Buzz Aldrin wants a Mars colony

[Hauldren Collider]

If the idea is to mine asteroids, then Mars would be a better choice: closer to the asteroids, and you're much less likely to inadvertently crash the asteroids into Earth (presumably you'd be mining the asteroids from the moon by setting them up in orbit - I doubt you're making repeated round-trip to the asteroid belt).

Still, the most likely result of a Mars colony is a lot of dead colonists.

Why not set up a base on an asteroid?

[Hauldren Collider]

By the way, all of this is totally academic wrt to the economics since natural resources like metals are abundant enough already on earth and will be for the foreseeable future.

[Elok]

I think a better idea is to colonize the ocean floor and wake up Cthulhu

I'm good with this. The first part, at least.

(just read The Mountains of Madness--was rather underwhelmed by Lovecraft's style)

[loinburger]

I prefer his short stories to his novellas - try "Colour Out of Space"

But for the most part, it's a good idea to read Lovecraft and his contemporaries so that you can appreciate modern Lovecraftian horror (which often presupposes knowledge of e.g. Cthulhu, Nyarlathotep, Shoggoths, Hounds of Tindalos, etc).

[Sava]

By the way, all of this is totally academic wrt to the economics since natural resources like metals are abundant enough already on earth and will be for the foreseeable future.

The scale of economy involved in the sort of human expansion necessary to undertake inter-planetary construction projects would likely result in exploiting resources in amounts that would be a significant proportion of the total mass of our planet.

The needs of the foreseeable future are miniscule in comparison.

Such grand visions are far from setting up a habitable tin can on the surface of Mars... which I acknowledge is the focus of this discussion. But if we're going to imagine possibilities... I tend to want to go big or go home.

[snoopy369]

How do you know that? 1. Why is it a useful stepping stone to the asteroid belt more than the moon, and b. what do you think it has that the moon doesn't?

The moon has a lighter gravity well and is closer, and probably some areas of the moon have deposits of metal ore that can be used to build spacecraft if that's your meaning of stepping stone. Mars has extremely harsh weather, is far away, and has a much larger gravity well than the moon. It would probably be less of a technical accomplishment to build a habitat on the moon than on Mars, because there wouldn't be any adverse weather and getting supplies there is easier. Remember, we've already solved the problem of keeping humans underwater indefinitely (nuclear submarines, limited only by food), and the only obstacle to indefinite living in space is bone and muscle decay from microgravity, and the moon has gravity.

Powering stuff on the moon would also be way easier. It's much closer to the sun AND there's no atmosphere, so solar panels are vastly more efficient, and there are areas in nearly perpetual sunlight. Furthermore, thanks to the lighter gravity well and proximity to the earth, it would be much simpler to move nuclear reactors there.

Conclusion: Mars colony = stupid.

Mars almost certainly has more useful ore on it (iron for one ). Mars gravity is pretty light - 1/3 Earth gravity approximately, or about 2x the moon's gravity. That 2x is not trivial of course, but it's nothing like Earth. Mars also has significant amounts of water on it, and most importantly is closer to the asteroid belt. The additional gravity would certainly help prevent muscle decay (although not permanently).

Finally, we've been to the moon. Going to Mars would be a Kennedian feat of grandeur that would excite the country and drive innovation. Going to the Moon again, even to build a colony, would generate a lot of yawns.

[Guynemer]

Still, the most likely result of a Mars colony is a lot of dead colonists.

Only if you trade the natives some guns and horses. That always comes back to bite you on the ass.

[snoopy369]

I don't know if a Mars colony would make more or less sense than a Moon colony, but I do know it makes more sense not to send humans at all except as a form of dick waving.

Don't underestimate the importance of dick waving.

[Hauldren Collider]

More ore != more useful ore. There are plenty of unexploited oilfields out there with ****tons of oil, but we don't exploit them because there are cheaper ones. Also, the moon's pretty ****ing big.

Also, the moon would be a useful staging area for future missions to Mars and the asteroid belt. Moon first, then maybe mars.

[Hauldren Collider]

Don't underestimate the importance of dick waving.

Dick waving with the soviet union was important because the silly people across the world still hadn't made up their minds on the whole communism vs. capitalism thing. Do we really need to dickwave with, e.g., China?

[snoopy369]

To ourselves, mostly.

[Colon™]

I think people are missing we are talking about an actual colony here, a place where people would settle down permanently, raise families and which would be economically self-sufficient (meaning that what inhabitants produce covers the cost of all it needs to survive). If space mining would be economically feasible and it'd necesarry to build a staging post or a depot on Mars or the Moon, I doubt we'd need a permanent human population for that, if any humans at all. Think robot oil platforms rather than Jamestown.

[Pax]

In order to colonize the moon or mars there has to be a need. New markets or new resources.

[Pax]

Or more room.

[DaShi]

Only if you trade the natives some guns and horses. That always comes back to bite you on the ass.

That's why we trade them a giant diamond.