Should we return to the moon first?

cetot · 2002-07-17 04:16:16

First of all as a new poster please let me say hello to everyone .

Second , this may seem like heresay to most people here but I really think we should get back to the moon first , but this time to stay . Yes it is a great project to reach Mars but ask yourself this , if any future Marrs mission was to end like the Appolo missions with no long term achievements would you be so keen to go . With a lunar colony , manufacturing ionfrastructure on the moon , and with less of a gravitational well to fight , any subsequent mission to Mars can be for the long term .

Mark S · 2002-07-17 10:18:30

Returning to the moon is not a necessity for going to Mars, but in many ways it would be a good primer for Mars Direct. Robert Zubrin has pointed out on many occasions how Mars Direct could be used to support long duration stays on the moon. I'm thinking that, if Mars Direct becomes the baseline for a humans-to-Mars effort, the hardware should first be taken on a "shakedown cruise" to the moon. That way the life support system could be tested at a distance that is a three day trip from earth. Humans can also conduct biological tests in a reduced gravitational field that is half of Mars's gravity.

Byron · 2002-07-17 11:45:27

I don't have any problems going back to the Moon, except for one thing: Money. Going to the Moon will cost big bucks, money that could be used to go straight to Mars. I think the life support systems could be tested well enough here on Earth and in LEO...going to the Moon will unnecessarily complicate the Mars Direct mission, and it would lengthen the total project time to get to Mars, which would give future politicans more opportunities to ax Mars Direct before it has a chance to carry out its final mission.

We've been to the Moon before. Let's set our sights on what we haven't done: getting ourselves to MARS...

B

Palomar · 2002-07-17 14:22:13

We've been to the Moon before. Let's set our sights on what we haven't done: getting ourselves to MARS...
B

*Agreed. Besides, Dr. Zubrin addresses this issue in _The Case for Mars_, chapter entitled "Killing the Dragons, Avoiding the Sirens." He addresses the issue of whether Mars Direct need involve the moon or not in a subheading entitled "The Lunar Siren: Why We Don't Need Lunar Bases To Go To Mars."

Let's just get our butts to Mars, please.

--Cindy

Phobos · 2002-07-17 18:34:54

Welcome aboard Cetot. I pretty much agree with Byron and Cindy, it would cost to much money to return to the moon to test and to build up the infrastructure needed to construct spacecraft to take advantage of the lunar gravity. After all, the power required to get a payload to the moon isn't much higher than that required to get a payload to Mars. The times are just longer. I think a Mars colony would be easier to build in the short term than a Moon colony simply because you can generate your own fuel using simple and very low tech devices and the day/night cycles are closer to that of Earth than the moon, meaning agriculture will probably be easier on Mars than the Moon. And I don't know if Zubrin is being over optimistic, but he mentioned that you could support a small Mars base by launching supplies once or twice a year. In any case, I agree that if we go back to the Moon or Mars it should be for the long haul, no more of this fruitless footprints and flags crap.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-07-17 23:03:14

Maybe we could do both!
It seems to me that there is no fundamental difficulty stopping private enterprise going to the Moon. The technology is relatively straightforward and the trip-time is short. The novelty of a stay in a lunar hotel would probably attract thousands of wealthy space tourists, willing to pay millions for the thrill. If I had the money, I'd love to go hiking in the lunar Appenines myself!
Mars is a different ball-game. There is no real prospect of private enterprise making a dollar out of Mars trips for some time to come. This a job for NASA and, once it disentangles itself from the Shuttle/ISS financial trap it's stuck in, maybe we'll see it doing what it was created to do .... EXPLORE!!
Then we'll have the best of both worlds - literally!

Ryjaz · 2002-07-18 10:20:14

I agree with Shaun, we should not narrow our focus to only Mars. Both a lunar colony and a manned mars mission SHOULD be pursued. Given the incremental nature of US space policy I see no way in which the current administration or congress would put in for a manned mars mission in the near future.

At most, we can hope for a sample return mission within this decade. However, I do believe congress can be pursuaded to allow a combined effort of both the government and private enterprises to create a habitat on the moon within this decade. While Zubrin states in his book that this base is not necessary for his Mars Direct path, its creation would certainly help bring attention towards humans being able to live on the surface of another planet and help us create technologies that would help our future pioneers live on Mars.

