Newt and Moon Colonies: Wouldn't a Colony on Mars make a heck a lot more sense?

[BrentWil]

I only mention this because a major Presidential campaign, Newt Gingrich, said that he thought a moon colony was a good idea and the moon could become a State if it got 50K people. While that idea may be crazy, lets just assume that it isn't for a second.

Mars has an atmosphere and water. Moreover, if you went to Mars to stay, it wouldn't be that expensive, at least compared to a Moon Colony. Mars to stay is actually an idea that might work ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_to_Stay ) , at least when compared to a Colony on the Moon. The major reason is because more of the basic pieces are already there to become self sufficient.

[Saving Hawaii]

1. You know, I hope I never see the moon as a "state". Not in my lifetime.

Treat it like Antarctica. A place where all nationalities are welcome to entertain themselves.

[Xipe Totec]

2. It's a subliminal message, to the Moon Pie Masses.... nt

[napoleon_in_rags]

6. Moon, Colon-y, it all sounds so heterosexual...

Who could it be aimed toward? Do tell?

[Xipe Totec]

9. Mitt?... nt

[Bjorn Against]

3. We can't even get a single person to Mars yet, much less build a colony

The amount of resources it take to build a colony is enormous, to transport all the people and resources that it would take would not be feasible. And even if we could do that, I don't agree that the basic pieces are already on Mars to be self sufficient. Where do you get food or water? The climate there does not exactly lend itself well to farming. Scientists have found some evidence that there might be small pockets of water under the surface of Mars, but nothing to suggest there is enough water to sustain a colony.

[BrentWil]

5. Water is there....

With water there is food. And evidence does suggest that there is enough water at the polls. I am just suggesting that it makes sense in comparison to the Moon. The moon is a rock, and that is it.

[gristy]

8. neither make much sense

The moon makes no sense because as you say, it it a rock and that is it.
Mars makes no sense because with its mean surface level atmospheric pressure is 0.087 psi with 95% carbon dioxide, it isn't going to support people or the crops that would be needed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars

[BrentWil]

25. No, it would take effort...

But it is better then the moon, if you are picking

[Bjorn Against]

12. I am very skeptical

Even if there is water, that does not necessarily mean food. You need to be able to farm or hunt for food, but they have yet to show that there has been any life on Mars and if there is life it is probably extremely simple life forms such as bacteria. It is possible you could build some sort of structure there which would allow them to grow certain crops in a controlled environment, but the amount of work and resources it would take to sustain just a small number of people is enormous.

[BrentWil]

15. Of course there wouldn't be food.

However, sending supplies one way wouldn't be that bad. And you could start them down the road of using the water for farming, etc. Theoretically, everything is there to move in the direction of self sufficiency.

[Bjorn Against]

16. Do you realize the amount of resources it would take to ship materials to Mars?

We are talking many millions of dollars for each shipment of materials and it would take months for it to get there. The cost of creating a self sufficient colony on Mars is astronomical and it is difficult to see how the limited benefits would make it worth the cost.

[BrentWil]

18. Not as bad as you think...

The real cost of sending stuff now is the fact that the robot or whatever has to do things when it lands. If you are simply sending tools and supplies for humans to use, the cost will be much less.

[Bjorn Against]

20. I have a hard time believing that

The fuel costs alone would be enormous as would the cost of the shuttles. I have a difficult time believing that the main costs associated with such a trip currently are that the "the robot has to do things", I would think that the cost of building and transporting that robot is far greater than the cost of operating it.

[BrentWil]

23. The robots actually do cost a lot..

http://www.space.com/10762-nasa-mars-rover-overbudget.html

[Bjorn Against]

26. I never said they did not, but they certainly cost a lot less than a colony on Mars

[BrentWil]

28. Certainly... but if the choose is to spend billions/trillions..

On a colony on Mars or the Moon, Mars would be much better. If you had to pick.

