Re: Improved lunar landing architecture

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 09:01:35 -0600, Joe Strout <joe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>In article <dn6af1ts2qljpes6kefh6c54f7r4137gjk@xxxxxxx>,
> Cardman <do-not@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> >Some people keep talking about Mars which would take money away from the
>> >Lunar program.
>>
>> Mars is the main goal here.
>
>According to whom?!?

Basic reality. The one other close location in this solar system,
where us humans can fit in. Also Mars, unlike the Moon, has a far
greater volume of resources to exploit.

Not to forget that the exploration bonus of living Mars is worth a
hundred cold dead atmosphere-less Moons.

>Certainly not in the President's speech, which
>mentioned Mars "and other destinations" only in passing.

Yes, where all of NASA's exploration budget could be killed off by the
whims of the next president anyway. Most likely under the excuse of
now actually having to pay for Bush's Wars. My point here is that
Presidential priory often changes and reflects the desire of the
population.

>And certainly not in my view of how space should be developed, either.

Those people who prefer a direct route to Mars see the Moon as an
unnecessary distraction that will eat up available resource, and what
will only become another NASA mini-disaster that will set back any
further Mars plans by decades.

>> Some people would prefer a more direct route, without going to the
>> Moon first.
>
>Which would be a very poor choice, resulting in little or no development
>of space.

Not really. NASA already plans to do two launches to the Moon each
year by 2018. This could be changed to two launches to Mars easily
enough, where landing could well be easier. And once Mars is "done"
then they could come back and do the Moon.

So it is just a question of priority, where Mars is clearly a much
more desired destination than with the Moon. That is why NASA has been
sending so many probes, landers, and rovers, to it.

I am neither a Moon nor Mars person. Ganymede would be my choice, but
not in the near future of course.

Cardman.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hey Homer
    ... pretend the space race and the trips to the moon never happened. ... less than 10% of the estimated NASA cost ... a private company can do, the government can do at 5 times the cost? ... back to the moon or on to Mars and do it cheaper than the government. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • NASA, spaceflighters living in a dream world
    ... Moon or Mars? ... NASA plans to return astronauts to the moon by 2020, ... Independent panel is reviewing plans and looking at "potential ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Improved lunar landing architecture
    ... The one other close location in this solar system, ... For example, in the case of water alone, then on the Moon we do not ... On the other hand Mars has tons of water. ... >> will only become another NASA mini-disaster that will set back any ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Ice on Mars South Pole Is Deep and Wide
    ... they should be talking to us about our somewhat salty old moon that's ... life might have once upon a time existed on Mars, ... An Earth w/o magnetosphere, w/o moon is simply a much larger Mars. ... Even if we're talking 1% Earth wet, Mars is missing most of its salt. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Improved lunar landing architecture
    ... >> Overlooking the fact that it may not actually have water. ... A noticeable chunk out of NASA's two yearly trips to the Moon. ... No point in going to Mars ... works for NASA to one day land people on Mars. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
Quantcast