10 ms·

I would rather see the moon colonized than Mars. First, it has a resource that has economic value both there and here on earth: H3. Second, transporting that

by spc476 10y ago

I would rather see the moon colonized than Mars. First, it has a resource that has economic value both there and here on earth: H3. Second, transporting that H3 would be cheap (as it's going "down hill" so to speak). There's also water, which makes it a bit cheaper to support a lunar colony. It's close by and we could certainly learn a lot about self sufficient support on alien worlds.

snrplfth 10y ago
Not that people shouldn't go to the Moon, but there are a few 'amenities' that make Mars more attractive for a lot of people: - Water and free carbon dioxide are hugely more abundant on Mars than on the Moon. These are essential supplies for increasing biomass and making fuel. - There's a nice, somewhat-protective atmosphere. - There's a 24.66 hour day. - Temperatures are relatively moderate.
- pmoriarty 10y ago
  There's also the possibility of starting a greenhouse effect on Mars[1], which would make it more habitable. No such possibility on the Moon. [1] - http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6908408/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/greenhouse-effect-could-make-mars-livable/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6908408/ns/technology_and_science-...
  - snrplfth 10y ago
    True - over the long term it has more potential.
DennisP 10y ago
I think a lunar colony would be great but helium-3 isn't a good reason for one. If you can get net energy by fusing He3, you can also do it by fusing deuterium, which is easier. And the end product of deuterium fusion is He3! (Half the time directly, the other half producing tritium which decays to He3.) So instead of sifting through millions of tons of dirt on the moon, you can just make He3 on Earth and gain energy in the process. Deuterium fusion produces neutrons but they're lower energy than D-T neutrons. Fusion startup Helion (funded in part by YCombinator) is working on a hybrid D-D/D-He3 fusion reactor, and says only 6% of the output energy would be as neutron radiation.

by spc476 10y ago

snrplfth 10y ago

Not that people shouldn't go to the Moon, but there are a few 'amenities' that make Mars more attractive for a lot of people: - Water and free carbon dioxide are hugely more abundant on Mars than on the Moon. These are essential supplies for increasing biomass and making fuel. - There's a nice, somewhat-protective atmosphere. - There's a 24.66 hour day. - Temperatures are relatively moderate.

pmoriarty 10y ago
There's also the possibility of starting a greenhouse effect on Mars[1], which would make it more habitable. No such possibility on the Moon. [1] - http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6908408/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/greenhouse-effect-could-make-mars-livable/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6908408/ns/technology_and_science-...
- snrplfth 10y ago
  True - over the long term it has more potential.

DennisP 10y ago

I think a lunar colony would be great but helium-3 isn't a good reason for one. If you can get net energy by fusing He3, you can also do it by fusing deuterium, which is easier. And the end product of deuterium fusion is He3! (Half the time directly, the other half producing tritium which decays to He3.) So instead of sifting through millions of tons of dirt on the moon, you can just make He3 on Earth and gain energy in the process. Deuterium fusion produces neutrons but they're lower energy than D-T neutrons. Fusion startup Helion (funded in part by YCombinator) is working on a hybrid D-D/D-He3 fusion reactor, and says only 6% of the output energy would be as neutron radiation.