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

Yeah.. Go to the moon...

[Praedon]

This story brings up a good point... I think we should go to the moon... Learn a lot more with todays science applied there.

Re:Yeah.. Go to the moon...

[Short Circuit]

Of course every new major device will be tested before it's fully depended on. That's why the 60s and seventies saw Mercury, then Gemini, then Apollo. Every stage had to be thoroughly tested before the next stage was safe enough to be tested.

Today, technology to get unmanned craft to the moon is quite mature. We need only extend our knowledge of modern manned mission technology to reach the moon. And that should be cheaper than developing that technology all over again.

Re:Yeah.. Go to the moon...

[AlecC]

That assumes the moon is "on the way" to Mars. That is not intuitively obvious to me.

Bt all means go to the moon if it si scientifically worthwhile. It would take someone with more knowledge than me to judge the cost/benefit of it, but a case could be made.

But dun't go to the moon in order to go to Mars unless you have a roadmap (bad metaphor, in context) worked out that says goinf via the moon is cheaper than going straight to Mars.

And the idea of mining lunar water for propellant does not strike me as good. There isn't that much of it up there - just a goodish lakefull was reported some time back, and you certainly won't min all of it (ask the oilmen). So (a) you are using a very exhaustibe resource, and (b) we could have lots of uses for that water on the moon. It wouldn't be a good idea to set up a Mars colony and then have to abandon it because the water supply on the Moon ran out.

Re:Yeah.. Go to the moon...

[Paulrothrock]

It's a lot more expensive to go to the moon. The net energy to go to the moon is only a teensy bit less than it takes to get to Mars, and the moon doesn't have the variety of chemical compounds (or a 24 hour day) like Mars does. It's actually cheaper to set up a Mars colony because they can do things like grow their own food and make their own air and water, provided there's a small nuclear reactor to provide power.

Also, the moon is thought to only have water in very small quantities in remote craters on the north and south poles, whereas Mars, according to recent reports, is covered with mud, from which water can be extracted easily.

A lot of people think that because the moon is closer, it's somehow a better place to go. However, in the terms that matter (the energy it takes to get there), the Moon is about the same distance, and doesn't offer resources. I see moon as a space port, easily reached by the population from earth (cause people are really the only things worth shipping there), as well as easily reachable from the solar system, and with low launch costs. Fuel and food shipped in from Mars, materials shipped in from the asteroid belt, and people passing through on their way elsewhere. Oh, and a massive scientific base on the far side, for observatories.

Re:Yeah.. Go to the moon...

[ikkonoishi]

Short answer... No.

Re:Yeah.. Go to the moon...

[Waffle Iron]

The moon does have 24 hour days, so long as you pick the light side to set up on.

You seem to be under the impression that the moon's spin is locked relative to the sun so that the sun never rises or sets. That's not true. The moon is locked relative to its orbit around the Earth. The moon's "day" is approximately one month long: two weeks of sunlight followed by two weeks of darkness.

This would cause big logistical problems and huge temperature swings for a moon base.

Re:Yeah.. Go to the moon...

[b-baggins]

...the moon doesn't have the variety of chemical compounds ... like Mars does.

How do we know? We haven't explored more than a tiny fraction of the moon, and even less on Mars.

Also, the moon is thought to only have water in very small quantities in remote craters on the north and south poles

You don't need to find water, you can make it with Hydrogen and Oxygen. There's a LOT of Oxygen in the moon's crust, and very likely a good amount of Hydrogen in the regolith deposited by the solar wind.

However, in the terms that matter (the energy it takes to get there), the Moon is about the same distance...

Not when you figure in mass of life support and size of the capsule needed for a six-month journey.

Re:Yeah.. Go to the moon...

[zero_offset]

The short, glib answer is: because Mars rockets don't grow on the moon.

The cost and effort to build a moon base which can support humans long-term is already pretty high. Then you have to build facilities for building and launching Mars missions. Unless you want the additional cost of lifting raw materials to the moon for manufacture (or even just basic parts for lunar assembly), you also have to come up with equipment and processing infrastructure to use the raw materials up there -- and even then, probably only a fraction of necessary materials are realistically accessible.

So before you've even launched your first Mars mission from the moon, you're already mired in this enormous project just to make the moon useful for that task.

By a HUGE margin, it would be easier to just use existing Earthside resources, manufacturing infrastructure, and launch facilities to go straight to Mars.

I also believe there are good reasons from the orbital mechanics perspective to go straight from Earth, but I forget the details.

Read Robert Zubrin's book "The Case for Mars" for a great detailed discussion of this exact subject.

Re:Yeah.. Go to the moon...

[shotfeel]

The one factor I think is being ignored is safety. Let me add another observation to that, we've never done anything like what it takes to send a manned mission to Mars.

From the jpl web site, MER-A "Spirit" launched June 10, 2003 and landed on Mars January 4, 2004. That's almost 7 months, so I'm assuming we're talking a round trip time of ~ 1 year (I'm not even going to try to figure out what kind of a time window there is before Mars is on the opposite side of the sun or how all that is timed).

IMO, despite what's been learned from the ISS, we cannot be assured of our ability to place living humans in space for over a year with essentially no possibility of emergency retrieval. Not to mention the shear mass of supplies required just to feed a crew for that long. Again, IMO we are simply not prepared for such an undertaking and there's no way to verity we are prepared without a test like a moon base that can sustain itself for that period of time. IIRC we couldn't even do it here on earth with the Bioshpere project.

So i guess you can put me in the one-step-at-a-time camp unless someone can explain how these things are not a problem.

Re:Yeah.. Go to the moon...

[ostrich2]

You mean at night, right?

Re:Yeah.. Go to the moon...

[zero_offset]

Actually, Zubrin has you covered there, too. I probably won't do his plan justice with my summary (after all, he wrote a whole book on it), but off the top of my head, here are several safety factors he described.

First of all, his plan involves sending as much as possible ahead of the manned mission. Beyond the obvious launch of critical supplies, he describes a very cheap system for generating huge amounts of fuel using the Martian atmosphere. On top of that, we'd send the RETURN vehicle to the surface ahead of a manned mission.

That means you know in advance that you have a return vehicle and fuel already waiting for you -- before you even leave.

Second, the most optimal trajectory for a Mars mission automatically results in a "free return trajectory" -- which means if something goes wrong, the ship will automatically slingshot around Mars and return to Earth, without any fuel usage or other manuvering input from the crew whatsoever.

That means the main risks are surviving space itself (radiation, lack of gravity, isolation psychology), landing (this will remain high risk for a long time to come), and living in the relatively harsh Mars environment until the return launch window opens. (I no longer remember the numbers, but that isn't a terribly long wait.) Of those risks, only the last one requires much from a technological development perspective, and we can learn a lot from a very relevant example of survival under similarly extreme conditions: long term nuclear submarine missions.

Re:Yeah.. Go to the moon...

[zero_offset]

CasualPoster sums it up well.

However -- sending the fuel plant and a return vehicle doesn't require ANY robotic capability. The fuel plant is a ~$45K collection of pipes and chambers and pumps. It has to land safely, open up, and start cranking out fuel. Sending a return vehicle is even more simple. It just has to land and sit there and wait.

Frankly, I think people who ask, "Why send humans?" lack the basic human curiosity which is behind a great deal of the important things people have achieved throughout history. This is no personal attack on you -- a lot of people have asked that here (and there are a lot of good answers available elsewhere under this article) -- I'm just saying, if you have to ask, you'll probably never understand. And yeah, there is a lot more to it than joy-riding.

Keep political whining out of this. It isn't interesting or useful to a discussion of the relative merits of the subject.

No

[PhuckH34D]

Only dust there... If they want dust, they can come clean my house.

long term.

[bagel2ooo]

Doesn't this, in a way, come down to an issue of long-term goals for space exploration? The costs of putting up a station of sorts on the moon would no doubt be immensely costly. If we just plan to run a few missions to Mars, it really doesn't seem very cost-effective. If someone has solid numbers I'd like to see how the distance moon/Earth would be to further planets such as Jupiter or Neptune. Also how big of a factor is the gravity difference in the long run for travel. If we could turn a station on the moon into a pseudo-colony, I think that would have some nice potential for space travel and perhaps even more affordable space tourism.

Re:long term.

