The Moon or Mars which should be the first settlement?

[Queen of Hamsters]

Neither, save the planet we already inhabit first.

[cubby]

Moon. easier to evacuate if shit goes horribly wrong. plus all that free H3 and access to a lower gravity to help make alloys that are otherwise impossible here on earth.

How would that work - re the other alloys? I hadn't heard about that before.

- - - Updated - - -

Neither, save the planet we already inhabit first.

Because we can't do both?

[plz delete account]

How would that work - re the other alloys? I hadn't heard about that before.

Lesser gravity makes it much easier to make alloys from metals that separate naturally by density on earth.

- - - Updated - - -

Neither, save the planet we already inhabit first.

"we should save the planet by not offloading our manufacturing that produces greenhouse gases on a major scale to somewhere that the emissions won't fuck up the earth"

[plz delete account]

It doesn't matter what side you can still have micro debris that puncture your structure's that you cannot see and we do not have materials strong enough to prevent those impacts that are easily manufactured.

In 20 years of habitation on the ISS, their's only been two events that lead to anything remotely dangerous. One because the soviets drilling a screw too far (they fixed that with duct tape LUL), and the other was easily traced to a soviet capsule and fixed.

[cubby]

Lesser gravity makes it much easier to make alloys from metals that separate naturally by density on earth.

I think I might understand you - and I'm honestly just asking for myself and new info - I'll look this up and come back with some [hopefully] not too stupid questions.

(love your "location" note - too true)

[plz delete account]

I think I might understand you - and I'm honestly just asking for myself and new info - I'll look this up and come back with some [hopefully] not too stupid questions.

(love your "location" note - too true)

go ahead. Love spreading the knowledge around.
And it's pretty ontopic concerning hamster's comment in this thread imo

[Grimbold21]

Centuries from now, we'll basically turn into the folks from The Expanse

[Endus]

I'm gonna disagree with everyone saying "the moon". It's down a gravity well, and as far as we know, it's fairly resource-light. What real reason do we have for a significant permanent settlement other than scientific outposts?

Instead, pick either the L4 or L5 Lagrange point for the Earth-Moon system, and build a significant space station there. You can set the "gravity" to a more convenient level by adjusting rotation speed. You have the same challenges of building it to survive vacuum. The technological and material requirements really aren't any higher than a moon base. It's just as far from the Earth as the Moon (same orbit, in fact, just ahead or behind). And there's no gravity to deal with on approach or departure; it isn't at the bottom of a gravity well, even a relatively shallow one like the moon. That vastly reduces the fuel requirements to dock and depart, making travel to and from a lot cheaper (and, generally, safer; losing thrust means you drift, not crash in to the surface).

Obviously, even less local resources than the Moon, but that's an issue we'd be addressing with the moonbase, too, and there's solutions like orbital mining operations. In theory, you could stick the main transit hub base in the Earth-moon L4, and an orbital mining facility in the L5; transferring materials from L5 to L4 would be super cheap; you're paying for speed of delivery and that's about it. If you determine that you can handle a several month or even a year's delay, it wouldn't cost much at all, and that's just for the commencement of delivery, or for any changes in content; a regular resource supply run can arrive however often is convenient, it's just a matter of how many additional deliveries are en route at a time.

I don't think a Mars base as a first concrete settlement is a great idea. Too far, too much can go wrong. But the Moon has little to offer.

[Unholyground]

In 20 years of habitation on the ISS, their's only been two events that lead to anything remotely dangerous. One because the soviets drilling a screw too far (they fixed that with duct tape LUL), and the other was easily traced to a soviet capsule and fixed.

The ISS does not have the mass or pull the moon does though...

[plz delete account]

The ISS does not have the mass or pull the moon does though...

You're right, it's in a even more dangerous position and is endangered by even more space debris than what is found around the moon, and is high enough to be endangered by meteors, plus whatever micro comets and such are also up there.

[Unholyground]

You're right, it's in a even more dangerous position and is endangered by even more space debris than what is found around the moon, and is high enough to be endangered by meteors, plus whatever micro comets and such are also up there.

I was reading about it when there were talks about a moon base and pretty much unanimously they said it would have to be under the surface a few meters, if I find the info I will post it. Basically it is better to prevent the possibility altogether of impact related damage and going under the surface is the only way to guarantee it.

[Queen of Hamsters]

How would that work - re the other alloys? I hadn't heard about that before.

- - - Updated - - -



Because we can't do both?

