Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

Teufels · 2001-09-08 15:16:08

Mars is years away from Earth. The moon is only a couple days away. We should test out technology and technique on the moon before we try Mars.

What would happen if we sent six people to Mars and the whole crew was killed? It might be the end of publicly funded space travel for decades!

GOM · 2001-09-08 15:25:08

You might be right. It makes sense to me anyway.

However, Mars seems to be getting almost all of the media attention right now. If there really is life on Mars, the Moon will most likely have to take a back seat for quite a while.

We should have had a base on the Moon about 25 years ago, imo. NASA does not seem to want to send humans to Mars, or the Moon, right now.

John Creighton · 2001-09-08 15:55:42

I find the moon hard to get excited about with it?s 90 earth day, days, tremendous temperature extremes, a complete lack of gravity, and almost know water at all. I believe mars being less hostile and still within reasonable travailing times is the right place to focus our energy in overcoming the problems inherent in unlocking the nearly infinite resources beyond our planet.

However, the earth, the moon and mars are all just places. What is important is the lives that members of humanity enjoy. We should not think that any place is the answer to all our problems. Instead we should use these places as tools to challenge the creative juices of mankind, to unlock a freedom of movement that has never been seen before, to substantially increase the resources available to life on this solar system, to satisfy our curiosity, to bring a feeling of growth and adventure, to increase our resilience in the face of natural and man made disaster, to better understand where we came from and how the universe works.

GOM · 2001-09-08 16:52:58

Um. Minor disagreement here John. Gravity on the Moon is about one sixth of what we have here on Earth.

Regarding water on the Moon, I read somewhere that there are other explanations for the claimed water (or ice more likely) on the Moon. Until we actually land there and test for water we have no proof of water on the Moon, as I understand it.

Then you say:

"We should not think that any place is the answer to all our problems"

True!

Bill White · 2001-09-09 16:43:46

It should be Mars - not Luna - for permanent settlement.

First, I find Dr. Zubrin's arguments in Case for Mars persuasive - after the Earth, Mars is, by far, the 2nd most hospitable place for human life we know about.

Second, I believe we cannot underestimate the military threat that would be posed by any permanent lunar colony. Read Heinlien's "Harsh Mistress" which was written many decades ago. If someone were to establish a non-US military controlled lunar mining colony with maglev/railgun launch capability, US Space Command would be scared to death about the prospect of some "lunatic" dropping rocks on key Terran cities.

Of course, if all facilities were US military controlled, the rest of the world would be rather unhappy, wouldn't they?

Thoughts?

Bill White

kelly · 2001-09-22 00:14:04

Definately Mars first. We have been to the moon and back. Any further missions to the moon (while scientifically viable) will tend to be looked on with a "been there, done that" mentality by the general public. The time, money, and effort spent on going to the moon will also delay any further Mars explorations. Additionally the fickle hands of politicians may decide the moneys spent on another moon mission was just to much, and cancel the Mars missions.

Its time to make a bold statement and recapture the imagination and support of the public and politicos. A manned Mars mission; the first person to step foot on another planet; would be just the sort of publicity to fire up the people again.

Alexander Sheppard · 2001-09-23 14:45:52

I think that there are two big reasons for any single entity to go into space as of now.

1. To achieve social independence
2. To gain economically

These are highly interrelated. You cannot have (1) fufilled without a certian amount of (2), or your colony will go bankrupt. You can have (2), to a certian degree, without (1), but (1) will nevertheless serve to vastly facilitate (2)... ever heard of selling Martian real estate?

What does the Moon have of these things? Not very much, I'm afraid. At only three days away (less, with more advanced technology) from Earth, it really isn't the kind of home that your an independent organization or colony will prefer. Worse, the Moon's natural resources are frightenly lacking. It has no appreciable amounts of hydrogen, nitrogen and carbon, amoung other things John mentioned. I think it is clear that because of this simple fact we can't hope to establish a real civilization on the Moon.

On another topic altogether I think it is vital that we pursue (1) and (2) to colonize space. Social theory is nice as an aside, but unfortunately, nothing will come of anything unless there is motivation. And hard motivation can only come from (1) and (2). I think we need to put aside "the vision of space" and realize that space is here for us, and we are not going into space to go into space, we are going to accomplish a variety of things, chiefly, (1) and (2), and exploit the highly unique advantages that space has to offer.

cosmicmechanic · 2001-10-11 12:29:03

I am 48 years old and I still have a sense of adventure .
I was an electronics tech in the U.S.Navy and have worked at aP.B.S. station as an audio/video tech.I have helped to build hospitals ,schools ,houses ,and shopping malls .I think that if given the opportunity to do so , I would volunteer to help establish an infrastructure on the moon ,which could then be used as a jump-point to Mars .
I am interested in the solar sail as a device which could take humanity farther faster .I see the moon as an excellent testing base for operations but if moonbased testing is not necessary I could skip the moon and fly straight to Mars .
I am a veteran and I love my country and I love my people and my family .John Glenn is my personal hero and I have always wanted to personally see Earth from space .I am healthy and strong .I am teachable when it comes to new techniques for performing a task .Most of all I want to be a new pioneer in the vast frontier of space .

Thank You ,
Gary jenkins

clark · 2001-10-11 15:46:11

Some point to the obvious resource differences between the Moon and Mars as justification for pursuing Mars over the Moon. i question this line of reasoning. Given that Mars has a bit more gravity and a few more resources, what does that really mean in practical terms for exploration?

The Moon, at three days or less in transit time, is better situated to recieve direct assistance and logistical support from Earth. The lack of any real gravity on the moon is a positive and a negative- lower gravity means more health problems, lower gravity means that the moon can also be used more economicaly to provide resources and services directly benfitting LEO, GEO and Earth herself. Mar however, at 2 years, can recieve less support, and provide less return directly to Earth or near earth space.

The infrastructure to go to either is the same- a buildup of LEO and GEO is required, however, any mission to Mars is benefitted with preexsiting Lunar infrastructure- put another way, going to the Moon makes any future Mars mission easier and cheaper. Going to Mars first dosen't neccessarily make going to the Moon any easier, and Mars would hardly be in a position to offer any type of support to a lunar endeavour.

Then there are the direct benefits witch would result from either a Lunar path, or a Martian path. On the Moon, solar arrays can be built and electricity beamed to Earth, Mars will not solve or help Earth's energy needs.

