Why colonize Mars and not the Moon?

[Buzz Bloom]

What extinction event on Earth could possibly make life on Earth less tenable than life on Mars or the Moon?

WW III

 

[mfb]

- and such a suit would have to be a vacuum suit. Which would enable it to be used on the Moon...

Moon has stronger requirements for thermal regulation and potentially more abrasive dust.

 

[ProfChuck]

I don't think this can be assumed. There are a number of strong counter-arguments in this thread.- and such a suit would have to be a vacuum suit. Which would enable it to be used on the Moon...

We seem to have slipped into terraforming discussions again. This thread is about colonisation, which is a much more immediate possibility.

If we expect to have anything more than a sparse outpost some degree of teraforming will be necessary. It may also include a bit of "Marsforming" of the settlers.

 

[Al_]

If we expect to have anything more than a sparse outpost some degree of teraforming will be necessary.

How so? Surely the effort and expense of creating or transporting HUGE amounts of gas is a very great deal more than the effort of creating large, luxurious indoor spaces?

Moon has stronger requirements for thermal regulation and potentially more abrasive dust.

True, but if we know how to build a light, comfortable space suit, these other problems are relatively easy to solve.

Mars has a much richer geology (areology?). It had liquid water in the past, where we can still study the indicators of it. It has wind reshaping the landscape, it has water/ice mixtures changing the landscape today (->RSL). It is larger as well.

All true. But I bet the Moon has some great sights to see too. And some great science to do. This is not a good reason to ignore the Moon as a site for the first space colony, given it's much greater accessibility, etc.

 

[PeroK]

WW III

And then we are back to the argument that it is impossible to build a secure bunker on Earth, but, somehow, we can build one on Mars.

This is an argument I don't even begin to understand.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

This is an argument I don't even begin to understand.

Hi @PeroK:

Conceptually what would be built on Mars is not a bunker. As I understand the meaning of "bunker", it is a temporary place of survival.

A definition.

A protective embankment or dugout; especially : a fortified chamber mostly below ground often built of reinforced concrete and provided with embrasures.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bunker​

There are likely to be many different interpretations of what a human presence on Mars might be, but it seems to me to be most likely that it would be (or become) a self sufficient colony that can exist indefinitely without needing further resources from Earth. There are also diverse opinions about (1) how extreme the damage on the surface might be, and (2) the length of time people surviving WW III in a bunker would need to stay there before the conditions on the surface of the planet can again sustain life.

Regards,
Buzz

 

[PeroK]

Hi @PeroK:There are also diverse opinions about (1) how extreme the damage on the surface might be, and (2) the length of time people surviving WW III in a bunker would need to stay there before the conditions on the surface of the planet can again sustain life.

Regards,
Buzz

Mars can't sustain life at all. That's the point. Something catastrophic happens on Earth which makes life unsustainable, so we live on Mars, where life is ... totally and utterly unsustainable in the first place.

Yes, I know, you'll have all the technology on Mars to build, make, grow whatever you need. And, that technology - for reasons I fail to grasp - cannot be deployed on Earth.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Mars can't sustain life at all. That's the point. Something catastrophic happens on Earth which makes life unsustainable, so we live on Mars, where life is ... totally and utterly unsustainable in the first place.

Yes, I know, you'll have all the technology on Mars to build, make, grow whatever you need. And, that technology - for reasons I fail to grasp - cannot be deployed on Earth.

I agree with most of that. It strikes me that the proponents of colonising other planets are a bit like people who would rather get on board a life raft than stay and take their chances on a yacht that isn't yet sinking. 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.
Space and other planets are not the slightest bit like the Wild Frontier. There is absolutely no historical precedent for colonising planets.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

Yes, I know, you'll have all the technology on Mars to build, make, grow whatever you need. And, that technology - for reasons I fail to grasp - cannot be deployed on Earth.

