EPTOn May 10 2016 05:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Or just have some orbiting the Moon for observation and setups.
Or just have some orbiting the Moon for observation and setups.
I didn't see your previous post. I would also back that option.
NASA and the Private Sector - Page 88
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Keep debates civil. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9063 Posts
I didn't see your previous post. I would also back that option. | ||
|
oBlade
United States6343 Posts
On May 10 2016 04:44 zlefin wrote: We've tested the Mars regolith enough to know it's better for growing plants than Moon? I didn't know we had that info. Surely there's some stuff in the lunar rocks, especially if you dig down a bit, that would be helpful for construction? I agree that the moon would be more of an industrial area; but it's a lot closer to work with. One of the basic needs for a colony is the ability to acquire new resources locally; and the moon would seem like an easier to work with area for developing efficient tech to build new things out of local materials. They've tested imitation regolith, yeah. The moon is "closer" spatially, but in terms of energy, or the speed you need to achieve, it's only a little bit closer than Mars. What's terrible is how far out of the way the moon is compared to Mars or anywhere else that you'd want to go. It's like flying from New York to California but making a pit stop in Guatemala to refuel. Edit: You can even consider Mars is "closer" because to get to the moon, you need to 1) leave Earth orbit 2) enter lunar orbit 3) rocket backwards until you're on the lunar surface or use a space elevator if it's there, whereas to get to Mars all you need to do is 1) leave Earth orbit and then hit the Martian atmosphere and land. You need a little bit more fuel, energy, speed, to do step 1 for Mars than for the moon, but it's significantly less than if you had to do steps 2 and 3. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9063 Posts
On May 10 2016 05:08 ShoCkeyy wrote: I think what we should plan on what to do with the moon in the near future is to use as a practice zone for astronauts. They already talk about bringing back an asteroid for testing purposes, I assume the moon eventually would be used the same for Mars practice. I highly doubt I'll see a full functional moon/mars colony by the time I pass with how current politics are in the US, but hopefully I do see it. The private sector space travel and exploration is the only way forward. The politics of the US will bog down a lot of progress, but the JAXA and ESA can hopefully move forward. Russia as well. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11945 Posts
On May 10 2016 05:09 oBlade wrote: They've tested imitation regolith, yeah. The moon is "closer" spatially, but in terms of energy, or the speed you need to achieve, it's only a little bit closer than Mars. What's terrible is how far out of the way the moon is compared to Mars or anywhere else that you'd want to go. It's like flying from New York to California but making a pit stop in Guatemala to refuel. Edit: You can even consider Mars is "closer" because to get to the moon, you need to 1) leave Earth orbit 2) enter lunar orbit 3) rocket backwards until you're on the lunar surface or use a space elevator if it's there, whereas to get to Mars all you need to do is 1) leave Earth orbit and then hit the Martian atmosphere and land. You need a little bit more fuel, energy, speed, to do step 1 for Mars than for the moon, but it's significantly less than if you had to do steps 2 and 3. A big problem with this view is time. While Mars might be slightly closer with regards to Delta-v, it takes a much longer time to get there. Which can be relevant, especially when sending people there, because people really like to eat, breathe, drink, not get killed by radiation and a lot of other stuff, which is harder and thus takes a much bigger space ship the longer the time is they spend in transit. You can not just look at the delta-v requirements and think you have the whole picture. A stop on the moon probably does not make a lot of sense for most missions that don't head to the moon-though. If you want to have some sort of half-way base, grabbing a good asteroid with the materials we need and placing it in a reasonable orbit is probably a much better idea in the long-term. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct#Mars_Direct_and_SpaceX | ||
|
oBlade
United States6343 Posts
On May 10 2016 06:56 Simberto wrote: A big problem with this view is time. While Mars might be slightly closer with regards to Delta-v, it takes a much longer time to get there. Which can be relevant, especially when sending people there, because people really like to eat, breathe, drink, not get killed by radiation and a lot of other stuff, which is harder and thus takes a much bigger space ship the longer the time is they spend in transit. You can not just look at the delta-v requirements and think you have the whole picture. A stop on the moon probably does not make a lot of sense for most missions that don't head to the moon-though. If you want to have some sort of half-way base, grabbing a good asteroid with the materials we need and placing it in a reasonable orbit is probably a much better idea in the long-term. If you send people to live on the moon for a year, they don't just eat for the 3 day trip either. Are you planning to say we can't go to Mars because of radiation? | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9063 Posts
On May 10 2016 07:09 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Which is why I think SpaceX is going to start with the Mars Direct plan but with differing methods. Using Dragons, and possibly Bigelow Aerospace habitats here and there. Then who knows possible competitions like Google X-Prize but with SpaceX and Robotics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct#Mars_Direct_and_SpaceX I think that is a viable option Stealth. I'm more curious on how a crew of TWO would make a successful mission. Unless they are going to just die and "prepare" everything for following missions, they are going to need more people. At least a crew of 5. | ||
iHirO
United Kingdom1381 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
iHirO
United Kingdom1381 Posts
On May 10 2016 08:05 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I think that is a viable option Stealth. I'm more curious on how a crew of TWO would make a successful mission. Unless they are going to just die and "prepare" everything for following missions, they are going to need more people. At least a crew of 5. The chance of this happening is zero, Dragon 2 missions are gonna be robotic for the next decade at least. Elon Musk is gonna announce his Mars Architecture at the IAC - International Astronautical Congress on September 26th - 30th. Hopefully he'll show of the design of the BFR, which should be 10x more powerful than a Falcon Heavy and capable of landing 100 tons on Mars. | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
On May 10 2016 08:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Crew of two would possibly setup the stations/domes, setup a charging station for rovers and grab soil samples then leave. I'm just wondering how their mental state would be affected if it's only two people for a two year mission. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Totally forgot the name of the Robot NASA is working on to go to Mars. They just sent it to Scotland for further development. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11945 Posts
On May 10 2016 07:29 oBlade wrote: If you send people to live on the moon for a year, they don't just eat for the 3 day trip either. Are you planning to say we can't go to Mars because of radiation? No. All i am saying is that Delta-V is not the only relevant factor when thinking about distance in space, travelling time can be quite relevant too. And if you plan to build some sort of colony on a planet, i assume you are going to have things on board of your ship that you can't just unpack and use in space, which means that stuff will be more comfortable once you actually get there. Like some sort of renewable food source, which surely will be part of any plan to have a colony with humans at any place. There is a big difference between travelling a few weeks and then living in a colony for a few years, and travelling for a few years before you even start the colony. Regarding the radiation, i am just saying that the longer you stay in space, the better shielded your ship needs to be, which means it has to be heavier. Note that i am not saying it is impossible, or that building a base on the moon is the way to go (I am not quite certain what the purpose of a moon base would be except just being cool to have) Just that you need to look at more than just Delta V when looking at space travel. This becomes even more obvious when looking further than Mars and into the outer System, where your travelling times might go into decades. | ||
|
iHirO
United Kingdom1381 Posts
| ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On May 10 2016 07:29 oBlade wrote: If you send people to live on the moon for a year, they don't just eat for the 3 day trip either. Are you planning to say we can't go to Mars because of radiation? When you are actually On the Moon/Mars, you may Potentially be able to grow food/air, get water from the environment, and be shielded from radiation under heavy local materials... on the moon they can also ship you food/materials with a reasonable chance of it reaching you before you die. Right now, the only useful reasons to go to the Moon are -practice doing space colony -astronomy (avoid all Earth interference on the far side) -some other esoteric science reasons | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
| ||
