Do you think Humans will colonise The Moon and Mars someday?

[Darzin]

I think we will see a Mars colony although perhaps not self sustaining in all of our lifetimes I think there is a decent chance a human being will walk on Mars in the next 15 years. Because of SpaceX the entire reason Elon Musk created SpaceX was to colonize mars and SpaceX is right  now working on a rocket BFR which should be capable of going to mars and back. So far SpaceX has met their targets eventually if not on time and they are well on the way to making humans capable of interplanetary travel. For a really good read I highly recommend How (and Why) SpaceX will colonize Mars. It's a bit long but it explains a lot about Musk his goals and how he plans on achieving them. 

[TrueMetis]

3 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

How likely/possible is a space elevator?  I love when they are included in sci fi lit, but I guess I always thought they were a little too far fetched. 

TBH I have no idea. But then I would have thought that private space travel would have been a pipe dream not to long ago.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

How likely/possible is a space elevator?  I love when they are included in sci fi lit, but I guess I always thought they were a little too far fetched. 

As I understand it this is a materials problem.  We need a material that is both strong and flexible enough to extend from orbit to the surface of the Earth.  Carbon nanotubes might fit the bill but we cannot make them in lage quantities yet and we aren’t certain whether they are environmentally problematic or not.

[Werthead]

Quote

 

How likely/possible is a space elevator?  I love when they are included in sci fi lit, but I guess I always thought they were a little too far fetched. 

 

There are significant problems with them, most notably the spots on the Earth's surface where they would be most stable are in the middle of the ocean (which is why Arthur C. Clarke had to move Sri Lanka south to the equator in The Fountains of Paradise to build one). The size of them for Earth (36,000 km long) is also massively prohibitive and there are huge windshear problems. Robinson's idea of building one on Mars, which would be much shorter (20,000klm) and wouldn't have the same problems is more interesting, as you could do it as a proof of concept for an Earth one. Mind you, he also shows what would happen if the elevator came crashing down and the results are apocalyptic enough that it's not necessarily a great idea.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Such a complex problem, with many different aspects to deal with in any attempted answer.

In brief, technically a Mars colony (not just flags and footprints, but a true settlement), is feasible within the next 10-20 years. IF, and it's a big IF, you solve the economic problem. Meaning either some government needs to throw a few trillion dollars at it, or the cost must be brought down enough that a large number of private citizens can collectively fund it, OR, something needs to be discovered on Mars that we desperately need on earth, and are willing to pay a lot of money per kg for. Basically, the Unobtanium from Avatar.

Option 3 seems rather unlikely, leaving options one and two. The answer will probably be a combination of one and two.

The largest payload ever landed on Mars weighed less than 1 ton. By contrast, the BFR Elon Musk is currently building will land 150 tons on Mars, and will be fully reusable. This will represent a quantum leap in the technical feasibility of landing large masses of people and equipment on Mars.

Consider for a moment, for sake of comparison, NASA's next big aspirational mission - the envisaged Mars Sample Return project. The goal is to return less than 5kg of Martian soil to Earth for scientific analysis. In order to achieve this, they will need as many as 3 seperate launches, seperated by many years. The first will send a rover to collect some Martian dirt. The second will launch a lander which will retrieve this sample from where the rover left it many years before, and launch it up to Martian orbit. And a third will perhaps be needed to collect it from Martian orbit and return it to Earth. All of this will take most of a decade from first launch, and cost upwards of $5bn. For 5kg's of returned Martian soil, and zero permanent infrastructure or people landed on Mars. So that works out to around $1bn per kg of Martian soil sample.

By contrast, SpaceX's BFR will also cost around $5bn to develop, but will be reusable hundreds of times. And it will land 150 tons on Mars, and be able to return around 20 tons of payload or thereabouts. And then be able to refuel and return to Mars again. So even if it could only be used once, it could return 20 tons of soil compared to NASA's mere 5kg, so a factor of 4000 times cheaper per kg of returned soil. Plus it would have landed 150 tons of equipment/people on Mars while doing so. And can then fly back again with another 150 tons, at a cost of maybe $50m dollars.

It fundamentally changes the financial model of space travel.