Palomar · 2002-07-18 13:04:03

Maybe we could do both!
It seems to me that there is no fundamental difficulty stopping private enterprise going to the Moon. The technology is relatively straightforward and the trip-time is short. The novelty of a stay in a lunar hotel would probably attract thousands of wealthy space tourists, willing to pay millions for the thrill. If I had the money, I'd love to go hiking in the lunar Appenines myself!

*Those are the key words in your quote -- PRIVATE enterprise. If Bill Gates, Donald Trump, and some oil sheik from the Middle East dripping gold and oil want to use THEIR OWN money -- combined with the funds of private investors -- to build luxury hotels which only the super-rich and elite can afford, go right ahead.

So long as the middle-class taxpayers' spines aren't pulverized further into dust to accommodate the rich and powerful, I'm fine with THEM spending THEIR money in this regard.

Let's keep this distinction in mind, please; and thanks for pointing it out.

--Cindy

Mark S · 2002-07-18 13:27:38

*Those are the key words in your quote -- PRIVATE enterprise. If Bill Gates, Donald Trump, and some oil sheik from the Middle East dripping gold and oil want to use THEIR OWN money -- combined with the funds of private investors -- to build luxury hotels which only the super-rich and elite can afford, go right ahead.

I think that many of the posters here have the right idea, IMHO, about the nature of space. NASA is here to explore, to "push the envelope." Private enterprise has the duty of going in NASA's footsteps. Until now that hasn't happened; NASA hasn't extensively explored Mars, while private industry has neglected the moon and barely has a foothold in earth orbit. Before Gates or Trump can dream of going to the moon, smaller but progressively more challenging steps must be taken. Private industry might be making suborbital flights within a few years. After the suborbital space tourism market is successful, you just might see orbiting space hotels and moon bases.

Gibbon · 2002-07-20 06:50:30

ummm, I believe that the moon should be revisited for the reason that it can be used to mine water and possible fuels for space craft to go to Mars. The same thing should happen to one of the moons around Mars. This would allow more trips to Mars due to the drastically reduced prices of fuel and water because they don't need to be flown into space.

Gibbon · 2002-07-20 06:52:19

ummm, I believe that the moon should be revisited for the reason that it can be used to mine water and possible fuels for space craft to go to Mars. The same thing should happen to one of the moons around Mars. This would allow more trips to Mars due to the drastically reduced prices of fuel and water because they don't need to be flown into space.

Nirgal82 · 2002-07-20 12:48:50

Yes Gibbon, the costs will be reduced by going to moons first, eventually, however, you must first send the infrastructure to these moons (factories, mining equipment and people) in order to get a return off of them,
Instead of going to moons where radiation is much higher and "day" periods much much longer, lets go to a planet, Mars. Even with a weaker gravity well you still would bog it all down in waiting for all there projects to make a substantial return to first, make up for the original cost, second to spend any "profit" resources on making spacecraft to go to ultimate destinations like Mars.
Why not just spend the money on setting up the infrastructure on a far more habitable world...
Mars has a smaller gravity well than Terra's, 1/3 strength I believe. In fact trip time not withstanding I think Zubrin said it actually takes less effort (delta V) to get to Luna from Mars than to get there from Earth, and that means getting to Phobos and Deimos will be that much easier from Mars surface as well...
Although this is not to debunk the settling of Luna and Martian moons, they can be used as staging points to make far greater attempts into our solar system, such as Ganymede and Callisto (Io is volcanic and Europa is smack in Jupiter's Van Allen belts so I think those destinations will be postponed for awhile) And Titan, Triton, and Miranda of the outer planets.
I say, since cost is indeed the limiting factor at this point, lets not shoot our wad by going to the moons of the inner solar system to eventually build infrastructure for going to Mars, let us build that infrastructure on Mars directly seeing as how the cost will be about the same (if not less if you are talking about going to Luna and Mars's moons) then use the moons' lighter gravity to send spacecraft to the outer worlds...

Your friendly neighborhood Martian
-Matt

Phobos · 2002-07-20 14:57:19

*Those are the key words in your quote -- PRIVATE enterprise. If Bill Gates, Donald Trump, and some oil sheik from the Middle East dripping gold and oil want to use THEIR OWN money -- combined with the funds of private investors -- to build luxury hotels which only the super-rich and elite can afford, go right ahead.

