Why colonize Mars and not the Moon?

[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"!

 

[PeroK]

BUT, for the near future, we need resources from the get-go. That's why I say "The Moon"!

Off you go, then! No one's stopping you.

 

[nikkkom]

FYI, the Apollo programme cost about $20B in the 1960's, which is over $100B in today's money.

Another government program, Ares I/Ares V (aka SLS)/Orion, lasts for some 11 years already, spent more than $30B by now and the results are: nothing.

By your logic, this means that creating a new heavy-lift vehicle and a capsule costs infinite amount of money. As an exercise to the reader, find where this logic is flawed.

 

[PeroK]

Another government program, Ares I/Ares V (aka SLS)/Orion, lasts for some 11 years already, spent more than $30B by now and the results are: nothing.

By your logic, this means that creating a new heavy-lift vehicle and a capsule costs infinite amount of money. As an exercise to the reader, find where this logic is flawed.

Let's assume that Governments are poor at space exploration. So, there were US Government missions to the Moon nearly 50 years ago.

Number of Government or privately funded Moon missions since then?

There is the ISS, an international government-funded programme.

Number of privately funded manned space stations?

Mars One and Elon Musk have great plans to get to Mars and sell real estate there and who's to say they won't prove the doubters wrong? I won't be investing my money in it. You can if you like.

You may expect to holiday on Mars in your lifetime. I don't. Only time will tell.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Many colonization efforts on Earth were privately funded.

All colonisation efforts have been ON EARTH. The parallels are very limited. Take a group of humans to almost any of the places on Earth that were actually colonised (ignore research stations etc.) and strip them of all their technology. They have every chance of surviving and even managing to return to civilisation, using only what's available around them. The actual definition of a Space Colony is totally different from past colonies on Earth. Why is this not acknowledged by the colony enthusiasts?

 

[nikkkom]

Why is this not acknowledged by the colony enthusiasts?

Why do you think that "colony enthusiasts" do not agree with you about that? Did you ever see a "colony enthusiast" who claims there are banana forests on Mars?

 

[PeroK]

All colonisation efforts have been ON EARTH. The parallels are very limited. Take a group of humans to almost any of the places on Earth that were actually colonised (ignore research stations etc.) and strip them of all their technology. They have every chance of surviving and even managing to return to civilisation, using only what's available around them. The actual definition of a Space Colony is totally different from past colonies on Earth. Why is this not acknowledged by the colony enthusiasts?

There are parallels, I believe, with religious faith. In this case with Star Trek as the sacred text!

 

[1oldman2]

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/

I found the entire series really interesting, hope there is more to come.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/tag/earth-to-mars/

 

[Dale]

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.

Yes, that makes sense.

I know that there are some very long time but low energy transfers from one Lagrange point to another within the solar system. So if your supplies could come from asteroids then you could potentially make a steady supply line with little energy.

So then you don't need 100% recycling, you just need to balance.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Why do you think that "colony enthusiasts" do not agree with you about that? Did you ever see a "colony enthusiast" who claims there are banana forests on Mars?

Actually, I think that there are many, less informed, colony enthusiasts who do assume that banana forests on Mars are just round the corner. The time scales that are 'assumed', vary a lot; any outpost on Mars is going to be far from self-sustaining for a long time; that time scale would be no shorter than what could be required for building and using survival bunkers on Earth.
I know that space enthusiasts, in general, do not often take the general quality of life of the Earth's population into account; they identify with the fly boys, rather than the ground staff. But the massive cost of establishing a self sustaining community on Mars would be huge, compared with providing suitable shelter for many more individuals in an equivalent Earthbound community. I realize that it would be possible to imagine an event for which that might not be true but the same 'unknown' factors could apply to Mars too.

With the recent discoveries of many more goldilocks planets, things could be different in the (extreme) long run. But the transport requirements would be much more demanding for that sort of trip. That's for a different thread, though.

 

[Al_]

Life would be absolute hell for the first hundreds of years at least

I don't think that would be the case. In a harsh but potentially rich environment, you tend to either thrive or die. There is not much struggling.
I think, pretty quickly, space people would get the survival problems figured out, but they would remain relatively few in number, and become very wealthy indeed.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

It seems to me that the original discussion in this thread was about (1) technology and costs, and (2) risks of disasters and plausible preparations for survival. It seems to have turned into (3) the likelihood of political action. (1) and (2) are certainly difficult to project from the present into the future with any confidence, but IMHO (3) projecting the future regarding politics is impossible, except perhaps for Harry Seldon.

 

[Dale]

Thanks for the reminder @Buzz Bloom. I would like to get the discussion back on track again. Please focus only on directly relevant costs/budgets, not other things that the money could be spent on.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think that would be the case. In a harsh but potentially rich environment, you tend to either thrive or die. There is not much struggling.

That is just so not true. By example, colonization (even the voyages themselves) during the Age of Exploration, was a die or survive just on the edge of death proposition. It was a gruesome existence sometimes for decades, until the colony became established and developed enough for comfortable self sufficiency.

Modern spaceflight is merely a more comfortable surviving just on the edge of death proposition. The comfort is real, but don't mistake comfort for safety or "thriving".

The self sufficiency of missions or colonies in space is harder than during the age of exploration. If need be, an early explorer could get absolutely everything they need to survive locally. In space/on Mars, there is no point where they lose their dependence on Earth. And the longer they are up and further away, the higher the odds that something they depend on to survive fails and kills them.

This is what I think prospective space tourists don't get: you're an out of place paint chip away from death every second you are up there. Tourists probably deal with it via ignorance, but real astronauts have to be mentally tough.

 

[Al_]

If need be, an early explorer could get absolutely everything they need to survive locally.

That is exactly my point.
In "the Age of Exploration" the environments they were going to were similar to the ones they left behind, and they had a chance to survive if simply dropped off on the shore.

Space however, (at least for a colony, over the long term) requires HUGE preparation, planning, new skillsets, new techniques and technologies.

The self sufficiency of missions or colonies in space is harder than during the age of exploration.

- so the tech does it for you. It's the only way. Either your life support goes bang, or it works. You have air, or not. The rather uncomfortable return of Apollo 13 was a notable exception, but it was short, and unlikely to be replicated. The loss of pressure event in the ISS was a brief panic and the luck was with them. If that had gone wrong, it would have been over quickly.
Yes, mental toughness will be needed, but only at first. We get used to risks, if they are small. And to survive for years they will need to make them small, or the luck will run out. They will need to use regolith as micrometeorite protection. They will need redundancy in the hydroponics. They will need 3D printers that can replace parts. Stored spare air and water, etc.

You are either comfortably ahead of the game, or dead. It's much more binary.

 

[sophiecentaur]

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.

Why would it be different "underground" on Earth from how it would be in the sort of enclosures necessary on Mars. Would peoples' brains go into shut down in an Earth bunker (full of more technology than could possibly be transported to Mars) any more than they would on Mars? If the suggested WW3 were the 'tragedy' scenario, the high levels of radiation from nuclear weapons wouldn't be maintained at instantly lethal levels for long. Are you forgetting that fossil fuels would be very available (if fusion were not developed by that time). Climate change would be less of an issue, compared with other considerations.
I made this remark, earlier in the thread:

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

The situation would need to be really dire for the only solution to a disaster to be to colonise. There would probably be no time to invent a bolt hole in space if one didn't already exist so any escapees would be in a very poor position to make any grand gestures towards preserving the Human species. The situation would very likely be totally analogous to the life raft - with no rescue services available.
This thread is not actually about the WW3 scenario. It's about commercial development and the Moon is more convenient in the many ways already discussed.