The five most livable places (aside from earth). They’ll all take a lot of tech, though. Of course, if you build your own, you can put them wherever you want.
28 thoughts on “Colonizing The Solar System”
Comments are closed.
The five most livable places (aside from earth). They’ll all take a lot of tech, though. Of course, if you build your own, you can put them wherever you want.
Comments are closed.
I’m a little surprised that Mercury wasn’t mentioned. Sure the “bad” includes huge delta-v to get to it. But the good should include lots of solar power plus water in the polar craters. The gravity is not bad and there would be no shortage of metals! Good spot for a cozy little colony that wants some privacy. You could certainly spot anyone trying to sneak up on you.
I thought the claim of limitless energy from Titan’s methane was a treat.
My list would be a lot different to Eric Berger’s:
1. The Moon
2. Space habitats near Earth
3. Space habitats near NEO’s
4. Space habitats near the Martians moons and other asteroids
5. Mars (grudgingly)
6. Mercury’s poles
they also don’t have Earth’s political baggage
Yes, they do and that’s pretty much the whole problem.
How does it figure that the lakes of methane on Titan are a source of energy? Wouldn’t you need an oxidizer to burn it if that were the case? Is there an oxidizer on Titan?
What am I missing here?
I just asked Eric on Twitter.
I don’t think you’re missing anything here.
There should be ice asteroids and maybe with other volatiles near Jupiter I think. Even in Titan there’s supposed to be water. So it might not be viable as a source of energy but it can be used for LOX/Methane or LOX/Kerosene propellant production.
Aren’t Jupiter’s lagrange points filled with asteroids? Not sure if that is “near” though.
What he’s missing is that humans are never going to colonize a moon whose atmosphere is made up entirely of farts.
“How does it figure that the lakes of methane on Titan are a source of energy? Wouldn’t you need an oxidizer to burn it if that were the case? Is there an oxidizer on Titan?”
Yes you would need oxygen to burn/react with the methane which Titan doesn’t have much of; free oxygen anyway. This guy is obviously an idiot.
“The recent discovery that solar wind has stripped the Martian atmosphere away over billions of years has also dealt a blow to hopes that the world might be terraformed by releasing carbon dioxide trapped in Martian rocks.”
Would depend on how much was stripped away before Mars cooled off enough for the water vapor (much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, depending on how much there was in Mars’ atmosphere) to freeze on the surface. Afterward temperatures might have dropped off pretty fast (geologically time speaking) causing hopefully a large amount of the CO2 itself to freeze out. We (Musk) will have to establish our colony first than build factories to produce Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) a super greenhouse gas 17,000 X more potent than weak old CO2.
“NF3 is a greenhouse gas, with a global warming potential (GWP) 17,200 times greater than that of CO
2 when compared over a 100-year period.[11][12][13] Its GWP place it second only to SF
6 in the group of Kyoto-recognised greenhouse gases, and NF
3 was included in that grouping with effect from 2013 and the commencement of the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. It has an estimated atmospheric lifetime of 740 years,[11] although other work suggests a slightly shorter lifetime of 550 years (and a corresponding GWP of 16,800).[14]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_trifluoride#Greenhouse_gas
I’m making a prediction: releasing NF3 on Mars will warm the planet much less than the “greenhouse gas” models predict. Warming the planet will require enough atmosphere, of almost any gases, to produce surface pressure.
“I’m making a prediction: releasing NF3 on Mars will warm the planet much less than the “greenhouse gas” models predict. Warming the planet will require enough atmosphere, of almost any gases, to produce surface pressure.”
As I said below:
“Furthermore you aren’t trying to get all the way there to a warm wet earth with the manufactured fluorine; just warming it up enough to get the CO2 frozen in the icecaps and the regolith to start outgasing; much easier point to reach.”
The idea is to warm up Mars enough to get the CO2 currently frozen to outgas; that’s where your atmospheric pressure (& most of the hoped for warming) will come from, not from the NF3 alone, that’s only to prime the pump so to speak. That would also hopefully enable liquid water to exist on the surface if it gets warm enough.
I agree with Peter. Mars will need more surface pressure or it won’t warm up because the bottom of the atmosphere will stay in rough radiative equilibrium with the upper atmosphere and the upper atmosphere is going to stay cold.
The second problem with using NF3 is that at 17,000 times more potency than CO2, you’d still need 35 billion kg of fluorine to equal the trace amount of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere (taking into account Mar’s smaller surface area). On Earth, fluorine costs about $2,000 a kg, so someone has to come up with $35 trillion dollars before we even talk about shipping costs.
