Author Topic: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.  (Read 60853 times)

Offline Mader Levap

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 976
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 561
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #40 on: 06/09/2014 01:12 pm »
Man, a lot of replies. Will try to adress most important issues.

First, disclaimer. I consider Mars and Moon separate goals and both are worth pursuing. This detail is important, as many people here seems to operate on "screw Mars/Moon, only Moon/Mars is worth doing and alternative is to never be pursued" pseudologic. ::) Other sin is looking at Moon only as stepping stone to Mars - it indeed will not yeld directly much in that direction. Indirectly it will give a lot, however.

I am focusing on Moon purely because of three reasons: money, money and money. We cannot afford both destinations, so I choose Moon. Well, I don't have to. Laws of physics does that for me.

What's the immediate goal of a Lunar base? What necessitates increasing the size of a lunar base from 0 people to 3 people, from 3 people to 100, from 100 to 3000?  What do we get out of it?
General advice: don't put forth arguments (or in this case leading questions) against Moon base that can be used against Martian base. This is just silly.

And so the "Moon first! No, Mars first!" flame war has been reignited for the seventeen gazillionth time.
I am interested not so much in debate itself as in thinking of Mars Firster. Why he thinks that? Hell, laws of physics are against him, making his case hopeless excercise in futility. I just can't understand why anyone would think seriously that Martian base could be first.

A more constructive thought exercise for the OP and the thread : what would make you change your mind ?
Evidence that Martian base would be cheaper and easier to do than Moon base. Good luck with that.

All pro-Mars arguments that I've seen are lies by omission, usually focusing on Mars itself and argumenting it is easier to live on - deliberately overlooking tiny little unimportant details like "how I do get to Mars in first place?".  ::)
Be successful.  Then tell the haters to (BLEEP) off. - deruch
...and if you have failure, tell it anyway.

Offline pagheca

  • Bayesian Pundit. Maybe.
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Lives in Ivory, Tower
  • Liked: 220
  • Likes Given: 161
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #41 on: 06/09/2014 02:40 pm »
I fully agree with reverse-Pavel logic.

At this point, I will never see a Moon base, ok, but sometime I really wonder why there is no much more general consensus about the fact that we need and can install a permanent station on the Moon first. And that we must do it asap. I'm not talking about the general public, or Governments, but at least about that subset of people thinking Manned Space Flight is required at least in some situations (and I think this is one of those).

It may be some sort of tunnelling vision problem of mine, but at present I can't really see a single relevant argument where the Moon is not required and would distract resources and time rather than help in preparing for the next leg(s).
« Last Edit: 06/09/2014 06:55 pm by pagheca »

Offline Alf Fass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 452
  • The Abyss
  • Liked: 91
  • Likes Given: 83
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #42 on: 06/09/2014 06:54 pm »

I am interested not so much in debate itself as in thinking of Mars Firster. Why he thinks that? Hell, laws of physics are against him, making his case hopeless excercise in futility. I just can't understand why anyone would think seriously that Martian base could be first.


I put it down to them being seduced by images from the Martian surface, they look like some not-so-bad place on Earth! You can run the physics and math passed people and not turn their head if they're emotionally committed to an idea.
When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?
John Maynard Keynes

Offline high road

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1688
  • Europe
  • Liked: 837
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #43 on: 06/10/2014 07:42 am »
2. It will grow slowly due to our assumption (harder life).

The speed at which a base/colony will grow is determined by the 'value' it generates over what it costs. I have not heard anything that can be done on Mars better than here or the moon (other than 'survive'). That means a lunar base will grow exponentially faster than a Mars base.
What's the immediate goal of a Lunar base?

What's the immediate goal of a Mars base? Other than science, because there's lots of potential for that on the moon as well. At least on the moon, risks will be lower, as any unforeseen problem or things not working as advertised, can be quickly solved.

At least the moon has some potential to eventually send tourists there. Most people when talking about space, even astronauts, go on about 'looking back at earth'. The moon offers a nice big view of Earth, and a two week round trip appeals to more people than two years off planet.

There's even more awesome science to be done on Mars.  Look at how many unmanned Mars missions the U.S. has launched in the last three decades versus how many unmanned Moon missions.  Why do you think that is?

Politics and risk reduction. Missions to the moon are less 'sexy' than missions to Mars, they can benefit from experiences with previous spacecraft instead of starting again from scratch because local conditions are different, and as more and more people at Nasa earned their PHD's with Mars data, Mars missions get more support than other missions. Russia's Venera programme followed the same logic.

Quote
Geology is of paramount importance on the Moon to understand our Planet.

In what way?  The moon is very unlike the Earth.  It seems to me Mars is much more interesting in understanding Earth because it gives us more information about the development of planets similar in some ways to our own.

And the moon is supposed to be leftover debris of Earth colliding with another planet. That gives us information about the history of our own planet, not just similar planets.

