Zubrin is definitely right in the added delta V needed to stop by the gateway on a supposed trip to Mars.. Anyone that plays with the highly simplistic space simulator called Kerbal Space knows this.. Simply go where you are going directly or it will cost you.. Hopefully the folks selling this concept are loosely referring to the LOP-G as a "Gateway" meaning that it is merely a learning gateway.. Its easy to sell a misrepresented concept to a non technical crowd for sure.. Not impressed with the Lockheed mockup and wondering why they aren't considering Bigelow's inflatable habitat.. Also, too slow this project is for what it returns. Make no mistake, those of us that are 50 ish - this project will consume 80% of the remaining time we have left in our lives I'll bet.. Huge time sink minimal return. Nice presentation, Mr. Zubrin needs to be consulted on mission planning and goals if he is not already.. As a "Space Fan" I am banking on Elon Musk or another driven independent to run the missions we desire in space exploration. After hearing these extended timelines I fired NASA a long time ago..
Dr. Zubrin always notes (nitpicks) Elon's plan to use BFR/S as the primary Mars vehicle, saying it should be reserved for near-earth operations. But this is the best compromise Elon can afford at the moment. Otherwise they'd have to build another spacecraft just for the Mars journey. This way, once they've got the BFS developed, they can crank out several more at a much lower cost than developing a whole new vehicle. (Also, they can bring any BFS back to earth for inspection and maintenance, which can't be done with a dedicated space-only vehicle.)
BFR has to pay for itself, not just be self serving, so that has lots to do with Elon's motivations in decision making. Zubrin is a JPL guy, not a finance guy. Elon's big picture mind is pretty incredible.
PFVREVIEWS - I think Zubrin's point is that the BFS would pay for itself a lot faster if you could use it every week instead of every four years. I'm not saying I think he has the better approach, but I can see his point.
@@ReddwarfIV - I agree. But Elon has always said he intends to build an entire fleet of these ships, not just one, so leaving a few of them parked on Mars is not a problem. And they will no-doubt be tested extensively in the earth/moon neighborhood before making the first Mars trip. In the longer term (say, 2030 and beyond) I can see SpaceX developing a space-only ship for Mars transit. Perhaps even a Mars-cycler. But in the meantime, they'll have a handful of BFS's dedicated for Mars trips, and another handful for near-earth ops (where the opportunities to generate cash are more plentiful). Remember, they spent half a billion bucks to develop the F9, but they'll sell you one now for just sixty million. The bulk of the cost is in development, not manufacturing. The first BFS will likely cost a few billion to design and build, but thereafter they'll probably cost closer to a few-hundred million apiece -- which is not that much more than your average jumbo-jet.
@taiwanjohn - To use Elon's favoured analogy... imaging you are an airline. You have a far away destination. Most other airlines build single-use airplanes to go there, and charge passengers through the nose to recoup costs. What Zubrin proposes is that you fly to the destination and back again with your reusable aircraft as often as possible so that the costs of the airplane is amortised over a large number of flights. What Musk is proposing is to fly to the destination, wait a long time, and then fly back again, whilst recouping costs through mass production of the aircraft in the hopes that it will make each unit worth little enough that having them idle for years won't be an issue. Do you see what I mean? If the sole goal was to reach the destination as cheaply and efficiently as possible, Zubrin's proposal makes more sense. What I suspect is that Musk doesn't have that as his sole goal. He wants a vehicle that can go anywhere, not just a vehicle that can throw payloads anywhere. Under Zubrin's plan, to reach Jupiter you would have to land a base payload on Mars, build a base, build a new rocket on Mars, then fly to Jupiter. By contrast, BFR can go to Mars, refuel, then fly to Jupiter.
