Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Forget Mars. Should We Go To The Moon? 511

Posted by michael from the green-cheese dept.
me98411 writes "We have discussed earlier about the President's Commission on Moon, Mars and Beyond and about how a direct trip to Mars is the way to go (or way not to). In a BBC article, the division in the astronomers and space geeks community about the use of the Moon as a base to develop ways to travel to Mars is highlighted. Now, Nature is asking: Should we go back to the moon? Is a manned mission to the moon even necessary?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Forget Mars. Should We Go To The Moon? More

Forget Mars. Should We Go To The Moon?

Comments Filter:

  • Yeah.. Go to the moon... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Praedon ( 707326 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @08:11AM (#8790758) Journal
    This story brings up a good point... I think we should go to the moon... Learn a lot more with todays science applied there.
    • Don't projects work best when you take small steps. In the past first we went to space, then we stayed in space longer, then we finially went to the moon. It makes sense to take steps here. For safety and to be prepared. We should go to the moon before we go on.
      • Of course every new major device will be tested before it's fully depended on. That's why the 60s and seventies saw Mercury, then Gemini, then Apollo. Every stage had to be thoroughly tested before the next stage was safe enough to be tested.

        Today, technology to get unmanned craft to the moon is quite mature. We need only extend our knowledge of modern manned mission technology to reach the moon. And that should be cheaper than developing that technology all over again.
      • That assumes the moon is "on the way" to Mars. That is not intuitively obvious to me.

        Bt all means go to the moon if it si scientifically worthwhile. It would take someone with more knowledge than me to judge the cost/benefit of it, but a case could be made.

        But dun't go to the moon in order to go to Mars unless you have a roadmap (bad metaphor, in context) worked out that says goinf via the moon is cheaper than going straight to Mars.

        And the idea of mining lunar water for propellant does not strike me as

      • No projects work best (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        when you don't quit.

        What would you say the feasability of a Mach 3 aircraft that weighs as much as a locomotive is?

        Would it surprise you to know the engine was actually built and tested? 500 Megawatt nuclear engine. I believe the kids have a phrase for that kind of thing today. "Damn skippy."

        One of the reasons the Russians beat the US into space was we wanted to do something when we got there. They threw up a little ball. We threw up a satellite with a high resolution camera that craped pictures. W
    • It's a lot more expensive to go to the moon. The net energy to go to the moon is only a teensy bit less than it takes to get to Mars, and the moon doesn't have the variety of chemical compounds (or a 24 hour day) like Mars does. It's actually cheaper to set up a Mars colony because they can do things like grow their own food and make their own air and water, provided there's a small nuclear reactor to provide power.

      Also, the moon is thought to only have water in very small quantities in remote craters on t
      • ...the moon doesn't have the variety of chemical compounds ... like Mars does.

        How do we know? We haven't explored more than a tiny fraction of the moon, and even less on Mars.

        Also, the moon is thought to only have water in very small quantities in remote craters on the north and south poles

        You don't need to find water, you can make it with Hydrogen and Oxygen. There's a LOT of Oxygen in the moon's crust, and very likely a good amount of Hydrogen in the regolith deposited by the solar wind.

        However,

  • No (Score:5, Funny)

    by PhuckH34D ( 743521 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @08:12AM (#8790766) Homepage
    Only dust there... If they want dust, they can come clean my house.

  • long term. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bagel2ooo ( 106312 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @08:12AM (#8790768)
    Doesn't this, in a way, come down to an issue of long-term goals for space exploration? The costs of putting up a station of sorts on the moon would no doubt be immensely costly. If we just plan to run a few missions to Mars, it really doesn't seem very cost-effective. If someone has solid numbers I'd like to see how the distance moon/Earth would be to further planets such as Jupiter or Neptune. Also how big of a factor is the gravity difference in the long run for travel. If we could turn a station on the moon into a pseudo-colony, I think that would have some nice potential for space travel and perhaps even more affordable space tourism.

    • Re:long term. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Trurl's Machine ( 651488 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @08:55AM (#8791048) Journal
      If we could turn a station on the moon into a pseudo-colony, I think that would have some nice potential for space travel and perhaps even more affordable space tourism.

      Yeah, "if". But what if it can't be done? There is no chance to make an Antarctic colony, where the conditions still are much more friendly than on Moon. I doubt if there is any chance to make anything colony-like on Moon - there is no serious plan how to make water and oxygen on the lunar desert (not to mention food or anything useful). All we hear are Star Trek-like hypothetical scenarios, that maybe there could be some frozen water. Well, what if there isn't? The comparison of the Lunar colonies and the New World colonies of XVI-XVII century is fundamentally flawed - Columbus did not have to carry oxygen from Spain. Heck, he could even repair his ships from the wood found on the new continent. He arrived into a land where human beings can sustain their own living - it was far from uninhabitable desert that we have on the Moon or Mars. We can't have an underwater colony somewhere in the middle of an ocean. We can't have a colony on Antarctic. What makes anybody think we can have a colony on Moon? Is it just because once there was a TV series [space1999.net] about one?

