The Case for the Moon

Rxke · 2003-11-13 07:03:48

You are indicating you think there's something suspect in the timing of this news? Anyway, I've never thought moon colonies, etc., were very feasible anyway (no atmosphere, very very low gravity, etc., etc.). I think this likely will turn out to be a good thing, as Mars exploration goes (on to Mars!).

Sorry, had to laugh... I'm not a conspiracy-nut, it just seemed to be bad timing, that's all...

BTW i tend to disagree in turn, (wink, wink,) I don't think NASA/Government has the guts to go to Mars... 'Directly'... So the moon might be the best -interim- goal we can hope for, I surely yearn for a Mars settlement myself, let there be no mistake about it!

GCNRevenger · 2003-11-13 09:57:27

If Lunar soil on the south pole was a percent or more of ice, then yeah that would be more than worthwhile to mine and we should get with it to start work on a reuseable DC-Y style Lunar lander and a SDV. If its only the barest traces like the fellow in the NewScientist article believes, one cubic meter of water per cubic KILOMETER of soil, then its just not worth the effort... why couldn't the ESA use a chemical engine on SMART-1 so that we could know before Bush/Et al. are forced to "announce" somthing? Certainly he wouldn't proclaim "we should return to the Moon... unless there is no water," would he?

Now as for the choice of engines for a Mars trip... the size of the fuel tanks is not such a major concern when your ship is in space, since the forces involved are not as severe as Earth or even Lunar surface launch. Simply put, the added payload afforded by NOT lugging liquid oxygen around would absolutely make up for the slightly bigger hydrogen tanks. Less chance of an explosion too without oxygen, and a pure-NTR engine only needs one fuel pump, not two.

If water ice on the moon is sufficenctly abundant, then mining an extra few tons for its hydrogen is simply not a big deal by the time we are ready for a Mars trip. If there is enough water to make a base, then throwing away the oxygen from the water just wouldn't be a big concern. It would also be alot more mass that you would have to lug to the Mars ship assembly site from the Lunar surface anyway, which itself would require more fuel which would in turn need more water to make fuel for anyway.

The added ISP of a pure NTR (or better yet, a GCNR engine) cannot be over-emphasized; this added mass margin would permit faster flights or with heavier radiation shielding and a bigger more comfortable ship. Imagine what you could do if you had 25% more payload mass than NTR/LOX hybrid or double that of LOX/LH? Have room for a crew of six instead of four, pack a dozen GPS/recon/comm satellites, a bigger surface laboratory, greenhouses perhaps... the list goes on. If nothing else, it would make the trip safer and faster: consider how astronauts get a little deconditioned after only a few months (much less six) in zero gravity. Oh, and don't even think about SPINNING your ship *shiver* ... Anyway, this puts the day of going to Mars for good - the penultimate goal - instead of little science expeditions a step closer.

Gennaro · 2003-11-13 19:13:21

So much information to memorize, so many web pages, so little reliability to the internet.

- Think I know exactly what you mean.

...why couldn't the ESA use a chemical engine on SMART-1 so that we could know before Bush/Et al. are forced to "announce" something?

- Yeah, it's a little funny. 15 months or whatever when the normal trip would take three days or something.
Think the reason was that ESA wanted to try out the ion engine used.

Cindy:

You are indicating you think there's something suspect in the timing of this news? Anyway, I've never thought moon colonies, etc., were very feasible anyway (no atmosphere, very very low gravity, etc., etc.). I think this likely will turn out to be a good thing, as Mars exploration goes (on to Mars!).

Rxke:

Sorry, had to laugh... I'm not a conspiracy-nut, it just seemed to be bad timing, that's all...
BTW i tend to disagree in turn, (wink, wink,) I don't think NASA/Government has the guts to go to Mars... 'Directly'... So the moon might be the best -interim- goal we can hope for, I surely yearn for a Mars settlement myself, let there be no mistake about it!

And I like to disagree a third turn around and side with Cindy, if I may. :;):

The Moon is still virtually useless as a testbed for a Mars mission, nothing has changed there, and I don't really believe in the politics of 'leading on the politicians'. They probably still entertain some dim ideas about a "stepping stone", but what if they find out the truth? That none of the techniques we try out on the Moon have any more relevance for Mars than those we could do in Antarctica? That the Moon is one big money hole in this regard? Does a more financially conservative way really not exist for the United States to regain its "guts"?

