Why colonize Mars and not the Moon?

[sophiecentaur]

I know that intuition can be wrong, but I trust myself on this one, it has to be international

Do you have any examples that you can quote where this has actually worked on Earth?

 

[mfb]

I posted three examples and linked dozens more in my last post...

 

[sophiecentaur]

I posted three examples and linked dozens more in my last post...

They are not at all comparable. None of those projects involves territory, weaponry or a desirable utility and they are, essentially, driven day to day by 'people like us', many of whom are not worldly wise and just want to get a job done through co operation. I was. of course. referring to the absence of successful Colonies which are shared internationally. You can bet your bottom dollar that Mars would be divvied up between the contributors to any project, even before the first transport embarked and that it would be only a matter of time before there were border disputes (walls?? haha), sabre rattling and 'incidents'. Why should we expect any different just because the scenario is a few hundred million km away from home?
Consider the League of Nations, the UN and the EU; two out of those three have demonstrably failed and even the UN is virtually toothless when it really counts.

 

[mfb]

The ISS is an international effort to create a living space in space.
The South Pole station is an international effort to create a living space at the South Pole.

They are focused on research, but see above: If a Mars colony is profitable on its own, then funding is not an íssue. You seem to argue against your earlier position?

Consider the League of Nations, the UN and the EU; two out of those three have demonstrably failed and even the UN is virtually toothless when it really counts.

The EU has not "demonstrably failed". It is not perfect, but no system is.

 

[sophiecentaur]

If a Mars colony is profitable on its own, then funding is not an íssue.

Funding is not the issue that I mentioned. It's profits, control and even sovereignty that will be the issues.
As I said, neither ISS nor Antarctica are 'colonies' by any stretch. Politics is entirely different from the Real World in their cases.
To take my argument further, I could ask for examples where something you seem to think would automatically happen on Mars has already happened on Earth. Take the Middle East, for instance. It is a rich source of a useful commodity but there has been no co operation there for a century. Take the present problem that the Word is having due to refugees. Could your Martian world be guaranteed free of the initial causes of refugees or guaranteed to be treating them right? Only when we have sorted out all that garbage on Earth could we rely on our ability to run a proper system on Mars. You really cannot ignore those factors and just concentrate on a few mundane engineering and agricultural matters in any plans for colonisation.

 

[mfb]

If you think funding is not an issue, then I must have misunderstood some of your previous comments.

For Mars, the cost of transport is so much higher that staff would need to be there for much longer; long enough to breed? That would be one definition of a colony. We would be talking in terms of hundreds of colonists. Ye gods, there go all my taxes.

Life would be absolute hell for the first hundreds of years at least and I really doubt that the people of Earth would fund this project on anything more than a low priority and very long term basis.

I certainly would not be interesting in funding this out of my taxes and I reckon most other people would feel the same about giving a selected few an exotic holiday (which is how it would be viewed). It's hard enough to justify major rail and road projects out of taxes, when everyone could benefit in a relatively short time. Just because you feel enthusiastic about the project, you can't assume that the rest of us are as keen.

If mining on Mars turns out to be profitable for Earth, I could imagine that different countries build their own stations, with lengthy fights about who gets which part. But then we are back to the comparisons to colonies on Earth...

Only when we have sorted out all that garbage on Earth could we rely on our ability to run a proper system on Mars.

Only whe we have sorted out all the garbage in Africa we could think about going to Asia and Europe. Only when we have sorted out all the garbage in Asia and Europe we could think about going to America.
Where is this magical point in time where we will have "sorted out all the garbage"? Do you want to stop all other progress until we reach this point, unclear if that is possible at all? The quality of life is rapidly improving nearly everywhere. The garbage we complain about gets smaller and smaller - but with the same or even an increasing amount of smaller and smaller issues.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Funding is an issue, of course but who will fund who? Politics is being ignored and that is actually a bigger issue. Will those people funding the expeditions be the only ones to benefit? Would that be ok with you? From your remarks, I imagine it would be. That would provide a built in grudge and be a source of friction from day one.
What would your "all other progress" consist of? The majority of useful progress lies way outside the requirements of space colonisation. If the spin offs from unmanned space tech are suitable then why not use them?
But you have yet to define what Colony would actually involve. If it's just a mining expedition then there just could be some point but my questions about the overspill issue or spreading the species still need addressing.
Barring or even including any religious issues, should a species just keep increasing in numbers?

