Mars first or Moon first?

[anemazoso]

The question of which to do first is a question heavily debated (at least in the states). Should we re-visit the moon and establish an outpost or show we go strait to Mars?

 

[Shadow Addict]

Moon first, though that's partially because of my bias towards returning to an Apollo-like program

 

[jinglesassy]

Moon first, though that's partially because of my bias towards returning to an Apollo-like program

what work with completely new technology and do something that no one has ever even attempted before and succeeding massively?

 

[n72.75]

Going from the moon to any other planet or moon is easy due to the ITN.

 

[T.Neo]

Mars is far more interesting then the Moon, so if you want to do real science, IMO go there.

Sure Luna could be utilised as a testing ground for ISRU tech, but it is, when it comes down to it, totally different to Mars.

 

[garyw]

Mars is far more interesting then the Moon, so if you want to do real science, IMO go there.

Real science can be achieved on the moon, sure Mars is much richer with a lot more to offer but the moon is next door, perfect staging ground for testing out technologies that will be required for Mars. Plus you have the added benefit of H3 mining.

 

[Urwumpe]

Plus you have the advantage that you can return to Earth in 3 days, if something fails epically. On Mars, even with the best technology we have, a return will take at least 60 days.

 

[BHawthorne]

The hard part is getting enough resources outside the Earth gravity well to pull anything sustained off. The moon makes the only logical sense to start with because of the proximity to earth should the need arrise to react to anything that might occur. Anything going on on mars is 100% on thier own. All we could do is sit back and watch it occur. With the moon you at least have some leeway.

You don't do earth-mars direct. It's simply not going to be an effective strategy. You can boost a heck of a lot more to mars from the moon than from earth as a starting point.

 

[T.Neo]

Real science can be achieved on the moon, sure Mars is much richer with a lot more to offer but the moon is next door, perfect staging ground for testing out technologies that will be required for Mars. Plus you have the added benefit of H3 mining.

Mars offers far more science. It is a very dynamic environment that can answer questions relating to early Earth and planetary formation. It also harbours the possibility of at least fossil life, the discovery of which would be undoubtedly among the greatest scientific finds of human history.

The Moon is a totally different environment to Mars. It totally lacks an atmosphere, temperature variations are different and lunar dust has an entirely different morphology. There are also aspects of Mars that do not exist on the Moon (sand dunes, dust storms, etc).

And Helium 3 mining really means nothing if we can't utilize it.

You don't do earth-mars direct. It's simply not going to be an effective strategy. You can boost a heck of a lot more to mars from the moon than from earth as a starting point.

So, you boost it to the Moon, decelerate it there and boost it off to Mars again? Seems like a waste of Dv to me. Unless you built the spacecraft on the Moon (more likely; in lunar orbit), which you'd only be able to do partially, since many key materials are not found on the Moon.

 

[the.punk]

I think first to moon. Maybe building a little base on moon and then going to mars.

 

[Sky Captain]

If we could afford to put together a large scale expedition with dozens of professional scientists participating in it, with permanent surface outposts I`d say go for Mars, but since it`s unlikely to happen in near future Moon is probably only option to create a permanent surface research stations. For a money required to build a permanent lunar base it might be possible to mount a minimalistic Apollo style manned expedition to Mars, but I doubt such endeavor would provide more scientific data than possible to gather with robotic probes. I think if we go for Mars then it should be with goal to stay there not just land, grab some rocks and head home.

 

[RisingFury]

There's a reason you learn to walk before you attempt running...

 

[BHawthorne]

So, you boost it to the Moon, decelerate it there and boost it off to Mars again? Seems like a waste of Dv to me. Unless you built the spacecraft on the Moon (more likely; in lunar orbit), which you'd only be able to do partially, since many key materials are not found on the Moon.

You build it on the moon. I put forth the idea that given the right design most of it could be built there.

 

[insane_alien]

they all have merits.

i vote NEO first as we have already visited the moon.

NEO's have a variety of valuable resources that can be exploited, metals, carbon organics etc. grab these resources, perhaps send them back to earth/lunar orbit use any undesirables for reaction mass move onto the next target.

whichever we choose we need to get long term survivability sorted. near 100% recycling capability for manned spacecraft. really what this means is that we need large energy generating capacity. most likely via solar for now.

 

[RisingFury]

So, you boost it to the Moon, decelerate it there and boost it off to Mars again? Seems like a waste of Dv to me. Unless you built the spacecraft on the Moon (more likely; in lunar orbit), which you'd only be able to do partially, since many key materials are not found on the Moon.

Actually, no.

The only DV that you waste is getting stuff into LEO. Once you're at the Moon, you can use the water there and the sunlight to make fuel. You refuel your ship on the Moon.

Now, instead of launching from the Moon to Mars, you launch from the Moon, slingshot around Earth and then launch to Mars. That way you regain almost all of the energy you spent going to the Moon AND you have a full tank of gas you can use to accelerate further.

Without the neccessary infrastructure on the Moon it will take several launches from Earth to bring the fuel to LEO and *that* is a waste of Dv.

 

[Urwumpe]

Slingshot around Earth does not work - but you can eject directly from the moon. The moon adds 1.0 km/s dV, and you need less because the ejection speed is just sqrt(2)* 1.0 km/s high. Ejecting from low lunar orbit to earth orbit to solar orbit requires then less fuel than ejecting from low earth orbit to solar orbit.

 

[garyw]

Once you're at the Moon, you can use the water there and the sunlight to make fuel. You refuel your ship on the Moon.

Which is also why there are some circles talking about either a lunar orbit fuel depot or one at the L5 point. a lunar base would allow for H2O to be mined, transported to orbit and made available for ships departing Earth for the rest of the solar system.

 

[Andy44]

Of course you can do lots of science on the Moon.

For starters, until a few days ago most of us thought it was totally arid and had no water.

Only 12 men have been there and they've spent only a few man-hours exploring a tiny equatorial region of what is basically a small planet.

Space agencies have, until recently, ignored the moon in favor of distant planets.

The moon is an enormously important key to understanding the history of the Earth. It's half of the Earth-Luna system, and we still haven't settled the argument about its origin!

In addition, it's much easier to get scientists, scientific equipment, and samples to and from the moon, which means that you will get a lot more scientific data in a much shorter period of time, which is important to the bean-counters who have to fund all this stuff.

 

[SiberianTiger]

One can go to NEO without developing a full-fledged lander and ground infrastructure first, and still do some great science.

 

[Andy44]

One can go to NEO without developing a full-fledged lander and ground infrastructure first, and still do some great science.

True, which was one of the better ideas to come out of Constellation/Orion/Ares: Do both NEOs and the Moon, since they both require similar equipment (CSM and heavy booster) but Moon requires more.