Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 45,580
- 73,690
If helium3 ever becomes so valuable that a stable moon base would make sense, it seems like we should make a moon base then. Who knows if and when it'll happen, and it'll likely be a lot easier to do later.
The Astronomy Thread
- Thread starter Araxen
- Start date
Big Phoenix
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 44,965
- 94,042
I would think the moon would be a far better base of operations for space explorations. Low gravity and no atmosphere make it a great spot to build a massdriver to get into orbit along with all that sweet kreep
KREEP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dandain
Trakanon Raider
- 2,092
- 917
We have to start practicing/learning keeping humans alive in Space far away from Earth. We won't simultaneously just have this technology if we aren't invested in the creation of it through time. Someone has to go and get fucked up living in non-Earth gravity for the first time.
Let me flip the question on you more specifically. What is the tipping point of value of your direct upside argument? I'm having a hard time defining what you mean. Like if there isn't a resource highway from Mars to Earth then we shouldn't have any footprint on Mars until that moment? A colony on Mars lets you start running all kinds of hydroponic experiments in a differentt gravity environment from Earth, a different radiation environment. Most people won't go to Mars to be miners if life expectancy is 50%. Explorers are willing to die to find out what is beyond the next hill. Workers are not. There are probably innumerable things we will learn ancillary to these pursuits that in hindsight humanity will place massive value on. Just like we do indirectly to the Moon landing race.
Let me flip the question on you more specifically. What is the tipping point of value of your direct upside argument? I'm having a hard time defining what you mean. Like if there isn't a resource highway from Mars to Earth then we shouldn't have any footprint on Mars until that moment? A colony on Mars lets you start running all kinds of hydroponic experiments in a differentt gravity environment from Earth, a different radiation environment. Most people won't go to Mars to be miners if life expectancy is 50%. Explorers are willing to die to find out what is beyond the next hill. Workers are not. There are probably innumerable things we will learn ancillary to these pursuits that in hindsight humanity will place massive value on. Just like we do indirectly to the Moon landing race.
Szlia
Member
- 6,583
- 1,333
You mean the upside of doing it now? Because the upside of having self-sufficient extra-terrestrial colonies is pretty clear.
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,656
well, lets see. Lets honestly see.
If you can plant a self-sustaining operation on the moon then you have a platform for solar-systemic construction and exploitation. How useful that is depends on how useful the exploitation is minus the cost of how burdensome the establishment and maintenance of the operation is. Asteroid mining? It's the only practical, industrial, contemporary function I can think of. Raw materials for the industry base of earth. And that is potentially quite lucrative for a great number of considerations -- not just for the obvious "more metal = more stuff = better quality of life for everyone (at a nominal service charge)", but it also ranges into the environmental (no more strip mining mountains that we have to live on. Strip mine space-rocks that we don't have to live on), and it ranges far into the sociological.
Would it be cheaper to take small asteroids and smack them into the moon? would it be cheaper to pursue remote automated missions to disassemble asteroids without having to mess with accelerating them into the moon trajectories (as well as that probably causing less lizard-brained end of days response)?
Mars is basically the same thing. Just closer to the asteroids and less cost to establish/maintain.
There's still an argument to be made even if you ignore the pure science considerations. Which, lets be honest, 99% of people will -- and maybe even in a justified way. This generation is not the tipping point. Next generation is probably still not the tipping point. It's still prohibitive, I think. But we can see a place not too many generations hence where we've got a better handle on the costs. The tipping point is moving to us more favorably.
If you can plant a self-sustaining operation on the moon then you have a platform for solar-systemic construction and exploitation. How useful that is depends on how useful the exploitation is minus the cost of how burdensome the establishment and maintenance of the operation is. Asteroid mining? It's the only practical, industrial, contemporary function I can think of. Raw materials for the industry base of earth. And that is potentially quite lucrative for a great number of considerations -- not just for the obvious "more metal = more stuff = better quality of life for everyone (at a nominal service charge)", but it also ranges into the environmental (no more strip mining mountains that we have to live on. Strip mine space-rocks that we don't have to live on), and it ranges far into the sociological.
Would it be cheaper to take small asteroids and smack them into the moon? would it be cheaper to pursue remote automated missions to disassemble asteroids without having to mess with accelerating them into the moon trajectories (as well as that probably causing less lizard-brained end of days response)?
Mars is basically the same thing. Just closer to the asteroids and less cost to establish/maintain.
There's still an argument to be made even if you ignore the pure science considerations. Which, lets be honest, 99% of people will -- and maybe even in a justified way. This generation is not the tipping point. Next generation is probably still not the tipping point. It's still prohibitive, I think. But we can see a place not too many generations hence where we've got a better handle on the costs. The tipping point is moving to us more favorably.
khorum
Murder Apologist
- 24,338
- 81,363
LOL we're still a long way from where a few kilograms of asteroid mined thorium every other day is a more persuasive case for human spaceflight than seeing your national flag on an alien planet.
