The Case for the Moon

Enyo · 2003-11-16 23:58:38

Let me point out a few things: I'm not Mars centric, I'm not opposed to a return to the Moon (by a commercial entity) and I would like humanity to occupy the whole solar system...and beyond.

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).

Anyone who has bothered to look at the problems say so. The environments of the Moon and Mars are very different from each other. Cooling systems used in A7L and A7LB suits of Apollo vintage are pretty much the same as now used in the EMU and they will not work on Mars! They work fine on the Moon. What would the incentive to spend money on building a different system for use on the Moon that also works on Mars? We have something that works fine. Dust on the Moon is very probably different from that on Mars. They have some similar properties but have very different environment in which they formed. The ITMG needed for the Moon is not even vaguely the same as would be needed for Mars. A pare of Arctic coveralls is closer to the TMG for Mars! There is no need to worry about back contamination on the Moon yet this will be a prime concern for decades at Mars. Stopping air leakage will be costly and not need on the Moon at all. The gravity is different the gait of Spacesuit wearer will be different on both places the suits won't be the same in design at all. All this will cost money that will not be forth coming as it wont be needed for the Moon. You don't know what you are talking about!

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).

If you plan to use ISRU at Mars the fuels will be different. And thus there is no incentive to use the same engines need at Mars as at the Moon! Optimized spacecraft for the Moon will not work at Mars. A Lunar optimized lander would collapse under the heavier gravity. A spacecraft optimized for Mars can be made to work at the Moon. But nobody will spend the money to optimize for Mars when going to the Moon.

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).

Lunar Ices if that is what the trace hydrogen is may not be easily mined or even mined for fifty years or more. Besides it makes no sense in a trip to Mars anyway.

Half true? Mars has an atmosphere with all the added complexity such gives to the process, dust, nitrogen and other gases. There is no incentive to do as Robert suggests anyway. It would cost more than just resuppling lost water. And with the economy of scale as you increase flights to the Moon this will be even more true. The incentives to spend billions more than the 15 or 20 billion it would possibly take to return to the Moon is not there. And if we should abandoned the Moon again this will be used against going to Mars.

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.

You don't get it. NASA is as paranoid about a return to the Moon as a mission to Mars. If you build a base at the Moon you have similar problems in logistic and failures as you would with Mars (an area of real similarity).

Unless the plan is to go to Mars and you are actually somehow testing Mars optimized spacecraft and equipment on the Moon then you wont go to Mars. It wont happen period. All these 30 years of LEO have been preparing to go back to the Moon and going on to Mars and we don't have a closed loop recycling life support system on ISS and we wont have it at the Moon and we wont be going anywhere after we abandon the Moon again for decades if ever. Anyway, you are wrong there is virtually no value in test equipment destined for Mars at the Moon and nobody who has a clue will be willing to pay for it!

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).

It is not NASA (in the main) thinking of a return to the Moon, it is the Whitehouse. And from what I've heard it's not both Mars and the Moon. What rumor have you heard? Please check out this article. Wouldn't matter if that was the "Plan" anyway it would simply change to the Moon alone and leaving it after a few visits. Get a clue!

MarsGuy2012 · 2003-11-17 05:03:35

I agree with a lot of what you said, Enyo, but it sounds like you need a nap.

I would suggest a dress rehersal of a Mars mission to be carried out on the moon. First, all the Mars mission equipment should be tested before hand on Earth. Ninety-nine percent of the bugs should be worked out on the ground. Second, the hab should be put in either Earth or Lunar orbit for about 6 months to simulate the transit to Mars. Third, an 18 month surface stay. And finally, another 6 months in orbit aboard the ERV.

This mission would just simulate a full length Mars mission. The two transit legs would be exactly like a trip to Mars (except for the big blue planet in the window), so much of the psychological and physiological issues could be studied. The surface stay would have to be a little bit different, of course. The rovers and space suits would probably be optimized for the moon. And, there would be no biologist, just geologists.

