5 ms·

Is there something which they can transform on the moon to get fuel or something? Using those nuclear power plants?

aeternum 6y ago
We've confirmed there is ice on the moon deep in the craters so we should be able to convert that into hydrogen fuel and oxidizer.
- valuearb 6y ago
  We aren’t sure how much regolith is mixed with that ice, or how we can process it without using massive amounts of energy. It’s not like Mars where water and CO2 are everywhere.
  - aeternum 6y ago
    Good point. The moon is probably most useful as a testbed for Mars (since we can iterate much more quickly).
    - valuearb 6y ago
      It’s a terrible test bed for Mars because it’s environment is so vastly different. - You can’t use use aerobraking to land. This means you can land much larger cargos on Mars. - Your habitat has to be able to withstand temps at least 150 degrees colder and 200 degrees hotter than what Mars requires. - Your climate control system has to manage this heat/cold for two weeks at a time instead of 12 hours at a time. - Since there is no atmosphere or rain, Luna has razor sharp dust. You need entirely different space suits. - To survive you need power storage to last for two weeks at a time instead of 12 hours at a tube. - The moon doesn’t have liquid water, or easily accessible water ice. - It’s ice is mixed in rocks frozen at absolute zero buried in polar craters, hundreds of degrees colder than motions of square KM of Martian surface ice sheets hundreds of meters deep. - Luna doesn’t have any easily accessible CO2, or Carbon, or the same for Iron, which litters the surface of Mars. - You can’t produce methane as fuel on the moon, only H2. H2 is much harder to store for long periods. - Etc, etc
      - aeternum 6y ago
        There are still huge advantages in testing off-world tech in a place where it takes 3 days rather than 7 months to get there. Are you advocating that we try to go straight to Mars rather than testing (some) things out on the moon first?
        valuearb 6y ago
        Yes, because testing on the moon won’t tell us much about how things work on Mars. Having the test environment closer is obviously beneficial, but only if the tests are predictive. We are better off testing in Antarctica, given it being a much closer environmental match for Mars.

We've confirmed there is ice on the moon deep in the craters so we should be able to convert that into hydrogen fuel and oxidizer.

valuearb 6y ago
We aren’t sure how much regolith is mixed with that ice, or how we can process it without using massive amounts of energy. It’s not like Mars where water and CO2 are everywhere.
- aeternum 6y ago
  Good point. The moon is probably most useful as a testbed for Mars (since we can iterate much more quickly).
  - valuearb 6y ago
    It’s a terrible test bed for Mars because it’s environment is so vastly different. - You can’t use use aerobraking to land. This means you can land much larger cargos on Mars. - Your habitat has to be able to withstand temps at least 150 degrees colder and 200 degrees hotter than what Mars requires. - Your climate control system has to manage this heat/cold for two weeks at a time instead of 12 hours at a time. - Since there is no atmosphere or rain, Luna has razor sharp dust. You need entirely different space suits. - To survive you need power storage to last for two weeks at a time instead of 12 hours at a tube. - The moon doesn’t have liquid water, or easily accessible water ice. - It’s ice is mixed in rocks frozen at absolute zero buried in polar craters, hundreds of degrees colder than motions of square KM of Martian surface ice sheets hundreds of meters deep. - Luna doesn’t have any easily accessible CO2, or Carbon, or the same for Iron, which litters the surface of Mars. - You can’t produce methane as fuel on the moon, only H2. H2 is much harder to store for long periods. - Etc, etc
    - aeternum 6y ago
      There are still huge advantages in testing off-world tech in a place where it takes 3 days rather than 7 months to get there. Are you advocating that we try to go straight to Mars rather than testing (some) things out on the moon first?
      - valuearb 6y ago
        Yes, because testing on the moon won’t tell us much about how things work on Mars. Having the test environment closer is obviously beneficial, but only if the tests are predictive. We are better off testing in Antarctica, given it being a much closer environmental match for Mars.