Plan to colonize the moon and mars.

[Scia]

I was recently thinking of a way to get to colonize Mars and the moon and provide cheap travel between them, after building space infrastructure. First we put a von braun station in an eccentric orbit around the earth, Then when the station is closest to Earth we take SSTO spaceplane and dock with the station. Then ride the elliptical orbit to the longest point of the semimajor axis. After that we take a small shuttle using VASIMR technology to a second station orbiting the moon. Then use an advanced lunar lander to get to the moons surface. Once on the moon build factories there to create more space infrastructure. In the long run it's cheaper to launch things off of the moon. I envision a future where the only things carried off of Earth are humans. Then once you have a lunar industry going you can create an orbital shipyard to create a fleet of interplanetary spacecraft .

Then we can reliably colonize the red planet. While we are colonizing the moon and building factories, stations, and spacecraft we could also utilize the Mars to stay plan. the point being to establish a presense on the red planet while we build the infastrure required to make cheap reliable trips there possible. Now the interplanetary ships to get to Mars and back would use centerfuges to simulate gravity on the 39 day voyage much liek the centerfuge used on the von braun stations. Also when they get to Mars they will need to use a Mars lander due to the fact that VASIMR powered craft can only operate in space and does not have suiable thrust to escape a planet's or moon's gravity.

Now I know that to dock with a station you need to be in the same orbital path, but the point is to be able to live on the station.
its cheaper then building a SSTO spaceplane that has two different engines and can create artificial gravity. Another problem is that
taking off from the station that far away from Earth might deorbit it. You would need a VASIMR engine to keep it stable. This technology
is already in the works, NASA plans on testing the VASIMR on the ISS in 2012.Pros
1.Everything is reusable once the project is completed
2.Much cheaper in the long run.
3.It will allow reliable cheap travel to the moon and eventually mars.
4. The VASIMR shuttle only needs solar power and argon to function in Earth to moon distances.

Cons
1.Large upfront cost.
2.You need to devolp new advanced nuclear technology to power the interplanetary ships.

Links:
VASIMR:http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/
Mars to stay:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_to_Stay
Von braun stations:http://www.astronautix.com/craft/vonation.htmis this a feasible plan assuming you get proper funding?

Also I am 16 years old

 

[sophiecentaur]

I can't really imagine that we could ever afford to 'colonise' in any real sense - bearing in mind that humans can't even make efficient or responsible use of what they have on Earth. The cost of maintaining any sizeable human presence on the Moon or Mars would be enormous and self sufficiency is unlikely.
It's not going to be a re-run of the Wild West / New World colonisation. The situation is far different.

My personal fave is the 'space elevator' as a low cost (energy) method for getting out into a suitable orbit for serious space exploration.

 

[Scia]

I can't really imagine that we could ever afford to 'colonise' in any real sense - bearing in mind that humans can't even make efficient or responsible use of what they have on Earth. The cost of maintaining any sizeable human presence on the Moon or Mars would be enormous and self sufficiency is unlikely.
It's not going to be a re-run of the Wild West / New World colonisation. The situation is far different.

My personal fave is the 'space elevator' as a low cost (energy) method for getting out into a suitable orbit for serious space exploration.

How do you plan on building that?

 

[Antiphon]

The space elevator can't work unless the mass flow is a net zero up and down. You need to impart a huge transverse momentum as you climb. (surely this has been adressed in this forum already I hope.)

 

[Scia]

The space elevator can't work unless the mass flow is a net zero up and down. You need to impart a huge transverse momentum as you climb. (surely this has been adressed in this forum already I hope.)

Yes but what do you think of my plan?

 

[Antiphon]

I think it's a fantastic plan.

 

[Scia]

I think it's a fantastic plan.

Thank you! Anyways i was thinking the only way for it to be properly funded if it became A massive international project.

 

[Integral]

Great idea, but you need to do it commercially, not as a govt project.


Start rasing $$$

 

[Scia]

Great idea, but you need to do it commercially, not as a govt project.


Start rasing $$$

How can the private sector raise that much? One von braun station will cost more then the ISS.

 

[russ_watters]

Welcome to PF, and it is good that you are thinking about this kind of thing at your age.

The basic flaw in your plan is that in an orbit, the energy is always the same, it is just passed back betwen potential and kinetic. So there is no benefit in hitting a space station when it is in a low point in its orbit: it is traveling faster so the rocket still needs to be the same size to catch it.

The idea of industry based on the moon isn't bad, but the startup costs are huge.

 

[Scia]

"The idea of industry based on the moon isn't bad, but the startup costs are huge"

I know but we need to actually put a lot of effort and money into it or we can never get anywhere is space

"The basic flaw in your plan is that in an orbit, the energy is always the same, it is just passed back betwen potential and kinetic. So there is no benefit in hitting a space station when it is in a low point in its orbit: it is traveling faster so the rocket still needs to be the same size to catch it."

Thank you for the information, but the eccentric orbit wasn't a key part to my plan. The main point is that having to build a hyper advanced SSTO spaceplane that can get from the Earth to the moon and Mars is highly unrealistic. I think its better to make 3 separate vehicles to get where you need to go. A small VASIMR shuttle, LEO ssto spaceplane, and interplanetary craft is much more feasible/cheaper then the alternative.

 

[spacester]

Hi Scia! Nice post, you obviously are tracking a lot of the enabling technologies and have some understanding of orbital mechanics and other practical matters of space flight. And of course, as for all of us, there is a lot you do not know. But your plan is impressive to me at your stage of learning.

One of the first things you will learn about proposing space infrastructure is that it will always be you against the world. It sucks, but that is the way space enthusiasts are. We all want the same goal but there are as many plans to make it happen as there are planners.

I exaggerate, but only slightly.

I have a plan as well. Guess what, it's a lot different than yours, go figure. I could spend my time telling you why yours won't work or telling everybody about my plan, but I have learned that being that way is no fun in the end.

But you did ask if your plan is feasible. (That is not just brave on your part but shows confidence and humility.) So I'll throw a couple of darts at it.

Every plan starts with a first step, and if I really want to grill someone on their space plan, all I have to do is keep asking them what the first step is. What is really really hard about space planning IME is having a good enough strategy/approach/philosophy that the answer falls out without too many contrivances.

So "First we build a von Braun station" doesn't work for me. Lots of things have to happen before that. How do you get the building materials up there, and how do you do construction in zero g on that scale? What is the first step in terms of not just enabling that, but assuming you have the capability and funding to get your stuff to LEO, what is the first payload? What is the development sequence after that?

Many people who have looked at this see ISRU (In Situ Resource Utilization) as the key strategy. You are likely familiar with it but your plan seems to skip it. I suppose that is because you put most of your infrastructure in orbit and not in gravity wells (the moon). If that is the case, what I would suggest is to incorporate orbital refueling depots in LEO and EML1 (Earth-Moon Lagrange point 1). That is what IMO will be needed to establish true spacecraft - vehicles that stay in space all the time - as well as lunar landers.

Also be aware that many people who want to get to Mars do not want to be bothered with using the Moon as a staging or proving ground, and that their arguments are potent.

Anyway, I hope you keep working on your plan. Don't let anybody tell you you're wasting your time, because you're not. If people are prevented from dreaming big dreams at your age, our society will completely forget how to dream big altogether, which IMO would amount to a betrayal of all the generations that came before us.

 

[Scia]

Hi Scia! Nice post, you obviously are tracking a lot of the enabling technologies and have some understanding of orbital mechanics and other practical matters of space flight. And of course, as for all of us, there is a lot you do not know. But your plan is impressive to me at your stage of learning.

One of the first things you will learn about proposing space infrastructure is that it will always be you against the world. It sucks, but that is the way space enthusiasts are. We all want the same goal but there are as many plans to make it happen as there are planners.

I exaggerate, but only slightly.

I have a plan as well. Guess what, it's a lot different than yours, go figure. I could spend my time telling you why yours won't work or telling everybody about my plan, but I have learned that being that way is no fun in the end.

But you did ask if your plan is feasible. (That is not just brave on your part but shows confidence and humility.) So I'll throw a couple of darts at it.

Every plan starts with a first step, and if I really want to grill someone on their space plan, all I have to do is keep asking them what the first step is. What is really really hard about space planning IME is having a good enough strategy/approach/philosophy that the answer falls out without too many contrivances.

So "First we build a von Braun station" doesn't work for me. Lots of things have to happen before that. How do you get the building materials up there, and how do you do construction in zero g on that scale? What is the first step in terms of not just enabling that, but assuming you have the capability and funding to get your stuff to LEO, what is the first payload? What is the development sequence after that?

Many people who have looked at this see ISRU (In Situ Resource Utilization) as the key strategy. You are likely familiar with it but your plan seems to skip it. I suppose that is because you put most of your infrastructure in orbit and not in gravity wells (the moon). If that is the case, what I would suggest is to incorporate orbital refueling depots in LEO and EML1 (Earth-Moon Lagrange point 1). That is what IMO will be needed to establish true spacecraft - vehicles that stay in space all the time - as well as lunar landers.

Also be aware that many people who want to get to Mars do not want to be bothered with using the Moon as a staging or proving ground, and that their arguments are potent.

Anyway, I hope you keep working on your plan. Don't let anybody tell you you're wasting your time, because you're not. If people are prevented from dreaming big dreams at your age, our society will completely forget how to dream big altogether, which IMO would amount to a betrayal of all the generations that came before us.

Very helpful piece of advice. My plan is of course only in its infancy. I honestly have no idea how to build a von braun station, and that's the type of problems i want to tackle.

and i want to use the moon only to make the colonization of Mars easier over the long term.

 

[spacester]

Very helpful piece of advice. My plan is of course only in its infancy. I honestly have no idea how to build a von braun station, and that's the type of problems i want to tackle.

and i want to use the moon only to make the colonization of Mars easier over the long term.

Cool, I have no argument on either of those foundational positions, if I am reading you correctly: 1) we will need a spin-gravity ship to regularly travel interplanetary, and 2) To the extent that one claims to use the moon to help get to Mars, it needs to actually help, and not just be a drain on resources.

You know about Bigelow, right? Rather than a toroidal wheel, I expect we are looking at attaching the BA-330 units to tethers or trusses and spinning the whole works to get our so-called artificial gravity (I prefer to call it spin-gravity, not artificial). IMO it is critical that we get started on orbital spin-gravity research, until then humans in space are an exercise in deterioration of your people.

My plan is mostly about exploiting the moon as a playground for mankind and I do not pretend that it will do a heck of a lot for the folks going to Mars. The Red Planet is about pure exploration as well as becoming space-faring. For me, the Moon can also provide the destination needed to establish us as a 'space-faring species' but when one looks at the resource exploitation angle along with the exploration to be done, the situation seems bleak.

But the moon does have one huge resource to exploit: the chance to live and work in an exotic environment. Being there, even if only remotely at first: telepresence.

Did you know that if you had a big enough facility, with an Earth-normal atmosphere, you could strap on wings and fly like a bird?

That's right, I want to build a lunar dome the size of a sports arena. It would be a resort/casino/retirement home/playground/research base and more.

In my view, after extended study, the NEOs (Near Earth Objects) are for resources, the Moon is for fun, and Mars is about exploration and science.

Don't knock fun as a driving force. It is a different mind-set than the 100% science perspective NASA has established, but fun is what grew the internet and all the industries it spawned.

 

[Scia]

Cool, I have no argument on either of those foundational positions, if I am reading you correctly: 1) we will need a spin-gravity ship to regularly travel interplanetary, and 2) To the extent that one claims to use the moon to help get to Mars, it needs to actually help, and not just be a drain on resources.

You know about Bigelow, right? Rather than a toroidal wheel, I expect we are looking at attaching the BA-330 units to tethers or trusses and spinning the whole works to get our so-called artificial gravity (I prefer to call it spin-gravity, not artificial). IMO it is critical that we get started on orbital spin-gravity research, until then humans in space are an exercise in deterioration of your people.

