This isn’t exactly a new question. The Space Studies Institute has been thinking about it for a third of a century. And of course, one always finds the inevitable “it’s obvious that the first colony should be on Mars” comment.
84 thoughts on “From Lunar Return To Colony”
Comments are closed.
One factor not mentioned is toxicity. Lunar dust is nasty — and Mars is worse. Yes, we can handle that, with sufficient care and extreme attention to cleanliness. But if living on the Moon or Mars requires rigorously isolating ourselves from the environment, perhaps it would be better to take the isolation a bit further? This brings up the question Gerard O’Neill asked decades ago — is a planetary surface the best place for a space settlement?
Perhaps the Moon and Mars will develop like the South Pole or mining settlements in the Australian outback — places where people go and live for a period of time and perhaps even live permanently, but only if they have a good reason to be there — while the real metropoli develop in free space.
The one (only?) advantage of the Mars and Moon though is that in space you really have to create everything. The Moon at least provides something to stand on and gravity “for free”.
My assumption about Moon dust is that someone would end up creating an automated factory that sucked in local materials and churned out little self-driving robots (by the thousands or millions) that sucks up the dust and compresses it into something coarser, like gravel. Set them loose on the surface and forget about them. After a few days they’d make the area immediately surrounding any base fairly dust-free (it’s not like a wind will blow more at you). After a few decades or centuries most of the Moon would be dust-free.
I’m not sure that “suck up” the right word though, given the lack of air. Maybe some kind of static-charged spinning broom.
The one (only?) advantage of the Mars and Moon though is that in space you really have to create everything.
Actually, we don’t have to create anything — and can’t. Matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed.
In space, we can transform matter by moving it to a location of our own choosing and altering its form. We can do the same thing on the Moon and Mars. In fact, we’ll have to. Even though we talk about “in situ” resources, there are very few resources that will be useful in their original location and without processing in some form. (Lava tubes are the only thing that comes to mind.)
Thank you, Mr. Idiot-Pedant-of-the-Year-Award-Winner.
I’m pretty sure most people understand “create” to refer to shaping and other manufacturing processes, not just magical conjuration.
There’s no reason you can’t do shaping and manufacturing in space.
Edward,
And as Isaac Asimov pointed out in the 1960’s before Dr. O’Neill even thought of the question, the answer is no. The best place for space settlement is in Self-Contained Mobile Space Habitats called Spomes (SPace hOMES),
No different than living beneath the surface of a planet except that you control the gravity and you get to go where the resources are instead of having to drag them to you. Or you get to move on down the road when politics intrudes. And that is the key flaw of O’Neill Habitats, being immobile you get all the disadvantages of being stuck on a planet without any of the advantages.
Luna wouldn’t have to be nearly as self-sufficient as a Martian colony would. I think it’s obvious we should try there first, where we could always get a re-supply mission to the base on (relatively) short notice if we needed to.
I liked the idea I saw posit make a while ago. Take a small nuclear warhead with you (as heavy equipment goes, not that heavy) and bury it under the regolith. After the boom you’d have an airtight and semi-circular cave that would be fairly easy (as Moonbases go) to make a large open-air, shirt-sleeve environment.
I’m not sure it’s easier and better than living in an O’Neil cylinder at L1 or L2 though.
Luna wouldn’t have to be nearly as self-sufficient as a Martian colony would.
Neither is San Francisco. Total self-sufficiency is not necessary, unless you’re worried about some sort of disaster interrupting the supply lines.
Take a small nuclear warhead with you
Look up the Outer Space Treaty. Then go out and try to price a commercially available nuke. If that doesn’t discourage you, discuss the idea with your local Congressman.
Edward,
Plus you have the problem of glow in the dark walls…
Much easier to just assemble a tunnel borer or two and just keep digging. A 8-10 Meter diameter one would be practical on the Moon and would give you far more habitat per unit of energy. And the output would be already crushed for process into LOX and other goodies. And best of all, once its dug in you could seal the tunnel so its working in a pressurized environment which makes tunneling easier since you would be able to recycle the water used for clearing the cuttings out.
