Moon colony 'within 20 years'

[JamesM]

so says Bernard Foing of the ESA (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3161695.stm):
"We believe that technologically it's possible," the project scientist on Europe's first Moon mission, Smart-1, told BBC News Online.

"But it will depend in the end on the political will to go and establish a human base for preparing for colonisation of the Moon or to be used as a refuge for the human species."
or just because it would be really cool and make everyday life just that little bit more like science fiction, and therefore, in its own way, bringing the day I can stomp around in a ginormous robotic exo-skeleton that little bit closer.

[kedo1981]

all we need is the will

[Sundog]

Pah. I grew up believing the Space Race was more than politics. Don't expect me to buy into THAT pipedream again.

But let me know when tickets are available.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by kedo1981
all we need is the will
And a whole b***-load of money (=resources) that could be used for other purposes.

[Eos of the Eons]

Could be an excuse to practice colonization on other planets? Would terra forming the moon be impossible? Since it doesn't rotate and the one side would be in light all day, what could grow in that? Not much of an atmosphere. Would an atmosphere be possible ever? The moon seems so boring and worthless to colonize since noone could 'just go outside'.

[ceptimus]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Could be an excuse to practice colonization on other planets? Would terra forming the moon be impossible? Since it doesn't rotate and the one side would be in light all day, what could grow in that? Not much of an atmosphere. Would an atmosphere be possible ever? The moon seems so boring and worthless to colonize since noone could 'just go outside'. Sheesh - there's so much bad astronomy here I don't know where to begin. So I won't.

But it's 'no one' or 'nobody'.

[Sundog]

OK, I'll take a swing at it.

The moon keeps one face to US - not to the sun. The Moon does rotate, once every month, and all of its surface gets an equal amount of exposure to the sun.

I am no astrophysicist but I think the word "terraforming" is sheer hubris and sheer science fiction. We can't even "terraform" Earth without creating disasters. And the whole idea of giving planets breathable atmospheres is ridiculous; on Mars or the Moon, any new air you make would just drift away.

[Eos of the Eons]

That's why I was asking and not saying, so thanks.

Does all of the moon get exposure to the sun every day? The moon's cycle to us is every 30 days.

And right, with there being no atmosphere the 'new air' would just float away. So that's why asked about terraforming and whether or not getting an atmosphere that would actually keep the air in is at all possible to cause on another planet without one.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
That's why I was asking and not saying, so thanks.

Does all of the moon get exposure to the sun every day? The moon's cycle to us is every 30 days.



A day on the moon is 30 Earth-days long.



And right, with there being no atmosphere the 'new air' would just float away. So that's why asked about terraforming and whether or not getting an atmosphere that would actually keep the air in is at all possible to cause on another planet without one.

You have a major misunderstanding here, I think. The amount of atmosphere a planet or moon can hold is mostly dependent on just one thing - its gravity. An atmosphere doesn't "hold" anything in; an atmosphere is the "air". The Moon has no atmosphere because its gravity can't hold one; never did, never will. (This is also because of the proximity of the Earth.)

So unfortunately, no, you're never going to be able to walk unprotected on the Moon's surface.

[Eos of the Eons]

Okay, now the memory is starting to kick in. Right right, gravity. So the terra forming is great for sci fi, and that's about it. That stinks, but not surprising.

Thank you!

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Sundog
And the whole idea of giving planets breathable atmospheres is ridiculous; on Mars or the Moon, any new air you make would just drift away.

Well, on geological time scales, yes, but it takes a long time by human standards. I seem to recall the half-life of an Earth-like atmosphere is a few thousand years for the moon, and a few million years for Mars -- that's not impossible to deal with.

Keeping free oxygen in the atmosphere is the real trick. Oxygen loves to react with stuff, so it tends to get bound up in water, carbonates, and all kinds of stuff. You pretty much need an full-scale ecosystem to keep things stable.

Jeremy

[daver]

A bit of a quibble.

The atmosphere will leak away rapidly on a geological time scale. It'll hang around fairly long on a human timescale.

The rate at which the atmosphere leaks away is a function of the escape velocity of the body, the molecular weight of the constituents and the temperature of the atmosphere. Higher atomic weights take longer to escape, as do colder gasses.

So. If you had unlimited resources, you might be able to manufacture a non-breathable atmosphere for the moon. Its constituents would have to have a high molecular weight, and not be susceptible to UV decomposition. Actually, it'd help if it were opaque to UV. Anyway, xenon might be heavy enough. You couldn't wander outside without a suit, but you could wander with just a gas mask. Finding that much xenon is left as an exercise for the reader.

If you wanted to go outside without a suit, domes would be a lot cheaper.

Ditto Mars, but because it's colder and bigger the molecular weight of the gas used could be reduced. CO2 might work, so you could just import your atmosphere from Venus (it has plenty to spare).

