The Instigator
samsun01
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Peter_10
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Moon is better to colonise than Mars

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/7/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 541 times Debate No: 101587
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

samsun01

Pro

First round is acceptance
Peter_10

Con

First round is acceptance. All right.
Debate Round No. 1
samsun01

Pro

Firstly , the moon is closer than mars from our Earth.
The colonization of the Moon is proposed and is establishment of permanent human communities or robotic industries on the Moon.Discovery of lunar water at the lunar poles by Chandrayaan-1 has renewed interest in the Moon.

A lot of focus over the past 12 months has been on NASA's journey to Mars. But a group of space experts, including leading NASA scientists, has now produced a special journal edition that details how we could establish a human colony on the Moon in the next seven years - all for US$10 billion.

According to the research papers, the lunar base would house around 10 people for stays of up to a year at first - and could eventually grow to a self-sufficient settlement of 100 within a decade.

Mars is covered up of 95% Carbon-Di-Oxide , Several elements have been detected in the lunar atmosphere. The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter recently detected helium. Detectors left by Apollo astronauts have detected argon-40, helium-4, oxygen, methane, nitrogen, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide.Oct 15, 2012
Peter_10

Con

I am asserting that colonizing Mars would be a better choice for humans than colonizing the Moon. It is because contrary to the Moon, Mars has more available resources, easily accessible water, more suitable gravity and atmosphere, and better temperature. Below are my supporting arguments, re: colonizing Mars is better.



Definition of terms: colonize - to send a group of settlers in some place to live there.



Resources/Materials


Take note that here I am not talking about the cost and materials needed to send people into the Moon or Mars; I am talking about the resources available and abundant in each of the celestial bodies.


Mars is abundant in carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen, all in biologically readily accessible forms (Zubrin, 1996). On the other hand, according to Zubrin, the first three only exist in the moon in parts per million. Oxygen is abundant on the Moon; however, it is not readily accessible because it only exists in firmly bound oxides.


The Moon is (almost) devoid of other minerals/elements such as copper, phosphorus, or sulfur, unlike Mars. As stated by Hynek (2003), “volcanism has been a paramount aspect of martian surface evolution and this process has been active throughout much of the planet's history.” Pursuant to that fact, Mars is likely to have consolidated multifarious elements into large concentrations of ore. The Moon has no history of volcanic (or even hydrologic) processes; hence, we cannot say that it is as rich in elements and minerals as Mars. So, if we were to manufacture/construct buildings, electronics, power generators, etc. in either place, Mars would be a better choice because we would not need to import materials.



Availability of Water


As stated by Atkinson (2015), “there is water on the Moon’s surface, but interior could be dry.” The Moon is so dry that colonists would have to mine concrete-like materials to get the water out.


Almost all water on Mars is frozen, so it would have to be dug up, melted, and separated from soil particles; nonetheless, the process would not be as complicated and difficult as the case of the Moon. Moreover, as surprisingly as it is, liquid water is confirmed to flow on Mars in the present time, as per NASA’s 2015 data.



Gravity and Atmosphere


Mars’ tenuous atmosphere, which is mainly composed of CO2, can be used alongside increased ammonia levels to create an ozone layer thick enough to block deleterious solar radiation (Exploring Space, 2005). By freeing water, accelerating plant growth, and raising the temperature of Mars using Greenhouse gases, Mars could have an Earth-like atmosphere. On the contrary, the Moon has an atmosphere which is composed of an unusual set of elements, including sodium and potassium (NASA, 2013).


To keep the atmosphere from escaping the planet/moon, gravity is an imperative. The surface gravity on Mars would be able to keep an Earth-like atmosphere better than the surface gravity on the Moon. It is because the surface gravity on Mars is roughly 3.711 meters per second per second (38% of the surface gravity on Earth), whereas on the Moon it is 1.622 meters per second per second (17% of the surface gravity on Earth). By the way, lower gravity also implies that it would be harder to move on the Moon.



Temperature


The temperature on the Moon’s surface ranges from -183 to 106 degrees Celsius, while on Mars the surface temperature varies from -153 to 20 degrees Celsius. The range is lower on Mars, so I surmise it would be more suitable for humans.



Rebuttals


“Firstly, the Moon is closer than Mars from our Earth.”


Yes, that is true. However, what use is the short distance if we would have to import materials from earth to the Moon repeatedly for it is not abundant in elements such as copper? It would take a longer time to colonize Mars, but the result would be beneficial in such a way that we would not any more need to import resources from earth.



“The colonization of the Moon is proposed and is establishment of permanent human communities or robotic industries on the Moon.”


Read this: http://www.nss.org...



“Discovery of lunar water at the lunar poles by Chandrayaan-1 has renewed interest in the Moon.”


With all due respect, that may be true; however, according to my argument above getting water on Mars would be easier to achieve than on the Moon.



“A lot of focus over the past 12 months has been on NASA's journey to Mars. But a group of space experts, including leading NASA scientists, has now produced a special journal edition that details how we could establish a human colony on the Moon in the next seven years - all for US$10 billion.”


I will not be convinced unless presented a reputable source. A link to the source would do.



“According to the research papers, the lunar base would house around 10 people for stays of up to a year at first - and could eventually grow to a self-sufficient settlement of 100 within a decade.”


Whose research papers? I am sorry but I need a reputable source for this.