 

[Al_]

Funding is an issue, of course but who will fund who? Politics is being ignored and that is actually a bigger issue. Will those people funding the expeditions be the only ones to benefit? Would that be ok with you? From your remarks, I imagine it would be. That would provide a built in grudge and be a source of friction from day one.
What would your "all other progress" consist of? The majority of useful progress lies way outside the requirements of space colonisation. If the spin offs from unmanned space tech are suitable then why not use them?

Govt. funding gave us the Space Shuttle. It's enormous cost of operation held up manned space development for decades. Meanwhile robot space probes, commercial satellites and private sector launches developed to the point where they made the Shuttle look silly. The latest private technology, by Musk and Bezos, is making the SLS look silly, but they are still pouring money into it.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Govt. funding gave us the Space Shuttle. It's enormous cost of operation held up manned space development for decades. Meanwhile robot space probes, commercial satellites and private sector launches developed to the point where they made the Shuttle look silly. The latest private technology, by Musk and Bezos, is making the SLS look silly, but they are still pouring money into it.

That post of yours confirms to me that our standpoints are very different. We are thinking on very different scales and different applications. Your picture is definitely one of private investment into making use of a specific resource. That would involve what I would describe as 'outposts' rather than colonies, I am sure, simply because there is not much point in pouring humans into an expensive environment when unmanned or low-manned operations would almost certainly be commercially more successful. Let's face it, one of the nonsenses of Trump's model for the near future of the US (a major part of dear old Earth) is that he is offering American Jobs to American People. With the exception of parts of the 'service' industry, the trend is to do without human operators wherever possible. Unemployment all over the world looms and that will be even more of the case in remote sites. I can see that your model of limited operations could have legs, as long as someone can see a return on their investment but it necessarily would involve very few spacemen. Humans on planets are really bad value; that's why.
My issue against the Space Colonists idea is that there is really no incentive for anyone to make a serious investment in a project with a timescale of centuries. No single interest would last long enough to sustain it. The timescale of any administration is seldom more than a few years and, even when the country is still called the same name, its interests change over the decades. Voters are fair weather friends and will drop a project that runs out of sexiness. That's why NASA went into the doldrums. Investors are just the same.
If, as you say, it will rely on private funding, where is the incentive for an individual spread the seed of humanity project? Tourism is about the only field where that idea could take off but tourists want to go home and are seldom interested in staying in the place they visited. It's a very vulnerable sector - look what happened to the North African tourism industry.
You haven't responded to my comments about those aspects of colonisation; the issues are very different from the Klondike type of operation. People nearly all went home after the gold rush because the Klondike didn't have much to appeal to settlers. How much worse would a remote planet be?

 

[Al_]

Your picture is definitely one of private investment into making use of a specific resource.

No. You're putting your own agenda on my words. The robot space probes I mentioned were govt. funded.
I'm not saying we shouldn't fund it from taxes. I'm saying don't waste the taxes.
Don't do dead-end vanity projects.
Don't build suboptimal vehicles.
Don't ignore private sector advances.
Don't fund projects to get votes in specific regions.
Don't ignore the relevant science - any of it.
Don't let anyone who does within a million miles of the strategic technical decisions.

 

[Al_]

But the moon's military potential will always trump its capitalist potential. It will - I suspect - become more of a way station, a checkpoint, fuel production and filling station, dominated by Earthbound government or intergovernmental security apparati.

Well, yes, but also, no.
Remember just one thing - the huge cost of launching anything from the Earth to the Moon. A cost that is likely to come down, but never to a low figure. The effect of that is to make it always hard to project power up to the Moon. But always much easier to export from the Moon to Earth than the other way around.
Power is slippery. Eventually it follows the money. The money will be Lunar.

 

[mfb]

But always much easier to export from the Moon to Earth than the other way around.

Not with the (non)existent infrastructure of today. Easy launches from the moon will need a big infrastructure already to produce fuel, or something like a space elevator or something else that makes rocket launches unnecessary.

 

[Al_]

People nearly all went home after the gold rush because the Klondike didn't have much to appeal to settlers.

The Moon has a surface area bigger than Africa. Africa's still digging up gold, since aincient times.
Some people stayed in the Klondike. It gave the region a boost that lasted a long time, in a small way.
But the Klondike is different because it's part of a much large country with many more comfortable regions, and easy travel between.
The Moon will be a very different place. Maybe it's own laws, etc. Definitely a different lifestyle, that will suit some more than others.