On the Moon, resources can be mined and cheaply shipped into LEO and GEO for development of satellites and other assorted infrastructre that would benefit Earth- on Mars, it is cost prohibitive given the gravity, the time, and the logistics of sending material to Earth for exploitation.

If you want to talk science- there are a hundred different science projects (if not more) that can be done or improved by utilizing the moon. The cost, and the amount of time neccessary to do these projects are less than than the amount of time and resources neccessary to accomplish similar projects on Mars- wait ten years to get good science from the moon, or wait fifty years to get good science from Mars...

Then there is the appeal- how many people will really get to see Mars? Take the most optimistic estimate, triple it, and you still end up with only a small percentage of humanity actually getting an opportunity at Mars and space. Now, with the Moon only three days away, and a LEO and GEO infrastructure intertwined with Lunar development, even a conservative estimate would show that more humans (read more space addicts) would get to see space, would get to experience space.

We proved we could get to the moon, now we should prove that we can stay there. Once we prove that, we have a PERMANENT foothold in space, and then we should consider proving we can get to Mars.

Adrian · 2001-10-12 12:37:38

While the Moon's potential for providing resources to orbital factories is undeniable, it's important to quantitatively assess the relative costs and benefits in this; it's one thing to talk about 'resource differences' and another to realise that it's just not possible to grow plants on the Moon at all (thus necessitating significant resupply costs).

Probably the point that most people see about going to Mars first is that in the long run, maintaining a colony on Mars will be much cheaper as it could attain self-sufficiency with less difficulty than one on Mars, and thus more science could be done. However, I understand that that's not what you're getting at.

Personally, I believe that more valuable science can be conducted by humans cost-effectively on Mars than on the Moon - for one thing, the signal lag is a lot less to the Moon. I don't see the Moon as having much value apart from being:

a) A good tourist destination
b) A good place to put telescopes on
c) Somewhere to launch materials to orbiting factories*
d) Closer, and thus much safer

and of course these properties aren't, to me, as valuable as those that Mars has in terms of self-sufficiency and scientific interest. Yet I will concede that the safety factor and tourism aspects will appear much stronger to others and I wouldn't be surprised if we had a base on the Moon before we had a base on Mars.

*That said, there are extremely good arguments to be made for mining asteroids, which have even less gravity and far more concentrated and valuable resources than the Moon.

clark · 2001-10-12 13:34:45

How is it not possible to grow plants on the moon? Surely if they can grow plants in zero g, growing plants in 1/6th of a g shouldn't be to hard. If you mean it is not possible due to a lack of native resources, Mars has similar problems- either it lacks basic resources or is deficient in neccessary resources for plant growth, thus neccessitating exspensive extraction infrastructure or long term support from Earth, which is complicated by it's distance from earth.

Adrian also brings up "long term" sustainability and self sufficency as the reason to prize Mars over the moon, the argument being that Mars provides more of an opportunity in the long run to actually attain a self-supporting base and infrastructure. However, if we are really talking long term, then the moon once again makes more sense.

Long term planning would make colonizing the moon a priority. Why? Because the of the eventual payoff. Dealing with the moon will be harder in many respects as compared to Mars- total vacum, dramatic tempture shifts, radaiation extreme's, lack of significant sources of native resources for on site needs, lower gravity- however, everyone of these challenges, once oversome, will enable humanity to go anywhere in the universe.

Why work out the best habitat design two years from the nearest rescue point? Why not do it three days away? Say we find an acceptable means to deal with Martian gravity, we will once agian have to learn how to deal with Lunar gravity- it makes more sense to solve for a lower gravity first, becuase it would more than likely apply directly to an eventual Martian mission.

By learning how to deal without certain resources, it will make it that much easier on Mars when you HAVE those resources, or you have limited access to them.

Adrian also brought up cost-effective science on Mars- forget it, robots, in all their fraility can do just about anything a human can do- without the limitations or the cost.

Also, by skipping the moon, you are shooting the Human to Mars endeavour in the foot.

Human to Mars is a fringe group- small. What better way to increase the ranks then by supporting an endeavour that will allow more humans to experience space, or see direct benefits from space development/exploration? Again, how many people will get to see Mars? Few, that's why very few are interested in it. However, LEO, GEO, and Luna all offer an opportunity for more people.

I would like to go into space- I believe I have a better chance of making it to the moon than I do Mars- Mars costs to much, and will only come within the realm of possibility after a great deal of space infrastructure is created to support the logistical needs of sending and supporting people in space. Mining asteroids in space is great, but that also requires a pre-exsisting infrastructure to support such missions- where does that infrastructure come from? Where does the material and basic support come from? From Earth, it is too exspensive. From Mars, too far away, and still cost prohibitive- and Mars needs the infrastructure FIRST. That leaves...

The Moon.

We would have bases on the moon if we hadn't raced to get there. The moon became nothing more than a finish line, instead of a logical progression of sustained technological and scientific development. We got there, but we didn't know how to stay there. The same thing will happen with Mars if we treat like a race.

Break it down:
What makes sense? What supports a human to Mars mission? What makes it easier? A supporting space infrastructure in LEO and at least GEO. What makes that possible? An exspensive outlay from earth. Fine, we put up the space infrastructure to support a mission to mars. Then what? We only need a few people on mars to do anything for scientific research. Going to Mars dosen't suddenly allow us to mine asteroids. It dosen't help produce extra energy- it allows science, but we can do valuable science anywhere. Where is the benefit to Earth? Spending billions upon billions to send a few to a far away planet? We could spend those same billions and have a direct return on investment to more of humanity. It also directly improves the chances for a permanent move into space becuase it allows tourism, which equals more supporters, which equals more investment.

Take a look at the growing support to protect the ocean, much of this growing supportis the result of an increase in people scuba diving, snorkling, whale watching, etc.- an issue becomes more relevant and gains support when more people relate to it personally.

Going to Mars before the Moon is simply putting the horse before the cart.

Jim Oliver · 2001-10-15 20:55:21

Clark,

You bring up an interesting point, that it would be good to go to the moon because of the difficulties involved would make us stronger when the time comes to colonize other worlds. This argument could be applied to both worlds, however. We could say that the distance problem on mars is at least comparable to the resources problem on the moon. So in some ways going to either world will "exercise" us, just in different ways.