“Mars is covered up of 95% Carbon-Di-Oxide, Several elements have been detected in the lunar atmosphere. The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter recently detected helium. Detectors left by Apollo astronauts have detected argon-40, helium-4, oxygen, methane, nitrogen, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide.Oct 15, 2012”


The atmosphere of Mars is composed mainly of carbon dioxide. Interestingly, the Moon’s atmosphere is composed of unusual elements like potassium. However, like I stated in my arguments, the Moon’s atmosphere escaping is inexorable due to its low surface gravity.



References:


http://www.nss.org...


https://www.researchgate.net...


https://www.universetoday.com...


https://www.nasa.gov...


http://www.pbs.org...


https://www.nasa.gov...

Debate Round No. 2
samsun01

Pro

Sorry I forgot to mention the sources of my first argument

Sources of First argument:-

http://www.sciencealert.com...
http://www.popsci.com...
https://futurism.com...

Coming to my last round's argument

The planet Mars has been associated with its namesake god of war for millennia, but its own past may have been more violent than was previously imagined. A new study suggests that Mars was once hit by an asteroid so large that it melted nearly half of the planet"s surface.Researchers came to this conclusion while studying a strange feature known as the Martian hemispheric dichotomy"a dramatic drop in surface elevation and crustal thickness that occurs near Mars" equator. In the northern hemisphere the land"s elevation is on average about 5.5 kilometers lower and the crust is around 26 kilometers thinner.

SOURCE:https://www.scientificamerican.com...

Pow! Mars Hit By Space Rocks 200 Times a YearSmall space rocks are carving fresh craters into the Martian surface more often than previously thought, researchers say. A new study finds that there are more than 200 asteroid impacts on the Red Planet every year.These asteroids and comet fragments are usually no bigger than 3 to 6 feet (1 to 2 meters) across " about 10 times smaller than the meteor that exploded over Chelyabinsk, Russia, in February. Small space rocks burn up in Earth's atmosphere, never making it to the ground, but they can do damage on Mars because the planet has a much thinner atmosphere.

The holes gouged out by these asteroids are typically at least 12.8 feet (3.9 meters) wide, the researchers say. The 200-per-year space rockl impact rate for Mars was based on a portion of the 248 new Martian craters that have been identified in the past decade using images from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, a NASA spacecraft that has been circling the Red Planet since 2006.

SOURCE:http://www.space.com...

Conclusion: It shows how dangerous Mars is to colonise.
Peter_10

Con

We are now in the ultimate round of the debate. But first, I want to say thank you to my opponent for keeping this a civilized and healthy discussion.

Since pro just sent the link to his sources, I had to make adjustments in my counterargument. In the first argument, pro said that a group of space experts (NASA scientists included) has produced a special journal edition which details how we humans could colonize the Moon in less than a decade, for only ten billion US dollars. However, the article where you got this statement from also states that the Moon is not the actual target. In fact, NASA astrobiologist McKay, as mentioned in the article, said, “My interest is not the Moon. To me the Moon is as dull as a ball of concrete. But we're not going to have a research base on Mars until we can learn how to do it on the Moon first. The Moon provides a blueprint to Mars.” What he probably means is that the Moon will be used as a station where scientists can experiment on/test the feasibility of extraterrestrial colonization, but it will not be the actual goal because it lacks materials, resources, etc. Thus, colonization of the Moon is nothing but a stepping stone for a larger project.

Pro’s final arguments seem to revolve around a single idea: that Mars is too dangerous to colonize. That may be true; however, the argument is an incomplete comparison. Pro asserted how perilous the colonization of Mars is, but he did not state the danger that humans may face if they colonize the Moon. I will prove why the being on the Moon is more dangerous than being on Mars using scientific concepts and logic.

“Small space rocks burn up in Earth's atmosphere, never making it to the ground, but they can do damage on Mars because the planet has a much thinner atmosphere.”—this is true. And to further ossify the statement, I am going to cite a reputable source. As stated in HowStuffWorks (n.d.), “When the meteor hits the atmosphere, the air in front of it compresses incredibly quickly. When a gas is compressed, its temperature rises. This causes the meteor to heat up so much that it glows. The air burns the meteor until there is nothing left.”

Let’s go back to this statement of yours again: “Small space rocks burn up in Earth's atmosphere, never making it to the ground, but they can do damage on Mars because the planet has a much thinner atmosphere.” It does not say that Mars is more likely to be hit by space chunks than Earth, let alone the Moon. That being so, the planet’s/moon’s location/position is not to be argued about; rather, the contention lies in the presence of atmosphere of the two celestial bodies.

Just like I stated in the initial round, humans can raise the temperature on the surface of Mars using greenhouse gases so that the planet could have an atmosphere similar to Earth. Furthermore, I stated that Mars having an Earth-like atmosphere is more plausible than the Moon because the former has greater surface gravity. (Again, gravity holds the atmosphere together.)

TL;DR: Colonizing Mars is no more dangerous than colonizing the Moon; ergo, the assertion that colonizing Mars is better still stands strong.


Sources:
http://www.sciencealert.com...
http://science.howstuffworks.com...
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: byaka2013// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Wow. I am compelled.

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD.
************************************************************************
Posted by Peter_10 9 months ago
Peter_10
Hey! I just want to confirm if you're still there and up for the debate. Any form of response in the comments section would be good.
No votes have been placed for this debate.