Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

clark · 2001-10-18 15:29:08

I reject your claim and Zubrin's claim. If radiation levels were so well understood, please. explain the neccessity of this device:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast01may_1.htm

The truth of the matter is we don't know how dangerous the radiation levels are on Mars, not yet. Furthermore, you claim that an underground base would be more exspensive- how much more? In all likelyhood it wouldn't be that much more since the real cost of any habitat is in the actuial habitat- burying the things in lunar dirt, or martian dosen't really add to the complexity of the habitat.

Please tell me you are not using terrestrial standards to determine the cost, it dosen't apply and wastes all our time.

Nobody will spend more than a few days in zero-g? Ohhhhhh, i get it, so there will be a magical artifical gravity device? Or maybe the ship will spin- of course with all of our experience designing, building, testing, and flying ships with centrifuge for humans we can blast off tommorrow... Such a ship would take years to design, test, and produce- it is also a NEW technology that must be perfected which means Mars is going to take longer to get to.

You also assume that the nitrogen is in the regolith (or you hope)- seems like you are arguing that one of Mars benefits is resource abundance- yet when questioned, I am only offered "maybe", "probably", or "should be" as to where the resources are or if they exsist. Part of the Mars argument is that you can live off the land- well, how do you plan on doing that if you don't even know if the neccessary elements are in enough abundance to do so?

Furthermore, I laugh at you and anyone else that purports to believe that Mars will hold a vibrant civilization- whatever that is. Why would people liove on Mars? Freedom? Don't kid yourself, environment restricts freedom for security- the more people on MArs, the more need for security- this goes for space anywehere- period. The cost to keep one person alive will keep the numebr of people low- population must be planned and controlled.

Look to antartica for your future of a vibrant civilization on Mars- that's all mars will ever be, an outpost manned by a few scientist's.

Alexander Sheppard · 2001-10-18 21:06:45

...that's all mars will ever be, an outpost manned by a few scientist's.

I do not understand why we cannot calculate an estimate of the amount of radiation falling on the Martian surface. It passes through a generally known region of matter at a generally known density. Perhaps the probe you mentioned only carries the radiation instrument to see if our estimates are correct. Perhaps they are not correct-- what is your response if they are?

I calculate that to excavate a typical hab-size structure, 10 x 10 x 5 m, will require about 1 MJ. I get this by assuming an arbitrary efficiency of about 50%, which I pulled out of a hat ; if you find a more valid rating, either larger or smaller, adjust accordingly. So it seems to me that to excavate will not be too much work assuming we have on hand a 100 kWh nuclear reactor.

Why is taking a few years to produce and design such a big deal? Also, why do you consider it a new technology? Tethers have been tested before, although perhaps not with such large masses, but I see no fundamental problem with doing so. Do you?

Nitrogen may be in the regolith, I don't know. I certianly hope it is, indeed! However, we do know it is in the atmosphere. If nowhere else, we can get it from there.

Here are some potential reasons that I can come up with why people would want to live on Mars:

1. Mars is the second largest resource base in the solar system. This is a very important point that is usually missed, because you can have an effectively infinite number of small, disorganized societies and still not accomplish anything important. This is not to say that the asteroid belt has to be that way, but it is certianly possible.

2. Mars has free land. If you go there, you can get very cheap resources that will develop later into a stupendous investment.

3. Mars has the potential to create a new civilization. I think that certian freedoms are possible to establish on Mars without the possibility of anarchy.

4. Mars is the asteroid belt's closest economic parter and has a role to play in its development, and vise versa as well.

5. Mars, unlike antarctica, has all the resources necessary to support a vibrant civilization.

6. Mars is terraformable. A second Earth is nothing to sneeze at.

Alexander Sheppard · 2001-10-18 21:12:14

Never mind, my estimate was wrong ; it should be more like 400 kJ, I used the wrong gravity.

SEE · 2001-10-19 04:25:39

The infrastructure to go to either is the same- a buildup of LEO and GEO is required,

Actually, Mars Direct includes no LEO or GEO space assets. You launch tin cans directly from the Earth to Mars, at a lower delta-V (energy/fuel) cost than the Earth-Moon trip, which gives you the infrastructure for colonization.

however, any mission to Mars is benefitted with preexsiting Lunar infrastructure- put another way, going to the Moon makes any future Mars mission easier and cheaper.