Any remaining engineering or procedural problems will be found and corrected for the Mars mission.

This "dress rehersal" would probably tick off the astronauts. I bet they would rather be on the moon than floating around it for a year. On the other hand, it would give the public (including politicians, space doctors, engineers, and astronauts) great confidence that an actual Mars mission would succeed.

Ad Astra · 2003-11-17 09:51:47

The pro-space segment of the public would gladly accept a lunar return. Most people have become bored with the standard Shuttle / ISS missions, and long for something bold again. The post-1972 gnerations read about the moon in textbooks and wonder why anybody would want to abandon it. Scientists have seen a renewed interest in the moon within the past decade. Seeing as how we used to have the capability to send humans to the moon, it would make sense to use those capabilities for robust lunar science instead of simplistic robotic missions.

It's true that the moon will only allow limited testing of Martian hardware. But the moon allows us to establish confidence and procedures in deep space exploration. Extended operations on the moon will likely present problems that nobody ever considered. What do we do about injuries on the moon? What about things like broken space suits, or returning to earth after spending so long in reduced G?

Apollo ended far too early, and we've barely scratched the surface of lunar exploration. That's why we need concurrent Mars and moon efforts that will benefit each other rather than having both missions compete for funding.

RobS · 2003-11-17 12:44:32

The article Enyo refers to says basically what I was saying:

"Many have called for a specific destination to be named - one that will pull or push technology development - rather than Sean O'Keefe's currently espoused approach wherein NASA seeks to develop technology and then see what destination opportunities it might provide down the road. Word from knowledgeable sources would suggest that an overt Kennedy-esque commitment to send humans to Mars is simply not in the cards. Indeed, Mars (as an option) is not on the table at the present time.

Rather, the focus seems to be coalescing around sending humans back to the Moon and to the establishment of a inner solar system infrastructure that would allow decisions to where to go next (e.g. Mars, asteroids, etc.) to be made once certain technological and operational unknowns are better understood.

The Moon is seen as a destination that is easily attainable where complex operations on a another planet can be field tested. Whether the hardware that is developed has specific direct applicability to Mars or other locations depends from one system to another. However the operational knowledge to be gleaned from operation in a hazardous environment will invaluable in preparing humans to go elsewhere beyond the Moon."

These are the "rumors" I am referring to. Yes, it is the White House, not NASA; I was using "NASA" to refer to the government. And note the argument that the moon can be used to field test equipment for Mars and elsewhere.

Tonight when I have more time, I'll comment about some other aspects. But note that Mars Direct calls for rocket engines and tanks to use both LOX/LH2 and LOX/methane. Whether that's easily achievable is not clear. I have assumed that would be done. But it would indeed allow the engines of a lunar transportation system to serve for Mars as well.

-- RobS

GCNRevenger · 2003-11-17 13:04:46

I think I am beginning to agree that a trip to the Moon would have few advantages in the context of it being a proving ground for a Mars mission. The #1 big thing a Lunar trip would be good for is to build confidance of in-space transportation systems and life support. Since Nasa, which seems to have become soft and easily discouraged after Challenger and Columbia, frankly needs a confidance boost before really setting out for a Mars mission. It also wouldn't hurt Nasa's image to be doing somthing beyond going in circles in LEO, which might also be good for funding in Washington...

Now to be the devil's advocate...:

Enyo is correct that the testing of hardware on a Moon trip would be pretty useless; the lander would be different, the hab would be different, the fuel plant would be different, etc etc... If we are going to the Moon to test hardware for a Mars trip, then we're still going in very expensive circles.

This is doubly compounded if there is little or no water ice on the Moon, which would limit the size of any base or rocket-fuel self sufficency perminantly. And as far as other materials, well there aren't any of substantial usefulness considering the huge trouble of getting them off the surface and back to Earth.

