Colonizing other planets

[fredinno]

4 minutes ago, AngelLestat said:

Yeah, and that is why nobody notice the biggest drawback on mars...  "energy cost".
I need to think a bit more on this.. But I guess mars will be the place with the energy bill more expensive of all ....
Enceladus, Titan, Asteroid Belt, Venus, Moon, Mercury...  all can produce energy more cheaper than mars.

Hey, at least on Mars, you canuse solar panels- you can't on Enceledus...

[AngelLestat]

You can use nuclear in enceladus which is better.

[insert_name]

31 minutes ago, AngelLestat said:

Yeah, and that is why nobody notice the biggest drawback on mars...  "energy cost".
I need to think a bit more on this.. But I guess mars will be the place with the energy bill more expensive of all ....
Enceladus, Titan, Asteroid Belt, Venus, Moon, Mercury...  all can produce energy more cheaper than mars.

how did you come to this conclusion?

[tater]

Nuclear power would be the same anywhere, and closer in solar works into the bargain.

[peadar1987]

5 hours ago, tater said:

Nuclear power would be the same anywhere, and closer in solar works into the bargain.

Well Enceladus has a nice big liquid (or potentially liquid) heat sink, which makes things easier if you're using thermal power plants. Mars you would either need to be close to the poles and dump the energy into vaporising CO2, or else have massive radiators. Not a deal-breaker by any means, but a slight complicating factor.

As for the "why" of colonisation. Why do anything? Why play sports? Why make movies? Why compose music? As a species we spend trillions on these things because they are inherently and independently worthwhile. Colonisation is perhaps the greatest achievement we can accomplish as a species. The film industry is worth over $100 billion a year. The SEI, one of the most expensive proposals for Mars colonisation, was estimated to cost $15 billion a year over 20-30 years.

I'm not saying it will happen, I'm not saying it makes economic or practical sense for it to happen, I'm saying it should happen, and I wish it would.

[Nibb31]

1 hour ago, peadar1987 said:

Well Enceladus has a nice big liquid (or potentially liquid) heat sink, which makes things easier if you're using thermal power plants. Mars you would either need to be close to the poles and dump the energy into vaporising CO2, or else have massive radiators. Not a deal-breaker by any means, but a slight complicating factor.

As for the "why" of colonisation. Why do anything? Why play sports? Why make movies? Why compose music?

That's called entertainment. They are huge businesses that generate revenue because there is demand for entertainment. As an individual, you can also create art yourself for your own enjoyment on your own funds.

However, you can't expect governments to spend a significant share of the country's GDP on colonizing space for your entertainment.

Quote

As a species we spend trillions on these things because they are inherently and independently worthwhile. Colonisation is perhaps the greatest achievement we can accomplish as a species. The film industry is worth over $100 billion a year. The SEI, one of the most expensive proposals for Mars colonisation, was estimated to cost $15 billion a year over 20-30 years.

The difference is that the film industry is an industry. It spends money because it makes more money. Colonization of Mars is just a money sink with no or little potential ROI.

Quote

I'm not saying it will happen, I'm not saying it makes economic or practical sense for it to happen, I'm saying it should happen, and I wish it would.

Saying it should happen is meaningless until you provide a rational reason why it should happen. And wishes are just wishes. I wish beer was free but it isn't. Life sucks.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Nibb31

[peadar1987]

10 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

That's called entertainment. They are huge businesses that generate revenue because there is demand for entertainment. As an individual, you can also create art yourself for your own enjoyment on your own funds.

However, you can't expect governments to spend a significant share of the country's GDP on colonizing space for your entertainment.

The difference is that the film industry is an industry. It spends money because it makes more money. Colonization of Mars is just a money sink with no or little potential ROI.

Saying it should happen is meaningless until you provide a rational reason why it should happen. And wishes are just wishes. I wish beer was free but it isn't. Life sucks.

Yes, filmmakers keep making films because it makes money. But people spend money on films because it makes them feel entertained, because is makes them feel good. There is no "rational" reason to watch a film, if you are speaking in an economic, Pareto efficient sense. There is no rational reason to listen to music, or to watch a game of football. People do these things because it makes them feel good. Life is about more than just surviving and reproducing, people crave self-actualisation, they want achievements, they want to feel part of something. These are the reasons that I, personally, would like to see humans land on Mars within my lifetime, and why I would like to see the government spend my tax money to get us there. A lot of other people don't feel the same way, and that's fine. My point that not everything has to be an economically or even evolutionarily rational decision to be inherently worthwhile.