In 1988 Texas A&M did a study of a similar system. Their system used a nuclear reactor for power, but a solar energy farm could serve a similar function.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19890008382_1989008382.pdf
After you set of the nuke you’d need to wait a couple years before occupying the cave.
The simplest structure I can think of off the top of my head is to sew lots of Bigelow habitats together, or rather to have a huge floor and ceiling held together by Bigelow fabric wall panels (much like a honeycomb) to make a single-story inflatable building.
The building is landed on the moon rolled up in a giant stuff bag. An area is leveled and smoothed and the fabric is unrolled. Then a layer of fine dust (collected with a street-sweeper) is spread on top, followed by many feet of loose lunar soil, including small rocks. Then the building is inflated and the soil forms the radiation shielding.
At 10 PSI internal pressure the Bigelow could support 1440 pounds per square foot, and sand runs about 144 pounds mass per cubic foot, so on Earth the Bigelow could lift 10 feet of dry soil and on the moon about 60 feet of soil. If a Bigelow is considered strong enough and puncture resistant enough for orbital applications, a lunar Bigelow would be even safer because it would have many feet of radiation and impact protection.
After inflation, mix some of the dust with a plastic or concrete binder and spread it on the building’s floor to provide abrasion resistance and a tougher surface that can support chair, tables, and equipment.
Driving the little sweepers, graders, or bulldozers could be done via tele-operation from Earth, so you could build the whole habitat before you even land an astronaut to occupy it.
George,
When the ASCE held robotic contests with its Earth and Space Conferences a while back this was one of the challenges, to place a habitat on the lunar surface and cover it with shielding. The first time it ran there were some problems, but the college teams, and even one high school team solved it at the second conference (Earth and Space 2000). Then tube, drill into it, place an inflatable habitat in it and then place an airlock on it. They also solved it by the second conference (Earth and Space 2004). The telebotic systems used (the operators in the could only see what they were doing by cameras on the robots…) could have been easily scaled up. Bottom line, the systems to do so are available now off the shelf. Just add money and a means to get them to the Moon.
A Bigelow module is the simplest structure you can imagine?
How about this:
Send a digger and a compressed earth brickmaker. See where I’m going with this?
Make big structural bricks 2′ or more on a side, and stack them into an arched shed 50′ high and as long as you care. Spray the inside with some sort of air-tight and insulating polymer, however thick it needs to be. Bury the outside under 10′ of regolith.
Just a few of these machines could quickly create enough living space for thousands of people. Faster than a “nothing but passengers” Falcon Heavy could get them there.
Of course, you’d need air, but you always do on the Moon.
Brock,
Yes, or just use a Contour Building Robot. Here is a great film of one that was discussed at Earth and Space 2012. Much stronger than bricks but just as simple.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOlRI_Hm1Po
The group developing it is Contour Crafting
http://www.contourcrafting.org/
Its designed for Earth applications, but will work just as well on the Moon.
Here’s a good NASA article on it as applied to the Moon.
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/early_stage_innovation/niac/khoshnevis_contour_crafting.html
Brock,
As the astronaut John Young put it at Earth & Space 2006 in Houston. If things go wrong with your food supply on the Moon, or you forgot a key part, resupply is 3 days away. If it goes wrong on Mars you will need to wait a year or more. Three days is short enough you are able to tighten your belt and get through it, but its a bit hard to skip meals for a year or so.
As the astronaut John Young put it at Earth & Space 2006 in Houston. If things go wrong with your food supply on the Moon, or you forgot a key part, resupply is 3 days away.
If he said that, someone should have called him on it. His supply concept is a Saturn V-class launcher. How long does it take to prepare such a behemoth and role it out to the pad? (And you’re going to launch a Saturn V just because someone ran short of sandwiches?)
NASA can’t get a critical item to ISS in three days, but the Moon is going to be easier?
You and John may not realize it, but you’ve just demonstrated why a sustainable lunar base requires reusable launch vehicles!
Edward,
You are really stuck in the 1960’s aren’t you. You don’t need a Saturn V to land a couple hundred pounds on the Moon. A surplus ICBM on standby with a small lander will work fine using a direct decent mode as with Surveyor.
