NASA takes first step toward landing on the moon.

[Jockey]

It's not time or distance, it's launch mass savings.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation

Going to Mars will take lots of ship (mass) and fuel for trans-Martian-orbital-insertion maneuver (more mass). Launching from earth means fighting earth gravity for every kg you send up the well. Using a lunar base station that can access lunar ice and refine fuel means you fight the 1/3g of lunar gravity to refuel before continuing to Mars and thus have significantly lower costs.

I guess so.

Of course you are completely ignoring the massive cost of creating a Lunar base.

[Hards Alumni]

I guess so.

Of course you are completely ignoring the massive cost of creating a Lunar base.

Who cares.

[Uncle Rico]

Who cares.

Do what boomers did, kick that can down the road

[jficke13]

I guess so.

Of course you are completely ignoring the massive cost of creating a Lunar base.

No, I'm explaining the reasoning for why one would route their Mars trip past the moon. You asked why go to the moon on the way to Mars. I provided your answer.

Since now you're talking about a different issue entirely, and because I'm a nerd:

There's (probably) a calculation you could do where you plot one curve of "cost of launching lunar base mass and then fuel up the lunar well" against "cost of building pure fuel freighters and launching those from Earth's well." I'm not going to even try to back of the napkin the math here, but I think it's a logical conclusion to imagine that maybe trip 1 is cheaper to do the grunt outta Earth's well route, maybe trip 2, maybe even trip 3, but eventually the lunar base pays dividends.

Also, in order to make a Mars trip a survivable venture, we've got to do *a lot* of learning how to survive in deep space. ISS isn't deep space (not that lessons learned there are useless, they're just not necessarily testing the exact things we need to test). Apollo was the closest we came, and our guys logged less time combined than a one-way shot to Mars would take, which again isn't quite what we need. Putting astronauts in a near analogue for deep-space that's a 3(ish) day emergency flight home is probably a better learning environment than just hauling off and shooting people Marsward and hoping it all works out).

[Spotcheck Billy]

I've watched For all Mankind. What's the point in actually going to Mars anyway, the DPRK already has people there.

[NCMUFan]

I worked for a federal lab the first 7.5 years of my work career.
Nothing as prestigious as NASA.
But my feeling now is that they are a tremendous waste of some of our brightest minds.
Sometimes they barely have the money to pay salary and keep the lights on.
If you have the drive, go into private industry.  That is where mankind really advances.   
IMHO.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

???  He was responding to Jockey.

I understand why its easier to go to Mars from the Moon rather than from Earth. I just don't understand why we are sending humans to Mars - or even to the Moon. We have the capability to send probes and rovers.  We are even proposing to retrieve some samples. Which is really cool.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_sample-return_mission

You dismissed the idea in your first post, then continued to dismissed it.

I'll correct my post:

Sultan and Jockitch  > Tsiolkovsky

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

You dismissed the idea in your first post, then continued to dismissed it.

I'll correct my post:

Sultan and Jockitch  > Tsiolkovsky

I questioned the need for an "extra earth base station" because I don't see much reason to go to Mars in the first place. I understand the physics behind it.

[pbiflyer]

Was it's a small first step or a giant leap?

[Pakuni]

It's not time or distance, it's launch mass savings.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation

Going to Mars will take lots of ship (mass) and fuel for trans-Martian-orbital-insertion maneuver (more mass). Launching from earth means fighting earth gravity for every kg you send up the well. Using a lunar base station that can access lunar ice and refine fuel means you fight the 1/3g of lunar gravity to refuel before continuing to Mars and thus have significantly lower costs.

Yeah, but have you considered all the luggage that will be lost on those connections?
And you think you have to wait forever for United Airlines to deliver your bags to your hotel now? Just wait.

[MUeng]

I worked for a federal lab the first 7.5 years of my work career.
Nothing as prestigious as NASA.
But my feeling now is that they are a tremendous waste of some of our brightest minds.
Sometimes they barely have the money to pay salary and keep the lights on.
If you have the drive, go into private industry.  That is where mankind really advances.   
IMHO.

good points. Recently we've been losing employees to startups and human spaceflight companies. No one seems to go work at nasa. They may work a nasa contract on the development side but it's a lil different.

