Re: [meteorite-list] Bush's Space Initiative

[CMcdon0923]

As there are quite a few space savvy folks on this list....just asking a question pertaining to Bush's speech.   He said the moon was the logical place to initiate space exploration missions.  Yet the moon has harsh environmental challenges.....and it seems those challenges are less on Mars.  Only the distance is a problem.    It would seem to me that a space station orbiting Earth would be the better place to initiate trips to Mars and beyond? I didn't personally hear the speach, but I assume some of the reasons to use the Moon would be that you can't really build a launch pad type outpost floating in space.  The surface of the moon would be better, IMHO.   You need places to store parts, assemble the vehicle on firm "ground", house inhabitants, etc.  Expanding the ISS is probably vastly more expensive than building an outpost on the Moon (once you get there).   Also, I believe they're hoping to manufacture the fuel on the Moon from the hydrogen in the trapped ice.  I believe one of the most expensive parts of any lauch is the amount of weight (i.e., fuel) needed just to get that same soon-to-be-consumed fuel off the ground.  Being able to send an empty vehicle to the Moon, fuel it there and then launch it from the reduced gravity of the Moon would be a tremendous savings of money.   Personally I've felt we needed to make an agressive, long term commitment to something (!!) for a long time.  No offense, but I feel NASA has been prostituted over the last decade or two and relegated to pandering to the public's cause du jour. I mean come on....a multi-billion dollar vehicle and all the associated expenses to study the rain forrests and the "ozone hole".  NASA should be for space exploration, period.  We should be looking UP, not DOWN.   Is it gonna be expensive....yep...progress always is.    Is it gonna be dangerous....yep...exploration always is.    Are we going to lose astronauts due to accidents....yes, (unfortunately) we will.      Craig