Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday June 08 2016, @09:17AM   Printer-friendly
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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by theluggage on Wednesday June 08 2016, @01:00PM

    by theluggage (1797) on Wednesday June 08 2016, @01:00PM (#356842)

    Why not the moon first?

    I think the common-sense thing to do would be, yes, return to the moon, look for water, investigate asteroid mining, investigate space-based power generation, build up the infrastructure for manned space exploration first (while continuing the amazing work being done by robotic exploration) - rather than repeating the mistake of Apollo and going straight for an unsustainable, unrepeatable "hail Mary" Mars shot. For one thing, I'm not sure its worth humans going to Mars unless they're ready to establish a semi-permanent habitat there, with people staying for years. (Oh, and for pity's sake make sure that their return vehicle isn't prone to blowing over in dust storms - and remember to pack potatoes!)

    Then there's the question of whether a space- or moon-based colony using solar power and asteroid-based resources would be more or less practical than trying to build one in a marginally less hostile environment inconveniently situated at the bottom of a gravity well. One of the challenges for Mars is going to be how you get back to orbit, whereas you can escape the moon by lighting a fart.

    On the other hand, maybe sending an ugly bag of mostly water to Mars would be a major morale boost to Humanity who's value would outweigh any flimsy economic argument?

    One things for sure though: Dear NASA: the next time you do something so insanely cool as lowering a Mars lander from a hovering rocket platform: send a bloody camera drone! Pictures (accompanied by the music from Thunderbirds of course), or it didn't happen!

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday June 08 2016, @07:55PM

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Wednesday June 08 2016, @07:55PM (#356966)

    I'm not sure its worth humans going to Mars unless they're ready to establish a semi-permanent habitat there, with people staying for years. (Oh, and for pity's sake make sure that their return vehicle isn't prone to blowing over in dust storms - and remember to pack potatoes!)

    "The Martian" was a really well-done movie, but it really didn't make that much sense when you investigate it closer: if we've built this gigantic ship capable of comfortably transporting people to Mars, and we can set up habitats, why would we run away and come home early because of a little storm? Why would we not have a much more permanent presence there, with rotating crews? The plot was very contrived.

    I think the common-sense thing to do would be, yes, return to the moon, look for water, investigate asteroid mining, investigate space-based power generation, build up the infrastructure for manned space exploration first (while continuing the amazing work being done by robotic exploration)

    I've been saying exactly this for several years, ever since all the "we need to go straight to Mars!!!" hoopla came about, and people called me an idiot, that the Moon is a waste of time, etc. Not just random low-information trolls, but smart-sounding people with very elaborate reasoning as to why we should just start sending colonists directly to Mars ASAP. But yes, as an engineer I agree fully; we haven't developed these capabilities very well yet and we need to do that before sending humans on a year-long journey to an inhospitable planet. We can practice building habitats on the Moon which is only 3 days away, and we can also work on asteroid mining which has real commercial potential. Moon's gravity is lower too, so any launching we might have to do from there (like if we build industrial facilities there, perhaps for asteroid refining) would require much less fuel, and the time needed to return raw materials from the Moon to Earth for commercial use is about the same time the USPS takes to deliver a package, and quite a bit faster than the time needed to ship goods from China. All the "straight-to-Mars" arguments seem to completely ignore commercialization and engineering considerations.

    • (Score: 2) by theluggage on Wednesday June 08 2016, @10:13PM

      by theluggage (1797) on Wednesday June 08 2016, @10:13PM (#357036)

      "The Martian" was a really well-done movie, but it really didn't make that much sense when you investigate it closer: if we've built this gigantic ship capable of comfortably transporting people to Mars, and we can set up habitats, why would we run away and come home early because of a little storm? Why would we not have a much more permanent presence there, with rotating crews? The plot was very contrived.

      In the Afterword of the book, the author himself admits that the idea of a freak storm threatening to blow over the lander didn't add up, but was needed as a plot device to strand Our Hero. As for why they went home - they'd used up both their one-shot lander and one-shot ascent vehicle and it does make sort-of sense that the landing and ascent would be the big constraints on such a mission. Since they thought Watney was dead & they'd effectively left a big chunk of their food supplies on Mars there was no reason to hang around in orbit (plus, again, it made the plot more dramatic). Of course, at the end of the film, it is clear that a long stay on Mars with the correct supplies and equipment would be a doddle. Pity we don't actually inhabit that universe - plus, Fictional Mars filmed by Ridley Scott looks less of a dump than that gravel pit our probes have shown :-)