Why colonize Mars and not the Moon?

[Ken Fabos]

Coming to this discussion a bit late - my 2c worth is that whilst explorations funded by wealthy advanced economies don't have to be financially viable, for colonies it is essential. They survive either self sufficiently or by trade. Or they fail.

Historically the earliest self sufficient colonisation was done by small groups heading out on foot (mostly), carrying all the tools they needed and with all the necessary knowledge within a few minds - in a world that by any standards was extremely hospitable and rich in readily exploitable resources. Trade based colonies that came later relied on well established, economically proven transport and trade infrastructure and specific colonial efforts often made do with what was destined for scrap - ships near or past their regular economic life rather than having to be built from scratch to higher than usual standards. Many such colonies exploited already existing populations for their knowledge of local resources and often exploited their labour as well. They were often invasions as much as colonisations.

Neither self sufficiency nor economically viable trade seems a reasonable prospect for any Mars or Moon colony with technologies currently available. A "lifeboat" scenario requires high degrees of self sufficiency at a minimum yet any reasonable proposal for such colonies means they will be dependent upon the advanced technologies that only large and wealthy economies can provide. As a motivation it seems insufficient to the extraordinary difficulties of making such a lifeboat scenario work, especially without a provable, near term extreme threat to humanity - beyond the provable threats that already face us.

Trade? There may be some financial benefits from the entertainment value - off hand that is the only real prospect of financial return I can see and one that could prove fickle and find itself in competition with much cheaper to produce and probably more entertaining - and more human friendly - CGI version of humans in space. Presumably mineral resources would be essential - but is there anything on Mars that is not obtainable much more cheaply here on Earth? And wouldn't the technological advancements that would make exploiting Mars resources easier also very likely make exploiting (recycling) resources nearer to hand easier? As outposts of a healthy and wealthy Earth based economy that can afford to build a whole technologically advanced transport infrastructure with no reasonable prospects of sufficient financial returns there could be a Mars colony yet even if an enormous enough pre-investment in technologies that are currently hypothetical could achieve a temporarily successful Mars or Moon colony, without the prospects for financial returns to investors here on Earth the funding will be very difficult and it's long term survival - the lifeline to the technologies it needs - will have to be in doubt.

I do wonder if this urge to seek these new horizons should more correctly be seen as a primitive one, better suited to clever hominids in a big, unexplored world where resource rich opportunities, even, especially, for those on the fringes, could still be found that way; dressing it up with the rationale that it's about the future survival of homo Sapiens doesn't make this urge more rational or reasonable. For such a colony to function as a human "lifeboat" it would need to have a history of enduring success for other, economically sound reasons first.

 

[sophiecentaur]

specific colonial efforts often made do with what was destined for scrap - ships near or past their regular economic life rather than having to be built from scratch to higher than usual standards.

That's a very good point - along with all the others that you make in that well written post. There are so many parallels that people try to draw between Space and Earthbound expeditions and the differences are much greater than is generally acknowledged.

but is there anything on Mars that is not obtainable much more cheaply here on Earth?

Good question.

 

[Rive]

... is there anything on Mars that is not obtainable much more cheaply here on Earth?

I think there is just one such thing: experience.
But that won't feed a 'colony' for long.

The same for any places at the bottom of a gravity well. In our solar system those places are just some 'hostile Earth'. We have some of those here for cheap already, and their colonization is just ... poor.
I don't know if zero-g would ever produce anything what can be sold for high price either, but I think for that, at least there is a chance.

 

[mfb]

But that assumes a colony is the 'best way' to get hold of whatever we would be needing from Mars.

Does the US exist to get hold of whatever Europe needs from it? Does Europe exist to get hold of whatever Africa needs from it?

It will take orders of magnitude more effort than with continents on Earth, but we are not in 1500 any more, and in the long run Mars is a place where humans can live. It has all the elements we need, it has sunlight, it even has a 24 hour day. It had an atmosphere and surface water in the past, and it can get them again on a longer timescale.

On Earth we exploited all the easily available deposits of everything, on Mars they are still there. Building a mining infrastructure on Mars is more challenging, of course, but in the long run: There are things on Mars that are easier to find than on Earth.

I don't know if zero-g would ever produce anything what can be sold for high price either, but I think for that, at least there is a chance.

