Improved lunar landing architecture

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 09:01:35 -0600, Joe Strout wrote:

In article ,
Cardman wrote:

Some people keep talking about Mars which would take money away from the
Lunar program.

Mars is the main goal here.

According to whom?!?

Basic reality. The one other close location in this solar system,
where us humans can fit in. Also Mars, unlike the Moon, has a far
greater volume of resources to exploit.

Not to forget that the exploration bonus of living Mars is worth a
hundred cold dead atmosphere-less Moons.

Certainly not in the President's speech, which
mentioned Mars "and other destinations" only in passing.

Yes, where all of NASA's exploration budget could be killed off by the
whims of the next president anyway. Most likely under the excuse of
now actually having to pay for Bush's Wars. My point here is that
Presidential priory often changes and reflects the desire of the
population.

And certainly not in my view of how space should be developed, either.

Those people who prefer a direct route to Mars see the Moon as an
unnecessary distraction that will eat up available resource, and what
will only become another NASA mini-disaster that will set back any
further Mars plans by decades.

Some people would prefer a more direct route, without going to the
Moon first.

Which would be a very poor choice, resulting in little or no development
of space.

Not really. NASA already plans to do two launches to the Moon each
year by 2018. This could be changed to two launches to Mars easily
enough, where landing could well be easier. And once Mars is "done"
then they could come back and do the Moon.

So it is just a question of priority, where Mars is clearly a much
more desired destination than with the Moon. That is why NASA has been
sending so many probes, landers, and rovers, to it.

I am neither a Moon nor Mars person. Ganymede would be my choice, but
not in the near future of course.

Cardman.

"Cardman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 23:53:02 -0500, Pat Flannery

Should there not be water at the poles, then NASA would have to do
some asteroid mining instead. As we at least know that those dirty
snowball versions have plenty of water ice in them.

That sounds somewhat long term. In the short run, water or hydrogen can be
sent from Earth. Once Lunar mining is up an running, the same technology
can be used on asteroids. If we were on a fast track, asteroid mining could
start 10 years after Lunar mining. We would start with near Earth asteroids
which probably don't have much water. It takes less energy to transport
things from asteroids, but transportation times can be long.

In article ,
Cardman wrote:

In article ,
Cardman wrote:

Some people keep talking about Mars which would take money away from the
Lunar program.

Mars is the main goal here.

According to whom?!?

Basic reality. The one other close location in this solar system,
where us humans can fit in.

Nonsense. We can fit in wherever our technology enables us to do so --
which it does, on both the Moon and Mars, and in both places, we'll die
pretty much instantly without it.

Also Mars, unlike the Moon, has a far
greater volume of resources to exploit.

It also has a ridiculously long and ever-changing travel time. That
negates the value of its in situ resources, in the short- to medium-term
at least.

Not to forget that the exploration bonus of living Mars is worth a
hundred cold dead atmosphere-less Moons.

I don't know how one measures "exploration bonus" so I can't argue this
one. But if you're talking about how much it stirs your heart, just be
aware that not all hearts are like yours.

Certainly not in the President's speech, which
mentioned Mars "and other destinations" only in passing.

Yes, where all of NASA's exploration budget could be killed off by the
whims of the next president anyway. Most likely under the excuse of
now actually having to pay for Bush's Wars.

True.

My point here is that Presidential priory often changes and reflects
the desire of the population.

Ideally so, though in practice I'm not sure how true that is.

And certainly not in my view of how space should be developed, either.

Those people who prefer a direct route to Mars see the Moon as an
unnecessary distraction that will eat up available resource, and what
will only become another NASA mini-disaster that will set back any
further Mars plans by decades.

Right. And those who prefer sustainable development of space see the
Moon as an unnecessary distraction that, if those people you mention had
their way, delay the development of space for decades or more. We need
infrastructure and commercial development, not more flags and footprints.

Which would be a very poor choice, resulting in little or no development
of space.

Not really. NASA already plans to do two launches to the Moon each
year by 2018. This could be changed to two launches to Mars easily
enough, where landing could well be easier.

And would result in pretty much nothing of extended value, exactly like
Apollo. We need to be building communications satellites, orbital
staging facilities, power infrastructure, O2 plants, and so on, not just
visiting and doing science.