[Nibb31]

22 minutes ago, peadar1987 said:

Yes, filmmakers keep making films because it makes money. But people spend money on films because it makes them feel entertained, because is makes them feel good. There is no "rational" reason to watch a film, if you are speaking in an economic, Pareto efficient sense. There is no rational reason to listen to music, or to watch a game of football. People do these things because it makes them feel good.

Feeling good is a perfectly acceptable motivation to spend money. However, there's a subjective element to the price/reward curve.

You can justify spending $10 for a movie or a CD because it makes you feel good. You can justify $1000 for a 2-week vacation that makes you feel good. Some people can even justify $200000 for a few minutes of Branson-induced weightlessness.

However, getting an entire population to pay a portion of their taxes so that a bunch of space geeks can feel good is a whole different matter.

 

22 minutes ago, peadar1987 said:

Life is about more than just surviving and reproducing, people crave self-actualisation, they want achievements, they want to feel part of something. These are the reasons that I, personally, would like to see humans land on Mars within my lifetime, and why I would like to see the government spend my tax money to get us there.

You would, and I certainly would to, but we are a minority. I suspect that most people would prefer to either pay less taxes or see the government spend tax money on their own pet peeves, like subsidizing sports or film makers or any other topic that is at least as important than you feeling good (healthcare, education, research, defense, transport, jobs, etc...)

22 minutes ago, peadar1987 said:

A lot of other people don't feel the same way, and that's fine. My point that not everything has to be an economically or even evolutionarily rational decision to be inherently worthwhile.

The larger the cost, the more justification you have to provide. You can't spend government money without providing some sort of justification.

[peadar1987]

6 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Feeling good is a perfectly acceptable motivation to spend money. However, there's a subjective element to the price/reward curve.

You can justify spending $10 for a movie or a CD because it makes you feel good. You can justify $1000 for a 2-week vacation that makes you feel good. Some people can even justify $200000 for a few minutes of Branson-induced weightlessness.

However, getting an entire population to pay a portion of their taxes so that a bunch of space geeks can feel good is a whole different matter.

 

You would, and I certainly would to, but we are a minority. I suspect that most people would prefer to either pay less taxes or see the government spend tax money on their own pet peeves, like subsidizing sports or film makers or any other topic that is at least as important than you feeling good (healthcare, education, research, defense, transport, jobs, etc...)

The larger the cost, the more justification you have to provide. You can't spend government money without providing some sort of justification.

And I'm not asking anybody to. But every time the topic of colonisation comes up you slate it based on the fact that it is "irrational". Of course it's irrational from an economic standpoint. I'm just pointing out that maybe the worth of certain things should be determined by more than economics.

[Nibb31]

3 hours ago, peadar1987 said:

And I'm not asking anybody to. But every time the topic of colonisation comes up you slate it based on the fact that it is "irrational". Of course it's irrational from an economic standpoint. I'm just pointing out that maybe the worth of certain things should be determined by more than economics.

Everything always translates into economics, especially when the cost is high. It's a common trend on these forums to only look at physics and technology, but the world we live in is unfortunately more complex. The laws of economics and politics are as real as the laws of physics, and often more implacable. You simply can't handwave them away.

[peadar1987]

34 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Everything always translates into economics, especially when the cost is high. It's a common trend on these forums to only look at physics and technology, but the world we live in is unfortunately more complex. The laws of economics and politics are as real as the laws of physics, and often more implacable. You simply can't handwave them away.

Mate, I'm not handwaving anything. I know we're probably not getting colonies or even a manned Mars landing in my lifetime, because they don't make economic sense. All I'm saying is that doesn't make colonies or flags and footprints inherently worthless to the species.

[AngelLestat]

23 hours ago, insert_name said:

how did you come to this conclusion?

22 hours ago, tater said:

Nuclear power would be the same anywhere, and closer in solar works into the bargain.

16 hours ago, peadar1987 said:

Well Enceladus has a nice big liquid (or potentially liquid) heat sink, which makes things easier if you're using thermal power plants. Mars you would either need to be close to the poles and dump the energy into vaporising CO2, or else have massive radiators. Not a deal-breaker by any means, but a slight complicating factor.

