Jan 13

Jan 13 Moon vs. Mars? Why Not Both?

A portion of a NASA graphic showing Earth, its Moon, and Mars (Courtesy of NASA)

“Better learn balance. Balance is key.”

— Mr. Miyagi

About two weeks ago, Elon Musk reignited the Mars versus Moon debate with his tweet responding to a comment about SpaceX as a potential customer for lunar liquid oxygen. Because Musk has been critical of the Artemis/SLS Program (for good reason), some observers interpreted part of his remark—suggesting a direct Earthly leap toward Mars without a lunar layover—as a broad policy recommendation. In reality, his comment was partly taken out of context: he was simply addressing Starship’s capabilities rather than issuing a definitive stance on a lunar sidestep. But nevertheless, it reopened a policy question with the American space program: should the immediate focus be on returning to the Moon or aiming directly for Mars?

While this might seem like a straightforward question, it goes far deeper than a single rocket or a single tweet. Instead, it touches on topics of strategy, infrastructure, and the primary driving focus behind today’s American space program. In this blog post, I will examine both sides of this debate and explain why I believe that pursuing Mars and the Moon in parallel may be the most compelling way forward.

The Moon-to-Mars Approach

For those who favor returning to the Moon before heading to Mars, the logic starts with risk management. Compared to Mars, which can be as far as 124 million miles away, the Moon is much closer. Therefore, the Moon offers a safer environment for using critical but unproven systems necessary for off-Earth habitation. These could include life support, radiation shielding, robotic equipment, tools as well as methods for extracting or processing natural resources in situ. Because our Moon is only about a three-day trip away, rescue and resupply missions remain feasible for an emergency. This “ease of access” contrasts sharply with that for Mars, which can still require over half a year to reach when it is at its closest point to Earth (about 35 million miles).

In addition, the Moon’s potential reservoirs of water-ice, rare earth elements, and helium-3 offer untapped opportunities for fueling humanity’s further expansion into the universe. Water, for instance, can be broken down into hydrogen and oxygen to be used as rocket propellant. Because of the tyranny of the rocket equation, launching spacecraft from Earth expends a significant amount of delta-v just to reach Low Earth Orbit. Establishing a “lunar gas stop” could theoretically reduce the cost and complexity of trips far beyond the cislunar region. A spacecraft could top off its fuel at a facility on or near the Moon, allowing the spaceship to devote more of its payload capacity to scientific equipment or other vital resources, making deep space journeys more practical.

Another appeal of the Moon-first approach is the political and pragmatic momentum it can generate. By establishing a sustained presence on the Moon, NASA and its partners can show continuous progress with every successful lunar mission, habitat build-out, and scientific discovery. These milestones could keep the public engaged and shore up political support—both of which are essential for securing long-term governmental funding. This logic appears to align with NASA’s current Moon to Mars strategy under the Artemis Program. Under this initiative, NASA is attempting to demonstrate that it will not only return to the lunar surface, but remain there for long durational stays—ultimately paving the way for crewed missions to Mars.

However, because the Artemis Program relies heavily on the troubled Space Launch System (SLS) rocket—which has faced repeated scheduling delays, cost overruns, and technical setbacks—many critics question whether this architecture is truly the best use of resources. But supporters point out that technology has significantly evolved since the Apollo days, meaning a modern lunar campaign could yield new scientific and technological opportunities and lay the groundwork for robust exploration efforts across the solar system.

The Mars Direct Approach

On the other side of the debate stands the Mars Direct perspective, championed most famously by Dr. Robert Zubrin and embraced by many space enthusiasts and entrepreneurs. This view argues that if Mars is the ultimate goal, then American space policy should be focused on the Red Planet from the get-go. As Musk’s tweet suggests, returning to the Moon can become a short-term distraction that can waste a lot of resources without significantly reducing the challenges of going to Mars. Here, proponents also note that traveling from Earth’s orbit directly to the surface of Mars will actually require less delta-v than going to the surface of the Moon.

Philosophically, the Mars Direct approach emphasizes the urgency and excitement that surrounds exploring an entirely new frontier. With its own atmosphere, untapped resources, and complex geological record, Mars would become the first planet that we visit—potentially revolutionizing our understanding of life in the universe. The moment the first human sets foot on Martian soil would immediately become a defining event of a new spacefaring era, one that is equivalent to Neil Armstrong’s “One Small Step.” This achievement could galvanize global attention and inspire the next generation of scientists and researchers. By focusing intently and specifically on Mars, the American space program would in effect force itself to solve the toughest problems—much like President Kennedy’s “We choose to go to the Moon” speech once did. This would include advancing life-support systems for multi-year missions, developing faster propulsion methods, and creating hardened radiation shielding capable of withstanding long-durational space travel.

Some advocates also argue that living on Mars could ultimately be more feasible than living on the Moon. While Mars is cold and its atmosphere is thin, it still offers a level of atmospheric protection entirely absent on the airless Moon, which experiences drastic temperatures swings. At roughly 24 hours and 40 minutes, a Martin day also aligns far more closely with Earth’s natural circadian rhythm than the Moon’s month-long day-night cycle. Water also appears more readily available as well, and with stronger gravity than that of the Moon, Mars may be better suited for sustaining long-term habitats and agriculture. By directing resources toward technology designed specifically for Martian conditions, this strategy could hasten humanity’s transformation into a truly multi-planetary species.

