Russia and the moon have had an on-again-off-again relationship. In 1970, Russia landed Lunokhod 1, according to NASA, but the second lunar rover was less successful. Since then, Russia has not made a move on the moon.
But that is all about to change.
The Russian space agency, Roscosmos, announced its plans to set up "a high-tech lunar base, complete with human habitats, science and tech labs, a launching and landing port for spacecraft, and even an astronomy observatory," according to Tech Insider. Luna 25 is slated to land on the moon's south pole in 2024.
The new spacecraft is already under construction and will include eight cameras and run on plutonium-238, a radioactive material, which generates heat as it breaks down. The spacecraft's battery will turn the heat into electricity.
"The isotope, plutonium-238, is not useful for nuclear weapons," according to the EPA. "However it generates significant heat through its decay process, which make [sic] it useful as a long-lived power source."
Plutonium-238 is also man-made and in low reserve, according to Nature, and NASA doesn't have enough to sustain a trip to Mars.
Russia won't be the lonely lunar base. ESA (European Space Agency) has decided to return to the moon, too. "We have to look into the future about what are the next destinations ... what to do after the International Space Station," said Johann-Dietrich Wörner, ESA's current director-general. ISS operations are rapidly approaching their expiration date, "and we better know what to do afterwards," he added, according to Space.com.
So why is the U.S. so hell-bent on getting to Mars?
Some argue that another moon mission would be a perfect step in getting to Mars - that a lunar base is necessary for the success of a manned Mars mission. "Let's just go [to Mars] - prove that it is doable, prove that it is feasible and then examine how you do it on a regular basis that's affordable," Harley Thronson, a senior scientist at NASA, told Space.com in 2013.
"I refer to them as the Martians and the Lunatics - the people who want to go to Mars, and the people who want to go back to the moon," Roger Launius, a senior space history curator at the Smithsonian, told Space.com in 2012. "No one side has the clear-cut answer. There are positives and negatives for both."
Former NASA astronaut Buzz Aldrin has voiced his impatience for a Mars mission many times and has suggested a plan where NASA can have both a lunar base and a Mars base, according to Tech Insider.
What do you think? Is a lunar mission a necessary step to ensure man is ready for the hardships of a Mars mission or are you with Aldrin who has told NASA, "Get your a-- to Mars!" Leave your comments in the comment section below.
For more on Aldrin's famous trip to the moon (and how much it cost), CLICK HERE.
To read what it is like to be in the deep vacuum of space, check out HNGN's exclusive interview with former astronaut Mike Massimino.
