What's the immediate goal of a Lunar base? What necessitates increasing the size of a lunar base from 0 people to 3 people, from 3 people to 100, from 100 to 3000? What do we get out of it?
And so the "Moon first! No, Mars first!" flame war has been reignited for the seventeen gazillionth time.
A more constructive thought exercise for the OP and the thread : what would make you change your mind ?
I am interested not so much in debate itself as in thinking of Mars Firster. Why he thinks that? Hell, laws of physics are against him, making his case hopeless excercise in futility. I just can't understand why anyone would think seriously that Martian base could be first.
2. It will grow slowly due to our assumption (harder life).
What's the immediate goal of a Lunar base?
There's even more awesome science to be done on Mars. Look at how many unmanned Mars missions the U.S. has launched in the last three decades versus how many unmanned Moon missions. Why do you think that is?
Quote from: pagheca on 06/08/2014 12:26 amGeology is of paramount importance on the Moon to understand our Planet.In what way? The moon is very unlike the Earth. It seems to me Mars is much more interesting in understanding Earth because it gives us more information about the development of planets similar in some ways to our own.
Geology is of paramount importance on the Moon to understand our Planet.
Quote from: pagheca on 06/08/2014 12:26 am(2) it's a "natural" step. You first go to Normandy, and then you get across Europe till Berlin. You go to McMurdo, and than you go to the South Pole. You go to the America, and then to Australia. Not the opposite.The thing is that it's really not a natural step. It's more like going to the North Pole on the way to America. It requires solving a lot of problems that wouldn't require solving if our goal is just to go to Mars.
(2) it's a "natural" step. You first go to Normandy, and then you get across Europe till Berlin. You go to McMurdo, and than you go to the South Pole. You go to the America, and then to Australia. Not the opposite.
Quote from: gospacex on 06/07/2014 09:11 pmAnd so the "Moon first! No, Mars first!" flame war has been reignited for the seventeen gazillionth time.A more constructive thought exercise for the OP and the thread :what would make you change your mind ?
Quote from: Mader Levap on 06/06/2014 01:07 pm2. It will grow slowly due to our assumption (harder life).The speed at which a base/colony will grow is determined by the 'value' it generates over what it costs. I have not heard anything that can be done on Mars better than here or the moon (other than 'survive').
That means a lunar base will grow exponentially faster than a Mars base.
Quote from: high road on 06/10/2014 07:42 amQuote from: Mader Levap on 06/06/2014 01:07 pm2. It will grow slowly due to our assumption (harder life).The speed at which a base/colony will grow is determined by the 'value' it generates over what it costs. I have not heard anything that can be done on Mars better than here or the moon (other than 'survive').Does not apply. That was thought experiment with assumptions that was pretty generous for Mars Firsters. I can't be bothered with disputing claim that life is easier on Mars (it may be actually true!) when even with assumption that this claim is true we still end up with Moon First.Quote from: high road on 06/10/2014 07:42 amThat means a lunar base will grow exponentially faster than a Mars base.Not really. It is actually possible that at certain point Mars base will be bigger than Moon base. We are talking about what should be tackled first, not what could happen in 2114.
Heck, if we aren't willing to colonize the Arctic, why do you think we'll ever colonize space?
Mars is closer delta-v wise to the outer solar system.
Propellant sourced from the lunar surface. If it's there, and if it can be exported to the trans-Mars departure point, it should be exploited for that purpose. If it's not there, or can't be economically exported, the lunar surface is a dead end.
Gravity wells will be for tourism, I suspect.