I have no problem if at first only the super rich could afford to go the moon. Over time it's likely the prices will drop to the point that the average person could probably scrape together enough dinero for a trip of their own. This tends to be the way it works. If we had to rely on a 100% government controlled economy, I doubt if the average person would ever have the chance to go into space at all.

Byron · 2002-07-20 15:20:57

I have no problem if at first only the super rich could afford to go the moon. Over time it's likely the prices will drop to the point that the average person could probably scrape together enough dinero for a trip of their own. This tends to be the way it works. If we had to rely on a 100% government controlled economy, I doubt if the average person would ever have the chance to go into space at all.

I agree with you 100%. Virtually everything developed by private enterprise (cars, computers, cost of travel) has always "been for the rich" in the beginning, but as more technology is developed and greater efficiencies of scale takes place, the costs pretty much always goes down. But in the case of government control (such as the military or social services) the costs almost always goes up.

It's best to leave the Moon alone gov't-wise, and leave it open to whoever wants to go there of their own expense...I'd rather it be them than me anyhow...who knows how safe it'd be in the early going... But that could very well pave the way for real commercialization of space, which can only help us in our goal of getting to Mars, as well as "common man" access to space...

B

Palomar · 2002-07-20 15:30:04

I have no problem if at first only the super rich could afford to go the moon. Over time it's likely the prices will drop to the point that the average person could probably scrape together enough dinero for a trip of their own. This tends to be the way it works. If we had to rely on a 100% government controlled economy, I doubt if the average person would ever have the chance to go into space at all.
I agree with you 100%. Virtually everything developed by private enterprise (cars, computers, cost of travel) has always "been for the rich" in the beginning, but as more technology is developed and greater efficiencies of scale takes place, the costs pretty much always goes down. But in the case of government control (such as the military or social services) the costs almost always goes up.
It's best to leave the Moon alone gov't-wise, and leave it open to whoever wants to go there of their own expense...I'd rather it be them than me anyhow...who knows how safe it'd be in the early going... But that could very well pave the way for real commercialization of space, which can only help us in our goal of getting to Mars, as well as "common man" access to space...
B

*You guys make good points. I stand corrected.

--Cindy

Ryjaz · 2002-07-22 10:34:29

I agree with you 100%. Virtually everything developed by private enterprise (cars, computers, cost of travel) has always "been for the rich" in the beginning, but as more technology is developed and greater efficiencies of scale takes place, the costs pretty much always goes down. But in the case of government control (such as the military or social services) the costs almost always goes up.
It's best to leave the Moon alone gov't-wise, and leave it open to whoever wants to go there of their own expense...I'd rather it be them than me anyhow...who knows how safe it'd be in the early going... But that could very well pave the way for real commercialization of space, which can only help us in our goal of getting to Mars, as well as "common man" access to space...
B

I disagree with the sentiment that things are originally for the rich. First off, computers were developed by the military for the government and research institutes. Personal computers were then developed in large part by the hobbiest, generally from middle class. Other great world shaking technologies like the internet were also developed by the government. The idea that one must ignore the government in these matters is just not there.

Private enterprise lowers costs by mass production. If you think somehow we can mass produce habitats on the moon as well as the transportation to get there, sure the costs will come down. However, I highly doubt that would even happen in our lifetimes if we leave the government out of it.

There has not been a SINGLE space enterprise developed without government funds. By this I mean any enterprise that manufactures systems that go into space. This includes spacecraft, rockets, and humans. Every single one of these businesses exist with the help of government funds. There have been a few attempts, like Beal, which tried but they have failed by and large because the market is just not there.

I am not saying that private enterprise should not pursue space. The sector has over $60 billion put into it commercially (non-military funds). This alone attracts many an investor. However, it should be recognized that none of these companies in the sector are able to exist without government contracts. For examples look at Boeing, Lockheed Martin, TRW, Ball Aerospace, Kelly Aerospace, Alcatel, Astrium, Orbital Space Sciences, Energia, and Loral just to name a few. These are the kind of companies that are CAPABLE of putting systems into space with the first two companies mentioned the only ones with experience of putting humans into space.

