"...a village on the Moon?"

- caught this @ the BBC : http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150712-should-we-build-a-village-on-the-moon

Richard Hollingham talks with Professor Johann-Dietrich Woerner, the new Director General of the European Space Agency.

" - “We should look to the future beyond the International Space Station,” he tells me. “We should look for a smaller spacecraft in low-Earth orbit for microgravity research and I propose a Moon village on the far side of the Moon.”

Yes, a village on the Moon.

Just the sort of daring vision that took Nasa from a standing start to the Moon in the 1960s, but today – possibly constrained by its political masters – the US space agency appears to be lacking ambition.

“A Moon village shouldn’t just mean some houses, a church and a town hall,” says Woerner. “This Moon village should mean partners from all over the world contributing to this community with robotic and astronaut missions and support communication satellites.” - "
- ^^above quoted^^ from : http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150712-should-we-build-a-village-on-the-moon

There is more at the Link.

So, a "village" on the Moon...interesting...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I guess you aren't up with the space news where many things are already being researched about planning a trip to Mars. Just Google Mars research and you'll find many ideas being talked about to travel to Mars in 30 years or so. It might take longer due to radiation problems that must be overcome to keep the travelers safe. There are many other problems that need to be addressed. Trying to get other countries to help out is paramount to keep the costs down for everyone going to Mars. Just as the ISS was built by many nations traveling to Mars will also need allot of people to get things built.

Let us not look towards the moon but instead we should set our goals for a Martian visit even if it will take more time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

...so...you... 'guess', cosmictraveler? (Did you read the Linked Page??)

Professor Johann-Dietrich Woerner, the new Director General of the European Space Agency, speaks of his intentions for Esa.
From what I read, those intentions include...

...maybe, please, read : http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150712-should-we-build-a-village-on-the-moon

...and maybe, even : http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150128-space-2020-what-happens-next

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of course there are, and they are being addressed as we talk/type.

I have always said it should, and I believe will be an International effort.

Rubbish. The Moon will be a stepping stone to Mars. In any respect, we will in time have an outpost [not sure about a Village] on the Moon

 

I really do not think that a moon base is necessary because building a spaceship should be built above the Earth then sent on its way. Why do a two step job when all you need is one? Setting up everything on the moon to build the spacecraft would double the cost and time it takes so why do such a thing?

 

Costs will double going to the moon to build a spacecraft to go to Mars so why do such a thing. Just build it above the Earth and send it on its way saving allot of money and time.

 

Theirs other things you could do on the moon you could use it to capture Near Earth Objects something that would be to dangerous to do around the earth for raw mass. You could make solar energy and beam it towards earth for energy. You could observe the earth and the universe in a vacuum, theirs many things you could do

 

We will have a base on the Moon in time, perhaps not specifically to go to Mars, but because it is there and far easier to access for many other endeavours such as mining. Just as we will also in time mine Asteroids.

 

To establish a permanent moon base/village/outpost local production of an air, water & food supply, as well as propellant for rockets, will be necessisary. Once those hurdles have been mastered, an initial launch from the moon should be possible with a solar electric rail launch system, probably utilizing both thermal and photovoltaic systems.

What that means is that once a long term installation is established on the moon return to earth would be cheap and at least a significant portion of the initial energy to launch a Mars mission should be provided by the rail launch system. Not to mention that once fuel can be produced on the moon, it would be far cheaper than lifting it and anything else that can be produced on the moon out of the earth's gravity well.

The only reason to head straight for Mars, from earth.., is if you just want a one time trip and the popular press value of having done it!

Once the air, water and food issues are addressed, there are many more potential advantages for a long term base on the moon. Much of the research value of a space station, could be replaced by a low gravity facility on the moon, with a moon orbiting zero-G station for those things that truly would be better in zero-G. A rail launch to moon orbit might require little if any on board fuel, for more than the return landing...

If you are talking a long term presence in space, there are no good reasons to skip a moon base...., unless there winds up being long term issues with locally produced air, water and food.

 

That's like saying that Antarctica should have been a stepping stone from Spain to the US back in 1492.

 

Or to establish a permanent base there. Or to begin colonization. Or to start mining fuel.

I think the best reason is "there's nothing there."

 

I cannot see any analogous connections with that at all.
In any respect the Moon will in time have a permanent base, just as it will also be used for other endeavours like mining.

 

honnestly wat does mars has to offer that is so much better then the moon at this time?

In the 60's we went to the moon not because it was easy but because it was hard
Kennedy was right... but in retro spect it may had been the wrong reason because the objective was fullfilled the moment we arrived.

