Can someone please explain to me why this idiot wants to go to mars instead of making a moon base?

Can someone please explain to me why this idiot wants to go to mars instead of making a moon base?

>Mars is 6-9 months away, if anything happens on mars you are fucked
>moon is close and can rescue get supplies and rescue parts in a short time
>Virtually no coming back from mars
>No H3 to mine
>No magnetic shielding
>No confirmed water
>Moon can be used for space port and space craft building for future studies

Why mars instead the much closer and cheaper moon?

Other urls found in this thread:

theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/03/antarctica-1961-a-soviet-surgeon-has-to-remove-his-own-appendix/72445/
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/51/70505
popsci.com/carbon-nanotubes-cant-handle-space-elevator
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Because the moon landing was fake and they don't want to reveal the film studio on the dark side.

But seriously. It's about achievement and culture I guess.

H3 mining is retarded futurist nonsense that will never be economical, even if fusion reactors became a reality today.

Getting significant amounts of water from Martian regolith is not believed to be a problem.

The notion that the moon is 'closer' to Earth, and can be used as a port in between other destinations, fails to take into account astrodynamics, in which delta-V is the main consideration.

Mars has an atmosphere (which is extremely handy for ISRU), has fairly heterogeneous regolith, and is overall the most Earth-like planet in the solar system.

>Because the moon landing was fake and they don't want to reveal the film studio on the dark side.

That doesn't even make sense. How would it expose it as fake?

Because the robots made the movie, no human crew.

You do realize there's been tons of Russian landings, a Chinese landing, and you can see the shit everyone leaves behind still up there.

Fucktard.

Publicity, pure and simple. There's nothing on Mars that can't be found for far less effort closer to Earth.

>More resources to establish a base
>Less energy required to send a large lander to Mars
>Mars is better for colonization

>Mars has an atmosphere
Not really, not to mention phobos will likely blow up mars surface and tear up the atmopshere in the process

he might have been sarcastic, you know

not that guy, but you should realize that he was joking. he tried to give you another hint here
now that i've spelled it out for you, try not to take everything so seriously all the time. autist.

This

because moon is already an alien base.

>Less energy required to send a large lander to Mars

What? Mars is way farther away and has a short window for launches

>and is overall the most Earth-like planet in the solar system.
Venus is far more earthlike for floating habitats
Everything on mars will be done remotely, just like on Venus, however you'll have a nice temperature/atmosphere, unlimited wind energy, and 90% of a G which may or may not be extremely important

But, given the amount of Flat-earth/9-11/moonhoax shitposting that goes on this board, I cant really blame him for not taking the sarcasm...

aerobraking is free delta V

because the moon is easy

>floating habitats
Not this shit again

?
Enjoy walking around on mars in a fucking spacesuit, and counting the days until you get organ failure from the low gravity

Meanwhile I'll be flying a glider around on venus

If you set aside the difference in distance from Earth, Mars is objectively a far better colonization target in every single way. It's not even easier or more fuel efficient to launch moon missions. The return on investment for Mars is far greater too.

I can drop a list of points if you like.

No it's not

Venusfag is as stubborn as a klingon and as unrelenting as a romulan

>Venusfag is as stubborn as a klingon and as unrelenting as a romulan
kek
And he never goes away, like some sort of Dominion super-herpes

>counting the days until you get organ failure from the low gravity
No research on this yet, one-third gravity is not the same as no gravity

Venus has no way to gain local resources or an effective way to resupply floating habitats without basically flying a missile into it.

You would have something similar to elevators

>I can drop a list of points if you like.
That would be great so we can use it as a copypasta for people who in the upcoming months will be asking the same question on WHY NOT THE MOON IT HAS H3!!!!!

Well I certainly won't disagree with all that. But then again I also think zepplin/airship technology shouldn't have been abandoned when it was. With all of our advances in aerodynamics since the piston age it could've been glorious.

Do we even have any use for H3? Isnt it just toted as a fuel for the currently non-existent fusion reactors?

>Epstein Drive when???

>I was only joking, I'm not samefagging at all!!!

Double Fucktard.

H3 is only good for research purposes at this point, and even then we can basically make it on earth easier for the limited tests we run

Because humans have never left earth and everything is only a show to keep you from asking important questions, like why aren't we told earth is flat

>muh MOON

We could go to an entire new planet and you want to go to the shitting moon? Are you kidding me?

Because Musk is a smart man that understands people's motivations.

The number of people who actually give a shit about space exploration is small, and the number that care about Luna even smaller because most of them are hopping up and down screaming MARSMARSMARSMARS!

