Why colonize Mars and not the Moon?

[sophiecentaur]

No one claims it would be the only way. I think it is one of the best ways, because you'll get many applications related to maintaining ecosystems, reducing waste, harvesting somewhat sparse resources, getting more independent, getting more flexible in terms of producing things, ...

Those are not fundamental research and they have immediate application to life here on Earth. There is nothing about Mars that makes it an essential test bed for Terrestrial systems. The only thing in favour of carrying those experiments on Mars is that they could possibly be 'sold' to the public on the 'glamour' ticket. Funny, when you think that they would cost only a fraction to be done on Earth.
I know that NASA's funding needs to be fought hard for and they can only get the support of politicians when proposed project happens to grab their fancy but, on a Scientific Forum, we should be a bit more dispassionate about these things and not base our preferences so much on gut reaction. There is nothing fundamental about the idea of colonisation but many contributors take it for granted that there is. Otoh, there IS something fundamental about improving living conditions on Earth; that should be better acknowledged.

But I'm sure the research for it will lead to many applications.

Frankly, I don't see that opinion carries a lot of weight. Research on Earth is just as likely to have spin offs and it is a fraction of the cost of doing it on Mars. Moreover, we absolutely know that there is a real and present need for improvements in Earth.
If some low (?) cost investigations into what's available on Mars and the Moon end up showing some useful returns on investment (in the form of material resources) then the investment in colonisation could be proved worth while but it is totally jumping the gun to plan such a huge expense at this stage.

This is a great report about why terraforming Mars is not a good idea. http://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/V2050/pdf/8010.pdf
reviewed on Phys.org https://phys.org/news/2017-03-future-space-colonization-terraforming-habitats.html
I essentially agree with the analysis, except that I think that the Moon is a useful place to get raw materials in the early stages...

I was pleased to read some reservations about the idea of Terraforming but, even though the second reference contains some 'sensible' caution, the assumption that 100 years would be enough to warm up Mars has massive error bars associated with it. How could they possibly know what the effect of changing the surface temperature by just a few degrees could be? There could easily be negative - or positive feedback effects due to the contents of the planet's crust which are totally unknowable. I was disappointed to read references to SciFi novels in what could have been a sensible paper.
Of course, neither paper really give a good reason 'why' we would need to do it.

 

[Al_]

We have problems with even just maintaining our single LEO station.

This is why we need to create economic activity in space as the next step. Such as; a satellite repair robot, or a Lunar gold-mining rover, or a remote-controlled 3D printer, or an orbiting fuel station that sources its fuel from lunar ice.

 

[mfb]

Those are not fundamental research and they have immediate application to life here on Earth.

They contribute to both.

Research on Earth is just as likely to have spin offs and it is a fraction of the cost of doing it on Mars. Moreover, we absolutely know that there is a real and present need for improvements in Earth.

And there is a lot of money invested in it. The vast majority of research money is spent on applied research here on Earth. What is your point?

A "huge" investment in a Mars colony (where "huge" might be something like 0.01% of the global GDP) might come in 20+ years, if early habitats have shown that a larger station is interesting.

 

[mheslep]

because you'll get many applications related to maintaining ecosystems, reducing waste, harvesting somewhat sparse resources, getting more independent, getting more flexible in terms of producing things, ...

Biosphere 2, 250 of them, for the cost of a $50B Mars mission.

I suspect the greatest gains in innovation from a Mars missions would be in spacecraft (e.g. propulsion, fuels) not hab-craft. Not that it is necessary, but a system that can go to Mars in 3 weeks instead of 6 months will make all the other objections become minor.

 

[mfb]

Biosphere 3-x is one of the important research project series that is both interesting for Mars and Earth. And spaceflight in general.

Going to Mars in three weeks (~30 km/s relative to Earth) will need a nuclear reactor, ultra-thin solar cells with applied magic or some sort of launch mechanism (space elevator, rotating tethers, laser and sails, ...). Going there in three months is possible with chemical rockets.

