Moon vs. Mars - Luna is stealing the interest of science

Mark S · 2002-09-23 21:54:30

In the "human missions" section, we have sparred many times over the issue of Moon vs. Mars. But the same debate has raged in the scientific community and it looks like the Moon has won. NASA has put a lunar sample return on its wish list, while Japan and the ESA have plans for more lunar probes. Space.com just ran an article that even mentions the possibility of a human lunar return (although it's been so long since Apollo that it will be just as hard to return as it was the first time around.)

Adrian · 2002-09-24 04:45:38

Here's a link to the story at Space.com. I'm a little ambivalent about the whole issue. While I'll concede that there is useful science to be done on the Moon, and that it will certainly be cheaper and easier to land probes and humans there, I'd take issue with the impression given by many pro-Moon people, namely that the Moon is just as good a place to explore as Mars is.

I don't think that that is true in any respect; aside from the issue of life on Mars (which is a big enough subject to warrant significant exploration), we are more likely to learn about our solar system, the formation of planets and so on from Mars than from the Moon.

Plus, I hear a lot about how the Moon has 'huge amounts' of fuel resources, e.g. water. Is this even true? I recall reading about how the amount of lunar ice is less than first predicted. I don't have to tell you guys about how there's pretty much nothing of material use on the Moon - the place is absurdly hostile for prolonged human habitation compared to Mars.

An ideal crew touchdown locale, Spudis added, is the rim of Shakleton crater near the Moon's South Pole. This setting is bathed in near-constant sunlight. Yet the site is close to sizable deposits of possible water ice tucked away in always-shadowed craters.
"I think it's the most valuable piece of real estate in the solar system," Spudis said. "This is the place to put the lunar base."

You've got to be joking me! Aside from the fact that probably New York is the most valuable piece of real estate in the solar system, I think of many better places that would be more valuable outside of Earth - if we're talking about money then I'd say a base on some metal asteroid or a carbonaceous chondrite would blow away any place on the Moon. The two virtues that Spudis mentions above - light and water - are almost the *only* two virtues that his proposed site has.

Don't get me wrong, I would like to see more research being done on the Moon. What I don't like is this misrepresentation of exactly how useful Lunar exploration is compared with asteroid or Mars exploration.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-09-24 05:16:53

Maybe it's a cop out.
For NASA, it's perhaps becoming obvious that people are starting to really question its raison d'etre. You know ... the old: "Not LEO again! ... Wake me if anything EXCITING happens!!"
So what can they do? Simple. Send some humans beyond Low Earth Orbit, of course. Where? Well ... there's either the Moon or Mars.
Which is cheaper? .....

Who's running NASA these days? Oh yeh ... an accountant!!

Phobos · 2002-09-24 21:47:09

I believe we should put more priority on sending people to Mars simply because in the long run Mars will likely prove more valuable to us than the Moon. Of course I have nothing against going back to the Moon, but it just doesn't have the potential for both science and colonization that Mars does.

clark · 2002-09-25 08:04:06

Maybe it's just me, but it seems that everything that would be neccessary to place a human presence on the moon can be translated and used for mars exploration and colonization.

If we accept that Mars offers more in the way of long term advantages for colonization than the moon, the reality of that truth would be made more than apparent after we have a base on the moon. It's a lot easier to have someone on the ground, looking at what is actually available for use (not what the satellites say is there based on spectographica analysis). However, the advantage of going to the moon is that it acts as a test-bed for all of the new technology that has to be developed to make humans to mars possible.

Think of it as Mars lite- all the experience in exploration and living in space, with none of the worries about wether or not we should, or how we should colonize it. After all, the moon is a desolate place that really isn't conducive to colonization- at least not compared to Mars.

The problem as i see it though with going straight for Mars is that we increase the chance that we may fail in our ultimate goal. When we go, we want to be as sure as possible that it will work- that we can live there- spending 20-50 billion to find out that we can't really colonize space, or we fail from a lack of experience in long stint space exploration- we lose all of the resources and probably set back the "mars program" decades.

Look how the challenger explosion affected the space program.

