Earth to Moon to Mars: Yes, We Can (and Should)

The moon landing was as real as Obama'a Hawaiian birth certificate.

wish, how dreary your life must be seeing conspiracies and lies at every turn. You really should seek help for your disorder.

Congradulations. This is one of the first real serious disappointments for me regarding Obama. To me, going to space isn't just an option... its an imperitive. Right now there's seven billion of us all trapped in the bottom of a well of gravity that's pulled in all kinds of nasty things. For details, ask the dinosaurs.

Beyond this simple, yet profoundly important reason to leave, are more economic ones. The human population is ever increasing and there is an entire universe of resources out there to tap. Why stripmine a mountain in China when you can mine and refine a barren two mile long rock in space? And energy is the cheepest thing in outer space; that's where they keep the sun after all. Solar power satelites may be the ultimate in green energy.

I know that the author made the point that if we don't do it some one else will. Maybe that's true. But America has the capability of doing the heavy lifting to get a space economy going, both finaccially and politically. For instance, when space developments get going on the moon and in orbit it's going to raise political contraversy back home. Our planet only has five legrange points (areas of stable gravity) and only two of them are 100% stable. Who owns those two legrange points? First come first serve? Last country standing? These have the possibility of creating some significant problems back home.

As a science teacher I am incapable of listing how many contrabutions NASA has made to our understanding of science. As an American, I am incapable of listing just how NASA research and operations has revolutionized and benefitted my own way of life. As a human, I am awed and humbled by those who help get our own species on to new worlds.

It is often said by those without vision that space exploration involves the sending of billions of dollars into space without purpose. Nothing could be further from the truth. Space exploration involves the sending of a few astronauts and some metal into space. The billions are spent here on earth to make it happen. Billions that drive science, employ tens of thousands of the world's best and brightest, ensure the technological leadership of the United States and perhaps most importantly lift the hopes and dreams of all of mankind. Space exploration has revolutionized our lives and has paid for itself a hundredfold right here on earth. It is and has been the single greatest stimulus for our country's economic and social advancement inspiring each of us to reach for something better in our way of doing things, in our attitudes and in our daily lives.

Man will reach for the stars. It is inevitable. The only question for us is whether we will lead or we will follow in that effort and that decision will likely define the very charactor and richness of our nation's future for all time.

Protecting the future of the Human Race is a goal that we should support. Protecting the future of the Bush Family tree is one we should not plant on Mars. No we can't. I find it simply amazing that there is a secret political group in Washington DC doing all sorts of evil named after Al Qaeda. Both are called "The Family." This alone is prima facia evidence that anyone associated with this group and any wrong should be impeached. Yes, We Can and should.

Based on meteorite samples, we know that the average asteroid has enough gold to supply the entire world for several thousand years and if nothing else we know that each crater on the Moon was the result of an asteroid impact.

For those who think Space is just for a few astronauts I wish to recommend you cut and paste this link:

http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement/70sArt/art.html

By 2050 wagontrains will be leaving Earth filled with settlers who will build Earthlike space stations for their homesteads.

This vision was killed back in the 1970s by launch costs and and naive assumptions about the Shuttle and the cost of rotating human construction crews every 90 days. Technology just beginning back then will allow us to build such habitats at a tiny fraction of what they would have been back then. Today ordinary construction workers could live at home here on Earth and drive to a factory each day where they would strap themselves into a virtual-reality harness and watch a monitor to see things through the camera eyes of a robot in space. Every movement made by the Earth-bound worker in his harness would be duplicated by the robot in space and such space habitats could be built quite cheaply.

It has often been pointed out there is enough material in the Asteroid Belt to construct habitats with living area 3,000 times the size of Earth's land areas. If we dismantled the planet Mercury we could build habitats with living area 100,000 times that of Earth. Tankers could drop int the atmospheres of the gas giants and come up with a load of "Jupiter crude" which we could process for hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen. We could also get these things from the moons and rings of these planets as well as ices from comets and asteroids.

How can a planet smaller than Earth (Mercury) give us 100,000 times more living area than Earth? Or 3% of the Moon give us a few hundred times more area than Earth? The best way I know of to explain that is to simply point out that all the walls of your entire house can be made from a stack of drywall 4 feet wide, 8 feet long, and one foot high.