See above: Some crystals maybe. Tourism is also an option. Not at the current spaceflight costs, but at those costs colonization or even large-scale spaceflight won't happen anyway.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Does the US exist to get hold of whatever Europe needs from it? Does Europe exist to get hold of whatever Africa needs from it?

I don't see a parallel there, at all. The relationship between established nations is hardly relevant to this but there are plenty of (lucky) economies that are based almost entirely on exports. What would be relevant to consider would be the many colonies that were established for precisely the reason that a product was available that was needed in the colonising nation. (Sugar from the West Indies, cotton from the south of the North American continent, tea from China) The indigenous population was only regarded as part of the resource that was being used; 'we' sent our own nationals to form the colonies.

Mars is a place where humans can live.

You are assuming that is the 'aim' of humans - i.e that we must expand and multiply. It is a massive assumption which, afaics, is based on 'faith' and tradition rather than rationality. It could be argued that the 'aim' should be to improve the lives of everyone on the planet and to ensure that they all 'get on' better and live without conflict. There is no shortage of resources on Earth - particularly if the population were kept to a reasonable level. What's a reasonable level - you could say that it's the level it would reach when everyone is comfortably off. The more comfortable people are, in general, the smaller families they aim at. I often wonder why a shrinking population strikes terror into people's hearts. I think that is just a Malthusian type of response (unjustified extrapolation) with no good basis.

 

[Al_]

but Moon is lacking the geochemical processes to concentrate them

- and it also lacks processes that dilute and disperse them!
How many elements either react with oxygen or dissolve in water? Aluminum, lithium, sodium, and the salts, carbonates, sulphurs, etc, etc,
When these land in a meteorite, on Earth they just go away.
But on the Moon, just wander over, maybe flick away some dirt, and pick it up.

And the Moon DOES have geochemical processes. Just different ones.
It certainly had long periods of volcanism in the past.

 

[sophiecentaur]

- and it also lacks processes that dilute and disperse them!
How many elements either react with oxygen or dissolve in water? Aluminum, lithium, sodium, and the salts, carbonates, sulphurs, etc, etc,
When these land in a meteorite, on Earth they just go away.
But on the Moon, just wander over, maybe flick away some dirt, and pick it up.

And the Moon DOES have geochemical processes. Just different ones.
It certainly had long periods of volcanism in the past.

I think we need some cited input here. I was certainly expecting an amount of concentrated materials from the meteorites that have 'recently' arrived. I guess finding them in the right places in craters could be a skill that would need to be developed. Would it necessarily be at the centre of the circle?

 

[Al_]

I think we need some cited input here. I was certainly expecting an amount of concentrated materials from the meteorites that have 'recently' arrived. I guess finding them in the right places in craters could be a skill that would need to be developed. Would it necessarily be at the centre of the circle?

Here is a good overview:
http://www.moonsociety.org/certificate/lunargeology.html#tectonic

 

[Rive]

Aluminum, lithium, sodium, and the salts, carbonates, sulphurs, etc, etc,

The only value of these materials is/if they are available for local use.
As a trade material to balance the finance of a colony they are completely worthless.

 

[mfb]

The relationship between established nations is hardly relevant to this but there are plenty of (lucky) economies that are based almost entirely on exports.

Basing the economy on exports is a possible model, but not the only possible model.

You are assuming that is the 'aim' of humans - i.e that we must expand and multiply.

I don't assume that, but passing on the genes is indeed a strong motivation thanks to biology. A species where the individuals don't want to expand and multiply dies out.

The population on Earth should stabilize at some point in this century - this is independent of whatever might happen outside Earth as (with foreseeable technology) no significant fraction of the population will go elsewhere.

Research done for a Mars outpost or colony and research done on Mars will also help on Earth.

- and it also lacks processes that dilute and disperse them!

How is this relevant without any process that would lead to anything that could get dispersed?
I showed this with the example of uranium. I don't want to repeat this for every element, so why don't we go the opposite way? You find some element that is rare on Earth that can be easily mined on Moon in relevant amounts? With a reference to a space agency or other academic research, not to a company that wants to get funding for mining.

 

[Al_]

The only value of these materials is/if they are available for local use.
As a trade material to balance the finance of a colony they are completely worthless.

Indeed that is true.