Quote
(2) it's a "natural" step. You first go to Normandy, and then you get across Europe till Berlin. You go to McMurdo, and than you go to the South Pole. You go to the America, and then to Australia. Not the opposite.

The thing is that it's really not a natural step.  It's more like going to the North Pole on the way to America.  It requires solving a lot of problems that wouldn't require solving if our goal is just to go to Mars.

All bad examples. The allies landed in Normandy to skirt the best defended points in the Atlantic Wall closer to England. So that would be more like going to Mars because it's 'easier'. Explorers went to America before they went to Australia because the Turks were in the way to go east (which was the entire point of finding a way west to China). Which is completely incomparable to space as it is today.

The last example is also bad. The moon is a lot closer than the North pole. It's more comparable to setting up a harbour on a rock near the shore, before going to another continent. If nothing else, it gives you experience to sail the high seas, do emergency repairs, build without assistance (but with assistance if things go horribly wrong). Even if the moon and Mars are two separate locations, there is a lot of technology to be put through extensive durability, repairability, refurbishability, and so on.

Historically speaking, the current LEO --> moon --> Mars --> everything else might be more comparable to Portugal sailing along the coast of Africa, while Mars Direct is comparable to Columbus' voyage. Given that Columbus success was mostly luck, taking that gamble with space exploration seems far too risky, IMO.

Here's my reply to the poll suggestion: I'm a moon firster, but my mind can be changed by a good answer to the as of yet unanswered question in manned space exploration: why would we? What does Mars have that makes it worth going, other than science? Regardless of the things that make it 'easier' to go there? And even for science, what does Mars have more than the moon, other than potential life in the past? Because if it's life we want to find, we had better forget that shaky 'habitable zone' idea, and go drill through the ice layers above liquid oceans further out in the solar system. But that's another discussion.

Offline DGH

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 168
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #44 on: 06/10/2014 10:07 am »
And so the "Moon first! No, Mars first!" flame war has been reignited for the seventeen gazillionth time.
A more constructive thought exercise for the OP and the thread :

what would make you change your mind ?
I can tell you what did change my mind.
Water
It is what makes the Moon more interesting in many ways.
It makes the Moon easier than we originally thought.
It also proves we have a lot to learn post Apollo.


Offline Mader Levap

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 976
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 561
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #45 on: 06/10/2014 10:53 am »
2. It will grow slowly due to our assumption (harder life).
The speed at which a base/colony will grow is determined by the 'value' it generates over what it costs. I have not heard anything that can be done on Mars better than here or the moon (other than 'survive').
Does not apply. That was thought experiment with assumptions that was pretty generous for Mars Firsters. I can't be bothered with disputing claim that life is easier on Mars (it may be actually true!) when even with assumption that this claim is true we still end up with Moon First.

That means a lunar base will grow exponentially faster than a Mars base.
Not really. It is actually possible that at certain point Mars base will be bigger than Moon base. We are talking about what should be tackled first, not what could happen in 2114.
Be successful.  Then tell the haters to (BLEEP) off. - deruch
...and if you have failure, tell it anyway.

Offline high road

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1688
  • Europe
  • Liked: 837
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #46 on: 06/10/2014 12:41 pm »
2. It will grow slowly due to our assumption (harder life).
The speed at which a base/colony will grow is determined by the 'value' it generates over what it costs. I have not heard anything that can be done on Mars better than here or the moon (other than 'survive').
Does not apply. That was thought experiment with assumptions that was pretty generous for Mars Firsters. I can't be bothered with disputing claim that life is easier on Mars (it may be actually true!) when even with assumption that this claim is true we still end up with Moon First.

That means a lunar base will grow exponentially faster than a Mars base.
Not really. It is actually possible that at certain point Mars base will be bigger than Moon base. We are talking about what should be tackled first, not what could happen in 2114.

Well, if you split up a paragraph, it's bound to be out of context...

I'll rephrase: given that Mars firsters fail to give anything substantial that makes Mars 'better' than the moon to make it worth taking the much bigger risk (and cost etc.), ceteris paribus a Moon base would grow exponentially faster than a Mars base, as any activity would be equally 'valuable' on Mars or on the moon, and the moon can take advantage of the existing infrastructure on earth more easily. Especially in the early days, this is important.

Once a 'value' generating activity can be done on Mars that can not or no longer be done on the moon, a Mars colony will naturally be bigger.

Offline pagheca

  • Bayesian Pundit. Maybe.
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Lives in Ivory, Tower
  • Liked: 220
  • Likes Given: 161
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #47 on: 06/10/2014 12:51 pm »
Personally, I do not think the destiny of a moon station is to be the seed of a "colony". At least for the first x decades.

