First mission to bring back samples from the moon since 1976 started successfully

[SvennoJ]

Nighthawk117 said:

SvennoJ said:

It makes more sense to spend the time and money on fusion power plants and ways to accelerate the move to a hydrogen fuel cell economy, instead of using fossil fuels to fly to the moon. Without that kinda tech we're not going anywhere on Mars.

But sure, both can be done at the same time, while a lot more needs to be done before letting humans lose to destroy new planets. If we can't survive on Earth in the long run, we certainly won't survive on Mars.

Liquid hydrogen is not a fossil fuel.  But, while using it only takes 3 days to get to the moon, it's use would take 6 months to get to Mars, and even

longer to get back to the Earth.  The fastest and best way to get to Mars, is with a nuclear rocket engine, it could be either nuclear thermal or nuclear electric.

All the more reason to speed up transition to a hydrogen fuel cell economy :)
Nuclear fusion to get to Mars would work as well.

Nasa might not use fossil fuels to fly (SpaceX does), yet a whole lot of energy goes into making the liquid hydrogen. Nuclear fusion is the future, yet we hardly ever hear anything about it. How are those test plants doing in France and India.