@@ReddwarfIV - I think we are mostly in agreement, we're just expressing it differently. > fly to the destination and back again with your reusable aircraft as often as possible Yes. The trouble is, when going to Mars, once every two years *is* "as often as possible". There's no getting around that. Even Zubrin's Mars-Direct plan calls for leaving at least one MAV on Mars through each two-year cycle. I'm sure that if Elon had an extra $100B sitting around, he'd be happy to develop all the hardware Zubrin can dream up. But he's got limited funds, and he probably only has one shot at this. It makes _so much more sense_ to develop a single, general-use spacecraft that is not only FULLY reusable (even F9 wastes a whole 2nd stage for each flight) but can also fill a very attractive set of roles, some of which are also very lucrative in the near term (ie: LEO super-heavy launch, P2P earth travel, lunar FedEx delivery, etc). It would make good business sense to develop the BFR/S system just to make money off those opportunities. Going to Mars gets more attainable when you've already got a fleet of BFS's raking in profits from near-earth operations. Ditto for Jupiter, etc.. EDIT: Also, rather than developing a separate MAV, HAB, and ERV (per Zubrin's plan), the BFS combines all three roles. And, assuming they'll continuously improve and upgrade the BFS design, as they have done with the F9, they'll have a steady supply of BFS's that can be "retired" on Mars over the years, to help build up the permanent infrastructure there.
What NASA should do: Cancel Lop-G. Combine projects with human mission to streamline focus. Launch people to Moon and Mars using commercial ships with enough onboard experiments equivalent to a half century of Rover missions.
Automation would be much easier on the moon too since it's so close. There could be operators on earth controlling robots on the moon in real time without too much lag (1-2s)
Benefits of a Moon Base: Once and for all, testing effects of REDUCED gravity (but not zero G) on the human body. I see no rotating crew section on Lop-G.
As per all government organizations, over time they degenerate without the trimming and focus on efficiency that occurs in a commercial enterprise. So yes it's the US government, NASA is part of that and inevitably goes towards ineffectiveness.
It's both NASA and the US Government fault. NASA recommends projects that keep engineers employed. That's why the Space Shuttle was never replaced with Shuttle C or the Dream Chaser, or the Venture Star or Delta Clipper. That's why they have pilot fly the shuttle because they don't want to give the impression that humans aren't necesary. (unlike Buran totally automated) NASA cancels any project that reduces their budget.
As an 18 year old I think it is extreme sad that this events are most only visited by people the age of my grandparents. These people were my age when humanity Set foot on the moon, when they were promised and after that betraid of the future in the sheere infinite Solar System. Now they sit there and dream about the future of their grandchildrens future. I feel sad for them. If there was be no Ocean holding me back, I would attend this meetings I can only see on UA-cam.
AB - I feel sad that after nearly a lifetime in education many youngsters are unable to spell or compose a coherent sentence. The need to explore space is currently a human folly while there are far more pressing problems to be resolved on this pale blue dot before creating colonies on inhospitable dots. Humans existing in totally man made environments void from nature is akin to sensory deprivation and the psychological and physical effects of long term space travel have yet to be tested for real and the prognosis so far is not good. The costs of the logistical requirements needed to maintain any such colony would be enormously expensive and be far better used on earth.
@sichere - Ah, the old "we should focus on Earth" fallacy. Lets ignore that the money spent on NASA would most likely go to the US military, not whatever humanitarian project you'd prefer. Instead, I'll point out that for every $1 in NASA's budget, $10 was generated by NASA R&D spinoff technologies, and the space industrial economy that NASA makes possible. www.thebalance.com/nasa-budget-current-funding-and-history-3306321 If you get rid of NASA, you destroy that revenue stream, which means you'll have less money to spend on your pet humanitarian aid issue. I am sick and tired of hearing this argument over and over. _Its nonsense._
@@humanevolving692 - 18 year old Germans have access to Google translate and YT auto spell checks too - The climate on earth has been changing since it formed 4 Billion years ago and there is nothing that humans can do to stop it. Man made disasters are insignificant when compared with the natural ones. - Why would you want to live underground and become a Morlock. Even saturation divers get to breathe fresh air and Arctic scientists holiday in the Caribbean once in a while not so for the space colonies. In time people living in space would develop into a sub species and declare their independence and then there would be a diplomatic war then an economic one and eventually a military one. ua-cam.com/video/oj-F9VPbP80/v-deo.html
@J Human cells make up only 43% of the body's total cell count so we are all amoebas on the grand scale of things and the argument is only recent. The human exploration of space is still a folly
LH/LOx powered ship of 8 tonnes going back and forth to the Moon... sounds like New Shepard is about the right design (just a bit bigger) if one put a different capsule on top that doesn't have to come off and with a life support for 2 weeks instead of for 15 minutes. It'll just be a bit of a climb down to the lunar surface. Sounds doable.
