2
$\begingroup$

As far as I understand, (correct me if I'm wrong) one of the reasons for wanting a colony in Mars is for the possibility in the future of having a space port where rockets could leave the planet cheaply, considering the lower gravity. Now this reason doesnt seem to have any advantage over the Moon, which is closer and it has less gravity. Which are the reasons for wanting to have a colony in Mars first than in the moon? Is it because it has more water? Is it because it shows more friendly features for human life even though life outdoors right now it's impossible? Is it because we want to see if there was or even there is some primitive life form there? What is it?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Could be a thing of prestige, too $\endgroup$ – John Dvorak Feb 21 '19 at 12:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'll bet the answer is going to involve politics. As in, what do people think they can get public support for. Mars has long been in the public imagination in science fiction and movies. $\endgroup$ – Wayne Conrad Feb 21 '19 at 17:05
  • $\begingroup$ There is no advantage in a "space port" anywhere except perhaps Low Earth Orbit (which may have some value for assembly/refueling) unless you can source at least fuel and possibly materials for rocket construction there. Otherwise its always cheaper to just head directly to where you are going. Mars has carbon dioxide and much more water (ice anyway) than the Moon so it looks like it will be much easier to make fuel there. $\endgroup$ – Steve Linton Feb 22 '19 at 12:25
2
$\begingroup$

While I don't agree that we should have a Mars base before a Moon base, there's several compelling arguments you can make. I'm going to use Zubrin's answer on "why Mars?" In which he explains that "Mars is where the science is, Mars is where the challenge is, and Mars is where the future is".

Scientifically, we know more about the Moon than we do about Mars. Mars is also a more interesting target for science as it's highly likely that there was life on Mars at some point and it's possible that there still is. If life were discovered on Mars, it would be one of the greatest scientific discoveries in human history and definitely be a solid reason for a permanent base.

Secondly, Mars is where the challenge is or where the prestige is. You need to remember that the Apollo program wasn't about doing science or landing people on the moon, it was about convincing the world that the USA is better than the Soviet Union. Having a Mars base or being the first nation to land people on Mars would be a great achievement for any nation, far greater than landing people on the moon again.

Finally, Mars is a prime target for future human colonization and expansion. The moon can't really be terraformed whereas Mars could (in theory) be terraformed to sustain human life on the surface without a pressure suit (but still an air supply) within a human lifetime. Also, Mars could act as a fuel deposit or manufacturing base with easy access to the asteroid belt or other outer system bodies.

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ If SpaceX reachs Mars first than NASA, will a private company's achievements be seen as a nation's achievement? $\endgroup$ – Pablo Feb 22 '19 at 12:22
  • $\begingroup$ @Pablo it's very, very, very unlikely that SpaceX will reach Mars (with humans) without NASA but if they do, I think it would still be seen as Elon Musk's achievement primarily with the USA in a close second $\endgroup$ – Dragongeek Feb 22 '19 at 12:30
  • $\begingroup$ @Pablo Since SpaceX is an American company, cooperates with NASA, relies on NASA and flies NASA astronauts, whose achievement is it if not America's? $\endgroup$ – user35272 Apr 9 at 11:31
0
$\begingroup$

Well, Mars is more Earth-like than the Moon of course. It has more than twice the Moon's surface gravity, an atmosphere (with some parts of it having a pressure at or more than the triple point of water which means liquid water can exist outside because Mars barely but still is in the habitable zone), weather, natural satellites, is more than half the size of the Earth and it's a rocky planet. If you wanna travel further beyond to the outer planets and their moons, you can use a spaceport on Mars inbetween. Nonetheless, we'll obviously have to and should establish an outpost on the Moon first. The Moon in turn has other resources. And while both the Moon and Mars have no magnetospheres, both have local magnetic fields. SpaceX probably will fly its circumlunar tourist mission (DearMoon project) before sending people to the red planet.

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Can you expand on why it's "obvious"? $\endgroup$ – Organic Marble Apr 9 at 12:04
  • $\begingroup$ @OrganicMarble I've expanded the case of the liquid water. I don't have to tell you why the Moon is the obvious first celestial body to go to. $\endgroup$ – user35272 Apr 9 at 12:10
  • $\begingroup$ It's not "obvious" to everyone spacenews.com/… $\endgroup$ – Organic Marble Apr 9 at 12:22
  • $\begingroup$ @OrganicMarble We must test first what effects a gravity between 0g or 1g has on humans. The longest Apollo stay on the Moon was 3 days, we need longer stays on the Moon such as a month. $\endgroup$ – user35272 Apr 9 at 12:27
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not arguing either side. I'm just saying that the existence of 2 sides means it's not "obvious". $\endgroup$ – Organic Marble Apr 9 at 12:28

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.