Is it better to put 5 people on Mars or to put 500 people on the Moon? I believe that we should set some sort of goal for achievement on the Moon before we go for Mars. My suggestion is this:

"We should build a Swimming Pool on the Moon, before we go to Mars."

It sounds a little silly, but think about the technology and level of familiarity with Space engineering required to put that swimming pool on the Moon. Once we have done that, we have a mature enough Space industry to do something useful with Mars.

the moon is very useful as a future colony to the earth...but one should not use it to leap to Mars...one would not have gained much distance.

Distance is not the issue, in space. The challenges are self-sufficiency, reliability and survivability. We can learn everything we need to go to Mars, right here in Earth orbit. A Mars mission is really no different to a Moon mission. The only difference is that you MIGHT be able to come back from a failed Moon mission (e.g. Apollo 13). The same problems on a Mars mission would have been fatal.

There are other differences. The Moon has no atmosphere, at least not much of one, while Mars has a CO2 atmosphere that is very low pressure. The Moon is 1/6th gravity of Earth, Mars is 2/5th. The mineral composition on the surfaces are different, too. The problem is if you want to learn to be self sufficient on the Moon the only place to learn that is on the Moon, and if you want the same on Mars the only way to learn that is on Mars. The best way for that is to come with ideas here on Earth on how to make air, water, food, fuel, power, etc, and then send some robotic probes to test those ideas. When we get them working then, and only then, should we send people for long duration stays.

The great thing about the Moon is that we can send people up for a week or two to set up the automated systems, monitor them, perform repairs or modifications on the fly, and then zip home for more supplies.

I also think any long term outpost/colony on the Moon will have to be built underground, or built and then buried under the soil. That's the only way to get decent protection from the serious radiation hazard anyone there would face. Apollo was no problem because we were there for a few days at a time. If you extend that to months, you'll need some better protection than mylar and nickel foil. The same for Mars since it doesn't have a planetary magnetic field or ozone layer to shield the nastier radiation from reaching the surface.

__________________
...and we'll be saying a big hello to all intelligent life forms everywhere; and to everyone else out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together, guys...

I think Moon should be first, then Mars. We need a well established outpost on the Moon before we go to Mars. What better rehearsing ground for Mars missions can we imagine than the Moon? John L has shown the similarities and differences between the Moon and Mars environments so well that he actually has proved the point of building a moon base first although he evidently did not want it.

What's wrong with doing both? Moon and Mars?

Why one or the other?

__________________
Pre-Quote: 'To survive one has to experiment. When the environment changes, the traditional way of doing things doesn't work.'

Quote:
"It's the outriders, the organisms that seem to be maladjusted before the change, which are the only ones that survive these changes...in that way a species continues."

Carl Sagan

I am afraid doing both is not feasible financially.

Why don't we first build a colony on the moon and THEN use it to launch and control a manned mission to mars?-Zodiac

__________________
"I was born in space."

I reccomend developing a long range plan that includes both phased such that moon development leads Mars development and includes a robust transportation system capable of reaching Mars in a few days--less than a week. The decision about how much mass and water increase we wish to achieve at each location must be part of the long range plan. It's much more difficult to bombard either site with stuff after we have set up habitation there. Also, we need really robust earth moving equipment, probably electrically powered, to excavate subsurface facilities. My guess is that, both on the moon and on Mars, sufficient water exists below the surface in either acquifers or chemically bound to hydrated rocks to sustain hermetically sealed habitats provided we can handle the recycling and control the proliferation of viruses, fungi, and bacteria. Solutions to these problems seem to be within the capabilities of our current technology.

__________________
For those inclined to oppose human meddling with the structure of the universe or the composition and configuration of objects and groups of objects within the universe, consider:
Whether there is a limit to the magnitude of a modulation of chaos below which order remains invariant? Or, is order but a fiction invented by perspectives applied over finite, however large, time intervals?

That would take a lot of time and wouldnt be as cost efficient.

Why not this plan, which has been proposed time after time: we built one or two space stations btwn. the orbits of Gaea and Mars, and every Earth-to-Mars mission will first jump from one station to the next (three or four btwn. the two planets is my opinion) and then do a last minute check at the emergency space station hovering right over Mars before landing. If anything goes wrong, a quick launch up to the orbiting Martian Emergency Space Station would suffice. Voila!

Are you talking in between the planets in interplanetary space? If so, it would be near impossible to keep them all aligned since they would all be orbiting the Sun.