Not that I don't understand what you are saying Rxke, which is to politically exploit the window of opportunity. If the recent talk in the US congress is really an opportunity of course and not forgotten in four months...

In principle, I think that the Moon and Mars should be kept entirely apart. Like Cindy says, the Moon will never be a means in itself like Mars will. On its own though, I find the Moon interesting for mainly three possible reasons and if I may, I'd like to digress a little and present my current position:

1) For the Moon to be used as traffic switch and fuel station if there is extractable water on the poles. This presupposes the development of a "magical" high thrust SSTO, which I still believe is possible. There's a whole lot more to NTR's than NERVA.
If however, we see the realization of this new space elevator we've heard so much about, which could be readily used to build a proper space station, partly after paying for itself by 'satellite business on orbit', and/or asteroid mining is just too tough to bring about, the Moon falls in this regard.

2) Industrial exploitation of Lunar resources. Yeah, now you must think I've gone totally nuts, but what if the fixation with lack of volatiles on the Moon actually tend to obscure other uses of its resources? Maybe space advocates oftentimes like to think a little too much in terms of propulsion and similar, that is in the means and not the ends? Yes, it's mining rare metals time again!

Haven't got so much meat on it yet, but let me just point out three things:

a) The Moon was created from a planetesimal impact event on the early Earth. So basically, the Moon should have about the same mineral composition as our planet.

b) The Moon has been bombarded with high grade space debris for a very long time and especially so during a violent era 3.9 billion years ago, before the final stabilization of the crust. So has Earth but there are no plate tectonics on the Moon which means this material ought to have stayed mostly in the crust and even remain thrown about on the surface.

c) Okay, but what about those extremely low parts per million for everything valuable on the Moon, aka the interplanetary scrap yard? That's beside the point. Did you know for instance that the ppm for copper on Earth is about 40? It's all a matter of ore formation, that is concentrations worthy of extraction.

Zubrin says somewhere that the Moon is worthless to mine, because the formation of ores are dependant on complex hydrothermal and eruptive geological processes. It's probably safe to say that the Moon has never had any hydrothermal processes worth mentioning, but there's been a lot of eruptive magma flows and stuff going on, which also brings about "mineral differentiation" on its own, or so I've heard. Something which concentrates several platinum group metals for example and of course all of this has been left untouched and in a frozen state since the days of creation.

So perhaps the Moon could really be mined with some success after all, in a way that at least partly can pay for a limited human presence once we locate those ores? What do you think? And I assume that at least everyone here is urgently aware about the Moon's need for a paying job. But then again, this prospect hinges on the development of a cheap Terra-Luna direct transport system, polar propellant production, not least for hopping about on the Moon, refueling station, blah, blah, blah...

3) Failing all else, the Moon will at least remain an optimal location for the Lunar Observatory, located on the far side. A small scale base should be built there in any case for a considerable amount of cash. Housing a select few in an appendix of the solar system while everyone else are going to Mars.

As seen, the conventional view draws a sharp line between the Moon and Mars for at least the foreseeable future. Including my own little speculative extravaganzas, I concur with that view.

Gennaro,
Resource Industrialist

RobS · 2003-11-13 19:57:33

It may very well be that, as GCNRevenger says, we will use a gas core nuclear engine to go to Mars. Of course, that means we will go to Mars in about 2050. No one will spend the billions to develop the engine sooner. In 30 years no one has mustered the political will to do more serious work on solid core nuclear engines. The current plans are for reactors and nuclear-ion thrusters.

No doubt the ships will be large at that point, also; room for at least six. After all, we just saw an estimate that the gas core engine will have to mass 80 tonnes. It'll take a pretty big ship to make an engine like that worth while.

If we have any hope of going to Mars in 10 or 20 years, the best we'll get is solid core nuclear. More likely are straight chemical (Mars Direct), solar-electric propulsion to high orbit (Michael Duke), or solar thermal to high orbit. The latter is undergoing development now as well and involves large mirrors focusing sunlight on a graphite block through which hydrogen gas is pumped. It generates a specific impulse of 700 or 800 seconds, but thrusts are only a few pounds (better than ion, much less than chemical). With all these systems, aerobraking at Mars and Earth, and probably chemical propulsion from Mars back to Earth, make sense (according to most experts anyway). All the existing plans I have seen throw away the solid-core nuke after trans-Earth injection because of the problems of aerobraking it at Mars and the danger it might eventually collide with Earth and spread radioactivity (which is a bigger political and emotional problem than a health one, that doesn't mean it isn't a problem).

