Return to the moon or mars landing: what first?

[Drunkrobot]

Mars is humanities greatest hope for becoming an interplanetary species in the short term, being "mostly harmless" and all that. But at the same time, why forget our old friend, the moon? It's also very close-by, and seems a natural "next step" from LEO.

The end goal is always going to be Mars, no doubt about it. What this thread is about is what humanity should do to get to Mars, and which body has most practical benefit.

Many people (including Apollo astronauts like Buzz Aldrin) says that we should forget the moon and focus our attention fully on getting to Mars. Personally, I'm not one of those people. It's often said that the moon is a "stepping stone" to the other planets. This can create a bit of confusion, since people tend to think in terms of distance, or time. They would point out a trip to the moon, then to Mars would take more time, not less, like how on a Sunday drive, visiting the shop would delay your arrival to the seaside. The moon is not like this, it aides in the area of ÃŽâ€V, thereby cost. Building a moon base, then having that base manufacture and assemble a spacecraft for a manned Mars voyage would be less expensive than building one like we've built the ISS, in chunks delivered from Earth to LEO.

So, back to the question: should we focus on getting to Mars with or without the moon? Try giving a reason for your answer. Thanks!

Edited July 8, 2013 by Drunkrobot

[Flixxbeatz]

Why not do both at the same time, KSP-style?

EDIT: Oh yeah, real world. Limitations, limitations everywhere...

[Drunkrobot]

The question wasn't whether we should have the moon or Mars, it was which one we should get first.

[NovaSilisko]

If the end goal is to get to mars, then we need to focus on doing exactly that. Otherwise, politics can strongly interfere if the project takes longer than one election cycle... While it's true that going to the moon would help advance some of the tech needed for mars, it's also adding lots of time and money to the requirements, both of which are scarce.

Edited July 8, 2013 by NovaSilisko

[Drunkrobot]

My opinion is that using the moon would make it easier and less expensive to get to the end goal. Also, the moon is a closer target, one we could set and accomplish before getting bored.

[Brotoro]

The Moon can be used for practice, with Mars as the final goal. Better to check things out close to home initially. Build a lander that can land on the Moon with rocket power, and that can also handle Mars with additional parachute systems. The liftoff capabilities of that lander would be overkill for getting off the Moon, but that's OK.

[Flixxbeatz]

>Launch

>Go to Moon

>Land

>Drill Kethane

>Launch again

>Go to Mars

>Land

>Drill Kethane

>Launch again

>Return to Earth

NASA Moon-Mars Scientific Grand Tour Exploration 2199 complete

[stupid_chris]

Yeah, if some human lives are put on the line for a Mars mission, I think it's better to test our gear out by going to closer and much more known districts, like the Moon. Yes, we might loose some money turning rocks over on the Moon, but it's far more preferable than loosing a few human lives (along with the money put into their craft and training) while rushing to Mars.

Edited July 8, 2013 by stupid_chris

[Nuke]

im concerned that a quick trip to mars and back would just be another publicity stunt. we will go there, come back, and spend the next 50 years debating about whether to go back to mars or send people to europa. we still wont have any infrastructure to cut the costs of future manned missions. we wont have any colonies. return to the moon with the intent to build a research colony. think of it as a testbed for colonization technologies, radiation shielding, extraterrestrial mining, manufacturing, construction, and agriculture. testing the long term effects of lunar habitation. if successful, then begin expanding the colony and setting it up for permanent habitation.

[jwenting]

neither, space habitats at L5, and asteroid mining.

[Nibb31]

I favor establishing a semi permanent scientific outpost on the lunar surface before going to Mars. For several reasons.

- We are in no hurry to get to Mars ASAP. Mars will still be there in 10 million years. There is no need to rush.

- The Moon is easier to get to. We need to give ourselves achievable goals at this stage.

- We need to build confidence in ISRU, closed-loop life support, cosmic ray and partial gravity biology before we engage lives in a multi-year deep space missions.

On the other hand, many of the systems will be different. ISRU is heavily dependent on the chemical composition of the place where you land. Lander technology is also very different. However, a lot can be extrapolated, adapted, and improved for use on Mars based on the experience gained on the Moon: hab modules, surface equipment, rovers (to an extent), life support systems.

