Lots of talk lately concerning the moon

mental_avenger · Jul 29, 2004

The article doesn’t say anything new, and presents a poor case for the Moon to boot. They allude to the Moon being a refuge in case of a global catastrophe (large asteroid or super volcano) but ignore the fact that it would be virtually impossible to create a self-sufficient colony of humans on the Moon (unlike Mars). They do mentions telescopes, which will probably be the main attraction of the Moon. However, most of the action will be remotely controlled from Earth, and the images sent to Earth computers to analyze and reformat. They allude to a “celestial light and power company”, but ignore the impracticality of it. They contend that Mars advocates are afraid that once we are on the Moon, Mars will be forgotten. I have never heard of anyone who believes that. A telling statement on the lack of critical thinking is summed up in this statement: ” "Is there money to be made in the future? I don't have a clue, frankly," Stadd said, but applauded the handful of entrepreneurs who are privately footing the bill on space projects.”. And then there are unsupported, off the wall, meaningless statements like: ” "I believe we're in a 'space race'", Young said. "By going back to the Moon and developing the technologies we need to live and work on the Moon, we'll protect the people of the future," he said.” Huh? Thanks for the link, but I did not find a single relevant bit of information in that entire article. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mrmorris · Jul 29, 2004

"If there was a catastrophic failure on the Moon, people would die as certainly as they would on Mars. " Catastrophic failures -- like the habitat explosively decompressing? Yep. Everyone is dead, be it the moon, Mars, ISS, the shuttle, anything. However -- there's a whole range of failures that are deadly, but take some time to run their course. There's a little example called Apollo 13. Also there have been several equipment failures on the ISS that would eventually have been deadly had there been no help nearby (or means of escape). The Progress crash on Mir *nearly* caused an evac. For a Lunar base -- there's help nearby in the event of *multiple* failure types that give a window of opportunity to recover. Astronauts on the moon will always have the ability to come home in the event of a need to evacuate the base -- no need to wait for a launch window. Claiming that the risks for a lunar base are even close to those of a comparable Mars mission is just plain wrong. "Since the Moon is so radically different from Mars, the Moon is NOT the place to prepare for Mars. " OK -- so what do we need to have a colony on the moon? 1. A pressurized habitat with radiation protection and environmental systems able to handle temperature extremes efficiently. 2. A means to *very efficiently* recycle oxygen, water, food, wastes. 3. Space suits designed for long-term use and maximum flexibility/mobility. 4. A reliable energy source and storage system. 5. Equipment/automated factories that produce consumables (air water) from local materials. 6. Reliable transportation -- preferably pressurized for long-term expeditions. I'm probably missing a good bit -- but let's switch to Mars. What do we need for an outpost there? 1. A pressurized habitat with radiation protection and environmental s

mental_avenger · Jul 29, 2004

mrmorris says: Claiming that the risks for a lunar base are even close to those of a comparable Mars mission is just plain wrong. So you also are having problems reading and comprehending. That was not the point. Read it again. mrmorris says: 1. A pressurized habitat with radiation protection and environmental systems able to handle temperature extremes efficiently. Major difference. The temperature on the Moon can swing from -233°F to +212°F, and stay that way for 14 days. Mars on the other hand has average temperatures similar to some colder areas on Earth, and no such extremes (in the middle latitudes). In fact, during the winter, it is often colder here in Wyoming than on Mars. In addition, a lunar habitat would also be required to withstand micro-meteor impacts, whereas the Martian atmosphere burns up those small high-speed grains. mrmorris says: 2. A means to *very efficiently* recycle oxygen, water, food, wastes. Rather irrelevant, since that applies to any place off-Earth. However, the relatively abundant water on Mars will help reduce water recycling needs. mrmorris says: 3. Space suits designed for long-term use and maximum flexibility/mobility. Major difference. Lunar suits would require a great deal of shielding and high-capacity heating and cooling systems. They would be bulky and awkward. Surface suits on Mars might well consist of tight-fitting suit with attached helmet for breathing. Insulated coveralls can be put on over this for colder days. mrmorris says: 4. A reliable energy source and storage system. Again, this applies to any place off-Earth. mrmorris says: 5. Equipment/automated factories that produce <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

