www.ditl.org

Captain Seafort wrote:

Monroe wrote:And to answer your earlier statement, many people think the Moon is a necessary stepping stone towards Mars. Like on the Moon you could build a larger rocket than you could on Earth.

I don't think the Moon as a construction site is the key reason, so much as to gain experience. The atmosphere of the two (or lack thereof) is almost identical, so training could take place there in much more realistic conditions than could be achieved on Earth.

Some Lady wrote: Besides, there's no reason to actually go to the Moon just to develop self-sustaining habitats when you can do all that work right here in a much ... See Moresafer environment (i.e., Biosphere 2 out in Arizona, which was actually a private venture -- yes, they failed, but they learned a lot in the process).

I wrote:"here's also a difference between building/developing something on Earth, in an environment we've evolved in, are used to and know how to operated and an environment with 1/3 or 1/6th of our gravity and no appreciable atmosphere to provide air or a magnetic field to protect from solar radiation. While things like Biosphere 2 are a fantastic idea, ... See Moreif the biosphere were to fail or the building were to collapse there'd still be a nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere outside to breath; there is still a magnetic field protecting from hard radiation, there are still plants and animals outside of the biosphere to survive on. That's a little different from trying to created a foothold of life on a Barren Heap of Rock."

Tyyr wrote:It's largely an experience goal. Remember there's no one in the US today who's designed a man capable rocket. With the designers starting largely from scratch its not a bad idea to practice on the target 3 days away instead of 9 months away.

Some Dude wrote:But what I don't understand is this: our last moon landing was 37 years ago. The youngest people who worked on that project are in their 60s now. An entire generation of aerospace people have never seen anything fly higher than the couple hundred miles at which the space shuttle orbits. I would think a return to the moon is a necessary shakedown cruise to get the scientific community ready for Mars. It's not a question of, "Does someone somewhere know this technology." Knowledge doesn't work that way. It's a matter of "Can I find 500 scientists and engineers who have current work experience on this technology."

Reliant121 wrote:I think asteroid bases would be an ideal way to provide resources for a moon base, however the pure distance to get there is a significant hindrance.

Tyyr wrote:There's no real reason to mine an asteroid to supply the moon. Like Mikey said, the distance alone is a huge hindrance. Also, most of the "raw materials," you need for a moon base are present there already. You can do amazing things with concrete in 1/6th G. Your need for steel and heavy metals is very reduced in a moon base.