[Trurl's Machine]

If we could turn a station on the moon into a pseudo-colony, I think that would have some nice potential for space travel and perhaps even more affordable space tourism.

Yeah, "if". But what if it can't be done? There is no chance to make an Antarctic colony, where the conditions still are much more friendly than on Moon. I doubt if there is any chance to make anything colony-like on Moon - there is no serious plan how to make water and oxygen on the lunar desert (not to mention food or anything useful). All we hear are Star Trek-like hypothetical scenarios, that maybe there could be some frozen water. Well, what if there isn't? The comparison of the Lunar colonies and the New World colonies of XVI-XVII century is fundamentally flawed - Columbus did not have to carry oxygen from Spain. Heck, he could even repair his ships from the wood found on the new continent. He arrived into a land where human beings can sustain their own living - it was far from uninhabitable desert that we have on the Moon or Mars. We can't have an underwater colony somewhere in the middle of an ocean. We can't have a colony on Antarctic. What makes anybody think we can have a colony on Moon? Is it just because once there was a TV series about one?

Re:long term.

[Trurl's Machine]

Of course it CAN be done. Why not? We can get there, we can get food there, we can get power and life support systems there. There are research bases in Antarctica, there are research bases underwater. What are you rambling about??

There is a difference between a base and a colony. I don't deny a technical possibility of a Lunar base - just as there is a possibility of an orbital base. However, just as the International Space Station is not a colony, a hypothetical lunar outpost won't be one either. In order to be called a colony, it would have to possess at least some rudimentary independence of the supplies from Earth. And so far this seems unlikely.

Re:long term.

[CriX]

If the base becomes profitable it doesn't need independence. I agree with you though that independence from supplies is definately desirable. With an initial nuclear reactor (however silly it seems with all that free sunlight out there) a lot can be done, and all in small steps. I think the lunar regolith is pretty versatile. The 2008 LRO (scroll down to April 2nd piece) will give us a lot of info we need about the resources available to us on the Moon's surface. It WILL happen.

Short answer: No.

[secondsun]

Should we go to the moon: No. It is expensive and dangerous.

A more realistic question should be will we go back to the moon: Yes we will eventually.

People like to explore. Many people died colonizing the Americas, but we kept at it until it stuck. The moon is just the next step in this process. We, as humans, want to learn and explore. We want to go to the moon and to Mars. Because we want to we will eventually.

Re:Short answer: No.

[AllUsernamesAreGone]

Scene 1: The Docks, Palos, Spain, 1492. Typical nautical stuff. Miscellanous crates, ships, sailors, whores. Nina and Pinta at anchor in the background. Enter Arbitrary Actor and Christopher Columbus.

Arbitrary Actor: You know Chris, I can't but think that this whole idea of yours is expensive and dangerous.
Christopher Columbus: Yeah, you're right actually. Sod this, let's go for a pint, someone else'll do it eventually anyway.

America is not "discovered" for another 50 years, the entire course of recent history is changed, you and I probably don't exist.

Scene 2: the African Jungle, shortly before the appearance of proto-hominids. Trees, birds, apes. Probably whores too. Swing in two apes:

Ape 1: You know Ooook, I can't but think that this whole "walking on the ground" idea of yours is expensive and dangerous.
Ape 2: Yeah, you're right Eeek. I don't think I'll bother, someone else will try it sometime.

Our distant ancestors do not descend from teh trees. We're still swinging around in thick jungles going Ooook!

Or put another way: so it is expensive and dangerous. So. Bloody. What? human progress is built on blood, tears and insatiable curiosity. If we can do it now (and we can) why not do it now, while we still have chance.

Re:Short answer: No.

[mike_mgo]

Alternate Scene 1:

Contrary Voice: You know Chris, we've invented and tested these amzing new remoted control sailboats. They're unmanned and much less expensive to build, operate and send out than a 3 ship manned voyage.
We'll still be able to get all of the same information as the manned voayge but at much less expense and no risk of death. The only difference is that you won't be able to make any inspiring speeches or hit any golf balls in a new land.

Columbus: Oh, umm...see that doesn't fit my particular..umm..(sidekick: idiom sir)...idiom. It's not nearly as manly, adventurous or cool as sailing there myself. So damn the logic, economics and dangers, I'm going anyway.

---
The point is wether or not space should be explored at all. The question is what is the best way to do it. It's not an either or proposition-manned mission or no exploration at all. For everything we can reasonably expect to accomplish, unmanned probes, rovers or orbital telescopes can give us much more bang for our buck given our current level of technology.

Re:Short answer: No.

[gravelpup]

Voice-over narrator:
So the robot boats went and did their exploring. Some came back, some didn't. And the people were very glad they had not sent humans on such a dangerous trip. Plus, the robots were much cheaper anyway. They had plenty of gold to spend on better printing presses so the children could learn to read, and better cobblestones for the streets so the people could go to the market in comfort. They even cured the Black Death. Everyone was happy in their comfortable utopia.

450 years later, a little German guy with a funny mustache starts a ruckus and wipes out all of European civilization*, and the little robot sailboats across the scary sea weren't much help.



*Some of you may not find this such a bad thing. That, however, is outside the scope of this analogy.

Re:Short answer: No.

[mt_nixnut]

There a two kinds of people that space exploration appeal to it seems.

1. Basement geeks
2. Thrill seeking, somewhat crazy, adventurers.

Basement geeks only care about the science and are very frightened by the risks. And adventurers have no interest in pictures they want to touch it with there own hands and look back at Earth with there own eyes and say HA! I made it! Eat my shorts space!

These two personality types have never really gotten along. I mean, lets be honest. The one group spent their early years giving atomic wedgies to the other. Now that their grown up I don't think either group has fully forgotten that relationship.

I don't think this is an either/or proposition. In the first quest for the moon both personalities were put to use. Both are needed still in my view.

Re:Short answer: No.

[Spoing]

The motivations of both groups are left out of your examples. It's as if they both are borred and didn't have a care in the world.

CC's life drove him to promote his idea and to secure funding. The idea that there was a western passage to India and the Far East (Japan, China, ...) wasn't new or too strange even at the time. People had tried it many times before and failed (and some suceeded, though that is another research project).

Chances are, if he didn't go West, he would have struck out on an alternate shipping route...and in short order, others would have attempted the trip West.

In the case of the hanging around in trees group, maybe the trees were going away? The crazy idea would have been to insist on staying in the trees, not leaving them (even if for a short while).

In the case of the Moon or Mars, if the risk is worth it to a group or individual the risk will be taken. Since many people and groups are comfortable enough to be borred, chances are that there will not be a serious effort to put people on either world. If that changes, or if there are groups that are currently motivated, I'd expect that the situation to change. Till then, it's going to be a waste of money since nobody cares much about the outcome beyond a week or two of excitement. Remember the public apathy that the last couple Apollo missions encountered and what happened to the funding for future missions.

Re:Short answer: No.

[michael_cain]

Arbitrary Actor: You know Chris, I can't but think that this whole idea of yours is expensive and dangerous.
Christopher Columbus: Yeah, you're right actually. Sod this, let's go for a pint, someone else'll do it eventually anyway.

It's not the same thing. Columbus was not running a scientific experiment or a "voyage of exploration." It was a fairly coldly-calculated commercial undertaking, even if a somewhat risky one. He could honestly answer the question by making several points:

• Except for the religious zealots, we all know that the world is round. Heck, the ancient Greeks made estimates of the diameter as a geometry exercise. Ocean sailing has its dangers, but falling off the edge of the world isn't one of them.
• The transport technology is well understood. Portuguese sailors currently cover the same kinds of distances I'm talking about. It's not "routine", but it's clearly possible.
• On a national scale, this is NOT an expensive undertaking. If I'm successful, the value of the cargo I will bring back ON THE FIRST TRIP will cover the entire cost.

Granted, if Columbus had done his sums right on the circumference, he probably would not have made the attempt, as the resulting open-ocean voyage would have been beyond the reach of the technology of the day. As others have pointed out, much of the expense of doing things in space is the cost of getting significant masses as far as LEO. As I have written before, if the government wants to see us make a go of things in space, spend the money to develop cheap ways to get to LEO. If you could get stuff that far for, say, $2 per pound, all kinds of things become quite affordable and practical.

Re:Short answer: No.