Yes, govt. funding is unreliable. So, instead of trying to get it to build a bridge across the whole river (e.g. Mars colony) let's push for using it to span the gaps between the stepping stones that private industry can't or won't do (e.g. a lunar prospecting rover)

I wonder how long this initiative will last?
https://phys.org/news/2017-03-trump-moon-regains-destination.html

 

[Ken Fabos]

Thanks for an interesting discussion, but I will be stepping back and leaving other participants to it. In future I'll try to remember there is a "like" button and make use of it - some were due I think.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I agree largely with those statements (largely Apple Pie), except:

Don't do dead-end vanity projects.

That's a bit to telegrammatic for me. To what are you referring?

Don't fund projects to get votes in specific regions.

How wold you intend to ensure that doesn't happen? All other spending by governments is done for that reason. But non government spending is effectively just the same; private money is spent to achieve the aim of some (unelected) individual or group to get money rather than votes.

Don't let anyone who does within a million miles of the strategic technical decisions.

A great ideal but how would you make sure that didn't happen? Decisions are either made or strongly influenced by people who are not like you and me. You can't be optimistic about any of that wish list working out as you would like.
Have you a comment about my unease that the term Colony has not been defined tightly enough to avoid misunderstandings (yours, mine and other contributors).
Just another couple of points:

The ISS is an international effort to create a living space in space.

ISS is being done 'because we can' if we throw enough money at it. It has some useful aspects and it is, at least, a demonstration that the Russians can and will co operate with the West, despite the political difficulties on Earth. Though, of course, that just shows that neither side think ISS is of any strategic importance. If they did, then it would be a source of argument and not co operation. Putin has found no possibilities for leverage from the project, for instance.

The EU has not "demonstrably failed". It is not perfect, but no system is.

The UK will almost certainly be leaving and, if the populist parties get their threatened hold in various other member states, they will also be leaving. We all sleep-walked from what was initially an excellent economic union into a sort of political union that has meant different things to each of the members (A bit like our discussion about Colonisation of Space) I can see a similar fate happening on Mars if ever we try to establish an international / stateless community off-Earth.

 

[mfb]

Though, of course, that just shows that neither side think ISS is of any strategic importance. If they did, then it would be a source of argument and not co operation. Putin has found no possibilities for leverage from the project, for instance.

The high prices for US astronauts on the Soyuz? While the Space Shuttle was still operational, the US got the option to buy Soyuz seats for $25 millions each. Tourists get a seat for about $20 millions each. Now, without space shuttle, the US pays $70 million per astronaut. http://www.businessinsider.de/space-travel-per-seat-cost-soyuz-2016-9.

The Space Shuttle was more expensive than even the most expensive Soyuz seats, but that is a different story.

The UK will almost certainly be leaving and, if the populist parties get their threatened hold in various other member states, they will also be leaving. We all sleep-walked from what was initially an excellent economic union into a sort of political union that has meant different things to each of the members (A bit like our discussion about Colonisation of Space) I can see a similar fate happening on Mars if ever we try to establish an international / stateless community off-Earth.

UK: So what. The "leave" votes had a thin majority, mainly because many young people didn't vote. Scotland is thinking about leaving the UK and returning to the EU already.
You cannot use unknown future vote results to claim that something has "demonstrably failed".

 

[sophiecentaur]

You cannot use unknown future vote

Brexit is a separate issue but it is a fait accompli. The possibility of EU break up is no more flying a kite than the crystal ball stuff that is being written here about the way space exploration will pan out. I supported Remain (as did a lot of very sensible people) but I still wouldn't bet money on the EU surviving in its present form. There are too many disenchanted individuals to ignore and they have now seen that a badly organised referendum can give them a way out.

http://www.businessinsider.de/space-travel-per-seat-cost-soyuz-2016-9.

That supports my skepticism about 'co operation'.

 

[Al_]

To what are you referring?

Projects that grab headlines but don't lead anywhere, don't have a next stage, a next logical step in the plan of colonization.

Like "Lets put a man on Mars!" without thinking, what then? Apart from yeah, and we can do some science, and, and, ... stuff.

If we ever do colonize Mars, what is the betting the first colonial expedition would wish that the previous expedition that put the first man on Mars had just done one or two things that would make it a lot easier for them?

 

[sophiecentaur]

Projects that grab headlines but don't lead anywhere, don't have a next stage, a next logical step in the plan of colonization.

Like "Lets put a man on Mars!" without thinking, what then? Apart from yeah, and we can do some science, and, and, ... stuff.

If we ever do colonize Mars, what is the betting the first colonial expedition would wish that the previous expedition that put the first man on Mars had just done one or two things that would make it a lot easier for them?

Right. I couldn't agree more. But that really is an Apple Pie statement. Unfortunately, many choices that are made by governments and other large organisations do not follow such sensible philosophy.
I wish I had done some of the mods to my house differently too - but they do not have life and death consequences.

