Should NASA Revisit the Moon First, or Send a Manned Mission Straight to Mars?

June 05, 2008

Before I get into my usual rambling screed, let’s pause to give a well-deserved shout-out to NASA, whose Phoenix Mars Lander just achieved the first successful soft landing on Mars since Viking 1 and 2 did it back in 1976. (If you’re wondering why that feat is so impressive, consider that it required the spacecraft, among other things, to slow from its initial reentry speed of 12,000 miles per hour to virtually a dead stop in a matter of seven minutes.) Here’s a video clip from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory that shows some of the initial images that Phoenix has transmitted:

Unlike the Spirit and Opportunity Rovers, which have been exploring the Martian surface since 2004, Phoenix is going to stay in one spot near the Martian north pole and use its robotic arm to dig into the surface. Using its onboard robotic laboratories, it will analyze soil and ice samples in search of organic material and other signs that life exists on the planet, or at least once existed there. (By the way, for the latest on Phoenix’s activities on Mars, check out Mars Daily , a news Web site devoted to the planet.)

The successful Phoenix landing got me thinking again about the prospects for eventual human colonization of Mars.

You may remember that I wrote a blog entry about the question of whether terraforming should be used to remodel the Red Planet to make it more habitable, in the event that humanity can’t reverse the destruction of our own planet’s environment and someday needs a new home. But whether or not we need that doomsday option, reaching Mars and establishing a colony there would be a milestone in human history equivalent to the first migration out of Africa 60 millennia ago, transforming us into an interplanetary species.

But for any of that to happen, we need to send the first manned mission to Mars. This is something that we’ve been talking about for a long time; space pioneer Wernher von Braun co-authored a detailed proposal for a Mars mission back in the 1950s. More recently, the Bush administration’s 2004 “Renewed Spirit of Discovery” proposal includes this wish list:

• Conduct robotic exploration of Mars to search for evidence of life, to understand the history of the solar system, and to prepare for future human exploration;
• Conduct robotic exploration across the solar system for scientific purposes and to support human exploration. In particular, explore Jupiter's moons, asteroids and other bodies to search for evidence of life, to understand the history of the solar system, and to search for resources;
• Conduct advanced telescope searches for Earth-like planets and habitable environments around other stars;
• Develop and demonstrate power generation, propulsion, life support, and other key capabilities required to support more distant, more capable, and/or longer duration human and robotic exploration of Mars and other destinations;
• Conduct human expeditions to Mars after acquiring adequate knowledge about the planet using robotic missions and after successfully demonstrating sustained human exploration missions to the Moon.

Here’s a 2007 BBC story with more details about the proposed U.S. manned mission to Mars, very tentatively set for 2031.

But there’s a big catch. Before NASA will send astronauts to Mars, the agency says that it first needs to send them back to the moon, which it plans to do between 2015 and 2020, and spend 10 to 15 years developing technology and practicing for a Martian expedition. Here’s NASA’s explanation of its rationale. Among other concerns, NASA scientists are concerned about finding ways to cope with sharp-edged particles of Martian dust, which potentially could make a mess of a manned mission’s equipment. They also see the moon as a good place to develop astronauts’ in-situ resource utilization, the ability to extract raw materials — such as oxygen for breathing and as an ingredient for rocket fuel — that they would need for a journey home from Mars.

Not everybody agrees with the moon-first, Mars-later strategy. The Mars Society, an international group pushing for exploration of the Red Planet, sees colonization of the moon as a time-wasting distraction from the most important task at hand. An FAQ on the society’s Web site lays out its argument.

While valuable in its own right, human Lunar exploration will teach us very little about how to survive on Mars. The two are drastically different environments:

The Moon has no atmosphere, which means that testing methods of generating rocket fuel from the atmosphere cannot be tested at all.

Temperatures on the two bodies are wildly different: Mars ranges from roughly -90C (-130F) to +10C (50F), while the Moon, during its 672-hour day, averages +100C (212F).

Mars has a 24.65-hour day, very similar to Earth; the Moon has a 672-hour day.

Water exists in abundance on Mars — as ice seen at the poles by the Mars Odyssey orbiter and frozen into the Martian soil.

