Why do people think the Moon is a safer choice than Mars?

[EzinX]

We may all be mostly amateur rocket scientists, but I think the consensus is unanimous in this thread that the Moon is a better choice. You know, even for long term goals, it might be a lot easier to build fully artificial stations in various orbits around the Earth Moon system than to try to settle Mars.

[Dunbaratu]

People haven't mentioned psychological reasons, which *is* a matter of safety too.

It's unsafe to send people into a situation where they can't handle it mentally and freak out and do something stupid as a result.

The longer flight time to Mars and back means dealing with the sanity issues of boredom, loneliness, cabin fever, etc. And fixing that means way more payload - people will need some *space* in that capsule.

[Nibb31]

People haven't mentioned psychological reasons, which *is* a matter of safety too.

It's unsafe to send people into a situation where they can't handle it mentally and freak out and do something stupid as a result.

The longer flight time to Mars and back means dealing with the sanity issues of boredom, loneliness, cabin fever, etc. And fixing that means way more payload - people will need some *space* in that capsule.

Although is typically a major plot device in science fiction, I don't think that's so much of a real problem. Submarine crews go on extended tours for months without facing murders or mutiny. The ISS has also some long stay experiments, and we have already done plenty of long duration confinement studies on Earth (such as Mars 500). It's nothing that a proper psychological screening and a constant workload can't handle. If all else fails, we have pretty good medication these days.

[Bill Phil]

Why do people think Mars is a better target? that's the question.

[PB666]

I think at least 5 times as high as the Burj Khalifa (830 meters tall), since the Moon's gravity is roughly 0.17g. Probably more since you can just leave wind out of the equation. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

In theory, wouldn't it be possible to build a space elevator from the Moon's surface, through Lagrange point L1 and all the way to Earth GSO? Such a structure would be nearly 350 thousand kilometers tall. I know this is what Liftport is trying to do, but their elevator only extends from the surface to L1.

Skyscrapers on the earth have to worry about earthquakes and hurricanes. On the moon no such worry, only the occasional sheep-sized projectile (obviously Monte-Python fans on the moon creating havoc). The problem is the pressure differential, none of those 1/2" glass windows on the moon, In fact, probably no windows at all.

But seriously, skyscrapers. You wouldn't catch me out on the terrace of a 600 story building hanging my nuts to the 'wind' on the moon, space suit or not. Im digging down.

More temperature control, you can get your light with a one inch thick piece of plex. You want to catch the view, go to bora-bora.

- - - Updated - - -

Why do people think Mars is a better target? that's the question.

Romantics and Lunatics (or should it be Martinatics)

[vger]

Why do people think Mars is a better target? that's the question.

I think it's mainly a case of people wanting to see something "new" done. Granted, I want to see a human inter-planetary landing while I'm still alive, so from a purely aesthetic standpoint I agree with the those who want Mars. But let's not put the cart before the horse. So much time has passed since Apollo that I feel like we're almost starting from scratch.

Also, this isn't to say that a new Lunar mission wouldn't be spectacular. In the back of my mind, I have a feeling there's a specific reason that NASA is experimenting with HD cameras on the ISS, and live footage of Earth isn't the ultimate goal.

[Sparker]

But what did Apollo start with? Were there arguments like 'We can't go to the Moon until we have done ...' or they just did developed the needed technologies and did it? Is it really necessary to redo the Apollo landings instead of going to a new place like Mars? I rather agree with Robert Zubrin that a Moon base should be built from hardware built for Mars mission.

[Nibb31]

But what did Apollo start with? Were there arguments like 'We can't go to the Moon until we have done ...' or they just did developed the needed technologies and did it?

When the Apollo project was started, NASA had only just sent a Alan Shepard into the first American surborbital flight. They had committed to go to the Moon, but NASA hadn't even put a man into orbit. There were milestones that they knew they needed to accomplish before they could go for a successful moon landing. There were definitely arguments that we couldn't go to the moon until we achieved controlled orbital flight, EVA, rendez-vous, docking, high-speed reentry, extended life-support.

