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]

Originally Posted by Travis

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]

Originally Posted by MG1962

Why do it is a better question

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

Define nothing.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Doubt

Define nothing.

Anything of value that would warrent further exploration

Quote:

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

Quote:

Not today, no.

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

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by MG1962

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Doubt

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

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

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.

[Captain_Swoop]

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

[bokonon]

Originally Posted by Travis

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:

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Travis

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]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

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.

Originally Posted by MG1962

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]

Originally Posted by Travis

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Mikemcc

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]

Originally Posted by Mikemcc

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]

Originally Posted by Mikemcc

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.

Originally Posted by Mikemcc

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Originally Posted by Mikemcc

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

Originally Posted by Mikemcc

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]

Originally Posted by TShaitanaku

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]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

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]

Originally Posted by bokonon

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]

Quote:

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
Wikipedia entry

[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]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

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]

Originally Posted by bokonon

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]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray

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]

Originally Posted by Mikemcc

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]

Originally Posted by bokonon

...

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]

Originally Posted by The Drain

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]

Originally Posted by Mikemcc

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]

Originally Posted by a3sigma

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.