StarDestroyer.Net BBS

...and I need help refuting the claim that we should be building Moon bases first before going to Mars.

Normally I'd just skim Robert Zubrin's Entering Space for quotes, but the copy's my brother's, and thus I left it behind when I moved to Toronto. Haven't been able to find a copy in the bookstores around here. Can anyone help me out?

Shouldn't we be building moon bases first? The moon is alot easier to reach than Mars and easier to exploit for resources. Plus, if you skrew up you might get rescued.

Samuel wrote:Shouldn't we be building moon bases first? The moon is alot easier to reach than Mars and easier to exploit for resources. Plus, if you skrew up you might get rescued.

Mars has a lot fewer reasources, and thus cannot sustain a self-suficient base. I could do a more comprehensive response, but my reference material is on the far side of the country. Hence this topic.

Wait- please clarify. Are you for moon bases first? Because the OP indicates you are for landing on Mars first...

A moon base before a Mars expedition actually makes good sense, because running a self-sufficient moon base will be good practice for trying to keep people alive on Mars, and the moon is a much easier target.

Junghalli wrote:A moon base before a Mars expedition actually makes good sense, because running a self-sufficient moon base will be good practice for trying to keep people alive on Mars, and the moon is a much easier target.

I see I'm not going to get any pro Mars arguments here. Guess I'll blunder on alone as best I can.

The Romulan Republic wrote:Mars has a lot fewer reasources, and thus cannot sustain a self-suficient base.

Sounds like you are killing your own argument here. Out of curiosity, what are your arguments for a base on Mars before a base on the Moon?

I thought the argument for going for a self-sufficient Mars base was mostly because of water and more of an atmosphere being present than on the Moon. The main thing being the presence of water. The atmosphere comes more into play when thinking of permanent settlements, and I think people who really want to put self sustaining bases on Mars have pictures of a terraformed, or partially terraformed Mars that a significant amount of people would move to.

Personally, I'm of the play it safe notion of practicing on the Moon as best we can before sticking people so much further away.

Tsyroc wrote:I thought the argument for going for a self-sufficient Mars base was mostly because of water and more of an atmosphere being present than on the Moon. The main thing being the presence of water. The atmosphere comes more into play when thinking of permanent settlements, and I think people who really want to put self sustaining bases on Mars have pictures of a terraformed, or partially terraformed Mars that a significant amount of people would move to.

Personally, I'm of the play it safe notion of practicing on the Moon as best we can before sticking people so much further away.

Why would we bother? Mars is so far away, you could finish practicing on the Moon before colonists get there!

Samuel wrote:

Tsyroc wrote:I thought the argument for going for a self-sufficient Mars base was mostly because of water and more of an atmosphere being present than on the Moon. The main thing being the presence of water. The atmosphere comes more into play when thinking of permanent settlements, and I think people who really want to put self sustaining bases on Mars have pictures of a terraformed, or partially terraformed Mars that a significant amount of people would move to.

Personally, I'm of the play it safe notion of practicing on the Moon as best we can before sticking people so much further away.

Why would we bother? Mars is so far away, you could finish practicing on the Moon before colonists get there!

Beats me. Although, I'd hope we'd practice on the Moon a little longer than the time it takes to get to Mars. But then, I said I like to play it safe. Given the turn around time with Mars I'd think that we'd at least want a base on the Moon to be running smoothly for a couple of years, probably more, before we tried the same thing on Mars. Doesn't it take about 11 months to get there?

I think most people who want to skip the Moon bases and colonies and head right for Mars think we've already found all there is to find on the Moon, and/or have great expectations/hope for whatever they think we'll do or find once we are on Mars for awhile.

Darth Ruinus wrote:

The Romulan Republic wrote:Mars has a lot fewer reasources, and thus cannot sustain a self-suficient base.

Sounds like you are killing your own argument here. Out of curiosity, what are your arguments for a base on Mars before a base on the Moon?

Fucking typo. I meant the Moon has fewer resources.

Mars is a world. The Moon is a rock. I'm just trying to find sources to back up things I heard a long time ago and only half remember.

Mars only advatage is it can be terraformed. Which takes over a century.

Samuel wrote:Mars only advatage is it can be terraformed. Which takes over a century.

A century to raise the temperature. A thousand years for Earth-like atmosphere.

That said, their are other advantages. Mars has closer to Earth gravity, minimal atmospheric protection from radiation and micrometeorites, lots of frozen water (I believe more than the Moon), and possibly life. And it can be terraformed. It would just take a while. Another big one is that it has a day/night cycle much closer to Earth's, so you could grow plants for food and air using natural light. That could save a fair bit of power, though I lack hard numbers.

