The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Join Date:
5/15/2014
Posts:
351
Member Details
This is just a little debate I was thinking about, but what is up with people having an obsession with going to Mars? I mean sure, it would be awesome to finally put a Human on another planet, but shouldn't we be focusing our energy and resources on a project that actually benefits Humanity?
The issues I have with going to Mars is what does this really accomplish? It would most probably be just like the original moon landings where all we got was rocks. It is also a lot further out than the Moon is, which means more money and resources would be needed that could otherwise be spent on other projects. There is also the fact that people quickly lost interest after we went to the Moon, and the exact same thing may happen here. On top of this, it's extremely dangerous. We could loose our entire investment if something goes wrong.
Going back to the Moon in my opinion makes far more sense. It's literally a couple of days away at best and would not take as much money and resources to colonize. This makes it a suitable location to set up a small base that could aid us in exploring space further by making it easier to get to other planets. A ship heading to Mars for example could launch from Earth and just pick up what it needs there and continue on. There is also the fact that we have meteorites to deal with. A Moon base could be a valuable asset in that it is already in space and we could build a defense system to launch from the Moon to counter these threats.
Let me know what you guys/gals think about this topic and feel free to add your thoughts.
What's the benefit of going to the Moon now? There's not too much going for it now. Once we get fusion going then getting that hydrogen-3 would be quite a business, but fusion is (as always) 20 years away. In the meantime, i say we go to Mars for the street cred (USA USA USA) and then turn our attention, once again, to the Moon.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost
The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost
From the ashes a fire shall be woken, A light from the shadows shall spring
Renewed shall be the blade that was broken, The crownless again shall be king
The technology to not just get us to mars, but to build, live and grow on the red planet is cutting edge which will no doubt have some impact how we live our lives back on Earth. We have been to the moon many times but Mars is a challenge and that's what drives us as a species, to overcome what seems impossible, to triumph when we are faced with immense odds, to rise up and continually adapt and survive!
In either situation, we simply do not have the technology to live there. A much better alternative would be to try and make the oceans habitable, 70% of our planet is covered by it and we aren't using any of it for human living. Seems weird to me when we are spending so much to look for other planets.
But, I do believe we should be trying to reach Mars, humans are a species of explorers and Mars is the next leg of that journey. I like the way that space exploration is becoming privatized because it means more viable and cutting edge solutions will be made, hopefully. The moon is old hat and really doesn't offer us much in the way of science because how many times we have scanned, explored, and looked at it. Mars offers something that we have never attained yet, a human actually on a different planet! That is a major victory in the scientific community and hopefully offers huge advances in what we know about our world. Just my two cents!
In either situation, we simply do not have the technology to live there. A much better alternative would be to try and make the oceans habitable, 70% of our planet is covered by it and we aren't using any of it for human living. Seems weird to me when we are spending so much to look for other planets.
But, I do believe we should be trying to reach Mars, humans are a species of explorers and Mars is the next leg of that journey. I like the way that space exploration is becoming privatized because it means more viable and cutting edge solutions will be made, hopefully. The moon is old hat and really doesn't offer us much in the way of science because how many times we have scanned, explored, and looked at it. Mars offers something that we have never attained yet, a human actually on a different planet! That is a major victory in the scientific community and hopefully offers huge advances in what we know about our world. Just my two cents!
I think we have the tech, it'd just be hugely expensive and, since governments are the only institutions that have so far proven to be able to go to another celestial body, difficult to provide a reason to taxpayers for doing. I also think the problem isn't so much living space (people are fine living in close proximity, as seen by New York and all the other cities) but the resources needed sustain and advance human lifestyles.
Going to Mars would, for a government, be a means of being able to say "We went to Mars," just as with the Moon.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost
The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost
From the ashes a fire shall be woken, A light from the shadows shall spring
Renewed shall be the blade that was broken, The crownless again shall be king
What's the benefit of going to the Moon now? There's not too much going for it now. Once we get fusion going then getting that hydrogen-3 would be quite a business, but fusion is (as always) 20 years away. In the meantime, i say we go to Mars for the street cred (USA USA USA) and then turn our attention, once again, to the Moon.
But don't you think that your argument for going to Mars is the same attitude that developed when we were trying to reach the Moon? The same thing may happen where people would instantly loose interest because people are liable to develop a "been there, done that," attitude. It's great to be the first to accomplish such a feat, but I feel strongly that the Moon is a better investment, given the threat posed by asteroids.
