Space Colonization Thread

[Jalpha]

There are many reasons for the renewed focus on the moon. Microgravity is only one of them. China making moves to establish a presence there is a big motivator.

Then we have the retirement of the ISS to consider. Most of the ISS will be left to burn up in the atmosphere. Aside from some Chinese and Russian modules which will be boosted back into a stable orbit. The rest of the ISS will not be boosted up. Every day the ISS falls closer to Earth and every so often needs to be boosted into a higher orbit. This is expensive, requiring the shuttling of a great deal of fuel. The sheer size of the ISS has been its downfall in this regard. The lower gravity of the moon means much larger orbital stations can be built there, which will fall much more slowly toward the moons surface and which will need less fuel to be booted back into higher orbits. The new ISS will be in moon orbit and will conduct experiments which cannot be done within the magnetosphere of the Earth. Like finding out how astronauts deal with extended stays in zero-g while exposed to space radiation.

There is also a push to exploit minerals on the moon. There are several locations where rare earth elements are relatively abundant on the moons surface. Currently the bulk of these resources on Earth are controlled by China. This makes the moon a location of strategic national interest. Construction of a mineral processing facility will be advantageous and will provide a location to facilitate exploitation of asteroid materials.

The moon also provides a relatively safe location to act as a quarantine station for astronauts and samples collected from other solar bodies. It is prudent to consider the possibility that hazardous substances may be lurking in many of the samples we will collect and in many of the environments we will explore. You may laugh at the idea of a space virus spreading through the population of the Earth but I do not consider it a comedic possibility. Especially given the prevalence of tholins on orbital bodies. It is a near certainty that we will at some point encounter a substance which is radically dangerous to us.

I doubt the moon will ever be properly colonised due to its proximity to Earth. The moon will have a largely transient population of temporary workers and people who are just passing through. Mars will be colonised out of necessity due to its distance from the Earth. Additionally colonisation insists upon self sufficiency, constant provision of basic supplies is simply not feasible for any habitat BEO. Some advanced supplies will be needed but they will be traded for.

The reason Mars colonisation will be delayed is because no government will support sending settlers out into the vast unknown potentially to meet a horrific death. Again public will is at the forefront here. The first steps beyond earth orbit need to be inspiring and successful. Failure is not an option.

There is one more reason why Mars colonisation will be delayed... We still do not know if life existed on Mars. Once the surface is opened up to private companies the whole planet is going to get contaminated by evidence of life from Earth. We only have one opportunity to answer the question "did life start on Mars".

[mvgulik]

Focusing one a Mars base, while not even having tried to maintain a Moon base, is just so mind-blowingly stupid.
It like trying to run a iron-man marathon, after having learned to walk just a few days ago.


Microgravity & Moon ?
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstuden ... ty-58.html
> "Microgravity is the condition in which people or objects appear to be weightless. ..."
Ergo: No need to go to the moon for that. Earth orbit (ie:ISS) will do fine for that. (as long as space debris allows for that)

[shubla]

Focusing one a Mars base, while not even having tried to maintain a Moon base, is just so mind-blowingly stupid.
It like trying to run a iron-man marathon, after having learned to walk just a few days ago.

They can train microgravity on ISS and the base-building on deserts. Much more cheaper and easier.
But I agree, its still kind of funny to think that there is no need to go to the moon first.

[dafels]

Love all these opinions of armchair experts

[vatas]

Venus might (un-intuitively) prove better place to colonize than Mars. While surface is indeed toxic hell that is actually hot enough to melt lead, there's zone in upper atmosphere where pressure is comparable to Earth's and temperature is "only" 50 degrees Celsius. Constructing the floating habitat would be challenging but surprisingly, if you make it big enough and spaceous it would float from normal air that we breath alone because it's less dense than carbon dioxide that makes up 96.5% of Venus's atmosphere.

IIRC this video discusses, what I described above, in depth.

More ambitious terraforming concept

[Fostik]

As many people in this thread, I was colonization evangelist for some time.
But the more info I get about technologies, nuances, and other problems that should be resolved, the more I understand that it's too early to speak about colonization.

Just wanted to write problems here:
1. There are lot of habitats that are not inhabited. Even low/high temperature, or low/high pressure makes place incapable for living. By living I mean self sustained people existence. And self sustaining can be both producing everything you need for live by yourself, as well as producing unique products that can be traded fair enough to allow sustainability in the place.
By all this rules, we can only assume short term and very expensive living places such as orbital station, or polar station. And not even have technologies for long living deep underwater stations.
2. There are no technologies for colonization, at all. No real working technologies to produce rocket fuel on place. No full cycle experiment of growing food in close cycle. All "biosphere" experiments - failed. No technology to build or produce goods on site, 3d printers will help here, but we cant even produce raw material for 3d printers, except regolith, which is still in development and doesn't have real proven working technology.
We can only expect on the things that people can carry with themselves, and this is not a lot. If we will try to calculate how much mass and volume (tools, greenhouses, livingrooms, radiation defense, other items, gases and liquids) should be transferred to mars/moon to provide living place of 1 people - it will be ultra expensive.
3. There are no real need for colonization. For science, experiments, technology testing - yes. Colonization - no need. Colonize Russia first.
4. Even no any proof of concept that people can travel such far without being killed by radiation during their trip.

