Moon or Mars first? anywhere, where the profit is.
Quote from: francesco nicoli on 06/24/2014 02:54 pmMoon or Mars first? anywhere, where the profit is.Let me remind that, for the very same reasons you mentioned, neither of the two, maybe. But we are not talking about a colony here, but about "where first". And, again, the reasons for going to the Moon or Mars maybe totally or partially different from profits or colonisation. See Antarctica.
yes. but in Antarctica, you have MAINLY public power involved, not private companies....which brings back to the original statement in my post: before discussing anything, you need to clarify whether you are talking about private or public actions as their goals and approaches are completely different.
Why does anyone think resource extraction would lead to colonies? On Earth, we have giant oil platforms in the ocean and big mining operations in northern Canada, but none of those ever turns into a city. The companies doing the extraction have zero incentive to encourage colonies--a local government would just be another source of trouble to them. If miners had to stay for many years then it might be impossible to employ them without making arrangements for spouses and families, but the history of sail exploration on Earth suggests that up to five years wouldn't be a problem.
Canada could (for example) decide it wanted to create towns up in the north--maybe building large domed areas to make the winters nicer--but they appear to have no interest in doing do. Perhaps the technology of doming a small town is too exotic.
But if that's the case, then the technology for building a space colony is very far away. Not this century. Maybe not the next one either.Heck, if we aren't willing to colonize the Arctic, why do you think we'll ever colonize space?
I've been a space fan my whole life (I'm 55 now). I'd really like to imagine a more optimistic scenario, but right now I don't see one.
Quote from: sdsds on 06/08/2014 05:14 amPropellant 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.EML2 is a great departure point for Mars, asteroids as well as the rest of the solar system. And the moon's only 2.5 km/s from EML2.If the more optimistic estimates of lunar water are true, a lunar base is a no-brainer. The LEND data seems to contradict those estimates though.
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.
@ Alf Fasshttp://www.isruinfo.com/index.php?page=srr_15_ptmssKeep the light on.Cheers
What's the immediate goal of a Lunar base?
Of course there are a lot of drawbacks, but I can't see Mars as a competitor to the Moon either. Mars is Mars. It's literally "another planet" with its own challenges, benefit and costs. Reaching it is difficult and dangerous for humans...
After careful analysis, I favour...
My sumup:As I see it, the moon is more interesting in the sense that it is completely different from Earth. It is airless, it has a shallow gravity well, and it is part of a binary system which makes it really attractive for implementing non-rocket spacelaunch. Furthermore, L1/L2 are "high points" of the solar system since they have a very massive body nearby for using the oberth effect. Counterintuitively, this makes reaching the outer solar system is easier to do from L2 than from Mars C3=0.This makes the Moon an absolutely amazing place for large-scale industry aimed at providing materials for colonies anywhere in the solar system. If you're thinking on a very large scale, the moon can supply more materials for O'Neill habitats than the entire asteroid belt. Developing assets on the moon generally puts us on the path towards orbital habitats which I think is critical if we're ever going to pull off interstellar travel. Mars on the other hand is a return to the prison of living deep inside a gravity well and is in this sense is a dead end on the very long term.So from my point of view, Moon and asteroids it is.
Quote from: Nilof on 07/13/2014 03:22 amMy sumup:As I see it, the moon is more interesting in the sense that it is completely different from Earth. It is airless, it has a shallow gravity well, and it is part of a binary system which makes it really attractive for implementing non-rocket spacelaunch. Furthermore, L1/L2 are "high points" of the solar system since they have a very massive body nearby for using the oberth effect. Counterintuitively, this makes reaching the outer solar system is easier to do from L2 than from Mars C3=0.This makes the Moon an absolutely amazing place for large-scale industry aimed at providing materials for colonies anywhere in the solar system. If you're thinking on a very large scale, the moon can supply more materials for O'Neill habitats than the entire asteroid belt. Developing assets on the moon generally puts us on the path towards orbital habitats which I think is critical if we're ever going to pull off interstellar travel. Mars on the other hand is a return to the prison of living deep inside a gravity well and is in this sense is a dead end on the very long term.So from my point of view, Moon and asteroids it is.Emphasis is mine. This is the reason for Moon first. We could have an explosion of space industry for space industry, in spaaaaaace. Rather than long flight times(Mars), irregular operation times(asteroids). The Moon is always 4 days away by rocket, and 3 seconds away by telecommunication. The Moon offers the greatest flexibility of robotic or manned missions.This will open up the solar system to mankind. It will lead to a stronger Mars, a stronger Ceres and Vesta. More missions to the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. All for less $$$ and less time, if, we plant that industry seed on the Moon first.
As meekGee suggested, I take here discussion that was very OT where it was.Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 06/03/2014 10:59 pmThe question is the trade-off between harder-to-reach Mars and harder-to-live on Moon.How much harder is to live on Moon? Certainly not orders of magnitude harder (for that you need Io or something).Even if living on moon is significantly harder than living on Mars, travel expenses will weight costs in favour of Moon in near and medium future.In other words: assume that living on Moon is harder. Your and meekGee error is that you claim this assumption means no Moon base whatsoever. This is wrong and looks like wishful thinking of Mars Firster. Why? Scenario below explains that.1. Moon base will be deployed first, simply becasue of lower total costs (cost to travel+cost to live).2. It will grow slowly due to our assumption (harder life).3. Decades later (when cost to travel will be sufficiently low) first Martian base will be deployed.4. It will grow faster (easier life)...5. ...and some time later (another few decades) will be larger than Moon base.Result? Of course, Moon First.
The question is the trade-off between harder-to-reach Mars and harder-to-live on Moon.
Seriously.Everyone with a "moon/mars/Betelgeuse first" hypothesis would help the discussion a lot by explaining the conditions of how is this falsifiable? What sort of evidence, information or experiment would reasonably disprove the claims.Maybe we should have a thread titled "moon first: here is how you can prove me wrong"
My sumup: ...This makes the Moon an absolutely amazing place for large-scale industry aimed at providing materials for colonies anywhere in the solar system. If you're thinking on a very large scale, the moon can supply more materials for O'Neill habitats than the entire asteroid belt....So from my point of view, Moon and asteroids it is.