[bPer]

Originally posted by Sundog
The Moon has no atmosphere because its gravity can't hold one; never did, never will.
Well, actually, no. The moon has a very thin atmosphere, but nonetheless, an atmosphere.

βPer

[DanishDynamite]

Terraforming Mars (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~mfogg/paper1.htm) is certainly possible. The easiest way to do so is still being researched and there is no doubt that the more we know about the conditions of Mars, the better (cheaper/faster) method we can choose. However, even the best method will probably take centuries.

BTW, the ESA SMART-1 (http://www.esa.int/export/SPECIALS/SMART-1/SEMLB6XO4HD_0.html) is a fairly cool probe. Ion propulsion, folks! I read somewhere that the engine can only produce about 0.07 Newton of force. Not much compared to chemical propulsion, but where chemical engines have total operating times measured in minutes, an ion engine can blast for months. And this particular ion engine is solar powered. Cool stuff.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
BTW, the ESA SMART-1 (http://www.esa.int/export/SPECIALS/SMART-1/SEMLB6XO4HD_0.html) is a fairly cool probe. Ion propulsion, folks! I read somewhere that the engine can only produce about 0.07 Newton of force. Not much compared to chemical propulsion, but where chemical engines have total operating times measured in minutes, an ion engine can blast for months. And this particular ion engine is solar powered. Cool stuff.

Bah, the good ol' U S of A was there years ago (http://nmp.jpl.nasa.gov/ds1/)!

Jeremy

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by toddjh


Bah, the good ol' U S of A was there years ago (http://nmp.jpl.nasa.gov/ds1/)!

Jeremy If you had bothered to read my link to the ESA SMART-1 site, you would have discovered that the "good ol' U S of A" probe Deep Space 1 was in fact mentioned. :)

[Frostbite]

You can't terraform the Moon, but you can build gigantic air bubbles, which would be really expensive and be a major target for terrorists.

*reminesces the Red Mars novels...*

[Sundog]

Originally posted by toddjh


Well, on geological time scales, yes, but it takes a long time by human standards. I seem to recall the half-life of an Earth-like atmosphere is a few thousand years for the moon, and a few million years for Mars -- that's not impossible to deal with.

Keeping free oxygen in the atmosphere is the real trick. Oxygen loves to react with stuff, so it tends to get bound up in water, carbonates, and all kinds of stuff. You pretty much need an full-scale ecosystem to keep things stable.

Jeremy

To sustain human life, you'd need to increase Mars' air pressure to 15 psi or so (I know there's a lower breathable limit). That much more air will disappear on a scale far shorter than geological, no? (At least I would be very surprised... as I said, I'm no scientist.)

Changing the balance of Mars' current atmosphere wouldn't be enough.

And yes, bPer, I know. But thanks for keeping things accurate. ;)

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Sundog
To sustain human life, you'd need to increase Mars' air pressure to 15 psi or so (I know there's a lower breathable limit). That much more air will disappear on a scale far shorter than geological, no?

The amount doesn't really matter; it only depends on the speed the air particles are travelling compared to the escape velocity of the planet, and the speed of the air particles is a function of their temperature and mass. It's a sort of like a half-life.

Since there may be occasional cases where an atom gets superheated for some reason or otherwise ejected from the atmosphere, it's a commonly-accepted rule of thumb that a planet will retain most of its atmosphere for a long time (i.e. billions of years) only if the speed of the air particles is less than one-sixth of the escape velocity.

My back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that O2 is right about at that limit for Mars. I imagine oxygen would stick around for a good long time if there was something to keep it from getting bound up in Mars' surface rocks. Nitrogen would seep out slightly faster, but only slightly -- I'm guessing millions of years, at least. And it looks like a heavy noble gas like argon or xenon (if you could manage to get that much of it) would be just fine.

The moon would be tricky, but I'm guessing that even an atmosphere that only stays habitable for 1,000 years would be good enough for planners, especially once you can afford to do it in the first place. Just touch it up every few centuries, and voila!

Jeremy

[Sundog]

Originally posted by toddjh


The amount doesn't really matter; it only depends on the speed the air particles are travelling compared to the escape velocity of the planet, and the speed of the air particles is a function of their temperature and mass.

But Boyle's Law applies to planets, too, no? :D All those extra molecules will be bouncing into each other and heating up, thereby expanding the atmosphere back to a thinner equilibrium. This will take place on a far shorter time scale than the natural process of a planet losing its atmosphere over time. Or so it seems to me.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Sundog
But Boyle's Law applies to planets, too, no? :D All those extra molecules will be bouncing into each other and heating up, thereby expanding the atmosphere back to a thinner equilibrium.

Well, except that the atmosphere loss takes place at the very upper boundary where the pressure is always almost zero anyway. And the energy to speed up molecules has to come from somewhere. The temperature of the atmosphere is ultimately a function of the amount of sunlight the planet absorbs, so you can't stretch those effects too far.

