Mars Society Statement on Bush Space Initiative

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "ANTIcarrot"
wrote:
> > From: Ed Minchau [mailto:spider_boris@y...]
>
> > I can't see this happening. The Moon and Mars present different
> > environments with different challenges;
>
> Things that *can* be common:
> Launch rocket
> OTVs (if used)
> Crew Compartment
> Habitat modules
> Avionics
> Ground Support
> Engines
> Gross airframe (Luna lander is martian lander without the aero
shield and extra tanks bolted on)

So far, mostly in agreement- although habitat modules would be
different, as one on the surface of Mars would have different
requirements than one on the surface of the moon... unless one is
planning to have the mars base underground as well.

> Fission reactor

Nuclear reactors will eventually come into large scale use in space
but for now their use has been limited to very small thermal
plants. For something the size of a moon base, we're talking about
a reactor an order of magnitude larger than any such reactor yet
launched, at least. Just getting the idea by the econuts will be a
huge problem. I don't expect to see a reactor big enough to supply
an entire base until well after the moon base is established. Until
that time, a moon base would use large flimsy structures to
passively collect sunlight.

> Many science experiments
> Robotic orbiters
> Misc design elements
>
> > Until a nuclear power plant is online on
> > the moon, a lunar base will be using large flimsy solar panels
or
> > similar structures to supply power - something that just won't
work
> > on Mars.
>
> Is there a reason that a nuke couldn't be one of the first things
landed? If not this statement is nonsensical.

see above

>
> > A lunar base would be below the surface, a Martian base on
> > the surface.
>
> It would? You have proof of this perhaps? Some kind of time
machine which helps you see the only possible future no doubt? The
base *CAN* be underground, in part or in whole, and there are many
advantages to such an arrangement, but it will not automatically
roll over, stick it's spindly landing legs in the air and play dead
if it isn't.
>

Mars has an atmosphere, which provides some raditation shielding on
the surface. The Moon has no atmosphere, so any long-term habitat
must be buried under at least two meters of regolith, to limit
radiation exposure.

All the Mars mission proposals I have seen involve a base located on
the surface rather than underneath. All the moon base proposals I
have seen involve a base under regolith rather than on the surface.
If you can point me to a counter-example I would be glad to see it.

> > A lunar mission might bring all its fuel with it,
>
> Apollo demonstrated the moon's surface is in large part composed
of oxygen. As you may well be aware this is a somewhat important
element in space travel.

So is the Aluminum that can be derived from regolith. All very well
and good. The fact remains that for a Mars mission, the return trip
fuel cannot economically be brought along, whereas Apollo
demonstrated six times that bringing along the return trip fuel to
the moon was a workable concept.

>On the moon it can be refined in a process similar in principle, if
not in practice, to the process that would be involved on mars.
>
> ANTIcarrot.

The proposed process to derive fuel from a Mars mission does not
involve its regolith, it involves using Mars' atmosphere to generate
fuel. Any proposal to derive rocket fuel from the moon must
necessarily derive it from the regolith.

The presence of an atmosphere on Mars and the lack of one on the
moon make missions to each body markedly different. If you want to
talk about similar missions, then a moon base and a base on Phobos
would be far more similar.

Ed