  • Short answer: No. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by secondsun ( 195377 ) <secondsun@gmail.com> on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @08:13AM (#8790770) Journal
    Should we go to the moon: No. It is expensive and dangerous.

    A more realistic question should be will we go back to the moon: Yes we will eventually.

    People like to explore. Many people died colonizing the Americas, but we kept at it until it stuck. The moon is just the next step in this process. We, as humans, want to learn and explore. We want to go to the moon and to Mars. Because we want to we will eventually.

    • Exploring (Score:5, Insightful)

      by millahtime ( 710421 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @08:18AM (#8790803) Homepage Journal
      "Many people died colonizing the Americas, but we kept at it until it stuck"

      Back when the Americas were colinized death was acceptable where today just 1 death can derail projects. Death is no longer seen as an acceptable loss so safety is something to be taken into high consideration.

      "We, as humans, want to learn and explore."

      We humans do want to explore but shouldn't we explore what's in our own back yard. This would help us not only learn but let us test our methods before we take a long trek to another planet.

      • Re:Exploring (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MrRTFM ( 740877 ) * on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @08:35AM (#8790917) Journal
        today just 1 death can derail projects
        This is a very good point.
        There are probably hundreds of high rise construction workers killed every year that we dont hear about; but any space related failure is instantly worldwide news. The problem is that they dont weigh it up with all the successful missions.

        Space exploration is dangerous - as we (worldwide) do more missions we'll get better, but until then there will probably be a high death/success ratio - just like any new frontier.

        • Re:Exploring (Score:5, Insightful)

          by BiggerIsBetter ( 682164 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @09:05AM (#8791114)
          Can't NASA set the public's expectations realistic ally? Or perhaps the politicians are the ones who need to accept it? Or is it just the media that goes "w00t! new story!" and hypes it all into a NASA's biggest failure yet.

          People will die pushing these kinds of boundaries, and that's part of the cost of exploration. Yet for some reason it's seen (by who I'm not sure...) as a failure. It's not a failure as long as we learn something from the process, and those that get involved know the risks they are taking.

      • Re:Exploring (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @08:40AM (#8790956)
        Back when the Americas were colinized death was acceptable where today just 1 death can derail projects. Death is no longer seen as an acceptable loss so safety is something to be taken into high consideration.

        We're all going to die.

        Might as well die trying to do something other than trying to squeeze as many seconds as possible out of sitting in a cube farm.

      • I can't believe you wrote that. Death is no longer seen as an acceptable loss... You have got to be kidding.

        Thousands died constructing the Panama Canal. Race car drivers die periodically. Hundreds of US soldiers have died in Iraq (and many more Iraqis).

        Yes, we shy from death-creating situations, and work to minimize risks. But derail a project? Not above the PTA level.

        • Re:Exploring (Score:5, Interesting)

          by llefler ( 184847 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @02:35PM (#8794908)
          Hundreds of US soldiers have died in Iraq

          But Americans don't consider those acceptable. You're talking about a situation where the public has been made to fear that if they don't do this, we'll lose 3000 more people to another Trade Center. Better to send troops to kill those nasty terrorists than risk getting blown up at the mall.

          Watch some commercials. How many are telling people that 'if you don't buy our product, this -bad thing- might happen to you'. We scare people to sell things.

          Nobody is afraid of space. So they aren't willing to pay to see someone blown up on national TV.

    • Re:Short answer: No. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AllUsernamesAreGone ( 688381 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @08:27AM (#8790867)
      Scene 1: The Docks, Palos, Spain, 1492. Typical nautical stuff. Miscellanous crates, ships, sailors, whores. Nina and Pinta at anchor in the background. Enter Arbitrary Actor and Christopher Columbus.

      Arbitrary Actor: You know Chris, I can't but think that this whole idea of yours is expensive and dangerous.
      Christopher Columbus: Yeah, you're right actually. Sod this, let's go for a pint, someone else'll do it eventually anyway.

      America is not "discovered" for another 50 years, the entire course of recent history is changed, you and I probably don't exist.

      Scene 2: the African Jungle, shortly before the appearance of proto-hominids. Trees, birds, apes. Probably whores too. Swing in two apes:

      Ape 1: You know Ooook, I can't but think that this whole "walking on the ground" idea of yours is expensive and dangerous.
      Ape 2: Yeah, you're right Eeek. I don't think I'll bother, someone else will try it sometime.

      Our distant ancestors do not descend from teh trees. We're still swinging around in thick jungles going Ooook!

      Or put another way: so it is expensive and dangerous. So. Bloody. What? human progress is built on blood, tears and insatiable curiosity. If we can do it now (and we can) why not do it now, while we still have chance.

      • Re:Short answer: No. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mike_mgo ( 589966 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @08:45AM (#8790989)
        Alternate Scene 1:

        Contrary Voice: You know Chris, we've invented and tested these amzing new remoted control sailboats. They're unmanned and much less expensive to build, operate and send out than a 3 ship manned voyage.
        We'll still be able to get all of the same information as the manned voayge but at much less expense and no risk of death. The only difference is that you won't be able to make any inspiring speeches or hit any golf balls in a new land.

