It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

cIclops · 2007-10-07 05:32:27

The planned Lunar Outpost is not a colony. It will only have a temporary crew of four. With much more funding a colony could be established, but that's a decision for after the Outpost is established. Yes, sustainable Mars missions and a Mars Outpost need to come before a Lunar colony.

Antius · 2007-10-08 01:49:49

Is it not possible that pockets of water and other volatiles are trapped beneath lunar craters? After all, the moon has been subject to a huge number of impacts from comest and carbonaceous asteroids throughout its history.

cIclops · 2007-10-08 03:05:43

Is it not possible that pockets of water and other volatiles are trapped beneath lunar craters? After all, the moon has been subject to a huge number of impacts from comest and carbonaceous asteroids throughout its history.

Yes it is possible in the permanently shadowed craters at the poles. Lunar Prospector found evidence for hydrogen at the poles some time ago. The new SELENE and other missions such as LRO will be looking. The LCROSS mission next year will use an impactor to make a plume of the material beneath a crater floor.

Antius · 2007-10-08 05:41:47

Is it not possible that pockets of water and other volatiles are trapped beneath lunar craters? After all, the moon has been subject to a huge number of impacts from comest and carbonaceous asteroids throughout its history.
Yes it is possible in the permanently shadowed craters at the poles. Lunar Prospector found evidence for hydrogen at the poles some time ago. The new SELENE and other missions such as LRO will be looking. The LCROSS mission next year will use an impactor to make a plume of the material beneath a crater floor.

Not quite what I meant. The moon is potted with asteroid/cometary impact craters. Most of those bodies contained water and other volatiles. Is it not therefore possible, that whilst the surface of the moon is bone dry, water could be trapped 100s of metres beneath craters (all over the moon)?

The average surface temperature of the moon is -20C, so any water that was trapped beneath the surface would be frozen. Could water not exist in sub-surface pockets all over the moon?

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2007-10-08 06:37:15

The average surface temperature of the moon is -20C, so any water that was trapped beneath the surface would be frozen. Could water not exist in sub-surface pockets all over the moon?

The Temperature of the Moon is not steady, its in a constant state of flux and goes through huge changes during lunar day and night, so thoughts on 'average' temperature doesn't hold much weight. There is next to no atmosphere on the Moon so Lowering air pressure, also causes a lower boiling point. Average temperatures on Mars are much more workable and stable. The Moon at night can see temps of Moon -230 F / -145 C and at day 214 F or 101 C. With a low enough pressure, H2O literally explodes off leaving crystals and the rest blowing itself apart into the vacuum as a gas. Spacecraft sent to Mars show evidence of salts this presence of salt raises waters boiling point and Mars unlike the Moon has an atmosphere and although its inhospitable and cold Mars still has a nice steady temperature with its 24 hr day.

There could be water on the Lunar landscape, trapped in some crater, but finding and extracting for astronauts it will be many magnitudes more difficult than doing it on Mars, on Mars we know there is water underneath. In fact if we could release it Mars can have enough to cover itself with a massive ocean.

cIclops · 2007-10-08 07:32:01

Is it not therefore possible, that whilst the surface of the moon is bone dry, water could be trapped 100s of metres beneath craters (all over the moon)?

Anything is possible although it would seem unlikely that such pockets would form and be stable as a result of an impact by a water rich body. Most of the water would be vaporized on impact. It's this vapor that may be trapped in extremely cold pockets at the poles. There would need to be a mechanism to trap and insulate water ice during the highly energetic impact event. Pieces of iron remain intact after meteorite impacts on Earth without melting, so such a mechanism may exist. The temperature just a few meters under the surface was measured at - 20C during Apollo. They also measured a heat flux of 16 mW/m2 (compared with 87mW/m2 on Earth) so there will be increasing temperature with depth which may liquify any deep water. More measurements are needed!

EuroLauncher · 2007-11-02 10:45:44

Mars has almost a 24 hr day, it has a thin atmosphere giving some protection from cosmic radiation and has been used successfully for aerobraking of spacecraft. It has reasonable surface gravity which should provide help for bone health during long duration flights. Mars has lots of water underneath, enough to fill an entire Ocean....now you see why Mars is a better choice than the Moon.

Antius · 2007-11-05 06:12:21

Mars has almost a 24 hr day, it has a thin atmosphere giving some protection from cosmic radiation and has been used successfully for aerobraking of spacecraft. It has reasonable surface gravity which should provide help for bone health during long duration flights. Mars has lots of water underneath, enough to fill an entire Ocean....now you see why Mars is a better choice than the Moon.

All of this means that Mars may one day be a nicer place to live than the moon, but that isn't really relevant, at least not in the short term. The point is that we can reach the moon in just a few days and we can use the moon as a materials source for large-scale orbital manufacturing. None of those things are likely to be true for Mars in the near future. If we need water for orbital industries, it is likley to be far cheaper to get them from near earth asteroids than it is from Mars. Two of the things that would appear to make Mars desirable, its atmosphere and gravity are actually likley to serve as a hindrence to its development as an industrial base.

