Author Topic: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.  (Read 60773 times)

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #20 on: 06/08/2014 01:03 am »
As meekGee suggested, I take here discussion that was very OT where it was.

The 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.

On topic, Im actually sort of inspired by the current asteroid approach, because it is so cheap it might actually get done. It also suggests a possible path where both moon and mars are side projects to the colonization of the solar system.

Get a DSH (developed from ISS budget) attached to a 7 meter rock in lunar orbit. Practice HSF operations involving regolith in low gravity. Practice baking volatiles out of regolith. Practice exploiting this material for propellant and life support. Practice propellant depots. Develop confidence that you can really keep this DSH habitable for years. Eventually just push off for other locations such as NEAs, Deimos, Ceres and the entire asteroid belt.

There are many reasons that make moon and mars superior, but none of these pay off until you actually land on them. Unfortunately 'moon' has become a codeword for "build SLS, totally ignore lack of funding for lander" and 'mars' has become a codeword for 'handwavy future goal than any current project might be justified by'

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 #21 on: 06/08/2014 01:22 am »
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.

Savuporo, not everything can be falsifiable.

If I say that the US football team will not win the World cup this statement is not really falsifiable, but is highly likely to be true ;)

That is cheaper is obvious IMHO. I don't think I need to show you this on paper. More distance, more time, more gravity means more costly.

That we went to the Moon already is difficult to falsify, unless you don't trust to some conspiracy theories... :)

That a 3 days exposition to radiation is easier to survive respect to a 6 month one (specially when you consider solar flares) is obvious too.

That is safer and that people can be pulled out easily comes from the above considerations.

That from a scientific point of view the Moon is more intersting than Mars requires more time and understanding. Regarding astronomy in particular, vacuum, lower gravity and the rotation speed are all great assets that the Mars doesn't have. The real competitors are Lagrangian points, not Mars, but with a lot of additional issues.

That we have the technology to get out of the Moon with a SSTO is, avain, obvious. That is possible to do this from Mars has still to be demonstrated.

There is only one point debatable IMHO: that the Moon is easier to sell than Mars. And there in fact I said this is an opinion, not a fact.



Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #22 on: 06/08/2014 01:46 am »
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?

H3

Helium-3 is easy to make in nuclear reactors.  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.

Helium-3 has some advantages in fusion power reactors, but it has disadvantages that far outweigh the advantages.  The helium-3 fusion reaction under consideration is fusing He3 with deuterium.  It's much harder to do that than to fuse tritium with deuterium, which is why tritium is used in most fusion research (and in nuclear weapons).  We can't even do the easier fusion reactions to generate net power.

And to cap it all off, helium-3 is pretty rare on the Moon, too.  We'd have to process vast quantities of regolith to get helium-3.  Even if we had colonies on the moon already and even if we needed helium-3 for fusion power, it would probably still be easier to just make it in a breeder reactor than to try to mine the stuff from the moon.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #23 on: 06/08/2014 02:01 am »
(1) there is a huge amount of awesome science to be done on the Moon.

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?

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).

Yes, the Moon is better for astronomy than Mars.  The thing is, though, that both are worse than just doing astronomy from space.

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.

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.

That's true.  But that is just saying it's easier to do science on the Moon, not that there's more science to do there.

(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.

(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.

I agree with you on these two points.  It is cheaper, and it is faster to get home from there.

(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.

I completely disagree with that.  It's not a good rehearsal at all for Mars because it is so different.  Most of the hard problems to solve for living on the Moon don't apply to Mars, and most of the hard problems you need to solve to live on Mars aren't needed for the Moon.

(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!).

I haven't seen a lot of evidence whether that's true or false.  Still, even if it's true it would be easier to get funding for, that doesn't necessarily mean it's the right choice if that funding goes to something that doesn't help us get closer to what matters a lot more.

(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.

Again, the hard things we would have to do to live on the Moon aren't needed for Mars, and the hard things needed to live on Mars aren't needed on the Moon.  Going one place doesn't help you much on the other, aside from things we could learn just as easily in LEO.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #24 on: 06/08/2014 02:41 am »
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.

Savuporo, not everything can be falsifiable.


If you have a rational hypothesis, summarized in an abstract "moon first is cheaper/better/delightful/..." and backed by a solid set of arguments, reasoning and data, it will also be falsifiable

Otherwise it's just an opinion, wild *ss guess or religion.

And the corollary : opinions, guesses and religious arguments are not really worth debating over. Everyone has their own and arguments are not going to sway anyone. Make it a falsifiable hypothesis, and we might get somewhere.
« Last Edit: 06/08/2014 03:13 am by savuporo »
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #25 on: 06/08/2014 02:49 am »
The Moon is a far better/easier target for tourism, so Moon first.

Mining and science can be done with robots, possibly remote-controlled from orbit (or L1/L2 in the case of the Moon).
« Last Edit: 06/08/2014 02:52 am by Oli »

Offline Alf Fass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 452
  • The Abyss
  • Liked: 91
  • Likes Given: 83
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #26 on: 06/08/2014 05:06 am »
Oli is correct, tourism will be one of the major initial drivers for HSF throughout the Earth/Moon system.
« Last Edit: 06/08/2014 05:07 am by Alf Fass »
When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?
John Maynard Keynes

Online sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7194
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2039
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #27 on: 06/08/2014 05:14 am »
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.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Warren Platts

Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #28 on: 06/08/2014 11:38 am »
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.

You can make ALLOX rocket propellant out of plain rocks if necessary. There are potential resources on the Moon that might actually be worth exporting to Earth (e.g., gold, maybe He3), or to Earth orbit (material for a SBSP system or Brilliant Pebbles anti-missile system). Mars wouldn't be any help for the latter two projects.

