Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Moon is Stepping Stone, Not Alternative To Mars, NASA Chief Says (scientificamerican.com)

Posted by msmash on from the moving-forward dept.

The moon has not superseded Mars as a human-spaceflight target, despite NASA's current focus on getting astronauts to Earth's nearest neighbor, agency officials stressed. From a report: The Red Planet remains the ultimate destination, and the moon will serve as a stepping stone along the way, Jim Bridenstine, NASA administrator, and Bill Gerstenmaier, associate administrator of NASA's Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate, said during congressional hearings Wednesday. "The moon is the proving ground, and Mars is the goal," Bridenstine said during testimony before the Subcommittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness, part of the U.S. Senate's Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. "The glory of the moon is that it's only a three-day journey home," Bridenstine added. "So, we can prove all of the technologies, we can reduce all of the risks, we can try all of the different maturations that are necessary to live and work on another world. And we can do it all at the moon, where, if there is a problem, if there is an emergency, we know that we can get people home." He cited NASA's Apollo 13 mission in 1970, which famously managed to make it safely back to Earth despite experiencing a serious problem on the way to the moon.

64 comments

  1. A worrying lack of imagination by petes_PoV · · Score: 1

    So, we can prove all of the technologies, we can reduce all of the risks, we can try all of the different maturations that are necessary to live and work on another world.

    If this guy thinks that Mars has no "surprises" up its sleeve he is going to be proved sorely mistaken. Possibly fatally so.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:A worrying lack of imagination by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      If this guy thinks that Mars has no "surprises" up its sleeve he is going to be proved sorely mistaken. Possibly fatally so.

      While your statement is true, it is unrelated to anything he's said. He's still correct; while dealing with lunar dust is not the same as dealing with martian fines, it's still a good analogue in many ways and it certainly is nearby. It's close enough to where if there are problems, we can send more supplies in a timely fashion. Or where it might even be possible to recover crew members from the lunar surface, although they'd have to have a vehicle on hot standby for that.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:A worrying lack of imagination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes, no one expects the subterranean Martian psychic vegetables.

      The idea of lunar testing is to see the feasibility of different options in an (even) lower gravity and negligable (really near 0) atmosphere but enough proximity that corrections and emergency resupplies are a possibility.

      Sure there will be surprises, but they don't have to be the sort of stupid mistake that we could've spotted with relatively easy testing.

      (Also, this gives us a chance to put up a color-safe flag by Tranquility Base. No more Lunar Surrender!)

    3. Re:A worrying lack of imagination by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is kinda like saying, if we are trained to boat across the great lakes, we can take on crossing the Atlantic.
      However if no one crossed the Atlantic by boat before, I would much rather have someone who was able to cross large bodies of water before, with enough skills to deal with such an undertaking.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:A worrying lack of imagination by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Why did you read "reduce all of the risks" means "eliminate all of the risks"?

    5. Re:A worrying lack of imagination by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Obviously the Moon is not Mars and it is a wholly accurate description to call it a stepping stone. So the long term role of the Moon in terms of human exploration of the galaxy, is being that stepping stone. It is kind of better to have high speed objects, space craft, aiming at a largely empty moon, rather than the earth, even though the atmosphere would diminish the impact, it is still not desirable.

      So the Moon, is the logical space station by which we explore the rest of the galaxy, where space rescue fleet is based and where most launches and landing from, well, the rest of the galaxy would occur (it makes for a far safer quarantine facility).

      Not atmosphere on the Moon both makes it awkward and makes it more effective, depending upon what you want to do (breathing bad, but launching and landing spacecraft good, quarantine especially good. So Mars a planet to terraform and the Moon, well it's a large space station, to do all the space station kind of stuff, unless you specifically wanted a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and those will change from many small, to a fewer larger multifunction satellites.