Except new Shepard only has, what, 2km/s of delta v? if even that. This thing can be far lighter since it doesn't need to take aerodynamic loads and it will have a more efficient lower thrust vacuum-optimized engine and it will be much more squat for ease of landing. Not much like new Shepard really.
I would guess closer to twice that, because friction is a bitch and to have plenty of margin for landing. But your right in that it has a lot of stuff it won't need if it stays outside the atmosphere all the time. I just don't know of anyone else who has a LH/LOx engine with the throttleability of BE3. There are no numbers available but New Shepard likely weighs 30-40 tonnes (BE3 has a 49 tonne thrust) and New Glenn is stated to have a capacity to LEO of 45-ish tonnes. I don't think that is an accident :-)
A base on the moon of Earth and one on the moons of Mars is way better than orbital stations. Benefits of a moon base. Can have a huge greenhouse/bio domes. Can have an actual medical facility. Can mine for ore and other resources. Can have manufacturing eventually. Can use the caves from mining as underground storage. Can also use caves as underground living quarters. Can have an actual gymnasium for diverse exercise program. Can have an entertainment building for billiards, a bowling alley and racket ball, just weight the balls inside. Can have a recycling facility and incorporate it into manufacturing. Can have multiple forms of power generation. Can stay longer as it is easier to reduce radiation exposure on a moon. Can maintain, expand and repair habitats much easier because of gravity. Can have a school/education facility. Can also bring kids to the moon, so whole families can be together. Can facilitate births in the medical facility. Eventually humans of every age need to be in the space program. Moon bases make this possible.
Having a meter or more of dirt for some protection from radiation is attractive, for sure. And soon we be able to more with the dirt as the video shows.
The moons of Mars are pretty shitty. You'd have a tough time doing many of those activities there. Probably better to just go straight to Mars - better resources and general conditions, you can aerobrake, and the gravity well is not nearly as onerous as Earth's.
The only real 2 benefits of the moon base is the Regolith Shielding and on location Mining. Otherwise a Artificial Gravity Rotating Station is a better idea -1 Gravity for the astronaunts to live and sleep -This can be come an in orbit "gas station" for Beyond HEO Missions (BFR) -Becomes a first response for any potential disasters between Earth Moon -Has the potential in 80 years to host Earth's first spaceship yard.
You clearly did not put much thought into benefits of a moon base with mining, manufacturing, full earth size gymnasium, earth full size entertainment building with bowling, racket ball, basket ball, movie theater, earth full size school for families. Yes, families as a moon base would allow astronauts, workers, scientists, engineers, chemist, welders, miners, mechanics, doctors, nurses, councilors, lawyers, judges, police officers and the list goes on and on. The Moon base would be a part of the long term human colonization of space which includes full families not coming back to earth for years and eventually never coming back to earth. This is the type space program China is planning. They have billions of people and plan on getting thousands of them on the moon, on one of Mar's moons and on Mars also. If the USA keeps looking at space the way they have for the last 4 decades, then they will suddenly not be the top nation in space but just a footnote in history books for Chinese children to read about in their studies on other planets and several moons. Just as an example, I happen to know China is looking into modifying the seas shipping containers they build, to be used for Space Shipping Containers and as habitat modules on the moon and on Mar's moon and also Mars. They do not plan on building them here and launching them but they plan on building them on the moon in a factory and launch them from the moon.
Anything that takes decades and hundreds of billions to build will NOT be built. A lot more realistic to start small with a little base on Moon and keep expanding it. Oh, and soon we will see the Chinese, the Russians and the Indians moving to build their own Moon bases.
Half of fuel off the lander will be burning too synchronization the speed with LEO and in this moment you need to refueling on orbit with fuel bring from earth, why not use this fuel to send a capsule to the moon docking to a cargo lander and send capsule to the surface of the moon in this way can duble you cargo, and after refueling can launch directly to the earth and landing.
