Yep. Doesn't anyone remember the parachutes on the Lunar Module? You could see them on TV after the landings, drapped over the rocks and flapping gently in the breeze.
Hi AC.
It is certainly true that it takes far less time to reach the Moon than Mars, but this, along with the short communications time lag, are almost the only advantages possessed by the Moon. They are overwhelmingly offset by the Moon's DISadvantages, some of which are:
The propulsion requirements for sending a payload to the Lunar surface are higher than for the Martian surface.
Approximatly half of the commonly used industrial metals are absent from the Moon's regolith.
Plastics cannot be manufactured from the Moon's natural resources.
Crops cannot be grown on the Moon, at least not without a massive infrastructure for their protection, including powerful artificial lighting needed to keep them alive during the fortnight-long night.
Even with the metals that are present, the moon lacks ready supplies of carbon needed for the smelting process.
From memory, the figures for the round-trip in Zubrin's scenario are:
Six months to get there, one and a half years on the surface, and six months to get back to Earth, making for a total mission time of roughly two and a half years.
The time spent in space if the free-return option has to be invoked varies depending on what sort of outgoing trajectory is chosen. It is possible to use a little extra fuel to get to Mars a bit quicker, but pouring on the gas means that the aerobraking system is subjected to much greater stress on arrival at Mars. The extra velocity also means that the free-return trajectory will loop further out from the sun, thus increasing the time taken to return to Earth. The optimal trajectory gives a six month flight to Mars with a two year (total time in space) free return to Earth.
The Moon is roughly 1/80th the mass of the Earth. The surface accelleration due to gravity there is 1/6th that of earth because the moon is smaller, so the surface is closer to the centre.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. Doesn't anyone remember the parachutes on the Lunar Module? You could see them on TV after the landings, drapped over the rocks and flapping gently in the breeze.
Hi AC. It is certainly true that it takes far less time to reach the Moon than Mars, but this, along with the short communications time lag, are almost the only advantages possessed by the Moon. They are overwhelmingly offset by the Moon's DISadvantages, some of which are: The propulsion requirements for sending a payload to the Lunar surface are higher than for the Martian surface. Approximatly half of the commonly used industrial metals are absent from the Moon's regolith. Plastics cannot be manufactured from the Moon's natural resources. Crops cannot be grown on the Moon, at least not without a massive infrastructure for their protection, including powerful artificial lighting needed to keep them alive during the fortnight-long night. Even with the metals that are present, the moon lacks ready supplies of carbon needed for the smelting process.
From memory, the figures for the round-trip in Zubrin's scenario are: Six months to get there, one and a half years on the surface, and six months to get back to Earth, making for a total mission time of roughly two and a half years. The time spent in space if the free-return option has to be invoked varies depending on what sort of outgoing trajectory is chosen. It is possible to use a little extra fuel to get to Mars a bit quicker, but pouring on the gas means that the aerobraking system is subjected to much greater stress on arrival at Mars. The extra velocity also means that the free-return trajectory will loop further out from the sun, thus increasing the time taken to return to Earth. The optimal trajectory gives a six month flight to Mars with a two year (total time in space) free return to Earth.
The Moon is roughly 1/80th the mass of the Earth. The surface accelleration due to gravity there is 1/6th that of earth because the moon is smaller, so the surface is closer to the centre.