Also keep in mind, that just as with the ISS, the crew could return to Earth on short notice and go back with what is needed to solve the problem. Again, the key is the Earth is only 2-3 days away from the Moon. Why do you think they keep a Soyuz docked at all times to the ISS? Don’t you think a similar lifeboat would be on stay by on the Moon?
Precisely.
I’m pretty sure that I read that a Dragon (once the Super-Draco thrusters are in place) is more than powerful enough to get off the Lunar surface. As long as the colony remains small, that would serve as a lifeboat they could live in for a day or two, or escape to ISS.
Once the colony is too big to escape on available rocketry, they’re still close enough to rescue. The most likely emergencies aren’t “a lack of sandwiches”, but some key part breaking that needs to be replaced for the water filters to work (or whatever).
Remind me, Tom, when was the last time used a surplus ICBM to deliver a part to ISS?
I’m hazy on the exact date, but I think it was approximately never?
You’re right about the lifeboat, though. If you obviously aren’t planning on doing anything important at your lunar base, or having any significant population, you can just pile into the van and bail at the first sign of trouble.
How many times have they used the lifeboat to evacuate ISS, again?
There’s also a disconnect in relying on surplus ICBMs (rockets no longer considered reliable enough for military service) to deliver “key parts.”
Edward,
You don’t know the history of the Progress launch vehicle, do you? I bet you didn’t know the modified R-7 used was Russia’s first ICBM?
http://www.energia.ru/english/energia/launchers/rocket-r7.html
Luna wouldn’t have to be nearly as self-sufficient as a Martian colony
Which is exactly what makes the moon a bad choice. We will learn the wrong lessons there in the same way we learned the wrong lessons about reusability from the shuttle.
Not just self sufficiency, but self expandability needs to be a given. This happens with ownership which encourages self development.
The MarsOne project, which does many things right, has a fatal flaw (hopefully corrected before we send anyone.) It’s flaw is similar to how a lunar colony is likely to be flawed. It depends on earth technology that can’t be easily replicated or repaired on site.
Colonists will need large non-toxic shirt sleeve spaces to live and work. This means heavy equipment to move a lot of dirt. It also means robust life support chemisty that does not require high tech. solutions. Fortunately, we have that courtesy of the gaslight era.
Are you insane?
We’ve never even gotten a BioDome working here on Earth. Trying to build the prototype on Mars pretty much guarantees the colonists will die. At least on the Moon they’ve got a fighting chance to survive until help arrives.
Maybe you haven’t noticed, but most things don’t work perfect on the first attempt. And on Mars, anything less than perfect would probably mean the loss of the whole colony. We simply don’t know exactly what it takes to live on a foreign world, because no one’s ever done it. You might think you know, but you don’t know what you don’t know. Unknown unknowns.
Brock,
And that assumes they settlers even make it there. There is a huge difference between simulated Mars missions on the ISS and actually riding a spacecraft out to Mars.
Nope, the Moon is a necessary first step any way you look at it. And even there you would want to test the systems to their breaking point on Earth first. Which would be a good project for a group like the Moon Society or SFF to do if they were really serious about space settlement.
Actually the transportation problem is trivial in comparison to learning how to live on the Moon. We already know how to get folks to the Moon. The problem is just finding the money to do so. By contrast we have only guesswork on what it would take to survive there long term.
Am I insane? Is there a Turing test for that?
We’ve never even gotten a BioDome working here on Earth.
What do you suppose the reason is for that? It’s not because we don’t know what it takes to survive. We’ve had people living in orbit for more than a year. The reason the biodomes failed was because people didn’t care enough to make them work. Why? Precisely because they were here on earth. This is precisely why the moon is a bad choice. They both are likely to fail because we believe we can rescue them so failure doesn’t really matter that much.
Taking Mars One again as an example (because there just aren’t that many mission plan examples to choose from) they intend to have two red lander life support systems. The actual life support equipment comes from a company that builds them. We know it would work. We also know it’s a bad idea to rely on technology that has to come from earth. Fortunately it’s chemistry.
We simply don’t know exactly what it takes to live on a foreign world
Actually we do. It’s chemistry. We understand chemistry. Yes, they might have wrinkles to deal with. That’s why we include chemist among the colonists. That’s also why we need to oversupply the colonists.
