Where should man go.

[ryan]

Back in the 60s the only place man, specifically NASA only wanted go to one place, the Moon.
Now the scientific society is mixed on were man should go, Mars or back to the moon.
So were do you think man should go in the next 30 years, back to the moon to collect possible Helium-3 make a observation base their, and really explore the lunar surface in detail.
Or,
Mars, to explore the Martian surface, set up bases and search for past or present life, and do all the fun stuff at Mars.
Add why you voted for which ever one, either personal reasons or scientific reasons.
Thanks.
Ryan.

 

[garyw]

Other - as in anywhere he or she damn well pleases.

 

[HiPotOk1978]

I would like to see the space faring nations of present and future move out of LEO and stay on the moon. I had a discussion not that far back with a friend about manned space exploration comparing it to early exploring of the Earth with sailed powered craft. We simply don't know what types of effects space travel and living off the Earth will have on a human body and mind. The only way to know is to go out there. Sure it will be expensive, and it will be dangerous, and to be honest we really have no idea what we will be doing...

But how many people thought if you sailed to far across the oceans you would fall off the Earth. It wasn't until some brave explorers asked the question of what is really out there and what will really happen if we keep going...

Now the dark side...

Riding a rocket into LEO is dangerous, lets not kid ourselves... How many people have died in the exciting journey of traveling in space. How many people knew the dangers of doing this. At this time I can safely say less than all the people that have died back in the day on the ocean.

On the semi-lighter side...

It is hard wired into each of us to explore and expand. Explorers have and will always take the technology of the day and see how far and hard they can push it. This is part of understanding our limits, and with pushing the limits there will be those that push a bit too hard.

I sadly have my doubts as i write this at the ripe old age of 31 I will ever see a permanent settlement on the surface of the Moon. There are those that say it is too dangerous, or we don't have the technology to safely go there and see what will happen. To those people I ask, when has exploration ever been safe. When has it ever been easy. Exploration is a basic human drive that has, and will, and should drive us not as a country, or a continent, but as a species to see these strange new worlds that are before us.

 

[ijuin]

I would like to see the permanent lunar base established. The need to keep it supplied, along with crew rotations, will force the frequent launch of heavy-lift rockets (100+ tons to LEO, launched at least every other month, not counting construction hardware). Such mass production is exactly what is needed to bring down launch costs and drive the technology forward--and a few years after the lunar base is operational, we'll look around and realize that we've made launching cheap enough that going to Mars isn't going to cost much more than it took to get the lunar base built.

 

[ar81]

Where should man go?
How about woman?

 

[RisingFury]

I think we can't go to Mars before we go to the Moon...

The reason is that, to go to Mars, we'll need to construct something a bit larger then ~70 tons, which means launching it from Earth's orbit will be difficult. If we make a Moon base, we can construct our ship there and when it's ready, we launch from the Moon, sling around Earth and all the energy we spent going to the Moon be returned to us - sending us to Mars. We'd then just need the fuel that we produce on the Moon and a few of the boosters we used to get to the Moon.

That way we can get to Mars at very high speeds and explore the Moon in great detail.

 

[Ark]

I say we go to Titan. It's the only other place with an atmosphere that won't fry us, it's composed largely of water ice, and plenty of helium-3 is available in Saturn's atmosphere. Makes more sense to me than dead worlds with little to no atmosphere.

 

[Urwumpe]

I think we should go to Epsilon Eridani. And we should do it now.

 

[T.Neo]

I think we should go to Epsilon Eridani. And we should do it now.

We could send a man to Mars or the Moon in 10 years if we pushed hard enough, maybe Saturn or Jupiter in 20. But Eps Eri- probably not in a century even with apollo-like advancement. (And then another whole century of travel time. )

I say we go to Titan. It's the only other place with an atmosphere that won't fry us, it's composed largely of water ice, and plenty of helium-3 is available in Saturn's atmosphere. Makes more sense to me than dead worlds with little to no atmosphere.

The only problem is that it's many times harder to get to then the "dead" worlds with little or no atmosphere. Mars has enough resources to support settlement too, btw. Much more then Luna at least.

 

[Lucy]

I voted "other" because there wasn't an option for "everywhere"...

Or at least, wherever it is possible to go. Landing on Jupiter might not be such a good idea.

 

[Urwumpe]

How was that: We choose to go to ε Eridani and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.

And ε Eridani sounds just better than "Mars" or "Titan". And we know already too good how to get to Mars, there is no lack of options how to get there, just a lack of will to go there.

 

[Brad]

I think as far a space exploration, a return to the moon is a good first step, however once that is done, I'd like to see a near Earth asteroid exploration. I'd think it would be pretty cool to set up some simple experiments there and maybe a LIVE camera that would point to Earth.

BTW, I have been looking all over for the Lockheed Martin video showing two Orion spacecraft on a proposed asteroid mission. Anyone have any luck in finding it? I'd love to see it.

EDIT: Found the links to the video.. http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2009/08/video-lockheeds-alternate-orio.html The last one is the asteroid mission.

