A Mars Colony in Our Lifetimes?

[Cormac]

Mind you, we don't need to get ships into orbit. We could use a meteoroid or asteroid as a "vehicle", strap the bits and pieces we need to it, and fling it off to Mars by adjusting its direction.

Alternatively, we could crash it into the moon, and manufacture a basic structure out of it. This could be easily launched off the moon, and flown to Mars. Then all we'd need to get into orbit would be supplies and materials. This could be done in multiple launches of existing rockets.

I'm familiar with the science fiction of doing that, but that's just crazy talk Strap on engines? Easily launch a small mountain from the Moon? Without a magical sci-fi propulsion device you can't drive around in a hugely massive rock ship. If you want a "Space Ark", they made estimates of an 8,000,000 ton nuclear bomb powered Orion craft in the 60's.

Sorry. What I meant was we could supply raw materials such as iron to the moon and construct from that. (A lot of engineering tools would, of course, need to be developed).

Regarding meteoroids/asteroids, the idea would be to hitch a ride, and deflect the meteoroid into a desired path. And, the meteroroid wouldn't have to be too big either. The weak point here isn't how to deflect, or the energy require. The weak point is having to wait until an appropriate one blundered into our nefarious clutches!

[Blind groper]

Cormac

If you want to use a base just to construct a Mars vehicle, the moon makes little sense. There are a number of asteroids that have orbits that come close to the Earth. They are rich in both metals and ice. To land on one, and take off again, with almost zero gravity, would be much, much easier than doing it from the moon. Some even have eccentric orbits, so that you could land on one near the Earth and leave it near Mars.

I still think, though, that Phobos is a better choice. It also has almost zero gravity, and landing on Phobos would require less energy (fuel) than landing on the moon, despite the much greater distance. And there you are. Right above Mars and orbiting it. A series of trips to Phobos would be easier than a similar number of trips landing on the moon. A small Phobos base would permit a Mars lander to be assembled and fueled. From there, it is relatively easy.

[Cormac]

Cormac

If you want to use a base just to construct a Mars vehicle, the moon makes little sense. There are a number of asteroids that have orbits that come close to the Earth. They are rich in both metals and ice. To land on one, and take off again, with almost zero gravity, would be much, much easier than doing it from the moon. Some even have eccentric orbits, so that you could land on one near the Earth and leave it near Mars.

I still think, though, that Phobos is a better choice. It also has almost zero gravity, and landing on Phobos would require less energy (fuel) than landing on the moon, despite the much greater distance. And there you are. Right above Mars and orbiting it. A series of trips to Phobos would be easier than a similar number of trips landing on the moon. A small Phobos base would permit a Mars lander to be assembled and fueled. From there, it is relatively easy.

For my two cents, the approach should (for now) be:

1. Conventional launch from earth to get people and materials off earth.
2. Establish moon base and manufacturing facility.
3. Supply heavy and raw materials such as iron and water by "mining" small meteroids/asteroids
4. Construct interplanetary craft, and launch it into lunar
5. Construct phobia Lander
6. Construct Mars Lander
7. Construct and send initial "factories" and send them to Mars
8. Repeat the process on Mars.


Much as you've suggested.

But if we do engage in this adventure, it must have a long term agenda. Such a project would be the most expensive and long term project humans have ever begun.

[Tyrannical]

Cormac

If you want to use a base just to construct a Mars vehicle, the moon makes little sense. There are a number of asteroids that have orbits that come close to the Earth. They are rich in both metals and ice. To land on one, and take off again, with almost zero gravity, would be much, much easier than doing it from the moon. Some even have eccentric orbits, so that you could land on one near the Earth and leave it near Mars.

I still think, though, that Phobos is a better choice. It also has almost zero gravity, and landing on Phobos would require less energy (fuel) than landing on the moon, despite the much greater distance. And there you are. Right above Mars and orbiting it. A series of trips to Phobos would be easier than a similar number of trips landing on the moon. A small Phobos base would permit a Mars lander to be assembled and fueled. From there, it is relatively easy.

For my two cents, the approach should (for now) be:

1. Conventional launch from earth to get people and materials off earth.
2. Establish moon base and manufacturing facility.
3. Supply heavy and raw materials such as iron and water by "mining" small meteroids/asteroids
4. Construct interplanetary craft, and launch it into lunar
5. Construct phobia Lander
6. Construct Mars Lander
7. Construct and send initial "factories" and send them to Mars
8. Repeat the process on Mars.


Much as you've suggested.

But if we do engage in this adventure, it must have a long term agenda. Such a project would be the most expensive and long term project humans have ever begun.

I think the main problem is that you don't have the slightest clue of how raw materials are mined and eventually transformed into finished goods
Mining and manufacturing equipment, not to mention the energy requirements are vastly huge. Like city sized huge.

[Cormac]

Cormac

If you want to use a base just to construct a Mars vehicle, the moon makes little sense. There are a number of asteroids that have orbits that come close to the Earth. They are rich in both metals and ice. To land on one, and take off again, with almost zero gravity, would be much, much easier than doing it from the moon. Some even have eccentric orbits, so that you could land on one near the Earth and leave it near Mars.

I still think, though, that Phobos is a better choice. It also has almost zero gravity, and landing on Phobos would require less energy (fuel) than landing on the moon, despite the much greater distance. And there you are. Right above Mars and orbiting it. A series of trips to Phobos would be easier than a similar number of trips landing on the moon. A small Phobos base would permit a Mars lander to be assembled and fueled. From there, it is relatively easy.

