Why colonize Mars and not the Moon?

[mfb]

A mission to Mars would be smaller than the ISS, not packed with all sorts of different expensive microgravity experiments, and we learned a lot since the ISS started. And the mission wouldn't use the extremely expensive Space Shuttle. All those estimates are made by people who know the costs of the ISS program. Claiming (especially without evidence) that they didn't learn anything from it is an insult to the people making those estimates.

Elon Musk is allowed to be P.T. Barnum because that is part of his schtick/aura that gets investors to invest in crazy projects that sometimes work out

Sometimes? Look at his track record.

What I'm saying is that I'm not constrained by the limitations of the book author.

What exactly prevents a book author from making realistic estimates?

 

[wud-wurks]

Interplanetary travel is a useful technological goal that is likely to have multiple spin offs into regular lives on Earth. Colonising Mars is for the birds in my mind, putting a vehicle on the surface to explore it I applaud , but the logistics of supporting a colony on the surface is balmy.

I sense a running away from the problems on this planet by those who advocate such a dream, would it not be better to incrementally explore our nearest planets as we have been doing and apply our not inconsiderable skills to solving some of the issues on this one?

 

[wud-wurks]

I support the technological benefits of exploring space, of visiting other planets, of putting rovers on the surfaces equipped to analyse the environment, but colonising other planets is for the birds in my mind!

Would it not be more sensible, more realistic and more practicable to visit our nearest neighbours, maybe even with manned flight which stretches the current technologies and has major spin offs to our planet rather than try to solve the gargantuan logistics of supporting a planetary colony?

The idea smacks of running away from our own, and I would want to employ our not insignificant skills in solving some of the issues on our own planet, whilst pushing the technology envelope in a pragrmatic and practical way in parallel.

 

[lifeonmercury]

Would starting a self-sustaining colony of intelligent robots on Mars be a more viable option?

 

[Stavros Kiri]

Would starting a self-sustaining colony of intelligent robots on Mars be a more viable option?

That level of artificial intelligence isn't here yet, or is it?

 

[mfb]

Human-level artificial intelligence? At least decades away, with no upper limit. And the first one, if we manage to build one, will use a massive supercomputer with megawatts of power. A compact computer with human-level artificial intelligence is even more challenging. Much more advanced intelligence? If we manage to make a superintelligent computer, forget every prediction based on existing technology - the computer might be able to re-shape our world in ways we cannot even imagine.

 

[Stavros Kiri]

After the 5G internet (and 'internet of things'), by 2020, still pending the 5th generations computers, announced as a goal long time ago, still way to go ...

 

[rootone]

That level of artificial intelligence isn't here yet, or is it?

Not yet, at one point recently some kind of fully autonomous trading algorithms were tried for stock exchange trading.
It didn't work as expected and caused a few problems that required human interventions to stop it doing trades that made little sense, (to human traders)

 

[lifeonmercury]

The robots don't need to be as smart as humans for the colony to survive.

 

[mfb]

We don't have a self-sufficient robot industry even with human intellectual input. Reducing the available intelligence won't help. Sure, humans can still control things from Earth, especially for long-term strategic decisions. But robots that can build everything on their own don't exist at the moment, and it is unclear when we will get to that point.

 

[Stavros Kiri]

Do you really think so? How many have tried and failed. How much effort, over millennia, has gone to create paradises or utopias.
There are really deep fundamental driver in human and natural processes that mess up such plans. No everyone wants the same end result. Are science people supposed to solve politics?
Come on, allow some techies the chance to escape the madness.

In my post the key words are "could have", in a potentiality or modality sense. Always being an optimist, ... some day, I hope.

But human nature [and race] may be contradictory and self-destructive, although hopefully it slowly changes. Scientists can make logic prevail! I do in fact like and hope to see more and more physicists etc. in countries' goverments etc., because 1+1=2, and not 1 or else, for that matter, something that most fail to see ...

I am with Elon Musk, Robert Zubrin etc. , or whoever will actually take the step to space exploration and human expansion [to space], but:
1. I would't go. I like it here better! [Of course, you never know! (never say never) ...]
2. They (we) have to be very careful, not just bold, because, with a problematic and weak earth, if these attempts fail we are all in a worse shape, and not just one but several steps behind!
3. I hate to point out the obvious, but Earth is the only known class-M planet around here that we can actually inhabit (for now)! So first secure it (as a home base) and then move further, unless we want part of humanity to get stranted or lost in space!, because Mars, Moon etc. are just planetary and orbital corpse ..., and will remain that if these experiments fail! ...