      So launches to Mars will much more likely be from the moon and Launches from the Mars will more likely be aimed at the moon, it is simply much safer (maybe not the first few but certainly when it becomes a regular event). Obviously when travelling from other planets to the earth, than a Lunar quarantine station is far more safer and space ships that go to other planets, well, it's far safer that they land on the moon with no atmosphere, than any where on earth, no matter how much effort you put into cleaning them, outside of course a very close orbit to the Sun, baking it clean.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    6. Re:A worrying lack of imagination by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, if you've never succeeded in boating across the great lakes, you'd better not try the Atlantic!

  2. JOB SECURITY - AT ANY COST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Moon is Stepping Stone, Not Alternative To Mars, NASA Chief Says

  3. Re: Good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Send him to the moon instead, at least he'll get laid with a harsh mistress.

  4. NASA isn't planning to go to the moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the foreseeable future, NASA isn't even planning to go to the moon. They're planning to be a space station in cislunar orbit. It will be mad expensive, will not help in any way with actually getting to the Moon or Mars, isn't even really all that close to the Moon at all, and is generally going to be a huge waste of money. Between the Lunar Gateway and the Space Launch System, NASA won't have any money left over to go to the Moon's surface itself.

    1. Re:NASA isn't planning to go to the moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will they allow only cisgender astronauts there?

    2. Re:NASA isn't planning to go to the moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, NASA has psychological standards.

    3. Re:NASA isn't planning to go to the moon by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Between the Lunar Gateway and the Space Launch System, NASA won't have any money left over to go to the Moon's surface itself.

      Which is why you propose going there, try to get some popular support, then go ask Congress for money.

    4. Re:NASA isn't planning to go to the moon by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      For the foreseeable future, NASA isn't even planning to go to the moon. They're planning to be a space station in cislunar orbit. It will be mad expensive, will not help in any way with actually getting to the Moon or Mars, isn't even really all that close to the Moon at all, and is generally going to be a huge waste of money. Between the Lunar Gateway and the Space Launch System, NASA won't have any money left over to go to the Moon's surface itself.

      Thank you, I came here to say just about the same thing.

      This is a jobs program for NASA employees and contractors, that's all. It's simply meant to maintain the status quo. NASA has no real intentions of going anywhere with manned missions. NASA, like all large organizations, especially large bureaucratic government agencies, has become far, far too risk-averse to ever do anything bold or novel. As someone who was alive to watch the first Mercury missions, it's very sad.

      US manned space exploration has become the exclusive domain of private corporations like SpaceX. Bureaucracy whose first priority is CYA combined with PC politics and crony-capitalism has destroyed NASA as a space pioneering organization.

      The SLS and the cis-Lunar station proposed will be useless for going to Mars. The most efficient method is going direct from Earth orbit to Mars. Now, an orbiting Mars station would be extremely useful but again, it's a risk-bridge far too far for an enormous risk-averse US government bureaucracy.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    5. Re:NASA isn't planning to go to the moon by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      For the foreseeable future, NASA isn't even planning to go to the moon. They're planning to be a space station in cislunar orbit. It will be mad expensive, will not help in any way with actually getting to the Moon or Mars, isn't even really all that close to the Moon at all, and is generally going to be a huge waste of money. Between the Lunar Gateway and the Space Launch System, NASA won't have any money left over to go to the Moon's surface itself.

      Man you should of posted that with a log in. Just from an orbital mechanics standpoint having the way station in earth orbit always was just as good as in lunar orbit and considerably cheaper as well. This goes back to Von Braun's original plans for lunar exploration. Anyway I would be willing to bet the team in Huntsville manages to suck enough money from the NASA budget that even the Lunar Gateway never happens.

    6. Re: NASA isn't planning to go to the moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, the problem isn't NASA, though no surprise that you would let yourself believe that.

      It is the corporations who see taxpayer dollars as their right and proper due even as they elect politicians who serve their whims.

      Frankly, the bureaucrats are just cogs in a system that grinds them into dust.