While water may exist on the Moon, it is nowhere near as available there, and would require considerably more effort to obtain.

Mars' gravity is roughly 1/3 of Earth's; the Moon's is roughly 1/6 of Earth's.

Indeed, comparing the two environments, it might actually be said that we need to go to Mars to prepare for the considerably more harsh environment of the Moon!

It is useful to practice for Mars before we go, but this can be done in the Arctic at 1/1000th the cost of a Lunar training facility.

Expense is another consideration. The days when the U.S. Treasury could write a blank check for space exploration are long over, and the billions that would be spent on lunar colonization is money that wouldn’t be available to finance a Mars mission.

So, what do you think? Should NASA revisit the moon and go to Mars later, or should we focus on sending astronauts to Mars as soon as possible? Click the comments link to express your opinion.

Comments

[Blutstein]

I have to go with Robert Zubrin and the Mars Society on this one. From almost every angle that you can look at it, it makes zero sense to go back to the moon first.

All it would accomplish is delaying the Mars mission by 15-20 years and burning though a ton of money that NASA barely gets as it is. All the resources needed to live on Mars are present there and the technology needed to create fuel for the return trip has been used in one application or another here on Earth for over 100 years. In fact experiments have already shown that fuel can be created in this fashion.

With the moon you have take a far greater amount of resources with you in order to live there, which only increases the payload requirement and the budget needed to pull it off.

[John Brisker]

I agree with the previous poster. Let's go straight to Mars. I think the feat of reaching another planet would be a real psychological lift to humanity and help us in combating problems here on Earth.

[William]

I believe establishing a base on the moon would perpetuate a useless expense as far as the goal of exploration, or anything else for that matter. If a base on the Moon was established, think of the money that would be required to keep it operational. I say no to wasting moon money. Establishing a base on Mars will give us a "jump off" point to explore even farther out and a start on where to go when we've messed this planet up beyond supporting life. Sad but true. On to the Red Planet...

[Caffeine Driven Stress Magnet]

Skipping the moon and going straight to Mars would save tens of billions of dollars that could be put to use combatting global warming and other problems on Earth.

[McCain for President]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080606111510.5jnz56gu&show_article=1

McCain would like to see a man on Mars

Presumptive Republican White House nominee John McCain said Thursday he would like to see a manned mission to Mars as part of a "better set of priorities" for NASA that would better engage the public.
At a townhall event in Florida, the Arizona senator was asked about funding for the US space agency's shuttle program, which is due to end in 2010.

He said he "would be willing to spend more taxpayers' dollars" to continue the program but argued that NASA must do a better job of inspiring the American public, as when it sent a man to the moon in 1969.

McCain said one of his favorite books as a child had been Ray Bradbury's 1950 novel "The Martian Chronicles," about humans colonizing the Red Planet.

"I am intrigued by a man on Mars and I think that it would excite the imagination of the American people if we can say, 'Hey, here's what it looks like," he said.

"We know that now, and here's what may be there and let's all join in that project. I think Americans would be very willing to do that."

[Eric]

Hey, why not send McCain to Mars? That might keep him from starting a war with Iran.

[Obamarama]

Obama hasn't shown much interest in U.S. manned missions to the Moon or Mars. Instead, he's more focused on utilizing the space program in the fight against climate change, which I think makes more sense, considering the dire situation our planet is in right now. That said, he is strongly in favor of developing the Orion vehicle, the successor to the space shuttle, asap, and working with other nations to complete the international space station.

Here's a link to Obama's proposed space policy...
http://media.popularmechanics.com/documents/obama-space-policy.pdf

[ty]

there is no point in going back to mars even if we should let the euros go back to the moon and we blaze a new traile to mars

[Flying_dutchman]

It is, in my opinion, extremely important for humans to make an effort to establish a presence on another planet. The effects of climate change are irreversible and will only get worse with time. Stephen Hawking has expressed his belief that humans must get off this planet and the sooner we do so the better. I say NASA should abandon the moon and move on to Mars, which is a much more suitable environment for human inhabitants. They should let the private sector develop the moon for mining which is something many developers have expressed interest in doing.

