4 ms·

This logic applies just as much to the Moon, but no one seems to be lining up to board lunar colony ships.

• googlryas 4y ago
  There are no lunar colony ships.
  • idlewords 4y ago
    There are just as many lunar colony ships as Mars colony ships.
    • googlryas 4y ago
      Which tons of people signed up for a yearlong simulation of run by NASA. Granted, I bet a lot would drop out if presented with the actual prospect of spending a year in a bubble with 5 others.
• ben_w 4y ago
  FWIW, I think we should aim for the moon before mars. Things will go wrong, the moon is close enough to mount a rescue if that problem is “the food is all gone”, whereas Mars… the gap between launch windows is long enough for things to go from “fine” to “everyone’s starved to death, including the ones who turned to cannibalism to survive”. Then there’s the practicalities: while the moon has long days and nights, there’s no global dust storms, and we can send power from the light side to the dark side with a simple wire (the lunar regolith and the vacuum are both insulators, there’s nothing alive or tectonic to mess with one just draped on the surface, only impacts). The Martian atmosphere is so thin it’s only useful for aerobraking and drones, not breathing, and the lack of atmosphere on the moon means non-rocket-based launchers are much easier, which in turn makes the long-term economics easier (though still terrible with current tech).
• lmm 4y ago
  Mars is easier to send material to; gravity and rotation are also better there.