why are scientists so focused on the mission to mars? what happened to inhabiting the moon?

Question

i understand that it would be amazing to be the first official martian, but if you go you can never return. whereas, with the moon it takes about a week to get there rather than the estimated 2 years. would it be more costly to inhabit the moon? is it because of an atmosphere, or lack there of, to protect against radiation? havnt really found anything about comparisons between the two, and was really curious if anyone out there knew a reason...and please try avoiding conspiracy theories. thanks!

Answer 1

Where ever you got the notion scientists were focused on a manned mission to Mars is beyond me. Their focus for the next 50 years at least is studying the planet with robotic probes. If you're referring to the Mars One mission, there are NO scientists involved. The whole idea is a pipe dream by a few amateurs who know little to nothing about what it truly would take to get there let alone survive.

Edit: Bobbie is full of beans also. We haven't shut down NASA. We've simply refocused our objectives. Why waste the money on shooting rockets in to orbit when we can let other countries chauffeur us and spend our money instead on research? Rather smart move on our part in my opinion. I worked on the latter Apollo Moon missions. I think I know a little more about it than she. We also have Korins absurd answer. NASA has NO intention of sending a human to Mars by 2020 what so ever. Probes yes. People NO. I'd like to see her cite the so called claim by NASA by posting a link. She apparently has the Mars One project confused with NASA and NASA has no part in this bullshit.

Answer 2

The moon has several disadvantages to Mars. The main one being it's night day cycle. A full Martian day is 24 hours and 40 minutes, which isn't much different than earth. However, the moon has a longer day/night cycle that lasts 27 days. This means that you can raise crops on the moon in ~14 days of sunlight and ~14 days of darkness. No food, means a colony there would be completely dependent on Earth. Whereas a colony on Mars, could produce its own food.



There are other considerations too. There is a thicker atmosphere on Mars, there are more resources, and there is water - all things that make independent habitation more plausible. The moon if anything could be a resupply station in the future, a dependent outpost, but never a sustainable colony.

Answer 3

We've already been to the Moon. For many, that means it's a boring destination. A first Mars mission would be exciting. In big money politics, entertainment is important. A Moon base would be cool. It would be fairly easy to have a robotic mission dig a radiation protection habitat for follow on astronauts. Apollo 12 landed an easy walk from a previous Surveyor mission. The Moon is closer, and therefore safer and cheaper than Mars.



A mission to Mars with return is possible. It's just more expensive. I'd really want a robotic mission to discover Martians (likely bacteria), due to contamination issues.



The trouble with conspiracy theories is that Watergate really happened. That doesn't mean all conspiracy theories are true. But it makes some of them believable.

Answer 4

Scientists are not focused on a mission to Mars. Engineers and other planners sure, but not scientists. Those guys are busy with robotic probes to the various planets and other bodies in the solar system.



A return from Mars would be possible, but it's much harder and more costly.



I can't think of much reason to build a base on the Moon, apart from scientific research and the "cool" factor of doing it. We've been to the Moon, there isn't much there in terms of minerals or whatever, and it's very expensive to put things on the Moon. Earth orbit is a better stepping stone on the way to Mars, in my estimation.



Bobbie is wrong. NASA hasn't been put on hold--the Space Shuttle has been retired and its replacement is currently an unfunded mandate, but NASA still has lots of projects going on. It's just that those are unmanned probes (where the bulk of our space science happens anyway), so they don't get the same interest from the public.



Also, you can hardly single out the current administration for blame re. the manned program. GW Bush slated the Shuttle for retirement in a speech in 2004, and its replacement was an unfunded mandate during his administration too. What Obama's done is perhaps *as bad* as what Bush did, but it's certainly no worse.

