Moon or Mars?

**Jiro** · 07-20-2009, 06:42 PM

Moon or Mars? 'Next giant leap' sparks debate

Quote:

(CNN) -- Blasting off from Earth and hurtling through space at thousands of miles an hour, it takes astronauts three days to reach the moon -- a tiny distance in a universe measured in light years, but a fantastic voyage on a human scale.

Now plans are under way to go back, even as the future of U.S. human space exploration is under close scrutiny and pressure is growing on NASA to aim for another alien world.

It's a crossroads Neil Armstrong could have hardly imagined on July 20, 1969, when he became the first human to set foot on the moon and uttered his now famous phrase: "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."

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.

"The next giant leap has begun," NASA promises on the logo of its Constellation Program, the new fleet of space exploration vehicles that the agency's former administrator, Michael Griffin, once famously called "Apollo on steroids."

Set to replace the space shuttles, Constellation builds on the legacy of Apollo -- the program that landed humans on the moon six times in the late 1960s and early '70s -- but incorporates modern technologies and influences.

Will it fly?

Constellation grew of out the Vision for Space Exploration, outlined by President George Bush in 2004, but its future now lies in the hands of the U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee.

The independent panel is reviewing NASA's plans, including Constellation's estimated $100 billion cost by 2020, and taking a look at "potential alternatives" this summer at the request of the Obama administration. It is expected to present its results in August. VideoWatch why there is a new space race »

If Constellation goes forward, it would take astronauts beyond low-Earth orbit for the first time in decades.

It may also surprise a generation accustomed to watching the shuttles carry both humans and heavy cargo, like the Hubble Space Telescope, into space.

The new program splits up those tasks among two new rockets, as recommended by the board that investigated the 2003 space shuttle Columbia disaster.

The Ares I would launch the Orion crew capsule carrying up to six astronauts, while the much beefier Ares V would carry cargo, such as the new moon-landing craft.

"It's like having your sports car that's super safe and your large SUV," said John Olson, director of the NASA office that plans and integrates programs including Constellation.

Orion's first manned flight -- scheduled for 2015 -- will take it to the international space station. NASA.gov: Watch how Constellation is designed to work

For a future trip to the moon, Orion's crew would dock with the Altair lunar module already in Earth's orbit and escape the planet's gravity by firing the powerful engine of an Earth departure stage.

Arriving at their destination, the astronauts could land anywhere on the moon, including the far side and the poles -- a big improvement over Apollo, which limited landing sites mostly to the equator on the near side of the moon.

The search for prime real estate has already begun. Last month, NASA launched the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, an unmanned spacecraft tasked with finding landing sites and resources. At this point, NASA is favoring the heavily cratered south pole because of its scientific interest and the possible presence of water ice, Olson said. NASA.gov: Watch what it might look like to land on the lunar south pole

The lunar water could be used for drinking, or as a source of oxygen and hydrogen for air and rocket fuel, NASA says on its Web site.

When humans are ready to go, the agency envisions seven-day missions at first, followed by 180-day stays once a lunar outpost is in place.

"We're not doing flags and footsteps," Olson said. "We're going for a long-term sustained human presence that's affordable and safe and built so that we can use the moon as a stepping stone to Mars and near-Earth asteroids and other exciting locations in the solar system."

A potential manned mission to the Red Planet wouldn't take place until at least 2030, Olson added.

The allure of Mars

Is it the right way to go? 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. VideoWatch Aldrin make his case for Mars »

He went even further in an article in Popular Mechanics, warning that NASA's current plan will waste time and money, and calling the return to the moon a "glorified rehash of what we did 40 years ago."

Aldrin instead suggests a course of action that would have humans landing on Mars' moon Phobos around 2025 and ultimately living permanently on the Red Planet as "Martian homesteaders." Aldrin plans to present his vision to the U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee, Popular Mechanics reported. Blog: Meet the strange moons of Mars

Olson counters that NASA is looking to go to Mars, but must first tackle the enormous challenges of safely sending humans to the Red Planet -- a journey that would take 6 months and span more than 30 million miles. Earth's moon would be a great test bed to try out technologies and infrastructure necessary for more ambitious space travel, Olson said.

But Mars exploration advocates say the country is now much closer to being able to send humans to Mars than it was to sending them to the moon in 1961, when President Kennedy called for a lunar mission by the end of that decade.