I noticed the word "plan" in your post. I just wish that we could rely on a plan based on evidence rather than on wishes.

 

[Al_]

Right. I couldn't agree more. But that really is an Apple Pie statement. Unfortunately, many choices that are made by governments and other large organisations do not follow such sensible philosophy.
I wish I had done some of the mods to my house differently too - but they do not have life and death consequences.

I noticed the word "plan" in your post. I just wish that we could rely on a plan based on evidence rather than on wishes.

I like apple pie.

But, this all just confirms my feeling - aim for the closer target.
Get things working in space, self-sustaining, living off the land as soon as we can. Smallest steps.
And to me that means a Moon colony, not Mars.

A "Plan" will have to be flexible. Evidence will need to be gathered along the way.
Science will need to be done, techniques honed, inventions created.
Strategy will need to be altered too.
Even more reason to take small steps!

 

[mfb]

That supports my skepticism about 'co operation'.

And a constant or falling price would support the lack of interest? If every possible price evolution "supports" your claim that the ISS is not a relevant example, something went wrong.

 

[sophiecentaur]

And a constant or falling price would support the lack of interest? If every possible price evolution "supports" your claim that the ISS is not a relevant example, something went wrong.

I really do have a problem in getting you to understand what I mean, don't I? My view about the ISS has nothing to do with the prices. Trips to the ISS are priced just like plane flights to your holiday destination. If they were higher, there would be fewer takers and they were lower, someone would have egg on their face in the ticketing office. As a 'living experiment' the ISS is little more than a project to prove the point, that humans can be kept alive in space if you are prepared to pay enough. ISS is not in any way, self supporting and that would have to be a condition of claims of anything more than that 'we can'.
A biodome (or whatever they choose to call it), on the other hand, could be classed as that sort of experiment. The politics of the whole thing mean that a flashy trip to Mars is where the money will be spent, despite the risk and the possibly bad value in Science terms.

 

[mfb]

The ISS was never designed to be self-supporting, and that was not the topic.
It is an example that international cooperation can work to explore the world (in a broad sense) and to create somewhat permanent (inhabited continuously since 2000) living space in otherwise inhospitable areas (here: LEO).
The same sort of collaboration could set up a first station on Mars. Maybe 5-50 people, with a 26 month rotation, with science-oriented mission:
- explore Mars, directly with samples brought to the station and via remote-controlling rovers elsewhere on Mars (eliminating the long light-speed delay).
- show that we can land humans on Mars and fly them back
- demonstrate food production, water extraction and so on on Mars
- demonstrate in-situ resource utilization of other components
- explore the effects of long-term low-g environments on humans

Everything beyond that will depend on the results of such a station. If the food production doesn't work reliably, we have to improve that. If low-g on a 26 month mission leads to unexpected problems, we have to see if manned missions to Mars are feasible at all. If not, we can test 52 months, and so on.A new biosphere experiment is certainly necessary before that. Although it could be more Mars-related, and get water and CO2 from the outside. It also doesn't have to try to have as many biomes as possible.

 

[Dale]

The Moon has a surface area bigger than Africa. Africa's still digging up gold, since aincient times

Please post a credible reference showing physical evidence of the existence of precious metals on the moon before making this claim again.

 

[sophiecentaur]

And a constant or falling price would support the lack of interest? If every possible price evolution "supports" your claim that the ISS is not a relevant example, something went wrong.

Not sure what you are getting at there but it seems to me that the fact of those cynical price rises indicates the very reverse of International Co-operation - more like International Exploitation. (Bad planning by the US, also, of course.) And that's how I see things going, just the same as ever. Any Riches that become available for acquisition from Space will be channelled into the profits of the few who can invest. It will be a long time (if ever) before what's available out there will be of general benefit or profit. (The spin off argument is not proven by a correlative connection.)
You have not addressed one of my other points - that any useful fundamental research in space would actually not need many humans to be involved and that the fields that do not actually require microgravity and no disturbance, could be carried out much cheaper on Earth.
Or the other point, that using another planet as a Lifeboat is a pointless idea because it could not serve more than a tiny number of people and would cost more than we would be prepared to spend on saving other people. "Women and Children First" is not an idea that works when the Women and Children are not you own nearest and dearest.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Please post a credible reference showing physical evidence of the existence of precious metals on the moon before making this claim again.

