Moon Is Not A Test Bed

[Mental Avenger]

There are too many differences between the Moon and Mars to use the Moon as a test bed for Mars missions. In fact, there are more differences between Mars and our Moon, than there are between Mars and some places on Earth.

Mars: Gravity is .38 of Earth's, Moon: is .17 of Earth's
Mars: thin atmosphere of CO2, Moon: none
Mars: Massive amounts of water at poles, Moon: May be small amounts
Mars: Plenty of Carbon and Nitrogen for growing food, Moon: virtually zero.

Mars: 44% of radiation of the Moon:
Mars: usable wind for wind power, Moon: none
Mars: Day 23 hours, Moon: two weeks
Mars: has two moons, Moon: none

Gravity. Most scientist agree that the .38G of Mars is probably sufficient for indefinite habitation. However, the low gravity of the Moon will probably cause problems for long term exposure.

Atmosphere. Although thin, the Martian atmosphere does provide some protection, especially against smaller meteorites. On the Moon, even the smallest particle is not slowed and can kill a person, either directly or by suit puncture. Also, the Martian atmosphere can be mined for carbon and oxygen, both of which are needed for life. The difference between processing O2 out of CO2, and crushing tons of regolith for O2 is significant. In addition, the Martian atmosphere can be used to sink and transfer heat, something that is not possible on the moon.


Water. We now know that there is sufficient water on Mars for habitation. The Moon has virtually none.

Radiation. Mars is 1 1/2 times further from the Sun than Earth is, and therefore receives 44% of the solar radiation per square unit or about 20% overall due to its smaller diameter. The good news is, that means there is also only 20% of the harmful radiation that the Moon has.

Wind. The Martian wind can be used for power, the Moon has no wind.

Length of Day. The Martian day is almost exactly the same as on Earth. That is important for several reasons. It will be much easier for our biological clocks to adjust to the Martian day than the Lunar Day. More importantly however, the much shorter daily cycle helps to average out extremes of temperature. On the Moon, the temperatures run to extremes that make it impractical to remain on the surface for extended periods either day or night. In addition, the long day creates an additional daytime radiation exposure problem.

Above ground habitats will be possible on Mars, but not on the Moon.

The bottom line remains: The Moon is too different from Mars to be used as a “test bed” for a Mars colony. The Mars Society is doing the smart thing by developing Mars technologies right here in appropriate places on Earth. The Moon is not a “stepping stone” to anywhere. However, it might make a handy observatory.

 

[Ittiz]

Yeah I agree. The Moon is not a test bed for Mars. They keep "selling" it that way because Mars is what people are interested these days. The real reason people/governments are interested in the Moon is because whoever gets industry going on the moon first is going to control cis-lunar space for the foreseeable future. Why bother hauling up heavy metals from Earth to build giant rotating habitats or giant space ships when the moon has 1/6th the gravity right?

 

[Mental Avenger]

Yeah I agree. The Moon is not a test bed for Mars. They keep "selling" it that way because Mars is what people are interested these days. The real reason people/governments are interested in the Moon is because whoever gets industry going on the moon first is going to control cis-lunar space for the foreseeable future. Why bother hauling up heavy metals from Earth to build giant rotating habitats or giant space ships when the moon has 1/6th the gravity right?

Agreed, mostly. The problem is that industry on the Moon will be difficult and extremely costly. All of the machinery and materials for mining, refining, processing, and fabricating will have to be sent to the Moon initially. The phrase, "It takes a village" applies to mining on the Moon. In addition to the industry, it will be necessary to also build and equip living facilities for all the workers. However, it is unlikely that at 1/6th G, people will be able to remain permanently on the Moon, so within a year or two, each and every person will have to be returned to Earth and replaced. That is where giant Rotating Space Stations will be necessary, providing an environment with a gravity that will keep humans healthy indefinitely.

 

[Ittiz]

I agree and disagree. Yes the startup cost is high, or we'd probably already mostly be living in space by now. Time (and not much of it at this point) will overcome that. I'm much more skeptical about the "we can't live in low G" thing. Living in low G could shorten your life, or lengthen it, we don' know yet. It may make it so people who spent 15 years living and working on the moon have a hard time re-adapting to earth. or even Mars. All that doesn't matter too much. If worst comes to worst you can create bowl colonies, you don't need rotating habitats in space. That can all happen down on the surface.

 

[Mental Avenger]

We have strayed from the topic already. I was not paying attention and helped. The topic is using the Moon as a Test Bed for Mars missions. I am sure there are plenty of discussions regarding Industrialization of the Moon. I prefer this discussion remain focused on the debate about whether or not we need to test our skills and equipment for Mars missions on the Moon before proceeding with missions to Mars.
Thank you.

 

[JasonFrels]

Mars and the moon are quite different, but they are both quite inhospitable to human life. If the intent is to develop skills and technology to travel to and operate on an alien world, the moon may make a good test bed.

The moon is always a few seconds away for radio communication. Mars may be anywhere from a few minutes to more than 20 minutes and communication is more difficult at that distance. So, the moon has this advantage as far as communication support from Earth.