Obviously I've come up with some points myself, but I would still appreciate any additional information.

The Romulan Republic wrote: A century to raise the temperature. A thousand years for Earth-like atmosphere.

Again, you're really defeating your own argument here.

Mars has closer to Earth gravity,

Wouldn't that mean that any spacecraft taking off from Mars would have to pay about the same about of fuel/energy costs as one launching off from here? Wouldn't environments with less gravity be friendlier for lifting stuff off planet?

minimal atmospheric protection from radiation and micrometeorites,

So... you want the colonists to be pelted by radiation and micrometeorites?

lots of frozen water (I believe more than the Moon)

Ok.

and possibly life.

Sure, good for research, but why can't we land, take some specimens and research them at the cheaper and closer moon base?

And it can be terraformed.

Sure, but it would be cheaper to do so if you are launching your stuff from the moon base first wouldn't it?

It would just take a while. Another big one is that it has a day/night cycle much closer to Earth's, so you could grow plants for food and air using natural light. That could save a fair bit of power, though I lack hard numbers.

I don't know much about that, so I can't comment.

So you can grow plants in continuous light and have them grow faster.

Wouldn't that mean that any spacecraft taking off from Mars would have to pay about the same about of fuel/energy costs as one launching off from here? Wouldn't environments with less gravity be friendlier for lifting stuff off planet?

He wants to avoid health problems from low gravity.

So... you want the colonists to be pelted by radiation and micrometeorites?

He is refering to the Moon. Mars has an atmoshere that, while thin, is thick enough so that shielding doesn't have to be as through as Mars.

Darth Ruinus wrote:

The Romulan Republic wrote: A century to raise the temperature. A thousand years for Earth-like atmosphere.

Again, you're really defeating your own argument here.

I can admit the negatives, while still believing the positives outweigh them.

minimal atmospheric protection from radiation and micrometeorites,

So... you want the colonists to be pelted by radiation and micrometeorites?

Better some than none.

Off the top of my head, the pro mars argument is:

1) Greater protection from radiation
2) Lower delta V from Mars to asteroid belt than from Moon to asteroid belt
3) Greater resources
4) Greater carrying capacity for population
5) Lower collision rate
6) Higher gravity (less biological adaptation)
7) Better science (lot more experiments to be done on Mars then on the Moon)
8) Easier to import material (meaning redirect asteroid and comets; lower delta V to move things the further our of system you go due to decrease in Sol's influence)
9) Greater access to energy resources (geothermal and fusion)


And a quick google search turned up this Zubrin's original speech that he expanded on and turned into his books.

Mars is geologically dead- how would it produce geothermal energy?

Samuel wrote:Mars is geologically dead-

not quite

Ender wrote:Off the top of my head, the pro mars argument is:

1) Greater protection from radiation
2) Lower delta V from Mars to asteroid belt than from Moon to asteroid belt
3) Greater resources
4) Greater carrying capacity for population
5) Lower collision rate
6) Higher gravity (less biological adaptation)
7) Better science (lot more experiments to be done on Mars then on the Moon)
Easier to import material (meaning redirect asteroid and comets; lower delta V to move things the further our of system you go due to decrease in Sol's influence)
9) Greater access to energy resources (geothermal and fusion)


And a quick google search turned up this Zubrin's original speech that he expanded on and turned into his books.

Thank you. Finally a useful reply.

The Romulan Republic wrote:

Ender wrote:Off the top of my head, the pro mars argument is:

1) Greater protection from radiation
2) Lower delta V from Mars to asteroid belt than from Moon to asteroid belt
3) Greater resources
4) Greater carrying capacity for population
5) Lower collision rate
6) Higher gravity (less biological adaptation)
7) Better science (lot more experiments to be done on Mars then on the Moon)
Easier to import material (meaning redirect asteroid and comets; lower delta V to move things the further our of system you go due to decrease in Sol's influence)
9) Greater access to energy resources (geothermal and fusion)


And a quick google search turned up this Zubrin's original speech that he expanded on and turned into his books.

Thank you. Finally a useful reply.

These are only Mars vs Moon arguments, mind. Like D said, best course of action is space habitats. I just went with this because it is the topic at hand.

Well frankly I'd have the Mars vs space habitat debate any day, due to higher possible populations, potentially greater value for research, and greater available resources. And I will take this opportunity to restate my willingness to have a coliseum debate on space exploration (one topic or another) with anyone who's interested. Providing it doesn't start until the holidays. This is due to a lack of knowledge about science or math, and thus a desire to have access to the source books I left on the other side of the country when I started university (also the reason I posted this topic ).