The question is the trade-off between harder-to-reach Mars and harder-to-live on Moon.
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?A Lunar mass driver (maglev + linear induction motor) aimed at the horizon is a hell of a thing for getting mass amounts of resources back to Earth... but what's the Moon got that Siberia doesn't?If the terminal goal is only to seek out self-sustaining incremental terraforming / Marsbase-building strategies, the Moon is just not helpful for learning about Mars. If the terminal goal is to learn about building stations without in situ resources - well then we already have LEO for that, and we don't have to worry so much about radiation there in the meantime.Essentially the only major thing the Moon has got, is a much shorter and more frequent trip. Aerobraking at Mars (a technology with a boatload of compelling improvements in the pipeline) cancels out almost the entire dV advantage of the Moon being so much closer. If we build that aforementioned mass driver, it improves the economics of return to LEO quite a bit, but what would justify the huge investment to get to that point?Radiation shielding and an in situ smelter / machine shop perhaps, as a replacement for mass brought up from Earth's gravity well? That only works when there's sufficient demand in LEO, something that's only going to be true when there's thousands of people moving there every year.
What's the immediate goal of a Lunar base?
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?
Until we develop rapid non-chemical interplanetary travel I see the moon as our most obvious gravity well to visit and settle. I see it as Moon, the Rocks, then Mars in that order. Our version of Canaries, Azores, Americas.
And so the "Moon first! No, Mars first!" flame war has been reignited for the seventeen gazillionth time.
what would make you change your mind ?
savuporo,Ok, I accept your invitation and will be serious (at least as much as I can... )...(4) it's cheaper. We already have demonstrated our technology can do that 40 years ago.
As meekGee suggested, I take here discussion that was very OT where it was.Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 06/03/2014 10:59 pmThe question is the trade-off between harder-to-reach Mars and harder-to-live on Moon.How much harder is to live on Moon? Certainly not orders of magnitude harder (for that you need Io or something).Even if living on moon is significantly harder than living on Mars, travel expenses will weight costs in favour of Moon in near and medium future.In other words: assume that living on Moon is harder. Your and meekGee error is that you claim this assumption means no Moon base whatsoever. This is wrong and looks like wishful thinking of Mars Firster. Why? Scenario below explains that.1. Moon base will be deployed first, simply becasue of lower total costs (cost to travel+cost to live).2. It will grow slowly due to our assumption (harder life).3. Decades later (when cost to travel will be sufficiently low) first Martian base will be deployed.4. It will grow faster (easier life)...5. ...and some time later (another few decades) will be larger than Moon base.Result? Of course, Moon First.
Yeah, i don't think you got it. Falsifiability means that you outlined the conditions of how that claim can be shown to be false.
Quote from: Burninate on 06/06/2014 02:57 pmWhat'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?H3
(1) there is a huge amount of awesome science to be done on the Moon.
Regarding astronomy, it's empty, there is no atmosphere and the sky rotate pretty slowly. Mars has a lot of problems, including dust and an atmosphere plus gravity. It is more similar to the Earth. With no great benefits (at least, I can't really see them but a lot of fancy proposals to solve the various problems).
Geology is of paramount importance on the Moon to understand our Planet.
You can communicate easily. You can even call home and get the phone answered in 3-4 seconds, not in minutes. So, running experiment would be possible with assistance from the Earth in real time.
(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.
(3) safety concerns (radiation, rescue issues, etc.) may delay Mars missions for a while. A trip to the Moon may take a week return if you need to evacuate someone or deploy some urgently required material. You know if you were successfull or not in 3 days and then can try again.(4) it's cheaper. We already have demonstrated our technology can do that 40 years ago.
(5) it can be a rehearsal for a lot of other missions. Once you master how to survive on the Moon, 3 days from home, you can - almost - survive everywhere in the solar system.
(6) I think (but with a big error bar...) it would be relatively* easier to convince funding agencies and several countries to cooperate in the project. The Moon is visible from the Earth. People knows we can do that. Watching the sky you can see the Moon. (*relatively easier doesn't mean easy!).
(7) we could develop something incremental there, as the turnaround duty cycle is relatively shorter. Light is promptly available (ok, two weeks a month...) to supply energy. The gravity well is shallower. There is potential for really easy ways to pull out with today technology if required.
Quote from: savuporo on 06/08/2014 01:01 amYeah, i don't think you got it. Falsifiability means that you outlined the conditions of how that claim can be shown to be false.Savuporo, not everything can be falsifiable.
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.
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?
Yes, the Moon is better for astronomy than Mars. The thing is, though, that both are worse than just doing astronomy from space.
Optical telescopes on the Moon might have problems with dust, making space based telescopes more practical.
We already make a lot of it as a side effect of creating tritium for nuclear weapons, and we don't even use that helium-3.
What would this poll tell us other than that opinions vary? I'm not convinced of the utility enough to start one.
What's the immediate goal of a Lunar base?...
Quote from: Lar on 06/08/2014 06:26 pmWhat would this poll tell us other than that opinions vary? I'm not convinced of the utility enough to start one.I'd be most interested in seeing the split between people who have made their minds up and are not open to change it, vs people that do.
Here is as good place and time as any to ask for a poll.What should USG human spaceflight efforts mostly focus on over the next decade?I am a dedicated Moon firster, nothing will change my mind - do not collect $200, go straightI am a dedicated Mars firster, nothing will change my mind - do not collect $200, go straightI am a Moon firster, but some conditions might change my mind ( explain )I am a Mars firster, but some conditions might change my mind ( explain )Asteroids !Focus on the earth to orbit leg, i.e. build bigger/better rockets - RLVs, HLVs etcFocus on developing technology required for deep space ops - refueling, AR&D, reentry, ECLSS, artifical-g etc.None of the above is always an option, too. IMHO two first options do not warrant much further discussion, because it's more like a religious argument.
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?
A more constructive thought exercise for the OP and the thread : what would make you change your mind ?
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.
2. It will grow slowly due to our assumption (harder life).
Quote from: pagheca on 06/08/2014 12:26 amGeology 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.
Quote from: pagheca on 06/08/2014 12:26 am(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.
Quote from: gospacex on 06/07/2014 09:11 pmAnd 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 ?
Quote from: Mader Levap on 06/06/2014 01:07 pm2. 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.
Quote from: high road on 06/10/2014 07:42 amQuote from: Mader Levap on 06/06/2014 01:07 pm2. 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.Quote from: high road on 06/10/2014 07:42 amThat 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.
Heck, if we aren't willing to colonize the Arctic, why do you think we'll ever colonize space?
Mars is closer delta-v wise to the outer solar system.
Gravity wells will be for tourism, I suspect.
Moon or Mars first? anywhere, where the profit is.
Quote from: francesco nicoli on 06/24/2014 02:54 pmMoon or Mars first? anywhere, where the profit is.Let me remind that, for the very same reasons you mentioned, neither of the two, maybe. But we are not talking about a colony here, but about "where first". And, again, the reasons for going to the Moon or Mars maybe totally or partially different from profits or colonisation. See Antarctica.
yes. but in Antarctica, you have MAINLY public power involved, not private companies....which brings back to the original statement in my post: before discussing anything, you need to clarify whether you are talking about private or public actions as their goals and approaches are completely different.
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.
Quote from: sdsds on 06/08/2014 05:14 amPropellant 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.
@ Alf Fasshttp://www.isruinfo.com/index.php?page=srr_15_ptmssKeep the light on.Cheers
Of course there are a lot of drawbacks, but I can't see Mars as a competitor to the Moon either. Mars is Mars. It's literally "another planet" with its own challenges, benefit and costs. Reaching it is difficult and dangerous for humans...
After careful analysis, I favour...
My sumup:As I see it, the moon is more interesting in the sense that it is completely different from Earth. It is airless, it has a shallow gravity well, and it is part of a binary system which makes it really attractive for implementing non-rocket spacelaunch. Furthermore, L1/L2 are "high points" of the solar system since they have a very massive body nearby for using the oberth effect. Counterintuitively, this makes reaching the outer solar system is easier to do from L2 than from Mars C3=0.This makes the Moon an absolutely amazing place for large-scale industry aimed at providing materials for colonies anywhere in the solar system. If you're thinking on a very large scale, the moon can supply more materials for O'Neill habitats than the entire asteroid belt. Developing assets on the moon generally puts us on the path towards orbital habitats which I think is critical if we're ever going to pull off interstellar travel. Mars on the other hand is a return to the prison of living deep inside a gravity well and is in this sense is a dead end on the very long term.So from my point of view, Moon and asteroids it is.