Sorta right. As long as you're shipping supplies from the Moon to LEO (probably oxygen for propellant tanks), it'll reduce Earth-Mars trip costs a bit. Going from LEO to the Moon, though, takes more delta-V as going from LEO to Mars, and going from LEO to Lunar orbit takes the same delta-V as going from LEO to Mars. Net, though, it won't reduce them much.

Going to Mars first dosen't neccessarily make going to the Moon any easier, and Mars would hardly be in a position to offer any type of support to a lunar endeavour.

Sorta wrong. The delta-V from Mars to the Lunar surface is 9.4 km/s; the delta-V from Earth to the Lunar surface is 15.0 km/s. If it can't be produced locally, and can be procured from Mars at a competitive manufacturing cost to Earth, it's cheaper to import from Mars than the Earth.

Agriculturally, the Moon is useless, because the 600+ hour day-night cycle just can't support plants, and artificial lighting is far, far too energy intensive -- you need a lot (because photosynthesis is so inefficient), and you lose a lot in the electrcity-to-light conversion. Check the Internet as to how much electricity you need to grow pot indoors; the amount is truly prohibitive unless you have a lot of extra power-generating capacity around. Easy manufacture of solar panels on the Moon won't alleviate this, since with current technology solar panel manufacture is a net energy sink; we're talking lots of nuclear reactors to replace the Sun.

The delta-v to move mass from Earth to a LEO agricultural facility is 9.0 km/s, and then 6.0 to move it from there to Earth. The delta-V cost to move mass from the Moon to LEO is on the order of 2.5 km/s, if my math's right (anybody feel free to correct this). The result is that the fraction of the molecules turned into food in a LEO station takes a delta-V of 8.5 to move from the Moon to Earth, and the fraction lifted from Earth takes 15.0. The comparative fractions depend on how much hydrogen (that is, polar crater water) there is on the Moon to ship to LEO; nitrogen, potassium, and any hydrogen deficit will have to be shipped from Earth. Plus, you'll have to build the LEO agricultural colony -- you'll get lots of cheap iron from the Moon if you have enough water, otherwise you'll have to ship iron from Earth to LEO or hydrogen from Earth to the Moon to extract lunar iron.

Now, the numbers using Mars as the agricultural colony look somewhat worse to start -- the net Earth-Mars-Moon delta-V is 22.6 km/sec, and the Mars-to-Moon fraction is 9.4 km/sec. But Mars is definitely richer in water than the Moon, and it might have enough nitrate deposits, so that the only necessary import would be potassium.

So, the variables work out like this: if there is not enough concentrated water in the lunar polar craters, a Mars colony might be a lower-cost provider of food, water, and hydrogen for a lunar colony than the Earth, but probably not by much.

THE REAL BOTTOM LINE

Agriculture on Mars to feed people on Mars is going to be cheaper than any way of growing food on or importing food to the Moon. You need to import a minimum of nitrates and phosphorus to the Moon in any case, and you may need to import nitrates and phosphorus to Mars -- but for Mars, it takes less delta-V from Earth, and is thus cheaper. For the Moon, you additionally will either need more imported power generators for artificial light or spend energy shipping carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen to and from space. Thus, of the core basics of human existence (air, water, shelter, food), Mars provides at a minimum equal capacity on the first three and superior capacity on the fourth.

If we're just going on Apollo-style look-and-see missions, then the Moon makes more sense because it's closer. If we're going for long term semi-self-sustaining facilities, Mars is the better choice.

Esme · 2001-10-19 06:44:49

I find Clarks attitude peculiar,to say the least. Why go into space at all, for that matter? Science, to escape, romaticism, prestige, curiosity - all human montivations. All apply to any kind of exploration anywhere, whether it be remote parts of Earth or places within the Solar System and beyond.

Regarding the radiation at Mars, the output from the sun in terms of what it is omposed of (as against how it gets created, another matter), so far as I'm aware, fairly well known, and it doesnt take a genius at maths to apply basic laws of physics to extrapolate from the radiation received at the Earths orbit to that received at Mars orbit to give a worst case scnario, ie: assuming no shielding effect whatsoever from Martian atmosphere or magnetosphere etc.