So it is just a question of priority

Right.

where Mars is clearly a much more desired destination than with the Moon.

Wrong.

That is why NASA has been
sending so many probes, landers, and rovers, to it.

Wrong again. They've been doing that because, for the last 30 years
until last year or so, the Moon was taboo at NASA. This was a sort of
cultural/political backlash against Apollo, and in particular against
the plans for serious lunar development that were originally expected to
follow Apollo. Unable to pursue any of the sorely needed (and far more
immediately valuable) lunar research, researchers turned instead to Mars.

The best thing about the President's speech was that, if nothing else,
it lifted the Moon taboo. We still have a lot of Mars missions in the
pipeline -- there are a very long lead times for such things, ESPECIALLY
for interplanetary missions -- but that should be changing in the future
as the many lunar missions now entering the pipeline start to filter
through.

I am neither a Moon nor Mars person.

Right. And I'm Homer Simpson.

Best,
- Joe

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 20:22:06 -0600, Joe Strout wrote:

In article ,
Cardman wrote:

Basic reality. The one other close location in this solar system,
where us humans can fit in.

Nonsense. We can fit in wherever our technology enables us to do so --
which it does, on both the Moon and Mars, and in both places, we'll die
pretty much instantly without it.

Then I should have said "best fit in".

For example, in the case of water alone, then on the Moon we do not
yet know for sure if water actually exists. And if water does exist
here, then it could well be very diffused and therefore hard to get.

On the other hand Mars has tons of water. In fact there is so much
here that it would come half way up to your knee, on average, if this
water covered the whole planet.

And just for water alone this could be split into the Oxygen people
need to breath, and then the Hydrogen rocket fuel needed for travel
through-out the solar system.

Mars has far greater resources than the Moon. Therefore, having and
maintaining a base on Mars is easier than doing so on the Moon.

Also Mars, unlike the Moon, has a far greater volume of resources to
exploit.

It also has a ridiculously long and ever-changing travel time. That
negates the value of its in situ resources, in the short- to medium-term
at least.

Travel time does not matter much to the colonists living and working
on Mars, should they have all that they need available. NASA likes
launching to Mars each 4 years, where that would not change within the
near future.

Not to forget that the exploration bonus of living Mars is worth a
hundred cold dead atmosphere-less Moons.

I don't know how one measures "exploration bonus" so I can't argue this
one. But if you're talking about how much it stirs your heart, just be
aware that not all hearts are like yours.

The search for life, and things like Geology and Meteorology on a
living planet.

I will keep in mind that you are cold hearted. ;-]

Those people who prefer a direct route to Mars see the Moon as an
unnecessary distraction that will eat up available resource, and what
will only become another NASA mini-disaster that will set back any
further Mars plans by decades.

Right. And those who prefer sustainable development of space see the
Moon as an unnecessary distraction that, if those people you mention had
their way, delay the development of space for decades or more. We need
infrastructure and commercial development, not more flags and footprints.

Then you must love NASA's idea to abandon the ISS. So they build your
infrastructure and then to allow it to (virtually) rust away.

And even had they gone to Mars first you would still have your
infrastructure. Only now you would have a far greater range of
resources available to aid in further development.

Also when at Mars the trip is shorter to reach the Asteroid Belt,
Jupiter, and your Beyond.

So going to Mars first does present far greater rewards than going to
the Moon first. The down side is that it is a lot more risky, which is
why NASA wants to crawl before it starts to walk.

Not really. NASA already plans to do two launches to the Moon each
year by 2018. This could be changed to two launches to Mars easily
enough, where landing could well be easier.

And would result in pretty much nothing of extended value, exactly like
Apollo.

Those wanting to go to Mars certainly seek to establish a base. This
desire automatically invalidates your Apollo claims.

We need to be building communications satellites,

Oddly enough, we have far more communication satellites around Mars
than we do with the Moon. Sounds like we are more ready to go to Mars.

orbital staging facilities,

There are a lot of options available in going to Mars.

power infrastructure,

A nuclear plant where ever you want to go. And a good water supply for
your rocket fuel. Not to forget the tons of other chemical processes
that you can run on Mars.

