4 ms·

Ugh. 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

by davedx 8y ago

Ugh. 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 ago
Depends 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 ago
  If 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 ago
For 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).
kodablah 8y ago
I think there should be a distinction between "stepping stone" in the project management sense and "stepping stone" in the capabilities sense. While technology has made the latter unnecessary, I'm not convinced humans and lack of incremental extra-orbit progress haven't made the former necessary.
- cookingrobot 8y ago
  Milestone might be a better word then.
Recurecur 8y ago
"We've been to the Moon. We don't need to go back. We need to aim higher." In an absolute sense, we don't need to do either. I believe the Moon will support the first permanent population of humans outside Earth. It remains to be seen if there is any meaningful physiological difference between 1/6 G and 1/3 G. If not, the experience of living on either will be more similar than not. My gut feeling is that there will have to be centrifugal "gravity" available on both the Moon and Mars. I think the Moon has one thing that Mars does not - it is an attractive spot for heavy industry producing goods shipped to Earth, with abundant solar energy to boot. There is no issue with nuclear power there either.

by davedx 8y ago

martythemaniak 8y ago

Depends 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 ago
If 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 ago

For 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).

kodablah 8y ago

I think there should be a distinction between "stepping stone" in the project management sense and "stepping stone" in the capabilities sense. While technology has made the latter unnecessary, I'm not convinced humans and lack of incremental extra-orbit progress haven't made the former necessary.

cookingrobot 8y ago
Milestone might be a better word then.

Recurecur 8y ago

"We've been to the Moon. We don't need to go back. We need to aim higher." In an absolute sense, we don't need to do either. I believe the Moon will support the first permanent population of humans outside Earth. It remains to be seen if there is any meaningful physiological difference between 1/6 G and 1/3 G. If not, the experience of living on either will be more similar than not. My gut feeling is that there will have to be centrifugal "gravity" available on both the Moon and Mars. I think the Moon has one thing that Mars does not - it is an attractive spot for heavy industry producing goods shipped to Earth, with abundant solar energy to boot. There is no issue with nuclear power there either.