In my humble opinion, overcoming the problems of the moon colony will only require "brute force" solutions. If we just pump materials and energy into the colony it will be successful. An independent Martian world, however, will require some really creative thinking, in all aspects of life. New governments will be created, just as in the United States 200 years ago. In fact, the USA mirrors Mars in many ways. It had plenty of resources and was largely independent from Europe. A new government was created, and it prospered. In contrast most of the colonies of the old world never amounted to nearly as much as the United States. The colonizing forces of Europe moved in, removed the resources and left. Many former colonies that were ruled directly by Europe are still in an awful mess. Which states today represent the best chance for the eventual expansion of our species, the United States or those colonies directly ruled by Europe?

A final note: If we are using the moon and Mars to "practice" our colonizing skills for other worlds (in our solar system or others), which one will really prepare us for what lies ahead? A dead rock where a near-sure bailout is only 3 days away, or an active, varied world where we have to make due with whatever comes our way?

-Jim Oliver

Alexander Sheppard · 2001-10-15 21:16:11

The reason we are going to Mars is to create a new civilization. People believe in this. It is possible to make a profit on Mars-- in fact, I am sure this is the most powerful revenue source there-- by selling real estate to those people who wish to go and help bring into life a new civilization. So that is your profit source. However it probably won't be very effective until your one-way ticket price gets down to about $10,000,000 at the very least. That means that even assuming a striped down $4 billion mission could be pulled off using every availible advantage (and that dosen't even include costs of setting up the actual long-term base!) you would still have to reduce hardware costs by a factor of ten (remember there are four people in the typical Mars Direct style mission) to even have a chance at making a profit. Thus there is a clear need to have much cheaper launch vehicles. To even begin to make a profit, we are going to need hardware (this includes launch vehicles, habitat, etc) ten times cheaper than the cheapest Russian human-compatible vehicle out there.

Now I am actually somewhat confused, when I think about it, about this Mars v. Moon debate. Who do we mean when we say 'we' should go to the Moon first? Mars first? 'We', if you mean the Mars Society, has absolutely no choice in the matter at present. I say, if anybody wants to go the Moon, they can go to the Moon, and vise versa. Who cares who goes first? However, if -I- were a billionaire at present (must be careful to avoid the... 'what "we" should do' trap) then I would first of all create a line cheap launch vehicles [perhaps buying majority shares in Kistler, or something, if they would accept]. This benefits all of space exploration and makes it far easier for any long-term endevour to go foward. Then, if I had a lot of money, I would try to lower hardware costs to Mars enough to make a base profitable. Skip the Moon-- frankly, there's little of interest out there. I for one am not very interested in some hotel. It is far more profitable to colonize Mars in the long run (and far more interesting). Who cares about the short-run, really? If I were a billionaire, I would only consider the Moon if that were the only option, if Mars was quite beyond my grasp in terms of cash. I say, it is better to have the Moon than to have nothing.

Adrian · 2001-10-16 06:54:09

I'd like to take issue with a few of the comparisons that Clark made.

Plants: Yes, they can grow plants in zero-G - but just not very well. Gravity is essential for plants to be able to orientate themselves properly. With the issue of resources, according to The Case for Mars the Martian soil is richer in most plant nutrients than that of Earth. This is certainly not the case for the Moon. What's more, there is a handy amount of carbon dioxide (necessary for photosynthesis) just lying around in the Martian atmosphere.

When you consider that the Moon has a fortnight long night and its surface is exposed to the extent that solar flares would kill any plants in greenhouses, either you would have to construct extremely thick glass walls or bury the greenhouses underground and provide artificial lighting, neither of which options are particularly appealing.

I think that if we really want to learn the skills for travelling in space, we might as well do it in low orbit; there isn't a much harsher environment than space. Still, I don't think that's the point. The equipment and logistics for travelling to Mars are sufficiently different from that of travelling to the Moon that any experience gained there would be minimal and most likely not cost-effective.

I wouldn't say that 'robots can do anything that humans can do, but cheaper.' I certainly don't want to have to wait for an hour to see the results of swinging a hammer on Mars. The typical response to this is to make some grand claim of more advanced robots and artificial intelligence, but to be frank I don't see any sign of that in the robots that we'll be sending to Mars for the next 20-30 years.

There's an interesting quotation from Zubrin about the value of robots:

"America's mountain states abound in dinosaur fossils, yet you could spend the next ten thousand years parachuting ameras into the Rockies without finding any."

I think that this is perhaps a little unfair on robots, but you have to realise that humans and robots both have their strengths and they complement each other. There is an excellent article by two senior NASA engineers on the values of having humans and robots work together on Mars; I suggest you check it out.

I'd agree that you have a better chance of going to the Moon than going to Mars - but the chances of either occuring are so small that it doesn't realistically make a difference. I certainly doubt that we'll be seeing many tourists going to Mars, and if they did they'd have to pay several million dollars.

You say:

I believe I have a better chance of making it to the moon than I do Mars- Mars costs to much, and will only come within the realm of possibility after a great deal of space infrastructure is created to support the logistical needs of sending and supporting people in space. Mining asteroids in space is great, but that also requires a pre-exsisting infrastructure to support such missions- where does that infrastructure come from? Where does the material and basic support come from? From Earth, it is too exspensive. From Mars, too far away, and still cost prohibitive- and Mars needs the infrastructure FIRST. That leaves...

What do you mean, 'a great deal of space infrastructure is created to support the logistical needs of sending and supporting people in space'? We'd still have to do that for the Moon, and it's not as if we aren't already spending ridiculous amounts of the ISS.

Mining asteroids would require infrastructure - just like settling the Moon. And I don't see how producing that infrastructure on the Moon could possibly be cheaper than producing it on the Earth, with our advanced manufacturing systems, for at least the next 50 years. In any case, I'm not advocating mining asteroids just for the #### of it, I'm saying that we should do it to make money.

Going to Mars dosen't suddenly allow us to mine asteroids. It dosen't help produce extra energy- it allows science, but we can do valuable science anywhere. Where is the benefit to Earth? Spending billions upon billions to send a few to a far away planet? We could spend those same billions and have a direct return on investment to more of humanity. It also directly improves the chances for a permanent move into space becuase it allows tourism, which equals more supporters, which equals more investment.

We cannot 'do valuable science anywhere' - we can't find out whether water or life exists or existed on Mars by looking in Earth's oceans, we actually have to go there and do it, and I believe that getting humans to Mars will immeasurably help us answer those questions. Believe it or not, a lot of people are interested in whether there might have been life on Mars.