 

[sophiecentaur]

There is nothing like as much interest in Colonising the shallow Ocean floor as there is in colonising other planets. I find that strange when you think how relatively easy it is to get there and how relatively safe it would be to live there (instant and uncomplicated escape pods available). Plus there's such a lot to see down there that we would instantly relate to; no barren, rock-strewn landscape but teeming life (=food). But neither alternative is a serious way of dealing with population overspill and I wish this was acknowledged by more of the space colony enthusiasts.

 

[HyperTechno]

Mars has a 24 hour day and a higher gravity.

Why is Mars have a higher gravity? Is it denser than the Earth despite being smaller?

Mars atmosphere is being taken away by solar winds. How can that help in making the Mars a backup place for human beings? It would be impossible to terraform Mars if it can't keep its atmosphere with it!

 

[mfb]

Higher than the Moon. Not higher than Earth.
Earth: 1 g
Mars: 0.38 g
Moon: 0.17 g

Mars atmosphere is being taken away by solar winds. How can that help in making the Mars a backup place for human beings? It would be impossible to terraform Mars if it can't keep its atmosphere with it!

Atmospheric loss is something that happens over millions of years. It would be irrelevant even on the timescales of possible terraforming, and in the very distant future we can stop it with an artificial magnetic field or more advanced technologies.

But neither alternative is a serious way of dealing with population overspill and I wish this was acknowledged by more of the space colony enthusiasts.

That would be a stupid argument obviously, and I haven't seen it come up here so far, so where is the problem?

There is somewhat limited interest in living at the bottom of the sea, or on its surface. It is not zero.

 

[sophiecentaur]

That would be a stupid argument

Not a good word to use but I will ignore it. Are you really suggesting that there is a serious prospect of putting billions of people on Mars? That's what 'overspill' would have to represent. Could you tell me how unlimited expansion of our (any) species is a 'good thing' and something we should be aiming at?
I am only suggesting that taking a step backwards and looking of a good reason for all this - apart from Because we Can. I can see no prospect of it improving life quality for many (if any) humans. I mean life quality and not wealth.

 

[mfb]

Are you really suggesting that there is a serious prospect of putting billions of people on Mars?

I am saying that no one in this thread is suggesting that. And I say that it would be stupid to suggest that we could do that (in a reasonable timeframe).

 

[sophiecentaur]

I am saying that no one in this thread is suggesting that. And I say that it would be stupid to suggest that we could do that (in a reasonable timeframe).

Then why would there be a point in terraforming the place, if not for overspill? You can erect a lot of domes for a small population at a small fraction of the cost and in much less time. This is just another example of the lack of direction of this thread. No two people seem to be talking about the same thing. Bearing in mind that many of the contributors are likely to be Engineers, this surprises me because an Engineer usually wants to know the purpose and budget for any project he/she is to be involved in.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Why is Mars have a higher gravity? Is it denser than the Earth despite being smaller?

Mars atmosphere is being taken away by solar winds. How can that help in making the Mars a backup place for human beings? It would be impossible to terraform Mars if it can't keep its atmosphere with it!

Even if the surface gravity of two planets is much the same, at different heights, the 1/r² part of the formula can make it drop off quicker or slower for each planet.

 

[Tom Taaffe]

"... according to http://aeon.co/magazine/technology/the-elon-musk-interview-on-mars/, the most likely scenario (at least for the foreseeable future) would involve an economy based on real estate." - I think that explains a lot.

Capitalism depends on market expansion. Musk and his friends are putting a downpayment on first position into next century's real estate market and - in the process - roping government into financing the trillions needed to make that happen.

Why Mars and not the Moon? The potential for further real estate expansion: starting with the asteroid belt. Musk is betting that the cost-per-unit for settlement will go down dramatically as colonization and potential terraforming becomes routine. The more that Mars can be terraformed like earth, the more easily the mineral wealth of that planet AND the asteroid belt can be mined. From there, it becomes more possible to colonize Jupiter's moons... etc. etc. etc.

Seen from this angle, the moon will play a part in this adventure. 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. Useful to capitalism, but not it's favorite playground....

I think Musk is being honest. The real estate market as launching pad for all forms of capitalist enterprise...

 

[Vanadium 50]

Why Mars and not the Moon? The potential for further real estate expansion: starting with the asteroid belt.