"This idea that you have to know how to do it before you can commit yourself to the program is completely false," said Robert Zubrin, president of the Mars Society.

"We didn't know that we could do Lewis and Clark successfully before we set them out" to explore the American West in the 1800s, he added.

Zubrin, who plans to testify before the U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee next month, said that if President Obama were to commit the nation to a mission to Mars this year, astronauts could be there by the end of his potential second term in office.

"NASA was not created to do nostalgia acts. It was created to storm heaven," Zubrin added. "For NASA to make as its central goal repeating technical accomplishments it did 50 years before is a complete abandonment of its purpose."

A problematic gap

NASA's plans are controversial for another reason. The agency is preparing to retire the space shuttle fleet in 2010, leaving a five-year gap until Orion is scheduled to be ready to launch.

In the meantime, U.S. astronauts will have to hitch rides to the International Space Station aboard Russian Soyuz spacecraft.

"Relying on the Russians between when we're retiring the shuttle and having the Constellation program flying is something that I'm not very proud of," said former Kennedy Space Center Director Bob Crippen, who piloted the first space shuttle mission in 1981.

"It's OK to work with them as partners, but to be totally dependent on them is a mistake in my opinion."

The space shuttles could continue to fly safely until NASA has another vehicle ready to go, Crippen argued.

NASA's Olson called the gap a "significant challenge," but said there are no plans to keep the space shuttles flying beyond their current manifest.

"We as much as anyone wish we did not have a gap. However, that is the fiscal reality that we're in and we're doing our absolute best to mitigate it," Olson said.

That reality, 40 years after America's first fantastic voyage to the moon, isn't taking away from the allure of exploring the final frontier.

"This is the beginning of the next space age," Olson said, "and it's truly an exciting time."

They should focus on Moon and space station. We must crawl before we walk.

Royale · 07-21-2009, 11:42 AM

I think we should go straight to Mars instead of going back to Moon for a few reasons.

Since we landed on Moon 40 years ago, it might generate lesser interests from the public if we go for it again.

Landing and exploring another world is the biggest challenge that we have faced, so why not to go to Mars?

Should we land on and depart Mars for home, it will definitely generate a great deal of interests from public especially young people.

I want to see us land and explore Mars before I die!

Royale · 07-21-2009, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

Moon or Mars? 'Next giant leap' sparks debate

They should focus on Moon and space station. We must crawl before we walk.

We have had ISS for eleven years so I think we should go ahead to go to Mars.

**Jiro** · 07-22-2009, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royale

We have had ISS for eleven years so I think we should go ahead to go to Mars.

ISS is not even completed yet

**Jiro** · 07-22-2009, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royale

I think we should go straight to Mars instead of going back to Moon for a few reasons.

Since we landed on Moon 40 years ago, it might generate lesser interests from the public if we go for it again.

Landing and exploring another world is the biggest challenge that we have faced, so why not to go to Mars?

Should we land on and depart Mars for home, it will definitely generate a great deal of interests from public especially young people.

I want to see us land and explore Mars before I die!

we merely landed and hopped around Moon. We know nothing about establishing space station so Moon is the safe bet for it. Mars? you're really screwed if anything happens. You're on your own because it takes 6 months to get there so there's no coming back. What you fly with you is what you will have for next several months.

Establishing a complete space station on Moon is the most logical and safest way to do it. Lunar Station can serve as refueling/supply/communication/etc. station for Mars.

**Foxrac** · 07-22-2009, 08:17 AM

We need very huge rocket to capable to touch the Mars but it wouldn't happen for couple of decades.

Old fashioned rocket is able to touch the Moon like we did in 1969 until early 1970's but space shuttle can't.

zerodog · 07-22-2009, 08:52 AM

It will be awesome to watch again like in old time that we watch for moon and now for MARS.. it my turn to watch

I am glad we have caption on television...

It is like we are into star trek on way to near our future.

C.C.Sinned · 07-22-2009, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

we merely landed and hopped around Moon. We know nothing about establishing space station so Moon is the safe bet for it. Mars? you're really screwed if anything happens. You're on your own because it takes 6 months to get there so there's no coming back. What you fly with you is what you will have for next several months.

Establishing a complete space station on Moon is the most logical and safest way to do it. Lunar Station can serve as refueling/supply/communication/etc. station for Mars.

agreed

did you know USA & NASA wanted to have a man on Mars by 1987?

instead Nixon decided to use the money to help fund the vietnam war...

