Why isn't the ESA going to the Moon and Mars?

[Travis]

Many are despondent that NASA doesn't seem to have anything to do for the foreseeable future. Pretty much all we know is what they aren't doing


not going back to the moon
not building rockets that can just get people into orbit
not operating the existing shuttles
not building anything that can lift anything even moderately heavy anywhere


So while this has a great many people sad why isn't the ESA taking advantage of the situation and just saying, "fine, you won't do the grand stuff...well we will!"

Seriously what's stopping them? Surely the member states have the money. They have a launch facility to use and supposedly Europeans do everything better than us hopeless, ignorant yanks so technical ability shouldn't be a problem.

So why not do it?

[John Jones]

The Russians are doing an adequate job of lifting people and cargo into LEO, and the USA is willing to hitch-hike a ride on their rockets.

[MG1962]

Seriously what's stopping them? Surely the member states have the money. They have a launch facility to use and supposedly Europeans do everything better than us hopeless, ignorant yanks so technical ability shouldn't be a problem.

So why not do it?

Why do it is a better question

1/ Whats on the Moon...........nothing

2/ The Shuttle as a concept was a blind alley, why repeat the mistake

3/ Mars...we dont have the technology

[Soapy Sam]

Money and will.
Absence of.

[Doubt]

Why do it is a better question

1/ Whats on the Moon...........nothing

Define nothing.

2/ The Shuttle as a concept was a blind alley, why repeat the mistake

The original concept and what we ended up with were quite a bit different. The concept was not the problem.

3/ Mars...we dont have the technology
Not today, no.

The Biggest problem with the ESA is the lack of a central government. They cannot even get the Galileo version of GPS off the ground yet.

[MG1962]

Define nothing.

Anything of value that would warrent further exploration



The original concept and what we ended up with were quite a bit different. The concept was not the problem.

The concept was at fault. The idea was to build a re-usable flight vehicle, the expectation was this should reduce launch cost. Those cost reduction where never realised


Not today, no.

Which is why the ESA has no plans to go to Mars QED



The Biggest problem with the ESA is the lack of a central government. They cannot even get the Galileo version of GPS off the ground yet.

Either did NASA, the first generation of GPS was launched by the US airforce

[Doubt]

Anything of value that would warrent further exploration

If you mean value in a commercial sense, for the time being you are right. From a science and exploration point of view, we hardly even started. Although the value of putting humans there is a bit questionable. Unless the intent it to develop that technology to go to Mars or other things.



The concept was at fault. The idea was to build a re-usable flight vehicle, the expectation was this should reduce launch cost. Those cost reduction where never realised

What go built was not in line with the concept. NASA had plans for three big projects following Apollo. The original Shuttle was just supposed to be a way to get humans into low earth orbit and back again. Cargo was supposed to be moved by the Nova project heavy lift rockets. That is where the money was supposed to be saved. That never got funded along with the original space station concept. The shuttle ended up trying to do all three jobs and ended up a monster that could not do any of those three things very well.

[bokonon]

It doesn't really make economic or scientific sense to be focusing on the moon or Mars, except with robotic explorers. If you have a scientific objective which might be satisfied by putting more robots on either body, propose it. I think perhaps a telescope in lunar orbit might make sense; if we had one there, it might even make sense to send men into lunar orbit again to service it, as we did with the Hubble.

We still have robots active on Mars, gathering information. It makes sense to digest what they are telling us before formulating the objectives that would justify sending more.

We've reached a point where our machines can gather the information we seek with much less risk and at a much lower cost. The only job that makes economic and scientific sense for space cowboys at the moment is to be the technicians that service those machines.

[MRC_Hans]

Actually, apart from the romantics of it, it doesn't really make much sense to put humans in space, currently. We can very likely advance robotic probes at a much faster rate than we can advance human space travel. And at a fraction of the cost.

Hans

[Captain_Swoop]

Cost. I don't know if you noticed, there is a big recession at the moment.

Who would pay?

[MG1962]

If you mean value in a commercial sense, for the time being you are right. From a science and exploration point of view, we hardly even started. Although the value of putting humans there is a bit questionable. Unless the intent it to develop that technology to go to Mars or other things.

In terms of a Mars mission my understanding is that the life support durability and protection of the crew from cosmic rays during the journey are the big stumbling blocks. Both these problems can be dealt with without a Luna base.

Aside from that. What can man do on the Moon that robots cant do cheaper and safer. That is the big question now with all space exploration. The amazing strides in electronics and other fields has made man almost redundant. About the only place having an independent human makes sense is a Mars mission, and we cant get his fragile out there to do anything



What go built was not in line with the concept. NASA had plans for three big projects following Apollo. The original Shuttle was just supposed to be a way to get humans into low earth orbit and back again. Cargo was supposed to be moved by the Nova project heavy lift rockets. That is where the money was supposed to be saved. That never got funded along with the original space station concept. The shuttle ended up trying to do all three jobs and ended up a monster that could not do any of those three things very well.

I totally get that, but I fear you are missing my point. When NASA pitched the final Shuttle configuration, a great deal was made of lower per pound launch costs. I have a very foggy memory but the numbers something like a saving of $80,000 a pound launch costs. It simply never happened

[Travis]

Actually, apart from the romantics of it, it doesn't really make much sense to put humans in space, currently. We can very likely advance robotic probes at a much faster rate than we can advance human space travel. And at a fraction of the cost.

Hans

Humans trump robots at field work level scientific investigation. Look at the quality of Moon rock samples brought back by humans and the ones retrieved by robots.

But even if we accept that robots are better why isn't the ESA sending out more probes? I mean if Europe does everything better than the USA then their probes should be doing sample returns from Titan by now.

Cost. I don't know if you noticed, there is a big recession at the moment.