LOP doesn't rotate and is too small. There is no need for a "-G" it mint get used one time as a "gateway" which makes it more like the space shuttle large design for DOD payloads which never materialized, What a waste.
@@humanevolving692 Even launching from Earth it wouldn't be that costly. If you're already building a Lunar base for other reasons, then all the infrastructure necessary to support the ground station is already in place. The actual tether itself would only cost a few hundred million dollars to build and launch. I've even seen clever designs that use the expended second stage of the rocket that launches the tether as a counterweight, so that you don't need a separate launch for that. It's so easy to build a tether on the moon that's it's silly that we haven't done it already. You don't even need to engineer new solutions to anything. All the work has already been done. We literally just need to build one.
If NASA wants so much LOP-G, at least use Falcon Heavy to build it. The money will be spent by SpaceX on the development of BFG-9000, I mean, BFR, or BFS, ITS, err, whatever.
This guy has visions, yes, but somewhere in his life he lost track of reality and now often sounds like a fanatic who is actually only consumed by Space
Every time Dr. Zubrin speaks, I learn.
Donald Clifford It's a shame that the same is not true for the people who it is aimed at -- the people pulling NASA's strings.
I like Zubrin and he has a ton of knowledge but times like this he's wrong. Lunar Gateway is better for the humans.
@@saquist Give some reasoning to back up your statement.
Zubrin is definitely right in the added delta V needed to stop by the gateway on a supposed trip to Mars.. Anyone that plays with the highly simplistic space simulator called Kerbal Space knows this.. Simply go where you are going directly or it will cost you.. Hopefully the folks selling this concept are loosely referring to the LOP-G as a "Gateway" meaning that it is merely a learning gateway.. Its easy to sell a misrepresented concept to a non technical crowd for sure.. Not impressed with the Lockheed mockup and wondering why they aren't considering Bigelow's inflatable habitat.. Also, too slow this project is for what it returns. Make no mistake, those of us that are 50 ish - this project will consume 80% of the remaining time we have left in our lives I'll bet.. Huge time sink minimal return. Nice presentation, Mr. Zubrin needs to be consulted on mission planning and goals if he is not already.. As a "Space Fan" I am banking on Elon Musk or another driven independent to run the missions we desire in space exploration. After hearing these extended timelines I fired NASA a long time ago..
the man is sharp and clear and very confident
Dr. Zubrin always notes (nitpicks) Elon's plan to use BFR/S as the primary Mars vehicle, saying it should be reserved for near-earth operations. But this is the best compromise Elon can afford at the moment. Otherwise they'd have to build another spacecraft just for the Mars journey. This way, once they've got the BFS developed, they can crank out several more at a much lower cost than developing a whole new vehicle. (Also, they can bring any BFS back to earth for inspection and maintenance, which can't be done with a dedicated space-only vehicle.)
BFR has to pay for itself, not just be self serving, so that has lots to do with Elon's motivations in decision making. Zubrin is a JPL guy, not a finance guy. Elon's big picture mind is pretty incredible.
PFVREVIEWS - I think Zubrin's point is that the BFS would pay for itself a lot faster if you could use it every week instead of every four years.
I'm not saying I think he has the better approach, but I can see his point.
@@ReddwarfIV - I agree. But Elon has always said he intends to build an entire fleet of these ships, not just one, so leaving a few of them parked on Mars is not a problem. And they will no-doubt be tested extensively in the earth/moon neighborhood before making the first Mars trip.
In the longer term (say, 2030 and beyond) I can see SpaceX developing a space-only ship for Mars transit. Perhaps even a Mars-cycler. But in the meantime, they'll have a handful of BFS's dedicated for Mars trips, and another handful for near-earth ops (where the opportunities to generate cash are more plentiful).
Remember, they spent half a billion bucks to develop the F9, but they'll sell you one now for just sixty million. The bulk of the cost is in development, not manufacturing. The first BFS will likely cost a few billion to design and build, but thereafter they'll probably cost closer to a few-hundred million apiece -- which is not that much more than your average jumbo-jet.