I'm surprised trickey dickey didn't like the space program since rockets are shaped like a penis....

**Daredevel7** · 07-22-2009, 09:23 AM

If we go straight to Mars, landed on it, hopped around... all with success. Great!!! But... so what? I can guarantee you that we do NOT have the capability to stay in Mars long term (or even getting there in the first place). This would require a HUGE investment with nil return. Let's face it, the space industry isn't profitable at all. However, going to the moon and setting up a long term base is potentially profitable (both financially and scientifically). If you look at the comments by those who want to go to Mars, 90% of them say "Well I want to see it in my lifetime!". Kind of selfish if you ask me.

Moon first, then Mars. We don't need a ego booster trip to Mars, especially in this economy.

**Jiro** · 07-22-2009, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

We need very huge rocket to capable to touch the Mars but it wouldn't happen for couple of decades.

Old fashioned rocket is able to touch the Moon like we did in 1969 until early 1970's but space shuttle can't.

They're not going to use space shuttle for that. This is something similar of what they MAY use for Mars. They're not going to use thruster for a whole time. The inertia and planetary gravitational pull will handle the rest aka slingshot (similar method like Apollo 13).

**Jiro** · 07-22-2009, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

If we go straight to Mars, landed on it, hopped around... all with success. Great!!! But... so what? I can guarantee you that we do NOT have the capability to stay in Mars long term (or even getting there in the first place). This would require a HUGE investment with nil return. Let's face it, the space industry isn't profitable at all. However, going to the moon and setting up a long term base is potentially profitable (both financially and scientifically). If you look at the comments by those who want to go to Mars, 90% of them say "Well I want to see it in my lifetime!". Kind of selfish if you ask me.

Moon first, then Mars. We don't need a ego booster trip to Mars, especially in this economy.

too bad Robert Zubrin won't be able to see it in his lifetime

**Jiro** · 07-22-2009, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C.C.Sinned

agreed

did you know USA & NASA wanted to have a man on Mars by 1987?

instead Nixon decided to use the money to help fund the vietnam war...

I'm surprised trickey dickey didn't like the space program since rockets are shaped like a penis....

interesting! Mars by 1987 under Nixon... with the technology they had at that time.... lol!

The reason why I lol'ed is because it feels like Watchmen as alternative reality

**Daredevel7** · 07-22-2009, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

too bad Robert Zubrin won't be able to see it in his lifetime

He can be the next generation version of Jules Verne...

**Jiro** · 07-22-2009, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

He can be the next generation version of Jules Verne...

lol I imagine Zubrin would feel depressed if you tell him that

C.C.Sinned · 07-22-2009, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

interesting! Mars by 1987 under Nixon... with the technology they had at that time.... lol!

The reason why I lol'ed is because it feels like Watchmen as alternative reality

mars by 87 was the goal. nixon, nixed it for 'nam.

the technology was primate by todays standards. keep in mind those guys invented what would become our technology...
image what could have been if it was mothballed for a war...

did you know the main designer of the spacesuit was a nazi we recruited under operation paperclip?

yizuman · 07-22-2009, 09:39 AM

The moon would be a good start and it can serve as a "first stop" before going to Mars. If we can establish a perfect base of operations there, including as a fuel depot for our space ships. We can store alot of things on the moon that can help alot in making the trip to Mars much easier as well a trip back to Earth from the moon.

**Jiro** · 07-22-2009, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C.C.Sinned

mars by 87 was the goal. nixon, nixed it for 'nam.

lol! good rhyming!

Quote:

Originally Posted by C.C.Sinned

the technology was primate by todays standards. keep in mind those guys invented what would become our technology...
image what could have been if it was mothballed for a war...

did you know the main designer of the spacesuit was a nazi we recruited under operation paperclip?

shocking yet interesting

C.C.Sinned · 07-22-2009, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

shocking yet interesting

after WWII the USA and Russia were both trying to get as many Nazi scientists we they could. both wanted the masterminds behind the inovative designs and technology of Hitler's war machine. Our mission was called Operation Paperclip. many former Nazi's were welcomed into the USA to help design weapons and improve technology for the military. Russia did the same. many former nazi's ended up in space programs of both countries