It’s also why we send people rather than robots. Although robots testing soil is a prudent mitigation of risks. People can deal with the contingencies.
You can never eliminate risk, but you can allow risk to paralyze you.
The first dozen spend two years proving the next few dozen are safe to go. I think that’s very prudent. It’s just a matter of giving them the right start, giving them the right mix of supplies in over abundance, sending the right people with the right skills and being as prepared as we can be with known information.
We know enough now. There is no reason to wait.
I’d risk my life to be the first to go to mars because the reward is beyond worth it. If we went to another star and found mars there we’d know we’d hit the jackpot. It’s an entire world of resources waiting for us.
That’s worth risking a few lives.
Ken,
You might want to look up the history of Wangel Island sometime to see the fate of a similar strategy, based on similar thinking, in the 1920’s.
The plan I’ve outlined has no analogy to Wangel Island in the 1920s. Thank you for playing (and the ref.) Try again (but stay away from the analogies… you’re not very good at it.)
Ken,
Yes, the settlers there had a lot higher chance of survival, especially if they listened to the folks who knew by experience how to survive in the Arctic. You don’t even have that baseline of knowledge for Mars…
Actually the more I think about it, Venus, not Mars is the logical next step after the Moon IF you are interested in developing a space faring civilization. The Carbon Dioxide, Sulfur compounds and Nitrogen in its atmosphere would be a good supply source for the Moon and mobile space settlements. While the shorter transits and high abundance of solar energy in its vicinity creates all types of industrial opportunities, opportunities an Asimov Habitat or two could easily exploit.
By contrast all are able to do with Mars is dig in at the bottom of another gravity well with all the baggage of the one you left.
You could also fairly easily float a habitat in Venus’ upper cloud decks. I’m not sure what sort of surface coating you would need to protect the systems from the acidity of the atmosphere, but simply having 1 ATM air pressure on the outside of the system would be hugely helpful. Any leaks would result in just a slow gas exchange, and not anything explosive.
Epoxy paints work fine for sulfuric acid (even hot concentrated acid), as do many other simple and common coatings. Most plastics aren’t even affected, with the exception of PET.
Venus has a whole lot to recommend it, especially the trivial availability of normal Earth temperatures and pressures in the upper atmosphere, along with unlimited atmospheric carbon (CO2), oxygen, nitrogen (about 4 times as much as Earth’s atmosphere), and water (Venus’ atmosphere has enough water to fill some of the Great Lakes). The trick would be mining
metal ores from the surface to keep expanding the floating structures.
Venus gives you only the chemicals found in the atmosphere which drags on your orbit. Someday yes, but not now.
Ken,
Why would you orbit in the Venus atmosphere?
I didn’t say you would, but you would have to have something enter the atmosphere to mine it. Even then, it’s not much to support industry which is required for expansion beyond a few spacecraft.
to do with Mars is dig
…and that is the huge advantage of mars over any other destination.
Venus has a couple of advantages going for it. You’d want to operate somwhere from 49.5 to 52.5 km in altitude, or perhaps slightly higher, so the atmospheric pressure is sea-level to about 10,000 feet (on Earth). 49.5 km would require air-conditioning because it’s about 150F, but electronics would work fine there. 52.5 km is at 98F, and you could breathe a normal mix or enhance it to 27% O2 to give sea level oxygen pressure. Go a little higher and things would be room temperature, but you’d want a bit more O2 enrichment. You could go outside wearing nothing but the same setup a fireman has, minus the flame protection.
Processing the atmosphere would provide most of what you need, with massive amounts of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and sulfur readily available (which makes both air, plastics, and carbon fiber), along with water (hydrogen) and small amounts of argon, helium, chlorine, and fluorine. With such abundant and easily accessed carbon and oxygen, production of metals from ores is a snap, and lifting them to the 50 km level just takes a balloon filled with normal air.
But the main thing would be building a robotic airship that produced breathable air (a lifting gas), an excess of carbon or hydrocarbons (such as methanol) and oxygen for processing and fuel, and most of all plastics and carbon fiber so the airship could be replicated in a self-sustaining cycle (minus the power source).
