Why colonize Mars and not the Moon?

[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.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

Obvious follow-up: what advantages could a Moon or Mars colony offer that would lead people to make that choice?

 

[gleem]

Obvious follow-up: what advantages could a Moon or Mars colony offer that would lead people to make that choice?

One choice is isolation/privacy/protection. Some futurist suggest as wealth is accumulated by a few the current propensity for wealthy people or people of means to build walls around their properties, or live in gated secured communities will increase and become more extreme. What better place than the Moon or Mars. Even better than the proposed luxury bunker Vivos in Germany. Of course unless the rabble acquire rockets.

 

[russ_watters]

One choice is isolation/privacy/protection. Some futurist suggest as wealth is accumulated by a few the current propensity for wealthy people or people of means to build walls around their properties, or live in gated secured communities will increase and become more extreme. What better place than the Moon or Mars. Even better than the proposed luxury bunker Vivos in Germany. Of course unless the rabble acquire rockets.

I'll buy that, but I don't think an exceedingly wealthy hermit (or 50) living in isolation except for periodic resupply missions counts as a "colony". It would also need to be funded by said exceedingly wealthy hermits.

 

[rootone]

Is there a Mars hotel?, I will buy that for a night, just a cheap room, don't need a microwave or anything.

 

[Rive]

One choice is isolation/privacy/protection.

Well, there is a fine difference between the 'I don't want to come out' and the 'I can't come out'.
However, it might be a problem that one such 'colony' will be neither. It'll be some combination of 'I can't come out' and the 'yet I have to work all day'.
Also, it's cheaper to buy an island. With no population and fine weather all year around. The saving will even cover the daily post& menu delivered by plane and parachute.

 

[GTOM]

Obvious follow-up: what advantages could a Moon or Mars colony offer that would lead people to make that choice?

Probably getting to another planet (i prefer Mars) can give someone very high wages, good opportunities.
After accustomed to low gravity, its hard to return to Earth.

 

[Al_]

Earth accumulated much more simply because it has larger mass.

It's intercept cross-section is 127800000 square km. The Moon is 9490000. 13.4 times smaller.
So, for objects traveling so fast as to be largely undeflected, Earth would intercept 13.4 times more, but spread over 13.4 times the area (area facing the incoming objects, that is) would lead to the same initial concentration on the surface.
The gravity comes into it more if the objects are moving slowly.

We don't have any evidence for significant accumulations of specific interesting elements

You run across a golf course, you see no balls, and so you have no evidence that there are any there.
OK, fine. I can't argue with you.
I just hope someone sends a probe to the Moon soon, and settles this question.

 

[mfb]

So, for objects traveling so fast as to be largely undeflected, Earth would intercept 13.4 times more, but spread over 13.4 times the area (area facing the incoming objects, that is) would lead to the same initial concentration on the surface.

And the difference to the actual ratio comes from gravity. That's what I said.

I just hope someone sends a probe to the Moon soon, and settles this question.

List of probes sent to Moon.

If you carefully search a golf course and find no balls, you can conclude that golf balls have to be very rare there. I did not consider the deliberate introduction by humans as no one would launch a block of valuable metals to Moon to mine it there.

There are exactly two golf balls on the Moon, by the way. Both close to the Apollo 14 landing site.

 

[Al_]

List of probes sent to Moon.

Most of them crashed. All except two of the others stayed where they landed.
Which one did a "careful search"?

 

[Al_]

Obvious follow-up: what advantages could a Moon or Mars colony offer that would lead people to make that choice?

I think people would see opportunities on the Moon (or Mars) for exploration or claim-staking.
There might be challenges that are hard to resist.
Perhaps they would realize ways to use the resources and experiment with innovations in ways that are not possible on Earth. To make a name for themsleves as an explorer, or gain scientific recognition.
If they hadn't made a fortune yet, and were hoping to do so. Or had made one, and could see a way to make another.
It might just suit a person, in some undefinable way. They might simply enjoy the low gravity, perhaps for health reasons or sport.
There might be things about Earth that deterred them from returning, like war, famine, or epidemic. Or overcrowding, pollution, or debt.

 

[mfb]

Most of them crashed. All except two of the others stayed where they landed.
Which one did a "careful search"?

Most of them were not designed for surface operations and were crashed deliberately, but we are at 20+ landed probes.
The Apollo landers didn't move, but the astronauts, the moon rovers and their science packages moved. Astronauts are much better than rovers moving around. They also brought back samples, together with the Soviet sample return missions.