Who would pay?

But weren't a lot of people making a big deal about how Europe was dealing with the recession so much better than the USA back in 2009? Surely the ESA states are now worth something like fifty trillion Euro's by now. :rolleyes:

[Captain_Swoop]

Is there any point to this or are you just complaining about Europe?

[bokonon]

Humans trump robots at field work level scientific investigation. Look at the quality of Moon rock samples brought back by humans and the ones retrieved by robots.
You're comparing apples and flyspecks. From Wikipedia:
During the six Apollo surface excursions, 2,415 samples weighing 382 kg (842 lb) were collected, the majority by Apollo 15, 16, and 17. The three Luna spacecraft returned with an additional 0.32 kg (0.7 lb) of samples. Since 1980, over 120 lunar meteorites representing about 60 different meteorite fall events (none witnessed) have been collected on Earth, with a total mass of over 48 kg.
Manned missions have returned 1000 times as much sample as robots. Have we learned 1000 times as much from those rocks? If the Apollo missions had been robotic, we could have collected 3 times the sample mass (because the weight of the returning astronauts could have been replaced with more rocks), plus we'd have had more robots wandering around on the moon for much longer times. The Mars rovers have arguably been able to do more than men could have, simply because they've been operating longer than men could have.

[MG1962]

But even if we accept that robots are better why isn't the ESA sending out more probes? I mean if Europe does everything better than the USA then their probes should be doing sample returns from Titan by now.

You seem oblivious to the fact that the ESA built the probe that landed on Titan

[Travis]

Is there any point to this or are you just complaining about Europe?

Actually I'm more frustrated with NASA.....and yeah I got into a bit of spat with a drunken Dutch tourist the other day. :cool:

You seem oblivious to the fact that the ESA built the probe that landed on Titan

Uh, I picked Titan because the ESA has landed a probe on it. But that is a long way from a sample return mission.

[Trakar]

Humans trump robots at field work level scientific investigation. Look at the quality of Moon rock samples brought back by humans and the ones retrieved by robots.

That was 40 years ago! Robotics have greatly advanced over the last 4 decades, humans and our limitations, not so much so.

Humans are better when lifesupport isn't an issue, teleoperation works pretty good at moon distance with only a couple seconds of back-and-forth delay.

But even if we accept that robots are better why isn't the ESA sending out more probes? I mean if Europe does everything better than the USA then their probes should be doing sample returns from Titan by now.

Who has said that Europe does everything better than the USA?

The moon isn't going anywhere anytime soon, and there are issues much nearer requiring effort and budgetary addressment priority over the next decade or so at least.


But weren't a lot of people making a big deal about how Europe was dealing with the recession so much better than the USA back in 2009? Surely the ESA states are now worth something like fifty trillion Euro's by now. :rolleyes:

Just because they didn't over-extend themselves and their economic reach quite as badly as the US did, doesn't mean they didn't take a serious hit, and none of us are out of the woods yet.

I imagine interest in further exploration (by both NASA and ESA) will increase, but I wouldn't expect any national player to make any big moves anytime soon, though China will keep closing the gap.

[Aepervius]

Many are despondent that NASA doesn't seem to have anything to do for the foreseeable future. Pretty much all we know is what they aren't doing


not going back to the moon
not building rockets that can just get people into orbit
not operating the existing shuttles
not building anything that can lift anything even moderately heavy anywhere


So while this has a great many people sad why isn't the ESA taking advantage of the situation and just saying, "fine, you won't do the grand stuff...well we will!"

Seriously what's stopping them? Surely the member states have the money. They have a launch facility to use and supposedly Europeans do everything better than us hopeless, ignorant yanks so technical ability shouldn't be a problem.

So why not do it?

1) going to the moon : what for ? With human ? There is no reason. The original reason the US had was really to pull one under the Soviet, since the soviet were the first to pull something else under the USA foot before. Going there with automated robot, maybe , but otherwise there is at the moment no reason whatsoever to go to the moon with human. ETA: think on how much FURTHER we would be if we had continued on the ilk of Lunarkod and Spoutnik instead of going into this stupid human rae in space ? IMHO, we lost 50 years here.
2) again you need a REASON to put people in orbit. Science, resource gatehring whatever. At the moment I see the ISS as a waste. And anyway why go with a shuttle when Soyouz capsule can do that ?
3) shuttle : a WASTE of money. The model only shown that it does many things, all badly. Specialised launcher are what is needed more than reusable one. And for human, there is already capsule which do a great job, and for fret we already have our own launcher.
4) commercially ariane is a sucess. So... really...

And FYI, your technology originaly nearly exclusive came from those dirty european. So what. Who cares. Important is whether any project has a short term, medium term and logn term interrest. And right now putting human in space is a WASTE with not so much return on money, except maybe in the long long term, and even that isn't sure.

What *I* want to see from ESA, is a lot MORE robotic and sonde operation. Andn not useless meat sent in space.

[Aitch]

So, no-one has told young Travis about the secret ESA base on the far side of the moon?

He's obviously not as high in the NWO as I thought. ;)

[Mikemcc]

So how do we develop the technology to go to mars, provide long term life support and reduce the effects of radiation? The simple answer is by going out there and doing it. You can't work out what works and what doesn't by sitting around on Earth or LEO.

What's the biggest advantage of setting up an industrial base on the moon? It's got a sixth of the gravity well of the earth. Anything constructed there will need far less energy to lift it into interplanetary orbits. There's plenty of raw materials and fuel on the moon, the technology to refine and machine them exists already.

As for robotics, they are great, they have achieved wonders, the Mariner, Voyager, Casinni, and martian rover probots have been astounding. But the work that the martian rovers have done could have been done by humans in less than a week.