In short, to calculate how much radiation would be recieved if Mars were like the Moon only further out. This is off the top of my head (only just discovered this site and forum, havent had chance to go check figures) but IIRC Mars is about 40% further out thanwe are, and so will receive about half the radiation that Earth - and Luna receive. Unless cascade effects from high-energy cosmic radiation striking the Martian atmosphere more than compensate for the 50% lower soalr radiation (which I have no idea about, but think unlikely), then Mars colonies require less radiation shielding.

I've lent my copy of "The Case for Mars" to a friend, but it was my impression that Zubrin was envisaging a build-up to sending humans to Mars,including suitable study of the long-term effects of low gravity on humans. after all, there wouldnt be any point in sending a team to Mars if once there they found themselves incapable of doing their jobs.

However, some of the long-endurance missions in LEO have surely given certain amount of data on the subject, and I can think of a perfect way of testing the viability of a trip to Mars with a safety net no worse than that of manned missions to Luna - send a prototype crewed Mars vehicle into either circumlunar orbit or a figure of 8 orbit around both Earth and Luna. Average radiation hazard would be worse than for the trip to Mars, and the effects of zero gravity or if spin is used to simulate gravitational forces, then its efficacy can be found out on such a mission. The safety of such a mission would be noworse, and doubtless, due to technological advancement since - somewhat better than that of Apollo 13.

If the mission was in circumlunar orbit, it could do useful scientific work on Lunar survey and using telescopes (carried instead of equipmen which would b used solely for Mars exploration) for astronomical purposes, possibly acting as part of a VLB interferometer in conjuction with Earth-baed or other satellite telescopes.

Now, if a mission or missions like that failed - THEN there might be a case for going to Luna and establishing a base there first. If it were only partially successful, there might still be a case for Luna. Otherwise, in order to achieve a self-sustaining colony, Mars is far superior. If we have the ability to mine water from comets for bases on Luna, then we're easily able to get out to Mars and the asteroid belt, anyway - and have solved the problems of long-endurance manned missions in low gravity in the meantime, too.

As for the soil on Mars and plant life - the soil on Earth wasn't exactly full of biomass prior to the rise of life here,was it?:-)
What is to stop some of the unmanned Mars Direct landers from carrying "seed" quantities of biomass - compost - along with either hibernating useful insects or their eggs?

Sure, gradually adding a little material from Mars to it, and human wastes, will take a long while to produce huge amounts of extra biomass, but life is pretty good at extending its reach. And if I understand corectly, the chemical engineering to extract at least some of the things vital to plant growth from the soil and atmosphere of Mas isnt that big a deal.Even if an initial greenhouse failed, there'd be biomass created by it for follow-on attempts to start over with - even if they had to start with lichen and work their way up to grasses and beyond, rather than starting with more immediately useful (to humans) plants. Heck, create a pond in the greenhouse and get algae growing.... skim off a certain amount of algae every few days, and add it to the mix for new soil/biomass to support more crop plants.

(Shrugs...) Yes, we need to ensure that we dont launch into a full-scale Mars Direct scheme without first ensuring that it wont be suicidal for crew members, otherwise Mars Direct becomes pointless. But testing that point can be done as easily as sending astronauts into Lunar orbit. And if it proves to be viable, a Mars colony becomes self-sustaining far morerpidly than a Lunar one ever could.

Esme

Esme · 2001-10-19 07:00:13

OK Clark - so how are Lunar colonists supposed to be any better off being that much nearer the Sun and with NO atmosphere togive ANY shielding at all? Im afraid your argument regarding radiation simply doesnt make sense to me.

As for the Antarctica analogy - America looked a pretty poor prospect to start with too - long and dangerous journey, potntially hostile inhabitants and dangerous flora and fauna - who in their right mind would have wanted to go there?! Ditto Australia - which is why the UK used it as a dumping ground for criminals. With better technology,mankind can expand into harsher environments. Much of human society already lives in artificial environments, and so do you, unless you happen to live in a cave without fire, much less a PC.