robotical · Jul 29, 2004

Mental, again. What is on Mars that would be useful to us on Earth that we cannot also get on the moon? If not metals then what? Engineering problems can be overcome, but are irrelevant if we can't even establish basic profitablity. Colonies will come later, money must be made first. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mental_avenger · Jul 29, 2004

mrmorris says: OK -- you're a boat-man, ma. You have just designed a new sailboat ………… Your “sailboat” example is 100% pure unadulterated Strawman Logical Fallacy and is irrelevant. mrmorris claims: Nothing is being 'tested' at Devon Island. ” Devon Island is a treeless polar desert as large as the state of West Virginia. Its climate, remoteness, rocky plains, deep canyons, rugged landscape, and lack of human population make it a good analog for Mars, which is why NASA has sponsored the Haughton-Mars Project (HMP) at an impact crater site there for the past six years. Devon Island is home to the second most northerly known impact structure on Earth.” Space Daily Planetary suits have been tested at Devon Island. Since the temperature and terrain in Haughton Crater is similar to Mars, it becomes and excellent place to test the utility and practicality of different suit designs. And of course, we don’t have to worry about someone dying if an unforeseen suit failure occurs. As has been pointed out, the technology for sealing suits has been around for a long time, and isn’t one of the items that requires field research. The Mars UAV is scheduled to be tested on Devon island. The Mars-1 Humvee was tested at Devon Island. A new solar powered Mars Robot Rover was tested at Devon Island Mini-Seismic devices have been tested on Devon Island Canada is using Devon Island for Mars condition simulation for the Phoenix Lander. Every year, many things are tested at Devon Island. The 50-60 scientist that go there every year are not there for the balmy weather. Information gathered from astronauts living for months on the 1/6th G of the moon will give valuable information about what might <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

halman · Jul 30, 2004

Mental_Avenger, From what I have gathered from your posts, on this thread and ones previous, you believe that there is nowhere in the Solar System worth going to right now except Mars. The reason that you believe that we should go to Mars is so that a self-sufficient colony can be established there to ensure that humanity will survive if some catastrophy should befall Earth, destroying all human life here. Following that argument, there will never be any economic return from our investment in Mars, even if life were discovered there. No development of any where except Mars should procede until Mars is able to produce machine tools, computers, doctors, medicines, etcetera. Several hundred billion dollars will have to be spent shipping advanced technology to Mars to insure it is self-sufficient before any other development in the Solar System is justifiable. Space exploration can not be expected to pay any dollar returns for at least 30 years. And all materials used in developing Mars will have to come from Earth, lifted out of the Earth's gravity well, because there is nothing of any value on the Moon or in the Asteroid Belt. We are not interested in developing Space for economic benefit, it seems, only in building a colony on Mars. That should be easy to sell to the average person. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

scottb50 · Jul 30, 2004

I don't see it that way, the odds of the Earth being compromised today or tommorrow or 2 billion years ago or in the next 2 billion years is the same. A safe haven is not our primary goal. Exploration is the primary goal. We didn't know what was in the Americas before we came here. The Earth was flat and you would fall off the edge, right? Don't forget the sea monsters either. The entire reason Columbus used was to get to the Orient quicker to bring back spices, and such, that took a long time overland or around Africa. Little did they know what they would find, and they didn't for nearly a hundred years. Just like we know little of what we will find until we find it on Mars, Titan, or other outer moons, the asteroids or the comets. It very well could all be worthless or priceless. But, until we know, who knows? I seriously doubt we will find life existing on Mars, we may very well find prove there was life, it seems obvious there was plenty of water, at sometime, but even though deep sea research has shown life can survive in very harsh climates Mars doesn't look too promising. Though the poles might be a totally different situation. That would go a long ways to dispell our smugness in the Universe, but that's about it. I have always thought that if we are seeking monetary riches we need to look inward, the heavier materials are closer to the Sun not farther away. That would mean that our only reason would be economic. Is that the only reason we explore, or look around the corner to see what's going on? That's human nature. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