My plan is mostly about exploiting the moon as a playground for mankind and I do not pretend that it will do a heck of a lot for the folks going to Mars. The Red Planet is about pure exploration as well as becoming space-faring. For me, the Moon can also provide the destination needed to establish us as a 'space-faring species' but when one looks at the resource exploitation angle along with the exploration to be done, the situation seems bleak.

But the moon does have one huge resource to exploit: the chance to live and work in an exotic environment. Being there, even if only remotely at first: telepresence.

Did you know that if you had a big enough facility, with an Earth-normal atmosphere, you could strap on wings and fly like a bird?

That's right, I want to build a lunar dome the size of a sports arena. It would be a resort/casino/retirement home/playground/research base and more.

In my view, after extended study, the NEOs (Near Earth Objects) are for resources, the Moon is for fun, and Mars is about exploration and science.

Don't knock fun as a driving force. It is a different mind-set than the 100% science perspective NASA has established, but fun is what grew the internet and all the industries it spawned.

the is cheaper in the long run because its a pain in the *** to make large spaceships and put them into orbit. At Earth the atmosphere slows you down and it has 6* the amount of gravity on the moon. On the moon we could just use a mass driver and shot the parts of the interplanetary ship into orbit, then constucte the ships at the lunar station. Then off to mars.

 

[spacester]

Well the problem with launching from the moon is that it all pretty much had to be brought there in the first place, when you could have just sent it to Mars directly. To the extent that you can make finished products and materials from the Moon you can make exceptions, but developing enough manufacturing capability to do that in a big way is a long long development path. The Mars guys are not willing to wait for that to happen, nor should they be asked to IMO.

You are absolutely correct that we are going to have to do orbital assembly and construction if we are going to have large scale interplanetary craft, whether it is done in LEO or L-1. But the more efficient alternative for going to Mars is LEO construction, with the critical addition of orbital refueling.

 

[Phrak]

I suggest an experiment. Strand 10 people in the Antarctic. The arctic is an inhospitable place, but far balmier and breathable than Mars, so we'll give them this longer period of non-support than some intrepid Mars colonists might expect.

Give them all the survival gizmos one could expect for a colonization effort with expectations on return of investment. The cost per pound would be what, $10,000, $100,000 $500,000 for a trip to Mars? After 10 years we can visit the Antarctic survivors and see if they came up with anything useful to justify the price tag would all their stuff have been transferred to Mars instead of Antarctica.

 

[sophiecentaur]

The space elevator can't work unless the mass flow is a net zero up and down. You need to impart a huge transverse momentum as you climb. (surely this has been adressed in this forum already I hope.)

Could you elaborate please?
My thoughts are as follows.
Clearly the angular momentum of a mass rotating at Earth radius would change if its angular velocity stays the same and its radius increases. This would involve a force that drags the distant tethered mass 'backwards', initially. But wouldn't this just cause an oscillation (upside down pendulum motion) which could be used to the advantage of the next load on the way up or to provide a slingshot effect when you want to launch when you get to the top?
In matters like this, it is Energy that counts, ultimately, and there is no doubt that a lot of energy would be involved - just a lot, lot less, per launch, than using rockets.

 

[Scia]

Well the problem with launching from the moon is that it all pretty much had to be brought there in the first place, when you could have just sent it to Mars directly. To the extent that you can make finished products and materials from the Moon you can make exceptions, but developing enough manufacturing capability to do that in a big way is a long long development path. The Mars guys are not willing to wait for that to happen, nor should they be asked to IMO.

You are absolutely correct that we are going to have to do orbital assembly and construction if we are going to have large scale interplanetary craft, whether it is done in LEO or L-1. But the more efficient alternative for going to Mars is LEO construction, with the critical addition of orbital refueling.

But in my plan we utilize the "mars to stay" plan to go directly to mars. That because I want something to be there when we finally get regular interplanetary flights

 

[sophiecentaur]

But in my plan we utilize the "mars to stay" plan to go directly to mars. That because I want something to be there when we finally get regular interplanetary flights

What would be the purpose of your flight, sir?