I suppose degenerate situations like the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus might change the numbers a bit, but I doubt it would make a huge difference for an earth-style atmosphere.

Jeremy

[daver]

Originally posted by toddjh


My back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that O2 is right about at that limit for Mars. I imagine oxygen would stick around for a good long time if there was something to keep it from getting bound up in Mars' surface rocks. Nitrogen would seep out slightly faster, but only slightly -- I'm guessing millions of years, at least. And it looks like a heavy noble gas like argon or xenon (if you could manage to get that much of it) would be just fine.

My envelope got the same answers. Molecular weight ~30 for Mars, ~140 for the moon. Uranium hexafluoride ought to be dandy for the moon; there might be some other fluorine compounds that would work. You still aren't going to be able to have liquid water (or if so, only for a short period of time) but if you can breathe UF6 you probably wouldn't care.

[Diamond]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
[B]Terraforming Mars (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~mfogg/paper1.htm) is certainly possible. The easiest way to do so is still being researched and there is no doubt that the more we know about the conditions of Mars, the better (cheaper/faster) method we can choose. However, even the best method will probably take centuries.



The only thing I'd say about that link is the notion that carbon dioxide is a very efficient greenhouse gas at all, when demonstrably it isn't.

The way to terraform the atmosphere would be to get large amounts of water into the atmosphere, which would cause a runaway affect of more outgassing of water and more warming. Even so this would take tens of thousands of years to produce a breathable atmosphere.

There appears to be large amounts of water all over the planet. At high latitudes, water is 50% of the soil content by mass http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/odyssey/newsroom/pressreleases/20030724a.html

More likely, Mars will be "para-terraformed" through the creation of large geodesic domes pressurised to one half the earth's atmosphere. I believe this was the idea behind the "Red Mars" novels.

Because of the high UV flux and the negligable magnetic field, I don't expect to be able to walk on Mars for a very long time.

I always wondered if it would be possible to create an artificial magnetic field for Mars. Any ideas?

[athon]

Originally posted by Frostbite
You can't terraform the Moon, but you can build gigantic air bubbles, which would be really expensive and be a major target for terrorists.

*reminesces the Red Mars novels...*

I loved those books. In fact, all of KS Robinson's books are very similar, in that they are beautifully researched, amazingly detailed, and read like a history book. Makes for some dry reading, but then again, I like reading history books, so...

Athon

[Larspeart]

People need to stop thinking small (and pointless) with the moon and go for the jackpot- Mars!

Any money spent colonizing the moon, which is essentially inert, inorganic, and on terraformable in any sense, would be a TOTAL WASTE that could have been put towards the useful, realistic, and practical colonizing/terraforming/exploitation of Mars.

And don't feed me that 'but it would be good practice for the real thing on Mars' line of bull. The two destinations are totally different, and all methods for colonizing one woud have to be totally rethought for the other.

The moon is a waste. Mars is the prize.

[Mark]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

And a whole b***-load of money (=resources) that could be used for other purposes.

Oh, c'mon, Penguin! You of all people should know that the amount of money spent of the space program has been such an insignificant part of the federal budget that it is almost meaningless. Not to mention the point, proved over and over again, that space research has paid for itself many, many times over.

You're smarter than this.

[DanishDynamite]

Diamond:The only thing I'd say about that link is the notion that carbon dioxide is a very efficient greenhouse gas at all, when demonstrably it isn't.I don't see where the link says CO2 is an efficient , let alone a very efficient greenhouse gas. It simply states that it is a greenhouse gas, which is indisputable.
The way to terraform the atmosphere would be to get large amounts of water into the atmosphere, which would cause a runaway affect of more outgassing of water and more warming. Even so this would take tens of thousands of years to produce a breathable atmosphere.What is the relative efficiency of H2O and CO2 as greenhouse gases? I tried a little googling, but just came up with this. (http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/155/)

An excerpt:
Carbon dioxide is a more efficient greenhouse gas than water vapor when both are in equal quantities. However, they are not in equal quantities.
Not sure about the reliability of this source, though.
Because of the high UV flux and the negligable magnetic field, I don't expect to be able to walk on Mars for a very long time. Just a small note: the UV flux at Mars' distance is lower than at Earth's.
I always wondered if it would be possible to create an artificial magnetic field for Mars. Any ideas? Sorry mate, no idea. :) How big a problem do you think this lack is?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by toddjh


Well, except that the atmosphere loss takes place at the very upper boundary where the pressure is always almost zero anyway. And the energy to speed up molecules has to come from somewhere. The temperature of the atmosphere is ultimately a function of the amount of sunlight the planet absorbs, so you can't stretch those effects too far.

I suppose degenerate situations like the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus might change the numbers a bit, but I doubt it would make a huge difference for an earth-style atmosphere.

Jeremy

I don't mean to be argumentative but I'm just not convinced yet. ;) Do you mean that artificially increasing the PSI near the surface of the planet to beyond what the planet's gravity would naturally support, would not appreciable increase the rate at which the atmosphere escaped into space?