[gravelpup]

The point of my analogy was the insurance argument: it's not good to leave all our eggs in one basket. Sooner or later some cosmic event is going to turn our planet into extra-crispy toast and I don't want to be here when it happens.

Your point, which I understand better after your follow-up, is that we shouldn't be primarily motivated by the "because-it's-cool" factor, and we might as well let our technology develop to the point where we could go *if* we found a good reason. That's a better argument than just saying "too expensive and too dangerous." The only problems I have with it are 1) the insurance argument and 2) technology will develop much faster with an actual goal (i.e., put humans on the Moon in 10 years) driving it, and might never develop without one.

Your answer to 1) might be that we can't put a number on the risk of sudden extinction, to know whether it would be justified to focus so many resources on the problem. Your answer to 2) might be, what's the point of developing the tech in the first place, if we don't really *need* it?

These points will be debated on Slashdot and elsewhere until that asteroid comes along and squashes us all, I guess.

Re:Short answer: No.

[Des Herriott]

Maybe the robots weren't much help, but those Inca orbital platforms made short work of the little German guy and his tanks!

(outlandish... but who knows would have happened if Europe had never colonised the Americas?)

Re:Short answer: No.

[jafac]

Columbus had a viable technological solution at the time.
So did Oook and Eeek.

We. Do. Not.

It's not just expensive. It's really really frickin expensive.
Should we just throw up our hands and give up?

Of course not. But the money should not be spent today on a glory shot. It should be spent on R&D towards developing the technology to make moon and/or mars colonization viable. Technology like:

1. Much much much much much cheaper and reliable launch technology.
2. Faster and better propulsion technology.
3. A more sane life-support technology than "more air tanks".
4. A sane plan for dealing with radiation.
5. Better knowledge and study of how to counter the effects of extended periods in micro/zero/low gravity. - and/or a realistic artificial gravity.

In the 1930's, rocket scientists dreamed of being able to launch things into orbit. But rocket technology simply was not capable of it at that time. There's a HUGE difference between an A-4, and the first orbital-capable rockets. And just because the Germans had an intercontinental bomber drawn up on paper in the early 1940's doesn't mean that it would have worked (it would have burned up and damn quick).

Giving up on X-33 was a bad move towards the above goals.
Giving up on ALL space research, except that which gets us to the moon and mars for the "glory-shot" is a bad move.
Pumping huge sums of money into an ill-advised Missile Defense boondoggle, instead of slow and methodical R&D drive for the above technologies, is another error of colossal proportions.

We were on the wrong track before. But now with the Bush plan, we're nowhere near the right track. A glory-shot is fine and dandy for national pride, but it accomplishes NOTHING if we can't effectively exploit resources on the moon and mars.

If you want to draw up historical parallels, look at the "Native Americans". They crossed over a land bridge, or glaciers from Northeast Asia. And were cut off from their cultural source. Because they did not have the technology to maintain communication and trade contacts. Their "colonization" of the Americas is not regarded as a huge cultural achievement.

There were several anchors, of Chinese design, many hundreds of years old, found off the coast of California. Yet there is no other evidence that they landed, or stayed very long, or settle,d, or colonized. It's little more than an academic curiosity.

Few people know or care about Leif Ericson's settlement in Vineland, in the 10th Century.

Columbus got all the glory. Because HIS journey was feasible. Not only did he GET to the New World, but they were able to build sustainable settlements, colonize, conquer, and prosper. Columbus had ships that were more reliable, protected sailors better in storms, and for longer periods of time, carried more supplies, more cheaply.

The Native Americans, Chinese, and Vikings can brag all they want. But real change resulted from Columbus.

The Moon

[coulbc]

It makes sense to test the technology that will be used for more advanced Mars missions. Also, if there is a problem, the chances of being rescued are much greater.

Re:The Moon

[donnyspi]

I think the moon and Mars are different enough that using the moon as a Mars test ground is a bit like beta-testing Longhorn on a Pentium I.

Re:The Moon

[pknoll]

materials-rich moon

The moon is not rich in materials. It's largely dust and rock, not easily mineable metals etc. There is Helium-3 to be had, but (currently) we don't need that for anything.

One of the reasons we haven't been back to the moon since Apollo is that we didn't find what we were looking for - raw materials.

Re:The Moon

[WindBourne]

Not really. We still need launch capacity no matter where we go. We still need the ability to land (that will differ in each case; aerobraking vs. powered landing). We still need the ability to handle surviving in a can for a time. We still need the ability to build a shelter in a foreign world with little resources. Perhaps more importantly, Luna could be used to test automated systems that will help us on mars.

I'd go for Moon over Mars

[meringuoid]

A mission to Mars is probably going to end up being footprints-and-flags, a wildly expensive waste of time. I doubt anyone's seriously going to fund a Martian colony at this time, not with a supply chain so long.

If we go back to the Moon, there's more chance that we can go to stay. Supplying a Moon base will be expensive, but not ridiculously so. It's something that could reasonably be done now, without year-long flight times and teradollar budgets.

Re:I'd go for Moon over Mars

[datadood]

I belive that resupplying a Moon base would be as expensive as resupplying a Mars base and could even be more. The main cost is boosting mass out of Earth's gravity well which you have to do in both cases. To land something on the moon you also have to carry propellant to decelerate to rest on the surface. Landing something on Mars you at least have the option of aerobraking, reducing the amount of mass that needs to be sent. For supplies, cost would have little to do with flight times.

Re:I'd go for Moon over Mars

[caswelmo]

I think it's more a question of using "steps" to get to Mars rather than trying it all at once. There are numerous extra challenges we must face to go to Mars over and above what we must face to go to the Moon. Increased cosmic radiation, long travel times, increased communication lag, etc., etc. Establishing at least a preliminary base on the Moon would allow us to sort out some of those challenges before sorting out the rest.

Is it more expensive to do things in steps? Of course. But then, it's more expensive to develop computer chips in small increment improvements if all you're trying to do is get to 100 GHz. Why waste all that time & money on the steps in between? Because they are value added & achievable goals.

That's how I think of a return to the Moon, just a value added & achievable goal on the way to further space exploration. Mars is really the same way. It is probably the most difficult goal we have set for ourselves right now, but I'm sure it will be just another stepping stone to something greater.

Also, I don't know if you've noticed, but American engineering skill & drive in the aerospace field is not what it used to be (trust me, I'm one of them). Most intelligent and driven young people are now going into the technology or computer sector, which is fine. We also don't have the USSR breathing down our neck trying to beat us to Mars. Bottom line, we don't have the ability to pull off another Apollo type engineering miracle. Some steps might just be a good idea, even if they are expensive.

But hey, I'm just a rocket scientist, what do I know.

Re:I'd go for Moon over Mars

[Mycroft_VIII]

Whether to go to the Moon again or Mars is largely dependant on WHY.
But all other things being equal, the are very good reasons for choosing a over b. You pick which is a and which is b.
Mars for one has at least a little atmosphere and magnetic field (damn little, but compared to the moons none...) and enough gravity to reduce the negative effects of low gravity to much more manageable levels, also your more likely to build somthing self supporting there (if you've got H20 your almost halfway there).
On the other hand the moon is much closer, and the potential in-flight radiation risk is much less. And communications would be much easier. Rescue missions to moon would only be slightly more a pro moon stance due to the set up time to launch such mission.
I don't remember all the details, but the pro moon and pro mars people were seriously debating this a few years ago (late 80's-early 90's?). I do recall both sides had so many good arguments it was no where near a clear issue.
Way I see it the Moon would be easier and cheaper, and quicker. But Mars would be so much more rewarding in just what we would have to come up with to make the trip.
Personally I say do both, considering even modest estimates show a far better economic return than gam^h^h^h the stock market or many other investments.

Mycroft

Re:I'd go for Moon over Mars

[Paulrothrock]

Yes, but on Mars you have the option of launching a return vessel with empty fuel tanks and filling them up with native materials when you get there. No such luck on the moon.

Re:I'd go for Moon over Mars

[WindBourne]

It's extremely illogical and the "option of aerobraking" exists with the Moon as well.

Is there some new technology that allows aerobraking without the aero? Or perhaps, you hit the enter key before you could hit the delete key?

I do wish that we had an ability to mod somebody down for bad info. There is far too much of that.