Its impact on LEO (Low Earth Orbit) operations is just as impressive. Currently ULA (United Launch Alliance) will charge NASA maybe $200m to launch say 10 tons to LEO. That's a cost of $20,000/kg of payload delivered to orbit. By contrast, BFR will charge maybe $15m for 150 tons to LEO. That is about $100/kg of payload to orbit.

So less than 1% of the current cost.

So there you have your Space Elevator. It is called the BFR. It will be able to launch repeatedly, with as little as 24 hour turnaround time, a thousand times or more (with some periodic refurbishment). Which fundamentally changes the cost equation from the current "build a $200m dollar rocket and throw it away after one use" philosophy to an airline model of sweating your assets and repeated mass transit.

Having said all of the above, that is just the transport problem solved. The economic justification for a permanent colony on Mars - and all the infrastructure required to support it there- remains to be solved. Especially if we want to reach the point of making the colony self sustaining, which surely must be the end goal. However, as difficult as that problem is to solve, cutting transport costs by a factor of 100 or more surely makes it a whole lot more manageable than it was before.

 

[polishgenius]

55 minutes ago, Werthead said:

and there are huge windshear problems.

My understanding is that the location on the equator mitigates that somewhat because cyclones etc don't cross the equator, on account of it being between the Hadley Cells, and most likely needing to put it on ocean, while a challenge, would also potentially allow a mobile platform that could move to avoid any bad stuff it does come across.

But yeah, we're not yet capable of building one. We made a step when they invented graphene, which would theoretically alleviate the weight of the cable needed massively, but afaik there's not been any significant research into making graphene into load-bearing cables yet, so it's a small step for now.
Skyhooks seem like a much more plausible solution to the problem of getting things into space less expensively, at least for now, even though they're much less cool.

And on the other side of the feasibility scale, a space fountain, which solves a few of the problems of a space elevator- it wouldn't need to be on the equator, it doesn't rely so much on tensile strength that we don't possess the materials to create yet- but creates its own by being a massively tall building (although it wouldn't need to reach 35,000 km, it would presumably have to be at least 2,000 km tall) that needs a constant massive supply of power to stay upright, which seems like the most obvious military/terrorist target ever aside from anything else.


Mind you, unlike the elevator which can only be made full-scale or not at all, you could build smaller space fountains on Earth for other purposes and as proof of concept, so it might be something that starts to gain traction before an actual elevator does.

[Free Northman Reborn]

6 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

My understanding is that the location on the equator mitigates that somewhat because cyclones etc don't cross the equator, on account of it being between the Hadley Cells, and most likely needing to put it on ocean, while a challenge, would also potentially allow a mobile platform that could move to avoid any bad stuff it does come across.

But yeah, we're not yet capable of building one. We made a step when they invented graphene, which would theoretically alleviate the weight of the cable needed massively, but afaik there's not been any significant research into making graphene into load-bearing cables yet, so it's a small step for now.
Skyhooks seem like a much more plausible solution to the problem of getting things into space less expensively, at least for now, even though they're much less cool.

And on the other side of the feasibility scale, a space fountain, which solves a few of the problems of a space elevator- it wouldn't need to be on the equator, it doesn't rely so much on tensile strength that we don't possess the materials to create yet- but creates its own by being a massively tall building (although it wouldn't need to reach 32,000 miles, it would presumably have to be at least 2,000 miles tall) that needs a constant massive supply of power to stay upright, which seems like the most obvious military/terrorist target ever aside from anything else.

BFR brings the cost per kg to orbit down to Space Elevator levels, without a fraction of the technical challenges associated with the latter. As I said, SpaceX is building a Space Elevator. It is called the BFR and the aspriational launch date is 2022. Meaning it will realistically launch around 5 years after 2022, due to SpaceX's limited funding compared to the bloated government Space program. But once it is operational, it will change the economics of space travel to a similar extent that a hypothetical Space Elevator would. If a Space Elevator is even technically possible on Earth in the distant future.