Beware the zienite.
Done right, there is more risk living on the I.S.S. than colonist on mars would face. Venus is analogous to the station except worse.
There will never be a self-sustaining colony on the Moon, or on Mars.
For the moon we’d never be able to define it as such. For mars, there is a chance. The risk averse need not apply.
Ken,
There is a huge range between risk adverse and suicidal. And that is what Mars settlement will be if you skip the Moon stage.
The moon is just a distraction pushing mars colonization further into the future. The mars landing is trickier. Moon landing does nothing to mitigate that. Once on the surface, they are totally different environments with different resources to get in different ways.
The moon does not prepare anyone for mars. Preparation should focus on a specific target because there are enough issues to require that kind of focus. The moon is a distraction.
The moon could make it much cheaper to colonize Mars. It is not a “distraction.” But you’re welcome to colonize Mars without it, with your own money.
In any event, there is no rush to colonize Mars.
Lunar oxygen would certainly help, but wouldn’t take much away from the distraction factor. OTOH, it wouldn’t hurt to test some mars equipment on shakedowns on the moon.
So the distraction isn’t total, but it’s there.
Ken,
When Mars is settled, if its ever settled, it will be from one or more orbiting Asimov Habitats, built in lunar orbit from material from the Moon. That is the only way for Mars settlement to be both practical and sustainable.
Mars Direct is nothing but a fantasy that would end in suicide and in doing so discredit the entire idea of space settlement. Its a pity NASA has wasted so much money on Mars over the last 20 years, money that could had really advanced both lunar settlement and the creation of a space faring society.
That is the only way for Mars settlement to be both practical and sustainable.
The only way Thomas. Does it matter that I’ve shown an alternative? You’re arguing like Bob now.
Mars Direct is a strawman. You must be tired. Usually you make a better argument.
Ken,
The distance to Mars make any scheme that lacks a nearby habitat to retreat to impractical, call it whatever you want. Asimov Habitats are the key to the Solar System, not rowboat size capsules and dreams of living off the land like the old West.
The habitats they will retreat to will be on mars itself.
Andrew,
Depends on your definition of self-sustaining. If you define it as Moon only, probably not. But if you define it as independent of Earth, yes. The Moon, Venus and NEO’s form a natural trade cluster, each with resources the others need.
But the real value of the cluster will be building the mobile space habitats that will settle the Solar System.
That cluster is separated by time and fuel. Mars is it’s own cluster having everything required in one place (and in walking distance should they give up their Tesla roadsters!)
Ken,
And that very fact makes it a dead end. Just like the settlers to Easter Island lost the ability to cross oceans…
But other islanders did cross oceans. You and the Easter lslanders seem to share the same problem.
Mars will probably be the busiest spaceport in the solar system in a hundred years.
How you can turn having resources into a bad thing is quite amazing.
Ken,
When they are at the bottom of a deep gravity well in the middle of nowhere. Alaska is rich in resources, but the Pilgrims never tried building a settlement there. Even Jamestown would have failed if they hadn’t stumbled on Bermuda on the way there.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Shipwreck-That-Saved-Jamestown/dp/0805090258/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1349063392&sr=8-1&keywords=The+wreck+that+save+jamestown
“The Shipwreck That Saved Jamestown: The Sea Venture Castaways and the Fate of America” by Lori Grover and Daniel Blake Smith
Again, there are lessons to learn from history, unless you want to repeat the same mistakes.
You can cite a million historical examples (yea or nay.) It doesn’t matter. What matters is the colony plan itself and if it’s viable.
Mars One (assuming financing) has a viable plan to get colonist there with the flaw of not sending enough at a time (insuring the cost remains high) and not enough emphasis on ISRU life support which, as Trent says, is a suicide mission.
The Space Settlement Initiative has a financial plan that will more than pay for a colony; However, it leads to a company town which will have repercussions for centuries (and forever.)
My plan requires people to free their minds and embrace freedom. It does require looking past the next quarterly report and realizing the huge wealth potential just a few decades down the road.