halman · Jul 30, 2004

Scottb50, Certainly, it is human nature to explore. It is also human nature to want to reap rewards from our toil. Exploration is expensive. At some point, we should get a return on our investment. The Moon offers a possiblity of return in the near future. That can not be said of anywhere else. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

mental_avenger · Jul 30, 2004

From what I have gathered from your posts, on this thread and ones previous, you believe that there is nowhere in the Solar System worth going to right now except Mars. That is not what I have said or insinuated. My main point is, and has been, that Mars should be the primary destination. The second point is that the Moon is NOT the right place to prepare for Mars. Having said that, there are few places in the Solar system really worth manned missions. There are some, like the Jovian moons, which are too hazardous to visit if no compelling reason can be found. There are many, such as Uranus and Neptune, which are simply too far for manned missions unless something very extraordinary requires it, and I can’t imagine what that might be. Mercury is too hot, barren, and radiation bathed to be of any practical value. Venus is, for the time being, unapproachable in person. That leaves very few actual bodies to visit. The reason that you believe that we should go to Mars is so that a self-sufficient colony can be established there to ensure that humanity will survive if some catastrophy should befall Earth, destroying all human life here. I believe that setting up a viable, self-sufficient colony on Mars to protect humanity from extinction should be one of the most noble and pressing goals we could have. Even if we started today, there is no guarantee we can save humanity before a major catastrophe destroys all life on Earth. But if we don’t start, it is absolutely certain that we cannot save humanity. Once we get the Mars Colony project underway and vigorous, that will provide the incentive and the need for some of the infrastructure that has been proposed. To use an example, as others have been doing, it would not be practical to build an interstate highway system, complete with gas stations, restaurants, and hotels, before the c <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mrmorris · Jul 30, 2004

"Mars on the other hand has average temperatures similar to some colder areas on Earth, and no such extremes (in the middle latitudes). In fact, during the winter, it is often colder here in Wyoming than on Mars." Mars Temperatures: Minimum: -140 degrees C Maximum: 20 degrees C Average: -63 degrees C Temperatures at the permanently manned South Pole station are -14 to -81°C, with an average of about -55C. You can claim the temperatures in the warmest regions of Mars equate with one of the coldest places on earth, yes. "In addition, a lunar habitat would also be required to withstand micro-meteor impacts, whereas the Martian atmosphere burns up those small high-speed grains. " Strange -- I could swear that in most high-altitude photos I see of Mars, there are lots and lots of impact craters. You'd think that it receives a fair share of them -- especially as it's a whole heck of a lot nearer the asteroid belt than the moon. At less than 1/100th the sea-level pressure of Earth, the atmosphere can certainly stop micro-meteorites, and I suppose we'll just ignore the slightly larger mini-meteorites that make it through the atmosphere. No need to provide any meteorite shielding on the Mars habitats whatsoever. Good plan. "Rather irrelevant, since that applies to any place off-Earth. However, the relatively abundant water on Mars will help reduce water recycling needs." Why irrelevant? The technology still needs to be developed, and tested? If early incarnations are going to fail (and they will) -- failing three days from warranty service is a whole heckuva lot better than failing two years away. And they're not required/used *any* place off earth. The ISS does not have anywhere close to efficient recycling. It would be nice if it *did*, but it doesn't.

mrmorris · Jul 30, 2004

"Your “sailboat” example is 100% pure unadulterated Strawman Logical Fallacy and is irrelevant." Yes -- I note that many things that are brought up for which you have no answer are deemed irrelevant. You say Devon Island is cold and rocky, so it's a good analog for Mars. I say the pool is wet and there is wind -- so it's a good analog for the ocean. Apparently it matters not that there are hundreds of ways in which the two are not alike. "mrmorris claims: Nothing is being 'tested' at Devon Island." Yes -- mrmorris quoted 'tested' to differentiate it from tested. He also had additional context to explain why 'tested' isn't the same as tested. "Since the temperature and terrain in Haughton Crater is similar to Mars, it becomes and excellent place to test the utility and practicality of different suit designs. And of course, we don’t have to worry about someone dying if an unforeseen suit failure occurs. As has been pointed out, the technology for sealing suits has been around for a long time, and isn’t one of the items that requires field research." It's certainly possible to run 'dress rehearsals' at Devon Island. But to think that it's any more than that is laughable. Without truly testing the suits in an environment where they must work -- there will never be a certainty that they truly function. An example would be the recent suit troubles on the ISS. Those weren't new technology -- but there were still problems. If the ISS crewman had been orbiting Mars and discovered that there was a suit failure -- that's all she wrote. You can fool yourself into thinking that the technology of EVA equipment is mature if you'd like. I just hope nobody else is taken in and sends some people two years from assistance. On a lunar outpost -- EVAs would be *much* more common and suit technology should g