[NBachers]

4. I think it would make a great prison.

[Paulie]

11. That works fine for a while

Till they start throwing rocks down the gravity well. See: TANSTAAFL

[eppur_se_muova]

7. Newt is a pseudointellectual, so he doesn't do this "sense" business.

Check out Robert Zubrin's ideas, forerunners to the Mars to Stay idea:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_for_Mars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct

He points out that there's not all that great a reason for colonizing the Moon -- Mars is much better able to serve as a source of raw materials, particularly water/hydrogen, carbon, and (to lesser degree) oxygen.

[BrentWil]

13. Thats the point..

If you going to spend billions on this.. Mars would be a better point.

[bananas]

32. Gingrich also said a continuous propulsion system for getting to Mars quickly nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. Make sense for what?

It takes months to get to and from Mars. It takes a lot of energy to get anything up from the surface of Mars and back to the Earth. What is your purpose of establishing a colony? Newt's is to make himself look good, which means he wants it by the end of the 8 year term he foresees for himself. No-one, no matter how much money they throw at it, is going to get people to Mars and back again by 2020, let alone build a 'colony'.

If your purpose is an emergency, independent, group of humans, in case the whole of Earth is wiped out, then Mars might be better (less solar power, and colder, but more water). But that's a project for centuries ahead. There are far more pressing engineering projects on Earth (clean power and the reversal of global warming, for instance).

[AnotherMcIntosh]

14. Which one would cost more? Which one would squander more public funds?

[BrentWil]

17. Well, I think it would be startup versus long term costs. NT

[Bjorn Against]

19. Both startup and long term costs would be very high.

The idea that we can have a truly self sustaining colony on Mars any time soon is not realistic. There is no manufacturing infrastructure on Mars and it is unrealistic to think such infrastructure could be built there any time soon. In order to create a permanent settlement on Mars you need some high tech goods and those goods are going to need to be shipped from Earth to Mars quite regularly for at least decades.

[XemaSab]

21. Unless we went to Mars to terraform the place

I dunno why anyone would want to go there. Ditto for the moon.

Sorry to sound like a hater, but all of this sounds ridiculously expensive with very little to show for it.

[BrentWil]

22. The base parts would be there to do just that

It would be a long term goal.

[XemaSab]

27. It would be such a long-term goal that I dunno

that we would need a full-time presence on Mars.

Seeding the place with lichens and backing off for 500 years would probably be an optimal first step.

[customerserviceguy]

24. If you're going to get minerals, energy, whatever

from outer space, the moon would be much, much closer than Mars. Frankly, it seems feasible only to get energy from near-earth orbit, if they're going to beam some down to collection sites on Earth. That would create Space Coast jobs, too.

While it's tempting to knock the space program ideas of Newt Gingrich, let us not forget that fifty years ago, a President and his VP were able to capture the national imagination with this concept. It does seem like a decline of American power that we no longer have a healthy space program anymore, and I would imagine the people of eastern Florida would feel that most acutely.

[BrentWil]

30. The biggest cost on distance is getting out of the earths orbit...

With that said, Mars would be more then simply a rock.

[pokerfan]

29. Gingrinch's proposal is illegal

Art. II of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967: Outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means;

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty_of_1967#Article_II

[BrentWil]

31. I assume if it happened, we would vacate that treaty..

We can do that.

[pokerfan]

35. We always have

No wonder we need a military greater than the rest of the world combined.

[Johonny]

33. I wonder why noone points this out

I mean it's all fun and games to laugh at him, but he is also basically saying saying he would violate international law and start an arms race in space.

[RZM]

34. Probably becuase he was just pandering to voters on the space coast

It's not a coincidence that he said this while campaigning for the Florida primary.

Truth is, President Newt wouldn't do shit about the moon. Remember Bush talking about the moon? Remember what he then did, moon-wise? Yeah, me neither

[xfundy]

36. Newt? He's much more suited to Uranus.

[mojowork_n]

37. The moon has Helium 3

It's the only reason I've ever heard anyone suggest it could be a good idea to go there.

He3 isotope of helium that has potential for use as a fuel in 'safer, cleaner' nuclear fusion
reactors. One space shuttle's pay load of He3 would be (the claim is made) enough to supply
the total energy needs of the United States for one year:


http://www.explainingthefuture.com/helium3.html

Because of the atmosphere, there's next to zero He3 here on this planet.