All these companies depend on government funding. None of them are going to goto Moon or Mars until their governments pay them to. Even Lockheed Martin (which paid Zubrin to develop Mars Direct when it was Martin Marietta) refuses to put their own funds into developing moon or mars mission w/o the government funds.

If we want to leave this planet, we cannot depend on private enterprise alone to get us there. We must convince governments to invest in the means to get us there. Quit squabbling over Moon or Mars and just concentrate on what is in common that the gov't should be funding in order to get humans permanently up there. Things like cheaper space transportation, EVA suits, rovers, habitats, astrobiology and self sustaining life support systems. These are the things we need to push the gov't into funding. These are the things that are needed so we can live in space permanently. With these technologies developed, private enterprise will then be able to step in and make a profit and the "common man" will have access to space.

Phobos · 2002-07-22 20:07:10

It's likely that up to this date no spacecraft have been launched without government funds, but there are companies designing sub-orbital spacecraft that will fly with no government funding at all. And if these tourist spacecraft succeed, it probably won't be long before completely private funded orbital missions take root either. Right now we do need government for the big projects, but I'm not so sure that will be the case in the future, far or near. If you can build up enough of an infrastructure in space that requires a lot of spacecraft and "people moving", there's no reason why mass production of spacecraft won't come into play sometime in the future.

neubjr · 2002-08-16 07:22:49

I'm not sure if discussion on this topic has stopped or not. It's been a while since any post, but I wanted to input a little bit of my own thought on this. There are a few points I wanted to address:

First, the private enterprize on the moon business. This will happen, and within our lifetimes, however, it will not be done without government backing. NASA has many programs to support private businesses in their Aerospace ventures and eventually these will take off. Private industry alone worries about cost vs. Benefit (revenue). The cost of Space ventures is far too high compared to the expected payback from such ventures for any company to go it alone right now. This mix of government vs. private funds is not a bad thing at all, but I believe it is one of the best things that NASA can be doing with its money. It sparks private industry so that in the future companies will be able to go it alone, and it opens up NASA's resources to do other things because private industry takes some of the work load off of NASA's shoulders.

Second, The moon vs. Mars first debate. This is a long one. There are many ideas and statements being thrown around about which to do first. Some people say, "Oh the moon, we've been there and done that." I do not agree with this at all. We have landed on the moon, but we should definitely not consider ourselves to have "done that." As is often said, what was done on the moon was a little flag waving landing for national pride. There is so much to be learned from further exploration of the moon (of the Moon-Earth system, and of solar system exploration as a whole). So I strongly disagree with the statement that we have "done the moon." The moon is something that definitely needs to be explored and developed more, it is just a matter of when.

There was mention earlier on this thread about the Delta-V for reaching the moon to be less from Mars than from the Earth. This does not seem to matter much at all. The cost savings provided by the slight difference in the Delta-V will be completely overrun by the cost of going to Mars. So this cannot be used as an argument to go to Mars First. If we were already on Mars it could be used as an argument for how to colonize the moon, but from our current standing point, this fact does not matter so much.

Then there is the argument of using the moon as a testing bed for going to Mars. The two sides of this basically are that we either need to test on the Moon or we don't need to. Those saying that we do not need to believe that the testing done on Earth is good enough to get to Mars (at least good enough to offset the cost of testing on the moon). This argument I cannot really debate one way or another. To me it seems that it is currently mostly a matter of opinion as we have no real data to move us either way. Those wanting Mars will say the Moon is not necessary, those wanting the moon will say, if you want to go to Mars you need to test on the Moon.

The one argument that seems to really move me is the pure breakdown of costs of the different missions. I am a proponent of Solar System exploration and development as a whole and would love to see everything possible explored. Therefor, the fact that a mission to the Moon will cost several orders of magnitude less than an equivalent mission to Mars turns me strongly in favor of the moon first. Going to the moon is something that can be done under NASA's current budget, and any foreseeable budget in the future. Also the fact that private enterprize can get involved in the moon more adds to the Case for the Moon. Mars is excellent and I would love to go to Mars, but we currently do not have the money and we must admitt as well, that we do not have all the needed knowledge yet. For the Moon, we are much closer to having the money needed, and again we do not have all the know-how that we would like, but I guarentee that people will feel a lot more comfortable spending several hundred million dollars on Lunar Missions to gain the rest of the know-how than risking several Billion dollars to do so on Mars. The simple business models of such ideas lead me to push for the exploration of the Moon before the exploration of Mars.