        Columbus: Oh, umm...see that doesn't fit my particular..umm..(sidekick: idiom sir)...idiom. It's not nearly as manly, adventurous or cool as sailing there myself. So damn the logic, economics and dangers, I'm going anyway.

        ---
        The point is wether or not space should be explored at all. The question is what is the best way to do it. It's not an either or proposition-manned mission or no exploration at all. For everything we can reasonably expect to accomplish, unmanned probes, rovers or orbital telescopes can give us much more bang for our buck given our current level of technology.

        • Re:Short answer: No. (Score:5, Interesting)

          by gravelpup ( 305775 ) <rockdog@gma i l . com> on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @09:45AM (#8791491) Journal
          Voice-over narrator:
          So the robot boats went and did their exploring. Some came back, some didn't. And the people were very glad they had not sent humans on such a dangerous trip. Plus, the robots were much cheaper anyway. They had plenty of gold to spend on better printing presses so the children could learn to read, and better cobblestones for the streets so the people could go to the market in comfort. They even cured the Black Death. Everyone was happy in their comfortable utopia.

          450 years later, a little German guy with a funny mustache starts a ruckus and wipes out all of European civilization*, and the little robot sailboats across the scary sea weren't much help.



          *Some of you may not find this such a bad thing. That, however, is outside the scope of this analogy.

          • Maybe the robots weren't much help, but those Inca orbital platforms made short work of the little German guy and his tanks!

            (outlandish... but who knows would have happened if Europe had never colonised the Americas?)

        • Re:Short answer: No. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by mt_nixnut ( 626002 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @09:47AM (#8791513)
          There a two kinds of people that space exploration appeal to it seems.

          1. Basement geeks
          2. Thrill seeking, somewhat crazy, adventurers.
          Basement geeks only care about the science and are very frightened by the risks. And adventurers have no interest in pictures they want to touch it with there own hands and look back at Earth with there own eyes and say HA! I made it! Eat my shorts space!

          These two personality types have never really gotten along. I mean, lets be honest. The one group spent their early years giving atomic wedgies to the other. Now that their grown up I don't think either group has fully forgotten that relationship.

          I don't think this is an either/or proposition. In the first quest for the moon both personalities were put to use. Both are needed still in my view.

      • Re:Short answer: No. (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Spoing ( 152917 )
        The motivations of both groups are left out of your examples. It's as if they both are borred and didn't have a care in the world.

        CC's life drove him to promote his idea and to secure funding. The idea that there was a western passage to India and the Far East (Japan, China, ...) wasn't new or too strange even at the time. People had tried it many times before and failed (and some suceeded, though that is another research project).

        Chances are, if he didn't go West, he would have struck out on an alte

      • Arbitrary Actor: You know Chris, I can't but think that this whole idea of yours is expensive and dangerous.
        Christopher Columbus: Yeah, you're right actually. Sod this, let's go for a pint, someone else'll do it eventually anyway.

        It's not the same thing. Columbus was not running a scientific experiment or a "voyage of exploration." It was a fairly coldly-calculated commercial undertaking, even if a somewhat risky one. He could honestly answer the question by making several points:

        • Except for the r

      • Re:Short answer: No. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jafac ( 1449 )
        Columbus had a viable technological solution at the time.
        So did Oook and Eeek.

        We. Do. Not.

        It's not just expensive. It's really really frickin expensive.
        Should we just throw up our hands and give up?

        Of course not. But the money should not be spent today on a glory shot. It should be spent on R&D towards developing the technology to make moon and/or mars colonization viable. Technology like:

        1. Much much much much much cheaper and reliable launch technology.
        2. Faster and better propulsion technolog

    • Property (Score:2, Funny)

      by millahtime ( 710421 )
      But what about that property [lunarregistry.com] I bought on the moon. The sooner we get there the sooner I can start building on it.

  • The Moon (Score:4, Insightful)

    by coulbc ( 149394 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @08:13AM (#8790772)
    It makes sense to test the technology that will be used for more advanced Mars missions. Also, if there is a problem, the chances of being rescued are much greater.

    • Re:The Moon (Score:3, Insightful)

      by donnyspi ( 701349 )
      I think the moon and Mars are different enough that using the moon as a Mars test ground is a bit like beta-testing Longhorn on a Pentium I.

      • Re:The Moon (Score:3, Insightful)

        by WindBourne ( 631190 )
        Not really. We still need launch capacity no matter where we go. We still need the ability to land (that will differ in each case; aerobraking vs. powered landing). We still need the ability to handle surviving in a can for a time. We still need the ability to build a shelter in a foreign world with little resources. Perhaps more importantly, Luna could be used to test automated systems that will help us on mars.