No matter how long you go on with this debate Mars will always look
like a better and better destination. That is because it is a better
destination.

O2 plants, and so on, not just visiting and doing science.

Like NASA could well do with the Moon anyway. Mars wins on both
resources and scientific gain.

So it is just a question of priority

Right.

Had NASA been more interested in priority, then they should start with
Asteroids and not the Moon. Better resources and water availability.
And the lower energy required to launch from here makes getting about
much easier.

So they are both already skipping a destination and making it harder
for themselves.

where Mars is clearly a much more desired destination than with the Moon.

Wrong.

And yet you lack any proof, while I can mention all the resources that
are available on Mars and yet not on the Moon. And the science return
would also be huge.

Once we have a colony on Mars, then the Moon is likely to turn into
nothing more than a tourist destination. So there will be little more
than the infrastructure of hotels and a fun park.

That is why NASA has been
sending so many probes, landers, and rovers, to it.

Wrong again. They've been doing that because, for the last 30 years
until last year or so, the Moon was taboo at NASA.

More like they took one look at it, saw that it was a cold dead
lifeless place, and then moved on to better things.

It is clear from NASA's many projects that they seem most interested
in Mars, Jupiter, Io, Europa, Saturn and Titan. And each of these are
far more interesting than the Moon.

And yes for all this time NASA has not been allowed to do moon base,
due to the cost involved, and that they have a space station to build
using their space truck.

You are into infrastructure. So one job at a time.

This was a sort of cultural/political backlash against Apollo,

Not really. The Russians got themselves a space station, which is why
NASA wanted to play that game as well. In theory there is a lot of
gain with people in orbit around the Earth. NASA even imagined an
entire LEO colony and multiple space stations I recall.

And that is how they ended up with their shuttle to do this task,
where the Military's support allowed congress to pay for it.

Had the Russians been into a moon base instead, then you could guess
what NASA would have been building for the past 30 years.

and in particular against
the plans for serious lunar development that were originally expected to
follow Apollo.

Yes, simply due to the high costs involved. They wanted to spend this
money on better things. On the other hand having the Russians on the
Moon would have made them change their mind.

Unable to pursue any of the sorely needed (and far more
immediately valuable) lunar research,

NASA has not been much interested in the Moon, when there is simply no
need considering their former plans.

researchers turned instead to Mars.

For clearly obvious reasons. People, with the aid of technology, can
live and work here. Interest is much less in Venus and Mercury,
because people cannot easily live here.

Mars is also a living planet, which can certainly keep scientists
occupied for like forever.

The best thing about the President's speech was that, if nothing else,
it lifted the Moon taboo.

And that taboo all revolves around a Moon Base. NASA was not allowed
to run Moon Base projects until they had been approved to actually go
and do a Moon Base.

These upcoming Moon projects are not just any old Moon projects
either, when they are on the look out for available resources
including water. So these projects are all aimed to directly help
their Moon Base.

So any scientist wanting to do a Moon Project to study it's history
and formation of the Moon will still be taboo.

And therefore this proves your taboo Moon idea wrong. What projects
benefit NASA's plans are good, while those that do not are not
followed through.

NASA has spent so much time and resources on the Moon, in the past,
that they simply decided to spend time on better things.

We still have a lot of Mars missions in the pipeline --

Yes, where at the end of this long line comes the one project of
humans landing on Mars. Indeed, even now they have included more
projects to work towards this very goal.

there are a very long lead times for such things, ESPECIALLY
for interplanetary missions --

The Moon is no stones throw distance away either. I even doubt that
there will be much difference between Lunar and Mars missions, except
for the rocket system used to get them there.

but that should be changing in the future
as the many lunar missions now entering the pipeline start to filter
through.

Yes, their new Moon Base plan.

It is worth keeping note that NASA is already working on plans to land
people on Mars. This is the only other location in this solar system
where they currently have such plans.

Looks like NASA clearly knows where it is heading. The one true goal
of having a colony on Mars.

I am neither a Moon nor Mars person.

Right. And I'm Homer Simpson.

Ganymede offers great tactical advantages over the Moon and Mars. The
great view of Jupiter. Less of a radiation problem than with the other
three large moons here. Easy exploration of the entire Jupiter system
from here, including Io, Europa and Callisto.

