Moon or Mars

[mzteris]

Next giant leap' sparks debate

. . . Today, NASA is working to return astronauts to the moon by 2020 and establish a lunar base that would allow them to stay on the desolate surface for up to six months by 2025. The goal this time is for the explorers to make themselves at home, study the terrain and learn how to work in a harsh environment to prepare for trips beyond the moon.

. . . Critics say NASA should skip the moon and set its sights directly on Mars. They argue such a mission would open new frontiers for humans, answer key questions about life in the universe and reignite excitement about the space program. See the past, present and future of moon and Mars exploration »

Buzz Aldrin, the second man on the moon, has been an especially outspoken supporter of following "Star Trek's" motto: To boldly go where no man has gone before. "We won the moon race; now it's time for us to live and work on Mars," Aldrin wrote in a commentary for CNN. Video Watch Aldrin make his case for Mars » http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/07/20/nasa.future.human.exploration/index.html

What do you think?

[Speck Tater]

1. Neither. The USA will be flat broke and unable to afford such projects. nt

[eqfan592]

14. Such projects are cost barely a fraction of the cost...

...of most other programs we have in this country, yet could yield amazing results in many other areas, as well as encourage more young people to get into the sciences, something we are now lagging behind many other countries in.

[The River]

2. You Need A Lunar Base

as a staging area on the way to Mars.

[FarPoint]

6. I think it will take 9 months to arrive at Mars.

I think the team relationships will have to be strong and healthy in so many ways.......The emotional well-being is a major Mission to Mars component to keep in check....

[eqfan592]

15. No you don't.

In fact, launching a mission to Mars from the Moon presents it's own set of problems. You'd be better off launching either strait from Earth, or from high Earth orbit.

[tinrobot]

24. Better to practice on something 3 days away rather than 6 months away.

I think going to the moon is beneficial not as a place to stage the Mars shot, but as a place to shake down techniques and equipment.

[trotsky]

25. I totally agree with that reasoning. n/t

[eqfan592]

33. That makes sense in theory...

...but the Moon and Mars are two very different places, and they present two different challenge sets. While some testing for Mars equipment could be done on the moon, it would not be enough alone to justify establishing a moon base before going to Mars.

[CherokeeDem]

3. Mars....

should be the goal but I can see the need for having equipment and procedures tried out on the moon but to delay Mars for that length of time is ludicrous in my opinion.. If something goes wrong with new equipment or procedures, we could possibly rescue astronauts from the Moon; it would be a difficult from Mars. But what is the point of a space program if we don't push the barriers. I guess I have read too many sci fi novels over the years...I want to see what is out there, and I would go with them if I could!

[BobRossi]

4. Neither, Nothing to be gained.

NASA is just another money-pit. A totally useless entity.

[mzteris]

5. you're kidding, right?

NOTHING to be gained?

wow. just wow.

[YOY]

7. Someone's got some serious luddite action going on there...

nt

[Posteritatis]

9. A lot of them hang around the Science forum, I've noticed (nt)

[Johonny]

8. I agree

unmanned space probes are the wave of the past, present and future.

[timeforpeace]

10. Earth first. Then the moon and Mars. Then the stars.

[Johonny]

11. our unmanned probes are already doing this

so ah welcome to the US space program

[eqfan592]

16. Now go and stop using all the tech that can trace it's roots back to NASA.

Here's a short list.

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html#computer

And another good site.

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/

Next time, try doing a little research about a program before you condemn it as a "totally useless entity."

[Johonny]

21. why?

Just because going to the Moon was basically cold war PR doesn't mean technology didn't come out of it. The Russians did go to the moon. They just went with unmanned missions. Those mission gathered great information. They simply didn't generate great PR. Frankly cost wise unmanned space missions simply will produce more new science than more deep space manned missions. It's not a new event. Unmanned missions have been out stripping science gains since the advent of the space age. There is no reason to think it will end anytime soon. We are exploring the universe. We are ON MARS as we speak. For the record the technology that came from Reagan's Starwars program was pretty significant. It just didn't produce a space missile defense system. That doesn't mean we couldn't have spent that money more wisely, however.

