(no subject)
Aug. 14th, 2007 08:37 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kd7sovCan someone explain this to me?
Why, exactly, do we need to go back to the moon? I can understand why we did the first time - because it was hard, so that we could get a substantial victory in the space race, so on and so forth - but, having proved that we have the capability, shouldn't we be setting our sights on more promising targets? Mars, for instance?
In his book The Case for Mars, Robert Zubrin describes the problem like so:
"We now come to a totally different kind of mythical creature blocking the path to Mars, one appearing not in the guise of a threatening monster or fearsome dragon, but in the alluring dress of a lovely goddess. This is Diana, the Lunar Siren, whose seductive song has probably done as much to wreck would-be Mars ventures to date as all five dragons combined.
"According to Diana's followers, it is a point of religious belief that we cannot venture human expeditions to Mars until after the goddess has been appeased by the construction of a substantial array of temples - that is, bases - on the lunar surface. This is a commendably original basis for a pagan religion, and it really shows how far we've come since the days of the Roman Empire, but the fact of the matter is that it has no basis in reason."
(The dragons mentioned are Radiation, Zero-G, Human Factors, Dust Storms, and Back Contamination, presented as metaphorical representations of the supposed hazards that prevent people from planning, sponsoring, or undertaking missions to Mars.)
So. What does the Moon have to offer? Well, there's low gravity. There's a nice view of Earth, depending on where you set down. There's lots and lots of gray rock and dust that, if Ben Bova is right, is very good at clouding up spacesuit faceplates and clogging joints. There may be fuels for nuclear fusion. And there's a certain amount of proximity.
Mars has gravity much closer to Earth's, and therefore would be somewhat more hospitable to people from Earth. Martian regolith (like soil, but without organics) not only isn't electrostatically charged, it contains goodly quantities of iron (hence the color) that can be refined and used in construction.
Do we really have much demand for fusion fuels at the moment?
As for proximity, Zubrin points out that if a Mars mission is planned right it could require less fuel than a trip to the moon, since Mars has more gravity and atmosphere to help capture and brake the spaceship.
Most importantly, there is the matter of colonization. The moon cannot be terraformed; it has too little gravity, the wrong rotation, and so on. Mars, on the other hand, can. In fact, several million years ago it was very much like Earth. This means that, eventually, humans would be able to live on Mars without domes or parked spaceships. Barring excessive genetic engineering, the same cannot be said of the moon.
Perhaps the most important factor related to colonization is food. Yes, in the early years any colony on either body will likely need food shipped in; however, you can't reasonably grow food on the moon. Mars has a rotational cycle not too far different from that of Earth, which means it will be not terribly stressful for Earth plants under domes (or, eventually, on the surface). The moon rotates approximately once every 28 days; most plants would not do well for two weeks of sunlight and two weeks of darkness. And no, artificial light isn't really an option; the sun puts out a whole lot more energy than anything humans can produce. Zubrin estimates that the entire electrical production of Earth would be insufficient to illuminate the farms of Rhode Island enough for reasonable growth.
Also, I don't want to have to wait another year-plus for Wizard of Mars. I want to read it now.
Why, exactly, do we need to go back to the moon? I can understand why we did the first time - because it was hard, so that we could get a substantial victory in the space race, so on and so forth - but, having proved that we have the capability, shouldn't we be setting our sights on more promising targets? Mars, for instance?
In his book The Case for Mars, Robert Zubrin describes the problem like so:
"We now come to a totally different kind of mythical creature blocking the path to Mars, one appearing not in the guise of a threatening monster or fearsome dragon, but in the alluring dress of a lovely goddess. This is Diana, the Lunar Siren, whose seductive song has probably done as much to wreck would-be Mars ventures to date as all five dragons combined.
"According to Diana's followers, it is a point of religious belief that we cannot venture human expeditions to Mars until after the goddess has been appeased by the construction of a substantial array of temples - that is, bases - on the lunar surface. This is a commendably original basis for a pagan religion, and it really shows how far we've come since the days of the Roman Empire, but the fact of the matter is that it has no basis in reason."
(The dragons mentioned are Radiation, Zero-G, Human Factors, Dust Storms, and Back Contamination, presented as metaphorical representations of the supposed hazards that prevent people from planning, sponsoring, or undertaking missions to Mars.)
So. What does the Moon have to offer? Well, there's low gravity. There's a nice view of Earth, depending on where you set down. There's lots and lots of gray rock and dust that, if Ben Bova is right, is very good at clouding up spacesuit faceplates and clogging joints. There may be fuels for nuclear fusion. And there's a certain amount of proximity.
Mars has gravity much closer to Earth's, and therefore would be somewhat more hospitable to people from Earth. Martian regolith (like soil, but without organics) not only isn't electrostatically charged, it contains goodly quantities of iron (hence the color) that can be refined and used in construction.
Do we really have much demand for fusion fuels at the moment?
As for proximity, Zubrin points out that if a Mars mission is planned right it could require less fuel than a trip to the moon, since Mars has more gravity and atmosphere to help capture and brake the spaceship.
Most importantly, there is the matter of colonization. The moon cannot be terraformed; it has too little gravity, the wrong rotation, and so on. Mars, on the other hand, can. In fact, several million years ago it was very much like Earth. This means that, eventually, humans would be able to live on Mars without domes or parked spaceships. Barring excessive genetic engineering, the same cannot be said of the moon.
Perhaps the most important factor related to colonization is food. Yes, in the early years any colony on either body will likely need food shipped in; however, you can't reasonably grow food on the moon. Mars has a rotational cycle not too far different from that of Earth, which means it will be not terribly stressful for Earth plants under domes (or, eventually, on the surface). The moon rotates approximately once every 28 days; most plants would not do well for two weeks of sunlight and two weeks of darkness. And no, artificial light isn't really an option; the sun puts out a whole lot more energy than anything humans can produce. Zubrin estimates that the entire electrical production of Earth would be insufficient to illuminate the farms of Rhode Island enough for reasonable growth.
Also, I don't want to have to wait another year-plus for Wizard of Mars. I want to read it now.
