Moon, Mars, or Asteroid? Which is the best goal?

[DarkenedOne]

If there is a workable method of extracting oxygen from regolith then why didn't they win the $1million dollar prize ?

Seems to me if there is a method that works well , why wouldn't you want to pocket a cool million ?

From what I see so far these are mostly just proposals of a potential method that has yet to be worked out , if these are working models then take one and build it so you can take home the prize the next time it comes up .

From what I read most of the oxygen in regolith is bound to silicates which makes it difficult to seperate . I always wondered why some chemisty major person didn't come up with a good method of extraction , I only took one year of chem in college so my knowledge of reaction chains is limited but it seems like it shouldn't be that tough so I must be missing something in the process . I would almost consider going back and taking more chemistry classes just so I can win the million bucks but my luck I would just figure it out and someone else would walk away with the prize .

The challenge is difficult not for being able to extract oxygen but to do it within the parameters they have provided. The challenge calls for 2.5 kg of oxygen to be extracted in 4 hours using only 10 kw.

However I do not know why we are sitting here talking about extracting the oxygen from oxides when we know that there is water ice located in some parts of the moon. Water ice is far better because it requires less energy to melt. It also provides you with hydrogen for fuel.

 

[SpaceForAReason]

Lunar Base makes the most sense (out of the choices given). It has some gravity (what a revelation). We as humans are much more adept at EVERYTHING in a gravity field. Lets work with the knowledge we have. It tends to be cheaper and safer in the long run. OSHA would have a heyday over anything else.

Asteroids are still tough because timely access is limited by orbital position of Earth and whatever rock you are going to. The moon is only 2 days away. Besides, what the heck are we going to do once we get there? We certainly don't have the ability to mine them. We would make a dust and rock debris field so bad in that area that no ship will be able to approach them without getting dinged to death.

Mars is the holy-grail, to be sure. But without the proper infrastructure in Earth orbit and Mars orbit and everywhere in between we had better be able to pay the orphaned families of the astronauts that will be lost. It is too far away to recover from trouble... "Houston, we have insanity!"

When thinking of where to go, just remember the "Oops, we didn't think of that" factor.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Mars is the holy-grail, to be sure. But without the proper infrastructure in Earth orbit and Mars orbit and everywhere in between we had better be able to pay the orphaned families of the astronauts that will be lost. It is too far away to recover from trouble... "Houston, we have insanity!"

Orbital infrastructure and lunar bases are not necessary for a Mars mission, and the only Mars orbit infrastructure necessary would be a communications satellite.

 

[SteveCNC]

Orbital infrastructure and lunar bases are not necessary for a Mars mission, and the only Mars orbit infrastructure necessary would be a communications satellite.

There may be also a need for a refueling station in orbit around mars depending on chosen landing method , having such a thin atmosphere it's not like landing on earth , but it's not as easy as the moon either . So IMO the only way to get a heavy object on the ground without creating a crater will be a powered decent which will require a refuel before it drops into the gravity well of mars .

There may be one other way to get heavy objects down to the ground without a full powered decent but it will require a lot of prep work to set up the infrastructure on the ground so you still gotta get the heavy's down to the ground the hard way before the other can happen so that means fuel IMO at least till other plans can be made .

 

[SpaceForAReason]

Mars is the holy-grail, to be sure. But without the proper infrastructure in Earth orbit and Mars orbit and everywhere in between we had better be able to pay the orphaned families of the astronauts that will be lost. It is too far away to recover from trouble... "Houston, we have insanity!"

Orbital infrastructure and lunar bases are not necessary for a Mars mission, and the only Mars orbit infrastructure necessary would be a communications satellite.

Yuri... Even the military sets up a base camp and supply lines to increase their chances of success. NASA should take a lesson from that. Lewis and Clark had no other choice. We do.