mental_avenger · Jul 30, 2004

mrmorris says: You can claim the temperatures in the warmest regions of Mars equate with one of the coldest places on earth, yes. Duh! We’re talking about a colony, which would be located within the most favorable region. mrmorris says: Strange -- I could swear that in most high-altitude photos I see of Mars, there are lots and lots of impact craters. You'd think that it receives a fair share of them Any crater you can see from any photos from orbit will be hundreds of times larger than a micrometeorite. mrmorris says: we'll just ignore the slightly larger mini-meteorites that make it through the atmosphere. It appears that the larger impacts are relatively ancient. However, like Earth, any meteor that could create a crater the size you can see from orbit, would go through any shielding you could provide like it wasn’t even there. mrmorris says: Why irrelevant? The [recycling] technology still needs to be developed, and tested? Irrelevant to this discussion of Mars vs the Moon. That technology will be required regardless of where we are off planet. Most of that testing can be done safely and efficiently here on Earth. Microgravity portions can be done in LEO much cheaper and safer than on the Moon. mrmorris says: As for 'reducing' the need for recycling. Abundant water reduces the need for recycling the water. In addition, abundant water makes all operations easier and less costly. mrmorris says: For a plan to work along the Zubrinite lines you are obviously fond of -- the store of available consumables has to continually rise for the population increases intended. Fortunately, the abundance of basic materials, including carbo <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mrmorris · Jul 30, 2004

"...any meteor that could create a crater the size you can see from orbit, would go through any shielding you could provide like it wasn’t even there." Yes. However -- for every large meteor, there are hundreds of small ones. The point I was trying to make, and wasn't clear enough is that Mars, like Earth, will be constantly pelted with small meteorites. In fact -- since Mars is likely to receive *more* metoers than earth because of its proximity to the asteroid belt. On Earth, meteors have to start out fairly sizable to make it to the ground, on Mars, they have to be much less so. Sand-sized micro-meterorites will burn up in Mars' atmosphere, and those up to size 'x' (1 cm?... 2 cm?). However, at 1/100th the density of Earth's atmosphere -- the size which will still make it through is going to be fairly small (what I referred to as mini-meteroites in my post). Mars structures, just as those designed for the moon -- had best have some protection against these. Ergo, structures designed for early moon habitats would have meteorite shielding that would be useful on Mars. You post indicated there was no need for such. "Most of that testing [of recycling technology] can be done safely and efficiently here on Earth." Once again -- I'm sure that the poor sods two years out from Earth will find it comforting to know that the recycling tech they're trusting their lives to has been thoroughly tested... in the lab. To effectively test such a recycling system on Earth would require another 'Bio Dome' like experiment, and more likely several. Anything less than that simply isn't going to be sufficient. While certainly less expensive than testing on the lunar surface -- BD experiments aren't cheap, and the *only* thing they test is the environmental recycling. "Fortunately, the abundance of basic materials, including carbon and

robotical · Jul 30, 2004

Mental, you seem to simply want a colony on Mars. We want to explore space and wish to do that in a way that gets the most people on board (ie: accepting economic realities). There is one thing that the moon has over Mars that is more important in this regard than all of the others: distance. Businesses are the only ones who will have the wherewithal to do aggressive and extended work in space as long as there is an economic incentive. We don’t know if that exists on the moon, but if it does distance will allow it to be exploited a lot faster than anything on Mars. What distance affects: Tourism: -The shorter the trip the greater the possible market due to the greater range of physiques and psychologies that can be supported. -More people can be moved much faster which translates into higher profits. For Mars at this time you would need a fairly big ship to make any kind of money. Mining: -The faster ores can be moved to the market the more profit can be made. Distance also means that much smaller ships are within the realm of possibility which cuts down on operating costs. -If something breaks then a replacement part can be shipped in a few days rather than several months which means less money lost due to an inoperable machine. Insurance: -Insurance companies would be much more willing to give life insurance if they believe that people have a much higher chance of being rescued if something goes wrong. Colonies are a nice dream, but simply out of the question for the foreseeable future. You are simply going to have to accept that for any large expenditure to happen there must be some sort of tangible return. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