The fact of the matter is that we are decades away from even considering sending someone to Mars for basic exploration. Can the same truly be said for the moon? Wouldn't it make sense to start developing the space infrastructure neccessary for Mars? Even doing that, it would still take time before we had everything read- in the mean time though we could utilize the moon and learn valuable lessons that would help us achieve humans to mars

Phobos · 2002-09-25 18:44:22

Maybe it's just me, but it seems that everything that would be neccessary to place a human presence on the moon can be translated and used for mars exploration and colonization.

Not necessarily. The environmental conditions on Mars are far different than those on the Moon. Sure, going to the moon is good in its own right, but we dont need to go there in order to pull off a Mars mission. After all we can test the equipment used for a manned Mars mission on Earth the same way we would test equipment used for a manned presence on the Moon (actually a lot of the more experimental technology we'd use for Mars like fuel generators would be absolutely useless on the moon anyhow.) And there's already ample data on the psychological and other human factors concerns that could come into play during a Mars mission. Of course if we decide to go back to the Moon it could make a nice proving ground in some areas, but I don't think we should go to the moon soley to test out methods for living on Mars.

Number04 · 2002-09-26 19:41:28

But there is no reason we can't do them both. Don't put all your eggs in one basket as it were. I think both missions could feed off each other. I for one am not thinking of mars as a mission, rather, a new place to live.

TJohn · 2002-09-27 11:57:42

I feel that a permanent settlement on the moon will be a waste of money and time. Don't get me wrong, I know that we will accomplish a lot of issues, I feel that Mars is the way to go. I'm not a genius or anything but wouldn't you have to build thicker materials for shelter and spacesuits? To me, that would cause an increase in payloads and that in turn causes and increase in funds.

Josh Cryer · 2002-09-27 15:27:07

Adrian, I agree with you, for the most part. But what I think he means, is that if you control a moon base, you arguably control access to more important, physical resources. If I control all the technology related to a moon base, and access to any resources steming from that technology, I can dictate price as well as I please.

It's so true, it's scary. How hard would it be for some other nation to control access to all moon base resources? No harder than it is for countries to control oil, for the most part. But he's not talking about raw resources, he's talking technology and a certain space infrastructure in general. He's talking about closed, proprietary, information and access. (Which I don't think will work, but you know me.)

But I suspect, since such a base would be controlled by a corporation,and have profit motives, and so on, it will never have the capacity for self sufficiency. None of us interested in space colonization should care about such a base beyond the benefits it could give to space flight in general. Technologically, it only helps colonization (both to Luna and Mars) from a transport perspective, no more. Or at least that's how I see it.

clark, you're right that we could probably adapt Luna technology to Mars. But there really is no reason to use Luna as a test-bed once we have some relatively cheap vehicle.

I suspect that by the time Luna becomes a viable place to visit, people will be pushing extra hard to get to Mars- Mars has a lot more resources, which are much easier to acquire- so it wouldn't surprise me if Terran-Martians are greater in number than humans who wish to colonize Luna. And let's not forget that it's a lot easier to simulate a capiatalistic economy with regards to Luna than it is Mars.

Ian · 2004-03-09 10:42:15

I don't know whether or not Bush is just doing this moon thing because of politics and votes. I would like to know everyone's opinions about this issue.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-09-23 21:54:30

Re: Moon vs. Mars - Luna is stealing the interest of science

#2 2002-09-24 04:45:38

Re: Moon vs. Mars - Luna is stealing the interest of science

#3 2002-09-24 05:16:53

Re: Moon vs. Mars - Luna is stealing the interest of science

#4 2002-09-24 21:47:09

Re: Moon vs. Mars - Luna is stealing the interest of science

#5 2002-09-25 08:04:06

Re: Moon vs. Mars - Luna is stealing the interest of science

#6 2002-09-25 18:44:22

Re: Moon vs. Mars - Luna is stealing the interest of science

#7 2002-09-26 19:41:28

Re: Moon vs. Mars - Luna is stealing the interest of science

#8 2002-09-27 11:57:42

Re: Moon vs. Mars - Luna is stealing the interest of science

#9 2002-09-27 15:27:07

Re: Moon vs. Mars - Luna is stealing the interest of science

#10 2004-03-09 10:42:15

Re: Moon vs. Mars - Luna is stealing the interest of science

Board footer