 

[rockett]

To me, a solo Mars mission like the Apollo moon missions would be more than a little insane if not downright foolhardy. Think about Apollo 13, what if something like that happened on a Mars mission? Imagine the damage it would do to any future efforts. It could easily mean the end of BEO exploration for the US, because in a similar scenario the crew would be dead on a Mars mission.

We need to setup the infrastructure properly, before attempting anything of that duration.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Yuri... Even the military sets up a base camp and supply lines to increase their chances of success. NASA should take a lesson from that. Lewis and Clark had no other choice. We do.

While a lunar base would help, some are dead set on a mission to Mars and it may be better to go to Mars and bypass the moon as Robert Zubrin argues.

To me, a solo Mars mission like the Apollo moon missions would be more than a little insane if not downright foolhardy. Think about Apollo 13, what if something like that happened on a Mars mission? Imagine the damage it would do to any future efforts. It could easily mean the end of BEO exploration for the US, because in a similar scenario the crew would be dead on a Mars mission.

We need to setup the infrastructure properly, before attempting anything of that duration.

Actually the backup options for abort on a Mars mission are not "return home" or return to a lunar base. Most involve landing on Mars and sticking it out until a rescue ship can come and retrieve them. What type of infrastructure are you talking about here? Do you mean a lunar base? It will take just as long to get to the moon from Mars as it would to get to the Earth, so I'm assuming that you mean Mars orbit infrastructure, which is of course necessary because the astronauts will need a communications satellite.

 

[DarkenedOne]

Yuri... Even the military sets up a base camp and supply lines to increase their chances of success. NASA should take a lesson from that. Lewis and Clark had no other choice. We do.

While a lunar base would help, some are dead set on a mission to Mars and it may be better to go to Mars and bypass the moon as Robert Zubrin argues.

And do what??

That is the problem the Apollo had and that is the problem that a Mars mission would have. Initially you have the shock factor, but it is like watching a good movie over and over; after a while people lose interest. Same thing will happen with a Mars mission. People will praise you for the first 3 or 4 missions, but after that they are going to start to question the money being spent. Unless you have a good justification for spending all of that money than your going to get your budget cut. Unfortunately there is really not much you can do with just a few people living out of a very small habitat with practically no vehicle to move around.

A moon base on the other hand would be able to offer a great deal including resources.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

And do what??

That is the problem the Apollo had and that is the problem that a Mars mission would have. Initially you have the shock factor, but it is like watching a good movie over and over; after a while people lose interest. Same thing will happen with a Mars mission. People will praise you for the first 3 or 4 missions, but after that they are going to start to question the money being spent. Unless you have a good justification for spending all of that money than your going to get your budget cut.

They would of course be performing science experiments and exploration. Mars Direct also calls for long term settling of the planet with a permanent government base there, and eventual terraforming of the planet. I agree that once we go there we need to stay there, we just need a president who is willing to propose a program and defend it appropriately. George Bush's SEI is a perfect example of how NOT to handle a Mars program.

Unfortunately there is really not much you can do with just a few people living out of a very small habitat with practically no vehicle to move around.

Actually the habitat they use would be quite a bit larger than the Apollo LEM. And they would be using a vehicle to cover lots of ground, and most likely a couple of robots to assist in exploration.

A moon base on the other hand would be able to offer a great deal including resources.

A moon base could offer resources, though they are less plentiful and more difficul to get that those available on Mars. Mars has Oxygen, Carbon, Nitrogen, and Hydrogen, all essential for life. The moon's biggest advantage is that it is closer, but if what you are looking for is resources then the moon is not necessarily the best place to go.

 

[DarkenedOne]

And do what??

That is the problem the Apollo had and that is the problem that a Mars mission would have. Initially you have the shock factor, but it is like watching a good movie over and over; after a while people lose interest. Same thing will happen with a Mars mission. People will praise you for the first 3 or 4 missions, but after that they are going to start to question the money being spent. Unless you have a good justification for spending all of that money than your going to get your budget cut.

