The Moon is the Perfect Spot for SETI:

https://www.universetoday.com/148146/the-moon-is-the-perfect-spot-for-seti/#more-148146

The Moon is the Perfect Spot for SETI
In less than four years, NASA plans to land the first woman and the next man on the Moon as part of Project Artemis. This long-awaited return to the Moon is to be followed by the construction of the Lunar Gateway, the Artemis Base Camp, and a program of “sustainable lunar exploration.” The creation of an enduring human presence on the Moon will also create many opportunities for exciting scientific research.

For example, astronomers want to conduct radio astronomy on the far side of the Moon, where telescopes could probe the earliest period of the Universe free of terrestrial radio interference. Taking this a step further, a team of astronomers recently recommended that a radio telescope on the far side of the Moon (or in lunar orbit) could aid in another important area of research: the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI)!

The proposal was the subject of a white paper that was submitted to the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) Planetary Science and Astrobiology Decadal Survey 2023-2032. The team behind it was led by Eric J. Michaud, a mathematics undergraduate at UC Berkeley, and included members from the SETI Institute, the Institute of Space Sciences and Astronomy at the University of Malta, and Breakthrough Initiatives.

more at link......

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis/
Artemis 1: Twin Sister of Apollo:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

WOMAN ON THE MOON:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

A portrait of the Greek Goddess Artemis is illustrated in the highlights and shadows of the crescent Moon topography. Her features are abstract enough that all women can see themselves in her.

more at link..............

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I can't help thinking that was written by a man.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Still amazed they haven't cancelled that launcher yet. What are they waiting for?

 

I was going to ask why the doubt, but decided to research first instead.......
https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/08/27/65370/artemis-nasas-2024-moon-landing-looks-unlikely/

Sad, very sad if this doesn't occur...Obviously at best, the launch date maybe put back a year or two, but imo a return to the Moon, would be great for humanity.
I say humanity because what I believe the most promising position, would be, is an International effort, including fledgling space industries in Australia and NZ.
I remain hopeful still.

 

Two things.

One, why is that sad? Mars is a much better place to direct our efforts.

Two, they can still go to the moon if they want. The Falcon Heavy is available right now and is ten times cheaper than the SLS, which hasn't even flown once - and which is expendable, which means they will have to build a complete new one for every single launch. Their payloads to LEO are almost identical (64 vs 70 metric tons.) So why hasn't the SLS been cancelled yet?* You could take all the money that is slated towards finishing the SLS and put it all into the Artemis mission, and make it to the moon in 2024 with time (and money) to spare.

(* - because, of course, politics.)

 

Both are important. The Moon is a stepping stone to Mars.
A manned Martian effort will entail 6 months or so travel to Mars, in a confined space, with possible lengthy exposure to radiation and CME's.
It will require an 18 month stay on Mars before return, when Mars is again in a favourable position. There would need to be habitats, fuel, and means of obtaining oxygen and food from pre landed craft and capsules.
It aint gonna be easy to put it mildly. Some of that experience, preparation, and research into the best methodology and protection of the astronauts, as well as science, technological improvement, with regards to the lengthy exposures and living on another world. Far easier to plan a rescue on the Moon or an Lunar Space Station, then on the surface of Mars.

Of course there is the direct approach in preparation to go straight to Mars without the Moon stop over.
Both as far as I know, would have been considered. The powers that be at NASA preferred the Moon stop over method...politics or no politics, I see it as far safer, and isn't that the number one goal.....getting astronauts to Mars and back as safely as possible.

 

That's silly. That's like saying no one should have explored America until Greenland was explored. After all, it's a "stepping stone" to the US! They could learn all about Indians and farming and stuff there.

Exposure outside the Van Allen belts - already did that, ten times.
ISRU for propellant - can't test that on the Moon.

Absolutely not. The safest option is to stay home.

If you want to go to the Moon, go to the Moon. If you want to go to Mars, go to Mars. Pretty simple in my mind. If you are going to the Moon with specific goals and science objectives in mind, then go for it. If not, save the money, time and talent for the really hard mission.

 

A poor analogy that doesn't quite fit.

Not for extended periods of 6 months or more.

Now you're being silly!

Others with more experience and learning simply disagree with you, at this time. I'm with them.

 

Moon: 250,000 miles [400,000Kms] Mars at closest approach: 35 million miles [56 million kms]
Not quite the next door neigbour type as with Greenland/USA

 

Why? Greenland is closer than America. It's easier to get there. The maps were better in that area. Why not take a shorter trip, learn from it, establish a base - and THEN go on to America, instead of the insanely risky trip Columbus took?

The lunar missions are not planned for 6 months either.

If we are going to do the "appeal to authority" thing then:

Apollo 11 astronaut Michael Collins supports going straight to Mars.
Interplanetary society president Robert Zubrin supports going straight to Mars.
Science historian James Burke thinks not only that the moon is a waste of effort, but that if we try it means that China will reach Mars first, and any attempt we make will die.
NASA Administrator Michael Griffin said that we're wasting time going to the Moon. Ares " looks too much like Apollo. It's just not credible…that we will return to the moon and then start with a ‘clean sheet of paper’ to design a system for Mars.”

On the other hand, everyone who stands to make money off the lunar program wants to to go the Moon.

If you can identify a purpose for going to the Moon, I am all for it. If you want to go to Mars, put your money, time and effort into getting to Mars.

 

Moon: 250,000 miles [400,000Kms] Mars at closest approach: 35 million miles [56 million kms]
Not quite the next door neigbour type as with Greenland/USA

The Lunar missions will in time entail staying for long periods on permanent Lunar bases, as well as possible Lunar orbital space stations.