Come on, allow some techies the chance to escape the madness

I am also big tech fan, so I say ... go for it!
[Go techies ... go! ...]

 

[Al_]

Even if a colony was to provide stuff to Earth for FREE, the cost of maintaining the colony and transporting the stuff would be high.
Almost certainly much higher that producing the same stuff on Earth, unless it's something unique that can't be done on Earth.

Platinum, Palladium, Gold, Silver, Strontium, Tellurium, Indium, Neodymium, Gallium. All these can be mined and launched back to Earth in heat-shielded boxes with parachutes to land in the desert. The low gravity enables you to use small rockets and just a few kg of fuel made from Lunar water. The rockets could be re-used.
The rarety and value of the metals makes this profitable.

Rocket fuel and spares for geostationary and other Earth satellites cost a huge amount of money to lift up from Earth, but from the Moon, very little. Water for the ISS could come from the Moon much more cheaply. And, as things get going on the Moon, food, spare parts, science kit, etc.
The Moon's "high ground" position makes this profitable.

 

[mfb]

Platinum, Palladium, Gold, Silver, Strontium, Tellurium, Indium, Neodymium, Gallium. All these can be mined and launched back to Earth in heat-shielded boxes with parachutes to land in the desert.

Where are those metals easier to extract than on Earth?
The moon is like a sample of Earth's crust, but without the chemical processes to enrich some metals in some places.

 

[Al_]

That's really the central question.
Even if a colony was to provide stuff to Earth for FREE, the cost of maintaining the colony and transporting the stuff would be high.
Almost certainly much higher that producing the same stuff on Earth, unless it's something unique that can't be done on Earth.
A small manned base could provide useful scientific research, but no need of a fully self sufficient colony for that.
The argument for establishing a second home planet for humans is logical, but I think is politically unsellable except in a doomsday scenario.
Most people would I think probably prefer to see environmental degradation on Earth curtailed first,
or even uninhabitable regions on Earth made habitable, (at a fraction of the cost per inhabitant).

Also the colony could provide tourism, astronomy, and entertainment. NFL's first Lunar game! What would the TV rights for that sell for?
In a doomsay scenario, it might be too late to start.
Earth's environment is going to take WAAAAY more money to fix. Seperate problem.
The are barely any completely uninhabitable regions on Earth. People move out of places where the living is thin, to the big city or a mining town, a tourist town, etc. The Moon could become a place where people choose to live because they can make some money, have a good life, maybe try to stake a claim to some precious metals or some ice deposits. That's a colony!

 

[Al_]

Where are those metals easier to extract than on Earth?
The moon is like a sample of Earth's crust, but without the chemical processes to enrich some metals in some places.

It's not about easier or harder. It's about rarity. Platinum is mined in both easy and tough places on Earth. Gold is just on the surface sometimes, and sometimes a mine goes deep down. The easy places make more money, is all.
Metals from meteorites are likely just lying around in lumps on the Moon, there being no (recent) tectonics or volcanoes to cover it.

 

[mfb]

It's not about easier or harder. It's about rarity.

Rarity is exactly what makes it hard.
A cubic kilometer of average Earth's crust has gold with a worth of a billion dollars. But extracting the gold out of that would cost much more than a billion dollars.

How frequent is platinum on Moon? How much does it cost to collect and extract it? How does that compare to Earth?
You have a few asteroids on the surface, but it is unclear how efficiently you can collect them, and how much extracting the interesting metals out of them would cost.

 

[Chronos]

The value of rare commodities is market driven. Vanity items will have little utility in a space based economy compared to oxygen, water and food. We need to ponder the economic realities of a space based society before we can anticipate supply and demand. I seriously question the market value of commodities, like rare metals and gems, far from earth. What do you think a mining company would offer for a solid gold asteroid beyond the orbit of Mars?

 

[Vanadium 50]

but Earth is the only known class-M planet around here

This is Star Trek, not science.

 

[Stavros Kiri]

This is Star Trek, not science.

True as a term, but in essence means :
"Earth-like planet, the Class M designation is similar to the real-world astronomical theory of life-supporting planets within the habitable zone."
[Normally requires atmosphere "composed of nitrogen and oxygen and an abundance of liquid water necessary for carbon-based life to exist."]
(source: wikipedia)

Obviously Mars and Moon aren't ...

