*The Habitation Module for the International Space Station was intended to be the Station's main living quarters designed with galley, toilet, shower, sleep stations and medical facilities.

It was cancelled after the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, and the station's inhabitants were advised to do without these facilities on board the station.

A comprehensive space program is more likely to succeed if, besides scientific value, it provides economic benefit. The moon has been hailed as a rich source of (non-radioactive) helium-3, a proposed fuel for future fusion reactors. Exploitation of the moon for this resource could conceivably replace carbon-based forms of energy with obvious health benefits. It's been estimated that it would take about 15 to 20 tons of Helium-3 to power the U.S for a single year, implying a significant extraterrestrial effort. However, I believe tying extraterrestrial resources to Earth's economy would provide a solid basis for space exploration and development, launching Earth into a new age with benefits not even dreamed of today. There is no doubt in my mind that this is the future. The only question is when.

Some say build a base on the moon, others say go direct to mars, some say a manned space station around the moon, Aldrin says go to the asteroids and phobos. There is very little agreement... why is that? probably because all of those missions have equally little scientific value compared to the equivalent robotic mission. There are two reasons why such programs are getting funded, firstly the idea that doing such a technical challenge helps develop new technology. This reason doesn't hold up, we could equally build a machine to bore into the earth's crust while carrying an elephant safely, that would also be a massive technical challenge. The second reason is the idea that it brings enthusiasm and unites people; but people will only unite if they feel it is really a step forward.

However, every year that passes robotic missions become more and more capable, cheaper and lighter. The future of space is robotic, just because sci fi has people living in space doesn't mean that's what will happen or that its what we should aspire to.

I think NASA has become to bloated and bureaucratic to have any hope of ever being effective or innovative. That happens to most government institutions over time.

I think NASA should be scrapped. If you worry about the future of science and engineering in the USA ... work on the public schools, and restore cut funding to libraries and universities.

Let the rest of the world go play on the moon for awhile. Start paying for equipment to be hauled into space by the ton and let other nations and private industry compete over the contracts.

The 60s might have seen a lot of interest in space, but that was for two main political reasons:

* The Space Race was a contest between USSR and USA. USA started on the back foot and wanted to show it was better than USSR at a time when the USA population were very frightened: digging shelters and teaching nuclear drills at schools. Big rockets provided a satisfying feeling of power.

* USA politicians wanted something to divert eyes from Vietnam.

The result of this was a huge national uptake of space fixation. A model orbiter hung from the ceiling in 60% of boys' bedrooms and kids would dress up with tinfoil and goldfish bowls to go to show and tell or fancy dress parties.

All the excitement helped bring kids to science and engineering.

But space is of itself relatively boring and pointless and the excitement soon wore off. Apollo 11 got lots of TV coverage etc, but by Apollo 12 it was yawns all around and back to regular programming.

Going to the moon again, or another planet, just won't capture attention and there's no real payoff.

We need to listen to Aldrin's ideas along with Robert Zubrin, who's been trying to get his "Mars Direct" proposal accepted for two decades.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct

Enough with all the new pet projects, irrelevant technology development, and endless safety testing. We need quick, cheap, and "good enough" technology, else this will take decades!

I don't remember the name or channel (I believe Science channel or Discovery), but there was a great program on Zubrin and Mars Direct. He reveals how much money, time, and resources are being wasted by the NASA bureaucracy on all this irrelevant development for Constellation, with every top-level person getting their pet project developed. They've become like the United States Congress!

We need to strip down the bureaucracy of NASA, get the pragmatic engineers to run the damn organization, and double their budget. Then get us to the damn red planet by 2020!

The 1960's moon missions cost the same as a medium-sized war. These days war is much more expensive, what with trying not to get your own people killed, and having to protect their "human rights" 'n' all.

So. choose, earthman: you can either go swaggering around the planet, blowing up people who you think hold views that threaten your "way of life", or you can go off exploring the near universe and possibly making discoveries and advances that will benefit mankind for centuries to come.

