To the Moon or Mars

[Rlburgendy]

My own opinion is that Obama, who I support on other issues, is making a big mistake. Luna is not only the high ground over the world, giving any power military and security advantages, but in the longer term it will be cheaper and easier to launch missions to Mars and other worlds from a strongly emplaced moon colony. The moon will provide safety in being able to use the larva tube caves for the base, raw materials, water (recently discovered) and even forms of energy production to base moon manufacturing on. For example using the extreme temperature range of light (hot) and shadow (cold) to to cause liquid to boil, making steam that then turns turbines and produces electricity. The steam is sent back into the shadows, condensing the steam into liquid, and then the cycle is begun again. Solar power of course but perhaps not wind power. The moon will pay for itself in many ways a lot sooner than going to Mars will.

 

We dont have to go to the moon first to get to mars, its not that hard to send stuff to mars, we should just start terraforming or .. trying to terraform it, intead of spending tons of time and money on a moon base that'll probley get hit by a astroid. Good luck with repairs out there.

[Maxwell the Fool]

We need to cut back on the program till we have a better way to get into space.

 

I disagree. We need to beef up the program until we have a better way to get into space.

[WrathOfDeadguy]

I have to wonder just how folks expect a "better way to get into space" to be developed when the largest, most capable agency responsible for overseeing the development of said better way is in the process of being systematically stripped and castrated. Yes, there are independent corporate endeavors underway, but all of them are in their infant stages- NASA has not only the experience but also the infrastructure to undertake projects on a scale that no other organization can. I'm no fan of big government, but as of yet successful space programs command a resource base and workforce that no single private organization can offer- and by their very nature, private entities resist cooperation, and in many countries are limited in both scope and ability by law. Let's keep in mind that only three nations have ever had the capability to launch manned spacecraft, and only one private entity has succeeded in sending even a single human being into space in a sub-orbital flight only a few minutes long. That's with 21st century technology and some of the most innovative minds in the aerospace industry behind the project... NASA landed a dozen people on the moon in the late 60s and early 70s, and did so by bringing together many different and often competing private corporations. If government can do one thing well, it's organization.

 

We've had the technology to put people on Mars since before Columbia's first flight in 1980. The mathematical calculations and timing of engine burns required were well within the capacity of 1960s-era computers- we've known how to grow plants in space since Skylab (which would take care of food for the trip), and the question of muscular atrophy is a mechanical problem... we could have built a big enough centrifuge before the USSR launched Soyuz 1. Once we proved the feasibility of orbital rendezvous (Gemini) between separately-launched spacecraft the point of overall size and mass became moot- we could have assembled an interplanetary craft in space. The Saturn V had more than enough payload capacity to launch any single component that could have been required... and once the Shuttle came along, we could have launched an entire disassembled Mars craft in prefabricated sections within a matter of weeks, then ferried up fuel and other provisions for the trip.

 

Yes, it costs money- a bloody lot of it. Does every member of congress need dozens of support staffers at taxpayer expense? Heh. The money is there- we simply have our priorities somewhat *ahem* out of order. As a species, if we do not reach out into space, we are wasting our potential. The social and philosophical evolution of humanity has always been driven by exploration and expansion and the new ways of life developed to adapt to new environments. Just look at the vast array of different cultures which have arisen on this planet of ours... imagine the leap forward offered by the perspectives of Lunar or Martian colonists some centuries in the future! Scientific discovery is only one reason to explore, and a damn good one- but not the only one. A great many less tangible discoveries are waiting for us out there, and they simply cannot be found with probes and telescopes. We as a species will ultimately stagnate if we fail to explore- as our society on Earth becomes more and more interconnected, it will homogenize. Space exploration can throw something new in the pot again. I believe it is worth any price.

[brokenergy]

I think we at this moment and time focus on the theory behind it all, create new material, new technology and perform small tests to insure a safe ship in order to travel to outer space. Sending people to space in a quest of national glory is not really the way to go but sending people to space to better understand our universe is a quest I'm willing to consider.

[Turian3]

As Wrath_Of_Deadguy01 said we have had the technology to accomplish missions to the moon and mars since the sixties. It was also mentioned that the cost would be great, however it appears our leaders have other priorities than space exploration. Also other people have mentioned that fixing problems on earth should take precedent over exspensive space flight. However the Earth will never be perfect and I actually believe that the benefits brought to Earth from spaceflight will make our planet more prosperous. Technological breakthroughs are bound to happen and eventually traveling into space may one day be just as easy as taking a plane.