Slashdot Mirror
Forget Mars. Should We Go To The Moon?
me98411 writes "We have discussed earlier about the President's Commission on Moon, Mars and Beyond and about how a direct trip to Mars is the way to go (or way not to). In a BBC article, the division in the astronomers and space geeks community about the use of the Moon as a base to develop ways to travel to Mars is highlighted. Now, Nature is asking: Should we go back to the moon? Is a manned mission to the moon even necessary?"
This story brings up a good point... I think we should go to the moon... Learn a lot more with todays science applied there.
Just me
It makes sense to test the technology that will be used for more advanced Mars missions. Also, if there is a problem, the chances of being rescued are much greater.
If we go back to the Moon, there's more chance that we can go to stay. Supplying a Moon base will be expensive, but not ridiculously so. It's something that could reasonably be done now, without year-long flight times and teradollar budgets.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
"Many people died colonizing the Americas, but we kept at it until it stuck"
Back when the Americas were colinized death was acceptable where today just 1 death can derail projects. Death is no longer seen as an acceptable loss so safety is something to be taken into high consideration.
"We, as humans, want to learn and explore."
We humans do want to explore but shouldn't we explore what's in our own back yard. This would help us not only learn but let us test our methods before we take a long trek to another planet.
Evolution or ID?
Send orbiters, probes, robots. Make them bigger and more sophisticated as you go along. Send things that take samples and come back. Do this often enough and eventually you reach the limits of what unmanned technology can accomplish, but by then the launching and recovery systems should be so proven and capable that sending a person becomes little more complicated than sending a couple of big packages of instrumentation.
Gradually work towards sending a person and bringing them back by sending lots of expendable things, and bringing them back with stuff for us to study here. Scale up as we go along instead of having one immediate big push. Isn't that sensible?
To the moon and soon. I want to have humans back there before I die.
It makes the most sense. Anything you will use on mars can be tested on the moon or in getting to the moon.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
As in, should another taxpayer funded voyage be made? No. If private industry wants to start, go for it. Want your money to go towards it, buy stock. Let's get the US Government's budget under control and regain the ability to pay for the things we've promised (Social Security for one) before we start talking about funding flights to the moon.
At the bottom of the endless pile of paper work which characterizes all regulation lies a gun.
Alan Greenspan
My personal suspicion is that the moon holds little or no lure for politicians looking to strike awe in media and the public.
Spending billions on a trip to mars sounds new and cool to anyone. While on the other hand spending money on "going back" to the moon might not win any points in the approval ratings.
I might be more cynical than most people, but I still hope that the plans are made with long term thinking, and sciense as motivation rather than just popularity.
I'd like both, but if I had to pick one, I'd have to go with Mars.
Looking at the long-term, the only useful thing on the moon is Helium-3, which will only be useful when commercial fusion reactors come to fruition, and that's been 'just round the corner' since my parents were born.
At least on Mars there is a whole bunch of science to do.
Good, but why bother going to the Moon? Why noth just put your telescopes in Earth orbit, which is cheaper to reach?
If you think launching Shuttles to service Hubble is a burden, well, going to the Moon to repair a telescope there is far more expensive and dangerous.
The best astronomical use for the Moon would be in radio astronomy. Imagine a radio telescope on Farside, listening to the radio sounds of deep space, insulated by thousands of miles of solid moon rock from the cacophony of radio noise generated by Earth...
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Scene 1: The Docks, Palos, Spain, 1492. Typical nautical stuff. Miscellanous crates, ships, sailors, whores. Nina and Pinta at anchor in the background. Enter Arbitrary Actor and Christopher Columbus.
Arbitrary Actor: You know Chris, I can't but think that this whole idea of yours is expensive and dangerous.
Christopher Columbus: Yeah, you're right actually. Sod this, let's go for a pint, someone else'll do it eventually anyway.
America is not "discovered" for another 50 years, the entire course of recent history is changed, you and I probably don't exist.
Scene 2: the African Jungle, shortly before the appearance of proto-hominids. Trees, birds, apes. Probably whores too. Swing in two apes:
Ape 1: You know Ooook, I can't but think that this whole "walking on the ground" idea of yours is expensive and dangerous.
Ape 2: Yeah, you're right Eeek. I don't think I'll bother, someone else will try it sometime.
Our distant ancestors do not descend from teh trees. We're still swinging around in thick jungles going Ooook!