We are suffering here from a lack of evidence. There are many reasons to think the Moon is rich in resources of all kinds, and yet, the only time people went there they sampled very limited spots, not near the poles, right on (or just below) the surface, and did not have the benefit of modern remote spectral analysis tools.
More recently, many resources have been spotted from orbit, but this is not firm enough proof for some people.

 

[Rive]

We are suffering here from a lack of evidence.

I think what we suffer here is the lack of economics.

There is a fundamental difference in the workings of a scientific (or, given the chance: touristic ) base and a colony. Even if NASA finds some magic tunnels on Moon filled with various raw materials, air and preserved vegetables: ready for immediate population - as a colony it would be still just a dead end.

 

[Al_]

as a colony it would be still just a dead end.

Why?

 

[Al_]

process that would lead to anything that could get dispersed?
I showed this with the example of uranium. I don't want to repeat this for every element

I have already posted about asteroids. (including the huge one made from half platinum)
These asteroids were produced when minor planets collided and their differentiated cores fragmented into separate orbits.
Statistically, some of these are very likely to have landed on the Moon.
This is the process that results in concentrations.

 

[Rive]

Why?

By your standards, what makes a colony? What is a colony?

 

[mfb]

I have already posted about asteroids. (including the huge one made from half platinum)
These asteroids were produced when minor planets collided and their differentiated cores fragmented into separate orbits.
Statistically, some of these are very likely to have landed on the Moon.
This is the process that results in concentrations.

A few rocks scattered around the surface with unknown density is not a good resource. How much is there per square kilometer?
This is all about numbers. Even pure platinum just lying around is not a good source if there is just one gram-sized asteroid per square kilometer.

 

[Al_]

if there is something valuable enough on the Moon that it's price can cover two industrial centers and the local ligistics then it's doable.

The "industrial centers" can be small. Remotely controlled from Earth, with telepresence robots. Solar powered. Two robots, maybe a cover of regolith (maybe not) some sintered bricks made of regolith, solar panels on the ground, a comms dish.
Once you make some money, increase the amount of kit.
Build towards an economy, and a colony.

 

[Rive]

Once you make some money, increase the amount of kit..

The only value of these materials is/if they are available for local use.

Those (common) resources there can save money, but cannot make it. It's a very important difference regarding any kind of colonization.

 

[Al_]

A few rocks scattered around the surface with unknown density is not a good resource. How much is there per square kilometer?
This is all about numbers. Even pure platinum just lying around is not a good source if there is just one gram-sized asteroid per square kilometer.

Reckon it would be just fine!
Map the gram-sized flakes from low orbit, send a solar-powered robot to trundle along, it goes about 1km per 1g of platinum.
Sounds like a plan!

 

[mfb]

Map the gram-sized flakes from low orbit

Where is the satellite that can do this?
Where is the rover that can scoop them up for significantly less than $30 per gram? If that rover costs 10 million, you have to clear 300,000 km² just to cover rover investment costs - that is the size of Germany. If the rover, operation and the remaining infrastructure costs a billion, you cannot make profit even if you exploit the whole surface area of Moon.

All those numbers are pointless because they are based on numbers I made up. I still don't see any reliable numbers for useful resources on the Moon.

 

[Al_]

Those (common) resources there can save money, but cannot make it. It's a very important difference regarding any kind of colonization.

You're mixing up two replies.
The money is made from the expensive rare metals, exported. (Gold, Platinum, rare Earth's)
The other ones are useful in situ. (Aluminum, lithium, sodium, and the salts, carbonates, sulphurs, etc, etc,)

By your standards, what makes a colony? What is a colony?

We've covered this earlier in the thread. My definition is that people raise families, and there are enough people to create a viable self-sustaining community. It would need to have enough advantages and comfort that most people chose not to go back to Earth.

I came across this theory: "late veneer hypothesis"
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v520/n7548/full/nature14360.html
Which says there is iron-loving elements on the Moon surface, such as gold or platinum.
More than on Earth!

 

[glappkaeft]

I showed this with the example of uranium. I don't want to repeat this for every element, so why don't we go the opposite way? You find some element that is rare on Earth that can be easily mined on Moon in relevant amounts? With a reference to a space agency or other academic research, not to a company that wants to get funding for mining.

I agree. For instance in the (admittedly rather old) research papers I have seen the concentrations of the different Platinum Group Metals in M-class asteroids are stated to be in the 1-10 ppm range. That somewhat lower than the unsourced 50% number.