[MU82]

In a holding pattern ...

[4everwarriors]

Kinda like dis, hey?




#freeziggy2022toinfinity

[MUBurrow]

Kinda like dis, hey?

Imagine being those astronauts doing that right now, aina? "Hey no big problem, we just have a fuel leak in the engine. We'll get that fixed right up and have your asses in space in no time."

EDIT: I just thought to look and am seeing this is uncrewed.  Ignore, but leaving to memorialize my stupidity.

[tower912]

A little Flexseal and duct tape and they are good to go.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

I saw this note from a NY Times piece this morning.

But a mission to the moon also has some scientific value on its own. Rocks collected in previous missions, for example, revealed the moon's origin: It likely formed from debris after an object the size of Mars hit Earth more than four billion years ago.

In the Artemis missions, NASA is especially interested in studying ice in lunar craters. Depending on how long it's been there, the ice and its characteristics could provide a history of the solar system. The ice could also be used to establish permanent bases on the moon, if it can be turned into drinking water, oxygen or spacecraft fuel (as Ken explained in The Times).

And the missions could produce collateral benefits. Past innovations in the space program have led to technological advancements in everyday life, including in computing and food preservation.

[NCMUFan]

Love my Tang and Space Food sticks.
And who doesn't use Velcro.

[dgies9156]

OK, I get the thirst for knowledge bit, and all.

But I have to ask, is going to the Moon really worth the cost? Will we find anything groundbreaking that changes the trajectory of life on Earth? Candidly, I seriously doubt it.

One looks at NASA today and grimaces. Bill Nelson, a tottering, over-the-hill vanquished Senator is now NASA Administrator. He's asleep even when he's awake.

Once upon a time, going to the Moon was a big deal. It had everything -- national pride, entertainment value and technological advancement. Now, it's just a weak attempt to recapture the imagination of the NASA of old.

NASA would be wise to review what happened on Moon missions after Apollo 11 -- public interest waned dramatically. What had been Must-See TV was now ho hum. Absent a fuel tank exploding, there isn't the interest. Especially when you compare a Moon mission to what's happening with the James Webb telescope.

Been there ... done that.

[Hards Alumni]

OK, I get the thirst for knowledge bit, and all.

But I have to ask, is going to the Moon really worth the cost? Will we find anything groundbreaking that changes the trajectory of life on Earth? Candidly, I seriously doubt it.

One looks at NASA today and grimaces. Bill Nelson, a tottering, over-the-hill vanquished Senator is now NASA Administrator. He's asleep even when he's awake.

Once upon a time, going to the Moon was a big deal. It had everything -- national pride, entertainment value and technological advancement. Now, it's just a weak attempt to recapture the imagination of the NASA of old.

NASA would be wise to review what happened on Moon missions after Apollo 11 -- public interest waned dramatically. What had been Must-See TV was now ho hum. Absent a fuel tank exploding, there isn't the interest. Especially when you compare a Moon mission to what's happening with the James Webb telescope.

Been there ... done that.

You have to learn to walk before you learn to run.  NASA is preparing to launch to Mars by testing on the moon.  Very simple.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

OK, but why go to Mars?

[Hards Alumni]

OK, but why go to Mars?

*gestures at the world around us*

All kidding aside, to see if we can become an interplanetary species.  Harder to go extinct that way.

Next step for humanity.

[withoutbias]

OK, but why go to Mars?

Because why stop at ruining just one planet?

[NCMUFan]

Because the federal government has the ability to piss away more taxpayer money.
And we know what the federal government loves.

[MU82]

Because the federal government has the ability to piss away more taxpayer money.
And we know what the federal government loves.

I know. The federal government is about to piss away big bucks helping the people of Mississippi get through a crisis caused by the state's refusal to keep its basic infrastructure in decent working order. Stoopid federal
government!

[NCMUFan]

Different topic dip.  Piss, let me know when the 30 trillion debt gets paid off.