And here is the perfect one location to travel both inwards and
outwards across the solar system.

So I am quite sure that in the future that Ganymede will become the
very main hub of the entire solar system. Just about everything will
pass by Jupiter after all.

No doubt the military will establish a fortress here. As whoever
controls Ganymede will control the Jupiter system, and therefore the
entire solar system.

Given time you will see that I am right.

Cardman.

"Cardman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 20:22:06 -0600, Joe Strout wrote:

In article ,
Cardman wrote:

Basic reality. The one other close location in this solar system,
where us humans can fit in.

Nonsense. We can fit in wherever our technology enables us to do so --
which it does, on both the Moon and Mars, and in both places, we'll die
pretty much instantly without it.

Then I should have said "best fit in".

For example, in the case of water alone, then on the Moon we do not
yet know for sure if water actually exists. And if water does exist
here, then it could well be very diffused and therefore hard to get.

On the other hand Mars has tons of water. In fact there is so much
here that it would come half way up to your knee, on average, if this
water covered the whole planet.

In the short run, we can simply send water to the moon. Sure, that cost
money, but traveling to Mars also costs money. The fast travel times make
the moon much safer than Mars. You can launch rescue missions, bring sick
people home, and send spare parts. If colonists don't like the moon, they
can come home quicker. That can be used as a recruiting tool.

Mars can support a higher population than the moon, but in the short run,
that doesn't matter. It will take a while to reach 1000 people.

Mars can be explored with unmanned probes, especially if we wanted to spend
serious money on Mars.

And even had they gone to Mars first you would still have your
infrastructure. Only now you would have a far greater range of
resources available to aid in further development.

Also when at Mars the trip is shorter to reach the Asteroid Belt,
Jupiter, and your Beyond.

I'm inclined to think that we'll fly straight to asteroids instead of
stopping at Mars. Mars has gravity well which requires a different kind of
ship. Asteroids provide a fair number of resources, so there is no need for
Martian resources.

Those wanting to go to Mars certainly seek to establish a base. This
desire automatically invalidates your Apollo claims.

You could build a bigger base for the same money on the moon. Frequent
launches provide economies of scale. If you get in the habit of launching
once a month, you become good at launching. Lunar ships can be smaller than
Martian ships.

Cardman wrote:
On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 20:22:06 -0600, Joe Strout wrote:


In article ,
Cardman wrote:


Basic reality. The one other close location in this solar system,
where us humans can fit in.

Nonsense. We can fit in wherever our technology enables us to do so --
which it does, on both the Moon and Mars, and in both places, we'll die
pretty much instantly without it.


Then I should have said "best fit in".

For example, in the case of water alone, then on the Moon we do not
yet know for sure if water actually exists. And if water does exist
here, then it could well be very diffused and therefore hard to get.

On the other hand Mars has tons of water. In fact there is so much
here that it would come half way up to your knee, on average, if this
water covered the whole planet.

And just for water alone this could be split into the Oxygen people
need to breath, and then the Hydrogen rocket fuel needed for travel
through-out the solar system.

Mars has far greater resources than the Moon. Therefore, having and
maintaining a base on Mars is easier than doing so on the Moon.

But none of these resources can be profitably exported to an earth market.

Investing is not sustainable over long periods if there is no return on
investment.

I believe Mars visits sans profit would be merely flags and footprints.

Profitable exports from the Moon or near Earth asteroids are also
unlikely but perhaps not as far fetched as Martian exports. About the
best schemes I've heard is lunar material to make solar power satellites
and mining near earth asteroids for volatiles and metals to use in earth
space.



--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 05:30:37 GMT, "Michael Rhino"
wrote:

"Cardman" wrote in message
.. .
On the other hand Mars has tons of water. In fact there is so much
here that it would come half way up to your knee, on average, if this
water covered the whole planet.

In the short run, we can simply send water to the moon.

Certainly, at a very high cost. Water is quite dense and heavy, where
us humans tend to need a lot of it. No colony plan has ever worked
out, without a local water supply to hand.

I would ever bet that if no water is found on the Moon, then many
people will begin to question the reality of actually going there to
start with. "Go to Mars" they would say.

