Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Thursday August 11 2016, @02:52AM   Printer-friendly

Moon or Mars? It isn't a mutually exclusive choice but we'd be idiots to ignore the ideal staging post.

NASA engineer, Wingo, makes a detailed, costed argument that the current best-of-breed technology should be directed to the Moon. Specifically, the Saturn program should be continued in preference to SLS. The reason is quite simple. With advances in manufacturing, materials and guidance systems, a known quantity with known corner cases can be made safer and cheaper. (It would also avoid launchpad upgrades and other superfluous costs.)

As a matter of international co-operation, this could be augmented with Russian technology and suchlike. Yes, redundant airlocks or airlock adaptors may be required. However, does it really matter if a substantial structure requires seven payloads or eight payloads? From our current position eight is cheaper and more certain even if seven would be better in the long-term.

What would this structure be? A waystation in high Earth orbit for fueling and crew transfers. Fueling of what? Initially, craft to bootstrap a permanent base on the Moon with solar and nuclear power. Fueling is also needed until there is sufficient infrastructure on the Moon to produce fuel locally. Even then, fuel is required in high Earth orbit for emergencies. Overall, this is a plan to go from zero presence to an economic break-even point and beyond.

[Continues...]

A mineral mining expedition to the Moon has an estimated ROI of 22 years. More worryingly, the total cost is dwarfed by student loans, mortgage fraud and bank bail-outs - and that's just counting US figures. That's the most damning part. If we never get off Earth it will be due to the soul-sucking 1%ers and the legions of B-Ark space-cadets. On that basis, we deserve to not get anywhere.

Admittedly, figures for mineral mining assume that a glut in the market won't cause a price crash. There is a certain irony that a mining expedition to the Moon may never be economically feasible if it makes resources too plentiful. But seriously, that is a risk worth taking because it provides opportunity to move the majority of heavy industry outside of the biosphere. Even ignoring this, it would be possible to drop titanium airships into the atmosphere with a cargo of tritium from the Moon's South Pole. Or lithium. Or neodymium. Do you think there's enough lithium or neodymium for everyone to have an electric car? There is if we mine the Moon. (Or maybe that's why we don't go? Would we use the resources sensibly prior to mass population reduction and careful management of MTE?)

The typesetting is a bit dodgy but the message is clear. Until transport to the Moon becomes routine, human missions further afield are a work of speculative fiction. Actually, there comes a point when sending robotic probes further into the solar system becomes cheaper when sent from the Moon. And that's the point where we should seriously consider further expansion. Not before.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 11 2016, @03:57AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 11 2016, @03:57AM (#386502) Journal
    Incidentally, Dennis Wingo's blog [wordpress.com] has some great stuff. For example, he posted some papers on evaluating locations for polar sites for a lunar outpost. My internet is dog slow at the moment so I don't have time to hunt down a link to what I'm speaking of.

    My view is that the most valuable piece of real estate in the Solar System outside of the Earth, of course, is the Moon. Not because of its mineral resources or better access to space (through lower gravity and no atmosphere), though it does have that, but because of its proximity to Earth. At under three seconds round trip, it is quite possible to do real time teleoperations on the Moon by someone with a computer on Earth which greatly reduces the cost of operations on the Moon. To get that response for long term projects on Mars, you would need people living within a few light seconds of Mars, meaning they would have to be either in orbit or on the surface.
  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday August 11 2016, @04:13AM

    by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Thursday August 11 2016, @04:13AM (#386505) Journal

    To get that response for long term projects on Mars, you would need people living within a few light seconds of Mars, meaning they would have to be either in orbit or on the surface.

    I guess this counts as "in orbit", but there is a semi-easy option for Mars: use Phobos and/or Deimos.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobos_(moon)#As_part_of_a_manned_mission_to_Mars [wikipedia.org]

    Phobos has been proposed as an early target for a manned mission to Mars. The teleoperation of robotic scouts on Mars by humans on Phobos could be conducted without significant time delay, and planetary protection concerns in early Mars exploration might be addressed by such an approach.

    Phobos has also been proposed as an early target for a manned mission to Mars because a landing on Phobos would be considerably less difficult and expensive than a landing on the surface of Mars itself. A lander bound for Mars would need to be capable of atmospheric entry and subsequent return to orbit, without any support facilities (a capacity that has never been attempted in a manned spacecraft), or would require the creation of support facilities in-situ (a "colony or bust" mission); a lander intended for Phobos could be based on equipment designed for lunar and asteroid landings. Additionally, the delta-v to land on Phobos and return is only 80% of that for a trip to and from the surface of the Moon, partly due to Phobos's very weak gravity.

    The human exploration of Phobos could serve as a catalyst for the human exploration of Mars and be exciting and scientifically valuable in its own right.

    Phobos and Deimos are much closer to Mars than the Moon is to Earth, so the teleoperation will be even closer to real-time.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]