On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 03:39:54 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote, in part:
On 21 Sep 2005 16:25:11 -0700, in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Many people say they see no reason to go back to the moon and want
to go on to Mars without a lunar program. However, it is probably
easier to make a case for going to the moon than for keeping the ISS.
Remember, the moon is not a small place, it is a WORLD.

A WORLD, that to first order remains unexplorable because it costs
several billion dollars each time for four people to visit it.

The main use for the Moon is clear. Cheap aluminum, delivered to space.

Is this going to make exploring the solar system really cheap?

Look at a rocket on the launch pad. The rocket engine is made from
exotic metals. But the tanks and the fairings (the latter not needed in
the vacuum of space as much) can be made from aluminum. How much of the
rocket's weight is the thin aluminum of its outside cylinder and tanks,
as against the fuel itself?

One can make oxygen from moon rocks - and one can burn aluminum for
thrust, it is said.

I can see Zubrin's reasons for preferring Mars. Almost everything is
there, although nitrogen is kind of rare.

John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account