The French, interestingly enough, came up with a workable inflated rubber space wheel that would take up only one shuttle load. Add aluminum silicate from the moon, cast in 50 pound plates and launched by electric “slingshot” (sled accelerated by electric motors pulling on an aramid belt), a technical option already studied by NASA.

. Easy to do, given that the moon has only one-sixth of the Earth’s gravity.

Cover the inflated space wheel with the AlSil plates, as many as needed to provide radiation and meteor protection, then hook on the ion/VASMIR/ground based laser whatever, and a living space 10 meters high, 15 meters wide, and 500 meters long could be sent on it’s way, with the crew enjoying the eqivalent space of a 40 unit apartment house.

With water storage in a central hub composed of space shuttle belly tanks brought into orbit instead of being jettisoned, an emergency cocoon could be positioned in the center of the tank to provide a shelter during major solar flares, with the water providing 100% radiation protection.

So, a small lunar program, using off the shelf components, and only enough to create a generating station and the launch apparatus. Three years and it’s done. We could be on our way to Mars in 5 or 6 years, for less money than we’ve wasted on the international space station, an unneeded bureaucratical blunder of essentially no scientific worth.

Mars in as little as 39 days
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/roundup/online//2003/0903_p4_5.pdf

VASIMR Plasma rocket 650,000 MPH max very fuel efficient with more power then an Ion engine.

A 30KW test I think
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn7wNxg9_Xk

149KW test
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zSou_r-W9Q

lunar Tug
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXofYP_VfUg

“Where does the money come from you say? Pull out of all offensive military operations, halve the inordinately grotesque military budget (still leaving more than enough for a more than ample defense should the need arise), and divert the newfound wealth to NASA.”

^This.

Although, in a perfect world I’d go one step further – unite the entire world in a joint space project. With funds from all countries involved, with the best minds at work – we’d be there in no time, I think. Unfortunately, it’s not a perfect world so it’s very much unlikely to happen.
But just imagine what we could achieve, if all the world united to work on space population, instead of bickering around. We’d have the funds, we’d have the manpower, and we’d be able to achieve much in (relatively) little time.

also, if we were to actually harness gravity (and not just centrifugal force, mind you), do you really think the only thing it’s good for is walking around on spaceships? think big, people! i’m thinking of propulsion systems,(pulling the entire ship forward in a vacuum, or just pushing the ambient air backwards in an atmosphere) and bulletproof vests that work, not by cushioning the impact but by pushing the bullet away so it never hits! even the sky isn’t the limit. i’ll leave you to consider theoptions available. imagination workout, begin! 1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,other leg, 1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3, feel the burn! lol. back to serious now.

few related links which may explain buzz’s reluctance to return to the moon, or may just simply make you smile.

http://triptychr.deviantart.com/art/Moon-program-parked-for-good-130133792

http://hijinksensue.com/2009/08/03/lo-fijinks-what-happens-on-the-moon/

Good lord, people STILL go on and fervently deny the Apollo 11 moonlanding?
For goodness sake, grow up, you people are absolutely ridiculous.
You know, I actually feel like now it’s a good option to land on the moon – just so you moronic, ignoramuses can be proven wrong at last. Bah, but I’m sure even then you dolts would try to explain it off by claiming the “leftovers” were planted when the next people landed there.

Back to topic at hand, I’m all for getting humanity to Mars and beyond. I sincerely hope I can live to see it in my lifetime, even if I’m not involved or relocated. Just to see it, and know humanity will evolve out in the stars.

I don’t think a permanent moonbase is such a ridiculous idea – after all couldn’t it serve as say a repair/re-supply station, without having to land back on earth? It’s all been touched before by previous comments, but launching from the moon would require much less energy and fuel than to launch from the earth.

Mars, however, has plenty of water ice, good soil for growing, lots of sun and wind for power generation, and plenty of raw materials for building (e.g. iron ore and oxygen rich perclorates).

Definitely send the first missions as one-way missions but building craft for return voyages should be practical once manufacturing infrastructure exists. It’s only got 38% of Earth’s gravity so getting back up can be cheaper.. And God forbid global warming occur from industrial pollution..

I am willing to bounce to the surface and start the work..

What a lunar colony permits, though, is the creation of ships which are almost entirely outside of the Earth’s gravitational pull, which means that all the weight use can be put towards a faster, more powerful engine, even if that just means the same ones we have now but with more fuel available to create accelleration when we are in space.

Mars landings would make important symbols, but lunar colonys would make for a much wider range of exploration.

To do it you first launch an Earth return vehicle (ERV) which travels to Mars with its fuel tanks only full enough to land. The ERV aerobrakes into the atmosphere then drops its heat shield and lands like viking. Next it deploys a small nuclear generator and begins processing the Martian atmosphere into Methane/LOX rocket fuel (this is 19th century chemical engineering and is trivial). Using in-situ resources drastically reduces the amount of mass you have to send to Mars.

Four years later you launch a crewed Hab on another heavy lift vehicle. The spent upper stage of the rocket is deployed on a tether and spun up to 1/3 g of artificial gravity for the trip to Mars. The Hab cruises to Mars and aerobrakes into orbit. When weather conditions are appropriate the Hab drops out of orbit and lands in close proximity to the ERV (possibly guided by a radar beacon placed by an unmanned rover deployed with the ERV to survey for the best landing site).

The crew stays on Mars for a year and a half before climbing into the ERV and returning to Earth.

When the Hab launches towards Mars, you also launch another ERV on a slower trajectory to Mars that will serve as the ERV to the second crew, or a backup for the first should something go wrong. And the first ERV is fully fueled up before the Hab is even launched. Each successive mission lands a few hundred kilometers apart. Setting up a string of bases and exploring a new and unique area of the Red Planet. After maybe a dozen missions, you start landing multiple Habs in the same place–probably somewhere with a thermal vent for power and a source of water. There crews will learn to become self-sufficient and will start a new branch of human civilization.

This plan is called Mars Direct and is well studied.

No advanced propulsion. No huge spaceships. No space elevators. Two launches per mission every two years averages out to one heavy launch a year. This is sustainable with NASA’s current budget. We need to do Mars now before we stagnate as a society. Mars will inspire our nation to become scientists and engineers again and will drive innovation. What we learn trying to live sustainably on Mars will teach us how to live sustainably on Earth. On to Mars!