12 ms·
Moon Is Stepping Stone, Not Alternative to Mars, NASA Chief Says
- ArchTypical 8y agoIf you can't make a base on the moon, why risk trying to make one on Mars? It's impractical from a risk perspective.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- sunstone 8y agoSo, baby steps. :)
- tarruda 8y agoInteresting related video from Kurzgesagt released 1 week ago: https://youtu.be/NtQkz0aRDe8 https://youtu.be/NtQkz0aRDe8
- lostmsu 8y agoI profoundly disagree. IMHO, the destination is open space, not another planet, and the gravity well on the Moon is waaay easier to overcome.
- gpvos 8y agoMars is obviously a stepping stone for open space or other planetary systems.
- abecedarius 8y agoThere are asteroids about as close or closer in delta-V terms. Mars is the easiest other planet, but planets just aren't as useful as asteroids and comets right now, because of those pesky giant wells they live in. And Mars in particular is better left pristine until we've had a really good look for signs of life.
- tomphoolery 8y agoEveryone knows this, but as far as PR is concerned you want to limit the amount of information you're trying to get across. People, generally, are really stupid. Example: FB events for my shows have, in the description of the event, the location/date/time/cover charge/ticket link. All of that information is present well above that, but people will STILL post on the event wall asking where/when/how much if I don't do that. shrug
- Nomentatus 8y agoI can agree that Musk's Mars mantra had its place when nobody was paying any attention but "Mars" meant something and "let's move to dead rocks" wouldn't have been appealling. It's nearing time to drop it, though, I suspect.
- sp332 8y agoWhat's interesting about open space? To me it's the stuff in space that makes interesting destinations.
- cuboidGoat 8y agoIt is economic to move massive stuff about in open space, which is what you need for an economy to attract people. The gravity well is a huge cost. You can make a profit by sending down the gravity well but going back up tends to be a huge expense.
- fireismyflag 8y agoThe moon has 1/6th of Earth's gravity and 0% of our atmospheric pressure. Mars has 1/3rd of the gravity and 0.6% of the pressure. Those 2 factors make them very similar to each other and the distance makes the moon the clear candidate for a first step.
- superkuh 8y agoIt really doesn't though. Descent, entry and landing on the moon is completely different than Mars. You have you use entirely propulsive breaking to get rid of your orbital velocity. On Mars for very large payloads propulsive breaking is needed but aerobreaking is a huge part of it too. The Moon is not practice for Mars. It's a waste of time for political posturing.
- stcredzero 8y ago"Braking," not breaking. Some of the most difficult challenges have to do with maintaining life support long term. The Moon isn't a bad place for that. If we're able to deal with operations in conditions dealing with vacuum, that experience is still applicable. Also, the human side of the procedures for preventing lunar dust and grit from entering the living space will be important and applicable to Mars. Mars soil isn't as bad, but some of it you don't want in your living space either.
- superkuh 8y ago> "Braking," not breaking. Ah jeez. That's what I get for commenting right after rolling out of bed. > ... the most difficult challenges have to do with maintaining life support long term. The Moon isn't a bad place for that. The moon is a bad place for that because now you have to carry all that extra fuel for landing/etc. Low earth orbit is just fine for figuring out life support as has been done on the ISS already. Why do it again in some place there's no reason to go to? There's no nitrogen available on the moon. The dust thing is applicable but minor.
- kbenson 8y ago
- nonbel 8y agoEveryone just wants NASA to do something cool. The probes are ok, but pictures of rocks are getting boring. This requires risks... And sadly, I would expect the end result of this sentiment to be fewer probes rather than cooler projects.
- zwieback 8y agoHuman space flight - what a waste of resources. Send robots for the next 100 years.
- cuboidGoat 8y agoBy the end of this century I suspect there will be more than a million people living off earth, with the majority in orbitals. In about 200 years or so, I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were more people off earth than on it.
- chr1 8y agoWhat would be the incentive for living off earth for such a large number of people? I really wish for you to be right, but with population growth slowing down, and possibility of building floating cities or terraforming Sahara, building large orbital stations or going to mars in large numbers may be economically not viable, unless we invent something radically new.
- cuboidGoat 8y agoI think there will be two things. One is economics, fetching asteroids could be very big business, and the other is political, space will be viewed as freedom of a sort, given the kind of restrictions that may be in place on Earth by then, with the climate transforming alongside having a lot more people than we do today, even if growth slows down, which is far from certain. We could easily be in the age of what Bruce Sterling refers to as the Khaki Greens, aka, militarised enforcement of ecological protection.
- Kim_Bruning 8y agoSame incentive as everywhere. They get paid. ;-) Even the most automated of robotic factories on earth still have a number of humans in an oversight role, where they make themselves quite useful. The same would be true of any space industry. People would be hired on for a tour in space, and they'd be paid sufficient salary to make it worth their while.
- davedx 8y agoUgh. Zubrin's 'The Case For Mars' (which on reading, it's obvious SpaceX have based a lot of their strategy on) is categorically against going back to the Moon and using it as a 'stepping stone'. Zubrin's 'Mars Direct' architecture shows quite plainly that it is possible using current technology readiness levels and funding to send a significant scientific mission to Mars directly, without the need for huge orbital infrastructure or Moon Bases. I had a similar feeling when SpaceX announced their #DearMoon project. I truly hope the Moon doesn't distract them from their true goal: the timely establishment of a permanent human presence on Mars. We've been to the Moon. We don't need to go back. We need to aim higher.