I apologize but I simply don't see the logic of throwing away lunar oxygen (where it will create a few parts per million lunar atmosphere and interfere with sensitive astronomy; there are publications worrying about this) and just using hydrogen. Converting a hundred tonnes of lunar water into fuel will not be cheap and easy for several decades AFTER the effort starts, IF it ever starts. It makes no sense to worry about the mass of a rocket on the moon when another system actually requires larger (more massive) tanks and requires finding and breaking down several times as much water. Two pumps rather than one is not a safety issue for a rocket. Storing liquid oxygen next to liquid hydrogen in the weightless environment of space is not a safety issue either, that I can see.

As for someone's comment about the moon not being a useful place to develop Mars technology, this is not true. There is a study on the web somewhere--I can give you the reference if you want--by an international astronautical society that shows that a moon and Mars exploration plan costs only 50% more than either one separately because of shared systems. It is a common statement from NASA that Mars astronauts should be trained partly on the moon. Add some weights to their suits and they can simulate Mars gravity roughly. The problems of living inside habitats, maintaining life support equipment, operating vehicles, and doing field work will be broadly similar. Are there differences between the two environments? Of course. But that does not mean there aren't many similarities.

-- RobS

robcwillis · 2003-11-13 20:00:28

Further to the above, a stop on The Moon as part of a Mars mission makes no sense. From Earth, roughly the same (slightly less?) delta V is required to reach TMI as TLI. Vastly greater propulsive delta V is required to capture lunar orbit and soft land on The Moon than to aerocapture to Mars orbit, then parachute/soft land on Mars.

Even if the moon was made of free rocket fuel, it would make about as much sense to refuel there on the way to Mars as it would to stop in Moscow on an airline flight from Toronto to Calgary.

Gennaro · 2003-11-13 20:15:12

Even if the moon was made of free rocket fuel, it would make about as much sense to refuel there on the way to Mars as it would to stop in Moscow on an airline flight from Toronto to Calgary.

True, but there are other destinations in the solar system than Mars. If you head for the Main Belt for example, refueling on the Moon makes sense.

The Earth-Moon leg and the Moon-Main Belt leg, I take it would also be optimized for different propulsion systems. Thrust heavy and Isp light in the one case, Isp heavy and thrust light in the other.

Ad Astra · 2003-11-13 21:50:22

The total delta V to go to the moon and back is greater than TMI, but I would expect a lunar flyby to use less fuel than TMI. A touch down on the lunar surface would be nonsensical for a Mars mission, but there are many who want to use a Lagrange point to assemble a Mars bound spacecraft.

RobS · 2003-11-14 07:52:07

Exactly, Ad Astra. You'd lift fuel from the moon to Lagrange, which requires 7 tonnes of fuel for every 10 tonnes of fuel lifted. The lifting vehicles would be reusable--this isn't hard, the delta-vee each way is 2.3 km/sec--and it could be unmanned. The Mars mission hardware would get to Lagrange slowly via solar ion or solar thermal, which would require 2 or 3 tonnes of fuel for every 10 tonnes of payload lifted. The crew would fly up quickly in a small ferry vehicle with a chemical engine. The mission would refuel at Lagrange from lunar fuel (refueling is a technology yet to be developed, and could be tricky!), then a small delta vee (0.7 km/sec, I think) would send the Mars mission back toward Earth. A few days later, when the mission is flying past Earth and deep in the planet's gravity well, it would fire its engines and head for Mars. The chemical delta vee needed would be relatively small--2.3 km/sec for a six month trip to Mars, because the mission would approach earth at close to escape velocity. (A delta vee of that size, for hydrogen-oxygen, requires 7 tonnes of fuel for every 10 tonnes of payload). If one added a few days to the trip to Earth, a smaller delta-vee could send the mission from Lagrange to a flyby of the moon and the moon could give a gravity assist to the mission so that it passed Earth a bit faster.

