Why there will be 4yrs between mission 1 and mission 2 is anyone's guess.

I suspect money, only so much to spend per year.

Yeah they may need to save up for the fuel.

Cheers.

I am highly in favor of eventually going to Mars and beyond. If we were ready right now I would beg, borrow and steal to get chosen to go. But I still think that establishing a permanent habitat on the moon is the best first step.

As I said before, colonizing the Moon is more difficult than Mars.

There is still a lot we can learn about living off the earth by going back to the moon.

But it's mostly useless in Mars. No atmosphere, no fertile land, no mineral veins, no reasonable daylight cycle, no water, no carbon, almost no gravity, ... To learn to live in Mars, it's way better and cheaper Antarctica or Greenland than the Moon.

And it has the added benefit of being close by even while being more hostile than Mars. If we can make it long term on the moon then we can surely make it on Mars.

Do you try a first step that is harder than the second step? What's the point of that?

The first step is only 250,000 miles away, approx. 2 days. Mars is 6 months at a minimum away. Yes the conditions on the moon are harsher but like I said, if men can survive there they stand a much better chance when going to Mars. Plus, going back to the moon can be budgeted on a short term basis and doable within the term of a single administration. There is much still to be learned by going to the moon and much that can be accomplished. Tourism to the moon is much more practical than sending tourists to Mars at the present time. Some may think going back to the moon is boring but I bet it won't be for those who end up going.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

I have to say that I do support Bob's view 100%, but we appear to be in the minority. Certainly with those that have the practical and financial resources to make anything happen.

Except China. I now believe that China will have the first and maybe only permanent base on the moon.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

The first step is only 250,000 miles away, approx. 2 days. Mars is 6 months at a minimum away.

Distance is not the most difficult part, it's the colonization. For example, there is no carbon nor hydrogen in the Moon, so you must transport soil and CO2 from Earth in order to produce some vegetables on the Moon. That's simply too much weight to transport. Also, you have a 15 days long night, so you need to transport a big nuclear reactor to the Moon only to produce some vegetables using electrical lamps. That's simply stupid. In Mars, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen, the basic elements of life, are abundant an readily available (C and O from atmosphere, H and O from underground water, and N is abundant in the soil), and you have a 24 h day cycle. No need to transport thousands of tons of excess cargo.

Also, in space, distance is not so important as delta-V, and the Mars trip delta-V is less than that of the Moon.

Yes the conditions on the moon are harsher but like I said, if men can survive there they stand a much better chance when going to Mars.

Then, if harder is better, why don't you choose the long trip?

And, as I said, there is nothing to be learn in the Moon about living on Mars that can't be learnt easier and cheaper in the actual Mars or in Greenlad.

Plus, going back to the moon can be budgeted on a short term basis and doable within the term of a single administration.

I don't think so. Remember, mission's objective is colonization, not just landing. And remember, we have no Saturn V, no Lunar module, no Lunar rover, no descent vehicle, etc. Also, we have no astronaut habitat, no green house, no nuclear reactor, etc. Both the Moon and Mars will need around 10 years of research and manufacturing before the first launch.

There is much still to be learned by going to the moon

For example?

The first step is only 250,000 miles away, approx. 2 days. Mars is 6 months at a minimum away.

Distance is not the most difficult part, it's the colonization. For example, there is no carbon nor hydrogen in the Moon, so you must transport soil and CO2 from Earth in order to produce some vegetables on the Moon. That's simply too much weight to transport. Also, you have a 15 days long night, so you need to transport a big nuclear reactor to the Moon only to produce some vegetables using electrical lamps. That's simply stupid. In Mars, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen, the basic elements of life, are abundant an readily available (C and O from atmosphere, H and O from underground water, and N is abundant in the soil), and you have a 24 h day cycle. No need to transport thousands of tons of excess cargo.

Also, in space, distance is not so important as delta-V, and the Mars trip delta-V is less than that of the Moon.

Yes the conditions on the moon are harsher but like I said, if men can survive there they stand a much better chance when going to Mars.

Then, if harder is better, why don't you choose the long trip?

And, as I said, there is nothing to be learn in the Moon about living on Mars that can't be learnt easier and cheaper in the actual Mars or in Greenlad.

Plus, going back to the moon can be budgeted on a short term basis and doable within the term of a single administration.

I don't think so. Remember, mission's objective is colonization, not just landing. And remember, we have no Saturn V, no Lunar module, no Lunar rover, no descent vehicle, etc. Also, we have no astronaut habitat, no green house, no nuclear reactor, etc. Both the Moon and Mars will need around 10 years of research and manufacturing before the first launch.

There is much still to be learned by going to the moon

For example?

They are pretty sure there is water in some quantity on the moon. From that you can get all the hydrogen and oxygen you need.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

They are pretty sure there is water in some quantity on the moon. From that you can get all the hydrogen and oxygen you need.

That is a start. However, that still makes the place no less hostile and difficult.

