Colonization Order: Moon , then Mars, or direct to Mars

[Wayne Mack]

And getting it back to earth only requires free electricity and a heat shield for reentry.

Unless one wants to do more than pelt the Earth with meteors, a fairly sophisticated guidance control system is needed for controlled reentry. And where does one acquire heat shields? There will need to be an ongoing stream of at least guidance systems and heat shields to the mining site.

Concerning launch needs, if I assume a target transit time of one month from Moon to Earth, then a velocity of 332 mph or 554 kph is needed. This seems well within the capabilities of a rail gun style launch system.

t takes a lot of fuel to decelerate from low lunar orbit into low-earth orbit. With conventional fuel, the cost for one ton of material would be around 600 USD.
It could be competitive against something shipped from another continent: shipping a ton of material from China to the US costs around 2,000, so I guess it has the potential to be cheaper.

It is likely that the return targets for ore shipments would be mid-ocean. This means that there would still be on Earth shipping costs. As an empty transit from home port to the landing site would be required, the shipping cost may remain the same even if the ore lands at about half the distance from its destination.

 

[Swank]

Unless one wants to do more than pelt the Earth with meteors, a fairly sophisticated guidance control system is needed for controlled reentry. And where does one acquire heat shields? There will need to be an ongoing stream of at least guidance systems and heat shields to the mining site

The iron mined at the site is the heat shield. It is also the container. The fuel for steering is either lunar oxygen or lunar oxygen and aluminum.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Unless one wants to do more than pelt the Earth with meteors, a fairly sophisticated guidance control system is needed for controlled reentry. And where does one acquire heat shields? There will need to be an ongoing stream of at least guidance systems and heat shields to the mining site.

Concerning launch needs, if I assume a target transit time of one month from Moon to Earth, then a velocity of 332 mph or 554 kph is needed. This seems well within the capabilities of a rail gun style launch system.


It is likely that the return targets for ore shipments would be mid-ocean. This means that there would still be on Earth shipping costs. As an empty transit from home port to the landing site would be required, the shipping cost may remain the same even if the ore lands at about half the distance from its destination.

The other thing that puts a spanner in the works of the idea of getting vast quantities of raw materials from outside Earth and dumping it on the surface is that recycling and terrestrial mining technology is not standing still.

Why invest trillions in trying to mine the solar system when you could spend fractions of that developing tech to reuse stuff lying about or mine more efficiently?

 

[AllanR]

reuse stuff lying about

The concentration of platinum along roadsides is higher than in commercial mines.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Unless one wants to do more than pelt the Earth with meteors, a fairly sophisticated guidance control system is needed for controlled reentry. And where does one acquire heat shields? There will need to be an ongoing stream of at least guidance systems and heat shields to the mining site.

Concerning launch needs, if I assume a target transit time of one month from Moon to Earth, then a velocity of 332 mph or 554 kph is needed. This seems well within the capabilities of a rail gun style launch system.


It is likely that the return targets for ore shipments would be mid-ocean. This means that there would still be on Earth shipping costs. As an empty transit from home port to the landing site would be required, the shipping cost may remain the same even if the ore lands at about half the distance from its destination.

If I recall correctly Russian capsules landed in Siberia. Calculating the exact landing point is the tricky part. But with current computing power, this should be relatively easy. Some parachutes would be needed to save some fuel.
Overall, while I think launching raw materials and equipment from Moon to Earth is possible I don't think it is the cheapest option, or the safest. A slight failure might cause a disaster in populated areas.

 

[Swank]

If I recall correctly Russian capsules landed in Siberia. Calculating the exact landing point is the tricky part. But with current computing power, this should be relatively easy. Some parachutes would be needed to save some fuel.
Overall, while I think launching raw materials and equipment from Moon to Earth is possible I don't think it is the cheapest option, or the safest. A slight failure might cause a disaster in populated areas.

Since your loads were cast in space, they dont have to be high density.

 

[Wayne Mack]

If I recall correctly Russian capsules landed in Siberia. Calculating the exact landing point is the tricky part. But with current computing power, this should be relatively easy. Some parachutes would be needed to save some fuel.
Overall, while I think launching raw materials and equipment from Moon to Earth is possible I don't think it is the cheapest option, or the safest. A slight failure might cause a disaster in populated areas.