They would of course be performing science experiments and exploration. Mars Direct also calls for long term settling of the planet with a permanent government base there, and eventual terraforming of the planet. I agree that once we go there we need to stay there, we just need a president who is willing to propose a program and defend it appropriately. George Bush's SEI is a perfect example of how NOT to handle a Mars program.

Science experiments and exploration is not going to be enough to justify hundreds of billions. I understand and support their ambitions for Mars these Mars advocates are so focused on getting a few people to Mars that they have not bothered to figure out what to do next.

Unfortunately there is really not much you can do with just a few people living out of a very small habitat with practically no vehicle to move around.

Actually the habitat they use would be quite a bit larger than the Apollo LEM. And they would be using a vehicle to cover lots of ground, and most likely a couple of robots to assist in exploration.

That will not be enough. I sorry but there is only so much 3 people are able to accomplish.

A moon base on the other hand would be able to offer a great deal including resources.

A moon base could offer resources, though they are less plentiful and more difficul to get that those available on Mars. Mars has Oxygen, Carbon, Nitrogen, and Hydrogen, all essential for life. The moon's biggest advantage is that it is closer, but if what you are looking for is resources then the moon is not necessarily the best place to go.

We know that the moon has liquid water and we know exactly where it is. We also know that the moon has high concentrations of titanium, iron, silicon, and many other useful elements.

Second of all the moon is just the next step. At the moment we are still in Earth orbit. For the first time we are starting to see some real commercial development in LEO. In 20 years if all goes well there will be several spacestations for research, tourism, and etc. After that the moon will be the next step.

 

[Polishguy]

Science experiments and exploration is not going to be enough to justify hundreds of billions. I understand and support their ambitions for Mars these Mars advocates are so focused on getting a few people to Mars that they have not bothered to figure out what to do next.

Actually, the Mars Society has. The same hardware for the first expeditions, supporting 4-6, can be used to build a base. Launch more modules, connect them with plastic tubes (good luck making plastic on the Moon!), build a greenhouse, build bigger modules out of bricks (made of Martian regolith) and plastic (just carbon and hydrogen). And Congress estimated in 1992 that Mars Direct would cost $3 Billion per year for a decade, or the equivalent of flying the Shuttle twice a year.

That will not be enough. I sorry but there is only so much 3 people are able to accomplish.

4 people for two years, with their own laboratory, can in fact accomplish much. They will explore Mars, perform biological and chemical experiments, test methods of ISRU and agriculture, and do geological work. On the Moon, they can do scientific work, but not of the caliber that can be done on Mars (Mars, in the long run, is easier to settle, and has prospects of life).

We know that the moon has liquid water and we know exactly where it is. We also know that the moon has high concentrations of titanium, iron, silicon, and many other useful elements.

Second of all the moon is just the next step. At the moment we are still in Earth orbit. For the first time we are starting to see some real commercial development in LEO. In 20 years if all goes well there will be several spacestations for research, tourism, and etc. After that the moon will be the next step.

Mars has all of the resources the Moon has, and in greater quantity, while also easier to extract. The Moon's resources are locked in tough oxidized compounds. Without melting these compounds, it is difficult to break them apart. On Mars, one can react silicon dioxide with carbon and hydrogen to produce silane, which can be refined into silicon. On the Moon, such volatiles will be hard to come by. And they are needed for all the industrial processes. On Mars, each of those metals is present, as are the volatiles. And Mars also has water. Phoenix found it, the MERs found traces of it, and there is good reason to believe there are active 'areothermal' vents, where Mars's internal heat is driving the water around. Hooking a turbine to one of them can generate much power and water.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Science experiments and exploration is not going to be enough to justify hundreds of billions.

Hundreds of billions??? Have you even read about Mars Direct??? It can be accomplished with only $50 billion, a fraction of the Apollo program!

