I say forget the moon and go straight to Mars.

[FemurBone]

scotthm said:
Today we've moved beyond that 50's sci-fi fantasy. It was fun while it lasted, and I like Forbidden Planet as much as the next guy, but there are huge obstacles to overcome that we didn't sufficiently appreciate in those days.

We didn't move beyond it. We just gave up on it. And it was the launch of Sputnik that made the Federal government decide to put a man on the moon. Not Forbidden Planet. As far as the US Gov was concerned, rockets were for delivering nuclear weapons. Not putting people into space. It was the Soviets that decided to take the initiative to put satelites and people into Earth orbit as well as sending probes to the moon. Had that not happened, The US probably wouldn't have a manned space program at all.

The moon landings proved that alot can be done in a short period of time if people decide to do it. But as long as people keep making excuses nothing more will get done.

 

[farmkid]

^You seem to think that it's just laziness or a lack of drive that is stopping us--that the medical issues really aren't problems if we were motivated enough. So, how do you propose to solve the problems referred to in the article Bad Bishop linked to and the issues brought up by others in the thread?

 

[FemurBone]

^The solutions were presented in the very article that was posted.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

So far, the OP hasn't addressed by way of a proposed technical solution any one of the many obvious problems that have been pointed out in regard to this fantasy.

 

[FemurBone]

^The OP has addressed all the excuses people come up with to avoid going to Mars. If you choose not to read, that's your problem.

 

[scotthm]

FemurBone said:
^The OP has addressed all the excuses people come up with to avoid going to Mars. If you choose not to read, that's your problem.

We need no excuses. There are no compelling reasons to go, unless you think your entertainment is sufficient.

---------------

 

[watermelony2k]

FemurBone said:

watermelony2k said:
No way that four days is worth it. There would be no science gained from the red planet. A Mars expedition, once reached the planet, should last a year at least.

Sending enough supplies and equipment for 3 astronauts to spend a year on Mars would drive the cost so high that the mission will never happen.

4 days. and there would be plenty of science gained once researchers on Earth get hold of actual Mars rocks and soil.

Supplies and fuel could be manufactured on Mars itself, even before the astronauts reach the planet. Long-term human expansion into space is impossible without learning how to "live off the land."

Another "flag and footprints" mission will just be another deadend.

If I had to choose between the development of a permanent manned-moonbase and a quick and dirty mission to mars, I would choose the moonbase.

 

[scotthm]

watermelony2k said:
If I had to choose between the development of a permanent manned-moonbase and a quick and dirty mission to mars, I would choose the moonbase.

What specifically would we do with a permanent base on the Moon?

---------------

 

[farmkid]

scotthm said:

watermelony2k said:
If I had to choose between the development of a permanent manned-moonbase and a quick and dirty mission to mars, I would choose the moonbase.

What specifically would we do with a permanent base on the Moon?

---------------

Build a giant laser to vaporize our enemies, of course!

 

[watermelony2k]

scotthm said:

watermelony2k said:
If I had to choose between the development of a permanent manned-moonbase and a quick and dirty mission to mars, I would choose the moonbase.

What specifically would we do with a permanent base on the Moon?

---------------

Gain experience on how to exactly live on another world, and how to take advantage of the resources available there. If we can manufacture fuel and materials offworld, then the astronauts wouldn't have to bring everything they need with them, thus lowering the costs of space exploration.

Colonies will not be able to live off of earth's support by itself. The colonists will have to learn how to use the water, soil, and atmosphere around them to manufacture what they need to survive.

There's also a lot of helium-3 on the moon, which might prove to be a source for fusion power.

Might as well build a space telescope on the far side of the moon while we're at it, too.

 

[Cutter John]

^ It would also be a lot cheaper/easier to build and launch missions to the outer solar system from a facility on the moon.

 

[GodThingFormerly]

^ Great minds....

TGT

 

[FemurBone]

Don't let NASA fool you. They aren't building a moonbase. Look how long its taking them to build the ISS. And that's just in Low Earth Orbit. You really believe they'll be able to send habitat modules 200,000 miles away and land them on the moon?

Most likely, NASAs future moon trips will be pretty much be like the Apollo trips were. Send a few astronauts to the moon for a week maybe 2, and then bring them back.

I'd rather NASA attempt a manned Mars landing first before returning to the moon.

 

[theARE]

Slightly off-topic, but FemurBone, have you read Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars?
Great book about the colonization of Mars. If you havent, I'd recommend it.

Arthur C. Clarke himself wrote of Red Mars: "A staggering book... the best novel on the colonization of Mars that has ever been written... It should be required reading for the colonists of the next century."

 

[Woulfe]

I've always dreamed going to mars would be like this....

First leg of the trip.... You get in a spaceliner that goes into orbit that docks with a space sation.

Second leg of the trip.... You transfer from from the spaceliner into a larger space ship, this flys to the moon.

Third leg of the trip.... The space ship lands on the moon where it is fuled up for the long trip from here to mars.

