The Moon or Mars:

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by paddoboy, May 20, 2015.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/The_Moon_or_Mars_Flawed_Debate_False_Choice___Part_One_999.html

    The Moon or Mars: Flawed Debate, False
    Choice -Part One
    by Madhu Thangavelu :
    Los Angeles CA (SPX) May 20, 2015:

    The Moon or Mars debate continues despite every single report or recommendation from NASA, NRC or other independent study that point to the Moon as the next logical destination for human space exploration and settlement. Once we hone the technologies to live there, "this time to stay" as the Bush administration of yore put it, we would have all the tools to live on Mars, return resources from the asteroids, homestead on Ceres or even the much prettier outer gems in our solar system like the satellites of Jupiter or Saturn, where the vistas are far more spectacular and seasonal changes more dynamic than anything that Mars or Venus can offer.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,725
    Stupid reason. Different planets, different goals. If you want to go to the Moon, go to the Moon. If you want to go to Mars, go to Mars.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225

    I would dearly love man to set foot on Mars before I kick the bucket.
    But in saying that, the article seems to make a lot of sense. Establishing a permanent base on the Moon, constructing appropriate shelters to protect from deadly EMR and such, while reasonably close to Earth, is certainly a way to "hone our skills" for the greater and further adventure to Mars, and even beyond.
    It could even hasten the inevitable Mars mission, while in the meantime more adequate protective gear/living quarters shielding etc, could be worked on.
    Of course I would venture to add that if the boffins at NASA, ESA, Roscosmos, JAXA etc could do this as an International effort, it would be fantastic.
    I'm inclined to believe that establishing a permanent settlement or outpost on the Moon first, is the way to go.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,725
    Mars exploration will need in situ resource utilization. The Moon cannot provide that.
    Mars provides far more radiation and meteorite protection than the Moon does. Thus many of those lessons will be lost.
    Mars provides a standard day/night cycle, critical for growing crops. The Moon does not.
    It is far easier (delta V and time) to get to the Moon than to get to Mars. Thus that does not help us learn much there.
    It's like wanting to move your family from Los Angeles to Maine, and deciding to spend ten years in Barrow, Alaska to "hone your skills" for the colder climate.
    I think it would make it impossible. We do not have the resources to do both.
     
  8. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    We already know what the challenges are in traveling to Mars. Since we know that we should use resources to travel to Mars instead of wasting money on returning to the moon. Everything that we do should be trying to find answers to life on Mars and how to survive there. That will be a great challenge to overcome if we can overcome it because there are limitations even humans cannot go beyond without negative circumstances happening to them. Taking the time to focus on Mars only would be prudent for money spent returning to the moon wouldn't help that much in finding out things that await humans on Mars.
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    In time and as an International effort, it will be done. Just as I'm certain in time, we'll have some sort of permanent out post on the Moon.
    With your comment about lack of resource utilization, I'm not certain that would be true...Anyway Asteroid retrieval and lunar orbit would also be available I'm sure.
    And with whatever skills, discoveries, or inventions re radiation protection obtained on the Moon, would certainly not be lost as you suggest. It would still be great knowledge and data for our continued ventures away from Mother Earth. Any knowledge is beneficial.
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    http://www.space-travel.com/reports...Director_Wants_to_Set_Up_a_Moon_Base_999.html
    European Space Agency Director Wants to Set Up a Moon Base:

    The successor to the International Space Station (ISS) should be a permanent moon base, says incoming European Agency Space leader Johann-Dietrich Worner.

    The Space Foundation's National Space Symposium, held in Colorado, is a gathering for global civil, military, and "new space" leaders to discuss and plan the future of space. One of those plans, according to the next European Agency Space director general, should be establishing a moon colony as the next-step outpost beyond the International Space Station (ISS).
    from......
    http://www.space-travel.com/reports...Director_Wants_to_Set_Up_a_Moon_Base_999.html
     
  11. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Human settlement off earth on moon (and only there) is possible. Without atmosphere or shielding magnetic field, human will live many meters under the surface of the moon. Also they need coils for thermal engine hot and cold sinks quite a few meters deep too. More in quote below. In even older than this post, (#91 in after the moon, what should NASA do? thread) I suggested some years ago how the moon base should be made.
    Efficient LEDs (in terms of photo synthase growth wave length also) will grow their algae based food (also the CO2 to O2 converter). Briefly, just after sun rise, they can go to the surface adjust telescopes etc. - Reason in addition to being a self sufficient "life boat" for and having a base there. I would guess at least 200 women and 20 men live there with euthanasia after fertility declines is minimum needed for genetic diversity and stability. (Sex of fetus is selected to keep this ratio thru many generations until it can expand to thousands. )
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 21, 2015
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,725
    I have no problem with that. I just think that 1) Mars exploration/colonization is more important and 2) we don't need the Moon to go there.
    Right. But lunar orbit is useless for going to Mars, and if we can do asteroid retrieval then a permanent base on Mars is trivial.
    Again, I agree, and if we have massive resources then a moon base would be great. But if we have to choose, I'd definitely choose Mars over the Moon.
     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    So you are saying Billy, we will never have a base or outpost anywhere else?
    You offer no time frame.
    I find that difficult to accept.
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    We may both be realistic as far as space exploration goes, but our methodology differs.
     
