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.
The question is the trade-off between harder-to-reach Mars and harder-to-live on Moon.
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
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?
(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.