You are not logged in.
Some things you'd test on Earth, some on the moon, some on both. It's probably easier to test pressurized things on the moon, and definitely rocket engines. You'd want to test some things in a vacuum, too (which is closer to Martian ambient pressure in terms of degassing).
-- RobS
Offline
It is a lot easier to build a vaccume chamber on Earth than it is to send hardware to the moon.
Offline
If it fails on the Moon, how is that different to it failing on Mars? If it fails on the moon then you have taken precatuions to deal with that eventuality. Why not take the same precautions on MARS?!?!?!
If you are testing structures then a pass on the moon means nothing. It means the structure can handle half the gravity that it needs to.
If you REALLY need a true vacuum to test (and double external pressure won't work for some reason) then test the technology in LEO.
Nearly everything can be rated for Mars while still on Earth.
BTW how did we get away form hanging out in the ISS?
Could Artificial gravity be testing in something like a hardcore carnival ride?
What if you built one of them high speed donuts that generate 3g's and engineered it to run continuously for 1-6 months. Put a dood in it and viola... you know how badly their ears freak out.
And you didn't spend 800 million doing it.
Come on to the Future
Offline
Basically:
Earth can simulate Mars fairly well and has minimum transport cost.
Mars simulates Mars the best and has a medium transport cost.
The Moon simulates Mars the worst and has the highest transport cost.
The Moon is not a stepping stone to Mars.
Offline
No, because they would be small enough and over-engineered enough that they would do just fine with Earth's gravity.
No, I assure you they won't. It'd be a tremendous waste of weight (the Apollo LEM wouldn't have held up in terrestrial gravity). Martian structures will be reinforced for safety, but we're talking about maybe a +15-30% max increase in structural stability, not the +250-350% you'd need for it to hold up for landing on earth. That much structural mass would be way overkill, and likely mean doubling the mass of the hab and erv
Offline
For something of the size we would be sending to Mars, the force of air pressure should be much larger than the force of gravity. Also the forces during takeoff and landing would be greater than the force of gravity. So if the hab and erv can withstand all of those forces safely, they should be able to withstand Earth's gravity.
Offline
Assuming transport costs are the same, why would you test Mars hardware on the moon? Why would you send something that needs testing of the planet? If you need to rely on it and you can't trust it, the you can't leave leo in it.
If you don't need to rely on it, then why wwaste a whole mission testing it? Take it to mars and if it works, it works, and if it doesn't, hey spare parts!
Come on to the Future
Offline
There are a lot of experts who say things should be tested on the moon. I am not altogether sure why, but I also know they aren't idiots and they don't seem to have axes to grind. Even Zubrin has said the moon can be a useful testing ground.
I think part of the answer has to do with putting everything in a big low-gravity vacuum environment. On the moon, you can place regolith bags on things to stress them the same as they would be on Mars. And the astronauts would experience walking, having to fix little things outside in spacesuits, and other tasks that aren't the same on Earth or in orbit. The moon isn't the same as Mars, yes, but it's only a three day flight away. A Mars training mission to the moon could easily be set up a kilometer from a permanent moon base, so rescue is only a few minutes away.
There are political reasons to do the moon, too. It has a big lobby. Mars people tend to have an emotional attachment to Mars and often an emotional revulsion to the moon. Moon people often feel the opposite. But looking at the matter scientifically, both bodies will play a role in the future of humanity. They both have something to tell us about the Earth: about the origin and development of Earth, the rise of life, the origin of the solar system, possibly even our future. We need to do both.
-- RobS
Offline
Assembling timeline
http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/eng/iss/assembly/default.asp
NASA ends ISS spacewalk ban
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/20 … 600757.htm
Brazil's astronaut program awaits decision on ISS
08:30
Juliana Andrade
Reporter - Agência Brasil
http://internacional.radiobras.gov.br/i … &editoria=
Brasília - The president of Brazil's Space Agency (Agência Espacial Brasileira) (AEB), Sergio Gaudenzi, says the country's astronaut training program is presently at a standstill as everybody awaits a decision by the US and the European Union on the future of the International Space Station (ISS). Sixteen countries are involved in the ISS scientific project (Russia, Japan, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, England, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Norway, Holland, Spain, Brazil and the United States).
"The ISS project is very expensive. France and Germany have started questioning its usefulness and pointing to problems, such as the fact that many experiments can be done without the ISS, and that it is too close to Earth (400 kilometers) to be a stepping stone to outer space missions," explains Gaudenzi.
Offline