Don wrote: My reasoning for a "moon first, Mars later" approach has less to do with distance and travel time and more to with safety and technological development.

Chris Writes: Name some equipment useful to Lunar work that directly translate to Mars. Testing of any equipment for Mars is better done here or in LEO.

Don wrote: As we recently learned with Columbia, there are a myriad of unexpected circumstances which might threaten the success and safety of a trip to Mars. If a disaster befell such an excursion, it would be decades before we were able to make another attempt.

Chris writes: If that is what you come away with concerning Columbia. I think you haven't been paying attention. But, it does point out one thing...safety is not a reason for going to the Moon. Being closer when dead doesn't make any difference.

Don wrote: A "moon first" approach will allow our astronauts to train with and test the technology and techniques needed for an excursion to Mars. It will have a lot more value to Mars exploration than a buch of astronaut wannabes running around a plywood "habitat" in canvas suits.

Chris writes: The Moon first approach will get us no where. The technological need for the Moon exploration are different enough from Mars exploration needs that is a dead-end and I don't buy the cost or the information gained this way would be worth it. I don't think a Moon Base would be sustained and the effort would be another Apollo. BTW I do think a F&F mission to Mars is worth doing and that at least some of the equipment designed for Mars could be used on the Moon effectively.

You need to check out who you're calling "astronaut wannabes", what they're doing and quit perpetuating Barry's lies for him. Non of our HABs are made primarily of wood and who cares! Wood is in fact a good building material. All you are doing with this "wannabes" BS is making me and other less likely to support you or anyone who looks to return to the Moon! For any reason.

--Chris Vancil