POLL: The Moon or Mars, Where to Go First?

[doublehelix]

NASA's exploration mantra for Mars has long been "follow the water" because that's where life might be. Well, we learned this week that Mars has nearly pure water ice in craters, adding to the list of places to go. Meanwhile, we also learned this week that thin traces of water, surprisingly, permeate moon dirt all over the place, and there might also be significant water ice in shadowed lunar craters. Nobody's expecting any biology on the moon, but the water ice could serve lunar bases and provide a source of fuel, potentially making the moon an excellent place to do science, set up the first beyond-Earth colony, and serve as a launch point for deep-space exploration.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 ... r-ice.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 ... sions.html

 

[heroineworshipper]

Good to see yesterday's lunar water discovery straightened out this issue. Always funny how everyone votes based on the last 15 minutes of news & then completely forgets it when the next headline gets posted.

 

[wayfaerer]

I know there are a lot of vocal people on the site who believe we should go to Mars, but I throw my hat into the moon ring, so to speak. I feel that the only viable option for Mars at this point is a one-way trip, and while I would volunteer myself for such a mission, I don't think the general public is willing to let the government fund NASA for such an operation. I'm sure that not much more than grumbling will happen, but as soon as the representatives in Congress listen, bam, funding cut. Kill the program while it's still in the crib. I feel that if we can actually bring people back, and prove our chops on the moon as far as sustainable living situations, then Mars will be easier to swallow for people.

And before people rail on me for not thinking big enough, I retort that not everybody thinks like the members of SDC, and you can't have a tin ear to the public, since it's their dollar after all. Plus, if we refine technology on the moon, it will be cheaper to go to Mars. Right, I know, it may not be cheaper in the end because we're paying for both the moon and Mars, but like I said, the concept of a Mars outpost would be accepted more readily.

Plus, if we make a colony on the moon, imagine fifty years from now they could have a manufacturing plant that made ships that had to leave a gravity well that was only 1/6th of Earth's, using the moon or even an LEO space station as a layover to transfer to a different vehicle, reducing the need for gigantic heavy-lift vehicles with 75% fuel weight.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Haven't we already had this discussion? Didn't we already do a poll on this? Or am I imagining things?

It's so obvious, to me anyway, that the Moon must come first. Once we're on the Moon with SEVERAL outposts that are self sufficient or as self-sufficient as possible, THEN and only THEN should we consider venturing off to Mars.

We're having a hard enough time just getting reasonably priced robot probes to Mars and maintaining a presence in LEO. In my view, the 'Mars or Bust' crowd have lost their marbles and are not in touch with financial reality*

No one would be happier than I if the United States, Russia, China, India, the EU and everybody else cancelled in concert their military spending and redirected all that money into space exploration and utilization. Oh the things we could achieve and learn with those trillions of dollars!!!!

 

[Geoduck2]

Assuming that there is enough water on the moon to be useful, a big assumption still IMO, the Moon is the best place to work out the bugs of a stable self sustaining base. Better to figure out how to do that there and then go to somewhere like Mars or Europa. On those farther sites, if there's a failure you are stuck. I keep thinking of the problems including the fire on Mir. That kind of thing doesn't happen on the ISS. We learned how to build a Space Station. There will be the same teething problems trying to construct a station on another body in space. Better to start close to home.

 

[nimbus]

First priority, before going to the Moon or Mars, is making access to space cheaper. Assuming the OP question means where public space should aim. If it means where private space ought to go, as a personal preference answer, I'd say Mars, but only to break the tie. I'd go to both and the devil would be in the details - each mission to each destination would be tailor made to fit objectives and budget.

 

[nmgraywiz]

Greetings All...

Yes, I'm one of those psyco's who thinks we should spend all our money on both programs, in tandem and get our buts out there.. However to be realistic.. That's just not going to happen via a public, government driven program.. too much politics and too much "My program should go first" Politics and crud... but I always keep pushing for the hope that military spending goes to 1% of GNP instead of the space program having much less than that.. oh what we could do with just 1%... (rubbing hands)

Realisticly though, the moon should be first.. for precisely the reasons everyone has cited above my post... We're not all knowing, and omnipotent, so we have to take things in steps.. Only by slowly putting one foot in front of the other can we insure that we WILL get where we're going. More money will help make it faster, but if we always move ahead one step, we will still get there.. money or not.. And since we don't know everything yet.. a 3 day trek back to earth in an emergency is much safer for our astronauts than a 3 month to 1 year return trip. That's an awful long time.. How about we establish some outposts along the way for emergencies before we make the trek to mars.. Personally, I think unmanned fuel, and emergency stations should be created and spread out all along the route between mars and the earth BEFORE we send anyone, but then again.. that's just me.. Get them fuel stations up folks.. My Firefly need to fuel up.. I got places to go.. heheh

Moon, Will happen sooner, Will be Safer, and stands the best chance of not getting cancelled outright for budget reasons...

