Lots of talk lately concerning the moon

mental_avenger · Jul 27, 2004

Learning to live anywhere besides Earth for long periods of time is going to demand that we learn many new things. Since those things will be so radically different for the Moon or for Mars, one would not act as a “practice” for the other. Antarctica is much more like Mars than the Moon is. Another thing which is important is that private industry is very anxious to get involved in the space program, because private industry is up against the wall here on Earth in trying to make money. Huh? Private industry is making trillions of dollars, and producing more consumer products than ever before. Private industry wants someplace close by where minerals can be found, energy collected and used, and people can live without having to take long, expensive voyages to get to and from where they work. There is a place like that already. It is called Earth. In developing the Moon, we will learn things which will apply almost anywhere we go in the Solar System. There has to be a reason to “develop the Moon”. People cannot just go and “develop” and area. The payback has to be big enough and soon enough for the investors. The Moon certainly has nothing that is economically feasible to use on Earth, and without significant, active, space travel, it has nothing that is economically feasible to be used in space. We are going to have to find products and materials which can be found and /or made in outer space to sell to people who do not go to outer space. That is a loooooong ways down the road. Mars will have a population of millions before that sort of thing becomes even marginally practical or necessary. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Jul 27, 2004

Precisely why the moon needs to be the first step. If we go to Mars immediately it will likely be nothing more than flags and footprints and we'd end up in the same position as after Apollo That rather depends on the missions, doesn’t it? If the missions are to establish a permanent presence on Mars, then your assumption is false. (actually we'd be worse off, since we would not have a real destination). The last time I heard, Mars is quite real. By the time the first manned mission is sent to Mars, a very definite destination on Mars will have been determined. We've been to the moon on the other hand, thus we would not be going there just to go there. On the contrary. The only logical reason for going to the Moon, the political reason that lunatic133 pointed out, is precisely “just to go there”. Another reason to go to the moon first: We have absolutely no experience running a base on another world (I know basic characteristics are not the same, I'm talking simple logistics and procedures); we need to learn how to drive before we fly. Once again, the Moon is so radically different from Mars that the requirements for living there will also be radically different. That changes the logistics considerably. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Jul 27, 2004

(1) Near-Constant Launch Window. Irrelevant if there is no practical reason to go there. (2) Continuous Progress. With Mars, because of the launch once every 2 years restriction, there is a lot of "down time" in which the effort will be out of the public eye. Everything on manned Mars Missions will be “in the public eye”, including daily activities, new discoveries, and tragedies. Considering the radical difference between the two, we could expect far more new discoveries on Mars than on the Moon. (3) Building a Space Industry. IMHO, our goal isn't so much to go somewhere but to build a space industry that can enable us to go somewhere. That is backwards. “Going somewhere” drives the industry that enables the travel. There is simply no way to build the type of infrastructure that economically involves the Moon without an existing active space business. With smaller and more frequent missions, the Moon provides a better opportunity to help these companies develop commercially successful ventures that bring in revenues from a number of sources, not just the government. That might be true if there was a way to use the Moon in that manner. So far, I have not heard a single suggestion that would support that view. (4) Moon Is A More Casual Trip. This is a little more selfish, but I would be willing to spend several years of salary to spend a few days or weeks on the Moon; I would be interested to know what you would find worth that kind of money. The Moon would be an extremely inhospitable place to visit. The one-sixth gravity might be fun for a while, but most of your time would be spent underground. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Jul 27, 2004

Simply rotating a crew will not fly with anyone (including myself), you need to actually do something on Mars. I agree. That is why I hope the PTB realize that the logical thing to do is to establish a base with one of the very first missions, and begin the process of building a self-sufficient colony As soon as can be arranged. (unless you actually plan on building a colony, in which case your costs increase exponentially). Exponentially? Care to provide backup for that statement? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

najab · Jul 27, 2004

>That is why I hope the PTB realize that the logical thing to do is to establish a base with one of the very first missions, and begin the process of building a self-sufficient colony As soon as can be arranged. Ain't gonna happen. Unless you want to put off the initial Mars misisons until 2050+. There simply isn't the political will, the existing (or on-the-horizon) technology base or public support for colonizing Mars and there won't be for quite some time.

scottb50 · Jul 27, 2004

I agree ther is not the political will or public support. I disagree that we don't have the technological base. There is far more of a base than Apollo had when it began and Shuttle had when it began. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mental_avenger · Jul 27, 2004

