Buzz Aldrin: Retire the ISS so We Can Put Our Boots on Mars

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
The outspoken engineer and former astronaut tells NASA that they need to get rid of the International Space Station as soon as possible if they hope to accomplish any kind of Mars mission. That’s because the ISS costs a pretty hefty $3.5 billion to maintain every year. While the ISS is supposedly crucial to NASA’s Mars plan, Aldrin seems to be focused on space stations/commercial outposts built by private companies utilizing simple but efficient means of transportation for people and cargo, such as cyclers.

Aldrin foresees these various cycler iterations enabling a crewed mission to a near-Earth asteroid by 2020 and a Venus flyby by 2024. If all goes well, the first future Mars settlers could launch in the early 2030s, he said. And they will be settlers, not just visitors, if Aldrin's vision comes to pass. "Let's be certain that we've developed a sustainable plan to stay on Mars," he said. "No flags and footprints this time." The ISS is currently funded through 2024, and officials of NASA, the Russian federal space agency and other partners have floated the possibility of extending the $100 billion outpost's life through 2028.
 
Strap engines to it and take the ISS to Mars. Pretty sure aerodynamics are useless in a vacuum so the shape matters not.
 
Or we could tax the rich some more and keep the ISS? We shouldn't need to relocate funds from one important project to another.

original.jpg


2012-04-30-Presentation1-thumb.jpg
 
DrLobotomy said:
Strap engines to it and take the ISS to Mars. Pretty sure aerodynamics are useless in a vacuum so the shape matters not.
Click to expand...

No, but stuff will still vibrate, oscillate, and eventually snap off under acceleration that it wasn't designed for. It'd be far, far cheaper to build a new spacecraft for this than to try to re-purpose the ISS. I can see the ISS being MAYBE used as a staging base for some components.

Problem is the ISS is in a really crappy starting orbit if you want to move stuff from there to Mars.
 
Bandalo said:
No, but stuff will still vibrate, oscillate, and eventually snap off under acceleration that it wasn't designed for. It'd be far, far cheaper to build a new spacecraft for this than to try to re-purpose the ISS. I can see the ISS being MAYBE used as a staging base for some components.

Problem is the ISS is in a really crappy starting orbit if you want to move stuff from there to Mars.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure all those parts took a nice vibration filled ride aboard a giant rocket.

I didn't say strap on some Briggs & Stratton Lawn mower engines. I know we have some nice stuff we use to get stuff out there already. Just a thought as how to save some money and recycle!!

I am not on the NASA funding committee, I just play one on TV.
 
It's a stepping stone. Boost to Lagrange point. Moon base first with a rail gun to launch natively mined and refined products for vehicle assembly. Factories on the moon.
 
DrLobotomy said:
Pretty sure all those parts took a nice vibration filled ride aboard a giant rocket.

I didn't say strap on some Briggs & Stratton Lawn mower engines. I know we have some nice stuff we use to get stuff out there already. Just a thought as how to save some money and recycle!!

I am not on the NASA funding committee, I just play one on TV.
Click to expand...

True, but those parts didn't take that ride in their current configuration. Now they're assembled from nice, stable, packed-up pieces into a huge construct with long panel wings, robotic arms, radiator panels, and all sorts of antennas and such sticking out all over. Putting a large boost onto that thing, the kind required for interplanetary travel, would results in lots of broken stuff.

I'm not on the funding committee either, but I do work with satellites for a living.
 
DrLobotomy said:
Pretty sure all those parts took a nice vibration filled ride aboard a giant rocket.

I didn't say strap on some Briggs & Stratton Lawn mower engines. I know we have some nice stuff we use to get stuff out there already. Just a thought as how to save some money and recycle!!

I am not on the NASA funding committee, I just play one on TV.
Click to expand...

Most of those parts were packaged packaged for the flight and then expanded (Soyuz capsules and whatnot excluded).

Not to say that some parts couldn't be reused as a part of whatever they end up shooting at Mars.
 
This is quite a stupid idea.
The ISS should become a staging ground to build interplanetary ships.
You lift the pieces and assemble them near/at the ISS. Then you launch the ship. These ships will never go into reentry and can be designed for space travel only.
If you think a capsule is going to get to mars and back you're nuts. However having a supply ship that can be automatically navigated from earth to mars every so often, picking up supplies and dropping them off is literally the only way right now to establish a base there.
 