The Moon may be convienant and temporarily popular, but in the long run it will slow down a Mars mission most likly, especially when people get tired of seeing the familiar sight of astronauts bouncing around the Lunar surface.

If there does turn out to be enough ice on the Moon to make substantial amounts of rocket fuel, then a larger base becomes practical, but the question still begs: why? A mega space telescope doesn't need a large contingent of staff to operate, launching rocket fuel off the Lunar surface is only marginally easier than launching it from Earth's surface, and unless there is a huge market for He3 then there is nothing at all worthwhile there.

Now back to engines...

I'd like to reiterate that if we ARE going to use the Moon as a gas station on the way to Mars, then using a NTR/Oxygen Combustion hybrid engine to save on the amount of Lunar water needed still does NOT justify the reduced payload mass of a Mars ship. An extra 1/3rd payload mass is a HUGE difference, worth that of doubling or trippling of any Lunar mining operation. If there is concern about oxygen becoming a Lunar contaminant, which I feel is alarmist and silly, then you put the stuff as a liquid into tanks shaded by a crater rim/underground or bind it with metals in the Lunar soil.

It would also be really nice if we did have a Gas-Core nuclear engine, and it wouldn't take fifty years to build if we started on it January 1st, skipping solid-core engines alltogether clearly and deliberatly... of course, this would be neither quicker or cheaper than reviving an improved version of NERVA, though putting together a Mars mission will take a while anyway. And as far as radioactive material return to the Earth after a Mars mission, I think the government could get away with telling the anti-nukylur groups to take a long walk of a short pier.

RobertDyck · 2003-11-17 14:38:36

Spacesuits: Yes, Mars has different thermal and micrometeoroid garment requirements. However, the pressure layer and portable life support system of a mechanical counter pressure suit designed for Mars could be used on the Moon. One advantage of an MCP suit is cooling via sweat: that would work in LEO, on the Moon, or on Mars. The micrometeoroid layer would have to be replaced with a dust/scuff layer for Mars, and the thermal layer would be different due to Mars atmosphere. But an MCP suit can be built with a separate TMG, and you can have two different TMG's: one for Mars and the other for Space/Moon. This will only happen if you design for Mars with an option to go to the Moon. The argument for a dedicated Moon mission will be that the current pressure suit is good enough; A7L-B was good enough for Apollo. But that design will never be good enough for Mars. For one, A7L-B had a major contamination problem with dust/fines clogging the zipper; it couldn't last 1 month much less 14 months. For another, did you notice the astronauts used a rod with a handle to pick up rocks? They couldn't bend over to pick-up a rock; they certainly don't have the dexterity to climb a cliff face on Mars.

GCNR development: Ok, I'll throw you a bone. Contain the exhaust in a large tank designed for oil refineries.

Enyo · 2003-11-17 16:53:35

I'm addressing several posts here:

No, I don't need a nap. I'm frustrated by people living in another world than the one I'm in. If you go to the Moon without planning everything used to also be used at Mars there is no sense in thinking we will be going to Mars within this century. :angry:

Try running any simulation of a Mars mission at the Moon and you run into the fact the two places are different. So the simulation is modified to work in orbit or on the Moon. It wont be a valid test of Mars equipment and thus more testing will be needed. Want to simulate a Mars mission without people send robotic missions to Mars with the correct infrastructure. That alone will be like pulling teeth. Witness the suggestion that a rocket using ISRU be used on the sample return mission.

In Cowing's article he writes: "Word from knowledgeable sources would suggest that an overt Kennedy-esque commitment to send humans to Mars is simply not in the cards. Indeed, Mars (as an option) is not on the table at the present time."

I don't often agree with Keith on points like this, but I feel he is right here. Mars wont be the primary reason for a return to the Moon...not even a secondary reason. Nothing useful for Mars infrastructure will be built, we will abandon the Moon again and it will be hung over anyone's head suggesting a manned Mars mission.