While the ship fules you can relax in the spaceport on the moon, eat some snaks, get some postcards, that sort of thing.

Once back on the fully fuled ship it takes off to mars.

Now, why did I dream it this way ?

1. You wouldn't need a mile-large rocket to go from the Earth to Mars, it's horribly wasteful and not efficant.

2. It make the trip a lot more like going by plane to somewhere, it's logical namely.

Okay how do we GET it to be like that ?

Well, it's going to take some time, hope you're not in a rush to get there right away

In other words don't start booking flights right now.

 

[scotthm]

watermelony2k said:

scotthm said:
What specifically would we do with a permanent base on the Moon?

Gain experience on how to exactly live on another world, and how to take advantage of the resources available there.

How do you overcome the radiation exposure of the people out exploring their environment, learning how to exploit it?

If we can manufacture fuel and materials offworld, then the astronauts wouldn't have to bring everything they need with them, thus lowering the costs of space exploration.

It's not like you'd be starting out with an existing manufacturing infrastructure there, like you have here on Earth. It may take decades to build up such manufacturing capabilities on the moon, even if we made this a priority.

There's also a lot of helium-3 on the moon, which might prove to be a source for fusion power.

Maybe we should perfect that here first, before worrying about powering our moonbase with a fusion reactor.

FemurBone said:
Don't let NASA fool you. They aren't building a moonbase. Look how long its taking them to build the ISS. And that's just in Low Earth Orbit. You really believe they'll be able to send habitat modules 200,000 miles away and land them on the moon?

No, I don't. What makes you think NASA can send a habitat module to Mars if they can't send one to the moon?

---------------

 

[FemurBone]

by theARE
Slightly off-topic, but FemurBone, have you read Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars?
Great book about the colonization of Mars. If you havent, I'd recommend it.

Arthur C. Clarke himself wrote of Red Mars: "A staggering book... the best novel on the colonization of Mars that has ever been written... It should be required reading for the colonists of the next century."

I haven't read Red Mars yet, but I've heard of it. I've been wanting to read it but never got around to it. I've also been wanting to read Ben Bova's Mar as well.

by woulfe
I've always dreamed going to mars would be like this....

First leg of the trip.... You get in a spaceliner that goes into orbit that docks with a space sation.

Second leg of the trip.... You transfer from from the spaceliner into a larger space ship, this flys to the moon.

Third leg of the trip.... The space ship lands on the moon where it is fuled up for the long trip from here to mars.

1. You wouldn't need a mile-large rocket to go from the Earth to Mars, it's horribly wasteful and not efficant.

2. It make the trip a lot more like going by plane to somewhere, it's logical namely.

Actually, if you are traveling to the moon and to Mars in the same ship, then it wouldn't be nessessary to refuel on the moon. That would actually be more wasteful. Once you blast out of Earth orbit, you won't need anymore fuel until you actually get to Mars. If you stop at the moon first, then you would be using fuel to insert your ship into Lunar orbit. Then you would have to use even more fuel to blast your ship out of Lunar orbit.

by woulfe
Okay how do we GET it to be like that?
Well, it's going to take some time, hope you're not in a rush to get there right away

In other words don't start booking flights right now.

It's all a matter of motivation. Just landing 2 astronauts on Mars even if its only for a few days will provide the nessessary motivation to get things moving. Look at all the exitement that surrounded the rover that landed on Mars back in 1997.

 

[Arrqh]

scotthm said:

There's also a lot of helium-3 on the moon, which might prove to be a source for fusion power.

Maybe we should perfect that here first, before worrying about powering our moonbase with a fusion reactor.

Actually the general idea is that helium-3 is a good candidate for the fuel of a second generation fusion reactor. It's very rare on Earth but may exist in somewhat larger quantities on the moon and elsewhere in the solar system.

It's a concept that's been explored in various scifi, notably Planetes comes to mind where 70% of the Earth's energy is generated from fusion reactors fueled by helium-3 mined from the moon and other extraterrestrial sources. This, of course, destroyed any oil-based economies and shifted the balance of resources on Earth even further towards the richer countries... only countries with enough money to set up shop on the moon in the first place could directly get the benefits, widening the gap between richer and poorer countries.

Of course, its just fiction...

 

[FemurBone]

by Scotthm
What makes you think NASA can send a habitat module to Mars if they can't send one to the moon?

Building a moon base will require many trips out of Earth orbit delivering extremely heavy cargo. Then you have to land that heavy cargo gently onto the moon. That means accelerating each piece of the moonbase up to 25000 miles per hour and then decelerating it down to zero. That's a lot of fuel.

A manned mission to Mars will only require one trip out of Earth orbit with heavy cargo. Well 2 if the Mars lander leaves orbit separately. And only the lander will travel to the surface.

 

[Spider]

FemurBone , I applaud your enthusiasm; however you are not taking into consideration all the scientific and technical hurdles a mission like this will take. Here is a link to an official NASA site that discusses a manned mission to Mars.