Why a manned mission to an asteroid?

[EarthlingX]

I think Moon has a lot of prospect in telerobotic testing, because of it's relative proximity to the Earth. Manned mission to the surface is another matter, as is orbital station for closer remote control.

How far can we all go together, past LEO ?

I suggest EML1, which seems to be at the crossroads to anywhere else. It is also outside of Earth magnetic shielding, if i'm correct, and might not require 20 years of ahead planning, and would also allow a bit longer stay.

Biggelow could send a hotel there first, to ease the transition, and probably the best idea how, would be with a space tug.
Hm.. ?

Could we have gas stations first, and than argue where to turn at the Starbucks ? Their coffee sucks, but if you put enough weird stuff in it, i can live with that ..

 

[a_lost_packet_]

...The Moon is not, and never will be a suitable test bed for developing systems for use on such planets as Mars. The first colony should be on Mars. The only use for a Moon base is to provide materials and propellant for space missions once the need is established. Until then, the Moon is not a practical use of resources.

I agree with the general theme of your position. However, I differ in that I believe we must have sufficient methods in place, honed by experience, for establishing a workable human base on another planet. The Moon can serve as a classroom for future efforts in our solar system. We NEED the experience that only the Moon can offer us as a relatively safe and not-too-distant test-bed for new ideas.

If something went wrong, if someone was injured or if a new seal design didn't work out and Lunar Astronauts were forced to rely on outside aid, it's possible we could do something if they were on the Moon. It's possible we could rescue them. It's possible we could deliver new components in relatively short time. It's possible they could be rescued.

On Mars, that isn't possible. Any attempt at using Mars as a suitable classroom would be hugely expensive. For every $1 spent on Mars trying to learn how to survive on another planet we'd get, IMO, an order of magnitude more out of that dollar if we spent it using the Moon as a classroom instead.

There's no reason we should "bus" our Astronauts to a new and more distant "school" rather than using one in our own neighborhood that is just as good.

Edit - Note - That is the "practical" side of me talking. I can also be a proponent of a "Mars First" line of thought as well, depending on the mood. It's a question of inspiration and harnessing public spirit and the desire for human achievement that puts Mars First in my mind. As I believe Buzz Aldrin or Neil Armstrong has said "We've already been there." (The Moon) If we want to engender the same hope, spirit and wonder that the Apollo Missions provided for the people of Earth, we need to look at conquering bigger vistas. We should be providing the public with a glimpse at humanity's destiny by simply placing a human footprint on the sands of Mars. But, I also understand some of the practical problems... IF the focus on going to Mars is not lost, which I believe it is under great threat right now, then an effort at establishing a presence on the Moon is not wasted. But, if people view it as a goal unto itself, then it is a wasted effort.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

The Moon is our logical stepping-stone, weigh-station, cozy, comfortable, Lunar-Mama base close to Mother Earth.

Our "mom away from mom". Our babysitter. You guys are dead wrong knocking the Moon. Without the Moon, we won't get manned missions to the rest of the Solar System.

Look at the Moon like the Azores or the Canaries were to the Europeans in crossing the Atlantic. Or, like the Hawaiian Islands enabling the US to protect and project her power across vast distances of ocean and earth.

It makes total sense to establish and develop self-sufficient Moon colonies FIRST, before even considering making any substantial forays and settlements on Mars or elsewhere.

 

[EarthlingX]

It makes total sense to establish and develop self-sufficient Moon colonies FIRST, before even considering making any substantial forays and settlements on Mars or elsewhere.

It doesn't, because focusing on it would take too much time and money, and variety gives much more options.

http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/

Some of this teams are actually enough open for you to help, and i actually had a short chat with one of them :

http://www.part-time-scientists.com/

 

[a_lost_packet_]

...It makes total sense to establish and develop self-sufficient Moon colonies FIRST, before even considering making any substantial forays and settlements on Mars or elsewhere.

I disagree somewhat. It doesn't make sense to establish a self-sufficient Moon colony first before even considering making any substantial efforts elsewhere.

However, it does make sense to learn all we can before we dive into the deeper end of the pool without our swimmies on... That doesn't mean we can't make the occasional foray into deeper waters. In fact, we MUST do that. We must continue to push the envelope. We only have to be sure to do it with sufficient forethought and adequate preparation. For that, we might need what the Moon can teach us. But, by no means do we need to grow old there...

