>From: J Corbally <email@example.com>
>By 2007? Does anyone here really think this is going to be listened to?
I predict that NASA will never have a lunar base or mars base. If there's
ever a NASA trip to Mars, they'll plant a flag and go home and never return.
If there's ever a lunar base it will be established by colonists and later
ones by private enterprise.
>Sad thing is, in 10 years time people will complain about "whacky"
>Scientists "predicting" a moon base back in good old '01.
>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?
- There is no carbon or nitrogen, and very little hydrogen.
- The long lunar night would require lots of batteries, or a nuclear plant.
- We know that we have the technology to do it today.
- It's only a couple days trip between Earth in case there is an emergency
and food or equipment needs to be sent, and there wouldn't be much
muscle-rot during the trip.
- You wouldn't need as many solar panels since you'd be getting much more
light, and it wouldn't be filtered through an atmosphere.
>"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home
>crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures
>to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid."
>-Q, Star Trek:TNG episode 'Q Who'
Zeb Haradon (firstname.lastname@example.org)
My personal webpage:
A movie I'm directing:
"What is this, some Three Stooges episode where everyone is armed with pies?
Bill Gates is supposed to walk through the airport with an armful of pies
so that he can stoop to the level of his attackers?" -Chris Russo
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:45 MDT