These were seen as huge roadblocks at the time. Some people even thought that orbital rendez-vous was impossible with the computers that were available at the time. That's why it soon became apparent that they needed to launch Gemini as a crash-program in 1962 to develop these techniques, while development work progressed on the Apollo program that had started in 1961.

It really is quite similar to today: we think that we can find solutions to the problems of a manned Mars mission in theory, but we need to actually test and develop those techniques before we send people on a 2 year expedition with no safety net.

Is it really necessary to redo the Apollo landings instead of going to a new place like Mars? I rather agree with Robert Zubrin that a Moon base should be built from hardware built for Mars mission.

A Moon program is necessary to prepare for a Mars program exactly like Gemini was necessary to prepare for Apollo. There are many milestones that need to be accomplished before you could go for a successful Mars landing. The Moon is the best place we have to develop and test the techniques and procedures for outer-space surface operations.

It wouldn't be a "redo of Apollo" any more that this:

is a redo of this:

Scott-Amundsen South Pole Station has a permanent occupation of 50 to 200 people. They don't just study the ice and plant flags. They do all sorts of research in an amazingly wide variety of domains.

In the same way, the purpose of a return to the Moon wouldn't be to pick up some rocks and prove that Communism sucks. It would be to learn how to live on the surface of another planet, just like we are learning a lot from the ISS how to live in orbit.

Edited March 7, 2015 by Nibb31

[Kibble]

redo the Apollo landings

A piloted Moon laboratory is not a redo of Apollo. It offers much greater possibility for science, including giving us a data point on how the human body responds to environments between zero and one gravities. The Apollo vehicles were meant for short stays, and so only included enough life support to hold them over, and relied on fuel cells and batteries for power. A sophisticated ECLSS cycle like on Space Station is very different. A Moon base would also test the effectiveness of solar panel sun-tracking under gravitational acceleration.

The vehicle that delivers the astronauts to the facility might be a "redo of Apollo", in the same way that the Soyuz space vehicle delivering cosmonauts to International Space Station is a "redo of Salyut 1". But that is just one component of the effort, separate from the laboratory itself, from the resupply spacecraft, and from any ISRU experiments.

[Sparker]

A piloted Moon laboratory is not a redo of Apollo.

Yes, that's what i was going to write, it wasn't clear what was the argument in this topic about: Mars flight VS Moon flight or Mars flight VS Moon base(long time laboratory). Sure, a 'redo of Apollo' only is of no use, but a Moon base is. Also, a Mars flight also requires a base because explorers will have to wait for a long time for the launch window. So, maybe Moon base and Mars flight can be developed to use similar hardware? I think that's what Zubrin suggested: aim for Mars and land on the Moon if needed; Mars as a target, not Moon.

[vger]

It really is quite similar to today: we think that we can find solutions to the problems of a manned Mars mission in theory, but we need to actually test and develop those techniques before we send people on a 2 year expedition with no safety net.

In spite of the cost and time needed, I wonder if a landing would even be attempted the first time out.

If we follow the Apollo plan, just getting a ship into orbit around Mars and then getting it back home will be enough.

[Nibb31]

Yes, but it would be pointless. If your going to spend 2 years going there and back, you might as well land.

[Kibble]

Yes, but it would be pointless.

I disagree. A Mars flyby is not only a very practical mission which would produce loads of invaluable data about how the habitat and such stands up to solar radiation, and other characteristics of piloted interplanetary spaceflight, but it is also much, much easier than a landing in many ways.

Edited March 7, 2015 by Kibble

[Nibb31]

I disagree. A Mars flyby is not only a very practical mission which would produce loads of invaluable data about how the habitat and such stands up to solar radiation

You can do that by orbiting the Earth if you're high enough. Or around the Moon.

and other characteristics of piloted interplanetary spaceflight

Do you really think and interplanetary spacecraft is going to be piloted? We have been sending stuff to mars without pilots for decades.

but it is also much, much easier than a landing in many ways.

