The Moon or Mars:

Right. That's the problem with the Moon. No "decent jobs." Sending back rocks isn't all that much of a decent job. Building solar panels? Far easier to do here on Earth, and they are among the lightest things around to launch. Mining? The Moon isn't very interesting from a mining perspective. He3? We don't need any and it's not worth much, and won't be until we have He3 fusion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It has more potential then mars does, especially for the first couple of decades.

More then that a martian base will probably generate 0 revenu the moon could actually make some money.

Theirs Obvious things that could happen both on the moon and mars but the moon is better.

- Memorabilia that have been on the moon; Sending stuff back from the moon is far cheaper then from earth.
- Earth observation post a ideal location to study earth that is not in free space
- Resolution People with a decend telescope might actually observe the base on the moon.
- Rail gun.
- Sterile enviroment

- Especially the ability for earth observation could attract military and telecom contracts that are generally the largest space contracts at the moment.
- Resolution if the average joe with a decend telescope can physically see it then it's a boon.
- The sterile enviroment the moon is static ideal for some type of vault and or humanity memorial this could attract certain projects.

Theirs many reasons why these would not work on mars. You simply can't monitor earth from mars in a meaningful way, no telecom, no weather, no military observations each having quit the budget to keep the base up and running.

Being able to see it and building some inmortal structure then will still stand 1 billion years from now. Might attract all types world leaders like to be involved in projects use their meglomaniacy for extra funding.

Tele-operating and toerism would not be inpossible for the moon with todays technology They could be there and back again in a week people travel longer to clim the mount everest. These type of people can't afford to lose a year.

There's others and mars also has it advantages but those do not get prominent for decades afther the base is developed. Mars will get it's time. Theirs yust going to be more funding avaible for the moon.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

True although souvenirs from a manned Mars expedition would be arguably more valuable.

Since the Moon is much farther than a LEO (or even GEO) satellite, and has dust issues, it's arguably much worse than a satellite.

Great! And people with an even less decent telescope can see Phobos and Deimos from the surface of Mars.

Rail guns are great! Why would we build one on the Moon?

Mars has that too.

A medium Earth orbit space station would be more visible, more enduring, more useful and more accessible.

As I've said before, I would be all for doing both. But in terms of research, commerce and species-survival value, Mars has a much larger advantage.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of course there would be dozens of independent circulation algae tubes. Also, unlike earth the moon I quite sterile and it should be keep that way so wild algae by genetic mutation would be the main problem, or perhaps not: It could be cooked and eaten too might even be a more viable, strain for the tube growing environment.

There could be reflecting wall tubes light piping natural light down to the under grown living area. Ray from the sun only come with about half a degree solid angle, so convergent Fresnel sheet lens with small mirror could "pipe" light cone of say 45 degree wide angle to the living area for nearly 14 earth days of energy free light. Double layer solar cells in the concentrated beam could get at least 25% conversion efficiency and not cost too much in the highly concentrated light. Batteries still have room to get better for the other 14 days.

Why do you say radiation is no problem for plants - it sterilizes seeds. Also that plastic of the green house must be quite strong if plant are to grow with earth like pressure atmosphere.

Also sunlight at Mars is only about 25% as intense so even 100% conversion (not possible) would not be better and the nights there can be many months long if base is near the poles. -- Quick lazy, conservative guess but I need to check how much compared to Earth's 23 degrees the axis is tilted. Near equator is best location for smallest batteries on any solar powered planet, I think.

 

Doesn't matter much. A single Brettanomyces infection, in one tank, can wipe out a winery - even though (in theory) the tanks are all independent.

Because the amounts of radiation present at the surface of Mars will not sterilize seeds, nor is it sufficient to damage them significantly during their growing season.

Yes, but strong plastic is pretty cheap - even if you have to replace it every few years.

60%.

 

Flawed Debates begets false choices beyond LEO - Part Two

New technologies allow us to go back to the Moon at a fraction the cost of Apollo, and now, even private efforts like the Google X Prize contestants are underway to land and execute exploration missions there. There is even a private venture to establish a lunar observatory called the International Lunar Observatory Association(ILOA). NASA has not turned a blind eye to these activities.

