Digest Number 376

> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 08:19:43 -0500
>
> "It turns out that during the entire mission, the
> crew would never venture
> farther from Earth than about 4.5 lunar distances.
> The Earth would never
> appear smaller in the sky than the full Moon appears
> to us from here on
> Earth! That's not such a daunting trip at all,"
> Durda remarked."
>
> I was surprised by the quick travel times, but this
> was the remark that
> really took me by surprise. And to think there are
> space advocates who
> consider "the next logical step" after the moon to
> be a trip to a planet so
> distant that the Earth would appear as a tiny
> blue-white star. Any who
> consider Mars the obvious next stop are simply
> suffering from a bad case of
> planetary chauvinism.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Combs

Or Barsoomian romance from reading Edgar Rice
Burroughs novels. (I read the article you're quoting
from BTW.) I agree the asteroids are our best
immediate bet since many of the more suitable NEAs
pass well within reach every year or two. Lunar
exploration makes sense from a waystation to Mars
point of view (or a pure science POV) but Mars, though
totally fascinating as a subject for pure science is
probably best put on the back burner for another
generation.

JF

=====
"Potty train. Pull all-nighters. Work. Pay taxes. Retire. Play golf. Die."

--TMF