New Mars Forums

Mars_B4_Moon

Member

Registered: 2006-03-23

Posts: 9,776

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

Apollo Samples Contain Hydrogen Hurled from the Sun

https://www.universetoday.com/164467/ap … m-the-sun/

Mars_B4_Moon

Member

Registered: 2006-03-23

Posts: 9,776

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

NASA seems to be updating its Moon as a stepping stone to Mars Architecture reports and updating Papers on NASA’s Moon to Mars architecture webpages.”

I don't have time to go through all the sites and read articles or the pdf but maybe someone might keep an eye out or archive anything that pops up?

https://www.nasa.gov/MoonToMarsArchitecture/

Mars_B4_Moon

Member

Registered: 2006-03-23

Posts: 9,776

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

another negative article

'Mars Can Wait. Questions Surround Settlements on Other Worlds'
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti … er-worlds/
By Mikko M. Puumala, Kirsi Lehto & Oskari Sivula

Void

Member

Registered: 2011-12-29

Posts: 7,836

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

It is important to hear other views, but this is again someone who feels that they want to own the human process, or at least it looks that way to me.

To be honest, I am more excited about a machine-like Starship being built, than the actual Mars plan.  The reason is we really could use some space station technology expansions.  And if we have them, it is likely to increase human wealth.  Starship should be very good at contributing to that.

But as an offshoot, deep space missions would likely become possible and with that more discovery.  With more discovery, then more understanding of what subsequent moves could be.

A mission(s) to Mars could involve landing humans or massive probes to do at least some testing prior to human landings.  To me that seems sensible.

As far as planetary contamination goes, a Starship probably would be relatively sterilized.  Most organisms that live in Texas or Florida, are not likely to do well on Mars.  Now if you launched from Antarctica, then the risk would be larger.

We now think there are possibilities for water and needed chemicals to support life on all terrestrial planets, and many icy moons, and even dwarf planets.

I think that a group of slavers, has a foolish desire to disprove God and support atheistic goals by finding life.  But it won't do that, as I could easily say that God made reality so that life can emerge from abiotic situations or God seeded life.

So, that goal is a waste of time.  And it potentially reveals a group of elitist slavers, who want to be given permissions to have godlike authority themselves, and who may not be aware of it may be damaging the evolution of the human race by propagating too many of their kind at the expense of more useful types of peoples.

Those who think that they are the best and the brightest may just be greedy on a genetic level, and unaware of those not like them as for capabilities and gifts.

Done

Last edited by Void (2023-12-09 12:40:28)

---

End

Mars_B4_Moon

Member

Registered: 2006-03-23

Posts: 9,776

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

China could use a foldable helicopter to collect samples on Mars
https://www.space.com/china-mars-helico … collection

NASA’s Moon Race Is Running Late
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 … delay.html

Colonizing Mars could be dangerous and ridiculously expensive. Elon Musk wants to do it anyway
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/colonizing-ma … 42361.html

Some of my thoughts on Moon/Mars or Mars/Moon

Mars might never have super-cities in our lifetime, it could possibly have research towns or small villages but not if all these resources are put to the Moon. We also had many discussion and analogy of military before colonization.

Sometimes we use analogy of the colonial established settlements in the Americas as the mindset that would get people on Mars today. In media and discussions we also are thinking for some reason the Moon must be used as a pit stop a spot to refuel and a stepping stone before going to Mars? However going back to history analogy did European explorers and colonists knowing what was already discovered by the Voyages of Christopher Columbus did they use Svalbard North of the Atlantic country Norway in the Arctic Ocean and build cities on a rock and examine it as an analogy there before they used it as a 'stepping stone' to the Americas. No using a rock in the Ocean with little resources had little to do with going to the Americas, the Portuguese, the Spanish, the British, the French did not think of using a rock with little resources as a pit stop before they build St. John's, Saint Croix Island, Roanoke, Granada, Jamestown, Fort Charlesbourg-Royal, Port of Spain Trinidad And Tobago, Ajacán, Fort Caroline US Florida, Saint Marys Georgia, Saint Augustine Florida, they went direct to the Americas, built colonies in North America. It was not perfect there was conflict with Native Tribes already living in the region and they were not ready for all of the conditions nature would throw at them and not all of these colonies were happy endings but if they had not gone on a direct route and used a series of rocks in the Ocean without resource as a stepping stone pit stop they could have lost even more people.