Re:I'd go for Moon over Mars

[Anonymous Coward]

You forget that the Moon has no atmosphere, whereas Mars has CO2 in abundance. With 19th-century chemistry, we can turn 6 tonnes of liquid H2 into enough water and breathable oxygen for a two-year stay, and enough methane and oxygen to fuel a return trip. If we go to the moon, however, we have to bring all of our mass with us, and are much more likely to be constrained to "footprints and flags." Dr. Robert Zubrin's book The Case For Mars outlines a "Mars Direct" mission using Apollo-era technology with a few more modern updates to launch a series of reliable, safe, and high-scientific-value missions to the Red Planet. In the book, he makes an amazing case for why the Moon is a waste of time.

I attended his talk at the 20th International Space Symposium last week, and both he and Sean O'Keefe (head of NASA) outlined how this can be done within the framework of NASA's current budget. "Wildly expensive" only comes into play if you decide to build an orbiting space dock and assemble a giant Star Cruiser with nuclear-electric engines.

As for supplying a moon base, where will they get
1) food?
2) water?
3) oxygen?

And don't forget the 2-week day/night cycle that makes growing plants on the moon impractical. Mars has a near-Terran day, seasons, and an atmosphere that plants would thrive in. Intuitively, you're right: the moon's closer, it should be simpler. Read Dr. Zubrin's book, and you'll realize that you've got a lot of misconceptions.

Re:I'd go for Moon over Mars

[b-baggins]

Really? The truth is, we don't know because we haven't explored more than a tiny fraction of the moon, and we haven't done any kind of drilling or core samples. Maybe the guy who postulates that hydrocarbons do not come from organic sources is right, and we'll find the moon full of oil (and please, no stupid Bush/Cheney/Haliburton jokes).

The truth is, we just don't knnow enough to be making these kinds of conclusions.

It's not water that's the issue with the moon, it's hydrogen. If we can find any kind of hydrogen present, we have the resources we need, since we know oxygen is present.

Re:I'd go for Moon over Mars

[b-baggins]

And don't forget the 2-week day/night cycle that makes growing plants on the moon impractical.

Good grief. You talk like we're going to plant crops on the lunar surface. They're called greenhouses, and you close the blinds every twelve hours. At night, you flip on the growlights. Sheesh.

Re:I'd go for Moon over Mars

[SB9876]

You seriously underestimate the amount of power needed for this. If you're trying to grow actual crop plants for food, the power required to keep them growing theough the 2-week nights is tremendous. Remember that ordinary plants require about 1 kW/m^2 to function properly. The sort of nuclear reactors that are being proposed for these missions (100kW) are enough to light up a patch of vegetables with the footprint of a small house.

Also, the intensity of the sun and the unfiltered radiation would be deadly to plants, requiring glass several inches thick. Some sort of mirror system would probably be required, further adding to the complexity.

However, since it's likely that the lunar base will be at the South pole, there are peaks there that are in sunlight 24/7. I suppose that a greenhouse fed by mirrors could be set up there.

Re:I'd go for Moon over Mars

[moltar77]

Do you honestly think that they would go through all the trouble of sending people to Mars without thinking of putting a geologist or two on board? A few moments of human observation can reveal things that neither of the two rovers will find in their entire journey (Disclaimer: IANAG). Although to your credit, I'm sure that a great deal of their time would involve maintenance just so they can survive.

It depends

[eclectro]

Should we go back to the moon?

Only if they can use the old sets. I don't think we should spend any money on new movie sets.

mining the moon for hydrogen-3

[polished look 2]

Yes, going to the moon would be nice and if we mine it for hydrogen-3 it will also be profitable.

Re:mining the moon for hydrogen-3

[th77]

It's helium-3, not hydrogen-3--you gotta get your fad science straight if you want to convince anyone... And what exactly should we do with the helium-3 until we actual achieve practical fusion power generation (in 30-1,000 years)? Just store it in tanks? That kind of long-term profit potential won't get you very much support.

No, no, no kids....

[Himring]

The Moon should be off limits. We all know that The Watcher lives there....

Forget the moon as well.

[Serious Simon]

Let's go to the beach and have a beer.

Exploring

[millahtime]

"Many people died colonizing the Americas, but we kept at it until it stuck"

Back when the Americas were colinized death was acceptable where today just 1 death can derail projects. Death is no longer seen as an acceptable loss so safety is something to be taken into high consideration.

"We, as humans, want to learn and explore."

We humans do want to explore but shouldn't we explore what's in our own back yard. This would help us not only learn but let us test our methods before we take a long trek to another planet.

Re:Exploring

[MrRTFM]

today just 1 death can derail projects
This is a very good point.
There are probably hundreds of high rise construction workers killed every year that we dont hear about; but any space related failure is instantly worldwide news. The problem is that they dont weigh it up with all the successful missions.

Space exploration is dangerous - as we (worldwide) do more missions we'll get better, but until then there will probably be a high death/success ratio - just like any new frontier.

Re:Exploring

[Anonymous Coward]

Back when the Americas were colinized death was acceptable where today just 1 death can derail projects. Death is no longer seen as an acceptable loss so safety is something to be taken into high consideration.

We're all going to die.

Might as well die trying to do something other than trying to squeeze as many seconds as possible out of sitting in a cube farm.

Re:Exploring

[BiggerIsBetter]

Can't NASA set the public's expectations realistic ally? Or perhaps the politicians are the ones who need to accept it? Or is it just the media that goes "w00t! new story!" and hypes it all into a NASA's biggest failure yet.

People will die pushing these kinds of boundaries, and that's part of the cost of exploration. Yet for some reason it's seen (by who I'm not sure...) as a failure. It's not a failure as long as we learn something from the process, and those that get involved know the risks they are taking.

Re:Exploring

[Isao]

I can't believe you wrote that. Death is no longer seen as an acceptable loss... You have got to be kidding.

Thousands died constructing the Panama Canal. Race car drivers die periodically. Hundreds of US soldiers have died in Iraq (and many more Iraqis).

Yes, we shy from death-creating situations, and work to minimize risks. But derail a project? Not above the PTA level.

Re:Exploring

[llefler]

Hundreds of US soldiers have died in Iraq

But Americans don't consider those acceptable. You're talking about a situation where the public has been made to fear that if they don't do this, we'll lose 3000 more people to another Trade Center. Better to send troops to kill those nasty terrorists than risk getting blown up at the mall.

Watch some commercials. How many are telling people that 'if you don't buy our product, this -bad thing- might happen to you'. We scare people to sell things.

Nobody is afraid of space. So they aren't willing to pay to see someone blown up on national TV.

send probes - for now

[chegosaurus]

Send orbiters, probes, robots. Make them bigger and more sophisticated as you go along. Send things that take samples and come back. Do this often enough and eventually you reach the limits of what unmanned technology can accomplish, but by then the launching and recovery systems should be so proven and capable that sending a person becomes little more complicated than sending a couple of big packages of instrumentation.

Gradually work towards sending a person and bringing them back by sending lots of expendable things, and bringing them back with stuff for us to study here. Scale up as we go along instead of having one immediate big push. Isn't that sensible?

Re:send probes - for now

[red floyd]

Compare sending a robotic probe to the bottom of the Marianas trench vs. a Manned one (the latter we haven't been able to do yet).

Uh, Jacques Piccard might disagree with you there.

Go back.

[Simple-Simmian]

To the moon and soon. I want to have humans back there before I die.

It makes the most sense. Anything you will use on mars can be tested on the moon or in getting to the moon.

Lunar astronomy

[MrIrwin]

How good would a Lunar astronomy be? Having no atmosphere would seem to be a great bonus, and allthougth there **is** the problem of gravity on the lenses, this gravity is much less.

I imagine a scenario were unmanned ships send a lot of bits on successive low cost missions, and then astronauts go to set up and service the kit.

I'm ignorant on these matters, but it would appear to be to be much easier to set up kit on the moon than it is floating in space on a shuttle lifeline.

Re:Lunar astronomy

[meringuoid]

How good would a Lunar astronomy be? Having no atmosphere would seem to be a great bonus, and allthougth there **is** the problem of gravity on the lenses, this gravity is much less.

Good, but why bother going to the Moon? Why noth just put your telescopes in Earth orbit, which is cheaper to reach?

If you think launching Shuttles to service Hubble is a burden, well, going to the Moon to repair a telescope there is far more expensive and dangerous.