Please excuse the trite expression, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that it would cost no more to set up a permanent colony on Mars than to ferry everyone back each time. Since it is unlikely that NASA would depend on in situ propellant production, fuel would be shipped along with the astronauts for a return mission. In addition, a return vessel would be required, along with supplies for the return trip. It is unlikely that a crew would be sent to Mars without supplies for an extra two years, even if the plan was to return them to Earth. In case of failure or damage of the return vessel, safety factor would dictate those extra supplies. The bottom line is that the cost of establishing a colony on Mars should just about balance with the money saved by not having regular return missions. If the colony can become self-sufficient, or even partially self-sufficient, the cost of the colony should eventually be less than returning missions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

radarredux · Jul 27, 2004

> While the costs of building and launching the hardware may be high, the fact that the missions are LONG means that over time it could only cost as much as the shuttle would of cost to operate in a similar time span./i> Two points along these lines. In another article I had mentioned that the cost of the rockets were usually the manpower needed to support the effort, not the fuel. The following is a somewhat flippant remark from Peter Diamandis, chairman and CEO of the X Prize Foundation, that is along this line: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />It's the cost of operations that makes the space shuttle cost three-quarters of a billion dollars per launch. Fuel is one percent of the cost. It's the operations that we have to work on,<hr /></blockquote> http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/xprize_spacerace_archive.html On the other hand, the Planetary Society has released their plan and cost estimates for an on-going Mars mission, and they come to the same conclusion you do: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />A Mars Exploration Program starting in 2014, launching a first mission in 2024 and a mission every 26 months thereafter through 2044, is estimated to have a total cost of no more than $129 billion over that period, or about $4.3 billion per year.<hr /></blockquote> http://planetary.org/news/2004/cev-development0722.html In comparison, the NASA's shuttle budget for FY2005 is $4.3 billion, and the combined shuttle, ISS, and flight support is $6.7 billion. http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/index.html

robotical · Jul 28, 2004

Exponentially? Care to provide backup for that statement? Let me see, instead of supporting seven to twenty people you are now supporting one hundred or more (Food can be grown, but manufactured consumables and replacement parts must be shipped). If you're planning to build up the colony population in stages then you simply have the costs of the crew rotation without the return trip (this is before other costs are factored in). To build up an infrastructure for an industrial self-supporting colony (and it must be industrial to be self-supporting, no one is simply going to set up a colony for the sake of the colony) you need a massive amount of material shipped to Mars. If you're planning to use local minerals then you need to ship mining equipment. This would take decades and expenditures reaching well into the hundreds of billions if not trillions. Perhaps you would like to explain how this somehow costs the same as running a seven man base with the same ship? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

halman · Jul 28, 2004

Mental_Avenger, The way that I see it, what we are actually talking about is deciding whether we want to utilize Space, for private industry, or whether we want to go to Mars, with all funding by the government. I am sure that I am talking over most people's heads, but this is difficult to express in simple terms. There are resources on the Moon which can be used to create valuable goods. There are private companies anxious to come up with products which can not be made more cheaply in China, because the Chinese are wiping out the market share of many established companies. Lunar gravity is 1/6 that of Earth's. It is possible to launch mass off of the Moon with magnetic launchers. The gravity on Mars is 1/3 that of Earth's, and Mars has an atmosphere. Getting mass off of Mars will be much more expensive than getting mass off of the Moon. Many people seem to believe that space has no uses, and that orbital factories will never be a reality. If this is true, than manned spaceflight is probably doomed. The only reason that space will be opened up is if there is money to be made there. It doesn't matter if building a colony on Mars would be cheaper than building one on the Moon. If there is no money in it, it ain't gonna happen. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

halman · Jul 28, 2004

Scootb50, Perhaps I am missing something, but it seems to me that creating a base on the Moon is going to require developing most of the things that will be needed for support of manned expeditions anywhere in the Solar System. If we can learn to live on the Moon, than we can live just about anywhere inside the orbit of Jupiter. Some people maintain that there are no useful materials on the Moon. The last that I heard, silica and aluminium were considered useful, and there may even be a use for the oxygen in the regolith. Private industry is very likely to invest in mining regolith, processing it, and launching it off of the Moon, to be used in constructing orbital factories and supplying them with raw materials. All of this activity will create new wealth, which would make affording developing Mars even easier. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