Arguing that engines or spacesuits can be built to be use at both places misses the point. Nobody will spend the extra money need to do so if it isn't in the plan in the first place and it easily can be seen by congress as a boondoggle; who will shut it down the second the NASA budget "needs" trimming. Just as Transhab was shut down for similar reasons. Just as there is no close-loop life support on ISS now.

When surveyed about 50 to 60 percent of "space fans" want a return to the Moon. And when asked it's usually for nostalgic reasons or this lame "...we need to relearn how to function in space on the Moon..." (we've had forty years folks how much longer do you plan to dink around). There two different environments with two different sets of (to be fair: slightly similar) problems. Everyone else will be bored to death by the Moon, just as they were in the 1970s!

Maybe we need to repeat old mistakes over again. I don't know why you folks who should know better don't get it. I've said my piece. I really should be happy with chaos for my namesake. Here have a golden apple...

RobS · 2003-11-17 19:27:18

What we are assuming is that astronauts bouncing around on Mars will be more popular than astronauts hopping around the moon. Are we sure of this, after the first few months? I hope so.

As for why we should go to the moon, read thisarticle. There are a lot of smart people in attendance there.

-- RobS

GCNRevenger · 2003-11-17 19:30:44

*shakes head* No way you could contain the entire engine effluent in a tank with the size of a GCNR. Just fire the thing on the ground in the middle of nowhere and "scrub" the exaust with water vapor as best we can and/or into a cave that nobody cares about... a little radiation is simply not going to hurt anybody, and its high time somebody shoved this message down the throats of the anti-technology fear mongers.

GCNR is the only technology, the only one, that is within easy reach which can provide high thrust for quick orbital departure transit and ISP to permit a shift from "cut your toothbrush handles off to save five grams" design of missions in space. Solid NTR doesn't provide enough ISP, VASIMR doesn't have the thrust (if it ever works at all, though it would be great for cargo), and the Orion booster or a Fusion plasma rocket are still little more than a pipe dream... Orion would make a fallout plume anyway.

VASIMR and NTR, chemical even, might be plenty to answer the big question about life on Mars and the initial field work of learning to live off the land with a minimum of material from Earth, but neither of these will be enough to do much more than this flags & footprints end to human life on the Red Planet. So, since building a GCNR is probobly only about a "decade worth" of trouble more than a "Nerva-II" and building other Mars hardware will also take a long time, it should be selected as the method of propulsion for a Mars mission from day one of the project.

A little radiation in the middle of nowhere and angry irrational environmentalists is a small price to pay for not having to bet on Fusion.

Enyo · 2003-11-18 04:17:51

What we are assuming is that astronauts bouncing around on Mars will be more popular than astronauts hopping around the moon. Are we sure of this, after the first few months? I hope so.

I wouldn't say that is what I'm assuming. I suspect we will end up with maybe one or two missions to Mars at most. If NASA suddenly becomes media savvy we could hope for two or three missions and they will be camels not the horse we would want...(see below).

I have some more thoughts for you folks wanting to go to the Moon.

The STS started out being fully reusable and cheaper to launch than Saturn Vs and we ended up with a compromised, camel instead of a horse, that cost more than Saturn Vs (for that matter any other launcher) and takes a standing arm to service.

ISS started out as Space Station Freedom in a useful orbit and with construction sheds to build Moon and Mars spacecraft in...

This trend will not stop because you dream it will...

The Moon base will devolve into something less than it started out as. Which will not include Mars related infrastructure without a huge continuing effort on our part to stop and reverses this trend.

GCNRevenger · 2003-11-18 08:52:23

Sorry if I seemed a little cranky and off-topic about my GCNR rant... i've been putting too much effort and emotional energy into the futility of trying to argue against anti-nuclear activists. Anyways, long story short that since a open cycle GCNR is not that much harder to build than a solid core NTR, we know that it will work unlike other methods, and has no "you want to put a nuclear howitzer in space!???!" (artillery cannon) of Orion, we ought to persue GCNR as soon as possible. If it will takes 20 or 25 years to make (perhaps a bit more) then thats just fine, since that is probobly how long it will take Nasa to assemble and test Mars hardware with their current funding level and safety phobias.

