Moon & Mars

[Jim Colyer]

NASA will return to the moon by 2020 and build a permanent base by 2024. The base will be at the moon's south pole because it is sunlit three-quarters of the time. Solar energy can be used. The plan is for crews to eventually stay on the moon for periods of 6 months. It will be an international effort, with Europe, Russia and Japan. The mission goal is to set the stage for going to Mars. In 1980, I thought we would be on Mars in my lifetime. It will probably not happen. Space exploration is long term. It involves the whole human species. It may be the 22nd century before men walk on Mars.

 

ASTRONOMY Jim Colyer :: News

[LJP07]

Would the base being built not be subjected to damaged by space material like Meteorites and Meteors etc.

[Tormod]

Yes it will, but the chance of an impact is not too large. BTW a meteorite is a meteor that has hit the ground. :)

[Roadam]

If someone really wished to go to mars, there would already be footsteps there. There ceritainly is the technology. Problem is that you have to get back and it costs A LOT.

I wonder why moon has been abandoned thirty years ago?

[Tormod]

If someone really wished to go to mars, there would already be footsteps there. There ceritainly is the technology. Problem is that you have to get back and it costs A LOT.

 

It costs a lot to get there in the first place, getting there is more than half the task.

 

I wonder why moon has been abandoned thirty years ago?

 

Many reasons, but I think we need to consider the costs of the Vietnam war as a major reason. Also, after Apollo 11 and 12, the American public started to imagine that space was conquered, at least as far as broadcasters were concerned.

 

NASA went to the moon simply because Kennedy wanted America to get there before the Soviets. They won that race.

 

Now NASA is having more ambitious plans and are building an infrastructure that will allow continuous travel to and from the moon (as we are discussing in a different thread).

[LJP07]

Would Mars surface not be too toxic or hazardous to land on for humans though? The moon is no problem as it's not strong enough to sustain an atmosphere but Mars is, what conditions would humans be subjected to?

[Tormod]

The atmosphere is useless for humans as it is - people would have to live in closures. Terraforming Mars would be required to create a breathable atmosphere.

[Jay-qu]

The atmosphere is useless for humans as it is - people would have to live in closures. Terraforming Mars would be required to create a breathable atmosphere.

Which has been discussed a few times, and unfortunately ends in it been totally impractical..

[Stargazer]

The Moon was abandoned mostly because space exploration went out of fashion. This might tell us something about ourselves, and it's probably not flattering. So, the administration decided it was too costly to keep the Apollo programme going, let alone a Lunar base. A permanent settlement, or even better and more logical, several settlements on different locations, would be very useful for our civilisation. Astronomy, Earth observation, direct study of the Moon and other areas of science will benefit. We will also get more experience of living on another world, how to make use of the local resources, etc. Such a project will have a big initial cost and have significant risks, but it will happen... because it has got to happen. This important step can't be too much of a subject to what is currently fashionable or popular whims. We're talking about the next step for our civilisation.

[LJP07]

ho...

 

Christmas was finished weeks ago Apple2006 :)

[Janus]

Would Mars surface not be too toxic or hazardous to land on for humans though? The moon is no problem as it's not strong enough to sustain an atmosphere but Mars is, what conditions would humans be subjected to?

 

First off, the atmosphere is about 1/100th as thick as the Earth; too thin to breath.

 

Here's the composition of Mar's atmosphere, with Earth's composition listed after.

 

Mars

Carbon dioxide........95.32%

Nitrogen..................2.7%

Argon......................1.6%

Oxygen....................0.13%

Carbon monoxide......0.07%

Water vapor..............0.03%

Nitric oxide...............0.01%

Neon........................2.5 ppm*

Krypton....................300 ppb**

Xenon.......................80 ppb

Ozone......................30 ppb

Methane...................10.5 ppb

 

Earth

Nitrogen....................78.084%

Oxygen....................20.946%

water vapor...............1-4%

Argon.......................0.9340%

Carbon dioxide..........381 ppm

Neon........................18.18 ppm

Helium......................5.24 ppm

Methane....................1.745 ppm

Krypton......................1.14 ppm

Hydrogen....................0.55 ppm

nitrous oxide...............0.5 ppm

xenon.........................0.09 ppm

ozone.........................0.0 to 0.07 ppm

nitrogen dioxide...........0.02 ppm

iodine.........................0.01 ppm

carbon monoxide.........trace

ammonia.....................trace

 

*parts per million

**parts per billion[/i}

 

Obviously, just bringing the thickness of Mars' atmosphere up wouldn't be enough to make it breathable. Too little Oxygen and too much Carbon Dioxide.

[Tormod]

I think the composition of the atmosphere is the least astronauts need to worry about. The lack of shielding against cosmic rays means they'll rack up the rems pretty fast. So the habitats they take with them (or build in situ) will need to protect them very well.

[Roadam]

Or should one send factories first? (talking about moon) There is a lot of solar energy altough all usable minerals are in unusable form.Still I think that remote controlled factory, even quite small should do, could provide easier way than sending whole habitats to the moon.