This has been concerning me. A long while ago I posted a thread about why there are isolated pockets of useful substances under the Earth's surface - rather than just am amorphous mix all over. The responses were that you need earth-like geological conditions to produce diamonds and gold deposits etc.. Would we not need to do a lot of prospecting before we could be sure, either way, about the situation of the Moon? (Or Asteroids, for that matter)

 

[Shakir]

Some people on this forum have no imagination. Almost anything is possible to achieve with the right amount of will power and funding.

We all have imaginations but they must meet with proper research, logic and reasoning.

 

[sophiecentaur]

We all have imaginations but they must meet with proper research, logic and reasoning.

Imagination can take you up a lot of blind alleys if you are not careful. Otoh, you need people with inspiration.

 

[Dukon]

Mars has a 24 hour day and a higher gravity.

Actually gravity on Mars is less than on Earth not higher.

Earth $g=9.8 \ m/s^2$ while for Mars and Mercury both they are accidentally similar at $g=3.7 \ m/s^2$ (even given different masses and radii for Mars and Mercury, see below).

Gravity for a planet is determined by Newton's Law of Gravitation and the definition of acceleration provided by Newton's 2nd Law $F=ma$ thereby defining a planet's gravitational acceleration $g$ as:

$$F = \frac{GMm}{r^2} = m \left( \frac{GM}{r^2} \right) = m g \ \ \ \rightarrow \ \ \ g \equiv \frac{GM}{r^2}$$ where $G=6.67E-11$ in appropriate units. Mass and radius of Mars $M=6.4E23$ [kg] and $r=3.4E6$ [meters] determines Mars $g=3.7 [m/s^2]$.

See $g$ for various planets in the Matrix below:

$\begin{pmatrix} Planet & Mass & Radius & Gravity \\ \hline Mercury & 3.3E23 & 2.4E6 & 3.7 \\ Earth & 6.0E24 & 6.4E6 & 9.8 \\ Mars & 6.4E23 & 3.4E6 & 3.7 \\ \end{pmatrix}$

 

[mfb]

Actually gravity on Mars is less than on Earth not higher.

The comparison refers to the Moon. Which would be clear if you would have quoted the context as well:

The moon has oxygen and a few metals, but everything else is challenging. Mars has a 24 hour day and a higher gravity.

 

[Dukon]

The comparison refers to the Moon. Which would be clear if you would have quoted the context as well:

Thank you for the clarification: Gravity on Earth is $9.8 \ m/s^2$, Mars $3.7 \ m/s^2$ and Moon is $1.6 \ m/s^2$. Given other (later) comments about Mars vs Earth comparisons, I read this comparison relative to Earth since it was not explicitly relative to the Moon, but now that you mention it, yes Mars $g$ is higher than Moon less than Earth.

$\begin{pmatrix} Planet & Mass & Radius & Gravity \\ \hline Mercury & 3.3E23 & 2.4E6 & 3.7 \\ Earth & 6.0E24 & 6.4E6 & 9.8 \\ Moon & 7.4E22 & 1.7E6 & 1.6 \\ Mars & 6.4E23 & 3.4E6 & 3.7 \\ \end{pmatrix}$

 

[Al_]

Please post a credible reference showing physical evidence of the existence of precious metals on the moon before making this claim again.

Physical evidence may be difficult. How about a stocastic argument? http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~bottke...Stochastic_Late_Accretion_Earth_Moon_Mars.pdf

 

[gleem]

A private unmanned moon landing could be made as early as next year by a European group called PTScientists who have been working along with Audi on a landing module and rover for ten years. They plan to use a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket for the launch. If they do it they could get that $15M prize that Google has offered for the feat if they do it before the end of next year.

 

[mfb]

Physical evidence may be difficult. How about a stocastic argument? http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~bottke...Stochastic_Late_Accretion_Earth_Moon_Mars.pdf

That just discusses average concentrations, and shows why they are lower on the Moon.

A private unmanned moon landing could be made as early as next year by a European group called PTScientists who have been working along with Audi on a landing module and rover for ten years. They plan to use a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket for the launch. If they do it they could get that $15M prize that Google has offered for the feat if they do it before the end of next year.

PTScientists didn't get their launch contract verified in time, they are not eligible for the Google Lunar X Prize any more.
5 teams are still working on it, with 4 planned rocket launches. Some other teams won't get the prize but still want to go to Moon.

 

[Al_]

That just discusses average concentrations, and shows why they are lower on the Moon.

Yes, average concentrations lower on the Moon, but that is not the same as point concentrations.
The reference discusses impactor size ranges. It uses surface melting caused by medium-scale impactors as a mechanism to explain higher than expected HSE concentrations. By implication, small-scale impactors will produce less melting and therefore higher point concentrations.

