Why colonize Mars and not 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.

 

[SafetyNow]

Hi,
As I see it mining minerals in space is where the greatest benefits will come from. To do that it would be best to find a fairly close moon or planet to refine the ore. However transporting it back to the Earth economically is beyond us at the moment. You could consider Mars as a staging post though.

 

[sophiecentaur]

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 re-read this. There are many kinds of hell that involve no hard work. I would find it hell to be sitting on an ever growing pile of gold for ten years in a tin box with no view of fields rivers or wildlife. I can't imagine what would be "rich" about the environment on Mars unless it were successfully terraformed and that would be centuries away (millennia even?) No one enjoyed life on the Klondike and very few returned with a lot of money. Only the metal dealers and whorehouse owners made a profit. Would the CEO be in residence on Mars, do you think?
I think you should replace "thrive or die" with "survive or die".

 

[Al_]

Why would it be different "underground" on Earth from how it would be in the sort of enclosures necessary on Mars.

You have to build either sort of base/bunker well ahead of time.
You have to have enough notice so you can dive into the Earth bunker when the alarm goes. Not likely.
You have to know how long to stay in the Earth bunker ahead of time to put in enough stores.

Elon's idea to 'spread out or die out' is, in the long run, correct, but I agree that :

This thread is not actually about the WW3 scenario. It's about commercial development

I would find it hell to be sitting on an ever growing pile of gold for ten years in a tin box with no view of fields rivers or wildlife.

A better analogy is totally unfriendly environments we have here on Earth. The oceans, or the south pole, for example.
Compare the first fishing canoes with big tuna boats, and then on to luxury cruise liners with anti-roll stabilisers and indoor spas and a show every night after dinner.
Who would sit on big pile of gold in a tin can? You'd call up the space base architects and order their best most expensive space palace.
If you need a landscape, I'm sure they can do a great 3D screen wall.

The corporations will try to run things from Earth, sure. But there is no substitute for being able to make commercial decisions based on having close familiarity with an environment. It puts you ahead of the competition, even if you start small.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Who would sit on big pile of gold in a tin can? You'd call up the space base architects and order their best most expensive space palace.

That's where you are almost certainly wrong. The guys making all the money will not be living on the outposts. They will, as usual, be living somewhere nice on Earth. The operatives will be having a quality of life that 'just' pays for their discomfort. Why would you imagine it would be any different from how it is on Earth?

If you need a landscape, I'm sure they can do a great 3D screen wall.

If that would satisfy you, it certainly wouldn't satisfy me.

The corporations will try to run things from Earth, sure. But there is no substitute for being able to make commercial decisions based on having close familiarity with an environment. It puts you ahead of the competition, even if you start small.

Do the CEOs spend much time on Oil rigs (long enough to sample the bad weather and the stress)? Do they go down mines or spend time operating machinery in factories? They pay intermediates (of course) to assess the on-site situation and the same will apply for many generations of colonists. Look at history to find what the bosses in the East India Company were up to in the Eighteenth Century. Nothing changes.

 

[Al_]

That's where you are almost certainly wrong. The guys making all the money will not be living on the outposts. They will, as usual, be living somewhere nice on Earth. The operatives will be having a quality of life that 'just' pays for their discomfort. Why would you imagine it would be any different from how it is on Earth?

If that would satisfy you, it certainly wouldn't satisfy me.

Do the CEOs spend much time on Oil rigs (long enough to sample the bad weather and the stress)? Do they go down mines or spend time operating machinery in factories? They pay intermediates (of course) to assess the on-site situation and the same will apply for many generations of colonists. Look at history to find what the bosses in the East India Company were up to in the Eighteenth Century. Nothing changes.

Nothing changes indeed! In the time of the British Empire there were many examples of individuals who went to the colonies and made fortunes. Some of them started their own corporations there. Eventually, many of the corporations in the colonies became more wealthy than those that stayed at home. Some of those are still there!

The point I was originally making about the behaviour of the people in the colony, is not that they would ALL be successful entrepreneurs, but that SOME of them will be, and they will be the ones who make the colony comfortable, safe and attractive to new independant colonists.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Nothing changes indeed! In the time of the British Empire there were many examples of individuals who went to the colonies and made fortunes. Some of them started their own corporations there. Eventually, many of the corporations in the colonies became more wealthy than those that stayed at home. Some of those are still there!

The point I was originally making about the behaviour of the people in the colony, is not that they would ALL be successful entrepreneurs, but that SOME of them will be, and they will be the ones who make the colony comfortable, safe and attractive to new independant colonists.

I'm not sure that the timescale you have in mind is relevant to this discussion. In the very distant future it's possible that the technology would be able to cope with absolutely any eventuality but, that would also have also included successfully putting Earth's environment back to rights and getting population and food sorted out. I have a theory that, if you scratch the surface of anyone who is wildly in favour of space colonisation, you will find a SciFi fan with pictures of Star Wars, Star Trek and Azimov in their heads. In SCiFi, all the historical difficulties and aggravations are always assumed to have been sorted out - except for a single issue that the story is dealing with. That is the weak line in nearly all SCiFi. More interesting discussions include many more factors than the plot of a single film or book.
You are right, of course, about successful colonies which turned out to make money for the few individuals and success was usually based on cheap labour or slavery. If it's the wealthy few who you identify with, I can see the attraction but the majority of colonists did not have good lives for generations.
But, for the Moon / Mars question, the answer, for me, has to be Moon first; it's a much cheaper option and would it not be very short sighted to go all the way to Mars when we could expect to find all we want on our doorstep?