[eqfan592]

22. Did you read the post I was replying to?

From reading your post, I would assume no. The person I replied to stated that the space program was a complete waste. My point was that this was in fact completely untrue, something you seem to agree with me on.

[Orrex]

47. Carl Sagan answered your objection quite handily

He pointed out that ill-informed advocates for manned space exploration invariably cite Teflon as one of the space program's spin-off technologies that has benefited humanity.

He pointed out that we could have developed a non-stick frying pan for a lot less money than it took to land a craft on the moon.




The point is that every piece of technology you cited is indeed a benefit, but it can hardly be said that they could only have been developed in the wake of a manned space program.

[damntexdem]

12. Alpha Centauri or bust!

Oh, OK, Europa as a first step.

[Occulus]

44. No, not Europa. Encedalus.

CAROLYNPORCO

Could a Saturn moon harbor life? (video runtime: 03:30)


Carolyn Porco
Wiki bio

About this talk

Carolyn Porco shares exciting new findings from the Cassini spacecraft's recent sweep of one of Saturn's moons, Enceladus. Samples gathered from the moon's icy geysers hint that an ocean under its surface could harbor life.

[RedCloud]

13. We must abandon the Milky Way entirely. Andromeda will kill us.

So let's get started now. I think if we can get about 1,000 mph we might just avoid the horrible collision.

[IndianaGreen]

18. That will be an spectacular collision

good to see if it happens on the side of our galaxy the furthest from us.

[Occulus]

42. That's a long way off

and we'd need FTL travel to even consider it.

Are there yet any viable theories for relocating an object faster than the speed of light? I don't think there are any within the realm of the possible, but I don't believe it's impossible. There must be a way; we just have to figure it out.

Heh. "just". That's one hell of a "just"...

[YankeyMCC]

17. Near Earth Asteroid

[bananas]

19. NASA should go straight to Mars, because China and others are going to the moon

China has their own manned moon mission,
Bigelow is building space hotels that will travel between earth and lunar orbit,
NASA should take the lead and go to Mars.

[Johonny]

20. we're already on Mars

been there a while. Welcome to the modern space exploration. Same as it ever was.

[eqfan592]

23. Remote exploration is extremely limited still.

Nothing can replace trained personnel in the field.

[Ganja Ninja]

26. Neither.

It's too expensive to do either manned mission. Besides once we get there then what? We canceled the last 3 or 4 Moon missions the last time we went because we ran out of things to do. The same will happen when we go to Mars. Forget about manned missions and do it with robots. In the long run we'll be better off. We can't explore the outer planets and their moons any other way. Mars would be a good proving ground to develop the technology for exploring farther out.

[eqfan592]

34. The missions were not canceled because we "ran out of things to do"

That's shockingly short sighted. It was about politics and a lack of national interest. Trust me, there are many more things to be done.

And do say that manned missions will not work to other planets or moons? This is just patently untrue. There is plenty of technology on the table right now that would assist us greatly in doing those very things, and trained experts in the field simply can't be beat when it comes to analyzing what samples are valuable and should be collected and which aren't, problem solving skills, etc.

As for "too expensive" I can't argue that as you don't really define how expensive is "too expensive" but I would tend to disagree that manned missions are "prohibitively expensive" at any rate.

[and-justice-for-all]

27. Moon first then Mars...nt

[krispos42]

28. I don't see an inheirent advantage to staying close

The astronauts can't walk home if they're in trouble. Whether on Luna or Mars, they are effectively beyond any hope of rescue if something goes wrong. They are a spaceflight away.

If they can make an air-processing system that can keep a colony alive, then the length of time it takes to get to Mars isn't as critical, not like if you have to bring your own bottled oxygen.

I don't think it takes too much more rocket power to get to Mars than to get to the Moon.

So... why not Mars?

[pokerfan]

29. No, it doesn't

I don't think it takes too much more rocket power to get to Mars than to get to the Moon.