scottb50 · Jul 28, 2004

I agree with you about resources on the Moon, but I think being able to exploit them in a profitable manner is a long way in the future. In the near term a return to the Moon would be concentrated on exploration and experimentation to prove mining techniques as well as the ability to live and work in the environment. The same would hold true for the initial mission, or missions to Mars. What comes into play is the economics, both would be very expensive and supporting both projects would be overwhelming. I think we should concentrate on at least getting to the same level of exploration on Mars before we decide where best to begin. There very possibly could be a more compelling reason to go to Mars and concentrate there, but we won't know until we do it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

najab · Jul 28, 2004

>There very possibly could be a more compelling reason to go to Mars and concentrate there, but we won't know until we do it. That is the first argument I've heard for going to Mars instead of the Moon that makes any sense. I suspect though, that by 2015 or so when the decisions have to be made, we will know Mars in the same or even more detail as we know the Moon - even if only through the eyes of robots.

radarredux · Jul 28, 2004

> by 2015 or so when the decisions have to be made, we will know Mars in the same or even more detail as we know the Moon/i> I have read a number of times that this is already true. With all the flotilla of orbital and landing craft at Mars we have collected a huge amount of data. Meanwhile for the last 32 years I think we have only sent the very inexpensive Lunar Prospector and Clementine probes to collect data about the Moon.

najab · Jul 28, 2004

Don't forget though that, in addition to the 6 manned landings, there were many unmanned missions to the Moon in the 1960's.

orzek · Jul 28, 2004

>I have read a number of times that this is already true. With all the flotilla of orbital and landing craft at Mars we have collected a >huge amount of data. Meanwhile for the last 32 years I think we have only sent the very inexpensive Lunar Prospector and >Clementine probes to collect data about the Moon. Even though the information learnt from mars is impressive and will get better I believe that when humans land on mars only then will we relise how little we know about mars currently. Robots are no substitute for human explorers. We still are not sure whether there is life or water for definite.

scottb50 · Jul 28, 2004

Very true, and humans allow the flexibility to cover a vast array of research and modify the tests as needed. Even with transportation similar to the Moon Buggies humans would have covered ten times the area the MERS have in a lot less time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

orzek · Jul 28, 2004

You can not learn to run without learning to walk. People who argue for mars directly make too many assumptions that everything will work out without a hitch! The distance and difficulty make it a certainty that something will go wrong sometime. Going to the moon and learning to create colonies and an infrastructure there lowers the risk for when man ventures further out. One needs to build the basic building blocks and not go for glory. Even though the cost might seem similar for both moon and mars it only seems that way if the purpose to going to mars is for a flag and glory mission. A long term colony would change the economics and costs to mars would spiral out of sight compared to the moon. The distance would make a colony on mars vulnerable to failure if anything critical doesn't go to plan like maintaning supplies to mars. One needs to create an infrastructure to enable one to support colonies further afield and the best place to start is on the moon because supporting a colony on the moon from earth is easier in the long term than supporting a colony on mars from earth.

radarredux · Jul 28, 2004

> Very true, and humans allow the flexibility to cover a vast array of research and modify the tests as needed. Even with transportation similar to the Moon Buggies humans would have covered ten times the area the MERS have in a lot less time./i> I agree that humans are more flexible than robots and hold many advantages, but we must be careful with our comparisons. A couple of things to keep in mind: (1) The two MERS cost only $820 million, close to the cost of a single shuttle launch. (2) Of that $820, approximately $645 was in development costs and only $175 million was needed to launch, operate, and perform the science. That puts the rover price tag at about $87.5 million per rover. (3) Given those figures, for the budget of a single year of shuttle operations (about $4.3 billion) we could send 49 MER rovers to Mars! I think we could get a lot of science done with that. (4) Given that we won't land humans on Mars for at least 10 years, applying the shuttle budget to MER rovers would give us close to 500 rover landing during that same period of time. Add in economy of scales you would get with production rates that large, the continuing increase in capabilities for computers, software/algorithms, and general robotics over a decade (think what your PC or game machine could do 10 years ago), gradual improvements and swapping out of science instruments, and you are talking mega science!

mikejz · Jul 28, 2004

It seems to me that any plans 15+ years out should start to look at private orbital missions as being a reality.

