What do you think will happen first: Man on Mars or Moon colonization?

[Jolt]

Well, I found myself seeing an advertising in TV about the future, that the man would be on Mars, and that got me wondering. Will we see a man in Mars before we see man made facilities and man occupation (even if reduced and temporary) on the Moon?

[Megas Methuselah]

Why would we colonize the moon? To prove a point?

[Papewaio]

H3

[Megas Methuselah]

Why would we send a man to Mars? To prove a point?

[LittleGrizzly]

Yeah in the majority here, man will walk on mars first, though i suppose it does depend on how basic the colony has to be... could you call the mirr (sp ?) space station a little colony in space ?

I expect us to walk on Mars with two decades... moon colonisation would be a bit further away i think, perhaps it would be colonised for future further afield space flights ?

[PBI]

I would hope for moon colonization first (by this I mean simply the establishment of a permanent small research base, similar in size and function to the ISS). This is simply because I suspect it would cost about the same but have a great deal more research value than simply a one-off shot to Mars, which as far as I can gather is primarily a prestige mission.

Of course, I would really prefer the money to be spent on unmanned probes, they are a lot cheaper and much more useful than manned missions.

[LittleGrizzly]

Im not so sure, we have had various technological advancements thanks to NASA, so im sure a mars mission would bring more than just prestige, though im not sure which would better benefit humanity....

[Ramses II CP]

I dunno about 'colonization,' but a permanant presence on the moon is inevitable. I personally do not expect the US to accomplish it before our window of ascendency passes, but it will occur.

A manned mission to Mars is entirely frivolous, and, frankly, a quaint hold-over from the 50s and 60s era Sci Fi community. We'll be visiting the asteroid belt before we set foot on Mars. The fact is once you've reached the level of zero-G industry which is, IMHO, necessary for a realistic Mars shot there's no point in descending back into the gravity well of a functionally useless planet at the end of the journey.

[General SupaCrunk]

USA and Soviet Union has been to Mars, but secretly

[a completely inoffensive name]

Moon colonization, technology severely limits the ability to properly manage a Mars colony compared to a moon colony due to its much larger distance from Earth.

[Megas Methuselah]

Mars colonization? Read the thread, Mike.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well, I assume if we are landing men on mars, they would stay there for a while, it takes 18 minutes to reach Mars going at the speed of light and I don't think a gap of time that big would allow for just a quick visit and two days later they will be on their way back.

Once getting to Mars, they would probably need at least a minimum of a couple days to decide how to leave and update their plan because NASA back home will be receiving all info 18 minutes outdated, this would necessitate the need for some sort of a make shift colony, that would either need a way to grow food or a lot of packaged food brought along.

[King Jan III Sobieski]

I screwed up; I thought the poll was moon colonization versuses colonization on the Martian planet. I meant to vote for Man walking on Mars...

In terms of colonization, though... I think it'd be a dead heat between Mars and the Moon. You figure, the Moon is only a few days travel from Earth, so if anything went wrong (hypothetically) we could evacuate people within a week or two; whereas if we needed to get someone off of Mars...well, they'd be SOL, since it'd be many months' journey.

On the other hand, we probably have to introduce water to the Moon, whereas Mars shows more potential to sustaining life (at least, life would be able to find a drink!)

[rasoforos]

There is not much economic sense for either and there is no real political pressure for either.

Also the 'pioneer' attitude of the older died in the name of 'liability' and insurance. In Earth terms, our attitude to risk aversion would not allow any Christopher Columbus-like space exploration. We ll get there when its really really safe and unexciting...

I personally find it really depressing that 40 years after going to the moon NASA plans on going to the moon again (but it is gonna take them longer this time despite the technological breakthroughs). Its like watching the remake of a classical movie (i.e they usually suck).

[Maion Maroneios]

There is already an undergoing project of landing on Mars around 2025 if I'm not mistaken. As for colonisng the Moon, the resources needed for that, not only for transportation but also for shipping supplies back and forth from Earth. So I believe there won't be any colonization of the Moon for now, especially with the current state of things, but maybe in the future when we will have the luxury of free and environmental-friendly energy.

Maion

[Vladimir]

H3

He3. I surely hope so.

[Ratwar]

Depends on your definition of 'Colony'. I mean, if you call the ISS a colony, then we'll colonize the Moon first. Otherwise, I think a one shot trip to Mars is the most likely. Remember, this doesn't have to be done by NASA. Don't tell me that some of the worlds budding space agencies in China or India wouldn't love to beat NASA to Mars.

[Wishazu]

I think that both will happen at almost exactly the same time, after the Singularity has occured.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_singularity

If I had to absolutely claim that one would happen before the other, I believe that flying to Mars in the near future will be easier than establishing a base on the Moon. I`m not sure about actually walking on Mars though.