Cargo can be shipped to the moon within a few days from Earth, but cargo to Mars will take months. Quite a logistical difference in terms of supporting an operation on an alien planet.

The moon and Mars have a different gravitational force at their surfaces. But science has a great deal of information about human living long term at 1g, and some information about living long term at effectively 0g, But really no other data points, whether lunar or martian gravity. It's going to be an experiment either way and the effects are currently unknown. May be better to do that experiment closer to home. We do have some small experience with operating in lunar gravity for a short time.

The trip to the moon can be done in days compared to months to Mars. We know that humans can arrive at the moon in good condition and arrive at Mars in significantly weakened condition after a much longer journey based on research performed on the ISS. And trips to Mars can only occur when the planets are in good positions. Nobody really knows what challenges Astronauts will face when arriving on Mars after months of space flight. If something happens, they may have to wait months to even attempt a return journey to earth.

Humans on Mars will be a long way from support and have extended communication times and very limited supplies from Earth while operating in an alien environment with unknown effects. The first astronauts to attempt this will basically be expendable lab rats working without a safety net that have a high chance of never making it back home.

It has been demonstrated that humans can travel safely to the moon and back. And there is a lot to be learned by operating on the moon that is applicable to extended space flight and operating in a hostile environment. And it is cheaper and safer to do this on the moon.

I still struggle to see much value in going to Mars rather than the skills and technology that are learned along the way. If humans ever live there, it will be a constant and nearly impossible struggle to survive. It is a dead planet, in every way.

For thousands of years, humans struggled to survive on earth by finding food and shelter in the earth's environment. On Mars, human will have to build and sustain the actual environment as well as finding a way to get food and shelter from it. Several degrees of difficulty higher than on Earth. It is going to take a lot of expensive support from Earth with extremely long lines of communication. The moon, is right next door and is a good proving ground for off-Earth survival.

 

[Mental Avenger]

Mars and the moon are quite different, but they are both quite inhospitable to human life. If the intent is to develop skills and technology to travel to and operate on an alien world, the moon may make a good test bed.

Remember, the premise of this discussion is test bed for Mars missions.

The moon is always a few seconds away for radio communication. Mars may be anywhere from a few minutes to more than 20 minutes and communication is more difficult at that distance. So, the moon has this advantage as far as communication support from Earth.

How is that an advantage for preparing for Mars missions? Test sites on Earth are even closer, a few seconds.

Cargo can be shipped to the moon within a few days from Earth, but cargo to Mars will take months. Quite a logistical difference in terms of supporting an operation on an alien planet.

Again that is not a factor in testing and preparing for missions to Mars.

The moon and Mars have a different gravitational force at their surfaces. But science has a great deal of information about human living long term at 1g, and some information about living long term at effectively 0g, But really no other data points, whether lunar or martian gravity. It's going to be an experiment either way and the effects are currently unknown. May be better to do that experiment closer to home. We do have some small experience with operating in lunar gravity for a short time.

AFAIK, there is no way to test for long term survival at .38g vs .166g without a large rotating Space Station, especially one where the rotation could produce .38g at the rim and .166g towards the center.

The trip to the moon can be done in days compared to months to Mars. We know that humans can arrive at the moon in good condition and arrive at Mars in significantly weakened condition after a much longer journey based on research performed on the ISS. And trips to Mars can only occur when the planets are in good positions. Nobody really knows what challenges Astronauts will face when arriving on Mars after months of space flight. If something happens, they may have to wait months to even attempt a return journey to earth.

In that case, testing on the Moon for Mars missions has no advantage. There is no reason that Mars Colonists cannot be transported to Mars on a spacecraft with rotational artificial gravity, and arrive healthy.

Humans on Mars will be a long way from support and have extended communication times and very limited supplies from Earth while operating in an alien environment with unknown effects. The first astronauts to attempt this will basically be expendable lab rats working without a safety net that have a high chance of never making it back home.

Again, the Moon is not an advantage. Long term simulation habitats on Earth would be safer, cheaper, and provide the same data.

It has been demonstrated that humans can travel safely to the moon and back. And there is a lot to be learned by operating on the moon that is applicable to extended space flight and operating in a hostile environment. And it is cheaper and safer to do this on the moon.

It is even cheaper and safer to do that testing on Earth. Keep in mind, there are areas on Earth that are more similar to Mars than on the Moon, including length of day, temperature, and terrain.

I still struggle to see much value in going to Mars rather than the skills and technology that are learned along the way. If humans ever live there, it will be a constant and nearly impossible struggle to survive. It is a dead planet, in every way.

I strongly disagree. I have been studying this issue and the technology involved. I am certain that we currently have the technology to establish viable self-sufficient colonies on Mars. We only lack the funding.

For thousands of years, humans struggled to survive on earth by finding food and shelter in the earth's environment. On Mars, human will have to build and sustain the actual environment as well as finding a way to get food and shelter from it. Several degrees of difficulty higher than on Earth. It is going to take a lot of expensive support from Earth with extremely long lines of communication. The moon, is right next door and is a good proving ground for off-Earth survival.