Sure, we could spend those billions on feeding the starving or making space hotels; but then our governments spend far more money on equally 'frivolous' activities like scientific research or arts and culture that have no seeming direct benefits to humanity. Why should a Mars mission be the first to go? Why not just cut the US military budget by one percent?

clark · 2001-10-16 09:35:17

A few points you seem to gloss over:

Plants
Plants need garvity? How much? As has been pointed out, the moon has gravity- if it is an argument that Mars has more gravity- well a complete space station with a controlled spin could have even better gravit. And how much gravity is neccessary for plant life has yet to be established.

You quote the Case for Mars as a source for how rich in plant nutrients Mars is, more so than Earth. One, Mars has zero bio-mass. Mars also is radiated in severe amounts of U. The very dirt that plants will be growing in is super-oxidized. Nothing green will grow in Martian dirt unless that Martian dirt is processed and transformed- all at great time and exspense.

As for the varying differences in light exsposure between Mars and the Moon, it is rather academic. Both Mars and the moon will require pressrized greenhouses. Both will require protective measures against radiation. Both will require thermal regulation, and more than likely, both will require artifical lighting (Martian Dust Storms).

As for the carbon dioxide being abundant on Mars, let's be relaistic, humans will be able to provide more than enough carbon dioxide for the plants.

I am in agreement that low earth should be used to learn the skills neccessary to travel in space, however, I belive the Moon will provide a more versatile training ground and be a far more forgiving master than Mars itself.

I also question this idea that learnings from the Moon could not translate to an eventual Mars trip. Aside from aerobraking, the two situations are near identical. The moon, learning to deal with low g, high rads, extreme temps, and low resource abundance makes for good lessons for Mars. Also, procedures for EVA's on planet could be worked out, as well as create an opportunity for astronauts to be trained in low g before going to Mars.

Robots
Robots make more economical sense at the present time, and will continue to do so for the next 10 - 20 years for exploration of Mars. Yes, there are certain functions better suited to humans, however, we can study Mars in great detail, for a great while before we have exhastued all the robotic possibilities. We CAN learn if there is water on Mars. We CAN learn where most of that water is. We CAN map a majority of the planet with robots. We CAN develop techniques and tools that make it safer and easier to get to Mars or live on it- all with robots, all without humans.

If you're serious about humans and robots working together, then how can you advocate people actually going onto Mars? It would be safer and be more economical to merely put people in Mars orbit, using robots on the surface to explore, thus reducing your 'one hour to watch a hammer fall". But most Mars proponents don't like this idea becuase it twists the exscuse they use as a justification for humans to Mars.

Chances
Adrian also states that the probability of either going to the Moon or mars are so small that it dosen't make a difference which is chosen. Considering that organizations and business groups are actively pursuing commercial interests on the Moon, and none are pursuing ANY on Mars, I think the moon has quite a bit more of a chance than Adrian cares to admit.

Adrian:"What do you mean, 'a great deal of space infrastructure is created to support the logistical needs of sending and supporting people in space'? We'd still have to do that for the Moon, and it's not as if we aren't already spending ridiculous amounts of the ISS."

You see though, any development on the moon though will help support an eventual Mars mission- Mars development will not help us with the moon.

Where does the Mars Argument fall apart? Cost and justification. The cost becomes less of an issue with the additional space infrastructure, a big portion of the Mars Direct Plan (or any plan) is getting the stuff up in space and fueled- with LEO, GEO and lunar outposts, the cost of fueling and logistical support is reduced for Mars exploration. Also, what's the point of going to mars- many arguments for Mars focus on the long term benefits- but those long term benefits are only seen if we have additional interests in space- such as asteroid mining, lunar bases to support, and GEO stations that need resources. The moon dosen't make the Case for Mars stronger, it creates it.

As for it being cheaper compred to Earth in creating resources- it's the cost of lanuching into orbit. Savings can be realized if solar panels are created in space- or if energy is directly beamed to the satellites. On site facilities in space that could construct satelites would allow Earth companies to pacakge their cargo into economical spaces- put it in a crate, assemble it in LEO, get power from the Moon- you have a reduction in weight, a reduction in size, and a reduction in complexity which equals more profits, lower costs, more open space to launch, longer life, etc.

Adrian:"Sure, we could spend those billions on feeding the starving or making space hotels; but then our governments spend far more money on equally 'frivolous' activities like scientific research or arts and culture that have no seeming direct benefits to humanity. Why should a Mars mission be the first to go? Why not just cut the US military budget by one percent?"

Well, the space hotels that are being discussed are private enterprise and will only take place if it makes economic sense- Mars might be in the same boat if it made economic sense, but it dosen't- so stop crying.

As for these other 'frivolous' interests, why should we cut any percent from the military budget? So a few fringe people get satisfied? Suppose we send people to Mars? Then what? We find out there is life? Then what? We build a scientific base and keep a permanent manned base of 1 few dozen people, then what?

Why in the #### would people go to Mars? For what? A new civilization? You're fooling yourselves. Figure out the cost of one person on ISS- how many do you think we can afford on Mars? All air, water, food, energy, heat, shelter, protective gear, industrial solvent must be created out of thin vacum or transported several million miles and a couple of years- for what? To see if Mars was once wet? It was. To see if there was life? There probably was basic life.

Mars will only distract and waylay an already slow space exploration program. If you want to get off planet- if you want to empower smaller groups, such as the Mars Society, support development of the moon.

Mars will never make sense, economicaly, rationaly, or emotionaly; until the cost of launch is reduced, appropriate medical sciences are capable of handling long term stints in space, and we have the resources and infrastructure to maintain humans in space indefinetly.

JGM · 2001-10-16 14:26:35

Clark-

Your analysis is lacking in one significant factor that, for me, tips the scales strongly toward the red planet... romance.

When I imagine the two worlds from the perspective of an astronaut roving the surface I picture the moon as we've seen it in all the movies shot in the Apollo program- grey rock, heavily cratered, black sky, cold and forbidding. When I imagine Mars I see something entirely different. A colorful world with a great diversity of surface features, gigantic mountains and canyons, glistening polar caps, dynamic weather, a salmon sky, and two moons of its own racing overhead. Above all I picture its immensity. I imagine a world with endless mystery and potential. Where the moon looks to me like at best an outpost- I see Mars as something that people could someday call home.