[Trakar]

As for robotics, they are great, they have achieved wonders, the Mariner, Voyager, Casinni, and martian rover probots have been astounding. But the work that the martian rovers have done could have been done by humans in less than a week.

For a cost that would be how many times greater?

if we look at equivilant mission price tags, in most instances the robotic mission will be more capable and provide a greater range and depth of information than a similarly priced manned mission.

[Aepervius]

Mikemcc, Total cost of operating , building, and designing and launching spirit and oportunity : 820 million. Per launch cost of shuttle , counting everything and dividing by 120 launch about 1.3 billion dollar per launch. And that's LEO only. So really, robotic exploration *IS* the short and medium term future of space operation, as for current cost this is all we can do to easily explore and get data from far away place. Even if you want to send meat bags in space on Mars, you will need to prepare first the place they land with data.... gotten by robotic sonde or sats.

As for what you said about the tech : it would not be developped in space. Hint : the engineer , the scientiist working on such a tech would run it on earth. And *IF* it come to a few initial test, it would be done in big vaccuum chamber with a low pressure initially, with better vaccuum later. On Earth. *Maybe* once something is develooped, it would be tested. The vaccuum in LEO is good enough (anything above 100 km , see air pressure wiki). But that is far , far beyond development. And we aren't there today.

Meat bag in space is a waste of resource, and at the moment of very very limited operations.

[soylent]

But the work that the martian rovers have done could have been done by humans in less than a week.

I can't fathom the kind of thinking that leads to an error this grevous. The clock doesn't start when you land something on Mars, the clock starts when you go beyond a colourful proposal to actually doing something that requires serious money. It would take something like 20 years and a trillion dollars to send a manned mission to Mars.

For the same cost you could send a hundred robotic missions. Some could be reconnaissance vehicles that orbit Mars, some could be rovers, some could be inflatable "tumble-weed" like robots. Each could have their own unique landing spot, they could have unique equipment for performing particular kinds of experiments, they could incorporate new knowledge and try to answer new questions posed by the last generation of rovers(you would probably get at least 2 "generations" of missions completed in the same time as it takes to do one manned mission).

I see no reason whatsoever to send meatbags to go putzing around on Mars unless you actually have a reasonable long term plan to terraform the place and make it human-habitable.

[bokonon]

What's the biggest advantage of setting up an industrial base on the moon? It's got a sixth of the gravity well of the earth. Anything constructed there will need far less energy to lift it into interplanetary orbits. There's plenty of raw materials and fuel on the moon, the technology to refine and machine them exists already.
This kind of talk always cracks me up.

Sure, there are raw materials on the moon. Fuel? Maybe you can dredge ice out of the polar regions and generate hydrogen. And sure, the technology to refine and machine them exists already -- ON EARTH.

ON EARTH we have dozens of companies which take care of mining and refining the raw materials -- copper, iron, aluminum, rare-earth elements, minerals such as petroleum, and more.

Hundreds of additional companies then assume the task of transforming these raw materials into the components which go into modern spacecraft -- lenses, valves, windows, wires, computer chips and other electronic components, pipes, tubing, structural components, small electric motors, large rocket motors, lights, etc. They already have drill presses, precision machining equipment, metal presses, wire extruders, "clean rooms", etc. required to accomplish these transformations.

Dozens more companies assemble and test these components.

It's not a business, it's an INDUSTRY.

So, for the purported benefit of being able to spit a pod at Mars from a shallow gravity well, all we have to do is arrange for life support for thousands of miners, refiners, fabricators, assemblers, and testers (design work, presumably, could still be done on the Earth), as well as the construction crews who will build the factories in which all this work will take place.

I don't think there's any way to do the math and conclude that it's cheaper/easier/more desirable to do it on the Moon rather than on the Earth.

As for robotics, they are great, they have achieved wonders, the Mariner, Voyager, Casinni, and martian rover probots have been astounding. But the work that the martian rovers have done could have been done by humans in less than a week.
No, the robots have been able to observe what passes for seasons on Mars, which can't be done in a week.

Maybe men could have done most of the scientific reconnaissance in less than a week, but what's the hurry? Mars isn't going anywhere. If we can gather information slowly and steadily, we can digest it and discuss it, and spend time thinking about what the logical next steps should be. We don't have to provide life support systems to get the robots there. We don't even have to equip them with the ability to return.

For the foreseeable future, there doesn't seem to be any good reason to send people further than low Earth orbit, and even there, the reason is to deliver robots and service the robots which are already there.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

So how do we develop the technology to go to mars, provide long term life support and reduce the effects of radiation? The simple answer is by going out there and doing it. You can't work out what works and what doesn't by sitting around on Earth or LEO.

And losing a number of astronauts in the process when they discover that maybe the shielding wasn't quite adequate enough just yet.

What's the biggest advantage of setting up an industrial base on the moon? It's got a sixth of the gravity well of the earth. Anything constructed there will need far less energy to lift it into interplanetary orbits. There's plenty of raw materials and fuel on the moon, the technology to refine and machine them exists already.

Yes, but such a factory would require people on it. A lot of people as does any factory still. Who all need to be brought there. And back. Often. And need to be fed. Most of which would need to be brought up from earth. Which would cost so much that we'd better be mining pure unobtanium plus before it becomes worthwhile

As for robotics, they are great, they have achieved wonders, the Mariner, Voyager, Casinni, and martian rover probots have been astounding. But the work that the martian rovers have done could have been done by humans in less than a week.


How many robot probes have had errors? If an unmanned vessel crashes its a pity. If a manned vessel crashes.... And the martian rovers were put there without the intent to come back, same with most other robotic probes. I'm assuming you'd like humans to come back alive.