 

[gleem]

An element of the PTScientist's project is to put in place on the moon a functional communication infrastructure (Vodafone) before the planned SpaceX lunar orbit next year.

 

[Dale]

Yes, average concentrations lower on the Moon, but that is not the same as point concentrations.

So the evidence is that on average the moon has less valuable minerals.

I do recognize that point concentrations are different from average concentrations. But since you have no evidence about point concentrations, claims that they are higher is just speculation.

 

[AFTT47]

I just joined the forum a few days ago so I'm a bit late to this party. I did take the time to read through the entire thread albeit skimming it at some points. If nothing else, its given me the perspective of how smart and knowledgeable you people are. I may not be able to match that but I've had a keen interest in this subject for decades and might have things of substance to offer.

First of all, I LOVE Elon Musk. At this point, I think he's the most important person on the planet. That said, he is a human being and thus imperfect. His imperfections are not hard to spot. At times he is callous and downright irresponsible IMO. I think he's great and a treasure to humanity overall but I think he's seriously off-base and misguided in his obsession with Mars.

First, I'm amazed at the fact that Musk (and so few posters in this thread) seem to ignore the fact that we have no idea if people can live in health long-term in 38% of Earth's gravity. Even more amazing to me is the assumption that you can raise children in that gravity environment and have them develop properly. We don't know for sure that they can't but what we do know is not encouraging at all. That might not be a big deal if we're talking about long-term inhabitants like Antarctic scientists (outposts) but a self-sustaining colony where children are born and raised in that gravity? It's lunacy at this point!

I'm also surprised (and dismayed) at the apparent ignorance of the work of Dr. Gerrard K O'Niel. His timetable was certainly as unrealistic as Musk's but I think he makes a great case that floating space stations using centrifugal force for simulated gravity make far more sense for human colonies in space than do the surface of planetary bodies.

1. An artificial space colony can be spun to give you exactly the gravity you want. Absent radical genetic engineering, this by itself may render any other solution implausible. Humans may require a gravity field approaching that of 1g to live and develop properly. But a space colony also gives you the option for lower gravity levels at different distances from the center of rotation. There could be higher levels of gravity for gymnasiums, lower levels of gravity for recreation or manufacturing. There could be areas of zero gravity for applications where that is desirable.

2. An artificial space colony can have whatever day/night cycle you want via a controlled, spinning mirror.

3. In an artificial space colony, you are not trapped in a huge gravity well. You can travel to other space colonies, planets or asteroids without the tremendous energy penalty of reaching escape velocity.

4. An artificial colony can harness much more solar energy than any planet-bound colony can - and it can harvest it continuously.

5. I apologize that I cannot at the moment cite a source for this but there is enough mass in the solar system to build enough artificial space colonies to make the equivalent of hundreds of Earths in terms of surface areas.

I don't believe the establishment of true self-sustaining colonies is realistic inside of at least 50 years on either the moon, Mars or free-space colonies. I do believe that cheap access to space is vital to any of those options. SpaceX is doing great at that (which is one of the reasons I love Musk) although I think we will ultimately need the space elevator.

My personal opinion is that the first thing we should concentrate on is building a space-based infrastructure. You don't realistically consider building a modern house when you don't yet have a method to convert timber to plywood or iron to nails. Similarly, you shouldn't be realistically be talking about building ANYTHING in space until you have a space-based infrastructure.

The next frontier here is robotic/automated mining, processing and assembly in space. I think you need to go there first before you start realistically talking of a human, self-sufficient colony in space at ANY location.

 

[mfb]

Welcome to the forums!

First, I'm amazed at the fact that Musk (and so few posters in this thread) seem to ignore the fact that we have no idea if people can live in health long-term in 38% of Earth's gravity.
[...]
Humans may require a gravity field approaching that of 1g to live and develop properly.

If 0.38g turns out to be insufficient, then we can forget the question anyway. The thread is based on the premise "if the local gravity is sufficient, then what shall we do?". There is no need to keep discussing this question over and over again. We have no idea. We have zero experimental data about long-term gravity conditions between 0 and 1 g (exclusive). Only a long-term mission simulating those conditions in space, or a long-term mission to the Lunar or Martian surface will tell.

My personal opinion is that the first thing we should concentrate on is building a space-based infrastructure. You don't realistically consider building a modern house when you don't yet have a method to convert timber to plywood or iron to nails. Similarly, you shouldn't be realistically be talking about building ANYTHING in space until you have a space-based infrastructure.