Going back to the moon, in the short term, is really kind of meaningless. Ask many NASA scientists and they would tell you that manned space exploration is a waste of money. They would suggest that unmanned flights are the way to go as they offer more scientific bang for the buck and offer opportunities to test new technologies such as propulsion and data acquisition. There is really no reason to put men and women into space at this time.

I can see no way planetary travel can be conducted until a colony is established on the moon. The space craft that would be required to make such a journey effectively and safe would be nearly impossible to launch from the earth since it would probably be many times the size of a modern air craft carrier. The only thing needed to escape the moon is the power to overcome the moon's gravity which is far less than the earth's. had the space program taken this route and used the moon as thier space station, we could have built shuttles by now that are capable of going to the moon. If damage to the shuttle occurs on take off it could be easily repaired in a moon lab, much safer and easier than space walking.

I strongly support an active space program, both manned and unmanned. However, we get 100 times more science for the buck from the unmanned program. The manned Mars mission is a bad idea, a kamikaze mission. I believe it would be a big mistake to send astronauts to their death on their way to Mars, or on Mars, or on their way back. I would support returning to the moon sometime in the 2020's. This we could do safely, and maybe accomplish something worthwhile. Again, most of our focus and at least half of our money ought to support unmanned missions. Duane

Whether due to the waning fossil fuel supplies or the public sentiment towards energy sources with low carbon emissions, the U.S. space program should focus on returning to the Moon. Two future sources of almost unlimited clean energy are (1) solar power using lunar materials; and, (2) helium-3 found in the lunar soil (also called "regolith").

1. Solar Power. A permanent settlement on the Moon can either use on-site materials to construct a large array of solar panels on the Moon or send materials into Earth orbit for the construction of solar energy satellites. The Congressional testimony of Dr. David Criswell of the University of Houston established that an array of solar panels on the Moon using primary lunar regolith for materials has the potential of supplying the U.S. with terrawatts of power annually. Athough expensive, Dr. Criswell emphasized in his testimony that the array could rely upon existing technology, would create a clean source of renewable energy and could make the U.S. a net energy exporter.

2. Helium-3. In addition to lunar solar power, the isotope helium-3 present in the lunar regolith could be harvested and transported back to Earth for use in the next generation of fusion reactors. Although the technology has not yet been perfected, scientists concur that controlled fusion power using helium-3 is feasible and safer than other fusion power methods. This fuel forms the basis for the recent release of the movie Moon starring Sam Rockwell. The promise of helium-3 represents a possible supplement to solar power using lunar materials.

Mars missions and other projects not related to energy or the other resources found on the moon should be given much lower priority.

China is expanding its space program rapidly with publicly stated goals including the use of lunar energy resources, specifically lunar solar power and helium-3. Other nations such as Russia and India are also expanding their lunar space programs with similar goals. It is no longer a question of whether the U.S. can afford to return to the Moon, but whether the U.S. can afford to be left behind.

I see your point of view. Please see my post at 4:53 pm EDT. If there were a feasible way to take advantage of the Moon's resources using unmanned machines, then I would be agree with you.

I'm all for space exploration when we can afford it, but we've got a few other things here that probably should take priority over shooting tin cans at other planets for the time being. Like an economy that's still on its way down the crapper, for one.

going into space.Going to Mars would be the greatest thing man kind has ever done. BUT!!! We cant get things stright here on earth. Why think we can/could do better on mars? every place here on earth we';v gone we'v made a mess of it.why would it be different out in space? Get it right here, clean it up here befor we start to screw up Mars. Please dont spread our greed into space.

There's an extremely expensive broken down rover on Mars that'll sit there for millions of years because there's no atmosphere so it won't rust and rot. It'll just sit there. And all that money spent only to discover a dry, barren planet void of life. There's hundreds of thousands of pieces of space junk floating around outside our atmosphere right now posing a risk to satellites and other missions. We've already begun to pollute space and we're supposed to go out into this pristine wilderness called space and taint everything we touch?

Maybe God, in His infinite wisdom isolated us for a reason? I agree with Jerry....get it right on Earth first.

Word on the street is the Apollo astronauts said the moon had certain smells. I've always thought smells required air and air requires an atmosphere of sorts. Smells in a vacuum..........that's a good one!