[Erik of Hazelfield]

Yeah, I used to be a big fan of space elevators until SpaceX came along, showing that you can do a lot with reusable rockets. They don’t even have to be single stage to orbit, as long as the various stages can all land separately and safely. Fuel is a minor cost - the big cost is the fact that with traditional rockets, you use it once and then it’s gone. 

As for the Moon and Mars question, I think a colony on Mars is closer. There’s no real use in going to the moon. Mars, however, is much better suited for human life because of its greater gravity and thin but significant atmosphere. You can build domes and stuff there, and with solar panels, a few key factories and some 3D printing you can make basically everything that you have a drawing of. I think a colony could be more or less self sustaining with a few thousand people in it. And as little as I understand it, there seems to be no shortage of fools who want to go live on Mars.

I say some 15-20 years for the first expedition and 35-50 for the colony. 

[maarsen]

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Such a complex problem, with many different aspects to deal with in any attempted answer.

In brief, technically a Mars colony (not just flags and footprints, but a true settlement), is feasible within the next 10-20 years. IF, and it's a big IF, you solve the economic problem. Meaning either some government needs to throw a few trillion dollars at it, or the cost must be brought down enough that a large number of private citizens can collectively fund it, OR, something needs to be discovered on Mars that we desperately need on earth, and are willing to pay a lot of money per kg for. Basically, the Unobtanium from Avatar.

Option 3 seems rather unlikely, leaving options one and two. The answer will probably be a combination of one and two.

The largest payload ever landed on Mars weighed less than 1 ton. By contrast, the BFR Elon Musk is currently building will land 150 tons on Mars, and will be fully reusable. This will represent a quantum leap in the technical feasibility of landing large masses of people and equipment on Mars.

Consider for a moment, for sake of comparison, NASA's next big aspirational mission - the envisaged Mars Sample Return project. The goal is to return less than 5kg of Martian soil to Earth for scientific analysis. In order to achieve this, they will need as many as 3 seperate launches, seperated by many years. The first will send a rover to collect some Martian dirt. The second will launch a lander which will retrieve this sample from where the rover left it many years before, and launch it up to Martian orbit. And a third will perhaps be needed to collect it from Martian orbit and return it to Earth. All of this will take most of a decade from first launch, and cost upwards of $5bn. For 5kg's of returned Martian soil, and zero permanent infrastructure or people landed on Mars. So that works out to around $1bn per kg of Martian soil sample.

By contrast, SpaceX's BFR will also cost around $5bn to develop, but will be reusable hundreds of times. And it will land 150 tons on Mars, and be able to return around 20 tons of payload or thereabouts. And then be able to refuel and return to Mars again. So even if it could only be used once, it could return 20 tons of soil compared to NASA's mere 5kg, so a factor of 4000 times cheaper per kg of returned soil. Plus it would have landed 150 tons of equipment/people on Mars while doing so. And can then fly back again with another 150 tons, at a cost of maybe $50m dollars.

It fundamentally changes the financial model of space travel.

Its impact on LEO (Low Earth Orbit) operations is just as impressive. Currently ULA (United Launch Alliance) will charge NASA maybe $200m to launch say 10 tons to LEO. That's a cost of $20,000/kg of payload delivered to orbit. By contrast, BFR will charge maybe $15m for 150 tons to LEO. That is about $100/kg of payload to orbit.

So less than 1% of the current cost.

So there you have your Space Elevator. It is called the BFR. It will be able to launch repeatedly, with as little as 24 hour turnaround time, a thousand times or more (with some periodic refurbishment). Which fundamentally changes the cost equation from the current "build a $200m dollar rocket and throw it away after one use" philosophy to an airline model of sweating your assets and repeated mass transit.

Having said all of the above, that is just the transport problem solved. The economic justification for a permanent colony on Mars - and all the infrastructure required to support it there- remains to be solved. Especially if we want to reach the point of making the colony self sustaining, which surely must be the end goal. However, as difficult as that problem is to solve, cutting transport costs by a factor of 100 or more surely makes it a whole lot more manageable than it was before.

 

The only other usable method of launch stuff in orbit would be mass drivers. These would not be good for people as the acceleration would kill anybody in the container.Again they would be best situated at the equator. 

As for living on Mars, if you can grow food, everything else is simple.There is water in abundance as shown by geological activity, and oxygen and hydrogen follow from that. Kim Robinson's Mars novels are pretty well thought out as to what would be required so I imagine it is doable. as for unobtainium, helium fits the bill, but I doubt Mars has any reservoirs.

[GAROVORKIN]

5 minutes ago, maarsen said:

The only other usable method of launch stuff in orbit would be mass drivers. These would not be good for people as the acceleration would kill anybody in the container.Again they would be best situated at the equator. 

As for living on Mars, if you can grow food, everything else is simple.There is water in abundance as shown by geological activity, and oxygen and hydrogen follow from that. Kim Robinson's Mars novels are pretty well thought out as to what would be required so I imagine it is doable. as for unobtainium, helium fits the bill, but I doubt Mars has any reservoirs.

 

 I haven't read Robinson novels but how did they address the problem to there  not being magnetic field to shield the atmosphere from the solar winds? 

[Free Northman Reborn]

38 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

 

 I haven't read Robinson novels but how did they address the problem to there  not being magnetic field to shield the atmosphere from the solar winds? 

The lack of a magnetic field meant that Mars lost the bulk of its atmosphere over hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Basically, this means that if you terraformed Mars's atmosphere today to the point where it is livable for humans, it will remain livable for humans for a longer period than humans have existed on earth. Say 200,000 years or so as a ballpark estimate.

In other words, without having to do anything to replenish the atmosphere once it is established, human civilization would be able to exist on Mars for 20 times longer than it has existed on earth so far.

And given the technological progress likely over such a period, I'm sure replenishing it again - from Kuiper belt or Oort cloud material or whatever - will be pretty easy at that point.

Not to mention suggestions such as the one in the link below, which proposes estalishing an artificial magnetic shield in space above Mars, to duplicate the effect of a magnetic field through technological means.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/a25493/magnetic-shield-mars-atmosphere/

[polishgenius]

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

In other words, without having to do anything to replenish the atmosphere once it is established, human civilization would be able to exist on Mars for 20 times longer than it has existed on earth so far.

Establishing a livable atmosphere on Mars is a whole different ballgame though surely? If that's the criteria for the colonisation of Mars it isn't happening in our lifetimes or the lifetimes of our children's children. Shit, we can't even maintain our own.

In any case just having an atmosphere won't stop the radiation getting to the people on it. That does some, especially if there's an ozone layer, but it's the lack of magnetosphere that does the deadly. Heck, look at Venus. The atmosphere there's thick as fuck but it's far hotter than you'd expect it to be in large part because it has no magnetosphere and as result the solar radiation has fucked it up.

[Free Northman Reborn]

4 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Establishing a livable atmosphere on Mars is a whole different ballgame though surely? If that's the criteria for the colonisation of Mars it isn't happening in our lifetimes or the lifetimes of our children's children. Shit, we can't even maintain our own.

In any case just having an atmosphere won't stop the radiation getting to the people on it. That does some, especially if there's an ozone layer, but it's the lack of magnetosphere that does the deadly. Heck, look at Venus. The atmosphere there's thick as fuck but it's far hotter than you'd expect it to be in large part because it has no magnetosphere and as result the solar radiation has fucked it up.

Sure, the terraforming is a long term goal, in the order of centuries. Increasing the air pressure to livable levels will be achieved long before the atmosphere becomes breathable. Meaning humans will be able to venture outside without space suits, but still with breathing masks at some point, and only later without breathing equipment.

As for the radiation. That's a separate issue from the temperature, atmospheric pressure and breathability issues. But there are technological options for that too, in the long run.

[SpaceChampion]

I agree there is little near term use in going to the Moon.  Water brought to cis-lunar space from Earth is vastly cheaper than a Moon mining operation, which would cost tens of billions at the low end of estimates to build plus billions annually to maintain.  Even moon water used to refuel a completely hydrolox rocket like the upper stage of Blue Origin's proposed New Glenn (unlike SpaceX's BFR which would be methalox so cannot be refuelled from the moon without unknown sources of carbon turned into methane) the economic case doesn't make sense.  Water on Earth is cheap.  Oxygen and hydrogen and methane on Earth are cheap.  Water from the moon plus the nuclear or solar power installation used to electrolysize plus the amortization of mining, maintenance, repair, and resupply costs are not cheap.  It would have to cost less than a few million dollars per fully fuelling a ship in cis-lunar space to compare to just hauling it from Earth.  I just don't understand how some very smart people but with apparently no economic sense don't get this.  It's never going to happen. 

