A long-ish read on colonizing Mars

[More Boosters]

Here's something I came across on the Spore forums a few years back:

Clickey

I'd like to hear opinions from here.

[ChrisSpace]

Pretty cool thing to read. I wonder what SpaceX's opinion on those topics is?

[Nibb31]

Shame it all starts with a false premise that we would colonize Mars for its resources. The resources are useless to Earth because of the expense of shipping them back. Besides the fact that no sources are cited for any of his claims about concentrations of gem stones and iron, there's no shortage or iron ore on Earth and there's no reason to think that future computers would run on hypothetical "gems and crystals" (!) that would make economical sense to import from Mars.

Therefore, the only use for Mars resources is local consumption to build a Mars colony, which means that the only reason to colonize Mars is to colonize Mars. Circular reasoning isn't good enough to justify the expense of jumpstarting a Mars colony. You need a much better business case.

[More Boosters]

Shame it all starts with a false premise that we would colonize Mars for its resources. The resources are useless to Earth because of the expense of shipping them back. Besides the fact that no sources are cited for any of his claims about concentrations of gem stones and iron, there's no shortage or iron ore on Earth and there's no reason to think that future computers would run on hypothetical "gems and crystals" (!) that would make economical sense to import from Mars.

Therefore, the only use for Mars resources is local consumption to build a Mars colony, which means that the only reason to colonize Mars is to colonize Mars. Circular reasoning isn't good enough to justify the expense of jumpstarting a Mars colony. You need a much better business case.

Perhaps, but one could also argue that if we have the means to build extraction facilities on the surface of Mars, it is also likely that a round trip is to be considered economical by then. Let us not forget that Mars has a far smaller atmosphere and far less gravity compared to Earth.

But yeah, the post mentions in the end that it is mostly for the challenge and for advancement of the humankind, and while I do realize that a good business case needs to be made, returning these items to Earth will probably be within realm of reason if we can get ourselves in a position to extract them in the first place.

[Nibb31]

But yeah, the post mentions in the end that it is mostly for the challenge and for advancement of the humankind, and while I do realize that a good business case needs to be made, returning these items to Earth will probably be within realm of reason if we can get ourselves in a position to extract them in the first place.

The only way it would be economical to import iron ore from Mars is in a science fiction universe. You could argue that if we suddenly have a magical energy source that can economically transport iron ore from Mars to Earth, then the problem of iron ore shortages on Earth would probably be moot.

And again, if the reason for mining Mars is economical, then the corporations in charge of the actual investment will likely set up a model that involves as much automation and as little human involvement as possible. They won't build massive colonies if a small maintenance crew is all that's needed to keep the mining equipment running.

[More Boosters]

The only way it would be economical to import iron ore from Mars is in a science fiction universe. You could argue that if we suddenly have a magical energy source that can economically transport iron ore from Mars to Earth, then the problem of iron ore shortages on Earth would probably be moot.

And again, if the reason for mining Mars is economical, then the corporations in charge of the actual investment will likely set up a model that involves as much automation and as little human involvement as possible. They won't build massive colonies if a small maintenance crew is all that's needed to keep the mining equipment running.

Well I poster meant it for whatever rare metals or crystals the poster claims are more abundant on Mars. I think making a profit out of exporting iron ore from Mars unless Earth really ran out is quite a stretch too.

Plus if you have noticed, at the closing section the poster doesn't even mention economical reasons as the reasons we should colonize Mars. Rather it is just an attempt at rationalizing it from a business perspective, which admittedly falls short due to the massive costs and impracticalities currently involved. If a solid case for colonization of Mars for business existed we would have already been there as the technology to go (NTRs) were there many years ago; everything else including better NTRs and the tools to actually live there and utilise Mars could have been developed in the half a century since if we wanted to go to Mars, so nobody is saying Mars is profitable in any predictable sense.

[Laie]

Shame it all starts with a false premise that we would colonize Mars for its resources.

If there were beaver pelts on Mars, or cloves, or tea... then we'd have colonized it already.

[tater]

Nibb31 is entirely correct, it's pretty absurd.

In general, the ideal of colonizing Mars makes no sense. Humans in this solar system, outside of where we sit right now, required 100% built environments. This is true regardless of the location, be it, Earth orbit or Lagrange points, the lunar surface, or Mars.

There is no place to go that we don't build from scratch. That is a given. The question becomes which would be the most cost-effective choice for colonization... I'll assume that the rationale is simply "not all eggs in one basket." I tend to think that something more like an O'Neil colony makes the most sense. The gravity on the Moon is likely too small to be useful for human physiology, and there is some question that this might also be true of Mars. If 1/3g is insufficient for humans over lifetime time spans, then Mars is not viable, regardless of what is available locally (interesting new find regarding large amounts of ice well below the poles, BTW).