In a strange way a cancelled mission JIMO to explore the Jupiter system would share more in common with Mars exploration and Mars colonization than the Moon because with Jupiter it required radical new propulsion. Going to the Moon will still require no urgency to develop new technology like 'Nuclear Propulsion', a lot of that Moon stuff can be done by conventional Apollo style rocketry. To use the Moon of Earth as a Mars 'testbed' for building Mars villages or Martian cities always seems wrong, perhaps you should only go to the Moon and build a village to study possible difficulty of living on Mercury or Callisto. The challenge of living on the Moon of Earth seems to share little with Mars other than its close to Earth like Mars is kinda of nearby-ish a world that is sort of 'close' 40 Million miles or 64.3 Million km, Mars is 1.5 AU from the Sun and the typical distance between Earth and Mars is 140 million miles 225 million km so what else can they do? put a power station on the Moon to simulate power stations on Mars, put 40 min delay on signals from the Moon to simulate communication with Mars, all of this can be done on Earth. Electromagnetic radiation or light from the Moon's surface is delayed about 1.3 seconds so talking with the Moon might share more in common with talking with a space station. The Moon is unlike Mars and the Moon appears to have more in common Callisto, Eris, Mercury. The Moon could also share things in common with Oberon, Ceres, Triton, small irregular natural satellites like Namaka or Themisto with similar orbital period and the Asteroids, other worlds where you could have a day weeks long and night hours long and no atmosphere to fly in or to protect against micrometeorites. The Gravity of the Moon is closer to Callisto, Mercury, Pluto, Eris or Triton than it is to Mars. Living on the Moon maybe would help study living on Callisto or Mercury but for Mars you can do all these analogue experiments on Earth and its millions upon millions of Dollars cheaper to run these Mars Analogue experiments on Earth. If they want to use the Moon to set up a low-tech production factory of hardened products and then build mass drivers and railguns shooting payloads to Mars villages to set up some kind of solar system wide economy that's fine and good but you must build your Mars site a Martian village first to have somewhere to deliver product?

Imagine if the Imperial Explorer powers of Europe had decided we all must try to built cities on rocks like Svalbard in the Norwegian archipelago before we build big city places like Houston Texas, Jacksonville Florida, New York City in US, São Paulo in Brazil or Toronto Canada, Buenos Aires Argentina would they still be trying to get a 'Svalbard' super city experiment to work today? Norway a country used to surviving in the Arctic decided not much could be done, it rented out much the island out and the stubborn Russians held onto it after the fall of the Soviet Union and even today are still trying to get the place to give them profit. Insisting that the Earth's Moon can be a stepping stone before Mars is like the Russian insisting it can make industry on 'Svalbard' more economically profitable than industry in the Americas. Yes build a railgun or mass driver on the Moon when you have towns and villages on Mars but do not try to build a propaganda village there, do not make the Moon into a Russian Svalbard, maybe the 'Space Force' or Chinese Militarists have ideas for a Russia style Svalbard on the Moon, Russia perhaps holding onto a rock which allows them to look down into the Atlantic Ocean, a barren rock that people must live on for 'high ground', is that what drives the madness?

"The abandoned Soviet mining town in Norway's Arctic"

https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/2022 … the-arctic

tahanson43206

Moderator

Registered: 2018-04-27

Posts: 19,453

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

For Mars_B4_Moon re #155

Thank you for your thoughtful, interesting and details packed essay!

