Why NASA explore the Mars, but moon. Does the moon is the empty inside?

Mars is the hot exploration topic of recent years.
NO the moon is not hollow.

I mean the core of the moon is hollow, and what in the Mars?

Mars is sexy; the moon is not. Hence the people who select NASA missions tend to favor going to Mars over any other place. It's the only planet other than earth that is known to have had surface water, and hence appears to be the one place other than earth that may have harbored life. The moon on the other hand is basically just a big rock. FYI, NASA is also pretty much ignoring Venus.

Mars have alienwares? Or organic?

Mars have alienwares?

I don't know what "alienwares" means, but if you're asking whether Mars has life - not that we know of (yet).


or organic?

Lots of organic compounds are present in Martian soil.

Alienware means intelligent being?

alienware means intelligent being?

Nope, it's a brand name of a computer model.

"alienware" here means have high tech people such that who made UFO.

If you believe that aliens in UFOs from some place other than our solar system have visited earth, then I would guess you believe that those same aliens probably visited Mars as well. But there is no credible evidence of such visits by aliens either here or on Mars.

Nobody can prove have no UFO? Did nasa want send the people to the Mars and let them live here?

nobody can prove have no UFO? did nasa want send the people to the Mars and let them live here?

I don't think NASA would put a colony on mars, or the moon; it would be a space station first while studies could be done at a closer range.

Don't you know this from watching the movies ?

This from watching TV also. And the time is a kind of motion, this is why the Mars has different time with us. Mars has more than 600 days a year, more than us 1.88 times almost.

The US has sent other proves out into space and into deep space. The moon is the closest other body in space, and Mars the next. So it is a matter of exploring those things closest to you first.

Also for the US it is a matter of funding, we have been to the moon, several times, and for the government to release funding it started a program that people found more exciting "Mars"

The US has sent other proves out into space and into deep space. The moon is the closest other body in space, and Mars the next. So it is a matter of exploring those things closest to you first.

Not quite right. Certainly this may have been the reason for going to Mars back in 1976 with Vanguard, but since then Mars has had a clear advantage in NASA's priorities - not so much because of its relative proximity but rather because of the science combined with the public's fascination with Mars. Contrast that with Venus and Mercury - both of these planets are actually closer to Earth than is Mars, yet very few missions have been funded for them. I have a bit of first hand knowledge about the politics that goes into selection of missions, and in virtually every funding cycle Mars gets a mission and the other planets combined may get a second. My brother is a planetary scientist at JPL, and has been fighting for a mission to Venus for years, but it seems every year his mission (and others to other oplanets) gets shot down infavor of another Mars probe.

Curiosity traveling almost 9 months to land the Mars, if the people in the space station of Mars, how them can travelling back(what knid of fuel could be help them), they have to stay Mars and eating, living there?

A manned mission to Mars would be at least a year in duration - which is why there hasn't been any serious efforts to pursue manned missions to other planets. Instead NASA is focusing on unmanned probes - they're much less expensive, quicker to design and build, and it doesn't really matter how long it takes to get there.