Obama wants us to go to Mars, calls Moon old hat

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Obama outlines new NASA strategy for deep space exploration - CNN.com

OK, so Obama wants to push the commercialization of space travel, a Mars mission, but an Apollo pod on the International space station (for emergencies) and cut lunar missions.

Most of this is OK, except the last part. Well, and Mars was in the works anyway. Maybe its just me, but I kinda see the moon as a good starting point to build on. It takes, what, 2 to 3 days in the fastest manned missions?

The ideal conditions to launch to Mars would only occurs about every 25 months with the least distance traveled and least fuel needed. From that point it would take up to 214 days to get there. A nuclear rocket could get us there in four months.

How Long Does it Take to Get to Mars?

There's more details about that there. The tricky part seems landing Mars.

Anyway, maybe I've just watched too much Sci-Fi or comic books, but don't you think setting up shop on the moon first would let us do and learn more. There are big pros with equally big cons here, but I think some of the cons can be overcome with some innovations that would come with more exploration.

This wiki page its into some of the guts of it:

Colonization of the Moon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, perhaps a commercialized space programs could do the legwork and do the moon stuff, but I think just jumping right to Mars is kinda getting ahead of ourselves. Mars and the Moon are entirely different beasts, but since Mars isn't habitable at present either, we can certainly gain some experience by working with something closer.

If something on the moon goes wrong, for example, we can get someone up there in a matter of days to help. Something goes wrong with a manned Mars mission and, well, nice knowing ya.

So, whatcha think? I mean, I'm no astronaut, but I'm kinda leaning toward Armstrong and others who've been out there than the president just saying we've been to the moon enough. I actually think the commercialization of space programs could be good, certainly would create jobs. At the same time, I don't want the moon to become ad space.

I'd like to go to the moon, though. Its probably the coolest place to go that would be attainable within my lifetime. Just going out on a limb here, but while I'm sure we'll get to Mars in my lifetime, I don't think I'm ever going there

[Kailea]

Re: Obama wants us to go to Mars, calls Moon old hat

mmm I would agree, it makes more sense to at least give the Moon a shot first

[Malacite]

Re: Obama wants us to go to Mars, calls Moon old hat

Eat our dust America.

CBC News - Canada - N.S. company helps build plasma rocket


and yeah Moon is old news. I watched the whole speech today live on Rick's List, was pretty good stuff. Though there is probably more to be found on the Moon (NASA did in fact find frozen water) we gotta look past that. I'm sure we'll get back to it eventually, I just hope they don't go all Futurama on us with it >_>

[Feba]

Re: Obama wants us to go to Mars, calls Moon old hat

I think the big thing about the moon is that we can just as easily have a second Apollo. We go there, we set up some flags, play a bit of golf, and then interest wanes and pack it up and never return. I really don't want us to be landing on the moon in 2015, and deciding "oh we should have a space station instead of a moonbase". Going to Mars might give us more to discover (with people that can turn over rocks, look around and notice things that look off), albeit the cost is of course higher and the gains in terms of potential resources to be used on earth being much lower. There's also the possibility that we'll find something on Mars that will suddenly make it much more attractive for a permanent base and possibility even the beginning of human colonization, not that I would bet on it.

I do have my concerns about going back to the moon, too. There's always been a little fear in the back of my mind that we're going to fuck up the moon. Mine it to shreds, build up cities on it, something. Especially without anyone actually seeing it as their home, I'd be afraid we pull up all we can get (what was that potential nuclear fuel they found up there; helium-2 or something like that?) without anyone being slightly concerned. It's bad enough what we've done with Earth, but I don't want us to end up with a moon that's never going to be full again.

Personally, my opinion is that space exploration should be done with the goal of permanent, self sustaining, human habitats. I don't care if we put giant cylindars at our lagrangian points, find a way to produce water on the moon, or go onto Mars, as long as we work towards that. I think that in the immediate future, Mars has the highest potential of being quickly colonized, and I think that Martian solutions to problems might be far more applicable on Earth. For example; the need to recycle will be much higher with limited resources. The solutions Martians develop would be far more likely to be applicable on Earth than on the Moon, where even something which is a 'constant' to almost everyone alive today --gravity-- is even more significantly different. Also, I think Mars has the ability to take on many more permanent colonists, given the much more significant distance, and the increased difficulty in getting home. In that case, Martian solutions to problems would likely be the 'comfortable if maybe a little dirty' approach that pioneers, people who have to live in a place, and non-engineers in general would come up with; instead of some bureaucratic engineered solution that would be hell to enforce on Earth.

In the midterm (I use this term like a geologist), Mars would seem to be much more able to be Terraformed into an "Earth 2" than the Moon, and in the short-to-longterm it would seem to be a far better place to relocate humanity in case of a disaster.


That said, I think we're going to get there eventually, and there's really no saying which way is fastest to progress. I also get the impression that this proposal is just that-- a proposition which can and is expected to be changed before being finished. Given those two, I think it's a bit too early to start criticizing plans from either side. We don't know if Obama's plan is going to put Martian colonization forward or back; we don't know what would come of a permanent lunar base.