Asteroid mining is a dead end. There is nothing worth mining on asteroids that can't be produced on Earth and sent to space for much cheaper.

[jwenting]

asteroid mining is essential as not only are earthbound resources finite but the cost of lifting them out of the planet's gravity well is far too high to make a spacefaring civilisation possible beyond the occasional Soyuz capsule to the ISS or Apollo style publicity stunt to the moon.

[Alfastar]

Well, a (small) moonbase would cost almost even much as a manned mars landing AND return! The problem with going to Mars is that it cost more Delta-V, the duration is much longer then going to the moon. You need very big rockets (Even a one-rocket launch to going to Mars would be very unlikely and unrealistic at this moment, simple because the costs) to going to Mars, the lander and the return module on it. Also, would a moonbase give us more benefits in the long term then going to Mars to plant a flag and stay there some days? Think about it in the long term, when the moonbase become bigger and more and more Independence. Then a new world opens for exploration towards other planets.

Asteroid mining sounds great, and I surely bet you all like that NASA idea to put a asteroid into lunar orbit. But, it would be serious make profit if you put that tiny asteroid into LEO. Simple because it would cost cheaper then to going to it then that NASA idea to put it into a orbit around the moon.

[EmissionGeneration]

Asteroid mining sounds great, and I surely bet you all like that NASA idea to put a asteroid into lunar orbit. But, it would be serious make profit if you put that tiny asteroid into LEO. Simple because it would cost cheaper then to going to it then that NASA idea to put it into a orbit around the moon.

Hmm put a Asteroid in Munar Orbit to Mine from! Next KSP Project I can entertain myself with!

On the topic though, yeah building and maintaining a Moon Base will definitely give more reward and research to show that we can live on another Celestial body with little hassle, rather than just flying to Mars and planting a Flag as Alfastar said. Doing that will bring us nothing that the Rovers we have there can't already provide for us [apart from the Flag thing].

[Drunken Hobo]

I think the Moon is definitely the place to colonise first. Would learn a lot about bodies in low-gravity, how to shield from radiation, how to grow food, how to find water, how to survive with little/no atmosphere... loads of things that can be applied to Mars.

I hope for a Mars landing within the next couple of decades, but if we're just going to go there then come back a few months later, what's the point?

[Nibb31]

asteroid mining is essential as not only are earthbound resources finite but the cost of lifting them out of the planet's gravity well is far too high to make a spacefaring civilisation possible beyond the occasional Soyuz capsule to the ISS or Apollo style publicity stunt to the moon.

What kind of "finite resources" are we running out of on Earth that would be needed in space? It will still be many years before it is cheaper to launch a space mining and processing facility than to extract those resources on Earth and send them up as we need them. Even if we had a mission requirement of 1000 tons of water in space (which we don't), it would still be cheaper to launch 50 Falcon 9s than to design, build, and maintain a mining facility on an asteroid. We currently don't have the technology to do it, and some of the problems are simply unsolvable (for example, landing on an asteroid that is tumbling on multiple axes, which most of them do).

We are not going to be a "spacefaring civilization" (whatever that means) any time in our lifetime, so there is no point in aiming for science fiction. We should focus on goals that are achievable with current technology and budget constraints.

[John Nowak]

Moonbase, definitely.

Going to Mars for a visit makes it too easy to cancel the follow-on missions; building a base makes it harder to abandon.

[RedDwarfIV]

Why would you put an asteroid in Low Earth Orbit? We don't want to put something that took a lot of effort to bring home in a place where A) It could eventually deorbit and there is space junk all over the place. An asteroid doesn't have the ISS's ability to move around, and even if it did, it would probably be slower and more cumbersome.

Both moon bases and asteroid mining are important. A moon base would be more useful for reaching Mars. I'd prefer we brought the asteroid into Lunar orbit first, but there aren't a lot of candidate asteroids, and there aren't many windows to reach them. As such, getting a space station into an Earth-Moon Lagrange Point, then building a moon base should take priority.

