Ideal spot for first Moon base

[Mr. Ski]

Link

Thought this was pretty cool. I've always been a bit of a Space & Science junky. This is the next logical step on the road to Manned Mars missons.

[RougeUnderoos]

That is cool. Pretty freaking cold up there, which I guess I knew, but those astronauts might have to do some naked winter conditioning in Tuktoyuktuk to get used to that action. Yikes.

It says India's first mission to the moon will be in 2007 but it doesn't say if people will be along for the ride. Anyone know?

edit: people will not be along for the ride

Props to Mr.Johnson's grade 8 art class as well for that "artist's rendering" of the Lunar Colony.

[Mr. Ski]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Apr 14 2005, 06:09 PM
Props to Mr.Johnson's grade 8 art class as well for that "artist's rendering" of the Lunar Colony.

That was pretty terrible, eh?

[photon]

As far as I know India's mission to the moon is just a probe, no people. Japan wants to have a manned moon base by 2025 though! No idea how they're going to pay for it however...

Going near the poles for the constant sunlight is a great idea!

Though I think we should build and send up robots that can mine for resources and build some stuff we'll need up there before actually going.

[Claeren]

The moon is a waste of time. Gotta go straight for mars.

For anyone into this kind of thing i STRONGLY recommend reading Robert Zubrins "Mission to Mars"

Excellent book.... (He is also the guy responsible for the Baffin Island(?) space colony research centre, based upon his plan in that book.)

Claeren.

[Eagle Eye]

Isn't there a real reason for starting on the Moon and not going straight to Mars. I remember hearing that there is a lot of H3 (?) buried on the moons surface. If I can recall correctly it has like 1000 times more energy then oil (same volume).

I think that they also say that it would be easier to leave the moon for Mars as there is less gravatational force, therefore requiring less energy to get into orbit

[Claeren]

H3 doesn't do us any good if we are still 50 years away from mass fusion power. Some i hear are even doubting we will ever get it to work on a mass scale.

And the combined lift from here to the moon and from the moon to mars is more then the direct flight to mars. Plus, there is a lot more on mars we can use to create a colony there where-as we are left needing to carry more to the moon if we go there first. Also, a man on mars is a HUGE step forward, we can send robots to the moon in a few years that could do anything man could with ease.... he has more reasons in his book, a chapter i believe.

Zubrin, who was/is a top NASA guy and now critic suggested we could have colonized mars for less then the cost of the space station, which he said was a waste of time, money, and vision. He was at least correct about the space station....


At the time i believe he had a plan to colonize mars for under 40 billion USD.....


Claeren.

[photon]

I think even more than the energy required is the time required.. the moon is pretty close, but Mars is a huge distance away. Orders of magnitude more difficult to get to.

But yeah, the moon is pretty poor when it comes to resources.

I still think we should be sending up robots to mine asteroids, there's far more to be had resource wise from asteroids than there is on the moon. EDIT: Or we could put those resources into orbit, use them to build a Mars mission without having to heavy lift everything up there.

[Claeren]

I believe in the book i mentioned he states that astroids are a better option then the moon.

I believe he hoped that he would go to mars first, then astroids from there, then to the moon (much easier with all the tech that would have been developed).


The tech argument is also important. He theorizes that the harder the mission the larger the leaps in technology. Those technologies could then be adapted for the easier mission of getting to the moon.


Claeren.

[photon]

That's very true, it would require huge technology to get to Mars and stay there for any length of time.

Just having to deal with the radiation is huge. Going to the moon is fast so you can have an acceptable dosage. Going to Mars is like 8 months at best, so you'd have to have good protection. And that's just the normal stuff, if there's a solar flare, forget about it. I recall reading that there was no protection enroute to the moon for a flare beyond a specific level, but since it was a "short" trip timewise it was an acceptable risk.

Imagine being involved with projects that size. Wow.