So long asvotersare still the predominant resource for manned spaceflight, the prospect of a Chinese flag beating the Stars and Stripes to Mars will trump any shareholder's boner about regular pallets of iridium on a ballistic course to a tax-free offshore account.
So long asvotersare still the predominant resource for manned spaceflight, the prospect of a Chinese flag beating the Stars and Stripes to Mars will trump any shareholder's boner about regular pallets of iridium on a ballistic course to a tax-free offshore account.
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,656
Yeah, that's why I think it's gonna take a few generations. Or another massive cold-war which will probably turn hot before we make a self sustainable extra planetary base.
Of the options, I hope it takes a few generations.
It's part of why Obama's anti-NASA stance, trying to move this kind of shit out of the realm of federal government and into private hands. I don't see why he couldn't have had a bigger boner for pure-science NASA while trying to minimize the impact of subsidizing the private market out of existence.. but eh, he has his reasons.
Of the options, I hope it takes a few generations.
It's part of why Obama's anti-NASA stance, trying to move this kind of shit out of the realm of federal government and into private hands. I don't see why he couldn't have had a bigger boner for pure-science NASA while trying to minimize the impact of subsidizing the private market out of existence.. but eh, he has his reasons.
khorum
Murder Apologist
- 24,338
- 81,363
Obama isn't really anti-NASA, he's just another "global community" cooperation-first, anti-exceptionalist democrat CAREBEAR. This is a gaming forum so everyone immediately gets that connection. Bill Clinton scrapping the SSC in favor of a floating cooperative space station in the sky? Carebear pussy shit.
They're fucking carebears.
We need a balls-out PK-ing GRIEFER of a president if we want to eradicate ISIS, land on Mars and have hardass guns-and-jesus pioneer colonists bootstrapping to Tau Ceti before the oceans swallow our coastal conurbations.
They're fucking carebears.
We need a balls-out PK-ing GRIEFER of a president if we want to eradicate ISIS, land on Mars and have hardass guns-and-jesus pioneer colonists bootstrapping to Tau Ceti before the oceans swallow our coastal conurbations.
Big Phoenix
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 44,965
- 94,042
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 45,580
- 73,690
There is no tipping point, just a comparison of value between asteroid mining and mars landing. Trying to grow space weed is cool, but is hydroponics really the limiting factor in space exploration here?
Do we have the tech for self-sufficient mars/moon colonies? What about the moon/mars would allow for self-sufficient colonization that the ISS doesn't have?
I just feel that a big global push toward a 'base on mars' would be great, and we'd learn a lot doing it, and it'd be an amazing accomplishment and would inspire a new generation of engineers and astronauts. However, would not the base on Mars itself would confer little benefit itself? Would it not be an abandoned base soon after when the cost to resupply it would start to exceed any remaining value?
Help me out here. Finish this list of benefits from Mars colonization:
1. Hydroponics research in a 4mps^2 environment (as opposed to 10 on earth, 2 on the moon and 0 on the ISS).
2. Radiation research on Mars that can't be done on the ISS or the moon.
3. ??
Benefits to asteroid mining:
1. Access to water in space.
2. Access to minerals for space building stuff.
3. We can chuck platinum whiffle balls back home and all get platinum teeth.
Dandain
Trakanon Raider
- 2,092
- 917
Having an off Earth colony can basically be reduced to the fact it needs to ultimately become a closed system biodome that is 100% self sustaining, as well as being maintained without need of resources from Earth (ultimately). That means it needs every companion technology to make that happen. I don't view the Moon as a long term colonial project. People will not live their entire lives ever on the Moon even if they may work there. Its a matter of days to the Moon and back, its a matter of years to Mars and back. Its the right kind of time scaling, and no human has been out in space farther from the Earth than the Moon, and there is no where that is a bigger target, more familiar, and closer than Mars.
We have to find out what living a huge percentage of ones life in a non-Earth gravity and biosphere does to the human body. If any human is ever to be born on Mars, we kind of need to know what happens to an in shape adult first who spends just 4 or 5 years on the red planet. Non-science missions only get delayed until you actually do the science first. You can't go mine an asteroid before you can safely land and take off from many of them, feed a crew in proximity and a million other day to day problems. The human species can't theory craft this gravity problem. Humans born on Mars in 4mps^2 vs 10 will clearly develop in differing ways. Are we going to only send 20-30 year olds to mars, ban them from sex and abort all fetus? This needs to be a worked on sooner than later. It will take generations of knowledge before the chance of life to death humans being born not of Earth. It will continue to take 2 years of travel time just to send 1 human there and back, and clearly people will die. Its our obligation to build the knowledge base for the future as robustly as we can in the time and space we are in. Kicking the bucket just means future generations have to accomplish what we could have instead, the species won't be able to skip any steps to this vast process.
Unless we mine asteroids with robots alone, some humans will be spending many years in space traveling to the rocks and back, entirely with no escape from any kind of failure that can't be locally solved, I'm assuming in groups, that are gender diverse. Sex is going to happen, pregnancy is going to happen. We have to know before hand if we will require the abortion of any space fetus or if humans can properly develop in non-earth gravity. Willing healthy adults who will go on these exploration missions will do much of this science for us, or immigrants, we can just send them to mine our space rocks.