Also, I would be dubious of simply assuming that the Martian atmosphere will give us any benefits against cosmic rays. Due to their ultrahigh energy, the effect of shilding is highly non-linear due to the formation of secondary particles. With a column density of 180Kg/m2, it is likely that the Martian atmosphere will break up into secondary particles and actually increase the cosmic ray dose to any organism on the surface.

Admiral_Ritt · 2007-11-05 14:49:58

I disagree, the Advantages of the Moon are Illusory.

The Fuel needed to go to LEO and perform
Trans_Lunar Impluse & Orbit Insertion.
is not tremedously Lower than sending a
similar sized ship into Mars Orbit using a low
energy transfer orbit. That's a bene courtesy of
the Martian Atmosphere.

The most expensive/dangerous part of a creating base/science outposton mars life support duration/reliability DURING TRANSIT
This is the only Lunar Advantage I see.

You could send Equipment, Supplies, Habitat. to mars to last years
If you sent it Unmanned to a carefully selected site. Critical equipment
could be sent in multiple redundant systems, all of this sent Months Ahead
of the Crew Arrival. The crew could assemble the pieces. (It's a long
duratiion posting, they'll have plenty of time.

Not having to send H20 & Carbon Will save TONS of Weight & $$$.

I would propose a 12 person crew with a mission duration of 5 years,
as a first mission. Their Mission to explore and Expand the Base
to quadruple it's size. (once again Aerobraking Makes Equipment shipments manageable in cost.

Once you've got the capacity house 50 persons. Self Suffiency I would
Imagine be their top prority.

cIclops · 2007-11-05 17:15:07

I disagree, the Advantages of the Moon are Illusory.
The Fuel needed to go to LEO and perform
Trans_Lunar Impluse & Orbit Insertion.
is not tremedously Lower than sending a
similar sized ship into Mars Orbit using a low
energy transfer orbit. That's a bene courtesy of
the Martian Atmosphere.

True, the energy (fuel) needed to go from LEO to TMI is about the same as TLI, but landing on Mars directly requires a heavy EDL system. Entering LMO reduces the weight of the EDL but requires as much energy as landing on the Moon. Unless the crew return within 30 days they have to stay on the Martian surface for about 300 days and require a lot of consumables. Reaching Mars escape velocity requires twice the energy as reaching Lunar escape. The transits are extremely demanding too in terms of consumables, all of which have to be taken to Mars for the return trip. This is why the mass requirements in LEO are of the order of 600 tons compared with 150 tons for a lunar mission. Going to Mars is very expensive, returning much more so.

A very simple analysis indicates risk is proportional to mass and time. The mass ratio is about 4 to 1, the time ratio about 700 to 14, that gives a risk ratio of about 200 to 1. (corrected)

Admiral_Ritt · 2007-11-05 21:08:01

It's true that it's cheaper to create a small base 4-6 persons
on the moon. But for larger scale Operations over time Mars has the
edge. Having to port over food and fuel for 80 crew on the moon.
would involve high cost. And what about that 29 day Darkness.
(I know you could build a base on the polar rim, but landing there is
a mite bit more costly in terms of fuel & risk)

Your point of the cost of Landing and aquiring an orbit from the surface of
mars are genuine concerns.

But All equipment and Supplies sent to Mars
Never has to lift off again. With AeroBraking and
A large Parachute, and Small Retros, a mars landing is no more energy
consuming than a Lunar descent and Landing, for an unmmned
cargo pod that is. Even sending an Unmanned Return vehicle is
an inviting proposition, instead of sending a Full Mission Return ship.

What is really needed for a mars mission is the development of
a Stable Solid fuel that will burn in space with the right mix of and
an on demand release of an oxidant. Messing with Large Engines &
pumps & cryo tanks and expecting it to work over span of 18 months
or even 5 years is asking for trouble. They change out the Soyuz craft
every 4-5 months on the ISS, and Maintaining reliability is one of
the reasons.

Grypd · 2007-11-07 04:38:50

But All equipment and Supplies sent to Mars
Never has to lift off again

That makes it useless for the future of human exploration you know. Mars is not the ultimate destination you know though an important one there are worlds and asteroids to explore. There has to be a trade off with ease of access and egress to how effective a base operating will be. Currently though Mars has all the advantages for the long term in becoming a branch of Permanent Human civilisation the Moon as an industrial base to support future exploration is winning hands down.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-11-07 06:47:44

The Moon can be used as a source of material for the construction of Solar Power Satellites, it is close enough so that you can uses teleoperated robots. I think that with the high price of oil, people are starting to look at this concept anew. I figure that anything that will get us into space will be of benefit in getting us to Mars.

Admiral_Ritt · 2007-11-07 10:56:40

The main issue this in this thread I Started was the
Usuitability of the Moon for Colonization. And the
superiority of Mars for colonization. I still stand by that
analysis. So yes there will solar power on the moon, even deep space
probes sent from Luna via MagLaunchers. But the Support Bases will
be small with few human crew. There will a huge incentive to use Teleoperated machines or Well programed robots.