L8

The Gray Wizard
(aka: Matthew Romero)

 

[mendota]

A lot of good opinions on this. I agree- Moon first. Develop better technology before trying for Mars and beyond.

 

[daztek]

moon first, and get surface-to-earth-orbit fixed one way or another.

mars is a waste. especially now we know there's water on the moon. if we're gonna go out mars way we should be only going to get high metal- or water-content asteroids to build stuff or for habitability / fuel.

number one objective - sustainable habitation and production in space!

let private enterprise pay for human mars missions. no tax dollars wasted on gravity wells!

 

[kravjar666]

If we go to Mars, we duplicate the mistake we made previously. Instead of developing and sustainable infrastructure, we go for the one-off stunt. And we waste another 40 years.

Once we are on the moon, we have access to that abundant electricity. We can create electromagnetic mass drivers to deliver payloads anywhere we like in the solar system.

 

[Amadamerican]

What’s on the moon for us? To me I think the Moon will cost us as much money as going to Mars in the long run. 90+ percent of the stuff needed on the Moon will from Earth. I really don’t think we should brag about the recently water found on the Moon, because I really don’t think the water found on the moon is a large amount enough that will last a long time. My point is that the Moon will always depend on Earth for supply; taking anything from Earth to the Moon will cost millions of dollars. A lot of stuff that can be done on the Moon can also be done in Earth orbit. Going to Mars will cost money too, but that’s only in the beginning. Mars has all the ingredients needed to support life. Mars has way more water than the Moon, stronger gravity, a thin atmosphere that can become a thick one, a bald headed magnetic field that can be fix, and above all Mars is ready for certain plant found on Earth. My point is that Mars will support itself after a while. It took us 40 years to start thinking about a plan to go back to the Moon. If we go to the Moon by 2025, how long will it takes us to get to Mars? Maybe 100 to 200 years later after we get to the moon, and that’s if an asteroid doesn’t give us a one way ticket from space age to stones age :evil: . We don’t have enough money to do both going to Mars and the Moon at the same time, but we certainly have enough money to do one of them. Now if we really want to make our species a two planet species, Mars have my vote :mrgreen: .

 

[elroy_jetson]

Of course we need to live on the Moon first. It's nearby, yet far - well beyond Earths protective magnetic field - it's truly a deep space neighbor. Yet it's close enough for a three day trip. We can learn a lot on the Moon, not the least of which is how to survive in space. Going to Mars, when we are ready, is the next logical step. But if our first step isn't a permanent presence on the Moon, we'll fall flat on our collective face.

 

[kert]

Moon isnt 3 days away, its actually about 1.3 light-seconds away, making it an ideal place to test out teleoperated robotics for ISRU, base construction, and fast exploration.
Lunokhod 2 covered 32 miles on the surface in .. 1973. We didnt even have PCs back then.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

The real question here was which one to visit "first"? This is not an either or proposition. The ultimate goal is of course Mars. We dont need a Moon base to get to Mars, just the will. However, there are some incremental skills that would improve on a Moon base that can then be applied to Mars.

So to answer this specific question I will say Moon first. But the answer to the real question is Mars.

 

[kert]

The ultimate goal is of course Mars.

You state this as an axiom. Why ? Ultimate goal to what ?

 

[davoyager]

We are going for both by doing the moon first.
There will come a time when you look up at the moon that you will swear you see green while you know there are only a few acres of green under protective domes there. And there will come a time when you look up at the moon and you will definitely see patches of green; and there will come a day perhaps thousands of years from now when the moon will be a green jewel in our solar system next to the blue homeplanet.
Mars by then will also be coming back to life but I think Mars is going to be a messy business.

 

[ISS_Fan]

I'm afraid this is the type of question that gravely reinforces misconceptions. The Moon is about 1000 times farther away than LEO and Mars is approximately 1000 times farther away than the Moon. Human spaceflight technology, as demonstarted daily on the ISS, is barely able to support humans a few light-seconds away from Earth. (Just listen to any spacewalk when a problem arises and they have to consult the ground to find out the torque limit of a bolt. That's a show-stopper over light-minute transmission times.) In addition, considering the amount of equipment breakdowns on the ISS, a mission to Mars would be a suicide mission or perhaps you could do a Magellan -- send out five craft to get one back. NASA has also assiduously avoided getting data on the radiation dangers of interplanetary flight or what it was about the Martian dust that was so reactive with the Viking landers. For all we know, the Martian surface would badly burn any organic substance it contacted. In any event, it is not even sure our insolvent government (estimated Negative Net Worth of $59.3 trillion at the end of FY 2008 according to economist J. Williams) will able to afford a return to the Moon.