 

[a_lost_packet_]

It makes total sense to establish and develop self-sufficient Moon colonies FIRST, before even considering making any substantial forays and settlements on Mars or elsewhere.

It doesn't, because focusing on it would take too much time and money, and variety gives much more options.

http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/

Some of this teams are actually enough open for you to help, and i actually had a short chat with one of them :

http://www.part-time-scientists.com/

You know, it'd be quite a PR coup if SDC could put together such a team.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

It makes total sense to establish and develop self-sufficient Moon colonies FIRST, before even considering making any substantial forays and settlements on Mars or elsewhere.

It doesn't, because focusing on it would take too much time and money, and variety gives much more options.

http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/

Some of this teams are actually enough open for you to help, and i actually had a short chat with one of them :

http://www.part-time-scientists.com/

EarthlingX- And it wouldn't "take too much time and money" to go off to Mars? To Titan? To who-knows-where with manned-missions?

X, I have a good idea. Instead of just saying, "It doesn't," and posting a couple of links to support your view, why don't you try writing, in your own words, what YOU think. Try using YOUR mind, and quit being a "google scholar". I could care a less about what any "experts" or otherwise say on this and that source.

I'd like to hear what EarthlingX has to say about it. I get the impression that you are hiding behind others' thoughts, work, and ideas. Try writing your own ideas and arguments for affecting action and policy on our space program. (And no, I didn't bother, nor will I, read your links.)

Any random poster can post links. Let's hear what EarthlingX has to say, in his own words. What is the point of this "SDC", if all everyone does is post links saying: "Well, read what this person or these people wrote , and don't expect ME to think or articulate and convey any original thoughts on the matter."

 

[ZenGalacticore]

...It makes total sense to establish and develop self-sufficient Moon colonies FIRST, before even considering making any substantial forays and settlements on Mars or elsewhere.

I disagree somewhat. It doesn't make sense to establish a self-sufficient Moon colony first before even considering making any substantial efforts elsewhere.

What I meant was not going off on some long-term manned interplanetary foray and colonizing effort without FIRST establishing a permanent (preferably self-sufficient) presence on the Moon.

However, it does make sense to learn all we can before we dive into the deeper end of the pool without our swimmies on... That doesn't mean we can't make the occasional foray into deeper waters. In fact, we MUST do that.

I agree. But you just said it: "It does make sense to learn ALL we can before we dive into deeper... waters..." And no one's saying we can't send out exploratory missions further out, AS we establish a permanent presence on the Moon. Thus is the history of exploration--colonization---and further exploration on Earth.

I'm just saying that the people who want to leap-frog to Mars, without FIRST establishing a viable presence on the Moon, don't know what they're talking about, nor do they apparently have any concept of how hostile space really is. It's hard enough to survive in Antarctica with our great "technology". Well, at least there is air and water (ice) in Antarctica.

Before we go all out and proud galavanting off to Mars, it would be wise to figure out how to live self-sustainably on the dry, dead, totally airless moon. If we can do that on the Moon, then perhaps Mars will be a relative cake-walk.

We must continue to push the envelope. We only have to be sure to do it with sufficient forethought and adequate preparation. For that, we might need what the Moon can teach us. But, by no means do we need to grow old there...

Again, I agree. But your attitude reeks of impatience. You sound a lot like Buzz Aldrin. He just wants us to go to Mars because he and his generation is close to meeting the Grim Reaper, and he wants to be a part of something "spectacular" again. He even said, "We've already been to the Moon. We need to go to Mars."

No Buzz! You and 11 other guys have been to the Moon. The rest of us watched it on television!! And we've hardly, not even come close, to exploring the Moon.

And think about this, Alp: Let's say we go to Mars and actually get there and land men on the surface. And then they die. Then we attempt it again, and they die in transit. Then (in a really ideal space enthusiast world) we try a third time and fail. Such a letdown would set back the space program by a century or more, given the history of the public. (And I doubt the German, Japanese, Russian, Chinese, or Indian publics would be that much different from the Americans.)

But if we fail on or going to the Moon, we are close and can more easily remedy any emergency or unforeseen contingency, scenario, or calamity.

 

[bdewoody]

I'm glad to see there are at least a couple of other regulars here that have seen and agree with my point. After all it is just common sense. With the level of safety demanded by the tax payer and the eventual delays that would occur while designing and building a safe manned Mars spacecraft it is possible that the moon first plan will put men on Mars quicker.

