Hacker News Reader

Comment by kjs3 | Hacker News Reader

The only thing going for the moon is its proximity to Earth.

Oh...that's all. So let's ignore for just a second the logistical advantages of figuring out how to actually mount a manned mission to build something non-trivial on another body when you're 3 days away, not 6 months away. Pretend that isn't important.

The moon has water, raw materials, enough gravity things don't just float away, abundant solar and we've already figured out how to get people there and back. We already have an MVP to build on.

On the other hand, a manned Mars mission is still an un-funded wank-fantasy with a disturbingly high failure rate for the unmanned attempts.

View on HN

I've mostly addressed this in the siblings comments. Mars has all the same resources and more. The way humans went from the moon's orbit to surface is so far off from how it would be done today I would hardly call it and MVP. Both are too far for any meaningful emergency response. I believe the ongoing work with starship debunks your claim of an "un-funded wank-fantasy". The moon also has a disturbingly high failure rate for the unmanned attempts.

You think 3 days is "too far for any meaningful emergency response"? I mean, yeah, if someone needs to be in an ICU within an hour, that's too long, but if they develop a new coronavirus on the Moon, 3 days to get people back to Earth is not bad.

By your logic, it seems like we should just give up on building any bases in this solar system altogether, and just start building a ship to go to Alpha Centauri.

I'm advocating to go directly to Mars and skip trying to figure out everything on the Moon first. The Moon is more difficult and has a lot less upsides.

Obviously 3 days is better than 6 months. A lot more can be done with a shorter window. I just don't think it justifies passing up all the upsides Mars has to offer

I completely disagree about the Moon being more difficult. We can get to the Moon in 3 days flat. We cannot do that with Mars; to go there, humans have to spend months in space being exposed to hard radiation. With the Moon, that isn't a problem because 3 days cosmic radiation exposure isn't a big deal, as proven by our many landings on the Moon in the 60s-70s.

On top of that, the Moon has proven mineral resources which can be mined and refined on-site a lot easier than trying to do the same on Mars.

Mars is just too far away. If you're going to neglect distance, then we should just skip Mars and go straight to Alpha Centauri or some other star with a bunch of exoplanets.

Spot on...I have to assume btkramer9 is just a obsessed Zubrin fanboi or so scifi obsessed there's no objectivity. I get that Kerbal Space Program let's a new generation of armchair celestial mechanics say "Delta V!" as though that's all that matters, but handwaving the basic logistics (simple things, like fuel and water) between a Moon and a Mars mission and trying to make them equivalent undertakings...that's some seriously delusional thinking.

The moon is just as much of an un-funded wank fantasy as mars... grow up dude

Reply on news.ycombinator.com