... sorry this was so long winded, I am a big proponent of human exploration, and I see the Moon versus Mars debate almost as an obsticle to getting either done. I really wish that there could just be a uniting drive to explore... but then we wouldn't be humans.

Joshua.

Bill White · 2002-08-16 07:52:51

Therefor, the fact that a mission to the Moon will cost several orders of magnitude less than an equivalent mission to Mars turns me strongly in favor of the moon first. Going to the moon is something that can be done under NASA's current budget, and any foreseeable budget in the future. Also the fact that private enterprize can get involved in the moon more adds to the Case for the Moon.

I do not wish to "pick nits" with an articulate and well thought out post - please accept these questions as a sign of of my wish that all of us work together to dig deeper into these issues.

Question 1 - What evidence do you have that private enterprise can expect a reasonable return on investment by going to the Moon?

I know all about the wonders of He-3. But, until we have fusion reactors, Helium 3 has little market potential, IMHO. And, fusion reactors have been "20 years away" for the last 30 years.

Other mining operations - if profitable - would be going on already. NASA does not have a monopoly on the lift capabilities needed to arrive at the Moon. If there was money to be made on the Moon, someone would be doing it today, again IMHO.

Question 2 - By aiming our sights only on the Moon, might we be delaying or deferring going into the solar system by many many decades or even centuries? If space advocacy energy is tapped for a series of lunar missions and if we acknowledge being satisfied with the Moon, well, when for Mars and the rest of the solar system?

I believe we need to aim higher than the Moon if we ever wish to go higher than the Moon.

Question 3 - Do you believe a lunar settlement would be more or less "self sufficient" than a Mars settlement? Neither, IMHO, can expect total self-sufficiency however I believe a Mars settlement will be more self sufficient and therefore a truer measure of humanity's spacefaring capability.

Question 4 - What is your opinion of a definition of "spacefaring species" I have offered before - A spacefaring species is defined by their ability to give birth to healthy children and raise those children into healthy adults entirely away from the planet of origin.

In other words, until children are born "out there" we are not a spacefaring species. 3/8 gravity *may* be a show stopper for kids but 1/6 gravity is so much closer to microgravity that I believe the prospects for healthy lunar born children is far far worse.

Mark S · 2002-08-16 10:07:06

The moon is not essential for flight to Mars, and most scientist and engineers know that. But each of these two groups has a reason for wanting to go back. The scientists believe that the moon is "the universe's attic" and might hold the answers to some of astronomy and geology's most enduring questions. Engineers are saying that the moon could act as an outpost on the way to Mars, for harvesting fuel and oxidizer and reducing the cost of getting those raw materials into orbit.

The argument made by the lunar scientists is very compelling, which I cannot say about the argument of the engineers. The moon is an interesting place that deserves exploration, but the lunar return program should be independednt of humans-to-Mars. The moon will eventually become a layover destination for travelers to Mars, but doing so on the first Mars missions adds to the cost and complexity of what will already be a difficult mission. Lunar refueling of Mars spacecraft will have to wait at least twenty years followig the establihment of a Mars outpost.

Bill White · 2002-08-16 10:48:30

MarkS - I agree with 100% of your last post

Also, instead of Luna *or* Mars I favor Luna *and* Mars!

What is your opinion of Aldrin cyclers? I mean the idea being pushed by Buzz Aldrin to place permanent or semi-permanent facilities in free return orbits that will fly-by Earth and Mars at periodic intervals.

Orbital eccentricities apparently mean that "perfect" free returns are only rarely available - but it seems to me that if a cycler had sufficient ion drive units, solar or nuke, close fly-bys of Earth and Mars could be made during each solar orbit.

