Space/Science — HabitableZone

Space/Science » in reply to re: We might not be here without the Moon

re: Is Mars that much more interesting than the Moon?
Raoul — (archived)

The question is: is Mars that much more interesting and worth spending tax money for a manned trip to it...and not the Moon?

Or : is Mars that much more hospitable as another land for humans?

There was a time when O'Neill asked if any planetary surface is worth for humans to live on and that's how he developped his Islands in space theories.

There is a world much better suited for humans than the surface of Mars: Venus, 55 km from its surface: atmosphere 1 bar, 9/10th earth's gravity, temperature: 50 degrees C. But, ok, it's not a surface....

I don't think Mars is suitable as a place for humans to settle on. To explore, yes, and that also means the Moon and other worlds too. Because the presence would be short.

But if it's about settlements, space stations are an answer: much closer to Earth, with or without an artificial gravity as much as 1G or less.

I've been fascinated how much ideas like O'Neill's and Zubrin's respond more to the mood of the time than to facts. Of course, one builds on the mistakes of the previous ones and also on how advanced the technology is or seems to be.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (43 posts)