-- RobS

no_way · 2003-11-14 08:34:52

There's another ISRU propulsion scheme that could work out with Moon, if oxygen+hydrogen proves to be infeasible due to difficulties with extracting the hydrogen.
Aluminium-based solid rockets. There's plenty of aluminum and plenty of oxygen, although its obviously a lot more energy-intensive to convert to useable propellant, than it would be with water ice.

Enyo · 2003-11-15 03:52:40

The moon is a place where humans can work in reduced gravity, test life support systems that are truly closed, andbe within one to three days of home at all times. Perhaps Mars Direct, in the form of "Moon Direct," will enable a truly in-depth exploration of the moon. Successful moon missions will validate essential parts of Mars Direct or whatever method is chosen for going to Mars.

In and environment not similar to Mars in so many ways as to make the effort near meaninless. Spacesuits will be vastly different, spacecraft build for lunar use will not function properly on Mars, and Lunar ISRU will be meaningless to amplications on Mars.

No one will make a close loop life support system for a place just three days away from home it doesn't make economical senses. People where making this same argument for ISS and in no way could you describe it's life support system as closed loop.

What will happen? We will return to the Moon costs will get out of hand the useful gains will be low and the entertainment value of the Moonscape is so low nobody but space fans will tune in and the effort will be shut down! And this will be hung over Martian's heads just as Apollo is now! "You can't go to Mars! Look what just happened again at the Moon."

Mars fanatics, don't lose faith. The moon is not a detour, but a stepping stone to Mars in mankind's eventual colonization of space.

No it's tombstone for going to Mars! The Moon is the biggest deadend for going to Mars possible it doesn't have a turnaround in it! :angry:

Palomar · 2003-11-15 08:22:43

What will happen? We will return to the Moon costs will get out of hand the useful gains will be low and the entertainment value of the Moonscape is so low nobody but space fans will tune in and the effort will be shut down! And this will be hung over Martian's heads just as Apollo is now! "You can't go to Mars! Look what just happened again at the Moon."
Mars fanatics, don't lose faith. The moon is not a detour, but a stepping stone to Mars in mankind's eventual colonization of space.
No it's tombstone for going to Mars! The Moon is the biggest deadend for going to Mars possible it doesn't have a turnaround in it! :angry:

*I agree with Enyo.

We've been over this topic before, and I honestly don't understand the allure going back to the moon has for some people, despite their well-meaning arguments. This is how I see it:

1. We've been to the moon.

2. We've been to the moon.

3. We've been to the moon.

4. There is very little gravity there.

5. There is very little water/ice/permafrost/whatever type of precipitation you can name there.

6. It's a dead rock.

7. Did I mention we've been to the moon multiple times (both literally and in earlier in my post)?

I don't know the ages of some folks here (little info in your profiles), but even as a 7-year-old in 1972, I distinctly remember hearing adults complaining, "Why are we going to the moon AGAIN? It's been great, but how many more missions do we need?" I can hear it starting up again.

As for training and practicing in near zero gravity, we don't need to go to the moon for that: We've got that on the ISS, during shuttle missions/"walks," etc.

Forget the moon. Been there, done that! Let's just get on to Mars. We're having enough troubles with funding and actually getting our governments to DO SOMETHING; I don't believe we should squander any $$ or action on a dead rock we've already been to a handful of times. The funding and activity are precious enough -- let's just get on with it, and get to Mars.

--Cindy

Rxke · 2003-11-15 11:16:55

Also agree with Enyo... (pessimism)

"... environment not similar to Mars... Spacesuits will be vastly different, ... Lunar ISRU will be meaningless to applications on Mars... No one will make a close loop life support system for a place three days away... doesn't make economical sense... costs will get out of hand the useful gains will be low "

Only good way to go to the moon is Zubrin's proposal: go to the moon with a subset, that's built for MARS. NASA would end up with 'overkill' hardware, so it would be a waste NOT to go. Of coure, there'll be beancounters along the way, leading to the launch of substandard stuff, leaky life support...

If they say "we'll go to the moon, and later to mars, when we have the experience," then the party's over i guess.

I'd love to hear "We're going to Mars, and on our way (building stuff; that is), we'll pay a visit to the moon... if anyone is interested in our hardware, it''s for hire, feel free to expand on it" Of course that'll never happen(?)

Wim · 2003-11-15 11:43:07

I agree too.

