>I agree in a saner world we'd have built a Moon base first, and then moved on from there.
Mars is more livable than the moon because it has atmospheric CO2, (more) water, and a better mineral story.
>Today, parents can and regularly do make decisions about their children's mental and physical health that are absolutely known to be detrimental.
After decades of parenting and diet fads followed by a replication crisis, it's clear that nothing which filters down to the parents could be called anything close to known (much less absolutely).
Mars is more livable than the moon because it has atmospheric CO2, (more) water, and a better mineral story.
The goal of a Moon base is not living there, it's building from a place near to Earth but outside the gravity well. Martian atmosphere and water are a pie in the sky. If we're unable to build a base in the Moon, how are we supposed to do it in Mars? If we can do it in the Moon, it would be incredibly useful for preparing a Mars base.
That's all pretty obvious and it was the plan half a century ago. The only reason Mars is getting so much attention is to captivate our imagination. But what's the real purpose of living in Mars? I can't see the reason. I do see why it would be useful to send humans to space in general.
Or, as I always say when this comes up, start with a base on the top of Mt Everest. Much more similar to Mars, and definitely cheaper to try. With all the challenges of no breathable air, storms, inhospitable rocky terrain, bleak environment.
If this seems ridiculous or impossible, then that's the state of our Mars colony ambitions as well.
There is already an undersea base for training astronauts for the ISS. There is also the ISS, which is already a significantly more challenging environment than Everest. Although it would be nice to have scientific outposts in all of these places, one must bear in mind that these things are very expensive, so the cost/benefit of the scientific value has to be weighed carefully. The cheapest option is not always the best value.
A lunar space station called LOP-G (lunar orbital platform gateway) is presently planned, and although it is a "smaller step" it is being widely attacked for not being useful.
So Everest would be possible? Am I hearing that? No launch costs, you can walk away if you need to (depending on the weather). Has to be cheaper by billions than an orbital station.
It would absolutely be possible to have a base on the peak of Everest. I think you can even get up there with helicopters. The only question is, what would be the scientific value? Astronauts do not go to the ISS just because they love living in cramped quarters for six months... ;)
Live for a year without resupply, generate own heat and power, prove you can survive. And do useful work. Before committing human beings to Mars. The topic of this discussion.
It seems a bit as if you're not reading my comment in the context it was intended for.
> Mars is more livable than the moon because it has atmospheric CO2, (more) water, and a better mineral story.
The post I was answering posited a Moon base first because it's a less ambitious test bed, and I think that is largely correct. I was not making the case for a self-sufficient Moon colony instead of colonizing Mars.
> it's clear that nothing which filters down to the parents could be called anything close to known (much less absolutely).
It is very hard to make that argument convincingly in the face of, say, honor killings. Yes, theoretically you could argue that parents who intentionally harm their child technically do not "know" any better. But if we are talking on that level, that is certainly not an argument in support of why giving birth to a baby on Mars is somehow worse.
Mars is more livable than the moon because it has atmospheric CO2, (more) water, and a better mineral story.
>Today, parents can and regularly do make decisions about their children's mental and physical health that are absolutely known to be detrimental.
After decades of parenting and diet fads followed by a replication crisis, it's clear that nothing which filters down to the parents could be called anything close to known (much less absolutely).