Or put another way: so it is expensive and dangerous. So. Bloody. What? human progress is built on blood, tears and insatiable curiosity. If we can do it now (and we can) why not do it now, while we still have chance.
Going to the moon, and then using it as a launch pad to mars is total bunk. It would be similar to doing a trip 100 miles away by taking the first leg of the trip 3000 miles away and then coming back. The hard part about going to Luna or Mars is getting off this rock. If we use Luna as a launch pad, we will still have to launch from here to there with just about everything, then re-launch it again. Totally F.U.
OTH, it does make sense to use luna for a test bed to build an automated system for building a colony. In particular, we need to build rockets to launch large loads. Likewise, we should send automated systems ahead to carve out a home/cave in the ground for us. Colorado School of Mines was recently given a lasar for drilling in the ground (via the US military). This could be used to literally build several holes in the ground for living in. From there, we can expand easily enough.
Once this is perfected, then send a number of teams to Mars to live out their natural lives. They should be going to colonize the planet rather than plan on going there and coming back. And yes, there are plenty of bright people who would be willing to risk it all for a chance to settle on a new planet.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Contrary Voice: You know Chris, we've invented and tested these amzing new remoted control sailboats. They're unmanned and much less expensive to build, operate and send out than a 3 ship manned voyage.
We'll still be able to get all of the same information as the manned voayge but at much less expense and no risk of death. The only difference is that you won't be able to make any inspiring speeches or hit any golf balls in a new land.
Columbus: Oh, umm...see that doesn't fit my particular..umm..(sidekick: idiom sir)...idiom. It's not nearly as manly, adventurous or cool as sailing there myself. So damn the logic, economics and dangers, I'm going anyway.
---
The point is wether or not space should be explored at all. The question is what is the best way to do it. It's not an either or proposition-manned mission or no exploration at all. For everything we can reasonably expect to accomplish, unmanned probes, rovers or orbital telescopes can give us much more bang for our buck given our current level of technology.
If we can use a scramjet, space elevator or whatever to get to space cheaper we could build a multipurpose interplanetary vessel that we could use for manned missions to Mars, Venus, Europa, Io, the Moon or where ever they decide to send it to explore. In relative safety and comfort instead of a limited cobbled together single use vessel.
You can legislate morally you can't legislate morality
If we could turn a station on the moon into a pseudo-colony, I think that would have some nice potential for space travel and perhaps even more affordable space tourism.
Yeah, "if". But what if it can't be done? There is no chance to make an Antarctic colony, where the conditions still are much more friendly than on Moon. I doubt if there is any chance to make anything colony-like on Moon - there is no serious plan how to make water and oxygen on the lunar desert (not to mention food or anything useful). All we hear are Star Trek-like hypothetical scenarios, that maybe there could be some frozen water. Well, what if there isn't? The comparison of the Lunar colonies and the New World colonies of XVI-XVII century is fundamentally flawed - Columbus did not have to carry oxygen from Spain. Heck, he could even repair his ships from the wood found on the new continent. He arrived into a land where human beings can sustain their own living - it was far from uninhabitable desert that we have on the Moon or Mars. We can't have an underwater colony somewhere in the middle of an ocean. We can't have a colony on Antarctic. What makes anybody think we can have a colony on Moon? Is it just because once there was a TV series about one?
It is important for humanity to colonize other worlds for several reasons. First, it gives a degree of protection from disasters of the sort that killed off the dinosaurs. Right now, we have all our eggs in one basket, ripe for extinction. Second, we can't stay on this planet forever, eventually (in a long long time) the sun will die, with it the capacity to support life on this planet. We may have to leave sooner if, as seems likely, we exhaust the natural resources of our lonely planet. Anything that is inevitable has to be faced, the sooner the better.
The moon is important because it will give us valuable experience in colonizing other worlds, and do so fairly cheaply compared to Mars, Europa, etc. Even if the Moon is a bad site to put telescopes, the knowledge gained by inhabiting another world is irreplaceable. There probably exist problems of colonization that haven't been forseen yet, and the only way to discover these problems is to try to do it. We may lose lives in the process, but that is a small price to pay for the continued survival of the species. I don't think they would have any problems finding volunteers to go, I know I would go in a heartbeat.
I dream of the day when we have colonized all the habitable planets and moons in this solar system, and the debate rages about whether it's worthwhile to invest in colonizing others. Same debate, same short-sighted folks complaining that it's too much money for too little gain.