You don’t get wealth from central planning. You get wealth by allowing people to have the liberty of ownership and pursuit of their own happiness. Too bad their isn’t a country on earth that believes that.
Ken,
That is why no country will settle space and its also why its necessary to purge both the O’Neill Model and the Zubrin Model.
Both are focused on the wrong targets and make zero economic sense. A space settlement model must build on existing technology and revenue markets on Earth if its going to succeed.
The Moon is key because its close enough to do a majority of the work with telebotic systems saving on the cost of sending humans there until a facility is ready. And then its possible to expand it using telebotics. That is not possible on Mars.
The handful of workers will quickly be overwhelmed by the work needed and be dragged down to failure. And when they do they will end the dream for everyone.
revenue markets on Earth
This is 180 degrees wrong and a reason why other plans fail (or can’t be developed in the first place. Also why people look to govt. which has little incentive to do more than give lip service.) Again I say, free your mind. Those markets will develop over time, perhaps centuries, it is the local markets that are important before that.
workers will quickly be overwhelmed by the work needed
Wrong again, although there will be plenty of work for incoming colonists. They will need to provide their own life support which will be a very minor part of their day. About like paying a water bill. Some may specialize in that, which would free up time of others for different pursuits much of which is profitable in the local economy.
Have you ever seen a [financially successful] well run ranch? The rancher doesn’t spend his whole day running around doing labor. A large part of his day is meditation and planning. He considers what he must do to expand his operation and make it more profitable. This is punctuated by days when he goes out to implement those plans.
On mars that means digging and expanding his shirt sleeve areas and gathering resources.
Have you ever been to a branding? This is something ranchers do collectively to help their neighbors. This type of thing will happen on mars as well. People will borrow from each other and share their labor… guess why? For the fun of it.
All the time they will be making incremental progress that after a while will impress any naysayer that happens to notice. All without selling a single thing to earth.
However, they will have plenty to sell to earth. Even if it’s only a reality show as Mars One plans. Research that can be done no where else will also be an export. I bet novels set in mars that have a realism not found in any other might become best sellers.
Free your mind.
At either it’ll take a huge range of high tech systems to support human life, with a huge complex infrastructure, easier just to accept that trade will be cheaper than producing everything domestically, even for a nation as big as the US. For a small off planet colony in a hostile environment? Multiply the benefits of trade by about 10 million.
it’ll take a huge range of high tech systems to support human life
No.
They will have to seal their habitats from toxins in the soil. Afterwhich the biggest problem is CO2. There are numerous solutions to these problems. The best are low tech. and completely within the capability and resources of the colonists.
What, no space suits, no radios, no computers, no vehicles, no solar panels, no food? All they need is the air that they breath?
Most martians will never wear a space suit after landing. It will go in the closet. The glove is the problem. The solution is robotic grippers. Martians will spend most of their lives in a shirt sleeve environment including when they move about on the surface.
Radios, vehicles, solar panels and food can all be made on mars locally.
Computers they will take with them. Later they will only import chips.
Air is the first thing they need. All else follows.
Radios, vehicles, solar panels and food can all be made on mars locally.
Yeah, and no doubt you figure you can create a car from iron ore in you backyard.
Why is it that the further from Earth people let their imagination roam, the further from reality (in this case sanity) their ideas get?
Andrew, I know you do not lack imagination. The problem is a can’t do attitude. It’s a modern problem and a major reason we need frontiers like mars.
you can create a car from iron ore in you backyard
You laugh at the idea because of your culture. Martians will laugh back for the same reason. Yes, they will make cars from dirt. All they need is the design. They have everything else they need. I’ve already shown the design of a tractor that takes two people eight hours to assemble. They can make all the parts.
With this tractor they could move tons of dirt to expand their habitats and provide more raw materials for more industrial machines.
The truly insane are those that say it can’t be done just because they don’t know how.
However, it is one of the reasons you want a few dozen people in your colony. One guy with the skills, like my brother currently in jail, could do it all. However, more people makes it easier.
BTW, making cars from dirt is one of the things that will encourage a diverse economy. Not everyone will make steel from dirt. Some will specialize in that. Not everybody will take that raw steel and form it into sheets and tubes. Some others will specialize in that. Not everybody will weld and machine that steel into parts. Not everybody will assemble those parts.
