Should we go back to the moon or skip it and go straight to Mars? Did the space shuttle kill NASA?

I believe the advancements we develop while building a Lunar base will help us build new technologies to go to Mars and beyond. It could also serve as a resort for space tourism.

Is it a good time to be an AE or not?

i sure as hell hope its a good time to be an AE.

anyway, as for space, i think nasa should give up the closer areas (>the moon for sure, maybe up to 100 miles? just some rdm numbers) to private enterprise and turn it over to the FAA.

after the ISS is finally finished, i would think a first priority would be bringing the moon into the relm of Antarctica, i.e. regular visits, research stations, etc. make travel there much more common. with this mission in mind, a space shuttle replacement would obviously have to be mostly, if not completely, reusable.

once the moon is good, a mission to mars would be much more feasable, as the moon would have a more advantageous starting position than earth (lower gravity, 260k+ miles closer, etc.) we have no idea what sort of crap the moon has on it as far as raw materials, and the dark side could be strip mined and no one would notice (not that im advocating that, but for all you concerned about changing the view we have at night)

It's definitely a good time to be an AE, there's going to be some big things going on in the next 5 to 10 years (i.e. moon and mars missions). I'm not sure that UMR is the best place to be if you're interested in space though. We have one HELLUVA good "space" professor, Dr. Pernicka, but he's really the only one here with any substantial knowledge of it. That's why there are like 20 classes dealing with planes and only 2 classes dealing with space..... Sure this will probably change in the future once the AE higher-ups (Dr. Finaish and Dr. Midha) realize that a lot more students these days are interested in space, but for right now we're stuck with what we've got. And really if it wasn't for Dr. Pernicka I wouldn't have stayed here for grad school, he's just that good of a professor. You should definitely get to know him if you're interested in the space side of AE. Better yet, join the MR SAT team, we could always use more people.

and i figure a plug is obligated for other aero design team, aavg. its a lot of fun, and you get a lot of great first-hand experience with the subject. i know very little about mr-sat, but it sounds like a great project as well. if you're interested, definitely look into joining a design team. it'll be well worth your while.

Gordon Cooper: "You know what makes this bird go up? FUNDING makes this bird go up."
Gus Grissom: "He's right. No bucks, no Buck Rogers."
- The Right Stuff, 1983

Keep that in mind, AE's, and good luck. I was once one of you, you know.

Time will tell how AE fairs - I didn't pick it because you really have to be top of the field to get a decent job in it.

If you're at all interested in the Space aspect of it, get aquianted with nuclear RTGs and other options - its the only possible way to do any sort of space missions. Dr. Meuller in Nuclear Engineering teaches a great Space/Nuclear class I'm taking right now (stupid AEs filling up the class...) that you should take if you're interested in the space applications.

Only possible way to do any sort of space missions? Get real. There are dozens of space applications that get you a job on space missions. Lets see, there's orbital mechanics, propulsion (stop acting like nuclear is the only way), attitude control, aerodynamics (reentry), space based power methods, and structures just to name a few.

I wanted to get into that space/nuclear class but it was sadly full (STUPID NUKE E'S filling up the class).

Nuclear Engineers filling up a nuclear engineering class? Uh oh.

Say it ain't so. Seeing as how they aren't offering many 300 level electives (or are they now), no wonder its getting filled up.

I wanted to take it a few years ago, but it was full. I ended up taking Rad Waste Management with Dr. Nick that semester. I'm glad I did. Probably one of my favorite classes. Besides, I heard that some of the non nuke majors were holding up the class.

Absolutely: from both an operations and a technology standpoint... though I'm getting more and more depressed with the technology standpoint as CEV starts looking more and more like an Apollo capsule.


Heh; I don't think anyone has staked a claim on the moon yet.

That said, Uncle Sam is doing what he can to aid the "private space industry".

http://www.space.com/news/mojave_spaceport_040524.html


I'm going to side with Nay Nay on this one. RTGs use thermocouples to convert heat from radioactive decay into electricity. These thermocouples are extremely inefficient (like ~ 5%).

NASA's experimenting with Stirling Radioisotope Generators ("SRG's"), hoping they will replace RTG's (as an energy source) in future missions... but even these are struggling to get 20%.

That said, it's more likely that long-duration missions will rely on a full-blown nuclear reactor... but that's no reason to stubbornly defend one piece of tech. One should always be open to new concepts, even in the case of something tried-and-true, like propulsion.

Take VASIMR (the Variable-Specific-Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket) for example. It uses a neutral gas as a propellant, and something like it may show up nuclear, thermal, and chemical rockets in terms of minimizing the initial mass of a spacecraft (so we can get it in low earth orbit) designed to go places far away (i.e. Mars).

Is putting a hub on the moon a good idea? It seems to me that the extra weight or the propulsion of taking off and landing might throw it outa alignment? Or does it weigh enough that this wont be a factor?

Does the MOON weigh enough??

...You try picking it up.

Yes, the moon weighs plenty.

Its not practical to build a lunar base, there just isnt that much interest. As for Mars...Im neutral if we put a man on it, it would be no different than sending a probe except it would cost about a couple more billion tax dollars. I think we should spend more money on probes instead. No one cries when a probe blows up in the atmosphere.

Well, because the moon lacks a magnetic field to shelter it from the solar wind, its soil is laden with helium-3, mostly tied-up in "ilmenite" ore. Helium-3 is an efficient fuel for a nuclear fusion reactor. It looks like establishing facilities on the moon to mine it might actually be worthwhile.

Supposedly, a spacecraft with a single Shuttle-sized payload (it can lift ~ 60k lb off the Earth) could bring back enough processed ore to generate the electricity required to power the U.S. for a year.

So, the real challenge is figuring out how to develop technology capable of assisting human beings to do things like this on another planet. We're going to need that type of expertise going into any sort of Mars mission, and it will require human-robot interaction to do anything of note there due to communication delays.

Oh yeah, there are challenges involved in building the reactor as well.


Except Baby Jesus and the people that built it.