[Mikemcc]

For a cost that would be how many times greater?

if we look at equivilant mission price tags, in most instances the robotic mission will be more capable and provide a greater range and depth of information than a similarly priced manned mission.I refer back to the spin-out developing technology and skills on how to live and work in space. A mission to Mars is more long term anyway. We need to find out how to last that long in interplanetary space. The moon is the perfect test bed. It has fine dust to wear out seals and wind up the astronauts, high UV and radiation, and high vacuum. I don't believe it's an either/or situation, We need both. We need the probes to develop the intelligence for the manned missions, as well as the science that we gain from them. There's also the spin-out of developing low power, autonomous robotics.

[Mikemcc]

And losing a number of astronauts in the process when they discover that maybe the shielding wasn't quite adequate enough just yet.



Yes, but such a factory would require people on it. A lot of people as does any factory still. Who all need to be brought there. And back. Often. And need to be fed. Most of which would need to be brought up from earth. Which would cost so much that we'd better be mining pure unobtanium plus before it becomes worthwhile




How many robot probes have had errors? If an unmanned vessel crashes its a pity. If a manned vessel crashes.... And the martian rovers were put there without the intent to come back, same with most other robotic probes. I'm assuming you'd like humans to come back alive.Part of the problem causing huge cost over-runs and delays is the hyper-safety culture that NASA has. How many died to cross the Atlantic? To go round the globe? To climb mountains? To explore under the sea?

Nobody is suggesting doing that mission straight from the get-go, we need to develop the technology, and skills required, and the moon is the perfect test bed.

[Mikemcc]

This kind of talk always cracks me up.

Sure, there are raw materials on the moon. Fuel? Maybe you can dredge ice out of the polar regions and generate hydrogen. And sure, the technology to refine and machine them exists already -- ON EARTH.

ON EARTH we have dozens of companies which take care of mining and refining the raw materials -- copper, iron, aluminum, rare-earth elements, minerals such as petroleum, and more.

Hundreds of additional companies then assume the task of transforming these raw materials into the components which go into modern spacecraft -- lenses, valves, windows, wires, computer chips and other electronic components, pipes, tubing, structural components, small electric motors, large rocket motors, lights, etc. They already have drill presses, precision machining equipment, metal presses, wire extruders, "clean rooms", etc. required to accomplish these transformations.

Recent studies have shown that there's plenty of water tied up in the rocks as well as at the poles, the poles make sense initially because of ease of getting water and the perpetual sunlight.

Dozens more companies assemble and test these components.

It's not a business, it's an INDUSTRY.

So, for the purported benefit of being able to spit a pod at Mars from a shallow gravity well, all we have to do is arrange for life support for thousands of miners, refiners, fabricators, assemblers, and testers (design work, presumably, could still be done on the Earth), as well as the construction crews who will build the factories in which all this work will take place.

I don't think there's any way to do the math and conclude that it's cheaper/easier/more desirable to do it on the Moon rather than on the Earth.


No, the robots have been able to observe what passes for seasons on Mars, which can't be done in a week.

Maybe men could have done most of the scientific reconnaissance in less than a week, but what's the hurry? Mars isn't going anywhere. If we can gather information slowly and steadily, we can digest it and discuss it, and spend time thinking about what the logical next steps should be. We don't have to provide life support systems to get the robots there. We don't even have to equip them with the ability to return.

For the foreseeable future, there doesn't seem to be any good reason to send people further than low Earth orbit, and even there, the reason is to deliver robots and service the robots which are already there.So we sent up lightweight kit to excavate regolith and process it to produce simple items to start, over time to increase the the sophistication of the finishing processes. I agree that you certainly can't develop an industry over-night. Why is such a thing assumed that that is wht is needed. Do we expect infants to start by sprinting? But they certainly won't get to the stage of sprinting without taking the first steps.

[Eddie Dane]

Travis,

I don't know what kind of inferiority complex vs Europe you are attempting to heal with this thread, but you do realise that the ESA isn't the most effective space agency?

ESA is setting up an (unnecessary) alternative to GPS. A system that the US launched in, what, the eighties? They've got three of the 35 satellites up and they are practically out of money.

Oh. And if you guys send another probe to Mars. See if you can find the Beagle.
That thing had gold in it and stuff, so some parts may still be worth something.

[Captain_Swoop]

ESA is setting up an (unnecessary) alternative to GPS. A system that the US launched in, what, the eighties? They've got three of the 35 satellites up and they are practically out of money.
Galileo isn't an ESA project, they are providing the rockets but it's an EU project.

It's designed to make Europe safe from the US deciding to 'switch off' GPS.
Both systems are campatible. It's main uses are probably going to be for road charging schemes and also for the future Air traffic Control needs of 'Open Skies'

Galileo Q&A (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4555276.stm)
Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_%28satellite_navigation%29)

[HansMustermann]

Actually, it seems to me like even a smaller shuttle still just isn't going to make much sense.

The whole reusable part looked a lot better when the engines too could be reused. Unfortunately, putting the tank on the belly of the shuttle has been the source of a lot of problems. E.g., the foam damage. Doing that with a smaller shuttle is only going to make it worse.

The next NASA concept for a smaller next shuttle calls for it to be put basically at the tip of a rocket, not unlike the Soyuz is launched. Essentially the only reusable part then is a glorified capsule for the crew and at most some bare minimum cargo.

But here's the funny thing: a normal capsule like the Soyuz can be just as reusable, and it can land on land too. Even if it doesn't look like an airplane. The Russians have been landing their capsules on land since day one. You don't really gain all that much by putting wings on it.

Granted, the actual Soyuz doesn't land the whole vehicle. That's mostly because it's actually cheaper than putting a heat shield over the whole damned thing and hauling that extra weight into orbit too. A relatively thin metal cylinder and some mass produced instruments are actually cheaper to discard and produce again than hauling an extra ton into orbit would cost.

