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?"
You're old school? I beta tested the motherf***ing abacus!
Doesn't this, in a way, come down to an issue of long-term goals for space exploration? The costs of putting up a station of sorts on the moon would no doubt be immensely costly. If we just plan to run a few missions to Mars, it really doesn't seem very cost-effective. If someone has solid numbers I'd like to see how the distance moon/Earth would be to further planets such as Jupiter or Neptune. Also how big of a factor is the gravity difference in the long run for travel. 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.
( o ) one could say I'm rather baked
Should we go to the moon: No. It is expensive and dangerous.
A more realistic question should be will we go back to the moon: Yes we will eventually.
People like to explore. Many people died colonizing the Americas, but we kept at it until it stuck. The moon is just the next step in this process. We, as humans, want to learn and explore. We want to go to the moon and to Mars. Because we want to we will eventually.
There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's getting caught where the trouble lies.
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.
Should we go back to the moon?
Only if they can use the old sets. I don't think we should spend any money on new movie sets.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Yes, going to the moon would be nice and if we mine it for hydrogen-3 it will also be profitable.
"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?
I imagine a scenario were unmanned ships send a lot of bits on successive low cost missions, and then astronauts go to set up and service the kit.
I'm ignorant on these matters, but it would appear to be to be much easier to set up kit on the moon than it is floating in space on a shuttle lifeline.
And if you thought that was boring you obviously havn't read my Journal ;-)
Apollo astronaut Harrison Schmitt had a wonderful editorial in Aviation Week and Space Technology a couple of weeks ago, which is similar to this testimony before Congress. In it he laid out an arguably sound economic case for mounting a large-scale mission to the moon to mine Helium 3.
Helium 3 is present in abundance on the moon, and on a per-pound basis could be one of the most valuable substances there is. Assuming that one really could catalyze nuclear fusion in power reactors using Helium 3, it could have profound implications -- allowing us to move beyond hydrocarbon fossil fuels (although, ironically, you'd still need those fuels to power the rockets to the moon.)
I'd seen pie-eyed schemes for going to the moon for the Helium 3 before, but Schmitt really tries to nail it down, and answer most obvious criticisms. It's definitely worth a read.
Thad Beier
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
Actually, conditions being what they are on the two bodies, and technology being what it is today, it's actually *easier* to get to the surface of Mars than the surface of the Moon (from LEO, it's 4.5 km/s Delta-V for Mars vs. 6.0 km/s for the Moon), and Mars is a safer place once you're there.
Just a shameless plug really, since I wrote it, but everyone here ought to check out The Mars Society FAQ. Lots of good info on this topic, verified by Dr. Robert Zubrin himself.
How To Get Humans To Mars
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.
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.
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!
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.
Bush, a chip off the old block, is a proven liar and doesn't deserve a second chance. Twelve more soldiers killed today. He should be indicted.
You seem to be under the impression that the moon's spin is locked relative to the sun so that the sun never rises or sets. That's not true. The moon is locked relative to its orbit around the Earth. The moon's "day" is approximately one month long: two weeks of sunlight followed by two weeks of darkness.
This would cause big logistical problems and huge temperature swings for a moon base.
The short, glib answer is: because Mars rockets don't grow on the moon.
The cost and effort to build a moon base which can support humans long-term is already pretty high. Then you have to build facilities for building and launching Mars missions. Unless you want the additional cost of lifting raw materials to the moon for manufacture (or even just basic parts for lunar assembly), you also have to come up with equipment and processing infrastructure to use the raw materials up there -- and even then, probably only a fraction of necessary materials are realistically accessible.
So before you've even launched your first Mars mission from the moon, you're already mired in this enormous project just to make the moon useful for that task.
By a HUGE margin, it would be easier to just use existing Earthside resources, manufacturing infrastructure, and launch facilities to go straight to Mars.
I also believe there are good reasons from the orbital mechanics perspective to go straight from Earth, but I forget the details.
Read Robert Zubrin's book "The Case for Mars" for a great detailed discussion of this exact subject.
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
Actually, Zubrin has you covered there, too. I probably won't do his plan justice with my summary (after all, he wrote a whole book on it), but off the top of my head, here are several safety factors he described.
First of all, his plan involves sending as much as possible ahead of the manned mission. Beyond the obvious launch of critical supplies, he describes a very cheap system for generating huge amounts of fuel using the Martian atmosphere. On top of that, we'd send the RETURN vehicle to the surface ahead of a manned mission.
That means you know in advance that you have a return vehicle and fuel already waiting for you -- before you even leave.
Second, the most optimal trajectory for a Mars mission automatically results in a "free return trajectory" -- which means if something goes wrong, the ship will automatically slingshot around Mars and return to Earth, without any fuel usage or other manuvering input from the crew whatsoever.
That means the main risks are surviving space itself (radiation, lack of gravity, isolation psychology), landing (this will remain high risk for a long time to come), and living in the relatively harsh Mars environment until the return launch window opens. (I no longer remember the numbers, but that isn't a terribly long wait.) Of those risks, only the last one requires much from a technological development perspective, and we can learn a lot from a very relevant example of survival under similarly extreme conditions: long term nuclear submarine missions.
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005