Colonizing the Moon or Mars? Who first?

[_Philospher_]

Space has always fascinated me, especially the dynamics of terraforming planets and expanding the human presence in the solar system. Recently there has been talk of a manned mission to the moon and then to mars. Some have even talked of colonizing both the moon and mars. My question to the forum is which planet should we invest more resources into colonizing. Mars or the Moon? Which one will provide more beneifts for the high costs?

Here some wiki links (love wiki! )

Mars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Mars
http://www.redcolony.com//

Moon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_the_Moon
http://www.moonsociety.org/

 

[Mr. Dictator]

moon=closer.......and could be used as a forward base or something like that for a future colonization of mars.

 

[Perfection]

The Sun


I'd bet that you could get better sustainability out of a Martian colony.

 

[Babbler]

Neither. I just go with orbital colonies.

 

[Kozmos]

Either way it's a 50 year minimum project.

 

[Perfection]

Either way it's a 50 year minimum project.

50 years between what and what?

I see colonization as more open-ended.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm more of a fan of mining the asteroids. I think they're nicely broken up already, and thus are separated into classes (some have more heavy metals than others).

The potential wealth out there is huge.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

Moon first.

Mars does indicate better long term prospects for self-sustainability, mostly due to better prospects for finding enough water once it starts growing beyond outpost size.

But the Moon is only 3 days away. Mars is optimistically a 3-6 months trip and the optimal window for the Mars trip, from a cost and feasibility standpoint, only opens up once every other year. You can't ignore orbital physics, you know. The return trip has similar issues to deal with and potential solutions are pretty far down the line so, for now, we have to live with the restrictive windows.

A moon shot doesn't have anywhere near the same physical restrictions on when you can launch. And the first manned landing to the place was done 37-years ago... Thirty Seven years ago!

The only real issue left for a moonbase is keeping a permanent settlement viable in the hostile environment, although space stations have been tackling that one for nearly 30 years (the Soyuz/Skylab projects in the 70s were proto-Space Station research projects so I consider it to have started long before Mir and ISS).

 

[Global Nexus]

There are of course advantages and disadvantages for both. I personally support a Mars-first approach. The trip to and from may be longer, but the planet has an atmosphere [a thin one, but one at that] and higher gravity than our Luna. Those alone mean that adapting ourselves, and whatever lifeforms we bring along, will be much easier than adapting to the moon.

In the end though, I am not really very biased about where we go right immediately. While I think Mars may be the wiser choice, I fully support the ASAP colonization of our moon Luna, Mars, and any asteroids we can find. All three will be extraordinarily beneficial to the long survival of our species.

 

[Mr Moron]

I don't imagine either will ever be practical. Both places would need to have enclosed environments, so many things could go wrong. Seems like it’d be very easy for a Terrorist/Crazy Person/Drunk to send to the ruin the place just by damaging it from the inside. The moon might be a little easier to keep supplied, but Mars so is far away I don’t think we could ever keep it running. Terraforming might be viable for mars if it’s even possible, however I find the idea that any organization or country could remain in existence long enough to see the process though it’s completion pretty absurd.

We’re stuck here on earth, forever, people should get used to that idea. We need to spend time energy and brainpower finding ways to live here in a stable state, not trying to leave.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

Definitely not Mars first. The moon would be good, but large space stations would be just as good.

And space elevators!!!!!

 

[Kan' Sharuminar]

Seems like it’d be very easy for a Terrorist/Crazy Person/Drunk to send to the ruin the place just by damaging it from the inside.

Because here on Earth, major crisis are caused by the drunk people. Like the chap who shot the Archduke.

Moon first though, one small step at a time.

 

[Evil Tyrant]

I'd go with the moon, it is closer and easier to get to, it would also be easier to escape from if something goes bad at the colony.

 

[FriendlyFire]

How about installing 250,000 Co2 Scrubbers on earth to clean up first.

 

[Global Nexus]

Both places would need to have enclosed environments, so many things could go wrong. Seems like it’d be very easy for a Terrorist/Crazy Person/Drunk to send to the ruin the place just by damaging it from the inside.

Isn't this what things called safeguards are for? Redundancy, underground construction, redundancy, and various other things of the sort. Risks are everywhere, anyway. To refuse to do it because there are risks is cowardly, though. We take huge risks every time we get into a car, and yet a huge number of us do that every day, regardless of the risk.

The moon might be a little easier to keep supplied, but Mars so is far away I don’t think we could ever keep it running. Terraforming might be viable for mars if it’s even possible, however I find the idea that any organization or country could remain in existence long enough to see the process though it’s completion pretty absurd.

