Response to the 180-Day report and lunar exploration

NASA had this 180-Day plan of what their goals were. Their main talk was about Mars. They were really interested about Mars thanks to Curiosity's successful landing. It was the latest and greatest news in the NASA community. It's also one of the biggest projects attempted to land on Mars and all of Mars' previous missions. Because of Curiosity, NASA seems to be focused on one thing and that's Mars.

I really wouldn't blame them. I think the accomplishment they made with Curiosity is really a huge feat. They spend years developing Curiosity itself and the delivery plan to get it there and ensure it'll land on the surface in one piece. I really love everything about what Curiosity is going to do. I think it's one of the best and most interesting news about space in my life time.

However, NASA didn't just talk about Mars. They had other talks about the moon which, "includes a section focusing on the scientific benefits of establishing a long-term human presence on the lunar surface" reported by the Journal. Even though there was a mention of the moon, they had no talks about a lunar station, which is a big deal.

How could you not talk about a lunar base? If NASA was able to successfully create a lunar base, I'm sure it would be even bigger news than the recent hits with Mars. Over 50 years ago, we set foot onto the moon. With the development of rockets and being able to go into space back in the day, we were able to actually have humans touch another surface besides Earth. So why 50 years later are we not going back to the moon and developing or creating projects that could have humans live on the moon? Why would we jump ahead of ourselves and try to go for Mars? Yes we are just exploring with robots, but if we could ever hope to live on Mars someday we have to experiment with the moon because of its availability.

The moon is much closer to Earth than Mars. It takes over 9 months to get to Mars. Compared to the moon, it only takes around 6 days to get to the moon and back to Earth (MoonPhases). Financially it would be much cheaper, it would be safer, and communication would be quicker.

If you send astronauts to Mars and see how things would go, they are guaranteed to have 0% chance of survival because of the time it would take to respond and send help. Even if they brought supplies for emergencies, I doubt their supplies would last them for 9 months. Then when they communicate, it takes 7 minutes for it to get back to Earth.

Now if you were to send astronauts to the moon and something went bad, it would only take 3 days to get them their help. They would most likely be able to bring enough supplies to last them for a week just in case. Also, communication would be much quicker; instantaneously. Sending messages travels just below the speed of light. So since the moon is closer, the speed of light would get to Earth and the moon quickly.

Even so, NASA should definitely consider lunar exploration in their future. For the next 180 days I can understand that Curiosity is a priority, but after that the next goals in mind should include the moon. It's the best place to test future space plans. It's much closer, involves space conditions that we would encounter anywhere else, and its cheaper to get there.

My mind has been made up and so has this post.
This is BE#11
Signing out...

Works Cited

Foust, Jeff. "Space Politics » The 180-Day Report and Lunar Exploration." Space Politics » The 180-Day Report and Lunar Exploration. Space Politics, 13 Sept. 2012. Web. 24 Oct. 2012. <http://www.spacepolitics.com/2012/09/13/the-180-day-report-and-lunar-exploration/>.

"How Long Does It Take to Get to the Moon." How Long Does It Take to Get to the Moon. Moon Phases, n.d. Web. 24 Oct. 2012. <http://moonphases.info/how-long-does-it-take-to-get-to-the-moon.html>.