Your example of a remote island in the far North of Norway is a good one, but I think you may be overlooking a couple of points.

One is that the barren island (the Moon)  is located just off the coast.  It is like Key West, in Florida.

Key West didn't have much going for it until Henry Flagler built a railroad to reach it, and it has been modestly booming ever since.

I think the Moon will be similar.  It will ** always ** be more affordable for vacationers to visit the Moon than Mars, and the attractions of experiencing 1/6 G are going to be compelling.

On the ** other ** hand, the goal of expanding human presence into the Solar System and eventually beyond would be better advanced by working out how to live comfortably on Mars.

I don't see this as an either/or situation. To me this is a both/and situation, with plenty of activity for the forum to track and comment upon in (Earth) years ahead.

(th)

Mars_B4_Moon

Member

Registered: 2006-03-23

Posts: 9,776

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

An English speaking India news site sometimes has a little Hindu Nationalism but can offer a different opinion.

'Artemis 3 Moon mission likely to be delayed until 2027. Here's what stopping NASA'
https://www.republicworld.com/science/a … ping-nasa/

Perhaps of interest on the Moon for its name alone 'Amundsen' and not even considering other 'resources' at the Lunar Southern crater,  carbon dioxide cold traps, where temperatures remain below 60 K (−213 °C; −352 °F), potentially containing solid carbon dioxide. There is also a space rock named, Amundsenia, the Mars-crossing asteroid.

https://phys.org/news/2021-11-carbon-di … -moon.html

NASA plans to land people having a town or village, people arrive on a Moon base at the South a crew near the south pole of the Moon.

SLS seems expensive for the job while Mars is largely rejected, replaced by an ambitious MSR mission that for some reason went out of control and became very expensive.

Mars_B4_Moon

Member

Registered: 2006-03-23

Posts: 9,776

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

Tricky Landing
https://exrocketman.blogspot.com/2024/0 … nding.html

Has the Lunar Gold Rush Begun? Why the First Private Moon Landing Matters
https://singularityhub.com/2024/03/01/h … g-matters/

Mars_B4_Moon

Member

Registered: 2006-03-23

Posts: 9,776

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

Failures from the Russian luna-25 and mixed results from odysseus, slim and yet it was claimed the Moon would be so much easier.

NASA Marks Milestone: Artemis III’s SLS Rocket Core Stage Ready To Conquer the Moon
https://scitechdaily.com/nasa-marks-mil … -the-moon/

Red Planet & Brown Trout
https://literaryreview.co.uk/red-planet-brown-trout
A City on Mars: Can We Settle Space, Should We Settle Space, and Have We Really Thought This Through?
By Kelly and Zach Weinersmith

'Mars crisis'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDh2QTYYA6o

on the Moon some New Spacesuits needed

Apollo Suit
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/apollosuits.html

the islamism jihadi Sharia Law semi-constitutional monarchy UAE is needed for the Airlock, a modified Cygnus technology?
https://twitter.com/SenBillNelson/statu … 2763809906

2022 article

NASA IG Criticizes NASA’s Management of VIPER and Multi-Mission Programs
https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasa … -programs/

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2024-04-13 07:39:11)

Mars_B4_Moon

Member

Registered: 2006-03-23

Posts: 9,776

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

NASA has an Odysee Social Media Channel

'Practicing Artemis Moonwalks in the Desert on This Week'

https://odysee.com/@NASA:88/practicing- … s-in-the:7

Mars_B4_Moon

Member

Registered: 2006-03-23

Posts: 9,776

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

Senate CJS Appropriators See Artemis as Top NASA Priority

https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/sena … -priority/

Mars_B4_Moon

Member

Registered: 2006-03-23

Posts: 9,776

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

ESA and NASA Evaluate Lunar I-Hab Living Conditions

https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/ESA_ … s_999.html

Lunar I-Hab, the next European habitat in lunar orbit as part of the Gateway, has recently undergone critical tests to explore and improve human living conditions inside the space module.