Straight to Mars?

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 21:35:06 -0600, in a place far, far away, "Jon S.
Berndt"

If the idea is to _go_ to Mars, it's a bad deal.

That's not the idea. At least it's not the only idea.

The "Vision for Space Exploration", where it discusses lunar exploration,
largely paints that activity as for testing and evaluating exploration
capabilities related to subsequent Mars (and "beyond") exploration. As far
as the VSE is concerned, yes, it _is_ the idea. But, I agree, it's not the
_only_idea.

In my opinion , I personally see the moon fitting into the VSE only as a
nearby testing ground for living on another rock (an important feature this
is, too). I don't really see lunar resources as providing useful material to
supply a Mars mission - particularly in an economically superior fashion.
It's just a gut feeling - one that I'd like to be wrong on.

Jon

"John Thingstad" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 07:45:18 -0600, Jon S. Berndt jsb.at.hal-pc-dot.org
wrote:

I disagree completely with this. The moon, IMHO, should be used as a
testbed
only, and for science that can only be done there. Nobody has convinced
me
yet that materials for a Mars mission can be economically extracted from
the
moon - at least anytime soon.

Jon



This surprises me. Remember that the moon has 1/6'th earths gravity and no
atmosphere. That is where the great savings are. It's a order of
magnitude cheaper to send material from the moon to space than
from earth to space. As you indicate real factories on the moon
are quite a bit in the future.

1. find water
2. break water down into oxygen and hydrogen (sun power)
3. We have rocket fuel.
4. Go for metals and minerals
5. send rocket to mars
6. use lessons leaned to extract fuel on mars for return fuel

Nevertheless this was the essence of Bush's space initiative.
I think it is doable. Though the engineering is challenging.

Just one question, wouldn't all this be easier outside a gravity well?
There are millions of Near Earth husks of comets and asteroids where
you can get metal, water, and large amounts of sunlight with which to
process said materials. All of which are even easier to get to Earth
orbit, or Mars Orbit for that matter, than from the Moon.

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 21:35:06 -0600, in a place far, far away, "Jon S.
Berndt" jsb.at.hal-pc-dot.org made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

"Alex Terrell" wrote in message

That sounds like a better payback than you can get from Mars.

If the idea is to _go_ to Mars, it's a bad deal.

That's not the idea. At least it's not the only idea.

On 9 Nov 2004 21:19:04 -0800, George wrote:


Just one question, wouldn't all this be easier outside a gravity well?
There are millions of Near Earth husks of comets and asteroids where
you can get metal, water, and large amounts of sunlight with which to
process said materials. All of which are even easier to get to Earth
orbit, or Mars Orbit for that matter, than from the Moon.

No. They are too far away. There are asteroid's and comets with
orbits that come close to earth, but most of the time they are further
away.
If you want a continuous supply of materials and you want to have
humans supervising the operations the moon is the best bet.
(I are in the asteroid belt, you have already passed mars.)

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 22:48:50 -0600, in a place far, far away, "Jon S.
Berndt" jsb.at.hal-pc-dot.org made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

If the idea is to _go_ to Mars, it's a bad deal.

That's not the idea. At least it's not the only idea.

The "Vision for Space Exploration", where it discusses lunar exploration,
largely paints that activity as for testing and evaluating exploration
capabilities related to subsequent Mars (and "beyond") exploration. As far
as the VSE is concerned, yes, it _is_ the idea. But, I agree, it's not the
_only_idea.

Those last two sentences are in conflict. "The idea" implies the only
idea. It is Mars and beyond, not Mars.

In my opinion , I personally see the moon fitting into the VSE only as a
nearby testing ground for living on another rock (an important feature this
is, too). I don't really see lunar resources as providing useful material to
supply a Mars mission - particularly in an economically superior fashion.
It's just a gut feeling - one that I'd like to be wrong on.

Well, the current program assumption is that you're wrong. We have
plenty of time to find out.

"Jon S. Berndt" jsb.at.hal-pc-dot.org wrote in message
...

I don't really see lunar resources as providing useful material to
supply a Mars mission - particularly in an economically superior fashion.
It's just a gut feeling - one that I'd like to be wrong on.

As big a cheerleader for use of lunar resources that I am, I only see one
scenario that really makes sense: lifting of lunar water (or at least
oxygen) up to the L-1 point, and then ships bound for Mars going up to L-1
to refuel before doing a near-Earth swing-by to escape.

--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of the National Non-sequitur Society. We may not make
much sense, but we do like pizza.

"John Thingstad" wrote in message
news

No. They are too far away. There are asteroid's and comets with
orbits that come close to earth, but most of the time they are further
away.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. Personally, I
think rapid advances in telepresence might push things strongly in the
direction of the moon. In the absence of such technologies, it might be a
toss-up.

--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of the National Non-sequitur Society. We may not make
much sense, but we do like pizza.

"Mike Combs" wrote in message ...
"John Thingstad" wrote in message
news

No. They are too far away. There are asteroid's and comets with
orbits that come close to earth, but most of the time they are further
away.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. Personally, I
think rapid advances in telepresence might push things strongly in the
direction of the moon. In the absence of such technologies, it might be a
toss-up.

They say that so many asteroids contain precious concentrated metals
that you can't find in abundance on the Moon. But I'm wondering,
wouldn't quite a few of those have impacted on the Moon and left the
resources they contained lying around beneath its surface at a minable
depth?


--
__ “A good leader knows when it’s best to ignore the __
('__` screams for help and focus on the bigger picture.� '__`)
//6(6; ©OOL mmiv :^)^\\
`\_-/ http://home.t-online.de/home/ulrich....lmann/redbaron \-_/'

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:37:53 +0100, Ool
wrote:

"Mike Combs" wrote in message
...
"John Thingstad" wrote in message
news

No. They are too far away. There are asteroid's and comets with
orbits that come close to earth, but most of the time they are further
away.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. Personally,
I
think rapid advances in telepresence might push things strongly in the
direction of the moon. In the absence of such technologies, it might
be a
toss-up.

They say that so many asteroids contain precious concentrated metals
that you can't find in abundance on the Moon. But I'm wondering,
wouldn't quite a few of those have impacted on the Moon and left the
resources they contained lying around beneath its surface at a minable
depth?



indeed. Finding these and water were two of the goals of the 'lunar
prospector'.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunarprosp.html

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

In article ,
Jon S. Berndt jsb.at.hal-pc-dot.org wrote:
With that said, however, I think the biggest drawback to going to Mars would
be the psychological struggle. It's hard enough for me to be across a single
country for a few days, away from my wife and children. I can't imagine
being tens of millions of miles away, with no physical possibility of a
quick return - or even any return at all...

Ask someone who's wintered over at an Antarctic base. If you start
feeling homesick after winter has closed in, that's tough, because you
aren't going anywhere for several months. Not even medical-evacuation
emergencies can get a plane in there in winter.

Such situations have been faced *many* times in human history already, and
people have, on the whole, coped fairly well. In the era of settlement of
the West and mass immigration to North America, it wasn't at all uncommon
for the husband to arrive first (on a one-way ticket) with the hope that
in a year or two, he could make enough money to bring his family over...
and not the slightest possibility that he'd see them again otherwise.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |