Support NeoGAF

[West Texas CEO]

I watched the 6-episode series called Mars this week.
Elon Musk kept emphasizing that humans must spread out to at least one other planet to ensure human survival in the event of some extinction event on Earth.

Wouldn't colonization of the Moon achieve the same purpose? Seems like that would be a more viable option.

 

[Rentahamster]

They're both decent options.

The moon has no atmosphere which can be a problem. The gravity also sucks. There could be less useful mineral resources on the moon too.

 

[SidViscous]

No atmosphere, anything on the moon would be getting constantly hit by space debris.

 

[SJRB]

I watched the 6-episode series called Mars this week.
Elon Musk kept emphasizing that humans must spread out to at least one other planet to ensure human survival in the event of some extinction event on Earth.

Wouldn't colonization of the Moon achieve the same purpose? Seems like that would be a more viable option.

Why would the moon be a more viable option?

 

[IDKFA]

In the long term, Mars would be a more viable option.

The Moon has no atmosphere and possibly less mining options. It's only advantage is that it's closer.

Although this is fantasy tech at the moment, in the future we could also terraform Mars and make it more Earth-like.

 

[T8SC]

Because the Moon is made of cheese and we'd all end up constipated.



Also Mars has been known to harbour life in the past, the Moon hasn't. So although further away, it'd be a more habitable environment in terms of gravity, atmosphere and general conditions for life.

It'd be nice to go further to Europa or Enceladus too.

 

[West Texas CEO]

Why would the moon be a more viable option?

It's closer, for one. Meaning any problems that would arise could be addressed from Earth in a reasonable time.
The moon is also in abundance of metals particularly in oxide form.
You could split the oxygen from the metals, and then(be weary here my chemistry isn't that up to snuff) but you will be left with a metal and gas oxygen which can be used for an oxidizer for rockets and then there is water on the moon which allows for electrolysis to be split into hydrogen and more oxygen, which could in turn produce loads of rocket fuel.

 

[Relativ9]

It's closer, for one. Meaning any problems that would arise could be addressed from Earth in a reasonable time.
The moon is also in abundance of metals particularly in oxide form.
You could split the oxygen from the metals, and then(be weary here my chemistry isn't that up to snuff) but you will be left with a metal and gas oxygen which can be used for an oxidizer for rockets and then there is water on the moon which allows for electrolysis to be split into hydrogen and more oxygen, which could in turn produce loads of rocket fuel.

Everything except the distance is also true for Mars though, but in much greater abundance (particularly water), and you get an atmosphere which is hugely important for protection. The distance I a drag I know, but the main challenge with space travel is leaving the earth, not really traveling interplanetary.

 

[West Texas CEO]

Everything except the distance is also true for Mars though, but in much great abundance (particular water), and you get an atmosphere which is hugely important for protection.

The atmosphere on Mars is razor thin.
And what about solar radiation?

 

[Sakura]

Mars has higher gravity than the Moon (whether it is enough for humans to function properly or not I don't know), Mars has an atmosphere which the Moon does not (though it is garbage), much more manageable temperatures than the Moon (can still get really cold though), the length of a day is almost the same on Mars as on Earth, etc.
The only real thing the Moon has going for it is that it is close to Earth.

Ultimately though neither place is really that ideal for colonising. We'd be better off maybe just building colonies in space.

 

[nush]

Mars:

 

[UnNamed]

On the Moon there are bunnies, and they can be very annoying sometimes.

 

[West Texas CEO]

Mars:

On the Moon there are bunnies, and they can be very annoying sometimes.

Is that a Gun Nac reference? Well played, sir.

 

[Relativ9]

The atmosphere on Mars is razor thin.
And what about solar radiation?

I mean ideally we'd have a earth-like exoplanet with a thick atmosphere, but lacking that Mars is the best option (or possibly one of Jupiters moons). While Mars' atmosphere isn't exactly thick it's still better than nothing when protecting against solar radiation, particles, ect, but the true reason you want Mars' atmosphere is temperature. Because mars actually has wind and weather systems this means that the "air" (mostly CO2) is moved around the planet averaging out the temperatures of nighttime and daytime, instead of on the moon where it varies by something like 300 degress between nighttime and daytime. Because Mars atmosphere is CO2, plants can also quite easily survive there when compared to the moon, and because it has a gravity strong enough to retain said atmosphere there is a possibility of terraforming over thousands of years, a daunting prospect sure, but at least possible as compared to the moon where it definitely can't happen.