However, my Astronomy professor once said that it would be much easier to simply have giant space colonies made out of asteroids since then we wouldn't have to worry about take-offs and landings.

__________________
"Critical thinking and skepticism form the cornerstone of intelligence."
-me

Logically speaking, the first destination must be the moon. The effort should be made in conjunction with a plan to exploit economic opportunites there, however. The thing that will keep us coming back and thereby drive needed technologic advances in space is profit. Once a stable self-sustaining base and spaceport preferrably mostly underground, is established there it will be a much simpler process to jump off to Mars and beyond. A trip to Mars now is a one-shot deal, leaving no legacy behind it to support further exploration later.
The only other option that makes sense to me is to establish a base/space port at a lagrange point in our orbit. Such a base will not have natural shielding such an underground base on the moon nor resources to draw upon at its feet like on the moon. But at least a ship leaving from there will not have to land on the moon first before heading back into space.

__________________
Quid hoc ad aeternitatum
The conversion of complex and abstract ideas into simple and concrete ones is the essential function of teacher of a body of knowledge.

To everyone in general...We should be everywhere out there!

To Galaxy dweller in particular... I guess you haven't seen my long-winded posts regarding costs reductions and efficiency increases.

In addition, and this is rather simplistic, I've heard it mentioned that the on again-off again nature of our politicized space program, budget on, budget cut, budget on again, can literally make projects cost twice as much to implement.

If the U.S. showed some consistency and committment in its decisions, we could make the same dollars do twice as much. In other words, we could go to the Moon and to Mars.

__________________
Pre-Quote: 'To survive one has to experiment. When the environment changes, the traditional way of doing things doesn't work.'

Quote:
"It's the outriders, the organisms that seem to be maladjusted before the change, which are the only ones that survive these changes...in that way a species continues."

Carl Sagan

Tom2Mars, my skepticism is not about the principle of doing both Moon and Mars, it is about the U.S. showing "some consistency and committment in its decisions" as you put it.

Galaxy dweller- Well, if the U.S. government, through Nasa, won't demonstrate the qualities which can lead to fiscal efficiency and success, private enterprise should/could step up to the plate and lead the way.

__________________
Pre-Quote: 'To survive one has to experiment. When the environment changes, the traditional way of doing things doesn't work.'

Quote:
"It's the outriders, the organisms that seem to be maladjusted before the change, which are the only ones that survive these changes...in that way a species continues."

Carl Sagan

I recently attended a speech by one of the Apollo astronauts, who commented that a manned mission to Mars will never happen unless there is 'reason to go'.
I know that many people justify the trip through science alone. I believe that that will lead to another Apollo style once-only development - no long term capability.
So far, I can not see the reason to go. I'm not sure I have a reason to go to the moon either, but I'm pretty sure it would be easier to justify building a real lunar capability than going to Mars.
I've read some interesting ideas for HOW to get to Mars, but I've never seen a convincing reason WHY. It will cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Enough money to solve a chunk of the world's energy problems and lift Africa out of starvation and disease. Lets have a REALLY good reason to do this.

SpaceErnie- Sometimes aiming for a challenging, difficult goal allows people to brainstorm and come up with different solutions.

You feel that:
a) We have big problems, such as problems with energy,
B) Something needs to be done to help Africa,
c) Going to Mars will cost a lot of money,

A good comprehensive solution should therefore:
a) Solve the energy problems,
B) Provide Africa with decent water, food and escape from the elements(housing), and
c) Reduce the cost of going to Mars.

So, we practice making Mars-worthy habitats that can:
a) Operate off-the-grid(no grid on Mars!), which will demonstrate practical solutions for energy use(conservation and efficiency) and production(solar), water use and food production.

B) Start replicating and sharing the habitat/housing designs with countries like Africa, and provide additional financing by selling these improved homes in the wealthier countries(like the US, Europe and Australia), in other words, profit from the rich to build for the poor.

c) Use the same cost-saving techniques and technologies to house the designers/builders of a Mars Mission, which can reduce the labor cost of going to Mars. Use these cost-saving techniques and technologies as an R&D platform which reduces the time it takes for the Mars Mission designers/builders to finalize their plans for Mars, and through benefit of economies-of-scale(mass-production), further lower the costs of making those Mars Mission components, such as habitats.

There you go! All 3 problems solved at once, just by thinking about going to Mars. :P

__________________
Pre-Quote: 'To survive one has to experiment. When the environment changes, the traditional way of doing things doesn't work.'