 

[Ken Fabos]

I think people would see opportunities on the Moon (or Mars) for exploration or claim-staking.
There might be challenges that are hard to resist.
Perhaps they would realize ways to use the resources and experiment with innovations in ways that are not possible on Earth. To make a name for themsleves as an explorer, or gain scientific recognition.
If they hadn't made a fortune yet, and were hoping to do so. Or had made one, and could see a way to make another.
It might just suit a person, in some undefinable way. They might simply enjoy the low gravity, perhaps for health reasons or sport.
There might be things about Earth that deterred them from returning, like war, famine, or epidemic. Or overcrowding, pollution, or debt.

Like other optimistic scenarios - overly optimistic imo - these seem to require and assume relatively low up front costs for individuals to become colonists, as well as assume a relative abundance of exploitable opportunities just waiting for an intrepid explorer to discover and lay claim. ie this is space fantasy - or perhaps the old gold prospector fantasy given a sci-fi makeover. I just can't see it as being real. If there are economically exploitable resources those will need to be known first, with high confidence because those are the essential ingredients to drive the huge pre-investments such an enterprise requires. None of the other motivations I've seen here are going to do - it's either financially viable or it doesn't happen. I haven't seen convincing evidence of economically exploitable resources

If the exploitable resources are proven then big companies/consortiums with big money would need to push a proposal through and that will only happen when they are confident of good returns on investment and given the scale of investment, confident of low risk of failure. That seems an unlikely scenario for encouraging stake-claiming by their employees and contractors or by independent operators - almost certainly the corporate stakeholders will have already staked their wide ranging claims as a precondition for going ahead. Whilst there will be relatively abundant resources of various sorts to be found none have emerged so far as economically viable to exploit. It seems to be the nature of these hypothetical space enterprises that they will not work as shoestring operations - there's a big minimum threshold for success, an all or nothing element here. Opportunities to be involved will probably be as employees and contractors, not "free" colonists.

We can hypothesise the technologies and other motivations but it looks to me like a profit or perish scenario.

 

[Rive]

... huge pre-investments ...

Yes.

It's hard to make up good numbers, but given the required technological level to survive on Mars or Moon a more or less self-sustaining industry would require a population of 50-100 000 people as bare minimum. (With an excellent education system which produces mostly highly educated people and only a negligible amount of delinquents.)
Also, it would require an insane amount of machinery.

We are just hundred years early to even dream about something like that. Right now, there is just one thing what has value high enough in space: knowledge.
But that won't feed a colony. The price for knowledge traditionally would make up for some expeditions only.

 

[Al_]

Most of them were not designed for surface operations and were crashed deliberately, but we are at 20+ landed probes.
The Apollo landers didn't move, but the astronauts, the moon rovers and their science packages moved. Astronauts are much better than rovers moving around. They also brought back samples, together with the Soviet sample return missions.

But the samples were from point spots. The Apollo science packages were placed in static locations. The Moon buggies didn't do prospecting as they went along. The astronauts just eyeballed the ground surface, and did a little field geology!
If there is more of a sweep-the-ground-in-depth approach, a real prospecting effort, the odds are we would find a great deal more.
What is needed is a rover with modern instruments that can detect as it moves. For example, spectroscopic analysis, neutron instrument, digger, drill, chemistry lab, even a simple old fashioned metal detector. The ability to go to the poles, in very cold and dark places.
Maybe even a rover that can go into caves and chasms.

 

[Al_]

If there are economically exploitable resources those will need to be known first

Yes, there is a need for much wider prospecting than has been done to date.

encouraging stake-claiming by their employees and contractors or by independent operators

Elon Musk is planning to offer a $200,000 ticket to Mars. Can we assume the Lunar ticket will be much less?
Once there are facilities there, even if owned by corporations or govmts, it is possible they can be used by independents.

only a negligible amount of delinquents

From the Moon, you can send back to Earth the people who can't/won't hack it.

it would require an insane amount of machinery

Not that much more than we already have in the richer parts of the world. Bottled water, piped gas, greenhouse food, a car per person, a new pair of shoes every week...

the nature of these hypothetical space enterprises that they will not work as shoestring operations - there's a big minimum threshold for success

How big? Earlier in this thread we were discussing a remote-controlled two-rover, two-rocket gold prospecting idea that (I think) might be profitable.

 

[clif stevens]

Given the choice between such a colony on Earth and a life on Mars, I know which one I would choose. Also, what could be achieved on Earth in, say, 10 years with $10 billion dollars would take centuries and an unimaginable budget for Mars. The secure Earth settlements could be built before we even had a viable shuttle to Mars.

Very long term is different, But, as I see it, for the next century or so, we are earthbound.

in my view, if we fail to get off of Earth in the next century we are doomed as a species. Does a Mars/Moon/Space habitat colony ensure that we will survive? Not at all. But NOT doing it dooms us.

 

[sophiecentaur]

in my view, if we fail to get off of Earth in the next century we are doomed as a species. Does a Mars/Moon/Space habitat colony ensure that we will survive? Not at all. But NOT doing it dooms us.