Age of Settlement vs. Age of Exploration

But beneath these technical and policy arguments, I believe lies a deeper philosophical distinction between these two approaches: One that I would call as a “Battle of the Eras,” pitting the Moon-centric “Age of Settlement” against the Mars-centric “Age of Exploration.”

The Moon, in many ways, represents the settlement mindset. It is “right next door,” close enough for frequent supply runs and relatively quick rescue or evacuation missions. Because of its proximity, the Moon functions as prime off-world real estate for new research stations, mining operations, and one day, permanent settlements. In essence, the Moon currently offers a tangible opportunity to define what it means to live off Earth with the backup ability to live off of Earth. The lunar environment can test how humans establish and maintain sustainable infrastructure in a hostile environment while remaining within reach of our home planet.

Mars, by contrast, symbolizes the exploration spirit. Visiting it feels akin to crossing an uncharted territory or mapping an unknown region. Much as explorers in centuries past risked everything to journey toward the horizon, humanity’s push to Mars taps into one of our most primal desires: to expand our frontier and discover what lies beyond our known world. In this sense, Mars is an entirely new world—a planet with its own unique geology, potential resources, and possibly even signs of past or present life—that can radically shift our perspective on our place in the cosmos.

If we acknowledge this philosophical divide—seeing the Moon as a place to settle and Mars as a place to explore—then I believe that neither objective need to overshadow the other. Each would address a fundamental facet of the human spirit: one driven to build and the other compelled to discover.

To illustrate, we can picture Outer Space as a giant pie. Going to Mars expands that pie, pushing humanity’s reach to new realms through direct and first-hand exploration. Returning to the Moon connects the slices of that pie, constructing an infrastructure that links the Earth slice with the lunar slice. But neither “expanding” nor “connecting” alone is sufficient. If we only expand, we risk overextending ourselves without establishing the structures needed for long-term survival. If we only connect, we may excel in near-Earth logistics but will never grow to become truly Earth-independent. Instead, we need a balanced strategy that combines the visionary excitement of exploration with the practical benefits of settlement. Conducting both efforts in parallel means our Mars missions benefit from the practical lessons learned on the Moon, while our lunar bases are informed by the bold, deep-space strategies developed for Mars.

Pursuing Both the Moon and Mars

While many assume that limited budgets might force an either-or scenario, there are in fact numerous ways to pursue settling the Moon and exploring Mars concurrently. Far from competing, these two goals can reinforce each other through shared technologies, lessons learned, and increased public engagement.

On the one side, technologies developed for Mars exploration—such as advanced radiation shielding, closed-loop life support, and in-situ resource utilization—can be readily adapted to the lunar environment. If we require robust life support for a multi-month journey to Mars, those same systems can help sustain a lunar base. Breakthroughs in harvesting Martian resources for fuel or oxygen can also inform how we mine lunar ice or extract helium-3. By tackling the extreme conditions of interplanetary travel, we gain innovations that can translate back to lunar living.

Conversely, a thriving lunar infrastructure might simplify certain elements of a Mars expedition. Building and maintaining habitats on the Moon yields invaluable data on everything from dust mitigation to crew morale—lessons that can be tested through real-life simulations when a rescue from or a return to Earth is still feasible. If we perfect the logistics of refueling or resupplying from a lunar hub, we will be better equipped for the more distant journey to the Red Planet. Thus, advances made on the Moon can reduce the risks and costs of our Martian aims.

Furthermore, a dual strategy can bolster public enthusiasm across different demographics. News of a proliferating lunar economy and the prospect of ordinary people eventually experiencing low-gravity environments may excite those who favor incremental, near-term progress. At the same time, the prospect of sending humans to Mars may captivate those drawn to bolder and more dramatic leaps. Instead of dividing the public’s attention, a policy that pursues both Martian and lunar goals in tandem can broaden overall support—rallying scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, adventurers, and space dreamers alike.

Of course, none of this is as simple as declaring “do both.” Space endeavors are expensive, time-consuming, and often rely on political will and popular opinion. Nevertheless, the emerging commercial space industry offers more funding and innovation pathways than ever before. Government agencies can focus on building lunar infrastructure, while supporting private-sector efforts to reach Mars. This multi-pronged approach, spread over a diverse set of goals, also stands a better chance of weathering political and economic shifts. Every success—whether on the Moon or Mars—fuels public excitement and strengthens the case for continued investment. With the potential for overlapping technological building blocks for both the Moon and Mars, breakthroughs in one arena can quickly pay dividends in the other.

Beyond the Horizons

So while one single tweet from Elon Musk might have set social media abuzz about the future of American space policy, the broader discussion reveals that the Moon and Mars each fulfill unique yet complementary needs in humanity’s cosmic dreams. The Moon calls us to settle, build, and improve; Mars beckons us to discover, explore, and expand.

Thus on the one hand, those who admire the romantic notion of a swift march to Mars should acknowledge the fact that strong support for lunar operations can lead to breakthroughs that make an endeavor to Mars far more feasible. On the other hand, those who view the Moon as our immediate stepping-stone should recognize how the allure of Mars can galvanize public interest and funding that benefit near-term lunar presence.

So instead of asking whether American space program should be aiming at the Moon or Mars next, perhaps the real question is what kind of future we can build when humans live on both worlds. By blending these goals together, we can unite the Age of Exploration with the Age of Settlement, accelerating our path toward the era of humanity as a spacefaring civilization.