Three decades after the first Apollo landing on the moon, the debate between proponents of manned and unmanned space missions has not changed a great deal. But many space scientists who work with robotic satellites, including me, have gradually moved from opposing human spaceflight to a more moderate position. In special situations, we now realize, sending people into space is not just an expensive stunt but can be more cost-effective than sending robots. Mars exploration is one of those cases.

The basic advantage of astronauts is that they can explore Mars in real time, free of communications delays and capable of following up interesting results with new experiments. Robots, even after decades of research to make them completely autonomous, cannot manage without people in the loop. But the question arises: Where should the astronauts be? The obvious answer--on the surface of Mars--is not necessarily the most efficient. At the first "Case for Mars" conference in 1981, one of the more provocative conclusions was that the Martian moons, Phobos and Deimos, could serve as comparatively inexpensive beachheads.

This article was originally published with the title To Mars by Way of Its Moons.

8 Comments

1. 1. kiteman 07:55 PM 8/5/08

   Has anyone considered using the space shuttle as a means of getting to the moon in relative comfort. Booster rockets, and liquid fuel could be sent into orbit, and attached, along with a LEM. The shuttle would stay in orbit, whilst the LEM landed on the moon. After use, the shuttle could be left in orbit for the next trip. Maybe this would extend the useful life of the shuttle. Tiles would not need to be replaced.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. Michael Cook 07:25 PM 6/14/09

   Not able to say too much but I do have a patent pending concerning the best way to utilize Phobos, both for Mars exploration and for going beyond Mars to the outer planets.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. jemstar in reply to kiteman 09:10 PM 9/25/09

   The polictics of money and power rule NASA, not reason and logic. Nixon canceled the moon program and the MOLE orbiting laboratory and the original shuttle program was limited due to politician playing games. China will beat us back to the moon and other nations will surpass out space outreach unless NASA missions, budgets and staffing are set free from DC games, not much hope for that!!!

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. Cymbaline 10:46 AM 2/17/10

   Going *almost* all the way to Mars, but stopping short at its "moons", is the DUMBEST idea I have ever heard regarding space exploration. We're interested in MARS the planet, not two rogue captured asteroids. I wish they would stop calling Phobos and Deimos "moons". They ARENT MOONS. If Pluto is no longer a Planet, Phobos and Deimos certainly arent "moons". But anyway, stopping short of the red planet itself is totally stupid. What are we going to do. Stand on tumbling stones looking down on Mars, and not actually set foot on the planet itself?? Its such a stupid idea I can't believe its even being discussed.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. Stin_nar 09:38 PM 9/16/10

   what really should happen is we should land the station on the moon and use it as the start of colonizing the moon from there we can establish a base on mars' moons and from there we can colonize mars itself this isnt a very hard line of thought and seems obvious to me not sure why others havent thought of it

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. Grumpyoleman in reply to Michael Cook 06:05 PM 3/17/11

   I've read over and over again that the space shuttle is designed solely for low earth orbit and is not an interplanetary vehicle. NASA pointed out that the scenario of using shuttles in the movie "Armageddon" was fanciful, at best.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. Grumpyoleman in reply to Stin_nar 06:11 PM 3/17/11

   It's been considered often and for decades but the Moon frankly is boring. Except for an observation station on the back side, there isn't much there to excite the public. Mars has oomph. Mars is exciting. Mars would arose the taxpayers and make funding easier to justify. Matter of fact, when GWB announced the plan there was definitely some boost among the public.
   
   Why Deimos and Phobos, though? They are tiny little planetoids that are tumbling through space. As someone pointed out they don't really qualify as moons.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

8. 8. N agnostic in reply to kiteman 01:07 AM 12/13/11

   They've all been shipped off to museums.
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this