mental_avenger · Jul 28, 2004

You can not learn to run without learning to walk. Irrelevant analogy. We have walked, trotted, and run already. People who argue for mars directly make too many assumptions that everything will work out without a hitch! Would you like to point out those people, I have never heard from them or about them before. Please provide links or quotes. The distance and difficulty make it a certainty that something will go wrong sometime. Distance and difficulty make no such “certainty”. Properly planned and properly prepared, things might go perfectly. Going to the moon and learning to create colonies and an infrastructure there lowers the risk for when man ventures further out. No it does not. If there was a catastrophic failure on the Moon, people would die as certainly as they would on Mars. Since the Moon is so radically different from Mars, the Moon is NOT the place to prepare for Mars. Devon Island, Antarctica, and sites in the Andes are much more similar to Mars, and would be the proper testing ground for manned missions to Mars. I have seen the argument about needing the lack of atmosphere on the Moon to “properly test” equipment. That argument does not wash. Unlike Devon Island, failures on the Moon would result in dead people. We don’t need to test for air-tight seals, we already have that technology down very solid. Between our Submarine Service, and our Space program, that has already been covered. Bottom line, there is no advantage to testing equipment, habitats, or procedures on the Moon, and there is a great deal of unnecessary danger. In addition, such testing would cost thousands of times more than appropriate places on Earth, and take much much longer. One needs to crea <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

radarredux · Jul 29, 2004

>> People who argue for mars directly make too many assumptions that everything will work out without a hitch! /> Would you like to point out those people, I have never heard from them or about them before. Please provide links or quotes./i> I think it is implicit in the discussions, as it is with completing the ISS by 2010 and other efforts. My concern would be holding the public's attention (or more specifically, keeping Congress funding the effort) with nearly a 4 1/2 year downtime between missions if something causes us to miss a launch window. />> Going to the moon and learning to create colonies and an infrastructure there lowers the risk for when man ventures further out. /> No it does not. If there was a catastrophic failure on the Moon, people would die as certainly as they would on Mars./i> It depends on the failure. For example, an Apollo 13 type failure, where make-shift solutions worked for a short period of time, would be fatal on a Mars mission.

mental_avenger · Jul 29, 2004

Redux says: I think it [everything working without a hitch] is implicit in the discussions I don’t see that at all. I don’t see where anyone has implied any such thing. Would please provide links or quotes? Redux says: It depends on the failure. That was not the point I was making. You took the quote out of context, so your response is invalid. The point I was making is that ”Going to the moon and learning to create colonies and an infrastructure there [to] lower the risk for when man ventures further out.” is not a practical way to proceed, when there are places here on Earth that more closely resemble the conditions on Mars, and which will be much safer, cheaper, and faster for development. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Jul 29, 2004

kadetken says: The point that's largely being missed here is that there's more to space than just our Moon or just Mars. I don’t see that as a point being missed, but rather a point that is not relevant to a discussion about colonizing another planet. kadetken says: The point of going to the Moon is not just to prepare for Mars, but also as a place to help develop our cislunar infrastructure. Infrastructure will be developed as a particular need arises. Even then, such infrastructure must be both practical AND affordable. Infrastructure of the kind you advocate will never be built in anticipation that it will eventually be used, and might (or might not) pay back within a reasonable time. kadetken says: If XM Satellite had the options of spending $50Mn to send someone to go fix their existing satellites or spend $250Mn to build a new one don't you think they'd at least consider the first (especially under strong pressure from the insurance companies). Not if they also had to fund the billions of dollars for the set-up to have that option. By the time you amortize the construction, maintenance, and operating costs of such an infrastructure over the number of times it is used, you may find your $50 million is more like $500 million. kadetken says: There's commerce and industry to be done between here and our Moon and THAT's why the Moon is a valuable destination. There may be, far in the future, but there is no such commerce and industry now. kadetken says: When we get around to building Solar Power Sats I actually advocated SPS years ago, but that was before I studied the inherent problems. I seriously doubt that SPS will ever be built and operated. kadetken says: <f></f> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

lunatic133 · Jul 29, 2004

This moon-related article from space.com is pretty interesting -- http://www.space.com/news/rtm_nasa_040728.html Of course if that doesn't convince you then this surely will <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> http://www.rathergood.com/moon_song/ (sorry, I couldn't resist)

Lots of talk lately concerning the moon

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

najab

Guest

scottb50

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

radarredux

Guest

robotical

Guest

halman

Guest

halman

Guest

scottb50

Guest

najab

Guest

radarredux

Guest

najab

Guest

orzek

Guest

scottb50

Guest

orzek

Guest

radarredux

Guest

mikejz

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

radarredux

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

lunatic133

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page