The most sensible way to develop these technologies is to colonize the Moon first.
It is obviously much nearer, travel is much simpler and cheaper, and communication is near instant (1s delay vs. ~30 minutes).
It is obviously much nearer, travel is much simpler and cheaper, and communication is near instant (1s delay vs. ~30 minutes).
It is not really an issue whether the Moon is relatively more hostile. It is a minuscule complication, if one at all, compared to the issues with going to Mars, of which fuel is also a small issue that we know how to overcome.
As mentioned this is not a technical/scientific issue. It is simply that Mars is more 'exiting' and creates more buzz because it is the 'next frontier' while humans have already been to the Moon.
Then name any scientific value of manned moon missions and compare them to the fact Mars may have or had life.
Then compare 1/6th gee in a vacuum alternatively frozen and roasted over two week periods, to 1/3 gee in an actual atmosphere with moderate climate and abundant water.
Colonizing the Moon is a big step up. One progresses better when they have a step by step plan.
In my view, targeting Mars and ignoring the Moon is not a rational approach, it's an emotional and PR-driven driven approach. It's a less effective use of resources but grabs more headlines. There is also obviously the race aspect and the drive to be the first to reach a place.
But in the long term I suspect that reality will catch up with the hype and that actual colonization of Mars will be preceded by a step on the Moon.
My point is to do both. Do things we've never done on the moon (colony/industry) while at the same time doing the things we've never done on Mars (set foot).
• Mars requires less fuel to reach and land on, and you can land far larger cargo and crew on Mars.
• Its far easier to make fuel for return trips on Mars. This is an enormous force multiplier, enabling landing even larger cargo and crews.
• The moon is a barren desert with far less scientific value and far fewer usable resources.
• the moon is far more hostile to human life. It’s temperature extremes are about four times as great, and last two weeks vs a single day. Mars is awash in water at every location, the moon is virtually devoid of water. Having an atmosphere,,even a thin one makes Mars much more habitable.
Also you can easily make return fuel on Mars, which massively changes your payload to fuel ratio for the trip there.
Regardless, I don't think risk of death should dissuade humanity from doing things as long as the people at risk are aware of it.
I don’t understand the attraction, but there are tens of thousands of people who want to risk their lives to live on Mars, it’s part of the human exploration gene.