DukenukemX said:
Or we could tax the rich some more and keep the ISS? We shouldn't need to relocate funds from one important project to another.
Click to expand...
Forgive me for taking out your charts, but it's a silly idea. Rich people don't get rich from incomes. They get rich from dividends or inheritance. You're literally chopping the ladder of progress for people who actually work and setting arbitrary limits on incomes.
You could easily take part of the defense budget (what like 1.5 trillion a year) and bump it over to nasa to actually pay for stuff.
Also specifically on the charts, no one gets paid from a % of the budget. The budget has increased over the years, nasa has gotten more money over the years as well, it's just not stayed at the point when we had a space program trying to put people on the moon.
 
Hypergreatthing said:
Forgive me for taking out your charts, but it's a silly idea. Rich people don't get rich from incomes. They get rich from dividends or inheritance
Click to expand...

Are dividends not considered income? What kind of thinking is that
 
DrLobotomy said:
Pretty sure all those parts took a nice vibration filled ride aboard a giant rocket.

I didn't say strap on some Briggs & Stratton Lawn mower engines. I know we have some nice stuff we use to get stuff out there already. Just a thought as how to save some money and recycle!!

I am not on the NASA funding committee, I just play one on TV.
Click to expand...

There are countless variables you aren't even considering.
 
DrLobotomy said: ↑
Strap engines to it and take the ISS to Mars. Pretty sure aerodynamics are useless in a vacuum so the shape matters not.


The ISS doesn't have the shielding reqd (for components and lifeforms) for the trip, it was designed and built for LEO not interplanetary trips.
 
Moon base before Mars, these people are ridiculous. It's like asking a crawling infant to run a 100m dash; we must progress slowly...
 
Asking people i consider more smart than the average american:

why do you americans are so obsessed with mars ?

why not a giant planet finder on the dark side of the moon?

or space stations on the lagrangians points assembling interstellar probes?
 
geok1ng said:
Asking people i consider more smart than the average american:

why do you americans are so obsessed with mars ?

why not a giant planet finder on the dark side of the moon?

or space stations on the lagrangians points assembling interstellar probes?
Click to expand...

Mars is the easiest (relatively) to reach for a manned mission. It's incredibly more complex than a moon landing, and would be an amazing achievement for mankind (not just the US).

We are putting "planet finder" type satellites up, no real reason to have them on the dark side of the moon. There are lots of reasons to NOT have a telescope of any kind sitting in a giant pit of dust.

We're putting the James Webb telescope at one of the lagrange points...that's a stepping stone to putting more out there. The question is WHY to put a station there? What do you gain by putting it there vice LEO? What are the risks? There's some reason to use use those points as assembly locations to fit larger ships together, but you have to have that final plan first.
 
DukenukemX said:
Or we could tax the rich some more and keep the ISS? We shouldn't need to relocate funds from one important project to another.

original.jpg


2012-04-30-Presentation1-thumb.jpg
Click to expand...

Wtf is it with you people and wanting to tax "rich" people to death. What gives you the right to take 9 out of every 10 dollars I earn? Note I am not rich but I am on my way there. By hard work and what you propose is to take away 90% of what I have built. And for what? So you can give it away to others? To make yourself feel good for depriving me of my hard work?

Why should I pay more than others because I work harder? I have yet to see any real reasons beside 1) it's only "fair" (who defines fair?) 2) you have a responsibility (No I don't, I contributed more than you already...) 3) cuz you're an evil bastard and I want what you have. (At least that's honest...)

I'd be more inclined to change from income tax to a federal sales tax. A consumption based tax that is graduated would be far more fair than setting arbitrary levels on income. Non luxury items can be taxed at very low levels and the poor can be excused from paying them through various means. Higher end items could have very high taxes on them. You want that million dollar yacht? Million dollars in taxes to buy it. You want that expensive suite? 50% tax. You want those non designer jeans? 7%. Etc.

You can even divide up item classes (clothing etc) and make sure the high end stuff has more taxes built in.

