Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Rosa Golijan
Email | Twitter
Chris Jacob
Email
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Kyle VanHemert
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
07/21/09
The moon is strategic, and it's closer to home.
We have to prove the technologies and techniques before we employ them too far from where we can help if there's trouble.
-and we have to do it before the Chinese do.
07/21/09
I know people will say how some researches for space travel brought us several benefits here on Earth, but I wonder if we spent as much money as we spend on space research on Earth alone, how many other advances we'd get from it.
I'm truly sorry for space travel enthusiasts, but IMHO, it's a waste of money.
And it's not that I think we should never touch space or stuff like that, it's just that I think we should center on solving earthly problems first.
With the limited technology we have today, we're spending trillions of dollars to accomplish stuff we might do with far less years from now.
What I mean is: There are several barriers we should break first regarding several areas of knowledge, such as medicine, biology, nanotechnology among some others before we start spending tons of money with space research.
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/20/09
We crawled into space years ago, and walked on the moon. However we've sat around for so long that we need to learn to walk again.
I know there are a lot of people who want to see us jump straight to mars, but really the next logical step is a base on the moon. If we're unable to make that work, then making Mars safely isn't going to happen.
We have a semi-permanent habitat in orbit now, and we're rebuilding our ability to get manned flight out of Earth orbit once again. If we shot straight for Mars and failed, it would be an utter disaster for the space program.
At least there's a chance we could have a rescue crew to the Moon in a couple of days instead of years like a Mars mission would take.
Not to mention that the moon could be used as a good base to observe climate change on Earth.
07/20/09
I was watching Discovery's marathon thing they were doing today with my grandmother (a trained chemist and tech geek, not the normal doddering old lady stereotype) and she says to me, "We did this 40 years ago now, and we haven't done anything important since then... what happened to our space program?".
07/20/09
07/20/09
Memory foam, the popularization of Velcro, highly refined grease compounds to reduce friction when transporting rockets/shuttles. Digital image processing systems for MRIs. Solar cells. LEDs...
These are all things developed under NASA funded contracts. We can build something for $100 billion now, or for $100 trillion+ in 100 years.
The space program inspired millions to pick up science and math as careers. And space has fueled the imaginations of billions of people for a very very long time.
07/20/09
07/20/09
07/20/09
07/20/09
#1 A team on Mars will figure out more in 2 weeks than 20 probes could tell us in 20 years. And, it will inspire a generation the way the moon landing inspired basically the entire generation of techies responsible for the digital wonderland we live in today. I should know: I'm the son of two of those folks.
# 2 Mars would give an organization often afflicted with mission creep a laser-sharp sense of operational focus. And a Mars mission would bring untold ancillary benefits in areas as diverse as medicine, robotics, comm., materials science, and who knows what else.
#3 Mars represents the next logical step in man's stretch outward in the solar system, and is still an unknown quantity in many, many respects. Not to get all kumbya-ic on folks, but putting man on Mars would herald a legitimately new age for all mankind: we will have graduated from looking and landing on our moon to landing on another, probably once-living planet. And where there was once life, there may be traces of it today. And if we find evidence life so near to our home...
# 4 What makes Mars a good candidate is its surface, its history, the possibility of water-evidence, its proximity, and the (comparative) ease of a mission there. The engineering hurdles are few, and the only real hurdles are human ones. It's been 40 years since man set foot on a non-Earth celestial body. It'll be at least 50 before we land on the moon again (ultimately a waste of time if it's not going to be PROMPTLY used as a launchpad elsewhere). The moon is a BAD place for a base - Phobos and Mars itself are much more promising.
Ultimately, NASA's agenda should be one that inspires a listless generation, fosters new areas of tech development, and focuses the agency in a meaningful and - when you think about it, really profound - way. Only MARS fits this profile.
Think Mars people, Mars. And for the love of God, write or call your representative before NASA is no more than a relic and a husk.
07/20/09
07/21/09
07/20/09
But we need far less of this dilly-dallying bullshit.
Our rocket technology needs a nice increase in performance before going to Mars. Sure we can do it with current solid/liquid booster tech, but we could do it so much faster if we stopped on the Moon to refuel or used any type of alternate engine for a longer mission, the Orion 1969 anyone?
07/20/09
Revisiting the Moon is technically and logistically unnecessary to continue on to Mars; it's a common misconception that we can "stop" on the way to refuel (this is also akin to stepping out the door, driving to the end of the street to refuel... and then driving around the world).
07/20/09
The problem is that so much of the rocket fuel is used to propel rocket fuel in space, its a stupid proposition, especially with current solid rocket booster designs.
Build me an alternate rocket engine (VASIMR perhaps) or start your trip from space already.
07/20/09
07/20/09
plus im not sure which desert or stage would be good for mars especially since it wount be easy to get away with grainy low res black and white footage in todays full colour hi def world
for moon and mars
robot yeah, man no unless they land a man in todays world
07/20/09
07/20/09
07/20/09
China has said many times that one of their purposes to get to the moon is to mine the helium 3.
I don't know if us getting there and setting up a base would matter with that though. Could we "claim" the moon after we've already taken steps to make sure no country can?
Thats just a weird little "I wonder thing". I'm all for a mission to mars.
07/20/09
07/20/09
07/20/09
07/20/09
07/20/09
07/20/09
Mars is a very very dangerous place but I think the rewards of going to Mars immediately would definitely show their worth from the moment we arrive. The amount of information regarding viable resources and living space at a farther reach is invaluable and we shouldn't rest on our laurels. A moon based space station can be handled by a private corp. Lets let NASA get to the good stuff. Case in point:
07/20/09
07/20/09
@Skeetz:
07/20/09
07/20/09
Amazing isn't it? They can put a man on the moon, but they can't put a man on Susan Boyle.
07/20/09
07/20/09
@bosskev:
07/20/09
07/20/09
Er...what's this "today" crap?
07/20/09
have fun with it!