So what happens after NASA establishes a permanent presence on the Moon? Has Moon to Mars been planned out? Well, yes…but it’s kinda disappointing.
#space #nasa #spacex
Please support my channel! EARLY VIDEO RELEASES, DISCORD MEMBERSHIP AND EXCLUSIVE CONTENT PLUS 15% OFF MERCH!
https://www.patreon.com/AngryAstronaut
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/AngryAstro
If you already pre-ordered your Angry Astronaut sunglasses, please email me at [email protected] and we will send you a form to fill in your shipping info and send you an invoice!
WE STILL HAVE 3 PAIRS LEFT out of this 250 pair limited edition!!!
If you want to reserve a pair of ANGRY SUNGLASSES, please send $20 US, Australian or Canadian to:
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/AngryAstro
The FINAL price is $40 US plus shipping
Here’s the plan!
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210022080/downloads/HEOMD-007%20HEO%20SCOPE%20-%2009-28-2021%20NTRS.pdf
source
"The big crowning achievement" That about says it all. This is not about science (for the same money a whole fleet of robots could actually do years of science each), This is not about expanding humans anywhere, This is a great big US stunt to say we're the best, Na, na, na ,na ,na. Another childish response from the biggest bull in the china shop (pun not intended… China is the biggest bull in their own china shop).
The US is just plain wrong about this whole venture, Russia expressed no interest in "Artemis" for good reason. The only reason any other country is supporting this thing is that they feel they can use the facility for their own Moon ambitions. While the US is off planting flags on Mars, other nations will be setting up shop on the Moon, if the US is there or not. The US will soon have fallen from any space preeminence. The SpaceX plan for Mars is only slightly better but if it falls back to the Moon for now, it could be a big leap forward. Much bigger than going to Mars but failing to establish anything permanent… which is the state of things as they stand.
Getting people to Mars is not the hard part, that is why Elon has always called SpaceX a "Transport" company. He was expecting someone else to do the "living on Mars" part. Listen to his speeches.
Artemis is a jobs program. The actual mission going forward is poorly planned and needs direction.
Pie in the sky ,,, NASA bullshit.
I like how pristine those imagines space stations and Mars habitats look on the inside … in reality they would look like a horders home, with stuff tucked away anywhere there is space left.
I love that Lockheed lander
They probably gonna do same thing they did with the moon: go there, plant a flag, bring some rocks, take pictures and get back to closer, less expensive endeavors (like an international moon base) for next 50 years . Seems like déjà vue!
Seems one of the design constraints for this plan must have been "minimize crew exposure to radiation" – hence the quick transit to/from Mars and short duration there. As an exercise, then it shows "this is what a mission with that constraint could look like" – so it's a strawman/target; people can look at it make numerous objections. Rinse/repeat. Hopefully the objections drive creation of a better plan.
One thing I like, the short transit time. A result might be "the reason why we need to develop better propulsion systems".
OTOH to spend so much of the available surface time getting acclimatized – screams using the transit time to eliminate it. That argues in favor of some kind of rotating structure. Astronauts on the ISS spend 2hrs/day exercising and that only mitigates some of the effects of 0G. A rotating structure eliminates all of them. Adjusting the rotation rate means the astronauts can arrive ready for work on day 1. While the transit from Earth to Moon doesn't require a rotating structure, it does provide a good venue experiments – with an eye to travel to/from Mars.
The biggest thing this plan doesn't answer is "what's the point?" SpaceX has a goal – build a self-sustaining colony on Mars. It's an audacious goal, but it provides the vision that everything else works toward fulfilling. It's the reason why Starship is what it is.
Musk is right when he says the key enabling technology is a "rapidly, reusable rocket". By comparison SLS and anything depending on it is like Tyrannosaurus Rex – after the meteorite was spotted. On the one hand impressive, on the other doomed.
There is a live feed of Orion going around the moon how come we can't see any Apollo stuff
Simply landing a human rated craft on Mars is going to be a major challenge.
Is it the lack of government of SLS, funding is NASA top brass may aren't serious man what's going on.?