**Jiro** · 07-22-2009, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C.C.Sinned

after WWII the USA and Russia were both trying to get as many Nazi scientists we they could. both wanted the masterminds behind the inovative designs and technology of Hitler's war machine. Our mission was called Operation Paperclip. many former Nazi's were welcomed into the USA to help design weapons and improve technology for the military. Russia did the same. many former nazi's ended up in space programs of both countries

ah... the infamous V2 Rockets and so. I should read more about Operation Paperclip

[IMG]http://www.scripting.com/images/paperClipGoodbye****Off.gif[/IMG]

**Daredevel7** · 07-22-2009, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C.C.Sinned

after WWII the USA and Russia were both trying to get as many Nazi scientists we they could. both wanted the masterminds behind the inovative designs and technology of Hitler's war machine. Our mission was called Operation Paperclip. many former Nazi's were welcomed into the USA to help design weapons and improve technology for the military. Russia did the same. many former nazi's ended up in space programs of both countries

I think you're confusing nazi with Germans...... Not all Germans were nazis...

I find it ironic that the NASA center in Huntsville was named after George Marshall when Wernher von Braun CLEARLY deserved it. NASA was basically founded by him. (He was indeed a part of the Operation Paperclip.)

PowerON · 07-22-2009, 10:10 AM

Settle in Moon as base and launch to Mars would make much easy. Of course, the fund can be the problem unless, together with several other countries work team and well fund would be great.

C.C.Sinned · 07-22-2009, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

I think you're confusing nazi with Germans...... Not all Germans were nazis...

Germans willing to work for the demented Nazi party... those poor germans must have been tricked into thing they were making toys santa

Royale · 07-22-2009, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

ISS is not even completed yet

Yes I am well aware of its current status. It is my understanding that the astronauts are about to install the final module which was made in Japan, on ISS soon.

What I am saying is the NASA could make a long term plan and budget to make their ultimate goal which is to go to Mars straight instead of Moon in 15 to 20 years' time.

Royale · 07-22-2009, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

we merely landed and hopped around Moon. We know nothing about establishing space station so Moon is the safe bet for it. Mars? you're really screwed if anything happens. You're on your own because it takes 6 months to get there so there's no coming back. What you fly with you is what you will have for next several months.

Establishing a complete space station on Moon is the most logical and safest way to do it. Lunar Station can serve as refueling/supply/communication/etc. station for Mars.

I understand your points. We do not have to build Martian station when we arrive there for the first time. We can stay there for two to three days to collect data, soils, and so on and bring them home. In 5 to 10 years we can go to Mars to build stations and hubs there.

**Jiro** · 07-22-2009, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royale

Yes I am well aware of its current status. It is my understanding that the astronauts are about to install the final module which was made in Japan, on ISS soon.

What I am saying is the NASA could make a long term plan and budget to make their ultimate goal which is to go to Mars straight instead of Moon in 15 to 20 years' time.

a long-term plan and budget is pretty tough to stay on the track because the next Administration dictates those term for NASA.

Short-term Presidency and long-term NASA plan do not go well with each other

That's why I support privatization of space sector

Royale · 07-22-2009, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

If we go straight to Mars, landed on it, hopped around... all with success. Great!!! But... so what? I can guarantee you that we do NOT have the capability to stay in Mars long term (or even getting there in the first place). This would require a HUGE investment with nil return. Let's face it, the space industry isn't profitable at all. However, going to the moon and setting up a long term base is potentially profitable (both financially and scientifically). If you look at the comments by those who want to go to Mars, 90% of them say "Well I want to see it in my lifetime!". Kind of selfish if you ask me.

Moon first, then Mars. We don't need a ego booster trip to Mars, especially in this economy.

Nil return? Profitability? We can be successful when we bring a great return and profitability which are great deal of knowledge, interests, education and children and grandchildren.

Economy? It requires a long term plan like 15 to 20 years in time so the economy can be boosted by creating long-term direct and indirect jobs.

Royale · 07-22-2009, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

lol! good rhyming!

shocking yet interesting

CC Sinned, you meant Werner Von Braun?

If so, did you know that he hated Adolf Hitler and Nazis? He wanted to see rockets for space travel, not weapons.

C.C.Sinned · 07-22-2009, 02:12 PM

than he shouldn't have built them for Hitler

**Daredevel7** · 07-22-2009, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royale

Nil return? Profitability? We can be successful when we bring a great return and profitability which are great deal of knowledge, interests, education and children and grandchildren.

Economy? It requires a long term plan like 15 to 20 years in time so the economy can be boosted by creating long-term direct and indirect jobs.