That shouldn't come as a big surprise to NASA either. They too discard an even bigger empty tube on each shuttle launch and they don't seem to have a problem with that.

[Safe-Keeper]

And losing a number of astronauts in the process when they discover that maybe the shielding wasn't quite adequate enough just yet.If it's really that dangerous, we can always send guinea pigs before humans.

I'm not in support of states exploring space at the moment. As others have said, there's no reason for them to prioritize space over problems such as cancer, narcotics, crime, warfare, global warming, and every other problem we're dealing with on Earth. I would love for humans to have permanent bases on the Moon and on Mars, big spaceships like in Star Trek, and other nifty stuff that's only sci-fi at the moment, but I'm not in support of spending tax dollars on exploring space just to explore space. Why space? Why not establish a permanent city on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean? Would cost a whole lot less and probably return just as much or more in terms of resources and whatnot.

Let's look at it this way. Space has existed for billions of years. It's going nowhere. If you want it explored, fine, spend money on a private venture. But tax dollars beyond what we're currently spending? I'm happy with the ISS and the current program.

[Dorian Gray]

You're comparing apples and flyspecks. From Wikipedia:

Manned missions have returned 1000 times as much sample as robots. Have we learned 1000 times as much from those rocks? If the Apollo missions had been robotic, we could have collected 3 times the sample mass (because the weight of the returning astronauts could have been replaced with more rocks), plus we'd have had more robots wandering around on the moon for much longer times. The Mars rovers have arguably been able to do more than men could have, simply because they've been operating longer than men could have.
Flaw with this: robotic missions are not always intended to come back. Manned missions are.

[bokonon]

Flaw with this: robotic missions are not always intended to come back. Manned missions are.
I'm not sure what flaw you're attempting to highlight. We could collect rocks robotically much less expensively than we could do it with manned missions. We've chosen not to do so, because we've realized that we can collect information even more cheaply than we can collect rocks, and that is currently the most valuable resource we know of, either on the Moon or on Mars.

The rocks we collected robotically from the moon have arguably provided less information than the rocks we collected in the manned missions. Because we had engineered equipment that could return hundreds of pounds from the lunar surface (necessary, to bring the astronauts back), we collected several orders of magnitude more samples that way than we have robotically. Those samples were also several orders of magnitude more expensive to collect, but have not provided several orders of magnitude more information.

Sometimes it makes sense to make machines that return samples from space. We've collected solar wind, and comet dust, and returned those samples to earth, but in both cases there was no gravity well to overcome.

I think it's very unlikely that we will be using robots to collect and return samples from any sizeable extraterrestrial body in the foreseeable future. When that much gravity is in the picture, it's so much more economical to send the lab to the sample than to try to bring the sample to the lab, that I can't see it being done at all unless we find evidence of living organisms.

[Trakar]

I refer back to the spin-out developing technology and skills on how to live and work in space. A mission to Mars is more long term anyway. We need to find out how to last that long in interplanetary space. The moon is the perfect test bed. It has fine dust to wear out seals and wind up the astronauts, high UV and radiation, and high vacuum. I don't believe it's an either/or situation, We need both. We need the probes to develop the intelligence for the manned missions, as well as the science that we gain from them. There's also the spin-out of developing low power, autonomous robotics.

None of what you suggest requires a manned Lunar base to acquire. How about a truly functional rotating orbital platform with a significant permanent crew to perform research, service and maintain our various orbiting devices and assets, and give us a true toe-hold into the rest of the system. When we decide that technology and costs dictate that lunar, Apollo rendevous, or other manned interplanetary ventures are doable, it will provide a much better embarkation point than the Lunar surface. Additionally, such a platform provides a good location for commercial/corporate space ventures and tourism to take root. In the near term, until we have a much larger, more complete, near-earth orbital infrastructure in place, I'd be hard pressed to identify any significant advantage that the lunar surface offers us over LEO.

[The Drain]

...

I think it's very unlikely that we will be using robots to collect and return samples from any sizeable extraterrestrial body in the foreseeable future. When that much gravity is in the picture, it's so much more economical to send the lab to the sample than to try to bring the sample to the lab, that I can't see it being done at all unless we find evidence of living organisms.

That's the key, isn't it? If our robots find good evidence of life on Mars (or Europa or Titan or wherever) then that will put the pressure on to send live astronauts. And if the Americans/Europeans/Russians don't, you can be sure the Chinese will.

The question then will be how does a manned mission to Mars avoid contaminating the very exobiology it's been sent to examine?

As to the OP; I agree with Doubt that ESA's 'problem' (if that's what it is) is the lack of a central government. But it's also worth saying that there's more to the American space effort than NASA; the likes of Mr Bigelow and Mr Musk have an interesting future ahead of them.

[bokonon]

If our robots find good evidence of life on Mars (or Europa or Titan or wherever) then that will put the pressure on to send live astronauts. And if the Americans/Europeans/Russians don't, you can be sure the Chinese will.
I don't see how evidence of life will put pressure on anyone to send live astronauts. I think we'll want to bring samples back to Earth for analysis rather than attempting to do all the analysis remotely, but robots can still do it orders of magnitude more quickly, and orders of magnitude more cheaply, than human beings can.

[Trakar]

So we sent up lightweight kit to excavate regolith and process it to produce simple items to start, over time to increase the the sophistication of the finishing processes. I agree that you certainly can't develop an industry over-night. Why is such a thing assumed that that is wht is needed. Do we expect infants to start by sprinting? But they certainly won't get to the stage of sprinting without taking the first steps.

The quickest (and rightfully so) way to a "golden fleece" award and a congressional budget cancellation, is to begin spending billions of dollars a year sending robots to the moon to build cinder blocks that might one day be used to build a factory that produces screws out of lunar regolith.