 

[Scia]

What would be the purpose of your flight, sir?

We need regular cheep travel to Mars if we are ever going to do any serious colonization

 

[sophiecentaur]

Are you serious when talking of colonisation?
The purpose of colonisation on Earth has always been to gain access to resources which are more plentiful elsewhere. (There has to be an economic reason for anything other than 'exploration' and even explorers run out of funding - the Moonshots, for instance) So what would we be after that could justify the unbelievable expense?

 

[Pattonias]

Really, the first step is to find a way for investors to start gaining returns on their investments at every step of the process. To build the station, work out a way to lease its use out to NASA and other world governments. Perhaps governments that otherwise couldn't get to space. Develope an infrastructure that permits maintenance of satellites and the deployment of new equipment. Make room for research and maybe even space tourists.

Next find a reason to go to the moon. Study the resources available. Help other countries use your system to get them there. Find a resource that is usable either in space or on Earth that would make mining useful. The same goes for asteroids, identify ateroids that would be useful and develope a way for world governments to harvest by using your equipment.

There is no reason for a private company to think that they are confined by the budgets raised only in the private sectors. (Look at the Aerospace Industry)

The first step, designing a way to build a permanent station that is cheaper than what government organizations can do. Logistics my friend, you just have to get all the right people talking. Start figuring out who these people are.

Each step of the way you will be designing machines that are useful for your customers, but can also be applied to the next stage of your plan for your expanding goals.

 

[Scia]

Are you serious when talking of colonisation?
The purpose of colonisation on Earth has always been to gain access to resources which are more plentiful elsewhere. (There has to be an economic reason for anything other than 'exploration' and even explorers run out of funding - the Moonshots, for instance) So what would we be after that could justify the unbelievable expense?

survival of the human species, space tourism, making humanity a multi planet species, overpopulation, helium-3 research, ect..

 

[Scia]

Really, the first step is to find a way for investors to start gaining returns on their investments at every step of the process. To build the station, work out a way to lease its use out to NASA and other world governments. Perhaps governments that otherwise couldn't get to space. Develope an infrastructure that permits maintenance of satellites and the deployment of new equipment. Make room for research and maybe even space tourists.

Next find a reason to go to the moon. Study the resources available. Help other countries use your system to get them there. Find a resource that is usable either in space or on Earth that would make mining useful. The same goes for asteroids, identify ateroids that would be useful and develope a way for world governments to harvest by using your equipment.

There is no reason for a private company to think that they are confined by the budgets raised only in the private sectors. (Look at the Aerospace Industry)

The first step, designing a way to build a permanent station that is cheaper than what government organizations can do. Logistics my friend, you just have to get all the right people talking. Start figuring out who these people are.

Each step of the way you will be designing machines that are useful for your customers, but can also be applied to the next stage of your plan for your expanding goals.

Good advice

 

[sophiecentaur]

survival of the human species, space tourism, making humanity a multi planet species, overpopulation, helium-3 research, ect..

survival - implies overcrowding, which can be solved much more efficiently, over a suitable period.

tourism - how much (what fraction of disposable income would it / could a trip need to cost to make people want to go there more than once "to have a look")?

multi-planet species - that's just a circular argument. Unless they could terraform Mars to be just like Earth, who would want to be a Martian? People only want to visit other parts of Earth if they are provided with exactly the same facilities as they have at home (en-suite / mini bar / familiar cooking) before they want to take the odd few minutes of their holiday days to see a new part of the world.

overpopulation - dealt with already

helium-3 research - that's not a reason for any more than building some production plant - best run by robots, mostly, probably.

The appeal of space travel (and I would like to go, in a vague sort of way) is only there because it is not achievable at present for most of us. I don't think the enthusiasts have seriously thought it through. Just how much endless hardship would your average person want for the rest of their lives?

 

[Pattonias]

The appeal of space travel (and I would like to go, in a vague sort of way) is only there because it is not achievable at present for most of us. I don't think the enthusiasts have seriously thought it through. Just how much endless hardship would your average person want for the rest of their lives?

