If everyone cares about Mars more,
why are we going back to the moon?
Source: DW
Neil Armstrong and Buzz
Aldrin's initial Apollo 11 moon landing was more of a political triumph over
the Soviet Union than a scientific one – the mission lasted just 3 days, and
little actual scientific work was performed.
However, in the following
Apollo missions, astronauts collected rocks allowing scientists to better
understand the composition of the moon's surface, many of which they preserved
for later generations with better technology to study.
With new remote sensing
technology, scientists recently discovered the existence of water on the north
and south poles of the moon. This discovery, paired with the knowledge acquired
from the preserved moon rock, will better guide Artemis venturers on a quest to
discover lunar water.
The existence of this water
could be fairly groundbreaking if, with further exploration, more is discovered
and scientists are able to find ways to extract it. An ample supply of lunar
water could help support a space station on the moon - which was previously
considered unlikely due to a general understanding that the moon was drier than
the Sahara.
At this point, if anyone
wants to colonize Mars, they will need to take laborious, energy-heavy trips
from Earth lasting up to 8 months one-way. A moon station could help mitigate
the lengthy journey, according to planetary geologist Georgiana Kramer. This
could save Mars-faring rockets time, energy and money.
Can we use lunar water?
Because the moon isn't
tilted on an axis, like Earth, the poles receive no sunlight at all. Water ice
exists in deep craters on these poles, where Artemis plans to land.
NASA planetary geologist
Sarah Noble said the source of the water is still unknown, but that it could be
the result of comet and meteorite deposition (because the moon has no
atmosphere to ward them off); solar winds from the sun, which could bring
hydrogen that mixes with oxygen-hosting minerals on the moon's surface; or
early lunar volcanism, which could have released water that is still trapped.
Early lunar volcanism also
created lava tubes, which are also found on Earth in volcanic areas in Hawaii
and Colorado. They are long, cave-like tunnels on the surface of the moon,
where lava once flowed and has now cooled.
When the feasibility of
life on the moon is discussed in online forums such as Reddit, the idea of
placing a space station inside one of the lava tubes is often raised. Both
Kramer and Noble confirm this could potentially work, depending on what's
discovered during the Artemis mission. The rock, Kramer said, could shield the
sun's radiation and feature relatively normalized temperatures.
Noble said in the short
term, life in the tubes isn't part of NASA's plan, but in the long term, they
could be investigated by robots.
It will be impossible to
know whether these theories are accurate until scientists are able to sample
the water, however, which is why Artemis plans to land on the south pole of the
moon, where much of it is concentrated. Up to this point, scientists haven't
had any physical interactions with lunar water, Kramer said.
If a good amount of water
is discovered, it could be used for rocket fuel and drinking, which could make
Mars exploration easier.
Which place is better for life: Mars
or the moon?
All of that said, Mars
simply has more resources than the moon, Robert Zubrin, an aerospace engineer,
wrote in a treatise published by the National Space Society's magazine "Ad
Astra".
"In contrast to the
Moon, Mars is rich in carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen, all in
biologically readily accessible forms such as carbon dioxide gas, nitrogen gas,
and water ice and permafrost. Carbon, nitrogen, and hydrogen are only present
on the Moon in parts per million quantities, much like gold in seawater,"
he wrote.
Zubrin is the author of
Mars Direct, a research paper-turned-book advocating for Mars exploration, and
heads the Mars Society, which also advocates for Mars exploration.
The moon does not receive
enough natural sunlight to grow plants of any variety, Zubrin writes, but Mars
does, which will allow future colonists to sustain themselves in a way they
never could on the moon.
This is all in addition to
the moon's lack of an atmosphere, extreme weather changes and barren,
radioactive surface.
Zubrin's analysis of Mars
illustrates why life on the moon is only considered in the context of the lunar
body serving as a stopping-off point on the way to something bigger and better
- or, at least, more sustainable for human populations.
