Missions to Mars

[Aggie]

I'm a little peeved and a lot curious about why there seems to be a lot of emphasis in the media about missions focused on getting humans to Mars (and presumably back), such as Inspiration Mars (http://www.inspirationmars.org/) and Mars One (http://www.mars-one.com/).  The latter especially makes me a little irate, for one simple reason...  we haven't even attempted a lunar colony yet. I'm not saying that there is a good reason to set up human settlements on Luna, but wouldn't it make sense to start there if we're really interested in doing the same thing on Mars? 

Humans haven't really left Earth orbit to date, so other than the romance of the next great conquest, why do we think this will be a good use of resources and end in something other than tragedy? There still seem to be a heap of technological issues (especially with regards to cosmic radiation) that need to be overcome.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

There is a feeling that the moon is old news (in the mind of the public) so talking about Mars sounds more exiting, particularly to raise funds, plus there is a much better outlook colonizing Mars than the Moon (as thin as the atmosphere is, it's much better than the moon, and the gravity is higher), but I do agree that whatever tech is needed in Mars would be cheaper to test and implement in the Moon not counting with the drastic difference in distance that makes things like a rescue plausible.

There are a number of plans for lunar bases, right now I recall a Japanese one, and while a mission to Mars may happen sooner, chances are that with the availability of commercial rockets the Moon will have bases first (besides, once there is one base close to water in the Moon you can be sure of a race from the space powers to reach whatever else is available, or outright take ownership of whatever gets there).

[Griffin NoName]

Either way I doubt we can evict many of homo sapiens before the Great Climate Change destroys life on Earth. I don't see any justification in space exploration while the money spent on it would be better spent on helping feed all those who are starving right under our noses.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

We do produce more than enough food for everybody, it's just that there is no incentive to do so, same thing with water (obviously there are some relocation issues for that).

OTOH I do firmly believe that going outside Earth is a necessity, not only for resources, but to realize how important it is to protect what we have. Living in Mars, or worse, the Moon it's way harder than living in the most remote Antarctic base and only the realization of that fact will motivate people on Earth to take better care of her.

As for the impending environmental doom it will be bad but not the end by any means, yes, it will bring displacement, famine and war, not counting the countless species going extinct, but it will not be the end.

[Griffin NoName]

We may produce enough food for everyone, but we don't seem any good at getting it to the places that need it. People in Syria are eating grass. If they were to evolve four stomachs like the cow fairly swiftly this may not be a problem, but it seems unlikely.

IMHO I think you have too willingly to believe character that humans will realise earth is easier to live on, better look after it I haven't come across anybody who follows space science and concludes, aha Earth is a better environment. They have fairly simple objectives like getting excited to find water etc.

And lastly, I also foresee the impending doom much the same way as you descibe, but man/woman better get on and re-learn how to make fire, how to spin wool and weave ropes. Never mind hunting with spears.

[Swatopluk]

Two more US states have put punitive taxes on solar power (or are at least are in the process of doing it). One of the them is the Sunshine State.
Guess, which party runs those states.

(the official reason btw is that citizens producing their own power hurts the economy, in partiicular a certain industry that is already heavily subsidized)

[Griffin NoName]

That is ludicrous.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Reelecting the idiot governor didn't help.

[Aggie]

And lastly, I also foresee the impending doom much the same way as you descibe, but man/woman better get on and re-learn how to make fire, how to spin wool and weave ropes. Never mind hunting with spears.

Ayuh, I'm not a doomsday survivalist type, but I'm a firm believer in keeping alive the skills necessary to survive if the shit does hit the fan. I also see a solid set of DIY skills the way to loophole the inequality in wealth distribution that seems to characterize this age.  As someone from the middle class, you have two choices: Join the elites or learn to live well with very little money. I believe in diversifying one's genetic investment, and my sister married a doctor, so it's up to me to live high on the low road, so to speak.

there is a much better outlook colonizing Mars than the Moon (as thin as the atmosphere is, it's much better than the moon, and the gravity is higher)

Atmosphere is relevant if we are talking about planetary terraforming and geoengineering, but won't make a lick of difference in the short term (during initial colonization); we'll need enclosed environments either way. An atmosphere also means contending with weather.  You do have a point on gravity, if we're talking about permanent settlements, but a lunar colony could at least be a bit of a commuter population and return to Earth periodically. Obviously, we won't see long-term settlements anywhere unless there is an economic (industrial) motivation to do so.  Scientific expeditions are worthwhile, but there are no condos in Antarctica yet, afaik.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I'm convinced that the cost to go (probably even more than the cost to stay) is what prevents would be settlers going anywhere. Commercial interests are -for the same reason- more likely in the Moon than in Mars at this point, but there's still plenty relatively easy to extract minerals in Earth to motivate economic interests either in the Moon, Mars or the asteroid belt.

What motivates would be settlers at this point is more the adventure aspect, and later, space tourism (which again is hampered by the cost of transportation). If the price to go to the Moon goes down to $10K I bet you'll have a line of people willing to go. So far the whole go to low orbit for a few minutes for $250K has a waiting list but not that many people can afford it, nor is it that alluring.

[Aggie]

Even $100,000 for an all-inclusive week-long stay on the moon would probably be an easy enough sell, provided it was profitable at those numbers.

I'll agree that tourism is a more likely driver than resource extraction or the like in our lifetimes.  I suppose there could be a case in the future for setting up manufacturing facilities on the moon in order to use it as a launching station for deeper-space missions.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

There's no shortage of Titanium (the Moon) or even Iridium (the asteroid belt) to justify mining in our lifetimes. Even rare earths which are supposedly in short supply depend more on the availability of processing than the actual minerals available on Earth.

At this point even with a very 'cheap' fare to the Moon it wouldn't pay for mineral exploitation, but who knows, perhaps hyperdrives require lots of Iridium to work...

[Swatopluk]

I think ³He is the only resource the moon has to offer that could be of interest in the near future.