I understand that at this early stage the options for human Mars stay, are 30 days or 2 years, there is no in-between, this is simply due to orbital mechanics. It may be possible to keep humans alive for 30 days, but at this stage it is impossible to keep them alive for 2 years.
In a perfect world, SpaceX would send tens of unmanned Starships to the red planet with autonomous building/tunneling equipment and robots like the TeslaBot for system validation, in order to prepare for a 2 year human stay.
Billions of $ for a 30 day stay in insanity in itself but my big concern is that two people and one habitable environment is just not safe. It gives zero room for something to go wrong, I was a firefighter for many years and would enter a burning building without a second entry team outside to back you up and firefighting is arguably safer than a mission to Mars (the initial one at least). The bare minimum should be four people, two rovers, two assent vehicles. This isn't 1969.
The reason they have never planned this all out is because its not going to happen lol
I prefer sending robots to Mars and elsewhere, not sending people.
The first (and only) mission to Uranus and Neptune was launched on August 20, 1977.
It’s a shame that 45 years after the launch of the Voyager mission, we are still waiting for the next mission to the Uranus and Neptune systems.
Why not use SLS rocket for that?
A couple of comments:
1) I understand liking these "interplanetary station" concepts, but let's be real: If a company like Lockheed would get a contract for an interplanetary craft with 2 Orion capsules "acting as command" and whatever else… it would take forever and be so expensive you could fund a hundred Starship missions. There is a very big difference between a concept, a highly-tested prototype, and a functional system. Many concepts look nice, but are never going to happen. We should want NASA to concentrate on what gives the most return. That's Starship (and other "new space" commercial developments).
2) Very likely, due to the long distance to Mars, small "minimal" missions are not safe and not sustainable. I agree with you – what's the point in a minimal mission? It has little return on investment.
The only realistic missions will be those that can get enough mass to Mars to create a large infrastructure on Mars before Humans go there – which means, systems like Starship are the only viable option for a safe mission.
3) Man, as a German, I wish ESA would concentrate 100% on payloads like bases, stations, and science missions! – rather than giving senseless amounts of money to expendable Ariane. Who cares about "national launch capacity" if they aren't even supporting European rocketry startups? Who cares about the concept of national launchers anyways, if the US remain our close allies? ESA should specialize, instead of trying to compete in every sector.
4) Criticizing NASA for not having a good plan is reasonable, but at the same time, I also believe we are slowly shifting into a new era of space development, where we are going so fast that plans will quickly become outdated. As long as there is always a next step in the plan, there will be a future, even if the long-term is uncertain.
Shut down nasa and give the budget to spacex
'The politicans who invested..' what an inflammatory phrase.
Almost 90 K
I’m angry !!!!!
Subscribe
Subscribe
And starship sets on the pad waiting to detonate.
ROFLMAO! NASA hasn't worked Starship into their plan to go to Mars? More like SpaceX hasn't worked NASA into their plan to go to Mars.
The US Space Program is dealing with the same paradox it has been for the last 50 years. It needs to set ambitious goals to drive the development of radically new capabilities and also to maintain political support. But it cannot rely on non-existent capabilities in its mission plans too much, without making the whole plan seem implausible.
So yes, the goal of a permanent Moon base and probably even a single Mars mission, are unachievable without Starship. Or at least some other super heavy lift vehicle that is significantly cheaper than SLS. But the very existence of a long term Mars program is something SpaceX can point to when they ask their investors for additional funding for Starship. There's no point in asking NASA commit to additional crewed Mars missions at this time. They can do that after Starship's first flight.
Waste of money 🙁
SLS is to expensive and unreliable. Lets see what commercial ventures come up with over the next few years. Plus Biden will be gone and we can afford food and heat again.
I have questions about the lunar gateway/Mars cycler concepts. To get one of these going in its loop out to the moon/Mars and back is going to take a certain amount of energy and then relatively small amounts to keep it going. I get that part I think. But to make use of it, any rocket leaving earth with have to use enough energy to match its orbit. The exact same amount of energy ot would take for that rocket to get to moon/ Mars without the gateway, right?? So what's the gain?