You do realize your two charts have absolutely zero correlation right? NASA budgets had zero to do with the rich marginal tax rate.
 
Bandalo said:
It's incredibly more complex than a moon landing, and would be an amazing achievement for mankind
Click to expand...

Pardon my candure, but i value knowledge more than pride. Moon landing, or even the ISS, did not gave us much knowledge, not when compared to hubble or planetary probes. mars will cost billions, that we could use to better understand gravitational waves or finding planets.

There are some reasons to build gravitational waves detectors on the dark side of the moon, as well as gigantic telescopes/ radio-observatories there.

I do agree that L2 is a better place for a conventional light telescope than the moon, at least until we have human presence on the moon to maintain a very large telescope, like VLT in Chile.
 
geok1ng said:
Pardon my candure, but i value knowledge more than pride. Moon landing, or even the ISS, did not gave us much knowledge, not when compared to hubble or planetary probes. mars will cost billions, that we could use to better understand gravitational waves or finding planets.

There are some reasons to build gravitational waves detectors on the dark side of the moon, as well as gigantic telescopes/ radio-observatories there.

I do agree that L2 is a better place for a conventional light telescope than the moon, at least until we have human presence on the moon to maintain a very large telescope, like VLT in Chile.
Click to expand...

You're speaking in terms of scientific knowledge. I was speaking in terms of engineering knowledge. The moon landing generated a gigantic amount of engineering data that couldn't have been obtained any other way. There's much about living and operating in space we didn't learn until we built the ISS. The lessons learned about on-orbit assembly and maintenance will be invaluable in a future moon or Mars mission.

Scientific knowledge IS very valuable as well, and should be pursued just as hard.
 
What good does landing a man on mars do for us? So he can look at some red rocks in person rather than through a probe's camera? Big deal. It's a complete waste of money, just like the ISS.
 
chili dog said:
What good does landing a man on mars do for us? So he can look at some red rocks in person rather than through a probe's camera? Big deal. It's a complete waste of money, just like the ISS.
Click to expand...
If the United States doesn't do it, another nation will. Barring a global disaster that cripples civilization, it is inevitable that man will go to Mars, if not beyond. It's in our heads to see it done. As an American, I'd rather we be the ones to do it, more for national security purposes than any sense of pride; we should not cede the highest of high ground.
 
kju1 said:
Wtf is it with you people and wanting to tax "rich" people to death.
Click to expand...
Cause that's just as much the peoples money. It has to circulate for it to do anything.
What gives you the right to take 9 out of every 10 dollars I earn?
Click to expand...
Democracy. Voting more specifically.

And for what? So you can give it away to others? To make yourself feel good for depriving me of my hard work?
Click to expand...
Well I was thinking of funding NASA with that money. Also Universal Basic Income when we lose jobs to automation.

Don't hold onto that money too tightly cause there's going to be a point where it's about as useful as monopoly money. Lets say most jobs are automated in 20 years, do you think money will still have value by then? By then you'll wish for increased taxes, as money could easily be made obsolete.
Why should I pay more than others because I work harder?
Click to expand...
Cause things are going to pay for themselves through poor people? If the wealthy have most of the nations money, then it makes sense to tax them more. Unless the wealthy are going to take that money and make their own space program to Mars? Not many wealthy individuals do that. Not to many musks.

2534551796ee0a2638b462ce82e33b65091b1d42_1600x1200.jpg



You do realize your two charts have absolutely zero correlation right? NASA budgets had zero to do with the rich marginal tax rate.
Click to expand...
The thing to notice is that in he 80's the wealthy got a major tax reduction, and NASA has continued since the 80's to receive about the same % in funding.
 
some things i would consider better for humanity than a Mars mission:

-erradicate more diseases with complete global vacinattion, like we did against smallpox in 1977 and hinderpest in 2001.
-fusion reactors research
-reactionless drive research
-ocean farming research
-malaria research
-bombing the shit out of Boku Haram (and ISIS)
-terraforming GMOs research
 
Last edited:
geok1ng said:
Asking people i consider more smart than the average american:

why do you americans are so obsessed with mars ?
Click to expand...


