Why goto the Moon, and Not Mars??

I have been wondering lately, Why is our Government going to spend 118 Billion dollars to return to the moon? When IMHO the likelyhood of finding any sign of life there is nill. It would seem more benificial for mandkind to be searching for "Other" signs of life in our Solar system, Like Mars.

Wasn't the ISS program supposed to be a spring board for a Manned trip to Mars?? If so then why would they scrap this program?? Don't you think if life or ancient life was found on Mars that it would spark renewed interest in the space programs for generations??

I think most scientist and just people would agree there is like little or no chance to find life on the moon. Im not sure why we are going there. Will this help us explore our solar system?

What do you think?

peace

Think of the moon as a stepping stone. The point is not to find life there.

If humanity can build a permanent station on the moon then it could lead to more cost effective exploration of the rest of our solar system. The energy needed to escape the moon's gravity is much less than that of earth's, therefore any spacecraft launched from there could be smaller since it does not need to carry as much fuel.

This moonbase could be the stepping stone to a similar one on mars.

I posted this thread in the wrong place...my bad

I do see your point, however we are a cunsumer based society, we demand results....I see little point of going back to the moon. Are they going to build a settlement there?..a test run sort of speak?? to conlonize the rest of our solar system. I thought we were going there then back...and that was it..I might be misinformed

peace

[edit on 19-10-2005 by LDragonFire]

Like McGrude said its going to be a stepping stone. Having a Moon base could drastically cut the cost of future manned missions into the solar system like the Mars mission . For example theres water on the moon. That could be used to make rocket fuel and for life support. Theres also lots of titanium on the moon which could be used to construct a spacecraft. Infact there is so much titanium on the moon it might be mined some day to be brought back to earth. It cost alot of money to put objects into orbit about $20,000 a pound for NASA less stuff you have to send out of earths gravity the better.

Most in NASA think the moon will be vital to manned missions beyond the earth and moon. A investment in all future manned missions to Mars and beyond

I was thinking about this one. If we managed to go back to the moon and construct some sort of permanant habitat there think of the revenue that could be made from selling weekend trips to the moon. Im sure loads of rich fatcats would be willing to pay big bucks to be some of the first "moon tourists" In a perfect world this money could then be turned over to fund further space programs. But I know we do not live in a perfect world so it would probably never happen. I know if I had the money I would be willing to take that once in a lifetime opportunity.
I really think it is important that we return to manned space exploration soon, not only for the scientific advantages but for the reason of giving mankind some sort of hope for the future, we need something to look forward to in these darkening times. All I see and hear recently is about negative things that are happening in the world, war, disease, natural and man made disasters. I feel that if we do not have any hope in the future we are already doomed and the downward spiral we seem to be in will continue to esculate untill everything has gone for good.

There is already a base on the far side of the moon. Its a dome shaped building. Theres also an ancient bridge there. During the first moon landing the live broadcast was interrupted for 2 minutes because the camera "overheated," sure during something as important as this, any ways.. For those 2 minutes the ham radio operators who were listening in the the austronauts could still hear them talking while the video was off. They spoke about these objects and saucers that were lined up on the edge of a crater watching them. Apparently they were not too happy to learn they were American saucers. The austronauts switched to talking in code usually when the video was on and when they were talking about these odd objects, but some of it was clearly heard by the hundreds of Americans listening in.

Anyways, having a non-secret base on the light side for tourists would be neat. I'd like to go flying offa craters on my moon-car. If you couldnt do that it would be boring. There no need to worry about flying into space since the gravity is so much higher than we're lead to believe. I mean they could barely hop on it, and one astronaut had to be helped up when he fell. Makes you wonder how they lifted off of it when they left... anti-gravity device?

[edit on 10/22/2005 by ViolatoR]

THink of the moon mission as a much more easily obtained political goal. The moon mission will cost $200 billion, the mars mission may cost $1000 billion. The people dishing out the money and calling the shots as to where NASA is going in terms of space exploration and even the engineers know this: there is nothing on the moon worth going for, like wise there is nothing on Mars worth going for.

So China sends up men on some depleted Soviet-era scrap metal and the US senators and president are in a hoopla over this and say 'we need to show them commies who they are dealing with'. So it wasn't to surprising that this came after what the Chinese had done.

I have read more about our mission to the moon. They are planning to start some type of outpost there. Wasn't this the reason for the International Space Station? A permanit station in space to be the springboard for other flights into our solar system??

It seems to me that scraping the shuttle and ISS programs is only gonna take us longer to reach Mars.

i asked the same thing, especially with mars' upcoming rendezvous, if you will, with earth. it being so close and all, i thought it would have been quite the opportune moment to launch a manned mission.

i dont know, maybe they didnt have enough time to plan it.

The first landing on the Moon to several flights and certain goals had to be reached before the next step could be taken. Scientist were litterally working in an information vacuum (no pun intendead) and needed to know if two craft could link up while in space, or wether an astronaut could survive going EVA. That includes the Gemini program, and the first 10 apollo missions (disregarding the fire in Apollo 1).