Quote from: Nilof on 07/13/2014 03:22 amMy sumup:As I see it, the moon is more interesting in the sense that it is completely different from Earth. It is airless, it has a shallow gravity well, and it is part of a binary system which makes it really attractive for implementing non-rocket spacelaunch. Furthermore, L1/L2 are "high points" of the solar system since they have a very massive body nearby for using the oberth effect. Counterintuitively, this makes reaching the outer solar system is easier to do from L2 than from Mars C3=0.This makes the Moon an absolutely amazing place for large-scale industry aimed at providing materials for colonies anywhere in the solar system. If you're thinking on a very large scale, the moon can supply more materials for O'Neill habitats than the entire asteroid belt. Developing assets on the moon generally puts us on the path towards orbital habitats which I think is critical if we're ever going to pull off interstellar travel. Mars on the other hand is a return to the prison of living deep inside a gravity well and is in this sense is a dead end on the very long term.So from my point of view, Moon and asteroids it is.Emphasis is mine. This is the reason for Moon first. We could have an explosion of space industry for space industry, in spaaaaaace. Rather than long flight times(Mars), irregular operation times(asteroids). The Moon is always 4 days away by rocket, and 3 seconds away by telecommunication. The Moon offers the greatest flexibility of robotic or manned missions.This will open up the solar system to mankind. It will lead to a stronger Mars, a stronger Ceres and Vesta. More missions to the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. All for less $$$ and less time, if, we plant that industry seed on the Moon first.
Seriously.Everyone with a "moon/mars/Betelgeuse first" hypothesis would help the discussion a lot by explaining the conditions of how is this falsifiable? What sort of evidence, information or experiment would reasonably disprove the claims.Maybe we should have a thread titled "moon first: here is how you can prove me wrong"
My sumup: ...This makes the Moon an absolutely amazing place for large-scale industry aimed at providing materials for colonies anywhere in the solar system. If you're thinking on a very large scale, the moon can supply more materials for O'Neill habitats than the entire asteroid belt....So from my point of view, Moon and asteroids it is.
Just as the oldest superpower, China, needed free trade [and how and why it was able to transform itself from one of poorest country to a country will a per capita GDP comparable to EU].
Quote from: gbaikie on 08/02/2014 07:27 pm Just as the oldest superpower, China, needed free trade [and how and why it was able to transform itself from one of poorest country to a country will a per capita GDP comparable to EU]. Uh what? China isn't even remotely close to reaching that level of wealth. It's 2013 per capita GDP was still about half of Brazil's, which itself has a lower GDP per capita than any of the EU member states.Sure, at 7-8% growth rate a year, it's closing in. But it isn't passing the west soon.
http://www.astrowatch.net/2014/07/ancient-earth-fossils-could-be.html
Quote from: Hernalt on 07/29/2014 11:57 pmhttp://www.astrowatch.net/2014/07/ancient-earth-fossils-could-be.htmlI've been saying this for years; the potential for terrestrial biological remains on the Moon and Mars is enormous. Not 'fossils', as the geological conditions are quite different, but certainly biological material - even if just chirality enhanced chemical residues. Full biohazard precautions - both forward and backward - will need to be undertaken, especially for any dealings with 'benign' Lunar polar regions where relict Terrestrial pathogens may be preserved. There's also the issue of gravitational traps and null points around the Solar System - the local LaGrange points, Trojan/Ajax asteroids, surfaces of retrograde orbiting moons of the outer planets, etc. I might add that I'm not a fan of Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe's ideas in this area, which strike me as being examples of special pleading at best.
Seriously.Everyone with a "moon/mars/Betelgeuse first" hypothesis would help the discussion a lot by explaining the conditions of how is this falsifiable? What sort of evidence, information or experiment would reasonably disprove the claims.
Wiki:Brazil: 82 Brazil 12,100 2013 est.China: 97 China 9,800 2013 est.[[Central Intelligence Agency (1993–2013)(based on estimates and, sometimes, IMF data) ]]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capitaSo according to above China is more than 3/4rd of Brazil's per capita GDP in 2013.