In their minds there's no point going to the moon because we "been there done that"

But Luna has great potential for astronomy, controversial scientific research and tourism. In Futurama Bender joked about a moon park with black jack and hookers, but that might actually be a good idea. A lot of casinos have a minimum pay to play amount, some stupid people dump everything they have into the game. If the casino was on the moon just being there guarantees you're rich enough to play in a high stakes game. Also nobody can tell you not to fuck whores--who makes the laws on the moon? Nobody. There are thousands of millionaires who are curious about space and wouldn't mind spending a weekend on the moon, but don't necessarily want to live there for years as they'd have to on Mars. For Luna you could take off on Sunday and be back home on Earth by Saturday.

See above
To be fair, if humans are serious about colonizing space Mars is the only reasonable choice. Unless you like aerostat/blimp cities on Venus.

>inb4 muh terraforming or muh hyperdrive derps

people think distance matters. But if shit goes wrong on moon or mars, you are fucked with our current space tech. However, with 3d printing and such mars is much more forgiving than the moon, especially to micro meteors

Well, let's see…

• Greater variety of raw materials
• Much greater quantity of raw materials
• Raw materials are more readily available for consumption (atmosphere, huge slabs of ice)
• 1/3 Earth gravity is a hell of a lot more than 1/6 (moon) and will most certainly have greatly reduced detrimental effects
• The martian atmosphere, even being as thin as it is, reduces fuel needed for landing there
• Surface temperatures are FAR more temperate than those of the surface of the moon
• Ambient radiation on the surface of Mars is far less than that of the surface of the moon
• Martian colonies would give us a second entirely separate (and far less fuel intensive) launch point in the Solar System positioned perfectly for science and industry in the asteroid belt and giving a second set of launch windows
• Genetic modification of plants to grow on the Martian surface is within reason, but 100% impossible on the moon

the lack of hydrogen to make water makes venus shit though not to mention going to orbit is much much harder. we also lack any kind of experience in construction of floating habitats. on mars that stuff can atleast be simulated to a degree.

thanks man

Wouldn't floating habitats also be much easier on mars as well since wind systems and such are much easier to predict unlike venus where 1000+ mph are common?

no confirmed water? on mars? are you retarded? curiosity even proved there is much more water on mars than we thought up to 12 percent of the regolith in some samples were ice. not to mention the poles wich are not only made up of dry ice but also regular ice.
also the moon severely lacks ressources, the low geological activity and lack of an athmosphere etc. mean that you dont really have ores anywhere instead most metals etc. are pretty evenly distributed throughout the regolith.

moon
>no atmosphere
>basically no magnetic field
>gravity is all fucked up
>struck by 5 tons of comet every day, not safe and dust always flying about
>nothing useful inside of it
>OP trying to act like he knows what he's talking about in any way as if he's flabbergasted that Elon Musk could even conceive such an idea

shut the fuck up OP. you're probably some 18 year old that is maybe in his first year of university who shitposts on Veeky Forums instead of studying

we can just use tritium made out of lithium instead though. or wait until it decays into he3 and use that. as long as he3 competes with tritium its not going to be competetive.

Ho2 I mean not carbondioxide shit

28 days long day/night cycle is the biggest factor.
It pretty much limits you to polar regions for sunlight. But even then, you'd have to land on a fucking peak/crater rim to get the sunlight.
If you could somehow do it, exploration would be a no-go, as surrounding terrain would be chaotic as fuck. The Sun being low on the horizon would compound the problem, elongating every asperity's shadow to infinity.

That's not necessarily true. It depends on the situation.

We don't know what sort of affects low G will have on babies. It will probably make weaker bones, but that may not be permanent and there's a difference between micro-gravity, 1/4 gravity and 1/16 gravity. If a woman gets pregnant she can come home and stay for 9 months, skipping all that. On Mars this is impossible, distance DOES matter.

If man's appendix swells and is about to burst he can come back to Earth and have it removed at any hospital....interesting related story:
theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/03/antarctica-1961-a-soviet-surgeon-has-to-remove-his-own-appendix/72445/
>this requires a level of badassness I could ever hope to achieve, what sort of man could cut into his own guts? I'd just fucking die.

what are you on about I just said confimed HO2 on mars as ice in the mars dust and as part off the ice on the poles. the OTHER part of the ice being CO2..

>I just said confimed HO2 on mars as ice
source?

>28 days long day/night cycle is the biggest factor.