I think it would have be very foolish and short sighted to be investing in Mars when you could be putting all that time and effort into building a platform on the Moon that could act against the threat posed by an Asteroid and other near Earth objects. I mean, look what happened in Russia a few years back. Luckily that one was small. However, larger objects have impacted the Earth as recently as 1908 in what was known as the Tunguska event. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event
But don't you think that your argument for going to Mars is the same attitude that developed when we were trying to reach the Moon? The same thing may happen where people would instantly loose interest because people are liable to develop a "been there, done that," attitude. It's great to be the first to accomplish such a feat, but I feel strongly that the Moon is a better investment, given the threat posed by asteroids.
I think it would have be very foolish and short sighted to be investing in Mars when you could be putting all that time and effort into building a platform on the Moon that could act against the threat posed by an Asteroid and other near Earth objects. I mean, look what happened in Russia a few years back. Luckily that one was small. However, larger objects have impacted the Earth as recently as 1908 in what was known as the Tunguska event. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event
Well we can't let China be the first to Mars now can we? The USA landing on Mars would be similar to landing on the Moon, it'd tell the world that the USA is back at it again. There's also the possibility of life on Mars when there is no possibility of life on the Moon. Humans could do much more work on Mars in a short time span than a rover ever could.
Asteroids also don't really pose a threat. I at first thought you were talking about the threat to the spacecraft, but I then realized you were talking about for the Earth. For the spacecraft going to Mars there'd be virtually no chance of hitting a space rock en route. We've sent a whole bunch of probes and such to the Jovian planets and to Mars and so far none have been hit by a space rock. Asteroid belts are actually relatively empty compared to Star Wars asteroid belts. There are many miles betwixt the rocks.
For Earth, why set up shop on the Moon if you're going to deal with asteroids? I would imagine you'd be launching a spacecraft or possible a missile and that could easily be done from Earth, especially since its being constructed here. Even then, the chance of an asteroid of sufficient size to wipe out life on Earth actually hitting the Earth is exceptionally slim and not worth going to the Moon just because of the threat of it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost
The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost
From the ashes a fire shall be woken, A light from the shadows shall spring
Renewed shall be the blade that was broken, The crownless again shall be king
Perhaps we should stop the juvenile, competitive space races and focus on what benefits scientific advancement. We have already explored the moon, and colonizing it at this point would be a massive waste of resources. There is nothing of benefit on our moon. Mars, with the right alterations (which we are already theorizing how to create) could be terraformed to become habitable. The major issue is giving it magnetic poles.
Besides those, however, I believe we ought to be focusing on Neptune and Europa, as they are the most likely worlds in our solar system to have liquid water (much more likely on Europa), and I would love if we could find life, even if it's simple, outside of Earth.
The Moon and Mars are quite different objectives really. Building an outpost on the Moon is actually a lot easier to think about doing right now, because our technology is much closer, and there are fairly immediate benefits as a functioning outpost for a number of purposes. The main reason the Moon makes sense for carrying out operations from, which we would otherwise do from Earth, is its significantly weaker gravity well, 1/6. Operations like deep space launches, mining materials on the Moon, asteroid mining, testing technologies that will be required to minimize the physiological damage that crews/colonists will suffer from traveling to, and living in, such hostile environments (including Mars itself), and even launching Mars missions from its much shallower gravity well, make the Moon not only a more viable next step, but a more practical one as well, even given the challenges unique to the moon, such as the hostile vacuum conditions that would be significantly mitigated even by Mars' very thin atmosphere.
It surprises me that we're thinking so small about these enormous, ambitious endeavors. Mars or the Moon? What makes you think we're in any position to choose between the two? The science that was available 20, 25 years ago, may have supported that supposition, but not anymore. Either task presents a huge technological challenge, the former being utterly impossible for a few decades at best, possibly centuries, as previously unknown challenges of such a mission are being discovered at a much quicker pace than technologies are being invented to solve them. A human cannot spend months in interplanetary space without substantial protection from cosmic rays that could quickly cause brain swelling and impair astronauts who will need to be in optimal mental and physical health in order to carry out such a dangerous and complex mission, not to mention the huge radiation dosage.