The science reason for getting man off this rock should be made secondary to other reasons, as it will result in a few small short duration missions like Mars Direct. ANYTHING would be better. Only a large ship that is reuseable with substantial payload mass... like the largest mass we can haul on a 5-segment SRB/Twin RS-68 SDV... and/or a fast ship with orbit-to-orbit trips of less than three or four months for a manned HAB would permit any practical perminant settlement of Mars for real.

Ian Flint · 2003-11-18 10:00:13

Enyo is right on this one.

If we go to the moon with the idea that we will use it to help develope a Mars mission then congress will start trimming the budget and we will lose Mars.

We should only go to the moon after the hardware for Mars has been developed.

That dress rehersal thing sounds a bit excessive, but a shorter trip to set up some telescopes would be good. A short trip to the moon using Mars hardware would also boost everyones confidence in the Mars mission. We will have regained the ground lost after Apollo.

GCNRevenger · 2003-11-18 10:36:02

Even a trip to the Moon using Mars hardware is only 50% practical... an orbit-to-orbit Hab with a nuclear engine would be the same, the landers could be built with some commonality, but beyond that a trip to the Moon requires too signifigant a modification of Mars hardware to operate in the different environment.

I am a little worried about all this talk of "space infrastructure" and other such nonsense that comes of rumor from the White House. Building large spacecraft, the kind that we need, is not easy to accomplish with a huge number of medium payloads (20-25T, bus sized) that would nessesitate this "infrastructure" stuff. Plus, how much in space "infrasturcture" do you need to send up a big tank of hydrogen or an Earth-launched OSP to prepare a Mars ship? The first two modules of the ISS were at least physicly docked with no on-orbit assistance at all. Send up the HAB and the propulsion module in two SDV shots and have the propulsion module do the docking. Send up an OSP crew to dock with the HAB and finish connecting wires and hoses... Or if there were alot of water on the Moon, and we DID have a large (read: more than one manned crew flight) base, we still wouldn't need a manned space station in either orbit, and at most an unmanned fuel platform in our orbits that need not be more than a few truss segments with tanks and some docking transponders.

What are needed are new spacecraft, not on some over-the-horizon sunny future, but start work now. Build a good OSP so we can get in and out of orbit easily for the forseeable future first. Then resolve to go to Mars, and it takes as long as it takes... A GCNR powerd TMI stage, both in-space and on-Mars HAB modules replete with nuclear power for electricity, a "giant" down-only megalander for maximum payload to Mars surface, and a reuseable Acent/Decent vehicle tailored only for 1,500kg of crew, samples, and data tapes. If Nasa doesn't have the dollars to do it all at once, then do it in pieces, but the main thing is to get started now. The longer we wait to start, the longer it takes to finish.

Ad Astra · 2003-11-18 14:05:48

Sorry if I seemed a little cranky and off-topic about my GCNR rant... i've been putting too much effort and emotional energy into the futility of trying to argue against anti-nuclear activists.

Don't waste your energy fighting the anti-nuclear movement. Public opinion is slowly shifting in the pro-nuclear direction, especially among the generation that grew up after TMI. As long as we have a pro-nuclear President and Energy Secretary and NASA administrator, we will work on nuclear spacecraft.

A comprehensive moon-Mars initiative would use similar vehicles and systems, such as how Zubrin's Mars Direct could be used as Moon Direct. The vehicles would have to differ in many ways, but the JSF program has shown that similar vehicles can be build in a modular fashion that allows for variation. A Moon Direct vehicle could be made less robust than a Mars Direct vehicle, so this would translate into an added safety margin for the lunar hardware.