Of course. Because if we do put colonists on Mars, they will have no vested interest in making the planet habitable over a long period of time. Not that it matters -- if terraforming fails, worldhousing would take the rest up.

We’re stuck here on earth, forever, people should get used to that idea. We need to spend time energy and brainpower finding ways to live here in a stable state, not trying to leave.

The only problem with this thought is that it condemns us to death. The Earth will be rendered uninhabitable someday -- by us, an asteroid, or eventually the Sun itself. Being content with the suicide of our species is not something I intend to live with. I have no problem with attempting to better the Earth, considering I live here, but the human race can learn a lot about that from expanding. New ideas and philosophies are bred from new frontiers, and when we fail to expand our frontiers, we will wither and die from stagnation.

 

[Mr Moron]

Isn't this what things called safeguards are for? Redundancy, underground construction, redundancy, and various other things of the sort. Risks are everywhere, anyway. To refuse to do it because there are risks is cowardly, though. We take huge risks every time we get into a car, and yet a huge number of us do that every day, regardless of the risk.

At least when a car crashes there is some chance of survival. When something on this bubble colony fails and the entire contents is sucked out into the void you aren't going to live.

Of course. Because if we do put colonists on Mars, they will have no vested interest in making the planet habitable over a long period of time. Not that it matters -- if terraforming fails, worldhousing would take the rest up.

We may have interest but that does not equate with ability. The distance makes it too hard to maintain. Terraforming takes far too long, I don't think it would be possible to see it through to the end without the downfall of however is doing it.

The only problem with this thought is that it condemns us to death. The Earth will be rendered uninhabitable someday -- by us, an asteroid, or eventually the Sun itself. Being content with the suicide of our species is not something I intend to live with. I have no problem with attempting to better the Earth, considering I live here, but the human race can learn a lot about that from expanding. New ideas and philosophies are bred from new frontiers, and when we fail to expand our frontiers, we will wither and die from stagnation.

Everything dies someday my friend. Eventually even this whole universe is going to turn itself inside out and die. That isn't any real reason to redirect time energy and thought needed to live here on earth comfortably to some false hope of a short stay of execution in space. Our best bet is to make a good run of it here.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

Everything dies someday my friend. Eventually even this whole universe is going to turn itself inside out and die. That isn't any real reason to redirect time energy and thought needed to live here on earth comfortably to some false hope of a short stay of execution in space. Our best bet is to make a good run of it here.

Except humans have a preservation instinct. I doubt they'll just give up and die...

 

[Dreadnought]

I say we make Mars an actual colony year round, while we but nuclear reactors on the moon, mess up taht place with explosions instead of earth

 

[Stolen Rutters]

...The moon might be a little easier to keep supplied, but Mars so is far away I don’t think we could ever keep it running...

The ideas behind a mars colony revolve around making it as self sustaining as possible. The arctic and antarctic science stations require periodic resupply in extremely hostile environments and it is pretty much accepted that any initial outpost would be designed along those lines. There is a period every year where the conditions are so bad at the poles that resupply is exceedingly difficult, and in the past resupply for a few months every year was impossible. The task would be to make the bases off planet self-sustainable to the tune of ten times longer than current polar outposts are designed for.

We don't yet know whether we could ever keep a Mars Outpost running, but we have shown it possible at sea, at the poles, and in orbit for extended periods. You take what it known, and extend it to new frontiers, discover the additional problems and issues that you will inevitably face (the air and water supply issue, for example), and refine your approach until it works (or find that it's not doable). This is why I suggest the Moon after space station, actually, to prepare for a Mars and Asteroid expedition.

You can't know until you try. The truly successful people and societies have tried and "failed" many more times than they succeeded.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

How about installing 250,000 Co2 Scrubbers on earth to clean up first.

You mean trees? They also double as an O2 generator.



edit - it made no sense to add a third post in a row...

I say we make Mars an actual colony year round, while we but nuclear reactors on the moon, mess up that place with explosions instead of earth

Some nuclear reactor designs developed after Three Mile Island are actually designed to literally eliminate explosions if it overheats. It has mostly to do with modulating the direction of expansion from overheating, thus adjusting the density of the high energy particles within the chamber. This can reduce the rate of reabsorbtion of the high-energy particles that accelerate the reaction. Basically, if it gets too hot, the reaction refuses to runaway, even if the coolant system fails. You can even set up the cooling system to automatically extend the particle absorbsion rods (the brakes, so to speak, of the reaction) into the pile when a failure occurs such as a drop in water pressure. You are basically creating a robust safety system eliminating any chance of an explosion and minimizing chances of a meltdown.

-endedit