My arguments is quite weak, I admit it, as any long-term forecast, but I think that what will happen will be that at least for some decades we will be busy with an "Antarctic Station model" of moon settlement. Exactly the same happened with LEO. Despite many debate, is still a tiny thing with limited economic exploitation, despite the cost of "producing" there is relatively (respect to the Moon gravitational well) limited.

The reason of this is that I consider it still too risky (in terms of health hazard and actual risks) and expensive to justify and investment, but also because I expect very wide protests about commercial exploitation or ownership rights over land on the Moon. The Moon is also quite large and we need some time to fully understand its potential for science and business.

I guess that we will start with one or a few very tiny stations with very limited science output and most of the time spent for survival, for a decade to say the less - ISS like. This may grow slowly to a sort of permanent settlement busy with science, but with a duty cycle of 6 months, max an year for the personnel involved.

At some point it may become possible to do some experimental mining, tourism, etc. but I cannot venture so far. I do not think the Moon will ever see "families" living there in the same way that America or Australia has been colonized, at least for the foreseeable future,

Speculations, speculations, speculations. I know.
« Last Edit: 06/10/2014 02:26 pm by pagheca »

Offline pagheca

  • Bayesian Pundit. Maybe.
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Lives in Ivory, Tower
  • Liked: 220
  • Likes Given: 161
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #48 on: 06/10/2014 07:40 pm »
I created a comparison table between the ISS (or a future SS), Moon and Mars.

5 is best
1 is worst

Please take it as what it is: just a quick and dirty job, obviously subject to my personal judgement. If you have any suggestion about  other rows, let me know. Of course also the weight of each row is highly opinionated.

However, IMHO it shows that there is not a single reason that may make one change opinion. Rather, a different weight/vote for each row.

EDIT: attached document updated.
« Last Edit: 06/16/2014 06:06 pm by pagheca »

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #49 on: 06/10/2014 08:36 pm »
The strongest argument is that country like China has little interest in Mars.

But in terms of bases, with Mars distance and speed of light, one needs Mars bases more than Moon bases.

It seems to me if going to send crew to Mars, and because it takes at least 3 months just to get there, that economics would indicate that the crew should stay on Mars for longer periods- so stay on Mars more than 1 year.  Whereas shorter stays on the moon are more reasonable because your time and public time is not largely spent traveling to the Moon.
One can flyby Mars, one can land on surface and stay a couples weeks, but this is sort of thing one would only do once rather having be "normal".

It seems if NASA were to send crew to the Moon, they would probably want crew to stay a bit longer, than crew spend on the Moon in Apollo program. But in terms of exploring the Moon it could same type of time periods as Apollo or maybe twice as long.
One could send crew to the Moon, based upon what things you want the crew to do on the Moon. Or rather than "just living" one could have numbers things which one needs a human crew to do, and once completed, they return to Earth.

The main purpose of Moon first, is to mine the moon to make rocket fuel. If can't mine Moon, then I see little purpose to go to Moon first. But what is really wanted is not NASA mining the Moon, what is actually wanted is investment dollars spend in order to commercially mine the Moon. So NASA purpose should be to do things which could enable investment dollars to be spend to commercially mine the Moon.
If NASA can get some entity mining the Moon, in terms of it's budget, it can afford to explore Mars exploration program.

And in terms of why go to Mars, it seems the question is can there be future human settlements on Mars.
I don't see the why as finding alien life. Rather the finding of alien life *might* be a reason not to have human live on Mars. Of course if people go to Mars ahead of NASA, it wrecks why NASA should explore Mars-
the cow has left the barn.
So say purpose of exploring Moon is related to mining the Moon. and purpose of exploring Mars is to get human settlement on Mars.
Purpose is not to have huge NASA mining operations on Moon, nor large NASA "settlements".
Congress and American public simply has no rational reason to want this- no compelling need to waste American tax dollars for this useless activity. But American public could think it's bargain if what NASA does, is opens space frontier.
Opening space frontier is situation where hundreds of billions of dollar per year is invested in various commercial enterprises [and are earning return on money invested].
« Last Edit: 06/10/2014 08:52 pm by gbaikie »

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14159
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #50 on: 06/22/2014 08:26 am »
Ooh, I'm late to the party. :)
Some good arguments and perspectives here, and some of the premises are convincing.

The next pair of boots on extra-terrestrial land might indeed be on the moon.

But implicitly, in most of my arguments, I dismiss non-colony bases and expeditions unless they are stepping stones to colonies, since otherwise in the grand scheme of things, they are dead ends.