That's a very personal view.
If, as you claim, we will not 'survive' for more than a century (perhaps a few, eh?) then what would be the thing that destroy us so fast? A century is nothing like long enough for humans to establish themselves on an alien planet with a viable colony so we may as well sit and enjoy life back on Earth and wait for Doom to arrive.
I don't think I am a particularly selfish sort of person but I would feel much more inclined to contribute to a project to improve living conditions on Earth for me and all my descendants (plus most of the rest of humanity) than to use my disposable income to a project that will not help a single one of my family. Survival of humanity is actually not that big a deal for me and I think I am pretty well typical of a vast number of humans. Ask the question of a poor peasant farmer in Asia or Africa and you won't get any airy fairy ideals in their answer. They want clean water and medical help long before the warm glow of knowing that some rich individual has just set foot on Mars, having spent what could buy a well and a local doctor (plus plus) just on getting there. Whatever you say, there is competition for resources and you can't have both of those alternatives.

 

[mfb]

They want clean water and medical help long before the warm glow of knowing that some rich individual has just set foot on Mars

Chances are good some of them get clean water right now using technology invented for the ISS water recycling system.
Everything today is based on research money spent earlier on projects that didn't directly lead to better living conditions for anyone.

But the samples were from point spots.

Otherwise we would not call them samples. The samples are from a large range of places around the Apollo landing sites. The Apollo crews explored much more area than all the Mars rovers.

Elon Musk is planning to offer a $200,000 ticket to Mars. Can we assume the Lunar ticket will be much less?

It would be similar. Going to the Moon needs more delta_v: A lower payload per launch or more complex refueling operation, driving the price up. Returning would need a large constant supply of carbon, oxygen and hydrogen on the lunar surface. Oxygen is okay, hydrogen is questionable already, carbon is really problematic. ITS could land with enough fuel to return, but then we need even more complex staged refueling operations. The only advantage is the more rapid re-use of the spacecraft .

 

[sophiecentaur]

Chances are good some of them get clean water right now using technology invented for the ISS water recycling system.

"some of them", possibly but the spin-offs of every project always get loads of publicity. If the same effort and money had been expended on developing a purpose built low tech water, it's pretty likely that many more "of them" would be having good water. The spin off argument, which is used in many such cases, is not really valid. It doesn't actually justify the initial high expenditure; it just makes it sound ok and wins votes.

Everything today is based on research money spent earlier on projects that didn't directly lead to better living conditions for anyone.

That is probably true but it isn't a very efficient path to the humanitarian goal. It's very much "crumbs from the rich man's table".
If and when something starts to happen which represents a real threat to the Earth, it will be interesting to see where public opinion causes governments to go with their spending. My money is on mass bunkers on Earth, rather than a rushed exit for a few by spaceship.
And I basically don't trust humans to make a good job of living on Mars when they are causing so many problems down here on Earth.

 

[mfb]

"some of them", possibly but the spin-offs of every project always get loads of publicity.

In the long run the commercial spin-offs exceed the "main" non-commercial purpose by far. This has been discussed and referenced here already (quite sure it was this thread). Often it is unclear how the spin-offs will look like at the time the research is done. In this case you cannot directly start with the commercial application: You have no idea how to start. And no one invests money in something where no one has an idea how that could be used in the future.

That is probably true but it isn't a very efficient path to the humanitarian goal.

It is the only way. We absolutely need this research.
We also need applied research of course. And we do it: The money for applied research exceeds the money for fundamental research by a huge factor.

Reducing the money for fundamental research a lot to increase the funding for applied research by a tiny bit is short-sighted. We might have a tiny profit from it in 1 year, but it will really hurt us in 15-30 years. And we cannot even know where exactly it will hurt, because we will miss applications we don't even know they would have been possible.

 

[sophiecentaur]

It is the only way. We absolutely need this research.

It is "the only way" totally by choice. There is nothing to stop people doing applied (technology) research for humanitarian ends without needing to involve space exploration. In fact it does happen on a small (cheap) scale. The fact that there are few (if any) spin offs from humanitarian based tek research into the space programme is due to the fact that there is very little money and effort put into it in comparison. Space is far more attractive than being useful - but that's a cultural thing and that culture really needs to change if the majority of the population are to benefit as much as they could / should. (That's if you think that humanitarian interests are important.)
Actually, space technology does not involve that much fundamental research. It's a lot of Engineering and, at times of course, it uses the results of fundamental stuff. The 'fundamental knowledge' that comes from space exploration really has very little to do with colonisation aims. It's mostly achieved much better by unmanned expeditions over periods of years and years. You can't measure gravitational waves on a craft that's full of Scientists clunking around, eating and playing. Same goes for deep space imaging and flying by a dozen objects on a single trip round the solar system.