Nothing at all wrong with any appeal to authority. We all do it all the time, as long as that authority is professional and expert in the subject area under debate.
I won't go into individuals though to match your individuals . All the respect in the world for your's, as I'm certain you would have the respect for mine if I researched those actual people.

I see that as nonsense. More likely that if NASA was planning a trip straight to Mars, it is going to be a prolonged effort without any promise of success, and in the mean time China and Russia could be making the return to the Moon. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but obviously in the case of any hostility, things could be different.

Probably the same people that may make money of a successful manned Mars mission also, but I find it slightly paranoid anyway.

Science? I don't believe I need go right into that, as you would certainly know the advantages and benefits yourself.

Again going to Mars is not a piece of cake. It is many times harder then the 250,000 mile journey to the Moon, with next to no chance of any rescue if anything goes wrong.
I would love both to be achieved before I kick the bucket, but either methodology, I would need to live to be a 100 to see a manned Mars mission. A return to the Moon is well within my time frame!

 

Greenland is much closer than where Columbus landed. Compare this much more sensible route to Columbus's 4000 mile journey:

Spain to Ireland (coastal journey with many ports along the way)
Ireland to Iceland (740 miles)
Build a port
Iceland to Greenland (430 miles)
Build a port
Greenland to North America (640 miles)

And that's STILL not apples to apples because no one proposes we go to the moon, stop there, build a base, then launch from there for Mars.

Which has zero to do with spending six months in space.

And at the end we would be the first ones on Mars - and the ones making the discoveries.

Probably the same people that may make money of a successful manned Mars mission also, but I find it slightly paranoid anyway.

Exactly.

So if your choice is (for example)

5 Lunar missions and one Martian mission with one ship

No Lunar missions and one Martian mission with two ships

The second is infinitely preferable.

 

You've lost me I'm afraid. The only comparing worth noting is the Moon at 250,000 miles and Mars at 35,000,000 miles, and the comparable success of any needed rescue attempt.

https://www.space.com/nasa-plans-artemis-moon-base-beyond-2024.html
NASA unveils plan for Artemis 'base camp' on the moon beyond 2024
That's just for starters.

?
False obviously. Any lengthy stay on the Moon, will entail shelter from prolonged exposures to radiation, and the ongoing preparations, experiments and tests to go further afield to Mars.

Not down grading man's presence, but what discoveries, that robotic craft havn't already done and will do in the future.

That's your choice and opinion.
Mine is back to the Moon and then onward christian soldiers, as a far safer way to go.

 

No rescue was possible with either mission. What the heck are you talking about?

Any lengthy stay on the Moon will involve using lunar material (regolith) to provide shielding. There is no regolith in interplanetary space.

You haven't thought this through, have you.

Again if you have a reason to go to the Moon by all means go to the Moon. If you don't have a reason, you are wasting time, money and talent.

 

However, Delta v needed to get from LEO to a Moon matching orbit: 3.38 Km/sec.
Delta v required to get from Matching orbit to Mars matching orbit: 6 km/sec.
Delta v needed to get from LEO to Mars matching orbit: 8.789 km/sec.
Thus in terms of delta V, the Moon is ~ 1/3 of the way to Mars.
And while it would take slightly more in Delta V to go to the Moon and then to Mars than directly to Mars, a Moon way-station can make sense, particularly if you are planning multiple missions. You park the main ship at the Moon (that way you don't have to keep raising a lowering it in Earth's gravity well. ), then refuel, supply and re-man it using shuttles between Earth and Moon.

 

Well forgetting about Apollo XIII, any astronaut/s stranded on the Moon for whatever reason, would certainly have some chance of rescue in this day and age. Mars? I'll let you figure out that one.

Any lengthy stay on the Moon will also involve extended regular periods outside any protective dome. The 35 million mile trip to Mars, will require shelter in the event of CMEs and similar radiation that will be researched, experimented and found appropriate for that purpose.

That's funny, I was just about to ask the same thing of you.

You aren't a silly Billy billvon, and I'm sure you'll realize the science that can be done on the Moon, along with the SETI approach as detailed in the OP.
In essence there is plenty of reasons to go to the Moon, just as there was with the stepping stone approach of Mercury/Gemini/Apollo.

 

Yep, any attempt at a manned Mars mission, would need shuttle supply missions prior to any manned attempt, noting of course that any stay would be extensive.
The Moon station as a "stepping stone" is a necessity, understanding that safety and preparation is of prime concern.

I have also heard or read somewhere, that the first manned trip to Mars will not, or should not entail an actual landing, due to the extended stay requirements. In other words, just orbit the planet and return.

 

In summing, I envisage a time, commencing with Project Artemis, when humanity will reach a point where we will have permanent habitation on the Moon, by more then one Nation, just as humanity has had a permanent habitation in the ISS since around 2000.
And what a great example of co-operation between Nations, the ISS has obviously been!
The Moon could prove similar I suggest.

 

Yep. There are several versions of Mars Direct that have presupply missions to drop off return vehicles and fuel plants.

Again that is no different than arguing Columbus should have stopped at Iceland and Greenland as necessary to understanding the hazards of a long sea voyage, and to serve as critical "stepping stones" to America.

That would be pretty wasteful. What would that accomplish that an unmanned mission could not?

Exactly. Thus, a moon mission is poor preparation for a Mars mission. Different risks, different environments, different logistics.

Exactly. Once again, a moon mission is shown to be poor preparation for a Mars mission. Different risks, different solutions.

That's fine. If you have a research goal that can only be accomplished by going to the moon, then I am all for it.