Then, mining for fuel on Luna and on Phobos/Deimos, to feed a growing fleet of cyclers, could prove quite lucrative.

neubjr · 2002-08-16 10:53:16

Question 1 - What evidence do you have that private enterprise can expect a reasonable return on investment by going to the Moon?
I know all about the wonders of He-3. But, until we have fusion reactors, Helium 3 has little market potential, IMHO. And, fusion reactors have been "20 years away" for the last 30 years.
Other mining operations - if profitable - would be going on already. NASA does not have a monopoly on the lift capabilities needed to arrive at the Moon. If there was money to be made on the Moon, someone would be doing it today, again IMHO.
Question 2 - By aiming our sights only on the Moon, might we be delaying or deferring going into the solar system by many many decades or even centuries? If space advocacy energy is tapped for a series of lunar missions and if we acknowledge being satisfied with the Moon, well, when for Mars and the rest of the solar system?
I believe we need to aim higher than the Moon if we ever wish to go higher than the Moon.
Question 3 - Do you believe a lunar settlement would be more or less "self sufficient" than a Mars settlement? Neither, IMHO, can expect total self-sufficiency however I believe a Mars settlement will be more self sufficient and therefore a truer measure of humanity's spacefaring capability.
Question 4 - What is your opinion of a definition of "spacefaring species" I have offered before - A spacefaring species is defined by their ability to give birth to healthy children and raise those children into healthy adults entirely away from the planet of origin.
In other words, until children are born "out there" we are not a spacefaring species. 3/8 gravity *may* be a show stopper for kids but 1/6 gravity is so much closer to microgravity that I believe the prospects for healthy lunar born children is far far worse.

In Answer to questions posted by Bill White....

Question 1: Private enterprize will not come easily on the moon. However, there have been many studies done on this topic (I will try to hunt some of them up again). I am a student at MIT currently and a professor here (David Miller) did a study on Water/Oxygen extraction on the moon, and found that extracting Oxygen or water on the moon would not be economically feasible unless being used directly on the Moon (not being taken off). Another poll/study that I read (I forget where from, but it was some consultant agency) polled ~500 people about space tourism info. They found that there was a high interest and market for space tourism including stay's on the moon. In some of the ASME Space conference books there were business models of Lunar vacation hotels etc. This seems to be the best business plan for making money from the moon right now. There is also the option for mining of other materials (metals etc.) For this type of mining to be economical there must be rare Earth metals in significantly high concentrations. As you mentioned there is He-3 which is used in Fusion... which is not possible yet. There has also been talk of mining Platinum (rare on earth, but very useful). The problem with making a business model for mining on the moon is that there is not enough data about the composition of the moon (are there any ores, what materials are concentrated where? ... etc...).

Question 2: We should never be satisfied with the moon, or accept where we are in space exploration. And I don't think that we ever will. It seems like the moon is a simpler next step in the exploration game plan, not an end goal.

Question 3: I do not believe that a lunar base will be more self sufficient than a martian outpost. Yet, I also do not think that it will be significantly less self-sufficient. The Moon has many resources as well as Mars. The only resource that comes to mind that is on Mars that is not on the moon (correct me if I'm wrong in this) is Carbon, and to some extent Hydrogen (unless water at the lunar poles is confirmed). The Lack of Carbon and Hydrogen causes the lunar base to need more re-supplying from the Earth than Mars. I have researched the number for this before and will look them up again in a bit to see exactly how much more these resupplies would cost compared to any resupplies to Mars.

Question 4: I consider a spacefairing civilization to be one that has regular flights to planetary bodies (other than the home planet). I do not consider spacefairing to necessarily require colonizing other planets, although I sincerely hope that happens in the somewhat near future.

As to Mark S's comments, I agree that the possiblity of a Lunar Outpost aiding in Mars Missions seems a bit far fetched right now. I would not consider this to be one of the pros for Lunar exploration because of the added complication to such Mars Missions. Yet this still does not detract from the argument for going to the moon. I too agree that both should be done, but there will never be enough money for NASA to take on both a real Mars and Moon program. Therefore, again, because the moon will be cheaper, and simpler with less risk, I still cannot fully advocate diving into a Mars Mission at this time. Mars should still be studied and researched, but as far as exploration the moon seems more logical. I will try to find some of the reports and numbers I discussed here and post them as soon as I can.

Joshua.

Mark S · 2002-08-16 12:28:28

I like the idea of cyclers for mass transit to Mars, but I also think that nuclear pulse ("Orion") should be considered for next-century trips to Mars. The moon could support these massive ships, assuming that materials on the moon (lunar regolith) could serve as propellant inside the Orion pulse units. If uranium, thorium, or other fissionable elements can be found on the moon, it would become a massive boon for the exploration of the solar system.

