suggesting, it probably wouldn't be so hard to construct a vessel the size of the orbiter in prefabricated modules and blast them into orbit for final assembly that it would be obsolete before it pays for the fuel costs of doing so. Especially if, like I said, if there was a high-efficiency propulsion system (IE, ion or plasma) to further reduce fuel costs. Once in space you don't need the huge thrust-to-weight ratio that earth-bound vessels would. Using the gravity of the earth and moon as slingshots would further lessen the fuel requirements of accelerating to acceptable speeds for interplanetary travel.

[batch]

why bother with space exploration?........ Planet X is coming to us soon