Check out why the Apollo Program got shut down.... I'm willing to bet that if we go to Mars, the program will be shut down soon after.

You get more of a knowledge setting a long term base on the Moon than having 2 days on Mars. We WILL go to Mars eventually, so it isn't as if we are saying no to Mars. We just have to be smart about it.

Hwy99 · 07-22-2009, 03:42 PM

I would prefer to focus on Mars because the Sun is growing bigger and bigger which will push the habitability zone from Earth to Mars, and Mars have the ice cap on south and north poles which feature the water, and also Olympus Mon, at 90,000 feet high (the highest mountain in whole of solar system) which can be very benefitically for the water source. I just have more faith in Mars than the Moon, Moon is just a rock ball that goes around Earth.

By the way, I agree with some others that Moon can be good for start, but Mars would be even more great benefits.

07-22-2009, 08:17 AM	#6 (permalink)
Foxrac Need Stormtroopers? Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Zaphias Posts: 32,619	We need very huge rocket to capable to touch the Mars but it wouldn't happen for couple of decades. Old fashioned rocket is able to touch the Moon like we did in 1969 until early 1970's but space shuttle can't. __________________ In Moto We Trust

07-22-2009, 08:52 AM	#7 (permalink)
zerodog Registered User Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Oh Thanks Heaven! Posts: 788	It will be awesome to watch again like in old time that we watch for moon and now for MARS.. it my turn to watch I am glad we have caption on television... It is like we are into star trek on way to near our future. __________________ Life is giving to us, we earn it by giving it. Let the dead have the immortality of fame, but the living the immortality of love - mean next child earn the life from me, because I love my child that mean lot to me will give to next little person earn the immortality of love from families.

07-22-2009, 09:39 AM	#16 (permalink)
yizuman Registered User Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Indiana Posts: 2,370	The moon would be a good start and it can serve as a "first stop" before going to Mars. If we can establish a perfect base of operations there, including as a fuel depot for our space ships. We can store alot of things on the moon that can help alot in making the trip to Mars much easier as well a trip back to Earth from the moon. __________________

07-22-2009, 10:10 AM	#21 (permalink)
PowerON Registered User Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: 37.5, 126.9 Posts: 10,335 Blog Entries: 5	Settle in Moon as base and launch to Mars would make much easy. Of course, the fund can be the problem unless, together with several other countries work team and well fund would be great. __________________ • [Illustrator.Blog-alloon.com] • Don't shoot me! I'm only blogger!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

07-21-2009, 11:42 AM	#2 (permalink)
Royale Registered User Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: World's Second Coldest Capital City! Posts: 4,418	I think we should go straight to Mars instead of going back to Moon for a few reasons. Since we landed on Moon 40 years ago, it might generate lesser interests from the public if we go for it again. Landing and exploring another world is the biggest challenge that we have faced, so why not to go to Mars? Should we land on and depart Mars for home, it will definitely generate a great deal of interests from public especially young people. I want to see us land and explore Mars before I die!

07-22-2009, 09:23 AM	#9 (permalink)
Daredevel7 Adrenaline Junky Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 4,341	If we go straight to Mars, landed on it, hopped around... all with success. Great!!! But... so what? I can guarantee you that we do NOT have the capability to stay in Mars long term (or even getting there in the first place). This would require a HUGE investment with nil return. Let's face it, the space industry isn't profitable at all. However, going to the moon and setting up a long term base is potentially profitable (both financially and scientifically). If you look at the comments by those who want to go to Mars, 90% of them say "Well I want to see it in my lifetime!". Kind of selfish if you ask me. Moon first, then Mars. We don't need a ego booster trip to Mars, especially in this economy.

07-22-2009, 02:12 PM	#28 (permalink)
C.C.Sinned Registered User Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 4,476	than he shouldn't have built them for Hitler

07-22-2009, 03:42 PM	#30 (permalink)
Hwy99 Registered User Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: A town in middle of the rolling hills Posts: 6,141	I would prefer to focus on Mars because the Sun is growing bigger and bigger which will push the habitability zone from Earth to Mars, and Mars have the ice cap on south and north poles which feature the water, and also Olympus Mon, at 90,000 feet high (the highest mountain in whole of solar system) which can be very benefitically for the water source. I just have more faith in Mars than the Moon, Moon is just a rock ball that goes around Earth. By the way, I agree with some others that Moon can be good for start, but Mars would be even more great benefits.