 

[Al_]

success was usually based on cheap labour or slavery.

There's no such thing as cheap labor in space! Life support is very expensive. But there could be cheap robot labor.

Moon first

Yes, that's also my view!

the majority of colonists did not have good lives for generations.

I'm not sure that the timescale you have in mind is relevant

A timescale long enough for the technical problems to be solved, with the aid of robotic cheap labor, sufficiently well for the independant colonists to be able to make themselves very comfortable. That's about the same time it will take to create a viable colony, because it's more or less the same thing.
Why do the people at the top always seem to make themselves very comfotable? Because compared to the huge resources they control, comfort is a small cost. It will be the same in space, except people can only exist at the top, because the lower jobs are only possible for vacuum and radiation tolerant robots.

 

[Rive]

... In the time of the British Empire there were many examples of individuals who went to the colonies and made fortunes.

There is an important addition for this: successful colonies always had some goods that could be sold at high price at some home market.
So the first question is that what special goods can be produced on a colony of Mars/Moon/deep space what is not available on Earth and can be sold for high price?

I think Moon and Mars has nothing like that. The most they can produce is some research data. Is that enough?
However, deep space has one special thing, what is not available at Earth, and that is the zero-g environment. Maybe something could be produced there.

But, for the Moon / Mars question, the answer, for me, has to be Moon first; it's a much cheaper option and would it not be very short sighted to go all the way to Mars when we could expect to find all we want on our doorstep?

I'm not sure if it's actually cheaper on mid-term and upward. For the moon, you have to carry all the return fuel down lo the gravity well. For the Mars, you have the option to produce fuel locally. It's a big help.

My opinion: for the first really successful colony (not outpost, not research station: colony) it'll be neither Mars or Moon. It'll be some zero-g place where fuel and raw material are available at low delta-V.
Maybe Ceres or such?

 

[mfb]

Some crystals can only be produced in zero-g. Currently that is too expensive for commercial applications, but with cheaper rockets it could become interesting.

it's a much cheaper option and would it not be very short sighted to go all the way to Mars when we could expect to find all we want on our doorstep?

We cannot find all we want on Moon. It is a dead rock. Extracting anything apart from oxygen and a few common metals will be incredibly hard.What do the various desert cities export we have on Earth? Sand? No. They "export" their strategic location on trade routes (works for both Moon and Mars), they export intangible goods, they import tourist money, and sometimes research funds.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Why do the people at the top always seem to make themselves very comfotable? Because compared to the huge resources they control, comfort is a small cost. It will be the same in space, except people can only exist at the top, because the lower jobs are only possible for vacuum and radiation tolerant robots.

This raises an interesting issue. You could be right about the very narrow pyramid of wealth associated with space exploration but that won't apply to the general population of the Earth. That could produce a clash of two social models. (A classic SciFi scenario, of course) The recent proliferation of news about the possible and not-to-distant prospect of robots replacing many kinds of labour makes me think that in the more developed countries, the relationship between personal resources and work will change. Population growth may reduce or even go negative but it will still be necessary to find something for millions more unemployed to do with their time whilst, at the same time, providing them with the resources (practical and emotional) to cope with this radical change of lifestyle. It will be essential to remove the stigma of being unemployed and living on handouts - even lavish ones. It's interesting that those of us who are discussing such problems usually assume that such problems will not affect us; that we will not be part of the 'masses' who will be fed Bread and Circuses from birth to death. The colonisation of Space is actually just a small part of this potential problem but it seems to me that changes could be much too fast for us to cope without serious disruption and even revolution.

 

[sophiecentaur]

We cannot find all we want on Moon. It is a dead rock. Extracting anything apart from oxygen and a few common metals will be incredibly hard.

That's a bit of a sweeping statement, isn't it? The Moon is a pretty vast area on which more or less any part could be used to cherry pick materials (no Oceans, nobody's back yard. What exactly do you mean by "dead rock"? Is there any reason to suspect that the abundance of desirable metals (per square meter) would be any lower than on Earth? In low g, mining and processing could actually be quite a bit cheaper than on Earth as long as it's mainly robot led. (But that wouldn't be classed as a 'colony', perhaps.

 

[Rive]

In low g, mining and processing could actually be quite a bit cheaper than on Earth

Well, the rock is ~ the same but any truck used would work like it's dancing on ice.
Also, is there any kind of natural process on the Moon what would produce deposits?
I have some doubts.

 

[nikkkom]

That's a bit of a sweeping statement, isn't it? The Moon is a pretty vast area on which more or less any part could be used to cherry pick materials (no Oceans, nobody's back yard. What exactly do you mean by "dead rock"? Is there any reason to suspect that the abundance of desirable metals (per square meter) would be any lower than on Earth?

