Well, this has certainly been a lively debate. Nothing sets spacefolks more on edge, even moreso apparently than human vs. robot, than the merits of a Lunar return or Martian odyssey.

Honestly folks, some of the arguments being tossed around are pretty specious, and the insults, well, I guess there's no better way to convince the general public that space folks have their act together than to see these kinds of exchanges.

In all honesty, the Moon probably isn't the best place to set up the first asteroid tracking base (I'm biased towards the EML-1 point for its long term utility, but that's another immensely long post), but Mars certainly is no better, if not a whole lot worse.

As if the early Martians are really going to be at all concerned with any kind of astronomy! They'll all be looking down, trying to find that elusive trace of life other than of Earth. Personally, I'm waiting for the first pre-Solar System fossil, which is more likely, I feel, to be found in the asteroids or possibly the Moon. Now that's something to get excited about! Microbes on Mars, big whup - give me cometary microbes; that'll prove a whole heck of a lot of theories.

Now, as to the question of contamination. If, for some reason, there are signs of previous life, great, we'll figure out what it's about and will likely to be able to distinguish cross-contamination relatively effectively. Besides, any contamination vis-a-vis the Arean archaeobiosphere is likely to be fainter than the Moon's atmosphere, even with dust storm transportation to the nether corners of the planet. Then what? Come home because we've proven the point. Then what?

Of course, the Darwinists will argue that great, there was life, but nature is red of tooth and claw and ours is the dominant bioform - this planet's ours. That one will certainly be a fun debate.

If we find existing microbes, then what? Obviously the human presence will have to be kept to a minimum so the scientists can conduct their science. Hmmm, distant outpost studying arcane science - sounds like a recipe for underfunding to me (at least in Anarctica they can fly rescue missions). I say keep some around for study and take over.

I have no doubt whatsover that it is the secret fantasy of most Mars Society members to be the one discovering the fossil/microbe so that it can be named after them, say Areans JohnDoeus or whatnot. Either that or they'll name it after Zubrin and still get their names in the history books.

Face it, y'all are arguing agendas, and you're heavily obscuring it with vague engineering and science and faux-economics.

Once that fact is acknowledged, you can then argue whether it's more important in a broader context to search for asteroids from an offworld platform or to search for life on Mars.

I would cast my vote in favour of planetary protection. Whether it's done from LEO, from GEO, from EML-1, or from the Moon (what's that faint chorus? Oh yes, or from the asteroids), or some combination of the above, it's far better to do so from above the Earth's atmosphere. We can get a broader-wavelength spectral analysis and we can look sunward. Neither of those points can be denied or trumped from a terrestrial standpoint, even with massive hidden investment in adaptive optics or other more esoteric advances (or from a Martian base, snicker).

From a comparative planetology science standpoint I'd have to go with a South Pole Lunar base. Ya gotta love the fact that the Moon is in all probability OF the Earth, and therefore the best sample for comparative planetology in the Solar System, and the ONLY known example with a hole through the crust and into the mantle (and recognized therefor by the NSF Decadal Survey, which also recommended an all-sky synoptic survey). Plus, with crater counting and dating you get the bonus of a meteroid record for cis-Lunar space for almost four billion years, a much better record of Earth's meteroritic past I would say than Mars.

So really the arguments for Mars are easier large-scale (? or only the chosen few?) colonization, potential for previous or existing life, and water.

Well, I think colonization is a bit premature at this point in the evolution of our human society, so let's put that one aside as lacking near-term direct relevance.

Potential for previous or existing life. Compelling, certainly, but in all honesty do we really need to know that fact Right Now? What will we do with such pre- or existing life? Will we design new medicines or pharmaceuticals with what we learn? I'd put my investment dollars in studying undiscovered plants as a better way to go. Much greater likelihood of near-term and relevant results.

Water? I'm not even going to go there. At least the Moon offers a water-free environment for comparative chemicalology. ReAL glass may offer the potential for tunable lasers? Gee, Rare Earth elements happen to be all over the Moon, and a happy byproduct of any processing of regolith, and anhydrous glass made on the Moon can offer superior optical quality by virtue of the vacuum and low gravity.

So in the end I really don't see any compelling reason why a trip to Mars has to be the sole, or even primary goal of our space program. The more I read and see the discussions that occur here and elsewhere, the more I become convinced that the Martian Emporer Has No Clothes.

And before everyone goes flying off half-cocked, I do know a thing or two about Mars, having worked on a Mars Sample Return RFP during my internship at ISU. Heck, I'm the one that digested the priorities of the Mars scientific community down into Powerpoint slides for the proposal. Trying to get the scientist we were working with to do so was like pulling hens' teeth.
Uh, sir, for the MSR, how would you prioritize the list y'all have developed?
They're all priorities!
But sir, the MSR can't perform all of the 40+ science objectives y'all have developed. Within the context of an MSR, which would be the ones you'd most want addressed?
All of them!

Aaaargh.
The ISU Group Project wasn't much better (although I did get to learn the orbital mechanics for a Mars trip).

Y'all just need to start compromising. There are things that will get everyone what they want in good order; there's room enough in space for everyone. Building those compromises is what really needs to be discussed, not the savaging of each others posts.

Sure the space industry's in bad shape. Poor management, poor strategy, and a whole heck of a lot of other issues as well. And the kinds of discussions I see here surely can't good for consumption by the general public. These are, after all, the folks y'all need to convince that support for space on their part is a good thing. It's kind of tough to do that when it's all acrimony over robots vs. humans and Moon vs. Mars. They've got lives, they don't need to be trying to resolve that debate so things can move forward.

It's not just about these things, or delta-V, or 16% vs. 38% g, or dust on Mars vs. dust on Moon, or forward/cross/back contamination.

It's about a comprehensive, realistic strategy for advancing our presence into space, one that adds value (and NOT necessarily just $ value) at each step of the way.

I think that planetary protection addresses that in a far more relevant way for your average Joe than does a voyage to Mars. Does that mean a Lunar base is necessarily the next step? No, I don't think so. Some kind of space-based system does need to be developed muy pronto, because a lot of the close fly-bys seem to be blindsiders, coming out of the Sun, so they're tough for ground-based systems to find. A Moonbase does give you broader spectrum, but you're fixed and limited in where you can see at any point in time. A space based system offers the spectrum (look at all the great stuff coming out of SIRTF), plus much greater flexibility as to view at any moment in time.

Does that mean there's no reason to have a Moon base? No, because there's also going to be things like radio telescopes in interferometric configurations, cold scopes in polar craters, and much more wonderful stuff for the astronomical community. Does that mean we shouldn't go to Mars to look for life?

Where's a good place to start? The ISS would probably be a good spot to do some preliminary work, GEO is a little crowded, I'd propose EML-1 as the place to go to set up an initial fully-functioning, regularly upgraded and serviced asteroid survey facility, aka SpaceWatch, aka SpaceGuard, aka All-Sky Synoptic Survey. Not crewed at first, but growing over time to the point where you need a regular presence to keep things going. Fixing them is why machines keep humans around.

Once at EML-1, 4km/s delta-V gets you to Mars, anywhere on the Lunar surface, GEO and back, down to ISS, or back to Earth. In terrestrial terms I guess we'd call it a transit node.

There are a lot of possibilities out there, with room enough for everyone. Do y'all think you can play nice for the benefit of the space advocacy community?

Peace out,
Ken