Personally, while I would love to see mankind returning to the moon and then to Mars, I question the motivation of GWB (aka Chimp Face)
;-)
Maybe I'm just cynical, but to me it's just another huge pork-barrel into which to dump the US taxpayers money to feed greedy defense/military contractors.
Gotta keep the old economy moving
__
Sigs are like arse-holes, everybody has one
It would be better to start getting a sustainable foothold in space, opening up the opportunity to start scooting around the rest of the solar system
We need a small fleet of reusable modular spaceships that can be used for a mission and then can be parked in orbit and replenished to be sent out on future missions. The landing component for Mars and other planets should be the only throwaway component.
The Moon can be a source of materials that are cheaper solely because you don't have boosting the mass into earth orbit.
In the same way, in the long term, a manned subsurface base on Moon is a cheaper option for maintaining the engineering crews and astronauts themselves, between missions.
The low gravity and vacuum in space provides some opportunities for new manufacturing processes, which could also provide a source of revenue for the entire space program.
Asteroids have the potential for providing sources of material for both the new manufacturing processes, creating orbital stations and even new space ships.
1. Scientifically, the Moon as a stepping stone was figurative, not literal. We go to the moon a few times to test the Crew Exploration Vehicle/What Not, to work out the bugs and train astronauts. Then that same rig goes to Mars on the back of Prometheus. The notion of going to the Moon and then launching to Mars with the Moon as a waystation is somewhat implausable, perhaps dumb, imho.
2. We should return to the Moon, and put an outpost there. It will be very, very important in Cold War II.
kulakovich
A base on the moon would be a lab to try out all things nesessary for a functional base anywhere else. Just to test shielding and life support in a different environment from the ISS and improve reliability. This would be reasonably close for safety and replenishment/repair. This is a good idea. No one has any experience colonizing another planet yet and taking baby syeps is a better idea. The launch site idea can be delt with later, but the cost of moving everything to the moon seems prohibative.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Mars is more like the Earth, in that it has atmosphere (and so weather) and would be a better model for eventual off-world colonisation in other solar systems, should that ever be possible.
If a choice had to be made, I would prefer a permanent base on the Moon to a brief visit to Mars. After all, if its turns out that there are enough resources on the Moon to exploit, possibly we could make mass drivers to boost these into Lunar orbit for manufacture of space industries or vessels without the fuel cost of lifting things from the Earth. How about a test space elevator made on the Moon? (I can see the headlines: elevator from nowhere to nowhere!)
Also, what happens if we find life on Mars - even of the simplest form? Could we then exploit the planet in any way that would avoid destroying this?
Yes, I have read a lot of science fiction :-)
Don't go to a brothel if you want to buy broth
Why?
To discover the things that we don't know about living in extraterrestrial environments - BEFORE we strand a group of humans 2 years away from earth.
For example, we have little to no data about the effects of radiation on humans beyond the earth's magnetosphere. This is one of the biggest concerns especially considering most of the proposed trips to mars exceed one year of travel each way. Creating a base on the moon will give us a better idea of the concentrations, and the long term effects of solar radiation on humans.
The moon's low gravity also makes it easier to access. Less fuel is needed to land, and take off.
I think though that the biggest reason for going to the moon first is an old saying "walk before you run". In terms of distance the moon is on average 240,000 miles away from the earth. Nothing really, in the grand scheme of things. If for some reason something went horribly wrong, there would at least be a chance to rectify it, or help. A moon base would be a stones throw away, and with the proper planning the crew of that base could be very safe.
From a scientific perspective examining the individuals that do staff the base will provide vital information about what living in the solar environment is like and how if affects the body. Also, the moon has 17% of the earths gravity, with mars at 38% the moon makes a good environment for training for low gravity.
All in all, I think that we cannot afford NOT to go to the moon first. The moon gives us an opportunity to learn about living in space without the risks of being completly isolated from humanity.
Make no mistake - the moon must be the beginning - and not the end of our future in space!
when you don't quit.
What would you say the feasability of a Mach 3 aircraft that weighs as much as a locomotive is?
Would it surprise you to know the engine was actually built and tested? 500 Megawatt nuclear engine. I believe the kids have a phrase for that kind of thing today. "Damn skippy."