- martythemaniak 8y agoDepends on what the moon missions are. Building moon-specific infrastructure (ie adapting things to 14 day long light / dark cycles, 0.3g) would be a distraction. Using it as a close - by testing ground probably doesn't matter except it had the upside of possible getting people excited. For example, spacex wants to test the BFS. They could send it on a wide orbit 2 days away, or they could orbit around the moon instead. Going for the moon is probably only slightly different (ie different orbit insertion) but other than that it would be the same, except awesome pics/video.
- njarboe 8y agoIf the moon's gravity was 0.3g, that would be close enough to Mars'(0.38g) that it would be useful as a prelude to a Mars landing/exploration/occupation. Unfortunately the Moon's gravity is 0.17g, so not as relevant.
- jkingsbery 8y agoFor whatever it's worth, here's an interview that's more recent with Zubrin: https://www.thespaceshow.com/show/07-aug-2018/broadcast-3167-dr.-robert-zubrin https://www.thespaceshow.com/show/07-aug-2018/broadcast-3167... . He's obviously still pro-Mars, but in that interview he seemed less anti-Moon than he was in the past (but emphatically against certain approaches).
- 8y ago
- xefer 8y agoA couple of interesting points to consider when thinking about putting a base on the Moon: "Each Apollo mission increased the mass of the lunar atmosphere by about 30%, and it took several weeks for the atmosphere to return to its natural state. Highly sensitive measurement or communication instruments may be affected by the additional atmospheric particles." [1] "Studies have also revealed that the balance is very delicate. At present, the solar wind sweeps the lunar atmosphere into space very efficiently, limiting its density to that of a collisionless gas (an exosphere). If the atmosphere were, however, a factor of just 1000 denser, this process would invert itself and the atmosphere would remain stable for tens of thousands of years. Just the Apollo missions to the Moon increased the atmospheric density by a factor of 10 with rocket exhaust (mostly CHON compounds). Large scale human activity on the Moon could push the total mass over the limit and create an artificial atmosphere, pushing the Exobase off the surface and creating a stable, if highly tenuous atmosphere which could threaten precisely the most important asset that the Moon can offer us: its sterility and almost atmosphereless nature." [2] [1] http://www.tsgc.utexas.edu/tadp/1995/spects/environment.html http://www.tsgc.utexas.edu/tadp/1995/spects/environment.html [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20050214155703/http://www.iac.es/galeria/mrk/atmo_lun.html https://web.archive.org/web/20050214155703/http://www.iac.es...
- tomatotomato37 8y agoI'm not really convinced this is something to worry about. If the vaccuum is this unstable it would be eventually be inflated anyway by a comet or gaseous asteroid collision, and it's a happy coincidence that the moon hadn't lately had a significant collisions in the period of history that we were able to get up there and measure it.
- Latteland 8y agoI agree, is there really that much value in the moon being sterile and having no atmosphere. If it had one that was much denser, we could use aero braking. This would be far away from that.
- yazr 8y agoHow "self sustaining" will a Mars base ever be ? So let assume they can make oxygen, water, maybe even calories. Great. Self supporting base. But other than that. Everything will have to be trucked in. Pipes, electrical wires, valves, medical supplies, antennas, plastics, etc. Will any of these be manufactured on-site in say 2050 ?!
- ng12 8y agoI'm far from an expert on either chemistry or manufacturing, but there's credible arguments that almost everything you need can be obtained locally: http://canada.marssociety.org/winnipeg/plastics.html http://canada.marssociety.org/winnipeg/plastics.html
- Nomentatus 8y agoNearly all will be. On either moon or Mars. Mars soil isn't that different from (rich) lunar soil. Pipes and wires and plastics they can make easily enough (carbon dioxide ice is available seasonally, for plastics.)
- Kim_Bruning 8y agoMars is a large world. It's not as big as earth, but there's also no oceans, so the exploitable land area is roughly the same. And it is pristine; no one has ever exploited any of it. With plenty of space and plenty of resources at hand, long term there's no reason a mars colony could not be self sustaining. Whether that could be true as early as 2050 would depend, of course!
- jakamau 8y agoAsking from a point of ignorance, but are there major paradigm changes that are possible by having a "drydock" on/near the moon? Why is this seen as a major waste by critics? - Are we largely constrained in our ship design since everything has to be structurally capable of handling launch and re-entry from earth's gravity well? - How would our ship designs change if they were just meant to transport heavy loads and never actually re-enter a major gravity well? Similar to the Gateway hand-off mentioned in the article - Wouldn't asteroid mining, resource harvesting be easier from a semi-permanent base that's still reasonably close to earth? - Doesn't "Moon Base" just sound really freakin' cool?
- cheeko1234 8y agoRobert Walker on Quora is a prolific writer regarding this. https://www.quora.com/profile/Robert-Walker-5 https://www.quora.com/profile/Robert-Walker-5 Specific answer to why moon first: http://qr.ae/TUGvkb http://qr.ae/TUGvkb
- tomp 8y agoI find his answer entirely unconvincing. > I think we are best not rushing into space, there’s no hurry about that. Let’s find out about space first, explore, learn, learn about our own capabilities too, [...] Exactly the same argument can be made then. > [...] have settlements in space when and where they are acutally needed, as the needs arise. By then it will be too late. The idea is that we learn by doing. > All this is hugely expensive and Earth would have to foot the bill. Because there is no way that they are going to turn a profit on Mars. All this is hugely expensive and UK would have to foot the bill. Because there is no way that they are going to turn a profit in America. > Not many peopole could afford a $200,000 spacsesuit. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" The most convincing part of his argument is weeks-long Martian dust storms.