Hard choice by NASA: flying to Mars or returning to the moon

The development of the solar system, according to many experts, is necessary for all mankind. Ilon Musk, for example, believes that without the establishment of an outpost on another planet of our civilization simply can not survive. A colony of people on Mars, in his opinion, will serve as a backup of humanity, which will continue to live and work even if a cataclysm occurs on Earth, which destroys all or most of the population.

But a flight to Mars is not easy even for a small team of astronauts. And if we are talking about a whole colony, the task becomes almost unaffordable. The key word here is “almost”, since a number of specialists are convinced that the colony on Mars is still not science fiction, but a reality that is already available with the current level of technology development. Nevertheless, some scientists, engineers and specialists from other fields believe that people would be better off on the Moon, and not on Mars.

NASA has been arguing about this for a long time, and the agency’s employees are divided into two camps: those who believe that people need to fly to Mars and those who believe that the moon can become a second home can be much easier to get into. And after the exploration of the moon, you can think about Mars. In this post, the arguments for and against the exploration of both the Moon and Mars are given. The choice of NASA employees, apparently, will predetermine the future of mankind.
')

Why mars?

Representatives of the aerospace industry rarely agree with each other. But the fact that Mars is a test for technology and the will of mankind, almost everyone agrees. The red planet is considered a new peak for people to be overcome before moving on. And Mars, despite the conditions different from Earth, is still a more suitable place to live than, for example, open space. There is an atmosphere here, although much less dense than on Earth. There is a lot of water in the form of ice (and maybe underground tanks with liquid water are stored somewhere).



In total, NASA now has three main reasons to fly precisely to Mars (not just to fly, but to accomplish a human-controlled mission with landing on the surface). The first is to show the capabilities of a country like the United States. Every country wants to distinguish itself in the aerospace field, and America is no exception.

The second reason is colonization. About it it was already told above and on Geektimes about colonization the big material was published. The main supporter of the colonization of Mars can be considered Ilona Mask. NASA has a slightly different mood - the agency plans any expedition to Mars with the intention of bringing astronauts home.

The third reason is science. The search for life, the study of conditions on other planets are very important tasks. Over the past few years, people have learned a great deal about the solar system and its objects. The man flew to Pluto, reached the asteroid belt, landed (though not personally) on the comet Churyumov-Gerasimenko.

“Mars, 3.8 billion years ago was a good place. There was liquid water, there was snow on the tops of mountains, rivers flowed along Mars. Mars was a favorable place. Then began the development of life on Earth. And all the ingredients were on Mars. If life appeared here, could the same thing happen on the red planets? If so, could germs live there now? ”, Says John Grensfeld, American physicist and astronaut. He took part in five space missions, served as the head of NASA research programs.

According to a number of scientific experts, the results of a study of the surroundings of Gail Crater raise a number of questions that need clarification. For example, last summer, the Curiosity rover found an increased concentration of methane in one of the areas. This gas can be either a consequence of geophysical phenomena occurring in the depths, or it can appear as a by-product of the activity of microorganisms.

All the same Gransfeld believes that the problem of a flight to Mars is completely solvable by current means and human capabilities. Finance is not the most important issue here, since the budget of such a mission will be quite up-to-date even for a single economically developed country.



As mentioned above, the project of establishing a colony or even simply guided a flight to Mars has opponents. They also have arguments, and quite rational.

Why you should not fly to Mars?

A number of scientists and politicians believe that so far man on Mars has nothing to do. A flight there will require a huge amount of resources, but a person will not receive any return in terms of resources for many decades. It is much more rational, according to opponents of Mars, to solve important problems on Earth now and develop commercial astronautics.

Members of Congress hold the same opinion (it is Congress that allocates money to NASA). Congressmen need the results of space programs here and now. By the way, Obama is a supporter of just such a point of view. Even more "mundane" (not in the literal sense) opponent of the flight to Mars is the newly elected President Trump. According to him, it is more important to solve current problems, and not to reach for a crane in the sky.

Even politicians who are supposedly supporters of moving people to Mars in most cases earn political capital. Colonization of Mars is a matter of many decades, and current politicians, in case of failure, ideas with colonies can no longer be reproached for something - the majority either will leave politics by that time, or will die.

The main objections of opponents of a flight to Mars are the difficulty of maintaining a colony. There are practically no resources there. If the Martians can still extract the water (and this is still in question), then metals, plastic and many other resources will be imported from the Earth. Delivery interruptions can have a very negative effect on the work of the colony, and human lives can be put at risk.

Why the moon?

Unlike Mars, the Moon is much closer to Earth. So it's easier and cheaper to get there. True, the last man was on the Moon 44 years ago, since then there have been no manned missions. And here's a paradox - after a man visited the moon, many ordinary people and politicians believe that this peak has already been taken, and it is not worth repeating. As for politicians, many of them understand that a large amount of political capital cannot be earned on returning to the natural satellite of the Earth.

