---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 00:02:18 +0200 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: H SPACE: "Scientists predict Moon base by 2007" J Corbally wrote: > > Sad thing is, in 10 years time people will complain about "whacky" > Scientists "predicting" a moon base back in good old '01. If we really want it, we can have tele- and automation operated lunar factories in a decade (by 2011). You could do it on your own if you're worth a few G$. > In the meantime, what would be the pros and cons of a Lunar as opposed to a > Martian base? Luna would be nearer, but wouldn't Martian gravity be > better? Would we be in a situation of having to "justify" a Lunar base > like needs to be done for ISS? GAR. There's no point in sending people to Mars. There's little point in sending people to the Moon either, but you at least can do it with current technology, and have decent supplies and rescue infrastructure. With Mars, you've got one terribly expensive one-short mission. For the same resources you could establis a permanent bridgehead on the moon. As to gravitation, 1/6 g plus vigorous training should contain osteoporosis and provide guidance for the cytoskeleton. Forget Mars. By the time you can go to Mars you wouldn't want to. If we were to design a city with surroundings according to a George Bush "Culture of Life" would it be the same as a Vatican "Culture of Life"? Can the Bush Administration even with the help of HUD or Vatican with the help of 1,000,000,000 Roman Catholics tell us what their Culture of Life would be like? Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