That is a good point and a better analogy might be the space shuttle, which was able to land in a well defined runway. The more complex the re-entry vessel, though, the greater the likelihood of it being built on Earth and needing to be launched to the lunar base. Now consider the economics.

Using that as a model, the payload capacities are about 10,600 cubic feet or 300 cubic meters and 60,600 lbs or 27,500 kg to near Earth orbit, but only 5,000 lbs or 2,270 kg to geostationary orbit ( Space Shuttle - Wikipedia ). I did not see weight specifications for return from space. To be optimistic, I'll use the larger weight.

For comparison, a tractor trailer has a capacity of 7,100 cubic feet or 200 cubic meters with a weight of 45,000 lbs or 20.400 kg ( How Long Is a Semi Truck? Guide to Truck Sizes and Limits ). This puts the space shuttle payload at about 1.5 tractor trailers.

A train car has a wider range of 5,238-9,999 cubic feet or 148-283 cubic meters and a weight range of 70-100 tons, 140,000-200,000 lbs, 63,500-90,700 kg ( CSX.com - Railroad Equipment ). The space shuttle payload would be 1-2 railway cars.

Now look at the demand. The US produces 6,500-7,500 kilo-tonnes (metric tons) of steel per month ( United States Steel Production - February 2023 Data - 1969-2022 Historical ), where a tonne equals 2,205 lbs or 1,000 kg. Assuming that the mined ore is refined and nearly pure so that there is a 1:1 relationship between the space shuttle cargo and finished steel and assuming a 1% capture rate requires a monthly deliver of 70 kilo-tonnes, 154 million lbs, 70 million kg. This comes to a monthly need for 2,545 deliveries or 85 daily shipments, a delivery every 17 minutes.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I think that if we are to see a commitment to exploring our solar system - let alone our galaxy or the universe - it has to be with stepping stones. There are plenty of hostile places on Earth to practice establishing structures on other planets/moons, but none which would replicate the conditions of space. Out there one mistake, one error of judgement, one unforseen circumstance, will doom the mission and the lives of the people on it.

In order for Mars - or even the Moon - to be travelled to, let alone colonised, there has to be an acceptance - even an expectation - that the worst will happen sooner or later. And only when we become regular, experienced travellers in short distance space travel will we start to overcome the hazards and reduce the risk level to human life.

The question of whether it is worth the cost in human life is the same asked of those who attempted to scale the highest mountains or sail uncharted waters. Space is an incredibly dangerous place, and human beings incredibly fragile creatures.

 

[CultureCitizen]

I think that if we are to see a commitment to exploring our solar system - let alone our galaxy or the universe - it has to be with stepping stones. There are plenty of hostile places on Earth to practice establishing structures on other planets/moons, but none which would replicate the conditions of space. Out there one mistake, one error of judgement, one unforseen circumstance, will doom the mission and the lives of the people on it.

In order for Mars - or even the Moon - to be travelled to, let alone colonised, there has to be an acceptance - even an expectation - that the worst will happen sooner or later. And only when we become regular, experienced travellers in short distance space travel will we start to overcome the hazards and reduce the risk level to human life.

The question of whether it is worth the cost in human life is the same asked of those who attempted to scale the highest mountains or sail uncharted waters. Space is an incredibly dangerous place, and human beings incredibly fragile creatures.

In the case of the moon, you don't really have to risk human lives. you could send a reactor and a smelter that produces iron and aluminum from regolith and have robots do the jobs. The communication lag is only one second.

 

[paranoid marvin]

In the case of the moon, you don't really have to risk human lives. you could send a reactor and a smelter that produces iron and aluminum from regolith and have robots do the jobs. The communication lag is only one second.

Absolutely, facilities and the construction and operation of them can be done remotely and completely safely. But if colonisation is to take place - and I think that at some point it will - then substantial risks will have to be taken. It's all about stepping stones.

I can see the possibility of human travel to Mars in the relatively near future (with perhaps a brief stint on the surface), but human habitation/colonisation is a long, long way off. A significant storm, a meteorite shower or even a relativity minor technological fault could wipe out an entire colony on Mars.