 

[Ken Fabos]

Elon Musk is planning to offer a $200,000 ticket to Mars. Can we assume the Lunar ticket will be much less?

I think we should assume the tickets will be much more than that. That price looks more like it's what it would need to be to be viable to entice people to participate, not an actual estimate of what we should expect them to cost based on actual numbers. And does the ticket include paying for the facilities, the living quarters, living expenses, a reliable, durable spacesuit and perhaps a Mars capable 4x4? Or the pre-investments needed to make all those possible? I remain very doubtful.

 

[mfb]

It is "the only way" totally by choice.

It is not. Without research on "useless" topics like quantum mechanics, we would not have modern computers today, for example. There is no way to get there with applied research only. You cannot design some application using transistors if you don't even know that transistors are possible.
If we would have followed what you seem to suggest here in the past - just improve applications - we would not even have electricity. We would not even have steel because you cannot design a steel tool before playing around with iron ore for decades to figure out how to make a useful material out of it. We would have excellent stone tools.

Government-funded spaceflight is doing something new with every mission, constantly pushing the limits of what we can do in terms of material science, photovoltaics, various sensors, wireless communication, data processing, and tons of other science topics.

I think we should assume the tickets will be much more than that. That price looks more like it's what it would need to be to be viable to entice people to participate, not an actual estimate of what we should expect them to cost based on actual numbers.

It is an actual estimate based on cost estimates for the rocket system. How realistic those numbers are is a different question. Musk estimated $140,000 for the person and the option to take a few tons of payload to Mars. The payload will increase the actual costs of going there. Initially that payload will be needed for habitats, but as soon as components of those can be produced on Mars the payload will focus more on things more challenging to produce on Mars, like semiconductors or other high-tech material.

 

[rootone]

Every time I have asked someone what they thought were the most significant by-products of space research, they always mention Velcro®

 

[Ken Fabos]

I think it got discussed earlier in this thread but it's worth asking if the expectation that success in this venture is simply a matter of sufficient commitment, that the technical difficulties will inevitably be overcome at acceptable cost by doing so? And that flow on economic benefits of spin offs from just trying should be considered a sure enough thing that the enterprise can be expected to be profitable even without achieving the stated objective. As if Moore's Law and space tech equivalents are fundamental physical laws.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Every time I have asked someone what they thought were the most significant by-products of space research, they always mention Velcro®

Really? That predates the space program by a decade.

 

[sophiecentaur]

It is not. Without research on "useless" topics like quantum mechanics, we would not have modern computers today, for example.

Did I imply that QM was "useless"? And did QM arrive only because of space research? There was no space research when QM started its life. I think you missed my point that lot of fundamental research hangs on the technology that is used to carry it out and that technology has been developed on the back of 'fun' matters like the race to the Moon (a totally political thing that was really part of the arms race).
Fundamental stuff and tech feed off each other, of course but which tech is open to question. The manned space race (which is still going on) cannot be justified on the grounds that it's the only way that fundamental research can be funded. Many space borne experiments are needed to enable some kinds of fundamental research, of course, but they don't require people on board - as I said before, people upset sensitive equipment.
The Search for Life has been sold to the public as a reason to ramp up the space race and to spend money that could be better spent on life improvements down here at the moment.

 

[Rive]

if the expectation that success in this venture is simply a matter of sufficient commitment, that the technical difficulties will inevitably be overcome at acceptable cost by doing so? And that flow on economic benefits of spin offs from just trying should be considered a sure enough thing that the enterprise can be expected to be profitable even without achieving the stated objective.

Most likely that's not true.

Steam engines always makes a good example. It does not matter how much one would have been invested in them in the XIX century, to reach the current motorization level were just impossible with them: and the return of such investment... Well... Forget it.

And once the ICE was developed the motion behind the enterprise was nothing like the actual motorization, but for every single step it was some immediate return. And that was what made it!

As our technology and history is now you can take as granted that any (space) colonization attempt would be just an expensive failure. We have problems with even just maintaining our single LEO station.Give it fifty years and many problems which now are just like walls will become trivial matters - that time we can start dreaming.
Give it a century, and maybe those dreams can succeed.
But try it now, and it will become one of the most grandiose tech bubble of history.

 

[mfb]

Did I imply that QM was "useless"? And did QM arrive only because of space research? There was no space research when QM started its life.

Quantum mechanics was considered without practical applications when it was first studied, but the research then lead to many applications.
A Mars outpost, when first studied, is considered without practical applications by some people. But I'm sure the research for it will lead to many applications.

You use 100 years of hindsight to explain research done in quantum mechanics, and dismiss missions to Mars because you don't see applications now?

cannot be justified on the grounds that it's the only way that fundamental research can be funded.

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, ...

 

[Al_]

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...