<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just what are the people going to do on the moon anyway? We were there over 12 times already and found nothing of value to mine. We already have telescopes in orbit that would and will do exactly as one on the moon would do. We also are already planning a trip to Mars within the next 30 years or so if everything can be worked out for safety and speed. Why waste billions on setting up anything on the moon when that money could be spent on research for the Mars mission? This whole moon colony just doesn't make any sense to me. Just a way to make money for a few contractors that charge 5,000 for a toilet and 2,000 for a hammer! <br />Posted by cosmictraveler</DIV></p><p>Hi, Im pretty enthusiastic about both so I dont actually want to take on one side of the endless moon/vs mars argument, but since you asked:</p><p>To deal with specific points from your statement:</p><ul><li>(12 times? is that counting robotic, or 6x2 people?) anyway, 6 missions of only a day or so and only limited locations on the near side is nothing. At the least I would like to see some good modern robotic rovers spending multple years there.</li><li>A radio telescope on the moon could be much better than one in orbit. On the far side it would be the most shielded from human noise in the solar system. It could consist of elements hundreds of km apart. It is very hard to do this in space because you have to keep expending fuel to keep elements in place. </li><li>To say we are planning a trip to Mars in thirty years means we are not doing it. Only trust goals of around or under a decade. (I barely trust the VSE will even get us to the moon). However if in about a decade we have a good heavy lift rocket and have demonstrated we can keep people alive on the moon long term I would have reasonable trust in a decade-long plan to go to mars.</li></ul><p> Some advantages of the moon:</p><ul><li>There is also a lot of science left to be done on the moon itself. It contains a record of practically the entire history of the solar system that has been erased on Earth and Mars.</li><li>It is much easier to get to. Trips of only 4 days instead of 6 months, and you dont have to deal with two year launch windows. Also I suspect landing on mars will be a brown trousers time for a fair while to come.</li><li>This ease also could make it a plausible tourist destination. That means there may be actual money in it.</li><li>Developing the technology to keep people alive in enclosed environments is one of the most important goals for the human race right now. A moon base would force us to do this. But if things go wrong we are only faced with a hundred million dollar penalty to launch some more supplies, not watching our heros die over several months.</li><li>Although resources on the moon are limited, It does have glass and metals and huge access to reliable solar power. Also any components manufactured there can be launched comparatively easily by mass driver. I cant really see us building a self-sufficient colony on the moon but it could be vital if we wish to build large structures in space such as space solar power satelites.</li></ul><p>I just wanted to repeat that despite these points, I would sure not scoff if America wanted to go full out with some sort of <strong>Mars Direct</strong>-like mission. But I think we should aim for what we can do in 10 years if we try. Dont trust 30 year goals from presidents with only two terms of responsibility!</p>
re" class="Apple-tab-span"> </span>radiation</p><p style="text-align:left"><span style="white-space
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram