COLONIZING MOON VS. MARS 3
from Mars. In particular, with the journey from the earth proving to be a significant challenge, it
would require building rockets around Mars and massive fuel consumption, which would be
extremely costly (Ridley, 2017). Also, considering that it needs about six months, traveling from
Earth to Mars is tedious, and unless there is better technology to make things easier, working on
such timeframes is not economically viable. Therefore, if one looks at this issue from a
commercial-oriented viewpoint or survival aspect of it, the part that seems a viable choice to
colonize is the moon colony.
Apart from distance and cost-benefit, another critical consideration is technology. In the
present day, with a manned mission, the available technology can to a significant extent enable
inhabiting the moon. Back from the past explorations such as the Apollo’s case, there isn’t
much-established technology that can support reasonable colonization of Mars (Ridley, 2017). In
connection, settling in the moon would be a stepping stone, as it would provide a strong
foundation for estimating and planning on how to reach further parts of the solar system (Galeon,
2017). Therefore, in as much it makes a lot of sense for people to remain ambitious and
innovative, it is impractical to prioritize inhabiting Mars before the moon.
In summation, although it is a matter of choice, the issues of distance, cost-benefit, and
technology element make colonizing Mars an over-ambitious objective in the present day.
Indeed, it is justified to deduce that the world is still unprepared, and the only viable colony is
the moon. Even if it is important to explore every part of the solar system, settling in the moon is
way closer and cheaper, and the current technology makes the objective more attainable as
opposed to first colonizing Mars. Even if it might change and situation allow it as time advances,
Mars cannot come before the moon as far as colonizing is concerned.