    7. Re:NASA isn't planning to go to the moon by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The most efficient method is going direct from Earth orbit to Mars.
      Define "efficient".

      In terms of energy, most certainly not.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    8. Re:NASA isn't planning to go to the moon by fisted · · Score: 1

      WTF is cislunar orbit and how does it differ from any other lunar orbit?

      --
      CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
    9. Re:NASA isn't planning to go to the moon by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      The SLS and the cis-Lunar station proposed will be useless for going to Mars. The most efficient method is going direct from Earth orbit to Mars.

      I disagree. I won't argue for the SLS except to say that NASA does what they are told with the money they are given that is already earmarked for those goals. However, a Lunar station is an important part of the mission to Mars. There is a lot about deep space habitats we don't know. There is a lot of engineering that needs to be applied and have the bugs worked out. There is a lot of research that needs to be done about humans in deep space for long periods with regards to radiation, gravity, sustainability, etc. There's more needed for applications such as using sufficient propulsion on a structure as would be needed to go to Mars. Apollo 1 didn't land people on the Moon. Mercury was needed before that. There is still plenty of work needed before we can go to Mars.

    10. Re:NASA isn't planning to go to the moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In terms of energy, most certainly not.

      Yes, it's far more energy efficient to have to overcome TWO gravity wells instead of one.

      0_o

    11. Re:NASA isn't planning to go to the moon by drsquare · · Score: 1

      It takes barely any more delta v to go to Mars than it does to go to Moon orbit.

    12. Re:NASA isn't planning to go to the moon by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The point was about starting from Earth or starting from the Moon,
      not about going to the Moon or going to Mars.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  5. ultimate destination, for you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Moon is a stepping stone, not alternative to Mars, NASA chief says.
    Mars is a stepping stone, not alternative to Asteroid belt, Sir Wallace Gight says.
    Asteroid belt is a stepping stone, not alternative to moons of Jupiter, pesky belter says.
    etc.

    Why would he think that Mars is final? Is he an utter moron?

    1. Re:ultimate destination, for you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wild. Can they leave a moon unit chat bot there so we can talk to the aliens directly instead of space wishes?

    2. Re:ultimate destination, for you. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      We have been lacking in the space exploration for a while now. A lot of people think we can just go to Mars now, while in reality we are in a Space Age Dark Age so we are actually kinda stupid on Space Travel, and we are back to thinking of it in Science fiction terms vs practical.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:ultimate destination, for you. by Kjella · · Score: 2

      We have been lacking in the space exploration for a while now. A lot of people think we can just go to Mars now, while in reality we are in a Space Age Dark Age so we are actually kinda stupid on Space Travel, and we are back to thinking of it in Science fiction terms vs practical.

      Meh, technology-wise I think we're in good shape. Even though the people on the ISS haven't been going anywhere we have long term experience with living in space. Basically it's not about where you are, it's about keeping the conditions on the inside habitable. We also have decades more experience sending satellites and probes. What's missing is money, lots and lots of money. Look at Falcon Heavy, there's still just the demo flight and no more heavy launches scheduled this year. There's two next year, but the market is like 1/10th of the F9.

      What's the market for the BFR? Today, none. Musk was guessing $2-10 billion to develop, most likely $5 billion but that's just 10-50% of NASA's budget for a single year. If you had Apollo level funding with 4.5% of the federal budget it'd be $200 billion in the peak year. With that and the same "beat the Ruskies at any cost" attitude we'd be on Mars by 2025, no doubt in my mind. But since that's not happening we need something a lot cheaper. I hope Musk will fly the first re-re-used booster soon.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:ultimate destination, for you. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      A fee days ago Ariane 5 had its 100ds launch.

      So much to "dark space age" ...

      "so we are actually kinda stupid on Space Travel"
      Actually we are not. Space travel is super simple ... landing is hard. And it takes some time to get to the destination. Oh, and if you want to live there, you probably need a habitate ....

