.png)
.png)
.png)
Should we go and plant the flag on Mars, skipping the return to the Moon?
Mar. 15, 2025. 6 mins. read.
13 Interactions
I think we should permanently return to the Moon first, and then move on to Mars. But Mars could be more inspiring to the young.
In his recent speech to the U.S. Congress, President Donald Trump said: “we are going to lead humanity into space and plant the American flag on the planet Mars.”
Trump said similar words in his inauguration speech in January (transcript). He said: “we will pursue our manifest destiny into the stars, launching American astronauts to plant the Stars and Stripes on the planet Mars.”
“We will lead the world in space and reach Mars before the end of my term,” he said during a campaign rally in October as reported by The New York Times (unpaywalled copy).
In a Fox News interview after the speech to the U.S. Congress, Trump backpedaled a bit, SpaceNews reports. “There’s a lot of interest in going to Mars,” he said. But also: “Is it number one on my hit list? No. It’s not really. But it is something that would be, you know, it would be a great achievement. It would be a great thing if we could do it.”
However, he noted that his remarks on Mars in the Congressional speech got some of the biggest applause of the night. “I was shocked,” he said. “There seems to be a big interest in it.”
Elon Musk, who prioritizes Mars, is one of the most trusted advisers of Trump at this moment. This might change anytime, but while it lasts Musk will likely influence Trump on U.S. space priorities.
The push to prioritize Mars exploration has sparked pushback from experts and space enthusiasts who argue for returning to the Moon first. What is the best path forward in space?
The best path forward in space
I’ve recently considered (part 1, part 2) the question: Should we still want to send human astronauts to colonize space? Or should we want to leave space expansion to artificial intelligence (AI)?
Short summary: I think AI will colonize the galaxy in the long term. And I see this as a good thing.
Hopefully, humans will be able to follow the AIs as uploads. Frank Tipler said it best: if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em: “Any human who wants to join the AIs in their expansion can become a human upload,” he said.
However, I think the perception of a difference between AI/human upload hybrids and pure AIs will eventually fade away.
But I still think that in the rest of this century we must establish humanity as a multi-planetary biological species in the solar system. Doing it will boost the human spirit – a boost of which we are very much in need – and accelerate progress on all fronts, including the AI technology front.
So what is the best path forward at this moment? Should we go directly to Mars and skip the Moon? Or should we return to the Moon and build a permanent presence there first, and then move on to Mars? There are valid arguments for both options.
Let’s aim high, skip the Moon re-run, and plant our flag on Mars
Mars, though farther than the Moon, holds real promise. It’s a planet with water ice, carbon dioxide, and a thin atmosphere. These give us resources to live, grow food, and make fuel. The Moon lacks these essentials.
Going straight to Mars pushes us to solve big problems now. Building bases, surviving radiation, and managing longer trips stretch our skills. The Moon’s a smaller challenge that we’ve already cracked. Mars forces us to innovate faster: re-usable rockets, better life support, and self-sustaining habitats. Skipping the Moon avoids wasting time on old ground. We can test tech in Earth orbit or simulations instead.
The Moon feels like a re-run, less exciting for young minds or investors. Mars promises a new home, not just a dusty neighbor. It’s scientifically richer too. Mars might hide signs of past life, unlike the barren Moon. Unlocking its secrets could rewrite our story.
Travel time is a drawback – six months to Mars versus three days to the Moon. But modern ships can handle it. Crews can train for isolation here first. The Moon’s no real shortcut anyway; it’s not a stepping stone, just a detour. Mars needs more up-front effort but its payoff dwarfs the Moon’s. We’d leap toward a multi-planet future, not crawl back to a familiar rock.
Let’s build on the Moon, get it right, and then move on to Mars
Now for the other side of the argument. The Moon makes more sense as our next step than jumping to Mars. It’s close – three days away, not six months. That proximity lets us test tech and fix problems fast. Mars is a huge leap, risky and pricey. The Moon offers a safer, cheaper proving ground. We’ve been there before, sure, but not to stay. Building a permanent base now teaches us how to live off Earth.
A lunar outpost sets us up for Mars later. We can perfect habitats, radiation shields, and resource use. The Moon has water ice in craters – great for drinking, oxygen, and fuel. Mars has resources too, but getting there’s tougher. Some also point to lunar Helium-3, a rare isotope that is more abundant on the Moon than on Earth. It could power future fusion reactors, making the Moon a key energy resource.
Practicing on the Moon builds skills we need for the red planet. It’s like training wheels before a bike race. We’d master solar power, 3D printing, and recycling in low gravity first.
The Moon’s a lifeline Mars can’t match. If something goes wrong, Earth’s right next door. Mars missions face delays – help’s months away. A lunar base also boosts science. We’d study its geology, test new tools, and prep for deeper space. Mars science is exciting, but the Moon’s mysteries still hold value. Moreover, it’s a hub: we could launch Mars ships from there. This would save a lot of fuel: launching against the Moon’s gravitational pull requires much less energy than launching from Earth. The ships could be built in situ from titanium (another resource more abundant there than here), aluminium, and iron.