@taiwanjohn - To use Elon's favoured analogy... imaging you are an airline. You have a far away destination. Most other airlines build single-use airplanes to go there, and charge passengers through the nose to recoup costs.
What Zubrin proposes is that you fly to the destination and back again with your reusable aircraft as often as possible so that the costs of the airplane is amortised over a large number of flights.
What Musk is proposing is to fly to the destination, wait a long time, and then fly back again, whilst recouping costs through mass production of the aircraft in the hopes that it will make each unit worth little enough that having them idle for years won't be an issue.
Do you see what I mean? If the sole goal was to reach the destination as cheaply and efficiently as possible, Zubrin's proposal makes more sense. What I suspect is that Musk doesn't have that as his sole goal. He wants a vehicle that can go anywhere, not just a vehicle that can throw payloads anywhere. Under Zubrin's plan, to reach Jupiter you would have to land a base payload on Mars, build a base, build a new rocket on Mars, then fly to Jupiter. By contrast, BFR can go to Mars, refuel, then fly to Jupiter.
@@ReddwarfIV - I think we are mostly in agreement, we're just expressing it differently.
> fly to the destination and back again with your reusable aircraft as often as possible
Yes. The trouble is, when going to Mars, once every two years *is* "as often as possible". There's no getting around that. Even Zubrin's Mars-Direct plan calls for leaving at least one MAV on Mars through each two-year cycle.
I'm sure that if Elon had an extra $100B sitting around, he'd be happy to develop all the hardware Zubrin can dream up. But he's got limited funds, and he probably only has one shot at this. It makes _so much more sense_ to develop a single, general-use spacecraft that is not only FULLY reusable (even F9 wastes a whole 2nd stage for each flight) but can also fill a very attractive set of roles, some of which are also very lucrative in the near term (ie: LEO super-heavy launch, P2P earth travel, lunar FedEx delivery, etc).
It would make good business sense to develop the BFR/S system just to make money off those opportunities. Going to Mars gets more attainable when you've already got a fleet of BFS's raking in profits from near-earth operations. Ditto for Jupiter, etc..
EDIT: Also, rather than developing a separate MAV, HAB, and ERV (per Zubrin's plan), the BFS combines all three roles. And, assuming they'll continuously improve and upgrade the BFS design, as they have done with the F9, they'll have a steady supply of BFS's that can be "retired" on Mars over the years, to help build up the permanent infrastructure there.
can't see any slides - not necessary to look at Dr. Z the whole time
What NASA should do:
Cancel Lop-G. Combine projects with human mission to streamline focus. Launch people to Moon and Mars using commercial ships with enough onboard experiments equivalent to a half century of Rover missions.
Automation would be much easier on the moon too since it's so close. There could be operators on earth controlling robots on the moon in real time without too much lag (1-2s)
Benefits of a Moon Base: Once and for all, testing effects of REDUCED gravity (but not zero G) on the human body.
I see no rotating crew section on Lop-G.
There should be. That's why would make it far superior to the Moon Base.
Lefa just go the moon. 8K video cameras it would be amazzzzinnnng
I wish we could have this man as the head of NASA. I guess he could never get there, he's too practical for that.
it isnt NASA's fault. Its the US Government.
As per all government organizations, over time they degenerate without the trimming and focus on efficiency that occurs in a commercial enterprise. So yes it's the US government, NASA is part of that and inevitably goes towards ineffectiveness.
It's both NASA and the US Government fault. NASA recommends projects that keep engineers employed. That's why the Space Shuttle was never replaced with Shuttle C or the Dream Chaser, or the Venture Star or Delta Clipper. That's why they have pilot fly the shuttle because they don't want to give the impression that humans aren't necesary. (unlike Buran totally automated) NASA cancels any project that reduces their budget.
It’s more important to build bombs and ... 😜 and 🦂 than to explore
As an 18 year old I think it is extreme sad that this events are most only visited by people the age of my grandparents.
These people were my age when humanity Set foot on the moon, when they were promised and after that betraid of the future in the sheere infinite Solar System.
Now they sit there and dream about the future of their grandchildrens future.
I feel sad for them.