      Nevertheless: most of this is centuries old tech.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  6. Re: Good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Picture his moobs and dewlap in 1/6th slow motion as his heavy cream describes a lunar trajectory... ugh...

  7. stepping stone by trb · · Score: 1

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  8. Remember when the Head of Nasa managed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To offend people with an offhand comment about talking to Arab countries over their contributions because the President asked him to do some mushy diplomacy?

    Now we've got one confusing which body orbits the Earth or the Sun.

    Yay.

  9. It's about time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's about time somebody stated this. We supposedly went to the moon in the 60's/70's. Haven't been back in nearly 50 years? WTF?

    Now they talk about going to Mars! I've always thought that it would make more sense to build a moon base to launch spacecraft further into space. Finally someone else says it.

  10. Because it's easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, because they are easy, not because they are hard, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept. Going to Mars we are willing to postpone, which we intend to lose, and let others, do.

    1. Re: Because it's easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, itâ(TM)s at least easier politically. Face it, there is no way of getting to Mars in eight years, and the first thing a new president does is cancel the the last presidents space program.

      The moon may not be the optimum destination from a scientific perspective, but at least it is a project a president can complete within his term. Mars is a great destination, but itâ(TM)s at least 20 years in the future, just from a technical perspective. No way do any plans the current president makes survive that long unmolested.

      The moon is doable politically, Mars, at this time, isnâ(TM)t. Better to get the moon than to get nothing.

  11. So that judgment will come upon them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion(operation of wandering)(planet) so they will believe the lie
    https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipns/QmRjnvwZFj8bWba3HHKo7pnLm5kep4nvQepMcM1eejzgsn

  12. Pretty big for a .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. stepping stone.

  13. Mars Schmars by synaptic · · Score: 1

    Mars is interesting, no doubt, but it's not where we should be going.

    Venus is Earth's twin.

    1. Re:Mars Schmars by Wulf2k · · Score: 1

      Honestly, anybody going anywhere is pretty alright.

      Things have been a bit stale on the exploration front since that whole New World thing a couple centuries back.

    2. Re:Mars Schmars by NikeHerc · · Score: 3, Informative

      Venus is Earth's twin.

      "Lead would melt on the surface of the planet [Venus], where the temperature is around 872 F (467 C)." https://www.space.com/18526-venus-temperature.html

      "At the surface, the atmosphere presses down as hard as water 3,000 feet beneath Earth's ocean." https://www.space.com/18526-venus-temperature.html

      Not a twin in those regards.

      --
      Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
    3. Re:Mars Schmars by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      Bah, just give the Earth a couple of centuries, it'll catch up!

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    4. Re:Mars Schmars by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      On Mars we can more or less readily live, on the surface.
      On Venus we can't, we can only live in floating balloons in the skies ... what would be the purpose of that?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re:Mars Schmars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not a twin in those regards.

      Venus is still the most similar planet to Earth in our solar system. Mercury, Mars and Pluto (if you want to include it) are barren rocks, and Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are all balls of gas.

      Curiously, near the poles the Venusian atmosphere is colder than anywhere on Earth, and with a surprisingly low atmospheric pressure. There's probably a thermal sweet spot somewhere on Venus.

      https://www.iflscience.com/spa...

    6. Re:Mars Schmars by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Not a twin in those regards.

      Well, let's say evil twin.

    7. Re:Mars Schmars by synaptic · · Score: 1

      It's an open question if human beings can thrive on a planet like Mars with 38% of the gravity of Earth.

      Venus has a bit over 90% of Earth's gravity.

      Floating habitats in the Venus atmosphere can be situated at 1 Earth atmosphere of pressure. It's doubtful Mars will be able to have a 1atm atmosphere ever due to its low gravity.

      And unless Venus is isothermal, it's theoretically possible to create a heat engine to cool some portion of it to any desired temperature.