We perform missions and accomplish tasks that are deemed necessary or desirable, approved by congress and supported by voters. In the course of accomplishing those missions and goals, when it becomes cheaper to produce the components necessary offworld rather than ship them to where they are needed from Earthbound industries, I'm sure it will happen, until then, we will likely continue as we have. Big projects and missions enhance this situation as they would tend to reduce launch costs and further exasperate the difference between shipping costs and offworld production costs.

[a3sigma]

Building spaceships on the moon makes precisely as much sense as building submarines at the bottom of the ocean.

[Trakar]

Building spaceships on the moon makes precisely as much sense as building submarines at the bottom of the ocean.

Well, situations and circumstances go a long ways toward determining what is sensible and what is not. Under the currently existing circumstances, I obviously agree. If however, we had a largely self-sustained, continuously manned underwater base of operations, and they were trying to build a vehicle to carry themselves and supplies from the base of operations to other points of interest on bottom of the ocean, I can see how there might be some situations where there are advantages to designing and building such a craft in that base, however, we'd probably still have all of the parts and subassemblies built by surface industries and shipped to the base for final assembly, rather than trying to find the seafloor minerals we needed and then refining them into our own components. Same with the moon, there are very few things there which are profittable to recover as an excuse to set up manned operations on the lunar surface. He3 and Solar energy being 2 possible exceptions, but not anytime soon.

[MG1962]

I refer back to the spin-out developing technology and skills on how to live and work in space. A mission to Mars is more long term anyway. We need to find out how to last that long in interplanetary space. The moon is the perfect test bed. It has fine dust to wear out seals and wind up the astronauts, high UV and radiation, and high vacuum. I don't believe it's an either/or situation, We need both. We need the probes to develop the intelligence for the manned missions, as well as the science that we gain from them. There's also the spin-out of developing low power, autonomous robotics.

It doesn't have zero g

[Travis]

I think purposeful manned missions are worthwhile. If for no other reason than they give us something positive to point to as an achievement. We need grandeur. We need these types of things to kindle that spirit of curiosity in us. Sure maybe no one outside the US cared that Eagle was landing on the Moon back when it did but I think most would care today if someone were to land on Mars.

[MG1962]

I think purposeful manned missions are worthwhile. If for no other reason than they give us something positive to point to as an achievement. We need grandeur. We need these types of things to kindle that spirit of curiosity in us. Sure maybe no one outside the US cared that Eagle was landing on the Moon back when it did but I think most would care today if someone were to land on Mars.

Actually it was quiet the opposite. Aside from China and the USSR - The world stopped that day - looked up and went yeah!!!! thats cool

[HansMustermann]

But nevertheless there's only so much propaganda you can milk out of that. I mean, it's sorta like being the first guy jumping over the Grand Canyon on a motorcycle. First time the world would probably stop and go "whoa!" at that too, but if you want to do that once a year for the next two decades, it just becomes non-news. To get the same reaction again, you'd probably need to do it while juggling chainsaws with your dick.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Anyway, to get back to the OP.
I think the overall conclusion is that the ESA isn't going to the moon and mars because those would be very expensive prestige missions of good scientific and low economic value.
At the moment its concentrating its budget on something that has good economic value, namely a GPS competitor that allows the EU to be ensured of the service even if the US military decides to limit its own system and would generate revenue that is now going to the US when people pay for the GPS, which can lead to a bigger budget and possibly more scientific missions in the future.

[MRC_Hans]

Humans trump robots at field work level scientific investigation. Look at the quality of Moon rock samples brought back by humans and the ones retrieved by robots. Was there any concentrated effort to make robots bring back samples form the moon? And when did this happen?

As you may have noticed, robotics is advancing almost daily. Sure there are things humans do better than robots, even when they have to be in a space suit, but the expenses of sending humans are huge, compared to robots. My point is that if we spend those ressources on robots instead, including developing better robots, we will very likely get more for our money.


But even if we accept that robots are better why isn't the ESA sending out more probes? I mean if Europe does everything better than the USA then their probes should be doing sample returns from Titan by now.


Money. And, no doubt, the habit of playing second fiddle to the US, in space exploration. Then, of course there is the fact that Europe is not a single nation. While we may be richer just now, the decision chain is MUCH longer.


Hans

[Eddie Dane]

it just becomes non-news. To get the same reaction again, you'd probably need to do it while juggling chainsaws with your dick.

Nonsense.

All you'd have to do is misjudge the distance, crash into the wall of the canyon and disappear into a hug fireball.

It would get more hits on Youtube than the moonlanding.

[HansMustermann]

Rofl. There is that. But I doubt that any country wants to make that kind of headlines when it comes to space exploration. The idea is to show off to the world to the effect of "look what awesome things we can do" rather than "look how spectacularly we can screw up" ;)

Plus, even that gets old. Apollo 13 was watched by a whole world with baited breath, but Columbia was already hardly Youtube worthy, and when they discovered a damaged heat shield on Atlantis last year (with all the potential to cause a verbatim Columbia re-enactment) hardly anyone was glued to the TV to hear what happens next.

Basically even there being the first guy who ploughs in the canyon wall would get you some fame, being the 20'th becomes just a "yet another idiot" footnote. For a space disaster to get the whole world gasping, by now it would have to involve colliding with Santa's flying sled and crashing into a clown school ;)

[MRC_Hans]

I think purposeful manned missions are worthwhile. If for no other reason than they give us something positive to point to as an achievement. We need grandeur. We need these types of things to kindle that spirit of curiosity in us. Sure maybe no one outside the US cared that Eagle was landing on the Moon back when it did but I think most would care today if someone were to land on Mars.Sure. OTOH, I can think of grandeur we could achieve right here on Earth, which would be far more useful. I know you can't compare putting a human on Mars with eradicating hunger in Africa, or developing safe fusion energy, still.....