“The second problem with using NF3 is that at 17,000 times more potency than CO2, you’d still need 35 billion kg of fluorine to equal the trace amount of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere (taking into account Mar’s smaller surface area).”
Surface area of Mars is 55,742,106 square miles
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/mars/facts
That is 2.23 E17 sq/in; 14.7psi (if that were Mar’s pressure and ignoring the difference in gravity) =3.3E18lbs; X 350ppm(CO2 conc. earth)/10E6= 1.15E15 lbs /2000 = 5.8E9 tons. Divided by 17000 yields 33.9 million tons NF3 needed. Million not billion. If there were 50 factories on Mars putting out 14K tons a year of Fluorine you could reach that in about 50yrs or so.
” On Earth, fluorine costs about $2,000 a kg, so someone has to come up with $35 trillion dollars before we even talk about shipping costs.”
I said establish the colony on Mars first and then build factories on mars that would used martian raw materials (fluorine for instance is about 3.5% by weight in Mars’ atmosphere; no doubt there are minerals containing fluorine as well). So you wouldn’t be shipping from Earth, you would be making it on Mars. Furthermore you aren’t trying to get all the way there to a warm wet earth with the manufactured fluorine; just warming it up enough to get the CO2 frozen in the icecaps and the regolith to start outgasing; much easier point to reach.
“= 5.8E9 tons. Divided by 17000 yields 33.9 million tons NF3 needed.”
oops…should have said be 5.8E11; the rest seems correct.
“fluorine for instance is about 3.5% by weight in Mars’ atmosphere”
Another oops…that’s embarrassing; that is Nitrogen not Fluorine in Mars’ Atmosphere. You would have to get the Fluorine from Martian minerals. The “colony” would probably have to have well in excess of 10K members before you could support something as ambitious as I suggest. Probably more like ~ 50K people; maybe 100yrs give or take to achieve the NF3 manufacture from the time colony is started.
One can sunbath on Mars. But you do it 10 meters under water.
One could sunbath and be in hot tub, I think you would need be a bit deeper than 10 meters- depending on how warm you want the water.
But it would be salty water.
And if wanted to power with solar energy, you need thermal solar panels with warmed the water.
This related to solar pond on earth which warm water to 80 C a meter below the surface and due to salt gradient the water at surface is about 20 to 30 C. A solar pond of Mars could not get to 80 C and deeper solar ponds don’t have such high temperature- so why you need to augment with thermal solar panels.
Other ways to get hot tub temperatures of beneath the surface is heat water with nuclear power plant’s waste heat.
One could same thing on Moon or Mercury, but you need a dome over the water which provide Mars pressure atmosphere within the dome.
While I’m most likely the least technically literate commenter here, I just don’t understand the fascination of climbing out of one gravity well, only to fall into another one that requires climbing out of? Gerard O’Neill had it right, go up and stay up. Between mining asteroids, and dropping the raw and/or processed material down the solar gravity well &, maybe, mining the moon robotically with rail guns shooting raw material into Earth orbit, Lagrange habitats would seem to be the most effective. Also, after fixed costs of construction would be entirely self sustaining.
Andrew W came close, but he probably knows a lot more than me.
There are certain chemicals (H2O, CO2, CH4, N2 …) which can be useful supplying a colony that tend to be far more abundant in gravity wells, or very cold bodies. Geological processes can also separate minerals in useful ways for mining.
All well & good but, why does there have to be a human presence, and all it’s infrastructure, at the bottom of this gravity well? Robotic mining and rail gun launching to orbital processors would seem to be financially effective for O’Neill habitats. Said habitats being cheaper than building/supplying bottom of gravity well/hostile environments.
You and me, Mike.
–MikeD
June 28, 2016 at 5:35 PM
All well & good but, why does there have to be a human presence, and all it’s infrastructure, at the bottom of this gravity well? Robotic mining and rail gun launching to orbital processors would seem to be financially effective for O’Neill habitats. —
I would say that the Moon should be explored, immediately, and one would first explore the Moon with robotic mission.
What the Moon should explored for is regions in polar area which could be commercially mined for water.
So short major lunar program which send lots of robotic spacecraft which explores both poles, and find areas which are about 1 km square in area or less which have higher concentration of water [say, 5 to10% per weight or per cubic meter of lunar regolith having more than 100 kg of water which could be extracted].