I honestly feel like a rambling fool even trying to scratch the surface of challenges presented by these missions. The scope is almost unthinkable.
Besides those, however, I believe we ought to be focusing on Neptune and Europa, as they are the most likely worlds in our solar system to have liquid water (much more likely on Europa), and I would love if we could find life, even if it's simple, outside of Earth.
Actually there's plenty of (frozen) water on Mars, and flows of highly salinated liquid water were found recently as well, an extremely important discovery regarding life beyond Earth. Europa seems a more likely candidate for finding life, but that search will be done through robotic missions and not colonization. Titan however is the closest matching Earth analogue in the outer solar system, and will likely be prioritized in future robotic missions searching for ET.
Also I'm curious what you mean by Neptune?
To borrow from one of Kennedy's speeches, we should choose to go to Mars over the moon, not because it is easy but because it is hard.
But speaking of a cold warrior like Kennedy, I would point out that any attempt to settle the moon would be fraught with political complications. I mean, while there are treaties to prevent space-based weaponry, rivals of the colony's motherland would have cause to question whether the colony is adhering to decades-old treaties... and every night the moon would orbit above them to renew their apprehension. At least Mars is out-of-site (of anyone who doesn't use a telescope) and out-of-mind, and even if shenanigans were to take place on a Martian colony, at least the greater distance grants nations more time to react to any interplanetary missiles.
Speaking of treaties, there are also treaties whereby space faring nations have agreed not to claim extra terrestrial territory, any land that gets settled would need be claimed by private parties. That raises 2 issues:
1) A space colony would be a significant long-term investment, only a government would have the resources to maintain it long-term. Besides, a small-time operation such as a resource extraction site wouldn't yield enough profit to make the endeavor worthwhile, the potential benefit of a space colony stems from the potential of creating an entirely new market
2) There's the question of whether a private colony would adhere to legal and ethical practices in the absence of government authority
To borrow from one of Kennedy's speeches, we should choose to go to Mars over the moon, not because it is easy but because it is hard.
But speaking of a cold warrior like Kennedy, I would point out that any attempt to settle the moon would be fraught with political complications. I mean, while there are treaties to prevent space-based weaponry, rivals of the colony's motherland would have cause to question whether the colony is adhering to decades-old treaties... and every night the moon would orbit above them to renew their apprehension. At least Mars is out-of-site (of anyone who doesn't use a telescope) and out-of-mind, and even if shenanigans were to take place on a Martian colony, at least the greater distance grants nations more time to react to any interplanetary missiles.
I can't say much of anything useful about the potential, or even the inherent political/diplomatic complications that would arise from a colonization mission, so I won't say anything about that, but wouldn't the Moon's close proximity offer easier monitoring and less cause for concern than a Martian colony? A Martian colony would be virtually unreachable from earth on short notice, unless there were many ships in constant transit between the two planets making pick-ups and drop-offs, in which case, stations could be established on those ships and they could deploy people and resources in case of trouble or some sort of local upheaval (which would be unlikely early on, given the colonists' ongoing dependence on supplies and new technologies arriving from Earth).
Speaking of treaties, there are also treaties whereby space faring nations have agreed not to claim extra terrestrial territory, any land that gets settled would need be claimed by private parties. That raises 2 issues:
1) A space colony would be a significant long-term investment, only a government would have the resources to maintain it long-term. Besides, a small-time operation such as a resource extraction site wouldn't yield enough profit to make the endeavor worthwhile, the potential benefit of a space colony stems from the potential of creating an entirely new market
2) There's the question of whether a private colony would adhere to legal and ethical practices in the absence of government authority
I believe a new market is unlikely to crop up at first, other than the exchange between colonists of resources concentrated on some parts of the planet that are needed by any and all settlements for sustainability, and less economically viable to simply send from Earth.
It's likely that a permanent human presence on Mars would function primarily as a research outpost early on, something like those in Antarctica. The subsequent building of infrastructure, cities, gathering of local resources, arrival of additional parties, exploration, and possible terraforming efforts would see it looking more and more like a colonization effort, but there'd still be a significant dependence on Earth for some time. Confrontation between local parties would be the main worry, and a full-fledged colonization effort would surely be comprised of multiple nations, as well as private investment.
When sustainability is achieved though, I think any honest person would agree that complete political independence should eventually be granted. These are really difficult issues to contemplate though, because the legal terms that will govern how the effort is carried out even from the beginning don't yet exist, and are still likely to be altered throughout, as new and unexpected ecological, political and social issues arise.