Quote from: gbaikie on 08/02/2014 11:46 pmWiki:Brazil: 82 Brazil 12,100 2013 est.China: 97 China 9,800 2013 est.[[Central Intelligence Agency (1993–2013)(based on estimates and, sometimes, IMF data) ]]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capitaSo according to above China is more than 3/4rd of Brazil's per capita GDP in 2013.This ain't got a lot to do with Moon first, but I think it should be pointed out that nominal GDP is probably a more useful measure of a nations productivity than PPP, which is more useful when comparing living standards.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capitaBrazil 65 Brazil 11,100 2013 estChina 83 China 6,900 2013 est
gbaikie;Lunar economics may (probably will) be based less on water than on LOX and Lunar sourced materials that don't require "exportation" of water based products. Water at the poles and in the regolith enables easier on-site exploitation but it would really be better to reserver exports to materials that are in abundance and not source limited which the polar cold traps are. There are a LOT of products possible from the Moon:http://www.moonsociety.org/publications/mmm_themes/mmmt_LunarEconomy.pdf%20http://www.moonsociety.org/publications/mmm_themes/mmmt_Earth.pdfhttp://www.moonsociety.org/publications/mmm_themes/mmmt_construction.pdfhttp://www.moonsociety.org/publications/mmm_themes/mmmt_ArtsCrafts.pdfRandy
Going beyond even 450 kms altitude is not even certain within the next 3 decades, never mind any particular rock being inevitable!That said, if they can't create the capability ($$$) to go to the Moon, forget Mars.
Quote from: Darkseraph on 08/05/2014 05:34 amGoing beyond even 450 kms altitude is not even certain within the next 3 decades, never mind any particular rock being inevitable!That said, if they can't create the capability ($$$) to go to the Moon, forget Mars.Exactly, if you think the moon is expensive Mars will be 5-10 times more expensive.Obviously the costs need to come down, way down. But also, the way to get beyond LEO is beyond the vision of a single POTUS. It has be a multi-term sustained effort. In that regard I think the slow steady approach of designing and building the required parts, put them on the shelf, Orion, SLS, J-2X, RS-25E etc. is key.That way at some point all you need is a lander and surface hardware. That is within a single administration's ability.
I don't understand the argument that exploring the Moon would help us explore Mars too. The differences between the Moon and Mars are huge: Distance, atmosphere, dust, gravity, day/night. One cannot use the same lander or space suite or transfer vehicle or habitation module or temperature controls or energy source or communication system or bloody anything on both places! Even the Apollo rover would collapse in Mars' gravity. A trip to Mars has nothing to learn from a trip to the Moon. They are two completely different things. Like flying or diving.And because the Moon is easier, we will explore the Moon first and it won't help us at all to get closer to Mars.
At the moment it is neither Moon nor Mars. For me it was a sobering, that people (including me) were ready to skip the moon because we thought it has no water. But it has an unexpected amount.So, I think at the moment lets just study the Moon from the point of view of ISRU, and then if it is not possible to make an international lunar base with the cost of under 3x the cost of ISS then, I think we will have to wait for a new technology. But, then it its completely unpredictable if the next step is base/colony on the Moon or Mars first.Mars is much much harder than the Moon: even sample return from Mars is the stuff of fantasy, while sample return from the Moon is considered boring. So the only way for Mars mission is one way trip. But this will not happen. If you is ready to ignore the Moon it means you are not serious, and if you are not serious you will not take actions...Predictions aside, there is one thing that fascinates me about the Moon. It is possible to make a reusable single stage orbital vehicle (assuming fuel, materials and base on the surface). Then you just assemble a huge ship in lunar orbit from materials from the Moon and then you go in style to Mars, Callisto and Titan :-)
The Moon will win because in any situation where space exploration is considered, the Moon will be cheaper, sooner, safer and simpler than Mars.
At the moment it is neither Moon nor Mars. For me it was a sobering, that people (including me) were ready to skip the moon because we thought it has no water. But it has an unexpected amount.So, I think at the moment lets just study the Moon from the point of view of ISRU, and then if it is not possible to make an international lunar base with the cost of under 3x the cost of ISS then, I think we will have to wait for a new technology. But, then it its completely unpredictable if the next step is base/colony on the Moon or Mars first.{snip}
Anyway, I don't think there will be another person on the Moon or first person on Mars in my lifetime, i.e. before 2050. (But hey, there is ISS and the race between Boeing and SpaceX to take the flag there fun fun fun :-))
...and then if it is not possible to make an international lunar base with the cost of under 3x the cost of ISS then, I think we will have to wait for a new technology.
Quote from: turbopumpfeedback on 10/23/2014 09:18 pm...and then if it is not possible to make an international lunar base with the cost of under 3x the cost of ISS then, I think we will have to wait for a new technology. I think it has be less than the cost of ISS. Maybe half the cost or less. That of course can only happen with lower launch costs.No government is going to spend $300 billion to mine moon dust or lunar water.