As long as NASA embraces a throw away mega rocket topped with a retro spam can, It is unsustainable. A second generation Shuttle (Starship IS a Shuttle if a ballistic one) Until routine access to LEO is established, there will be no true exploration
Taking a retro spam can with its Earth Re entry heat Shield and parachutes all the way to Mars and back is as much of a waste as landing the Apollo command and service module on the Moon (The original direct ascent plan)
We need an LEO infrastructure where atmospheric entry and ascent is covered. Leave the atmospheric entry in LEO. If rescue is needed during Earth return. Have a vehicle in LEO or trans lunar space able to rendezvous for rescue
I was always wondering about the exact plan about the Mars mission after Artemis. Thank you for putting it all together for us. But on another hand you clearly missed the small text where they explain how spaceX will be waiting for them with hot choco in hand by 2039. Probably because by the time they squeeze up the billions for all the launches. Spacex should have the habitat warmed up for them.
I disagree with you on the suitability of the Lockheed-Martin proposal. Without artificial gravity, any interplanetary transfer craft would end up doing serious harm to the health of the crew being sent. We've learned enough from the ISS experience (and previous space station work) to understand that there is no substitute for simulated gravity. Pharma and insanely tine comsuming exercise programs are just not good enough.
I do agree, however, with your assessment of NASA's proposal for the duration of the surface work done in the context of a Mars mission, To do just 30 days on the surface strikes me as being utterly ridiculous. Bob Zubrin and others have offered cogent criticisms that show how sillty it is not to stay for the 18 months that a mission architecture based on Hohman transfer orbits.
It almost is as you have suggested–it seems like NASA has NO interest in really doing this.
Artemis is something the country just needs right now to get everyone to agree that going to the moon and mars is a great idea.. can spend money on bombs or space travel
I might know how to save Artemis, were going to need a lot of 3D printers
@Astro_Angry HI SCOTT (ANGRY ASTRONAUT) SORRY FOR THE 'CAPS LOCK' SCOTT BUT ME AND MY FIENDS ARE VISUALLY IMPAIRED AND FIND IT EASIER TO READ CAPS THAN LOWER CASE AND I AM NOT CONSCIOUSLY SHOUTING AT YOU OR ANYONE ELSE HERE OR WHEREVER I POST!!! I THINK NASA AND THE REST OF THE WORLD SHOULD FORGET ABOUT GOING TO MARS BECAUSE MARS IS VERY INHOSPITABLE TO HUMAN, ANIMAL AND PLANT LIFE, HAS NO ATMOSPHERE THAT HUMANS CAN DIRECTLY BREATHE WITHOUT ADDITIONAL TECHNOLOGY LIKE MOXIE ON THE PERSEVERANCE ROVER, CONSTANT VERY HIGH LETHAL TO HUMAN LIFE LEVELS OF RADIATION AND EXTREMES OF TEMPERATURES DURING THE NIGHT AND DAY, HUGE GLOBAL SCALE DUST STORMS (THAT MARTIAN DUST BY THE WAY IS CARCINOGENIC AND CORROSIVE IF BREATHED IN OR ABSORBED BY HUMANS!!!) AND MARSQUAKES AND ON TOP OF THAT THE WHOLE PLANET IS A DESERT WORLD ALTHOUGH THERE MIGHT BE SOME FROZEN