The best astronomical use for the Moon would be in radio astronomy. Imagine a radio telescope on Farside, listening to the radio sounds of deep space, insulated by thousands of miles of solid moon rock from the cacophony of radio noise generated by Earth...

I can't see a point

[JaxWeb]

I can't see any point, but people keep telling me it is of great political importants. I can't see why, so I suppose that is why I'm not a politician.

The article is talking about using the Moon as a base for travelling to Mars. If this would help efforts to go to Mars (Which is a Good Thing), then, yes, sure, using the Moon like that would be great.

Other points it raise show that some scientists think it is useless (Quote: "In short, we should ask whether dirt and gravity offer any general value to astronomy. The answer, I believe, is no."). This is countered, in the article by saying that we will to do tests on The Moon without interference from things from the earth.

Well, I think I've been converted. There is a point!

Should *WE* go to the moon?

[velo_mike]

As in, should another taxpayer funded voyage be made? No. If private industry wants to start, go for it. Want your money to go towards it, buy stock. Let's get the US Government's budget under control and regain the ability to pay for the things we've promised (Social Security for one) before we start talking about funding flights to the moon.

Re:Should *WE* go to the moon?

[Ralph Wiggam]

Private industry won't do it because there's absolutely no return on investment. The moon is a airless dust ball and Mars is an airless rock ball. The only good scientific question involved is "was there once life on Mars". That can be answered best by unmanned probes.

George Bush made his "moon base then mars" initiative for a few reasons:
1) Make it seem like he has a grand vision of anything during the election year.
2) The media will compare it to JFKs moon speech.
3) His friends in the defense contractor industry will see tens of billions of dollars.

If Bush actually had any vision, he would announce a Space Elevator iniative and try to fundamentally change how we get people and supplies into space.

-B

Re:Should *WE* go to the moon?

[Paulrothrock]

We have the money, except now it's going to blowing things up and then rebuilding them. Why not just build things, and save the expense of blowing them up?

Science vs. political thinking

[zz99]

My personal suspicion is that the moon holds little or no lure for politicians looking to strike awe in media and the public.

Spending billions on a trip to mars sounds new and cool to anyone. While on the other hand spending money on "going back" to the moon might not win any points in the approval ratings.

I might be more cynical than most people, but I still hope that the plans are made with long term thinking, and sciense as motivation rather than just popularity.

Only if we can do both.

[Mukaikubo]

I'd like both, but if I had to pick one, I'd have to go with Mars.

Looking at the long-term, the only useful thing on the moon is Helium-3, which will only be useful when commercial fusion reactors come to fruition, and that's been 'just round the corner' since my parents were born.

At least on Mars there is a whole bunch of science to do.

Speak for yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's get the US Government's budget under control and regain the ability to pay for the things we've promised (Social Security for one) before we start talking about funding flights to the moon.

I'd much rather have my tax dollars going for something like space exploration than into some Ponzi scheme like "Social Security" that I'll never see a dime from.

If the government is going to flush my $$ down the toilet, at least do it on something that will be in the history books millenia from now.

What the hell do you think people a few thousand years from now are going to be reading about in their history books? About how Al Gore really won the 2000 election? About how George Bush lied about WMD? Hardly, despite all the self-absorbed carping from the positive-reinforcement-left-wing lunatics of US politics.

Folks thousands of years from now won't know about the late 20th century as the time when two superpowers engaged in a cold war - they'll know it as the time Neil Armstrong was the first human to set foot on another celestial body.

Everything else is just noise.

Here's why I like the moon - it is close to us.

[cjellibebi]

http://www.rathergood.com/moon_song/

Mining moon for Helium-3

[Thagg]

Apollo astronaut Harrison Schmitt had a wonderful editorial in Aviation Week and Space Technology a couple of weeks ago, which is similar to this testimony before Congress. In it he laid out an arguably sound economic case for mounting a large-scale mission to the moon to mine Helium 3.

Helium 3 is present in abundance on the moon, and on a per-pound basis could be one of the most valuable substances there is. Assuming that one really could catalyze nuclear fusion in power reactors using Helium 3, it could have profound implications -- allowing us to move beyond hydrocarbon fossil fuels (although, ironically, you'd still need those fuels to power the rockets to the moon.)

I'd seen pie-eyed schemes for going to the moon for the Helium 3 before, but Schmitt really tries to nail it down, and answer most obvious criticisms. It's definitely worth a read.

Thad Beier

Re:Mining moon for Helium-3

[Megane]

There's NO economic case for mining Helium 3 until there's a working fusion reactor of any kind, much less one designed for H3.

To the moon, Alice!

[hplasm]

Let's go. Or let's return to the trees and let the bears have a go!

Re:Antarctica!

[I confirm I'm not a]

The Antarctic Treaty largely prohibits this:

The main objective of the ATS is to ensure in the interests of all mankind that Antarctica shall continue forever to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and shall not become the scene or object of international discord. The treaty ... also defers the question of territorial claims asserted by some nations and not recognized by others.

Basically, any current territorial claims are ignored, and future claims are prohibited. In any event - it's seriously cold!

...this post brought to you courtesy of Wikipedia

Mars First, Then Moon

[schnarff]

Actually, conditions being what they are on the two bodies, and technology being what it is today, it's actually *easier* to get to the surface of Mars than the surface of the Moon (from LEO, it's 4.5 km/s Delta-V for Mars vs. 6.0 km/s for the Moon), and Mars is a safer place once you're there.

Just a shameless plug really, since I wrote it, but everyone here ought to check out The Mars Society FAQ. Lots of good info on this topic, verified by Dr. Robert Zubrin himself.

Re:Mars First, Then Moon

[WolfWithoutAClause]

Actually, conditions being what they are on the two bodies, and technology being what it is today, it's actually *easier* to get to the surface of Mars than the surface of the Moon (from LEO, it's 4.5 km/s Delta-V for Mars vs. 6.0 km/s for the Moon), and Mars is a safer place once you're there.

True, but misleading. The trip is about 9 months longer; and getting back again takes a much bigger delta-v from Mars than the Moon- in fact the round trip to Mars is a rather higher delta-v than the round trip to the Moon.

So if you are sending people, it's longer, further and more dangerous mission (solar flares and equipment reliability are issues).

And then when you get to Mars, you either turn around and come back within a few days, or you're stuck there for 18 months due to orbital dynamics (Mars has to be opposite the Earth from the Sub for the return trip and this happens every 18 months.) You can stay on the moon for as long or short as you want.

Sure, the Moon isn't as exciting, but nevertherless, it's much easier. And if the water is there in mineable quantities, the Moon is immediately useful- for, for example, enabling passage to Mars.

Use the moon as a testing ground.

[WindBourne]

Going to the moon, and then using it as a launch pad to mars is total bunk. It would be similar to doing a trip 100 miles away by taking the first leg of the trip 3000 miles away and then coming back. The hard part about going to Luna or Mars is getting off this rock. If we use Luna as a launch pad, we will still have to launch from here to there with just about everything, then re-launch it again. Totally F.U.
OTH, it does make sense to use luna for a test bed to build an automated system for building a colony. In particular, we need to build rockets to launch large loads. Likewise, we should send automated systems ahead to carve out a home/cave in the ground for us. Colorado School of Mines was recently given a lasar for drilling in the ground (via the US military). This could be used to literally build several holes in the ground for living in. From there, we can expand easily enough.
Once this is perfected, then send a number of teams to Mars to live out their natural lives. They should be going to colonize the planet rather than plan on going there and coming back. And yes, there are plenty of bright people who would be willing to risk it all for a chance to settle on a new planet.

Lets just get to space cheaper first

[Doverite]

If we can use a scramjet, space elevator or whatever to get to space cheaper we could build a multipurpose interplanetary vessel that we could use for manned missions to Mars, Venus, Europa, Io, the Moon or where ever they decide to send it to explore. In relative safety and comfort instead of a limited cobbled together single use vessel.

Why the Moon is Important

[Fortress]

It is important for humanity to colonize other worlds for several reasons. First, it gives a degree of protection from disasters of the sort that killed off the dinosaurs. Right now, we have all our eggs in one basket, ripe for extinction. Second, we can't stay on this planet forever, eventually (in a long long time) the sun will die, with it the capacity to support life on this planet. We may have to leave sooner if, as seems likely, we exhaust the natural resources of our lonely planet. Anything that is inevitable has to be faced, the sooner the better.

