Moon or Mars?

[Caruso]

Should we be putting manned spaceflight effort towards returning to the moon, or going to Mars?

The Apollo 11 Astronauts don't agree...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and...

I think a trip to Mars would be more scientifically important.

[Silverbullet767]

Mars, because you can't see the sun from the moon

[Einion Yrth]

Both.

[DeadMeat_UK]

Moon first, for a jumping off point to Mars. You need a "both" option.

[grumbledoak]

At present there seems to be no reason to send a manned mission to either.

Unless one of them is shown to hold resources that we want/need, we might as well stay out of the gravity wells completely. We really don't learn much by sending men to live there that we couldn't learn by sending humans to Crawley.

Lagrange points, anyone?

[WorAl]

Silverbullet767 said:

Mars, because you can't see the sun from the moon

...... wasn't even funny

[Fittster]

What is the scientific justification of man missions to either?

[Pints]

Fittster said:

What is the scientific justification of man missions to either?

Indeed. Where is the "Neither" option?

[Caruso]

I've changed the Don't Care to Neither.

I didn't put a both option, as I'm trying to find out which one people think is more important.

[Man-At-Arms]

WorAl said:

Silverbullet767 said:

Mars, because you can't see the sun from the moon

...... wasn't even funny

can't remember, did we establish that you CAN see the moon in the other thread ! ?

[Eric Mc]

Moon - because its where you learn how to live on a world other than earth without the isolation factor that would be the case with Mars, or any other body in the solar system for that matter.

We have a lot to learn about spaceflight before we send people off on possibly a four year mission to Mars.

I would LOVE to see a manned mission to Mars, but the moon is so close to us that it would be just plain dumb to ignore its usefulness to us. As I have said in other threads, if the US or Europe doesn't do it, someone else will.

As Kennedy dsaid all those years ago - "We chose to go to the moon and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard".
By taking on these challenges, we push ourselves and our technology to new limits and and we learn things that we never anticipated.

[grumbledoak]

Eric Mc said:

where you learn how to live on a world other than earth

A romantic notion, Eric, but not really true. As (if) we travel through space the one thing we really need to learn is how to live in space itself. The occasional barren rock isn't really a concern unless it's made of unobtanium. And, if it is, private enterprise will be up there like a rat up a drain-pipe anyway.

[Alfanatic]

I voted Mars. Not for any scientific reasons particularly, but just to show that they can.

[Eric Mc]

grumbledoak said:

Eric Mc said:

where you learn how to live on a world other than earth

A romantic notion, Eric, but not really true. As (if) we travel through space the one thing we really need to learn is how to live in space itself. The occasional barren rock isn't really a concern unless it's made of unobtanium. And, if it is, private enterprise will be up there like a rat up a drain-pipe anyway.

There's a lot more to living off a planet than just mining. The moon has HUGE advantages - the main one being that it is so close.

We know what type of technology can get us there - after all, we've done it before. Therefore, we should go back and consolidate our position before leaping off anywhere else.

The problem with Mars and the other bodies in the solar system is distance. They are just SO far away compared to the moon we have still to develop new technologies to allow people to travel in a spacecraft over a distance of hundreds of millions of miles on a journey that would take, at the very least, nine months but more likely over a year. We are just not there yet and we will not even be able to begin planning Mars mission for at least another twenty years.

We can do the moon NOW - so just get on with it.

[Caruso]

Eric Mc said:

Moon - because its where you learn how to live on a world other than earth without the isolation factor that would be the case with Mars, or any other body in the solar system for that matter.

I'd agree that the moon is the safer place to learn how to utilise in-situ resources on another world, and that it's a more achievable goal. But I would maintain that the scientific benefits of going to Mars are greater, and the hardware would be a lot more exciting!

[plasticpig]

I voted neither. I would like to see a mission to Europa as it is the most likley candidate to support life.

[mp3manager]

Get your ass to Mars!!

[Eric Mc]

Caruso said:

Eric Mc said:

Moon - because its where you learn how to live on a world other than earth without the isolation factor that would be the case with Mars, or any other body in the solar system for that matter.

I'd agree that the moon is the safer place to learn how to utilise in-situ resources on another world, and that it's a more achievable goal. But I would maintain that the scientific benefits of going to Mars are greater, and the hardware would be a lot more exciting!

Of course, the correct answer is "do both".

But Moon First - Mars Second. It has to be that way and no doubt it will. There is a lot of unfinished business to do on the moon and if the US doesn't have the strength of will or ambition to go back, someone else will take on the mantle.

As for Europa - have you any idea how far away it is and how long it would take to get there?

[Man-At-Arms]

mp3manager said:

Get your ass to Mars!!

Total Recall

[The Black Flash]

mp3manager said:

Get your ass to Mars!!

For two weeks?

As per above, both. Moon then Mars, is the way to do it.