That's exactly what SpaceX wants to do. And is doing already.

 

[1oldman2]

That's exactly what SpaceX wants to do. And is doing already.

http://spacenews.com/spacex-studying-landing-sites-for-mars-missions/
http://www.universetoday.com/134589/spacex-nasa-studying-2020-landing-sites-dragon/
"As part of their effort to kick-start the eventual colonization of Mars, SpaceX is sending an unmanned Dragon spacecraft to Mars. Initially, that mission was set for 2018, but is now re-scheduled for 2020. Now, SpaceX says they’re working with NASA to select a suitable landing site for their first Dragon mission to Mars."

 

[AFTT47]

[QUOTE="mfb, post: 5723430, member: That's exactly what SpaceX wants to do. And is doing already.[/QUOTE]

I don't see that. They're building a launch infrastructure better than anything we've had before and that's great. But the next step is to use that launch infrastructure to build an infrastructure allowing you to economically harvest space-based resources. Going to Mars before doing that is like trying to out-sprint Usain Bolt before you have even gotten off all-fours.

I don't even see the point of Mars as a colony. As an outpost for scientific exploration, yes. As a colony, no. Similar situation with the moon. It's a possible industrial or mining outpost but not a realistic colony location. Only a rotating artificial structure in space is guaranteed to deliver the physiological parameters required to both sustain healthy adults and provide what is needed for developing children.

As a new member, I may not have a good grasp of what constitutes the standards of staying on topic here so if I am violating that standard, please let me know and I will endeavor to modify my future posts to conform to that standard.

My contention is that neither Mars nor the Moon is a realistic choice for a colony but that both are suitable as outposts for different goals. I believe the Moon as an outpost is a necessary (or at least a logical) step for a lunar colony, Mars colony or rotating, artificial colony. Uplifting stuff from Earth is going to be very costly until/unless we build an Earth-space elevator. We're not certain that's even possible at this point. We do know we could do it on the moon - even with existing materials. That means mining lunar resources will eventually be economical. I will grant that we don't know for sure what resources there are to be had there. At minimum though, there is bulk material which could serve as a radiation shield for a rotating colony. There is pretty strong evidence that the south pole contains substantial amounts of water ice, also. This alone, screams to me that the Moon is the next logical step.

 

[rootone]

There is pretty strong evidence that the south pole contains substantial amounts of water ice, also. This alone, screams to me that the Moon is the next logical step.

I agree with that, but then apart from it proving it being possible to have a human habitat there, what else would be the point?
There as an Island in the mid Altantic called Rockall, but there is nothing there other than a resting place for seabirds,

 

[AFTT47]

I agree with that, but then apart from it proving it being possible to have a human habitat there, what else would be the point?
There as an Island in the mid Altantic called Rockall, but there is nothing there other than a resting place for seabirds,

I don't believe it is necessary to have a human habitat there to harness the ice which can then be reduced by solar energy to its H2/O components.

I'm not suggesting anything on a time-scale anywhere near approaching what Musk suggests. I think he's wildly optimistic. But we have to start somewhere. I contend that if you want to be a real-life Tony Stark and you have the resources to be anything like that, you swallow your ego and just build the infrastructure to make your grand dreams possible. That by itself will secure your legacy as a great human being. You build a step which those who follow can stand upon and build the next step. That's the realistic way to go. Embrace your dreams and don't give them up but just do what you can realistically do. Content yourself with building shoulders that others will be able to stand upon and go from there.

 

[nikkkom]

First of all, I LOVE Elon Musk. At this point, I think he's the most important person on the planet. That said, he is a human being and thus imperfect. His imperfections are not hard to spot. At times he is callous and downright irresponsible IMO. I think he's great and a treasure to humanity overall but I think he's seriously off-base and misguided in his obsession with Mars.

Did you consider the possibility that Musk is right about Mars, and you are not?

First, I'm amazed at the fact that Musk (and so few posters in this thread) seem to ignore the fact that we have no idea if people can live in health long-term in 38% of Earth's gravity. Even more amazing to me is the assumption that you can raise children in that gravity environment and have them develop properly. We don't know for sure that they can't but what we do know is not encouraging at all.

How are we to know without testing it?

I'm also surprised (and dismayed) at the apparent ignorance of the work of Dr. Gerrard K O'Niel. His timetable was certainly as unrealistic as Musk's but I think he makes a great case that floating space stations using centrifugal force for simulated gravity make far more sense for human colonies in space than do the surface of planetary bodies.

