Forget Mars. Should We Go To The Moon?

me98411 writes "We have discussed earlier about the President's Commission on Moon, Mars and Beyond and about how a direct trip to Mars is the way to go (or way not to). In a BBC article, the division in the astronomers and space geeks community about the use of the Moon as a base to develop ways to travel to Mars is highlighted. Now, Nature is asking: Should we go back to the moon? Is a manned mission to the moon even necessary?"

Comments

Re:I nominate...

[eclectro]

..sending the entire Bush Administration to the Moon.

Maybe that's where the WMDs are hid.

Colonize Antarctica!!!!!!

[willtsmith]

Antarctica has the following things that neither mars nor the moon have:
1) Breathable atmosphere.
2) More hospitable climate (cosmic rays)
3) Readily available water just sitting on the surface. No mining required.
4) Seasonal game (penguins and seals).
5) Transportation and refuel costs are about 100,000 times less.
6) A functional airport.
7) Return trip (once people are excessively miserable on a barren (though less barren than the moon and mars) is only about $1000 or so.

The notion of a moon-station or mars mission is just money wasted. Space exploration should be left to life-long career professionals ... ROBOTS.

BTW, if a big asteroid comes to destroy Earth, we can just dig some deep holes and store enough food to last a couple of decades. It would be far cheaper and more reliable than attempting to return barely self-sustaining mars colonists to earth.