Mars is terraformable. Whether or not we SHOULD do that is another matter, but we COULD start the process going. That aside, consider why Antarctica isnt more densely settled - because theres so much more hospitable real estate nearby. Once self-sustaining settlements have been established on Mars, and there are those who want to work to make that happen, then there's no reason why it shouldnt grow into a vibrant part of human civilisation - no more attractive real estate nearby, and the prospect of eventually having an outdoors environment at least not requiring a spacesuit. Sure, we might have O'Neill colonies out there by then - but they require a far more massive engineering project to get started. We should, IMO do both - but Mars is easier for now.

clark · 2001-10-19 08:09:08

Radiation, my point:

Given that the real radiation exsposure is unknown on Mars, we should assume a worst casee scenerio. As such, the radiation on mars is enough to kill or cause cellular damage- maybe it does it slower than what would happen on the moon- but they both kill. Mars has less vacum than the moon, but arguing over this kinds of points is meaningless since any amount of vacum is going to kill.

Also, I find it disturbing that so many are willing to base the foundfation of their argument on a "guess" in terms of what radiation exsposure will be like on Mars.

What's the difference between falling 10,000 meters versus 30,000 meters? None if you don't have a parachute. It's the same thing. If it is the same result, then Mars isn't "better". It's the same with resources- sure, Mars has more resources (supposedly), yet it still lacks some NECCESSARY resources, as such, it can never truly be independant. Some have countered in the past that asteroid mining might provide those missing resources- again, the moon has that option available to it.

Some point out that growing food on Mars will be easier, due to the fact artifical lighting is not needed- again, they are wrong. Mars will still require artifical lighting. Actual space on Mars, or in Space, will be at a premium- as such, any food grown will have to be high yielding and take up as little room as possible- in order to achieve the maximum results, space farmers will utilize artifical lighting- one to ensure that nothing happens to the crop, and two to maintain a greater control over production of food.

"The safety of such a mission would be noworse, and doubtless, due to technological
advancement since - somewhat better than that of Apollo 13. "

And this is based on what? All of our accumulated experience in LEO? How does that apply to sending people to other planets? Since Apollo, we have NO NEW experience to speak of in reagrds to sending humans beyond LEO.

"If we have the ability to mine water from comets for bases on
Luna, then we're easily able to get out to Mars and the asteroid belt, anyway - and have solved the problems of long-endurance manned missions in low gravity in the
meantime, too. "

Which is exactly my point. Luna prepares us for Mars and the rest of the universe.

"What is to stop some of the unmanned Mars Direct landers from carrying "seed" quantities of biomass - compost - along with either hibernating useful insects or their
eggs? "

What's to stop it? Mass. Weight. All water would evaporate if exsposed to Martian surface (frozen compost, how is that helpful?). Insects would die on Mars if exsposed. Eggs would more than likely be irradiated and destroyed.

"Yes, we need to ensure that we dont launch into a full-scale Mars Direct scheme without first ensuring that it wont be suicidal for crew members, otherwise
Mars Direct becomes pointless."

And this again is the point I try to convey- a mission now is futile, unwarranted, without merit, provides little return for the actual investment, and will only slow actual human progression into space.

If we have NASA send humans to Mars, nothing else will happen inside of NASA until that goal is achieved. Once we have humans on Mars, then what? We keep a few people there, do some research, and send them home. In the meantime, nothing happens- no lunar development, no GEO development, no LEO development- all assests will be tied into supporting the Mars program. Now getting there would probably take 10 years. Once there, figure about 10 years of study- for the next 20 years, nothing else will happen becuase NASA will have no resources- look how ISS saps the NASA budget as is- Mars will do the same thing.

At the end, NASA will close up shop on Mars like they did on the moon- why? So they can once again approach space exploration in a systematic way- which means refocusing efforts to develop in LEO, GEO and the moon. Why? Becuase as much as this might surprise you, the moon makes a great gas station. Producing fuel on the moon would allow for a greater range of options in exploring the universe- right now we can't get very far simply becuase taking enough fuel is cost prohibitive- but if the fuel is already in space, hell, the sky's the limit.

Your hearts are in the right place, but your minds obviously are not. Stop thinking about the short term goal of just Mars, and take a look at a truly GRAND view of space exploration- all of the solar system- not just mars.

Esme · 2001-10-19 09:52:04

Conversely, Mars prepares us for Luna (a more hostile environmnt than Mars) and teh rest of teh universe.