I also disagree with the contention that Mars is equally dependent on resupply of all life's essentials as a Moon base. Early missions would certainly be that way, but I trust humans to find ways of using Mars' resources to their advantage in unimagined ways. Have you read KSR's Mars trilogy? If so, you know that there are myriad ways that humans could adapt and alter existing landforms and terrain to give their world a sense of soul and relative comfort. Could you burrow into a polar cap on the Moon and raise happy and healthy children scampering amongst the arboreal bamboo housing and splashing in a genuine liquid water lake? Could you seal off lava tubes and plant gardens beside streams coursing through a "valley" lit by natural light piped in from above? Could you use the raw materials around you to build vaulted chambers with plenty of elbow room for growing industrious populations? Some of these things could be done on the Moon and will be eventually, but on Mars there are considerable advantages due to the reality that Mars is a world sharing a lot more in common with Earth than does the Moon.

You might say that these fantasies are only possible many centuries in the future and to a degree you may be right. Even so, it is the dream of what could be done that will motivate a movement to open up a new world for settlement and exploration. My contention is that neither the Moon nor Mars will be visited again until a sufficient groundswell of interest is generated in the masses. This kind of a movement is pushed by the dreamers and the romantics, not by the scientists and engineers. These crazy fools for the future will find Mars a far greater muse for their visions than our cold and lonely friend the Moon.

Besides all this mystical "nonsense" I'm still convinced that from a purely pragmatic viewpoint Mars is a better objective. This is because Robert Zubrin (not exactly a mystic) has build a very strong case for it and until I hear an equally strong rebuttle I'll be cheerleading for Mars first.

Joel

clark · 2001-10-16 16:11:24

Romance?

I will not delve into this area since it is a matter of taste and prefrence. One man's trash is another's treasure... I acknoledge that there are those in love with this dream of mars, just as there are those who are in love with a dream of the moon- however, being practical, we must throw out the dreams/romance, and look at what can be accomplished, and what makes the most sense- Mars makes NO sense at this time.

This is my point from the very begining- and your refrence to Zubrin's Case for Mars only furthers my point. In Zubrin's Case for Mars, he proposes a radical new way to explore Mars- he offers a cost orders of magnitude lower than anything anyone else can come up with- and he says we can do it tommorrow... pish posh and whatever.

We cannot go to Mars for the following reasons:
Zero-G- there are no known means to effectively deal with zero-g for the long duration space flight that a Mars mission would entail.
Artifical -G- we have none- our research is limited and putting together a space ship that incorporates this is years (on the order of decades) away.
Regenerative bio-systems- the ISS is constantly in need of resupply and refurbishing- regenerative bio systems are severly lacking in effeciency neccessary for an adequate saftey margin.
Case for Mars requires that propellant be produced on site, it lacks sufficient saftey measures in case new technology fails.
No Martian EVA suit.
A bad track record with landing spacecraft on Mars (what are they at, a 50% success rate?)
Marginal scientifc return- 10 billion to send a couple humans to mars tommorow- OR 1 billion to send 10 robotic missions to accomplish a more diverse and varied study of the planet- tommorow.
Nuclear propulsion, the best way to get to mars- is politicaly unfeasible- power requirements for Mars base's focus on nuclear reactors-again, politcaly unfeasible.
No geologic map of neccessary resources for fuel production- where is the water? Shouldn't we be sure that it is there first before we run with Zubrin's plan?

Racing to Mars is the wrong way- a systematic approach that builds off of previous experience and infrastructure makes more sense for a sustained move into space. We raced to the moon and we haven't been back for thirty some odd years- learn from the mistakes.

Adrian · 2001-10-16 16:58:28

Clark, I believe you have some problem in making relative judgements with respect to the Moon and Mars, and I also think that you're trying to confuse the issue.

I don't know how much gravity plants need - I'll admit that, but I do know that they grow significantly worse in zero-G and I would hypothesise that since they evolved under one G, that's the gravity in which they grow best; hence Mars will be more conducive to growth than the Moon. Yes, a complete rotating space station has even better gravity than Mars - but then we're comparing the Moon and Mars, not space stations.

Yes, Mars has zero biomass. I never said it had any. I said it had plant nutrients, by which I am referring to phosphorus, potassium, calcium, zinc, copper, nitrogen and other such elements, all of which are in far smaller concentrations (if at all) on the Moon than on Mars. Mars has no biomass, but at least it has the potential to have biomass - the Moon, on the other hand, doesn't even have the basic ingredients.

Mars is irradiated by radiation; but far less than the Moon is, because it is further away and has a thin atmosphere.

You can't dismiss the fact the extremely important differences in light exposure between Mars and the Moon just because they share some similarities - the very fact that the Moon has a fortnight long night is clearly a huge minus point for growing plants there. You'll need pressurized greenhouses on both the Moon and Mars - you'll also need protective measures against radiation - but the measures you'll have to take on the Moon will be magnitudes of times greater than those on Mars. They don't equate.

The Moon's plants will certainly need artificial lighting; Mars plants will as well, if dust storms occur, but certainly for far less time and energy than the Moon plants.

(Incidentally, Martian sunlight levels are only 43% that of Earth and the Moon. This is not really a problem since light is rarely the limiting factor for plant growth; instead, carbon dioxide is).

I don't see why humans would be able to provide 'more than enough carbon dioxide for the plants' on the Moon - the carbon has to come from somewhere (since that's what plants are made out of - carbon) and it can't all come from us.

I honestly don't think that the Moon is a cost-effective training ground for Mars; the gravity isn't that similar, the space suits will be different, the temperatures will be completely different (Mars isn't that cold, really) and as I have stressed repeatedly, Mars does have resources. You can make fuel on Mars.

I don't know where you get the figures for robots being better for the next 10-20 years. Humans aren't required for mapping Mars - we've already mapped it to an extremely fine detail already, and we've examined the apparent water channels. But searching for life and fossils? There isn't anything better to do that than a human, until we can make a robot that is as intelligent and versatile as one.

As it happens, I do think that having humans in Mars orbit would be a great idea; it would be less expensive than landing humans and less dangerous. It would be a good precursor mission to a human landing. However, it has a few problems. Firstly, while the lag time is reduced the humans still have to work with robots, which simply will not be as versatile as humans. Secondly, the type of spacecraft that would be used for this sort of mission would be significantly different to one which would be used to land on Mars - it would be a one-off, and thus probably not cost-effective if you're considering a sustained programme of human landings on Mars using identical hardware.