Especially considering that Mars has an atmosphere that can be utilized for braking. Earth/Mars/Moon Delta V chart:


The figures are in km/s. Arrival at Mars (and back on Earth) is aided by aerobraking (AB) so those deltas aren't shown for the purpose of this chart which is to illustrate required propulsion energies.

As one can see from the chart, the most demanding delta v is simply climbing out of the Earth's deep gravity well (9.1 km/s), something we do everytime we launch a satellite or fly to the ISS. Once one has done that, one is pretty much 70% of the way to anywhere in the system whether it's Mars or the Moon.

[krispos42]

30. Neat chart!

So then I could just add up the delta-v's on the right side to get the total delta-v from, say, Earth to the Moon? 9.1 + 2.5 + 0.7 + 0.7 + 1.6?

[pokerfan]

31. That is my understanding

Wiki has a similar chart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget

[krispos42]

32. Cool

I've heard of delta-v and understand the principles involved but I never saw it laid out in such an easy-to-use fashion!

[eqfan592]

35. Same here.

Thank you for posting these charts!

[pokerfan]

37. found in one of the links in the wiki article

was this fanciful poster that is essentially accurate.

http://www.clowder.net/hop/railroad/deltaveemap.html

"Get to low-Earth orbit and you're halfway to anywhere in the solar system."

[Occulus]

45. .

"Get to Start from low-Earth orbit and you're halfway to anywhere in the solar system. golden."

Fixed, for what we need to accomplish.

[eqfan592]

51. ......huh? Oooooookaaaaay. *backs slowly away from Occulus* (nt)

[pokerfan]

36. now take a look at the rocket equation

Δv = v_e * ln(m/m₀)

v_e is the exhaust velocity of the rocket and is a result of the particular chemistry chosen. For the sake of this analysis, we can treat it as a constant.

The interesting part is the logarithmic relation between the mass ratio and the delta v. The implication is that to get more delta v, either the rocket must get exponentially bigger or the payload must shrink. This is a consequence of the fact that unburned fuel is dead weight that must be carried until it is burned.

But what if one could make fuel for the return trip from the Martian atmosphere? That's the intriguing idea behind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct">Mars Direct.

[eqfan592]

39. Woot for Mars Direct!!!!!!!!

I take it you've read "The Case for Mars"??

I wish we could get somebody at NASA to take a real, serious look at Mars Direct.

EDIT:

Scratch that, turns out NASA is looking at a modified version of Mars Direct both for the Moon and Mars. I've looked at these plans before, but somehow managed to avoid putting the pieces together. :P

[pokerfan]

40. It's in my library

and I got to meet Zubrin a number of years ago. I've even seen a Sabatier reactor (methane production) in action.

Last time I looked, NASA's version omits the methane production and sends a fully fuel ERV to Mars instead.

[eqfan592]

41. Indeed, that seems to be the case.

It must have been awesome to meet him and to see a Sabatier reactor! Are you a member of the Mars Society?

[pokerfan]

43. Not a member

but I attended a conference once. Very informative. Got to meet James Cameron :eyes:, Buzz Aldrin and got to spend an hour one-on-one with a favorite science fiction author of mine, the late Robert Forward.

[sakabatou]

38. Other

The Jovian ice moons.

[joshcryer]

46. I am shocked that Mars is winning this one.

I really am.

[eqfan592]

49. Why's that? Not trying to be snarky, just wanting to understand your shock :) (nt)

[joshcryer]

50. Many many moon advocates on the net, a lot of people loving Bush's Constellation program.

I hated it from the get-go. Set us back another 10 years.

[Orrex]

48. Other: Planet Ten

Real soon!

[Tindalos]

52. How about both?

I agree with posters above who have suggested going to the moon for experiments and development of technology. If we can establish a lunar base, then it is likely we will eventually go further. Mars has been a goal of humans for at least a century now. Ultimately, someone will travel to Mars and possibly beyond to Jupiter and its moons.

[trumanh59639]

53. Mars

We've already been to the moon numerous times.