Some will grow strawberries or other things to pay for their car which the kids will borrow for the weekend.
Some items don’t make sense to manufacture because the domestic demand is too low to justify a factory, such as building a multi-billion dollar semiconductor foundry because you need [i]one[/i] specialized high-speed power transistor for a satellite uplink transmitter.
This extends to other times like tableware, where building a stainless steel fork factory is going to be pretty low on the list of priorities when they could just send you a few dinnerware sets from Walmart in the next shipment.
Regarding CO2, which applies to both Mars and Venus, they’ve made some interesting progress with ruthenium and cobalt catalysts to split it into oxygen and carbon or carbon monoxide, and also turning CO2 and water into methanol. Methanol is useful as a fuel, but more importantly is a very important feedstock for plastic production.
George,
3D printing is changing the equation in that regard.
“For example, islanders have survived for many centuries hunting fish and gathering or growing basic food stuff.”
I guess I’m going to have to change that sign I have to read: “Gone Huntin’ Fish.”
there is no rush to colonize Mars.
That’s true, but aught there be? What we do today changes the future. We dithered with the I.S.S. We could easily dither on the moon even with a permanent base.
Imagine we were in competition to colonize our local star cluster (before the Romulans say.) There’s nothing wrong with going to the moon first, except success on mars will move us forward much faster. That may matter for our survival (or not.)
The time to establish a permanent base on the moon was the last 50 yrs.
Musk could have chosen suborbital with all the others. He made a bolder decision and I think it’s clear it was the right one.
That’s true, but aught there be?
No, we should do it affordably, if at all, not quickly or soon. Colonizing Mars, however romantic it seems to some, is not at all necessary to colonize the solar system, let alone a star cluster.
Colonizing Mars … is not at all necessary to colonize the solar system.
Absolutely true and not my point at all. I mention competition for a very specific reason; because it sharpens the focus.
we should do it affordably
I absolutely agree. But affordably does not mean cheapest. Musk didn’t take the cheaper suborbital route (which is not to say those that did made the wrong choice either.)
I certainly could be wrong, but if advancement at the fastest pace is the goal (competition defining it to be) then mars does that quicker than the moon for the same reason SpaceX is taking the lead over others. Sometimes it’s important to reach farther to go farther, faster.
Another point. We often waste money when we can. The numbers given for a moon base seem to include a lot of waste. Why do I say that? Because I know we can do a mars mission for less than the published numbers for a moon base.
The paradox being that the harder problems sometime produces the better solutions.
Ken,
But a Mars mission would just be another flag and footsteps exercise. By contrast a base on the Moon will be the start of the first off planet settlement.
Pulease…
Did I say anything about a return mission? I said colony. I have a plan for paying the expensive (up to $100m per person) cost of getting there. That plan does not pay for a return trip. How is that flags and footprints?
The I.S.S. is the start of our first off planet settlement. It’s going nowhere. (Ok, dragon is getting development funds. I’ll give ya that.) The moon would be more of the same… stagnation. Now if private companies were going there for resources rather than govt. for a few govt. employees. Yeah, then it makes some sense. But if we realize why mars is the better choice… if we’re going to mars… then go to mars.
The definitive reason why mars is the better choice is because… getting there happens once. Living there happens forever after. Mars has the resources the moon lacks. Mars is the closer earth analogy.
Trade places, mars for the moon. We wouldn’t be having these discussions because with mars as satellite we wouldn’t even look at the moon in mars orbit any more than the moons of jupiter or saturn.
If you swapped Mars for the moon we wouldn’t even have a manned spaceflight program because Cape Canaveral would be destroyed by the 80 foot tides!
Just thought I’d point that out. ^_^
The good news is there would be no energy crisis!
Ken,
Trade places with the Moon and Mars would be more attractive. The Moon is attractive because it only a bit over 1 light second from Earth, not 22 light minutes. Its the location that makes the Moon the logical first step, not the resources. That is the key mistake you are making when looking at a Mars first strategy.