I know it's dangerous to use intuition in a case like this but my intuition tells me it would disperse in rather short order (on geological scales) to a state of equilibrium again. The outer fringes of the atmosphere would be pushed much further away from the planet, resulting in a much lower escape velocity, resulting in much more loss.

I guess it's too much to hope for that the Bad Astronomer would settle this for us. :D

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Sundog
I don't mean to be argumentative but I'm just not convinced yet. ;) Do you mean that artificially increasing the PSI near the surface of the planet to beyond what the planet's gravity would naturally support, would not appreciable increase the rate at which the atmosphere escaped into space?

No, it would increase the rate at which air leaked away (in molecules per second), but it wouldn't decrease the time it took for the atmosphere to evaporate. That's why it's like a half-life. It doesn't really matter how much of the stuff you start out with, it'll last the same amount of time.

I know it's dangerous to use intuition in a case like this but my intuition tells me it would disperse in rather short order (on geological scales) to a state of equilibrium again.

Sure it would. But "rather short order on geological scales" can mean tens or hundreds of thousands of years. That's no big deal for us. 10,000 years might as well be forever for most human purposes.

The outer fringes of the atmosphere would be pushed much further away from the planet, resulting in a much lower escape velocity, resulting in much more loss.

You'd have to get pretty far away before the escape velocity goes down very much. Remember that, for gravitational purposes, distance is measured from the core of the planet or moon, not from the surface. Gravity at the very top of the Earth's atmosphere is pretty much the same as it is on the ground.

Jeremy

[Sundog]

Originally posted by toddjh


Sure it would. But "rather short order on geological scales" can mean tens or hundreds of thousands of years. That's no big deal for us. 10,000 years might as well be forever for most human purposes.


So help me understand why it would take so much time, when every day we see on Earth evidence of low and high pressure areas sorting themselves out on a very short time scale. I'm trying to understand why what amounts to a high pressure area near the ground wouldn't simply and in short order equalize itself with the overly-low pressure area right above it.

And by the way I appreciate your patience. :)

[kedo1981]

Like I said at the top of this thread; all we need is the will!
Is it going to happen in 20 years, hell no, but it is almost certain in 500 years.
Far from being dead and "inert" the moon is full of raw materals and O locked up in the rocks.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Sundog
So help me understand why it would take so much time, when every day we see on Earth evidence of low and high pressure areas sorting themselves out on a very short time scale. I'm trying to understand why what amounts to a high pressure area near the ground wouldn't simply and in short order equalize itself with the overly-low pressure area right above it.

Well, it's not really a high pressure area. Unless you're talking about a very light gas (hydrogen) on a very small and hot planet (Mercury), most air particles aren't moving anywhere near the escape velocity of the planet. The main reason the atmosphere will still escape is that occasionally an air molecule at the top will get bounced around just right to get ejected from the planet, or get hit by a cosmic ray and excited enough to escape, stuff like that.

The lower the gravity and the hotter the temperature, the more often random events like that will happen, and over time an atom here and an atom there adds up to a lot. But apart from that, the atmosphere isn't being kept at an unnaturally high pressure, it's at equilibrium, just like Earth (ignoring temperature differences and the other things that give us weather patterns here).

Jeremy

[Sundog]

Originally posted by toddjh


Well, it's not really a high pressure area. Unless you're talking about a very light gas (hydrogen) on a very small and hot planet (Mercury), most air particles aren't moving anywhere near the escape velocity of the planet.

I understand. But my question is, wouldn't an unnatural pressure of 15 psi at ground level on Mars be difficult to maintain? I just don't see why it wouldn't reach equilibrium again and "poof out" to a larger atmosphere fairly quickly. This is a different question than, how fast would the planet lose the new air.

You may feel free to ignore me at any point if I'm being overly stupid. :D

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Sundog
I understand. But my question is, wouldn't an unnatural pressure of 15 psi at ground level on Mars be difficult to maintain? I just don't see why it wouldn't reach equilibrium again and "poof out" to a larger atmosphere fairly quickly.

Oh. Sure, to get 15 PSI on the surface of Mars or the Moon, you'd need to add more air to get a "taller" atmosphere (the pressure you feel is, after all, the weight of the column of air above you). So Mars with a new, improved atmosphere would look pretty "fluffy" compared to the Earth, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's unstable.

Plus, we can get by with a lot less than 15 PSI if we can pick and choose what the atmosphere's going to contain. I think there's a certain minimum pressure needed to force air from our lungs into our bloodstream, but apart from that, I think we'd just need 2 PSI of oxygen. I bet we could survive in 5-6 PSI if we planned ahead.