[Bioman222]

A moon base would make it easier to get to Mars because A) You could use it as a launchpad for the rocket, saving dV because it is closer and dosen't have an atmosphere/as much gravity as Earth. A moon base would be right, as NASA has had plans for one since Apollo, more or less.

[Nibb31]

Using the Moon as a launchpad might not be a good idea:

1) A Moon base would have to be on the poles, because it is the only place with semi-permanent sunlight (for solar power) and it also has more water. This would make for an awkward location for BEO flights.

2) If you are heading for BEO, it doesn't make much sense to land on the Moon first. Although the gravity well is smaller than the Earth, it's still wasteful to launch from.

3) An Exploration Gateway station at EML-2 makes more sense as a refueling point for BEO missions. You could resupply it from the Moon Polar Base if you managed to achieve ISRU.

[Drunkrobot]

2) If you are heading for BEO, it doesn't make much sense to land on the Moon first. Although the gravity well is smaller than the Earth, it's still wasteful to launch from.QUOTE]

This is what I am thinking, and I know it's a little "long term": If you manage to set up enough equipment, and people, on the moon, and you have access to the right local materials, you can produce much more than just propellant. You could create whole spacecraft, from scratch. If you can create such infrastructure, all you need from Earth is the crew.

[The Jedi Master]

What should we do? Have an international effort to land a man on Mars.

What will we do? China will go to the moon, America will get pissed and try to go to Mars, fail because of the budget, and China will go there too.

[Nuke]

one thing the moonbase needs to start out is a reusable leo <-> lunar orbit transport system. this would be a multi craft system:

1 unmanned ion powered cargo ship:

since ion propulsion wont need a whole lot of propellant mass to make the trip as a chemical engine, it is perfect for hauling cargo. this ship is not suited to transport astronauts because of time spent in the radiation belts. the ship accepts a cargo container.

2 cargo container system:

a container that can be mounted to a rocket (or skylon), and launched to leo. it would have some basic stabilization systems but little or no propulsion, its just a box. the cargo ship can dock with the container for transfer to the moon. the container may also optionally have resource transfer connections that can connect up to whatever is docked to the container, to facilitate refueling, fuel transport and other liquid or gaseous consumables that may need to be exchanged with other ships and stations in the system. a cargo pod can be boosted to leo with the propellant neccisary for the transfer to lunar orbit (at least initially until lunar production of ion engine propellant can accomplished).

3 lunar way station:

unmanned or occasionally manned (with short duration life support) station with cargo racks (that connect up with the container system) and docking ports for other ships in the transport system. can be upgraded with a refueling pod, a cargo container with tankage and refueling equipment, for refueling spacecraft. the fuel pod will be loaded with lunar produced go gas. prior to lunar fuel production, ships will be refueled in leo.

4 crew transport vehicle:

a small lightweight vehicle for transporting personnel. propulsion would be chemical to minimize radiation exposure. it may also have auxilliary ion propulsion, since radiation belts extend only out to 60km, you could skip over them quickly with chemical propulsion and then use ion propulsion (vasimr is a good candidate for newton level thrust, if you can keep it powered that is) the rest of the way. this ship is not intended as a lander. they can crew and initially refuel at the iss or some other station.

5 surface transport vehicle.

a reusable ship for transporting crew and/or cargo between the lunar surface and the waystation, would require chemical propulsion. would also be compatible with the container system. so you can deliver supplies to the moon base and from the moon to the station (when fuel production comes into play).

there you have it, infrastructure. you probibly should do robotic fuel production missions first, to hammer out all the maybes, but it is a system needed for initial colonization.

[BossSquirrelz]

For the interested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDWvsdEYSqg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__EqV-CMHYY

[Endeavour]

We are not going to be a "spacefaring civilization" (whatever that means) any time in our lifetime, so there is no point in aiming for science fiction. We should focus on goals that are achievable with current technology and budget constraints.

Exactly. It's our job to do achievable projects so the next generation has something to work off of, so that eventually a spacefaring civilization is possible. That's why I think a Moon base is a better idea. But I know that most people can't think further ahead than 10 years, not to mention beyond their own lifetimes.