There are very few players in the extra-terrestrial boot game today. If SpaceX succeeds, a Mars colony will get a fair shot. There is nobody today that is planning a lunar colony - not even governments. But if SpaceX succeeds, I think that indirectly a lunar colony will get a fair shot as well.
« Last Edit: 06/22/2014 08:26 am by meekGee »
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Greg Hullender

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Seattle
    • Rocket Stack Rank
  • Liked: 443
  • Likes Given: 338
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #51 on: 06/23/2014 01:46 am »
Why does anyone think resource extraction would lead to colonies? On Earth, we have giant oil platforms in the ocean and big mining operations in northern Canada, but none of those ever turns into a city. The companies doing the extraction have zero incentive to encourage colonies--a local government would just be another source of trouble to them. If miners had to stay for many years then it might be impossible to employ them without making arrangements for spouses and families, but the history of sail exploration on Earth suggests that up to five years wouldn't be a problem.

Canada could (for example) decide it wanted to create towns up in the north--maybe building large domed areas to make the winters nicer--but they appear to have no interest in doing do. Perhaps the technology of doming a small town is too exotic.

But if that's the case, then the technology for building a space colony is very far away. Not this century. Maybe not the next one either.Heck, if we aren't willing to colonize the Arctic, why do you think we'll ever colonize space?

I've been a space fan my whole life (I'm 55 now). I'd really like to imagine a more optimistic scenario, but right now I don't see one.

Offline Alf Fass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 452
  • The Abyss
  • Liked: 91
  • Likes Given: 83
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #52 on: 06/23/2014 07:03 am »
There seems to be a belief that Mars would be a nicer place to settle and bring up a family than the Moon, why?
When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?
John Maynard Keynes

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #53 on: 06/23/2014 03:25 pm »
Humans on Mars should be NASA's next goal, because, unlike the Moon, that is the next place that irrevocable history can be made. 

 - Ed Kyle

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1926
  • Liked: 316
  • Likes Given: 553
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #54 on: 06/23/2014 03:44 pm »
We don't even know if a fetus can gestate successfully in partial gravity. I cannot say our history can be irrevocable on Mars, but we can come and go on the Moon. I see no reason why our descendants would want to be bound to gravity wells. Gravity wells will be for tourism, I suspect. Mars has no other value, unless some persecuted religious minority wants to try to make a go of it.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1926
  • Liked: 316
  • Likes Given: 553
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #55 on: 06/23/2014 03:46 pm »
Heck, if we aren't willing to colonize the Arctic, why do you think we'll ever colonize space?

Lapps, Siberians, Inuit, the entire population Barrow, etc, may disagree with you.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline Hop_David

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1656
  • Ajo, Arizona
    • Hop's Gallery
  • Liked: 147
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #56 on: 06/24/2014 02:21 pm »
Mars is closer delta-v wise to the outer solar system.

In terms of delta V, EML2 is closer to the outer solar system.

For example, EML2 to Trans Jupiter Injection is about 4 km/s. Mars surface to Trans Jupiter Insertion is about 8 km/s.

The moon is about 2.5 km/s from EML2.

Offline Hop_David

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1656
  • Ajo, Arizona
    • Hop's Gallery
  • Liked: 147
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #57 on: 06/24/2014 02:38 pm »
Propellant sourced from the lunar surface. If it's there, and if it can be exported to the trans-Mars departure point, it should be exploited for that purpose. If it's not there, or can't be economically exported, the lunar surface is a dead end.

EML2 is a great departure point for Mars, asteroids as well as the rest of the solar system. And the moon's only 2.5 km/s from EML2.

If the more optimistic estimates of lunar water are true, a lunar base is a no-brainer. The LEND data seems to contradict those estimates though.


Offline pagheca

  • Bayesian Pundit. Maybe.
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Lives in Ivory, Tower
  • Liked: 220
  • Likes Given: 161
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #58 on: 06/24/2014 02:39 pm »
Gravity wells will be for tourism, I suspect.

... and science. There are a lot of known and (probably) unknown resources and reasons for science on Moon and Mars and any other celestial body.

Apart for this, I agree with what all of you, myself and many others remarked many time: thinking at a Moon/Mars colony completely overlook the actual conditions for colonization.
« Last Edit: 06/24/2014 02:45 pm by pagheca »

Offline francesco nicoli

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 537
  • Amsterdam
    • About Crises
  • Liked: 290
  • Likes Given: 381
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #59 on: 06/24/2014 02:54 pm »
As I pointed out in the other discussion, the debate, as such, makes sense only if you believe that colonization will happen with public money. If you think that colonization will be a public enterprise, well then discussing it makes sense but you have to do that in lights of the public powers' goals in space- which are science and security, not colonization as such.

if on the contrary you believe (as I do) that space colonization will be led by private agents, then makes no much sense to discuss as it being done here- it will not be a centralized, decade-planned process. Rather, privates will go where business and (in a much lesser measure) ispiration brings them in a decentralized, not organized, and short-term sighted variety of approaches. Discussing which one "is best" makes no sense, as we don't know enough of the space-based market as it will be in 100 years from now, and this is the only relevant variable of the discussion.

Moon or Mars first? anywhere, where the profit is.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1