No it's not. Have you've never heard of fuel cells? RTGs? Every module could have it's own. Maybe even some kind of modular PM-3A nuclear reactor for the entire site.

Good luck with thermal management.

This is why the transition between 5-man outpost to 100+ colony to 1000+ city must happen as quickly as possible if human presence on Mars is to have any level of permanence. It's also why any form of manned Earth to Mars transportation after the first couple of flights needs to be able to carry more than 5-10 people.

You need specialists from as many fields as possible to make long-term habitation feasible, which means that sending people to Mars is an all or nothing endeavor. You can't just throw 5 guys in a tin can at Mars once every launch window.

Didn't say babies, chances are if you are born on mars you ain't going to earth any time soon you'd be a space baby for life, or you'd need some really fucking intensive phyEd program for it

>I have no idea what I'm talking about
the post

Imagine growing up knowing that you're the first individual in the hundreds of thousands of years of your species' history to be born both on Mars and anywhere other than Earth. It'd be a hell of a trip.

Don't need luck, we have multiple demonstrated spacecraft examples for 2/3 of my suggestions. Most were in the past, some are still currently operating.

How can you not be aware of this?

Also, if when I mentioned an RTG you're thinking of that scene in the Martian where the guy actually puts one inside his habitat volume that's not at all the implementation I would suggest, but assumed that was obvious.

Do you even lift?

Is it worth sending a Bowflex to Mars for the colonists or should they just bring in big rocks for their gym. I wouldn't waste resources 3D printing a fancy weight set.

>Luna

You do realize that's the Latin word for moon right?

You don't call Earth "Terra" do you?

Well I'm curious how you propose to generate power to heat your base for 14 days strait without any solar input.

Fuel cells would require a constant flux of hydrogen/oxygen to be shipped there.
RTGs are fine for probes or rovers, but not for bases. We're running out of plutonium for them anyway.
So we're left with nuclear reactors. Congratulations, you've solved your heating the base problem. Now the problem is to avoid frying the astronauts.

>Fuel cells would require a constant flux of hydrogen/oxygen to be shipped there.
Yeah. And? oxygen and hydrogen will have to be shipped there anyway, would you like to guess why?

>RTGs are fine for probes or rovers, but not for bases.
Why aren't they? Do you really think that they can not be scaled up or just have multiple RTGs for one habitat.
>We're running out of plutonium for them anyway.
We're not running out in the sense that there just isn't anymore that exists, we simply need to ramp up production again--litterlly the only thing needed to do that is gov approval.
>So we're left with nuclear reactors. Congratulations, you've solved your heating the base problem. Now the problem is to avoid frying the astronauts.
Well yes, I suppose the astronauts will be fried if they live in the same place where the reactor is located, but any reasonable person understands that you do not do this, you put the reactor in a crater 60 miles away. Believe it or not, there are ways to transport power over distance.

But you wouldn't need to ship them on Mars.
Which actually remove the need for the nuke options. Which would be much easier there, btw, because there's a medium in which to dissipate heat.

>have H2O on mars readily available

This solves a fuck load of problems by this one simple fact

Moving the reactor far away means you can't use it for hear, but then if you can transport the power with cables or via microwaves I suppose you can also transport heat by piping out heated water (SOME most needs to be kept for the reactor).

True, but I see no reason why we shouldn't have people in both places. The Moon and Mars will require different things.

>The Moon and Mars will require different things.

yes, Mars requires less of them

Don't be so autistic, not everyone who wants to visit space wants to be there for a long time, and they shouldn't have to there's a market for both.

I was merely stating that if you were to look at things required that mars would require less of everything compared to the moon. Even if you counter in radiation for travel.

>Even if you counter in radiation for travel.
So you're saying 6 months of radiation from interplanetary travel is no big deal?

depends how you shield it, relandable rockets make it affordable

>To be fair, if humans are serious about colonizing space Mars is the only reasonable choice.

Absolute bullshit, pic related.

Hey, I work in LA...should I buy a new home in Pasadena or THE MIDDLE OF THE MOJAVE DESERT?

Best bet for mitigating radiation risks is just to speed up the craft to shorten travel.

They should be researching a higher powered version of VASIMIR to cut journey time down to 40 days.

>muh L1 tube

So tired of seeing this meme vasimir 40 day travel everywhere. It's sci-fi figures all the way. From power generation to propulsion efficiency, not to mention super-conductor materials that we don't even know can even exist.
It's oversold tech to make a living of pretend to develop technology to milk NASA.