What is real to expect except of colonies:
1. Some test bench projects. E.g. capsule which lands on mars, collects ice and CO2 and tries to produce any kind of rocket fuel in mars, autonomous greenhouse or other printing/building technologies
2. Test technologies of landing massive objects on moon/mars, or flight test on mars (first helicopter drone will land Feb. 18, 2021 on mars, very soon)
3. Colonization tests of aggressive environments on earth.
4. At least, when there will be enough technologies, people will afford moon/mars station, which will only have science station capabilities. Living will still be too expensive and pointless.

And one more thing, there is not a big difference in hardness of building colony on moon or mars, because mars will require little more delta V from rocket to travel than moon. There is no many weight difference between what can be delivered to mars or moon, so only deliver time matters. Also, mars is better because there are atmosphere, which will save a lot of fuel that could be used for braking before landing.

[Jalpha]

Venus is covered by a layer of Co2 so thick it behaves like a global ocean. It is feasible to build structures which could float on or near the surface. There is the acid rain to worry about. Also, just like a water ocean on earth, the surface is quite rough and turbulent. Going one step further, the pressure at the bottom of the mariana trench is some ten times greater than the pressure on the surface of Venus. We have reached the bottom of the mariana trench. It is would also be possible to reach the surface of Venus. This opens up surface resources for exploitation. The heat is an issue, however for a Co2 ocean diving submarine I am sure this issue could be overcome. There are lots of questions remaining about Venus, like why is it still so hot and volcanically active. Any surface structures or tunnels may need to be temporary due to the frequent resurfacing events. The last global resurfacing event was 500 million years ago, but still... One never knows if or when the next may occur.

Venus is also closer to earth than Mars, the thick atmosphere provides protection from radiation and it has similar surface gravity to Earth. Just slightly less. Tunnel people could live there but that heat is incredible. It's hot enough to melt lead at the surface. And acid rain. Challenging but potentially feasible.

My preferred method of colonisation beyond earth orbit is the rotating torus habitat. I can't imagine any better way of living in space. It is a much more mass efficient design than needing a whole planet. Light and nimble with everything you need safe on the inside. Its own glorious contained environment. Potentially large enough to have wild spaces with forests and animals, even its own weather. My lifes dream is to place a smaller version into a cyclical orbit between two other planets. The man is holding me down though.

As far as lacking the technology goes, this has been true at every point in history before we have made great progress. We may not have completed the puzzle but all the pieces are there. They only need to be fitted together. The real problem is not the lack of technology it is the lack of will and hence the lack of finances.

[iamahh]

We'll have to colonize Earth before any other major planet. Just ask an Oceanographer how is the Ocean doing, and what it means for life in general.

We're not in the Age of Discovery anymore, when Nature was indifferent and bigger than anything we collectively produced. We're sailing our own poison now. To wait for a science silver bullet while relying on markets incentives is to treat history as a morbid prophecy.

But it is what it is, cause we need that new toy made of plastic, oil, thousands of man hours, minerals, and whatever gets in the way gets rekt.

[Jalpha]

I think this is one of the biggest arguments for why we should be leaving Earth. We have poisoned our environment and now we are poisoning ourselves. Nature doesn't care. Nature will survive. In a hundred thousand years new species will arise to dominate the toxic environment which we can no longer survive.

The oceans should remain as untouched as possible. The oceans have a lot more resources than what we have currently been taking. To take more would upset delicate ecosystems we have little to no understanding of. Leave the oceans to science.

Earth does not need more people. It needs the people who are already here to leave. Nobody will complain if we fill the martian atmosphere with clouds of gas from our industrial smokestacks.

Imagine if we do survive long enough to encounter another sentient species in the galaxy. Imagine if they ask us about our home planet. Imagine how they would regard us if we had to explain that we turned our home planet into a toxic wasteland. If I were them I wouldn't want us in the neighbourhood.

[mvgulik]

I think this is one of the biggest arguments for why we should be leaving Earth.

No. its the biggest argument for growing up and stopping with generating mindless consuming sheep's.

Nature will survive.

No. Earth will survive.
Nature needs a biosphere that's not set up to go the way of Venus. (and Earth would surpass Venus in that respect big time)

Leave the oceans to science.

lol.
Tell that to the small group that's responsible for the majority of the problems. Or the politician for that matter that keep listening and acting on there complaints when things are not going there way.

Imagine if we do survive long enough to encounter another sentient species in the galaxy. Imagine if they ask us about our home planet. Imagine how they would regard us if we had to explain that we turned our home planet into a toxic wasteland. If I were them I wouldn't want us in the neighbourhood.

lol.
That's assuming we would be the first civilisation they encounter that is doing that (No, Earth was not, and will never be, the centre of the Universe).
Chances are they have seen and/or know of plenty that simply self destructed, and have now learned the best they can do is to keep a low profile towards civilisations that have not outgrown there evolutionary primordial mental drives yet.