One of the reasons the Russians beat the US into space was we wanted to do something when we got there. They threw up a little ball. We threw up a satellite with a high resolution camera that craped pictures. We have Hubble, SOHO and other toys, they have a front row seat. Even Hubble was a little over ambitious? Remember that the damn mirror was made on earth, and required some specticals.
I say, see about building a bigger Sealaunch and reusable nuclear boosters to go with it.
Lift some gear up there. Maybe enough to make a little foundry, or some automated tools that can make a lunar verision of cement. Put a flag on it, and sign Ferris Buller up as fry cook trainee first class.
The only future for humans in space, until we can live there, is to run experiments that require resperation, fingers, or the repair of complicated machines. I bet you could make silicon waffers like 3 or 4 feet across with the moons gravity. No enviroment to worry about. Lots of Titanium for new lightweight super-alloys that we might find very inventable without an atmosphere of 20% oxygen. Giant mirrors for space telescopes might be not only easier to lift to orbit but easier to make obscenely large. Or we could just make a giant space laser with which to extort money from Tim Robbins.
Nikoli Tesla dreamed big. Didn't achive a lot of what he hoped he might, but the innovations he left in his wake are part of the foundation of our world.
There's NO economic case for mining Helium 3 until there's a working fusion reactor of any kind, much less one designed for H3.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
- Basement geeks
- Thrill seeking, somewhat crazy, adventurers.
Basement geeks only care about the science and are very frightened by the risks. And adventurers have no interest in pictures they want to touch it with there own hands and look back at Earth with there own eyes and say HA! I made it! Eat my shorts space!These two personality types have never really gotten along. I mean, lets be honest. The one group spent their early years giving atomic wedgies to the other. Now that their grown up I don't think either group has fully forgotten that relationship.
I don't think this is an either/or proposition. In the first quest for the moon both personalities were put to use. Both are needed still in my view.
Sorry to sound like a cynic -but I believe the whole 'exploration' Bush proposal to be disingenuous from the start.
He knows good and well that the House and Senate are not going to support it in any way, shape or form. Especially in the current economic climate.
But this allows the shuttle to be grounded and manned space program to be dismantled on the sly without taking the direct political heat.
The bizarre canceling of the Hubble servicing mission it telling. Because of 'safety concerns?' Oh, please.
Servicing the Hubble is too risky -so, like, we're going to go set up less risky bases on the moon and Mars instead?!? Yeh, riiight....
Sorry folks, the shuttle will be grounded after our space station commitment is over. The Bush initiative won't be funded.
The result: Bush can say it wasn't his fault, the shuttle will be canceled (a shuttle follow-on won't be funded either, btw) -and the responsibility for supporting the remaining years of the space station will be shoved onto the Russians.
It's sad -but I fear the days of manned space flight are drawing to an end.
What about scientific progress you say? Well, as it has been pointed out many many times, we can explore the Solar System in a cheaper fashion by sending unmanned probes.
This whole "we need to explore like Columbus and Magellan" bit really smacks of religious zealotry. IMHO of course.
What do the Space Station, the Sea and the Gaza Strip all have in common to answering a desire for a Moon/Mars base?
Well the Space Station is a good example of cost.
If we can't even get it together in orbit at a reasonable price, than why attempt other more distant places?
The Sea is a vast region unexplored.
Take a Google for Palm Island.
If we are not building out into the sea than we certainly have plenty of space to build under it.
Sea Cities should be attempted before Space Cities.
Much of the same problems can be worked out in the ocean and indeed NASA does a lot of practice in water tanks before going live in space.
The Gaza Strip looks a lot like Mars.
Lots of rocks to throw around at each other anyway. My point here is that unless we fix our geo political problems, Mars will become just another sandbox to behave badly in.
He (or rather his scriptwriter) is no more sincere about really mounting such an effort than W's daddy was.
How do you know how sincere Bush I's plans were? AFAIK what killed those plans were the media and the public's reaction to the $400b price tag.
Cancellation of all current space efforts (Shuttle, Hubble, Space Station, many other NASA projects, ASAP).
The cancellation of the shuttle was called for by many space proponents. It is simply not capable of doing what it was designed for, and most missions it carries out can be performed by EELV's. The space station has questionable scientific value. The Hubble was scheduled to be replaced in the 2010's anyway. You can make good arguments for the cancellation of all.
