pyotr filipivich wrote:

Should we go back?

I wish I had taken notes, because I loaned the book. "Mars
Direct" is the program, which figured that using the technology
available in 1994, it was possible to put men on Mars for about 20
billion dollars. No need to invent space stations, moon bases, or
"battle star galactica" multi-tonne Space Cruisers (you know the ones
- a thousand meter long monsters with a crew of 5,000.). Two Saturn
rocket (or equivalent) launches and the project is underway.
Why not the Moon? Because, in short, you have to take everything
with you, there's nothing there readily exploitable. Fuel for a
return trip can be made on Mars - it's evidentially 1890s technology.
Secondly in terms of delta V, the moon is almost as far as Mars. That
is you have to spend money (fuel) all the way to the surface. On
Mars, you can aero brake into orbiter, and land by parachute. And
the environment on the Moon is hostile. Remember, earth plants are
set up for a twenty four hour cycle, not 29 days.

Personally, I don't care which way we go, but I'm more
enthusiastic for a Mars mission. OTOH, Obama care will mean that
there will be no money for any space program. Or any other future.

pyotr

-
pyotr filipivich


It's about the depth of the gravity well, p.

The moon (IMHO) was put there as a useful resource.

Aluminum galore.
LOTS of solar power.
And - damit - water!

So, you DON'T have to take every thing with you.
You mine, refine, and manufacture - on the moon.

Unless, of course, you want to go straight to Mars.
(Which I doubt it really do-able)
We NEED a moon base...

Heck, check the escape velocity numbers.
You can THROW stuff up to orbit from the moon.
(solar powered linear accelerators)

Had we set up a moon base back in the 70s - 80s, I'd
bet we'd be ON Mars by now.

But without that "tree house in the sky"?

We aren't going anywhere.

Ever.


--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/