A lunar Space Elevator, could change that.  No use wasting 96% of your water as rocket fuel to bring up the other 4% to orbit.  Fortunately, the materials needed to make a Space Elevator could actually work for the Moon whereas even with carbon nanotubes it won't work for Earth.  A lunar elevator then could bring up 100% of a fully fueled spaceship tank to orbit.  I don't know how the economics of a lunar elevator would work though.

As for Mars, SpaceX will get there.  Maybe not boots on the ground in six years as they want, but all their targets are deliberately optimistic and aspirational anyway.  I'd say 10 years from now they'll be there -- 2028.  They have already started manufacturing the first pieces of the BFR.  They can land on the Moon with a BFR too, and still have enough fuel to get off again and return home.  So SpaceX is positioned to do that even with zero lunar infrastructure.  I just don't believe lunar long-term habitation or operations will be particularly useful to anyone except six month shifts by scientists at small bases.  There really isn't that much science left to do on the Moon though.  The moon makes a good shield from radio waves from Earth, so a radio telescope on the far side a good idea.

As FNR pointed out, a magneto-shield placed in a Lagrangian point to shield Mars from solar radiation can work with relatively low energy requirements, a few hundred megawatts.  And hundred of thousands of years to evaporate the atmosphere of a terraformed Mars is not an issue.  We can top it up every 10,000 years if necessary.  The magneto-shield would make it likely unnecessary.

We could technically do both for the Moon too, even though the moon does not have enough gases to make a 1 bar atmosphere, we could get the appropriate gases from Venus, comets and asteroids.  It'd still take 10,000 years to completely evaporate. You'd be able to walk around on the Moon without a spacesuit in a sleeved shirt and jeans if it's warm enough.  Just top it up every century or so.  A magneto-shield in lunar orbit would protect it somewhat.

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

13 minutes ago, SpaceChampion said:

I agree there is little near term use in going to the Moon.  Water brought to cis-lunar space from Earth is vastly cheaper than a Moon mining operation, which would cost tens of billions at the low end of estimates to build plus billions annually to maintain.  Even moon water used to refuel a completely hydrolox rocket like the upper stage of Blue Origin's proposed New Glenn (unlike SpaceX's BFR which would be methalox so cannot be refuelled from the moon without unknown sources of carbon turned into methane) the economic case doesn't make sense.  Water on Earth is cheap.  Oxygen and hydrogen and methane on Earth are cheap.  Water from the moon plus the nuclear or solar power installation used to electrolysize plus the amortization of mining, maintenance, repair, and resupply costs are not cheap.  It would have to cost less than a few million dollars per fully fuelling a ship in cis-lunar space to compare to just hauling it from Earth.  I just don't understand how some very smart people but with apparently no economic sense don't get this.  It's never going to happen. 

A lunar Space Elevator, could change that.  No use wasting 96% of your water as rocket fuel to bring up the other 4% to orbit.  Fortunately, the materials needed to make a Space Elevator could actually work for the Moon whereas even with carbon nanotubes it won't work for Earth.  A lunar elevator then could bring up 100% of a fully fueled spaceship tank to orbit.  I don't know how the economics of a lunar elevator would work though.

As for Mars, SpaceX will get there.  Maybe not boots on the ground in six years as they want, but all their targets are deliberately optimistic and aspirational anyway.  I'd say 10 years from now they'll be there -- 2028.  They have already started manufacturing the first pieces of the BFR.  They can land on the Moon with a BFR too, and still have enough fuel to get off again and return home.  So SpaceX is positioned to do that even with zero lunar infrastructure.  I just don't believe lunar long-term habitation or operations will be particularly useful to anyone except six month shifts by scientists at small bases.  There really isn't that much science left to do on the Moon though.  The moon makes a good shield from radio waves from Earth, so a radio telescope on the far side a good idea.

