SoylentNews

Should We Skip Mars for Now and Go to the Moon Again?

posted by martyb on Wednesday June 08 2016, @09:17AM   
from the build-a-space-elevator-on-the-moon dept.

Gaaark writes:

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

• Re:NASA no longer needed to lead planetary travelRe:NASA no longer needed to lead planetary travel (Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday June 08 2016, @09:41PM

  by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday June 08 2016, @09:41PM (#357021) Journal

  Not that I am not skeptical of the $10 number, but it looks like they are trying to cheapen it with a new methane mix. From the link:

  Raptor is the first member of a family of cryogenic methane-fueled rocket engines under development by SpaceX. It is specifically intended to power high-performance lower and upper stages for SpaceX super-heavy launch vehicles. The engine will be powered by liquid methane and liquid oxygen (LOX), rather than the RP-1 kerosene and LOX used in all previous Falcon 9 rockets, which use Merlin 1C and 1D engines. Earlier concepts for Raptor would have used liquid hydrogen (LH2) fuel rather than methane.

  --
  [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]

  Parent

  Starting Score:	1		point
  Karma-Bonus Modifier		+1
  Total Score:		2

• Re:NASA no longer needed to lead planetary travel(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 09 2016, @02:52AM

  by khallow (3766) on Thursday June 09 2016, @02:52AM (#357146) Journal

  Sure, SpaceX will find all sorts of ways to make orbital launch cheaper. I still think $100 per pound (in current dollars) will be really tough to break without either a vastly cheaper source of energy or a new paradigm in launch infrastructure (like a space tether or magnetic rail launch).

  Parent