colonize the Moon--or Mars?

[darth tater]

If Engineering is not the best place for this, OK, but there would be a lot of engineering problems to be solved in a colonization project on the Moon, or Mars.

 

Wanna discuss it?

 

Is there a source of fuel and water on either or both? Are those sources exploitable? Food? Perhaps subterranian greenhouses?

[AzurePhoenix]

Well there wouldn't be any fossil fuels on the moon, but think there's supposed to be quite a bit of frozen water somewhere up there. And a subterranian greenhouse? Probably an enlcosed plastic bubble on the surface with light blinds. That would save energy costs, rather than having to use sunlamps on everythings. I'm thinking hydroponics.

[BenSon]

As far as the moon goes you can forget fuel and water,

But mars we know it has ice but im not sure if they've found liquid water there? maybe im wrong. I don't know about fuel theres alot of iron up there but theres only so much you can do with that...Seeing as its closer to the sun i would guess that solar power would be more viable then it is here on earth that could be a possibility for fuel.

I heard that mars isn't massive enough to retain its atmosphere and any atmosphere that is created would slowly leak away making a terraformed mars even harder to establish any1 know if that is true?

 

~Scott

[AzurePhoenix]

Hmmm, they disproved water on the moon? Sad. And as of yet they haven't found liquid water on mars, though they have found frozen lakes only centimeters below beds of ash. Suposedly, during a rare hot streak, these could partially melt for short periods.

[BenSon]

Sorry i should have been more specific i think the possibiltty of very small amouts of water existing on the moon is still half and half as far as proof goes. Something like thirty years ago they detected a cloud of water vapour on the moons surface but i think its pretty much agreed on that there isn't realy a usable/sustainable amount up there.

 

~Scott

[Spyman]

Frozen water is still belived to exist on the Moon.

Researchers have identified what may be the perfect place for a Moon base, a crater rim near the lunar north pole that's in near-constant sunlight yet not far from suspected stores of water ice.

Link to story: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050413_moon_perfect.html

[Kylonicus]

Ram Europa into Mars, and Nuke Mars,

 

You do this and it would be massive enough to retain an atomosphere,

 

and the iron oxide breaking down would produce a huge quantity of oxygen for breathing.

 

So you've got breathable air, a HUGE ocean(Europa is like pure ice almost) and alot of sun.

 

You could then just shoot a bunch of algae and other life forms and watch it grow on Mars, and then later some fish, and in like 50-100 years, you would have yourself a world worth living on(it would probably still be all ocean though)

[Phi for All]

But mars we know it has ice but im not sure if they've found liquid water there? maybe im wrong. I don't know about fuel theres alot of iron up there but theres only so much you can do with that...Seeing as its closer to the sun i would guess that solar power would be more viable then it is here on earth that could be a possibility for fuel.

Mars closer to the sun than Earth? It might be more viable for solar without a filtering atmosphere, but IIRC it is not closer.

[Gertwor]

Ram Europa into Mars' date=' and Nuke Mars,

[/quote']

Yeah idea is good but how could you ram a planet and i dont think it will be enough to just make two hit each other to gain mass probably they will both lose their magnetic orientation.Evantually there will be no protection from sun's explosions and it will vaprorize(WaterGasCantremeberhowitwritten) all water(And Planet) radition effect will not be necesary to make both uselles then ever.Even we did and achive it our goal asymetry of planet make it lose it is balance in our solar system which until it becomes symetric they are not going to be turning around the sun nor thier selves and it tooked eons for earth to become symetric

 

Anyway I realy liked your idea if we do that it should be quite show

[Ophiolite]

Mars wins hands down on almost every point. Here are just a few.

 

More hospitable environment:

Radiation at acceptable levels except during solar flares

Reduced risk from micro-meteorites compared with the moon

Moderate temperatures and temperature range

Comparable day length

Resources:

Proven abundant water (even if most of it is in the ice caps

Carbon dioxide and nitrogen in atmosphere to provide chemical feedstock

Abundant material suitable for ceramic manufacture

 

The delta-V for attaining Mars orbit is not much more than needed for lunar orbit.

The big advantage of the moon, solar power generation, is fine for fourteen days, then you need some really big batteries.

[darth tater]

I think Mars makes more sense too, except it is a lot farther away if we needed supplies from Earth.

 

The name of the game is for the colony to be self sustaining as soon as possible. This will require much in the way of prior planning.

 

I do think that greenhouses with bubble tops would work, especially if they had some sort of system to limit the sunlight that comes through the thin atmosphere. Mars is, by the way, a little farther from the Sun than Earth being the 4th planet in the system.

[ed84c]

Yeh they tried the bubble theory here on earth, with really strict controlls over what goes in and out. The experiment was cancelled prematurly as there was not enough food, for the humans, or anything else living there.

 

Maybe this could be our new "challenge"?

[Ophiolite]

Yeh they tried the bubble theory here on earth' date=' with really strict controlls over what goes in and out. The experiment was cancelled prematurly as there was not enough food, for the humans, or anything else living there.

 

Maybe this could be our new "challenge"?[/quote']ed, I think you are referring to Biosphere II (Biosphere I being the Earth). I believe the problem was release of carbon dioxide from the setting of the cement that formed the foundations - something they hadn't accounted for. It highlights the need for back up systems until the self sustaining methodology has been mastered.

[calbiterol]

First of all, where there's water, there's fuel: H₂O can be electrolysized into hydrogen gas and oxygen. That's a powerful fuel and an oxidizer right there. Secondly, I completely agree that self-sufficciency is the key to a successful mission. On the moon, by the way, it is speculated that anything on the surface would be killed by radiation - so any greenhouses would have to be subterranean, or shielded from radiation.