Ok, I have to admit that I did not look in the pole option too serious before, I make some research on its properties and I found a much better case of what I previous thought.
First I will explain why I thought mars was a really bad case for energy.

I always picture a mars colony on low latitudes (mars advocates always mention its 24 hours advantage), and I did not know how thick was the ice cap and dry ice cap.
So living at low latitudes.. is a really bad option for a mars colony.  Lets imagine the case after certain level of colony development.

Energy production on mars:

Solar: Mars receive half of earth energy on its surface, you need to clean more often solar panels and some dust storms can last upto 3 month in which you will need other options.

Wind: There is an amazing lack of wind info on mars, I really can not understand after so many probes and landers sent there..  But it does not look good.

Nuclear (or a different thermal machine):  Thermal machines work using a heat spot and a cold spot, we lack of cold spot on low latitudes.
We have 4 main thermal conduction options:  conductive, convective, phase change and radiation.
Conductive using the mars ground..  really bad..  soils are good insulators, each meter that the heat moves from your heat source, is a meter of insulation that we add.
Convection does not help, mars atmosphere density is 60 times lower than earth, this mean around 60 times less heat transfer by convection.
We can not evaporate water because we need it and there is not much at those locations. 
So you have only radiation, but only using 1 side of the radiator, not like in space that you can use both sides..  These are also covered by dust which reduce its emissivity coefficient.

But well, if we go to the poles that is a different case, there is some km of Dry ice and Ice layers that can be exploited as cold sources like Peadar said..
I imagine a moving nuclear reactor with wheels and a large cooper plate with many holes pressing on the surface to evaporate the co2, or maybe a long pipe with a heat exchanger in the extreme transporting the liquid or gas thermal carried (in close system) which descent deeper and deeper, evaporated co2 or h2o can also help to increase the efficiency of the system. 
But there are some problems with nuclear..  Mars atmosphere mass is 204 times lower than earth's atmosphere.  This mean that any pollution problem is 204 times more severe than earth, so all the safety measures should increase the cost of nuclear energy. A fukushima event might screw up the entire planet.
Here is a list of all advantages to locate a colony in the poles vs equator (Is the same scientist who help to spread the venus cloud colonies idea, what I like of him is that is always free of anthropological concepts.. he always thinks outside the box) 

Energy options for other planets or locations (Earth cost =1):

Mercury-->  Colony location: big crater close to the poles to provide permanent shadow --> Solar panels with radiators   --> Estimate cost: 0.4
Venus--> Colony location: floating in the clouds --> Wind turbines dragged by the colony 5 km below to harvest the wind gradient. --> Estimate cost: 0.4
Moon --> Colony location: The dark side receive more sunlight but you lost the earth view --> Solar Panels with storage (hydrogen) --> Estimate cost: 1.3
Mars --> Colony location: In the poles under the ice --> Nuclear  --> Estimate cost: not sure.
Asteroid Belt --> Colony Location: There --> Nuclear or Solar  --> Estimate cost: 2.5
Europa --> Colony Location: Under the ice  --> Nuclear --> Estimate cost: 0.8
Titan --> Colony Location:  surface  --> Nuclear (methane lakes as cold spot) --> Estimate cost 0.6
Enceladus --> Colony Location: under the ice --> Nuclear Producing and sealing big lakes under the ice --> Estimate cost 0.7

Quote

 

And I'm not asking anybody to. But every time the topic of colonisation comes up you slate it based on the fact that it is "irrational". Of course it's irrational from an economic standpoint. I'm just pointing out that maybe the worth of certain things should be determined by more than economics.

 

I add many other points of why a extraplanetary colony might have sense here:

11 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

Everything always translates into economics, especially when the cost is high. It's a common trend on these forums to only look at physics and technology, but the world we live in is unfortunately more complex. The laws of economics and politics are as real as the laws of physics, and often more implacable. You simply can't handwave them away.

Funny.. is similar to what I always said. But you defend nasa projects cost, and many times is hard for you to understand some business cases in which many big companies look with interest.

Edited February 20, 2016 by AngelLestat
I change the mercury value.

[tater]

Space nuclear power systems are all designed with radiative cooling. For landed applications, they typically assume placement in a suitable crater, though with regolith moving equipment they could also use a berm. While daytime temps can go above 120 C, radiators can operate north of 500.