Nasa shouldn't go to the moon (but to Mars).
China will go to the moon and put an outpost there.
Esa will go to Mars (in coo with Nasa ?).
Any other ? ???

Gennaro · 2003-11-15 12:37:15

Why we all must go to the Moon and why we like it:
http://www.rathergood.com/moon_song/

...sorry, a bit tired maybe.

Wim · 2003-11-15 13:03:31

Djeezz, who in budha's name has time to make such a *song* and site. It got a smile on my face though ...

Ad Astra · 2003-11-15 14:31:54

China will go to the moon and put an outpost there.

Looks doubtful within the next fifteen to twenty years. I mean, China's next manned spaceflight will be "before the end of 2005." They have the technology, but the political / military leadership behind their program isn't making it a high priority right now. Their efforts will be aimed at space stations and possibly military space efforts.

RobertDyck · 2003-11-15 14:33:22

Actually, a closed loop oxygen and water recycling system is not far off. The system on ISS just uses electrolysis to break water into oxygen and hydrogen, and the hydrogen is dumped into space. A reusable sorbent extracts CO2 from cabin air, and that is heated and exposed to vacuum to regenerate the sorbent. The CO2 is also dumped into space. Human metabolism converts carbohydrates and oxygen into water and CO2. I like to model metabolism of carbohydrates since the process for protein is more complicated. The system on ISS effectively recycles half of the oxygen that astronauts breathe, and replenishes the rest with oxygen from water shipped from Earth. If you add a Sabatier reactor to convert all of the hydrogen and half of the CO2 into methane and water, that would provide enough water to close the loop; at least for oxygen. Methane would be dumped instead of hydrogen. The Russian water recycling system on ISS recovers water from urine and the dehumidifier. The dehumidifier effectively recovers moisture from sweat and breath. Wash water and feces are just dumped. The Johnson Space Center has come up with a system to recover 97% of water from all sources; wash water would be filtered and feces incinerated to recover water. NASA wants to include the Sabatier reactor and high-efficiency water recycling system in the US habitation module. That would use ISS as a test-bed to develop a life support system for Mars. It would also reduce cost of operating ISS since you wouldn't need to ship up water anymore.

Then there is my idea for a life support system, but I'm still trying to get bio-lab space to prove it works. The chloroplast based system would use the same water recycling system that JSC produced, but instead of the by-product being methane and CO2, it would produce carbohydrate. An optional module would use some of the carbohydrate to produce protein, lipids, the full vitamin B complex including B12, some extra CO2 and ethanol. The CO2 could be dumped into space, and the ethanol could be stored in a waste container and de-orbited in an empty cargo spacecraft along with the rest of the garbage. Of course you could get creative with ethanol: burn it with a storable oxidiser shipped from Earth to reboost ISS. That means you will still have to ship up oxidiser, but not fuel. You could also use ethanol as a cleaning solution inside ISS. I think there are some science experiments that require ethanol, either as a cleaner or reagent. Temperature fractionation could separate ethanol from water and the other organic components. If you do use ethanol for cleaning it will evaporate inside the cabin. That would require the effluent from the dehumidifier to be processed through the same temperature fractionation system. In fact, it may be best to use a two-step separation system: one to separate ethanol from the vat that converts carbohydrates into protein and vitamin B, the second to purify ethanol. The first step would have to use low temperature to avoid destroying the protein, etc., perhaps leaving 40% ethanol. The second step could use a higher temperature to purify ethanol to 99%.

Whether you use the Sabatier reactor system that NASA is currently working on, or the system I am proposing, this is still sufficiently closed for a mission to Mars.

(Ps. Don't tell NASA administrators that the vat to convert carbohydrate is a fermenter, the temperature fractionation device is a 'still, and 40% distilled ethanol produced from fermenting starchy food is usually called vodka.)

Rxke · 2003-11-15 14:56:39

You mean: don't tell the Russians?

Seriously, that'll be exactly the reason why this technology will be vetoed down by some idiot behind a desk... no way they'll trust the hardworking crews with a 'still in their living quarters...

Josh Cryer · 2003-11-16 03:58:06

Or someone smart on the panel will merely point out that using the alcohol for fuel would be a Good Thing ?. How about ethanol fuel cells?