What NASA should spend about 40 billion on is exploring the lunar surface.
Or once one has crew on Mars, you are no longer going to have the time delay disadvantage with robotic operation on Mars. So this essentially makes robotic operations on Mars *better*.
But I have a feeling that over the next 20-30 years, if we begin to develop a manned orbital infrastructure, someone will get around to building an artificial 1g station. At that point it will begin to sink into our collective consciousness that we can build 1g pressurized and well-shielded habitats anywhere we please, and space colonies on the Moon and Mars will remain mostly unrealized dreams for a damned good reason - because they're silly.
Quote from: gbaikie on 01/27/2015 10:00 amWhat NASA should spend about 40 billion on is exploring the lunar surface.what about other space agencies joining the effort?
A couple of considerations:(1) if a permanent Moon base is too costly for NASA, why Mars exploration should be ok, when you need long term survival infrastructure (aka something very similar to a base) there to do the exploration?
(2) how can you predict that Moon exploration will last just 5 years? It's a big celestial body! Again, I can get the example of inner Antarctica: we are still there after 50 years and more, and the number of researches increased in geometrical fashion, at the point that we have way more stations on the inner continent today than in the past, and the current South Pole can accomodate more than 100 researchers during winter. You cannot say now what would happen should we have a Moon station. It's a big celestial body, and it is reasonable to guess that once we get there the number of possible scientific usages will increase with time.
(3) Even if Moon exploration can last just 5 years, on which basis you can say that Mars exploration will take longer?
Said that, I agree with you that I really cannot see human presence on Moon (or Mars) other than for scientific purposes. Maybe tourism, but I have not seen a credible business plan to develop an industry there.
I would put time period as being less than 10 years. First 6 to 7 year robotic, then 2-3 year crewed and robotic lunar exploration.What is being explored is lunar poles- about size of California. Antarctic is 150% of continental US.But California is pretty big- so a reason one wants to start/focus with robotics.Mars on other hand is same land area as all Earth land area.And I envision much exploration of the Moon, once there is commercial lunar water mining.But idea is not to have NASA bogged down on the Moon- and don't have political fight with those who want Mars. And Moon and then Mars has been passed by US congress [and I like the idea].And I want more billionaires like Musk to do things on the Moon. It's going to be hard to do- need lotsof world's talent to do it.
Quote from: gbaikie on 01/27/2015 11:15 amI would put time period as being less than 10 years. First 6 to 7 year robotic, then 2-3 year crewed and robotic lunar exploration.What is being explored is lunar poles- about size of California. Antarctic is 150% of continental US.But California is pretty big- so a reason one wants to start/focus with robotics.Mars on other hand is same land area as all Earth land area.And I envision much exploration of the Moon, once there is commercial lunar water mining.But idea is not to have NASA bogged down on the Moon- and don't have political fight with those who want Mars. And Moon and then Mars has been passed by US congress [and I like the idea].And I want more billionaires like Musk to do things on the Moon. It's going to be hard to do- need lotsof world's talent to do it.(1) Most of inner Antarctica is covered by thick ice. This made Antarctic exploration quite different from almost any other continent in the world. For this reason, most of Antarctica has never been visited by a man and real "exploration" is only needed in a fraction of its mostly featureless territory In this sense, just in this sense, Moon exploration can be very different and it may require much more time to explore the very different features available there, left in much better conditions than on Earth from the lack of an atmosphere (although other effects are obviously in action to impact on its surface characteristics).(2) Also, consider there is some potential for other sciences, like astronomy, but not only, on the dark side, as an alternative to satellites and probes, just like in Antarctica, that has become one of the few best sites in the world, although not in optical astronomy, as it was hoped at the beginning because of a very turbulent layer found relatively recently. For example, long baseline interferometry may results much more feasible on the Moon than on Earth, in orbit or even Mars. This may really develop only as soon as a permanent infrastructure is available. Moreover, the crust and even the ice of the polar cap maybe of invaluable relevance for those studying the origin of the solar system. If ice is found on the polar cap I guess it could really become exciting and handy to analyze samples found at various location.
Depots seem to be fairly necessary to be able to commercially mine lunar water.