Whether there is gold on Mars is an interesting question. Assuming that Earth and Mars have similar bulk compositions, one might expect that there has been less depletion of HSE's from the Martian mantle. Combine that with hydrothermal processes that are probably mostly lacking on the Moon, there might be some lucrative Mother Lodes on Mars that could possibly be enough to finance a small colony...
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

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 #29 on: 06/08/2014 01:56 pm »
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?

Sure. But here is only one driver for this: the idea that Mars may have hosted life or host life even today. This helps a lot to win funding against other solar objects. And I admit, is a good point. But a part from this Mars is "just" another solar system object and IF there is no life on Mars - as many think today - the "market value" of Mars will be highly reduced. In fact Jovian and Saturnian satellites are gaining visibility quite quickly today.

Yes, the Moon is better for astronomy than Mars.  The thing is, though, that both are worse than just doing astronomy from space.

I don't think so.

All the astronomical observatory done to date in space suffer from basic limitatons:
(1) the focal plane instrumentation cannot be easily upgraded.
(2) they run out of cryogenic liquids and other consumable soon or later.
(3) formation flight for interferometry - something I've been involved, and that could be of high interest - is not technically easy to be done. So, the benefit of not having the atmosphere absorption in some critical bands unaccessible with high spatial resolution from Earth is lost.
(4) the largest mirror built (Herschel) is of a relatively modest size respect to instruments like the VLT, TMT or E-ELT.. JWST is different but will be limited to by the mass to be put in orbit in one shot.

As a consequence, all the instrumentation done to date is "expendable" and limited in size. There is no upgrade, no quick servicing available. The only, limited exception is HST (JWST as you know is not serviceable). Almost everything required for deep space observation go wasted.

An observatory on the Moon could benefit from having a base in the vicinity. One may observe that the budget and the technical improvements required for this may be used to improve this in orbit. But having a fleet of instruments around is different than having them at a base in the Moon, serviced by the same logistics used to do other science, maintain the base, experience long term survival techniques and logistics management on another "planet", etc.

I appreciate all your points but I still think that, as mentioned by many, the "delta-t" is a show stopper: no Moon, no Mars, no other long permanence in space manned projects. We have to master how to do the "small leap" to do the longer one. The Moon is the only place on the solar system where we can install something permanent with current credible technology available now. And that has a slight possibility to be sold to the public.
« Last Edit: 06/08/2014 02:14 pm by pagheca »

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2231
  • Likes Given: 1584
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #30 on: 06/08/2014 02:16 pm »
Both the Moon and Mars are important destinations for scientific research. Considering the difficulty in getting to Mars compared to the Moon and the interest in the international community, it looks like a return to the Moon will be first.

Optical telescopes on the Moon might have problems with dust, making space based telescopes more practical. Radio telescopes placed on the far side of the Moon would be shielded from interference produced on Earth.

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 #31 on: 06/08/2014 02:30 pm »
Optical telescopes on the Moon might have problems with dust, making space based telescopes more practical.

You are right, Ron, but it's not an insurmountable problem. There are already many techniques, like electrostatic traveling-wave that may help in mitigating the problem in vacuum.

Please note that I'm not saying that it is worth to go to the Moon because of astronomy. I'm just making an example of an advantage in science of having a permanent base on the Moon that may have gone underrated.
« Last Edit: 06/08/2014 02:33 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 #32 on: 06/08/2014 02:48 pm »
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.

"Mr. Miller estimated that demand for helium 3 was about 65,000 liters per year through 2013 and that total production by the only two countries that produce it in usable form, the United States and Russia, was only about 20,000 liters. In a letter to President Obama, he called the shortage “a national crisis” and said the price had jumped to $2,000 a liter from $100 in the last few years, which threatens scientific research." (source)

While I do not think the Moon is yet a reasonable solution, at least for the next decade, the problem exists. He3 is used in dilution cryopumps and a single leak may mean a financial "tragedy" for a small research group :)
« Last Edit: 06/09/2014 12:36 am by pagheca »

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #33 on: 06/08/2014 04:06 pm »
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 straight
I am a dedicated Mars firster, nothing will change my mind - do not collect $200, go straight
I 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 etc
Focus 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.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #34 on: 06/08/2014 06:26 pm »
What would this poll tell us other than that opinions vary? I'm not convinced of the utility enough to start one.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Barrie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 474
  • Planets are a waste of space
  • Liked: 242
  • Likes Given: 3815
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #35 on: 06/08/2014 06:53 pm »
What would this poll tell us other than that opinions vary? I'm not convinced of the utility enough to start one.

It would be interesting to see which option is more popular, but I would have different options:

After careful analysis, I favour Mars first
After careful analysis, I favour Moon first
My interest is casual, but my gut says Mars first
My interest is casual, but my gut says Moon first
The world is big enough to pursue multiple paths, no such choice is necessary

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #36 on: 06/08/2014 07:35 pm »
What 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.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10972
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #37 on: 06/09/2014 12:19 am »
What's the immediate goal of a Lunar base?...

You should try answering this question honestly, instead of pretending that it is a valuable objection.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10972
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #38 on: 06/09/2014 12:21 am »
What 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.

Why?  It is not a matter of being open to correction.  It is a matter of considering the ease of landing on the proximate versus the distant destination at first.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline kch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1758
  • Liked: 496
  • Likes Given: 8807
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #39 on: 06/09/2014 12:39 am »
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 straight
I am a dedicated Mars firster, nothing will change my mind - do not collect $200, go straight
I 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 etc
Focus 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.

Had to chuckle when I got to your fifth option -- could hear Fred Scuttle protesting "no, no, it's true, it's true!"   ;D

Tags:
 

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