I understand and support their ambitions for Mars

I'd have to say that you don't understand the ambitions for Mars based on what you've posted so far.

these Mars advocates are so focused on getting a few people to Mars that they have not bothered to figure out what to do next.

Yes they have. The plan is a permanent science outpost similar to the ISS, and eventual colonization, settlement, and terraforming of the red planet. There's a LOT that can be done on Mars that just can't be done with the moon. I am not saying that this means we should go to Mars before the moon base, I'm just saying that a Mars base may be able to offer a lot more.

That will not be enough. I sorry but there is only so much 3 people are able to accomplish.

4 people, a couple of rovers and 2 robots can accomplish quite a lot in 18 months. They would be able to finally answer once and for all whether life exists on Mars or has existed in the past, and could accomplish a lot more than just that but obviously that will be the main scientific goal.

We know that the moon has liquid water and we know exactly where it is. We also know that the moon has high concentrations of titanium, iron, silicon, and many other useful elements.

Yes, the discovery of more water on the moon is convenient and helpful. And it does contain many useful elements, but these are on the parts per million scale. Mars' resources are extremely plentiful and everything a Mars crew would need can be found on Mars using ISRU. Prospects for agriculture on Mars are a lot brighter than those on the moon.

Second of all the moon is just the next step. At the moment we are still in Earth orbit. For the first time we are starting to see some real commercial development in LEO. In 20 years if all goes well there will be several spacestations for research, tourism, and etc. After that the moon will be the next step.

The moon will be an easier target I agree and it probably is the next step for NASA. I'm just pointing out that the real home in space is on Mars, and one day it can be Earth like as in its past.

 

[SteveCNC]

You know when your debating over resources I have to assume you are talking about collecting and returning to earth with these resources . If so remember one thing if you are launching a heavy load off the moon it takes less thrust and fuel than if your lifting the same load from mars .

One other thing the moon has in abundance over mars is H3 . It could become the next gotta have thing once it works it's way into the market for reactors .

As for the gathering part of the idea you would probably have an easier time on the moon collecting material than on mars partially due to the weaker gravity but mostly due to the amount of watts per square meter of sunlight . Sure you could overcome the lack of power per square meter with just a lot more solar panels but that's just another advantage the moon has over mars .

Plus after having done a lot of reading on the subject of landing on mars , it's not as simple as you might think . There are some definite problems to be overcome for that to work .

 

[SpaceForAReason]

Actually the backup options for abort on a Mars mission are not "return home" or return to a lunar base. Most involve landing on Mars and sticking it out until a rescue ship can come and retrieve them. What type of infrastructure are you talking about here? Do you mean a lunar base? It will take just as long to get to the moon from Mars as it would to get to the Earth, so I'm assuming that you mean Mars orbit infrastructure, which is of course necessary because the astronauts will need a communications satellite.

Details:
1. Earth Orbit Station - This is where the Earth ascent/descent vehicles get parked. This is where the Earth-to-Mars vehicles are fabricated and berthed. Most of the mission is staged here. Once the vehicle is ready to go then the crew can launch from Earth. Launching a rescue from the Earth Orbit Station is simpler than launching one from Earth's surface. The station also maintains mission fuel depot and supplies.

2. Mars Orbit Station - This is where the Mars ascent/descent vehicles (at least two) get parked. An emergency earth return vehicle should ideally be parked there as well. This provides the on-site redundancy needed for safety. The station also has a fuel depot and extra supplies. The extra ascent/descent vehicle would need to be able to provide auto-pilot rescue if needed. At least two astronauts man the station during landing operations.

 

[Polishguy]

Details:
1. Earth Orbit Station - This is where the Earth ascent/descent vehicles get parked. This is where the Earth-to-Mars vehicles are fabricated and berthed. Most of the mission is staged here. Once the vehicle is ready to go then the crew can launch from Earth. Launching a rescue from the Earth Orbit Station is simpler than launching one from Earth's surface. The station also maintains mission fuel depot and supplies.