The moon is important because it will give us valuable experience in colonizing other worlds, and do so fairly cheaply compared to Mars, Europa, etc. Even if the Moon is a bad site to put telescopes, the knowledge gained by inhabiting another world is irreplaceable. There probably exist problems of colonization that haven't been forseen yet, and the only way to discover these problems is to try to do it. We may lose lives in the process, but that is a small price to pay for the continued survival of the species. I don't think they would have any problems finding volunteers to go, I know I would go in a heartbeat.

I dream of the day when we have colonized all the habitable planets and moons in this solar system, and the debate rages about whether it's worthwhile to invest in colonizing others. Same debate, same short-sighted folks complaining that it's too much money for too little gain.

Re:Why the Moon is Important

[khallow]

Yes, someday our sun will go supernova and the Earth as we know it will be gone. That will mark the end of humanity. It's rather selfish for Mankind to assume that the Universe owes us the gift of existence past that point, as if the entirety of Creation is there just for us to exploit it.

Selfish to what? I don't recall any contract with the Universe much less one where the Universe "owes" me nothing, and I "owe" it nonexistence. As far as I am concerned, the universe is there to be exploited by intelligent beings.

I consider sitting in one place for several hundred million years and dying with the solar system to be colossally self-destructive behavior and completely unworthy of an intelligent race. Perhaps you don't mind wasting the time, but I do.

Motovation?

[busman]

Personally, while I would love to see mankind returning to the moon and then to Mars, I question the motivation of GWB (aka Chimp Face)

Maybe I'm just cynical, but to me it's just another huge pork-barrel into which to dump the US taxpayers money to feed greedy defense/military contractors.
Gotta keep the old economy moving ;-)

Concrete steps to getting a foothold outside

[NZheretic]

Building a throwaway spaceship and going to Mars just to wave a flag and grab samples of microbial life is really a waste.

It would be better to start getting a sustainable foothold in space, opening up the opportunity to start scooting around the rest of the solar system

We need a small fleet of reusable modular spaceships that can be used for a mission and then can be parked in orbit and replenished to be sent out on future missions. The landing component for Mars and other planets should be the only throwaway component.
The Moon can be a source of materials that are cheaper solely because you don't have boosting the mass into earth orbit.
In the same way, in the long term, a manned subsurface base on Moon is a cheaper option for maintaining the engineering crews and astronauts themselves, between missions.
The low gravity and vacuum in space provides some opportunities for new manufacturing processes, which could also provide a source of revenue for the entire space program.
Asteroids have the potential for providing sources of material for both the new manufacturing processes, creating orbital stations and even new space ships.

Cold War II, the Moon, and You

[kulakovich]

1. Scientifically, the Moon as a stepping stone was figurative, not literal. We go to the moon a few times to test the Crew Exploration Vehicle/What Not, to work out the bugs and train astronauts. Then that same rig goes to Mars on the back of Prometheus. The notion of going to the Moon and then launching to Mars with the Moon as a waystation is somewhat implausable, perhaps dumb, imho.

2. We should return to the Moon, and put an outpost there. It will be very, very important in Cold War II.

kulakovich

Learning curve

[BCW2]

A base on the moon would be a lab to try out all things nesessary for a functional base anywhere else. Just to test shielding and life support in a different environment from the ISS and improve reliability. This would be reasonably close for safety and replenishment/repair. This is a good idea. No one has any experience colonizing another planet yet and taking baby syeps is a better idea. The launch site idea can be delt with later, but the cost of moving everything to the moon seems prohibative.

They're not the same

[I don't want to spen]

These are two completely different places. The Moon has no atmosphere to contend with, lower gravity and would make a great place for testing technologies needed for exploring/ exploiting asteroids.

Mars is more like the Earth, in that it has atmosphere (and so weather) and would be a better model for eventual off-world colonisation in other solar systems, should that ever be possible.

If a choice had to be made, I would prefer a permanent base on the Moon to a brief visit to Mars. After all, if its turns out that there are enough resources on the Moon to exploit, possibly we could make mass drivers to boost these into Lunar orbit for manufacture of space industries or vessels without the fuel cost of lifting things from the Earth. How about a test space elevator made on the Moon? (I can see the headlines: elevator from nowhere to nowhere!)

Also, what happens if we find life on Mars - even of the simplest form? Could we then exploit the planet in any way that would avoid destroying this?

Yes, I have read a lot of science fiction :-)

Should we go to the Moon? Yes.

[Zebra_X]

Why?

To discover the things that we don't know about living in extraterrestrial environments - BEFORE we strand a group of humans 2 years away from earth.

For example, we have little to no data about the effects of radiation on humans beyond the earth's magnetosphere. This is one of the biggest concerns especially considering most of the proposed trips to mars exceed one year of travel each way. Creating a base on the moon will give us a better idea of the concentrations, and the long term effects of solar radiation on humans.

The moon's low gravity also makes it easier to access. Less fuel is needed to land, and take off.

I think though that the biggest reason for going to the moon first is an old saying "walk before you run". In terms of distance the moon is on average 240,000 miles away from the earth. Nothing really, in the grand scheme of things. If for some reason something went horribly wrong, there would at least be a chance to rectify it, or help. A moon base would be a stones throw away, and with the proper planning the crew of that base could be very safe.

From a scientific perspective examining the individuals that do staff the base will provide vital information about what living in the solar environment is like and how if affects the body. Also, the moon has 17% of the earths gravity, with mars at 38% the moon makes a good environment for training for low gravity.

All in all, I think that we cannot afford NOT to go to the moon first. The moon gives us an opportunity to learn about living in space without the risks of being completly isolated from humanity.

Make no mistake - the moon must be the beginning - and not the end of our future in space!

Re:Should we go to the Moon? Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

> strand a group of humans 2 years away from earth.

I'd like you to examine the Mars Direct concept. "Two years away" is irrelevant. Would you rather be locked in a grocery store in the Sahara, or stranded on a life raft with no food or water, two miles off the coast of Boston? At least on Mars you can continue to make you own water and air. By sending Earth Return Vehicles ahead of time, stocked with extra supplies, the chances of anyone getting "stranded" are remote, and the consequences aren't very dire.

The moon's low gravity also makes it easier to access. Less fuel is needed to land, and take off.

As has been pointed out in other threads here, the delta-V to get from LEO to the Moon is 6 km/s, whereas the delta-V to get from LEO to Mars is 4.5 km/s. The moon is only "closer" when you speak about distance; from an energy perspective, it's farther away than Mars, and always will be.

>If for some reason something went horribly wrong, there would at least be a chance to rectify it, or help. A moon base would be a stones throw away, and with the proper planning the crew of that base could be very safe. ...right up until they ran out of food, air, water, or any of the other supplies that you sent them. At least on Mars you can make your own supplies from Hydrogen feedstock.

>From a scientific perspective examining the individuals that do staff the base will provide vital information about what living in the solar environment is like and how if affects the body.

However, while Mars' atmosphere protects Martian explorers from solar flares, there is no such guarantee on the Moon. A solar flare that occurred in August, 1972 would have killed any astronauts on the moon; nobody on earth (except the astronomers!) even noticed it. Mars explorers would be safe from solar radiation; moon explorers would be risking death (and guaranteeing a higher occurrence of cancer) every day they spent out-of-doors on the moon.

>Make no mistake - the moon must be the beginning

If the moon is the beginning, you've already made your mistake. I just hope I'm not the astronaut who has to die to prove you wrong.

Re:Should we go to the Moon? Yes.

[khallow]

I'd like you to examine the Mars Direct [nw.net] concept. "Two years away" is irrelevant. Would you rather be locked in a grocery store in the Sahara, or stranded on a life raft with no food or water, two miles off the coast of Boston? At least on Mars you can continue to make you own water and air. By sending Earth Return Vehicles ahead of time, stocked with extra supplies, the chances of anyone getting "stranded" are remote, and the consequences aren't very dire.

And to push greatly the analogy, if that supermarket is completely bare while you get daily drops of food and water on that raft, then you're better off in the raft. This analogy is terrible. It dismisses the obvious problem. That the Moon is a light second away from Earth and only a few days by space while Mars is months away. The same effort that establishes a human presence on Mars would establish with a greater safety margin a better presence on the Moon.