Answer 5

Short term a moon colony would be less costly, but a Mars colony might eventually be self sufficient but that is very unlikely for the moon for about a dozen reasons:

1. Days and nights are 14 times longer on the moon than Mars, so the Moon's surface is much colder just before sunrise. 2 The Moon has about half the surface gravity of Mars = possibly both are too low for healthy humans. 3 Mars likely has more abundant rich ores of most kinds than the Moon 4 Mars surface exposes humans to about 1/3 as much dangerous radiation. 5 Mars has about a million times more atmosphere and Mars can likely have 20 times more atmosphere which may allow plants to grow and an oxygen breathing mask instead of a full space suit. 6 A disaster for Earth, might also kill moon colonies, but Mars would be much less effected. Neil

Answer 6

Scientists believe, with reasonable evidence, that Mars was once warm,wet, had a thicker atmosphere and was stable enough to support life. But the theory is that because of its size it doesn't really have recycling of its carbonate which helps keep the atmosphere stable. Mars is basically Earth's sister, the only other planet that is similar to us. There is evidence of dried streambeds and riverbeds and ice on its poles and possibly water in underground springs. There even is evidence of plate tectonics. The latest Rover on Mars, the Curiosity, has taken pictures of Mars and is currently taking samples. In an article of National Geographic's July 2013 issue it talked about the rover and what it was currently doing. A scientists that works with the rover even stated that Mars looked like home.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/msl/20121126/pia16453-43.jpg



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/PIA16189_fig1-Curiosity_Rover-Rock_Outcrops-Mars_and_Earth.jpg



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/PIA16068_-_Mars_Curiosity_Rover_-_Aeolis_Mons_-_20120817.jpg



To try and inhabit the moon we would first have to terraform it, the process of transforming a planet so it can support life. The moon does not have an atmosphere whatsoever and the gravity is very little. Also terraforming is incredibly expensive, to terraform any planet would but terraforming Mars would be a lot easier because it still has attributes that is similar to Earth, such as the gravity, the atmosphere and has a form of water.



And with increasing technology we will be able to get to Mars even faster. Ever hear of an Ion rocket? The average time of traveling to Mars would be around 6 months if they could perfect the idea.



Hope I have helped :)

Answer 7

Scientists don't write their own checks. Politicians decide where the money goes. Bush made it a goal to send people back to the Moon and set up a Moon base. But then Obama was elected. He changed that and made sending people to an asteroid and ultimately on to Mars the priority. We have him for another 3 1/2 years or so. Who knows what the next president will do. He might decide to cancel it and send us back to the Moon. Or maybe we'll spend another few decades just sending people back up to orbit and not moving forward again. Politics.............

Answer 8

Lack of interest in congress and with the admins at NASA and a "Been there done that" attitude that is prevalent in the space agency.



Other countries such as Russia, China and Japan are planning moonbases though...





I would be very interested if a company like SpaceX decided to set up a colony on the Moon :)

Answer 9

Make issues ensue. Taurus Moon, Sagittarius sunlight, Mars in Aries. If i'm getting an incredible concept in my head, I do it suitable then, suitable now. Be it 2am or in the time of artwork. I start up making plans. If no one's going to help me, fantastic. if so, much extra effective. i'm getting impatient while people positioned issues off, so I generally place self assurance in myself to get issues finished. yet on condition that i for my area choose it. i do no longer pass forward except i understand i will.

Answer 10

It's political, a manned landing on Mars would be front page news but there isn't any science that robots couldn't do better and safer. A base on the Moon would establish some infrastructure in space which makes further exploration and development less expensive especially if mining and smelting could be worked out but it wouldn't capture the people's imagination. They tried focusing the public on a manned mission to an asteroid as asteroid mining could leave us an infrastructure in space and it would be something new but the public's limited imagination has a planetary chauvinism and are focused on planets and moons instead of space habitats which would actually benefit us in the long term.

Answer 11

I think because there may be more likelihood of life having been on Mars than on the Moon. My understanding is the Moon may have vast amounts of mineral resources if we could set up and mine them efficiently, but the chance that elements on Mars can be converted to life-sustaining resources is higher.

Answer 12

NASA has no plans for manned missions to Mars...0... only rovers.

.

And until someone else does something besides Talk about it I'm not convinced.

.

You do know that the moon has wild temperature changes that range from 250+ to 250- unlike Mars that range from -100 to -10...That 1 difference means a lot.

Answer 13

Since the Obama administration has cut funding to NASA, the space program is on hold. When we get a decent president and the economy improves, I'll bet these things are back on the drawing board.

Answer 14

Simple there is no money to be made.



When there is money to be made you'll see everybody rushing to get there.



It's the only reason why we are not there yet.