Mars is alluring and in time might be humanities second home something that could not be said for the moon or even antartica. But Mars today is very hostile and nearly has no atmosphere to fix that problem people will need to go out to lifeless body's like Pluto and mine the nitrogen (ice) all these lifeless body's serv a purpose when used correctly.

We should be doing both. But with limited resources the moon offers us more then Mars. The fact that we allready visited it will move the focus more on what to do when we get there and less on how we get there.

The moon next to it's minerals could also recieve more funding then mars for it's ability to do earth observations. With the limited resources on hand the more funding you can get the better.

And never underestimate teleoperations, the men willing to go into space quit litterly put their body's on the line, a rocket exploding on the launch pad, burning up on re entrey, something exploding mid voyage we have seen them all, then when nothing goes wrong you are stuck with a couple of colleges in a very tiny room with little to no privecy whill you shit in a bag. These men are iron willed mostly trough military discipline this means for example that their will not be no alcohol or sex... The list goes on but the people who are there at the moment are some hard pioniers both willing and capable to go trough this. Teleoperation allows you to send the best of the best probably the very people who builded the equipment. This forces the bond between people at home and the moon and will improof innovation in a way astronauts yust couldn't.

I think that most things that are essential offworld could be done both on the moon and mars and the moon is simply the better candidate. Mars will come in it's own time.

Now I hear you say:

that isn't really true now is it? Any object with 1/81 the mass of our own planet has something to offer.
things it has to offer.
1 It's simply the closest object of intrest. People can spend months on it's surface and return home in the time it takes to go to Mars
2 It's simply the closest object of intrest. The 2-3 second delay in respons time is better to deal with then the 20 minutes delay from Mars
3 It's simply the closest object of intrest. Because it's so close by the sun will never get between us theirs Always a direct line of sight between someplace on earth and the near side of the moon
4 It's simply the closest object of intrest. In a emercency you could Always return to home our launch their aren't really best launch opportunities like for a mars launch (to that degree)
5 It's simply the closest object of intrest. You could see it from your house, they could see you from theirs because of this the moon can be used to observe/spie on the earth. This brings in more funding.
6 It's simply the closest object of intrest. Closer to us means closer to the sun so more solar energy
7 It's simply the closest object of intrest. That close means a decend telescope could see some small details this alows for possible marketing stints theirs 36 compagnies world wide who spend more then 1 billion dollar on marketing.
7 The moon is a lifeless body with little sites of intrest. The sites that are interesting are more mapped out meaning you got a more centralised base.
8 The moon is a lifeless body with little sites of intrest. This means their is no weather whilst the first few mission will be really dusty remember Neils footprints will be on the moon for millenia ones everything is stomped flat it will remain so. The enviroment afther human presence is simple much more clean. If you remember that the martian wind will blow in new sand/fines all the time.
9 The moon is a lifeless body with little sites of intrest. This means solar panels don't/rarly need to be cleaned compared to mars.
10 The moon is a lifeless body with little sites of intrest. No reason to look for life No reason to preserve the surface.
11 The moon is a lifeless body with little sites of intrest. It's easy to capture asteroids on the moon if they would happen to impact then theirs no real harm done, if they impact earth less so.
12 The moon is a lifeless body with little sites of intrest. little sites of intrests and large parts of lands will focus on international cities and make large land claims unapealing. (like antartica)

What exactly has mars to offer that the moon can't deliver on (for the next 50 or so years)

 

By going to Mars there will be many new problems that will arise that by going to the moon we won't encounter. It will be a much greater challenge to go to Mars and return paving a path towards building a station there one day if it is found possible and economical to do. There are so many things that need to be answered first so by at least trying to go to Mars we, as a united Earth, could find remedies to them. There might not be a way to protect the people who first to Mars from radiation so that is one big problem that is needed to have a solution for. There are many others.

I'd say sending a robotic craft that can grab some samples from Mars and bring them back to Earth would be the best way to start things off. Robotic craft have proven themselves to be a very good way to explore the cosmos with less money and not risking a persons life. Look at what we are finding out about all of our solar system with robots and they can last longer than humans can on long distances. They also can get smarter and do a myriad of things that humans can't do.

 

To use your analogy, Antarctica will be a stepping stone to the new world.

-Once you can get to Antarctica you can certainly get to the new world.
-You could build a village in Antarctica and mine minerals.
-It will be easier to launch ships from Antarctica than from Spain, since Antarctica is closer to parts of the New World than Spain is.
-There's no reason for people to go to the New World at first anyway. There's nothing there (at least as far as anyone knew at the time.)