Wim · 2003-11-16 04:28:41

wether it is bodyfuel or other enginefuel... hihi
sorry

Rxke · 2003-11-16 04:32:31

Yes, and it's true ethanol is a valuable product in labs: low toxicity(sp?) good solvent for a lot of stuff... easily mixed with water to get stronger or weaker concentrations... good fuel etc. (forgot one: disinfectant!)

Use it every day at college. (not in the canteen, no...) couldn't imagine life without it. a lot of stuf reacts too 'much' in aqueous environment, ethanol is a life-saver for cleaning and degreasing metals, 'dry-cleaning' organic based stuff (paper, textiles) microscope preparations..

Wim · 2003-11-16 05:41:58

China will go to the moon and put an outpost there.
Looks doubtful within the next fifteen to twenty years. I mean, China's next manned spaceflight will be "before the end of 2005." They have the technology, but the political / military leadership behind their program isn't making it a high priority right now. Their efforts will be aimed at space stations and possibly military space efforts.

I'm betting that China will push their dates closer to today. In this article they say 2005 -> first manned spaceflight. Well (I hope) they stick with 2 or 3 flights and go for the moon (+ base) sooner than (or then) expected. Or am I too optimistic ? ???

Josh Cryer · 2003-11-16 16:38:55

I think a lot of people agree with that assessment, Wim! I know I do.

It's pretty simple, really. The moon might not have enough abundant water (though in my belief it does), but certainly it has materials which to build things. So what if there's no water, if all you need is water, that's all you potentially have to ship. An ion space ship could ferry water for us, even if it takes 6 months to reach the moon, who cares? That's all we'd be potentially shipping... the rest could just be machines to manufacture stuff.

Ad Astra · 2003-11-16 17:25:20

China's manned lunar program will not happen until they're done sending probes, and that is still several years away. They hope to have a space station by 2008 but I think that date may slip. Any lunar flights will not happen until after the space station is well underway, and after a heavy-lift launcher has been built. China currently has no plans for a booster that can launch 80 tonnes or more.

I'm 100% certain that if the US (with or without Russia) commits to a lunar return during early 2004, they will beat the Chinese there.

RobS · 2003-11-16 17:36:54

The big differences in appeal between the moon and Mars are, I think, mythological and emotional. This is not to belittle the differences; myth ("significant story") is very important to culture, and emotion is important in making the decision to go. But to the extent science is a major factor, and pragmatic concerns, the mythological and emotional reasons will have to receed a bit into the background.

Cindy noted that the moon is a "dead rock." Well, from a scientific point of view, Mars is probably a dead rock as well! But Mars, in the imagination, still has canals, little green men, my favorite Martian (I am old enough to remember that show), an atmosphere (which is closer to a lunar vacuum than a terrestrial atmosphere, especially in the half of the surface above the triple point pressure line), clouds (pretty, but useless to Martian settlers), and water (well, ice).

The objections to going to the moon listed above might also be heavily emotional too:

The space suits will be different: Who says? The pressure they have to enclose will be the same, relative to the outside. The heat generated inside the suit that has to be removed will be the same (the Martian atmosphere will not provide significant cooling; it's too thin). The oxygen needed will be the same. The CO2 removal will be the same. The waste management (in case the astronauts have to pee) will be the same. The dust they have to seal against will be chemically different, but will involve particles of the same size range (the lunar regolith has a lot of dust; it was a problem for Apollo).

The space vehicles will have to be different: Only partially. The engines and tanks could be the same (though the tanks might have to be bigger). The life support systems could be the same. If the lunar vehicles fly back to low earth orbit, they will need aeroshields like the Martian vehicles (which will also have to be designed to aerobrake into Earth orbit).

In situ resource utilization will be different: Maybe half true. If there is lunar ice (which is the main reason to go to the moon first; if there isn't, the moon may be worth skipping) the system for electrolyzing it and storing the products will be the same. The carbon dioxide breathed out by the astronauts could be converted into methane and oxygen using the same Sabatier process (as Robert Dyck has pointed out).

Surface Vehicles: The same problems of power sources, repair, and life support. Possibly the tires would have to be different because the lunar regolith, near the equator, reaches 100C at midday. The Martian regolith never heats up like that. Possibly lunar vehicles will need different shock absorbers because the vehicle will bounce and sway more in lower gravity. But the moon will be a good place to test vehicles that have to last 18 months on Mars, and be repairable in space suits and low gravity.