But it will happen, because the human psyche is to do what is difficult and what is dangerous. However there is a difference between an individual making this decision and it being a state decision to risk the lives of its citizens.

 

[Wayne Mack]

The major challenge with colonization is creating a complete and self-sustaining biosphere. Any material lost by the colony would need to be replenished by trade with Earth. Airlocks would result in loss of air; there will be a trade-off in evacuating air and wait to to exit. Water would certainly leach away on an arid surface. Crop areas would take up a sizable percentage of living space; even more so if animals are also raised.

A more practical scenario would be space stations in Earth orbit. This would minimize transit distances for resupply. These would need to provide something for trade with Earth--it is unlikely that Earth would simply subsidize the station in perpetuity. Most trade would likely use unmanned vehicles, minimizing risk and allowing for higher acceleration and deceleration of shipments.

As these space stations became more self-sustaining, this could lead to having mining and refining stations that transited between the asteroid belt and Earth. I am not sure that there is case to be made for establishing either Lunar or Mars-based colonies.

 

[Swank]

The major challenge with colonization is creating a complete and self-sustaining biosphere. Any material lost by the colony would need to be replenished by trade with Earth. Airlocks would result in loss of air; there will be a trade-off in evacuating air and wait to to exit. Water would certainly leach away on an arid surface. Crop areas would take up a sizable percentage of living space; even more so if animals are also raised.

This is true, but not really about air or water. The moon and mars have ice and/or oxygen. It's all the other stuff used in agriculture, like nitrogen and phosphorus, that are hard to find.

 

[paranoid marvin]

There are surely easier and cheaper ways to replace dwindling resources with artificial alternatives than to start mining other planets and moons?

I think that for the forseeable future, the one and only reason for travel to the Moon and Mars is for scientific knowledge. We won't truly get to grips with discovering any 'secrets' that these bodies contain until we have human feet on the ground.

It's surely got to be easier and safe to have a space station orbiting Mars (or the Moon) so that trips to the surface can be made, but still very risky. I wonder if a string of space stations would work (sort of like galactic service stations) so that any spacecraft with problems would have somewhere to dock, and resupply or repair?

 

[Swank]

There are surely easier and cheaper ways to replace dwindling resources with artificial alternatives than to start mining other planets and moons?

I think that for the forseeable future, the one and only reason for travel to the Moon and Mars is for scientific knowledge. We won't truly get to grips with discovering any 'secrets' that these bodies contain until we have human feet on the ground.

It's surely got to be easier and safe to have a space station orbiting Mars (or the Moon) so that trips to the surface can be made, but still very risky. I wonder if a string of space stations would work (sort of like galactic service stations) so that any spacecraft with problems would have somewhere to dock, and resupply or repair?

Are you going to build those stations out of raw materials lifted to orbit from earth a few tons at a time, or cheaply mined and refined from an airless environment with few impediments to launching it into space?

 

[Robert Zwilling]

Its common sense to go to the moon first. Murphy's law dictates that the lunar operations will be more successful than Mars operations in the beginning. The plans are being made to go now which means we are limited to what will be available in the immediate future. There are no massive spaceships, no huge space stations to be assembled overnight. No instant factories or refineries. Anything happens, the life line to Earth is how things will get handled. When the western world started colonizing across the oceans, some settlements completely disappeared. The surface of the Moon and Mars are raw inhospitable areas because of the dust that has been exposed to the rigors of space for a couple of billion years. Going underground where it is a milder climate is one choice. Until we get there, how hard will it be to tunnel under the Moon's surface is anybody's guess. But that would have to be tested live as it was being set up and used. If it doesn't work, having Earth right next door is a big advantage. The ground might have to be stripped down to get to whatever is underneath the surface where it hasn't been hard broiled by space and radiation. That would be a good way to see how well machines will fare in that type of climate.