 

[INC]

Matt Damon proved its possible

 

[TheDreadLord]

Tbh, both sound just a waste of resources. And what is this obsession with the survival of the human race? Is there any point in the end? If we aren’t wiped out by a natural event on earth then eventually we will be wiped out by the sun expanding into a red giant (even if we relocated to Mars). So, in the end, we as population are doomed. Perhaps colonizing the moon as a check for tech viability and as a first step to trips outside the solar system makes more sense. Just colonizing Mars because it is someone’s wet dreams won’t solve the issue that the sun eventually will “die”.

 

[Marvel]

There's wizards on the moon, kinda dangerous.

 

[ArtemisClydeFrog]

Tbh, both sound just a waste of resources. And what is this obsession with the survival of the human race? Is there any point in the end? If we aren’t wiped out by a natural event on earth then eventually we will be wiped out by the sun expanding into a red giant (even if we relocated to Mars). So, in the end, we as population are doomed.

 

[YCoCg]

Because the Moon is Earth's bitch, and anyone who lives there is a bitch!

 

[Porcile]

What makes Mars or the Moon more viable for living on than some inhospitable place on Earth like a desert or Death Valley?!

 

[Dr.Morris79]

Nazis on the moon, not worth it.

 

[Leyasu]

The extreme low gravity on the moon would also make it difficult for people born and raised there to return to earth

 

[Relativ9]

What makes Mars or the Moon more viable for living on than some inhospitable place on Earth like a desert or Death Valley?!

Nothing, it's less viable in every way for pure livability, the reason people want colonies is one part romanticism but mostly it's resources.

 

[The Cockatrice]

Wonder if I'll live to see a future similar to The Expanse.

 

[Artoris]

It would probably be a good idea to start with the moon simple to get resources to and to rescue the people if needed also what ever survives on moon, as buildings, should easily survive on Mars

 

[West Texas CEO]

I would also add Helium-3 to the argument. Helium-3 is a rare isotope on Earth, but it is abundant on the Moon. Throughout the space community, lunar Helium-3 is often cited as a major reason to return to the Moon and establish colonies.

 

[GamingKaiju]

While Mars would is a good candidate to get to grips with colonisation it wouldn’t be the ultimate goal getting to a planet like earth and colonising that planet is the end goal.

Mars is a failed planet it’s core has stopped and it’s EM field has slowly been stripped away by the sun only good thing on Mars is the possibilities of more resources.

 

[ArtemisClydeFrog]

It would probably be a good idea to start with the moon simple to get resources to and to rescue the people if needed also what ever survives on moon, as buildings, should easily survive on Mars

We're on it

 

[Kamina]

Moon is earthlocked, has no atmosphere and is very small
Mars has a thin atmosphere, behaves like earth, and generally seems less nostile.

They may also plan to try terraforming on mars.
The only downside is the distance to earth.

 

[mansoor1980]

AGREED

 

[West Texas CEO]

Beautiful.

 

[AV]

Tbh, both sound just a waste of resources. And what is this obsession with the survival of the human race? Is there any point in the end? If we aren’t wiped out by a natural event on earth then eventually we will be wiped out by the sun expanding into a red giant (even if we relocated to Mars). So, in the end, we as population are doomed. Perhaps colonizing the moon as a check for tech viability and as a first step to trips outside the solar system makes more sense. Just colonizing Mars because it is someone’s wet dreams won’t solve the issue that the sun eventually will “die”.

Yeah, why should I mow my lawn when the sun's going to die in a few billion years anyway?

 

[NiiloPielinen]

And what is this obsession with the survival of the human race? Is there any point in the end?

 

[p_xavier]

Mars was always better.

 

[mansoor1980]

7 months to reach mars , and then this happens

HELL NO

 

[Ballthyrm]

We'll probably do both but it won't be on the same scale.
The moon is close enough that it doesn't need to be self sufficient and we'll probably be able to supply it for cheap in the future.

I don't think supplying Mars will make sense, so the colonists there will have to make due with what's available.
With that hard contraint on the Mars colonists, they will developp faster and harder , just like they project in the Expanse.

The moon will always be a backyard for Earth but with Mars will ultimately become another civilization.
Probably no terraforming though for a really really long time.

 

[West Texas CEO]

7 months to reach mars , and then this happens

You turn into Rodney Dangerfield?