Quote from: gbaikie on 01/28/2015 02:36 pmDepots seem to be fairly necessary to be able to commercially mine lunar water. Sorry - I may have missed some information but, why should lunar water have some commercial value??
Quote from: pagheca on 01/28/2015 04:39 pmSorry - I may have missed some information but, why should lunar water have some commercial value??Conversion to LH2 and LOX for usage in propellant depots, is what I usually hear, as it's cheaper from a delta-v perspective to go from the moon's surface to LEO than earth's surface to LEO.So I guess you'd set up the depots traditionally first, then once you've gotten a moon-mining setup, the depots suddenly get much more sustainable as they don't need launches from earth to stay topped up.
Sorry - I may have missed some information but, why should lunar water have some commercial value??
Quote from: pagheca on 01/28/2015 04:39 pmQuote from: gbaikie on 01/28/2015 02:36 pmDepots seem to be fairly necessary to be able to commercially mine lunar water. Sorry - I may have missed some information but, why should lunar water have some commercial value??Conversion to LH2 and LOX for usage in propellant depots, is what I usually hear, as it's cheaper from a delta-v perspective to go from the moon's surface to LEO than earth's surface to LEO.So I guess you'd set up the depots traditionally first, then once you've gotten a moon-mining setup, the depots suddenly get much more sustainable as they don't need launches from earth to stay topped up.
Quote from: NovaSilisko on 01/28/2015 04:50 pmQuote from: pagheca on 01/28/2015 04:39 pmSorry - I may have missed some information but, why should lunar water have some commercial value??Conversion to LH2 and LOX for usage in propellant depots, is what I usually hear, as it's cheaper from a delta-v perspective to go from the moon's surface to LEO than earth's surface to LEO.So I guess you'd set up the depots traditionally first, then once you've gotten a moon-mining setup, the depots suddenly get much more sustainable as they don't need launches from earth to stay topped up.Ok, I got what you mean. However, we are talking about short term plans (you mentioned Obama). I think this kind of processes cannot be validated in time to be convenient or even used locally for the next step in space exploration.
To me Mars makes more sense to colonise. It has a 24 hour day. The temperature is less extreme than the moon. It definately has more water and a CO2 atmosphere. Plants and animals can be grown in greenhouses easier on Mars. They are already used to the 24 hour light dark cycle. ISRI resources might be easier to make on Mars than the moon. I think the moon will be useful for mining. Oxygen and silicone from the soil as well as other minerals. Mars might be more asthetically pleasing to human life due the the 24 hour cycle, sunrises and sunsets, etc. I do agree that giant space stations with 1g spin, like giant cylinders is probably the ultimate way to go. As one said they could be in orbit around the moon, Mars, or even asteroids and just use the planets, moons, and asteroids for mining resources. Out past Mars though, solar power would probably not be enough. Nukes would have to be used for power from the asteroids out to the moons of Jupiter and Saturn.
If there is no water in the polar craters, or if it is caught up inside minerals and need difficult processing, then the Moon becomes a much less attractive place. This needs to be found out by a lander in order to potentially falsify the Moon first idea. I hope that the Chinese are on to doing this soon, no one else in the world cares so the Moon is for them to take. The most attractive real estate is not very large, so the first one there could take it all for themselves.
But science today leans towards there not only being water, but also nitrogen and carbon, trapped in the eternally shadowed polar craters. Big solar panels on an eternally sunlit ridge which beams microwaves to power a volatile extracting rover in the shadow below, and voila we will soon have a permanently manned Moon base with greenhouses and a rocket fuel factory.As the Lunar architecture develops, I think that the gap between the Moon and Mars could widen. Continuing development of the Moon would then be easier than trying to reinvent a Mars version of it all (almost everything must be differently designed from scratch for the two very different destinations, the Moon is NOT a stepping stone to Mars).
A big argument against Mars is the travel time. 8½ or 6 months in a tiny tin can to get there is not for the casual traveller. Explorers, scientists, workers would find the Moon much more comfortable. Especially when it has better infrastructure for travel and living and working there than Mars will have. Mars will remain less developed, less profitable and less accessible for centuries. As someone pointed out here, the Moon has the huge Earth marketplace nearby, fueling spaceships in cis-lunar space where more than 99% of all space assets are located.
A base near the Lunar equator is a bigger problem which requires nuclear power and likely also supply transports from a polar base. In the very long term, Mars might be better for huge settlements. But we'll have a Hong Kong on the Lunar pole first.