That is actually one reason why the Moon is NOT a viable test bed for Mars Missions.

 

[JasonFrels]

You asked this several times: "how is that an advantage for preparing for Mars missions? " My answer is that, like Mars, the moon is a hostile environment (to us) that requires leaving Earth, traveling though space, and safely landing on an alien world with the capability to return to Earth. Humans will have to live in a constructed environment isolated from the existing environment and supported from Earth. That will require development of a new set of technology and skills. I think that much of doing this on the moon is applicable to doing the same thing a lot farther away. I don't think that testing on Earth can fully replicate this.

"There is no reason that Mars Colonists cannot be transported to Mars on a spacecraft with rotational artificial gravity, and arrive healthy. "
Well, except that we have never constructed such a space ship nor do we have any experience with humans living under simulated spin gravity. And then there is getting down to and back from the surface of Mars. We have only done anything similar with human passengers a few times, decades ago, on the moon.

"We only lack the funding. "
If by funding, you are talking the entire GDP of the United States. Transporting materials and crew to Mars and constructing a self-sustaining habitat is currently beyond our financial ability and probably beyond our technical ability. Perhaps new and more efficient technology for doing such can be developed on the moon. Self-sufficient is a big deal. All of the food, air, water, protection from the universe, and materials must come from Mars and be processed for human use. And that doesn't even begin to deal with building a functional society. I don't think that we can do that without a lot of study first. We certainly aren't ready to kick off a project. And we have no idea what the effects will be on humans living in this environment. Heck we aren't really even that good at landing stuff on Mars as the track record for successful landings is dismal.

It is still science fiction, but I think that it is worth the research.

But in the end, Mars is not a planet with good potential for human colonization. It was never going to be a good life sustaining planet and now it is an old cold rock. If we are going to find a colony planet, it will have to be light-years away.

 

[Mental Avenger]

You asked this several times: "how is that an advantage for preparing for Mars missions? " My answer is that, like Mars, the moon is a hostile environment (to us) that requires leaving Earth, traveling though space, and safely landing on an alien world with the capability to return to Earth. Humans will have to live in a constructed environment isolated from the existing environment and supported from Earth. That will require development of a new set of technology and skills. I think that much of doing this on the moon is applicable to doing the same thing a lot farther away. I don't think that testing on Earth can fully replicate this.

The only part of that entire response that is applicable to this discussion, is landing and/or taking off from another planet, and that part is not using the Moon as a test bed, especially in the sense that virtually everyone else sees this issue.

Well, except that we have never constructed such a space ship nor do we have any experience with humans living under simulated spin gravity. And then there is getting down to and back from the surface of Mars. We have only done anything similar with human passengers a few times, decades ago, on the moon.

There is not technologically difficult about constructing a spacecraft that can be spun to provide artificial gravity. There is nothing about artificial gravity that is different than planetary gravity except the Coriolis Effect, and that is minimal on a large diameter. That is not an issue, and not part of using the Moon as a Test Bed for Mars missions.

If by funding, you are talking the entire GDP of the United States. Transporting materials and crew to Mars and constructing a self-sustaining habitat is currently beyond our financial ability and probably beyond our technical ability. Perhaps new and more efficient technology for doing such can be developed on the moon. Self-sufficient is a big deal. All of the food, air, water, protection from the universe, and materials must come from Mars and be processed for human use. And that doesn't even begin to deal with building a functional society. I don't think that we can do that without a lot of study first. We certainly aren't ready to kick off a project. And we have no idea what the effects will be on humans living in this environment. Heck we aren't really even that good at landing stuff on Mars as the track record for successful landings is dismal.

That is outside the scope of this discussion.

But in the end, Mars is not a planet with good potential for human colonization. It was never going to be a good life sustaining planet and now it is an old cold rock. If we are going to find a colony planet, it will have to be light-years away.

Again, that is outside the scope of this discussion.

 

[JasonFrels]

Difficult to have a discussion when you can just state that anything that I say in response to your statements is outside of the scope of the discussion. I am going to try that with my girl friend.

 

[Ittiz]

Lol, Jason if you do that you won't have a girlfriend for long.

I understand the perspective that moon and mars are very different. They are not the same. However if you compare it to exploring on earth, it's like testing out your stuff on a near by island before crossing the ocean with it. The land across the ocean may be a jungle and your island may be arid, but it's still useful. But it's not needed though. It really annoys me every time someone says "we need to test this out on the moon 1st". No we don't! That's just the statement of a person who wants to spend as much money as they can on the way to mars. It's useful, but not NEEDED.

 

[Mental Avenger]

Difficult to have a discussion when you can just state that anything that I say in response to your statements is outside of the scope of the discussion. I am going to try that with my girl friend.

The scope of the discussion is in the first sentence in the OP. "There are too many differences between the Moon and Mars to use the Moon as a test bed for Mars missions. "
There were, and will be, many discussions regarding all the rest. In fact, I am sure others would be interested if you start a discussion regarding one of the hundreds of other topics regarding the Moon and Mars.