3 ms·
I'm advocating to go directly to Mars and skip trying to figure out everything on the Moon first. The Moon is more difficult and has a lot less upsides. Obviou
by btkramer9 7y ago
I'm advocating to go directly to Mars and skip trying to figure out everything on the Moon first. The Moon is more difficult and has a lot less upsides.
Obviously 3 days is better than 6 months. A lot more can be done with a shorter window. I just don't think it justifies passing up all the upsides Mars has to offer
- magduf 7y agoI completely disagree about the Moon being more difficult. We can get to the Moon in 3 days flat. We cannot do that with Mars; to go there, humans have to spend months in space being exposed to hard radiation. With the Moon, that isn't a problem because 3 days cosmic radiation exposure isn't a big deal, as proven by our many landings on the Moon in the 60s-70s. On top of that, the Moon has proven mineral resources which can be mined and refined on-site a lot easier than trying to do the same on Mars. Mars is just too far away. If you're going to neglect distance, then we should just skip Mars and go straight to Alpha Centauri or some other star with a bunch of exoplanets.
- kjs3 7y agoSpot on...I have to assume btkramer9 is just a obsessed Zubrin fanboi or so scifi obsessed there's no objectivity. I get that Kerbal Space Program let's a new generation of armchair celestial mechanics say "Delta V!" as though that's all that matters, but handwaving the basic logistics (simple things, like fuel and water) between a Moon and a Mars mission and trying to make them equivalent undertakings...that's some seriously delusional thinking.