Scientific equipment: Geology will be the same. Obviously, biological investigation equipment is not needed on the moon. Alas, it may not be needed on Mars, either!

The moon as a dead end: This is a possibility; we could get complacent and spend 30 years building up the moon before going to Mars. But people interested in post-Mars destinations will think the same about Mars. Mars is not the ultimate goal of human exploration; it may prove to be the most important, but not the last. Equipment for flying humans to Mars could be used to set up a Venus orbit facility, which would allow intensive robotic study of Earth's twin. Mars and lunar surface equipment could be used at the poles of Mercury (where apparently Arecibo radar HAS detected real ice sheets). The experience of all these places, including the Martian poles, will prepare for a human base on Callisto to study the Galilean moons in detail (and without an hour's time delay for communication with robotic explorers). That will pave the way to a base on a small moon of Saturn, from which Titan can be studied and maybe visited (though I have my doubts we can land people on a surface that cold AND with so much heat-sucking cold atmosphere).

That, in my opinion, is the big picture (or part of it; I left out asteroids, both close to earth and in the belt).

As for "we've been there": Yes, over 30 years ago, when half the current population of the US wasn't even born. That doesn't mean there isn't a lot of important and valuable science to do there. The moon needs a place, just like Antarctic exploration.

And then there's the repair issue. NASA rightly is paranoid about sending astronauts to Mars and having them stuck there--or perish--because some small, irreplacable part has broken. We know we can make spacesuits that will work on the moon for a week; Apollo 17 did that. What about a month? Three months? Six? Twelve? Twenty-four? Mars will need suits good for at least eighteen. The moon is a good place to test out things like suits and life support systems and see what breaks, when, and how often they need to be repaired (and therefore how many spares they need). You can't fly people to Mars with fifty tonnes of spares. But you can build a moon base that is resupplied three times a year and fly spares up to it, test out new systems, etc., and get a good sense of what the repair schedule for Martian equipment will be. Dust is a big issue and was a problem with Apollo, but the crews weren't there long enough to see what problems resulted.

So it makes sense that NASA is considering a flight to the moon first. It would almost be irresponsible not to; thirty months is a LONG time to be away from Earth and unable to be rescued. BUT the position of the Mars Society that any moon exploration must be in the CONTEXT of Mars exploration makes sense. That seems to be the position of the Planetary Society as well. And the rumors coming from the White House suggest that is at least what they will say: that a return to the moon must be done in the larger context of deep space flight (Mars and asteroids).

-- RobS

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2003-11-13 07:03:48

Re: The Case for the Moon

#27 2003-11-13 09:57:27

Re: The Case for the Moon

#28 2003-11-13 19:13:21

Re: The Case for the Moon

#29 2003-11-13 19:57:33

Re: The Case for the Moon

#30 2003-11-13 20:00:28

Re: The Case for the Moon

#31 2003-11-13 20:15:12

Re: The Case for the Moon

#32 2003-11-13 21:50:22

Re: The Case for the Moon

#33 2003-11-14 07:52:07

Re: The Case for the Moon

#34 2003-11-14 08:34:52

Re: The Case for the Moon

#35 2003-11-15 03:52:40

Re: The Case for the Moon

#36 2003-11-15 08:22:43

Re: The Case for the Moon

#37 2003-11-15 11:16:55

Re: The Case for the Moon

#38 2003-11-15 11:43:07

Re: The Case for the Moon

#39 2003-11-15 12:37:15

Re: The Case for the Moon

#40 2003-11-15 13:03:31

Re: The Case for the Moon

#41 2003-11-15 14:31:54

Re: The Case for the Moon

#42 2003-11-15 14:33:22

Re: The Case for the Moon

#43 2003-11-15 14:56:39

Re: The Case for the Moon

#44 2003-11-16 03:58:06

Re: The Case for the Moon

#45 2003-11-16 04:28:41

Re: The Case for the Moon

#46 2003-11-16 04:32:31

Re: The Case for the Moon

#47 2003-11-16 05:41:58

Re: The Case for the Moon

#48 2003-11-16 16:38:55

Re: The Case for the Moon

#49 2003-11-16 17:25:20

Re: The Case for the Moon

#50 2003-11-16 17:36:54

Re: The Case for the Moon

Board footer