5 ms·

The only thing going for the moon is its proximity to Earth. Mars has more than double the gravity of the moon, an atmosphere, nearly earth-like day night cycle

The only thing going for the moon is its proximity to Earth. Mars has more than double the gravity of the moon, an atmosphere, nearly earth-like day night cycle and satellites have a much easier time orbiting mars

theseadroid 7y ago
And its proximity is probably the most important factor?
- btkramer9 7y ago
  I'm not so sure about that. It takes more delta-v to get to the moon than mars and both are still too far for immediate response to emergencies. Sure the moon has the advantage of emergency assistance of a few days (?) but I don't think that's more valuable than all of Mars's pros
  - jbattle 7y ago
    > It takes more delta-v to get to the moon than mars Is that true? I can't see how that'd be true, unless maybe you are considering aerobraking to enter mars orbit and parachutes for landing on the surface (?)
    - btkramer9 7y ago
      yes with aerobreaking but I still believe that includes a propulsive landing after. The moon has no atmosphere so it has to be propulsive landing 100%
    - kjs3 7y ago
      It's hyperselective framing the argument: bork bork Delta-V bork...and let's just ignore the 6 months of travel time and logistics difference as though that doesn't exist. Then I get to be right!
NortySpock 7y ago
The moon has water ice in dark craters, as well as minable ore that contain aluminum, iron, silicon and oxygen. You will "just" need to use heavy mining and smelting gear to extract it. Solar power and batteries should work assuming you're willing to build your base among the "peaks of [near] eternal light" which get sunshine nearly ninety percent of the time.
- btkramer9 7y ago
  This is mostly true on Mars too except perhaps the eternal light part
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    Mars has a lot more benefit here, in that it has a normal-length day. Much better to reliably have sunlight for roughly half of every day than to rely on a few polar areas that are in sunlight most of the time. The equator of the Moon is more suitable for other reasons, so what are you going to do, put the solar panels at the poles and run long power lines down to the equatorial regions where the power is used? Nah. Mars is better for solar power because you won't need nearly as much battery capacity, as you get light on a ~24 hour cycle same as Earth. The Moon with its slow rotation is much more challenging.
    - Someone 7y ago
      On the minus side, Mars gets less than half the amount of sunlight per square meter.
      - CydeWeys 7y ago
        That's true, but I think the fact that you get light reliably every day is still a big point in its favor. It's probably a lot less mass total to send up twice the solar panels and 18 hours' worth of batteries vs half the solar panels but 16 days' worth of batteries. Solar panels are pretty light; batteries are not.
    - 7y ago
kjs3 7y ago
The only thing going for the moon is its proximity to Earth. Oh...that's all. So let's ignore for just a second the logistical advantages of figuring out how to actually mount a manned mission to build something non-trivial on another body when you're 3 days away, not 6 months away. Pretend that isn't important. The moon has water, raw materials, enough gravity things don't just float away, abundant solar and we've already figured out how to get people there and back. We already have an MVP to build on. On the other hand, a manned Mars mission is still an un-funded wank-fantasy with a disturbingly high failure rate for the unmanned attempts.