What's the added value compared to doing another Mars 500 mission in Russia or sending another probe around Mars.

[Robotengineer]

Why do people think Mars is a better target? that's the question.

Because Mars had enough water to potentially sustain life in the distant past. Mars also is the closest halfway habitable planet in the Solar System, while I think terraforming is ridiculous with current technology, a small self sustaining outpost could be built. The Moon has never had the capacity to support life AFAIK, and because the comms delay is relatively small, it would be easier just to send robots than to send humans.

--Updated--

I disagree. A Mars flyby is not only a very practical mission which would produce loads of invaluable data about how the habitat and such stands up to solar radiation, and other characteristics of piloted interplanetary spaceflight, but it is also much, much easier than a landing in many ways.

Why do people keep thinking radiation is an issue? We already have a lot of data on radiation effects on the human body from the ISS. As well as the effects of 0g.

Edited March 7, 2015 by Robotengineer

[Kibble]

You can do that by orbiting the Earth if you're high enough.

Actually an expedition to our Sun-El-Wun sounds like a great idea! You can test against chronic solar radiation, and as an added bonus test all kinds of weak stability trajectories, all within reasonable distance of home.

Do you really think and interplanetary spacecraft is going to be piloted? We have been sending stuff to mars without pilots for decades.

But I thought that was what this thread was about?

What's the added value compared to doing another Mars 500 mission in Russia or sending another probe around Mars.

Actual experience. You can make as many mock-ups and PowerPoints as you like but nothing compares to actually testing hardware in the environments its supposed to work in.

[Ten Key]

I think, ultimately, it boils down to funding. Not unlike the situation with the James Webb telescope, proponents of the Moon and Mars draw a line and take sides because of the perception that there isn't enough funding/willpower in the system to accomplish both things. Those who favor the Moon fear that a unprepared expedition to Mars could kill the crew and put human space exploration on hold for decades. Those who favor Mars worry that a Moon base would take so much time and energy that nothing would be left afterwards for Mars, leaving another 40 years to go by before we again start to look outwards.

I think, of the two, Mars it the better destination. It has more to teach us, and more to offer us. I think the idea of having a perpetual "safety net" to Earth is dangerous-- at some point, you just have to jump. Human exploration and expansion has always worked this way. I think ISRU on the Moon is significantly more difficult, and despite the proximity keeping a Moon base supplied from Earth would be very expensive. Safer, perhaps, but that safety comes at a price. I'm not sure we can afford to pay it.

[Kibble]

keeping a Moon base supplied from Earth would be very expensive.

Not as expensive as you might think - Proton can soft-land a few metric tonnes on the Moon, about the payload of Progress. Falcon Heavy can probably soft-land a lot more.

[Nibb31]

I think, of the two, Mars it the better destination. It has more to teach us, and more to offer us. I think the idea of having a perpetual "safety net" to Earth is dangerous-- at some point, you just have to jump. Human exploration and expansion has always worked this way.

Human expansion has only happened on Earth. As long as there is air and water, you can live off the land just about anywhere without a continuous supply line with your base or a relatively fragile technological infrastructure. Humans have always migrated to improve their own living conditions, their own safety, and those of their children. Nobody is going to move to Mars for those reasons, so any analogy with past expansion simply doesn't apply.

[tater]

Why do people keep thinking radiation is an issue? We already have a lot of data on radiation effects on the human body from the ISS. As well as the effects of 0g.

ISS is protected by the earth's magnetosphere from large amounts of radiation that crews will face on either Mars or the Moon. Looks like estimates for crew exposure for a 30 month mars mission is on the order of 2000 mSv. Lunar missions would be shorter duration, though either could involve burying the habs with soils.

