Mars vs. Moon

[TzarSeft]

If you look up closely on google and search Russia Moon, you will end up with numerous results including from RT that Russia insists on Moon Colonization by 2019.

Over the last decade the US delivered numerous reports on mass media to seek building city on Mars.

To any Space Fantatics, can anyone give me their thoughts on these reports and tell me what you think is going on? Also why you think the US gave up on the Moon? All sudden the news just talk about Mars, yeah let's forget the Moon...

Let's assume I did some research on these two planets and the countries' interests.

Hope to see some interesting responses, please stay on topic.

Edited February 3, 2016 by TzarSeft

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Short term, the moon is best, it's only 6 hours away, while Mars is six months away.

Long term, use what we learnt living on the moon to colonise Mars.

[Peter B]

If you look up closely on google and search Russia Moon, you will end up with numerous results including from RT that Russia insists on Moon Colonization by 2019.

Over the last decade the US delivered numerous reports on mass media to seek building city on Mars.

To any Space Fantatics, can anyone give me their thoughts on these reports and tell me what you think is going on? Also why you think the US gave up on the Moon? All sudden the news just talk about Mars, yeah let's forget the Moon...

Let's assume I did some research on these two planets and the countries' interests.

Hope to see some interesting responses, please stay on topic.

Choice of Moon or Mars? It's a tricky one. If I remember correctly America's first two Moon walkers - Armstrong and Aldrin - came down on opposite sides of the debate. Given their engineering credentials on top of their astronautic credentials that suggests it's a closely balanced argument either way, which in turn suggests the decision should come down to other factors.

As Sir Wearer points out, the Moon is a lot closer than Mars. And having been there, we have a body of knowledge we can draw on.

However I suspect Mars might be an easier place to develop.

So the next question is this: why exactly would we be going to either place? We could do some awesome science in each place - the Moon would be a great place to undertake science requiring a vacuum (like an observatory on the far side), while Mars would keep geologists busy for decades looking for signs of life.

As for longer term settlement and exploitation (say, Helium-3 mining on the Moon or terraforming Mars), I don't think we have the technology or resources or will to do that for either place. Not yet. Perhaps not for a century.

So I'm not game yet to give a firm answer either way. I'll be interested to see what others have to say.

[Derek Willis]

Short term, the moon is best, it's only 6 hours away ...

I assume you are using a bit of literary licence here. The Moon is about three days away, unless a whole load of fuel is used to speed up and then slow down.

But I agree: we should firstly go back to the Moon, get some practice of setting up colonies, and then go to Mars.

[Wickian]

Short term, the moon is best, it's only 6 hours away, while Mars is six months away.

Long term, use what we learnt living on the moon to colonise Mars.

I wonder which would be easier to build long-term habitats on. Mars has an atmosphere so depressurization would be a lot slower and there would be less radiation, but the Moon wouldn't have to deal with such a long transit of supplies/rescue in case something went wrong or giant dust-storms.

[toast]

If you look up closely on google and search Russia Moon, you will end up with numerous results including from

RT that Russia insists on Moon Colonization by 2019.

I dont know what sources you are referring to but there are no plans by Russia to colonize the Moon by 2019. It seems

that you, or your source, misinterpreted the planned Luna25/26/27 missions which are pure robotic/unmanned missions,

planned to be carried out from 2019 on.

[Taun]

I agree with Sir Hats... Both...

Go full throttle on colonizing and developing the moon, while at the same time manned (and/or womanned) missions to Mars... And use the

science and tech we develop for the Moon - to establish a permanent foothold on Mars...

A base on Luna (our moon's real name BTW) would make a trip to Mars more economical in some respects, as it takes less energy to lift off - ergo

larger payloads for less fuel expenditure...

[Derek Willis]

Being of a certain age I can remember the heady days when men flew to the Moon. Back then, going to Mars seemed a certainty, perhaps as early as 1980. Of course it didn't work out that way. Lack of money and political will shelved any plans to go to Mars. But now, almost half a century after Apollo, a head of steam definitely seems to be developing. With people like Elon Musk proposing privately funded manned Mars missions, and the US Space Launch System coming on stream, perhaps by 2030 people will go to Mars. I hope I am still around! But as has been mentioned, it would be far more sensible to go back to the Moon first.