WATER/CARBON OR METHANE AT THE POLES OR UNDER THE SURFACE, DOESN'T SOUND VERY APPEALING DOES IT OR A PLACE I WOULD WANT TO GO TO FOR MY HOLIDAYS AND WHAT WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO DO THERE ANYWAY OTHER THAN LOOK OUT OF THE WINDOWS AT VERY BORING AND DULL SCENERY IN YOUR SEALED AND SELF SUFFICIENT ENVIRONMENT??? I SERIOUSLY DOUBT ANY REAL SCIENCE OF VALUE COULD BE DONE ON MARS BY HAVING HUMANS THERE AND THAT COULDN'T BE DONE WITH ROBOTS AND ROBOTIC ROVER VEHICLES AND THE ONLY REASON I COULD SEE NASA OR ANY OTHER SPACE AGENCY WANTING TO GO TO MARS WOULD BE FOR REASONS OF NATIONAL PRESTIGE AND SHOWING OFF TO THE WORLD AND THEMSELVES THAT THEY HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING KNOW-HOW TO SEND HUMANS TO MARS AND SET UP A COLONY/COLONIES AND AN OFF WORLD ECONOMY THERE??? I THINK THAT ELON MUSK AND HIS CRONIES/ILK ARE SADLY MISTAKEN IF THEY THINK THAT ESTABLISHING A PERMANENT HUMAN PRESENCE IN COLONIES ON MARS IS GOING TO PROVIDE INSURANCE THAT THE HUMAN RACE CAN CONTINUE TO SURVIVE IF SOME CATASTROPHE SHOULD HAPPEN TO PLANET EARTH THAT WOULD MAKE OUR HOME PLANET INCAPABLE OF SUPPORTING HUMAN, ANIMAL AND PLANT LIFE AND I WOULD REMIND HIM AND HIS CRONIES/ILK THAT MARS AS A PLANET IS UNSTABLE LIKE PLANET EARTH AND HAS IT'S OWN ISSUES AND PROBLEMS!!! I THINK NASA, SPACE-X ET ALL HAVE GOT THEIR PRIORITIES WRONG, AMERICAN SPACE POLICY IS WRONG AND THAT THE MONEY THAT WOULD BE SPENT ON GOING TO AND COLONISING MARS WOULD BE BETTER SPENT ON ADDRESSING AND SOLVING OUR ISSUES AND PROBLEMS WE HAVE HERE ON PLANET EARTH NOW (AND I DON'T JUST MEAN GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE WHICH IS JUST ONE ISSUE/PROBLEM AFFECTING EVERYONE!!!) AND UNFORTUNATELY IF YOU DON'T FIX ISSUES AND PROBLEMS WHILE THEY ARE STILL SMALL THEY HAVE A TENDENCY TO GROW INTO BIGGER ISSUES/PROBLEMS LATER ON!!! WE CAN BETTER SPEND THE MONEY ON A PLANETARY DEFENSE AND EARLY WARNING SYSTEM TO PROTECT US FROM STRAY ASTEROIDS AND METEORS THAT ARE HEADING TOWARDS US ON A COLLISION COURSE AND WE CAN SPEND THAT MONEY THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN SPENT ON MARS ON MAKING LIFE ON PLANET EARTH BETTER AND SOLVING THE PLANETS PROBLEMS LIKE FAMINE AND POVERTY (TWO THIRDS OF THE WORLD IS STILL CARRYING THE REMAINING ONE THIRD OF THE WORLD ON IT'S BACK!!!) AND 'NATURAL' DISASTERS LIKE EARTHQUAKES AND VOLCANIC DISASTERS, HURRICANES AND TSUNAMI'S ETC, ETC. SO IF WE ABANDON THE MARS COLONISATION VANITY PROJECT AND IT IS A VANITY PROJECT WE HAVE NO REASON FOR GOING BACK TO THE MOON EITHER AND ESTABLISHING BASES AND COLONIES THERE!!! BECAUSE OF THE TYRANNY OF THE ROCKET EQUATION I DON'T THINK HUMANS WERE EVER INTENDED TO TRAVEL IN SPACE AND WE SHOULD JUST SIMPLY GIVE UP AND LET GO OF THE IDEA OF SPACE TRAVEL AND COLONISING OTHER PLANETS AND JUST SPEND THE MONEY ON IMPROVING OUR LOT HERE ON PLANET EARTH!!!👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
SPACE-EX!!! 😃😃😃😃😃😃😃
SPACE-SEX!!! 😃😃😃😃😃😃😃
My main question about going to Mars is not getting there, but how will they stop, without killing everyone, the ship?