I think we should go-ahead with both a lifting body OSP and a capsule, using the capsule as part of Moon/Mars Semi Direct (as I think NASA's studies have shown this to be safer and more productive than Moon/Mars Direct.) ISS should be used in a support role of some kind for these Moon/Mars initiatives, and lunar exploration should eventually be privatized as Mars exploration becomes NASA's primary focus.

RobS · 2003-11-18 14:10:36

I think Enyo is right also; if the US decides to head for the moon on its way to Mars, even if it has advantages--it does--Mars will be delayed, possibly a long time. Alas, I think that is what will happen, so now I feel discouraged about Mars.

GCNRevenger, I do hope the world builds gas core nukes some time. We certainly need them for the outer solar system and yes, they will help for Mars.

-- RobS

Wim · 2003-11-18 14:13:23

and lunar exploration should eventually be privatized as Mars exploration becomes NASA's primary focus

That would be great !
But the only 'profitable' moonproject would be tourism, no ? Or can someone think of something else ?

Bill White · 2003-11-18 14:23:28

Would nuclear propulsion help with a return to the moon? At all?

Nuclear power for life support, okay, I can see that quite easily but even Apollo was "overpowered" - - if I remember right the Apollo mission had the rocket power to travel to the Moon in less than a day, except then it could not have stopped.

12 hour travel time versus 2 or 3 day travel time? How much is that really worth?

Heh! Unless someone intends to deploy a weapon system to be stationed on the lunar FarSide able to reach LEO really, really fast.

= = =

To answer Wim's question - tourism and a military presence to dominate LEO.

Deploy a US Space Command base on Farside with gas core nuclear propelled spacecraft parked awaiting orders. At maximum burn, how long is the travel time to LEO? Pretty quick, right?

Wim · 2003-11-18 14:41:00

To answer Wim's question - tourism and a military presence to dominate LEO.
Deploy a US Space Command base on Farside with gas core nuclear propelled spacecraft parked awaiting orders. At maximum burn, how long is the travel time to LEO? Pretty quick, right?

Yep you are right about military, but then it's not privatized anymore.

GCNRevenger · 2003-11-18 22:10:27

As far as short-distance flights, a GCNR would be mucho overkill unless you were trying to move a gigantic payload. What would nice for Earth/Moon-Moon/Earth flights is a solid core NTR which would be reuseable, relativly durable, but most importantly not require as large a fuel mass as a chemical engine.

I think we should go-ahead with both a lifting body OSP and a capsule using the capsule as part of Moon/Mars Semi Direct... ISS should be used in a support role of some kind for these Moon/Mars initiatives...

If we are going back to the Moon to stay, then we ought to not bother with intermediate spacecraft with such poor capabilities that they will have to be disguarded if we want to do anything beyond a Lunar sardine can base and a telescope or two. So, we should develop only one the lifting body OSP with room for no less than six people to ferry crews to a waiting chemical-powerd transfer vehicle or then to a Lunar lander in Lunar orbit, or combine the transfer and lander vehicle into one ship. Another slightly more hairbrained idea is to use OSP as a "human cargo carrier" and simply dock it to a standardized chemicly powerd cargo transfer/lander in LEO.

Oh, and another-another thing about ISS still has that nasty orbit to deal with. The amount of energy needed to change the orbit of an object that size... as delicate as it is... would be a huge amount of trouble. Its high orbit might be good enough for a Lunar trip, but not without an extreme mass penalty. An SDV that could bring up 120 tons to equitorial LEO would only be able to haul like 80-90 tons to ISS.

RobertDyck · 2003-11-19 05:05:31

I still think that Mars Direct is best done with 4 astronauts. An OSP for ISS should also accommodate 4 astronauts: 3 via Soyuz + 4 via OSP = 7 astronauts/cosmonauts on ISS, the original design crew compliment. 4 astronauts on Mars surface would be twice the number that landed on the Moon with Apollo, and more detailed arguments for 4 Mars astronauts can be found in the book "The Case for Mars". After a permanent base is established we can send 100 colonists at a time, but the first manned explorations must be done with small expeditions. Small is good, small is inexpensive, inexpensive means it will happen, Battlestar Galactica will never happen so let's not creep back toward it.

