Should the moon be colonized first or mars

Author: Alec ,

Posts

Total: 9
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
I would say the moon.  It is much closer, which provides numerous advantages.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 343
Posts: 10,450
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
As a Flat Earther left-winger, I am completely neutral on this horseshit dilemma. How about all the money and effort put into that is put into feeding Africa, Asia and maintaining peace in the world? 

76 days later

Jeff_Goldblum
Jeff_Goldblum's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 120
0
2
10
Jeff_Goldblum's avatar
Jeff_Goldblum
0
2
10
I agree with settling the Moon first. Establishing permanent living quarters on Mars - and maintaining them - would be exponentially more difficult than on the Moon. It takes about 3 days to reach the Moon and 6-9 months to reach Mars. Think of all the logistical challenges you would face on Mars that you wouldn't on the Moon. I can list a couple just off the top of my head:

-Communication. Radio signals take about 15 minutes to get from Mars to Earth. If people on Mars need to communicate urgently with mission control on Earth, the fastest reply they can expect is in half an hour.
-Health issues. The 6-9 month journey to Mars in zero G would be bad for travelers' health, not to mention spending extended time with Martian gravity (.4 G). For the Moon, the journey would be much shorter, and if desired, individuals could more easily spend shorter durations on the Lunar base, which would be better for their health.
-Cost. Space travel isn't cheap. I think the nations of Earth would prefer paying for 3-day trips instead of 9-month ones.

Oh, also, as featured in Ad Astra, you could launch voyages to Mars from the Moon. The benefit in doing this is found in the Moon's low gravity - launching from the Moon requires less fuel than launching from Earth.

I think settling the Moon first is a no-brainer. Since it's close by, it's a perfect training ground where we can perfect the science of settlement.
SupaDudz
SupaDudz's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 12,648
5
8
11
SupaDudz's avatar
SupaDudz
5
8
11
--> @Jeff_Goldblum
Are you the real Jeff Goldblum
Jeff_Goldblum
Jeff_Goldblum's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 120
0
2
10
Jeff_Goldblum's avatar
Jeff_Goldblum
0
2
10
--> @SupaDudz
This is the really sad thing. I try to engage with fellow thinkers on the basis of my ideas, but my incredible on-screen charisma and endless sex appeal ensure all people want to know is if "I'm the real Jeff Goldblum?"

SupaDudz
SupaDudz's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 12,648
5
8
11
SupaDudz's avatar
SupaDudz
5
8
11
--> @Jeff_Goldblum
I mean, I would just like to know...cause
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,113
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
--> @SupaDudz
No its not
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,113
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
--> @SupaDudz
Actually, maybe it is

22 days later

Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 4,237
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
--> @Jeff_Goldblum
-Communication. Radio signals take about 15 minutes to get from Mars to Earth. If people on Mars need to communicate urgently with mission control on Earth, the fastest reply they can expect is in half an hour.

This is valid and for this and other reasons I would agree that a moon base should come before a Martian base.

-Health issues. The 6-9 month journey to Mars in zero G would be bad for travelers' health, not to mention spending extended time with Martian gravity (.4 G).

Gravity can very easily be simulated on the ship en route to Mars. As for the effects of Martian gravity we don't yet know if this is even a potential issue. We know that long term exposure to zero gravity is detrimental to health but we have no idea if low gravity is similarly detrimental or if so what the cutoff for minimum needed gravity is. For all we know Martian gravity might be just fine for a person or long-term exposure to .8Gs might prove just as bad as zero gravity. We simply do not know due to lack of experimentation.

Cost. Space travel isn't cheap. I think the nations of Earth would prefer paying for 3-day trips instead of 9-month ones.

The most expensive part of space travel is getting mass out of Earth's gravity well. The cost of launching cargo into space has dropped sharply in recent years due in large part to the emerging private space industry but is still around $9000 per kilogram I believe (don't quote me on that, I am going off of memory). This is just the cost of getting something off Earth though. Once in space you can go anywhere you want for next to no fuel at all due to the fact that space is so close to being a vacuum that drag is nearly non-existent unless one is traveling at relativistic speeds.

Oh, also, as featured in Ad Astra, you could launch voyages to Mars from the Moon. The benefit in doing this is found in the Moon's low gravity - launching from the Moon requires less fuel than launching from Earth.

IDK what Ad Astra is but this seems silly. Why set up ship building intustries on the moon when you could set them up at some Lagrange point? Just acquire all the needed mass from the asteroid belt, no gravity problems there.