OscarCP
The whole going to the Moon and, or to Mars has been proposed by one government and scraped by the next for some other program to the other destination, ever since Jimmy Carter was President of the US.
This latest version, Artemis, brought to us by NASA, has got as far as having a concrete objective: the Moon, and a concrete space vehicle, now being tested. Or attempting to be tested.
Personally, I prefer for this to start on the Moon and learn there how to live in a place that is trying to kill you every second you are there, but is a lot closer than Mars, who is just as bad as a place to go and visit, but also with the con of higher gravity and, that I can tell, no obvious pro that cannot also be said of a robotic and thus essentially cheaper mission than one with a crew.
So, for example, if a member of the crew on the Moon gets sick in a way that is beyond what can be treated up there, it is possible, at least in principle, to send the patient back to Earth to receive adequate treatment in a matter of maybe four days.
And also far easier to get supplies from Earth and to send back whatever is worth sending back, while staying in radio and video contact with people down here two-way, with just a two-second delay altogether.
Once that has gone on for long enough and the necessary technology for a more intensive occupation of another unfriendly but also far more distant world becomes available, in part thanks to what has been learned on the Moon, then maybe go to Mars.
I also agree that developing reusable boosters, as for example the SpaceX ones, is the way to go.
This latest version, Artemis, brought to us by NASA, has got as far as having a concrete objective: the Moon, and a concrete space vehicle, now being tested. Or attempting to be tested.
Personally, I prefer for this to start on the Moon and learn there how to live in a place that is trying to kill you every second you are there, but is a lot closer than Mars, who is just as bad as a place to go and visit, but also with the con of higher gravity and, that I can tell, no obvious pro that cannot also be said of a robotic and thus essentially cheaper mission than one with a crew.
So, for example, if a member of the crew on the Moon gets sick in a way that is beyond what can be treated up there, it is possible, at least in principle, to send the patient back to Earth to receive adequate treatment in a matter of maybe four days.
And also far easier to get supplies from Earth and to send back whatever is worth sending back, while staying in radio and video contact with people down here two-way, with just a two-second delay altogether.
Once that has gone on for long enough and the necessary technology for a more intensive occupation of another unfriendly but also far more distant world becomes available, in part thanks to what has been learned on the Moon, then maybe go to Mars.
I also agree that developing reusable boosters, as for example the SpaceX ones, is the way to go.