Josh Cryer · 2003-11-19 05:26:17

Whatever one wants to say about humans colonizing the moon, the robotic colony argument stands a little better; machines don't need life support systems, they can be built to specifically handle the environment they're in. They don't need water (which, if lacking, is a problem for humans).

So if you don't want to or it becomes infeasable to have a human colony on the moon, a machine colony (with a small human crew) could still be quite valuable. You could theoretically manufacture anything you needed on the moon, from satellites to ships. I refer you to the robots thread I'm posting back in right now.

GCNRevenger · 2003-11-19 12:11:46

The trouble with sending small, inexpensive, itty-bitty trips with a minimum of margin anywhere is the risk of any trip anyplace, Moon/Mars/Asteroid even Earth orbit, will turn into a flags & footprints trip that ends after people lose interest before any serious development can begin. Mars Direct/DRM/et al. will simply delay the perminant settlement too long and this drive to space will end.

Let me repeat... no No NO trip anywhere should be soley justified by science. Science can be done with small groups of people and alot of robots, which leaves us stuck on this rock forever. Mars Direct or Nasa's DRM are good enough to answer the questions about life on Mars and basic live-off-the-land chemistry/industry, but the question "then what remains. In order to LIVE any place off this rock, somthing bigger and with far more capability is needed beyond what is required for the science mission.

Instead of starting with the tiny cheap, old-tech, grossly underpowerd concepts that we can build in a decade or two, we should build larger hardware that, let me stress this, stretches our capabilities. A Mars Direct or Semi-Direct just don't do this a whole lot, using classic 1960's rocket or NERVA technology for orbital transfer and traditional "spare every milligram" design philosophy is reliable and quick but leaves us chained to its limitations. Creating a perminant Mars-Direct style base is pretty useless without a BIG increase in flight rate, surface payload, and shorter transit times isn't going to happen. High Isp reuseable transfer vehicles with large payloads are the answer.

If we don't go with a pretty big mission, like a 200-300T class GCNR powerd 6-man crew (with thoughts of a less well equipped 12-man model) with the intent to set up a base first and hunt for Martian life second, then missions like Mars Direct will end with a "okay, theres no life, why should we spend another $3Bn a flight again when there are so many potholes on my freeway?" And I will be dead before we get our act together again. So what if it takes another decade to design and fund?

If we go the Moon, or Mars, or any place with the "science" motive and "science level" technology and hardware there simply won't be enough impetuous to build new equipment for a colony mission after the science mission ends. Build colony-grade hardware, even though it may be on a smaller scale then whats needed, for the science mission in the context of the purpose of a perminant settlement ASAP.

Now about robotic base on the Moon...

The big issue with needing water on the surface is not so much for drinking or oxygen, that can be imported without a huge amount of difficulty, the trouble is getting people and things OFF the Moon. If there is no water on the Moon, then any rockets we want to send off the surface must be powerd from fuel brought DOWN from elsewhere, which dooms any flights off the surface to being small, expensive, and uncommon affairs. The question begs again... why do we want to go to the Moon? There aren't many reasons, either to A: test MANNED technology, or B: to live there. There isn't any mineral wealth worth mining, and I shouldn't have to mention how much better humans are at exploring anyway. A robot base doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

GCNRevenger · 2003-11-19 12:22:52

Ah yes and about OSP... since Congress/et al aren't going to want to spring for a new manned ship for a very long time, we will be stuck with OSP probobly until when we're ready for a Mars mission. I think it would be nice if the entire Mars crew could be ferried up in one shot, with simple economics of scale helping out. One OSP flight with six for ~$150M versus two with three + pilot for ~$300M.

