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

[Valcan]

While i agree we should go to the moon first and establish a permanent manned presence i differ on a few things.

1) dont establish a community on the moon. Establish a mining and resources base there should be 2 bases at first 1 in orbit with the earth one in orbit with the moon directly over the mining sites.

Site A(the one near earth) will be built after the one above the moon which will basicaly be providing living quarters for the operaters and engineers building the more livable station from the minerals mined on the moon.

Site B(the moon site) eventually becomes a True space station orbiting rings for ag, ship yard, smelting and processing facilities, etc. This site gets the resources brought up from the moon and turns them into water and ship building resources. This in turn builds station A which is used for the processing, recycling, manufacture of new satelites and as pitstop for trips to the moon.

Site B builds mining and transport ships that go to near earth asteroids and bring them closer to orbit for processing and eventually as more stations.

Finaly it builds a large and i mean LARGE ship designed to get to Mars in under 90 days. This ship should carry the nessesary facilities to:

Create a base in phobos. Send landers to small canyons or craters that will then set up a temporary camp to construct a encloser in one of these areas. This area will then be terraformed into a small city with food production being the key. They will then go on to produce more such habitates as more and more colonist arive. This will go on and on and on.

Mean while the stations in orbit will now be at a tremendous level the space industry will be nearly independent able to produce most everything it needs and earth will be able to use the resources of space.

And then well it keeps going.

Anyways just my veiw.

 

[Lancelot_64]

I think the biggest problem we are facing in this age is the vast waste of resources. We used to finance the space program with whatever means necessary to get where we want. It seems that when we were in a race to get to space first or to get to the moon there was no limit to the money the government would put into the space program. Now we are not in any race and it isn't on the front page news so it doesn't seem as important. We need to get to the moon and establish a launch platform to mars. Unfortunately NASA has been hindered by all the money being used overseas in ventures that don't benefit as much as space colonization. They will need an extra 3 billion per year to get to the moon by 2020. Sorry for the lecture.......We should go to the Moon, Build a Base and Move on to Mars. :ugeek:

I agree with Spaceguy on all accounts. However, I feel there IS a race taking place today that should be taken seriously.. I mention in my previous comments that space is the next "frontier" given this, countries should make space a higher priority.. It will be essential to secure our safety and future gains. I comment frequently in forums that could possibly be picked up by the president or the presidential staff.. I would hope you all do the same as it cannot hurt to make your agenda known.

Also, I admire NASA very much, but I am sore over how long it takes to make accomplishments.. granted the tasks are complex but how long can one use that excuse when current technology is nearly sufficient? If the problem is all lack of funding then broadcast that fact... We need to be more efficient - our Russian brothers have my admiration with their heavy lifting rocket "Soyuz" I believe it is called. Original design, LOX and kerosene does the job quite well - and it has been doing so since 1957. (Space elevator? look no further lol..) Tell me how did the shuttle out perform the Soyuz because I cannot see it.. If I had known at the time that the shuttle was limited to LEO and consumed most if not all of or our manned flight budget I would have been really disappointed.. Lets not pretend - build a ssto space plane when the tech. really exists. Perhaps the shuttle performed a specific role in our national security who knows.

I commented to the Bush administration via a poll in support of a moon return back in 2004.
Please remember to make your wishes heard - I am sure the powers would appreciate knowing your priorities.
You may email our president directly on the "White House" web site if you really have a fire lol..

Moon then quickly to Mars Oora!! (by 2020?)

 

[tchad]

Wrong question; wrong options. Down one or another deep gravity well, or both. The Augustine Commission has given us the goal: "human expansion into the solar system." For that to happen, our presence in space must be physically and economically sustainable. Not a stunt. Not a scientific expedition. Economic sustainability should drive the destination, and that is not likely to be down Mars' deep gravity well. It's so expensive (fuel and machines) to get back out, and there is little anyone can imagine there that could bring an economic return. Unless you want another Apollo style unsustainable jaunt to Mars and then another 50 year wait before we send humans beyond low Earth orbit again, forget Mars.

Two options exist that could eventually make a human presence in space economically sustainable. Neither will get going any time soon without public co-investment. Additional options should be sought as part of a broader public investment in space. The first obvious option is space-based solar power. Much could be built robotically, but large structures will eventually need repairs, and that probably means people. Investing here has national security, energy independence, and climate change implications as potential political and financial drivers.

The second option is asteroid mining, focusing on near Earth asteroids (NEAs), the quasi asteroids of Phobos and Deimos, and eventually the belt asteroids. Chondritic asteroids contain relatively high amounts of rare earth elements which are in big demand for fuel cells, solar panels, cell phones, missile guidance mechanisms and a huge variety of home and business computer and electronics applications. China currently provides 95% of the world's rare earth elements, and has over 50% of the known reserves, so there are serious strategic national security considerations here too. Numerous studies have looked at rare earth elements and important metals in certain asteroid types and calculated values in the tens of trillions of dollars just for one modestly sized space rock. Materials from asteroids will also include water ice that can be used to ensure physical sustainability of a human presence in space, and to manufacture fuels for spacecraft propulsion. Metals and silicates can be used to supply materials for construction of ever larger space-based solar power plants.