        • Arguments don't stand up to scrutiny (Score:4, Informative)

          by Spamalamadingdong ( 323207 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @11:17AM (#8792387) Homepage Journal
          We still need launch capacity no matter where we go.
          It actually requires more delta-V to soft-land on the Moon than it does to aerobrake and land on Mars. This requires a different (bigger) launch capacity, under conditions where you also need to carry supplies which a Martian expedition can produce locally. If the goal is to go to Mars, the development of these additional capabilities is an expensive diversion.
          We still need the ability to handle surviving in a can for a time.
          Skylab, Salyut, Mir, ISS. What the Moon costs us is the ability to use artificial gravity to reduce muscular and skeletal deterioration. Again, an expensive diversion.
          We still need the ability to build a shelter in a foreign world with little resources.
          The character of those resources is extremely different between the two worlds. The Moon's resources are heavily depleted in volatiles and relatively un-differentiated, with lots of native (reduced) metal in the regolith; Mars' include an atmosphere full of oxygen, carbon and nitrogen, heavily oxidized materials and differentiated mineral deposits including hematite. The experience gained on one isn't transferrable to the other.
          Perhaps more importantly, Luna could be used to test automated systems that will help us on mars.
          You can test software in your backyard on Earth. What you really need testing for is hardware, and the hardware designs necessary for conditions of hard vacuum and a 28-day sol are very different from airborne dust and a sub-25-hour sol.

          The Mars Society is testing out mission concepts by mucking around in deserts, in Nevada and up above the Arctic circle. Going to the moon would not help. While it might be worthwhile in its own right, it is not a stepping stone and should not be represented as such.

  • I'd go for Moon over Mars (Score:5, Insightful)

    by meringuoid ( 568297 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @08:13AM (#8790773)
    A mission to Mars is probably going to end up being footprints-and-flags, a wildly expensive waste of time. I doubt anyone's seriously going to fund a Martian colony at this time, not with a supply chain so long.

    If we go back to the Moon, there's more chance that we can go to stay. Supplying a Moon base will be expensive, but not ridiculously so. It's something that could reasonably be done now, without year-long flight times and teradollar budgets.

    • Re:I'd go for Moon over Mars (Score:5, Informative)

      by datadood ( 184067 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @08:30AM (#8790884)
      I belive that resupplying a Moon base would be as expensive as resupplying a Mars base and could even be more. The main cost is boosting mass out of Earth's gravity well which you have to do in both cases. To land something on the moon you also have to carry propellant to decelerate to rest on the surface. Landing something on Mars you at least have the option of aerobraking, reducing the amount of mass that needs to be sent. For supplies, cost would have little to do with flight times.
      • I think it's more a question of using "steps" to get to Mars rather than trying it all at once. There are numerous extra challenges we must face to go to Mars over and above what we must face to go to the Moon. Increased cosmic radiation, long travel times, increased communication lag, etc., etc. Establishing at least a preliminary base on the Moon would allow us to sort out some of those challenges before sorting out the rest.

        Is it more expensive to do things in steps? Of course. But then, it's more
    • How about we just make the Moon Base entirely self sufficient so we don't have to supply it. More expensive upstart cost, but more sustainable and cheaper in the long run. Then, we can use the moon as a staging platforms for going other places. With it's smaller gravity well, it is a lot easier to get stuff off of it. Doubly so with no atmosphere to speak of. Plus, we should be able to get raw meaterial from the moon to build ships to get to build ships to get to Mars.

  • It depends (Score:5, Funny)

    by eclectro ( 227083 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @08:13AM (#8790776)
    Should we go back to the moon?

    Only if they can use the old sets. I don't think we should spend any money on new movie sets.

  • mining the moon for hydrogen-3 (Score:5, Informative)

    by polished look 2 ( 662705 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @08:14AM (#8790781) Journal
    Yes, going to the moon would be nice and if we mine it for hydrogen-3 [jsonline.com] it will also be profitable.
  • The Moon should be off limits. We all know that The Watcher [samruby.com] lives there....
  • Let's go to the beach and have a beer.

  • send probes - for now (Score:5, Insightful)

    by chegosaurus ( 98703 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @08:18AM (#8790808) Homepage
    Send orbiters, probes, robots. Make them bigger and more sophisticated as you go along. Send things that take samples and come back. Do this often enough and eventually you reach the limits of what unmanned technology can accomplish, but by then the launching and recovery systems should be so proven and capable that sending a person becomes little more complicated than sending a couple of big packages of instrumentation.

    Gradually work towards sending a person and bringing them back by sending lots of expendable things, and bringing them back with stuff for us to study here. Scale up as we go along instead of having one immediate big push. Isn't that sensible?

  • Go back. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Simple-Simmian ( 710342 )
    To the moon and soon. I want to have humans back there before I die.

    It makes the most sense. Anything you will use on mars can be tested on the moon or in getting to the moon.

    • I concur... It would be an interesting thing to see; after all, I can only imagine what my parents felt when they watched the first moon landing. I'm all for another trip to Luna. Some of us have never had humans there in our lifetimes.

      I suppose I ought to add "...you insensitive clod" to that, but here it just doesn't seem appropriate.