If there was be no Ocean holding
me back, I would attend this meetings I can only see on UA-cam.
@@humanevolving692 Yeah. Thats often quotet by someone ever younger than me.
AB - I feel sad that after nearly a lifetime in education many youngsters are unable to spell or compose a coherent sentence. The need to explore space is currently a human folly while there are far more pressing problems to be resolved on this pale blue dot before creating colonies on inhospitable dots.
Humans existing in totally man made environments void from nature is akin to sensory deprivation and the psychological and physical effects of long term space travel have yet to be tested for real and the prognosis so far is not good.
The costs of the logistical requirements needed to maintain any such colony would be enormously expensive and be far better used on earth.
@sichere - Ah, the old "we should focus on Earth" fallacy. Lets ignore that the money spent on NASA would most likely go to the US military, not whatever humanitarian project you'd prefer. Instead, I'll point out that for every $1 in NASA's budget, $10 was generated by NASA R&D spinoff technologies, and the space industrial economy that NASA makes possible.
www.thebalance.com/nasa-budget-current-funding-and-history-3306321
If you get rid of NASA, you destroy that revenue stream, which means you'll have less money to spend on your pet humanitarian aid issue.
I am sick and tired of hearing this argument over and over. _Its nonsense._
@@humanevolving692 - 18 year old Germans have access to Google translate and YT auto spell checks too - The climate on earth has been changing since it formed 4 Billion years ago and there is nothing that humans can do to stop it. Man made disasters are insignificant when compared with the natural ones. - Why would you want to live underground and become a Morlock. Even saturation divers get to breathe fresh air and Arctic scientists holiday in the Caribbean once in a while not so for the space colonies.
In time people living in space would develop into a sub species and declare their independence and then there would be a diplomatic war then an economic one and eventually a military one.
ua-cam.com/video/oj-F9VPbP80/v-deo.html
@J Human cells make up only 43% of the body's total cell count so we are all amoebas on the grand scale of things and the argument is only recent. The human exploration of space is still a folly
can anyone find the paper and post it here?
How can we get to Mars when we can barely read text on the slides? Is it a rocket science to provide a high quality video and slides?
His closing remark was very good: "The budget is adequate, it just needs to be spent intelligently."
I do not see the utility of an lunar orbital station until later in lunar colonization.
this convention needs more clocks, so people arent late and better sound isolation.
Would this have any affect on the positioning of the moon from the earth?
Neil Smith no
LH/LOx powered ship of 8 tonnes going back and forth to the Moon... sounds like New Shepard is about the right design (just a bit bigger) if one put a different capsule on top that doesn't have to come off and with a life support for 2 weeks instead of for 15 minutes. It'll just be a bit of a climb down to the lunar surface. Sounds doable.
Except new Shepard only has, what, 2km/s of delta v? if even that. This thing can be far lighter since it doesn't need to take aerodynamic loads and it will have a more efficient lower thrust vacuum-optimized engine and it will be much more squat for ease of landing. Not much like new Shepard really.
I would guess closer to twice that, because friction is a bitch and to have plenty of margin for landing. But your right in that it has a lot of stuff it won't need if it stays outside the atmosphere all the time. I just don't know of anyone else who has a LH/LOx engine with the throttleability of BE3. There are no numbers available but New Shepard likely weighs 30-40 tonnes (BE3 has a 49 tonne thrust) and New Glenn is stated to have a capacity to LEO of 45-ish tonnes. I don't think that is an accident :-)
A base on the moon of Earth and one on the moons of Mars is way better than orbital stations.
Benefits of a moon base.
Can have a huge greenhouse/bio domes.
Can have an actual medical facility.
Can mine for ore and other resources.
Can have manufacturing eventually.
Can use the caves from mining as underground storage.
Can also use caves as underground living quarters.
Can have an actual gymnasium for diverse exercise program.
Can have an entertainment building for billiards, a bowling alley and racket ball, just weight the balls inside.
Can have a recycling facility and incorporate it into manufacturing.
Can have multiple forms of power generation.
Can stay longer as it is easier to reduce radiation exposure on a moon.
Can maintain, expand and repair habitats much easier because of gravity.
Can have a school/education facility.