orzek · Jul 30, 2004

>Irrelevant analogy. We have walked, trotted, and run already. Wrong! Very relevant analogy, we have barely crawled and going round and round leo is far from impressive />Would you like to point out those people, I have never heard from them or about them before. Please provide links or quotes. Oh really?! Heres one :- YOU!!!, also zubrin but he is not so fanatical as you! />Distance and difficulty make no such “certainty”. Properly planned and properly prepared, things might go perfectly. What utter rubbish, nothing properly planned goes perfectly, its called life! And to think that difficulty will be lower by going to mars instead of the moon is just insane! />No it does not. If there was a catastrophic failure on the Moon, people would die as certainly as they would on Mars. Well that depends on what type of failure, if you take the extreme of course everyone dies. But failures On the moon have a better chance than on mars due to the short distance back to earth! Any mission on mars would be hazardous for the simple reason that you can't have anything go wrong due to the long distance back to earth. This is not difficult to understand! />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. Also plainly wrong, both are cold, have no breathable air and plenty of radiation! Nothing

orzek · Jul 30, 2004

That is not what I have said or insinuated. My main point is, and has been, that Mars should be the primary destination. The second point is that the Moon is NOT the right place to prepare for Mars. I think that your posts speak volumes of your position! The point of going to the moon is not just to prepare for mars but to create the beginnings of a space civilization which would of course include mars and other destinations like the asteroid belt, jovian moon system and even the Saturn moon system Having said that, there are few places in the Solar system really worth manned missions. There are some, like the Jovian moons, which are too hazardous to visit if no compelling reason can be found. There are many, such as Uranus and Neptune, which are simply too far for manned missions unless something very extraordinary requires it, and I can’t imagine what that might be. Mercury is too hot, barren, and radiation bathed to be of any practical value. Venus is, for the time being, unapproachable in person. That leaves very few actual bodies to visit. I disagree as I think the jovian and Saturn moons are good destinations to go to including the asteroid belt. Radiation is always going to be a problem even on mars. Mercury is cool on the side opposite the sun and with nuclear and electro motive technologies even Uranus and Neptune are possible long term destinations. I believe that setting up a viable, self-sufficient colony on Mars to protect humanity from extinction should be one of the most noble and pressing goals we could have. Even if we started today, there is no guarantee we can save humanity before a major catastrophe destroys all life on Earth. But if we don’t start, it is absolutely certain that we cannot save humanity. Going to mars ONLY will lead to failure and any self-sufficient colony will t

orzek · Jul 30, 2004

Mental you sound like someone who doesn't seem to know much about the cost and difficulties in going to mars. I suggest you read a book like expedition mars by Martin j.l Turner which shows what difficulties need to be overcome to make a mission to mars possible. It is no doubt possible for us to go to mars now but it is not easy let alone thinking of creating colonies on mars.

scottb50 · Jul 30, 2004

<<I think that your posts speak volumes of your position! The point of going to the moon is not just to prepare for mars but to create the beginnings of a space civilization which would of course include mars and other destinations like the asteroid belt, jovian moon system and even the Saturn moon system>> I disagree with both of you. I don't think we need to go to the Moon to prepare to go to Mars or anywhere else and going to the Moon would not help prepare us for going to the Moon. We aren't going to create a Space civilization in the near future anywhere, we haven't even figured out how to get off the Earth economically. If we are going to create a Space civilization we need to start in LEO and work out from there. We already make money there with communications, remote sensing ect. That's also a harsher environment than either the Moon or Mars, and if stuff works there it would work anywhere. As for testing on Earth, I agree we need to be assured how it would work in the dusty environments, both on the Moon and Mars, but I don't see temperature extremes or gravity really being a factor we have to specifically test for on another world. <<I disagree as I think the jovian and Saturn moons are good destinations to go to including the asteroid belt. Radiation is always going to be a problem even on mars. Mercury is cool on the side opposite the sun and with nuclear and electro motive technologies even Uranus and Neptune are possible long term destinations. />> Radiation doesn't have to be a show stopper, water shields very well and if we use it for propellant as well as life-support we will need a lot anyway. The Asteroid belt and the outer planets are a long way away even with Nuclear power, and the odds are they offer less of economical value than the inner Planets. Maybe they are better served with robotic missions until we have a better idea of what is there. We also don't need to wait for Nuclear to do any o <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