Going straight to Mars skips critical steps. A crash there could set us back decades. The Moon’s less glamorous, but it’s practical. It inspires, too – showing we can settle space, not just visit. Private companies already eye it for mining and tourism. That cash flow funds Martian dreams. A permanent lunar presence proves we are serious about space. Mars is the prize, but rushing risks failure. Patience now means success later.
So what is the best path forward in space again?
All things considered, I still think that Mars can wait. We should return to the Moon and build a permanent presence on the Moon first, and then move on to Mars.
To me, boosting the human spirit is the main reason to push forward with human space expansion in the solar system this century, instead of waiting for future human-like (or superhuman) AIs. This applies to both the Moon and Mars.
I’m old enough to be an Apollo orphan, and I want to live again the Apollo adventure that I found so inspiring when I was a kid. But I understand that different people of different generations are inspired by different things.
Perhaps Mars can inspire the young more than the Moon ever could. A red planet colony could fire up the imagination and ambition of the young, pushing them to work hard and achieve great things not only out there in space but also down here on this planet. Let me know your opinion in the comments.
Let us know your thoughts! Sign up for a Mindplex account now, join our Telegram, or follow us on Twitter.
8 Comments
8 thoughts on “Should we go and plant the flag on Mars, skipping the return to the Moon?”
I think colonizing mars at this point is far-fetched. So humanity should build upon simpler experiments.
🟨 😴 😡 ❌ 🤮 💩
A first adventure to Mars wouldn't be "colonizing Mars" yet, more like a flag-and-footprints thing. But it could give an enormous boost to public support for space expansion.
🟨 😴 😡 ❌ 🤮 💩
I'm not young anymore but not old enough yet,
I can volunteer to go
Much more awesome to live I think.
🟨 😴 😡 ❌ 🤮 💩
If I didn't have a family to take care of, I would most certainly volunteer myself.
🟨 😴 😡 ❌ 🤮 💩
Thank you for this. While the pro–Moon-first argument is valid, the direct-to-Mars approach is stronger from a risk-benefit perspective.
The Moon-first proponents, including NASA, focus primarily on "operational experience" and "technology demonstration and testing," rather than other crucial factors like scientific discovery, settlement challenges, and mission costs, maybe with the second most visible argument which is the 'distance difference as risk multiplier. While this is indeed the most valid argument for their side, on the direct-to-Mars side, this same argument presents the greatest risk we cannot afford: delaying Mars exploration, which would kill the current momentum.
This is the biggest risk because history has shown that the political landscape—shaped by the attitudes of the U.S., Europe, China, and Russia, the leading nations in space exploration—determines the fate of such missions. If these geopolitical tensions persist, we may abandon Mars altogether, or worse, see meaningful space exploration grind to a halt. That is why I fully support the direct-to-Mars approach. Avoiding delays is critical. A focus on lunar missions will divert attention and resources in the short term and, in the long run, significantly push back Mars exploration. Only a direct approach will ensure timely human presence on Mars, paving the way for the eventual expansion to other planets.
We must also consider the "mission focus" advantage of going straight to Mars. We know the Moon can serve only as a base, and establishing large human settlements there would be far more complex than on Mars. Prioritizing Mars avoids the double challenge of building lunar infrastructure. Both goals are immensely difficult, so why take on the double risk and the double cost of doing essentially the same thing twice when we can tackle it once? A direct-to-Mars strategy would allow for a globally concentrated effort on Mars' unique challenges while preventing unnecessary spending on lunar missions and eliminating redundant investments in the same objective.
Frankly, I also question how long the U.S. administration will continue supporting meaningful space exploration. Let’s be realistic—both the U.S. and Europe would rather spend a trillion dollar on single war against Russia than on noble scientific endeavors. So, let’s go straight to Mars and usher in the true age of spacefaring for all of humanity.
Six month trip is not too long on the human psyche: sea trips in the olden days almost require the same amount yet in a much worse transportation vehicle. I think it shouldn't be signaled as a major risk.
🟨 😴 😡 ❌ 🤮 💩
Unfortunately, the geopolitical tensions and political factors that you mention operate on a faster timescale than a direct-to-Mars mission (like, weeks/months vs. years/decades), so they could kill a direct-to-Mars program even if we start one right now.
🟨 😴 😡 ❌ 🤮 💩
True, and this is exactly why the direct-to-Mars argument is stronger than the Moon-first approach. As you pointed out, politics can derail space missions faster than Usain Bolt. Knowing that a Mars mission could be canceled even after it kicks off, how can we justify going to the Moon first and then to Mars?
The smarter approach is to seize this window of opportunity and launch the Mars mission while we still can. At the very least, starting it now would make it harder to shut down later. While there are no guarantees, this is still a far better option than postponing Mars for a future schedule that may or may not ever be approved.
Also, don’t forget the issue of doubling both the risk and cost just to achieve the same goal: a crewed mission beyond Earth. While I understand your points, I still believe it’s better to tackle this challenge once—and as soon as possible with the Red Planet first.
🟨 😴 😡 ❌ 🤮 💩
You make good points here. Thinking...
🟨 😴 😡 ❌ 🤮 💩