By the time you are almost to Mars, the ship will be going fast, very fast, everything set to Mars can cope with high G breaking but people will not be able to as they would be in zero-G for 6 to 12 months. and on the return, the people will of been id very low or zero-G 2 years, how will they be able to cope with the hi G breaking when they get back to earth.
Among other things, cost is a huge obstacle to sending people to Mars. The ISS only orbits above the Earth at a height of 240 to 250 miles or so, houses only a few people yet has cost at least 150 billion dollars, if not more, by now. Huge as this is, 150 billion dollars is a tiny amount compared to the cost of a Mars crewed flight and whether people, politicians and society in general will ever be prepared to pay for such a venture must be doubtful, to say the least. I do not think even Elon Musk and Space X will ever be able to afford such amounts of money for a single trip to Mars, let alone colonizing and settling there.
I feel that robotic craft will continue to be humanity’s means for exploring Mars and conducting science there, certainly for the foreseeable future and probably longer. I would love to see people landing and exploring Mars, but realistically I can not see that happening for a very long time indeed, if ever.
I have a book from 1975 whose author predicted that Americans would return to the Moon by 1990, land supplies and materials for a Mars Base by 2015 and the base itself established by 2020. Well, 2020 has come and gone with no Mars Base, and 2015 was nearly 8 years ago and still no supplied and materials for a Mars base and his 1990 prediction for a return to the Moon by the US is now almost 33 years out and getting further out with each passing day.
@Angry_Astro HI SCOTT I FELT OBLIGED TO WRITE THIS SHORT DIATRIBE:- NASA LOST IT'S WAY AND 'THE PLOT' IN SPACE AFTER APOLLO-17 IN 1972 AND EVEN FORMER NASA ADMINISTRATOR MIKE GRIFFIN SAID HIMSELF THAT "THE SPACE SHUTTLE WAS A MISTAKE!" NASA SIMPLY LOST ITS WAY BECAUSE IT COULDN'T DECIDE WHERE IT SHOULD GO NEXT IN SPACE AFTER APOLLO-17 AND WHY IT WAS GOING THERE WHEREVER 'THERE' WAS AND ALSO THERE WAS NO LONG TERM FOLLOW ON APOLLO APPLICATIONS PROGRAM (WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SKYLAB WHICH USED A SPARE SATURN-5 LAUNCH VEHICLE) AFTER THE CANCELLATION OF APOLLO MISSIONS 18 TO 20. THREE SATURN FIVE ROCKETS WERE BUILT FOR NASA FOR APOLLO MISSIONS 18 THRU TO 20 AND NASA PAID FOR THEM EVEN THOUGH NONE OF THEM WENT TO THE MOON BECAUSE OF THE PREMATURE CANCELLATION OF PROJECT APOLLO RESULTING IN APOLLO 18, 19 AND 20 BEING AXED AND ONLY ONE SATURN-5 LAUNCH VEHICLE WAS REPURPOSED FOR HAULING SKYLAB INTO ORBIT! EVEN NOW I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT HUMANS HAVE BEEN STUCK IN LOW EARTH ORBIT FOR THE PAST 50 YEARS AND COUNTING AND GOING NOWHERE FAST WITH SKYLAB AND A SPACE SHUTTLE TO NOWHERE EXCEPT THE ISS WHICH ITSELF IS GOING NOWHERE BEYOND LOW EARTH ORBIT! MAYBE NASA HAVE FINALLY WOKEN UP AND SMELLED THE COFFEE AND REALISED NOW THAT IF YOU DON'T KEEP PROGRESSING AND MOVING FORWARDS TO NEW DESTINATIONS BEYOND EARTH ORBIT YOU JUST STAGNATE AND DON'T GO ANYWHERE OR AT WORST YOU GO BACKWARDS!
Utilizing chemical propulsion and coasting takes too long. This coming year on the ISS, finally, We will be testing Dr Franklin Chang-Diaz of Ad Astra, plasma propulsion system, VASIMIR, it may take only 39 days to reach Mars.
Space X will do better than this