Proof of the plan's vaporware nature is that there was no mention of this "vision" in the State of the Union speech that occurred the very same week.
Where is it stated that every initiative of the president has to be mentioned in the SOTU? How is not mentioning this in the SOTU proof of anything?
GHWB also had a problem with the "vision thing" and came up with similar smoke and mirrors about Mars before his own doomed election effort in 1992. As an indication of his insincerity, he put Dan Quayle in charge of the effort.
Considering the NASA Administrator reports to the Vice President, this should be no surprise. Of course, don't let that stop you from spreading political FUD.
It's not the same thing. Columbus was not running a scientific experiment or a "voyage of exploration." It was a fairly coldly-calculated commercial undertaking, even if a somewhat risky one. He could honestly answer the question by making several points:
Granted, if Columbus had done his sums right on the circumference, he probably would not have made the attempt, as the resulting open-ocean voyage would have been beyond the reach of the technology of the day. As others have pointed out, much of the expense of doing things in space is the cost of getting significant masses as far as LEO. As I have written before, if the government wants to see us make a go of things in space, spend the money to develop cheap ways to get to LEO. If you could get stuff that far for, say, $2 per pound, all kinds of things become quite affordable and practical.
Your point, which I understand better after your follow-up, is that we shouldn't be primarily motivated by the "because-it's-cool" factor, and we might as well let our technology develop to the point where we could go *if* we found a good reason. That's a better argument than just saying "too expensive and too dangerous." The only problems I have with it are 1) the insurance argument and 2) technology will develop much faster with an actual goal (i.e., put humans on the Moon in 10 years) driving it, and might never develop without one.
Your answer to 1) might be that we can't put a number on the risk of sudden extinction, to know whether it would be justified to focus so many resources on the problem. Your answer to 2) might be, what's the point of developing the tech in the first place, if we don't really *need* it?
These points will be debated on Slashdot and elsewhere until that asteroid comes along and squashes us all, I guess.
Things are more like they are now than they ever were before.
Columbus had a viable technological solution at the time.
So did Oook and Eeek.
We. Do. Not.
It's not just expensive. It's really really frickin expensive.
Should we just throw up our hands and give up?
Of course not. But the money should not be spent today on a glory shot. It should be spent on R&D towards developing the technology to make moon and/or mars colonization viable. Technology like:
1. Much much much much much cheaper and reliable launch technology.
2. Faster and better propulsion technology.
3. A more sane life-support technology than "more air tanks".
4. A sane plan for dealing with radiation.
5. Better knowledge and study of how to counter the effects of extended periods in micro/zero/low gravity. - and/or a realistic artificial gravity.
In the 1930's, rocket scientists dreamed of being able to launch things into orbit. But rocket technology simply was not capable of it at that time. There's a HUGE difference between an A-4, and the first orbital-capable rockets. And just because the Germans had an intercontinental bomber drawn up on paper in the early 1940's doesn't mean that it would have worked (it would have burned up and damn quick).
Giving up on X-33 was a bad move towards the above goals.
Giving up on ALL space research, except that which gets us to the moon and mars for the "glory-shot" is a bad move.
Pumping huge sums of money into an ill-advised Missile Defense boondoggle, instead of slow and methodical R&D drive for the above technologies, is another error of colossal proportions.
We were on the wrong track before. But now with the Bush plan, we're nowhere near the right track. A glory-shot is fine and dandy for national pride, but it accomplishes NOTHING if we can't effectively exploit resources on the moon and mars.
If you want to draw up historical parallels, look at the "Native Americans". They crossed over a land bridge, or glaciers from Northeast Asia. And were cut off from their cultural source. Because they did not have the technology to maintain communication and trade contacts. Their "colonization" of the Americas is not regarded as a huge cultural achievement.
There were several anchors, of Chinese design, many hundreds of years old, found off the coast of California. Yet there is no other evidence that they landed, or stayed very long, or settle,d, or colonized. It's little more than an academic curiosity.
Few people know or care about Leif Ericson's settlement in Vineland, in the 10th Century.
Columbus got all the glory. Because HIS journey was feasible. Not only did he GET to the New World, but they were able to build sustainable settlements, colonize, conquer, and prosper. Columbus had ships that were more reliable, protected sailors better in storms, and for longer periods of time, carried more supplies, more cheaply.
The Native Americans, Chinese, and Vikings can brag all they want. But real change resulted from Columbus.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.