Colonizing the Moon or Mars? Who first?

[col]

I think we'd probably colonise the oceans first as a trial run before trying to colonise space.

 

[Ayatollah So]

The earth's got billions of years of viability left. I don't see a big hurry to move elsewhere.

I suppose eventually both Moon and Mars will be terraformed by self-replicating machines. I just hope they'll allow us to move there. Or to survive here on earth, for that matter.

 

[Leonel]

Moon. It's a lot closer and takes a relatively shorter time to get there. Plus Mar's position relative to Earth changes while in orbit with the sun. Mars could very well orbit to the point where it is on the opposite end of the sun to Earth, making trips to Mars significantly longer. Travel nowadays loves consistancy and the Moon is a pretty consistant distance away from the Earth, not to mention one side of the moon always faces the Earth which should help landing and orbit syncing.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

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?

The Moon doesn't have as many natural resources to exploit as Mars. I would think that settling the Moon would be more useful as a launchpad for missions elsewhere, and a communications relay station. Mars appears to have more exploitable natural resources. While a trip to Mars is a lot longer than the Moon, it may be more economically useful if transport costs are reduced sufficiently.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

The Moon doesn't have as many natural resources to exploit as Mars. I would think that settling the Moon would be more useful as a launchpad for missions elsewhere, and a communications relay station. Mars appears to have more exploitable natural resources. While a trip to Mars is a lot longer than the Moon, it may be more economically useful if transport costs are reduced sufficiently.

I don't think transportation will ever be cheap enough for large movements of resources between the Earth and Mars.

Also what good would the moon be for a communications relay station? In astronomical terms, Moon and Earth are basically in the same spot and we can only send signals as fast as the speed of light so to what benefit would there be to go through the moon first?

 

[jalapeno_dude]

Liftport (see my sig) has a newsletter that you could sign up for. If nothing else, it shows support which improves their morale.

Thanks for the link! Subscribed...

 

[King Flevance]

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

I agree. I think making a space station on the moon should be done before trying to colonize Mars.

Me? I will watch from Earth. I wouldn't even visit until we figure out how to make atmospheres.

 

[Norlamand]

Other than the scientific advances spurred by the effort and gained in the execution it is unclear to me that it would economically advantageous. I'm for the effort just to climb the proverbial mountain.........the moon first, then mars.

 

[El_Machinae]

There are also resources in outer space that can be harnessed.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

I don't think transportation will ever be cheap enough for large movements of resources between the Earth and Mars.

So unimaginative. New technology could appear in the future that would end up reducing transport costs. For example, much of the expense of space travel is in launches from the surfaces of planets. The space elevator might be one solution that avoids this problem.

Also what good would the moon be for a communications relay station? In astronomical terms, Moon and Earth are basically in the same spot and we can only send signals as fast as the speed of light so to what benefit would there be to go through the moon first?

The moon has no atmosphere, so there's less signal interference that might make a clearer signal from deep space. Ok, maybe it's a very small benefit, but at least the moon could be used as a launch pad for further out missions.

 

[Norlamand]

There are also resources in outer space that can be harnessed.

I would venture to say that most of those resources would not, at least currently, be cost effective to mine and transport back from the moon or Mars.

 

[Urederra]

So unimaginative. New technology could appear in the future that would end up reducing transport costs. For example, much of the expense of space travel is in launches from the surfaces of planets. The space elevator might be one solution that avoids this problem.

And the space elevator might be not possible to make on Earth, but I am sure it is possible to build it on the Moon, having one fraction of Earth gravity, and and might be possible to build it on Mars as well.

Physics question: How long should a space elevator be to be operative on the moon?

I remind you guys that a 1 Km. prototype has already been built on Earth, but Earth, having a stronger gravity, need a much longer rope.