What study was that? I understand if Mars is your guiding focus, a return to the Moon would, in your view, slow you down. When in fact, it's the only way you're going to get there.
All Out Fight Begins for Future of US Space Program Mars Society Calls for Mobilization*** 1. America needs to continue to be nation of pioneers, and space is the frontier.
2. The problem with NASA is not that it has taken risks, but that has taken risks without a goal worthy of those risks.
3. The problem with NASA is not that it has taken risks, but that has taken risks without a goal worthy of those risks.
4. NASA's current policy of trying to make headway in space through miscellaneous technology development programs to spread money around its various internal constituencies is a failure. We are spending 90% of the average 1961-73 NASA budget ($17 billion/year) in real inflation-adjusted dollars, and achieving less than 1% the results. In consequence, we are no closer today to sending humans to Mars then we were 20 years ago. To make progress, NASA needs to be given a goal and a schedule. The goal should be humans to Mars. The schedule should be 10 years.
5. The Shuttle Orbiter is a high-risk vehicle whose use is only rational for a limited class of missions, such as Hubble repair. But the Shuttle launch stack can be readily converted to a heavy lift vehicle capable of lifting 120 tonnes to LEO or throwing 45 tonnes directly to the Moon or Mars by replacing the Orbiter with a payload fairing and rocket stage. That is what should be done, and a coherent set of payload elements developed to enable such direct-launch human exploration expeditions.
6. Back to the Moon in five years as an initial milestone. On to Mars in 10. We can do it. We overcame much greater challenges to reach the Moon a generation and a half ago. Accepting the line of those who say we can't is equivalent to accepting the idea that we have become something less than what we used to be, and that is something we truly cannot afford. ***
The point is that lifting tons and tons of infrastructure to the Moon simply cannot pay for itself in cheaper Mars propellant. And--given the political and global terrorist priorities--we are going to do neither (return to the Moon or go to Mars) in my lifetime (or yours, I suspect).
The study was an internal one which involved several experts. We never published the paper; we ran out of money before the study could be "completed"--but the results were very clear.
One can argue on non-economic grounds that we should return to the Moon. One can argue (Zubrin has done so) about the various reasons to go to Mars.
Someday perhaps we will. But not before every terrorist nation is wiped out and every terrorist killed.
--Boris