2 ms·
The web site states, as a matter of fact, that all engineering problems to colonize Mars must be first solved on the moon. That's not really a fact, though, is
by sgtnoodle 5y ago
The web site states, as a matter of fact, that all engineering problems to colonize Mars must be first solved on the moon. That's not really a fact, though, is it? Like, it seems like a reasonable plan for incrementally derisking things, but it doesn't seem strictly necessary.
It also seems like there's technical problems that are unique to Mars, and technical problems that are unique to the moon. For example, landing on the moon can only really be done propulsively due to the lack of atmosphere. On Mars, though, there's atmosphere to aero-brake with. Or, insulation is relatively easy on the moon because of the lack of convection and conduction, while it's really difficult on Mars despite the temperature swings being considerably less severe.
- cryptography 5y agoThanks for an interesting comment. I wouldn't say that the website states specifically about 'all engineering problems' but more a 'salesy' statement (also sounded several times by NASA while explaining their Artemis mission - 'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T8cn2J13-4&t=22s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T8cn2J13-4&t=22s'). But like everything else, there is some truth to this that without a base on the Moon, the possibility of facing unpleasant surprises on Mars is even more. Additional to the experiments in 'Mars-like' places on the Earth, it would add more value by making similar experiences in outer space such as on the Moon. Agree with you that Mars introduces technical challenges (like the atmospheric ones you mentioned) that are not specific to the Moon. IMO, also the spacecraft aiming to travel to Mars (such as 'Starship') should prove their reliability to the distances that have already been traveled (like ISS, Moon) before sending them to unknown territories.