Can't land on the moon because of the space Nazis

>muh L1 tube

L5, numbskull.

And anyway, before he invented those things, O'Neill was ardent about first building a moonbase for resources.

Gotta walk before you can run. This guy gets it, though...Musk is a genius at self promotion. SpaceX exists solely to relieve the US of the embarrassment of launching astronauts and payloads on Russian rockets, but there he is, catering to fantasies centered on Matt Damon movies...

Musk has a dream and it is a big dream.

Hey tard you don't land on the moon to refuel, you do it in lunar orbit or in some orbit between geo and llo.

You process moon rock into fuel in then drop it in lowish earth orbit

Suppose you are getting energy from Mars, when you set up the generators, how do you get energy from Mars to Earth?
You send batteries back and forth?

Most if not all of the Flat-earth/9-11/moonhoax shitposting are ironic though

Kennedy said:

"Not because they are easy, but because they are hard".

We arent in the cold war anymore but we are still simians. Meaning we have to constantly prove ourselves or other apes will think we are weak.

Some esoteric knowledge that will really reshape humanity.

>Meaning we have to constantly prove ourselves or other apes will think we are weak.
This. Chimps will rip us to fucking shreds if they see our weakness. The only apes that aren't waiting for the moment to become the dominant species are bonobos because they're too busy fucking to start war.

>Suppose you are getting energy from Mars

No.

>when you set up the generators

What generators?

>how do you get energy from Mars to Earth?

Why would we be doing this? Are you mentally challenged?

>Wanting to fly through a carbon dioxide atmosphere filled with sulfur clouds
You're a big guy

You know, if overpopulation starts to be a serious thing, there are lots of vacant places on earth with much more favorable conditions than other planets, like the deserts, and the poles, and the oceans.

Mars is 6-9 months away
PLUS
1 year waiting for a good return orbit
PLUS
6-9 months return

Mars is 2 years away.

It's more easy

Wouldn't it be an idea to test out shit like habitats, power-generation, life support, shielding and so on on the Moon before going of to Mars? In a perfect world where budgets dont exist and all that crap, but still...

floating habitats were only proposed for Venus because the surface is uninhabitable (its hotter than the surface of mercury IIRC)
I read somewhere once that making the first martian base in a crater was still being researched, makes scenes given pic

You can return immediately or something

Its actually slightly illegal to go back to the moon:

law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/51/70505

>(a)Establishment.—
>As the Administration works toward the establishment of a lunar outpost, the Administration shall make no plans that would require a lunar outpost to be occupied to maintain its viability. Any such outpost shall be operable as a human-tended facility capable of remote or autonomous operation for extended periods.

>(b)Designation.—
>The United States portion of the first human-tended outpost established on the surface of the Moon shall be designated the “Neil A. Armstrong Lunar Outpost”.

Bout fuckin time, it seemed like no one has the sense to attribute its [Mars] proximity to the fuckin Asteroid belt - raw material.

Fuckin amateurs, speculating amusement parks and general faggotry, baka, it's all about that fuckin pantheon of platinum statues.

Mars is closer to Titan, which is the most viable candidate in the outer solar system for further colonization.

Prove me wrong.

Nothing wrong with a carbon dioxide atmosphere, sulfur is very low concentrations.
Wheras on mars you are literally living in a fucking vacuum.

Really, venus is far more practical as a long term colonization target.

Why not both?

>>ironic
Have you argued with these people? I'm sure a lot of them are religious cultists.

Also look at flat earth videos and how many upvotes they get. There are tons of people that believe this crap.

I have heard it argued that, given the fact that Mars has some atmosphere and almost surely has frozen water, that even though it takes longer to reach, sustaining a base there would be easier.

Of course, the downside is that the Earth obstructs your view of Venus, oh my.

>Not really,

Yes, really. Not a breathable one, but it has one, that gives you benefits like moderation of temperature extremes, etc.

>not to mention phobos will likely blow up mars surface and tear up the atmopshere in the process

Phobos is pretty small, even if it did for some reason impact the planet in the lifetimes of any of us or our descendants for many generations.

>nice temperature
>Venus

Wat cat demands an explanation, are you mad of liquid lead or something?

Not any time soon you wouldn't.

popsci.com/carbon-nanotubes-cant-handle-space-elevator

Hard to make things float in a thin atmosphere though. An airship that would fly easily on Venus might struggle to get off the ground on Earth and be essentially a surface structure on Mars.

De fuck is Ho2? Is that some Veeky Forumsmeme I don;t know about? Just trying to keep up...