Don't get me wrong: I'd be GLUED to the TV while they landed on Mars, like I was when they landed on the moon, but we do need priorities.

Hans

[SezMe]

We need to find out how to last that long in interplanetary space.
Why?

[Rasmus]

Why?

And why now?

If the knowledge was readily available to us, what would we do with it? there's no where we could go to. As in: no where we could go to and stay at, much less with more than a handful of people.

[MRC_Hans]

And why now?

If the knowledge was readily available to us, what would we do with it? there's no where we could go to. As in: no where we could go to and stay at, much less with more than a handful of people.That is an important point. Prolonged stays in space can be (and are) researched in orbit around Earth. A mission for interstellar colonization is an entirely different ball-game. Such a mission would surely require artificial gravity (centrifugal would do fine).

The purpose of going to Mars is mainly to explore Mars, because the trip as such doesn't give us much we can't get cheaper.

The moon has an interesting potential as a low gravity, no air resistance launch-pad, but not so much if whatever we launch has to be sent up from Earth. If we could mine it locally, OTOH......

Perhaps we should work on the space elevator.

Hans

[Rasmus]

Perhaps we should work on the space elevator

It is being worked on.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1894327&postcount=1

(Way old thread, there are more. I just liked and remembered the opening line...)

As far as I know, the main problem here is the rope, since it doesn't exist yet.

But I couldn't agree more, if we want to stay in space, this is the way to go.

[Mikemcc]

None of what you suggest requires a manned Lunar base to acquire. How about a truly functional rotating orbital platform with a significant permanent crew to perform research, service and maintain our various orbiting devices and assets, and give us a true toe-hold into the rest of the system. When we decide that technology and costs dictate that lunar, Apollo rendevous, or other manned interplanetary ventures are doable, it will provide a much better embarkation point than the Lunar surface. Additionally, such a platform provides a good location for commercial/corporate space ventures and tourism to take root. In the near term, until we have a much larger, more complete, near-earth orbital infrastructure in place, I'd be hard pressed to identify any significant advantage that the lunar surface offers us over LEO.Again, it shouldn't be an either / or situation. There's room for both (but not the money unfortunately). LEO structures, launchers, tourism and industry are better suited to private exploitation. Use the governmental resources to clean up the old junk and put up proper comm stations like Arthur Clarke originally foresaw.

Work in LEO is all well and good but it doesn't help us develop techniques to operate outside the Van Allen belts, develop powerful multi-start engines suitable for heavy load interplanetary flight, deal with fine dust (as present on the moon and mars), and a whole host of other challenges.

[Mikemcc]

Why?Because we can...

[HansMustermann]

"Because we can" fails to convince me in any case.

1. There are plenty of things you can do, but aren't a good idea anyway. Like shooting yourself in the head. Just being able to do something is not automatically reason to.

2. Because we can do a finite number of things, among other reasons because we have finite industry and resources to divert. We should do those which promise the best bang per buck, not some random silliness, and "because we can" is sadly lacking that crucial bang/buck information.

[Mikemcc]

"Because we can" fails to convince me in any case.

1. There are plenty of things you can do, but aren't a good idea anyway. Like shooting yourself in the head. Just being able to do something is not automatically reason to.

2. Because we can do a finite number of things, among other reasons because we have finite industry and resources to divert. We should do those which promise the best bang per buck, not some random silliness, and "because we can" is sadly lacking that crucial bang/buck information.It's good enough for people to climb mountains, sail round the world, and for governments to waste resources by going to war.

What happens when the resources start to run out? "Oh we'll go and develop the know-how now to spread out into the solar-system... pity we wasted the fossil fuels by burning them and the uranium, and...". In the Army we were always reminded of the 6Ps - Planning and preparation prevent p*ss poor performance. It would take decades to develop the skills to even the most basic levels to permit long deep space missions, why wait until the last moment?

[HansMustermann]

1. Even wars and whatnot aren't done "because we can".

2. Because in the meantime we might have better technology, and do the same stuff with less effort and cost.

3. Because investing in something -- e.g., R&D -- often yields more benefits later than pissing all the resource you can right away. E.g., the kind of benefits from point 2. Ask North Korea how it worked for them to blow all their resources on some pointless megalomania projects instead of, say, industrializing some more or doing some research.

ETA: and,

4. Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because we spend some stuff irresponsibly, doesn't mean that adding even more irresponsible spending is OK.

[Rasmus]

It's good enough for people to climb mountains, sail round the world,

If they want to, they can freely chose to do. If they are, however, convinced by that argument that they ought to, they are fools at best.

and for governments to waste resources by going to war.

I really rather doubt that.

What happens when the resources start to run out? "Oh we'll go and develop the know-how now to spread out into the solar-system... pity we wasted the fossil fuels by burning them and the uranium, and...".

The desire to harvest resources from space isn't a reason to travel to space. We have the technology to get to the moon; if the resources there are worth it, we need different stuff to get them.

In the Army we were always reminded of the 6Ps - Planning and preparation prevent p*ss poor performance. It would take decades to develop the skills to even the most basic levels to permit long deep space missions, why wait until the last moment?

Long deep space missions will not be efficient to get resources. But feel free to provide a plan first. It might actually change some minds.

[MRC_Hans]

For space mining, the asteroid belt is the prime choice (as several Sci Fi writers have long since noticed). One gravity well less to lug heavy stuff up and down. You might even tow smaller asteroids to convenient positions.

Hans

[Mikemcc]

...
Long deep space missions will not be efficient to get resources. But feel free to provide a plan first. It might actually change some minds.Not efficient yet. If we wait until the time when it becomes efficient we are unlikely to have the time and resources to find out how, hence my reference to the 6Ps.