 

[mansoor1980]

You turn into Rodney Dangerfield?

unless humans develop FTL travel then mars is out of the question

 

[Relativ9]

Tbh, both sound just a waste of resources. And what is this obsession with the survival of the human race? Is there any point in the end?

Who cares about the end, it's the journey that matters. If the end and it's inevitability was all that mattered why not all commit mass suicide? The adventure keeps us learning and evolving, sometimes for survival, but most of the time just for the joy of discovery; and space is next.

 

[Tschumi]

For what it's worth, and I'm a layman, it rather seems to me that mass has an effect on the gravitational signature of bodies... We've already fucked up the earth, it would really be too much to fuck up/speed the deterioration of the orbit of the moon, through mining or dumping, and its steadying effect on the Earth's spin, too.

 

[Relativ9]

For what it's worth, and I'm a layman, it rather seems to me that mass has an effect on the gravitational signature of bodies... We've already fucked up the earth, it would really be too much to fuck up/speed the deterioration of the orbit of the moon, through mining or dumping, and its steadying effect on the Earth's spin, too.

We could hollow out the entire crust of the earth and it would have very little effect on our total mass. Similarly if we ever strip-mined enough of the moon to have a meaningful impact on the Moon we would likely long since have moved on to being an inter-stellar species and the earth's importance in our society would be almost triviaized.

 

[Turnt]

Have you ever been to The Moon? It’s kinda shit.

 

[TheMan]

I think Mars is simply more exciting because we’ve never set foot there. The moon was exciting 50 years ago. Setting up a colony on the moon first makes more sense to me since resupply missions would be much easier. That said, I don’t know if anyone has ever successfully set up a contained living environment that was completely self supported here on earth; imagine doing that in an environment that will kill you for any tiny mistake. Truthfully a colony anywhere outside of earth is probably destined for failure.

Also, Martian soil contains perchlorates which are very harmful for humans but would be almost impossible to avoid. I’m not sure how we would deal with that.

 

[AJUMP23]

The moon would have no resources and would be a resource drain of the earth. We would spend billions in water shipments alone. Mars makes more sense.

 

[nush]

What makes Mars or the Moon more viable for living on than some inhospitable place on Earth like a desert or Death Valley?!

Lower taxes.

 

[Kenpachii]

Why Mars, and not another planet?​

After the Earth, Mars is the most habitable planet in our solar system due to several reasons:

• Its soil contains water to extract
• It isn’t too cold or too hot
• There is enough sunlight to use solar panels
• Gravity on Mars is 38% that of our Earth's, which is believed by many to be sufficient for the human body to adapt to
• It has an atmosphere (albeit a thin one) that offers protection from cosmic and the Sun's radiation
• The day/night rhythm is very similar to ours here on Earth: a Mars day is 24 hours, 39 minutes and 35 seconds

The only other two celestial bodies in orbits near the Earth are our Moon and Venus. There are far fewer vital resources on the Moon, and a Moon day takes a month. It also does not have an atmosphere to form a barrier against radiation. Venus is a veritable purgatory. The average temperature is over 400 degrees, the barometric pressure is that of 900 meters underwater on Earth, and the cherry on top comes in the form of occasional bouts of acid rain. It also has nights that last for 120 days. Humans cannot live on Mars without the help of technology, but compared to Venus it's paradise!

Mars is the only option.

 

[Cravis]

 

[QuantumZebra]

Gravity, atmosphere, exposure, lack of resources (Mars almost certainly sustained life at one point... technically it still does).

 

[iamblades]

I watched the 6-episode series called Mars this week.
Elon Musk kept emphasizing that humans must spread out to at least one other planet to ensure human survival in the event of some extinction event on Earth.

Wouldn't colonization of the Moon achieve the same purpose? Seems like that would be a more viable option.

Because mars has the resources needed to make a self sufficient colony, it has the new scientific and engineering challenges. The moon has no useful resources and is not an interesting challenge.

There is no real need to go back to the moon. I'm not deadset against it because as far as the government wasting money goes, it is small fries, even as disgustingly profligate as the SLS program has been.

Check out Robert Zubrin's books and talks about the case for mars, I'm basically in total agreement with him.

 

[Patrick S.]

Because the Moon is made of cheese and we'd all end up constipated.



Also Mars has been known to harbour life in the past, the Moon hasn't. So although further away, it'd be a more habitable environment in terms of gravity, atmosphere and general conditions for life.

It'd be nice to go further to Europa or Enceladus too.

Stay away from Europa, man. We have enough immigrants as it is!