[DingoLingo]

We should always be focusing on the moon first before mars..

Build the tech to colonise the moon.. your only a short travel away then mars.. perfect the tech for the moon then mars will be a easy choice..

you could set the whole space program on the moon.. industry.. labs etc on the moon or in lunar orbit..

the helium 3 on the moon is a good reason to start on the moon first..

the cost will be huge to start but in the end the only thing you will be lifting from earth will be passengers/crew to the moon..

the moon will also start us in the right direction to mine the asteroid belts..

the only reason to go to mars first will be bragging rights.. there will be no benefit to go to mars now when we would not really do anything on there.. yes.. someone will walk on mars.. that's it.. do the moon first.. and you could work towards colonizing mars

[Peter B]

I agree with Sir Hats... Both...

Go full throttle on colonizing and developing the moon, while at the same time manned (and/or womanned) missions to Mars... And use the

science and tech we develop for the Moon - to establish a permanent foothold on Mars...

A base on Luna (our moon's real name BTW) would make a trip to Mars more economical in some respects, as it takes less energy to lift off - ergo

larger payloads for less fuel expenditure...

Well, this only works if the payload was built on the Moon. And if it was built on the Moon, then the infrastructure to build it would have had to come from the Earth in the first place.

In other words, I think this argument only works if the Moon has been heavily colonised before we make a move to Mars.

(Of course, I could be wrong, so if anyone can see a logic flaw, please point it out.)

[qxcontinuum]

i still fail to understand why moon doesn't have an atmosphere since it is in earths vicinity. it has water and geographically spatially should get identical condition like earth.

[S2F]

I don't see any reason why plans can't be developed and/or executed for both the Moon and Mars simultaneously. Why wait for Mars?

[Derek Willis]

i still fail to understand why moon doesn't have an atmosphere since it is in earths vicinity. it has water and geographically spatially should get identical condition like earth.

The molecules of gas in an atmosphere move very quickly. If the escape velocity of a planet or moon is low, the molecules escape. It's as simple as that.

[skookum]

A moonbase would certainly be beneficial to future space exploration. If fuel could be produced on the the moon its low gravity and lack of atmosphere would make a perfect launching point for Mars.

Obviously that does depend on whether there is enough raw material to produce the fuel and if it is viable.

Sadly the finances don't seem to be available for this to happen any time soon. I am 42 years old and I very much doubt I will live long enough to see a permanent Moonbase or a manned mission to Mars. The technology is probably already available but no Country seems willing to invest in these seriously expensive projects.

Just a shame the world couldn't come together and commit to an all out joint project.

[Emma_Acid]

i still fail to understand why moon doesn't have an atmosphere since it is in earths vicinity. it has water and geographically spatially should get identical condition like earth.

It's not really in the "earth's vicinity". It's still quite a long way away compared to where our atmosphere stops.

And it isn't atmospherically identical to earth because it isn't identical to earth in meaningful any way. It doesn't have much of a magnetic field, meaning that it couldn't hold on to much of an atmosphere. Also there is very little water on the moon, meaning an early, life-friendly atmosphere couldn't form, and in turn, no life meant no oxygen.

So there's actually almost no reason at all why they should have similar atmospheres.

[Derek Willis]

It doesn't have much of a magnetic field, meaning that it couldn't hold on to much of an atmosphere.

I presume you mean in terms of not being able to deflect the solar wind, which would otherwise increase the velocity of any atmospheric molecules to beyond escape velocity.

[Emma_Acid]

I presume you mean in terms of not being able to deflect the solar wind, which would otherwise increase the velocity of any atmospheric molecules to beyond escape velocity.

I don't think the escape velocity of molecules is much of a consideration, as they don't weigh much.