 

[EarthlingX]

EarthlingX- And it wouldn't "take too much time and money" to go off to Mars? To Titan? To who-knows-where with manned-missions?

Where did i say that ? Titan ? Well, if you ask me, no money is too much for such a thing, but let's stay awake

X, I have a good idea. Instead of just saying, "It doesn't," and posting a couple of links to support your view, why don't you try writing, in your own words, what YOU think. Try using YOUR mind, and quit being a "google scholar". I could care a less about what any "experts" or otherwise say on this and that source.

I'd like to hear what EarthlingX has to say about it. I get the impression that you are hiding behind others' thoughts, work, and ideas. Try writing your own ideas and arguments for affecting action and policy on our space program. (And no, I didn't bother, nor will I, read your links.)

Any random poster can post links. Let's hear what EarthlingX has to say, in his own words. What is the point of this "SDC", if all everyone does is post links saying: "Well, read what this person or these people wrote , and don't expect ME to think or articulate and convey any original thoughts on the matter."

Which my position is not clear ? You can also try using Google to search for my posts, not all of them are just links and quotes, and sometimes saying less is more. Beside, you can think of those links as references, if you know that term.

I will not try to offend you with another link with search items ..

Oh, and common sense doesn't mean something is true, or the world would be still flat.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

EarthlingX- And it wouldn't "take too much time and money" to go off to Mars? To Titan? To who-knows-where with manned-missions?

Where did i say that ? Titan ? Well, if you ask me, no money is too much for such a thing, but let's stay awake

You stated that it would "take too much time and money" to focus on the Moon. My point was simply that it would take just as much--if not magnitudes more--time and money to go to Mars. I listed Titan and "elsewhere" to emphasize the point of the expense.

In other words, if the Moon is too expensive, then most certainly, so is Mars.
(At least, you implied such with your 'links'.) But you gave no original ideas, argument, or point of view, just 'links'.

Brevity is one thing, nothing whatsoever to say, is another thing. Most people call the latter "ignorance".

Regarding the exploration of worlds, we agree that money should be no object. But just because we wish that that is the case, doesn't make it so.

Which my position is not clear ?

What position is that? What "they" said?

You can also try using Google to search for my posts,...

You can also try just typing out a few sentences here to make your point. Why should I have to go to Google you? To read what EarthlingX says right here on SDC?

Do I ask you to Google moi? What's the point of this SDC website and forums if we all spend our time "googling" one another?

not all of them are just links and quotes, and sometimes saying less is more.

"Less is more"? This isn't a novel or a science-fiction movie, kid. Sometimes "less" is "nothing" at all. Am I supposed to read your mind when you say essentially nothing? You know, because "less is more"? Thank you very much, Rod Serling. (Oh yeah. I'm supposed to read your links that you didn't write.)

Beside, you can think of those links as references, if you know that term.

Oh boy! In 3-D reality, you'd be going to the principal's office at this point. Not for being a smart alec, but for using nothing but references in the entire body of your term paper. (Or thesis or dissertation. Nobody wants to see anybody quote everybody else. Get it?)

You just admitted to having no original thoughts, just "references". Like I said above, all you can say is: "Here, read this!"

I will not try to offend you with another link with search items ..

You didn't offend me, EarthX. I'm just asking for your opinion on the discussion at hand in your own words! "Offended"? No. A bit "disappointed"? Yes.

Oh, and common sense doesn't mean something is true, or the world would be still flat.

Oh for goodness sakes! You probably read that here that I wrote! "Common sense" is rarely common, and is mostly non-sensical. I did NOT, however, mention "common sense", in any post above. So try again, and try to stay awake.

 

[bdewoody]

Zen, I think he was referring to my last post indirectly. But I do agree that common sense is too uncommon.

 

[EarthlingX]

Zen, when did i became a matter of discussion ?

You are comparing Titan to Mars and calling me ignorant ?

What this has to do with a manned mission to an asteroid ?

And yea, i was referring to bdewoodys post, sorry for misunderstanding.

 

[mental_avenger]

I agree with the general theme of your position. However, I differ in that I believe we must have sufficient methods in place, honed by experience, for establishing a workable human base on another planet. The Moon can serve as a classroom for future efforts in our solar system. We NEED the experience that only the Moon can offer us as a relatively safe and not-too-distant test-bed for new ideas.

There are many reasons why the Moon would not be a viable test bed for other planets such as Mars. There are far too many differences. 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.