You can still get to Mars for less energy than getting to the moon. Takes longer but Mars is 'easier' in that respect.

You also have the killer sharp electrostatic charged dust on the moon that is death to anything mechanical for any moving parts. All combined with no atmospheric shielding whatsoever.


That all makes Mars look in comparison like a beautifully benign paradise!

(Also, we need to take better care before we trash the paradise we have here on Earth...)


Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

They are pretty sure there is water in some quantity on the moon.

Maybe. Evidence? But is it get-at-able?

There's water adsorbed in the upper layers of the regolith.

Grab the regolith, heat slightly, collect the water vapour given off. There is a high enough percentage to be useful. No need to go chasing ice in shadowed craters.


Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

They are pretty sure there is water in some quantity on the moon. From that you can get all the hydrogen and oxygen you need.

In the Moon there is water only in the poles, and only in some craters, and not too much. Water in Mars is everywhere. Look at this photo of the landing site of Phoenix lander:



That white layer is water ice. More than five million cubic kilometers of ice have been identified at or near the surface of Mars, enough to cover the whole planet to a depth of 35 meters.

And you didn't address the other issues I wrote about.

There's water adsorbed in the upper layers of the regolith.

Grab the regolith, heat slightly, collect the water vapour given off. There is a high enough percentage to be useful. No need to go chasing ice in shadowed craters.

There is only trace amounts of water in Lunar regolith, between 10 and 1000 parts per million. Water concentration in Mars soil is between 6 and 50 per cent, depending on latitude.

We here on these boards disagree as to what NASA's or the ESA's next major goal should be just as many good scientists do, meanwhile China is moving toward going to the moon. I dare say that once they are sitting on the moon the rest of us will scramble to follow.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

We here on these boards disagree as to what NASA's or the ESA's next major goal should be just as many good scientists do, meanwhile China is moving toward going to the moon. I dare say that once they are sitting on the moon the rest of us will scramble to follow.

It's all a matter of money these days:( So sad...

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Well, our discussions will not influence NASA nor ESA. They already choose long ago to go nowhere beyond LEO (what NASA calls "capabilities-based approach").

BTW, I don't think it's a matter of money. The current budget of NASA is similar to that of the Apollo era (adjusted to inflation).

Well, our discussions will not influence NASA nor ESA. They already choose long ago to go nowhere beyond LEO (what NASA calls "capabilities-based approach").

BTW, I don't think it's a matter of money. The current budget of NASA is similar to that of the Apollo era (adjusted to inflation).

I hope so! On the latter...

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Look at this graph:



http://www.fdbetancor.com/2012/08/07/the-right-stuff/

The green bars are NASA budget in constant dollars. There is a peak around 1965 but, if you compute the mean between 1958 and 1972 (the year of the last Apollo mission), it is very similar to current budget. Even the peak of 1965 isn't very different from current budget, only 2 times greater, not even an order of magnitude greater. And, as the GDP curve shows, there is enough margin to increase NASA budget.

Simply there is no political will to do something meaningful.

Europe's will is even more pathetic. There isn't any plan to develop a manned European vehicle. The EU has a similar GDP to the US, but ESA budget is 3 times smaller. Even Roscosmos has a greater budget than ESA! With 1/6 of the GDP!

Buzz Aldrin Says First Astronauts to Set Foot on Mars Should Never Return Home

I have considered whether a landing on Mars could be done by the private sector. It conflicts with my very strong idea, concept, conviction, that the first human beings to land on Mars should not come back to Earth. They should be the beginning of a build-up of a colony / settlement, I call it a "permanence." A settlement you can visit once or twice, come back, and then decide you want to settle. Same with a colony. But you want it to be permanent from the get-go, from the very first. I know that many people don't feel that that should be done. Some people even consider it distinctly a suicide mission. Not me! Not at all. Because we will plan, we will construct from the moon of Mars, over a period of 6-7 years, the landing of different objects at the landing site that will be brought together to form a complete Mars habitat and laboratory, similar to what has been done at the Moon.

Cheers.

similar to what has been done at the Moon.

Huh what has been done on the Moon towards establishing a base there ??

similar to what has been done at the Moon.

Huh what has been done on the Moon towards establishing a base there ??

That bit got me as well William, but maybe he knows something that we don't.

Cheers.

Maybe there are a couple of Russians there that they never told us about.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Maybe there are a couple of Russians there that they never told us about.

Who knows...

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Buzz Aldrin is a long-time supporter of one-way trips to Mars. It makes a lot of sense. Everything is easier is you don't have to return. Anyway, I think roundtrips to Mars are doable and not too costly. And I don't agree with him on the details of the mission: no need to build the base from Phobos or Deimos during 6-7 years, exposed to ingravity and radiation (I think his plan is to use robots on Mars controlled by astronauts on Mars moons). It's easy to use the space habitat that astronauts use during the trip as a Mars base. After initial settlement, they can explore Mars caves and build an inflatable base there.