Nevertheless, the opinion of not only politicians is important here. The fact is that on the Moon, presumably, there are a large number of valuable resources for humans. For example, helium-3, which are actively interested in the same Chinese. And the delivery of resources from the moon is a much more realistic option than the delivery of resources from Mars (now it is practically unrealizable).

The duration of the flight to the moon is about three days, and the “windows” for departure to the natural satellite of the Earth are much longer than to Mars. For this reason, planning expeditions to the moon is simpler, and you can fly as an example more often than on the red planet.

With almost 100% probability it can be argued that there is no life on the moon. But there is water that will be available to the colonists. Water ice is hidden in craters and other places where the sun's rays do not penetrate, as a result of which the ice sublimates. So, astronauts will have no problems with water either.

The moon has great scientific value. Studying it can shed light on the origin of both the Moon itself, and the Earth, and the entire Solar System. Here you can also establish an outpost of humanity, from where it will be possible to send spacecraft to other planets. A number of scientists believe that you first need to master the moon, and then Mars, and you can fly directly to the red planet from the already developed moon. The energy here is gratuitous - the sun's rays illuminate a huge area without interruptions. If you establish a colony on the moon, then a person will be able to study it very quickly with the help of automatic systems of various types. There is a lot of water ice here, so it will be possible to get fuel for rockets (oxygen and hydrogen).


Paul Spoudis, supporter of the return of man to the moon

NASA even developed a 16-year program for the exploration of the moon. The first flight, according to the authors, should take place 12 years after the start of the project. Then regular flights to the Earth’s satellite begin. The total cost of the project is $ 87.7 billion. In 16 years, according to the initiators, there will be a colony of “lunonavtov” on the moon, which will be able to produce about 300 cubic meters of water per year. Water will be used for the needs of the colony and for the production of fuel.

There is also a ten-year program of colonization of the moon, which is called Lunar Oasis . According to this program, equipment and people can be delivered to Earth's satellite in 30 flights. One manned rocket, on average, can deliver about 14 tons of cargo. If you send unmanned vehicles to the moon, the payload increases to 20 tons. For ten, according to the plan, about 600 tons of cargo can be sent to the moon.



The final stage of this program is the delivery to the moon of inflatable dwellings for ten people, which the astronauts will use. It is proposed to fill the walls of the residential module with hydrogen, which is easy to extract from the lunar regolith. The cost of this program is several times higher than the price of the previous one and is about $ 550 billion.

The buildings are planned to be made either inflatable or built using lunar soil. There is also a proposal to equip a home for a person in a cavity in the lunar surface or even in a crater.

The development of the moon is now most actively engaged in the Chinese, who are not opposed to establish a colony first. It is clear that the United States will try to prevent such a scenario.

Or maybe not worth the moon?

It is clear that the project of colonization of the Earth satellite has opponents. Firstly, not all scientists are sure that there are as much ice on the Moon as some experts believe. In addition, it is extremely uncomfortable here - huge temperature drops, there is no atmosphere, that's all.

“Even if whole blocks of ice are located under a thin layer of lunar regolith, how are you going to mine this ice? It is unlikely that this can be done with shovels, ”says one of the opponents of this view. But the slightest mistake, an interruption in the supply of energy - and the astronauts may simply freeze, or the infrastructure of the colony will suffer. To restore all this will be very difficult.

The cost of creating a rocket fuel production factory will be very high - it is not easy to do, and even with the availability of the necessary means, the creation of such an object is not the case for one year.

Plus, the health of the lunar colonists will be threatened by very fine lunar dust. Small particles of this dust are very dangerous, since their size is only a few tens of nanometers. Dust of this size can enter the bloodstream immediately. The dust of larger fractions will settle in the lungs. And if the astronaut lives on the moon long enough, he may face silicosis (like that of miners) or something like that.

Maybe we go somewhere else?

Yes, it is a reasonable option. NASA planet scientist Amanda Hendrix (Amanda R. Hendrix) and her colleagues believe that Titan can become an almost ideal place where people live on the surface. Despite the fact that the conditions here are not very suitable for humans, Titan is rich in hydrocarbons and other elements that will provide the colonists with everything they need. Plus, on Titan - the natural protection from radiation, which is neither on the moon nor on Mars. Hydrocarbons are everywhere here, the entire surface of Saturn’s moon is covered by them, so there’s no need to mine it. And here too there is water ice in huge quantities.



Of course, there can not do without problems. Getting to Titan is even longer than to Mars. The whole journey will take about seven years. So the realization of the idea of ​​creating a colony on Titan is a matter of the distant future.

Whatever it was, most scientists agree that a person will sooner or later create an outpost of civilization on one of the planets or planetoids of the solar system. So the question, most likely, is not whether a person will have a base somewhere else besides the Earth, but when it will become a reality.