[AngelLestat]

5 minutes ago, tater said:

Space nuclear power systems are all designed with radiative cooling. For landed applications, they typically assume placement in a suitable crater, though with regolith moving equipment they could also use a berm. While daytime temps can go above 120 C, radiators can operate north of 500.

I did not follow you about the berm technique..  We are talking of colonies, no single missions.
What colony location shows the best future potential after some development.
One thing that I forget to mention on why I don't have an estimative for mars energy cost, is because I don't know how pure are the dry ice or Ice layers in the poles..  Any other dust or material will act as insulator which should be removed.

[tater]

Do you live right next door to a power plant? I certainly don't (though I can see some eyesore windmills about 75 km away). You can place the power plant some distance from the base. They have proposed using small craters for blocking line of sight radiation (reactor at bottom of crater).

Why would a berm not be suitable for a colony? Regardless, colonies on the Moon don't seem likely to me, though I could see bases.

[AngelLestat]

Why you will use a nuclear reactor in mercury?
Even on earth PV with 320w/m2 anual average will have the same cost than nuclear in just 3 year, on mercury you have 9000w/m2 (then discount planet rotation and cooling). And nuclear is even expensive there than earth because you dont have cold spot. It has similar drawbacks than mars on low latitudes, PV is the best choice in Mercury by far, they just need a small radiator, nothing too fancy.. PV are not real thermal machines, they improve some efficiency working on low temperatures but no much, and they can be designed to work at high temperatures with good efficiency. We already use some of those on PV concentrators.

On berm, if you already can choose some location in which you dont need to do nothing to block light, why no go for it?  But yes.. you can use that and expand your posible locations on mercury, some idea?

Edited February 20, 2016 by AngelLestat

[fredinno]

8 hours ago, AngelLestat said:

Ok, I have to admit that I did not look in the pole option too serious before, I make some research on its properties and I found a much better case of what I previous thought.
First I will explain why I thought mars was a really bad case for energy.

I always picture a mars colony on low latitudes (mars advocates always mention its 24 hours advantage), and I did not know how thick was the ice cap and dry ice cap.
So living at low latitudes.. is a really bad option for a mars colony.  Lets imagine the case after certain level of colony development.

Energy production on mars:

Solar: Mars receive half of earth energy on its surface, you need to clean more often solar panels and some dust storms can last upto 3 month in which you will need other options.

Wind: There is an amazing lack of wind info on mars, I really can not understand after so many probes and landers sent there..  But it does not look good.

Nuclear (or a different thermal machine):  Thermal machines work using a heat spot and a cold spot, we lack of cold spot on low latitudes.
We have 4 main thermal conduction options:  conductive, convective, phase change and radiation.
Conductive using the mars ground..  really bad..  soils are good insulators, each meter that the heat moves from your heat source, is a meter of insulation that we add.
Convection does not help, mars atmosphere density is 60 times lower than earth, this mean around 60 times less heat transfer by convection.
We can not evaporate water because we need it and there is not much at those locations. 
So you have only radiation, but only using 1 side of the radiator, not like in space that you can use both sides..  These are also covered by dust which reduce its emissivity coefficient.

But well, if we go to the poles that is a different case, there is some km of Dry ice and Ice layers that can be exploited as cold sources like Peadar said..
I imagine a moving nuclear reactor with wheels and a large cooper plate with many holes pressing on the surface to evaporate the co2, or maybe a long pipe with a heat exchanger in the extreme transporting the liquid or gas thermal carried (in close system) which descent deeper and deeper, evaporated co2 or h2o can also help to increase the efficiency of the system. 
But there are some problems with nuclear..  Mars atmosphere mass is 204 times lower than earth's atmosphere.  This mean that any pollution problem is 204 times more severe than earth, so all the safety measures should increase the cost of nuclear energy. A fukushima event might screw up the entire planet.
Here is a list of all advantages to locate a colony in the poles vs equator (Is the same scientist who help to spread the venus cloud colonies idea, what I like of him is that is always free of anthropological concepts.. he always thinks outside the box) 

Energy options for other planets or locations (Earth cost =1):