It's so much easier to get to an NEA, and to get back, than to go even to the moon and back. Why do we keep thinking of the Moon and Mars as THE destinations for space exploration? I would argue it is simply because we evolved on the surface of a planet, so our bias (and the influence of science fiction fantasies) blinds many people to where the real opportunties are. Let's let go of fantasies and start thinking of practical ways forward. The two options described above will require new public-private partnerships between NASA-DoE and the energy industry, and between NASA-US Bureau of Mines and perhaps an international consortium of mining corporations. Option two will also require a modification of the UN Space Treaty which currently forbids national governments or corporations to own or exploit space-based resources. There is plenty of real estate up there for every country, and everyone; no need to take away the only incentive we have to attract the hundreds of billions of dollars it will really take to kick start space-based industries.

 

[JP_Morgan]

Since neither planetary body is habitable Mars is irrelevant. We are only going to build domes and tunnels for our habitats and since the volume of a sphere is HUGE we would not need the space that Mars represents for centuries.
Mars is only an EGO project thought up by grandstanders. Maybe in a few centuries the need for elbow room will require us to bombard Mars with water ice.

 

[Valcan]

Since neither planetary body is habitable Mars is irrelevant. We are only going to build domes and tunnels for our habitats and since the volume of a sphere is HUGE we would not need the space that Mars represents for centuries.
Mars is only an EGO project thought up by grandstanders. Maybe in a few centuries the need for elbow room will require us to bombard Mars with water ice.

----------------------------------------------------------------
You've never read new scientist. Heck half the people there think we should start neutering half the human race and only let the "right" people breed. Nazism anyone?

While i do agree with what you said mine wasnt a ok lets JUST go to mars. Colonizing mars would just be a project like any other.

And btw mining companies have been looking at asteroid mining for decades just isnt the infestructure there if you could make it they would use it.

 

[JP_Morgan]

Since neither planetary body is habitable Mars is irrelevant. We are only going to build domes and tunnels for our habitats and since the volume of a sphere is HUGE we would not need the space that Mars represents for centuries.
Mars is only an EGO project thought up by grandstanders. Maybe in a few centuries the need for elbow room will require us to bombard Mars with water ice.

----------------------------------------------------------------
You've never read new scientist. Heck half the people there think we should start neutering half the human race and only let the "right" people breed. Nazism anyone?

While i do agree with what you said mine wasnt a ok lets JUST go to mars. Colonizing mars would just be a project like any other.

And btw mining companies have been looking at asteroid mining for decades just isnt the infestructure there if you could make it they would use it.

Feeling a bit persecuted Valcan? My statement had nothing to do with your post. And what the hell does Nazism have to do with the poll?

 

[SpaceForAReason]

The only reason I would prefer the moon is because any gravity at all will help long-duration missions.

People seem to do better in the presence of gravity. They are finding this out on the ISS. Astronauts have been complaining of swollen nasal membranes and stuffiness because there is no gravity to keep the blood lower in the body. Muscles and bones atrophy due to the lack of resistance. There have been complaints that mental clarity has suffered since sleeping in zero gee has also been a challenge.

Also, we humans are more accustomed to industry in a gravity field. We know what kind of equipment would be necessary on the moon to mine and process ore. I don't even have a clue how or what they would use in zero gee. I can only imagine that it would be a very delicate and time-consuming operation; especially if the asteroid is loosely packed (dangerous!). And what would you do with all the floating slag? For us to produce anything in great quantities we are probably better off with something we already know how to deal with first (like open pit mining in a gravity field). (And the site won't be drifing helter-skelter.)

At 1/5 Earth's gravity and no atmosphere, getting stuff off the moon should not be an insurmountable task in the long run. It is bound to be alot cheaper than what we are presently doing. Many ideas have been tossed about to make it easier. Rail Guns (expensive) and Sling Shots (cheaper) sounded pretty nifty (even if it would take time and money to make them; the moon's escape velocity is 5,324 mph compared to Earth's 25,022 mph; orbital velocities are smaller [ISS orbits near 17,000 mph; which should put a moon satellite at about 3,400 mph]). Robotic, ion-powered tugs can be used to accelerate orbit and transport prepared product from the moon to the construction site (we ship similar product on earth by slow boat, why not in space?).

Proximity to earth means frequent communication and shore leave for those on the moon. Communication and return from asteroids can be tricky if earth is not in the neighborhood.

The moon may be gravitationally more expensive, but I suspect that asteroid mining would beat that cost in other ways.

 

[jemartin89]

I'm surprised more people didn't pick the 3rd option, especially on "space.com" ....