You may feel free to ignore me at any point if I'm being overly stupid. :D

Hey, I don't think anybody's an expert on this kind of stuff...not a whole lot of firsthand experience yet. :)

Jeremy

[Sundog]

Originally posted by toddjh


Oh. Sure, to get 15 PSI on the surface of Mars or the Moon, you'd need to add more air to get a "taller" atmosphere (the pressure you feel is, after all, the weight of the column of air above you). So Mars with a new, improved atmosphere would look pretty "fluffy" compared to the Earth, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's unstable.


Okay. That's exactly what I meant and exactly what I visualized. Your "fluffy" atmosphere is what I meant by the atmosphere seeking equilibrium.

That's a whole lotta air. ;) A high rate of leakage, as you appear to agree, that would have to be constantly made up at the same rate to maintain that pressure.

In the case of the Moon, the atmosphere might have to be so "tall" that tidal effects from Earth might become significant, don't you think?

Yes, maybe lower-pressure solutions are possible. When I doubt the possibility of terraforming it's the Earth-like atmosphere I find improbable.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Sundog
Okay. That's exactly what I meant and exactly what I visualized. Your "fluffy" atmosphere is what I meant by the atmosphere seeking equilibrium.

That's a whole lotta air. ;) A high rate of leakage, as you appear to agree, that would have to be constantly made up at the same rate to maintain that pressure.

Well, yes, but I think we're still disagreeing about what a "high rate of leakage" is. If it takes 1000 years for the pressure to drop 10%, I'd call that a high rate of leakage in the grand scheme of things, but a terraformer would probably consider that feasible. Even on the moon, I don't think you're going to see the air slipping away in just a few years.

In the case of the Moon, the atmosphere might have to be so "tall" that tidal effects from Earth might become significant, don't you think?

Maybe, but the moon doesn't have moving tides the way the Earth does. Only the parts facing directly toward and directly away from the Earth will get the worst of it. And I doubt we're talking about a tall enough atmosphere that air would actually get ripped away by tidal forces -- the moon is pretty far out there.

Yes, maybe lower-pressure solutions are possible. When I doubt the possibility of terraforming it's the Earth-like atmosphere I find improbable.

It's definitely the hardest part. I don't know if it'll ever be done, personally. There's just not a whole lot to be gained from colonization in the foreseeable future.

Jeremy

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by toddjh
There's just not a whole lot to be gained from colonization in the foreseeable future.Totally disagree. Terraforming Mars would result in doubling the available real-estate for humans. It would be like discovering a new continent, as large as all other continents combined.

And I'm not even mentioning all the other benefits, such as "having our eggs in more than one basket".

[toddjh]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Totally disagree. Terraforming Mars would result in doubling the available real-estate for humans. It would be like discovering a new continent, as large as all other continents combined.

And costing millions of dollars (or euros, if you prefer) for the honor of going on a long, dangerous journey to get there.

Couple that with the fact that you know they'll be passing the amortized cost of the terraforming on to the consumer, and I foresee a square kilometer of rusty anoxic dirt costing in the nine figures. You can get that in Idaho for a few thousand bucks.

And I'm not even mentioning all the other benefits, such as "having our eggs in more than one basket".

Yeah, a basket ten times more fragile than the first one, and unlikely to be completely independent for many years -- sucking up lots of money in the meantime. I really can't think of anything that would make the Earth uninhabitable that wouldn't be even more likely to occur on Mars.

Jeremy

[DanishDynamite]

toddjh:And costing millions of dollars (or euros, if you prefer) for the honor of going on a long, dangerous journey to get there.Possibly. Who knows what the cost is when Mars is ready to be settled. Space-Elevator, for example?

How much did Columbus's trip cost? Does anyone care, nowadays?
Couple that with the fact that you know they'll be passing the amortized cost of the terraforming on to the consumer, and I foresee a square kilometer of rusty anoxic dirt costing in the nine figures. You can get that in Idaho for a few thousand bucks.Obviously, such an adventure would only be possible with governmental support. But, to terraform mars would itself require governmental support, and what would be the point if no one went there?
Yeah, a basket ten times more fragile than the first one, and unlikely to be completely independent for many years -- sucking up lots of money in the meantime. I see certain parallels with the colonization of the US.
I really can't think of anything that would make the Earth uninhabitable that wouldn't be even more likely to occur on Mars.Nuclear war? Al-Qaida terrorists with access to WMD? Global warming? AIDS^2? Yucatan meteor?

The bottomline (to me) is that a self-sustainable Mars colony would vastly increase the viability of the less than million year old experiment of nature called homo sapiens.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
But, to terraform mars would itself require governmental support, and what would be the point if no one went there?


Precious few WOULD be going there. To transfer any appreciable fraction of Earth's population elsewhere is a physical impossibility. The steel doesn't exist to build that many ships.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Sundog


Precious few WOULD be going there. To transfer any appreciable fraction of Earth's population elsewhere is a physical impossibility. The steel doesn't exist to build that many ships. Indeed. But why would an "appreciable fraction of Earth's population" need or want to go there?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Indeed. But why would an "appreciable fraction of Earth's population" need or want to go there?