However, while Mars' atmosphere protects Martian explorers from solar flares, there is no such guarantee on the Moon. A solar flare that occurred in August, 1972 would have killed any astronauts on the moon; nobody on earth (except the astronomers!) even noticed it. Mars explorers would be safe from solar radiation; moon explorers would be risking death (and guaranteeing a higher occurrence of cancer) every day they spent out-of-doors on the moon.

Solar radiation isn't a mysterious thing that can't be predicted or shielded against. You would routinely have hours or days to prepare for it (the key preparation is to stay indoors on bad days). Further, those astronauts on the Moon wouldn't have spent a substantial time in a riskier radiation environment to get to the Moon.

If the moon is the beginning, you've already made your mistake. I just hope I'm not the astronaut who has to die to prove you wrong.

There's one killer advantage (no pun intended) currently to development on the Moon. It is only a light second away from Earth. That means that you can access much more easily the resources of Earth whether it be emergency supplies or teleoperators (ie, cheap labor) for robotic equipment. Further, you can respond much faster to changing economic conditions and deliver orders faster than on Mars. The low gravity on the Moon and its location means that it's a lot easier to put products into Earth orbit than any other large body in the Solar system. The only thing that would be significantly better would be an asteroid in Earth orbit.

Further, when development of Mars finally occurs, the Moon has a better delta v to Mars than Earth does.

My point is not that Mars should be sacrificed for lunar exploration. I believe it is well-demonstrated that Mars warrants human exploration and eventual settlement. Sooner is better. I just don't think there's a rational reason to go "first" to either the Moon or Mars. Both should be developed simultaneously so that we can apply lessons from one environment to other environments. You should remember though that the Moon will have earlier economically viable enterprise.

In addition, I think we ought to explore deep sea habitation. That has the advantage that it's clearly safer than any nonterrestrial environment yet suffers from many of the same difficulties that living in outer space will endure. Further launch costs are cheaper and there are good economic reasons (eg, mining) to investigate how people can live in the environment.

Re:Should we go to the Moon? Yes.

[Zebra_X]

1. "Stranded" refers to the time in transit - NOT on Mars. Over the course of the trip to mars the astronauts will be exposed to moon like conditions.

2. I haven't done the math on the delta V. however - something tells me that it just ain't workin' out. Namely becuase the acceleration of gravity on the moon is significantly less than mars. The total energy expended to get from the surface of the earth and to the surface of mars would need to be higher than the total energy for a trip from earths surface to the moon and back.

3. "At least on Mars you can make your own supplies from Hydrogen feedstock." This is PURE speculation that you can A. create this technology in a reasonable amount of time B. deploy it sucessfully on another planet C. operate it reliably for the duration of the mission. And don't say it's already "built", becuase while we might the technology we still have to engineer it into a package that can be deployed to Mars - most likely in an automated fashion.

4. Clearly you don't understand what I was saying about testing exposure. Of course the moon doesn't have an atmosphere. The ship that carries the astronauts will be exposed to solar radation much in the same way people on the moon will. In fact MUCH of the trip to and from mars will be similar to living on the moon.

I'm not so much concerned about living on Mars really. I don't think that is really the issue. Generally speaking the conditions on Mars would be easier to engineer equipment for than the moon. The real issue, is the trip. The moon offers the opportunity to test new technologies we would eventually deploy on other planets.

A few considerations

[Anonymous Coward]

Aside from questions of the human need to explore and the possible economic and scientific benefits of human exploration/colonization of the solar system (including of course the moon and mars), we need better propulsion systems than we have now. Even though the moon seems to be the best stepping-stone to further exploration, we still have to get out of Earth's gravity-well to get there. With chemical propulsion this is and always will be just on the edge of economically impossible (i.e. extremely expensive therefore almost impossible). In addition to that, with chemical propulsion everything in the solar system, including the Moon, is very far away. Orion-type nuclear pulse propulsion systems are at the very least politically impossible right now. Ian Wright was quoted in the Nature article as saying: "To not travel beyond our planet would be like living a few hundred years ago and not wanting to explore new continents." The Europeans didn't explore the world until they had ships which were up to the task. To me it seems that the better expenditure would be on research into better propulsion.

No projects work best

[Anonymous Coward]

when you don't quit.

What would you say the feasability of a Mach 3 aircraft that weighs as much as a locomotive is?

Would it surprise you to know the engine was actually built and tested? 500 Megawatt nuclear engine. I believe the kids have a phrase for that kind of thing today. "Damn skippy."

One of the reasons the Russians beat the US into space was we wanted to do something when we got there. They threw up a little ball. We threw up a satellite with a high resolution camera that craped pictures. We have Hubble, SOHO and other toys, they have a front row seat. Even Hubble was a little over ambitious? Remember that the damn mirror was made on earth, and required some specticals.

I say, see about building a bigger Sealaunch and reusable nuclear boosters to go with it.

Lift some gear up there. Maybe enough to make a little foundry, or some automated tools that can make a lunar verision of cement. Put a flag on it, and sign Ferris Buller up as fry cook trainee first class.

The only future for humans in space, until we can live there, is to run experiments that require resperation, fingers, or the repair of complicated machines. I bet you could make silicon waffers like 3 or 4 feet across with the moons gravity. No enviroment to worry about. Lots of Titanium for new lightweight super-alloys that we might find very inventable without an atmosphere of 20% oxygen. Giant mirrors for space telescopes might be not only easier to lift to orbit but easier to make obscenely large. Or we could just make a giant space laser with which to extort money from Tim Robbins.

Nikoli Tesla dreamed big. Didn't achive a lot of what he hoped he might, but the innovations he left in his wake are part of the foundation of our world.

Re:No projects work best

[MuulHead]

Going to mars would be obscenely expensive. Why not add a few more bucks and establish a permanant lunar base that can be used as a source of bulk materials needed for a mars run?

A lunar base could solve some of the problems regarding material launch costs. The mars ship could be boosted from earth empty, and loaded with fuel produced on the moon. Ditto oxygen and water, possibly food. With the possibility of having all the fuel you could want waiting in orbit, the mars mission would then have the luxury of using a more fuel intensive profile.

Since it costs roughly the same to earth launch a kilo of fuel as it does to launch a kilo of equipment, it makes sense to just send up the stuff that is too difficult to make off earth.

The primary focus of such a base would be to produce and stockpile materials for later use. I'd like to see solar furnaces used to produce aluminum and glass. Waste gasses (which would include a large percentage of oxygen) could be captured and refined. Water is another material that would be fairly easy to fabricate.

Since most of the production could be monitored and controlled from earth, only a small crew would be required on-site.

Materials produced could be combined with equipment from earth to build facilities for getting the bulk material into lunar orbit.

The base could have a small staff, whose primary function would be keeping a small fleet of remote control machinery running.

Minimal communication lag would allow earth based operators to control and monitor virtually all important systems in near real time.

No environment to trash means simple and effective methds for producing required materials on site. Water, fuel, oxygen, metals and more can be had.

Supporting a mars mission is not reason enough to build a lunar base. It would need to serve other purposes as well. The base itself would be an ideal place to test and refine the technology for doing real work. The base would also facilitate scienttific research like astronomy.

So we could have 3 majors wins:

• A useful lunar base.
  
• A better mars mission profile.
  
• Long term lunar scientific research.
  

Bush lies

[daminotaur]

The GWB Mars plan isn't worth the paper it's printed on. He (or rather his scriptwriter) is no more sincere about really mounting such an effort than W's daddy was. He just had to say something coincident with the release of the Rogers report on the Columbia disaster. So what policy changes did he really suggest? Cancellation of all current space efforts (Shuttle, Hubble, Space Station, many other NASA projects, ASAP). In other words, his actions are isomorphic to what a frank space opponent would do. To appear "visionary" and not just like a Luddite space exploration opponent, he finessed it by coming up with a dishonest Moon/Mars scheme that will never happen. Proof of the plan's vaporware nature is that there was no mention of this "vision" in the State of the Union speech that occurred the very same week.

GHWB also had a problem with the "vision thing" and came up with similar smoke and mirrors about Mars before his own doomed election effort in 1992. As an indication of his insincerity, he put Dan Quayle in charge of the effort.

Bush, a chip off the old block, is a proven liar and doesn't deserve a second chance. Twelve more soldiers killed today. He should be indicted.