'Actively pursuing commerical interests on the Moon' is not the same as 'planning to send humans to the Moon.' Aside from the frequent fairytales that I read about a Hilton Moon hotel, the most concrete private Moon venture that I've seen is akin to letting people drive a little robot around on the surface. If tourists do go to the Moon in the next 20 years, it will be in the same capacity as they go to the ISS now - staying in government research labs, being few and far between, and paying extremely high amounts of money for the privelege. So, no, I wouldn't say that any of us who aren't scientists or astronauts would have a chance of going at all.

It's interesting that you say that the Mars Direct Plan is 'getting stuff up in space and fuelled in space' - you must be reading a different plan to mine, because according to my copy of The Case for Mars, no orbital facilities of any kind are required. And I've never seen Zubrin - or indeed anyone else - justify going to Mars by having a Martian colony support a Lunar colony.

I don't particularly care if a private enterprise wants to put a hotel up in space, as long as it isn't taxpayers money. Indeed, I wish them the best of luck.

I must say that I'm taken aback by your indifference on whether we discover life on Mars. The implications are staggering; not just scientifically, but also for the religious and philosophical fields. If we did find life there, might it have come from Earth? Or vice versa? Or is it original to Mars? If there's life on Mars, our next door neighbour, chances are that there is life elsewhere in the universe, and perhaps intelligent life. And did God create life on Mars? some might ask. It is a supremely important question, whether there is life on Mars, and well worth the money.

The structure of DNA would have seemed to have been frivolous to most people when it was discovered, but look at the benefits we have now. Similarly, study of Martian life could shed light on our own origins.

What if we discover no life? That's equally interesting, especially in light of our belief that in the past Mars had an environment conducive to life. Perhaps life is far more rare and random than we really think.

Why would people want to go to Mars? You've heard many arguments here, and I will profess that despite my firm belief that it is worth going to Mars for the science alone, I do have a 'romantic' desire to see humans there. I believe that, yes, there is a chance to create a new civilization there, and more importantly I think that the conditions in which that civilization will grow in, isolated from Earth, will give people the chance to create something new and better than what we have now. Just giving people that chance - even if I don't get to take part - is worth any amount of money. To me, at least.

To deal with your second post:

I would ask you why you think, from an engineering standpoint, it would require at least a decade to create a spacecraft that utilized artificial G. What, exactly, is so difficult about it? Consider that we managed to travel to the Moon less than a decade after first getting into space.

No-one really thinks that you would use a CELSS for a mission to Mars; right now the technology is too prone to failure to use. Instead, food stores would have to be used for a trip. They'd take up some mass, but they're foolproof.

The Case for Mars states that in-situ propellant production should be used. It also states that the Earth Return Vehicle should be fully fueled and operational before the humans even leave Earth - and also that in case that ERV fails, another should be sent at the same time as the humans as a backup.

Sure, we don't know where liquid water is on Mars - not that it matters, since in-situ propellant production requires it. It only requires CO2 - which we know for a fact is in Mars' atmosphere and can be mined from it - and hydrogen, which you take with you. ISPP has been tested by Zubrin on Earth and is also being researched extensively by NASA.

Making a Mars EVA suit will surely be difficult; however, very little research has been done on the subject yet and I have confidence in NASA and private companies to come up with a solution using the latest plastics and fabrics.

It would be nice to have nuclear propulsion to send people to Mars, but we won't have such a system for a while and so we'll just have to make do with traditional chemical rockets; it makes the journey longer but certainly not impossible or even that much more onerous.

Alexander Sheppard · 2001-10-16 20:47:10

Cool Stuff to Promote REAL Humans in Space

What we should do is just lower federal taxes on companies doing human space endevours to near-zero levels for a couple of years, followed by an incremental increase if the industry is going cool. At the same time, you've got to get the Space Shuttle off the map, remove it completely from existance (it surely can't be sold, it is unprofitable) ; this will create a massive demand for human space endevours from the government and corporations who no longer have access to this meddling behemoth to do their dirty work (if the government wants a real launch vehicle they can set a set price for developing one and watch the fun, if it is high enough-- this would be different from the current SLI in that any corp could compete if they satisfied one requirement-- your price per kg is lower than X). The ISS needs to be reformed like crap ; it should be adapted to work with the cheapest rockets capable of carrying humans (assuming they are reasonably safe). Furthermore these rockets should be carried by private industry only ; no more government rockets, those should all be sold or, if that is not viable, trashed (that includes Space Shuttle). For any private organization which can pay the transport costs, use of the ISS should be free (or if there are too many and it is overwhelming the science, select according to the profitibility of the endevour to be performed). The government (NASA) should also issue a statement which says, with the money freed up from all this "For every net dollar any corporation makes by putting humans in space, we add X%".

I just came up with this crazy stuff of the top of my head, but if implemented, it will work. There are a whole range of things you can do and I have not touched on the majority of them.

clark · 2001-10-17 08:52:43

"I don't know how much gravity plants need - I'll admit that, but I do know that they grow significantly worse in zero-G and I would hypothesise that since they evolved under one G, that's the gravity in which they grow best; hence Mars will be more conducive to growth than the Moon."

Become informed @:
http://spacelink.nasa.gov/NASA.Ne....e.Wheat

They grew wheat in 1996 in micro gravity (zero g) aborad MIR, there are numerous other experiments that show gravity can be dealt with in regards to plant growth. The moon, with 1/6th the gravity of Earth should be fine.

"Yes, Mars has zero biomass. I never said it had any. I said it had plant nutrients, by which I am referring to phosphorus, potassium, calcium, zinc, copper, nitrogen and other such elements, all of which are in far smaller concentrations (if at all) on the Moon than on Mars."

These plant nutrients are meaningless to us though. The plants humans depend on require bio-mass- dead things to grow on. I'm sure the lichen will love some of the mineral content, but lichen does not provide for most of our daily requirements. The moon and mars are equal since the end result of Mars having nutrients is something that we cannot effectively utilize. You must also realize that super-oxidized dirt (like Mars) is an inhospitable meduim to grow living things in.

" Mars is irradiated by radiation; but far less than the Moon is, because it is further away and has a thin atmosphere."

Mars also has no magnosphere- and presently, we do not know how much radiation Mars recieves. Mars recieves less radiation? That's like saying Mars has less vacum than the moon- great, so what, both kill. In both instances steps will have to be taken to shield living things- Mars is no different.