For most societies, that are in a position to have one or the other, the choice would be a no-brainer. However, with you lot, it;ll be interesting to see which way you go.

Robert Zubrin, and a growing cast of others have only been suggesting this direct path to Mars for a couple or three decades now. Maybe NASA will come around before someone launches from his or her garage, and beats them to it. (that is, if the FAA doesn't deny them a permit)

What's the fascination with going to Mars anyway?

The problem we face is gravity.

If there's going to be any sort of international space consortium, they should focus all our efforts on getting lots of gear into orbit as cheaply as possible (space elevator). Once you can do that, you can start realistically dreaming of visiting neighbouring objects.

The procession of people who think mankind belongs on the moon, Mars, or anywhere else is a parade of lunatics. Personally, I find it amusing that anybody with a clue about space travel even views it as a possibility (as opposed to an ambitious dream).

Yes, going back to the moon is a monumentally stupid idea. Are we trying to prove that we can still do what we were able to do forty years ago? Yeah, that's a real accomplishment. Hey, look, I can still tie my shoelaces, too. Woo-hoo!

As far as Mars or Phobos are concerned, I have one question -- why? There's no atmosphere. It will be impossibly hot in the sunlight and impossibly cold in the darkness. Even if we were able to generate an atmosphere and keep it in place, it would still be too cold because of the planet/moon's distance from the sun. Ignoring that, how exactly are we supposed to build anything? We don't have the means to transport the volume that would need to be transported. Look how long, and how much work and expense, it took to get the ISS to the point where it is now. And that only holds six people.

As for "the perfect perch from which to monitor and control the robots that will build the infrastructure on the Martian surface, in preparation for the first human visitors", I think someone has some serious delusions regarding robots' capabilities.

How about, instead of wasting countless billions of dollars on anything space-related, we try to fix the problems we have here on Earth? Things like hunger, homelessness, poverty, diseases, etc. Those are things that affect billions of people right now. What has space exploration given us? GPS? Satellite TV? A machine to turn piss into water? I'm sure people will be able to list some ways in which space exploration has actually benefited mankind, but I can't help but think that the billions (if not trillions) of dollars spent on it could be put to much better use.

If you do that, you'd probably skip Mars altogether ans stick to mining asteroids.

Consider the Gobi Dessert. it's a thousand times more hospitable than Mars and a million times cheaper to get to. However, you don't find teams of explorers or prospectors there. Why not? simply because it dosen't have any resources that aren't available cheaper elsewhere on the planet. So it is with Mars. If you go there expecting to turn a profit, you'd better have some extremely good information that there's something there which isn't available on earth (anywhere on earth). The Moon just *might* have He3 deposits which are commercially viable, but somehow I can't see the politics of energy security allowing independent exploitation of those resources.

Methinks whenever you discover that the Reality you are spun is a MUD/MMORPG for the Excessive Benefit of a Few, there will be more than just a few Radical Fundamental Changes to Programs and Programming Projects.

And questions will be asked of those who would have colluded and conspired to keep the Revelation, private and personalised.

* Shared as a question for a fly poll.

As is typical in this kind of thing, everyone focuses on how shiny the vehicle is. Trouble is, the propulsion system is the *easy* part - whether it's a Shuttle or Ares or Elon Musk's vapourware, it's all just variations on the theme of "sodding big rocket with sodding big fuel tank".

The *hard* part is keeping people alive for several months in the harshest environment around. And most of this simply hasn't been looked at. Radiation-wise, space is like sitting in the middle of Chernobyl's failed reactor for the multiple-months duration of the trip. ESS is within the Earth's magnetosphere so they don't have to worry about it, and trips to the Moon only leave the astronauts exposed for a few days so there's no permanent damage, but a Mars mission is on a very different scale. Not only are astronauts going to be exposed to this radiation for the duration of their trip there and back, but any permanent base on Mars is also going to have this problem (regardless of any hypothetical terraforming project) because Mars lacks a magnetic field.

