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This discussion has been archived.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.
One big pile is better than two little piles.
-- Arlo Guthrie
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday June 08 2016, @12:02PM
If SpaceX is sending unmanned (is there a better substitute for this word?) missions to Mars first, perhaps they are considering building the base on Mars with robots first and then sending humans when they know the base is viable. It's what I'd do.
There are people who are working on ways to build concrete using Martian regolith. Combine that with 3D printing and you could form habs and pressurize them. Or you could excavate and make subterranean (subMartian?) dwellings. It would be extremely technically challenging, but it's possible with the tech we have now.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday June 08 2016, @03:29PM
> unmanned (is there a better substitute for this word?)
Robotic?
Automated?
Meat-free?
Unpersonned?
Castrated?
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday June 08 2016, @08:24PM
I sense a SNL Delta Delta Delta skit coming on.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 08 2016, @03:40PM
Apparently not, since unpersonned microaggresses against daughters just as much as unmanned microaggresses against women.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday June 08 2016, @09:03PM
Or skip the 3D printing entirely as too much gratuitous complexity. Inflate habitat-sized balloon. Slather with concrete. Install airlock. Habitat created by a bunch of people with a high-gradient air pump and some shovels in a couple of days. We do it on Earth all the time. For added durability integrate some sort of high-strength "net" into the early layers of concrete to help balance the pressurization of the interior.
The balloon could even be reusable - once the structure is in place you only need to coat the interior with some sort of gas-impermeable layer. Nanocellulose maybe? The airlocks are really the only particularly sophisticated technology required.
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Wednesday June 08 2016, @09:34PM
unmanned (is there a better substitute for this word?)
No. We all know what unmanned means.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 11 2016, @09:09AM
Underground is the best option. Then the layers of rock over the living environment will provide a shield for the radiation.