P.S. the above explanation in terms of Astronomical and Astrobiological terms is science ... just longer to explain or quote ...
[But truly thanks for pointing it out!]

 

[Al_]

How frequent is platinum on Moon? How much does it cost to collect and extract it? How does that compare to Earth?
You have a few asteroids on the surface, but it is unclear how efficiently you can collect them, and how much extracting the interesting metals out of them would cost.

Asteroids, and meteorites, can contain raw metals that in some cases need no extraction or processing at all.
http://www.space.com/30074-trillion-dollar-asteroid-2011-uw158-earth-flyby.html
Such things have been collecting on the Moon's surface for the last, approx 4 billion years, since most of it was last molten.
There are spectral methods that can spot elements from great distances, say from low moon orbit. Then send in the robot digger.
Compare the cost to Earth? Well, I don't know. At what stage in the deveolpment of the colony?
But don't forget - precious metal mining can be extremely profitable. Costs can be far below sales prices. Sitting on a gold mine.

 

[Al_]

What do you think a mining company would offer for a solid gold asteroid beyond the orbit of Mars?

That depends on the cost to go get it.
Which depends on satellite costs and launch costs.
Which depends on satellite tech, and if you launch from a low g place like the Moon.
So, for a Moon colony with ice mines and fuel production, basic metal bashing for satellite bodies, and imported avionics and robotics, a gold asteroid looks like a good opportunity to make some big money.

 

[Al_]

Vanity items will have little utility in a space based economy compared to oxygen, water and food.

True, so maybe the Gold gets dumped to Earth for cash, the Silver is kept for wiring, some of the Platinum for use as a catalyst and the rest dumped, and all the water ice and other volatiles kept.

 

[Al_]

You have a few asteroids on the surface

Have you seen the Moon?

 

[Al_]

The moon is like a sample of Earth's crust, but without the chemical processes to enrich some metals in some places.

Yes, and no. There were different processes, and still are. The isotopes ratios are similar, but not identical.

 

[1oldman2]

As usual Jason has put together a good piece here.
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2017/20170126-moon-vs-mars-hsf.html

 

[Al_]

As usual Jason has put together a good piece here.
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2017/20170126-moon-vs-mars-hsf.html

He makes a good point about the abrasive nature of Lunar dust. I think that walking on the surface will come to be seen as an emergency procedure only. Robots can be made with hard abrasion resistant exteriors and rotary joints with extremely good dust seals, even in vacuum. I'm sure in future, in space generally, they will be the outside workforce. They will either work autonomously or under Virtual Reality telepresence control from a person in a sheltered habitat or on Earth.

In fact that is one big advantage that the Moon has over Mars - the signal delay is much less. Getting a robot to the Moon is one of the easier things considered here, and if that robot has arms and the ability to work there under Earth control, we have a huge asset to help various stages of development of Lunar activity.

 

[mfb]

In fact that is one big advantage that the Moon has over Mars - the signal delay is much less. Getting a robot to the Moon is one of the easier things considered here, and if that robot has arms and the ability to work there under Earth control, we have a huge asset to help various stages of development of Lunar activity.

=> Rovers to Moon, humans to Mars?

Even when controlled by a human, current rovers cannot do many things a human can. Picking up a rock? Yes, but only with a dedicated arm to do so, and it won't work if the rock has an odd shape. Breaking the rock free first? Better have an additional arm with a hammer. Picking up dust? Another tool. Cleaning solar cells? We don't have a tool for that yet. There are to many rocks in the way? You have to go somewhere else. Wheels getting stuck? Oops. Some other part has some minor technical defect? The tool won't be useful, or in the worst case break the whole rover (e. g. solar panels that don't deploy).

 

[1oldman2]

I realize the following pushes the limits of acceptable sources for this thread, I did find it relevant (as well as a little dated) enough to mention it though.
Its just possible there may be some points worthy of discussion as its in the general subject area of the thread.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2014/09/08/where-build-off-world-colonies/

 

[nikkkom]

Asteroids, and meteorites, can contain raw metals that in some cases need no extraction or processing at all.

These metals are usually Fe and Ni. We have them here on Earth in abundance. Even if pure Ni is lying on the Moon, merely packing it up and sending to Earth would cost more than producing it from Earth's ores.

