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

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

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.

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.