100 years from now my guess is we wil have

60,000 Martian colonists in a few expansive colony bases, average of
10,000 per colony bases

9,000 Lunar Colonists. Scattered over the moon with bases
no larger than 300 persons. there will alot
of sencond tier powers who will be able to afford
supplying a prestige venture similar to Antarctic
programs.

150 years from now.

1 million Martians
15,000 Selenians (being posted there will be considered a hardship)

I might add that having Phobos in a tight orbit offers intriguing posibilities
the #1 is Producding/placing reflectors on it's surface to create a very bright Night time. Eventually the Atmopheric temperature will begin to
rise constantly above 0 degrees, unfreezing alot of atmosphere. I dont
think you would ever get a shirt sleve enviroment, but with you will
probably be able to get GM plants to grow unprotected.

Antius · 2007-11-07 11:34:16

The main issue this in this thread I Started was the
Usuitability of the Moon for Colonization. And the
superiority of Mars for colonization. I still stand by that
analysis. So yes there will solar power on the moon, even deep space
probes sent from Luna via MagLaunchers. But the Support Bases will
be small with few human crew. There will a huge incentive to use Teleoperated machines or Well programed robots.

100 years from now my guess is we wil have
60,000 Martian colonists in a few expansive colony bases, average of
10,000 per colony bases

9,000 Lunar Colonists. Scattered over the moon with bases
no larger than 300 persons. there will alot
of sencond tier powers who will be able to afford
supplying a prestige venture similar to Antarctic
programs.
150 years from now.
1 million Martians
15,000 Selenians (being posted there will be considered a hardship)
I might add that having Phobos in a tight orbit offers intriguing posibilities
the #1 is Producding/placing reflectors on it's surface to create a very bright Night time. Eventually the Atmopheric temperature will begin to
rise constantly above 0 degrees, unfreezing alot of atmosphere. I dont
think you would ever get a shirt sleve enviroment, but with you will
probably be able to get GM plants to grow unprotected.

I think it is basically undeniable that the moon is and always will be in most important respects, an undesirable place to live. In terms of its inventory of things that we need in order to survive, it is one of the least desirable pieces of real estate in the solar system. In some respects, it would be easier to live on the surfcae of Pluto than on the surface of the Earth's moon. The need to import such basic things as water, carbon and nitrogen, places some firm limitations on the habitability of the place. The need to import extends to all but the most basic metals and ores.

The moon may eventually end up holding a significant population simply by virtue of the growing demand for the basic ores that it holds, as a Near Earth free-space population expands progressively.

Ultimately, the location where most of the off-world population will reside will be Earth-orbit in artificial habitats. Given the unlimited space, unlimited solar energy and relatively low delta-v to volatile rich asteroids, the population of near-earth space will likely grow far more rapidly than that of either the moon or Mars.

Grypd · 2007-11-07 17:09:10

The main issue this in this thread I Started was the
Usuitability of the Moon for Colonization. And the
superiority of Mars for colonization. I still stand by that
analysis. So yes there will solar power on the moon, even deep space
probes sent from Luna via MagLaunchers. But the Support Bases will
be small with few human crew. There will a huge incentive to use Teleoperated machines or Well programed robots.

I can honestly say that when it comes to machines working on the Moon that they will have more in common with computer games like world of warcraft or second life than to the robots and Rovers like Endurance that we use now. People will literally be the machines and this happen through the emergent technology of VR than to actually have people being physically on the Moon. This technology will apply to all the Earth Moon area and drive the utilisation and advancement in space.

So in terms of actual numbers of people working, the Moon will be a major benefit to us and there could literally be millions of people present there.

Still this technology will drive a real colonisation effort and it may well mean that Mars gets colonised due to it.

SpaceNut · 2015-12-23 21:48:11

We knew back then that going back to the moon would have its own trade offs for what would need to be risk mitigated moon or for Mars. We had hopes that we would be on our way but with every changing of the guard so goes the programs and directions that we would take.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-09-14 10:46:52

NASA Wants to Open Space to More People, Supports Private Missions
https://spaceref.com/space-commerce/nas … -missions/

Mars Is Calling: NASA Chief Delivers Inspiring Message On JFK's Moon Speech Anniversary
https://www.republicworld.com/science/s … eshow.html

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2007-10-07 05:32:27

Re: It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

#27 2007-10-08 01:49:49

Re: It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

#28 2007-10-08 03:05:43

Re: It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

#29 2007-10-08 05:41:47

Re: It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

#30 2007-10-08 06:37:15

Re: It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

#31 2007-10-08 07:32:01

Re: It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

#32 2007-11-02 10:45:44

Re: It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

#33 2007-11-05 06:12:21

Re: It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

#34 2007-11-05 14:49:58

Re: It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

#35 2007-11-05 17:15:07

Re: It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

#36 2007-11-05 21:08:01

Re: It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

#37 2007-11-07 04:38:50

Re: It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

#38 2007-11-07 06:47:44

Re: It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

#39 2007-11-07 10:56:40

Re: It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

#40 2007-11-07 11:34:16

Re: It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

#41 2007-11-07 17:09:10

Re: It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

#42 2015-12-23 21:48:11

Re: It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

#43 2022-09-14 10:46:52

Re: It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

Board footer