And the ISS... I simply think that we should not rely on Russia for manned trips to the ISS any more than is nessesarry. One ship to get crews to and from and one ship for a lifeboat saves having to spend $30M two or three times a year on Soyuz capsules, when we'll be flying OSP anyway. Adding room for two more seats and another 400-500Kg for passengers just doesn't sound all the difficult to me. If Russia is going to keep flying, then let them switch over to Progress vehicles to ferry up supplies, saving room on the AAS for science racks.

Lastly, I would like to say that small does not, DOES NOT, imply that it will be cheaper. The actual Shuttle Stack sans the cost of processing Shuttle and making the whole thing man-rated, is in fact not that much more expensive than a Delta-IV HLV, yet it can haul five times as much mass.

Tyr · 2003-11-19 12:53:53

We can't get anything done with today's puny boosters. A heavy lifter could orbit bigger space stations, more powerful satellites for truly global, cheap cell phone svc. and mobile TV and net, defense stations, Moon and Mars missions and beyond. Shuttle C looks good, but a stretched Saturn V with SRBs standing 400 feet tall could orbit 200+ tons. See Mark Wade's Astronautix.com The SRBs and 1st stage could parachute back. The 3rd stg. could be cannibalized in LEO. Anyhow, that would put your Mars ship in LEO with one shot! Since the Moon so close, we could explore and industrialize it with robots. As said earlier, robots don't need water, air, food, etc. They don't need rockets for return home either, so robots involve much less mass and lower costs.

Josh Cryer · 2003-11-19 16:14:42

A rail gun can ship anything from the moon to anywhere in Earth orbit, and even most of the Lagrange points. Even then, the Moon has prospects of He3, potentially giving us the ablity to go further if need be (plus there are solar sail and ion technologies that require little to no fuel).

I'm actually not sure of whether or not a rail gun on the moon could ship something to Mars (what kind of velocity are we talking here?), but I'm betting on it being able to get us to a good enough speed so that we can waste less fuel.

Hey, I'm behind the Mars Society completely here, I'd rather go to Mars right now, but I do see benefits with the moon. Especially when it comes to opening a transport corridor.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2003-11-16 23:58:38

Re: The Case for the Moon

#52 2003-11-17 05:03:35

Re: The Case for the Moon

#53 2003-11-17 09:51:47

Re: The Case for the Moon

#54 2003-11-17 12:44:32

Re: The Case for the Moon

#55 2003-11-17 13:04:46

Re: The Case for the Moon

#56 2003-11-17 14:38:36

Re: The Case for the Moon

#57 2003-11-17 16:53:35

Re: The Case for the Moon

#58 2003-11-17 19:27:18

Re: The Case for the Moon

#59 2003-11-17 19:30:44

Re: The Case for the Moon

#60 2003-11-18 04:17:51

Re: The Case for the Moon

#61 2003-11-18 08:52:23

Re: The Case for the Moon

#62 2003-11-18 10:00:13

Re: The Case for the Moon

#63 2003-11-18 10:36:02

Re: The Case for the Moon

#64 2003-11-18 14:05:48

Re: The Case for the Moon

#65 2003-11-18 14:10:36

Re: The Case for the Moon

#66 2003-11-18 14:13:23

Re: The Case for the Moon

#67 2003-11-18 14:23:28

Re: The Case for the Moon

#68 2003-11-18 14:41:00

Re: The Case for the Moon

#69 2003-11-18 22:10:27

Re: The Case for the Moon

#70 2003-11-19 05:05:31

Re: The Case for the Moon

#71 2003-11-19 05:26:17

Re: The Case for the Moon

#72 2003-11-19 12:11:46

Re: The Case for the Moon

#73 2003-11-19 12:22:52

Re: The Case for the Moon

#74 2003-11-19 12:53:53

Re: The Case for the Moon

#75 2003-11-19 16:14:42

Re: The Case for the Moon

Board footer