But yes - the solar wind would strip a body of its atmosphere, as has been happening on Mars.

[Derek Willis]

I don't think the escape velocity of molecules is much of a consideration, as they don't weigh much.

I think you should look up some basic physics. You know, like when you use Newton's Law of Gravitation the little m cancels out.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

Well, this only works if the payload was built on the Moon. And if it was built on the Moon, then the infrastructure to build it would have had to come from the Earth in the first place.

In other words, I think this argument only works if the Moon has been heavily colonised before we make a move to Mars.

(Of course, I could be wrong, so if anyone can see a logic flaw, please point it out.)

You are not wrong.

The problem is something called delta-v. It is a measure of how much speed you need to go somewhere in space. The higher the delta-v the more fuel is needed to achieve the mission. More fuel means more mass and more mass means higher cost.

To enter trans Lunar orbit from low Earth orbit you need a delta-v of 3,2 km/s and to land on the Moon you need an additional 1,8 km/s, making 5 km/s.

Launching to Mars directly from low Earth orbit will only require 3,6 km/s, so even if there are loads of fuel waiting on the Moon, it take more delta-v, and consequently mass, to land on the Moon to refuel than it will take to launch directly to Mars. This means that using to Moon as a refueling station doesn't make much sense.

On top of that is the problem that there is unlikely to be enough funding to make both a Moon base and a manned Mars mission. In my oppinion if we need to choose between the Moon and Mars, Mars wins out because it is just so much more interesting.

In an ideal World we could do both, but unfortunately we don't live in an ideal World.

Edited February 9, 2016 by Noteverythingisaconspiracy

[Likely Guy]

I'm just curious as to why this thread is in this part of the forum.

Moon/Mars base = extraterrestial life? Okay, maybe. *shrugs*

[JesseCuster]

i still fail to understand why moon doesn't have an atmosphere since it is in earths vicinity. it has water and geographically spatially should get identical condition like earth.

The earth's atmosphere thins out extremely quickly. 100km up is considered to be outer space (even though there's still an ultra-vague atmosphere that's practically a vacuum). Why would the moon being 400,000km from earth mean it should have anything resembling an earthlike atmosphere that disappears at a tiny fraction of that distance?

Do you think having any sort of water, no matter how rare or in whatever form it is, means that an astronomical body should have an earth-like atmosphere?

What on earth does the phrase "geographically spatially" mean and have anything to do with the moon or earth or atmospheres?

What on earth are you actually talking about?

Perhaps you should actually try to understand instead of vomiting up your lack of understanding in front of a public viewership.

Edited February 9, 2016 by JesseCuster

[ChrLzs]

I think you should look up some basic physics. You know, like when you use Newton's Law of Gravitation the little m cancels out.

Stop it, you two! - it's actually BOTH effects - gravity *and* the magnetic field/solar wind barrier effect.

Here for the latest:

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Cluster/Earth_s_magnetic_field_provides_vital_protection

[Derek Willis]

Stop it, you two! - it's actually BOTH effects - gravity *and* the magnetic field/solar wind barrier effect.

I was being a tad sarcastic, and I offer my apologies to Emma.

[Emma_Acid]

I was being a tad sarcastic, and I offer my apologies to Emma.

No need. My main point was that solar wind can strip away an atmosphere on a body without magnetic shielding. I didn't really take gravity into account and shouldn't have commented on something I knew nothing about.

[JesseCuster]

No need. My main point was that solar wind can strip away an atmosphere on a body without magnetic shielding. I didn't really take gravity into account and shouldn't have commented on something I knew nothing about.

I think the take home point is that it's gravity that results in a body having an atmosphere in the first place as it allows it to hold onto gases that would otherwise easily disperse into space, but in the absence of a protective magnetic field the atmosphere can be stripped away over time by the solar wind.

Which makes we wonder if outer solar system bodies like Pluto and others might be large enough to have atmospheres that haven't been stripped away by the solar wind. Or perhaps they're simply small enough to fail to hang onto an atmosphere over the lifespan of the solar system.