  • Lunar astronomy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MrIrwin ( 761231 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @08:20AM (#8790821) Journal
    How good would a Lunar astronomy be? Having no atmosphere would seem to be a great bonus, and allthougth there **is** the problem of gravity on the lenses, this gravity is much less.

    I imagine a scenario were unmanned ships send a lot of bits on successive low cost missions, and then astronauts go to set up and service the kit.

    I'm ignorant on these matters, but it would appear to be to be much easier to set up kit on the moon than it is floating in space on a shuttle lifeline.

    • Re:Lunar astronomy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by meringuoid ( 568297 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @08:27AM (#8790865)
      How good would a Lunar astronomy be? Having no atmosphere would seem to be a great bonus, and allthougth there **is** the problem of gravity on the lenses, this gravity is much less.

      Good, but why bother going to the Moon? Why noth just put your telescopes in Earth orbit, which is cheaper to reach?

      If you think launching Shuttles to service Hubble is a burden, well, going to the Moon to repair a telescope there is far more expensive and dangerous.

      The best astronomical use for the Moon would be in radio astronomy. Imagine a radio telescope on Farside, listening to the radio sounds of deep space, insulated by thousands of miles of solid moon rock from the cacophony of radio noise generated by Earth...

      • "The best astronomical use for the Moon would be in radio astronomy. "

        That had occured to me as well, int fact I was not thinking of a single telescope but a whole obsevatory site which for the large part would be done by unmanned craft. Perhaps the biggest problem would be getting down capsules close enougth to the main site robots can haul the stuff into place, but not so close that they might hit the stuff that is there!

        As for risks/manned flight, this would probably be only occasional. One flight ca

  • I can't see a point (Score:2, Interesting)

    by JaxWeb ( 715417 )
    I can't see any point, but people keep telling me it is of great political importants. I can't see why, so I suppose that is why I'm not a politician.

    The article is talking about using the Moon as a base for travelling to Mars. If this would help efforts to go to Mars (Which is a Good Thing), then, yes, sure, using the Moon like that would be great.

    Other points it raise show that some scientists think it is useless (Quote: "In short, we should ask whether dirt and gravity offer any general value to astron

  • Should *WE* go to the moon? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by velo_mike ( 666386 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @08:23AM (#8790839)
    As in, should another taxpayer funded voyage be made? No. If private industry wants to start, go for it. Want your money to go towards it, buy stock. Let's get the US Government's budget under control and regain the ability to pay for the things we've promised (Social Security for one) before we start talking about funding flights to the moon.

    • Speak for yourself (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Let's get the US Government's budget under control and regain the ability to pay for the things we've promised (Social Security for one) before we start talking about funding flights to the moon.

      I'd much rather have my tax dollars going for something like space exploration than into some Ponzi scheme like "Social Security" that I'll never see a dime from.

      If the government is going to flush my $$ down the toilet, at least do it on something that will be in the history books millenia from now.

      What the hell d

    • "Let's get the US Government's budget under control and regain the ability to pay for the things we've promised"

      ...WE haven't promised anything. Politicians looking to coerce votes make these promises on our behalf. Personally, I think a scientific expedition has far more potential to benefit humanity as whole than a bankrupt taxpayer-funded wealth-redistribution ponzi scheme.

    • Private industry won't do it because there's absolutely no return on investment. The moon is a airless dust ball and Mars is an airless rock ball. The only good scientific question involved is "was there once life on Mars". That can be answered best by unmanned probes.

      George Bush made his "moon base then mars" initiative for a few reasons:
      1) Make it seem like he has a grand vision of anything during the election year.
      2) The media will compare it to JFKs moon speech.
      3) His friends in the defense contract

    • Re:Should *WE* go to the moon? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Paulrothrock ( 685079 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @09:22AM (#8791284) Homepage Journal
      We have the money, except now it's going to blowing things up and then rebuilding them. Why not just build things, and save the expense of blowing them up?
  • My personal suspicion is that the moon holds little or no lure for politicians looking to strike awe in media and the public.

    Spending billions on a trip to mars sounds new and cool to anyone. While on the other hand spending money on "going back" to the moon might not win any points in the approval ratings.

    I might be more cynical than most people, but I still hope that the plans are made with long term thinking, and sciense as motivation rather than just popularity.

  • Only if we can do both. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Mukaikubo ( 724906 ) <gtg430b@pris m . g atech.edu> on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @08:24AM (#8790850) Journal
    I'd like both, but if I had to pick one, I'd have to go with Mars.

    Looking at the long-term, the only useful thing on the moon is Helium-3, which will only be useful when commercial fusion reactors come to fruition, and that's been 'just round the corner' since my parents were born.

    At least on Mars there is a whole bunch of science to do.
  • There are some craters in permanent darkness near the poles of the Moon. It has been theorized that there might still be some frozen water there. If that is the case, then the cost of a Moonbase drops drastically.