Someday we should have machines that could survive in that dust, right now we don't. If we can't live on the surface or under it, we can live in orbiting stations, but we don't have those yet. In today's world, how long would it take to set up a new international space station in the lunar neighborhood. How much of a problem would it be losing air from the airlocks. Do we have the ability to build practical airlocks that pump the air out before opening the doors. The first ships are the space stations. For these first excursions people will be living in the ships that take them out there. If we don't see any real reason to colonize the Moon and believe that Mars is a better choice, we still need to test out everything before it gets sent to Mars. Small setups on the Moon would be perfect for that. I suppose equipment could be tested in low Earth orbit but I don't see that happening.

Shipping stuff back depends on what it is. If it is really valuable it will be sent back, most likely by just sending it back by the cheapest possible methods. Many times on Earth, the original ore deposits were nuggets scattered around on the ground. For the first mining operations it might be that simple to start with. All of these efforts will be tempered by how well the equipment handles the environment. The current lunar vehicles don't really do much in terms of heavy duty mechanical complexity and they don't have to have to support life inside of them. Even in their simplistic states, dust is a big negative factor.

Water was originally a big issue, the cost of shipping it from the Earth to the Moon was prohibitive. Now water appears to be the least of our problems. That is, unless it can't be cleaned up for human use. What's in the ice is still a big question. Some of the raw materials available might be easily converted to something that generates energy. That might be more sensible to mine first to generate unlimited energy sources, at least for the beginning efforts.

These decisions are being made today by individuals as well as countries who expect to be taking off tomorrow and if they have enough resources they don't need common sense, they just keep plowing forward using money to patch up the mistakes, fill over the holes, and supply the manpower to get operations manned. People aren't too particular about what they do for money. Will the first astronaut/colonizers be paid big bucks or will the thrill of being the first people to move out into space be all the incentive that they need to put their lives on the line everyday for their foreseeable future.

 

[Wayne Mack]

Are you going to build those stations out of raw materials lifted to orbit from earth a few tons at a time, or cheaply mined and refined from an airless environment with few impediments to launching it into space?

But how would all this necessary infrastructure get into space, if it wasn't launched from Earth? Aren't the sources for any raw materials much further away thus requiring more expensive rocketry? How long will search of the Moon or Mars or asteroid belt take to discover useful concentration of the desired ores? Once all this infrastructure is in place, for what reason would it be used to then create a human habitable space station?

The more likely scenario to me is to start with a small, human habitable space station and then add manufacturing and eventually mining support capabilities.

 

[Swank]

But how would all this necessary infrastructure get into space, if it wasn't launched from Earth? Aren't the sources for any raw materials much further away thus requiring more expensive rocketry? How long will search of the Moon or Mars or asteroid belt take to discover useful concentration of the desired ores? Once all this infrastructure is in place, for what reason would it be used to then create a human habitable space station?

The more likely scenario to me is to start with a small, human habitable space station and then add manufacturing and eventually mining support capabilities.

You've got to launch something from earth, but a moon (or asteroid) factory that produces materials already in space will eventually pay for itself in material costs, while a space station will never produce any materials and will be back to needing them lifted from earth.


Essentially, a one time investment in moon mining and manufacturing would serve to build almost anything you want after that. And the moon has no weather, tectonics or other extremes that make it any more dangerous than higher orbits. It doesn't have the radiation protection of low earth orbit, but it does have cave systems that would protect settlers from both radiation and micro-meteors.

 

[Danny McG]

Its common sense to go to the moon first

The moon is actually more useful than the sun. Since the moon gives us light at night, when it's dark.
The sun only gives us light in the day, when it's already bright.

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

The moon is actually more useful than the sun. Since the moon gives us light at night, when it's dark.
The sun only gives us light in the day, when it's already bright.

You make a good point. Reminds me of the interview Ali G did with Buzz Aldrin (the one where he asked Buzz if he was ever jealous of 'Louis Armstrong')
Ali G: Do you think man will ever set foot on the Sun?
Buzz: No! Its way too hot.
Ali G: [As if talking to a complete idiot]: Well, obviously we would go in winter.

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

Apparently, SpaceX is planning missions directly to Mars.

I suppose it depends on your definition of the word 'planning'. If some idiot standing on a stage plugging crypto scams and claiming he is about to give the world robotaxis/hyperloops/Mars-missions [delete as applicable' or make up your own] counts as 'planning' then, yes, Space X is planning to go to Mars.