Why Mars when we haven`t even started on the Moon?

Hey all,

First post here, been lurking for a bit but now feel the need to post,

The Moon,

Why , when we are told we have limited resources for space exploration, have we not followed the logical (in my mind!) process of exploration by establishing ourselves at the first outpost before moving on?.

I mean, why have we not put a base and comprehensively explored (and exploited) the moon before moving on?,

This would surely be the best use of our resourses ,

We have sent rovers to mars but not on the moon? why?,

we are talking of landing on mars when there is so much unknown about the moon?,

If you look back in history, an exploration would involve an initial base/staging post at the point of entry to the new lands (in the case of this example), followed by further exploration into the undiscovered country.

It seems we are wasting our resources by going to every planet /moon in the solar system and all we have on the moon is a flag an old buggy and a golf ball!! lol,

Anyway , i have done a thread search and cannot see anything similar, i have no links/pictures to contribute, merely the wanderings of an inquisitive mind.

Thanks for reading, look forward to some comment.

Not sure if this is in the correct section?

Like i said, i am new!

Can mods please move if this is the case ,

Thanks

very well put mr Mopper
VERY well indeed!

I assume the same questions as you do and i will really like to see the response on your thread.
In fact i have had a thread about the moon recently as an outcome of our mutual wonderings.

bafles me too your question does (wow that sounded very Jendai like...)
it really doesnt make so much sense wondering off to Mars when you have kept your feet away from the moon...
Maybe we weren t alowed to be on the moon by THEM, and the space agencies are drawing public attention far away to impossible at the moment destinations. Sth like crowd control.
Maybe on the other hand we have to be looking forward in case we need to move to ....Mars or whetewer.
Time might tell.

Farewell
GIO

I remember reading somewhere (on ATS I think) that a mission to the moon was 'warned off' by extraterrestrials. I have also read that the moon is an alien base and not a natural satellite of Earth, meaning it was placed there for a purpose, to keep an eye and ear on us in the laboratory.

I am not saying I believe all of this, I am just putting it out there in reply.

My theory (very whacky:lol is that mankind may have come from Mars and some people know this and therefore are sending missions to find evidence. OR

The Egyptians may have been from Mars and again it is an evidence mission. OR

They have already anded on the moon and need a new challenge.
We may never really know.

take care
res

[edit on 18-11-2008 by resistancia]

reply to post by Mopper

---

We have not "moved on."

If you haven't noticed there are presently two orbiters doing extremely detailed studies of the moon. NASA will be launching the LRO in April. Much of the data being gathered from these mission will be used in planning the Lunar Base

The use of the moon as a jumping off point for manned missions to other parts of the solar system is not really the best solution. It would be far more practical to do so from Earth orbit. But a manned base on the moon will provide valuable knowledge about how to survive on other planets. There is no doubt that the technology used there will be used on Mars. Just as the knowledge being gained about Mars by the science being done there now will be used.

www.nasa.gov...


[edit on 18-11-2008 by Phage]

We've already been to the moon, and have the technology to return if we so choose. The importance of going to Mars is that it's a far greater technological challenge - and the technology we develop to overcome these difficulties will be of as great a benefit to humanity as the technologies we developed to travel to the moon.

Further, setting up a permanent colony on the moon makes little sense except in the context of an observatory (due to the absence of a substantial atmosphere and light sources) - which we can operate unmanned and remotely. Due to the lack of resources, the colony would be utterly dependent upon the Earth for all resources - which will put a large strain on NASA's budget. Shipping rocket fuel up to the Moon and storing it there would be highly inefficient as well. It'd be like spending a gallon of gas to transport a bucket of fuel to a destination. By going to Mars, we can mine the planet for resources. We can create rocket fuel from the atmosphere, building materials from the surface and underground, not to mention Mars still has at least some reserves of water. Mars is also a very stable planet, not being geologically active - and it's weather is negligible - providing a greatly reduced risk to personnel and equipment. Even Mars's infamous dust storms are not much of a threat, since the atmospheric density of Mars is far less that what is on Earth. Even 50-70mph winds would feel like no more than a gentle breeze here on Earth. After all, our light-weight Mars rovers have survived these dust storms unharmed (aside from the dust itself getting within the machinery). The possibility of future transformation is another key feature. It will take quite a long time to accomplish this, and although Mars cannot sustain such a state - it would take far longer to wear off than our species can realistically expect to be around.

The trip wouldn't necessarily be one way either. I've read proposals from the Mars Society which indicate that unmanned pre-fab outposts could be sent which would construct themselves and begin the process of sequestering rocket fuel for a return trip to Earth before the crew even arrives - allowing for immediate abort upon arrival. To save on rocket fuel, the capsule carrying crew and equipment would be put into a spin as it flings towards Mars - which also has the added benefit of at least some form of artificial gravity that can combat muscle atrophy.


Besides, if you want to talk about "order to exploration" - then it would make far more sense to explore our oceans before ever going into space. 75% of our planet is covered in water. 50% of the territory the US owns is covered by water. We have better maps of Venus than we do of our own oceans. This means that we are ignoring 75% of the resources on our own planet. The oceans represent one of the largest gold mines (literally) on our planet, and we simply ignore it. For example, one year of NASA's budget would fund NOAA for 1,000 years. Why? People talk of ignoring the Moon, but what of our own planet? Want to find ways to set up colonies on alien planets or our moon, but why not start a project to colonize our own planet?

YouTube Link

[edit on 18-11-2008 by Lasheic]

Your ending was flawlesly expressed!
You have my cheeriest clapping!
Well thought.
I my self belive that humanity should start looking around instead of staring at single points. We should live in a better harmony with ourselves with society and our plannet. Not in the form of exploiting our planet but in the form of coliving with IT!
Greetings to all!

Hey all,

Thanks for the replies,

Especially the technical explanations of the suitability of the moon compared to mars as a starting point for exploration.

I understand the point concerning the aerial mapping of the moon but i still find it strange that we seem to have such a limited knowledge of the closest and most accessable body in the solar system.

I also agee with the point raised about the oceans and other unexplored regions here on earth, what a mine of undiscovered knowledge we could be sitting on!!,

I suppose i am also intrigued by the alien angle , but until we explore the moon further that can neither be proved or disproved.

I just feel that we have only scratched the surface of the moon and , as with the oceans, could be missing a lot, i mean how far have we actually gone into the moons surface?

Can we say with confidence that we know the composition of the moon and can disregard all the materials that ie within?

As stated before , this is just my thoughts without any real scientific back up, other than that i have read ,and as our knowledge seems to be mostly based on supposition, how can we REALLY be sure?

Does anyone know if NASA have anwsered thos question? or even been asked?

Perhaps a job for me !! lol,

Also , with the ever present asteroid threat , would not a defensve position (against rogue asteroids) be better placed on the moon than say , on the earth or in near earth orbit?

Again, sorry for all the questions , just thinking out loud!!

Looking forward to being shot down!! lol,


Thanks again for all replies

There are people like us who live on Mars as I discovered in 2004 how Nasa was masking the doctored photos to disallow evidence of life on Mars to reach the main public.The animal life on Mars is diverse and highly evolved with animals even more highly socialized than our own Earth animals.I'm vze2xjjk on these boards,and have posted this info before for years. There may be huge civilizations on Mars and most likely undeground,but from rover pics I've seen many people who could pass for Europeans on Earth.There are other typesof humanoids to be sure.The animals visit the rovers for years quite inquisitively as if greeting it again and again.I designed rovers Op and Spirit to resemble an animal,and so attract animals.A pure scientist would not have done so.