    They're also near so called peaks of eternal light [bbc.co.uk] where solar power would be extremely effective. Let's send a probe there on the cheap, and find out if there really is water there or not. That could make the decision really easy.

  • Mining moon for Helium-3 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Thagg ( 9904 ) <thadbeier@gmail.com> on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @08:36AM (#8790920) Journal
    Apollo astronaut Harrison Schmitt had a wonderful editorial in Aviation Week and Space Technology a couple of weeks ago, which is similar to this testimony before Congress [spaceref.com]. In it he laid out an arguably sound economic case for mounting a large-scale mission to the moon to mine Helium 3.

    Helium 3 is present in abundance on the moon, and on a per-pound basis could be one of the most valuable substances there is. Assuming that one really could catalyze nuclear fusion in power reactors using Helium 3, it could have profound implications -- allowing us to move beyond hydrocarbon fossil fuels (although, ironically, you'd still need those fuels to power the rockets to the moon.)

    I'd seen pie-eyed schemes for going to the moon for the Helium 3 before, but Schmitt really tries to nail it down, and answer most obvious criticisms. It's definitely worth a read.

    Thad Beier

  • the question that should be asked is 'Do we need to go to the moon?

    Obviously if we are just going to go back there and plant another flag then hell NO, wo shouldn't go back.

    But say theres an experiment or a whole list of experiments that we need to carry out there then why not?

    Soemthing about need being the mother of all things..

  • A long term Lunar presence, either a permanent station or colony, is probably unworkable. The largest obstacle, apart from the supply chain, is the Lunar regolith, which is very sharp and abrasive stuff... without weathering, it's more like ground up, pwdered glass than dust or dirt.

    Lagrange point space stations are a better plan, and a non-permanent station on the moon for science and exploration. Mars would be more workable, once the supply chain problems are licked... and Lagrange point space habitats a

  • Mars First, Then Moon (Score:5, Interesting)

    by schnarff ( 557058 ) <alex&schnarff,com> on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @08:44AM (#8790984) Homepage Journal
    Actually, conditions being what they are on the two bodies, and technology being what it is today, it's actually *easier* to get to the surface of Mars than the surface of the Moon (from LEO, it's 4.5 km/s Delta-V for Mars vs. 6.0 km/s for the Moon), and Mars is a safer place once you're there.

    Just a shameless plug really, since I wrote it, but everyone here ought to check out The Mars Society FAQ [marssociety.org]. Lots of good info on this topic, verified by Dr. Robert Zubrin [wikipedia.org] himself.
    • Actually, conditions being what they are on the two bodies, and technology being what it is today, it's actually *easier* to get to the surface of Mars than the surface of the Moon (from LEO, it's 4.5 km/s Delta-V for Mars vs. 6.0 km/s for the Moon), and Mars is a safer place once you're there.

      True, but misleading. The trip is about 9 months longer; and getting back again takes a much bigger delta-v from Mars than the Moon- in fact the round trip to Mars is a rather higher delta-v than the round trip to

  • Use the moon as a testing ground. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @08:44AM (#8790988) Journal
    Going to the moon, and then using it as a launch pad to mars is total bunk. It would be similar to doing a trip 100 miles away by taking the first leg of the trip 3000 miles away and then coming back. The hard part about going to Luna or Mars is getting off this rock. If we use Luna as a launch pad, we will still have to launch from here to there with just about everything, then re-launch it again. Totally F.U.
    OTH, it does make sense to use luna for a test bed to build an automated system for building a colony. In particular, we need to build rockets to launch large loads. Likewise, we should send automated systems ahead to carve out a home/cave in the ground for us. Colorado School of Mines was recently given a lasar for drilling in the ground (via the US military). This could be used to literally build several holes in the ground for living in. From there, we can expand easily enough.
    Once this is perfected, then send a number of teams to Mars to live out their natural lives. They should be going to colonize the planet rather than plan on going there and coming back. And yes, there are plenty of bright people who would be willing to risk it all for a chance to settle on a new planet.

  • Lets just get to space cheaper first (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Doverite ( 720459 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @08:48AM (#8791001)
    If we can use a scramjet, space elevator or whatever to get to space cheaper we could build a multipurpose interplanetary vessel that we could use for manned missions to Mars, Venus, Europa, Io, the Moon or where ever they decide to send it to explore. In relative safety and comfort instead of a limited cobbled together single use vessel.

  • Why the Moon is Important (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Fortress ( 763470 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @08:55AM (#8791050) Homepage
    It is important for humanity to colonize other worlds for several reasons. First, it gives a degree of protection from disasters of the sort that killed off the dinosaurs. Right now, we have all our eggs in one basket, ripe for extinction. Second, we can't stay on this planet forever, eventually (in a long long time) the sun will die, with it the capacity to support life on this planet. We may have to leave sooner if, as seems likely, we exhaust the natural resources of our lonely planet. Anything that is inevitable has to be faced, the sooner the better.