[teabags]

i wholeheartedly agree, go to Mars...leave the Moon for later..all that money wasted going to the Moon learning how to live there when its completely different to Mars..all that money spent when it would be put to better use getting us to Mars, also as a race we'd feel so much better with a Mars mission rather than a Moon mission, considering we've already been there landed there took holiday pictures and films there

[Chris]

Our history is built on exploriation. Their is no history class in the U.S. that does not show us taking risks to find out what is out there in the unknown. We should not baby step or half step our way into the greatest of all exploriations; Mars! We should plan and go their first! We have already seen what is on the moon and left our mark there. It is time to make a new mark in the history books of the future. We should go to Mars with all we have!

[Chris]

Our history is built on exploriation. Their is no history class in the U.S. that does not show us taking risks to find out what is out there in the unknown. We should not baby step or half step our way into the greatest of all exploriations; Mars! We should plan and go their first! We have already seen what is on the moon and left our mark there. It is time to make a new mark in the history books of the future. We should go to Mars with all we have!

[DTibbets]

First things first! Our current space station plan was poorly thought out. We should be building a station that will serve as a means of travel in the near future whether it be Mars or the Moon. The ship could be designed with triple redundancy in all major components and life support systems... A ship that could contain a crew of 50 or more people and the means to visit the planet surface to study methods of colonization from a safer vantage point. An Oneill ring would be the logical choice of design for a ship of this magnitude. We need to study the possibilites of food production in space. We have a long way to go. Lets do it right the first time!

[Patrick Kiger]

For anyone who wonders what an O'Neill ring" is, here's a short biographical sketch of its inventor, experimental physicist, space entrepreneur and writer-educator Gerald O'Neill. http://www.ssi.org/?page_id=11

[Greg]

Correction: O'Neill Cylinder... no O'Neill Ring.

This will make it easier for people doing research on it.
That project is too large so you might as well forget it.

If we are serious about exploring Mars then we need a smaller project.

We also need the USA to take the LEAD in the physics and new development with technology to get us there. Just like oil we are too reliant on this rocket fuel technology that makes no sense. We can dream up the big bang and various aspects of the universe, but take 100+ yrs to come up with a more efficent way for space travel?????

I like the Mars Group proposal, but if any of you have watched the details of their proposal and one NASA had you would realize their is a psychological aspect that neither of these address and is very dependent on a stable mind and body throughout the trip. Unless we can make this trip in a 60-90 days neither proposal addresses the need for physical space. There is also the issue of going without gravity or going simulating gravity with the transport ship.

My problem with NASA ISS is we will be outsourcing to use it considering how much we put into getting it there this sad, but I guess what America does with jobs, huh.

We should establish a "round about" that travels between earth and the moon when necessary, so that becomes reusable and we would just send up our astronauts to it with a lander similar to the proposed Mars lander doesn't become nothing once the ascent module sends the astronauts back to the "round about". Making things modular the ascent module could be reused and just reconnected to the new lander sent up. I can't remember the offical name of the "round about" but I did see, to my surprise, an idea on this somewhere. Maybe I have it as part of my favorites in my browser.

[Greg]

Got it!... Lunar Cycler!!!

Here is the link to it.

http://www.arcadiastreet.com/cgvistas/spacexp/se_lunar_cycler_100.htm

This is a higher level link if you are into graphics of space: Planets, space exploration, etc...

http://www.arcadiastreet.com/cgvistas/spacexp/ab_menu_space_exploration.htm

[Greg]

Why haven't our great minds from the so called great colleges of America NOT come up with a next generation shuttle? Even the designs when it was being considered were pathetic. You basically had these Saturn V vehicles with a plane on it.

We keep praising our technology, but in many ways it seems like we keep waiting for foreign engineers to come up with things for us to jump on and take advantage of. And our history has proven this with the Saturn V engines, which helped the development of the Shuttle main engines, coming from some one outside the US... even the helicopter itself.
As much as we pride ourselves on our craft much of it is technology proven outside of the America.

Look at our vehicles. As much talk as we have about removing the dependency on oil we have foreign automakers ahead of us in cars that can help deliver this.
Then we come galloping along with our concept as if it really is new.

I remember growing up and seeing the future of spaceflight and so many things and I compare it to today and I'm very disappointed.

