Is a Moon Trip More Valuable Than a Mars Mission?

  • Thread starter Thread starter k_squared
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mars Moon
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the comparative value of lunar versus Martian exploration. Participants assert that while lunar missions are more cost-effective and feasible in the short term, Mars presents greater long-term potential for human colonization and expansion. Key points include the argument for robotic exploration as a logical approach, contrasted with the intrinsic value of human experience in space. The consensus leans towards establishing a lunar presence first, followed by aspirations for Mars, emphasizing the need for human exploration to foster a deeper understanding of our universe.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of lunar and Martian environments
  • Familiarity with robotic versus human exploration methodologies
  • Knowledge of space colonization concepts
  • Awareness of historical space missions and their implications
NEXT STEPS
  • Research NASA's Artemis program for lunar exploration
  • Explore the potential for human habitats on Mars
  • Investigate advancements in robotic exploration technologies
  • Study the psychological impacts of space travel on astronauts
USEFUL FOR

Aerospace engineers, space policy analysts, enthusiasts of space exploration, and individuals interested in the future of human colonization beyond Earth.

k_squared
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
Let's face it: it would be a lot cheaper to go to the moon.

How does the value of going there compare to the value of going to mars?

Anyone pitch in...
 
Computer science news on Phys.org
Of course the moon is cheaper this time of year, but Mars is the better vacation spot, hands down!

(Honestly: red sand beaches, vs. grey sand beaches. Is there even a debate)
 
That's a tough question for me. Although I'm a Trekker, and love the idea of that impossible future, I have to go along with Ivan's and Turbo's assertion that robotic exploration is the logical way to go.
As an immediately attainable goal, it would be fairly easy to set up a lunar colony. For the long-term, though, Mars would be better suited to the matter of human population expansion. With the exception of scientific knowledge, which is easily obtainable by robots, the only reason for establishing off-world habitats is that Earth can no longer sustain the billions of people who inhabit it.
I love my cozy little house in my little town, but if there was a chance for me to move to a lunar or L5 colony, or to Mars, I would be gone like a bullet.
 
Danger said:
Although I'm a Trekker, and love the idea of that impossible future, I have to go along with Ivan's and Turbo's assertion that robotic exploration is the logical way to go.

DISAGREE! One of the purposes of exploration is to experience the unexperienced in a way that only a human can understand and appreciate. I feel very strongly about that. Robots are so good for so many things, but to put a person on the Moon or Mars is much more meaningful to the species as a whole. A robot will never know to turn it's head to see a sunrise, or to be curious about a particular mote of dust.

Anyway! Back to the OP!

Moon. Let's do it. We're not done there. Cernan wanted us back there, and we owe him. NASA needs to play "follow-the-leader" again. They showed us how to make orbital launches look like bicycle riding. Now they hand off orbital operations to the private sector and show us how to make Moon landings look simple. When the private sector is opening hotels on the Moon, then let's hit up Mars.
 
FlexGunship said:
DISAGREE! One of the purposes of exploration is to experience the unexperienced in a way that only a human can understand and appreciate.

As strange as this might sound, I agree with your disagreement. That is why I specified that the Trek future is an impossible one, since it relies upon faster than light travel and even faster communications. (And aliens who look more human than I do, but that's beside the point.)
The reasons that I suggested Mars as a better long-term situation are based upon a close-to-Earth gravity and the possibility of living outdoors without serious environmental suits. An L5 colony can simulate gravity by spinning, but a lunar one can't.
 
Last edited:
FlexGunship said:
One of the purposes of exploration is to experience the unexperienced in a way that only a human can understand and appreciate.
My bet is though that the first men on Mars are going to be test pilots rather than poets though
 
NobodySpecial said:
My bet is though that the first men on Mars are going to be test pilots rather than poets though

You deny the qualities of introspection and reflection to test pilots? I think Cernan, Young, Armstrong, Shepard, Collins and Lovell (to name a few) would disagree.
 
FlexGunship said:
You deny the qualities of introspection and reflection to test pilots? I think Cernan, Young, Armstrong, Shepard, Collins and Lovell (to name a few) would disagree.

But Jodie Foster http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118884/quotes" .

"They should have sent a poet..."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FlexGunship said:
You deny the qualities of introspection and reflection to test pilots? I think Cernan, Young, Armstrong, Shepard, Collins and Lovell (to name a few) would disagree.

And leave us not forget Chuck Yeager. He was a bullet-head whose political stance I mostly disagreed with, but he was also a dreamer and one of the best pilots who ever lived. His autobiography is one of my most prized possessions.
 

Similar threads

Replies
38
Views
6K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K