Re:Bush lies

[amabbi]

There are so many things wrong with your post that it's hard to know where to begin.. so we'll just begin chronologically.

He (or rather his scriptwriter) is no more sincere about really mounting such an effort than W's daddy was.

How do you know how sincere Bush I's plans were? AFAIK what killed those plans were the media and the public's reaction to the $400b price tag.

Cancellation of all current space efforts (Shuttle, Hubble, Space Station, many other NASA projects, ASAP).

The cancellation of the shuttle was called for by many space proponents. It is simply not capable of doing what it was designed for, and most missions it carries out can be performed by EELV's. The space station has questionable scientific value. The Hubble was scheduled to be replaced in the 2010's anyway. You can make good arguments for the cancellation of all.

Proof of the plan's vaporware nature is that there was no mention of this "vision" in the State of the Union speech that occurred the very same week.

Where is it stated that every initiative of the president has to be mentioned in the SOTU? How is not mentioning this in the SOTU proof of anything?

GHWB also had a problem with the "vision thing" and came up with similar smoke and mirrors about Mars before his own doomed election effort in 1992. As an indication of his insincerity, he put Dan Quayle in charge of the effort.

Considering the NASA Administrator reports to the Vice President, this should be no surprise. Of course, don't let that stop you from spreading political FUD.

It's political fluff. Manned space flight's over

[Pubert]

Sorry to sound like a cynic -but I believe the whole 'exploration' Bush proposal to be disingenuous from the start.

He knows good and well that the House and Senate are not going to support it in any way, shape or form. Especially in the current economic climate.

But this allows the shuttle to be grounded and manned space program to be dismantled on the sly without taking the direct political heat.

The bizarre canceling of the Hubble servicing mission it telling. Because of 'safety concerns?' Oh, please.

Servicing the Hubble is too risky -so, like, we're going to go set up less risky bases on the moon and Mars instead?!? Yeh, riiight....

Sorry folks, the shuttle will be grounded after our space station commitment is over. The Bush initiative won't be funded.
The result: Bush can say it wasn't his fault, the shuttle will be canceled (a shuttle follow-on won't be funded either, btw) -and the responsibility for supporting the remaining years of the space station will be shoved onto the Russians.

It's sad -but I fear the days of manned space flight are drawing to an end.

Romantic vs. Rational

[greatmazinger]

I've had this discussion recently with a co-worker. And my impression that the only reason people can come up with for putting a man back on the Moon and sending men to Mars is one of two things:

1. Becase the human race should "explore."
2. Because it will make everybody else feel better.

What about scientific progress you say? Well, as it has been pointed out many many times, we can explore the Solar System in a cheaper fashion by sending unmanned probes.

This whole "we need to explore like Columbus and Magellan" bit really smacks of religious zealotry. IMHO of course.

The Space Station, The Sea and The Gaza Strip

[qualico]

What do the Space Station, the Sea and the Gaza Strip all have in common to answering a desire for a Moon/Mars base?

Well the Space Station is a good example of cost.
If we can't even get it together in orbit at a reasonable price, than why attempt other more distant places?

The Sea is a vast region unexplored.
Take a Google for Palm Island.
If we are not building out into the sea than we certainly have plenty of space to build under it.
Sea Cities should be attempted before Space Cities.
Much of the same problems can be worked out in the ocean and indeed NASA does a lot of practice in water tanks before going live in space.

The Gaza Strip looks a lot like Mars.
Lots of rocks to throw around at each other anyway. My point here is that unless we fix our geo political problems, Mars will become just another sandbox to behave badly in.

Arguments don't stand up to scrutiny

[Spamalamadingdong]

We still need launch capacity no matter where we go.

It actually requires more delta-V to soft-land on the Moon than it does to aerobrake and land on Mars. This requires a different (bigger) launch capacity, under conditions where you also need to carry supplies which a Martian expedition can produce locally. If the goal is to go to Mars, the development of these additional capabilities is an expensive diversion.

We still need the ability to handle surviving in a can for a time.

Skylab, Salyut, Mir, ISS. What the Moon costs us is the ability to use artificial gravity to reduce muscular and skeletal deterioration. Again, an expensive diversion.

We still need the ability to build a shelter in a foreign world with little resources.

The character of those resources is extremely different between the two worlds. The Moon's resources are heavily depleted in volatiles and relatively un-differentiated, with lots of native (reduced) metal in the regolith; Mars' include an atmosphere full of oxygen, carbon and nitrogen, heavily oxidized materials and differentiated mineral deposits including hematite. The experience gained on one isn't transferrable to the other.

Perhaps more importantly, Luna could be used to test automated systems that will help us on mars.

You can test software in your backyard on Earth. What you really need testing for is hardware, and the hardware designs necessary for conditions of hard vacuum and a 28-day sol are very different from airborne dust and a sub-25-hour sol.

The Mars Society is testing out mission concepts by mucking around in deserts, in Nevada and up above the Arctic circle. Going to the moon would not help. While it might be worthwhile in its own right, it is not a stepping stone and should not be represented as such.

We need a "Compelling Reason"

[krswan]

I was lucky enough to see a debate on this topic this past Saturday between Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye (yes, the Science Guy) at the National Science Teachers Assn. conference. Dr. Tyson is on the GWB commission, so he was pushing manned exploration, and Nye was pushing for expanded robotic exploration.

They both made excellent points for their own side, I really came out on Nye's side... we had a "compelling reason" for going to the moon - to beat the "Godless Commies." As much as we like to think of our species as explorers, we don't generally take the physical or financial risk unless there is equal profit from it. Until we have something that will give us gain equal to the risk, there will never be the political will (driven by the will of voters) that we need to support it.

What are compelling reasons? Someone already brought up He3 - but if fusion becomes a reality and an economy forms that runs on the stuff, NASA won't need to go to the Moon to get it, the energy companies will on their own. For Mars - the discovery of current or past life would likely be a good enough reason. Nye points out that our best chance of making that initial discovery is with robots. Send people to do the more complex work that will come later.

While I disagreed with Dr. Tyson and the commission's plan, I walked away with new respect for the man (who I haven't really liked due to the whole Pluto thing). He made his case well and is fighting passionately for it. He admitted that the commission has had to so some "smoothing over" of things in GWB's speach that were "physically impossible," specifically the part about the benefits of landing on the Moon on the way to Mars. I like the idea of moving money from the shuttle towards a "space plane" or the like, but I don't like how pure science will suffer in the meantime.

Not now, but soon.

[OgGreeb]

There are lots of good reasons to want to go to the Moon/Mars. To quote others here:

1. "We want to go to the moon and to Mars. Because we want to we will eventually." To fulfill the promise of the Apollo astronauts. Bacause its there, we can see it in our sky every day of our lives and it will inspire every human.
2. Build towards space colonies and the survival of humans. "a degree of protection from disasters of the sort that killed off the dinosaurs."
3. Launching point to other destinations. "great place for testing technologies needed for exploring/ exploiting asteroids." "Large-scale mission to the moon to mine Helium 3."
4. "To discover the things that we don't know about living in extraterrestrial environments - BEFORE we strand a group of humans 2 years away from earth."

Let's say it will cost some humongous amount X of money to arrive at Mars in 20 years. This amount X won't be able to be used for other purposes in medicine, agriculture, science, deficit reduction, etc.

IF you compare the cost to achieve this NOW vs. the rate of growth of scientific knowledge and technology application in the last 100 years, the practical answer would be to wait 20 years, see some amazing breakthrough which would allow us to pay 10% of X and most likely arrive at the destination in the same time frame. I have faith in humanity's ability to find answers to problems and come up with new solutions, and the only risk we take is that something catastrophic will happen during the next 20 years. If it did, we would be no worse off, since any progress made now won't significantly change the effect of the catastrophe then.

drama? More then that

[N3wsByt3]

I've said it before; probes can't colonise. And I think colonising planets is a survival advantage which is important enough to keep funding human exploration alongside robotic-exploration.

Saying 'but let's wait untill things get cheaper' is a non-argument: one can ALWAYS say that, because, even if hardware becomes a hundredfold cheaper, it STILL will be more expensive to send humans, and by that time, robots will be so flexible that they rival or surpass humans.

But that's not the point; unless we send self-replicating intelligent robots that we consider to be our heirs, and sit back and die out as a species ourselves, we STILL have to continue exploring and colonising planets.