Except that from an energetics point of view, the Moon is "closer" to the asteroid belt.

 

[Ken Fabos]

I suspect that the greatest lesson of our times is how to live sustainably and prosperously within the limits of the world we have - and, tantalising as all that real estate on the Moon or Mars may appear in the internet advertisements, a first hand inspection would show it's not such a good purchase.

A sustainably and persistently prosperous Earth economy is the prerequisite for attaining the advances in technology that could make space colonisation a viable proposition. Space resources, using existing technologies, cannot contribute anything that significantly extends that sustainability and prosperity in any timely manner. The tech advances made here on Earth, in aid of Earthly needs, will be more likely to lead to the advances that make future space enterprises profitable than seeking tech advances in aid of space colonisation will flow through to Earth's benefits. Spin-offs - accidental benefits - are nice when they happen but committing resources to actual, vitally important goals is what delivers real results.

Sorry, but even after reading the many well expressed arguments otherwise, I think space colonisation is too deeply enmeshed with decades of optimistic fictional representations - which tend to understate the costs and difficulties and overstate the benefits. It's really hard, really expensive and exploitable economic opportunities (given those costs and difficulties) have not been convincingly shown.

 

[mfb]

Then why would there be a point in terraforming the place, if not for overspill?

For all the reasons discussed in the previous 640 posts. "We want a significant fraction of the population going away" was never the reason for going to new territories- it was always done by smaller groups.

Except that from an energetics point of view, the Moon is "closer" to the asteroid belt.

Depends on how much time you have, and how much launch infrastructure you assume on Moon. With a lunar space elevator with sufficient capacity or with other launch infrastructure, Moon is much closer. Otherwise we need 2.4 km/s to get away from it, at least 1.7 km/s with high thrust propulsion.
From the asteroid belt you can get back with something like 1 km/s and a Mars fly-by, or 1.5 km/s and no Mars fly-by, all of it can be done by ion thrusters or similar low-thrust but high-efficiency propulsion methods.

Asteroid belt -> Mars is much easier than Moon -> Mars, of couse.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I think space colonisation is too deeply enmeshed with decades of optimistic fictional representations

I think that say's it all. The parallels between colonising 'space' and 'the New World' are exaggerated in many peoples' minds. What Musk is selling is very optimistic for the timescale of modern international politics. Governments and even whole regimes can change in a fraction of the timescale involved with these grandiose projects. Things will need to change an awful lot on Earth before the sort of co operation needed can be expected. What no one seems to consider is the competition between states for the resources. We can hardly rely on the present powers to behave themselves and co operate in Earthly affairs. Is it likely to be any different when it comes to sharing any of the benefits that could be gained from space? Why should the Chinese want to ally themselves with Europe or the USA (or vice versa) when they could imagine grabbing all those benefits with a few well timed space war operations? There is little chance that the rest of space will be treated like the Antarctic and even the status is Antarctic is only being respected as long as it suits us all.

 

[rootone]

Apparently you can name some star to be whatever you like since previously unknown stars are being noted daily.
Internet is great innit.
http://www.buyastar.ie/?gclid=Cj0KE...rJNW_QvSTU8norOg5uD9a0WuJvjDQf04bcaAjAI8P8HAQ
/.sarc

 

[mfb]

What no one seems to consider is the competition between states for the resources. We can hardly rely on the present powers to behave themselves and co operate in Earthly affairs. Is it likely to be any different when it comes to sharing any of the benefits that could be gained from space? Why should the Chinese want to ally themselves with Europe or the USA (or vice versa) when they could imagine grabbing all those benefits with a few well timed space war operations? There is little chance that the rest of space will be treated like the Antarctic and even the status is Antarctic is only being respected as long as it suits us all.

If a colony is profitable in terms of resources alone, don't worry about funding, it will happen. Funding is only worth discussing if there is no direct profit from local resources.

For initial science interest: International collaborations for science megaprojects work. We have the LHC, we have ITER, we have the ISS, and various other projets (nearly all of them with international collaboration).

 

[rootone]

Well the only other possibility is for one nation on Earth to do it alone.
I know that intuition can be wrong, but I trust myself on this one, it has to be international

 

[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.