    8. Re:Mars Schmars by mmutka · · Score: 1

      Actually, it is healthier to live a little bit *below* the surface on Mars and Moon, due to things like radiation, meteors, and temperature variation. You can visit the surface for short periods with appropriate preparation and equipment, but that applies to Venus as well.

    9. Re:Mars Schmars by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You hardly can visit the Venus surface ... especially if you mean with visit: a human in a suit. Obviously you can drop a probe, or let a robot out of its cave.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    10. Re:Mars Schmars by mmutka · · Score: 1

      The suit needed for Venus surface would of course need to be different from day and night suits for walking on the Moon, but I don't think a Venus surface suit is against the laws of physics as such. Existing atmospheric diving suits are almost rated to the pressure on top of Skadi Mons. Active cooling is of course needed.

    11. Re:Mars Schmars by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      but I don't think a Venus surface suit is against the laws of physics as such.
      Cough cough ...
      Active cooling is of course needed.
      You see, you are smart enough to figure it.

      Now if you find a way to have active cooling "in a suit" that can sustain the pressure on Venus with the temperatures there: you likely get a Nobel Prize.

      But you can backpedal and we can agree on a kind of "submarine" ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  14. Re:No rapists on Mars, good policy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The moon is a much better alternative prison for the Rapepublicans. I support this move.

    Oh hey sign me up for the new Lunar Prison a quarter million miles away from the crazy left here on earth will be a nice start.

  15. Re: Good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Leave your mum out of this, mate.

  16. Re: Good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You got nothing better to do on Slashdot? Sad. Just fucking sad.

  17. Radiation protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Radiation protection is something humans need to figure out. I don't know that we need a moon orbiting space to learn that, but we definitely need to be outside LEO.

    We also need some artificial gravity - spin the damn thing most of the time to have .8G to 1.0G - there are lots and lots of reasons for that too.

    But spending too much money on the lunar crap to "be there for 50+ yrs" isn't needed. NASA needs to learn to build what you need and nothing more. Their budgets get fucked with every year because they have so much extra built-in. NASA is welfare for scientists.

    BTW, I was a NASA contractor at JSC for 7 yrs and worked on some amazing programs, but even back then I knew that most of NASA was welfare for scientists.

    NASA needs to become more focused on other planets. Boeing and Airbus are big enough to pick up fundamental science work. Same for the USAF - if they think supersonic craft are necessary to their mission, the AF should do that research, not NASA.

    NOAA needs to have their budget doubled and they should be doing all the space-based observations of Earth.

  18. Earth is a stepping stone to the Moon by Pfhorrest · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There's a lot of places on Earth that are a lot more hospitable than the Moon -- the middle of the Sahara, Antactica, the seafloor -- that are still pretty inaccessible to us. Yeah, we can get there, and with a continuous supply chain we can stay there a while, but we're not going to have a continuous supply chain to Mars. Whoever goes to Mars has to be able to make it there on their own. So we need to be able to at least have permanent self-sustaining settlements in the most inhospitable places on Earth, if we're ever going to have permanent self-sustaining settlements off-Earth.

    And by the time we're able to do that, we've eliminated one of the biggest reasons to have people off-Earth in the first place, because if we have "colonies" on Earth that are capable of surviving Martian conditions, they'll also survive everything that could ever happen to Earth short of the death of the sun. Climate change? Nuclear holocaust? Giant meteor? Living in the aftermath of those is a cake walk compared to living on Mars.

    --
    -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
    "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    1. Re:Earth is a stepping stone to the Moon by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      So we need to be able to at least have permanent self-sustaining settlements in the most inhospitable places on Earth

      Something that hasn't been accomplished at contemporary tech levels in at least a millenia. The task is so difficult, even at pre-industrial revolution tech levels, very few even tried.

      And that's here on Earth where air and water are freely available and the most complex parts of a basic life support system was a heavy coat and an iron pot.