Private spaceflight also concerns me. Cool as spacestation hotels are, our atmosphere is becoming very cluttered anyway, I'm not sure we need to be putting up resorts for multi-millionaires to hang out at. I realllllllly do not want to see companies start putting up stripmalls on the moon. I fully support private vehicles to the stars-- it doesn't seem likely to have a government funded program start carrying civilians, at least not right away. I could see something happening like letting private companies take the field, and then have the government absorb control, like many countries do with their airlines.

It's very hard to talk about space-funding, in any case. It's like foreign aid, only you're putting it on a rocket. The immediate description isn't very appealing. "We're going to spend billions of dollars so that a few lucky fuckers get to walk around on space rocks for awhile, and then bring stuff back for geologists to study" and "we're going to give away tons of money to buy food, clothing, shelter, and so on for needy people in other countries, though we've still got plenty of homeless people here" both sound like terrible ideas on paper; but it's the secondary effects that are very rewarding about it. It's much harder to see those secondary effects, though, and therefore harder to justify it.

If you ask the average person about inventions thanks to NASA, you're probably going to come up with a list resembling something like "Space pens, tang, velcro, those foil blankets". Not a terrible list, but certainly not advances for humanity worthy of the cost we've put into it.

EDIT: dear god where did all this text come from

[Durahansolo]

Re: Obama wants us to go to Mars, calls Moon old hat





It is only a matter of time...

[DakAttack]

Re: Obama wants us to go to Mars, calls Moon old hat

I think it would be easier and more cost efficient to launch a craft from the moon to mars than from the Earth to mars. Plus, as Mal cited, you could go plasma rockets all the way instead of burning up what little fossil fuel we have left.

[Feba]

Re: Obama wants us to go to Mars, calls Moon old hat

I think it would be easier and more cost efficient to launch a craft from the moon to mars than from the Earth to mars.

That's the other thing, lunar launches could be much cheaper in the long term, but in the short term it's not too much help. We'd have to mine lunar resources, refine them, and set up launch facilites, none of that is cheap on Earth. If we're just going to lift all of the resources from earth and then put them together for the final launch vehicle, I don't see why we'd want to put them on the moon instead of just letting them float around as a space station until it's ready to be launched.

[Caspian]

Re: Obama wants us to go to Mars, calls Moon old hat

I'm curious to see where we're at with the rail gun application of launching vehicles into space. No real fuel at all. Just need the electricity to power the magnets. It would, by and large, negate the need for a space station/moonbase.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Obama wants us to go to Mars, calls Moon old hat

Well I think think as far as environmental concerns go, launching from the moon would be for the better. As far as colonies and different gravity situations go, though, we could still get more experience starting off on the moon.

A 180 lb man on Earth is going to weigh is going to weigh 29.8 on the moon and 67.8 on Mars. So even on Mars with its atmosphere, we'd be bounding around because its a little smaller than Earth, though not to the degree of the moon. if we could come up with the tech on the moon for a, shit, just call it a gravity generator, to get closer to simulating earth's gravity within colonies that at least means our bodies aren't as adversely affected.

[Pwnagraphic]

Re: Obama wants us to go to Mars, calls Moon old hat

Wasn't Mars showing more signs of life?

[Caspian]

Re: Obama wants us to go to Mars, calls Moon old hat

Well, they're currently able to generate artificial gravity fields. They just take up a factory and can only affect an area the size of a coffee cup. Gotta believe, though, that everything in technology gets smaller and generating artificial gravity fields will become more commonplace and efficient.

[Kailea]

Re: Obama wants us to go to Mars, calls Moon old hat

Wasn't Mars showing more signs of life?

we have to get to them, before they get to us ;p

[Feba]

Re: Obama wants us to go to Mars, calls Moon old hat

Wasn't Mars showing more signs of life?

More than the moon? Yeah sure why not. If we find evidence of life on the moon, that's evidence of impact, not that life grew there by itself. Mars may actually have been life sustaining at some point-- given what we know about life being a stubborn bastard, it's not unthinkable that very small life is still on mars, bacteria, possibly some kind of insect-like things. I don't think there's any place on earth where life could survive that it doesn't exist, and it also exists in quite a few places where it shouldn't be able to survive too.

[DieselBoy09]

Re: Obama wants us to go to Mars, calls Moon old hat

Well, they're currently able to generate artificial gravity fields. They just take up a factory and can only affect an area the size of a coffee cup. Gotta believe, though, that everything in technology gets smaller and generating artificial gravity fields will become more commonplace and efficient.

Could just rapidly rotate the apparatus. You don't need to "generate artificial gravity fields", just use physics.

[Feba]

Re: Obama wants us to go to Mars, calls Moon old hat

Could just rapidly rotate the apparatus.

On the surface of the moon? Do you really want to live in a house that is spinning around wildly on the moon?