Do yoy think we will inhabit Antartica, the Moon or Mars first?

Question

When I say inhabit i mean life there and have a fully established sutible place to survive.

Answer 1

i think the antartic is gonna melt bringing out sea levels up 20 feet before we ever inhabit anything other then earth.

Answer 2

I say the Moon, because it has a better combination of resources, distance and legal status than the other two.

Even though it is the closest terrestrial planet (as I've been raised to understand the term "planet," oy vey) to Earth, it's far enough to require major advances in spacecraft propulsion and radiation shielding for any kind of reasonable travel time to and from it - and there are no really outstanding mineral resources there, apart from subsurface water ice, that we're aware of yet, that might make a mining colony worthwhile.

That's one take on it anyway, a number of different approaches can be suggested for settling Mars....

But as for the Antartic, I believe a treaty was signed in 1991 banning commercial development of that continent's (apparently rich) mineral resources, for a period of fifty years. This is going to be a HUGE deal down the road, I think...

That's time enough for a settlement to get started on the Moon. With its low gravity, its titanium, iron, calcium deposits and the oxygen bound up in its surface, the Moon is a logical place to supplement any space-based industry we'll have going by then.

As for its legal standing, it could be better, and will have to be if we're to have permanent, self-sustaining settlements there. According to the UN Outer Space Treaty of 1967, no national can claim any part of space as a national territory.. but it doesn't say anything about making a commercial claim, or a property claim.

And did you know that there are *seven* space probes projected to visit the moon in the next few years, and not just from the U.S. and Europe, but Japan, China and even India?

Think about those last two countries. The US Clementine probe turned up extensive mineral resources on the Moon.

Could it be that India and China are at all interested in that? In their place, I know I would be.

Answer 3

Antartic, simply because for now the Moon and Mars are too hard to get there. We actually have about 2000 people (mostly scientists) living at Antartica year-round now, so it is technically inhabited, though not in the way you mean.

Answer 4

Going back to the moon almost seems like a punishment. Mars still carries a mystique, perhaps enough so that we may push harder to establish some sort of habitable place there. It may also depend on what some of the other bodies in our system have to offer with respect to resources. The moon may not be the most interesting place to be, but being there may make it easier to go elsewhere.

Answer 5

There is a long established research community living in Antartica right now. Where or not you consider it "suitable" is a matter of taste. All of the places you mention require quite a bit of technology to be habitable.

A moon colony might be most likely simply because of the logistics of getting there, but a planet like Mars might be more attractive because more resources might be availabe there and not require shipment in.

Answer 6

Make issues take position. Taurus Moon, Sagittarius sunlight, Mars in Aries. If i'm getting a staggering advice in my head, I do it precise then, perfect NOW. Be it 2am or in the approach labor. I start up planning. If no individual's going to help me, first-type. if so, even more desirable. i'm getting impatient at the same time as diverse human beings positioned issues off, so I most of the time count number on myself to get issues finished. even with the undeniable fact that provided that I rather want it. i do no longer bypass ahead till i comprehend i'd be able to.

Answer 7

Personally I think we will never inhabit the Moon or Mars or Antarctica like we do England or Hawaii. Any settlements in those places will be mere outposts or bases and not habitats that grow their own food and provide their own resources.

Answer 8

At the rate we are progressing with the Bush administration?

Try NONE.

As for Antarctica, we already have several research stations there.

But INHABITING it is simply out of the question.

Answer 9

Definatly Anartica .

Answer 10

I don't think our civiliation will ever get to the point to be able to do that...unless we find oil on one of them and then we will have to go lol...