Secondly, I specifically spoke of biomass to be sued in greenhouses, NOT on the surface of the planet. The latter cant sensibly happen until we're into the realms of terraforming, which I don't think would be within a century at least. And I answerd you objection on mass already. You start small, and work your way up. Heck, you start with hydroponics first if need be and work up to compost in time.

Im still puzzled by your argument on radiation,though, Clark; yes what you've just said is true, but it's still the case that the problem is worse on Luna, so how does that make Luna a better choice? It doesn't!

With regard to the use of artificail lighting or not for crop growing, on Luna crop-growing will most certainly always require artificial lighting. On mars it MAY do so, short-term. ISTR reading something on the subject saying that light levels at Mars orbit should be adequate to support photosynthesis, but unfortunately I cant recall where. However, given teh amount of insolation at Mars is about 50% of Earths, and given the range of changes in insolation due to location and weather on the Earth being considerably greater than that, I don't see that as a problem. Give the plants nutrients, sunlight, and protect them from radiation and they will grow.

Who said anything about new experience of sending folk beyond LEO? My point was that we have better technology now than at the time of Apollo. We could do the same thing but better. We may even be able to do better things - thats al I was implying. But I the went on to say that we could and should test the systems by sending a prototype MD vehicle into circumlunar orbit.

Where did I say we should go NOW? I didn't. These things take time to prepare. Prototypes have to be made and tested. Come now, you're making a silly argument, Clark, which taken to its logical conclusion would stop us ever doing anything. Personally, I think there are excellent reasons for starting on teh Mars Direct project now - so that we can start designing and building and testing prototypes. Only after we've done that can we be sure of the feasibility or otherwise- of teh project - exactly as with Apollo.

As for NASA - it isnt the only organisation on this planet interested in space. Commercial companies are starting to sit up and take notice of the possibilities for making profit by going into space. Other companies are trying to see to it that they can make profit by helping the other companies get out there. Even if governments gave up on space tommorrow, then so long as launches into space weren't banned worldwide, it's a fairly safe bet that eventually commercial enterprises will exploit space eventually. And the US isnt the only government with space know-how and launch capability. Talking only of NASA is IMO being a bit blinkered.

As for your closing comment - LOL! I might well say the same to you, m'dear. My primary interest in space, astrophysics, etc, lies in the human colonisation of the Solar System and nearby star systems, eventually. Yes, I truly do believe that one day we will get to the stars - but the Solar System comes first. Why go to teh utter desert next door (Luna) when we could go to the (relative) oasis a bit further down the road (Mars), and give ourselves an easier job to do in creating our first permanent off-Earth settlement?

Methinsk we all wnt the same thing - we just have differeing ideas as to hwo to achieve it - and in some cases, as to teh timescale, too. Im at the more cautious end of supporting Mars Direct. But I do think its superior to sticking us with trying to struggle on Luna. Once Mars is self-supporting,supplies can be more easily sent from tehre to support Luna than from Earth, too..

Esme

philja · 2002-01-09 02:57:50

Do you really believe the we've already been on Moon?
I doubt it, even for todays level of technology it is very very hard task. But the difference between technology of today and then just huge.

Alexander Sheppard · 2002-01-12 08:17:09

I agree, the technology of today is very much worse than the technology of yesterday with regards to space exploration. No nuclear rockets, no huge expendable rockets, no humans beyond Earth orbit. Its terrible. We have really gone backward.

Phobos · 2002-01-12 12:12:05

Really, as far as propulsion technology is concerned, we aren't much more advanced than we were at the time the Apollo missions took place. About the only technologies that have leaped far ahead are electronic based ones.

Josh Cryer · 2002-01-12 12:42:27

Phobos, still, we have concepts, and they're all realizable. Look at Ion Propulsion, it was considerd science fiction for the longest time, but hey, the concept worked.

Alexander, I seriously hope you're kidding.

philja, check out this really cool site about the Apollo hoax, and how that it really and truely wasn't one.

Josh Cryer · 2002-01-12 12:42:47

Oops, double post!

Alexander Sheppard · 2002-01-13 18:36:36

Well, some of that post was written like that as a joke (I think the poster was refering to how technology had leaped ahead, thus I thought I would spoof it with the opposite conclusion).

