How similar are the regolith fines in the two environments? Both are near vacuum, but Mars perhaps has enough atmosphere that the particles will be more rounded than the Moon's notoriously sharp, interlocking granules.Nevertheless, I think a lot of work could be done in learning how to manage dust in a nearly-Mars-like environment, with normal cyclng of seals and mechanical joints. You might counter-argue that it could be done with regolith simulant in vacuum chambers on Earth.Paul451: why would suits be significantly different? Heat-load is the only major difference I can think of.(Edit: lunar suit would need micro-meteoroid protection. Optional extra layer?)
Quote from: ThereIWas3 on 01/23/2016 09:46 pmPowered descent and landing does not need to be tested on the Moon first; this is well understood technology on both Earth and Mars.Mars landing is radically different to a Moon landing, though some technologies are common - but not enough to justify test missions to the Moon on the way to Mars. The Moon remains, however, a worthwhile near-term goal - and probably a more politically acceptable one for state space agencies.
Powered descent and landing does not need to be tested on the Moon first; this is well understood technology on both Earth and Mars.
The Moon and Mars are sufficiently different that I don't think it would be efficient to reuse much technology between the two missions. So I agree that the argument of reuse of technology is not a good one. However, what I do see as useful is the experience gained in performing complex Lunar missions. That experience is what I believe will lead to a successful Mars mission.
About the only commonality would be equipment within the pressurized habitat. Virtually everything else will have to be different. ISRU methods will be different. Thermal control (for both surface habitats and spacesuits) will be different. Power production and storage will be different. Lander design will be different. Moon: Day / Night cycle of 28 days (~200 C temperature swings from day to night), no atmosphere (thermal control must be done by radiating away the heat), much less water (excepting polar locations with permanently shadowed craters), 0.16 g gravity. ~3-4 days transit time from Earth, very frequent launch windows. <1 second radio delay for communications with Earth. Mars: Day / Night cycle of 24 1/2 hours, less temperature extremes (~90 C from day to night), very thin atmosphere (but sufficient for some radiation protection and allows for thermal regulation by convection), much more water available in the top soil, 0.376 g gravity. ~6 months transit time from Earth with launch windows every 18 months or so. 15-40 minutes delay in radio communications with Earth. Things like rovers and spacesuits that are designed to work on the surface of the Moon will not work on Mars, and vice versa. If your end goal is to go to Mars, then yes, going to the Moon first is nothing but a very expensive diversion from your goal. If you want to go to Mars, then go to Mars. If you want to go to the Moon, then go to the Moon. Both are very worthy destinations for science, exploration, and future economic exploitation, but going to one does not really help you in going to the other.
Having the human environment systems debugged on the Moon will save the Mars team a fortune.
{snip}Focus on Mars, and some of the hardware might be able to be modified for a lunar infrastructure. Focus on the moon, and very little will be useful for Mars.[I don't mean solely MCT either. If you had a DRA 5.0 Mars system with an LEO-LMO transfer ship with separate lander(s), those landers and the engine and power module for the LEO/LMO ship would be useful for lunar missions. You just wouldn't need the long duration habitat and life-support for the Earth/Mars trip.]
A LEO-LLO transfer ship may not need a long duration habitat and life-support but a Moon base does.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 05/10/2016 04:35 amA LEO-LLO transfer ship may not need a long duration habitat and life-support but a Moon base does.A surface life-support is likely to be significantly different from a micro-g ECLSS. One intended for either polar or equatorial lunar day/night cycles is going to have radically different requirements to one intended for LEO, BEO-space or Mars surface.
In what ways could the Moon serve as a convenient testing ground for things that might be used on Mars?What things could be tested on the Moon before trying them out on Mars?What are the differences between the 2 environments that would have to be accounted for?What kind of projects might be beneficial for lunar science even while supporting greater goals for Mars?
Quote from: sanman on 01/23/2016 05:34 amIn what ways could the Moon serve as a convenient testing ground for things that might be used on Mars?What things could be tested on the Moon before trying them out on Mars?What are the differences between the 2 environments that would have to be accounted for?What kind of projects might be beneficial for lunar science even while supporting greater goals for Mars?The moon can be used to test the business case for a Mars colony. Most of the GDP of a colony will be the generation of intellectual property. Much like Antarctica, the vast majority of people there will be researchers who's institutions or governments are paying for their time there. Residents will be a fraction of the total population. A moon outpost let's you try out all your support functions for that economic activity, but without the time, expenses, and danger of a two year trip.
US and China collaboration.