Colonization Discussion Thread (split from SpaceX)

[kerbiloid]

8 minutes ago, Xd the great said:

a mining colony

Mining what? What has the Moon what we lack on Earth?

P.S.
Imho, it would be more realistic to search for alien crash sites on the Moon (they already had ~4 bln years to crash), than for mineral resources which never were there.

Edited June 23, 2018 by kerbiloid

[Xd the great]

9 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Mining what? What has the Moon what we lack on Earth?

P.S.
Imho, it would be more realistic to search for alien crash sites on the Moon (they already had ~4 bln years to crash), than for mineral resources which never were there.

Titanium?

We can use the mmon as a base, as it has no atmosphere and low gravity.

Or a refueling station.

[kerbiloid]

3 minutes ago, Xd the great said:

Titanium?

Quote

Titanium is the ninth-most abundant element in Earth's crust (0.63% by mass)^[

 

4 minutes ago, Xd the great said:

Or a refueling station.

Re-exporting the fuel imported from Earth.

[Xd the great]

There is goddamn 1% of titanium on the moon.

[kerbiloid]

And almost the same on Earth.
But on Earth they already have a whole industry and a lot of resources to be used whil processing titanium ore.

Say, titanium price gets down for a decade. The Moon plants should be abandoned?

Edited June 23, 2018 by kerbiloid

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

Anything of value on the Moon (aside from helium-3) is available in roughly the same concentrations on the asteroids, and they are closer in terms of delta-v.

[NSEP]

Mining the Moon for resources to use here on Earth might not be that practical, but, say, mining water on the Moon for deep space missions might be cheaper than launching it all the way from Earth to the spacecraft.

[sh1pman]

2 minutes ago, NSEP said:

Mining the Moon for resources to use here on Earth might not be that practical, but, say, mining water on the Moon for deep space missions might be cheaper than launching it all the way from Earth to the spacecraft.

All the way from Earth to where, LEO? With big, reusable rockets it’ll be very cheap to just lift it from Earth. Deep space or not, every mission has to start in LEO.

[adsii1970]

The moon is where we should start our efforts. When mankind first started exploring the oceans, the first attempt were always along the coasts, regardless of whether it were the sea or a vast freshwater lake.

The Moon offers the harshest environment which is easy to get to - for now. It is a dusty and lifeless rock in space, tidally locked. It has no atmosphere. Before we can build on Mars or Venus, we must learn the basics (design, assembly, operations, logistics) on the Moon rather than jumping headfirst to Martian or Venutian colonization.

[NSEP]

13 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

every mission has to start in LEO.

Every mission begins at LEO, but won't necessarily come back. For routine missions Its probably more fuel efficient to stop by at the lunar Lagrange points near a spaceport of some kind, rather than to capture at LEO. Aerobraking might be an option, but that makes the craft alot heavier.

Edited June 23, 2018 by NSEP

[NSEP]

3 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

The moon is where we should start our efforts. When mankind first started exploring the oceans, the first attempt were always along the coasts, regardless of whether it were the sea or a vast freshwater lake.

The Moon offers the harshest environment which is easy to get to - for now. It is a dusty and lifeless rock in space, tidally locked. It has no atmosphere. Before we can build on Mars or Venus, we must learn the basics (design, assembly, operations, logistics) on the Moon rather than jumping headfirst to Martian or Venutian colonization.

I agree. People always want to choose the most Earth-Like planets/moons to colonize, but i don't think that is the best option. The Moon is a pretty harsh place, and if you know how to live there, you know how to live in like 97% of all other places in the solar system. And the best thing, its only 3 days away from us!

[adsii1970]

1 minute ago, NSEP said:

I agree. People always want to choose the most Earth-Like planets/moons to colonize, but i don't think that is the best option. The Moon is a pretty harsh place, and if you know how to live there, you know how to live in like 97% of all other places in the solar system. And the best thing, its only 3 days away from us!

Exactly. And it would be easy to have a rescue plan in action for the first settlement attempt. One thing the STS accidents and Apollo I taught us... most will want to discontinue funding if something bad happens.

The Moon offers an opportunity to learn the basics and maybe even capture the minds of the public. I would volunteer in a heartbeat on a Lunar colonists lottery just for the slim chance to live on the Moon.

The American STS program did show there are things we can do in microgravity and zero gravity we cannot do on earth from an industrial standpoint. That research could be continued on a larger scale at a Lunar facility.

[Bill Phil]

Any colony on another world will be an artificial environment. I'd say that if there was any real colonization effort, we'd need considerable investment in life support technology. If not massive amounts of investment.

Beyond that, there's still a lot that would need to be done. Not impossible by any means, but going as far as Mars would be problematic as a starter colony, and going to the Moon is problematic as it doesn't really provide much in advantages. 