I have no information that Musk is against O'Neill habitats.
However, O'Neill habitats require raw materials, millions of tons of them. This would require mining asteroids (or larger bodies). To mine millions of tons, you pretty much require permanently operated mines. And MINERS. And housing for them. And oxygen. And food. IOW: you need a colony. On an asteroid/Moon/Mars.

There were myriad discussions where exactly the first colony is better to be placed (asteroid/Moon/Mars?). Moon and Mars are considered about equally good. Musk is in the Mars camp. There is nothing wrong with it.

1. An artificial space colony can be spun to give you exactly the gravity you want. Absent radical genetic engineering, this by itself may render any other solution implausible.

(1) Why "radical"? You know for sure that (if 0.38g is bad for health for unmodified humans), an addition of a gene or two to boost bone regeneration definitely wouldn't be enough, that a "radical" genetic engineering is needed?

(2) Genetic engineering is going to progress in the future, and will likely be able of more and more radical things. If anything, needs of space colonies will boost R&D in this area!

3. In an artificial space colony, you are not trapped in a huge gravity well. You can travel to other space colonies, planets or asteroids without the tremendous energy penalty of reaching escape velocity.

Moon and Mars' gravity wells are quite a bit less huge than Earth's.

The next frontier here is robotic/automated mining, processing and assembly in space. I think you need to go there first before you start realistically talking of a human, self-sufficient colony in space at ANY location.

No one stopping you from starting developing that right away. When you have prototype equipment and ready for testing in zero-G, Musk will provide you with cheap access to space. I'm sure he has nothing ideological against "robotic/automated mining, processing and assembly in space".

 

[Al_]

So the evidence is that on average the moon has less valuable minerals.

I do recognize that point concentrations are different from average concentrations. But since you have no evidence about point concentrations, claims that they are higher is just speculation.

Argument based on probability not acceptable then. I'm guessing you're not an Astronomer?

 

[Al_]

3. In an artificial space colony, you are not trapped in a huge gravity well. You can travel to other space colonies, planets or asteroids without the tremendous energy penalty of reaching escape velocity.

More importantly, resources can travel to you.
A fleet of robotic miners and ion-thrust tugs taking years to travel the distances involved, but delivering an almost continuous stream of elements of all types from all over the solar system.
Industrial game on!

 

[Dale]

Argument based on probability not acceptable then.

An argument based on personal speculation about probability is not acceptable. A professional reference making an argument based on probability would be fine.

 

[mfb]

I don't see that. They're building a launch infrastructure better than anything we've had before and that's great. But the next step is to use that launch infrastructure to build an infrastructure allowing you to economically harvest space-based resources. Going to Mars before doing that is like trying to out-sprint Usain Bolt before you have even gotten off all-fours.

If the ITS gets really as cheap as they hope, they can launch stuff to orbit for 10-30 dollars/kg. That is similar to the price of raw tin, and way cheaper than all production processes converting raw materials into something more interesting. Apart from counterweights for space elevators, massive dumb shielding materials or other bulk objects there is no need to harvest space-based resources in the near-term future if the ITS delivers. If it does not, and if no other system reduces launch costs significantly, expansion into space will stay very slow.

 

[nikkkom]

Cost projections in this field are notorious for not being met by a large margin.

What if ITS would "only" lower costs to, say, $250/kg?

 

[mfb]

Predictions are always hard, especially about the future, but let's make some estimates.

The planned Psyche orbit mission will get a budget of something like half a billion dollars. It won't land, it won't do anything on the surface, and it won't come back.
There is a concept of an Europa lander to take some small samples from the surface and study them. It will land and do something on the surface, but it won't come back. Cost estimates are in the 2-4 billion range.

Developing a mission that can land somewhere, do largely automated mining, and bring a lot of stuff back is much more challenging than those missions. $10 billions up to a mission returning relevant amounts of matter is probably a very conservative estimate.

With $250/kg and a budget of $10 billions, we can launch 40 million kg of useful payload.

• The cost estimate was for an initial asteroid mission - such an initial mission won't get 40,000 tons of materials back. We would need additional missions, at unclear costs.
• Those asteroid mining missions have to be launched as well. Higher launch costs will also make asteroid mining more expensive (but not proportionally).
• Things launched from Earth can be built on Earth. Building things like space station modules needs the cooperation of hundreds of companies - we won't be able to do that in orbit anytime soon. Asteroid missions could provide some bulk material, but most of the mass would still be launched from Earth.

A station that can use 40,000 tons of raw materials from asteroids will probably have a mass of 200,000 tons or more, 500 times the mass of the ISS, with living space for thousands, if that is the goal of the station.