4 ms·

It certainly makes more sense to have a base on the Moon first instead of trying to go to Mars. Once we have developed technologies and experience on the Moon

It certainly makes more sense to have a base on the Moon first instead of trying to go to Mars. Once we have developed technologies and experience on the Moon then moving on to Mars becomes more sensible and easier.

devoutsalsa 3y ago
I wonder how much synergy there is in developing a Moon vs Mars mission. I don’t think there’s a lot of overlap. If the plan is to launch Mars missions from the Moon, then the overlap is obvious.
- matthewfelgate 3y ago
  There is no point launching to Mars from the Moon.
JKCalhoun 3y ago
More-so a station in orbit of the Moon.
- cj 3y ago
  Could something the size of the ISS orbit the moon given the moon's gravity?
  - Retric 3y ago
    The ISS isn’t in a stable orbit and needs constant though low levels of thrust to maintain its position. You could actually have a more stable orbit over the moon, but getting to it would a lot more deltaV for seemingly zero benefit.
    - fallingfrog 3y ago
      Right-because as far as I know the orbit of the iss is unstable because it’s so low that there’s a very small amount of atmosphere there, enough to eventually slow it down. No atmosphere on the moon.
  - fallingfrog 3y ago
    The orbit doesn’t depend on the size of the object- a pebble and the iss in the same position with the same velocity would have the same orbit.
  - XorNot 3y ago
    The moons gravity is sufficiently low that you can build a space elevator out of already existing materials[1] That's a big deal, because it vastly simplifies orbital infrastructure, which in turn makes it realistic to think of returning materials to Earth or sending them to resupply ships further out. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_space_elevator https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_space_elevator
    - matthewfelgate 3y ago
      Oh god no. Not this rubbish again. Want to buy some magic beans? They are theoretically possible...
      - XorNot 3y ago
        The atom bomb was theoretically possible till it was practical. So was powered flight. And orbital rockets. And solar power.
        matthewfelgate 3y ago
        So? It doesn't mean all science fiction becomes reality.
        XorNot 3y ago
        Tell me: if a space elevator on the Moon is theoretically possible, using materials which already exist, then why do you conclude it definitely can't happen? Because on Earth there's a real problem: you need carbon nanotubes to do it. And not just, the ones we have, but perfectly formed, seriously long carbon nanotubes (depending on weaving techniques you can get up to 80% UTS, I can't remember if this is enough). We don't have these. We may never have these. It may be energetically impossible to build and maintain these. But the moon space elevator doesn't have that problem. A number of existing materials in use today meet the necessary strength/weight requirements for lunar gravity. You can just go and buy them. If you went to the moon with them, you could drop a very long tether from orbit down to the surface and it would work. The main reason we don't have a space elevator on the moon is the feasibility of moving materials to the moon to build it. But that's a limitation which applies to...all things Moon related. Moving thousands of tons to build a Lunar base or research station has exactly the same problems. It is theoretically possible but logistically infeasible at the moment, but not insurmountable. That's different - in an important way - from requiring materials which don't currently exist in sufficient quantities, or purity, using manufacturing techniques which don't exist and may never exist.
bmitc 3y ago
I fail to understand how going to Mars is sensible. It is a dead planet. It had water and even possibly life before Earth. It is a lesson for which where Earth is headed by our actions. I don't understand how accelerating climate change and the Earth towards a dead planet to get to a dead planet makes any sense. Let probes and automated systems do it.
- matthewfelgate 3y ago
  Going to Mars has about 0% affect on Global Warming on Earth.
  - bmitc 3y ago
    I'd appreciate not being called a liar, whether you think I am wrong or not. (Edit: Parent comment has since been edited.) Developing, testing, and sending the massive rockets required for human travels to Mars, not to mention the other supporting systems development required over sending only unmanned systems, has "about 0%" affect on climate change? The environmental and ecosystem damage that rockets do is alone incredibly disruptive. I simply see little reason, aside from ego, to send humans to Mars.
    - matthewfelgate 3y ago
      Yes, about 0%. If you want to fix climate change there are much better targets.
      - bmitc 3y ago
        Being wrong is not lying. (Edit: Again parent comment was edited.) However, I am not wrong with currently presented facts, of which you are free to bring yourself and haven't as of yet. First Google result: https://time.com/6273065/space-travel-climate-impact/ https://time.com/6273065/space-travel-climate-impact/ and https://research.noaa.gov/2022/06/21/projected-increase-in-space-travel-may-damage-ozone-layer/ https://research.noaa.gov/2022/06/21/projected-increase-in-s... > Indeed, according to the NOAA report, a single passenger aboard a rocket is responsible for 100 times more climate-changing pollution than a passenger aboard an airplane. > The researchers found that this level of activity would increase annual temperatures in the stratosphere by 0.5 – 2° Celsius or approximately 1-4°Farenheit, which would change global circulation patterns by slowing the subtropical jet streams as much as 3.5%, and weakening the stratospheric overturning circulation.
badpun 3y ago
Going to Moon has been a publicity stunt (to prove that the US can do it faster than the Soviets, ergo the democracy-capitalism system is better than totalitarian communism), and so will be the travel to Mars. There are no tangible benfits to be drawn from either of them - it's all about propaganda.
matthewfelgate 3y ago
Source?
- decremental 3y ago
  [dead]
Retric 3y ago
The only advantage to the moon is less DeltaV and travel time required. The moon is actually a much harder place to have a long term base than Mars. With the moon you either get cooked for ~2 weeks and then freeze for ~2 weeks or you set down at the poles and constantly freeze. The Apollo missions where timed to get out before things got hot. The Mars atmosphere is thin, but provides ready access to nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon plus tiny trace amounts of hydrogen and even some noble gasses. The Moon is just shy of vacuum and would be very difficult to extract significant quantities of anything useful. So going to the moon first means solving all sorts of problems than don’t help a Mars mission.
- gcanyon 3y ago
  I'm not certain I agree with you about the only advantages: the moon also has the advantage of being much closer for emergency supply and rescue missions. But adding to the negatives list there's the razor-like moon dust: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/nasa-s-coating-technology-could-help-resolve-lunar-dust-challenge https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/nasa-s-coating-tec...
- resolutebat 3y ago
  The optimal place for a Moon base is likely one of the permanently lit parts near the poles, which are thought to stay at a fairly constant -50 C or so. For comparison, the average surface temperature on Mars is -60 C.
  - Retric 3y ago
    There’s no such place: https://skyandtelescope.org/sky-and-telescope-magazine/peaks-of-eternal-light/ https://skyandtelescope.org/sky-and-telescope-magazine/peaks... The longest lit places we know of are lit ~94% of the year but then experience even longer periods of deep freeze. They also don’t get much sunlight, and having a base there would create a long shadow. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0019103510001375 https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S00191035100013... Multi month moon bases could be an intermediary before going to the moon, but those spots still get really cold.
- 3y ago

