Comments on: Ever-changing US Space Policy may Push Back the next Moon Landing . . . https://habitablezone.com/2021/03/09/ever-changing-us-space-policy-may-push-back-the-next-moon-landing/ Fri, 17 Apr 2026 19:11:46 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: DanS https://habitablezone.com/2021/03/09/ever-changing-us-space-policy-may-push-back-the-next-moon-landing/#comment-46702 DanS Wed, 10 Mar 2021 23:44:22 +0000 https://www.habitablezone.com/?p=87745#comment-46702 China and Russia may pave the way for us. (see new article) (N/T) China and Russia may pave the way for us. (see new article) (N/T)

]]> By: ER https://habitablezone.com/2021/03/09/ever-changing-us-space-policy-may-push-back-the-next-moon-landing/#comment-46701 ER Wed, 10 Mar 2021 18:32:33 +0000 https://www.habitablezone.com/?p=87745#comment-46701 Going to the moon again would be fun, but I think there are better ways to spend our space dollars. As far as the orbiting moon station is concerned, I vote no, that would be an enormous continuing drain on our resources with no way to build on it for future manned missions to the solar system. Also, if anything goes wrong and we have to abandon it we would be left with nothing to show for it. It smells of Space Shuttle to me; a flashy achievable goal for now but one with potentially unexpected expenses and no demonstrable future returns. No one can predict the future, so I believe that every manned mission or expenditure should be based on two guiding concepts: 1) If for any reason we have to cancel it, the surviving infrastructure can be recycled to support future space endeavors. and... 2) Any mission or base will be part of an integrated long-term program, one that if cancelled or postponed can be resumed in the future if necessary, not a one-shot deal, especially one down at the bottom of a gravity well. A lunar orbiting station would make sense only if we found something on the moon worth our while to develop further. Yeah, there may be recoverable fossil water there, but we don't know that for a fact yet! Asteroid Belt and cometary missions have enormous scientific potential because they allow us access to unaltered material from the early solar system. And they would be excellent training for the development and installation of a planetary defense capability. I would prefer missions to those objects, and a permanent station, perhaps at one of the Lagrangian points, that would allow us to assemble expeditions into that area. My long term wish-list is the exploration of the inner solar system, until we have the technology to explore beyond the Belt. The Moon can wait. Let the Chinese and Russians fight over it. Instead, I suggest we build a second space station, one orbitally optimized for staging future deep space missions, and as a backup for the ISS or its successor. Another trip to the moon might be a research bonanza, but missions to the asteroids or other planetary satellites would provide even greater scientific dividends. Mars should definitely be on our agenda now, especially if we find life or the traces of ancient life. I think its a safe bet that something important is more likely to turn up on Mars than on the Moon. Going to the moon again would be fun, but I think there are better ways to spend our space dollars. As far as the orbiting moon station is concerned, I vote no, that would be an enormous continuing drain on our resources with no way to build on it for future manned missions to the solar system. Also, if anything goes wrong and we have to abandon it we would be left with nothing to show for it. It smells of Space Shuttle to me; a flashy achievable goal for now but one with potentially unexpected expenses and no demonstrable future returns.

No one can predict the future, so I believe that every manned mission or expenditure should be based on two guiding concepts:

1) If for any reason we have to cancel it, the surviving infrastructure can be recycled to support future space endeavors. and…

2) Any mission or base will be part of an integrated long-term program, one that if cancelled or postponed can be resumed in the future if necessary, not a one-shot deal, especially one down at the bottom of a gravity well. A lunar orbiting station would make sense only if we found something on the moon worth our while to develop further.

Yeah, there may be recoverable fossil water there, but we don’t know that for a fact yet!

Asteroid Belt and cometary missions have enormous scientific potential because they allow us access to unaltered material from the early solar system. And they would be excellent training for the development and installation of a planetary defense capability. I would prefer missions to those objects, and a permanent station, perhaps at one of the Lagrangian points, that would allow us to assemble expeditions into that area.

My long term wish-list is the exploration of the inner solar system, until we have the technology to explore beyond the Belt. The Moon can wait. Let the Chinese and Russians fight over it.

Instead, I suggest we build a second space station, one orbitally optimized for staging future deep space missions, and as a backup for the ISS or its successor.

Another trip to the moon might be a research bonanza, but missions to the asteroids or other planetary satellites would provide even greater scientific dividends.

Mars should definitely be on our agenda now, especially if we find life or the traces of ancient life. I think its a safe bet that something important is more likely to turn up on Mars than on the Moon.

]]>