 

An atmosphere.
Water (in a much easier to harvest form than the Moon.)
The possibility of life.
Gravity close to what humans are used to.
A diverse and varied geology.

 

It's actually a low vacuum

Atmospheres give advantages and disadvantages Aero braking is a certain advange on a atmosphere dust storms reducing 80% of the solar output on the surface is a dissadvantage. Both are useful and I suspect the bulk of the martian atmosphere will come from nitrogen ice bodies that have no atmosphere be it in bulk from a large KBO like pluto or from many sources like neptunes trojans.

there is water on the moon. Not much but depending on what your plans are theirs enough. The moon will never have a ocean it will have tap water. At least in the beginning afther that water ice is hardly the rarest resource is the solar system.

Finding life would be interesting their probably is even if it came from earth orginally. It might be a disaster for colonising mars tough. The countries that do not have the capability to go to mars yet will scream for further study's and a halt on settlement until we now more. I agree it would be intriging.

At 3/5 you get a sort off. If I was born on Mars and lived there for my first 30 years I wouldn't be comfortable to visit earth before some test to see if I could survive it.
Also for the first few missions there's not going to be artificial gravity meaning the first martians will have difficulty standing afther months in 0 gravity, whilst people who visit the moon will be fit afther spending 3-4 days in 0 gravity.

the moon is pretty diverse as long as it has most elements and they are easy to extract then the moon has you covered. also geologiecal study promotes traveling around and not a fixed hab. This hurts the idea of a city on mars. (theirs to much reason to run around and visit all those sites). The boring moon let's you stay close to water (ice) and build from there.

 

It's an atmosphere. You can fly in it. It stops meteors (and incoming spacecraft.) You can compress it and process it for fuel. It's pretty useful overall.

Perhaps eventually that will happen. Seems like a lot of effort though.

None has been seen. Traces have been detected. Compare this to Mars, where we have seen evidence of recent flows.

Agreed. And it is likely that being born on the Moon would trap you there for life, since gravity there is so much lower.

Why do you think that? Most of the mission profiles I have seen have artificial gravity. (usually via a cable between spacecraft and upper stage.)

 

Okay we can make rocket fuel on Mars using the atmosphere but it takes also several manhours to clean stuff like solar panels (especially when certain parts are far off) it makes true autonomy more difficult). Atmosphere, you win some you loose some.

This one is more scifi but it's actually the easiest way to bulk up the atmosphere. Neptune (and it's trojans move at only 5.43km/s) it only take a relative small change in velocity to gurl one of those objects to the inner solar system. Jupiter Year takes a little over 5 years, so each 5 years you have a timeframe to send this object with a jupiters gravity slingshot towards mars. Other sources like Titan would absolutly devestate the moon also you would need to escape both titans own gravity well and saturns and then your tust in orbit around the sun. I imagen Neptunes trojans have enough nitrogen ice to give Mars more then 1 bar of nitrogen, Callisto and Ganymede to (if they are worth it and can hang on to it).

This might contain life a martian base will probably be build at least a days distance from water so they do not contaminate the area. Water will be tricky on mars, because of the search for life, no exagerated heat, no exagerated shades, no wasteread up on the lake vostok drillings if your interested on it, but NASA will probably tread it like radioactive waste. Still eventually they will get it. For the moon however theirs gonna be a couple of tonnes afther that it's hydrogen inport from earth and water reclainment. It's not that bad many component either don't need hydrogen (it's not water that's the problem it's hydrogen 80% of the components for water O2 are plenty avaible) or they could be reclaimed.

The moon base would be more like the guy that sleeps in his office because he can't afford an apartment. The objective is to get there and be productive. Try and get as much science and funds from everywhere it can get, science, military politics it's a cash strapped project it should try to go for prestige and essential the moon is better suited for this then mars. Mars surves no military value for earth, it can not help with telecom it can not help with weather observation and those are the biggest financers related to space.
I doubt many people will actually live on the moon tough then again it might be proven necesairy for ground claims to have a permanent settlement, no doubt they will eventually have kids. I don't know how it will end.

Short answer cost. It is tried befored but nobody has succeeded before the tried intentionally and it was considered a failure it happened unintentionally and it nearly killed neil armstrong (gemini 8) a large mass that's spinning fast around your delicate ship and doesn't have any thrusters of it's own it is not without dangers.

 

Your analogy is false.
The point is that in time we will return to the Moon, and establish an outpost.
And we'll send men to Mars also. The reasons are many and varied beginning with the simple fact that they are there and man's nature to explore.