The Pacific International Space Center for Exploration Systems(PISCES) and their International Lunar Research Park initiative have been executing some groundbreaking simulations here on Earth, and NASA is looking at ways to integrate all these activities under a synergetic program umbrella at the Space Portal, a program developed at NASA Ames Research Center to facilitate such innovation and commercial interaction.
http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/Flawed_Debates_begets_false_choices_beyond_LEO___Part_Two_999.html

I'm still rather confident it will be the Moon first, as proving grounds, and then Mars.
In time though, both are inevitable.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_driver

1/3 the delta v to get back home (I know return fuel is a issue)

The dust issues could be delt with locally, the fact that their is no atmosphere also mean that no new dust could accumulate, mars on the other hand has weather, and dust will get everywhere if it's exposed to the surface. Further Gives a 3 seconds delay that's manageable. I can imagen that certain electronics simply can not be used is sattelites because they aren't radiation hardened enough placing the electronics in a bunker can solve that problem, also individual components can be replaced in stead of having to send uw a brand new sattelite.

seeing a artificial structure is more impressive also following a live webcam from the moon of earth would be neat to.

Railgun or massdriver, launch usefull stuff into orbit cheaper then it could be launched from earth, testbed for asteroid mining equipment etc take your pick. It wouldn't work on earth or mars because of the atmosphere. It would also have certain militairy uses. The rocks could hit earth with great precision and great speed causing a lot of damage.

Yeah but on mars it's a hassle because of biological contamination. Inert would perhaps be a better word Ever seen life after people?
Most things in space would still be recognisable long afther earths cities have dissapeared. It's also relatively save from attacks. It would not be impossible to build something there and expect it to still be functional 1 billion year in the future (unless it recieves a impact).

 

It would indeed work on Earth and several proposals have been floated. It would be dozens of times easier on Mars, with .5% of the atmosphere.

And that is different from the Moon - how?

Again, same is true of satellites - and they are far more visible. (i.e. Iridium flares.)

 

No, the moon has less gravity so less energy has to be used favoring the moon, the railgun internal components favor a vacuum favoring the moon again over mars. What's mars advantage over the moon.

It's not impossible that hard live could survive on mars especially near the base as waste heat and shades make for a favorable condition, the moon has the advantage that it pretty hostile, this means you can yust dump waste products like shit.
But to get back to weathering the moon has no weather mars does.

That's a alternative but both would be better then Mars. (in the relative short run +50 years)

 

Uh, you can "dump waste products like shit" on Mars with no problem. Heck, we even do it here on Earth.

 

A manned mars missions holy grial would be the discovery of life, all the probes have been sterilized quit extensively Mars will be treated very special compared to the moon.

 

Billvon, orcot....Hi

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

In time, I see both as inevitable and in time both will happen.

 

Robots are becoming very intelligent and much more flexible. Soon with AI they will be a much better alternative to sending humans anywhere for they will be able to do things that humans can never achieve. Things like work 24 hours a day, not be affected by radiation, not need food or water or oxygen. They can send back all the data they find out about using onboard processors for anything they find to determine what it is and everything about it without worry about contamination. Why spend billions on a human flight to Mars when soon robots will be able to replicate humans and then some.

 

Yep, all true..great stuff! Hooray for robots!
But guess what? Man will still go there..to the Moon again and to Mars and further and further afield. Why? Because it's there. Because it's a challenge...Because its difficult, and because in the long run and over time, it's totally necessary.

See above reasons.

 

We've already sent robots to Mars. We will send more. And at some point we will send humans. Not because they are better than robots, but because humans are more important than robots, and it is more important to have two homes for humanity than to have two homes for robots.

 

Why?

If humans only had one place to survive then they would try to take better care of it otherwise you'd get those who want to get away from the Earth do so and let the rest fend for themselves.

 

If humans only had one place to survive then they would try to take better care of it otherwise you'd get those who want to get away from the Earth do so and let the rest fend for themselves.

 

That hasn't been demonstrated in history. England takes better care of its environment today, even though a lot of them left to go to North America 250 years ago.

Besides, why not let the people who want to go, go? Why not put the dirty industries in space and preserve the Earth?

 

Sounds like a Heinlen novel 'Refineries in the Sky'.

 

The greatest educator of our times had this to say among his many other quotable utterances/articles/lectures.

“In more than one respect, the exploring of the Solar System and homesteading other worlds constitutes the beginning, much more than the end, of history.”
― Carl Sagan
“If we are to send people, it must be for a very good reason - and with a realistic understanding that almost certainly we will lose lives. Astronauts and Cosmonauts have always understood this. Nevertheless, there has been and will be no shortage of volunteers.”
― Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space

“Man is a transitional animal. He is not the climax of creation.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmic Connection: An Extraterrestrial Perspective

“...there is no deeper religious feeling than the feeling for the natural world. I wouldn't separate the world of nature from the religious instinct...I would not even object to saying that the sense of awe before the grandeur of nature is itself a religious experience.”
― Carl Sagan, Conversations with Carl Sagan

“Our God Is Alive and Well. Sorry About Yours.”
― Carl Sagan : Contact

http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/10538.Carl_Sagan?page=13