"You can't dismiss the fact the extremely important differences in light exposure between Mars and the Moon just because they share some similarities - the very fact that the Moon has a fortnight long night is clearly a huge minus point for growing plants there. "

How is that? Everything will be in a greenhous, controlled, regulated. Whatever light is recieved , in either case (mars or moon) will be augmented with artifical light to boost plant production and yield.

"You'll need pressurized greenhouses on both the Moon and Mars - you'll also need protective measures against radiation - but the measures you'll have to take on the Moon will be magnitudes of times greater than those on Mars. "

In both cases, you bury yourself under the ground- problem solved. Or would a lava tube be better? Maybe a domed crater with UV deflecting plastic?

"The Moon's plants will certainly need artificial lighting; Mars plants will as well, if dust storms occur, but certainly for far less time and energy than the Moon plants."

So what? Energy is free in space (reletaviely). On the moon, it is fairly easy to set up solar panels to catch the sun's energy- Mars lacks this option given it's distance and the dust.

"I don't see why humans would be able to provide 'more than enough carbon dioxide for the plants' on the Moon - the carbon has to come from somewhere (since that's what plants are made out of - carbon) and it can't all come from us."

Plants don't need, nor do they thrive in a 95% carbon dioxide environment. Any space endeavour will depend on plants to provide a means to regenerate neccessary components for life, ie- oxygen and CO2 scrubbing. Since launching mass is exspensive, garden's in space will be soiuless to reduce weight, prevent bugs from sneaking on board, and to give the maximum results for space, as well as provide a level of control neccessary for growing plants in space. Even with a full greenhouse, any spaceship is still goign to require a CO2 scrubber because thwe plants simply cannot absorb enough CO2. CO2 is not usually the limiting factor- water, nutrients, or light is.

" I honestly don't think that the Moon is a cost-effective training ground for Mars; the gravity isn't that similar, the space suits will be different, the temperatures will be completely different (Mars isn't that cold, really) and as I have stressed repeatedly, Mars does have resources. You can make fuel on Mars."

The idea is to train astronauts in dealing with a different gravity, not martian gravity. As for the temps- once the tempertures are under -30 degree's, it dosen't matter, it's all cold enough to kill. And if you think the moon lacks resources, then you are being blind- there are resources on the moon to make fuel, water, oxygen, cement, fuel for fusion, etc.

"But searching for life and fossils? There isn't anything better to do that than a human, until we can make a robot that is as intelligent and versatile as one."

So that's what Mars is all about to you? Stupid argument. If there is life, it isn't going anywhere and we can get to Mars when we have more resources. If all life is dead, and only fossils remain, we can still wait until more resources are available or some REAL pressing need exsists. Going to look for exticnt life or microbes is not a good way to sell people on the neccessity of speeding off to Mars.

"...it would be a one-off, and thus probably not cost-effective if you're considering a sustained programme of human landings on Mars using identical hardware."

Why put people on Mars? To search for fossils? Why not wait until robots are smart enough to do it for us? Fossils after all are not in danger of disapperaing on a world with almost no geological activity.

"And I've never seen Zubrin - or indeed anyone else - justify going to Mars by having a Martian colony support a Lunar colony."

My mistake, what pray tell will the wild men of Mars do? Science? Pah, can be done in orbit- and you don't need legions of people on mars to do it.

As for finding life on mars, I say so what. A fossil? So life originated through panspermia- the only people that will truly be affected by a revelation of life on another planet are fundamentalist believers- ie the hardliners who are unable to incorporate new information regarding the univers into their religous beliefs. The world was once flat, yet religion endured- God was once vengeful, but then he became loving, and religion endured- I believe the major faiths will wether the revelation of a fossil on another planet that once held water. More than likely any life found, dead or otherwise will have a DNA base, so establishing where life originated will be a more profound discovery.

Alexander Sheppard · 2001-10-17 20:38:12

I thought the superoxides on Mars were caused by UV radiation's interaction with more natural soil components. Then, if we dig slightly under the soil, that soil should lack superoxides, correct?

Advanced plants can be grown in one of two ways. They can be grown, if we have the technology, using hydroponics. Or, if we do not have the technology, they can be grown by releasing algae or lichen on the Martian soil under a pressurized dome and letting them do their work.

I am not sure that what you say about the Martian radiation hazard is true. This is because on Mars solar flares are 8.9 times less powerful than on the Moon-- assuming the statistic that the Martian atmosphere shields out 74% of solar flares, on average, is correct (I get this from The Case for Mars). This can probably be brought down at least a little bit further by using cheap UV coatings on the dome material, too.

Additionally I do not think it is necessary to have artificial light on the Mars at all, because dust storms do not block out enough light to cause serious problems for plants anyway (Also from The Case for Mars). Solar panels are still a fine option, though not as fine as on the Moon.

I believe with regard to the plants issue, what he meant was that it was easy to obtain carbon dioxide on Mars, which plants do indeed thrive on given some reasonable mixing with other components, while it is very expensive on the Moon due its rarity. We may be able to bring some with us but ultimately the carbon in that biomass has to come from somewhere.

Are you sure that plants cannot endure temperatures below negative thirty? For that matter, celcius or farenheight?

How can you judge the value of Martian life when you haven't even seen it? I don't know how much it will be worth, economically... mabye it isn't DNA based! How would -that- work out? Who knows? We don't know. If we knew, it would be far less exciting, in my opinion. We'll have to see what happens.

Alexander Sheppard · 2001-10-17 20:53:57

There is something wrong either with these message boards or my computer. It appears that they do not, from my perspective, accept edited messages. Is anyone else having this problem?

Jim Oliver · 2001-10-18 10:38:01

The plant issue really makes it obvious that Mars is a better choice for a colony. Summing up what others have said:

1. Radiation--The radiation on the moon is severe. Solar flares will toast plants regularly. On Mars the radiation is almost completely negligible (for plants.) On the moon the shielding is VERY heavy and will require Herculean efforts to put it in place (or to dig enormous caverns underground.) On Mars, just throw a tent up.

2. Atmosphere--The Martian atmosphere is almost exactly right for plants, just a little low on pressure. Remember that plants DO NOT need 1 earth atmosphere to survive. Just a tiny fraction of nearly pure CO2 will do fine (also in The Case for Mars). This means you can tent a LARGE area with a thin material.

