Quote:
|
To say that Mars offers possibilities to human culture and civilization that the Moon never will seems a bit -- well, unimaginative.
|
I am not exactly saying that the Moon does not offer possibilities for colonization, but that Mars has far more so. Mars is a much easier world to live on and it is possible to be self-sufficient there. It is much larger, offers a huge range of terrain, and in the long run can be terraformed. The Moon can be colonized but lunar colonies would be more purely scientific (astronomy) or industrial (helium-3).
Quote:
|
Both worlds are worthy of colonization efforts on their merits.
|
Yes. I would venture to say that most worlds probably are.
Quote:
|
Could the Mars Direct method be applied to other planets?
|
Mars Direct was originally designed to satisfy the Mars and lunar requirements of SEI. While primarily structured for Mars missions, the basic architecture can also be used for long-term lunar missions. With lunar missions in mind, the ERV's propulsion was divided into two stages. Mars missions would use both, which would have the right amount of propellant to return a crew to Earth from Mars. The upper stage would have enough propellant to being a crew home from the Moon.
Since the lower stage is much larger than the upper stage, an Ares rocket (the preferred Saturn-V class launch vehicle of Mars Direct, based on STS technology) could be used to deliver a fully fueled ERV upper stage to Luna. A Hab could then be sent out to land near it. So, yes, Mars Direct hardware could also be used for long-term lunar exploration missions.
As far as I know, missions to other worlds have not been looked into, but I do not think the hardware could be used on other planets or moons. Venus, with its heat and crushing pressure, would need extremely robust and strong vehicles, beyond the engineering capabilities we have today (although on opposition class missions to Mars there is a Venus flyby, but that is different from a landing or orbital msision). Mercury would be hard to reach and has the same heat problems as Venus. I don't think that a Mars Direct style mission would be the ideal type for the outer planets, either. So, basically, Mars Direct is specialized for the Moon and Mars, although on both worlds it would be a tremendous mission for exploration, science, and discovery.
Quote:
|
Something about medical treatment, by the way-- you would expect a mission to have a doctor, and basic surgical equipment on board, no? Not enough for brain surgery, but enough to be like the mobile hospital units in the military or a trauma center.
|
The author of the Mars Direct plan, Robert Zubrin, talks about this in his book,
The Case for Mars. He expresses disagreement with this idea, and I agree with him. From his book (this quote may not be exact, it's from memory) :
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Case for Mars
But behind their public relations facade, nearly all astronauts hate space doctors. You would too in their shoes - just imagine trying to get a hard job done while somebody constantly jabs you with needles and thermometers.
|
On a 2 1/2 year Mars flight, a dedicated doctor or surgeon who spends his time reading medical texts or being a pest by subjecting the crew to an in-depth medical study is cumbersome and unneeded. In the unlikely event that anyone gets sick, expert consultation from Earth and on-board systems should be able to treat most ailments (such as ear infections). One of the crew members could be cross-trained to a medic's level of knowledge or one of the crew could have been a doctor earlier in life. But most of the effects of long term zero-G exposure have already been documented on the Salyut stations, Mir, and the International Space Station, and we know an awful lot about it already - and the mission most likely will use artificial gravity on the outbound leg of the journey. A crewmember whose function is to essentially wait until someone requires surgery is a complete waste on a mission to another world when his place could be taken by a geologist, geochemist, engineer, or more scientific equipment. A mission to Mars should take only what is needed. As I've said, a serious medical condition would be unfortunate, but it is one of the risks you have to accept in space exploration. A Mars or lunar colony should certainly have a doctor, but a Mars Direct style mission should not. The majority of medical conditions could be handled by the crew or by doctors on Earth - there is no need for a dedicated doctor on board.
Quote:
|
In fact, in Northern Canada there wre people testing out hab technology now. (Anyone know if that project is still active?)
|
One has begun in Utah, and I think it replaces the one that was on Devon Island, but I'm not sure. Go
here for more information.
Quote:
|
Using this analogy, testing on Earth would be the empty weapon training and a 1.5-3 year mission on the Moon would be the live fire excerise.
|
I'm not sure. I still think it is like using a crossbow to learn how to use a rifle. They're both weapons, but they're dissimilar enough that you don't need to learn how to use one before the other. I don't think we'll agree on this anytime soon, but let me summarize my point: the majority of equipment for a Mars mission can be tested in an environment on Earth such as Antarctica. The equipment that has to work for approximately one year in a vacuum (on a conjunction class mission there is a six month inbound and outbound trip) does not have to be tested on the Moon - I think that our engineers have enough experience by now that they don't actually have to test it in a vacuum to see if it will work. ISS components aren't tested in a vacuum for extended periods of time - they are simply designed to work in a vacuum, and they do. So I think that good design and testing in Antarctica would be enough for the Mars Direct mission. [/quote]