[Rasmus]

Not efficient yet. If we wait until the time when it becomes efficient we are unlikely to have the time and resources to find out how, hence my reference to the 6Ps.

Again, doing something that we're not good at in the hopes that eventually we learn it and then the stuff we actually wanted to learn is not a plan. it's panicking, at best.

[Cuddles]

So while this has a great many people sad why isn't the ESA taking advantage of the situation and just saying, "fine, you won't do the grand stuff...well we will!"

You seem to be missing quite an important point - why NASA is not going. Because no-one thinks that it's worth the time, money or effort to do so when those resources could be spent on other things. If it's not worth it for NASA, why do you think it's worth it for anyone else?

As for "taking advantage" of the situation, what does that even mean? If the US were planning trips, how would that prevent anyone else from planning their own? The rest of us don't have to wait for NASA to give up on an idea before we can try it ourselves.

Surely the member states have the money.

Are you serious? Recession, almost total collapse of some members' economies, massive spending cuts all around and particularly in science. And you think countries have plenty of money to spare on billion pound projects that no-one particularly wants to do in the first place?

[Cainkane1]

India may beat us to it. They say they are interested not only in going to mars but to set up a colony there. They did land a probe on the moon rather recently. Japan may go there before NASA gets around to it. Heck China may do it.

[a3sigma]

India may beat us to it. They say they are interested not only in going to mars but to set up a colony there. They did land a probe on the moon rather recently. Japan may go there before NASA gets around to it. Heck China may do it.

If we (USA) did it, we'd have to borrow the money from China anyway.

[Third Eye Open]

We need to start building a damn space elevator, that's what.

[Trakar]

Work in LEO is all well and good but it doesn't help us develop techniques to operate outside the Van Allen belts, develop powerful multi-start engines suitable for heavy load interplanetary flight, deal with fine dust (as present on the moon and mars), and a whole host of other challenges.

Again, none of these require a Moonbase or even a manned moon landing, and the problems and environments of the Moon and Mars are drastically different, with very little crossover applicability in resolution.
We need to get competent at holding our heads up and steady and coordinating our hand movements to what we see, before we embark on crawling, and standing yet alone moving out of the softly netted crib. A good, substantial LEO base of operations gives us the intermediary platform from which to begin thinking about further expansion. It may well take centuries or more before we significantly and permanently expand beyond Earth orbit, what's wrong with that?

[Trakar]

It is being worked on.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1894327&postcount=1

(Way old thread, there are more. I just liked and remembered the opening line...)

As far as I know, the main problem here is the rope, since it doesn't exist yet.

But I couldn't agree more, if we want to stay in space, this is the way to go.

We should be approaching material technologies capable of supporting something more along the lines of Forward's Rotovator. While not a true space elevator, it'd still help significantly, at least in creating a fairly steady flow of material out of the atmosphere.

BTW: For those interested and in the Pacific NW of the US, the 2010 Space Elevator conference (http://spaceelevatorconference.org/default.aspx)is coming up in a couple of weeks!

[Mikemcc]

India may beat us to it. They say they are interested not only in going to mars but to set up a colony there. They did land a probe on the moon rather recently. Japan may go there before NASA gets around to it. Heck China may do it.The Chinese are allegedly aiming to build engines with 80% of the thrust of the F-1 engines used on the Saturn V.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10762634

[Mikemcc]

Again, none of these require a Moonbase or even a manned moon landing, and the problems and environments of the Moon and Mars are drastically different, with very little crossover applicability in resolution.
We need to get competent at holding our heads up and steady and coordinating our hand movements to what we see, before we embark on crawling, and standing yet alone moving out of the softly netted crib. A good, substantial LEO base of operations gives us the intermediary platform from which to begin thinking about further expansion. It may well take centuries or more before we significantly and permanently expand beyond Earth orbit, what's wrong with that?We don't have centuries, we're already into a peak oil scenario (hence the deep-water drilling), we have other limited resources - phosphous for instance.

[Mikemcc]

We need to start building a damn space elevator, that's what.We simply don't have the materials (yet) or methods to produce likely materials in the bulk required. Though by my own arguements for manned spaceflight we should still be working towards it!

[Trakar]

We don't have centuries, we're already into a peak oil scenario (hence the deep-water drilling), we have other limited resources - phosphous for instance.

Neither of these issues neccesitate a manned lunar base or manned travel beyond Earth orbit to resolve.

[HansMustermann]

I'm not sure what peak oil even has got to do with it. It's not like we're going to bring here oil from Mars, because there isn't any. You know, the whole part about not having a thriving fauna over billions of years, to be turned into oil.

And with chemical rockets we're not going to bring it cheaply or in time from 50 light years away either. If oil is your problem, dumping more of it into making and launching lots of chemical rockets is just a way to piss away what we still have faster.

Second, the idea that the only way we could get the right tech is to start a pointless folly right now is silly. Most of what went into rockets so far was stuff which had been developed for civilian or military purposes, not stuff which absolutely had to be researched from scratch for the explicit purpose of reenacting Star Trek.

The rocket that put Sputnik into orbit for example was a big ICBM, not something designed for space exploration. Someone just realized that they had made it so big, for the purpose of hauling a big-ass nuke to America (Russians liked 'em big), that it was powerful enough to put something smaller in orbit.

[MRC_Hans]

The rocket that put Sputnik into orbit for example was a big ICBM, not something designed for space exploration. Someone just realized that they had made it so big, for the purpose of hauling a big-ass nuke to America (Russians liked 'em big), that it was powerful enough to put something smaller in orbit.

And actually, an important purpose of early satellites (the only one, in fact, for the first Chinese satellite), was to demonstrate to everyone who understood the implications that you had intercontinental missile capability.

Hans