3. Light - On Mars, the light is dim but it is not a huge problem. Plants exist, thrive and are cultivated on Earth at extremes of latitude, where the light is dim and the growing seasons are short. On the moon the long night is a big problem, solvable with artificial light, but at a great energy cost, which is NOT free. Solar panels, sent from earth, are not cheap nor are they light.

4. Nutrients - on Mars, we have most of what we need. Hydroponics eliminate the need for soil and organics. The technology does not need to be developed, it is already perfected. It works. The moon requires more fertilizer from earth.

5. WATER - We know it's on Mars, we're just not sure how much or the best way to get it. On the moon? MAYBE a tiny bit at the poles in a dark crater. Enormous tankers will have to be sent, even with recycling. This goes along with ANYTHING that is made with hydrogen (like plastics)--it is just not available on the moon.

6. Trajectories - It takes MORE rocket fuel to sent a payload to the moon than Mars. Why? Both destinations require escape trajectories, with Mars costing a little bit more (NOT a lot more). But on the Moon, you have to brake with rocket engines, and the cost is NOT negligible. Since you need additional tonnage of material to set up your greenhouse on the moon, and it costs more to get it there, this is a severe penalty.

In short, in the plant department, Mars rules. We will ultimately depend on plants, just like we do on earth, wherever we go.

clark · 2001-10-18 11:33:22

Contrary to what people are stating, we do not know how much radiation Mars recievesa. If I am istaken, by all means, please direct me to where I might find out the radiation rates on mars.

As for Jim's claim that very heavy shielding will be neccessary on the moon, itdosen't matter- underground bases are fairly easy to build, and dumping moon dirt on top will provide more than enough protection- as for the amount of work to complete such a task- that is pure speculation- however I would ewager that it might be made a fair bit easier considering the lack of extreme gravity. And throwing a tent up is hardly a walk in the park- please enlighten me as to how the astronauts will "throw a tent up" after a year in zero g? My guess is, along with most NASA astronauts, is that the zero-g will make any Martian explorers useless once they land on Mars.

The martian atmosphere is NOT ideal for plants- the amount of CO2 will kill them- plants also live of 0xygen. Also, the plants will need to protected from low pressure and temperture extremes- a large are with thin material will more than likely kill the plants. All living things are delicate when compared to the available environment in space or on Mars.

As for light, once again, the moon has the neccessary material to PRODUCE solar panels. If that is cost prohibitive, then simply ship a nuclear reator (the same kind that Mars Explorers plan on) to produce the neccessary energy. The moon has plenty of He3- something the earth lacks and is useful in fusion.

"Nutrients - on Mars, we have most of what we need. Hydroponics eliminate the need for soil and organics. The technology does not need to be developed, it is
already perfected. It works. The moon requires more fertilizer from earth."

In one sentence you state hydroponic (soilless farming) is perfected, in the next you state the moon will require fertilizer- less fertilizer is needed if they keep to hydroponics- or aeroponics. Also, genetic engineering of plants can reduce the need for nutrients, and others could be reclaimed b y improving thebio-regeneration systems. Nutrients are not so easy to come by on mars- you have to find them, break them out, process them... it's not like you will be tripping over nitrogen either on Mars, the place is woefully lacking in that regard.

Who knows how much water is on the moon- if it matters, they can always find an ice comet and mine that- the moon is estimated to hold several million gallons (in those dark craters) of water- I think it's reasonable to assume that that would be enough water until they figured out where and how to get more. Also, the moon allows instant production of fuel- great gas station for future deep space missions, mars cannot even compare.

We will ultimetly depend on GEO orbital facilities, not planets. It is merely a matter of time.

Alexander Sheppard · 2001-10-18 13:26:57

Clark the stuff about the rads is in the Case for Mars. Perhaps I am somehow misquoting Zubrin's statistic, but he said that a person in space would recieve 38 rem and a person on the surface would recieve 10 rem, so if you get the ratio and multiply by the ratio between the concentration of solar radiation in Mars orbit and concentration in Earth orbit, you have the comparison.

Underground bases are more expensive than surface bases. Period. If you don't believe me, try getting the funds to build an underground house.

Nobody on this mission will spend more than a few days in zero-g. I agree with you that there is a strong possibility that one day the human race(s) will live mostly on asteroids, but certianly not in GEO, and probably not very soon, either.

Nobody ever said that we were going to put pure, unfiltered Martian atmosphere in the domes.

I am sceptical of fusion. Everyone says it is a good idea, and I agree that we need to find out if it can be made cheap enough to be justifyable. Yet, how to do that? If no method can be found, then what is the purpose of He3?

We will see where the nitrogen is on Mars. There is a limited supply in the atmosphere ; there may yet be much in the regolith, buried under the immediate surface in compounds.

The moon has almost no hydrogen, carbon, or nitrogen. Clark, please face reality. The moon is not a site for a very vibrant civilization. A small civilization may exist there, but it will be nothing like Mars. I do not understand why you do not find it easy to accept this ; most of your arguments are easily flipped over and the ones that remain are just setbacks, not major problems.

The moon has some water, but like I said, not enough to support any kind of vibrant civilization-- how are you going to support a civilization without water? That's impossible.

Your statement about GEO facilities is just as ludicrous as saying that it is only a matter of time before we migrate off the land and become ocean-dwellers.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2001-09-08 15:16:08

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#2 2001-09-08 15:25:08

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#3 2001-09-08 15:55:42

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#4 2001-09-08 16:52:58

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#5 2001-09-09 16:43:46

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#6 2001-09-22 00:14:04

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#7 2001-09-23 14:45:52

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#8 2001-10-11 12:29:03

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#9 2001-10-11 15:46:11

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#10 2001-10-12 12:37:38

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#11 2001-10-12 13:34:45

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#12 2001-10-15 20:55:21

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#13 2001-10-15 21:16:11

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#14 2001-10-16 06:54:09

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#15 2001-10-16 09:35:17

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#16 2001-10-16 14:26:35

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#17 2001-10-16 16:11:24

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#18 2001-10-16 16:58:28

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#19 2001-10-16 20:47:10

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#20 2001-10-17 08:52:43

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#21 2001-10-17 20:38:12

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#22 2001-10-17 20:53:57

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#23 2001-10-18 10:38:01

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#24 2001-10-18 11:33:22

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#25 2001-10-18 13:26:57

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

Board footer