4 ms·

"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'r

"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
  > The moon is a bad place for that because now you have to carry all that extra fuel for landing/etc. I think that might be outweighed by the fact that the transit time is a few days compared to months, and launch windows are plentiful. It's better to test with all the benefits we can initially, IMO, as failure has such a high cost (in all aspects. How long do you think it would take for the public to get over their distaste of manned missions or colinization efforts after a big failure?).
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Low earth orbit is just fine for figuring out life support as has been done on the ISS already. Entirely false. On the Moon, we can exploit in-situ resources for life support. Regolith can be used for radiation shielding and the extraction of oxygen. We can even harvest water in certain locations. Crops can be grown using hydroponics. Doing these things while maintaining a spaceport on another world isn't going to be nothing. Getting experience doing ground based operations is going to be valuable. It's not just "dust." It's probably literally tens of thousands of things we will have to learn through hard won experience. Ground-based operations. Better to get the experience where help is only 3 days away.
- quacked 8y ago
  ECLSS designs for a moon base would be very, very different from the ISS, there's no "we've already figured out life support" in LEO. The ISS is frequently restocked with consumables, which is less of an option for a moon base and not an option for Mars base, requiring an entirely different top-down design.
maxxxxx 8y ago
I agree. Having a permanent station on the Moon would be a great prep for a Mars station. In case there is a problem you have a reasonable chance to send repair material or a rescue whereas on Mars one single failure will be the end of it. I think a Moon station should be routine before we go any further.
aaron_m04 8y ago
> Mars soil isn't as bad, but some of it you don't want in your living space either. It's probably worse, since Martian soil has perchlorates, which are toxic and cause thyroid problems at low concentrations.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Some Martian soil may have hexavalent chromium, which can cause cancer and birth defects at low concentrations.

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
> The moon is a bad place for that because now you have to carry all that extra fuel for landing/etc. I think that might be outweighed by the fact that the transit time is a few days compared to months, and launch windows are plentiful. It's better to test with all the benefits we can initially, IMO, as failure has such a high cost (in all aspects. How long do you think it would take for the public to get over their distaste of manned missions or colinization efforts after a big failure?).
stcredzero 8y ago
Low earth orbit is just fine for figuring out life support as has been done on the ISS already. Entirely false. On the Moon, we can exploit in-situ resources for life support. Regolith can be used for radiation shielding and the extraction of oxygen. We can even harvest water in certain locations. Crops can be grown using hydroponics. Doing these things while maintaining a spaceport on another world isn't going to be nothing. Getting experience doing ground based operations is going to be valuable. It's not just "dust." It's probably literally tens of thousands of things we will have to learn through hard won experience. Ground-based operations. Better to get the experience where help is only 3 days away.
quacked 8y ago
ECLSS designs for a moon base would be very, very different from the ISS, there's no "we've already figured out life support" in LEO. The ISS is frequently restocked with consumables, which is less of an option for a moon base and not an option for Mars base, requiring an entirely different top-down design.

maxxxxx 8y ago

I agree. Having a permanent station on the Moon would be a great prep for a Mars station. In case there is a problem you have a reasonable chance to send repair material or a rescue whereas on Mars one single failure will be the end of it. I think a Moon station should be routine before we go any further.

aaron_m04 8y ago

> Mars soil isn't as bad, but some of it you don't want in your living space either. It's probably worse, since Martian soil has perchlorates, which are toxic and cause thyroid problems at low concentrations.

stcredzero 8y ago
Some Martian soil may have hexavalent chromium, which can cause cancer and birth defects at low concentrations.