It’s not getting to the moon that’s expensive — it’s getting back. Jon Goff has some thoughts on how to kick start a human lunar program on the cheap.
6 thoughts on “One-Way, To Stay”
Comments are closed.
It’s not getting to the moon that’s expensive — it’s getting back. Jon Goff has some thoughts on how to kick start a human lunar program on the cheap.
Comments are closed.
I’ve long been an advocate of the one-way colonization of Mars. The moon has never seemed quite as attractive as place to settle, so this is thought-provoking.
One thing Jonathon notes in passing is the effect of 1/6 G on human beings. I have no idea what the answer to that is, but there’s another implication of 1/6th G that is not widely known.
A good friend of mine at NASA Glenn was in charge of microgravity combustion research for many years, and among other things he measured the flammability of various materials in G ranging from 10E-6 to 1 in one decade increments, and 1 to 3.5 in several steps.
Out of all that research, one of the most noteworthy results is that materials reach their absolute maximum flammability at right about 1/6th of a G. In other words, we dodged an Apollo 1 style bullet in 6 stays on the moon, and most people involved don’t know that to this day.
It’s not a show-stopper for lunar colonization, but it is something to consider.
Nobody has ever given me a convincing reason that sortie missions beyond those done during Apollo, or a rotating-crew base, are prerequisites for colonization. In fact they seem to be an obstacle, because they encourage cutting long-term capabilities in order to get costs down for the near-term objective, & they provide intermediate steps where the whole project can be abandoned.
The best point he makes is doing is better than imagining which remains valid where ever we go.
In contrast to Mars, the Moon is closer, lower gravity and has no atmosphere.
The Martian atmosphere is a significant advantage with regard to fuel production.
It’s reasonable to assume, although doing is prefered, that the higher Martian gravity is more likely to provide health benefits greater than Moon gravity… but we need to find out in both cases.
But it really boils down to distance. I just don’t believe there is such a thing as one way to the Moon. It’s just too close. The lunatics are just never going to show independence from Earth (no disrespect to Heinlein.)
Perhaps Mars can’t either, but it’s chances are much better. A frontier needs distance or it’s really not a frontier and doesn’t get the benefits. I want to see us go to the Moon and every else as well. Until we colonize Mars, we’re just not serious.
I have always been a fan of Venus for colonization, primarily because a: metals are in easy reach, b, the atmosphere does contain parts of oxygen, and c ( most important for me ) is that at .98g, its almost got the same gravity of earth, meaning minor mutations and human adaption changes, and d, its an for easier trip than to mars.
Ken,
Regarding your second to last paragraph–exactly. While I called it one way to stay, I put the parenthetical in there for a reason. Doing it this way does make it less convenient to return home, but unlike a Mars mission, failure without dying is an option–if things really just don’t work out, you can send a resupply mission and get the crew back in one piece. It won’t be a fun return trip, but it’s doable.
~Jon
Actually you wouldn’t really need to get back to Earth orbit to get a ride on a Soyuz. It was originally intend to be their CSM for their lunar architecture. I am sure they would be more then happy to dock with the lander in lunar orbit for a price if given some lead time.
And it would be a small step from that to simply contracting for the Soyuz to be your return vehicle. Then the lander could simply be become a lunar shuttle once it reaches the Moon, making quick trips to lunar orbit to first dock with a Soyuz then a refueling depot placed in lunar orbit to allow it to refuel for lunar landing.