It's refreshing to see I'm not alone in thinking that we squandered 30
years by staying in low orbit. One can only imagine how a permanent
[robotic] base on the moon would have driven improvements to our
technology.

Shouldn't we build a permanent robotic base on Mars, and only send
humans there when we have verified that the systems are operational and
can sustain life?

Perhaps we should start with the moon, where radio propagation delays
are not a big issue.

Hopefully the upcoming Mars landers / robots will capture the public's
imagination like they did back in 1976 with Viking, and 1969 with
Apollo.

Don't forget that the media also played a role in trivializing later
Apollo missions, and this probably had some impact on political
decisions.

Henry.

~~~

(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in
:

Hi Jeff What Scott posted is true the Saturn V could build a base on
the moon,but it was not reuseable. The Shuttle on the other hand can
go round and round 300 miles up(low orbit) for 113 orbits,and only
blow up twice. Killing 12 astronauts,and waste 36 years. Seems 40
years ago there was a choice to build a base on the moon or stay in
low orbit for the next 36 years. I went for the moon,for with the
Saturn V its only 3 days away. I have been flamed for going in that
direction for all those years(still am) When you think of outer
space you have to think big. You have to have great vision.
We throw billions of dollars away by not recycling plactic jugs
cans,and the Saturn V was not recyclable but what a bang it gave
for the buck. We should have sent one up to the moon each 4th of July
,and with 36 trips we would have a base on the moon flying the
American flag. Now we have nothing. Bert