As for gravity, we have loads of 1g data, and a fair amount of 0g data. We have almost no data for anything in between. It is unknown where the cutoff is for "normal" physiological response in the range of possibilities between those 2 figures.

[KerbinExplorer]

It's atmosphere, it can stop micro meteorites, reduce the radiation and it has CO2 ready to be plucked from it.

It can also help slowing down with entry and descent.

It has water in it's soil, which can be used to make oxygen and hydrogen and the CO2 can be made into methane.

The Moon has areas with water ice, but nowhere near as much as Mars and it's mostly in dark places.

Not an ideal place if you want to use solar panels or want to use the Sun to illuminate the area.

Just want to add that the Soil of the Moon has trapped Oxygen Molecules which can be utilized.

[MircoMars]

I think a lunar outpost is far more realistic than a round-trip to mars. the moon is way closer and the perfect test-bed for technology that will be used to go to mars. we may find out that 1/6g is enough to keep humans healthy and decide that we don't need to generate more perceived downforce for interplanetary travel or whatever.

But I'm really wondering why you guys write about building upwards. my gut tells me to go down. the hard and cold part of the moon is much thicker than earths crust. there is not that much gravity which lets really large holes on earth collapse (talking about meteor hits, not man-made holes). the radiation shielding was already mentioned. we could perhaps get to build a gravity-elevator there, find out about the inside of a celestial body first hand (not that seismic waves hearsay) and, if I read correctly, the really interesting raw materials (e.g. REE) are there.

which brings me to the why. and for now the why of a large scale operation like colonizing any place is either survival or money. (jajaja, curiosity could be named here, but isn't "knowing more" most often a survival- or business strategy?) I guess we would have to be very desperate to be motivated by the first, which leaves the latter. so, how can we convince the fat cat corporations of earth that going to the moon is evil profitable enough to put loads of money into this?

[Kibble]

which brings me to the why.

Oh, the forbidden question of spaceflight. A question which when can't be answered, because there isn't an answer. We will go into space because we will go into space. Why do we make art, when we could spend that valuable time farming? Why do we spend billions, and expend years of people's professional lives to make the next superhero movie?

[Scotius]

Because it's there Humans always want to know what is behind that hill. Ot that big forest. Or that expanse of salt water. We can stall for some time, familiarising ourselves with new place, reshaping it to our liking and getting comfortable - but finally there will be enough curious individuals with too much time and resources on their hands to make another leap.

[EzinX]

, which leaves the latter. so, how can we convince the fat cat corporations of earth that going to the moon is evil profitable enough to put loads of money into this?

Which need partially or fully self replicating robotic systems. Even if the self replication is only partial, it's a game changer. A partial system would look like a factory with a number of robots, some ore handling and chemical processes, and various milling and additive manufacturing machines. All the machines in the factory would share simple parts made of common alloys that can be milled or additively made from blocks of metal (probably aluminum) that the factory itself can make.

All the machines would use electronics that are composed of modular circuit boards, of which there would be a limited number of types, so you could stock and ship just 10 or so kinds of circuit boards. More advanced versions of this factory would be able to etch their own circuit boards onto some kind of blank that the factory could make, so you would only have to stock/ship the chips.

This kind of thing would make money right now on Earth. Putting it on the moon, though, means the machines could build a vast complex of larger factories from a relatively small amount of mass landed on the lunar surface.

And then, from these generic aluminum parts and ISRU circuit boards and key parts from Earth, they'd be able to make life support equipment and the pieces for underground habitats and earth moving equipment to build the habitats and so on. Be a heck of a lot easier to go to Mars after we have debugged and working equipment at this tech level.

This same equipment would also make space travel loads easier. A fully automated, robotic factory line that does both the milling and additive manufacturing steps could build you expendable rockets for cargo launches. You'd collect the wreckage from the expended rocket stages and use them as inputs for the factory.