Can also bring kids to the moon, so whole families can be together.
Can facilitate births in the medical facility.
Eventually humans of every age need to be in the space program. Moon bases make this possible.
Having a meter or more of dirt for some protection from radiation is attractive, for sure. And soon we be able to more with the dirt as the video shows.
The moons of Mars are pretty shitty. You'd have a tough time doing many of those activities there. Probably better to just go straight to Mars - better resources and general conditions, you can aerobrake, and the gravity well is not nearly as onerous as Earth's.
The only real 2 benefits of the moon base is the Regolith Shielding and on location Mining.
Otherwise a Artificial Gravity Rotating Station is a better idea
-1 Gravity for the astronaunts to live and sleep
-This can be come an in orbit "gas station" for Beyond HEO Missions (BFR)
-Becomes a first response for any potential disasters between Earth Moon
-Has the potential in 80 years to host Earth's first spaceship yard.
You clearly did not put much thought into benefits of a moon base with mining, manufacturing, full earth size gymnasium, earth full size entertainment building with bowling, racket ball, basket ball, movie theater, earth full size school for families. Yes, families as a moon base would allow astronauts, workers, scientists, engineers, chemist, welders, miners, mechanics, doctors, nurses, councilors, lawyers, judges, police officers and the list goes on and on.
The Moon base would be a part of the long term human colonization of space which includes full families not coming back to earth for years and eventually never coming back to earth. This is the type space program China is planning. They have billions of people and plan on getting thousands of them on the moon, on one of Mar's moons and on Mars also.
If the USA keeps looking at space the way they have for the last 4 decades, then they will suddenly not be the top nation in space but just a footnote in history books for Chinese children to read about in their studies on other planets and several moons. Just as an example, I happen to know China is looking into modifying the seas shipping containers they build, to be used for Space Shipping Containers and as habitat modules on the moon and on Mar's moon and also Mars. They do not plan on building them here and launching them but they plan on building them on the moon in a factory and launch them from the moon.
Anything that takes decades and hundreds of billions to build will NOT be built. A lot more realistic to start small with a little base on Moon and keep expanding it.
Oh, and soon we will see the Chinese, the Russians and the Indians moving to build their own Moon bases.
Haha, Dr. Zubrin dumpster the gateway with his opinion. But great analysis of another persons powerpoint slides. He’s a great speaker.
Use BFR and start over, if carbon can be found.
at this point i estimate a chance of 1 in 100 that we man any of these isru units with actual humans. tendency shrinking.
Half of fuel off the lander will be burning too synchronization the speed with LEO and in this moment you need to refueling on orbit with fuel bring from earth, why not use this fuel to send a capsule to the moon docking to a cargo lander and send capsule to the surface of the moon in this way can duble you cargo, and after refueling can launch directly to the earth and landing.
LOP doesn't rotate and is too small. There is no need for a "-G" it mint get used one time as a "gateway" which makes it more like the space shuttle large design for DOD payloads which never materialized, What a waste.
Ya this one is obviously going to be a steamroller.
i wonder if The Moon would be the best place to trial a space elevator...
better off with a launch loop anyway its actually doable on Earth heh
@@humanevolving692 Even launching from Earth it wouldn't be that costly. If you're already building a Lunar base for other reasons, then all the infrastructure necessary to support the ground station is already in place. The actual tether itself would only cost a few hundred million dollars to build and launch. I've even seen clever designs that use the expended second stage of the rocket that launches the tether as a counterweight, so that you don't need a separate launch for that.
It's so easy to build a tether on the moon that's it's silly that we haven't done it already. You don't even need to engineer new solutions to anything. All the work has already been done. We literally just need to build one.
If NASA wants so much LOP-G, at least use Falcon Heavy to build it. The money will be spent by SpaceX on the development of BFG-9000, I mean, BFR, or BFS, ITS, err, whatever.
on mars we can stay forever
once it rains fish can survive mars nature
yes really (waterlocks solves dust issues)
This guy has visions, yes, but somewhere in his life he lost track of reality and now often sounds like a fanatic who is actually only consumed by Space
In the left corner there is Mike Armantraut.
:)