We should have an efficient reuseable shuttle a Lunar Cycler instead of an ISS that could provide not only space exposure science resource but also transportation.

With upgraded engine technology we could have a space tug as well.

[Patrick Kiger]

Thanks Greg. The lunar cycler concept is a really intriguing one. I'm wondering if that would greatly reduce the expense of establishing a moon base also. We could let other nations (China, India, Russia, the EU) concentrate on the ISS.

[DTibbets]

Correction number 2! An Oneill ring is exactly what it is! If you have ever watched old sci-fi movies....you would know this. Picture a giant donut. Actually, an Oneill colony was the original concept and the first design was called a ring. Later came the idea of a cylinder. In any event, the entire project may take longer but from the standpoint of safety alone, it would be the logic avenue to pursue. Its already been proven that long periods in space decrease muscle and bone mass. Stasis also creates the same loss of body matter. The toroid would take this problem out of the equation. A picture of what I am talking about can be found here. http://www.flickr.com/photos/flyingsinger/468874038/
As far as cost, where does the safety of our brave explorers fit in? Lets face reality here. Regardless of how this planet dies, it WILL die! Global warming for one is not a man made event and has been proven to have gone on through at least 7 cycles along with global freezing! This is only one of many possible scenarios in which the Earth will be uninhabitable.

[DTibbets]

Consider the fact that this type of toroidal ship could be used over and over again to explore the entire solar system and maybe the cost would seem more feasible?

[Bradley TS]

Lets be clear, NASA should be shut down, closed and all operations suspended.

One of the worst pursuits by humanoids on the surface of the planet? is NASA in the post year 2000.

OH! but NASA has done so much! (you say?) let me guess, youre going to cite work from the late 1960s? 1970s? Thats the last time it was worth its cost.

Now? NASA needs to be shut down, all "employees" put on a suspended status (employee usually means someone who does work, so it doesnt apply to all NASA employees)

Then put me in charge so I can pick which programs will be continued and which programs will be scrapped or sold off to the private sector. Its that simple.

NASA and some related groups represent little more than a federally funded religion, a religion of atheism where money is used to preach its message of hate and to waste on programs to collect nonsense information of why they think Christianity must be outlawed so they can get on with the forced communism.

Todays NASA represents the effort to make the USA a communist state where bible based religion is a crime. Everyone who knows what NASA does, knows this.

Everyone who cares about science and truth wants NASA to be shut down and fully reorganized, we could call it the Bradley Space and Aeronautics Administration.

No trip to Mars right now

[Patrick Kiger]

The Wikipedia article on NASA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA) has a pretty good basic summary of the agency's technical and scientific achievements from the 1970s to the present.

To me, one of the most breathtaking feats in that time has been the 31-year, 9.8-billion-mile-long journey of the Voyager 1 unmanned probe. In 2004, it became the first man-made object to reach the heliosphere, the hydrogen and helium gas bubble that forms the outer boundary of our solar system. That's so far away that radio signals from the probe take 14 hours to reach Earth. If Voyager 1 survives, it could reach interstellar space by 2015, and has the potential to gather and transmit data for at least another 10 years after that.

[Imperator D]

NASA should have been told: "Moon by 2010, Mars by 2020." there's no reason that we couldn't put together a moon mission in 9 years (Bush took office in 2001). We did it in the '60s. And it shouldn't take more than a decade to get us to Mars. The priority for low and high orbit human endeavors is to build a space elevator, this would make construction of a large vessel easier.

[Patrick Kiger]

The Space Elevator...that's a great topic for a future blog.

[kukumonkey]

OK SO IM ALL INTO THE THIN WITH LIFE ON OTHER PLANETS AND SO ON BUT, THERE R SO MANY THINGS TO FIX ON TH PLANET THAT WE LIVE ON: POVERTY, GLOBAL WARMING, HUNGER , ENVIROMENTAL DIDASER AND WELL ECT., WE SHOULD EITHER FOCUS ON EARTH OR INSTAED OF WASTING BILLIONSS OF DOLLARS OGING TOT HE MOON JUST GO TO MARS, BUT CMON SERIOUSLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!