  15. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Individuals do things, like climb Mt. Everest "because they can and it is there." Tax payers do not invest trillion or more dollars for that reason. Especially if as has always been the case, including now, there are people in terrible conditions, living on the margin of existence, and some wore than that - I. e. dying of starvation and diseases that a injection costing less than 5 dollars would prevent.

    Taxpayers, invest large sums ONLY in their own self interest, at least as they perceive it to be. Even worse, in democracies with elections they will not even do that if the first benefits occur after most of their current elected representatives are dead or no longer running for re-election. This is why the US south west has a serious water shortage, that very likely will become much worse destroying in decreased property values more than the 62 billion dollars China has invested in their NS Water Transfer Project, NSWTP, for which the initial planning and technical studies began in the early part of the 1950s. It began its first delivers of water to Beijing at the start of this year. That NE part of China is very dry - gets much less rain than the US's SW does. When fully completed in a decade or two more, the NSWTP will deliver more than half the annual flow of the Nile river thru its three section of 2,700 miles of pipe and mainly open concrete canals. The delivery end is ~50 meter higher than the source end in SE China

    Fortunately for them, the Chinese had no choice. The CCP did what they badly needed, without letting them vote on whether or not to spend 62 billion dollars on it. Not even the CCP will invest trillions needed to got to Mars as their is no foreseeable positive return on the investment. They are, however, doing initial studies for a permanent base on the moon, but not a self sustaining "life boat" for humanity. I think the value they see in such a base is it would take others several days to attack it, and any attack coming would be impossible to hid - i.e. a massive "first strike" without great nuclear injury to the attacker would be impossible, but I am just guessing. The Chinese know there is NOTHING on the moon that can be delivered to Earth that is not available (or makeable as in the case of He3, interesting 2nd generation fusion fuel, which may not be on the moon either) on Earth at far less cost.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 21, 2015
  16. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,831
    It seems to me that the risk and cost of sending people to mars using the current technology does not really make sense. Can you imagine the outcry after spending billions of dollars if the mission was not successful, not to mention the loss of life? It seems that with the advances in robotics that it makes more sense to try and develop a relatively cheap yet advanced fleet of robots to explore the planets.

    I would love it if the human race was a 'spacefaring' race, but it just does not make sense nor is it feasible with current technology.
     
    cosmictraveler likes this.
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    You have not answered my question.
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,725
    It's happened many times before, and will happen many times again. It's part of life. We would surely be a pathetic species if the fear of failure kept us from succeeding.
    We've got that now. Four robots are there, two working just fine. One has been there for 12 years and has driven 25 miles.
    Well, we are; we've had people in space for decades now.
     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    At this time maybe, but if we are able to survive our Earthly follies, it almost certainly will happen.
     
  20. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,831
    Hope so, but if the best we can muster is 1,000,000 mph at a prohibitive cost we won't ever leave this rock, except for extremely short excursions.
     
  21. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,831
    True, but I am thinking of something along the lines of a self driving Hummer packed with instrumentation. That would be way cheaper and safer than sending people.
     
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    In time origin, in time.
     
  23. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I took the "anywhere else" at end of the question to mean "other than the moon" And have already said that is the ONLY place off-earth place man can try to settle a colony. Don't you know what "impossible" means? I said all but the moon were impossible to colonize. - That is a very clear answer.

    I have also explained why "else where" is impossible, even if it may be technically feasible. I would like to see man colonize the moon. Why I have told how a self - sufficient colony could be done, as "life boat" for humanity.

    But most staying always meters below the surface (where temperature is stable and you don't die of radiation poisoning with greatly shortened life expectancy) and women out number men at least 10 to 1*; and all live on algae food; and euthanasia post fertility age is mandatory to keep food demands sustainable.** etc. Will find few dwarfs wanting to be colonists, I fear.

    * Yet all have 2 or 3 live birth babies (big social changes)*** to make the population static for decades, until new addition to the underground systems can be made for slow population expansion. I guessed 200 women and 20 men are about the least that would be genetically stable for a few centuries. Perhaps half that could be - I'm not very knowledgeable in this area.

    ** Food is from algae flowing in transparent pipes with efficient LED light of optimum wave lengths for photo-syntheses yet still the main energy demand. An essential "side benefit" is the exhaled CO2 is processed back to the inhaled O2, with the C becoming part of the eaten food. The other part is mainly from the supply of "euthanized bodies" and the more abundant feces.

    *** For most advanced countries, but several wives are the norm, if a rich man, in most others. As all the initial population would be free of all known genetic defects, the "life boat" would be a "quantum leap" improvement in he human gene pool.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 22, 2015

Share This Page