Once we use the Moon to build Asimov Habitats the rest of the Solar System is ours. And planetary surfaces as settlement destinations become irrelevant in the Solar System given the resources of the asteroids, comets, planetary rings and Kuiper Belt. And that is the key function of the Moon, building the first generation of Asimov Habitats, not becoming some type of new Earth. Its also why Real Property rights on the Moon and other Celestial Bodies are irrelevant as the personal property rights based on use of resources for other purposes are more than sufficient to create the Asimov Habitats.
You need to stop thinking like an Earthling and start thinking like someone from a space faring civilization if you are going to create a space faring civilization.
Believe me, I understand. But here’s the rub. They aren’t going to build Asimov Habitats in our lifetime. When they do, it won’t be from moon material, it will be from hollowed out asteroids. It’s not going to happen soon because the motivation isn’t there to go for such a large engineering project anytime soon. It’s too big a step right now.
It may get a start when Planetary Resources puts a rock in lunar orbit and if it’s the right size. But here’s the rub there. Once they bring a rock into the moons orbit, they aren’t going to be keen to add an engine to move it away anytime soon even if they do hollow the thing out. The engine they use to bring it to the moon isn’t an Asimov Habitat engine.
OTOH, mars colonies are doable as soon as SpaceX finishes the Red Dragon lander in another few years (combined with the FH which will happen next year.)
That event, the first colony, will motivate transit between the two while developing another world economy (rather quickly because once there it’s best to get more there ASAP.)
The issue is not what is the best technology. The issue is the fastest BEO growth. A mars colony is that more than any other project including the easier telerobotics on the moon. We already know we can put a dozen people in space suits on the moon including a car. Look how easy it was to abandon that.
Not so easy to abandon a colony on mars. Especially if we send the number of people required to give it a good go (several dozen at a minimum.) Once that is done, it’s much easier to send them a Red Dragon with supplies every couple of years rather than abandon the colony. It also greatly motivates cheaper and faster transportation technology.
With an Asimov Habitat, leasure is a real option (and the one that will be exercised.) Even after the first one is built, leasure is still an option. Not so with a mars colony. The colonists all by themselves will insure that even without any more support from earth.
Yes, eventual the benefits of Asimov Habitats will be realized (not just in the mind but in actuality.) But it is not the next [baby] step.
Ken,
A Mars Settlement won’t need to be abandoned. The radiation and low gravity will wipe it out on its own if the even make it to Mars. And the failure will set the entire idea of space settlement back by generations. That is why the Moon is first.
Also stop thinking of those crazy O’Neill habitats. Asimov habitats would not require anywhere the mass or technology to build, especially with telebotic systems from Earth.
As for Planetary Resources, I see them like most of Peter’s project’s as more hype than reality. All they will do is make a lot of noise, like Rocket Racing and the X-Prize and then fade away without contributing anything substantial except an image of failure while diverting resources from more productive uses.
…why the Moon is first.
So if your argument is wrong, your assertion is wrong. Now I destroy your argument…
Less than 0.1 Sv in a year has no measurable cancer risk and the average dose for a year on mars is only 0.08 Sv. (that’s if they take no precautions at all which of course they will.)
Sunburn is the biggest problem which humans have built in detectors for. About every nine months they will have to take shelter from a solar event that would be 20 times less than radiation poisoning if it happened in a few seconds but they will have all day to get out of it.
So much for radiation.
Zero g for long durations is bad. 0.38g being bad is an assertion with no evidence. To prevent bone loss, perhaps only fat people get to go. Hey, I’ve got a chance then. Sign me up.
We’ve seen no specifications on the Asimov Habitat. Please share.
There is a huge difference between P.R. and those other ventures. This one has a known huge profit potential (enough to make going to the moon irrelevant.) They have an array of telescopes ready to go. They seem to be working on the means of capturing a rock.
So I would not count them out just yet. Did I mention HUGE PROFITS? Profits that make rocket racing and x-prize hobbies by comparison.
BTW, if radiation is a show stopper, it’s a show stopper everywhere and we can give up any fantasy of leaving the earth. I’m not willing to accept that.
Rand Simberg is the king monkey crap slinger of them all and the alpha troll of the private space goons.
I’m envious. Can I be the beta troll?