However, a lot of what I said is actually correct. We don't have nuclear rockets anymore, although we did in the 1960s. We don't have the capability to send men beyond Earth orbit anymore, although we did in the 1960s. Our main launch vehicle for men was cheaper in the 1960s, with the Saturn V, then the one we are using now, the Space Shuttle. Oh, that reminds me of another don't: We don't have a single heavy lift vehicle in operation anymore, anywhere in the world, although we did in the 1960s in two seperate countries.

In short, while technology has advanced in some areas, in the really important ones, it has declined drastically. (Note the distinction between technology and knolwedge)

Josh Cryer · 2002-01-14 00:27:15

Not to start a flame war of terminology, I think technonolgy and knowledge are quite synonymous.

I think it's inaccurate to suggest a deprecation of technology when it's clear that technology has truely taken off, especially with the advent of the aerospace industry (computers are the result of both war-time decryption efforts and aerospace navigation requirements).

There is a deprecation, but it's not in technology, but in the unproductive use of technology. It is my humble opinion that no technology should be used longer than the cost of creating replacement technology that is more efficient. So when new more efficient technology is conceptualized, it should replace old technology.

The Mars Society could build a replacement shuttle for less than the cost of a Space Shuttle launch if we wanted.

We have the resources. How many of us are running SETI@home or some other distributed computing program? Why not use those resources to design an inherently cheap Space Shuttle?

Less is more. Simple is better.

It could then be funded by a multi-corporation and ran by amateur astronauts.

Personally, I liked the design of the X-33 and Venturestar. Too bad they never came to be. They could have been very cheap to launch, with most of the cost going to fuel. (It would have costed NASA 50 million to launch an X-33, but it wouldn't take us as much to launch one as we wouldn't have the kind of insane overhead NASA has.)

Of course, I know this is a ?pipe dream.? I'm just stating these ideas for anyone who wants to listen.

Alexander Sheppard · 2002-01-14 14:03:10

Technology = Knolwedge + Organization

At present we are lacking the organization.

You say, the problem is not in technology, it is in the unproductive use of technology, and while I get the gist of what you are saying, a more accurate statement would be that our problem is not in the knolwedge, it is in the organization.

Josh Cryer · 2002-01-14 15:02:26

My typing is weird that late at night.

What would knowledge be if it wasn't organized?

clark · 2002-01-14 15:13:20

Anarchy

Alexander Sheppard · 2002-01-14 22:11:13

I don't mean that kind of organization. I mean physical organization... the ability to put your knolwedge to use!

robcwillis · 2002-01-15 23:30:09

Mr. Clark,

Do I understand correctly that you claim cost of re-supply from Earth as an advantage held by the Moon over Mars? If so, you appear not to understand that the transportation cost of soft landing a given payload on the Moon is actually much higher than that of soft landing a similar payload on Mars.

Obviously Mars is much further away from us than the Moon. This is of course a major factor when it comes to transporting people; but not equipment. A trip to Mars via conventional chemical combustion or nuclear thermal rocket takes much longer than a trip to the Moon, but so what? The only case in which your argument makes any sense is that of specialized medical supplies or spare parts that are needed on an emergency basis. It is reasonable to assume that medical supplies, as well as stocks of whatever spares are likely to be required would be "brought up" as a matter of course, and built up over time, rather than rely on a "just in time" bare minimum inventory policy. Near term in-situ manufacture of materials like bricks and plastics is of course infinitely easier on Mars than the Moon because Mars has the raw materials. Although a long transit time may make it expensive to transport humans to Mars, one hopes this will eventually be offset by the relative ease with which people should be able to produce Martian babies in-situ. The Moon's low gravity may also cause severe problems with pregnancy, which is a critical consideration when in comes to any possible long-term colonization.

Equipment payloads are cheaper to deliver to Mars than the Moon because Mars has an atmosphere. In addition to the fact that slightly MORE delta V is normally required to throw a given mass from Earth into trans lunar injection as opposed to trans Mars injection, payloads heading to the Moon must be propulsively captured into lunar orbit, then propulsively braked to the lunar surface. This requires a huge amount of propellant as a proportion of payload mass, even if nuclear thermal engines are used. If ion drives are used for propulsive capture to lunar orbit, thrust is so low that total transit time from launch to landing is greatly increased. Even if time is not a factor, ion drives do not have adequate thrust to slow any payload from lunar orbit to soft landing, which brings us back to the central issue of propellant mass.