As FNR pointed out, a magneto-shield placed in a Lagrangian point to shield Mars from solar radiation can work with relatively low energy requirements, a few hundred megawatts.  And hundred of thousands of years to evaporate the atmosphere of a terraformed Mars is not an issue.  We can top it up every 10,000 years if necessary.  The magneto-shield would make it likely unnecessary.

We could technically do both for the Moon too, even though the moon does not have enough gases to make a 1 bar atmosphere, we could get the appropriate gases from Venus, comets and asteroids.  It'd still take 10,000 years to completely evaporate. You'd be able to walk around on the Moon without a spacesuit in a sleeved shirt and jeans if it's warm enough.  Just top it up every century or so.  A magneto-shield in lunar orbit would protect it somewhat.

 

Now, imagine what could be achieved if NASA pumped its SLS money into BFR contracts instead. If only Musk had Bezos's resources.

I am cautiously optimistic that Starlink will provide this funding boost, but I don't want to get too excited too soon. I just get frustrated at the waste of resources on projects such as SLS, when BFR could revolutionize our future as a space faring species for roughly the same amount of funding.

[SpaceChampion]

4 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Now, imagine what could be achieved if NASA pumped its SLS money into BFR contracts instead. If only Musk had Bezos's resources.

I am cautiously optimistic that Starlink will provide this funding boost, but I don't want to get too excited too soon. I just get frustrated at the waste of resources on projects such as SLS, when BFR could revolutionize our future as a space faring species for roughly the same amount of funding.

Same.

Oh, forgot to add: there is an Option 4 for Mars.  Something on Mars that could be mined that is useful in space assuming long term we are spreading people through the solar system.

Another thing I forgot to mention is that the majority of Martian ocean did not escape into space.  About 1/20th did.  The rest appears to have reacted with basalt to produce hydrated minerals, or simply froze in the pore space between minerals that opened up like a sponge in the crust and mantle as Mars cooled.  At some depth there is most definitely warmth enough that very salty liquid water exists, and near-surface permafrost certainly exists too.  Mining Mars would be most simply done by extracting minerals from that subsurface water, rather than despoiling the land.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Question from the uninformed. What is the estimated time period it takes to terraform a planet the size of Mars?

[Free Northman Reborn]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Question from the uninformed. What is the estimated time period it takes to terraform a planet the size of Mars?

I've followed the topic with interest for a long time, and read a bunch of different articles on it over the years. But the details tend to blur after a while. My personal approach these days is to just go to the Wikipedia page every now and then to refresh my memory. Which I might actualy do now, come to think of it.

Link below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars

 

[Erik of Hazelfield]

Some Mars colony funding I can think of off the top of my head, to keep the supplies from Earth coming:

- Tourism (yeah it’ll be expensive but there are plenty of millionaires to go around and at least some of them would likely enjoy a Mars sunrise or ascending the tallest mountain in the solar system)

- Software programming and similar venues (I think Musk calls this a “photon economy” - making digital stuff that can be sold to Earth and delivered by radio transmissions - though the ~15 minute lag will be an annoyance for sure)

- Art, literature and music (photon transferable)

- People might have to pay a large one-time sum to be among the first settlers

- Sponsorship and donations from individuals and organisations staying on Earth 

- Selling Mars rocks? Maybe not, but as far as unobtainium goes, I can’t think of many things that would be cheaper to mine on Mars and ship to Earth. The extreme difficulties with transferring anything across space probably means that any space trading will be limited to extremely valuable cargo. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I've followed the topic with interest for a long time, and read a bunch of different articles on it over the years. But the details tend to blur after a while. My personal approach these days is to just go to the Wikipedia page every now and then to refresh my memory. Which I might actualy do now, come to think of it.

Link below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars

 

Thanks!

7 minutes ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

- Selling Mars rocks? Maybe not, but as far as unobtainium goes, I can’t think of many things that would be cheaper to mine on Mars and ship to Earth. The extreme difficulties with transferring anything across space probably means that any space trading will be limited to extremely valuable cargo. 

I want my Martian Pet Rock and I want it now!