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...

[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...

[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...

[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.

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.

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.

[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.

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

[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.

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

[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

[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.

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.

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

[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?

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...

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?

[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?

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.

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: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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.