POLL: Where Should Humans Land on the Moon Next?

[postman1]

We should go to the poles.

But to get there lets explore additional technologies in addition to current trends.

VASIMR to ISS and Moon.

Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket (VASIMR).



http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/28 ... tage_test/

You are right on the mark, Hogan. VASIMR IS the next step in solar system exploration. SpaceX should work with Ad Astra to push R&D and production. I have been saying this in posts for years. I also feel they should go public and solicit funding from a few of the billionaires who say they want to pay more taxes. It could be worth untold fortunes for investors.
Someone else said "possession is 9/10 of the law" and, if the Chinese set up a colony first, they will likely claim it for themselves. Not a pretty thought.

 

[Hogan314159]

Re: There is an option missing!

How about the lunar caves?

Your absolutely right.

That would be so kool.

NASA SCIENCE Nasa News
July 12, 2010:

This pit in the Moon's Marius Hills is big enough to fit the White House completely inside. Credit: NASA/ LROC/ ASU [larger image]
NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) is beaming back images of caverns hundreds of feet deep -- beckoning scientists to follow.
"They could be entrances to a geologic wonderland," says Mark Robinson of Arizona State University, principal investigator for the LRO camera. "We believe the giant holes are skylights that formed when the ceilings of underground lava tubes collapsed."


Japan's Kaguya spacecraft first photographed the enormous caverns last year. Now the powerful Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC, the same camera that photographed Apollo landers and astronauts' tracks in the moondust) is giving us enticing high-resolution images of the caverns' entrances and their surroundings.


http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... abbithole/

To subscribe to Nasa news click on the link in the above link called join mailing list!

 

[Bugstomper2]

The far-side /backside of the moon of course! We can put that 'alien moon base' conspiracy to rest once and for all!

 

[RogerInHawaii]

To Mars. And then what?

Let's suppose that some country or group of countries comes up with the funding and a human trip to Mars is actually accomplished. Yes, there would be celebration for the amazing accomplishment, particularly after the explorers return home again.

But then what? What do you suppose would happen after that? My guess is that people will then say, "hey, we spent three trillion dollars to go to mars, and it was all cool and stuff, but we really need to solve the problems we still have here on earth. They're talking about another half trillion for the next mission to Mars. And it means that we'll ,have, what, SIX people on Mars this time. What's the benefit in that? Do we really need more Mars rocks? Haven't we been-there-done-that?"

In other words, won't it be just like our manned Moon missions? Exceedingly expensive for far too little return.

 

[misner2]

They shouldn't. That's the best option. What a waste of time and resources.
We made it to the moon because one man had a vision and put up the money.
Even though his life was cut short we accomplished the task. Good for us.
Let's take the next step. Mars.

 

[misner2]

Maybe you forget the technology gleaned from the first moon shot. How about personal computers.
How about battery cordless electric drills. How about redistrobution of resources. Jobs. What did Iraq buy us?
Jobs maybe. How about confirmation of no Weapons of mass destruction? How about that we were attacked
by fundamentalist shiites from Saudi Arabia. How about nearly 4500 Americans killed. How about 33000 wounded.
What's a second moon shot going to do for America, reinvent the wheel.

 

[stevedallas]

Which Moon? I vote for Titan

 

[ceptor]

As for the Moon-or-Mars debate, I tend to agree with the administrations plans of asteroid then Mars. Although I disagree with bringing back an entire small asteroid. A sizeable asteroid, at least a few miles in size and something between here and Mars would be preferable.

My disagreement stems from the claimed need to "practice." We've practiced on the Moon. The challenging parts of the Mars mission will be just the deep space flight. This will require some innovation, to say the least. The asteroid mission could "practice" this.

Atmospheric entry and launching we do here. Humans experiencing low gravity for extended durations we do on the IIS. Traversing bodies with low gravity we've done on the Moon.

All that is left is the flight and the study of radiation shielding. As well, possibly, artificial gravity/microgravity for the years a Mars mission would take.

Frankly, private industry should develop the Moon and harvest it's resources. The scientists should move on to the next frontier.

 

[neilsox]

Possibly Kaku got that wrong. Low mass comets would vaporize as they passed though the atmosphere of Mars. Massive comets would penetrate the surface of Mars, where only a portion would melt, then refreeze in a few years. It would take thousands of big comets per year to warm Mars to zero c = 32 f over half of the surface area of Mars. Comet hits would undo most everything we can do on Mars while waiting centuries for the comets to travel from the Kuiper belt or Oort Cloud. One comet probe found dust instead of finding water in the coma of the comet.
Earth would be very unhappy if even one big comet missed Mars and hit Earth instead.
Perhaps we need to practice with moon missions. The success of a manned mission is partly in the small details. Are the details of the Apollo craft still easily accessed? Nearly all the people are dead or retired. Neil

 

[neutrino78x]

As far as the Moon, the first human base should definitely be near the poles. There is ice there, but there are also "peaks of eternal sunshine", where you can put solar panels and have constant power.