 

[mental_avenger]

If something went wrong, if someone was injured or if a new seal design didn't work out and Lunar Astronauts were forced to rely on outside aid, it's possible we could do something if they were on the Moon. It's possible we could rescue them. It's possible we could deliver new components in relatively short time. It's possible they could be rescued.

The Moon is closer than Mars, but it is still too far away for the type of rescue mission you propose. With the proper preparation, virtually any situation that they could survive while waiting for a rescue mission from Earth, should be survivable for the duration of a standard tour of duty. Someone with a medical condition serious enough to require an Earthside hospital probably would not survive the trip back.

On Mars, that isn't possible. Any attempt at using Mars as a suitable classroom would be hugely expensive. For every $1 spent on Mars trying to learn how to survive on another planet we'd get, IMO, an order of magnitude more out of that dollar if we spent it using the Moon as a classroom instead.

There's no reason we should "bus" our Astronauts to a new and more distant "school" rather than using one in our own neighborhood that is just as good.

That is why the classroom should be on Earth, which is much less expensive than the Moon, perhaps 1000 times less expensive. Large vacuum testing facilities could be built here on Earth where all the parameters (except gravity) could be created. A stadium size vacuum facility could be built here on Earth for less than the cost of a single Moon mission. Every combination of heat, cold, vacuum, radiation, dust, dryness etc. could be tested. Imagine “astronauts” in full moon suits building habitats inside the facility and living in them. The only parameter that could not be duplicated would be gravity, and that would not be a factor in most of the testing.

 

[mental_avenger]

I strongly disagree with your conclusions Mental Avenger. Is a discussion of our actual reasoning likely to be profitable?

It is ok to disagree. Without differences of opinions, we wouldn’t have a forum. Whether or not you profit from my research and reasoning is entirely up to you.

 

[mental_avenger]

I think Moon has a lot of prospect in telerobotic testing, because of it's relative proximity to the Earth. Manned mission to the surface is another matter, as is orbital station for closer remote control.

Excellent suggestion, one of the best so far. Tele-robotic missions to the Moon would be a great way to field test equipment under harsh conditions while at the same time gathering important information about the Moon. Such information would be vital for deciding where to locate bases or mining operations when the needs present themselves.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Zen, You are comparing Titan to Mars and calling me ignorant ?

What this has to do with a manned mission to an asteroid ?

And yea, i was referring to bdewoodys post, sorry for misunderstanding.

I didn't mean to say that you are ignorant. Just that those who cannot express their ideas, and instead rely on "links" all the time, are copping out of the thinking process.

I was just trying to get you to think about what it is you know, and trying to get you to express that knowledge in your own words.

And hey, "ignorant" is not a bad word. Ask MeteorWayne if Zen is ignorant of the mathematical formulae and "stuff" that are necessary to predict the movements of the stars and planets and to perform the necessary calculations relating to studying the night sky. Ask Dr.Wayne if Zen really understands mathematical equations and what they really mean.

Guess what? In that particular field of the mathematics behind astronomy, or the true underlying elegance and meaning of logical mathematical equations, Zen G. is essentially an ignorant man. So don't take it personal. We all have our talents. I was just trying to stimulate you to express yours.

Every man is ignorant of many things. None of us can know it all. (And men who pretend to know all, know nothing.) And there's always somebody smarter, and stronger , than yourself. (That goes for me as well, and everybody.)

Words of Wisdom. Grasshopper. :|

 

[bdewoody]

I agree with the general theme of your position. However, I differ in that I believe we must have sufficient methods in place, honed by experience, for establishing a workable human base on another planet. The Moon can serve as a classroom for future efforts in our solar system. We NEED the experience that only the Moon can offer us as a relatively safe and not-too-distant test-bed for new ideas.

There are many reasons why the Moon would not be a viable test bed for other planets such as Mars. There are far too many differences. 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.

I totally disagree with your conclusions In every case you point out the conditions on the moon are harsher than those on Mars except distance from the earth. So if we can make a base on the moon work then it will be proof of concept for Mars. If for instance it is extablished that the gravity of the moon is adequate tro maintain bone mass then it will be a given that Mars gravity will be sufficient too.
The moon may not have wind but it's proximity to the sun makes solar power the choice. Your arguments against the moon have so many holes in them that it is obvious that you are a Zubrin fan who has bought into his fantasy

 

[brandbll]

I agree with the general theme of your position. However, I differ in that I believe we must have sufficient methods in place, honed by experience, for establishing a workable human base on another planet. The Moon can serve as a classroom for future efforts in our solar system. We NEED the experience that only the Moon can offer us as a relatively safe and not-too-distant test-bed for new ideas.

There are many reasons why the Moon would not be a viable test bed for other planets such as Mars. There are far too many differences. 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.

I totally disagree with your conclusions In every case you point out the conditions on the moon are harsher than those on Mars except distance from the earth. So if we can make a base on the moon work then it will be proof of concept for Mars. If for instance it is extablished that the gravity of the moon is adequate tro maintain bone mass then it will be a given that Mars gravity will be sufficient too.
The moon may not have wind but it's proximity to the sun makes solar power the choice. Your arguments against the moon have so many holes in them that it is obvious that you are a Zubrin fan who has bought into his fantasy

Then there is that whole thing about distance and launch windows, etc...

 

[mental_avenger]

I totally disagree with your conclusions In every case you point out the conditions on the moon are harsher than those on Mars except distance from the earth. So if we can make a base on the moon work then it will be proof of concept for Mars.

“Harsher” is an imprecise term, and not necessarily relevant here. For instance, it has been shown that Martian fines are much smaller than Moon dust. That is due to the wind action on the individual particles of regolith. Machinery which would not be affected by Moon dust could be disabled by intrusion by Martian fines.

The key is that conditions are very different, not “harsher”. There is almost nothing that could be tested on the Moon, that could not be tested here on Earth much faster, a LOT less expensive, and inherently a lot safer.

If for instance it is extablished that the gravity of the moon is adequate tro maintain bone mass then it will be a given that Mars gravity will be sufficient too.

And if is shown that 1/6 gravity is not sufficient to maintain bone mass, then it will have shown nothing about how .38 gravity will affect bone mass. Such experiments can be done faster, easier, and cheaper on a proper space station in LEO, where the exact G can be precisely controlled. A large wheel type station with concentric levels could simulate several different G levels at the same time, allowing comparative testing. That will be especially important when designing a spacecraft for long duration space flights such as missions to Mars or other planets.

Your arguments against the moon have so many holes in them that it is obvious that you are a Zubrin fan who has bought into his fantasy

Who?

 

[mental_avenger]

Then there is that whole thing about distance and launch windows, etc...

Irrelevant to the question of using the Moon as a “test bed”.

 

[mental_avenger]

Every location will play an important role in space exploration. The most important consideration is to get the most out of what we spend, and that includes developing things in the correct order.

The primary use for the Moon will be for materials to build space stations and interplanetary spacecraft. Eventually, it will be more economical to mine, process, and produce components on the Moon, than lifting them out of Earths rather deep gravity well. But there will be no way to afford such massive infrastructure until a requirement for the materials is developed.

Most of the testing for the Moon, for Mars, and for other planets, can be done on Earth. There is no reason to spend perhaps 1000 times more for a test on the Moon, when it can be done in simulated environments right here on Earth. The vacuum, the heat, the cold, the radiation, the dust, and the terrain can all be duplicated in a test environment on Earth. Not only will the costs be far less, tests can be performed in hours, instead of weeks. That alone speeds up the program by several orders of magnitude.

Variable gravity testing can be done in LEO. Instead of being limited to a single gravity, the effects of many different levels of gravity can be tested simultaneously on a rotating wheel space station. That also advances the program much faster, and much less expensive, as well as much safer.

Mars manned missions can begin with one major push, supported by lots of robotic supply missions. I suggest
preliminary missions with robotic cargo vessels, which will be landed in an area determined to be the best place for an initial colony. The cargo vessels will be pre-fitted with electrical wiring, plumbing, and fixture which allow them to be used as habitats once all the supplies are removed. Before the first people arrive, there should be enough supplies and habitats sent to Mars for at least 200-250 people for 5 years.
It is unlikely that habitats will be built on the surface, so the habitat modules can be rolled into nearby gullies and covered with regolith.

I suggest that the first manned mission consist of at least 200-250 people. As the colony grows, similar missions can be sent to Mars. These missions will create the need for products from the Moon, and would therefore stimulate and pay for construction on the Moon of the mining facilities, the factories, and the rail launch facilities for finished products, along with the colonies for the people to run all that.