Merp · 2002-08-24 02:47:26

I favor a Mars first approach.

One thing to consider is that current scientific interest in Mars is also very high, both as a Earth analogue and in the search for past or present life. Scientific interest has been building since the SNC meteorite controversy and is continuing to build with the discovery of large amounts of what is probably water permafrost.

Secondly, if you can only start one endeavor in the near term, it should be the technologically harder (Mars) - especially if the easier option (The moon) can make the more difficult one less so down the road. Political support being what it is, once that support is captured it is somewhat easier to ask for a little more down the track than a lot. eg. "Now that we are exploring Mars, lets use the moon to make it cheaper" is more effective than. "Thanks for setting the moon up, the next thing we want is Mars".

Sometimes we must make a backward step, and if we do so from Mars, at least we might land on Luna and not LEO.

Thirdly, having said that, although technologically harder to get off the ground, Mars has huge environmental advantages that we know about. Those advantages are not just planetary supplies of water from the permafrost and possible aquifers, and free carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, but I hope it is clear just how huge those 2 advantages are. C, H, O - this is the stuff of life.

By comparison, Luna may be resource rich, but that doesn't change the fact that walking around requires wearing a minature spacecraft, breathing requires intensive mining operations and that no one is certain what you might need to do to procure a glass of water. The moon -and we admittedly don't know enough about it - might never be self-sufficient on a month to month basis, but we already know Mars can be.

In summary, I favor going to Mars, because I fear that going to Luna will delay us getting to Mars a lot more than vice versa. Going to Mars pushes humans further than they have ever been, and this can be used to encourage development of the moon.

--Merp

DeaDLyWulf · 2002-08-27 22:17:18

This is why we need an international space program launched. Not just us and the russians....

Money will always be an issue when it comes to manned missions to mars, cause not only will the trip itself cost more then New York, California, and Isreal combined, But the money required to test things such as a life support system will be well in the Trillions....

With all the anti Western attitudes in the world, the US will surely never conduct any attempt at terraforming, unless the rest of the world supports and helps us.

But we still have Arabs and asians in the world that swear by religion and their beliefs, and would oppose such a space program....

We needa take care of that problem 1st.

Cause the only thing on NASA's agenda right now is protecting our damn satelites.....

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-07-17 04:16:16

Re: Should we return to the moon first?

#2 2002-07-17 10:18:30

Re: Should we return to the moon first?

#3 2002-07-17 11:45:27

Re: Should we return to the moon first?

#4 2002-07-17 14:22:13

Re: Should we return to the moon first?

#5 2002-07-17 18:34:54

Re: Should we return to the moon first?

#6 2002-07-17 23:03:14

Re: Should we return to the moon first?

#7 2002-07-18 10:20:14

Re: Should we return to the moon first?

#8 2002-07-18 13:04:03

Re: Should we return to the moon first?

#9 2002-07-18 13:27:38

Re: Should we return to the moon first?

#10 2002-07-20 06:50:30

Re: Should we return to the moon first?

#11 2002-07-20 06:52:19

Re: Should we return to the moon first?

#12 2002-07-20 12:48:50

Re: Should we return to the moon first?

#13 2002-07-20 14:57:19

Re: Should we return to the moon first?

#14 2002-07-20 15:20:57

Re: Should we return to the moon first?

#15 2002-07-20 15:30:04

Re: Should we return to the moon first?

#16 2002-07-22 10:34:29

Re: Should we return to the moon first?

#17 2002-07-22 20:07:10

Re: Should we return to the moon first?

#18 2002-08-16 07:22:49

Re: Should we return to the moon first?

#19 2002-08-16 07:52:51

Re: Should we return to the moon first?

#20 2002-08-16 10:07:06

Re: Should we return to the moon first?

#21 2002-08-16 10:48:30

Re: Should we return to the moon first?

#22 2002-08-16 10:53:16

Re: Should we return to the moon first?

#23 2002-08-16 12:28:28

Re: Should we return to the moon first?

#24 2002-08-24 02:47:26

Re: Should we return to the moon first?

#25 2002-08-27 22:17:18

Re: Should we return to the moon first?

Board footer