Moon or Mars?

thats intresting anywhere i might be able to read about it on the net?

Hey frank!

Would you think the possibilty of finding fossils maybe of live on mars would be more intresting....maybe theres a whole load of things buried who knows over the billions of years!!

i think a moon base would be for military purposes/science research and not for us joes!!

Yup.
I would indeed think the possibility of finding life on Mars
more interesting than a moon base but there are probes
heading there soon for that exact reason.

Look at what the 2 rovers have accomplished.
I reckon when it comes down to it,
if you are strictly talking about budget here,
We would get more out of our money by sending
more and better rovers.

For now I think thats the way to go.
The diffrence between a manned Moon landing and a Mars trip
is chalk and cheese.
It's like climbing a 100 ft cliff or Climbing Mount Everest.

Hey frank!
Would you think the possibilty of finding fossils maybe of live on mars would be more intresting....maybe theres a whole load of things buried who knows over the billions of years!!
i think a moon base would be for military purposes/science research and not for us joes!!

Well, not just science research but mining possibilities too, albeit long-term ones. The Moon has one thing that does not exist on earth and has it in abundance and that is the isotope helium-3. This may play a very important part in solving our future energy problems as a fuel for thermonuclear power stations (assuming scientists achieve controlled fusion). Helium-3 is vastly more energy efficient when fused with deuterium nuclei (plentiful on Earth) than fusing deuterium nuclei with other deuterium nuclei. D + D loses almost half the energy; D + He3 only 2%.

Because of its low escape velocity (2km/s to Earth's 11.2km/s), the Moon could have huge cost effective benefits for the creation of space stations and facilities for launching interplanetary and interstellar missions. The 1960's space programme was symbolic; any future manned missions to the Moon or Mars will be for practical reasons. While there will never be a shortage of volunteers to go to Mars, Frank put his finger on it..MULA! Using the most efficient method, it would take, on average, a nine month mission to get humans on Mars, possibly a 2-year period in all allowing a stay there and return time. Faster missions are possible but inordinately heavy on energy consumption. The cost of a manned mission to Mars would be many times the cost of the entire Apollo programme and can anyone see NASA getting their hands on that much money! Then of course there are the serious health risks associated with a long mission in space; deterioration of bone and muscle tissues, weakening of the cardiovascular system, increased risk of fatal cancer due to extended cosmic ray exposure, psychological issues etc.

I'd love to see a manned Mars mission but I think practicality and finance dictate nearer manned objectives.

Ye i didnt think of it from that point of view.....some good research there gordon very intresting again id like to read more about that, its facinating to think what might lay ahead for mankind and exploration

thanks for the replies intresting stuff

There is a discussion about the Great American Solar Grand Plan here Tony:

science-community.sciam.com/thread.jspa?threadID=300005637

Forgot to link to the actual Solar plan:
www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan&page=1