    2. Re:Earth is a stepping stone to the Moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a lot of places on Earth that are a lot more hospitable than the Moon -- the middle of the Sahara, Antactica, the seafloor -- that are still pretty inaccessible to us. Yeah, we can get there, and with a continuous supply chain we can stay there a while, but we're not going to have a continuous supply chain to Mars. Whoever goes to Mars has to be able to make it there on their own. So we need to be able to at least have permanent self-sustaining settlements in the most inhospitable places on Earth, if we're ever going to have permanent self-sustaining settlements off-Earth.

      And by the time we're able to do that, we've eliminated one of the biggest reasons to have people off-Earth in the first place, because if we have "colonies" on Earth that are capable of surviving Martian conditions, they'll also survive everything that could ever happen to Earth short of the death of the sun. Climate change? Nuclear holocaust? Giant meteor? Living in the aftermath of those is a cake walk compared to living on Mars.

      underwater living would be something that will be nessecery in the near future because of increasing population, increasing temperatures and rising water levels....

      still if we are to survive, we also need to really focus hard on colonization of other worlds, as hawking said... we WILL need to be able to colonize other worlds by the end of this century

    3. Re:Earth is a stepping stone to the Moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some reality at last!

    4. Re:Earth is a stepping stone to the Moon by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Mars may not be as bad as you imagine compared to the three places on Earth you suggest. Martian soil looks like it could grow various food sources, which could be difficult in the Sahara or Antarctic. You can grow some stuff under the sea, but lack of sunlight is an issue that Mars doesn't have. And the sea is an extremely harsh environment in terms of corrosion and pressure.

      Water is also a big issue. Obviously the Antarctic has loads, but the other two do not. At least, not relatively clean, pure water that you can use without extensive processing. Mars has a lot of ice.

      The main difficulty with Mars is getting there.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Earth is a stepping stone to the Moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the moon is a stepping stone to Mars in the same way that Manhattan is a stepping stone to Europe from the U.S. Since we can easily walk across a bridge to Manhattan, surely all we need is a longer bridge to get to Europe.

      Only it's actually worse for Mars.

  19. Re: Good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, Chris, but having 25 sock pocket accounts, posting your stale repetitive anecdotes and flogging your dead YouTube channel is not sad?

  20. Re:Its just Fuel by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

    To have a supply chain anywhere. Fuel can be really cheap if done well.

    --
    [($)]
  21. We need to have people off planet by a_claudiu · · Score: 1

    You are making some wrong assumptions here. The goal is not to save the human race but the civilisation and Earth itself. Even in the worst case scenarios of asteroid strikes or supervulcano eruption the human race will survive, the human civilization or the earth ecosystem not.
    Technologically we can do any time a self-sustainable earth “colony” anywhere on Earth but there is no need for it. Nobody will invest in a self-sustained outpost in Artic or desert when is much cheaper just to haul supplies from earth.
    Having a permanent presence outside the gravity well is having both short and long term benefits.
    Short time:
    - Having a fuel resupply station in space will decrease the costs of longer range missions and at the same time making impossible missions possible.
    - Have a platform from where you are not only observing the space outside the atmosphere and electromagnetic interference but also a place from where you can launch “strike” missions against dangerous asteroids.
    - A place from where you can launch missions for controlling climate via a solar shade against global warming for example
    Medium time:
    - Start making a self-sustainable habitat step by step by harvesting resources from asteroids and make an artificial biome at the same time
    - Make an industrial base in zero-g which could manufacture some materials which will be more expensive in earth gravity or even impossible
    - Get rid of nuclear waste or even make experiments which are too dangerous on earth like a damned big nuclear weapon able to pulverise an asteroid
    Long time:
    - Create a network of habitats which will help us colonize space and planets.
    - Whatever will make us to not keep all the eggs in the same basket.
    At this moment I’m against focusing on mission to Mars because even if it is technically possible now if you throw a lot of money, it will be nothing more than a gimmick and a onetime shot like the moon landing was. It was an engineering marvel but was written off because of lack of long time vision (politically).