 

[wehaveaproblem]

I voted Moon, because it seems a sensible and feasible next step testing-ground to me. Not so much as a stepping off point necessarily, but as a testbed for non-atmospheric and extended stay technologies. Plus I love a bit of magnificent desolation.

I would like to see the space faring nations of present and future move out of LEO and stay on the moon...snip... or a continent, but as a species to see these strange new worlds that are before us.

I like your thought process here, and as a like-aged chap I too fear I won't get to see such a thing. The only contradictory thing i would say is to your age of sail analogy. The difference here is that we know where we are going, we can see it, we can probe it... before we go. Ol' Columbus et al could not do that. That makes the exploration process rather different I think.

Where should man go?
How about woman?

Man, not men... Mankind, that includes women.

I think as far a space exploration, a return to the moon is a good first step, however once that is done, I'd like to see a near Earth asteroid exploration. I'd think it would be pretty cool to set up some simple experiments there and maybe a LIVE camera that would point to Earth.

I've just finished reading "The Heart of the Comet", so I say we snatch a lift on Halley and turn in to half-plant symbiotes!

 

[T.Neo]

I don't don't see how Luna is a good testbed for Mars. The dust on the Moon, for example, does not have the shape or composition of martian dust. You might as well go to the Atacama desert in Chile or Mcmurdo valley in Antarctica for that sort of testing.

We have two rovers on Mars that have been operating for five years and far longer then their expected design lifetimes, without any such testing.

In my opinion, going to the Moon to test Mars mission components is akin to testing gear for use in the Amazon rainforest in the icelandic tundra...

 

[wehaveaproblem]

Fair Point T.Neo.... But you're not just going to the moon simply to test for future Mars missions. You are going to test for living a prolonged period in low-g, surviving in hostile places, for self sufficiency, for exploitation.. for health and medical tests.. for low-g science, for .... need I go on.... All of which you can do on the moon, a short trip from Earth, should everything go tits up and you need to abort. Having 2 radio controlled cars scooting around Mars is one thing, LIVING there is very different set of parameters and difficulties.

 

[Moonwalker]

I could not vote. Because both, Moon and Mars, make sense. The Moon offers enough research to be done. And Mars even more. The Moon is close. That's why NASA already is going to enter the most useful path by Constellation: Moon, Mars and beyond. That is not only the most useful targets of future manned space flight, but it's also the correct order, based on present and potential future technology.

 

[T.Neo]

Fair Point T.Neo.... But you're not just going to the moon simply to test for future Mars missions.

But that should be the entire point... Mars has been the next frontier since Apollo ended, and there is some extremely interesting science to be done there.

You are going to test for living a prolonged period in low-g, surviving in hostile places, for self sufficiency, for exploitation.. for health and medical tests.. for low-g science, for .... need I go on....

At least some "low G science" could be done on a station like the ISS- there were plans for a centrifuge accomodation module, but it was axed.
Mind you, you could also do low-G science on Mars with the right equipment.

As for survival in hostile places, and self sufficiency, why not do that in Antarctica or similar? Such places are very hostile and isolated.

All of which you can do on the moon, a short trip from Earth,
should everything go tits up and you need to abort.

Or you could do in LEO or on the Earth, where safety is either less then an hour away or just beyond the nearest hill...

Having 2 radio controlled cars scooting around Mars is one thing, LIVING there is very different set of parameters and difficulties

The MER rovers are far more then radio controlled cars, they're very complex pieces of technology that have survived for much longer then it was thought they would in a very hostile environment.

Now that isn't living on Mars, but it is evidence for a small facet of that, that it is possible without billions of dollars of money wasted going to a wholly different destination to "test" the technology.

 

[ijuin]

Antarctica is far LESS hostile than either Moon or Mars. At the very least you have breathable air in Antarctica. Try living and working in an environment where there's no free oxygen and little to no air pressure. Yes we have vacuum and low gravity/freefall in earth orbit, but in orbit we also have no terrain to work with--which would be more like a ship on the high seas than one going to distant lands, to use the sailing metaphor.

 

[ryan]

I voted "other" because there wasn't an option for "everywhere"...

Or at least, wherever it is possible to go. Landing on Jupiter might not be such a good idea.

When i said where should we go, i meant where should man go next.

 

[T.Neo]

Antarctica is far LESS hostile than either Moon or Mars.

It's far less expensive, as well.

At the very least you have breathable air in Antarctica.

So? We know how to recycle/replenish oxygen, we don't need to spend billions of dollars sidetracking on the Moon to learn how. For that matter, pick the bottom of the sea as another hostile locale- no free oxygen, and tens of atmospheres trying to crush your vessel. Such a pressure difference isn't even encountered on Mars...

Try living and working in an environment where there's no free oxygen and little to no air pressure.

Yet we've been doing that for the last 20 years in LEO, with Shuttle, Mir and ISS...

Yes we have vacuum and low gravity/freefall in earth orbit, but in orbit we also have no terrain to work with--which would be more like a ship on the high seas than one going to distant lands, to use the sailing metaphor.

There is however, terrain on Earth. And while not as hostile as either locale, it is hostile nonetheless.

I suppose unmanned robotic missions to either Luna or Mars could yield data on the operation of machinery there, though.