It would actually be extremely helpful to first see how a colonization effort would take place on the Moon. There's no other way for scientists to observe anything like it here on Earth, and it would do wonders in setting the stage for a stable and more independent Mars colony
but wouldn't the Moon's close proximity offer easier monitoring and less cause for concern than a Martian colony?
You're not wrong about it being easier to monitor, but the issue is public perception. Even while governments could probably ascertain whether a moon colony is a credible threat, private civilians have no way of knowing which opens the door for opportunistic politicians to rabble rouse to further their agenda. And as I noted in my previous post, the moon is visible to the naked eye, so its presence would keep the threat, credible or otherwise, in the public conscience.
You're not wrong about it being easier to monitor, but the issue is public perception. Even while governments could probably ascertain whether a moon colony is a credible threat, private civilians have no way of knowing which opens the door for opportunistic politicians to rabble rouse to further their agenda. And as I noted in my previous post, the moon is visible to the naked eye, so its presence would keep the threat, credible or otherwise, in the public conscience.
I'm an optimist when it comes to the competence of the public (call me naive but it's that or authoritarianism), but realistically I think the average citizen will have the common sense to know that other powers on Earth are the ones with a potential to pose a real threat, not a few hundred or so colonists trying to expand the human frontier almost 400,000 km away. It's not like these colonies are going to be developing nuclear arsenals.
This is just a little debate I was thinking about, but what is up with people having an obsession with going to Mars? I mean sure, it would be awesome to finally put a Human on another planet, but shouldn't we be focusing our energy and resources on a project that actually benefits Humanity?
The issues I have with going to Mars is what does this really accomplish? It would most probably be just like the original moon landings where all we got was rocks. It is also a lot further out than the Moon is, which means more money and resources would be needed that could otherwise be spent on other projects. There is also the fact that people quickly lost interest after we went to the Moon, and the exact same thing may happen here. On top of this, it's extremely dangerous. We could loose our entire investment if something goes wrong.
Going back to the Moon in my opinion makes far more sense. It's literally a couple of days away at best and would not take as much money and resources to colonize. This makes it a suitable location to set up a small base that could aid us in exploring space further by making it easier to get to other planets. A ship heading to Mars for example could launch from Earth and just pick up what it needs there and continue on. There is also the fact that we have meteorites to deal with. A Moon base could be a valuable asset in that it is already in space and we could build a defense system to launch from the Moon to counter these threats.
Let me know what you guys/gals think about this topic and feel free to add your thoughts.
I don't care either way, as long as I'm not footing the bill. Taxes are high enough as it is.
I agree, the moon seems more practical. Just not as "romantic" as going to Mars.
What's the benefit of going to the Moon now? There's not too much going for it now. Once we get fusion going then getting that hydrogen-3 would be quite a business, but fusion is (as always) 20 years away. In the meantime, i say we go to Mars for the street cred (USA USA USA) and then turn our attention, once again, to the Moon.
All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost
The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost
From the ashes a fire shall be woken, A light from the shadows shall spring
Renewed shall be the blade that was broken, The crownless again shall be king
The technology to not just get us to mars, but to build, live and grow on the red planet is cutting edge which will no doubt have some impact how we live our lives back on Earth. We have been to the moon many times but Mars is a challenge and that's what drives us as a species, to overcome what seems impossible, to triumph when we are faced with immense odds, to rise up and continually adapt and survive!
One Block Short
In either situation, we simply do not have the technology to live there. A much better alternative would be to try and make the oceans habitable, 70% of our planet is covered by it and we aren't using any of it for human living. Seems weird to me when we are spending so much to look for other planets.
But, I do believe we should be trying to reach Mars, humans are a species of explorers and Mars is the next leg of that journey. I like the way that space exploration is becoming privatized because it means more viable and cutting edge solutions will be made, hopefully. The moon is old hat and really doesn't offer us much in the way of science because how many times we have scanned, explored, and looked at it. Mars offers something that we have never attained yet, a human actually on a different planet! That is a major victory in the scientific community and hopefully offers huge advances in what we know about our world. Just my two cents!
