11–20 of 58 posts
And sadly, I would expect the end result of this sentiment to be fewer probes rather than cooler projects.
So, baby steps. :)
The moon has 1/6th of Earth's gravity and 0% of our atmospheric pressure. Mars has 1/3rd of the gravity and 0.6% of the pressure. Those 2 factors make them very similar to each other and the distance makes the moon the clear candidate for a first step.
It really doesn't though. Descent, entry and landing on the moon is completely different than Mars. You have you use entirely propulsive breaking to get rid of your orbital velocity. On Mars for very large payloads propulsive breaking is needed but aerobreaking is a huge part of it too. The Moon is not practice for Mars. It's a waste of time for political posturing.
Some of the most difficult challenges have to do with maintaining life support long term. The Moon isn't a bad place for that. If we're able to deal with operations in conditions dealing with vacuum, that experience is still applicable. Also, the human side of the procedures for preventing lunar dust and grit from entering the living space will be important and applicable to Mars. Mars soil isn't as bad, but some of it you don't want in your living space either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It really doesn't though. Descent, entry and landing on the moon is completely different than Mars. You have you use entirely propulsive breaking to get rid of your orbital velocity. On Mars for very large payloads propulsive breaking is needed but aerobreaking is a huge part of it too. The Moon is not practice for Mars. It's a waste of time for political posturing.
"Braking," not breaking. Some of the most difficult challenges have to do with maintaining life support long term. The Moon isn't a bad place for that. If we're able to deal with operations in conditions dealing with vacuum, that experience is still applicable. Also, the human side of the procedures for preventing lunar dust and grit from entering the living space will be important and applicable to Mars. Mars soil i…
Ah jeez. That's what I get for commenting right after rolling out of bed.
> ... the most difficult challenges have to do with maintaining life support long term. The Moon isn't a bad place for that.
The moon is a bad place for that because now you have to carry all that extra fuel for landing/etc. Low earth orbit is just fine for figuring out life support as has been done on the ISS already. Why do it again in some place there's no reason to go to? There's no nitrogen available on the moon.
The dust thing is applicable but minor.
I profoundly disagree. IMHO, the destination is open space, not another planet, and the gravity well on the Moon is waaay easier to overcome.
Example: FB events for my shows have, in the description of the event, the location/date/time/cover charge/ticket link. All of that information is present well above that, but people will STILL post on the event wall asking where/when/how much if I don't do that. shrug
I profoundly disagree. IMHO, the destination is open space, not another planet, and the gravity well on the Moon is waaay easier to overcome.
Human space flight - what a waste of resources. Send robots for the next 100 years.
In about 200 years or so, I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were more people off earth than on it.
Zubrin's 'The Case For Mars' (which on reading, it's obvious SpaceX have based a lot of their strategy on) is categorically against going back to the Moon and using it as a 'stepping stone'.
Zubrin's 'Mars Direct' architecture shows quite plainly that it is possible using current technology readiness levels and funding to send a significant scientific mission to Mars directly, without the need for huge orbital infrastructure or Moon Bases.
I had a similar feeling when SpaceX announced their #DearMoon project. I truly hope the Moon doesn't distract them from their true goal: the timely establishment of a permanent human presence on Mars.
We've been to the Moon. We don't need to go back. We need to aim higher.