Well heck, I would, wouldn't you? :D

I just wanted to shoot down the idea of us all migrating to Mars some day. It ain't gonna happen.

[toddjh]

How much did Columbus's trip cost? Does anyone care, nowadays?

Not trillions, that's for sure. And this isn't exactly the "foreseeable future" from 1492's point of view. Sure, if you pump enough money into it for centuries, Mars might one day be a fairly nice place to live. But what good could that money do elsewhere?

Obviously, such an adventure would only be possible with governmental support. But, to terraform mars would itself require governmental support, and what would be the point if no one went there?

Now you're starting to get it...

Nuclear war? Al-Qaida terrorists with access to WMD? Global warming? AIDS^2? Yucatan meteor?

You really think those are a danger to the entire human species?

The bottomline (to me) is that a self-sustainable Mars colony would vastly increase the viability of the less than million year old experiment of nature called homo sapiens.

Yes. I'd like to see it someday, too. But it's not going to happen anytime soon. As it is now, no one who would invest in Mars could possibly live to see any of the return, and it's going to remain that way for decades or centuries. There's no economic incentive.

Jeremy

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Sundog


Well heck, I would, wouldn't you? :D

I just wanted to shoot down the idea of us all migrating to Mars some day. It ain't gonna happen. :)

I agree.There is almost no chance that any of us are migrating to Mars. But is there some reason we wouldn't want our great-great-grandchildren to have this oppertunity?

[DanishDynamite]

toddjh:Not trillions, that's for sure. And this isn't exactly the "foreseeable future" from 1492's point of view. Sure, if you pump enough money into it for centuries, Mars might one day be a fairly nice place to live. But what good could that money do elsewhere?The expense for the royal support of Columbus was a significant fraction of said Court's funds.

While I appreciate the sentiment that any "surplus" on a government's or society's finances could be used to ease the life of some of its citizens or to intensify research in cancer, etc, such persuits will always be around. The Earth certainly will not, as we know it will evaporate in a few billion years. So., the question is when we start to look at the long term?
You really think those are a danger to the entire human species? Some of them, yes.
Yes. I'd like to see it someday, too. But it's not going to happen anytime soon. As it is now, no one who would invest in Mars could possibly live to see any of the return, and it's going to remain that way for decades or centuries. There's no economic incentive.I agree. On the other hand, why do politicians support the search for fusion power? Its been "just around the corner" for decades now. And why did the Soviet union launsh Sputnik? Why did the US land people on the Moon?

(We need to get a new space race going! :))

[Mark]

Originally posted by Sundog


Precious few WOULD be going there. To transfer any appreciable fraction of Earth's population elsewhere is a physical impossibility. The steel doesn't exist to build that many ships.

Impossible now. Only certain to remain so if we don't even try. In case you can't tell, I am a huge supporter of the space program. It's a goal that makes most everything else seem petty and trivial in comparison.

[shecky]

Terraforming another planet is such a far off idea it's ridiculous to talk of it in anything other than sci fi. It seems the resources needed to pursue such a venture would be vastly more useful making good ole Earth a better place. Manned space flight makes such little sense in this age, the notion of truly colonizing another planet is folly in comparison.

[Inskeptor]

Instead of aiming to terraform and colonize far away planets, wouldn't it be more reasonable to "terraform" small spacestations? That is, continue research like Biosphere 2 to have self-sustained spacestations.
Research could start with comparably moderate costs here on earth then continue with small spacestations in near orbit and finally end with big independant Space Cities serving as "Arks"should any global catastrophy strike.
We could then even send some into an orbit around Mars...

~~I

[Diamond]

Why a moon colony? To store Earth's nuclear waste.....:eek:

[Larspeart]

Originally posted by Diamond
Why a moon colony? To store Earth's nuclear waste.....:eek:

Hehe, though I think you were being sarcastic, I agree with you. The moon would be a nice place to dump our crap. And not just nuclear waste. All of it. Quite frankly, the moon is about as inert and useless as a large celestial body can get. It's what? 80%Basalt?

As we destroy the Earth, we need to look toward Mars. It ain't a great neighborhood right now, but 500 years of intensive terraforming 'could' (not saying will) turn it into something quite nice, with a self-sustaining atmosphere, flora, and ecosystem. Melt down those carbon dioxide ice caps (nukes most likely) and you have a good start towards building up a greenhouse that can contain and development a reasonable atmosphere. Then, you move on to transplanting plantlife (algeas and the like at 1st) to begin converting that to oxygen. and so on and so on.

Look, Mars isn't a short-term lifeboat, but a long-reaching savior (or at least option) that, after a good deal of time, effort, and money will pay itself back 10,000 fold.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Diamond
Why a moon colony? To store Earth's nuclear waste.....:eek:

Not a bad idea... but I like the idea of just dropping it into the Sun. All that would be necessary would be to counter some of the earth's orbital motion and down she goes.

