Re: Improved lunar landing architecture

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.

>> 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.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hey Homer
    ... pretend the space race and the trips to the moon never happened. ... less than 10% of the estimated NASA cost ... a private company can do, the government can do at 5 times the cost? ... back to the moon or on to Mars and do it cheaper than the government. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • NASA, spaceflighters living in a dream world
    ... Moon or Mars? ... NASA plans to return astronauts to the moon by 2020, ... Independent panel is reviewing plans and looking at "potential ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: GALACTIC FEDERATION Moon and Mars BASES
    ... > like to focus on our headquarters on Mars and our base on your Moon. ... It formed part of the fleet that conquered your solar system ... this planet and its armed moon were a major threat to our success. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: GALACTIC FEDERATION Moon and Mars BASES
    ... >> like to focus on our headquarters on Mars and our base on your Moon. ... It formed part of the fleet that conquered your solar system ... this planet and its armed moon were a major threat to our success. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Ice on Mars South Pole Is Deep and Wide
    ... they should be talking to us about our somewhat salty old moon that's ... life might have once upon a time existed on Mars, ... An Earth w/o magnetosphere, w/o moon is simply a much larger Mars. ... Even if we're talking 1% Earth wet, Mars is missing most of its salt. ...
    (sci.space.policy)