- btkramer9 7y ago
  I've mostly addressed this in the siblings comments. Mars has all the same resources and more. The way humans went from the moon's orbit to surface is so far off from how it would be done today I would hardly call it and MVP. Both are too far for any meaningful emergency response. I believe the ongoing work with starship debunks your claim of an "un-funded wank-fantasy". The moon also has a disturbingly high failure rate for the unmanned attempts.
  - magduf 7y ago
    You think 3 days is "too far for any meaningful emergency response"? I mean, yeah, if someone needs to be in an ICU within an hour, that's too long, but if they develop a new coronavirus on the Moon, 3 days to get people back to Earth is not bad. By your logic, it seems like we should just give up on building any bases in this solar system altogether, and just start building a ship to go to Alpha Centauri.
    - btkramer9 7y ago
      I'm advocating to go directly to Mars and skip trying to figure out everything on the Moon first. The Moon is more difficult and has a lot less upsides. Obviously 3 days is better than 6 months. A lot more can be done with a shorter window. I just don't think it justifies passing up all the upsides Mars has to offer
svaigsq 7y ago
If Mars has atmosphere, then Moon has equally useless atmosphere, too. Despite differences in day length, Moon can gather more solar power, than Mars and energy is everything. Besides, those sattellites are gonna crash.
- btkramer9 7y ago
  I don't think your atmosphere comparison is valid. The moon has absolutely no atmosphere. Mars' is 1% of earth. That's still a lot of _something_. aerobraking, and easy access to unlimited CO2 is incredibly valuable. Delta-v to mars is less than the moon so the extra solar panels required is not that big of an issue. The moon will probably only be a research outpost because of its gravity and slow rotation. Mars on the other hand will most likely transition to nuclear eventually to sustain a city/colony and industry
  - jacobush 7y ago
    Ackshully Mars' atmosphere is famous for being rubbish for aerobraking but enough to burn you up.
ryanmercer 7y ago
Proximity matters a lot until you have sure-fire technology. If you have a critical failure on the moon, you are home in 3-4 days being debriefed. If you have a critical failure on Mars, it could be 2 years until your remains can be recovered and respectfully laid to rest. If you're testing a new technology and discover some serious flaw or major way to improve it and lack the materials to make an adjustment you could have that done and sent on the next trip in a week or a month or 3 months from Earth to the Moon. On Mars, you could be looking at 2+ years. On the moon you have to deal with power over a 13.65 day night, at first this could be achieved by simply having human missions only there for 2 weeks ~ at a time until you get enough power generation there (say a small reactor) to provide sufficient power constnatly. On Mars you have to deal with a night comparable in length to Earth but you have considerably reduced solar irradiance meaning if you use PV it's always going to produce less during the day. This makes the Moon a better candidate for testing power management, battery technologies, small reactors, etc. Any technology that can survive in the harsher conditions of the moon, will mostly work out of the box on Mars with the only real stuff needing custom-tailored being vehicles as the Martian and luanr regolith will vary enough (especially combined with the gravity differences) to require you to at least adjust suspensions and wheels.