And even further beyond that, colonies will be unpleasant places to live, unless we make them in such a way as to be quite comfortable. But that would practically guarantee a massive economic cost to Earth.

And from a growth potential perspective, Mars and the Moon would maybe double the total area we could use. But there are ways to get more area. Using the entirety of Ceres as radiation shielding for orbital habitats, there's enough for thousands of times Earth's area, and radiation shielding is the majority of the mass of such habitats. Definitely more potential for growth than any planet or major moon.

[magnemoe]

2 hours ago, adsii1970 said:

Exactly. And it would be easy to have a rescue plan in action for the first settlement attempt. One thing the STS accidents and Apollo I taught us... most will want to discontinue funding if something bad happens.

The Moon offers an opportunity to learn the basics and maybe even capture the minds of the public. I would volunteer in a heartbeat on a Lunar colonists lottery just for the slim chance to live on the Moon.

The American STS program did show there are things we can do in microgravity and zero gravity we cannot do on earth from an industrial standpoint. That research could be continued on a larger scale at a Lunar facility.

This, Moon has the benefit of being close, benefit one is that its easy to evacuate, second one down the line is that its an vacation destination. 
Manufacturing is another one who might be huge this however would be LEO. 

And no you can not export resources from Moon or Mars to Earth, Moon to LEO might be an option however, Asteroids to Earth might make sense, but LEO is in it self an relevant target and just water or regolit would be useful as shielding and armoring. 
 

[adsii1970]

20 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

This, Moon has the benefit of being close, benefit one is that its easy to evacuate, second one down the line is that its an vacation destination. 
Manufacturing is another one who might be huge this however would be LEO.

It depends on what the product is. And right now all we are doing is pure conjecture.

In this paper published by NASA, the concept of Lunar manufacturing is discussed on the basis that things produced on the Moon would be what's used on the Moon to build permanent settlements. And by far, this is the best concept in making Lunar colonization self-sustaining. In order for the human presence on any foreign body to be permanent, there must be an ability to manufacture what is needed to stay there. LEO manufacturing would, by nature, be the goods with a destination of Earth.

25 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

And no you can not export resources from Moon or Mars to Earth, Moon to LEO might be an option however, Asteroids to Earth might make sense, but LEO is in it self an relevant target and just water or regolit would be useful as shielding and armoring. 

This is the realm of asteroid mining. Bring them into LEO and extract the minerals and elements needed for either Terran bound industry or LKO manufacturing.

1 hour ago, Bill Phil said:

Beyond that, there's still a lot that would need to be done. Not impossible by any means, but going as far as Mars would be problematic as a starter colony, and going to the Moon is problematic as it doesn't really provide much in advantages.

Sure the moon does. it has an unforgiving environment. No atmosphere and no radiation shielding requires the development of technologies to overcome those deficiencies. Construction methods for structures must not only defend humans and plants from raw and unfiltered solar radiation, but able to tolerate the heating and cooling of space. Those same structures must be able to survive the impact of micro-meteorites AND be airtight and easily repairable and maintainable. If we can master that on the Moon, then we can take those skills to Mars.

[kerbiloid]

5 hours ago, NSEP said:

The Moon is a pretty harsh place, and if you know how to live there, you know how to live in like 97% of all other places in the solar system.

Other places in the Solar System are either icy moon/asteroid, or Titan.
Only Phobos/Deimos and relatively rare rocky asteroids are like Moon, have nothing but bare rock.

2 hours ago, adsii1970 said:

In this paper published by NASA

Another nice day from NASA.

Quote

3 SiO₂ + 4 Al → 3 Si + 2 Al₂O₃
2 Al₂O₃ (electrolysis) → 4 Al + 3 O₂

It's that easy... Just take two most heatproof chemical compounds in the Universe (planets are made of them) and split'em all with electrolysis.
Cryolite and graphite electrodes aren't required on the Moon (or the author forgot to mention this).
Alumina gets melted in alumina vats (because they are heatproof), so cryolite is admixed to the alumina pulp to make it melt several tens kelvins before the vat melts.
By similar reason, you need very heat-proof and cheap electrodes. On Earth that's absolutely no problem at all: we have a lot of coke, so graphite things are just expendables, hundreds kg per tonne.

Pure silicon crystals grow better in zero-G (i.e. orbital station) rather than in lunar gravity.

And what those solar panels would be for?
On Earth we have enough clay and sand, so unlikely it's cheaper to bring them from Moon.
Spaceships need no so much of them.
Mars has its own Al and Si. 
Asteroids are closer to Phobos and Deimos.
Jupiter and beyond have not much Sun to use them.

