That's the recommendation of the Planetary Society.
I don't necessarily have a problem with deferring the Moon, since NASA seems determined to go to the moon in the most cost-ineffective and unsustainable manner possible. What chaps my drawers is deferring the development of critical infrastructure essential to affordable access to LEO and beyond.
I think going to Mars with a permanent colony gives us the Moon, but going to the Moon doesn't give us Mars. Instead, it delays it for another generation. After fifty years, I'm a bit sick of the delays.
Considering what budgetary realities may be in the next couple of years, I don't think NASA is going anywhere.
They'll be without a means of getting to orbit as they undergo substantial cuts to their budget.
You mean the call for "increased cooperation with other nations to create a true partnership for space exploration" didn't make you throw up, a little?
You mean the call for "increased cooperation with other nations to create a true partnership for space exploration" didn't make you throw up, a little?
No more than usual. It is the Planetary Society, after all.
Space belongs to humanity? What a load of crap.
Private property and competition will open up not just the solar system but the whole shebang eventually.
Governments may try to interfere, but anybody with the resources to physically claim it will own it.
NASA is mostly irrelevant.
I think going to Mars with a permanent colony gives us the Moon, but going to the Moon doesn't give us Mars. Instead, it delays it for another generation. After fifty years, I'm a bit sick of the delays.
The delays are because of the attitude above. During the SEI and the VSE era's NASA demanded that a heavy lifter be built because it would help us get to Mars. The heavy lifter costs too much and takes too long to build. Even with the Monster that Mike wanted to build (hint it is not going to be built as I predicted four years ago), it was going to take 6 to 7 launches to do a Mars mission. Even if you did that, considering that each launch cost a billion bucks, it would rapidly sour the public on the whole idea. Flags and footprints on Mars is not the way to go, period.
The Moon has the resources, the energy, and more importantly, is only three days away, so it is the jumping off point to the rest of the solar system, if done properly. NASA in the SEI and the VSE era did not want to do it properly so you lose both Mars and the Moon when the next political windshift occurs.
We may keep the Moon this time, there are interesting indications of that. However, with the economy the way that it is, forget Mars in the near term. If you do this, then you will get Mars, quicker than you otherwise would, built upon what we learn and do on the Moon.
NASA demanded that a heavy lifter be built because it would help us get to Mars.
Because NASA wanted to build battleships (90 day report) when the Saturn V was all we needed. Even after Mars Direct, they changed it to not so direct. But this is beside the point, it's not about how many tons you can lift. It's about incremental achievement. SpaceX is going to Mars, but they start with the F1; decided they could skip the F5 and go straight to the F9 and have plans for a more powerful engine than the Merlin 1C... they are doing it incrementally with each step making economic sense. When (not if) they get to Mars, they will do it profitably. Elon has a vision. NASA doesn't, they have a political jobs program.
Flags and footprints on Mars is not the way to go...
Right, but it's a great way to claim property. Which will become one of the great motivations for future expansion. Mars is too big for a single Corporation to claim it, but there's plenty more that can be claimed successfully.
three days away
You call it a feature; I call it a bug. We need people to die on Mars. Lot's of them. I'm thinking thousands. How many people died opening up the west? I'm for one way trips and we already have thousands of potential volunteers. Not that some wouldn't return.
[The Moon] is the jumping off point to the rest of the solar system
No it isn't. Orbit is halfway to anywhere... that's where the fuel depot should be. Going to the Moon before any other destination increases the cost and reduces safety. You might swing around it, but landing before going somewhere else is foolish. Go to the Moon only if the moon is your destination. Otherwise, go directly to where you want to go.
NASA ... did not want to do it properly
Why would they? They're a jobs program.
...forget Mars in the near term. If you do this, then you will get Mars, quicker...
The Moon only helps us get to Mars if we can use it to test equipment. I don't see that happening as much as some believe.
We are more ready to go to Mars now than the Moon in the sixties. The Moon does not have the resources that are on Mars. Mars is the second best habitable site in the solar system. The moons of Jupiter are probably better suited for life than our own Moon.
Camping in your own back yard will never make us a space faring civilization. The Moon is just another Earth orbit. Going in circles is going nowhere.
The Moon only helps us get to Mars if we can use it to test equipment. I don't see that happening as much as some believe.
This is where we disagree. The Moon is where we learn to live off the planet. It is where we process rocks into useful metals, it is where we take those metals and build useful things from them, including spaceships to go other places. It is absurd to send up everything you need for a Mars or asteroid mission from a 11 km/sec gravity well where 90% of the Mass that lifts off from the ground is spent sending the 5% of that mass into an Earth orbit.
It makes no sense to send something to the Moon from Earth to then send somewhere else; better to just go direct. The mass cost you are talking about gets paid regardless...
It is absurd to send up everything you need for a Mars or asteroid mission from a 11 km/sec gravity well where 90% of the Mass that lifts off from the ground is spent sending the 5% of that mass into an Earth orbit.
Please correct me if you see it differently, but I think I've identified the main point where we diverge.
You are assuming a future capacity for manufacturing on the Moon where I am looking at what we have today or in just a few years.
However, you are correct that if we manufacture rockets on the Moon they have an advantage over an Earth launch. Talk about delay!!!
Ok, perhaps you're not talking about making rockets yet my point about going direct stands; however, what about making other things on the Moon that we stop to pick up? Does the gravity costs or savings make it worth it?
What makes up the mass difference? Fuel! Ok, the candlestick as well. So now we're back to manufacturing rockets.
Dennis, as much as I admire you, I still have to respectfully disagree... the Moon is a distraction from every other destination. Even though I agree it has practical experience uses.
Oops. I'm anon.