Edited to add: The problem with either scenario, of course, is getting it safely out of the atmosphere. This may be so prohibitively dangerous that we can't do either.

Mark, don't misunderstand me, I am a huge supporter of the space program. When I was in seventh grade I used to address school assemblies with an hour-long explanation of the space program. It's just a fact that it would require ENORMOUS resources to move even a tiny fraction of Earth's population elsewhere, more in fact than the planet contains. Our friend Robert Heinlein pointed this out once. I'm all for a colony on Mars but I don't want it to be sold to us on the premise that we can GO there. I was sold a bill of goods with the Space Race and I don't want to see that happen again.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Sundog


Not a bad idea... but I like the idea of just dropping it into the Sun. All that would be necessary would be to counter some of the earth's orbital motion and down she goes.

Edited to add: The problem with either scenario, of course, is getting it safely out of the atmosphere. This may be so prohibitively dangerous that we can't do either.

Mark, don't misunderstand me, I am a huge supporter of the space program. When I was in seventh grade I used to address school assemblies with an hour-long explanation of the space program. It's just a fact that it would require ENORMOUS resources to move even a tiny fraction of Earth's population elsewhere, more in fact than the planet contains. Our friend Robert Heinlein pointed this out once. I'm all for a colony on Mars but I don't want it to be sold to us on the premise that we can GO there. I was sold a bill of goods with the Space Race and I don't want to see that happen again.

Well, Heinlein also said that if we can ever come up with a continuous acceleration drive, space would be ours! I am not underestimating the difficulties, I just think it is absolutely necessary that we make the effort. Baby steps, if you will.

[daver]

Originally posted by Sundog


Not a bad idea... but I like the idea of just dropping it into the Sun. All that would be necessary would be to counter some of the earth's orbital motion and down she goes.

Essentially all of it. 30 km/sec worth. That's far from trivial, and far from cheap. Maybe it'd be cheaper than burying it in a mountain, but i doubt it.

[daver]

Originally posted by Mark


Well, Heinlein also said that if we can ever come up with a continuous acceleration drive, space would be ours! I am not underestimating the difficulties, I just think it is absolutely necessary that we make the effort. Baby steps, if you will.

Continuous acceleration requires a high Isp high thrust drive--Orion, nuclear salt-water, or maybe some sort of fusion drive. There's probably going to have to be a change in the public's perception of the dangers of nuclear energy.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by daver
Continuous acceleration requires a high Isp high thrust drive--Orion, nuclear salt-water, or maybe some sort of fusion drive. There's probably going to have to be a change in the public's perception of the dangers of nuclear energy.

You can do it for free if it turns out that negative mass is possible. Not a near-future option even if it is, but the idea of continuous acceleration with no reaction mass required is very cool.

Jeremy

[Sundog]

Originally posted by daver


Essentially all of it. 30 km/sec worth. That's far from trivial, and far from cheap. Maybe it'd be cheaper than burying it in a mountain, but i doubt it.

Right, of course. We'd get something like 4.4 km/sec back by using the Earth's rotation cleverly, but it would still be expensive.

Less reduction would result it dropping into orbit short of the Sun. Maybe we could drop it into Venus's orbit instead. :D

Or maybe something could be done with light sails, etc. to further reduce the velocity.

[Sundog]

I'm sure this has been thought of before: why not use one of the Lagrange points to dump nuclear waste? Nice and close, and a hell of a lot more stable than a salt mine.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Sundog
I'm sure this has been thought of before: why not use one of the Lagrange points to dump nuclear waste? Nice and close, and a hell of a lot more stable than a salt mine.

They're not any closer than the moon (well, the stable ones, anyway), and you'd have to carry fuel to stop when you got there. It'd also be a fairly precise operation to get them in just the right spot, and if you miss, the odds are good they'd fall back to Earth.

Whereas with the moon you could just chuck them in the right general direction and call it done.

Jeremy

[Sundog]

Originally posted by toddjh


They're not any closer than the moon (well, the stable ones, anyway), and you'd have to carry fuel to stop when you got there. It'd also be a fairly precise operation to get them in just the right spot, and if you miss, the odds are good they'd fall back to Earth.

Whereas with the moon you could just chuck them in the right general direction and call it done.

Jeremy

Well, I didn't say it was a GOOD idea. ;)

They're closer than the Sun, though, by far. And as for the acceleration problem, let's just drop a rope from the space station we're going to build at L5 and haul it up. :D

The Lagrange points are only metastable, right, not truly stable? Or is my memory playing tricks on me?

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Sundog
They're closer than the Sun, though, by far. And as for the acceleration problem, let's just drop a rope from the space station we're going to build at L5 and haul it up. :D

A space station in the middle of a nuclear waste dump...that's unfortunate. :)

"There's no way it could be an Indian burial ground and a nuclear waste dump!"