Really, you guys don't think the government is wasting so much money on other things that it's silly to put the pinch on NASA? I mean seriously. Who DOESN'T think that the government budget should be cut in other places, and NASA's budget should grow? The idea that tightening NASA's budget will cause them to do more better is ludicrous as history has shown. NASA did best when they were given more budget leeway.

We shouldn't be choosing between commercial spaceflight, heavy lift rockets, the constellation program, a base on the moon, a base on mars - we should be choosing to support ALL of them! The government wastes so much money on so many pointless budget items... the idea that NASA and Science should take a backseat to the government's other wasteful programs just seems obnoxious.

Space exploration should be a national priority as far as the budget goes. I say fund all of these things: constellation, mars base, commercial spaceflight incentives, the heavy lift rocket, and new deep-space propulsion technologies!

 

[neilsox]

That guy in the white house can make lots of trouble unless we go for a manned mission to an asteroid. When he leaves office, we can reconsider. Asteroid has several advantages, especially the ones that come closer than the moon = short travel time, maybe. If the mission successfully establishes an outpost, we have one that covers almost as much of the inner solar system as Mars = sometimes almost 300 million kilometers from Earth. We've learned a lot about almost zero g at the ISS, 1/6g or 0.38g are mostly unknowns long term. Neil

 

[bdewoody]

That guy in the white house can make lots of trouble unless we go for a manned mission to an asteroid. When he leaves office, we can reconsider. Asteroid has several advantages, especially the ones that come closer than the moon = short travel time, maybe. If the mission successfully establishes an outpost, we have one that covers almost as much of the inner solar system as Mars = sometimes almost 300 million kilometers from Earth. We've learned a lot about almost zero g at the ISS, 1/6g or 0.38g are mostly unknowns long term. Neil

We can't send a manned mission to an asteroid with any vehicle currently on the drawing boards, and Obabma knows that. It's one thing to send a small robotic probe to an asteroid taking a year or more to get there and the same amount of time to get back, but there is no way currently to send a manned craft directly to an asteroid, match it's trajectory, land on it and then power back to earth.
This Asteroid mission is a red herring.

 

[neilsox]

Are you saying that President Obama specified a main asteroid belt asteroid for the manned mission? Why would you plan to spend a year getting to an asteroid that will pass 200,000 kilometers from Earth? That is an average speed of about 25 kilometers per hour? Admittedly we do have to accelerate considerably, just before making the landing, to avoid a crash on the asteroid, but we also have to match speed with the Moon or Mars to make a soft landing.
According to your definition of "on the drawing board' how many days would it take to have as many details on the drawing board as we have for a manned landing on Mars. Is there a significant possibility that we will actually go to Mars in any craft that is already on the drawing board?
We could say Apollo is on the drawing board, but nearly everyone thinks we should go to the moon with much different details than we did 41 years ago. How long did it take us to adapt Saturn 5 to orbit Sky Lab? Neil

 

[bdewoody]

Are you saying that President Obama specified a main asteroid belt asteroid for the manned mission? Why would you plan to spend a year getting to an asteroid that will pass 200,000 kilometers from Earth? That is an average speed of about 25 kilometers per hour? Admittedly we do have to accelerate considerably, just before making the landing, to avoid a crash on the asteroid, but we also have to match speed with the Moon or Mars to make a soft landing.
According to your definition of "on the drawing board' how many days would it take to have as many details on the drawing board as we have for a manned landing on Mars. Is there a significant possibility that we will actually go to Mars in any craft that is already on the drawing board?
We could say Apollo is on the drawing board, but nearly everyone thinks we should go to the moon with much different details than we did 41 years ago. How long did it take us to adapt Saturn 5 to orbit Sky Lab? Neil

No I was not saying that Obama specified going to a main belt asteroid. Apparently you and many others do nor understand what it takes to go to an asteroid with a highly elliptical orbit. Going to the moon or even Mars is simple in comparison. To those destinations the vehicle just has to coast to the target and then use said target's gravity well to extablish an orbit and then use a lander to get to the surface. Everything here uses manageable amounts of fuel. On the other hand if you are trying to match the speed and trajectory of any asteroid without the benefit of any gravity to capture your vehicle then you better have prodigeous amounts of fuel to get there and then return to earth. We are at least 100 years away from such a vehicle and that is only if we start soon to develope the necessary technology now

 

[neilsox]

I agree on the highly eliptical orbits, but many of the asteroids that come about as close as our moon have near circular orbits. Perhaps MeteorWayne will tell us a percentage and the speed with respect to Earth, at closest passage, of the slower ones.
If the speed of the landing craft, just before release from the mother craft, if any, is 20, 000 kilometers per hour with respect to Mars, and we decide aerobraking in the Mars atmosphere is unsafe for a manned mission, then we also need lots of fuel to match speed. Have any of the Mars landers used aerobraking? Neil