2. Mars Orbit Station - This is where the Mars ascent/descent vehicles (at least two) get parked. An emergency earth return vehicle should ideally be parked there as well. This provides the on-site redundancy needed for safety. The station also has a fuel depot and extra supplies. The extra ascent/descent vehicle would need to be able to provide auto-pilot rescue if needed. At least two astronauts man the station during landing operations.

Except why would we bother with building in orbit when we can launch the whole mission on a pair of HLVs with surface rendezvous? The Mars Direct plan does not feature any orbit stations at all. And why have astronauts in orbit? All they'd do is soak up cosmic rays for two years and achieve nothing at all! I mean, even if you were to leave infrastructure in orbit, why a station? Why not leave your landing vehicles in LEO and LMO unattended, the way we've been doing for 50 years? Since the Gemini Program, the Salyut Program, early Mir and ISS, and now the Chinese space program, we've proven that we have the capability to put hardware in orbit and leave it there without anyone supervising it.

Why bother with Transfer Vehicles that are fabricated in LEO? Why bother with a specialized Mars Ascent vehicle. And, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but when you're on the way to Mars, there's no rescue possible even if you have that big useless space station! Your 'rescue' vehicle would be moving at the same speed as the vehicle outbound to Mars, and would thus take months to reach it. In the Mars Direct plan, they could just land and find their Earth Return Vehicle and several months supplies on the surface!

 

[Polishguy]

You know when your debating over resources I have to assume you are talking about collecting and returning to earth with these resources . If so remember one thing if you are launching a heavy load off the moon it takes less thrust and fuel than if your lifting the same load from mars .

One other thing the moon has in abundance over mars is H3 . It could become the next gotta have thing once it works it's way into the market for reactors .

As for the gathering part of the idea you would probably have an easier time on the moon collecting material than on mars partially due to the weaker gravity but mostly due to the amount of watts per square meter of sunlight . Sure you could overcome the lack of power per square meter with just a lot more solar panels but that's just another advantage the moon has over mars .

Plus after having done a lot of reading on the subject of landing on mars , it's not as simple as you might think . There are some definite problems to be overcome for that to work .

Why would you assume we're talking about bringing them back to earth? We're talking about building up our base and colony on the surface. If we were talking about sending resources to earth, we wouldn't discuss Luna or Mars at all. We'd be talking about asteroids. And it's easier to build solar panels on Mars than on the Moon, for the reasons I listed earlier in refining pure silicon. Therefore, from the standpoint of not sending things to earth, but actually developing on our target world, Mars is superior in every respect.

And yes, I've heard the argument that the aerobrake has problems. So did early proposals for the Apollo Lunar Module. After a few years of work, we got that to work when we finally decided to go to the Moon. Therefore, with a concerted national effort to build a science outpost on Mars, we can overcome the problem here, because money and effort will flow more freely.

 

[DarkenedOne]

Science experiments and exploration is not going to be enough to justify hundreds of billions. I understand and support their ambitions for Mars these Mars advocates are so focused on getting a few people to Mars that they have not bothered to figure out what to do next.

Actually, the Mars Society has. The same hardware for the first expeditions, supporting 4-6, can be used to build a base. Launch more modules, connect them with plastic tubes (good luck making plastic on the Moon!), build a greenhouse, build bigger modules out of bricks (made of Martian regolith) and plastic (just carbon and hydrogen). And Congress estimated in 1992 that Mars Direct would cost $3 Billion per year for a decade, or the equivalent of flying the Shuttle twice a year.

That will not be enough. I sorry but there is only so much 3 people are able to accomplish.

4 people for two years, with their own laboratory, can in fact accomplish much. They will explore Mars, perform biological and chemical experiments, test methods of ISRU and agriculture, and do geological work. On the Moon, they can do scientific work, but not of the caliber that can be done on Mars (Mars, in the long run, is easier to settle, and has prospects of life).