"Obviously you don't know much about the U.S. government."

The Lagrange points are only metastable, right, not truly stable? Or is my memory playing tricks on me?

Three of the five points are only metastable, but L4 and L5 are stable as long as the object you put there is small compared to the orbiting bodies. I seem to recall that you could put an object into a semi-stable "halo" orbit around one of the other points too, but I can't remember the details.

Jeremy

[Mark]

Originally posted by Sundog
I'm sure this has been thought of before: why not use one of the Lagrange points to dump nuclear waste? Nice and close, and a hell of a lot more stable than a salt mine.

One word: Skylab.

[Diamond]

Let me ask a question: If the Chinese (as seems likely) go to the moon and establish a base, would the rest of us stand idly by? Will it or a Mars mission become more or less a priority?

[shecky]

Originally posted by Diamond
Let me ask a question: If the Chinese (as seems likely) go to the moon and establish a base, would the rest of us stand idly by? Will it or a Mars mission become more or less a priority?

Maybe even more reason to throw our garbage there.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by shecky


Maybe even more reason to throw our garbage there.

You don't get this. If the Chinese go there, then that's were all the trash will be coming from. ;)

Edited to add these musings:

How exactly do you propose to move large amounts of stuff (in this case prospective Chinese colonists) to the moon? You'll need something like a revolutionary advance in effeciency and reliability of propulsion systems.

How would the moon environment affect manufacturing? Why do we care if other countries go there? How would we divide it up? How does the idea of "pollution" apply to the moon?

[shecky]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon


You don't get this. If the Chinese go there, then that's were all the trash will be coming from.

Oops... forget the smiley face and there's no telling how you'll be taken.

[shecky]

Originally posted by Mark


Well, Heinlein also said that if we can ever come up with a continuous acceleration drive, space would be ours! I am not underestimating the difficulties, I just think it is absolutely necessary that we make the effort.

I think it's absolutely unecessary to consider space colonies until there's a compelling reason to do so. This is definitely one area where we could "put it off until tomorrow". Assuming humans are around long enough, I suspect we'll eventually have the capability, so there's no rush. For the forseeable future, it's sheer sci fi.

[shecky]

Originally posted by Diamond
Let me ask a question: If the Chinese (as seems likely) go to the moon and establish a base, would the rest of us stand idly by? Will it or a Mars mission become more or less a priority?

This actually touches on one of the few valid reasons to send people into space: military objectives and superiority. Though I would find it a pretty dismal prospect if and when it comes.

[Diamond]

Originally posted by Sundog


Not a bad idea... but I like the idea of just dropping it into the Sun. All that would be necessary would be to counter some of the earth's orbital motion and down she goes.

Edited to add: The problem with either scenario, of course, is getting it safely out of the atmosphere. This may be so prohibitively dangerous that we can't do either.

Mark, don't misunderstand me, I am a huge supporter of the space program. When I was in seventh grade I used to address school assemblies with an hour-long explanation of the space program. It's just a fact that it would require ENORMOUS resources to move even a tiny fraction of Earth's population elsewhere, more in fact than the planet contains. Our friend Robert Heinlein pointed this out once. I'm all for a colony on Mars but I don't want it to be sold to us on the premise that we can GO there. I was sold a bill of goods with the Space Race and I don't want to see that happen again.

Except that September 13, 1999 has come and gone....:cool:

[xouper]

Resurecting a previous thread drift:

Frostbite: *reminesces the Red Mars novels...*

athon: I loved those books. In fact, all of KS Robinson's books are very similar, in that they are beautifully researched, ...My experinece reading Red Mars was ruined early with his scientific nonsense about mounting a windmill on a dirigible to extract energy from the passing wind to power the dirigible's propellers. DOH!

After that, it was hard to suspend my disbelief about anything he had to say. The other two Mars books are still sitting on my shelf, waiting for me to get motivated again. I don't place Robninson very high on my list of favorite authors. Nowhere near as good as Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, James P. Hogan, etc.

[Mark]

Originally posted by shecky


I think it's absolutely unecessary to consider space colonies until there's a compelling reason to do so. This is definitely one area where we could "put it off until tomorrow". Assuming humans are around long enough, I suspect we'll eventually have the capability, so there's no rush. For the forseeable future, it's sheer sci fi.

There's the pioneer spirit! ;)

[Diamond]

Originally posted by Mark


There's the pioneer spirit! ;)

I suspect, despite everything, that if the Chinese announced that they were heading for Mars, you'd see a big appropriation for NASA in a microsecond.

Space exploration is not just about economics (or in the case of the International Space Station, about science either)

[Mark]

Originally posted by Diamond


I suspect, despite everything, that if the Chinese announced that they were heading for Mars, you'd see a big appropriation for NASA in a microsecond.

Space exploration is not just about economics (or in the case of the International Space Station, about science either)

Very true.