
Why Explore the Moon - uncertainquark
https://jatan.space/why-explore-the-moon/
======
valuearb
They really don't make a good case, because the case for the moon is much
weaker than Mars.

• The moon has much more limited scientific value compared to Mars. Mars has a
4 billion year history that may have included life and may still include life.

• Despite that much greater distance due to Aerobraking Mars takes less fuel
to land on and it's easier to land large cargo ships on.

• Mars has far more resources, it's awash with water and CO2 making fuel
production easy, and metals are literally laying about on the surface. The
moon is a desert of rocks and dust that only has water in polar craters that
is likely mixed into rock percentages at absolute zero.

• Mars is far easier to survive long periods on. The moon is a desert of
dangerously razor sharp dust that alternates between two weeks of intense heat
and two weeks of near absolute zero temperatures. Mars atmosphere is thin but
it means it's temperature ranges are far less extreme, and it's surface soil
has been eroded. It also has a lower radiation environment, but that's a minor
concern. Most importability water and CO2 and metals are easy to access.

• Returning people from Mars is much easier than the Moon because high volume
in-situ fuel production on Mars is easy, while probably not going to be
possible on the Moon for decades.

Virtually all lunar research can be done tele-robotically since it's only 3
seconds away. That's impossible on Mars, where we've had a robot trying to dig
a hole for over a year. Sending humans to Mars will vastly increase our
scientific knowledge of Mars, they will explore more of Mars in a few weeks
than rovers have in 50 years.

The answer is send more robots to the moon, but send the astronauts to Mars.

~~~
mastre_
Fascinating, thanks! I knew most of these points in some fashion, but wasn't
tying them together in such a coherent view.

------
mobilio
Surprise!

On Moon there is almost unlimited Helium-3:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3)
"Much speculation has been made over the possibility of helium-3 as a future
energy source. Unlike most other nuclear fusion reactions, the fusion of
helium-3 atoms releases large amounts of energy without causing the
surrounding material to become radioactive."

~~~
hutzlibu
"The abundance of helium-3 is thought to be greater on the Moon than on Earth,
having been embedded in the upper layer of regolith by the solar wind over
billions of years,[5] though still lower in abundance than in the Solar
System's gas giants"

Sounds a bit different than, allmost unlimited. Also, there are great
quantities of gold in seawater on earth. That does not mean, we have those
great quantities avaiable.

~~~
mobilio
Well - if we can get to the Moon, use it's H-3 as fuel for some engine, then
maybe we can colonize Solar system.

I know - energy is one of issues, but there are many more - solving cosmic
radiation, life support systems, etc.

------
erwinh
For those interested, further reading on ESA's Moon scientific goals
[https://sci.esa.int/documents/34161/35992/1567260389633-ESA_...](https://sci.esa.int/documents/34161/35992/1567260389633-ESA_Strategy_for_Science_at_the_Moon.pdf)

------
alexgmcm
Because it is there.

------
mac_was
How did water ended up on moon?

~~~
uncertainquark
That's a good question! The sources of lunar water are poorly understood.

Some of it is formed as a result of hydrogen ions in the solar radiation
hitting the oxygen present in the surface and forming water, and then being
transported to the permanently shadowed regions. Another source, and likely a
major one, is asteroids and comets, which were impacting vigorously during the
early solar system.

But to truly differentiate between the sources of water, sample are needed.
This hasn't been done yet but will open a huge box of mysteries and also give
insights into how the Moon formed.

~~~
ShamelessC
Wasn't the moon originally created due to a collision with the earth? Was
there not any water for Earth to share with the moon when that happened?

------
f055
We, as humanity, simply have to explore beyond Earth to survive in the long
term (meaning really long term, like next 1000 years). Moon, Mars, and beyond.
It's evident that Earth is not big enough for all of us, today. What about the
next 1000 years? Our population growth rate over the millennia looks very much
like covids spread ;) so I guess there's nowhere else to go than space.

~~~
hutzlibu
In the really long term, like the next 5 billion years, definitely yes. But
for mere survival we do not have to leave earth. At some point population
growth would simply stagnate. When there is less food than humans. (which is a
factor for quite some humans now)

Now the side effects of this scenario on a big scale might wipe out humanity
(if food wars get nuclear), but they don't have to.

In either case, I am 100% pro space colonization, but I don't think we need to
dramatize it.

------
_curious_
Nice sub/read, thank you!

------
jimmySixDOF
Also: Trump signs executive order to support moon mining, tap asteroid
resources

[1] [https://www.space.com/trump-moon-mining-space-resources-
exec...](https://www.space.com/trump-moon-mining-space-resources-executive-
order.html)

------
szczepano
One of these days Alice, bang! zoom! straight to the moon!

------
leto_ii
At a glance the article doesn't seem to mention military motivations which are
probably gonna be the driving force of lunar exploration.

~~~
chaoz_
What are the military motivations? What advantage does it provide?

~~~
mdorazio
The moon is at the "top" of Earth's gravity well and has relatively low
gravity itself. A simple launch system would allow you to shoot rocks at
targets on earth whenever you want, using them as kinetic projectiles without
the launch costs of putting rods into low Earth orbit. The down side, of
course, is that any attacks from the moon would be slow, taking hours at
minimum to reach targets.

~~~
karatestomp
It takes a fair amount of delta-v to "drop" something from Lunar orbit to
Earth. It also takes a long time to reach its target. Accurate targeting would
be a challenge without active guidance. Even hitting a city would be a bit
tricky, and if you're firing projectiles that can flatten large areas such
that you don't need accurate targeting everyone's gonna treat that like a
nuke, so you may as well just use nukes. I find it hard to believe the costs
of establishing and maintaining even an automated Lunar launch system of this
sort would be anywhere near worth it, compared with many other options.

~~~
leetcrew
as I understand it, "fair amount of delta-v" is quite the understatement. the
delta-v needed to realize that gravitational potential energy is equivalent to
the moon's orbital velocity. aside from atmospheric drag in the launch phase,
you're not saving much energy compared to strapping a bunch of rockets on an
earth rock and letting it fall back down. much cheaper and more effective to
deliver a nuke via ballistic missile.

