Current Events > Why not establish a base on moon first before going to Mars

(+) Yeah! (+)

Has to happen

---

First

Because the moon is our asteroid shield. It be kind of dumb to do it. Also we want to terraform Mars eventually, we don't want to terraform the moon.

---

We still need a base

---

yutterh posted...

Because the moon is our asteroid shield. It be kind of dumb to do it. Also we want to terraform Mars eventually, we don't want to terraform the moon.

Some time ago I heard some rich entrepreneurs were playing with the idea to do so, but nothing serious is going there yet concerning a moon base. Also, placing a moon base on the side that always faces Earth should solve the asteroid problem or at least minimize the risk.

---

It just adds 3 days onto a 7 month journey.

---

Water

---

The Kids Next Door already have a base on the moon

---

yutterh posted...

Because the moon is our asteroid shield. It be kind of dumb to do it. Also we want to terraform Mars eventually, we don't want to terraform the moon.

There'a space station in, well, space, so I guess that means we've already terraformed space and um, I suppose now that a space station is in space the space asteroid shield is, err... gone?
I don't get your logic.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAX2H0hpOc4

---

Thompson posted...

There'a space station in, well, space, so I guess that means we've already terraformed space and um, I suppose now that a space station is in space the space asteroid shield is, err... gone?
I don't get your logic.

How is having a space station terraforming space? Another postered knew what I meant by Astrid shield by saying to put the base on the side that wont be getting hit with asteroids. Terraforming Mars as in eventually. So we want yo have a base up there to get people used to living on the planet and doing research. Terraforming is the long ended goal. I dont get your logic.

---

yutterh posted...

How is having a space station terraforming space? Another postered knew what I meant by Astrid shield by saying to put the base on the side that wont be getting hit with asteroids. Terraforming Mars as in eventually. So we want yo have a base up there to get people used to living on the planet and doing research. Terraforming is the long ended goal. I dont get your logic.

Well... I think you implied that it's not worth setting up a base on the moon since the moon cannot be terraformed. As if terraforming is the only reason to set up a base there. But maybe it's not a good idea to put a base on the moon afterall, since as you said the moon shields Earth from asteroids and putting a base there means it will be wrecked by space boulders, whereas Mars has... two pebbles that offers no asteroid protection at all.

---

Why is a Base needed on the moon?

in 5 thousand years, assuming humanity hasn't killed itself big assumption, we might make an attempt at terraforming venus. but mars? why the hell would we waste our time on an energy poor low gravity shithole like mars?

---

sabrestorm posted...

Why is a Base needed on the moon?

if fusion doesn't stay science fiction, a base there would be great for all the helium-3

---

monkmith posted...

in 5 thousand years, assuming humanity hasn't killed itself big assumption, we might make an attempt at terraforming venus. but mars? why the hell would we waste our time on an energy poor low gravity shithole like mars?

Venus is full of super volcanos that create a greenhouse effect in the atmosphere so the surface is hundreds of degrees. It's not likely we'd be able to plug all those up.

We should be focused on taking care of this planet before thinking about moving to another

---

Thompson posted...

Well... I think you implied that it's not worth setting up a base on the moon since the moon cannot be terraformed. As if terraforming is the only reason to set up a base there. But maybe it's not a good idea to put a base on the moon afterall, since as you said the moon shields Earth from asteroids and putting a base there means it will be wrecked by space boulders, whereas Mars has... two pebbles that offers no asteroid protection at all.

Thank you, that's better to understand where the disconnect came from. Sorry for explaining better. Well another poster suggested helium-3 mining on the moon so that would be a hood thing but I really see no value for building a base on the moon except maybe a supply depot for Mars. While yes mars doesn't have asteroid protection it is a huge planet and the base is less likely to get hit compares to the moon. As far as terraforming goes. Beside the idea of colonizating another planet and bringing a dead planet back to life as being a awesome journey, I feel investors would pay more to launch missions to mars compared to the moon because of it. The moon just isn't exciting anymore and people are attracted to the bigger achievement of colozining another planet. While I do now agree that we should make a international moonbase, mars is just more grandiose compared to the moon.

---

Make sense to me. The Mood first. A base would be awesome. Like in some Steam games.

yutterh posted...

While yes mars doesn't have asteroid protection it is a huge planet and the base is less likely to get hit compares to the moon

Hold on a moment.
A large planet is a bigger target for asteroids than a smaller moon. Also, Mars being larger means its gravitational pull is stronger, potentially attracting more asteroids than the Moon (which by the way orbits a relatively huge asteroid magnet called Earth).
Earth's primary defense against asteroids is its atmosphere. Smaller rocks will burn up or shatter upon entry. Mars' thin atmosphere, however, won't do anything substantial to hinder or eliminate space rocks.

---

Thompson posted...

Hold on a moment.
A large planet is a bigger target for asteroids than a smaller moon. Also, Mars being larger means its gravitational pull is stronger, potentially attracting more asteroids than the Moon (which by the way orbits a relatively huge asteroid magnet called Earth).
Earth's primary defense against asteroids is its atmosphere. Smaller rocks will burn up or shatter upon entry. Mars' thin atmosphere, however, won't do anything substantial to hinder or eliminate space rocks.

I'm saying it has a wider surface area, so less likely chance of it getting hit. But your right that it doesn't have much of a defense. But I'm sure the base would be built in a low asteroid spot and they have done some research on that.

---

yutterh posted...

I'm saying it has a wider surface area, so less likely chance of it getting hit. But your right that it doesn't have much of a defense. But I'm sure the base would be built in a low asteroid spot and they have done some research on that.

they'd build the bases underground. mostly because the lack of an atmosphere or magnetosphere means that cosmic radiation would be a huge problem that would be most easily mitigated by building underground.

---

Xavier_On_High posted...

It just adds 3 days onto a 7 month journey.

But it removes the need for your vehicle to get out of the Earth's gravity well. You could take one shuttle to the moon, then they'd have specialized craft to a station over Mars that don't need all the features to survive a planetary ascent/descent.

---

Lets just skip Mars and go to Pluto

Marerials.

It would take a lot of material so set up a moon base; and a shit load of time.

Better to skip it, save the materials for the Mars base, and save the time.

---