Quote:
"It's the outriders, the organisms that seem to be maladjusted before the change, which are the only ones that survive these changes...in that way a species continues."

Carl Sagan

I don't want this to degenerate into to a discussion about solving the world's wrongs, so I shall just respond to this and then we should get back to the Moon/Mars issue.
It seems a little fantastical to me that designing Mars habitats would benefit the world's poor. They don't have any requirement for high technology. They need stable, benevolent government, education and food on the table not an oxygen processing facilities and radiation-proof construction techniques. Even water recycling technology is unlikey to help those in poor countries, inside any meaningful timescale.
The 'sell to the rich for the benefit of the poor' scheme is also flawed. At the moment, we can't even agree to finance anti-AIDS programmes for the poor. Anything that diminishes short/medium term profit for industry will gain no support.
Incidentally, Africa is not a country - it is a continent, about the same size as the whole of North America and Europe put together. I know it sounds trivial, but its a significant distinction.

Why go to the Moon?

Cheap energy. There are some places on the Moon that are almost always in sunlight. Cover that spot with solar cells, which we know can easily be made from the Moon's soil, and you can beam the energy back as microwaves to the Earth. Cover selected section of the Moon and you could be beaming enough electricity to supply all of the Earth's demand for electricity. A handfull of robots could do the work and end our dependence on fossile fuels.

Astronomy. If not having an atmosphere is beneficial for astronomy, then an airless world like the Moon is perfect. The mirrors would have to be made on the Moon from local resources, but if we're going to stay then building up a construction and fabrication infrastructure would be part of that. Once you have the gear to build general buildings, you could fabricate the necessary parts to build an observatory. Imagine putting a Paranal VLT on the Moon, or building the OWL, a few more Kecks, and maybe even a super-Arecibo.

Industrial Manufacturing and Refining. Some of the best advances made in materials and technology come at a steep environmental price. If we build the construction infrastructure mentioned above, then we can build manufacturing facilities on the Moon that require highly toxic chemicals and emmisions without any worry about the environmental impact as the Moon is lifeless. The Moon is far too small to ever hold a stable atmosphere suitable for humans to run around on the surface sans spacesuit, so there's no need to think longterm about using the Moon as the base for the most nasty industrial processes we have.

Tourism. Who wouldn't want to spend a few weeks vacationing at the Lunar Hilton? Just imagine the possibilities of a 1/6 gravity gym and you'll be drooling for the first reservation. Imagine hitting that 3 mile drive off the third tee, imagine diving off a 300 meter board into the hotel pool, imagine the interesting activities you and your wife can discover.

Medical/Technical Manufacturing. There are lots of groups in semiconductors and medicine that want to grow perfectly pure crystals and are looking to zero-G/micro-G to do it. Would 1/6th gravity be better than Earth gravity, but acceptable as an alternative to zero-G? I don't know, but I've heard the idea tossed around, so maybe there are takers out there.

Mining. The Moon is a rich source of Titanium and Aluminum. Both are strong, light, and versatile and widely used where they can be afforded. Build a few magnetic rail guns on the Moon to launch processed ore to Earth and you could make it economical. Everything not used by the local and growing economy would be used back home.

Terraforming. If we're ever going to get off this rock and into the rest of the solar system/galaxy, we have to learn to live. I'd much rather learn the hard way close to home what works and what doesn't than 50 million miles away when there is no choice but to suceed or die. We need to know how to get plants to grow and produce all of the food and air we need while we're out there. We need to know what insects and bacteria are necessary to maintain a healthy biosphere. We need to know what effect different soils and lighting have on these and how to overcome the problems. All of this knowledge will also be beneficial to the people back on Earth trying to continue to feed 6.5 billion people.

That's all just off the top of my head. Any other ideas?

__________________
...and we'll be saying a big hello to all intelligent life forms everywhere; and to everyone else out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together, guys...

If we ever manage to generate the technology to put self sufficient colonies in space, we could use the same to support massive amounts of people here on earth with a large degree of recycling and self sufficiency possible. It would eliminate any limit to our population growth here on earth, since we can always make buildings taller. This would be enourmously benificial to civilization. I think the primary requirement for such technology would be a good steady, powerful energy source to drive the recycling processes, but I already think nuclear fission can fit the bill for that.

__________________
http://amssolarempire.blogspot.com