Hi @PeroK:

Hypothetically, WW III might make the surface of the Earth radioactive for millennia. Another scenario is that the atmosphere becomes filled with small particles that block sunlight, perhaps for centuries. Trying to reestablish a productive way to grow food might not be possible.

On Mars, even though sunlight is much weaker than on Earth, satellite mirrors in stationary orbits could amplify the sunlight over areas where crops might grow.

Regards,
Buzz

 

[rootone]

Even though a nuclear war would be disaster for humans and much of other life on Earth, a lot of the radioactive fallout would be short lived. It would also not be at lethal levels all over the planet, mostly it would be near where large populations and military bases had been. Bombing places like Greenland or Australia would be a waste of a valuable bomb.
After the war, which would probably be all over in a few days, the um *cough* 'winner' could establish small clean zones, even if they have to start underground with artificial lighting, then grow from there.
Nasty as that prospect may be, it still is likely easier to restore a broken Earth biosphere than to create one from nothing on Mars.
Mars as a home for humans after we trash the Earth, is in my opinion not a very positive way to think about the future.

 

[mfb]

Artificial lighting is a major issue. If we go by total power humans use in some way, sunlight to grow plants wins by a huge margin. It rarely appears in statistics because it is free. It is free on Mars as well, and even similar to the conditions on Earth: The solar constant is just half, but on average the atmosphere absorbs less light than on Earth.
Sunlight on Earth after a massive nuclear war would be problematic for many years, you would need a massive power source to grow food. Possible, but not easy.

 

[Vikas Tyagi]

Life on Moon can't be possible because there is no atmosphere on moon to block ultraviolet rays emitted by sun. On the other hand, life on Mars can't be possible because of its much lower temp.

 

[PeroK]

Hi @PeroK:

Hypothetically, WW III might make the surface of the Earth radioactive for millennia. Another scenario is that the atmosphere becomes filled with small particles that block sunlight, perhaps for centuries. Trying to reestablish a productive way to grow food might not be possible.

On Mars, even though sunlight is much weaker than on Earth, satellite mirrors in stationary orbits could amplify the sunlight over areas where crops might grow.

Regards,
Buzz

Your argument could be characterised as:

a) We have a serious problem on Earth. No sunlight. To which there can't possibly be a solution.

b) But, we could live on Mars because we can develop all the technology we need there.

In other words, when considering the results of a cataclysm on Earth, we are constrained by science fact. But, when considering life on Mars we are unconstrained and are free to imagine whatever technology we need.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Nasty as that prospect may be, it still is likely easier to restore a broken Earth biosphere

Earth is about as 'goldilocks' place as you could think of, so it would be very well suited to re-terraforming. Moreover, many more people would benefit from the exercise than the few that could be transported to Mars or wherever.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

Mars as a home for humans after we trash the Earth, is in my opinion not a very positive way to think about the future.

Hi @rootone:

Among the various attitudes and thoughts regarding this topic, there are optimists and pessimists.

Regards,
Buzz

 

[Dale]

This is a "Fun read"
From, https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mars-needs-lawyers/
"We may slip the surly bonds of Earth, but we will not escape the knots tied by Earth law and politics.

These issues are further complicated by the fact that they overlap with stated priorities of the current U.S. president in complex (and probably, at this point, unpredictable) ways."

Looks like FiveThirtyEight is having a Mars month. Here is another good article.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/all-we-really-need-to-get-to-mars-is-a-boatload-of-cash/

 

[Buzz Bloom]

We have a serious problem on Earth. No sunlight. To which there can't possibly be a solution.

Hi @PeroK:

I do not know what others with technical skills will be able to come up with to deal with dust that shuts out sunlight. I am not able to think of any solution, nor have I ever read any solution ideas from anyone else.

Regards,
Buzz

 

[Dale]

Would it be easier to colonize artificial habitats in space instead of either Mars or the Moon? I have always see the discussion as "either Mars or Moon", but not including permanently inhabited space stations. Is there a reason?