[More Boosters]

Nibb31 is entirely correct, it's pretty absurd.

In general, the ideal of colonizing Mars makes no sense. Humans in this solar system, outside of where we sit right now, required 100% built environments. This is true regardless of the location, be it, Earth orbit or Lagrange points, the lunar surface, or Mars.

There is no place to go that we don't build from scratch. That is a given. The question becomes which would be the most cost-effective choice for colonization... I'll assume that the rationale is simply "not all eggs in one basket." I tend to think that something more like an O'Neil colony makes the most sense. The gravity on the Moon is likely too small to be useful for human physiology, and there is some question that this might also be true of Mars. If 1/3g is insufficient for humans over lifetime time spans, then Mars is not viable, regardless of what is available locally (interesting new find regarding large amounts of ice well below the poles, BTW).

I'd like to live in the Citadel too but I'm not sure what makes that better than a planet considering there are resources to be used over at another planet or moon. Sounds like a later step than colonizing another planet really, assuming it wouldn't be at Earth orbit.

[tater]

It's not a later step, that's the thing.

You either bring everything to the "destination" from Earth, in which case a planetary surface is not easier, or you have to set up an entire manufacturing and resource extraction system to make even the most basic raw materials from ISRU. In the latter case, you can just as well use small bodies already in space, as the "factory" you are going to send is already in space, since you need to send that from earth regardless.

The moon is likely too small for people to live long periods (low gravity).

Mars gravity is an unknown WRT human physiology, right now we have 2 data points, microgravity, and 1g. Mars is not worth considering unless we have some ISS-like durations in a spinning hab at 1/3g. Assuming 1/3 is enough for people long-term, only then does Mars make any sense, and even that is somewhat dubious as Mars has all the disadvantages of deep space, with almost none of the advantages of Earth. People will still live underground, in 100% constructed environments.

An advantage of Earth system, orbital colonies is economics, IMO. Mars would never have a trade economy with Earth, it's a fairly silly idea short of SF spaceships that pop back and forth in hours, at costs below rail or sea shipping on earth. Orbital colonies can beam power to earth, OTOH. 24/7/365 solar in a world that ups it's electrical power demands by TWh per year.

Just to meet annual demand increases you need to add about 0.3-0.4 TW of power production every year. As a reality check that's just about what the entire wind-generated supply of the planet is---add the current number of windmills on earth to the earth, every single year. Beaming solar power from space would be far better that covering the planet with ugly windmills to harvest secondary solar energy, and unlike Mars, there is a nonzero chance that this might actually be feasible as an economy (note I say "might," it might not be, but Mars certainly has no possible economic rationale).

Edited September 14, 2015 by tater

[Kerbart]

Therefore, the only use for Mars resources is local consumption to build a Mars colony, which means that the only reason to colonize Mars is to colonize Mars. Circular reasoning isn't good enough to justify the expense of jumpstarting a Mars colony. You need a much better business case.

Not putting all your civilization eggs in one planet basket is a case usually given. Of course, that needs a colony that is completely self-sufficient (otherwise what would be the point) incuding having its own space industry. How likely that is going to happen is left as an exercise to the student.

[tater]

Not putting all your civilization eggs in one planet basket is a case usually given. Of course, that needs a colony that is completely self-sufficient (otherwise what would be the point) incuding having its own space industry. How likely that is going to happen is left as an exercise to the student.

So it's a vast cost for "Earth" with only the abstract benefit being one of humanity surviving a rogue planet hitting Earth or something equally catastrophic.

Power generation from orbit (build the infrastructure to do this in situ, which gives the colony as an added benefit) at least might have some mitigating economics, vs a well to throw money down (Mars).

[Nibb31]

Yes, but why would an orbital power plant require an O'Neill colony to support it? It would work just as well as an unmanned satellite.

[tater]

Yes, but why would an orbital power plant require an O'Neill colony to support it? It would work just as well as an unmanned satellite.

Shhh!

You are correct if the goal is just the power. If the goal is a sustainable % of humanity living off the earth (eggs out of 1 basket), just in case, then you make a colony with the same, or possibly lower cost than Mars, and put them to work using their ability to make stuff to make useful things (like power generation) to offset some of the cost.

So the cost benefit might be:

Mars:

Humanity safe from earth killing disaster.

O'Neil colony:

Humanity safe from earth killing disaster.

Maybe some power given back to earth.