3 ms·

I'm sure this question has been addressed already, but why not try a 1-year moon base first? With a hot standby ready to either rescue them or drop a brand new

I'm sure this question has been addressed already, but why not try a 1-year moon base first? With a hot standby ready to either rescue them or drop a brand new habitat. Not to mention launching to Mars from the moon is easier (in some respects, not all).

ckemere 2y ago
This is exactly what NASA has had on its timeline since the Obama era ("Constellation"). Trump #1 didn't like the slow timeframe (get to the moon faster - "Artemis"). Current plan from Trump/Elon ("let's scrap the space station and the moon and go to Mars ASAP") sounds like an even more accelerated abandonment.
- Robotbeat 2y ago
  On the contrary, Constellation is from the Bush era. Obama tried to cancel it (with good reason, to be fair!), and then Trump started an accelerated Artemis, which basically combined both the Obama program of record with Constellation.
- gosub100 2y ago
  I think a moon colony would be awesome. We could watch them in near real time. Learn what it actually takes to maintain a habitat while still having a safety net. Yes I know NASA and others have been researching that since the 60s anyway, but it needs a dress rehearsal with modern technology. Go to moon, prove we can sustain N humans, process the waste, recycle the water, make O2, etc. Do it on the lunar surface, then go big. I do see Trumps side, that if they take decades to get anything done, maybe the project should be scrapped. But space-x has proven they can launch rockets reliably and cheaply, I believe we should use their innovation but to the moon before the red planet.
asadotzler 2y ago
There's nothing Mars analog at the Moon we can't or haven't already learned at the ISS.
- idlewords 2y ago
  1) Radiation 2) Partial gravity
- gosub100 2y ago
  Can they go more than 6mo without resupply? I am picturing a moon base that is only resupplied every year or so. I seem to recall that Mars only comes around every 18mo? I may be wrong on that. The ISS is not a ground based structure. So lots could be gleaned from having a base where astronauts enter and exit regularly. Also, ISS gets a different amount of sunlight. So I don't think there is a valid comparison. To be fair, the vacuum on the moon is also not comparable to the windy atmosphere on Mars.
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    There's nothing especially exceptional about going long terms without resupply. One can easily prepare/cycle food, water, and other necessities for years ahead of time. The reason the ISS is constantly resupplied is twofold. The first is because its orbit needs regularly reboosting to stabilize it, so you'll always have craft going there to do that who also bring supplies. The second is because the ISS is quite tiny. It has a total compressed volume of ~900m^3 contrasted against the 1000m^3 on Starship. Factor in its design of interconnected pods and the usable volume sharply decreases.
somenameforme 2y ago
Missions to Mars are mostly planned with in-orbit refueling, so launching from the Moon would not be easier. The Moon in general is also a rather harsh mistress. You have 2 week long nights with absolutely brutal extremes of heat and cold ranging from -133C at night to 121C during the day, no atmosphere whatsoever, a fraction of the gravity of Mars, regular bombardment with meteorites and so on. A Moon base will be a far harsher place than a Mars base. Mars is bizarrely similar to Earth - nearly the same length of day/night, similar axial tilt so similar seasonal patterns, nearly the exact same land area, and even calm weather. Notably the 'raging dust storm' in "The Martian" that was used to set up the crisis for the movie was one of the few things that was intentionally faked. The low atmospheric pressure on Mars means even the most brutal dust storm would feel like a slight breeze at most. It's also telling when you need to fake something to create a crisis, in an otherwise very hard sci-fi book!

ckemere 2y ago

This is exactly what NASA has had on its timeline since the Obama era ("Constellation"). Trump #1 didn't like the slow timeframe (get to the moon faster - "Artemis"). Current plan from Trump/Elon ("let's scrap the space station and the moon and go to Mars ASAP") sounds like an even more accelerated abandonment.

Robotbeat 2y ago
On the contrary, Constellation is from the Bush era. Obama tried to cancel it (with good reason, to be fair!), and then Trump started an accelerated Artemis, which basically combined both the Obama program of record with Constellation.
gosub100 2y ago
I think a moon colony would be awesome. We could watch them in near real time. Learn what it actually takes to maintain a habitat while still having a safety net. Yes I know NASA and others have been researching that since the 60s anyway, but it needs a dress rehearsal with modern technology. Go to moon, prove we can sustain N humans, process the waste, recycle the water, make O2, etc. Do it on the lunar surface, then go big. I do see Trumps side, that if they take decades to get anything done, maybe the project should be scrapped. But space-x has proven they can launch rockets reliably and cheaply, I believe we should use their innovation but to the moon before the red planet.

asadotzler 2y ago

There's nothing Mars analog at the Moon we can't or haven't already learned at the ISS.

idlewords 2y ago
1) Radiation 2) Partial gravity
gosub100 2y ago
Can they go more than 6mo without resupply? I am picturing a moon base that is only resupplied every year or so. I seem to recall that Mars only comes around every 18mo? I may be wrong on that. The ISS is not a ground based structure. So lots could be gleaned from having a base where astronauts enter and exit regularly. Also, ISS gets a different amount of sunlight. So I don't think there is a valid comparison. To be fair, the vacuum on the moon is also not comparable to the windy atmosphere on Mars.
- somenameforme 2y ago
  There's nothing especially exceptional about going long terms without resupply. One can easily prepare/cycle food, water, and other necessities for years ahead of time. The reason the ISS is constantly resupplied is twofold. The first is because its orbit needs regularly reboosting to stabilize it, so you'll always have craft going there to do that who also bring supplies. The second is because the ISS is quite tiny. It has a total compressed volume of ~900m^3 contrasted against the 1000m^3 on Starship. Factor in its design of interconnected pods and the usable volume sharply decreases.

somenameforme 2y ago

Missions to Mars are mostly planned with in-orbit refueling, so launching from the Moon would not be easier. The Moon in general is also a rather harsh mistress. You have 2 week long nights with absolutely brutal extremes of heat and cold ranging from -133C at night to 121C during the day, no atmosphere whatsoever, a fraction of the gravity of Mars, regular bombardment with meteorites and so on. A Moon base will be a far harsher place than a Mars base. Mars is bizarrely similar to Earth - nearly the same length of day/night, similar axial tilt so similar seasonal patterns, nearly the exact same land area, and even calm weather. Notably the 'raging dust storm' in "The Martian" that was used to set up the crisis for the movie was one of the few things that was intentionally faked. The low atmospheric pressure on Mars means even the most brutal dust storm would feel like a slight breeze at most. It's also telling when you need to fake something to create a crisis, in an otherwise very hard sci-fi book!