scottb50 · Aug 1, 2004

Looks like we are uo and running again. Everything seems to be here and I could still log in, so maybe it wasn't a major stoke like last time. It sure would be good to get some explanation from somebody, sometime though. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

robotical · Aug 2, 2004

Note that those 2 launches you mentioned are subscale prototypes that are not to be manned. I'm sorry, was this supposed to be directed at me? I do not believe I mentioned 2 launches. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mental_avenger · Aug 2, 2004

orzek says: Wrong! Very relevant analogy, Whatever. The analogy simply does not apply to this type of technology for many reasons, too many to list at this time. Mental Avenger said: Would you like to point out those people [who make too many assumptions that everything will work out without a hitch!], I have never heard from them or about them before. Please provide links or quotes. orzek claims: Oh really?! Heres one :- YOU!!!, I have never said, insinuated, alluded to, or otherwise hinted at any such thing. Now, please provide links or quotes to support your claim or retract it. Mental Avenger said: Distance and difficulty make no such “certainty” [that something will go wrong sometime]. Properly planned and properly prepared, things might go perfectly. orzek rants: What utter rubbish, nothing properly planned goes perfectly, its called life! And to think that difficulty will be lower by going to mars instead of the moon is just insane! That is apparently your opinion, not mine. I do not think that “difficulty will be lower by going to mars instead of the moon”, and never said I did. You seem to have a great deal of difficulty comprehending my very clear postings. orzek says: But failures On the moon have a better chance than on mars due to the short distance back to earth! So you think that if there is a failure on the Moon we would just fly over there and fix it? Reality check. Building and preparing an unscheduled trip to the Moon would take many months at a minimum, even once we have people living there. The “testing phase” that we are talking about would be long before the frequent flier era. orzek says: Also plainly wro <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Aug 2, 2004

orzek says: I think that your posts speak volumes of your position! I agree. Why then is it that you are unable to understand my position and keep getting it wrong? orzek says: The point of going to the moon is not just to prepare for mars but to create the beginnings of a space civilization which would of course include mars and other destinations like the asteroid belt, jovian moon system and even the Saturn moon system That may be the opinion of some people. However, I was not even addressing that in those comments. I was merely pointing out that the Moon is neither appropriate nor necessary in preparations for going to Mars. What others do with the Moon while we are building up a viable Mars colony is relatively irrelevant. A real, usable space station in HEO would be much more helpful in the initial exploration of space. If everyone waited for the Moon to be developed on its own merits, it would be 50 years before our first manned mission to Mars. orzek says: I disagree as I think the jovian and Saturn moons are good destinations to go to including the asteroid belt. Radiation is always going to be a problem even on mars. Jupiter takes radiation to a whole new level. Jupiter emits 500 times more radiation that we can survive in. At this time, NASA is uncertain about how well their unmanned probes will survive. orzek says: even Uranus and Neptune are possible long term destinations. Considering their distance, what would be the point of going there, other than to see what is there? In terms of space travel, they are not “on the way” to anywhere else. orzek says: Going to mars ONLY will lead to failure That is clearly an unsupported, off-the-wall statement and <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Aug 2, 2004