The far side has value in that we can put telescopes there. The benefit is especially significant for radio telescopes, because the mass of the Moon would shield the telescope from all the radio sources on the Earth.

I think Mars should be colonized, but it should be colonized the way North America was: by private enterprise. We can send NASA humans to setup infrastructure, but the actual colonists should go there on their own dime, just as the colonists did who came to North America. We need to change the Outer Space Treaty so people can own pieces of celestial bodies. We then create a system where citizens can buy land on Mars.

See the International Agency for the Development of Mars article on Space Review.

--Brian

 

[Amadamerican]

If we are going to use Earth resources to go in outer space, then the purpose must be clear. Earth current population is 6.4 billion, 7.8 billion is predicted for 2025, and 9+ billion for 2050, meaning this planet is getting overpopulated extremely fast. If you think that we are having Global Warming, Unemployment, Disease, Severe Weather, etc. issues right now, with until Earth population get to the above numbers then we really are going to have some serious issues. The time to take action to expand our species is now. As I said before the only reason why we should go back to the moon is to further learn its relations with the Earth, so we can maintain a healthier Earth because it is the only home that we have. The Moon lacks almost everything that would make it habitable, which leaves us no room for expansion. How do we know mining on the Moon for resources, and lunching heavy lifters on it will not affect its relations with the Earth in term of stability? Why is the Moon moving away from the Earth? We need to know all the valuable facts about the Moon’s relationship with the Earth before thinking about doing anything on it. we can think about fantasy trip to the Moon all we want, But Earth safety must come first, and expansion of our species second. We need to use our brain to develop the technology that will open fast access to Mars, so we can make it habitable, and as for the Moon I do not think that we will be able to make it habitable.

 

[SteveCNC]

Well to be honest population and the space program have very little to do with each other , the earths population is going to do what it will do reguardless of the space program because even if we could launch 1000 people a week into orbit and off to mars it still wouldn't put a dent in the population on earth . some of the biggest reasons for humans to want to spread out is the adventurous spirit , and to give the human race a safety net . I think in the early days the moon will be very attractive but once other options open up the moon may not be such a desired place to be .

I would prefer to live aboard a space ship than on a planet or moon , a ship able to travel to different planets stay a while in orbit then move on . But that's me

 

[larrison1964]

Well I don't know about the rest of you but I'm going to the Moon first. It's closer, cheaper, 99.9% unexplored, Mars training missions could be held there, a permanent manufacturing complex could build spacecraft and launch from there, even tourism is viable and finding a large tunnel close to the south pole could supply hundreds probably thousands of cubic living space where we need to buld on the Moon anyway (underground).
"Been there done that." Is a bunch of crap that will actually delay space exploration by setting goals too lofty to be achieved withing the next ten to fifteen years. Mars is a worthy goal but to think that going to the Moon permantly will be as technologically challenging or expensive is folly. The Moon will show a return far quicker than going to Mars and most if not all of the exploration and deep cosmic answers can be gotten from robots for a fraction of the cost. Think about how beneficial a 90-100% selfsupporting base capable of housing hunderds (even thousands) of reseachers, miners, farmers, cooks, doctors and plumbers by the year 2025 would be.
Of course all of this is meaningless while the cost of getting into orbit is so high. When we can get a person into Earth orbit for $100,000 then real decisions will have to be made until then we're arguing about what kind of house we want to live in when we don't even have jobs.

 

[marsbug]

If I could add an option to the list I would add 'near a well preserved and partly excavated volcanic system'. There are still lots of mysteries about the lunar volcanoes and subsurface, some of which could make us reasses what we think we know about the moon. For example the recent re-analysis of apollo samples that suggests it mantle may have been relatively water rich, something hard to fit into the giant impact hypothesis.

 

[Smersh]

Re: There is an option missing!

How about the lunar caves?

I voted for the poles, because of the presence of water ice but exploring a cave also would be interesting I feel. In fact in a way it would be like where we left off in the Apollo missions because I believe the astronauts were due to explore a cave during the Apollo 20 mission, before it was cancelled along with Apollos 18 and 19.

 

[makowski]

lol i think we should stop wasting money to land on the moon and try and land on some plae like mars.
explore something new

 

[Smersh]

lol i think we should stop wasting money to land on the moon and try and land on some plae like mars.
explore something new

Well possibly, but at the moment we aren't wasting any money to land anywhere, because no money is being supplied!

Welcome to Space.com btw.