U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Space
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Moon Base, Mars Base or Neither
Moon 15 62.50%
Mars 4 16.67%
Neither. Let the robots do all the dirty work. 5 20.83%
Voters: 24. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-23-2017, 12:14 PM
 
Location: New Mexico
3,988 posts, read 1,751,109 times
Reputation: 3752

Advertisements

Yes, the moon is a good place to start. Experiment, see what we can do with lava tubes for habitat, work with regolith, work out how to seal tubes, insulate them, what we can manufacture onsite, search for water ice we can process for O2 & fuel, & so on. See what we can do in terms of self-sustaining food, water cycle, air cycle, plants, maybe livestock (more likely algae or textured soy, but still, we should try). Lots of mass, we can shield from solar flares & such much more easily than free-floating in orbit or out past the moon's orbit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-08-2018, 12:18 PM
 
Location: Norman, OK
2,668 posts, read 1,253,484 times
Reputation: 779
The Moon is closer and we've been there before, so I'd say that's a better place to put our first base. It's only a few days to go from the Moon to the Earth, whereas Mars is several months away, so resupply missions to the Moon would be easier. The only ways Mars would be easier are that Mars gravity is closer to Earth gravity, Mars has more water, and the day length on Mars is similar to that of Earth. Both places would need significant shielding from UV and cosmic radiation AFAIK.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2018, 01:24 PM
 
5,203 posts, read 8,204,697 times
Reputation: 3188
Quote:
Originally Posted by srfoskey View Post
The Moon is closer and we've been there before, so I'd say that's a better place to put our first base. It's only a few days to go from the Moon to the Earth, whereas Mars is several months away, so resupply missions to the Moon would be easier. The only ways Mars would be easier are that Mars gravity is closer to Earth gravity, Mars has more water, and the day length on Mars is similar to that of Earth. Both places would need significant shielding from UV and cosmic radiation AFAIK.
Another problem to overcome with Mars is that the surface soil is toxic with perchlorates which can be a problem for trying to grow plants. The soil can also be toxic to microbes because of UV radiation which can kill cells within seconds. Mars gets a lot of UV radiation because of the planet's weak atmosphere. It's my understanding that the soil can be neutralized, but that's going to require some pretty significant equipment and time. Assuming enough soil can be neutralized to use for growing plants, the plants will need nutrients to grow. Mars does have mineral nutrients, but there might not be enough of all that's required in a given location. I think it can be done, but again, it's going to take both equipment and time to collect it. Even if Martian soil isn't used and plants are grown hydroponically, it will still require essential mineral nutrients. The alternative would be to haul sufficient amounts of fertilizers (nutrients) on the spacecrafts and landers. I would guess such supplies would need to be replenished with additional fertilizers delivered by additional spacecrafts. Some fertilizers could be produced by saving food scraps and human waste. The 2020 rover is expected to be equipped to dig into the soil about 2 meters (6.5 feet) deep which should be less toxic, and perhaps deep enough for microbes and bacteria to survive if any exist. In any case, it would be essential to avoid tracking in any contaminated soil dust inside the habitats. That to can be accomplished with more equipment. Being able to survive on Mars would be a major task, one that could take quite a while to accomplish successfully.
https://www.aol.com/article/news/201...here/23021117/

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/e...ed-planet.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2018, 10:01 AM
 
33,706 posts, read 17,275,623 times
Reputation: 18491
Well, I'll go against the grain and say that the Moon is a dead-end. Not much is gained from parking anyone or anything at the bottom of that gravity well, doubly so as there's no aerobraking - we have to spend fuel to get there, spend fuel to kill our speed so we can land, then spend fuel to claw our way up again.

Go where we're going. (Asteroids would be way interesting, incidentally.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2018, 04:25 PM
 
537 posts, read 238,576 times
Reputation: 697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
Well, I'll go against the grain and say that the Moon is a dead-end. Not much is gained from parking anyone or anything at the bottom of that gravity well, doubly so as there's no aerobraking - we have to spend fuel to get there, spend fuel to kill our speed so we can land, then spend fuel to claw our way up again.

Go where we're going. (Asteroids would be way interesting, incidentally.)
Asteroid Bennu is about to get a visit from NASA, landing on it 2018. Hitch a ride and save the fuel.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2018, 09:41 PM
 
5,203 posts, read 8,204,697 times
Reputation: 3188
Water on Mars may have gotten a little bit easier to find, according to a recent JPL article. It's not in liquid form but rather ice buried beneath the surface of a steep scarp. It might be relatively easy to extract. If people are ever sent to Mars, such locations might be good spots to set up a base. Apparently there are 8 scarps that have been discovered to be similar with water ice. I suspect it would still have to be purified before taking a sip.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techn...ure/ar-AAuzs3p

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/spac...ssions-n837001

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7038
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2018, 08:08 AM
 
Location: Bellmawr, New Jersey
272 posts, read 122,060 times
Reputation: 223
Moon but ultimately neither. We fked up Earth, we should try and fix here before run away and fck some other planet up
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2018, 01:22 PM
 
Location: Brooklyn, New York
3,918 posts, read 3,981,510 times
Reputation: 3799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muevelos View Post
Moon but ultimately neither. We fked up Earth, we should try and fix here before run away and fck some other planet up
The beauty of other celestial objects is that there is nothing there to mess up, there is no ecological environment to disturb. Those worlds are dead. Even having a nuclear/chemical waste site would be an improvement of what's there at the moment...which is nothing but rocks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2018, 10:19 PM
 
Location: PRC
3,231 posts, read 3,360,329 times
Reputation: 2950
We really do not need to consider fuel. We do not need to consider time to travel. We already have all that sorted out.

Probably about 60% of us at least, have seen things in the sky we cannot explain. We have to assume they are military craft and, as such, we have the technology to not worry about fuel or how we would get anywhere. We cannot keep citing fuel and time of travel as constraints. They cannot be aliens - right? So.. they must be military.

What we need to consider is HOW we are going to do it and what safeguards we are going to put in place to stop us making a rubbish-dump of wherever we go. There is already a long list of objects which have been dumped on the Moon and as soon as we return there will continue to be bits and pieces which we leave scattered about on the surface. We just dont have the maturity and responsibility to visit anywhere without trashing it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2018, 10:33 PM
 
Location: PRC
3,231 posts, read 3,360,329 times
Reputation: 2950
Quote:
Even having a nuclear/chemical waste site would be an improvement of what's there at the moment...which is nothing but rocks.
Really? Thats what we are told, yes.

However, we are also told by scientists studying Mars that there is a radioactive signature which cannot be from a natural source. It HAS to be weapons grade materials exploded on the planet. ( PDF - 46th Lunar and Planetry Science Conference 2015)

What other anomalous events or situations point to past planetry life?

Last edited by ocpaul20; 01-16-2018 at 10:35 PM.. Reason: add url
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Space
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top