From: gallatinwilson@comcast.net   
      
   "Ian"  wrote in message   
   news:e7faeaec.0401271310.5921244d@posting.google.com...   
   > What's on the drawing board for a return to the moon?   
   > A similar command and service module to the Apollo program?  Or a   
   > shuttle size vehicle?   
   > Also, will they roll out the old Saturn V launch vehicles or what?   
      
   A better question might be, "For what?"   
      
   If it's for the sake of knowledge and exploration, or just because it's   
   there - fine. Let's go. We don't need to build a base or infrastructure for   
   that, though. And we haven't exactly been beating down the door to further   
   explore the moon with unmanned probes in the last thirty years.   
      
   If it's because we need a lunar base as a prerequisite for manned missions   
   to Mars - that's a lie. Even if significant, easy-to-get-to water is found   
   on the lunar poles, it just doesn't pay to crawl down into the moon's   
   gravity well (with no atmosphere to help with braking) and back up with   
   anything but unobtainium. It would be cheaper to go to Mars straight from   
   LEO.   
      
   Said unobtainium is perhaps the best answer - lunar He3. However, costs   
   would be very significant and the payoff far into the future. There aren't   
   any production fusion reactors now and we have all the deuterium we could   
   want.   
      
   Let's face it, folks - the moon is lacking most of what a spacefaring human   
   civilization will need. Almost no volatiles, particularly hydrogen; no   
   carbon. Metals bound up in tough oxides. A nasty 28-day light/dark cycle.   
   Just enough gravity to be annoying.   
      
   The lunar nearside at night must have an awesome view, though.   
      
   Jonathan Wilson   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)