Honestly, do you think it would ever happen unless you have people who are willing to take on all these challenges and find ways to overcome them. It will never happen if we all sit arround looking up at the sky and say "why go through the trouble".

 

[sophiecentaur]

Just calling it a "challenge" doesn't really justify the exercise. I am very much in favour on space exploration as a way, when we can afford it, of investigating our world. Limited manned adventures and a huge number of unmanned projects can do this. Just going there to rubberneck and say you've been there actually achieves very little. It's like taking an expensive boat trip to the Antarctic just for the sake of it and at the same time, polluting the place a bit more.

I had a number of other challenges in mind that would be a lot more worth while and worthy of our efforts.

I think it's a generation thing, actually. I saw the Apollo missions on TV and was impressed / enjoyed them. But they were only a sign of the state of things in the Cold War. The fact that they haven't repeated the exercise implies that it was of no great commercial merit and shows the real motives behind the missions.

It is a sad fact but I guess that three charity workers with collecting boxes - one for a pet rescue organisation, one for a Moon trip appeal and one for poor old people with no one to look after them would find that the pet rescuer would do best, followed by the space guy and, finally the poor old people guy. Totally the wrong way round for me, I'm afraid.

 

[Scia]

Not many people are telling me if its feasible or not.

 

[spacester]

Really, the first step is to find a way for investors to start gaining returns on their investments at every step of the process. To build the station, work out a way to lease its use out to NASA and other world governments. Perhaps governments that otherwise couldn't get to space. Develope an infrastructure that permits maintenance of satellites and the deployment of new equipment. Make room for research and maybe even space tourists.

Next find a reason to go to the moon. Study the resources available. Help other countries use your system to get them there. Find a resource that is usable either in space or on Earth that would make mining useful. The same goes for asteroids, identify ateroids that would be useful and develope a way for world governments to harvest by using your equipment.

There is no reason for a private company to think that they are confined by the budgets raised only in the private sectors. (Look at the Aerospace Industry)

The first step, designing a way to build a permanent station that is cheaper than what government organizations can do. Logistics my friend, you just have to get all the right people talking. Start figuring out who these people are.

Each step of the way you will be designing machines that are useful for your customers, but can also be applied to the next stage of your plan for your expanding goals.

How delightful. So many posts to comment on, good stuff. I'll start with this one.

Thank you Pattonias for keeping it real. I was going to post similar thoughts but you said it much better than I would have. Believe it or not, the crazy guy who wants to build a lunar dome (me) insists on a profit-based approach and is proposing a commercial roadmap, not a government program. Your final sentence is brilliant and at the heart of my strategy.

I differ with you (go figure) on one major point however, and I apologize for picking on two words within a brilliant post. It shouldn't be "maybe even" space tourists, it should be all about space tourism. That is where the outside capital comes from.

The aerospace industry is a bit of a self-contained economy: there is a lot on money flying around and major long term capital investment is common, but it tends to circulate among the industry. Ultimately, the income is from passengers, whether military or commercial or private charter, and this model should be at the heart of a plan for space development.

If we are going to go to the planets, it HAS to be space tourism. There ain't nuthin else.

Resources? Yes, absolutely it needs to be about exploiting resources. But we need to expand our definition of resources. If I want to build a large habitable volume on the moon (and I do) then I need to exploit the local resources to generate revenue. Big time revenue. We can do ISRU for building materials, but that's not what I am talking about. What resource is there that fills the bill?

The greatest resource on the Moon is the potential and actual capability to BE THERE. It could be virtual at first, followed by actual human habitation. It has 1/6 gee and ~336 hour long daytimes, it is exotic, it's the Moon fer crying out loud, the dream of the ancients fulfilled.

I have to also mention that I want a Mars Settlement as much as I want my lunar dome, and I want to see us exploit the NEO resources even more than those two.

