Space/Science — HabitableZone

Space/Science » in reply to So Sam Admits Going to the Moon First Won't Improve the Odds of Making it to Mars?

Lessons from Experience...
Sam1970 — (archived)

You miss the point. The first thing taught in any engineering class if that good reliable systems are evolutionary. In the early days they will fail. If they fail on the Moon, then rescue is possible. If they fail on Mars rescue is not possible and you get dead astronauts.

Once the bugs are worked out and the reliablity is improved then they will be safe enough to go on to Mars.

Apollo 13 already pointed out the need for independent back-up being locate far enough apart that any damage resulting in a failure of one won't impact he others. What other lessons do we need to learn about system reliabilty in extreme environments before going where rescue is not feasible? That is what we will learn from the Moon.

For example. Suppose your space suit wears out much faster then expect from lunar dust and you are not able to risk working outside any more? On the Moon a replacement could be easily sent or if necessary the astronauts could even return home early.

However what about Mars? Sure you could carry an extra suit or two for everyone. However what if those start wearing out quickly as well? Just stay indoors for months until the next launch window and hope nothing outside needs repair? What if it does and your suit has just failed?

The other argument for the Moon is the ability to rapidly cycle your learning experiences. Even the shortest Mars mission will take 3-4 years - a long learning cycle. By contrast lunar missions will only last weeks allowing the experience of one to quickly be built into future missions. Look at how quickly this developed the art of working on other worlds during Apollo.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (75 posts)