For my two cents, the approach should (for now) be:

1. Conventional launch from earth to get people and materials off earth.
2. Establish moon base and manufacturing facility.
3. Supply heavy and raw materials such as iron and water by "mining" small meteroids/asteroids
4. Construct interplanetary craft, and launch it into lunar
5. Construct phobia Lander
6. Construct Mars Lander
7. Construct and send initial "factories" and send them to Mars
8. Repeat the process on Mars.


Much as you've suggested.

But if we do engage in this adventure, it must have a long term agenda. Such a project would be the most expensive and long term project humans have ever begun.

I think the main problem is that you don't have the slightest clue of how raw materials are mined and eventually transformed into finished goods
Mining and manufacturing equipment, not to mention the energy requirements are vastly huge. Like city sized huge.

You're taking this awfully seriously.

Apart from anything else, the attitude you display is classic begrudgery. The kind that says human beings will never conquer flight, will never learn anything new - as all that can be learned has already been learned, the kind that says there is a world market for computers of less than 10. Mind you, this is not surprising, as the racist ideologies you espouse are the hallmark of such limited thinking.


Meteoroid mining is the subject of significant equity finance investment right now.

Processing these materials in space or on the moon would make more sense than crashing them through the atmosphere.

There is no particular reason smelting and so on can't be done on a small scale. It is done that way on earth because the companies are driven to massive economies of scale for profit. They also have a vast amount of rock and earth to shift to uncover the resource. A meteroid that is composed of iron is mosly a lump of iron. No digging required.

[Blind groper]

I agree with Cormac on this.

Right now there are some vital developments under way. One is mini robots, which are getting more sophisticated all the time. Small mining and smelting robots are entirely within the realms of the possible. 3D printers are also getting more sophisticated, and could be used to make vital mining equipment locally.

As Cormac said, there is a program under way to tap into asteroid resources.
http://www.space.com/15395-asteroid-min ... urces.html

Within a few decades, who knows what we will be able to do in relation to mining and construction on the moon or on asteroids.

I still do not see the moon as a sensible platform for a Mars expedition. Seems silly to me to overcome the Earth's gravity well, only to commit ourselves to having the fight that of the moon for the second stage, when we could use an asteroid or Phobos, with effectively no gravity well.

[mistermack]

I'm guessing here, but I think that Iron would be last on the list of early space materials.
Iron needs very heavy machinery to work it. And needs to be very hot.
In space that means you would need huge amounts of Iron, to start working iron.
And a hell of a lot of insulation, to keep the heat in at minus 270 deg.

Aluminium would be better I think. But what the moon is like for mining metals, I don't have a clue.

I don't think there is much of an energy cost for taking off from the moon though.
You only have to compare what fuel the apollo astronauts needed to get off the Earth, to what they needed to get off the Moon. There is simply no comparison.

I think the curve of energy-needed vs gravity-strength must be an ever increasing exponetial one, for there to be such a difference.

The escape velocity of the Earth is 11.2 km/sec
The escape velocity of the Moon is 2.4 km/sec

But the Earth figure ignores the drag of the air. So the difference is even greater.
And most of the fuel is needed to lift and accelerate the fuel's own weight.
So the lower the gravity, the lower is that factor.

You could probably fire raw materials off the moon, with a gun, towards an orbiting space station, for very little energy cost, as you wouldn't be lifting the fuel.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The moon should have a fair bit of meteoric iron lying around. It wouldn't have corroded.

[Tyrannical]

I'm guessing here, but I think that Iron would be last on the list of early space materials.
Iron needs very heavy machinery to work it. And needs to be very hot.
In space that means you would need huge amounts of Iron, to start working iron.
And a hell of a lot of insulation, to keep the heat in at minus 270 deg.

The surface of the moon is supposed to be metal poor, though I guess there could be meteorite sources of fairly pure metal. Aluminum refining is even more energy intensive than steel, at least on Earth all naturally occurring aluminum is oxidized. You'd certainly need some type of nuclear fission reactor to generate that type of energy, and those things are not light.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm guessing here, but I think that Iron would be last on the list of early space materials.
Iron needs very heavy machinery to work it. And needs to be very hot.
In space that means you would need huge amounts of Iron, to start working iron.
And a hell of a lot of insulation, to keep the heat in at minus 270 deg.

The surface of the moon is supposed to be metal poor, though I guess there could be meteorite sources of fairly pure metal. Aluminum refining is even more energy intensive than steel, at least on Earth all naturally occurring aluminum is oxidized. You'd certainly need some type of nuclear fission reactor to generate that type of energy, and those things are not light.

Seems to me the Moon would be a great place for a solar-fired furnace. For a couple weeks a month. The free energy might offset the down time.

[mistermack]

Yes, you have huge amounts of energy on tap in space. And on a space station, that's available 24 hrs a day. And there is no weather to degrade your equipment.

For smelting aluminium, if it occurs as an oxide, you would be generating valuable oxygen, and that goes for most ores. Whether metals would occur as oxides, or as raw metal, you can't say till you get there, but free oxygen has never been available on the moon, so oxides might not be too common. Once metals have been produced, they can then be recycled endlessly for very little cost, as they aren't going to oxidise in space.

Lead would be a great raw material to find, as it's easy to melt, and good for shielding etc. And copper, of course, would be incredibly valuable.

I can't imagine plastics being easy to make in space though. Not that I know bugger-all about plastics.

[Tero]

Glass. Make everything on the moon out of glass.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I can't imagine plastics being easy to make in space though. Not that I know bugger-all about plastics.

Lots of organics in comets, some wiseguy chemist (not to mention any names (Tero)) could maybe figure out how to convert those to plastics or similar material.

[Tero]

Fabricating things is quite a lot of work:


only the white fibers are glass, the rest is organic..polymer

[mistermack]

Glass. Make everything on the moon out of glass.

Or cheese. Don't forget the Moon is 95% green cheese.