Polishguy I am taking the ISS as the closest example in terms of engineering and technical complexity. The ISS is just in low Earth orbit. It was estimated to cost $20 billion in 1988. It ended up costing over $100 billion. Even if you take out the shuttle it still cost $50 billion. It also took 10 years to complete before it would even was able to conduct meaningful scientific research.

What your talking about is building a base, which would have to be on an even larger scale in order to have greenhouses, on a planet over 6 months travel time away for the cost that is only $700 million dollars greater than the Mars Science Laboratory.

I mean there is just no way.

We know that the moon has liquid water and we know exactly where it is. We also know that the moon has high concentrations of titanium, iron, silicon, and many other useful elements.

Second of all the moon is just the next step. At the moment we are still in Earth orbit. For the first time we are starting to see some real commercial development in LEO. In 20 years if all goes well there will be several spacestations for research, tourism, and etc. After that the moon will be the next step.

Mars has all of the resources the Moon has, and in greater quantity, while also easier to extract. The Moon's resources are locked in tough oxidized compounds. Without melting these compounds, it is difficult to break them apart. On Mars, one can react silicon dioxide with carbon and hydrogen to produce silane, which can be refined into silicon. On the Moon, such volatiles will be hard to come by. And they are needed for all the industrial processes. On Mars, each of those metals is present, as are the volatiles. And Mars also has water. Phoenix found it, the MERs found traces of it, and there is good reason to believe there are active 'areothermal' vents, where Mars's internal heat is driving the water around. Hooking a turbine to one of them can generate much power and water.

We know where water ice is on the moon. We have rammed our spacecraft into it for god sakes. We are still looking for water on Mars. As far as other resources go there going to be oxides on both Mars and the Moon.

Second of its the location of the resources. The moon's resources are close enough to be used in Earth orbit for various purposes. Mar's on the other hand is to far away to be used for many space purposes.

 

[SteveCNC]

Well if your there to build up an infrastructure from the resources and build a civilization then yes mars is definitely the place . With a 24h39m day cycle it would be the most like earth although it is rather cold , but the moon with it's 28 earth day light cycle except at the poles could get annoying for a civilization , for a base it's one thing but to raise a family and such not so much .

Although I still say the moon is our best first attempt at something more permanent , it's the safest place to learn what's really needed to survive and work long term in a hostile environment .

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

The temperature differences on the Moon are much more problematic than those on Mars. On Mars it can get as warm as 63 F.

 

[DarkenedOne]

Well if your there to build up an infrastructure from the resources and build a civilization then yes mars is definitely the place . With a 24h39m day cycle it would be the most like earth although it is rather cold , but the moon with it's 28 earth day light cycle except at the poles could get annoying for a civilization , for a base it's one thing but to raise a family and such not so much .

Although I still say the moon is our best first attempt at something more permanent , it's the safest place to learn what's really needed to survive and work long term in a hostile environment .

Your making one big assumption that I believe is completely false and that is that life in space will be very much life here. That is incorrect for obvious reasons. People will not care about the Mars cycle because they will not be out doors. You will not have people walking outside on Mars to feel the nice cool breeze of CO2 in the -40 degree weather. Any civilization on Mar would be an indoor civilization where sunlight counts for pretty much nothing.

 

[kk434]

I think that a moon base is at least 30 years in the future, and after we learn how a moon base works it's another 20 years for a Mars base. It's faster to get the technology ready for a Mars mission on the ISS, It's already there, the concept of permanent occupation and resuply is tested. How about building a small space station in Mars orbit?

 

[raptorborealis]

I think that a moon base is at least 30 years in the future, and after we learn how a moon base works it's another 20 years for a Mars base. It's faster to get the technology ready for a Mars mission on the ISS, It's already there, the concept of permanent occupation and resuply is tested. How about building a small space station in Mars orbit?

