Should we colonize the moon 1st or Mars?

Topic's posts
Posts in total: 13
I favor the moon due to it's extreme closeness to Earth relative to Mars's distance from Earth.
--> @Alec
We have to do the moon first to learn how it can be done.

The moon may also be more suitable as a start point for Mars expeditions.  If the US started a base on Mars, China could establish a moon base before the Mars base has even begun.  I'd be surprised if Mars is selected ahead of the moon.  I'd put money on it if I thought I'd be alive to collect!
--> @keithprosser
Currently NASA receives about $40 billion from the government annually.  Under my tax plan, NASA would receive $600 billion before the foreign debt is paid off and $960 billion once the foreign debt is paid off.  With this extra funding, we'll go to space pretty soon.
--> @Alec
Dream on!
--> @Alec
I generally support Moon first.  I was thinking about making a debate and kind of researching Mars first arguments.  Interesting that Alec assumes a one government solution [NASA].  I would have expected more capitalism but also more international participation.  By law, any colony will need to be to benefit of all nations: no nation may claim territory, only property.  Seems like the burden of cost should likewise be borne internationally.  If I was in charge I'd want about 40% private- multiple, competing companies, 60% public.  Best case would be something like 30/20/10  US/Europe/China.  Using Alec's number that gives a $180 billion/yr burden but I think we can do better than that.  I'd have to look it up but I think NASA's present pricetag for an 18 month manned mars mission is $800 billion.  ISS cost about $150 billion. 

Alec- I wonder what you think of the The 1967 Outer Space Treaty?  - might be a good debate topic.


--> @oromagi
Private companies can't establish colonies on the moon without it belonging to the country that they are from.  Private companies can exist to colonize the moon to get resources and tourism.  However, in terms of territorial expansion, it's best left up to the gov to expand territory.

I wonder what you think of the The 1967 Outer Space Treaty?
I honestly think the outer space treaty is a bad treaty that needs to be reformed.  It will inevitably get overturned once humans have the ability to colonize other worlds.  I think currently the moon is unclaimable unless colonies are on the moon.  My ideal treaty that I think people can get around would be that whichever country lands on the moon first and puts a base there gets the land 100 m in any direction from that base and the collective territory acquired from this should be 100% connected on a national basis.

I also think a similar treaty, the antarctic treaty should have these terms.
--> @Alec
I favor the moon due to it's extreme closeness to Earth relative to Mars's distance from Earth
No. This is another example of how short side humanity is.

Those in 1800's who dreamed of going to the moon were called lunatics.

Colonizing the moon is modern day lunacy. 

Taking care of the ecological environment that sustains all humans here on Earth needs to be the priority. Duhh, humanity is going to realize after its too late.  True, humanity  pulled back form Mutual Assured Destruction { M.A.D. } in the late 80s' early 1990's.  So yes, humanity sometimes can begin to operate from a mind-first,...'what is best for humanity'...states of global consciousness.


..."It's welcome news that the UCS has taken this small step towards recognizing the value of low-carbon nuclear power. It would be even better if the activist group would also come around to advocating the rapid development and deployment of new safer nuclear power generation technologies, such as molten salt thorium reactors, small modular reactors, and traveling wave reactors."...

Again, short term solution, is not the long term, answer to humanities long term survival, with least amount of suffering most humanscurrently on Earth.

--> @mustardness
Colonizing the moon is modern day lunacy.  
It has lots of natural resources that would benefit the economy on Earth.

Taking care of the ecological environment that sustains all humans here on Earth needs to be the priority.
Do you own alternative energy sources?  If not, then your being a hypocrite since you advocate for others to fix the environment yet you won't contribute.
--> @mustardness
I absolutely agree that taking care of the ecological environment that sustains all humans here on Earth needs to be the priority.  No outerspace colony should be seen as a viable alternative habitat for humanity.  That proposition is entirely unproven and well down the road technologically speaking. 

I take it you'd redirect NASAs hundreds of billion into improving nuke tech.  That not an irrational proposition although I'm  guessing that you underestimate the potential of less wasteful solar and wind. Regardless, I don't see why Moon colonization and nuclear development aren't highly compatible developments- we may well want nuclear powered ships and nuclear power plants for colonies.  The Moon may prove a desirable dump for nuclear waste if we significantly ramp up production.

--> @oromagi
The Moon may prove a desirable dump for nuclear waste if we significantly ramp up production.
Ha, yeah that is the approach Fuller took. He stated that we should ship nuclear wastes {ionizing radiation } back to the sun, which is where it came from.

Humans are so short sided ---except in the case of Mutually Assured Destrution being temporarily and only partially dealt with--- that we will not cease to exist on Earth in 2000 - 5000 years if not sooner.

Nuclear waste is just one huge problem of nuclear industry.

More nukes means more hydrogen bombs on Earth via nation against nation mentality.

Nuclear power may become safer in short term, but more of them increases chances of nuclear exposure in future and especially so when we consider what hackers can do plus many other potential scenarios that leaves these nukes sitting around not being maintain in future years.

Humans are basically  barbarians and short sided{ narrow minded }.

--> @Alec
The moon is really the only sensible thing that we should try to colonize at the moment. We haven't even made a trip with people to Mars yet. 

It would be pretty cool to transform the moon into some place that's habitable. Create an atmosphere, introduce agriculture to it, etc. Perfect place to test how we fair with regards to colonizing other celestial bodies.

--> @SamStevens
with regards to colonizing other celestial bodies.
I wonder if we will ever go further than the moons of jupiter..

--> @keithprosser
Who knows, that would be pretty cool though.