Clearly not. We can't even do one of these things as it currently stands. Then comes years of innovation needed, testing on site, many lives lost to unforeseen issues, inevitable fighting between X countries over who's going to be the first to settle once we've worked out the problems "out-of-world" as we still haven't gotten over the idea of nations vs nations...

I'm usually a trotting optimist, but on this issue I'm a pessimist of the highest order. Just look at what's going down due to the loss of permafrost.

__________________________________________________________________________________________ ___

*snip*, not worth my time.

- - - Updated - - -

go ahead. Love spreading the knowledge around.
And it's pretty ontopic concerning hamster's comment in this thread imo

"If you don't agree with me you're derailing the thread"... Well, that's mature.

If you have a right to express your opinions, so do others. That attitude however means you're not worth my time.

[plz delete account]

Clearly not.

- - - Updated - - -



That's so far off into the future that it's not even relevant to the question.

By the time we can guarantee safe living and safe working conditions, safe construction and reliable transportations and storage on the Moon, the very real issues of our current planet will either have been rectified by work rather than dreams, or it'll be a lost cause as we failed at which point the space issue will be more about which rich people are allowed to start anew on a different world than altruism.

- - - Updated - - -



"If you don't agree with me you're derailing the thread"... Well, that's mature.

If you have a right to express your opinions, so do others. That attitude however means you're not worth my time.

You're so uneducated about this topic it's hilarious you've ignored literally every thing I've ever said and followed up with your personal headcanon of what's possible. go ahead, block me like you do everyone else who disagrees with you.

- - - Updated - - -

I was reading about it when there were talks about a moon base and pretty much unanimously they said it would have to be under the surface a few meters, if I find the info I will post it. Basically it is better to prevent the possibility altogether of impact related damage and going under the surface is the only way to guarantee it.

the underground thing is more for protection from radiation then it is micrometeorite impacts.

[Queen of Hamsters]

I was reading about it when there were talks about a moon base and pretty much unanimously they said it would have to be under the surface a few meters, if I find the info I will post it. Basically it is better to prevent the possibility altogether of impact related damage and going under the surface is the only way to guarantee it.

Is the surface of the moon structurally strong enough for digging and building within? Or would it be more a case of "ballooning" structures into the surface and allowing the dust to settle on top of the structures?

Where the hell did I even get that idea from, it was a show I saw some years ago...

[Unholyground]

the underground thing is more for protection from radiation then it is micrometeorite impacts.

Ya it probably is just a catch all solution, I am sure the radiation thing comes into play as well.

[XDurionX]

We'll be long dead before we'll be able to sustain a settlement on another celestial body. Really doesn't matter.

[PC2]

Neither, save the planet we already inhabit first.

Is your argument based on the idea that we shouldn't spend our time and resources on scifi endeavors because we have bigger real-world problems in the here and now?

I get your argument but at the same time the world spends trillions of dollars on art production and consumption which also falls under the same category in terms of opportunity cost and not having practical value.

[Queen of Hamsters]

Is your argument based on the idea that we shouldn't spend our time and resources on scifi endeavors because we have bigger real-world problems in the here and now?

I get your argument but at the same time the world spends trillions of dollars on art production and consumption which also falls under the same category in terms of opportunity cost and not having practical value.

Well, no. It's hyperbolical, obviously.

But it's pretty clear that we're already struggling with priorities. We have people still dying to starvation or lack of healthcare, add to that climate change and we're in for some pretty horrid years ahead.

As long as it's done alongside real, tangible changes meant to save the planet we already have, I'm all for it. Perhaps the space colonization will be the first time in the history where we won't see wars over new resources and it'll be considered a global practice rather than one carried out by X country laying claim to everything.

After Endus' post however, I'd still say neither Mars nor the Moon as a first outpost.

[Zan15]

https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/eh...apb-320-80.jpg
The Moon or Mars which should be the first settlement all things being equal?

Personally I’d go with the moon. Easier to get to so easier to send supplies until they become sustainable.

Neither how about we fix the settlements we have on earth first before we cluster fuck the moon.

[Endus]

I was reading about it when there were talks about a moon base and pretty much unanimously they said it would have to be under the surface a few meters, if I find the info I will post it. Basically it is better to prevent the possibility altogether of impact related damage and going under the surface is the only way to guarantee it.

Impact damage is vanishingly unlikely. Fresh impacts rarely happen.

Solar radiation is the bigger issue, with pretty much anything in the inner solar system. We're spoiled by the Earth's magnetic field. This is why astronauts generally have a limited amount of time they can effectively spend in space, over their careers; that radiation damage builds up and even with our current systems, it's not sufficient shielding for long-term health.