Mars first or Moon first?

[natey787]

We need to learn to live on other planets, and the best way to do that is to go to the moon.

I see your point, but to "live off" a planet would require the use of local resources. The goal is, eventually, self-sufficiency. That means that everything needed to survive can come from the planet.
The Moon has some water, in a few places. It would be useful not only for everything we would need water directly for, but also to make air and fuel. But that's it.
Mars offers much more. From its air and soil we can get not only water, oxygen, and fuel, but also chemicals needed for basic agriculture. There are even ways to produce plastics from chemicals in the Martian air and soil.

 

[Unstung]

I see your point, but to "live off" a planet would require the use of local resources. The goal is, eventually, self-sufficiency. That means that everything needed to survive can come from the planet.
The Moon has some water, in a few places. It would be useful not only for everything we would need water directly for, but also to make air and fuel. But that's it.
Mars offers much more. From its air and soil we can get not only water, oxygen, and fuel, but also chemicals needed for basic agriculture. There are even ways to produce plastics from chemicals in the Martian air and soil.

There's oxygen in the moon rocks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2
It's possible to farm on the moon.

It would still take much longer to live on Mars, and living on the moon is possible right now (with the budget).

 

[T.Neo]

There's oxygen in the moon rocks.

AFAIK up to 40% of lunar regolith is oxygen. Your point is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2
It's possible to farm on the moon.

About as possible as it is to farm on Mars. Biosphere 2 took place on Earth.

It would still take much longer to live on Mars

Longer how?

and living on the moon is possible right now (with the budget).

Going, yes, but living on the Moon is about as possible as living on Mars. There is of course the question of why you'd want to waste time on the Moon. :shifty:

Mars has several advantages to the Moon in terms of in situ resources. AFAIK the nitrogen content of lunar regolith is not that high.

 

[eveningsky339]

Wait a minute, hold the phone...

I would like to point out the obvious-- we have already been to the moon. Granted, in terms of scientific advancement it wasn't too terribly productive, but the historical and psychological triumph of the Apollo program was just as important, IMO.

The same goes for Mars. Just the fact that humans set foot on a foreign planet is a major triumph for humanity. Mars is not an extraterrestrial science lab, though in the long run this would be the most logical and useful use of the planet.

I feel that we should first aim for a short-term Mars voyage, and then work on developing cislunar space for long-term Mars goals. Developing expensive technologies and constructing an extremely complex infrastructure on the Moon before a Mars voyage would put off a trip to the red planet for decades, if not longer.

 

[supersonic]

Sorry here, but short term trip to Mars!!!??? Flying there and back will take 4 months. Spending a few weeks there rather than staying for years is really has no point.

 

[Unstung]

Longer how?

There are more problems with getting to Mars, such as the lack of gravity for an extended duration trip, the trip length, the boosters required to get to Mars and be able to carry a base, etc.
The moon is a much shorter trip and has already been landed on. That would be good practice for Mars, anyways, and the moon is only a 3-day commute. Why go to Mars when we haven't colonized only 3 days away?
It would certainly be nice to have another home than Earth.
As supersonic said, the trip will be months compared to possible weeks on the Martin surface.

 

[TMac3000]

I think the moon is probably a good baby-step before attempting manned interplanetary missions.

If we are going to visit another planet, how about going to Mercury first? I think I read somewhere that it's closer than Mars, and It's similar enough to the moon to provide good training, but different enough from the moon to provide the challenges that would allow us to adjust to the idea of manned interplanetary exploration. The second planet we land on should be Mars.

As far as landing on other planets in general, I think it's less about what we bring back materially, and more about psychology. Humanity thrives on challenges, and exploration is in our genes. So why not the ocean floor, Antarctica, or some active volcanoes? Well, we have explored all of those things before, and no doubt we will explore them again. But space is out there too, as yet another environment for humans to conquer. If we forget interplanetary flight because it is expensive and dangerous, then we might as well forget exploration altogether.

 

[T.Neo]

There are more problems with getting to Mars, such as the lack of gravity for an extended duration trip,

Missions have been conducted for about the length of time it should take to get to Mars, so no worries there.

You could always spin the transfer vessel, but that comes with many problems.

the trip length,

See my first comment

the boosters required to get to Mars and be able to carry a base, etc.

Boosters used for missions to the Moon should not differ from those used for missions to Mars.

The moon is a much shorter trip and has already been landed on.
That would be good practice for Mars, anyways, and the moon is only a 3-day commute.

What does the fact that the moon has been landed on have to do anything? Having landed on an object decades ago with outdated technology that you aren't even using anymore makes things easier by only a miniscule amount.

And again, it will not be "good practice for Mars". The Moon is only valuable in terms of Mars mission preparation for perhaps testing human reaction to fractional G.

Why go to Mars when we haven't colonized only 3 days away?

Why go to the Moon when we haven't colonized a few hours away, in Antarctica?

It would certainly be nice to have another home than Earth.

Yes. Mars should suffice.

As supersonic said, the trip will be months compared to possible weeks on the Martin surface.

This, apart from repeating the ease of the 3 day trip to the Moon. Weeks on the surface of Mars is a potential problem due to unknown human reaction to gravity, but if humanity is to go anywhere out of it's own living room it is going to have to accept travel times higher than three days...

 

[Ghostrider]

If we are going to visit another planet, how about going to Mercury first?

Energy issues, it takes more dV to get there and a lot more to brake once you're there. No atmosphere to aerobrake and not much of a gravity well either. And then you have the problem of the return trip...

 

[orb]

Why go to the Moon when we haven't colonized a few hours away, in Antarctica?

We have some stations on Antarctica. We don't have any station on the Moon. Why to colonize it at once?

 

[T.Neo]

Energy issues, it takes more dV to get there and a lot more to brake once you're there. No atmosphere to aerobrake and not much of a gravity well either. And then you have the problem of the return trip...

Indeed. Getting to Mercury and slowing down once you are there is very troublesome.

We have some stations on Antarctica. We don't have any station on the Moon.

There isn't really anything to gain from the Moon for all the money that a sustainable lunar program would require.

Why to colonize it at once?

Or why colonise it at all, if you have a planet with higher gravity and more resources within your reach...

 

[Unstung]

It would be much more expensive to colonize Mars (and longer as in it takes months to get each way unless multiple missions are sent), it hasn't been done before, it hasn't been landed on before, no mission this far away has occurred before. And why is Mars to fantastic? The moon is far easier to reach and if a base can be built on the moon more quickly due to trip length.
Private trips to Mars? Sounds very far-fetched, who wants to spend months commuting between planets? We're all space-nuts to begin with, and I bet many of us rather go to the moon.
It would also be better to get an atmosphere on Mars than just go there. You think colonization will occur immediately or there would be a few missions there like Apollo? I highly doubt Mars would just be colonized. The first step is to land there. Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo were all steps to landing on the moon. Also Apollo had the A-J mission types. What is so beneficial on Mars? The moon has water and oxygen, too.
The moon as Helium-3, space has solar power, not even solar power was accessed. Going to Mars for a few days is no better than sending a rover there for months.
I doubt anybody will want to live in Antarctica other than scientists, which is already happening. What's an Antarctic experience to a tourist? Freezing cold?

Where's the money for any of this?