As for NEOs, I am a fan of John Lewis at U of Arizona. But even if we master the technology tomorrow and show up back at Earth with a load of Platinum Group Metals cheaply obtained, there are issues with getting it to the surface and with flooding the marketplace. I think those issues can be dealt with, but it will take a lot of government intervention IMO whereas with space tourism they sign a waiver, give you bundles of cash and you get them home safely and then take the next batch up.

I am by nature a very egalitarian guy, but I have to question those who object to space tourism on the grounds that it is "only for the rich". What is the problem here? This is a way to lift a bunch of money out of the pockets of the rich bastards, on a regular and highly profitable basis, and use it to claim our destiny as a space-faring species. A means to an end, and by the way the costs will come down to the point where a middle class person could do the once-in-a-lifetime flight thing. I just do not see any moral dilemma here: it may initially be only for the rich, but it won't stay that way long.

I do not want to high-jack this thread and make it about space tourism, but as I consider it central to any conceivable plan to break out of the rut we've been in for so long.

 

[spacester]

The space elevator can't work unless the mass flow is a net zero up and down. You need to impart a huge transverse momentum as you climb. (surely this has been adressed in this forum already I hope.)

Incorrect. The lost angular momentum is restored by applying upward thrust to the upper terminus or mid-elevator station.

Have you read the original paper by Brad Edwards? I first read it many years ago, what 2002 or so. He has the physics covered. If you think you have discovered a fundamental flaw in the physics, you are wrong.

Building the elevator is all about deploying the unobtanium needed to build the ribbon itself.

 

[spacester]

I can't really imagine that we could ever afford to 'colonise' in any real sense - bearing in mind that humans can't even make efficient or responsible use of what they have on Earth. The cost of maintaining any sizeable human presence on the Moon or Mars would be enormous and self sufficiency is unlikely.
It's not going to be a re-run of the Wild West / New World colonisation. The situation is far different.

My personal fave is the 'space elevator' as a low cost (energy) method for getting out into a suitable orbit for serious space exploration.

Agreed on colonization. I prefer the approach implied by the word 'Settlement', which means to me that the purpose of going there and being there is to set up habitation long enough to determine the practicability of taking the next step of establishing a 'colony', which means you are there to stay and most importantly, have babies. Settlements would not support babies, we are not ready for that.

Agreed on that it is not going to be a re-run. History teaches lessons but is typically poor at providing complete models for future development.

I love the space elevator, but even if we had one or more, there would still be a need for rocket launches. Else, this space civilization the elevator is intended to create would automatically have a limiting bottleneck, and lots of people would have lots of missions that would not get manifested on elevator rides. Remember that the ride up takes several days.

 

[Scia]

another key element of my plan and why the lunar industry is so important is that to colonize Mars we need buildings. We need building supplies, And of course launching stuff
off the moon is much much cheaper.

The point being in the long run the moon will help to colonization of mars.

 

[spacester]

I suggest an experiment. Strand 10 people in the Antarctic. The arctic is an inhospitable place, but far balmier and breathable than Mars, so we'll give them this longer period of non-support than some intrepid Mars colonists might expect.

Give them all the survival gizmos one could expect for a colonization effort with expectations on return of investment. The cost per pound would be what, $10,000, $100,000 $500,000 for a trip to Mars? After 10 years we can visit the Antarctic survivors and see if they came up with anything useful to justify the price tag would all their stuff have been transferred to Mars instead of Antarctica.

At first I'm like "Cool, a very reasonable proposal, let's do it!"

And then I'm all "wait, what?"

:D

This idea of 'stranding' and not providing support for 10 years is foreign to me, what's with that? Mars Settlers would likely not even start out unless there was an operating habitat and ample food, fuel and water reserves for their almost 2-year long stay. Long time periods between deliveries, which is certainly the case, does not equate to non-support.

It IS a challenge to be sure. Note that orbital mechanics (IINM) dictates that a group returning to Earth would have to leave some months before replacements arrive. To me this means at least some of the settlers are looking at multiple "hitches" in order to keep the habitat occupied. It isn't a large leap from there to talking about one-way missions for some of the settlers.

 

[Scia]

This is what inspired the SSTO to von braun station part of my plan