In stark contrast, the Martian atmosphere allows for both aero braking into orbit and de-orbit, as well as parachutes to further slow the decent. This represents an enormous resource of more or less free Delta V prior to having to fire thrusters or deploy airbags for the last few seconds prior to touchdown. Once on Mars, one finds that things like balloons and propeller driven aircraft can actually still work. Such devices don't get very far on dear old Luna.

clark · 2002-01-16 11:11:53

Mr. robcwillis,

If so, you appear not to understand that the transportation cost of soft landing a given payload on the Moon is actually much higher than that of soft landing a similar payload on Mars.

As you point out in your post, most items shipped in space will be spare parts, medical supplies, etc- therefore the issue of "soft landing" is only a real condieration when dealing with fragile cargo... like humans.

The real issue though is that the cost of shipping FROM Mars is exceedingly high. Mars for all intents and purposes is a wasteland of nothing (in terms of usefullness to earth). The planet could be made of gold, but it still wouldn't be economical to go there. It isn't economical to exploit Mars in anyway. If you argue science, then more can still be done with machines until the point where our machines have improved to where we are no longer even relevant to space exploration.

The moon on the other hand is much closer and offers direct economic benefits to earth and LEO or GEO. This leads to a lasting commitment to developing space and space exploration in general. This offers an immediate return in technologies for low g, zero g, space based power production, artifical gravity, space based mining, space based medicine, space based manufacturing, experience with operating for long periods of time (great for those extended mission in space) in low g, radiation mitigation strategies, closed bio-regenerative systems, waste disposal and recycling, tele-medicine, tele-operation of robots, better understanding of lunar earth relationship, better understanding of earth origns, space telescopes, superconductors, nuclear power production, He3 for fusion, space based fuel production...the list goes on.

With the Moons weak gravity, this allows for cheap and easy launch of manufactured goods to LEO and GEO- it means that the cost to launch is reduced becuase we no longer have to haul all our equipment up, or all our fuel up. Reduced lau nch costs creates even more opportunites for smaller groups to pursue their own individual goals...like Mars.

I'm not saying you can't get to mars, I'm saying that going to the moon first will get you to Mars faster, cheaper, and safer.

And there are alternative modes of transportation that will be available on the moon. The need for propeller driven airplanes is limited on the moon, since it is small and most travel can be conducted by minimal lunar orbital insertions.

Alexander Sheppard · 2002-01-16 19:33:56

Wahoo! A crazy post! Now we can have a flame war!!!

The real issue though is that the cost of shipping FROM Mars is exceedingly high

NIFT + Cyclers

The planet could be made of gold, but it still wouldn't be economical to go there.

If the planet was made of gold, that would be a minus, not a plus, because you couldn't support a human population on the surface...

then more can still be done with machines until the point where our machines have improved to where we are no longer even relevant to space exploration

In the long run, a self supporting human base will always be able to launch cheaper missions than sending them from Earth.

The moon on the other hand is much closer and offers direct economic benefits to earth and LEO or GEO

How so?

the list goes on

And almost everything on it makes no sense.

With the Moons weak gravity

NEOs

Now for the list. Ok some things make sense. Lets put those in category A. Category A includes space telescopes and space based fuel production. Nothing else on this list makes much sense. For example, tele-medicine? When are you going to use that when your delay times are measured in minutes out beyond Earth-Luna? Earth-Moon science? Interesting, yes, but Mars & friends have many more things to learn about, in total. Superconductors? Um. Right. I could go through all these, but frankly I don't have time. Got specific questions, ask em. Now then, space based fuel production is not economically viable, even possibly, for heading anywhere inside about 3 AUs, so thats not a present option. Space telescopes are neat, but expensive, so I recommend going to Mars first. I suppose you could go and do space telescopes, and pull Earth-Moon science along for the ride. Yes, it might work, it might work. But it isn't necessary for Mars exploration or asteroid mining or Earth orbit ventures. Basically, I'm fine with the Moon, but it isn't our main focus.

clark · 2002-01-17 09:37:24

NIFT + Cyclers

You responded with the previous statement in response to my claim that the cost of shipping from mars is cost-prohibitive. One, you don't explain how this system would make shipping from Mars cheap and affordable. Two, what is NIFT- you should try to be more clear whith your abbreviations. Three, you seem to be completely disregarding the cost associated with operating cyclers in space (how do you maintain them), as well as cost of launching from mars to mars orbit, the cost of deorbiting into earth atmosphere, etc.

