Moon or Mars?

On the eve of the 40th anniversary of man's first landing on the moon a debate has started up on weather we should take one small step for man backwards to the moon, or one giant leap for mankind forwards to Mars. The crew of Apollo 11 have come out to say that Mars is the better option however Obama and even the Canadian Space Agency want to put men back on the moon and establish a long term base of operations there by 2025.

What is everyones opinion on this? Personally, I support going to the moon first and getting a base set up there. From there we can do tests on technologies necessary for going to Mars (such as terraforming) and possibly create a launch point on the moon from which to head to Mars.

My love for sci-fi has me biased. I want us inventing warp drives so that aliens come down and say "That's the milestone in your developmental technology we've been waiting for! Now we can show you the secrets of intergalactic travel!” If that's not possible I would like to see men on mars. The moon is cool, close and attractive. But Mars is going to be the next epic space mission. There’s a lot higher chances of new discoveries and interesting elements. I think we’ve come close to our cap on what the moon can teach us. Mars is still very much unexplored.

I am, of course, a space optimist! I just want space exploration to begin in my lifetime. My dream job would be intergalactic botany. I want us out there finding life on other planets. I don’t care if it’s just plants. I want to study them! I can admit that starting an actual colony on the moon would help us understand creating viable life-support on other planets. For educational purposes it would be a great step forward. It’s just a lot less exciting imo.

Louis,

I can't find it on the web but have you seen Sean Penn's latest public service advert?
He uses money on toilet paper rolls to make sort of graphs on the floor to
state your point exactly.

I think they should go to the Moon again first, but only if it will help them develop the technologies necessary for going to Mars in the near future: the real goal should be Mars in either case.

That said, 2001 is come and gone and 2010 will be here soon, and we still haven't made it to Jupiter...

I agree with Kiefer and Kaeso, we should go to the moon, perfect the technology for
colonization, and use the moon as our orbiting spaceport.

Originally Posted by Louis

The only relevance I can see for exploring or setting up bases on either the moon or Mars is to prepare the way for eventual colonization, when we've made such a shite-hole of this planet that we have no choice. Other than that, it seems to me that there are just so many other more important things to spend trillions of dollars on, like ending world hunger (which I believe, anecdotally, would only cost in the billions).

I see your point, but I have to disagree. There needs to come a point where the prosperous nations need to say "enough is enough" and leave the poorer ones to their own devices. I wish I could remember the link, but I read somewhere that the countries receiving aid in Africa tend to do poorly when compared to the ones that do not.

Beyond that, the population is growing and eventually we will have more people than this planet can support. The logical step is to move on and colonize space (be it the moon, mars, or orbital habitats) so we should be investing in research and funding now so as to keep there from being a point where we all say a collective "oh shit" and wars start over dwindling resources and/or land. Furthermore, space production provides non violent ways for countries to try and better each other, as was the case with NATO and the Warsaw Pact in the Cold War.