3 ms·

I'm a bigger fan of putting a semi-permanent ISS 2.0 on the surface of the moon vs. boots on Mars. I don't work directly in exploration systems, but I'm not the

I'm a bigger fan of putting a semi-permanent ISS 2.0 on the surface of the moon vs. boots on Mars. I don't work directly in exploration systems, but I'm not the only one at NASA who feels this way. But more than anything I think we and the other executive agencies would take any strong commitment on an exploration and human spaceflight direction from congress that survives across presidential administrations over any specific technical consideration. I.e. we're waiting for strong elected leadership.

computerex 9y ago
I am a fan of that too, but I don't know how practical it is. What would we get out of having a manned station around the moon? It's a desolate piece of rock with little to no activity in the core. It's dead by all means, and the probes we have in orbit + instrumentation that was left by Apollo and the tons of moon rock we brought back I think already gave us an abundant amount of data to work with. But alas, I am a computer programmer and that's just what I think. I could very well be wrong and there could be a lot of value in having a manned lunar station.
- ceejayoz 9y ago
  The Moon has water ice in spots (and its low gravity and lack of atmosphere make that pretty easy to get into orbit) that could potentially be used to stock up a refueling depot for exploration further out in the system.
- c22 9y ago
  You could build a telescope there. Also managing infrastructure, survival, and resupply would grant loads of experience applicable to habitating Mars with cheaper fuel costs and a slightly easier abort option should something go wrong.
- thearn4 9y ago
  I think that it would be a good place to develop ISRU capability, to enable us to do further exploration targets in the future.
- CydeWeys 9y ago
  You misread the previous comment. The suggestion isn't a manned station around the Moon (which would have more negatives than positives versus existing LEO stations), it's a manned station on the Moon. There are plenty of reasons that having a base on the Moon would be useful. You can extract resources (including fuels, water, and construction materials) which would reduce resupply requirements, there's gravity which makes long-term habitation safer, and we'd start getting experience with manned stations that would directly transfer over to Mars. On a Moon base, if everything totally fails, you can always still get back to Earth and survive, or survive long enough for help to make it your way, so it's a lower risk than attempting to build a base from scratch on Mars. On Mars if everything totally fails, you're dead. There's also the propellant depot scenario -- mine propellant on the Moon and use it to refuel ships that launch from the Earth. The Moon's gravity well isn't that deep and there are no atmospheric losses, so you can do farther/faster/cheaper launches using a smaller spaceship that reaches LEO mostly empty, then refuels at the Moon.
seiferteric 9y ago
Yes this is the kind of thing I am thinking also. Why do we have to do one "big trip" to mars? It would be better to set up the infrastructure in space and on the moon etc to support future missions further out. Basically, why can't we get to mars incrementally on the current budget? Things like putting a base on the moon, landing supplies on mars, putting a lander in orbit around mars...
- bluGill 9y ago
  Getting to mars is not that much harder than getting to the moon. It takes longer but everything else is just a matter of more power.
vlasev 9y ago
Here are a few facts about Mars 1. You can make steel 2. You can make rocket fuel 3. You don't need a high delta-v to get into space When you combine these facts together, it appears that you can make effective steel rockets. On the Moon, facts 1 and 2 are not true, even if fact 3 is.
ufmace 9y ago
I've been hoping that, whatever we end up doing, we do something that at least as a side effect, creates reusable infrastructure in space that we can continue to use for other purposes. This seems a lot better, if less glamorous, then going for a big, flashy goal, but then throwing all of the hardware away when you're done.

computerex 9y ago

I am a fan of that too, but I don't know how practical it is. What would we get out of having a manned station around the moon? It's a desolate piece of rock with little to no activity in the core. It's dead by all means, and the probes we have in orbit + instrumentation that was left by Apollo and the tons of moon rock we brought back I think already gave us an abundant amount of data to work with. But alas, I am a computer programmer and that's just what I think. I could very well be wrong and there could be a lot of value in having a manned lunar station.

ceejayoz 9y ago
The Moon has water ice in spots (and its low gravity and lack of atmosphere make that pretty easy to get into orbit) that could potentially be used to stock up a refueling depot for exploration further out in the system.
c22 9y ago
You could build a telescope there. Also managing infrastructure, survival, and resupply would grant loads of experience applicable to habitating Mars with cheaper fuel costs and a slightly easier abort option should something go wrong.
thearn4 9y ago
I think that it would be a good place to develop ISRU capability, to enable us to do further exploration targets in the future.
CydeWeys 9y ago
You misread the previous comment. The suggestion isn't a manned station around the Moon (which would have more negatives than positives versus existing LEO stations), it's a manned station on the Moon. There are plenty of reasons that having a base on the Moon would be useful. You can extract resources (including fuels, water, and construction materials) which would reduce resupply requirements, there's gravity which makes long-term habitation safer, and we'd start getting experience with manned stations that would directly transfer over to Mars. On a Moon base, if everything totally fails, you can always still get back to Earth and survive, or survive long enough for help to make it your way, so it's a lower risk than attempting to build a base from scratch on Mars. On Mars if everything totally fails, you're dead. There's also the propellant depot scenario -- mine propellant on the Moon and use it to refuel ships that launch from the Earth. The Moon's gravity well isn't that deep and there are no atmospheric losses, so you can do farther/faster/cheaper launches using a smaller spaceship that reaches LEO mostly empty, then refuels at the Moon.

seiferteric 9y ago

Yes this is the kind of thing I am thinking also. Why do we have to do one "big trip" to mars? It would be better to set up the infrastructure in space and on the moon etc to support future missions further out. Basically, why can't we get to mars incrementally on the current budget? Things like putting a base on the moon, landing supplies on mars, putting a lander in orbit around mars...

bluGill 9y ago
Getting to mars is not that much harder than getting to the moon. It takes longer but everything else is just a matter of more power.

vlasev 9y ago

Here are a few facts about Mars 1. You can make steel 2. You can make rocket fuel 3. You don't need a high delta-v to get into space When you combine these facts together, it appears that you can make effective steel rockets. On the Moon, facts 1 and 2 are not true, even if fact 3 is.

ufmace 9y ago

I've been hoping that, whatever we end up doing, we do something that at least as a side effect, creates reusable infrastructure in space that we can continue to use for other purposes. This seems a lot better, if less glamorous, then going for a big, flashy goal, but then throwing all of the hardware away when you're done.