 

[kelvinzero]

I strongly disagree with your conclusions Mental Avenger. Is a discussion of our actual reasoning likely to be profitable?

It is ok to disagree. Without differences of opinions, we wouldn’t have a forum. Whether or not you profit from my research and reasoning is entirely up to you.

Ok. That is a pretty strong negative then, isnt it? You have already discounted the possibility of learning anything. :roll:

btw Im the strongest proponent of the 'classroom earth' concept that I know of. I wouldn't be at all surprised if you are quoting me.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

There are many reasons why the Moon would not be a viable test bed for other planets such as Mars. There are far too many differences. 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....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.

Immaterial. One can't fall off of the Moon. I agree that deleterious health effects of low gravity effects have to be considered. But, we have means to combat some of the effects already.

Mars: thin atmosphere of CO2, Moon: none .....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. Mars: usable wind for wind power, Moon: none ...Wind. The Martian wind can be used for power, the Moon has no wind.

Get's lots of sunlight though... Wind isn't the only source for power.

I fail to see why the Moon being a harsher location is detrimental at all to it being used as a learning environment. Learning at a harder school is generally considered to be an advantage.

We have wind on Earth. We already know what an "atmosphere" is. We can certainly use Earth's to help model effects. And, we won't have to deal with trying to raise a tent in a tornado...

Mars: Massive amounts of water at poles, Moon: May be small amounts...Water. We now know that there is sufficient water on Mars for habitation. The Moon has virtually none.

Err.. not necessarily. There is possibly more available than one thinks - bound within the regolith and also deep within the crust. Besides, mechanisms extracting oxygen from regolith could generate water as an additional product as well.

Mars: Plenty of Carbon and Nitrogen for growing food, Moon: virtually zero.

Maybe... Surface deposition of carbon in trace amounts from the solar wind are present. There is carbon on the Moon. Regardless, we can enrich the regolith and alter it to use it as a base soil if necessary.

Mars: 44% of radiation of the Moon: 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.

Yes, a bit harsher of an environment. But, so is downtown New York or my ex-Mother-in-Law's dining room on Thanksgiving Day.

We can shield against radiation and, what's more, work on developing materials for a harsher environment than what would be expected on Mars. A watch rated for diving to 300 feet should hold up better on 60 foot dives... right? After all, my Mother's formal dining room was a much harsher environment than my ex-Mother-in-Law's. As a result, I know where my desert fork goes and the differences between Continental European and American styles in cutting meat..

Mars: Day 23 hours, Moon: two weeks 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.

Are you saying that the Apollo missions couldn't have gotten around such extremes in temperature? Have you looked at the backpack unit on an Apollo suit? Shepherd and Mitchell spent 9 hours collecting rocks on the Moon... Are you saying that didn't happen?

Circadian rythms are triggered by periods of light and dark, not the Sun. Turn on the light, it's daytime. Turn off the light, it's nighttime. If Nurses can work 48 hour shifts consistently, I think Lunarnauts can deal with having computers time their night/day cycles.

Mars: has two moons, Moon: none

Immaterial unless one is planning on taking Moonlit strolls on the beach.. sans surf.. sans ocean.. There's no seagulls on the Moon either, btw. Zoning issues...

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

Why? Granted, its a darn site better if we could use the natural terrain as a shield and insulator. But, the L.E.M. didn't seem to spontaneously combust because it was above ground when we were there before...

Digging in regolith is a difficult process. Of all the things that a long-term Mars habitat would benefit from, use of underground facilities would be a pretty impressive feat. But, it's not completely necessary and that's really the primary point of all of this, isn't it?

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.

The bottom line is that your reasons are not sufficient enough to disqualify the Moon as a test-bed for further efforts at constructing planetary habitats.

It is close. We've been there before, in person. We can supply efforts, if necessary, and make frequent changes much more easily while we are developing suitable strategies. It's "Next Door" for goodness sakes. That alone makes it a prime candidate for experimentation.

The Moon is not Mars. Similarly, a swimming pool is not "outer space" either but, we use it to practice maneuvers because, under the right conditions it is an effective learning environment. Find me one EVA Astronaut that say's that they did not benefit from time spent practicing their techniques while submerged in salty water.

I'm a very enthusiastic supporter for a Mars First program but, not for any of the reasons you give. That's because there is no logically supportable argument that discredits a test-bed use for the Moon in favor of one for Mars. That position is simply not supportable. One must reach much further than that.