Sure, that cost money, but traveling to Mars also costs money.

Once you reach escape velocity, then the rest becomes easy enough. We
certainly have not sent people such a long distance before, but it has
already been proved that it could be done.

Odd that I support NASA's Moon Base plan, but here I am now arguing
the case for Mars direct that is simply what some other people
support. And what I briefly mentioned in passing.

The fast travel times make the moon much safer than Mars.

True, but is safe really the way to go? The larger the risk, the
larger the gain, you could say.

The point is that NASA could certainly do a Mars base, simply by
launching their Moon stuff to Mars instead. What is more is that their
people could now live better on Mars.

Considering the large volume of Water, and therefore Oxygen, that is
easily available on Mars, then there is your number one risk to base
failure solved.

The next problem of food could be solved easily enough, under large
inflatable greenhouses, using artificial lighting powered from the
nuclear power plant. That would also help to remove the carbon deoxide
from the air.

You can launch rescue missions,

Don't let things get so bad that a rescue mission is needed. A rescue
mission seems a lot more likely on the Moon than with Mars.

bring sick people home,

Treat them locally. A colony would not be too hot on catching the
latest virus should people be cleared before launch.

and send spare parts.

Build them on site using local resources. A colony should be about
learning to survive by itself after all.

On Mars you can just keep extra back-ups to last until the scheduled 4
year resupply missions start off, for anything that cannot be built
locally.

If colonists don't like the moon, they can come home quicker. That can
be used as a recruiting tool.

I highly doubt that NASA will be into colonization. Their moon base
will simply be their exclusive astronaut club, where they would not
consider getting some real "blue collar" labourers up there to do a
hard day's work.

Mars can support a higher population than the moon, but in the short run,
that doesn't matter. It will take a while to reach 1000 people.

Yes, a very long while. If NASA could actually do a half decent job
with getting more and more people on the Moon, then I would not be
impressed, I would be shocked.

The Chinese and Tourists are much more likely to do this than what
NASA is.

Mars can be explored with unmanned probes, especially if we wanted to spend
serious money on Mars.

Having humans here would increase science return over 1000 times. Very
good value for money in other words.

Also when at Mars the trip is shorter to reach the Asteroid Belt,
Jupiter, and your Beyond.

I'm inclined to think that we'll fly straight to asteroids instead of
stopping at Mars.

The asteroids do seem more likely for NASA down their Moon Base plan
path, but Mars is a very large "petrol station".

Since the moon has an escape velocity of 2.38 km/s, then Mars at 5.027
km/s is not that much harder. Also the atmosphere of Mars helps to
make your fuel use less when dropping in.

Mars has gravity well which requires a different kind of ship.

That it does, but then so does the Moon.

Asteroids provide a fair number of resources, so there is no need for
Martian resources.

It seems that you under-estimate the value of Mars.

When mining the asteroid belt it is a long way to go to process your
ores on your Lunar base. Mars is a much closer and efficient location.

Those wanting to go to Mars certainly seek to establish a base. This
desire automatically invalidates your Apollo claims.

You could build a bigger base for the same money on the moon.

Yes, but given the available resources, then the Martian Base is
highly likely to grow at a much faster pace than the Moon Base. So
more money to start with, but less in the longer term.

Frequent launches provide economies of scale.

NASA's two planned launches to the Moon per year from 2018 onwards
does not impress me at all.

If you get in the habit of launching once a month, you become good at
launching.

Yet to be proved I guess. NASA would still have a long way to speed up
their Moon launches by 600%.

Lunar ships can be smaller than Martian ships.

Nothing that a giant TransHab derived craft could not cure. All the
comfort of home during your slow trip between planets.

Cardman.

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 22:37:05 -0700, Hop David
wrote:

But none of these resources can be profitably exported to an earth market.

Nothing in space can yet be profitably exported to the earth market. I
guess that Mars would form it's own market.

Investing is not sustainable over long periods if there is no return on
investment.

And what do they plan to get from the Moon besides regolith, rocks
and... if they work really, really hard... some He3 that no one can
yet use?

There is only one true goal from this exploration plan, where that is
to establish a self-supporting colony. That is a lot easier to do on
Mars. They can then make money when people drop by, and to have an
internal market.

I believe Mars visits sans profit would be merely flags and footprints.

Anyone looking to make a profit had better not look at space at all,
when the cost of leaving those gravity wells exceeds your item values.

Profitable exports from the Moon or near Earth asteroids are also
unlikely but perhaps not as far fetched as Martian exports.

Well I did not say about making a profit. Still, some sort of mass
driver just needs to work twice as fast on Martian surface than it
does on the Moon.

Hell you could even do so from the top of Olympus Mons, when that
would cut down your launch cost. This location is 27 km high, which is
about three times as tall as Mount Everest. The pressure of the
atmosphere here is just 2% of that of the normal surface level.

I am sure that removing 27 km from your launch site would greatly cut
down the escape velocity. I just wish that I had those numbers to
hand, but it could come close to that of the Moon.

Using Newton's first law of motion, then your Mars exports could be
nearly as cheap as your Moon exports. And you can choose from a much
larger range of items.

Genuine Mars Rocks with real Martian Microbes. Only $1000 per kg. ;-]

About the best schemes I've heard is lunar material to make solar power
satellites

Yes, where NASA is not exactly into commercial projects. Also I would
expect that energy companies would be upset with the competition. And
the actual overhead of setting up this scheme could make other energy
sources better anyway.

and mining near earth asteroids for volatiles and metals to use in earth
space.

You would need to process those ores some place. And I expect that it
would be a very long time before they could start turning out
satellites and more.

Cardman.

Cardman wrote:
On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 22:37:05 -0700, Hop David
wrote:


But none of these resources can be profitably exported to an earth market.


Nothing in space can yet be profitably exported to the earth market. I
guess that Mars would form it's own market.


Investing is not sustainable over long periods if there is no return on
investment.


And what do they plan to get from the Moon besides regolith, rocks
and... if they work really, really hard... some He3 that no one can
yet use?

An analogy often used is the colonies in America. There was the fur
trade and other exports that made the new world colonies profitable.
Without that investors would not have backed colonization efforts.


There is only one true goal from this exploration plan, where that is
to establish a self-supporting colony. That is a lot easier to do on
Mars. They can then make money when people drop by, and to have an
internal market.


I believe Mars visits sans profit would be merely flags and footprints.


Anyone looking to make a profit had better not look at space at all,
when the cost of leaving those gravity wells exceeds your item values.

There are several participants in this group who claim exactly that.
Ordover is one of the more outspoken. Personally I believe the obstacles
are formidable but not impossible.



Profitable exports from the Moon or near Earth asteroids are also
unlikely but perhaps not as far fetched as Martian exports.


Well I did not say about making a profit. Still, some sort of mass
driver just needs to work twice as fast on Martian surface than it
does on the Moon.

Hell you could even do so from the top of Olympus Mons, when that
would cut down your launch cost. This location is 27 km high, which is
about three times as tall as Mount Everest. The pressure of the
atmosphere here is just 2% of that of the normal surface level.

I am sure that removing 27 km from your launch site would greatly cut
down the escape velocity. I just wish that I had those numbers to
hand, but it could come close to that of the Moon.

Escape velocity is sqrt(2Gm/r). Escape velocity on Mars' surface vs top
of Olympus Mons is 5.0226 km/sec vs 5.0027 km/sec.

I know the moon's lack of atmosphere makes high speed mass drivers more
plausible. To be honest I don't know what the speed limits on a mass
driver atop Olympus Mons would be.


Using Newton's first law of motion, then your Mars exports could be
nearly as cheap as your Moon exports. And you can choose from a much
larger range of items.

Aside from Mars' higher escape velocity you have a delta vee penalty
entering and exiting Earth-Mars Hohmann transfer orbit.

The launch windows are rarer.


Genuine Mars Rocks with real Martian Microbes. Only $1000 per kg. ;-]


About the best schemes I've heard is lunar material to make solar power
satellites


Yes, where NASA is not exactly into commercial projects. Also I would
expect that energy companies would be upset with the competition. And
the actual overhead of setting up this scheme could make other energy
sources better anyway.

Presently solar power satellites aren't competitive with conventional
energy sources.

Fossil fuels make greenhouse gases. I expect both prices and global
temperatures to climb as China becomes more industrialized. Byproducts
of nuclear power plants can be used to make weapons. The ability to make
lots of nuclear weapons isn't desirable in our planet's present
political climate.

The moon has materials needed to make photovoltaic cells.

As I said, it is a long shot. But better than nothing.



and mining near earth asteroids for volatiles and metals to use in earth
space.


You would need to process those ores some place. And I expect that it
would be a very long time before they could start turning out
satellites and more.

Space based infrastructure for making sophisticated satellites like
communication or gps satellites won't be in place for some time. But
maybe they'll be able to make photovoltaic cells in space. Also fuel and
radiation shielding are possible low tech exports from the moon and near
earth asteroids.

If we had orbital fuel depots and some space manufacturing and mining
infrastructure in our immediate neighborhood, trips to Mars would become
much more doable.


Cardman.


--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

In article ,
Cardman wrote:

In the short run, we can simply send water to the moon.

Certainly, at a very high cost. Water is quite dense and heavy, where
us humans tend to need a lot of it. No colony plan has ever worked
out, without a local water supply to hand.

Water is mostly oxygen (by a factor of 16 or so by mass), and as it
happens, lunar regolith is also mostly oxygen. To free the oxygen
requires a concentrated source of energy, for example, sunlight, which
is also abundant on the Moon (for two weeks out of every month anyway).
So even if the hydrogen at the poles is somehow unusable -- which seems
unlikely -- you still have most of what you need as far as water goes,
anywhere on the Moon. All we'd need to import is hydrogen.

I would ever bet that if no water is found on the Moon, then many
people will begin to question the reality of actually going there to
start with. "Go to Mars" they would say.

Many people do a lot of silly things. Take your arguments for example.


True, but is safe really the way to go? The larger the risk, the
larger the gain, you could say.

You could, but you'd be wrong. In this case, the larger the risk, the
greater the chance of failure, and even with success, you have less to
show for it. We will NOT get a robust space economy bootstrapped on
Mars; cislunar space will develop first because the travel times are
orders of magnitude shorter, and that is all-important.

The point is that NASA could certainly do a Mars base, simply by
launching their Moon stuff to Mars instead. What is more is that their
people could now live better on Mars.

No, they couldn't. The initial Moon stuff will be able to support
people in transit for a week or so. There would be nothing but corpses
by the time this stuff got to Mars. And once there, the initial Moon
stuff will be able to support people for a few weeks or months. Again,
this would result in cold, dead government employees even if they
somehow managed to get to Mars alive, before they'd have the opportunity
to come home. And that's not even considering things that might go
wrong (such as one of your astronauts coming down with a serious illness
or injury and needing a real hospital).

Considering the large volume of Water, and therefore Oxygen, that is
easily available on Mars, then there is your number one risk to base
failure solved.

More nonsenses, which surprises me, because before this thread I have
thought your posts to be among the more sensible ones here. Oxygen is
NOT the number one risk to a base. I doubt it's even among the top ten.
And besides, oxygen is plentiful on the Moon.

You can launch rescue missions,

Don't let things get so bad that a rescue mission is needed. A rescue
mission seems a lot more likely on the Moon than with Mars.

Oh yes, we just won't let bad things happen. What a great idea! Why
didn't the Shuttle engineers think of that? For that matter, why did
the folks at McMurdo Station let one of their researchers get breast
cancer? That was just bad planning on their part. And I'm sure they
let that O2 tank on Apollo 13 explode because they knew they'd be able
to bring the astronauts home -- on a Mars mission, they never would have
let that happen.

bring sick people home,

Treat them locally. A colony would not be too hot on catching the
latest virus should people be cleared before launch.

Have you any idea how much equipment, supplies, and expertise are
required to treat something like cancer, or any of thousands of other
possible serious conditions?

and send spare parts.

Build them on site using local resources.

Ah, now you're going to also cram a semiconductor factory into your
Mars-ified CEV.

You are clearly not talking about the world we're actually living in,
but some other world with which I'm not familiar. I see no point in
further debate about that. But if you want to get back to talking about
the real world, and what it could really do in the next decade or two,
let me know -- I still believe you have enough common sense to do so, if
you try.

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'