Re: Improved lunar landing architecture



Cardman wrote: 
On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 20:22:06 -0600, Joe Strout <joe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <82nff11b2f4bh5ee9pqkpi6mjkks5lnbs7@xxxxxxx>,
Cardman <do-not@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Manned interplanetary travel is IMPOSSIBLE today, but PROBABLE soon.
    ... is a SHOW STOPPER for any manned missions beyond the moon. ... Earth lifeforms do not have the equivilent of several meters of water ... between them and the nasty radiation. ... the surface of Mars is quite radioactive. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Improved lunar landing architecture
    ... we can simply send water to the moon. ... >is also abundant on the Moon. ... In this case, the larger the risk, the ... Yes, the Mars Direct plan requires more risk, expense, and resources ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Improved lunar landing architecture
    ... >> Overlooking the fact that it may not actually have water. ... A noticeable chunk out of NASA's two yearly trips to the Moon. ... No point in going to Mars ... works for NASA to one day land people on Mars. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Improved lunar landing architecture
    ... we can simply send water to the moon. ... is also abundant on the Moon. ... "Go to Mars" they would say. ... >>You can launch rescue missions, ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Improved lunar landing architecture
    ... It probably does have water. ... No point in going to Mars ... Deimos provide excellent resources for them - certainly in the medium ... > And yet here you say go to the Moon, ...
    (sci.space.policy)
Quantcast