I think we have the tech, it'd just be hugely expensive and, since governments are the only institutions that have so far proven to be able to go to another celestial body, difficult to provide a reason to taxpayers for doing. I also think the problem isn't so much living space (people are fine living in close proximity, as seen by New York and all the other cities) but the resources needed sustain and advance human lifestyles.
Going to Mars would, for a government, be a means of being able to say "We went to Mars," just as with the Moon.
All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost
The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost
From the ashes a fire shall be woken, A light from the shadows shall spring
Renewed shall be the blade that was broken, The crownless again shall be king
We should build inter-dimensional teleporters instead and take the war to the Combine. And get a gate way to Equestria. ^:)
My DeviantArt, so sexy
My DeviantArt, so sexy
But don't you think that your argument for going to Mars is the same attitude that developed when we were trying to reach the Moon? The same thing may happen where people would instantly loose interest because people are liable to develop a "been there, done that," attitude. It's great to be the first to accomplish such a feat, but I feel strongly that the Moon is a better investment, given the threat posed by asteroids.
I think it would have be very foolish and short sighted to be investing in Mars when you could be putting all that time and effort into building a platform on the Moon that could act against the threat posed by an Asteroid and other near Earth objects. I mean, look what happened in Russia a few years back. Luckily that one was small. However, larger objects have impacted the Earth as recently as 1908 in what was known as the Tunguska event. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event
Please stay on-topic guys.
Well we can't let China be the first to Mars now can we? The USA landing on Mars would be similar to landing on the Moon, it'd tell the world that the USA is back at it again. There's also the possibility of life on Mars when there is no possibility of life on the Moon. Humans could do much more work on Mars in a short time span than a rover ever could.
Asteroids also don't really pose a threat. I at first thought you were talking about the threat to the spacecraft, but I then realized you were talking about for the Earth. For the spacecraft going to Mars there'd be virtually no chance of hitting a space rock en route. We've sent a whole bunch of probes and such to the Jovian planets and to Mars and so far none have been hit by a space rock. Asteroid belts are actually relatively empty compared to Star Wars asteroid belts. There are many miles betwixt the rocks.
For Earth, why set up shop on the Moon if you're going to deal with asteroids? I would imagine you'd be launching a spacecraft or possible a missile and that could easily be done from Earth, especially since its being constructed here. Even then, the chance of an asteroid of sufficient size to wipe out life on Earth actually hitting the Earth is exceptionally slim and not worth going to the Moon just because of the threat of it.
All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost
The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost
From the ashes a fire shall be woken, A light from the shadows shall spring
Renewed shall be the blade that was broken, The crownless again shall be king
I'd rather see us go to Mars - OR let's go further out in the solar system and check out some of the really interesting moons
Perhaps we should stop the juvenile, competitive space races and focus on what benefits scientific advancement. We have already explored the moon, and colonizing it at this point would be a massive waste of resources. There is nothing of benefit on our moon. Mars, with the right alterations (which we are already theorizing how to create) could be terraformed to become habitable. The major issue is giving it magnetic poles.
Besides those, however, I believe we ought to be focusing on Neptune and Europa, as they are the most likely worlds in our solar system to have liquid water (much more likely on Europa), and I would love if we could find life, even if it's simple, outside of Earth.
The Moon and Mars are quite different objectives really. Building an outpost on the Moon is actually a lot easier to think about doing right now, because our technology is much closer, and there are fairly immediate benefits as a functioning outpost for a number of purposes. The main reason the Moon makes sense for carrying out operations from, which we would otherwise do from Earth, is its significantly weaker gravity well, 1/6. Operations like deep space launches, mining materials on the Moon, asteroid mining, testing technologies that will be required to minimize the physiological damage that crews/colonists will suffer from traveling to, and living in, such hostile environments (including Mars itself), and even launching Mars missions from its much shallower gravity well, make the Moon not only a more viable next step, but a more practical one as well, even given the challenges unique to the moon, such as the hostile vacuum conditions that would be significantly mitigated even by Mars' very thin atmosphere.
It surprises me that we're thinking so small about these enormous, ambitious endeavors. Mars or the Moon? What makes you think we're in any position to choose between the two? The science that was available 20, 25 years ago, may have supported that supposition, but not anymore. Either task presents a huge technological challenge, the former being utterly impossible for a few decades at best, possibly centuries, as previously unknown challenges of such a mission are being discovered at a much quicker pace than technologies are being invented to solve them. A human cannot spend months in interplanetary space without substantial protection from cosmic rays that could quickly cause brain swelling and impair astronauts who will need to be in optimal mental and physical health in order to carry out such a dangerous and complex mission, not to mention the huge radiation dosage.