devoutsalsa 3y ago

I wonder how much synergy there is in developing a Moon vs Mars mission. I don’t think there’s a lot of overlap. If the plan is to launch Mars missions from the Moon, then the overlap is obvious.

matthewfelgate 3y ago
There is no point launching to Mars from the Moon.

JKCalhoun 3y ago

More-so a station in orbit of the Moon.

cj 3y ago
Could something the size of the ISS orbit the moon given the moon's gravity?
- Retric 3y ago
  The ISS isn’t in a stable orbit and needs constant though low levels of thrust to maintain its position. You could actually have a more stable orbit over the moon, but getting to it would a lot more deltaV for seemingly zero benefit.
  - fallingfrog 3y ago
    Right-because as far as I know the orbit of the iss is unstable because it’s so low that there’s a very small amount of atmosphere there, enough to eventually slow it down. No atmosphere on the moon.
- fallingfrog 3y ago
  The orbit doesn’t depend on the size of the object- a pebble and the iss in the same position with the same velocity would have the same orbit.
- XorNot 3y ago
  The moons gravity is sufficiently low that you can build a space elevator out of already existing materials[1] That's a big deal, because it vastly simplifies orbital infrastructure, which in turn makes it realistic to think of returning materials to Earth or sending them to resupply ships further out. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_space_elevator https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_space_elevator
  - matthewfelgate 3y ago
    Oh god no. Not this rubbish again. Want to buy some magic beans? They are theoretically possible...
    - XorNot 3y ago
      The atom bomb was theoretically possible till it was practical. So was powered flight. And orbital rockets. And solar power.
      - matthewfelgate 3y ago
        So? It doesn't mean all science fiction becomes reality.
        XorNot 3y ago
        Tell me: if a space elevator on the Moon is theoretically possible, using materials which already exist, then why do you conclude it definitely can't happen? Because on Earth there's a real problem: you need carbon nanotubes to do it. And not just, the ones we have, but perfectly formed, seriously long carbon nanotubes (depending on weaving techniques you can get up to 80% UTS, I can't remember if this is enough). We don't have these. We may never have these. It may be energetically impossible to build and maintain these. But the moon space elevator doesn't have that problem. A number of existing materials in use today meet the necessary strength/weight requirements for lunar gravity. You can just go and buy them. If you went to the moon with them, you could drop a very long tether from orbit down to the surface and it would work. The main reason we don't have a space elevator on the moon is the feasibility of moving materials to the moon to build it. But that's a limitation which applies to...all things Moon related. Moving thousands of tons to build a Lunar base or research station has exactly the same problems. It is theoretically possible but logistically infeasible at the moment, but not insurmountable. That's different - in an important way - from requiring materials which don't currently exist in sufficient quantities, or purity, using manufacturing techniques which don't exist and may never exist.

