Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday May 11 2017, @08:18PM   Printer-friendly
from the one-small-orbit-for-man dept.

Buzz Aldrin has said that NASA should stop spending $3.5 billion per year on the International Space Station and relinquish low Earth orbit activities to private companies, such as SpaceX, Orbital ATK, Boeing, Bigelow Aerospace, and Axiom Space. This would allow for the funding of "cyclers" to enable a base on the moon and eventually a permanent presence on Mars:

http://www.space.com/36787-buzz-aldrin-retire-international-space-station-for-mars.html

Establishing private outposts in LEO is just the first step in Aldrin's plan for Mars colonization, which depends heavily on "cyclers" — spacecraft that move continuously between two cosmic destinations, efficiently delivering people and cargo back and forth. "The foundation of human transportation is the cycler," the 87-year-old former astronaut said. "Very rugged, so it'll last 30 years or so; no external moving parts."

Step two involves the international spaceflight community coming together to build cyclers that ply cislunar space, taking people on trips to the moon and back. Such spacecraft, and the activities they enable, would allow the construction of a crewed lunar base, where humanity could learn and test the techniques required for Mars colonization, such as how to manufacture propellant from local resources, Aldrin said. Then would come Earth-Mars cyclers, which Aldrin described as "an evolutionary development" of the prior cyclers.

[...] NASA officials have repeatedly said that the ISS is a key part of the agency's "Journey to Mars" vision, which aims to get astronauts to the vicinity of the Red Planet sometime in the 2030s.

Is the ISS a key part of the "Journey to Mars" or a key roadblock?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by lx on Thursday May 11 2017, @08:34PM (5 children)

    by lx (1915) on Thursday May 11 2017, @08:34PM (#508304)

    At first I thought that he wanted to haul the ISS to an orbit around Mars.

    Which, on second thought would be the greatest thing ever.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11 2017, @08:40PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11 2017, @08:40PM (#508311)

    Sure thing, just bolt on an EmDrive and get your ISS to Mars.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Thursday May 11 2017, @09:13PM (3 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday May 11 2017, @09:13PM (#508328)

    The ISS isn't sufficiently radiation hardened for human habitation in Mars orbit (nevermind the support logistics issues...)

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Thursday May 11 2017, @09:36PM (2 children)

      by bob_super (1357) on Thursday May 11 2017, @09:36PM (#508339)

      True. But if they built it sturdy enough to keep its panels aligned, filling it to the brim with supplies for orbital comms/resupply of Mars or Moon missions could be useful.
      Even a soft crash on the moon could help future moon missions (or become the first attractions park, if near an Apollo site).

      Arguably, filling it with propellant and just powering it up in any pretty much direction would be more useful than letting it crash back down. How much would it cost to delta-v most of it to L4/L5?

      It doesn't even have to be complete, if NASA decides some parts are too old or risky.
      I'm just annoyed at the idea of letting it just fall back down.

      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday May 12 2017, @02:19AM

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday May 12 2017, @02:19AM (#508431)

        Usefulness vs cost, though?

        Personally, if we had the money for the deltaV, I think it would make a great tourist attraction in a stable Lagrange point - but that's a lot of deltaV and that money could put new hardware in orbit...

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 12 2017, @04:47PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 12 2017, @04:47PM (#508708) Journal

        Even a soft crash on the moon could help future moon missions (or become the first attractions park, if near an Apollo site).

        You can't get a soft crash on the Moon because the ISS can't survival an acceleration strong enough to prevent it from hitting the Moon with a speed exceeding a high power rifle by about a factor of two (~2 km/s). Parking it in a high altitude Earth orbit is probably the best preservation that can be done under the circumstances.

        My take is that putting it in such an orbit would not be that expensive. Attach an electric propulsion system with a large tank and slowly boost the ISS to a much higher orbit outside of the Van Allen belts. A Falcon Heavy probably could put the necessary gear in orbit with one shot or current rockets with two or so launches.