If the planet was made of gold, that would be a minus, not a plus, because you couldn't support a human population on the surface...

You are purposely missing the point of the statement.

In the long run, a self supporting human base will always be able to launch cheaper missions than sending them from Earth.

i agree, however- I have yet to see a way for mars to become self-supporting. It has nothing of real value to earth so the neccessary capital for investment will never appear. Even if the intial start-up capital was provided, it dosen't seem that mars could trade anything other than science or tourism.

For example, tele-medicine? When are you going to use that when your delay times are measured in minutes out beyond Earth-Luna?

It might be used when there is neccessary medical treatment needed yet no rescue is available- a medical operation robot is then placed in all bases- all you need is one physician at one base and you then have all your bases covered.

Earth-Moon science? Interesting, yes, but Mars & friends have many more things to learn about, in total.

Uh huh, but the moon-earth relationship, and understanding that relationship and history gives us more insight about earth and how luna functions within the geological, atmosphere, ocean cycle, etc of earth. It would provide a great deal of immediate scientifc return- at a fraction of the cost of a martian mission.

Superconductors? Um. Right. I could go through all these, but frankly I don't have time. Got specific questions, ask em.

If you don't have the time, then come back when you do. If you have questions, you ask. Saying "No, you're wrong, adn I'll tell you how you're wrong if you ask me and when I have time" is not an appropriate way to carry on a discussion.

Unless and until someone points out how I am mistaken, I will merely ignore your silly remarks Alex.

Now then, space based fuel production is not economically viable, even possibly, for heading anywhere inside about 3 AUs, so thats not a present option.

How do you figure? 3 AU's is mighty big- that's 3 times the distance from the sun- the earth is 1AU. So you're saying that it is cheaper to take 3AU's worth of fuel and launch it from earth versus taking enough fuel to launch into orbit and then refuel there (without the launch weight penalty)? Unless you have some figures to back you up, your assertion is childish and counter-intuitave.

Space telescopes are neat, but expensive, so I recommend going to Mars first.

Going to mars is exspensive- you'll have to do better than that. The cost of building a soace telescope on the moon would be much less than sending humans to mars.

Bill White · 2002-01-17 11:01:15

Hey guys!

Why is it either/or?

Why can't the Moon folk and the Mars folk be on the same team? Can someone explain this to me?

Bill White

Alexander Sheppard · 2002-01-17 11:32:06

NIFT = Nuclear Indigenous Fueled Transport

With the NIFTs and the cyclers, they won't come later, until after we have a fairly sizeable base on the Martian surface, and probably many bases at that. However, once we expand our transport methods, the cost will go down drastically. This is all remedial. Look in the Case for Mars if you have questions.

Actually, with the gold thing, I realize what you are saying, but I chose to turn your statement around and make my own counterpoint. However, Mars CAN support itself economically by exports, assuming a base is on the surface-- your estimates are probably based on the bring-it-all-from-Earth plan which is completely unworkable.

In any case I have to go. More later.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2001-10-18 15:29:08

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#27 2001-10-18 21:06:45

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#28 2001-10-18 21:12:14

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#29 2001-10-19 04:25:39

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#30 2001-10-19 06:44:49

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#31 2001-10-19 07:00:13

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#32 2001-10-19 08:09:08

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#33 2001-10-19 09:52:04

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#34 2002-01-09 02:57:50

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#35 2002-01-12 08:17:09

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#36 2002-01-12 12:12:05

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#37 2002-01-12 12:42:27

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#38 2002-01-12 12:42:47

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#39 2002-01-13 18:36:36

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#40 2002-01-14 00:27:15

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#41 2002-01-14 14:03:10

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#42 2002-01-14 15:02:26

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#43 2002-01-14 15:13:20

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#44 2002-01-14 22:11:13

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#45 2002-01-15 23:30:09

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#46 2002-01-16 11:11:53

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#47 2002-01-16 19:33:56

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#48 2002-01-17 09:37:24

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#49 2002-01-17 11:01:15

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#50 2002-01-17 11:32:06

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

Board footer