    The moon is important because it will give us valuable experience in colonizing other worlds, and do so fairly cheaply compared to Mars, Europa, etc. Even if the Moon is a bad site to put telescopes, the knowledge gained by inhabiting another world is irreplaceable. There probably exist problems of colonization that haven't been forseen yet, and the only way to discover these problems is to try to do it. We may lose lives in the process, but that is a small price to pay for the continued survival of the species. I don't think they would have any problems finding volunteers to go, I know I would go in a heartbeat.

    I dream of the day when we have colonized all the habitable planets and moons in this solar system, and the debate rages about whether it's worthwhile to invest in colonizing others. Same debate, same short-sighted folks complaining that it's too much money for too little gain.

  • Motovation? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by busman ( 136696 )
    Personally, while I would love to see mankind returning to the moon and then to Mars, I question the motivation of GWB (aka Chimp Face)

    Maybe I'm just cynical, but to me it's just another huge pork-barrel into which to dump the US taxpayers money to feed greedy defense/military contractors.
    Gotta keep the old economy moving ;-)

  • Concrete steps to getting a foothold outside (Score:3, Insightful)

    by NZheretic ( 23872 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @09:00AM (#8791084) Homepage Journal
    Building a throwaway spaceship and going to Mars just to wave a flag and grab samples of microbial life is really a waste.

    It would be better to start getting a sustainable foothold in space, opening up the opportunity to start scooting around the rest of the solar system

    We need a small fleet of reusable modular spaceships that can be used for a mission and then can be parked in orbit and replenished to be sent out on future missions. The landing component for Mars and other planets should be the only throwaway component.
    The Moon can be a source of materials that are cheaper solely because you don't have boosting the mass into earth orbit.
    In the same way, in the long term, a manned subsurface base on Moon is a cheaper option for maintaining the engineering crews and astronauts themselves, between missions.
    The low gravity and vacuum in space provides some opportunities for new manufacturing processes, which could also provide a source of revenue for the entire space program.
    Asteroids have the potential for providing sources of material for both the new manufacturing processes, creating orbital stations and even new space ships.

  • Just because a robot or satellite could do the job, I do think it's a far better thing to send a human once some semblance of a safety guarantee is established, even though the word guarantee is subject to things like the disasters that occurred with our two space shuttles. To allow someone to see the moon up close, or to see mars up close puts a whole new human light on things and sparks something that they could share with the world. A robot doesnt care, doesnt get excited, doesn't marvel at how we did it

  • 1. Scientifically, the Moon as a stepping stone was figurative, not literal. We go to the moon a few times to test the Crew Exploration Vehicle/What Not, to work out the bugs and train astronauts. Then that same rig goes to Mars on the back of Prometheus. The notion of going to the Moon and then launching to Mars with the Moon as a waystation is somewhat implausable, perhaps dumb, imho.

    2. We should return to the Moon, and put an outpost there. It will be very, very important in Cold War II.

    kulakovich

  • Learning curve (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BCW2 ( 168187 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @09:19AM (#8791250) Journal
    A base on the moon would be a lab to try out all things nesessary for a functional base anywhere else. Just to test shielding and life support in a different environment from the ISS and improve reliability. This would be reasonably close for safety and replenishment/repair. This is a good idea. No one has any experience colonizing another planet yet and taking baby syeps is a better idea. The launch site idea can be delt with later, but the cost of moving everything to the moon seems prohibative.

  • They're not the same (Score:5, Insightful)

    by I don't want to spen ( 638810 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @09:20AM (#8791270) Journal
    These are two completely different places. The Moon has no atmosphere to contend with, lower gravity and would make a great place for testing technologies needed for exploring/ exploiting asteroids.

    Mars is more like the Earth, in that it has atmosphere (and so weather) and would be a better model for eventual off-world colonisation in other solar systems, should that ever be possible.

    If a choice had to be made, I would prefer a permanent base on the Moon to a brief visit to Mars. After all, if its turns out that there are enough resources on the Moon to exploit, possibly we could make mass drivers to boost these into Lunar orbit for manufacture of space industries or vessels without the fuel cost of lifting things from the Earth. How about a test space elevator made on the Moon? (I can see the headlines: elevator from nowhere to nowhere!)

    Also, what happens if we find life on Mars - even of the simplest form? Could we then exploit the planet in any way that would avoid destroying this?

    Yes, I have read a lot of science fiction :-)

  • Should we go to the Moon? Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Zebra_X ( 13249 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @09:25AM (#8791303)
    Why?

    To discover the things that we don't know about living in extraterrestrial environments - BEFORE we strand a group of humans 2 years away from earth.

    For example, we have little to no data about the effects of radiation on humans beyond the earth's magnetosphere. This is one of the biggest concerns especially considering most of the proposed trips to mars exceed one year of travel each way. Creating a base on the moon will give us a better idea of the concentrations, and the long term effects of solar radiation on humans.

    The moon's low gravity also makes it easier to access. Less fuel is needed to land, and take off.

