Colonizing the Moon is more interesting than Colonizing Mars, what do you think?

[Spacescifi]

6 hours ago, ChrisSpace said:

 

Okay so let's list the pros of each one:

The Moon

. Short enough distance for real-time communication

. Shorter travel time

. Lower Dv requirements

. Helium-3

. Lower gravity makes construction easier

. Earth in the sky

 

Mars

. Gravity is probably better for the human body

. More land area

. Easier to terraform

. More resources

. Two easily-accessible asteroids

. Safer from Earth

 

In conclusion I'd choose "all of the above"

 

Mars is at best relatively easy to terraform... compared to something much harder like reaching lighthugger speed in a year's time.

One need only call to mind the tremendous solar system supply train it would require to even begin to attempt terraforming.

Mars lacks the gravity to hold a proper atmosphere, and to increase gravity the only way we know how would be to add to Mars mass.

How to do that?

Crash enough asteroids into it I dunno. It would take time to redirect them, that I do know.

Once it has a enough gravity then changing the atmosphere wouldbe the next step...which would require water... lots of it.

Where to get that? Gas giants? I don't suggest Earth for NIMBY reasons.

Edited April 24, 2020 by Spacescifi

[SOXBLOX]

The Moon, for sure. Plenty of water, and the proximity to Earth is a huge boost to its potential. It would probably be used for mining of water and construction materials to supply gravity ring stations or O'Niell cylinders in cislunar space. Mars, on the other hand, well... It isn't suited for much that would be useful in near-future terms. Better destinations are probably Ceres, floating colonies on Venus (strictly because of its strong gravity), and Callisto.

[Canopus]

The Moons accessibility alone makes it the prime target.

[kerbiloid]

To visit, but not to colonize.

[munlander1]

On 4/24/2020 at 6:38 AM, Spacescifi said:

Mars is at best relatively easy to terraform

You make terraforming sound easy!

[munlander1]

I believe that as many others have previously said, we shouldn't pick just one. If its feasible to colonize both, that's what we should do. With that being said, due to it's almost trivial distance to earth compared to Mars, the moon would be much easier to colonize.

If the colonies were established outside of either of the Pole's, electricity would be a issue as you'd have to find someway to power the colony for about 2 weeks without any solar. While this could be overcome by using a nuclear reactor, that comes with its own unique and difficult set of challenges.

This depends on what you define as a colony, but assuming its defined as 100 people growing at least some crops, We have to find a way to ferry those people across. SpaceX's Starshipe seems to be the most reasonable way to move the massive amount  of people, supplies, and equipment needed for such a massive operation. Unfortunately, Starship doesn't even have a rocket to ride yet.

We aren't close to being able to colonize another celestial body. This is more telling of our politics than our technological level and advancements, but we haven't been to the moon since 1972.

Something that has always interested me in terms of colonization is the pro's and con's of pre-made vs. assembled on site colonizes. 

The ISS is essentially a premade  colony, everything was assembled on earth and (I know this is an oversimplification) it just had to be docked together and plugged into everything else. This is good for quick construction and such, but you are limited in the scale of what you can set up.You could theoretically have inflatable habitats but those have only now been seeing some testing.

However, if you made your own living quarters at your destination, the complexity of what you could do is dramatically increased. You would no longer be limited by a 5.2m fairing,.

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, munlander1 said:

You make terraforming sound easy!

To plow and pollute like on Earth? No problem.