That's an easy one. We are fundamentally draw to it, because we came from it or at least our ancestors did, which is why they are depicted in early drawings and scripture to have wings, we call them "Angles" This also regards the ancient telling of the Ark or (ship) that brought us here from whats now known as Mars. Jesus was their leader & Satan tried to usurp him, he was cast out & sent back to Mars for wanting to start a war with his own people (us), which is why Mars is "The God of War" in mythology.
 
Last edited:
Yep, until there is some kind of infrastructure established at a Lagrange point(s) nobody is going to be piecing together ship modules into ships at a Lagrange point. Other problem is how to insulate the people onboard from hard radiation and micro meteorites.
 
Wade88 said:
Yep, until there is some kind of infrastructure established at a Lagrange point(s) nobody is going to be piecing together ship modules into ships at a Lagrange point. Other problem is how to insulate the people onboard from hard radiation and micro meteorites.
Click to expand...

how about no people onboard? what is it we want to do at mars (insert space dstination) that a mission without people wouldn't do better, faster, cheaper and safer?

i am not proposing we ground humanity on earth, just saying that we should leave the ground when we are ready to colonize the stars...
 
DrLobotomy said:
Pretty sure all those parts took a nice vibration filled ride aboard a giant rocket.
Click to expand...
You're right, they did. But the ISS wasn't put into space pre-assembled. The whole thing would fly apart at each joint between each section. Put an engine on one section and accelerate it, this means the whole thing will flex and sway because the other parts will want to stay still until pulled upon by the other sections being accelerated. Newton's first law...

157506243.jpeg
 
geok1ng said:
some things i would consider better for humanity than a Mars mission:

-erradicate more diseases with complete global vacinattion, like we did against smallpox in 1977 and hinderpest in 2001.
-fusion reactors research
-reactionless drive research
-ocean farming research
-malaria research
-bombing the shit out of Boku Haram (and ISIS)
-terraforming GMOs research
Click to expand...
Temp resistant GMO corals
 
First off I want to clear something up since there aren't any astronomers present it seems.

There is no Dark Side of the Moon!

There is a far side of the moon, which always points away from Earth, but that side faces the Sun once a month. When you see a half moon, or quarter moon crescent, that means that half the side facing Earth is dark and half of the far side is sunlit. So putting a telescope there would have it looking at the Sun half of the time.

I also believe we should be putting bases on the Moon so we can refine our techniques for surviving in such conditions. If you are on the Moon and something goes wrong, you could launch and return to Earth fairly easily, or emergency supplies could be sent from Earth up to the Moon. If you are on Mars, you are on your own for the most part. If something goes wrong, the whole mission could be lost before help can arrive. Sure you could still die before help can arrive from Earth to the Moon, but on Mars it could be a year delay for help to arrive, not days, weeks or months. Bigelow Aerospace already has prototype inflatable habitats that could be used to develop a Lunar base. I think that would be worth looking into as a first step before Mars.

Ok, now, the other point is this thinking that taxing people who actually have money heavily will result in an over abundance of money for the government. It is definitely not asking people to pay their "fair share" because having people to pay their fair share would mean you tax every single person at the same percentage. Another thing most people don't realize is just how little the richest people have compared to everyone on the planet. Sit down some time an do some internet searching. If you take all of the billionaires in the world and confiscate 100% of their total holdings, then divide it evenly among every single person on the planet, they all would get a one time payment of about $800, of course next year they would get almost nothing because there would be no more billionaires left to take money from, and none of them earn that much money in a year, and would probably earn very little since you just confiscated all of their stock and property the year before so they have nothing left to earn money from. If you do it the next year to anyone who has more than one million dollars net worth, you get about $1000 paid to every person on the planet, but you just confiscated the retirement savings of most every middle class person out there right now. So after three years everyone on the planet has a few thousand dollars and we are all now part of the poor. Makes us all equal I guess, but then everyone who would invest in our businesses to keep them going are now gone and soon there would be a world wide collapse of the financial systems and the whole world would third world level.

Working people and investors are what create wealth, and if people will all work hard and learn how to manage money, even what little they do have, they can all rise to higher positions in life. Even Warren Buffet started out in a low income family and worked his way up to one of the richest people on the planet, If people sit back and wait for the wealth to come to them, they will just be sitting their all their life.
 