 

[PeroK]

Hi @PeroK:

I do not know what others with technical skills will be able to come up with to deal with dust that shuts out sunlight. I am not able to think of any solution, nor have I ever read any solution ideas from anyone else.

Regards,
Buzz

You could live on tinned food! Use artificial light and heat.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

You could live on tinned food! Use artificial light and heat.

Hi @PeroK:

For what period of time and for how many people do you think it would be possible to store food in a bunker? Also, how much and what would be the energy source for light and heat? For what period of time would the stored energy source last?

Regards,
Buzz

 

[Buzz Bloom]

Would it be easier to colonize artificial habitats in space instead of either Mars or the Moon? I have always see the discussion as "either Mars or Moon", but not including permanently inhabited space stations. Is there a reason?

Hi @Dale:

That's a technically feasible idea, since a space station would have access to natural sunlight as a permanent source of energy. I vaguely remember some SciFi story or movie based on that concept.

Regards,
Buzz

 

[PeroK]

Hi @PeroK:

For what period of time and for how many people do you think it would be possible to store food in a bunker? Also, how much and what would be the energy source for light and heat? For what period of time would the stored energy source last?

Regards,
Buzz

LIke everything, it depends on time and budget. The biggest at the moment, apparently, is in Switzerland:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonnenberg_Tunnel

It's fairly minimal. But, the point is that if we were serious we could do a lot with today's technology. Everything (absolutely everything) you want to do on Mars will require new or adapted technology.

The real point is that:

Whatever is possible on Mars (let's say a colony of 10,000 people) is possible on Earth at a fraction of the time and cost. It's absurd to worry about the amount of tinned food we could store on Earth, while expecting to grow everything on Mars! It's trivial to store enough food for say 10,000 people for 100 years. That's only the food every million people consume in a year, our how much is consumed every week in the UK. It's a tiny fraction of food production on Earth.

Getting that food to Mars would be a different proposition altogether.

Making a really secure shelter on Earth might be difficult and expensive, but it doesn't even begin to compare with the thousands of currently unsolvable problems of having, say, a colony of 10,000 on Mars.

To me it's a no-brainer!

 

[mfb]

A space station would probably need some constant supply from a planet, moon, asteroids or whatever. We don't even have concepts how we could do 100% recycling of every material, and every expansion will need additional materials anyway.

 

[nikkkom]

Nasty as that prospect may be, it still is likely easier to restore a broken Earth biosphere than to create one from nothing on Mars.

The point is, the tentative plan is to make Mars inhabited, and then gradually self-sufficient, (and then a base for further expansion into Solar System), _before_ any potential WWIII devastates the Earth.

You are describing a situation "we have a badly damaged Earth and also we have uninhabited Mars. Which one we should (re)inhabit?"
That is very much not the same situation.

 

[nikkkom]

Whatever is possible on Mars (let's say a colony of 10,000 people) is possible on Earth at a fraction of the time and cost.

True.
Do you know of any plans to *actually build* shelters for "a colony of 10,000 people" on Earth? No? Me neither.

Why?

Because people are reluctant to spend lots and lots of money on building shelters for a lucky few (statistically, it's very unlileky to be you) to survive a possible global nuclear war.

OTOH people are more positive about financing space programs in general, and Moon/Mars colonization in particular.

 

[PeroK]

Because people are reluctant to spend lots and lots of money on building shelters for a lucky few (statistically, it's very unlileky to be you) to survive a possible global nuclear war.

Yes, I'm not convinced that the low risk of a disaster would lead to serious plans for Earth shelters.

OTOH people are more positive about financing space programs in general, and Moon/Mars colonization in particular.

I doubt this very much. We've a big debate in the UK at the moment about a new high-speed rail line, HS2, which is estimated at a cost of £50 billion. And, the EU only just held Greece in the Euro. Western countries, despite the illusion of wealth, have trouble enough balancing the books. So, even a single European manned mission to Mars would be difficult to justify.

