SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
martyb
on Wednesday June 08 2016, @09:17AM
from the build-a-space-elevator-on-the-moon dept.
from the build-a-space-elevator-on-the-moon dept.
NASA seems hell bent to go to Mars, but can't afford to on its own.
Its international partners have no stomach for that — they would would rather return to our moon and build a base there for further exploration.
Doesn't going back to the moon make more sense? Build a base on the moon, and use its low gravity and possible water at the poles as propellant for further space exploration?
Why not the moon first?
http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/7/11868840/moon-return-journey-to-mars-nasa-congress-space-policy
Links:
From NASA itself, in 2008: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/series/moon/why_go_back.html
The all-knowing, ever-trustworthy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_the_Moon
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Should We Skip Mars for Now and Go to the Moon Again?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 78 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
HELP! Man trapped in a human body!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 08 2016, @12:31PM
it needs a whole bunch of momentum to get out of Earth's orbit.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday June 08 2016, @04:58PM
Houston, we have a winner!
The ISS is dramatically low in LEO... because that's where we can easily make the many many round-trips required to sustain life beyond our marble.
Sure, the ISS could have been set up 2 or 5 times higher, and the Shuttles tweaked to get there. But the moment you're talking about the Moon, and especially Mars, those dozens of construction flights, AND those 4 tons of supplies that we need to send up every three months to keep half a dozen people alive, become a lot more troublesome.
Given Mars's orbit, you'd need to keep supplies en route at all times, and hope that the 3-D printers can solve every problem encountered when the trip is at its longest.
The Moon is more realistic, but the ISS is a good demonstration that there are still too many zeroes on those checks, and those belong here on earth to build more devices providing uncontrolled rapid oxidation.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 09 2016, @04:10AM
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday June 09 2016, @04:19PM
> Even basic electronics can be manufactured locally on Mars.
I'm pretty sure the multi-billion dollar ore extraction / purification / processing / fab / packaging electronics industry may disagree with that statement.
Until we find a way to generate millions of kilograms of almost-free O2 and unlimited energy, any manufacturing on another planet is going to be limited ...
> If you're sending 4 tons of supplies every three months just to keep a handful of people alive, then you're doing it wrong.
Tell that to the idiots at Nasa. :)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 09 2016, @04:26PM
I'm pretty sure the multi-billion dollar ore extraction / purification / processing / fab / packaging electronics industry may disagree with that statement.
You're not speaking of basic electronics at that point.
Until we find a way to generate millions of kilograms of almost-free O2 and unlimited energy, any manufacturing on another planet is going to be limited ...
It doesn't need to be anything else. We just need to make what the colony needs plus some extra capacity.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday June 09 2016, @05:04PM
Please define "basic electronics" then.
Because even the simplest diode requires pretty pure materials, and a tightly controlled doping process, to get a somewhat reliable and efficient component.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 09 2016, @10:34PM
Because even the simplest diode requires pretty pure materials, and a tightly controlled doping process, to get a somewhat reliable and efficient component.
You don't need the full multi-billion dollar infrastructure for that. We already have hobbyists who can make rudimentary components. And it's worth noting here that the initial research into the first ICs used a lot less money than would be available to any serious colonization effort.
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Wednesday June 08 2016, @08:14PM
Ion engines. The ISS has solar panels to power them and the fuel is cheap.
instead of dropping the thing in the ocean in pieces it could be filled with durable supplies, food/ water, spare parts and anything else that doesn't need to be shielded or refrigerated and some instruments (high res telescope cameras and mapping radars) to help pick an eventual landing site. We could send the exrta stuff up with every supply launch and start storing it on the ISS in that new inflated habitat module that isn't going to get used by the crew anyway.
Then send the ISS on a low energy transfer orbit to Mars, it would take a few years sure but it would be on station and ready for the later manned mission that could take a faster transfer orbit for the same fuel since it doesn't have to carry as many consumables.
Not going to happen of course but fun to talk about.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."