I honestly feel like a rambling fool even trying to scratch the surface of challenges presented by these missions. The scope is almost unthinkable.
Actually there's plenty of (frozen) water on Mars, and flows of highly salinated liquid water were found recently as well, an extremely important discovery regarding life beyond Earth. Europa seems a more likely candidate for finding life, but that search will be done through robotic missions and not colonization. Titan however is the closest matching Earth analogue in the outer solar system, and will likely be prioritized in future robotic missions searching for ET.
Also I'm curious what you mean by Neptune?
To borrow from one of Kennedy's speeches, we should choose to go to Mars over the moon, not because it is easy but because it is hard.
But speaking of a cold warrior like Kennedy, I would point out that any attempt to settle the moon would be fraught with political complications. I mean, while there are treaties to prevent space-based weaponry, rivals of the colony's motherland would have cause to question whether the colony is adhering to decades-old treaties... and every night the moon would orbit above them to renew their apprehension. At least Mars is out-of-site (of anyone who doesn't use a telescope) and out-of-mind, and even if shenanigans were to take place on a Martian colony, at least the greater distance grants nations more time to react to any interplanetary missiles.
Speaking of treaties, there are also treaties whereby space faring nations have agreed not to claim extra terrestrial territory, any land that gets settled would need be claimed by private parties. That raises 2 issues:
1) A space colony would be a significant long-term investment, only a government would have the resources to maintain it long-term. Besides, a small-time operation such as a resource extraction site wouldn't yield enough profit to make the endeavor worthwhile, the potential benefit of a space colony stems from the potential of creating an entirely new market
2) There's the question of whether a private colony would adhere to legal and ethical practices in the absence of government authority
I can't say much of anything useful about the potential, or even the inherent political/diplomatic complications that would arise from a colonization mission, so I won't say anything about that, but wouldn't the Moon's close proximity offer easier monitoring and less cause for concern than a Martian colony? A Martian colony would be virtually unreachable from earth on short notice, unless there were many ships in constant transit between the two planets making pick-ups and drop-offs, in which case, stations could be established on those ships and they could deploy people and resources in case of trouble or some sort of local upheaval (which would be unlikely early on, given the colonists' ongoing dependence on supplies and new technologies arriving from Earth).
I believe a new market is unlikely to crop up at first, other than the exchange between colonists of resources concentrated on some parts of the planet that are needed by any and all settlements for sustainability, and less economically viable to simply send from Earth.
It's likely that a permanent human presence on Mars would function primarily as a research outpost early on, something like those in Antarctica. The subsequent building of infrastructure, cities, gathering of local resources, arrival of additional parties, exploration, and possible terraforming efforts would see it looking more and more like a colonization effort, but there'd still be a significant dependence on Earth for some time. Confrontation between local parties would be the main worry, and a full-fledged colonization effort would surely be comprised of multiple nations, as well as private investment.
When sustainability is achieved though, I think any honest person would agree that complete political independence should eventually be granted. These are really difficult issues to contemplate though, because the legal terms that will govern how the effort is carried out even from the beginning don't yet exist, and are still likely to be altered throughout, as new and unexpected ecological, political and social issues arise.
It would actually be extremely helpful to first see how a colonization effort would take place on the Moon. There's no other way for scientists to observe anything like it here on Earth, and it would do wonders in setting the stage for a stable and more independent Mars colony
You're not wrong about it being easier to monitor, but the issue is public perception. Even while governments could probably ascertain whether a moon colony is a credible threat, private civilians have no way of knowing which opens the door for opportunistic politicians to rabble rouse to further their agenda. And as I noted in my previous post, the moon is visible to the naked eye, so its presence would keep the threat, credible or otherwise, in the public conscience.
I'm an optimist when it comes to the competence of the public (call me naive but it's that or authoritarianism), but realistically I think the average citizen will have the common sense to know that other powers on Earth are the ones with a potential to pose a real threat, not a few hundred or so colonists trying to expand the human frontier almost 400,000 km away. It's not like these colonies are going to be developing nuclear arsenals.
Well, Mars is more habitable for colonization than the moon.