 

Mars is tantalizing. IMHO, the only real use of the moon is for mineral mining, low-G spaceship construction, and a stepping stone to other planets.

 

There has been an interesting proposal brought up somewhere that would solve two issues - the greenhouse effect here, and the "desolation" of Mars: the transportation of our greenhouse gasses to Mars. Don't forget, however, that by bringing anything to Mars, we risk contamnating it - and any possible life on it.

 

By the way, not only would the breakdown of iron oxide produce oxygen, it would also produce iron, which could be used as a building material.

 

I'm all for making this the new Member Project.

[swansont]

First of all, where there's water, there's fuel: H_{2[/sub']O can be electrolysized into hydrogen gas and oxygen.}

 

_{Which requires energy. Electrolysis isn't 100% efficient, and the recombination won't be 100% efficient (darn those pesky laws of thermodynamics). Unless it's an energy storage or transportation issue, you're better off using the fuel earmarked for electrolysis directly. Hydrogen isn't a fuel source, it's a storage medium.}

[AzurePhoenix]

the only real use of the moon is for mineral mining' date=' low-G spaceship construction, and a stepping stone to other planets.

[/quote'] It's outward facing, er, face, would probably be a great place for a really big and complex telescope observatory.

[darth tater]

Which requires energy. Electrolysis isn't 100% efficient, and the recombination won't be 100% efficient (darn those pesky laws of thermodynamics). Unless it's an energy storage or transportation issue, you're better off using the fuel earmarked for electrolysis directly. Hydrogen isn't a fuel source, it's a storage medium.

 

Which probably means solar cells as a source of power.

 

Why not take about 25 years and send all the trappings to mars and then send the people to start the colony?

 

We could send up solar cells, food (dried), material to build shelters and all the other stuff we would need to support a landing party for, say a couple of years, then send the people to set up the equipment and gain a foot-hold.

 

After that, they would be self sustaining and as more and more people arrived, they could graudually develop the capability of manufactureing the things they needed from the resources right there on Mars.

 

In a hundred years, I would bet that there would be a city of several hundred thousand, perhaps more.

[Edward]

If I were to start a colony on mars I would build a space ship in orbit around the earth. This ship would hold several hundred humans as well as animals and plants. It would be stocked with enough supplies to make it to mars and be sustained for several years before resuppling is needed. The ship would land on mars and be the colony tthe colonoists would then be able to live on mars and attempt to setup a self sustained colony using resourses on mars. The olny limits to this type of plan that I can think of is funding and the safe landing of the ship.

[darth tater]

If I were to start a colony on mars I would build a space ship in orbit around the earth. This ship would hold several hundred humans as well as animals and plants. It would be stocked with enough supplies to make it to mars and be sustained for several years before resuppling is needed. The ship would land on mars and be the colony tthe colonoists would then be able to live on mars and attempt to setup a self sustained colony using resourses on mars. The olny limits to this type of plan that I can think of is funding and the safe landing of the ship.

 

That sounds like a good idea, but how about building a ship in orbit that would remain in orbit once it reached Mars?

 

Such a ship would be a lot easier to build because the stresses of entry into the Martian atmosphere and Martian gravity would require a much more ridgid structure.

 

Shuttles could handle the transport to the surface of personnal and supplies.

 

I agree that money is the biggest hurtle to overcome.

[calbiterol]

It's outward facing, er, face, would probably be a great place for a really big and complex telescope observatory.

 

True. Hadn't though of that.

 

The issue behind money could be overcome by creating a self-sustaining production facility - it produces everything it needs to build and supply the mission. But this would probably require large amounts of start-up capital. The potential benefits, though, would probably be enough to get financial backing for the startup costs.

[Aardvark]

The issue behind money could be overcome by creating a self-sustaining production facility - it produces everything it needs to build and supply the mission. But this would probably require large amounts of start-up capital. The potential benefits' date=' though, would probably be enough to get financial backing for the startup costs.[/quote']

 

What would those benefits be?

 

They'd have to be very large to justify the kind of financial investment needed to create a self sustaining colony.

[AzurePhoenix]

do any valuable ores exist on the moon in minable quantities, or do we not know?

[Aardvark]

do any valuable ores exist on the moon in minable quantities, or do we not know?

 

I'm fairly sure that the Moon doesn't have any concentrated mineral deposits.

 

Even if it did, the costs for extraction and export would be so high that if the Moon were made of gold it probably wouldn't be economic to mine it.

[calbiterol]

What would those benefits be?

 

They'd have to be very large to justify the kind of financial investment needed to create a self sustaining colony.

 

First, the startup capital isn't for the entire colony. It's for a production facility. The cost to build a self-sustaining production facility (it produces all of the materials it needs to construct it's product, i.e. a spaceship) is a lot less than the capital required to construct all the components for the entire mission under normal circumstances.

 

The first and most obvious benefit of this is having a production facility that has no bills - even electrical is taken care of - and so this allows a company to produce a product for virtually nothing beyond the design cost.

 

The advantages to having a colony are also great - production facilities, testing facilities, scientific research that could potentially yield results worth millions, publicity... It's a pretty long list.

[Edward]

I had thought of using shuttles before and decided against the idea because the shuttling process would add allot time to have your final product (a self sutaining colony on mars) I would have the ship be convertable to a ground based colony and be brought down in large sections.

 

I just realised something you need more than raw materials and power to sustain a colony on mars you need food this could be attained one of two ways. Setting a mineral processing facility to refine the ground into editable food or to terraform mars.