bmitc 3y ago

I fail to understand how going to Mars is sensible. It is a dead planet. It had water and even possibly life before Earth. It is a lesson for which where Earth is headed by our actions. I don't understand how accelerating climate change and the Earth towards a dead planet to get to a dead planet makes any sense. Let probes and automated systems do it.

matthewfelgate 3y ago
Going to Mars has about 0% affect on Global Warming on Earth.
- bmitc 3y ago
  I'd appreciate not being called a liar, whether you think I am wrong or not. (Edit: Parent comment has since been edited.) Developing, testing, and sending the massive rockets required for human travels to Mars, not to mention the other supporting systems development required over sending only unmanned systems, has "about 0%" affect on climate change? The environmental and ecosystem damage that rockets do is alone incredibly disruptive. I simply see little reason, aside from ego, to send humans to Mars.
  - matthewfelgate 3y ago
    Yes, about 0%. If you want to fix climate change there are much better targets.
    - bmitc 3y ago
      Being wrong is not lying. (Edit: Again parent comment was edited.) However, I am not wrong with currently presented facts, of which you are free to bring yourself and haven't as of yet. First Google result: https://time.com/6273065/space-travel-climate-impact/ https://time.com/6273065/space-travel-climate-impact/ and https://research.noaa.gov/2022/06/21/projected-increase-in-space-travel-may-damage-ozone-layer/ https://research.noaa.gov/2022/06/21/projected-increase-in-s... > Indeed, according to the NOAA report, a single passenger aboard a rocket is responsible for 100 times more climate-changing pollution than a passenger aboard an airplane. > The researchers found that this level of activity would increase annual temperatures in the stratosphere by 0.5 – 2° Celsius or approximately 1-4°Farenheit, which would change global circulation patterns by slowing the subtropical jet streams as much as 3.5%, and weakening the stratospheric overturning circulation.

badpun 3y ago

Going to Moon has been a publicity stunt (to prove that the US can do it faster than the Soviets, ergo the democracy-capitalism system is better than totalitarian communism), and so will be the travel to Mars. There are no tangible benfits to be drawn from either of them - it's all about propaganda.

matthewfelgate 3y ago

Source?

decremental 3y ago
[dead]

Retric 3y ago

The only advantage to the moon is less DeltaV and travel time required. The moon is actually a much harder place to have a long term base than Mars. With the moon you either get cooked for ~2 weeks and then freeze for ~2 weeks or you set down at the poles and constantly freeze. The Apollo missions where timed to get out before things got hot. The Mars atmosphere is thin, but provides ready access to nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon plus tiny trace amounts of hydrogen and even some noble gasses. The Moon is just shy of vacuum and would be very difficult to extract significant quantities of anything useful. So going to the moon first means solving all sorts of problems than don’t help a Mars mission.

gcanyon 3y ago
I'm not certain I agree with you about the only advantages: the moon also has the advantage of being much closer for emergency supply and rescue missions. But adding to the negatives list there's the razor-like moon dust: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/nasa-s-coating-technology-could-help-resolve-lunar-dust-challenge https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/nasa-s-coating-tec...
resolutebat 3y ago
The optimal place for a Moon base is likely one of the permanently lit parts near the poles, which are thought to stay at a fairly constant -50 C or so. For comparison, the average surface temperature on Mars is -60 C.
- Retric 3y ago
  There’s no such place: https://skyandtelescope.org/sky-and-telescope-magazine/peaks-of-eternal-light/ https://skyandtelescope.org/sky-and-telescope-magazine/peaks... The longest lit places we know of are lit ~94% of the year but then experience even longer periods of deep freeze. They also don’t get much sunlight, and having a base there would create a long shadow. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0019103510001375 https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S00191035100013... Multi month moon bases could be an intermediary before going to the moon, but those spots still get really cold.
3y ago