Any country that began a Mars colonisation programme, IMHO, would rapidly run out of interest once the scale of the project was realized. And the sheer infeasibility of it.

 

[nikkkom]

Western countries, despite the illusion of wealth, have trouble enough balancing the books.

An "illusion" of wealth in Western countries? Take a look at the attached photo. That's not even from the poorest country on the planet...

So, even a single European manned mission to Mars would be difficult to justify. Any country that began a Mars colonisation programme, IMHO, would rapidly run out of interest once the scale of the project was realized. And the sheer infeasibility of it.

I am not a big fan of govt programs either. They would have difficulties colonizing a tropical Caribbean island if tasked with it.

 

[PeroK]

An "illusion" of wealth in Western countries? Take a look at the attached photo. That's not even from the poorest country on the planet...

View attachment 113876
I am not a big fan of govt programs either. They would have difficulties colonizing a tropical Caribbean island if tasked with it.

You seem to be making my point for me! Either we (the human race) has the time, resources, technology, incentive and inclination to colonise Mars or we do not. Obviously, we have found money for the ISS, but I don't see how Mars colonisation, even if it were feasible, would get the funding. We'd have to give up so much else for it.

 

[nikkkom]

> I am not a big fan of govt programs either. They would have difficulties colonizing a tropical Caribbean island if tasked with it.

You seem to be making my point for me! Either we (the human race) has the time, resources, technology, incentive and inclination to colonise Mars or we do not.

"Human race" is not the same as "government programs". Many colonization efforts on Earth were privately funded.

 

[PeroK]

"Human race" is not the same as "government programs". Many colonization efforts on Earth were privately funded.

No private enterprise has the money for that sort of thing! Walmart is supposedly the world's biggest company. You really think that Walmart could even build one store on Mars, let alone a colony? Think about it!

 

[Al_]

Looks like FiveThirtyEight is having a Mars month. Here is another good article.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/all-we-really-need-to-get-to-mars-is-a-boatload-of-cash/

Yes, exactly! That's why we should colonise the Moon.
Waaaaay cheaper, and it will pay for itself much sooner.

 

[nikkkom]

No private enterprise has the money for that sort of thing! Walmart is supposedly the world's biggest company. You really think that Walmart could even build a store on Mars, let alone a colony?

Yes, if Walmart owners would decide to spend their $200B+ on Mars colonization, that's enough money to pull it off. (I don't expect specifically these people to be interested in doing it, though).

 

[Al_]

You could live on tinned food! Use artificial light and heat.

Yes, people could hide underground. But when they emerge, technological civilisation will be more or less over. Or at least take a long time to restart.
A self-sustaining space colony on the other hand would have a large, and growing, technical base as well as a powerful motive to make technical progress.

 

[PeroK]

Yes, if Walmart owners would decide to spend their $200B+ on Mars colonization, that's enough money to pull it off. (I don't expect specifically these people to be interested in doing it, though).

FYI, the Apollo programme cost about $20B in the 1960's, which is over $100B in today's money. $200B would possibly get a single manned mission to Mars and back, but not a colony.

https://www.nasa.gov/content/journey-to-mars-overview

It's 20 years just to set foot there and the budget is about $100B, I believe.

 

[Al_]

Would it be easier to colonize artificial habitats in space instead of either Mars or the Moon? I have always see the discussion as "either Mars or Moon", but not including permanently inhabited space stations. Is there a reason?

A very good point. The space economy of the 22nd century will probably bypass gravity wells like Mars or the Moon. The cost of rocket fuel to go up and down just prices those resources out of the marketplace. Zero-g resources, like asteroids, trojans, rings and small moons will be the places to get raw materials, transported by ion-drive motors that use very little fuel and free sunlight. A possible exception is the Moon, where magnetic launchers or even a space elevator would be possible as a launch method.
BUT, for the near future, we need resources from the get-go. That's why I say "The Moon"!