kadetken says: Mr. Avenger, there is one perfectly pertinent reason that the Moon is an ideal place to prepare for Mars. Vacuum discipline. At last, someone with an actual thought provoking reason. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> However, that is an old argument that simply is not valid in this case. kadetken says: It cannot be sufficiently analogued here on Earth no matter how hard you try to really instill the fear of the vacuum on the other side of that faceplate that will be necessary to really prepare for getting things started on Mars on an ongoing basis. As I pointed out, all those procedures have been developed here on Earth and in LEO. As a firefighter, I learned that having a leak in a mask can be deadly. Many materials, such as foam cushions, produce cyanide gas. Every time we went into a fire, we were in danger, but we trained for it in relatively harmless smoke. Even our military is training the soldiers with real Sarin gas to prepare the troops for actual emergencies. One thing you might not be aware of. A small leak in a suit in vacuum may not be as deadly as a small leak in a mask in a toxic fire. kadetken says: Even underwater isn't a very good analogue. I take it that you have never been a diver. BTW, while the Moon would require a suit with extensive cooling and heating capabilities, as well as relatively heavy radiation shielding, Mars surface suits will probably be tight-fitting suits with attached helmets. Unlike the stereo-typical bulky “space suits” with articulated joints and rigid stays, the typical Mars surface suit will probably be no more difficult to get into than a wet suit, and probably easier than a dry suit. Remember, the pressure differential between the internal body pressure at sea level, and vacuum, is only 1 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

orzek · Aug 2, 2004

Whatever. The analogy simply does not apply to this type of technology for many reasons, too many to list at this time. Maybe you should list them since I don't see what type of technology has to do with anything. I have never said, insinuated, alluded to, or otherwise hinted at any such thing. Now, please provide links or quotes to support your claim or retract it. Unfortunately yes you have and the book The Case for Mars by zubrin shares some of your sentiments. That is apparently your opinion, not mine. I do not think that ?difficulty will be lower by going to mars instead of the moon?, and never said I did. You seem to have a great deal of difficulty comprehending my very clear postings. And you have great difficulty in remembering your own posts!! So you think that if there is a failure on the Moon we would just fly over there and fix it? Reality check. Building and preparing an unscheduled trip to the Moon would take many months at a minimum, even once we have people living there. The ?testing phase? that we are talking about would be long before the frequent flier era. No I don't think so, if it is an emergency a few days is more like it. And besides I was talking about people having it easier to come from the moon. Read my post properly! I guess you missed the posts that list the differences between the Moon and Mars. You apparently need to look over that list again. I don?t think those differences are that important in the short term maybe long term but not short term. How is it that you continue to fail to comprehend clear statements? Nowhere I did say anything about not testing, rather I advocate testing on Earth and in LEO, where it is several thousan

orzek · Aug 2, 2004

That may be the opinion of some people. However, I was not even addressing that in those comments. I was merely pointing out that the Moon is neither appropriate nor necessary in preparations for going to Mars. What others do with the Moon while we are building up a viable Mars colony is relatively irrelevant. A real, usable space station in HEO would be much more helpful in the initial exploration of space. If everyone waited for the Moon to be developed on its own merits, it would be 50 years before our first manned mission to Mars. If you want to plant a flag on mars sure you don?t need to go to the moon but I hope everyone agrees we are not just going up there to plant flags. For permanent settlement the moon is important as a first foothold. I agree with the HEO space station and a space station around the moon is even better. But if you want to create colonies on mars you need resources, energy and money. Using just the earth for that is unreasonable and expensive. You need to learn how to exploit better resources that are basically on your doorstep! No one said we should just concentrate on the moon, why not both mars and the moon. All I know is if we JUST go to mars it will result in failure and probably finish space travel for a generation. The moon is easy and we have been there before and missions to the moon would probably increase the chance of going to mars and actually bring it forward. Any mars mission is probably 50 years in the future anyway. orzek says: Going to mars ONLY will lead to failure That is clearly an unsupported, off-the-wall statement and is therefore irrelevant to the discussion. Well most of your statements are unsupported as well so maybe also irrelevant to the discussion! You are joking, right? That is not ?lofty goals?, that was practical application. Oh but

Lots of talk lately concerning the moon

mental_avenger

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

robotical

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

halman

Guest

scottb50

Guest

halman

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

robotical

Guest

orzek

Guest

orzek

Guest

orzek

Guest

scottb50

Guest

scottb50

Guest

robotical

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

orzek

Guest

orzek

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page