Metals no, but carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and other volatiles are in short supply on the Moon.

Even "water ice in polar craters" could well end up being some regolith with about the same fraction of water by weight as concrete on Earth. Extracting actual water from that is not much fun.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Metals no, but carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and other volatiles are in short supply on the Moon.

Even "water ice in polar craters" could well end up being some regolith with about the same fraction of water by weight as concrete on Earth. Extracting actual water from that is not much fun.

I take your point. A shortage of reagents for reducing ores could be an embarrassment but I would have thought that PV energy would achieve most of what's needed - only in a different way.

 

[nikkkom]

You need carbon and hydrogen to produce any sort of plastics, oils, paints, solvents. Many of them also require nitrogen and/or sulfur. Fertilizers need nitrogen. Chlorine is widely used in industry, and IIRC it is also depleted.

Metal production on the Moon will not be the most impacted industry. At least metals are there, even though different processes to produce them may be needed (for example, both iron and aluminium production we use on Earth require carbon).

 

[Al_]

I think Moon and Mars has nothing like that. The most they can produce is some research data. Is that enough?

Did you read the thread? I know it's quite long, but there is a lot about raw materials, transportation costs, and manufacturing.
The Moon is a great place to get materials at first, and then so are lots of the zero-g bodies further out.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-colonize-mars-and-not-the-moon.899537/page-19

For the moon, you have to carry all the return fuel down lo the gravity well. For the Mars, you have the option to produce fuel locally

Again, did you read the thread? You can make fuel on the Moon. It has ice. https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/ice/ice_moon.html

Even "water ice in polar craters" could well end up being some regolith with about the same fraction of water by weight as concrete on Earth. Extracting actual water from that is not much fun.

No. "nearly pure ice crystals " - see the NASA link above.

A shortage of reagents for reducing ores

Then don't reduce ores. Or only small amounts. A huge amount of stuff can be made from raw, non-oxidised metals found on the Moon, from iron meteorites. Lots of stuff can be made from basalt e.g. basalt fibre. Bulk things can use raw iron or cast stone blocks. The fiddly little things with exotic materials can be shipped from Earth at low cost.
Sure, maybe processes will adapt, materials will be substituted, but not as much as you think. the Moon is BIG. We will find stuff.

some zero-g place where fuel and raw material are available at low delta-V.
Maybe Ceres or such?

It's hard to send people there. And robots aren't smart enough to mine on their own. And remote control (telepresence) is just not feasible due to the signal transmission time delay. But it is feasible on the Moon, so that's where we should start.

 

[nikkkom]

No. "nearly pure ice crystals " - see the NASA link above.

"Analysis of the results indicates concentrations of roughly 6% water in the impact area, including nearly pure ice crystals in some spots."

In my book, as water content, that's concrete with frost on it.

 

[Al_]

"Analysis of the results indicates concentrations of roughly 6% water in the impact area, including nearly pure ice crystals in some spots."

In my book, as water content, that's concrete with frost on it.

Plenty there.

"Subsequent data from Lunar Prospector taken over a longer period has indicated the possible presence of discrete, confined, near-pure water ice deposits buried beneath as much as 18 inches (40 centimeters) of dry regolith, with the water signature being stronger at the Moon's north pole than at the south (4). The ice was thought to be spread over 10,000 to 50,000 square km (3,600 to 18,000 square miles) of area near the north pole and 5,000 to 20,000 square km (1,800 to 7,200 square miles) around the south pole, but the latest results show the water may be more concentrated in localized areas (roughly 1850 square km, or 650 square miles, at each pole) rather than being spread out over these large regions. The estimated total mass of ice is 6 trillion kg (6.6 billion tons)."

 

[mfb]

Is there any reason to suspect that the abundance of desirable metals (per square meter) would be any lower than on Earth?

The average can be similar, but Moon is lacking the geochemical processes to concentrate them.
As an example, uranium makes up 3 parts per million of the Earth's crust. Uranium mines are built in places with 1000 to over 20,000 ppm uranium - a thousandfold concentration relative to the average.
On the Moon, the average concentration is lower at 0.3 ppm, but that is not the point: the highest known concentrations are just 2 ppm, an enrichment of less than a factor 10. Source.

How exactly do we transport things around on the Moon, by the way? Rovers will be generally slow (and limited to the day) if they have to run with solar power, they don't have a practical range with chemical storages or batteries, and the idea of nuclear powered rovers is questionable. Wheels will have a hard time with the regolith. It is easy to point out that "some place on the whole Moon has this", and "some other place has that", but that means we have to transport things over hundreds to thousands of kilometers. Just for basic things like water...

 

[Rive]

Did you read the thread?

Yes and no. No, I did not read all the 500+ posts, just the ~ the last 70-80. And yes, this topic is roughly the same as such topics usually are.

The value of the presence of ice is traditionally overestimated. What it actually means is, that 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.
But diamond won't be enough, not even close.