Would use robotic missions to narrow the region, then send crew to these areas and have them do further exploration and get lunar sample to return to earth for further study.
So first 8 years use robotic missions, and end lunar program with about 4 crewed missions to lunar surface and require less than 2 years to complete crewed exploration. Or if started now, finish NASA lunar exploration of the Moon, before the end of 2026.
And then start Mars exploration and require more than 2 decades of Mars exploration, which mostly uses robotic/teleoperation exploration and crews on Mars surface.
So purpose of lunar exploration is determine if and where there are commercially minable lunar water, and purpose of Mars exploration is to determine if and where there could be private settlements on Mars.
Lunar program includes a dozen or more robotic mission to lunar orbit and/or surface, includes establishment of LOX depot at LEO, and the several crewed landing which bring back lunar samples to Earth for further study. And should cost in total about 40 billion [4 billion per year]. And includes using cost of using launchers such as SLS [which program to develop has been costing about 3 billion dollar per year- the 40 billion does not include the past or future development cost of SLS, which has already cost about 20 billion dollars, but does include unit cost of launching any SLS launch vehicles which needed related to lunar exploration program. Or might/could use SLS for the crewed lunar missions]. So in terms of what needs to paid for in terms of development, a bunch of robotic mission, and depot, mostly. And depot is robotic or large amount of money for robotic exploration and about 20 billion for the crewed part.
And in terms of commercial lunar mining, again most of cost or about 1/2 will be related to robotic mission which are teleoperated from Earth, with some crews send to Moon. So over 10 year operation of lunar water mining, total crew send related to mining and making rocket fuel could less than 5 crew members, though one might over 10 year have over dozen lunar tourists going to the Moon. Tourists could include people doing various stuff on the Moon [fixing robots or whatever]. But if you have rocket fuel available on Lunar surface one at least reduces the cost of crew/people by 1/2 the cost- or the reason for using robotic operation on Moon would be to lower cost of humans going to lunar surface, and after a decade or maybe two, lower cost of people getting to Mars. A significant factor of lunar water mining could allow people to get to Mars in short period of time- or people travel to Mars from Earth in less then 2 months time.
Or if have fairly cheap rocket fuel in Earth high orbit, one lower costs of going to Mars, by getting to Mars more quickly.
Or by time one could begin to build a O’Neill habitat, one send people to Mars in 2 months time and it would cost less than the current cost to send crew to lunar surface- or about 1/4 billion per seat. And by time one built a O’Neill habitat, the cost per seat to Mars could less the 5 million dollars. Or most expensive part of seat price would be getting off Earth. And leaving Mars or Moon could cost less than 1 million per seat. And by time 1000 people are living in O’Neill habitat, the cost of leaving Mars and returning to Earth could less than $100,000 per seat.
Or by time many people are living in a O’Neill habitat, landing and leaving from gravity wells could be fairly cheap- though leaving Earth could or would be more expensive.
I think that Mars is by far the best option, and that collecting some ice from either the rings of Saturn or from a suitable comet to form a decent size ocean on its surface would allow the atmosphere to be restored (eventually). A magnetic field would be of even more benefit, however, and that could be done with a superconducting Helmholtz coil arrangement (yeah, expensive, but we’re on Mars…). Venus scares the c%$p [1] out of me, because you’d be floating above death in a craft that doesn’t work all that well on earth (see the Hindenburg). The others…well, Mars just looks so much more attractive.
[1] “crap”
There’s much to be said for the larger asteroids. They have lots of mass but not much of a gravity well.
Or hollow one out with robotic excavators and spin it, making it an O’Neill Cylinder – like a Kim Stanley Robinson terrarium.
Just send people everywhere and let death sort them out.
The big problem with all the options he gave?
We don’t know how much gravity it takes for humans to be healthy. All of those places may be uninhabitable due to low g force. Also, aren’t most of Jupiter’s and Saturn’s moons in a very unhealthy radiation environment?
“We don’t know how much gravity it takes for humans to be healthy. All of those places may be uninhabitable due to low g force.”
I doubt very much if it would be gravity making it “uninhabitable” in the case of Mars; .38 gravity seems plenty. A much better candidate for the show-stopper if there is one would be radiation. Mars has no magnetic field and therefore no protection from the radiation of Solar flares and more importantly Cosmic rays. That would be a much more serious problem than the lesser gravity would be IMHO.