And then there's the resupply problem. The ISS is utterly dependent on regular resupply for food and air. Bugger all work done on how to make a Mars mission self-sufficient for both of these, which is clearly going to be essential. OK, it's clear it's going to be hydroponics somehow, but what plants will provide oxygen best? and what plants will provide full nutrional needs for the astronauts (based on their requirements for zero-G, not on how their bodies work on Earth)? and how are the plants affected by zero-G? No-one knows yet.

Not to mention the problem of dealing with medical emergencies. A simple burst appendix is likely to be fatal on a mission with limited medical supplies.

I assume you think that humans do not belong in seas and oceans or flying in the atmosphere of Earth. Don't spend any money on any space-related endeavour? So no satellites then? Take away the satellites right now and see what happens to the human population.

Do not try and take the moral high ground with the 'hunger, poverty' argument of purely emotive content. This planet's ecosystem will not remain in a state that can sustain it's human components current and on-going change of that ecosystem. Perhaps humans do not belong on this planet; time will tell.

Humans need to have more options for not going extinct; exploring and populating space is one of them.

The US decided to go with Lunar orbit rendezvous for the Apollo programme against the NASA advice at the time in order to win the race to the moon. They built a staggeringly wasteful rocket, they brought back a few rocks, and they prevented themselves from accomplishing anything else truly significant for half a century.

Russia went with Earth orbit rendezvous, and focussed on putting up a space station in local orbit before going anywhere else. Funnily enough, Mir lasted twice as long as Skylab, and russian tech is a fairly fundamental part of the ISS, especially since a progress visit costs a fraction of what a shuttle visit does.

Before the US can jet off to the solar system, they need to construct some sort of stable platform in orbit around the earth that they can start from, and a reliable cheap taxi service to service it. They can then send steadily more elaborate missions off to the moon, mars, the asteriods and so on by designing a purely space vehicle and refining it according to need without having to sink massive amounts of the budget into simply getting out of our gravity well.

'Russia went with Earth orbit rendezvous, and focussed on putting up a space station in local orbit before going anywhere else. Funnily enough, Mir lasted twice as long as Skylab, and russian tech is a fairly fundamental part of the ISS, especially since a progress visit costs a fraction of what a shuttle visit does.'

Except they didn't. The USSR originally planned an Earth orbit rendezvous with a 50 tonne payload; but when it was clear the US was moving ahead with its Gemini missions, the Soviet's realised they didn't have enough expertise in EOR and switched to a direct ascent on a bigger rocket which became the N1 L3.

Their space station programme was never part of the Soviet lunar programme and really only got going when it became clear the US would be the first country to put a man on the Moon. Salyut 1 wasn't launched until 1971 and then its size was limited by the amount of mass a Proton could put into orbit. It was far less capable than Skylab. As for Mir lasting longer than Skylab that's only because the US Shuttle programme was so late in making its first flight. A decision had been made in the late 1960s that no more Saturn Ibs would be built, so by the time of Skylab 4 there was only one spare launcher in inventory. The plan had been the Shuttle would be the only way to get Americans into space. There were advanced plans to boost the orbit of Skylab and refurbish it for missions, but in 1979 the station smashed into Australia, two years before the first Shuttle launch.

Wow, a lot of negitivity on NASA, the people that just did an amazing repair of the Hubble. NASA, the folks that still have two rovers checking out Mars. How many working rovers does the ESA have on Mars ? Or, how many times has anyone one else besides NASA have even successfully landed on Mars? No one. Sure Virgin Galatic/Space Ship One.. neat to get into the very high stratosphere... Big friggin deal, it cant even orbit, and SpaceShipOne could only handle the mass lifting of 2 people.( or one american, as we are a heavy people) and the ship went into a spin. Basically the fact is that NASA has a fairly small budget and it wants ( or is ordered to ) to do a lot of different thing. Probes into the solar system, near Earth experiments, atmospheric testing and research, etc. Oh, and take people into space.