theseadroid 7y ago

And its proximity is probably the most important factor?

btkramer9 7y ago
I'm not so sure about that. It takes more delta-v to get to the moon than mars and both are still too far for immediate response to emergencies. Sure the moon has the advantage of emergency assistance of a few days (?) but I don't think that's more valuable than all of Mars's pros
- jbattle 7y ago
  > It takes more delta-v to get to the moon than mars Is that true? I can't see how that'd be true, unless maybe you are considering aerobraking to enter mars orbit and parachutes for landing on the surface (?)
  - btkramer9 7y ago
    yes with aerobreaking but I still believe that includes a propulsive landing after. The moon has no atmosphere so it has to be propulsive landing 100%
  - kjs3 7y ago
    It's hyperselective framing the argument: bork bork Delta-V bork...and let's just ignore the 6 months of travel time and logistics difference as though that doesn't exist. Then I get to be right!

NortySpock 7y ago

The moon has water ice in dark craters, as well as minable ore that contain aluminum, iron, silicon and oxygen. You will "just" need to use heavy mining and smelting gear to extract it. Solar power and batteries should work assuming you're willing to build your base among the "peaks of [near] eternal light" which get sunshine nearly ninety percent of the time.

btkramer9 7y ago
This is mostly true on Mars too except perhaps the eternal light part
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  Mars has a lot more benefit here, in that it has a normal-length day. Much better to reliably have sunlight for roughly half of every day than to rely on a few polar areas that are in sunlight most of the time. The equator of the Moon is more suitable for other reasons, so what are you going to do, put the solar panels at the poles and run long power lines down to the equatorial regions where the power is used? Nah. Mars is better for solar power because you won't need nearly as much battery capacity, as you get light on a ~24 hour cycle same as Earth. The Moon with its slow rotation is much more challenging.
  - Someone 7y ago
    On the minus side, Mars gets less than half the amount of sunlight per square meter.
    - CydeWeys 7y ago
      That's true, but I think the fact that you get light reliably every day is still a big point in its favor. It's probably a lot less mass total to send up twice the solar panels and 18 hours' worth of batteries vs half the solar panels but 16 days' worth of batteries. Solar panels are pretty light; batteries are not.
  - 7y ago

kjs3 7y ago

The only thing going for the moon is its proximity to Earth. Oh...that's all. So let's ignore for just a second the logistical advantages of figuring out how to actually mount a manned mission to build something non-trivial on another body when you're 3 days away, not 6 months away. Pretend that isn't important. The moon has water, raw materials, enough gravity things don't just float away, abundant solar and we've already figured out how to get people there and back. We already have an MVP to build on. On the other hand, a manned Mars mission is still an un-funded wank-fantasy with a disturbingly high failure rate for the unmanned attempts.

btkramer9 7y ago
I've mostly addressed this in the siblings comments. Mars has all the same resources and more. The way humans went from the moon's orbit to surface is so far off from how it would be done today I would hardly call it and MVP. Both are too far for any meaningful emergency response. I believe the ongoing work with starship debunks your claim of an "un-funded wank-fantasy". The moon also has a disturbingly high failure rate for the unmanned attempts.
- magduf 7y ago
  You think 3 days is "too far for any meaningful emergency response"? I mean, yeah, if someone needs to be in an ICU within an hour, that's too long, but if they develop a new coronavirus on the Moon, 3 days to get people back to Earth is not bad. By your logic, it seems like we should just give up on building any bases in this solar system altogether, and just start building a ship to go to Alpha Centauri.
  - btkramer9 7y ago
    I'm advocating to go directly to Mars and skip trying to figure out everything on the Moon first. The Moon is more difficult and has a lot less upsides. Obviously 3 days is better than 6 months. A lot more can be done with a shorter window. I just don't think it justifies passing up all the upsides Mars has to offer

svaigsq 7y ago

If Mars has atmosphere, then Moon has equally useless atmosphere, too. Despite differences in day length, Moon can gather more solar power, than Mars and energy is everything. Besides, those sattellites are gonna crash.

btkramer9 7y ago
I don't think your atmosphere comparison is valid. The moon has absolutely no atmosphere. Mars' is 1% of earth. That's still a lot of _something_. aerobraking, and easy access to unlimited CO2 is incredibly valuable. Delta-v to mars is less than the moon so the extra solar panels required is not that big of an issue. The moon will probably only be a research outpost because of its gravity and slow rotation. Mars on the other hand will most likely transition to nuclear eventually to sustain a city/colony and industry
- jacobush 7y ago
  Ackshully Mars' atmosphere is famous for being rubbish for aerobraking but enough to burn you up.

ryanmercer 7y ago

Proximity matters a lot until you have sure-fire technology. If you have a critical failure on the moon, you are home in 3-4 days being debriefed. If you have a critical failure on Mars, it could be 2 years until your remains can be recovered and respectfully laid to rest. If you're testing a new technology and discover some serious flaw or major way to improve it and lack the materials to make an adjustment you could have that done and sent on the next trip in a week or a month or 3 months from Earth to the Moon. On Mars, you could be looking at 2+ years. On the moon you have to deal with power over a 13.65 day night, at first this could be achieved by simply having human missions only there for 2 weeks ~ at a time until you get enough power generation there (say a small reactor) to provide sufficient power constnatly. On Mars you have to deal with a night comparable in length to Earth but you have considerably reduced solar irradiance meaning if you use PV it's always going to produce less during the day. This makes the Moon a better candidate for testing power management, battery technologies, small reactors, etc. Any technology that can survive in the harsher conditions of the moon, will mostly work out of the box on Mars with the only real stuff needing custom-tailored being vehicles as the Martian and luanr regolith will vary enough (especially combined with the gravity differences) to require you to at least adjust suspensions and wheels.