 

[mfb]

I came across this theory: "late veneer hypothesis"
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v520/n7548/full/nature14360.html
Which says there is iron-loving elements on the Moon surface, such as gold or platinum.
More than on Earth!

From the abstract: An excess of 27 ppm over the 64 ppm average of Earth. Which is tiny compared to the thousands of ppm found in tungsten ores on Earth.

 

[Al_]

From the abstract: An excess of 27 ppm over the 64 ppm average of Earth. Which is tiny compared to the thousands of ppm found in tungsten ores on Earth.

You compare this crustal concentration to ore concentrations.
Do you imagine that the Moon has 91 ppm evenly spread over it's entire crust?

 

[mfb]

You compare this crustal concentration to ore concentrations.
Do you imagine that the Moon has 91 ppm evenly spread over it's entire crust?

As long as you don't find any interesting element that has an interesting concentration anywhere on the surface: yes.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Do you imagine that the Moon has 91 ppm evenly spread over it's entire crust?

To a higher degree than on Earth, yes. Earth is geologically active and has an active chemistry going on on it's surface. The moon is not and does not.

Your messages defend wild speculation with more wild speculation, with a constantly shifting set of goalposts. You would more convincing if you used more facts.

 

[Al_]

To a higher degree than on Earth, yes

You claim that the Moon has a more even distribution of iron-loving elements over it's crust than Earth's distribution.
I find this to be speculative, since it's based on a few samples of very small size relative to the Moon.
You further assert that the Moon has no active geological processes. It has few. However it was geologically active in the past, not all concentrating processes require volatiles, and the results of that activity will now be frozen into place.
My posts do not consist entirely of wild speculation.


A quote from near the end of the abstract in the link -
"Low lunar HSE abundances are consistent with proportionally 40 times more late accretion to Earth than the Moon." - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X15002903
This seems surprising, given that the Earth and the Moon inhabit the same region of the Solar System. (Even after considering that the Earth has a greater mass per surface area, about 6.2 times)
Isn't a more likely explanation that the Earth's mantle has been mixed since planetary cooling, whereas the Moon's has not, so that late accretions on the Moon remain highly localised, and so have not yet been sampled?

 

[mfb]

I find this to be speculative, since it's based on a few samples of very small size relative to the Moon.

All data (ground samples and from orbit), all references found in this thread, and all we know about geology of the Moon point to a consistent picture. You call that speculative.
We don't have any evidence for significant accumulations of specific interesting elements, yet you keep claiming that those would exist. And you don't think that is speculative?

Mines on Earth use hundreds to tens of thousand times higher concentrations than the average. The geochemical processes accumulating the elements are much more important than processes distributing them.

A quote from near the end of the abstract in the link -
"Low lunar HSE abundances are consistent with proportionally 40 times more late accretion to Earth than the Moon." - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X15002903

The keyword is low lunar abundance.
Earth accumulated much more simply because it has larger mass.

 

[gleem]

Someone not talked about as far as I can ascertain is Jeff Bezos. Contrary to Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos (Blue Origin) thinks the best way to Mars is via the Moon. His first long term goal is to help (with NASA) establish a human manned base on the moon. To that end he intents to launch a cargo capsules to the moon by the mid 2020's.(Operation Blue Moon) with manned flight sometimes after that. Blue Origin won the Aviation Weeks space Laureate Award for demonstrating true reusability of it's rocket without pulling the BE-3 engine for five consecutive launches.

The interview of Bezos at the award ceremony.


Bezos is working on a Mars trip with the development of the New Armstrong rocket.

Unlike Elon Musk Bezos is much less daring. Blue Origen's motto is "Gradatim Ferociter",i.e., "Step by Step, Ferociously".

 

[mfb]

Blue Origin also released some more details about its rocket today. Article
The payload with the 2-stage variant will be a bit lower than FH, with the 3-stage variant I would expect it to be a bit higher.
The first stage is supposed to land on a ship and be reused up to 100 times.
Maiden flight not earlier than late 2019.

ULA with Vulcan and Arianespace with Ariane 6 are thinking about methods to recover the engine and other key parts of the first stage (but not the whole first stage). The race to reusable rockets is in full swing. I expect them to dominate the launch market in the 5-50 ton (LEO) payload range soon.