Mercury-->  Colony location: big crater close to the poles to provide permanent shadow --> Solar panels with radiators   --> Estimate cost: 0.4
Venus--> Colony location: floating in the clouds --> Wind turbines dragged by the colony 5 km below to harvest the wind gradient. --> Estimate cost: 0.4
Moon --> Colony location: The dark side receive more sunlight but you lost the earth view --> Solar Panels with storage (hydrogen) --> Estimate cost: 1.3
Mars --> Colony location: In the poles under the ice --> Nuclear  --> Estimate cost: not sure.
Asteroid Belt --> Colony Location: There --> Nuclear or Solar  --> Estimate cost: 2.5
Europa --> Colony Location: Under the ice  --> Nuclear --> Estimate cost: 0.8
Titan --> Colony Location:  surface  --> Nuclear (methane lakes as cold spot) --> Estimate cost 0.6
Enceladus --> Colony Location: under the ice --> Nuclear Producing and sealing big lakes under the ice --> Estimate cost 0.7

I add many other points of why a extraplanetary colony might have sense here:

Funny.. is similar to what I always said. But you defend nasa projects cost, and many times is hard for you to understand some business cases in which many big companies look with interest.

Your energy costs are way inaccurate. Anything nuclear will be far better in EOREI than solar- doesn't matter much in space though,when the problem is getting a nuclear reactor in the first place! (building one is going to be a massive pain.)

And wind on Mars is not a huge problem- Mars' atmosphere is so thin, the wind, though fast, has very little force.

[tater]

I have no idea why anyone would want to do anything on Mercury

[AngelLestat]

9 hours ago, fredinno said:

Your energy costs are way inaccurate. Anything nuclear will be far better in EOREI than solar- doesn't matter much in space though,when the problem is getting a nuclear reactor in the first place! (building one is going to be a massive pain.)

And wind on Mars is not a huge problem- Mars' atmosphere is so thin, the wind, though fast, has very little force.

Why nuclear will have more sense if no even here has much more sense than solar at 320w/m2 annual average, taking into account that nuclear reactors can waste hundreds of thousands liters of water on evaporation cooling.
In 3 or 5 years solar panels will become cheaper than nuclear energy on earth.
Is all about cost of each technology..  it does not matter if with few tons of nuclear fuel you can produce a lot of "heat" if your initial cost is huge and your lifetime operation does not pay off.  
 

9 hours ago, tater said:

I have no idea why anyone would want to do anything on Mercury

Me either, but I will like to compare all these options with good analysis in each case..
From energy cost, habitat cost, resources cost, etc.
Then we can have an idea what planet or locations has more sense.

Edited February 20, 2016 by AngelLestat

[fredinno]

15 hours ago, tater said:

I have no idea why anyone would want to do anything on Mercury

To study the Sun?

[tater]

2 minutes ago, fredinno said:

To study the Sun?

Why would PEOPLE go? There is zero science that cannot be done better/cheaper by probes.

[fredinno]

7 hours ago, tater said:

Why would PEOPLE go? There is zero science that cannot be done better/cheaper by probes.

To study mercury?

We really know nothing about Mercury right now- we know more about Halley's Comet than Mercury TBH.

[tater]

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

To study mercury?

We really know nothing about Mercury right now- we know more about Halley's Comet than Mercury TBH.

Why would people go? Name something, anything, that requires humans on Mercury. If you can't, name something you think humans can do better. If you can manage the second one, then assume the same amount of money and mass to the surface and back was spent on robots. Humans still better? The answer is certainly "no." Humans going to space is very cool. I love it. I don't pretend it's for science, and science gained is gravy (and should be expected given the vastly higher cost/mass of any manned endeavor).

Edited February 21, 2016 by tater

[WestAir]

Wouldn't large, modular space stations be far more cost effective then a colony on land? Easier to get stuff around too because you're already in orbit. Something breaks? You're modular - replace it. You can even keep adding segments to accommodate the size of your population.

[Creature]

Can I vote for a colony on Earth orbit? There's a huge amount of science to be done, it's pretty safe and easy to evacuate, easy to get to and pretty much anything we want to do in space can be done in orbit or Moon surface. There's some entertainment value and possible soonish even real tourism value that would drive technological development forward.

It's also nice because we have no idea how to build self-sustaining colonies, how to construct or mine anything in space, how to lift ultra heavy payloads at a reasonable cost to space or how to even survive in space for extended periods of time without some major clinical concerns. I'd like to see all of this stuff figured out within the next 50 years.