 

[srmarti]

The Moon is sufficient engineering challenge to start. Let's gain experience with lunar operations and develop the hardware needed to expand capabilities from there.

 

[77777777]

Good news.

It is possible with yesterdays test 9.25.09 to go to the Moon in two hours or less !!!

It would take longer to get to the Launch Site due to traffic than go to the Moon.

With Entertainment, University, Sports and just fun, etc., Telescopes would work better, short would be great.

Have a great day !

Don Ross (Don)

Graduate Engr. and Scientist

Maybe we'll pack our bags soon !!!

I requested Daniel Golden to Send an Oiter and Rover at the same time for I got his attention the after the

Space Shuttle should be fixed and just a bandaide.

I told him about a friend who discovered the first meteroide from Mars. He and I have over 50 identical traits.

He announced twin rovers to Mars. Spirit was mine and opportunity is his. They are not female for this reason.

After four long days of searching, he anounced twin rovers to mars.

Let's go for it !!!!!

 

[nimbus]

Are you writing from the future?

 

[stilton]

I think the eventual objective of human space travel should be settlement, rather than competing with robots as cost-effective explorers (even if humans might , for some missions, be able to win the competition for a while longer). The moon would be the first place we could try our hand at settlement.

However, it seems we know quite a lot about the health effects of microgravity, but effectively nothing about low (e.g. lunar or martian) gravity. Maybe human populations could not survive or reproduce effectively in such conditions. With a moonbase, we would start gathering the relevant data.

 

[ixcomexinxpeace]

Greetings All...

Yes, I'm one of those psyco's who thinks we should spend all our money on both programs, in tandem and get our buts out there.. However to be realistic.. That's just not going to happen via a public, government driven program.. too much politics and too much "My program should go first" Politics and crud... but I always keep pushing for the hope that military spending goes to 1% of GNP instead of the space program having much less than that.. oh what we could do with just 1%... (rubbing hands)

Realisticly though, the moon should be first.. for precisely the reasons everyone has cited above my post... We're not all knowing, and omnipotent, so we have to take things in steps.. Only by slowly putting one foot in front of the other can we insure that we WILL get where we're going. More money will help make it faster, but if we always move ahead one step, we will still get there.. money or not.. And since we don't know everything yet.. a 3 day trek back to earth in an emergency is much safer for our astronauts than a 3 month to 1 year return trip. That's an awful long time.. How about we establish some outposts along the way for emergencies before we make the trek to mars.. Personally, I think unmanned fuel, and emergency stations should be created and spread out all along the route between mars and the earth BEFORE we send anyone, but then again.. that's just me.. Get them fuel stations up folks.. My Firefly need to fuel up.. I got places to go.. heheh

Moon, Will happen sooner, Will be Safer, and stands the best chance of not getting cancelled outright for budget reasons...

L8

The Gray Wizard
(aka: Matthew Romero)

Yo mon...i think you are correct mon and wile were out there lets see if we can smoke the dust as well mon.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Good news.

It is possible with yesterdays test 9.25.09 to go to the Moon in two hours or less !!!

and a bunch of other barely coherent stuff.

What test yesterday can get us to the moon in 2 hours or less?

Please try and write more clearly so we have some clue as to what you are talking about

I'd think a grad student would be able to make their points more clearly!

Slow down and read what you wrote after typing!

Welcome to Space.com.

 

[FlatEarth]

I have to agree with Buzz Aldrin on this. We've been to the moon, now let's move on to the next objective. We can learn from returning to the moon, like we have learned from the ISS, but the question we should ask ourselves is "Have we learned enough from the ISS to go on to Mars?". If not, then let's use the ISS to make sure that we can. Certainly some of the habitat development can be done on the moon remotely.

A Mars mission should not be a longer version of the moon missions. It needs to be the start of a permanent presence there. The way to do it is to set up a base ahead of an actual landing. The resources we would have spent on the moon should instead be devoted to this goal, and the logistics of its design should include the genesis of our first off-world colony. This is ultimately the reason we put people in space to begin with.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

The ultimate goal is of course Mars.

You state this as an axiom. Why ? Ultimate goal to what ?

If it is not an axiom, then it should be. The ultimate goal of mankind should be expanding our sphere of influence out from Earth to as many locations in our solar system as possible. We can be prepared for a bad day meeting a NEO, or we can go the way of T-Rex.

As a species and as a civilization you either grow, or you diminish, you cant stay level. So the question in the original post was where to "first"? And as I stated; first should be the Moon, but the only real place that for sure can support a human civilization is MARS. Hence the ultimate goal.