ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related institutions.
*****************************************************************************

>I'm still confused by how going to the moon will help us go to Mars.
>
>As Jonah pointed out:
>>No offense, but this still seems a little science fiction-like to me.
How
>>much of that ore is economically recoverable? Even if there's lots of
>>iron and titanium on the lunar surface, where's the infrastructure to
>>mine it? And refine it into useable material? And craft said material
>>into equipment? And....
>
>The launch is only cheaper for materials actually mined from the
Moon--and
>then only after making up the deficit of sending equipment, personnel,
and
>life support systems from Earth. I have trouble seeing how the balance
>sheet can come out in our favor. Would we really be able to use enough
Moon
>material to be worth it?
>
>I love the idea of going back to the Moon and having humans live and
work
>there, but this seems like a squirrelly way to do it. Can anyone
explain
>what I'm missing?
>
>  Kay Ziff
>  Exhibit Developer
>
>  Bay Area Discovery Museum
>  557 McReynolds Road
>  Sausalito, Ca 94965
>  Phone:  415/339-3922

Here's the idea:

Space is big. Really big. So big that my comparison bigness itself looks
really tichy. You may think it's a long way down the road to the
chemist, but that's just peanuts to space...

To get to Mars takes nine months, assuming an orbital track like that
used by robotic missions. A crewed spacecraft would be much more massive
and thus would probably take longer. Because of orbital geometry, in
order to return, you then have to wait about a year, to ensure Earth and
Mars are properly placed. Then, it's nine more months, or more, to head
back.

Up until now, We have sustained life in self-contained environments in
orbit for about three weeks without resupply. Each Apollo mission - from
hatch-open to hatch open again - was about one week. We do not design
hardware to last longer or do more than it needs to. Even assuming you
could simply stick a shuttle on a really big rocket and fly it towards
Mars, no one would live to reach the surface.

There are no shortage of cool paintings showing future Moon and Mars
bases, but they are not simple and straightforward extrapolations from
what we have done before. Simply to do a "super Apollo" to the Moon, let
alone to Mars, requires that we develop new techniques and technologies.
Everything from the mechanics of lunar and martian soil, to building to
survive dramatic swings in temperature, to power generation, to learning
how to work in vacuum on a planetary surface. There is also the
all-important factor of making sure our bodies and our minds can survive
long stretches in bizarrely exotic environments away from blue skies,
wind, and immediate communication with loved ones. 

So... in order to send people to the Moon for long periods of time, let
along Mars for nearly three years, keep them alive and get them back
again, thare is an enormous amount of research to do. Practice, text,
experiment, measure, cut, and practice some more. Just to give you an
idea, the first Hubble servicing mission involved five years of
preparation for five days of work. And that was in low Earth orbit.

The idea is not to build Moonbase Alpha, much less Marsbase Beta, in
twenty years. The idea is to set up what would essentially be a largely
robotic "Jamesway farm" on the Moon, as stations in Antarctica are
called, which are ocasionally used by scientists. In other words, rather
than having to bring your whole house with you everytime you go there,
Houston will just hand the astronauts the door keys, they'll bring only
what they need for the trip out and for emergency return, then launch,
land, pop open the door, kick up their heels and put on the coffeepot.
Much of the assembly and testing can be done by teleoperation -
controlling a machine in realtime by radio control, since the Moon is
onlt 1.5 light-seconds away - but occasionally people would be there
too.

The thing you have to remember is that even a lunar trailer park will be
fabulously expensive. Much more than they are alloting to this. Think of
the tens of billions the ISS has cost; now put ISS on the Moon with a
nuclear power plant and you'll get the idea.

As far as resources go; To my knowledge, the best resource of the Moon
is the radio-quiet farside, where telescopes could be set up. This, of
course, could be done by robots and teleoperation, which is how many
astronomical telescopes are operated today on Earth. It hardly makes a
difference to a researcher whether the data on her screen is coming from
Mars, the Moon, or Mauna Kea. The idea of extracting Helium-3 is silly
because we 1) don't know just how much of this isotope is up there 2)
don't know how to extract it, and 3) can't get fusion to work here on
Earth. As far as mining goes, well, we'll need to buy the old Bethlehem
Steel plant in Baltimore, space-rate it, cut it up into convenient
pieces, send the pieces to the Moon and reasemble them, not to mention
figure out how to build a vacuum smelter and a lunar extraction
operation. The idea of building a launching facility on the moon is,
realistically, a long way off.

So Cape Canaveral 2? No. A proving ground for future exploration and a
place to do research of various kinds.

But... taking 11 billion out of the budget is going to hurt basic
science big time. 
There is obviously a lot of grandstanding here. I think it's obvious,
too; I've been encouraged by the thoughtful responses from the public to
questions I've seen asked.

Maybe NASA will be able to take this and run with it... and not alone.
Rather than "inviting" other countries to participate, the ESA, the
Canadians, the Japanese, heck, the Brazillians (we won't ask for
fingerprints) are welcome.

Marc Taylor
Coordinator, Andrus Planetarium
Hudson River Museum
511 Warburton Avenue
Yonkers, NY 10701
(914) 963-4550 x223
Fax:  963-8558
[log in to unmask]

***********************************************************************
More information about the Informal Science Education Network and the
Association of Science-Technology Centers may be found at http://www.astc.org.
To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L list, send the
message  SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
[log in to unmask]