Talk about jumping the gun, building habitats on the Moon for people to live in would be better because the technology to build habitats in a hostile alien environment like Mars would need to be tested first, so what do you think, go to Mars first or go to the Moon first?
2007-12-30 22:55:10 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
If you're talking about long-term habitation I would say Mars would be a better choice. The main advantage for Mars is the likelihood that it still has water at the polar ice caps. If that's the case, then it makes it much easier to maintain a liveable environment.
Water is extremely heavy to transport to another planet so if it's already there, payload could be dedicated to other things like food and equipment. Also, the availability of water opens other possibilities. You may have the ability to grow food provided you build a suitable enclosure. Once you get that you then have the ability to "produce" oxygen and maintain your atmosphere. It's all based on the availability of water. It's the same idea as that Biosphere II project a few years back. You couldn't realistically do the same thing on the moon because it just wouldn't be worth trying to transport enough water to keep the process going or establish enough of an ecosystem to keep it going. Also, you can use water to directly produce oxygen and fuel. Solar cells to break down the water to oxygen and hydrogen. You could then either burn the hydrogen for energy which just returns your water or use the oxygen for your atmosphere.
As for testing the habitats on the Moon or Mars, there's no advantage for either one. If they fail in either place you still have the same problems. The only advantage for the moon is that it's closer but it's still very difficult to successfully land on the moon and then get back off the ground.
2007-12-30 23:12:02 · answer #1 · answered by scobranchi 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only advantage I can see that Mars has over the Moon, is that Mars has an atmosphere where as the Moon is wide open to radiation and meteors ect. However the Moon is right there and is a perfect place to set up a practice colony, not to mention a whole lot cheaper. Of course there is this idea out there that some of the astronauts encountered alien beings that told them to shove off.. But I would say to them, if it were true, "Hey your in our back yard so you Fu*k off!" ;-)
2014-10-19 12:57:15 · answer #2 · answered by ? 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't care which place we go to, both have advantages and problems. Personally, I opt for the L5 point with supply base on the Moon. By the way, we found water on the Moon at the south pole. How much is still debatable. And, since, we are getting very much closer to being able to build an acceptable mass driver, the cost of shipping of any non-living material into space should plummet soon.
My main objection to going to Mars first is simply that no new piece of equipment ever works right the first time, particularly if it is something that must function without repair for an extended period. Murphy is always present. We need to build the gear and use it in real space conditions close enough to mount rescue and repair missions for a longer period of time than the trip is expected to take. However, I will not oppose those who wish to try and will help if I can, provided they don't try to hinder those of us that want to try a different tack. All the research and experience we can gain is to the good.
2007-12-31 22:55:05 · answer #3 · answered by balloon buster 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Getting to the moon is impossible. I'm tired of you people who don't realize the moon landings were and remain a HOAX. We NEVER had men on the moon PERIOD!!!!!
2007-12-31 18:15:31 · answer #4 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Both Mars and the Moon are utterly useless real estate. Manned visits to these worlds is a huge waste of money. Colonization is absurd. Both are deadly. Neither have any resources that would make colonization an economically viable proposition. Perhaps if we were to develop nano-technology to the almost magical point that has been portrayed in some science fiction novels Martian and Lunar colonization would be possible. But at our current technological level attempting to colonize either world would be a death sentence for the colonists. Mankind evolved on Earth and like it or not we are likely to stay on Earth. The rest of the solar system is deadly and the stars are too far.
2007-12-31 09:44:33 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
only because mars is still unconquered
2007-12-31 08:57:29 · answer #6 · answered by Ahmed Zia 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because mars is the planet most like earth. for alein fanatics that may mean life on mars a for scientists an easier body to terraform. I'd say we should go to the moon 1st though.
2007-12-31 08:40:57 · answer #7 · answered by Tony 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Already made the moon trip in 1969.
2007-12-31 07:14:36 · answer #8 · answered by gensley2000 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We know the moon has no water or oxygen. Mars is the next possible choice for colonization, so we are anxious to explore it, especially looking for any water it might have. If water is discovered under the surface, it open up the planet for colonization. Mars has just enough gravity to keep an atmosphere as evidenced by the dust storms observed there, but there's little oxygen in it. The dust on Mars will be a great difficulty to overcome because it isn't like the dirt on Earth. It would be the consistency of baking flour and rapidly clog any filters and vents of habitats. The moon is too small to have enough gravity to keep any atmosphere, so this makes exploration and settlement much more difficult. However, as far as current knowledge goes, Mars is still the better choice. It's the closest thing to Earth in the Solar System even if it would be like trying to colonize the Sahara Desert in an atmosphere of carbon dioxide.
2007-12-31 07:13:39 · answer #9 · answered by kapustafooz 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Mars is a much greater achievement. It's more colorful too.
2007-12-31 07:05:48 · answer #10 · answered by Rev TL 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