What we need to do is get away from the idea of having & spending money. Kind of like what you have in Star Trek, there is no currency. That was it will give people less of a reason to say "I didn't do it because I lacked the money required". THERE IS NO MONEY, just do it! Do because you / we can. Money more often than not IS what's holding out species back from doing anything. Take money out of the equation, then what reason do you have for doing or not doing anything?
 
Megalith said:
The outspoken engineer and former astronaut tells NASA that they need to get rid of the International Space Station as soon as possible if they hope to accomplish any kind of Mars mission. That’s because the ISS costs a pretty hefty $3.5 billion to maintain every year. While the ISS is supposedly crucial to NASA’s Mars plan, Aldrin seems to be focused on space stations/commercial outposts built by private companies utilizing simple but efficient means of transportation for people and cargo, such as cyclers.

Aldrin foresees these various cycler iterations enabling a crewed mission to a near-Earth asteroid by 2020 and a Venus flyby by 2024. If all goes well, the first future Mars settlers could launch in the early 2030s, he said. And they will be settlers, not just visitors, if Aldrin's vision comes to pass. "Let's be certain that we've developed a sustainable plan to stay on Mars," he said. "No flags and footprints this time." The ISS is currently funded through 2024, and officials of NASA, the Russian federal space agency and other partners have floated the possibility of extending the $100 billion outpost's life through 2028.
Click to expand...
we are not the sole people paying to keep it there the ISS was made via contributions of multiple countries we actually only have 2 or 3 parts we made and maintain...
The ISS program is a joint project among five participating space agencies: NASA, Roscosmos, JAXA, ESA, and CSA.

A station in orbit is crucial to long distance missions like one to mars or the moon as we need either a specialized vehicle for landing on mars and returning to earth to do such a feat it will most likely be done by assembling pieces in orbit to which a orbital station will be crucial for staging and fuel management.
 
Krenum said:
What we need to do is get away from the idea of having & spending money. Kind of like what you have in Star Trek, there is no currency. That was it will give people less of a reason to say "I didn't do it because I lacked the money required". THERE IS NO MONEY, just do it! Do because you / we can. Money more often than not IS what's holding out species back from doing anything. Take money out of the equation, then what reason do you have for doing or not doing anything?
Click to expand...

It is a good idea, if, everyone is required to work. If I work very hard as a farmer, it is right for someone else to not work at all, sit and play their free PS4 all day and eat the food I grow with my hard work? Same goes for the worker who build the PS4 that is being played by someone who doesn't work.

The idea is noble, but how do we enforce it equally among everyone?
 
jedijeb13 said:
It is a good idea, if, everyone is required to work. If I work very hard as a farmer, it is right for someone else to not work at all, sit and play their free PS4 all day and eat the food I grow with my hard work? Same goes for the worker who build the PS4 that is being played by someone who doesn't work.

The idea is noble, but how do we enforce it equally among everyone?
Click to expand...

Nothing is equal in this world, never will be, its the law of nature. But if a person wants to live for free playing his PS4 all day while you work and feed yourself, the person with the PS4 will adapt or die.
 
Napoleon said:
Moon base before Mars, these people are ridiculous. It's like asking a crawling infant to run a 100m dash; we must progress slowly...
Click to expand...
Senility is a real problem. Look at what happened to Bill Nye the Science Guy.
 
Ducman69 said:
Senility is a real problem. Look at what happened to Bill Nye the Science Guy.
Click to expand...
Yes but they are thinking so short term they just want firsts first man on mars ooo the bragging rights. WHAT GOOD WILL GOING TO MARS DO US. We need to go to the moon first use the moon as a staging and experiment area to jump to mars launching from the moon to mars will be billions of dollars more fuel efficient...

First step to mars Permanent colony on the moon with fuel processing station as well as supply station.
 
The real question none can answer is what is their goal?

What do they hope to accomplish by going to Mars, as that requires tremendous resources that can be used for other things. What's the mission statement? To create a colony? You can't even create a permanent sealed colony with a sustainable ecosystem in the desert on Earth yet, so how are you going to do it halfway across the solar system on a foreign planet with no atmosphere?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top