SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
martyb
on Wednesday June 08 2016, @09:17AM
from the build-a-space-elevator-on-the-moon dept.
from the build-a-space-elevator-on-the-moon dept.
NASA seems hell bent to go to Mars, but can't afford to on its own.
Its international partners have no stomach for that — they would would rather return to our moon and build a base there for further exploration.
Doesn't going back to the moon make more sense? Build a base on the moon, and use its low gravity and possible water at the poles as propellant for further space exploration?
Why not the moon first?
http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/7/11868840/moon-return-journey-to-mars-nasa-congress-space-policy
Links:
From NASA itself, in 2008: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/series/moon/why_go_back.html
The all-knowing, ever-trustworthy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_the_Moon
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Should We Skip Mars for Now and Go to the Moon Again?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 78 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Is that really YOU that is reading this?
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday June 08 2016, @11:51AM
My basic opinion on the matter: I don't care *that* much where we go, so long as sometime in my lifetime they make it past LEO. Seriously, guys, you went further in the 1960's, and while I appreciate that you're trying to figure out how to get to LEO cheaply and are able to do a great deal in the ISS, we should be thinking about how to get off this rock more permanently, before we might actually need to.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 08 2016, @12:57PM
One reason they might be dragging their heels on getting us off this rock is because the rich and powerful already have a way to get off this rock. No rush to get the plebs off it, too.
I think it says something about how the world works when we have 7 BILLION people and have to choose ONE destination.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday June 08 2016, @09:33PM
Well, it probably will never matter to most of the population on Earth regardless, except in a "Yay, humanity may survive this apocalypse after all" kind of way.
Consider, the current mortality rate on Earth is roughly 8 people per thousand per year - that translates to about 162,000 per day. The birth rate is even higher. Any sort of mass-exodus from Earth would have to be substantially faster than that just to gain ground against new births. That's a lot of rocket fuel.