But don't forget - precious metal mining can be extremely profitable. Costs can be far below sales prices.

Handwavium with not a shred of calculations. Show us reasonable economic estimates that any metal on the Moon is profitable to extract and sell on Earth.

 

[Stavros Kiri]

I realize the following pushes the limits of acceptable sources for this thread, I did find it relevant (as well as a little dated) enough to mention it though.
Its just possible there may be some points worthy of discussion as its in the general subject area of the thread.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2014/09/08/where-build-off-world-colonies/

Some interesting points there. Is the part about Venus reasonable though? Also, with just 0.38 of Earth's gravity on martian surface, they fail to mention that this creates also a problem for the atmosphere to be terraformed (something that needs to be dealt ...) , as discussed previously here about gravity on Mars (etc.) ...

 

[mfb]

The gravity of Mars is sufficient to keep the atmosphere. Over millions of years, we would probably want an artificial magnetic field to reduce losses due to solar wind, but that is irrelevant today. If humans are still around in a million years, they will solve that issue with technologies we cannot even imagine today.

The lower gravity and the lack of a magnetic field are no obstacles to terraforming.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2014/09/08/where-build-off-world-colonies/

The article is completely outdated in terms of plans to go to Mars.

 

[1oldman2]

The article is completely outdated in terms of plans to go to Mars.

True, thus my disclaimer. "I realize the following pushes the limits of acceptable sources for this thread, I did find it relevant (as well as a little dated) enough to mention it though. "
I do have to admit to a certain amount of "literary License" in post #343 but after reading some of the earlier posts regarding Nuking martian moons and comparing martian colonies to Dubai, well I figured what the hell... "Its just possible there may be some points worthy of discussion as its in the general subject area of the thread."

 

[1oldman2]

Some interesting points there. Is the part about Venus reasonable though? Also, with just 0.38 of Earth's gravity on martian surface, they fail to mention that this creates also a problem for the atmosphere to be terraformed (something that needs to be dealt ...) , as discussed previously here about gravity on Mars (etc.) ...

From a personal viewpoint, I don't know enough about terraforming to comment on Mars or Venus, (either one would have to be a very long term project and I would defer to mfb's opinion on the matter.) As for Mars it seems there are some environmental conundrums that science needs to work out besides the atmosphere, radiation, perchlorates (https://phys.org/news/2015-06-future-issues-perchlorate-poses-colonizing.html), transportation etc. For example there doesn't appear to be an explanation for, https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/nasas-curiosity-rover-sharpens-paradox-of-ancient-mars
"Mars scientists are wrestling with a problem. Ample evidence says ancient Mars was sometimes wet, with water flowing and pooling on the planet's surface. Yet, the ancient sun was about one-third less warm and climate modelers struggle to produce scenarios that get the surface of Mars warm enough for keeping water unfrozen."

"We've been particularly struck with the absence of carbonate minerals in sedimentary rock the rover has examined," said Thomas Bristow of NASA's Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California. "It would be really hard to get liquid water even if there were a hundred times more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than what the mineral evidence in the rock tells us." Bristow is the principal investigator for the Chemistry and Mineralogy (CheMin) instrument on Curiosity and lead author of the study being published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.

 

[Stavros Kiri]

The gravity of Mars is sufficient to keep the atmosphere.

How do you justify that? [If you already have earlier and I missed it you can just quote it ... ; it's been a long discussion ...] Are you sure that with a little over 1/3 of the gravity on Earth we can have on Mars a thick and high enough earth-like-terraformable atmosphere (including ozon layer etc ...)? I haven't done the math.

 

[nikkkom]

How do you justify that? [If you already have earlier and I missed it you can just quote it ... ; it's been a long discussion ...] Are you sure that with a little over 1/3 of the gravity on Earth we can have on Mars a thick and high enough earth-like-terraformable atmosphere (including ozon layer etc ...)? I haven't done the math.

The existence of current Mars atmosphere is a proof that rate of escape is low enough.

The key here is that thicker atmosphere, at the same temperature, generally does not escape faster than a thin one (as long as mean free path at the surface is such that molecules can't escape directly from surface).
IOW: if you add CO2 to Mars so that you have 1 bar pressure at the surface, this thicker atmosphere will survive for hundreds of millions of years, if not billions.
(O2/N2 atmosphere will evaporate somewhat faster, because these molecules are lighter than CO2.)