Even if deliver them to Earth, they will get depleted, and need recycling.
To recycle them, we need solar cell plants on Earth. Then why build more on Moon?
If, vice versa, the cells are eternal, the lunar plants will be not required very soon, and it's cheaper to build them on Earth, then destroy.

6 hours ago, adsii1970 said:

When mankind first started exploring the oceans, the first attempt were always along the coasts, regardless of whether it were the sea or a vast freshwater lake.

And some desert islands should be quickly passed by.

3 hours ago, adsii1970 said:

In order for the human presence on any foreign body to be permanent, there must be an ability to manufacture what is needed to stay there. LEO manufacturing would, by nature, be the goods with a destination of Earth.

Or keep this presence enough tiny to deliver them everything except water from Earth.

3 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Moon has the benefit of being close, benefit one is that its easy to evacuate, second one down the line is that its an vacation destination. 

And this makes it a nice test site. 

[NSEP]

11 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Other places in the Solar System are either icy moon/asteroid, or Titan.
Only Phobos/Deimos and relatively rare rocky asteroids are like Moon, have nothing but bare rock.

Ice vaporizes at -60C in a vacuum, wich is a problem, but remember, there is ice on the Moon in some craters and maybe even in some of those giant caves, so we can learn how to build a base and colony in those creaters to see how it will be done.

Edited June 24, 2018 by NSEP

[StrandedonEarth]

On 6/23/2018 at 7:05 AM, kerbiloid said:

Mining what? What has the Moon what we lack on Earth?

No protesters to complain that we’re messing up the local ecology. No watershed pollution, no habitat destruction, etc 

Probably easier to mine asteroids though. 

[kerbiloid]

33 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

No protesters to complain that we’re messing up the local ecology. No watershed pollution, no habitat destruction, etc 

"Stop polluting our Moon! We need a clean Moon over head! Clean Moon! Clean Moon!"

(From the first united congress of Flat Earthers and Clean Mooners movement.)

Edited June 24, 2018 by kerbiloid

[XB-70A]

It's not like it's new, but another study has been released about the current impossibility to terraform Mars' atmosphere:

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/goddard/2018/mars-terraforming

 

The original work has been published in Nature Astronomy (and must be purchased), but a .pdf is also available here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-018-0529-6.epdf?shared_access_token=C0ZKltKLdogajloU5dSCz9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OEVA2jqQmP7EVNMm-ws-AKuaO1GO3IXm7qZdCG4FH-KTzPUNyRcO6N4uMSmebDqW8YNVaHYZEmM0cHWadYeqghah314gevNpMy3LN-DXhRyI2l_QJBSYA0Tzcxm3ZIkgM%3D

 

Summary video:

 

Edited July 30, 2018 by XB-70A
Found a legal link to the study

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

55 minutes ago, XB-70A said:

It's not like it's new, but another study has been released about the current impossibility to terraform Mars' atmosphere:

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/goddard/2018/mars-terraforming

The original work has been published in Nature Astronomy (and must be purchased), but a .pdf is also available here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-018-0529-6.epdf?shared_access_token=C0ZKltKLdogajloU5dSCz9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OEVA2jqQmP7EVNMm-ws-AKuaO1GO3IXm7qZdCG4FH-KTzPUNyRcO6N4uMSmebDqW8YNVaHYZEmM0cHWadYeqghah314gevNpMy3LN-DXhRyI2l_QJBSYA0Tzcxm3ZIkgM%3D

Summary video:

[...]

Interesting, but has anyone proposed terraforming mars with current technology? It also seems like an overstatement to say impossible, just not possible if attempted with current technology as a project on a scale of anything ever done by humans.

The study doesn't cover most of the harder methods for terraforming mars: chloroflorocarbon factories, asteroid redirection on a massive scale, or orbital mirrors or lenses.

[mikegarrison]

Even is we could release enough CO2 to give Mars pressure, it would be poisonous to us. What is needed is nitrogen and oxygen. Most likely sources for that would be elsewhere in the solar system.

[tater]

More importantly, how will they increase the gravity ?

Only half joking. Until we know that humans will not be adversely affected by 0.38g for entire lifetimes, there's not really any point to be concerned with terraforming it. Even under the assumption such a feat was possible, then the question becomes, "Is it easier to terraform a planet, or simply build orbital colonies?"

 

[James Kerman]

2 hours ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

Interesting, but has anyone proposed terraforming mars with current technology?

Apparently Elon wishes to nuke the poles (gasp):
 

Quote

A more drastic, quick fix way of terraforming Mars might be nuking its poles, Musk suggested on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, this Wednesday.  “You’re a supervillain!” Colbert said. “That’s what a supervillain does!”

https://www.zmescience.com/science/elon-musk-mars-terraforming-03243/

[tater]

If you've got spaceships, who needs nukes? Grab a near Mars icy asteroid, and throw that, instead.