It would take months for a ship to go from the earth to the Mars. It takes days to reach the moon, and we allready know what is on the moon, and how to get there, we jsut have to build the technology, and fund it.

A permement Moon base could create some wonderful opportunities as an observatory, mining, and as many said before a stepping stone to Mars. Even a Manned flight to the moon without a permenent base being established is a stepping stone and allows for proper testing of new technology.

I rather not see some astronauts MISS landing on the Mars and end up traveling clear across the solar system jsut because we didn't want to spend a little more money and make sure things are tested properly.

Both of you are right about the ISS; however, There were changes made to the ISS plans because of the shuttle accidents. Further the ISS never got placed in the correct orbit to serve as an efficient springboard for a Mars mission. The orbital inclination was changed to accomodate the Soviets--and its a good thing it was or it would likely be empty now and would never have gotten as far along as it has. The inclination of its current orbit would require Mars missions to spend quite of bit fuel & energy just setting up for the outward fling from Earth.

It is possible to change the orbital inclination of the ISS, but that is a major undertaking. Once a new heavy lift vehicle is built and operational someone will probably suggest correcting the ISS's orbit, but that is a ways off yet.

[edit on 22-10-2005 by Astronomer68]

The government has been there, and found that already.



Perhaps, but we'd need better space vehicles we had in the 60s.
If US wants to go to Mars, think of this moon mission as a "test" for it's new spacecrafts.


There's a lot of other problems associated with going to mars.

For one, the cost would be beyond insane.
For two, no human has ever stayed in space for anywhere near the number of days it will take to get to mars.

When people get to mars, their muscles will be so incredibly weak they won't be able to walk on it's surface.

So before going to mars, we need to create a spacecraft with a module which can create a significant amount of artificial gravity where you could effectively excersise.

Something like that exists already, but it's not sufficient.

And then there's the launch. The craft would have to get a very big bush towards mars by something else....and it would have to be already in space.

And the craft itself will have to be huge, it will need to carry an absolute tonn of water, food, fuel, medial supplies, equipment, emergency equipment, scientific equipment, some sort of an effective escape module, and other things.

wrong, wrong, and wrong.
We can get to Mars in 7 months, the longest a single person has being in space in over 1 year and 2 months...nearly twice as long as the Mars trip would take. and when the ISS crew comes back to earth they can walk...they loose some bone and muscle loss...but they can still easily walk fine...and thats on earth, Mars has 1/3 of our gravity...making it easier to walk about.

Yes, but we'd need to come back to Earth, making it 14 months.

It is going to be extremely cold on Mars and their will be no oxygen to breathe. NASA's current spacesuit is the Mark III and it weighs over 200 pounds. It wouldn't matter if the gravitational forces are 1/3 that of earth's on Mars. Fact is they will step foot on Mars after the 7 month voyage and collapse a few feet from the landing module and never make it back home. They may way only 120 pounds but I am doubtful as too how long they could tolerate this.

The UN won't allow the US to use nuclear rockets and the US is too much of a sucker to do anything the UN tells them to do. Your best chance for a Mars Missions comes from the US's dissent from the UN.

EDIT: How long will the total voyage be for the astronauts, and does anyone know what the longest time spent in space is?

[edit on 23-10-2005 by Frosty]

Well there are other approaches that theoretically could cut the journey down to
2 months for a round trip, using a special solar sail and a microwave laser for propulsion.

www.space.com...

Still "Out there" it is an alternative to nuclear propulsion.

EDIT: Quick question. Do Energy beams have any type of recoil?

[edit on 23-10-2005 by sardion2000]

Since everyone has ignored it thus far, I'm just gonna say it... RIIIIIIIIGHT



Let me guess what you're thinking.... Put the laser on the ship itself, making it self propelled and not having to worry about the laser being on the Earth or Moon. Right? Well, the facility to create the laser would have to be huge, and would use a TREMENDOUS amount of energy. So it has to be on the ground. Plus the added mass from it (if it were on the ship) would REALLY slow things down.

Laser beams have recoil as the photons are emitted, but it is rather miniscule. A solar sail would work just fine without a microwave laser from earth buy jsut using the suns "solarwind" tho it isn't as powerful as a thruster is. Solar sails work best for long hauls where the small amount of thrust increase can add up over a period of years.

My question tho would be could the moon be used as a benifical gravity assist on a mission to mars? or is the moon not massive enough to make it worthwhile?

So? Would the people come back weaker then when they left earth...Yes, would they die from it...No. and after there trip they will gradually regain much of what they lost if they work out.

However if we go to Mars, i'm sure we will have a part of the craft be artificial gravity, done by centrifugal force.

But as for "far-out" thinking concepts...my fav is the MagBeam, which could get a crew to Mars in just 45 days! so a trip there and back is a mere 3 months.

external image

I answered both of those questions allready...good to see you read everyones posts.