    I think though that the biggest reason for going to the moon first is an old saying "walk before you run". In terms of distance the moon is on average 240,000 miles away from the earth. Nothing really, in the grand scheme of things. If for some reason something went horribly wrong, there would at least be a chance to rectify it, or help. A moon base would be a stones throw away, and with the proper planning the crew of that base could be very safe.

    From a scientific perspective examining the individuals that do staff the base will provide vital information about what living in the solar environment is like and how if affects the body. Also, the moon has 17% of the earths gravity, with mars at 38% the moon makes a good environment for training for low gravity.

    All in all, I think that we cannot afford NOT to go to the moon first. The moon gives us an opportunity to learn about living in space without the risks of being completly isolated from humanity.

    Make no mistake - the moon must be the beginning - and not the end of our future in space!

  • A few considerations (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @09:27AM (#8791328)
    Aside from questions of the human need to explore and the possible economic and scientific benefits of human exploration/colonization of the solar system (including of course the moon and mars), we need better propulsion systems than we have now. Even though the moon seems to be the best stepping-stone to further exploration, we still have to get out of Earth's gravity-well to get there. With chemical propulsion this is and always will be just on the edge of economically impossible (i.e. extremely expensive therefore almost impossible). In addition to that, with chemical propulsion everything in the solar system, including the Moon, is very far away. Orion-type nuclear pulse propulsion systems are at the very least politically impossible right now. Ian Wright was quoted in the Nature article as saying: "To not travel beyond our planet would be like living a few hundred years ago and not wanting to explore new continents." The Europeans didn't explore the world until they had ships which were up to the task. To me it seems that the better expenditure would be on research into better propulsion.

  • Bush lies (Score:5, Interesting)

    by daminotaur ( 732705 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @10:13AM (#8791733)
    The GWB Mars plan isn't worth the paper it's printed on. He (or rather his scriptwriter) is no more sincere about really mounting such an effort than W's daddy was. He just had to say something coincident with the release of the Rogers report on the Columbia disaster. So what policy changes did he really suggest? Cancellation of all current space efforts (Shuttle, Hubble, Space Station, many other NASA projects, ASAP). In other words, his actions are isomorphic to what a frank space opponent would do. To appear "visionary" and not just like a Luddite space exploration opponent, he finessed it by coming up with a dishonest Moon/Mars scheme that will never happen. Proof of the plan's vaporware nature is that there was no mention of this "vision" in the State of the Union speech that occurred the very same week.

    GHWB also had a problem with the "vision thing" and came up with similar smoke and mirrors about Mars before his own doomed election effort in 1992. As an indication of his insincerity, he put Dan Quayle in charge of the effort.

    Bush, a chip off the old block, is a proven liar and doesn't deserve a second chance. Twelve more soldiers killed today. He should be indicted.

    • Re:Bush lies (Score:3, Insightful)

      by amabbi ( 570009 )
      There are so many things wrong with your post that it's hard to know where to begin.. so we'll just begin chronologically.

      He (or rather his scriptwriter) is no more sincere about really mounting such an effort than W's daddy was.

      How do you know how sincere Bush I's plans were? AFAIK what killed those plans were the media and the public's reaction to the $400b price tag.

      Cancellation of all current space efforts (Shuttle, Hubble, Space Station, many other NASA projects, ASAP).

      The cancellation of the s

  • It's political fluff. Manned space flight's over (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Pubert ( 684519 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @10:37AM (#8791932)
    Sorry to sound like a cynic -but I believe the whole 'exploration' Bush proposal to be disingenuous from the start.

    He knows good and well that the House and Senate are not going to support it in any way, shape or form. Especially in the current economic climate.

    But this allows the shuttle to be grounded and manned space program to be dismantled on the sly without taking the direct political heat.

    The bizarre canceling of the Hubble servicing mission it telling. Because of 'safety concerns?' Oh, please.

    Servicing the Hubble is too risky -so, like, we're going to go set up less risky bases on the moon and Mars instead?!? Yeh, riiight....

    Sorry folks, the shuttle will be grounded after our space station commitment is over. The Bush initiative won't be funded.
    The result: Bush can say it wasn't his fault, the shuttle will be canceled (a shuttle follow-on won't be funded either, btw) -and the responsibility for supporting the remaining years of the space station will be shoved onto the Russians.

    It's sad -but I fear the days of manned space flight are drawing to an end.
  • What do the Space Station, the Sea and the Gaza Strip all have in common to answering a desire for a Moon/Mars base?

    Well the Space Station is a good example of cost.
    If we can't even get it together in orbit at a reasonable price, than why attempt other more distant places?

    The Sea is a vast region unexplored.
    Take a Google for Palm Island.
    If we are not building out into the sea than we certainly have plenty of space to build under it.
    Sea Cities should be attempted before Space Cities.
    Much of the same problems can be worked out in the ocean and indeed NASA does a lot of practice in water tanks before going live in space.

    The Gaza Strip looks a lot like Mars.
    Lots of rocks to throw around at each other anyway. My point here is that unless we fix our geo political problems, Mars will become just another sandbox to behave badly in.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you think the system is working, ask someone who's waiting for a prompt.

Close