Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Forget Mars. Should We Go To The Moon?

Posted by michael on from the green-cheese dept.

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?"

15 of 511 comments (clear)

  1. No by PhuckH34D · · Score: 5, Funny
    Only dust there... If they want dust, they can come clean my house.

    --
    You're old school? I beta tested the motherf***ing abacus!
  2. long term. by bagel2ooo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    ( o ) one could say I'm rather baked
    1. Re:long term. by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

  3. Short answer: No. by secondsun · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's getting caught where the trouble lies.
    1. Re:Short answer: No. by mike_mgo · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

    2. Re:Short answer: No. by mt_nixnut · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

  4. I'd go for Moon over Mars by meringuoid · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    1. Re:I'd go for Moon over Mars by datadood · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

  5. It depends by eclectro · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  6. mining the moon for hydrogen-3 by polished+look+2 · · Score: 5, Informative

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

  7. Exploring by millahtime · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

    --
    Evolution or ID?
    1. Re:Exploring by MrRTFM · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      You can't expect to wield supreme executive power, just because some watery tart threw a sword at you
    2. Re:Exploring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

  8. send probes - for now by chegosaurus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  9. Bush lies by daminotaur · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.