A space station around Mars may happen. The issue , however, with such a system is that it adds a whole new dependency on technology. We can't assume that when astronauts arrive at Mars after 6 months that the technology waiting for them will work. A mission needs to be self sufficient going to Mars...staying on Mars and returning to Earth.

A fighter jet doesn't refuel in the air when it is empty...it rufuels before other options are gone so that if there is an issue with rufeuling that it can abort the mission still safely land elsewhere. a
a Shuttle crew going to the ISS is not doomed if it can't dock properly.

In contrast any technology waiting for astronauts in Mars orbit would be a crapshoot..lots of 'assumptions' that things are working and that some bolt wasn't knocked out of allignmnet on blast-off a hundreth on an inch ..or some piece of wiring hasn't shorted out. The life support system on the current ISS needs constant servicing from Earth.

 

[Polishguy]

Your making one big assumption that I believe is completely false and that is that life in space will be very much life here. That is incorrect for obvious reasons. People will not care about the Mars cycle because they will not be out doors. You will not have people walking outside on Mars to feel the nice cool breeze of CO2 in the -40 degree weather. Any civilization on Mar would be an indoor civilization where sunlight counts for pretty much nothing.

Actually, daylight is a big factor. It is infinitely easier to grow food in a thin plastic dome exposed to sunlight (UV cover included) than to harvest electricity and convert that to light. On the Moon, you'd need artificial lighting for the 14 day night. On Mars, you would just need to have a plastic dome. On Mars, this can be made from the local carbon and hydrogen. While hydrogen exists on the Moon in water, carbon exists only in trace quantities there. In addition, the lack of atmosphere on the Moon would mean that any attempt to use natural lighting would need several inches of glass to keep out solar flare radiation. On Mars, the atmosphere is sufficient for this. And the use of glass is problematic. While it's easy to make on the Moon, glass doesn't respond well to thermal stress resulting from the temperature change between day and night.

 

[DarkenedOne]

Actually, daylight is a big factor. It is infinitely easier to grow food in a thin plastic dome exposed to sunlight (UV cover included) than to harvest electricity and convert that to light. On the Moon, you'd need artificial lighting for the 14 day night. On Mars, you would just need to have a plastic dome. On Mars, this can be made from the local carbon and hydrogen. While hydrogen exists on the Moon in water, carbon exists only in trace quantities there. In addition, the lack of atmosphere on the Moon would mean that any attempt to use natural lighting would need several inches of glass to keep out solar flare radiation. On Mars, the atmosphere is sufficient for this. And the use of glass is problematic. While it's easy to make on the Moon, glass doesn't respond well to thermal stress resulting from the temperature change between day and night.

True it might be better for agriculture. However we have a long way to go before that.

When you think about space colonization you have to look at how colonization has occurred in the past. Look at how America was colonized. It was always done by people using mostly their own private money in search of a better life. Thus in order for space colonization to occur people will need economic, social, and political reasons to go.

Mars is much farther away from Earth than the Moon, thus it will cost much more in order to travel there. You also have to consider what economic opportunities will be there. None that I can think of right now.

The moon on the other hand has much better economics that will get people to colonize it. First of all it is a hell of a lot closer. Also being so close to the Earth it will be the location that will make it an ideal location to serve the Earth space market.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

We were talking about government operations here, the private sector can do what they please and I doubt they will be going to Mars before an international/government program does.

The Mars Base would do well to rely on ISRU, and in what way is agriculture a long way off? It can be done by the astronauts in a "Greenhouse" type dome with adequate soil and protection. The Mars atmosphere helps to block out all the harmful cosmic rays and solar radiation that you would otherwise receive on the moon. And as mentioned before, plants can not tolerate a 14 day period without light. And it takes a lot more power to grow them with electric light rather than using the sun.

A moon base will be able to generate some of its own resources, but it will require servicing from Earth as the ISS does. A mars base however can be fully self sufficient, and its a good thing because they are so far away. Mars is rich in the resources necessary for "normal" life.