We have to find out what living a huge percentage of ones life in a non-Earth gravity and biosphere does to the human body. If any human is ever to be born on Mars, we kind of need to know what happens to an in shape adult first who spends just 4 or 5 years on the red planet. Non-science missions only get delayed until you actually do the science first. You can't go mine an asteroid before you can safely land and take off from many of them, feed a crew in proximity and a million other day to day problems. The human species can't theory craft this gravity problem. Humans born on Mars in 4mps^2 vs 10 will clearly develop in differing ways. Are we going to only send 20-30 year olds to mars, ban them from sex and abort all fetus? This needs to be a worked on sooner than later. It will take generations of knowledge before the chance of life to death humans being born not of Earth. It will continue to take 2 years of travel time just to send 1 human there and back, and clearly people will die. Its our obligation to build the knowledge base for the future as robustly as we can in the time and space we are in. Kicking the bucket just means future generations have to accomplish what we could have instead, the species won't be able to skip any steps to this vast process.
Unless we mine asteroids with robots alone, some humans will be spending many years in space traveling to the rocks and back, entirely with no escape from any kind of failure that can't be locally solved, I'm assuming in groups, that are gender diverse. Sex is going to happen, pregnancy is going to happen. We have to know before hand if we will require the abortion of any space fetus or if humans can properly develop in non-earth gravity. Willing healthy adults who will go on these exploration missions will do much of this science for us, or immigrants, we can just send them to mine our space rocks.
khorum
Murder Apologist
- 24,338
- 81,363
Denamian
Night Janitor
- 7,229
- 19,074
Outside of doing it because we can, at some point these colonies will come and they are going to be all in and self sufficient ventures. All in on the biological side because after a certain amount of time entropy is going to set in and bones / muscles will weaken and who the hell knows what else. Self sufficient because well they'll fucking have to be when it takes so long to get supplies in from earth.
I'd be curious to see the ramifications of that. Will people born on Mars and live there for their childhood life be materially different? I'd certainly think so. Would they even be able to come back to Earth and function in Earth's gravity when they would weigh 2.6 times more? I know if I suddenly woke up weighing 520 LBS I'd be pretty fucked getting around.
Not something Sci Fi really touches much which I find interesting. I assume people would need some kind of Exoskeleton to visit Earth which would be sort of cool.
I'd be curious to see the ramifications of that. Will people born on Mars and live there for their childhood life be materially different? I'd certainly think so. Would they even be able to come back to Earth and function in Earth's gravity when they would weigh 2.6 times more? I know if I suddenly woke up weighing 520 LBS I'd be pretty fucked getting around.
Not something Sci Fi really touches much which I find interesting. I assume people would need some kind of Exoskeleton to visit Earth which would be sort of cool.
Larnix
Blackwing Lair Raider
- 551
- 2,524
A bit of Pointless info: I worked for Kwajalien Range Services when they first started launching rockets. We had friends who would maintain the island between missions. I actually played paint ball and went camping on omelek island when their first rocket was waiting to be launched. We also got to witness their first failed and successful launch from Kwajalien island.
SpaceX launch facilities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
SpaceX launch facilities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dandain
Trakanon Raider
- 2,092
- 917
An additional side effect of building all the technologies to keep people alive on Mars is its likely that they must be green on at least some aspects of efficiency. Those are very relevant problems to humanity on Earth right now. Just like we have toothpaste tubes and space blankets for camping from astronauts in space, we too may have green innovations bolstered by this pure scientific inquiry. Clearly the Mars problem is magnitudes harder than the Earth problem.
It has to be funded by a not for profit entity (the Mars Colony) which means the science behind it has a higher chance to be pure because the knowledge is needed to accomplish a goal first and foremost and not because it can be turned into a consumer product in the next 5 years. Consumer level products will certainly happen, and when markets get a hold of this gen1 tech the first thing they will do is make its creation cheaper and more efficient. SpaceX can do what they are doing because there is a market for getting shit into orbit, and they are not testing proof of concept (putting shit into orbit to begin with) But they are making a better rocket from the demand to put Satellites in orbit and making parts of the step more efficient.
I think the part of pure science that is mostly overlooked, is that when we learn something new about how reality is, is that it helps us omit all the things that are false in a way that rational reasoning people can all come together to collectively understand. Even if the new fact contradicts what what we knew before we adapt quickly. Reason must drive our society forward, and these kind of pure scientific pursuits push human understanding in an unbiased way, to not be undervalued. Most people thought sending a probe to Pluto was stupid, and unfortunately you can always make the case for doing shit in space for science is not "valuable" right in this moment in time. That probe paves the way for a rover, and a rover paves the way for the next step. No one at SpaceX legit just prayed their rocket would work.
It has to be funded by a not for profit entity (the Mars Colony) which means the science behind it has a higher chance to be pure because the knowledge is needed to accomplish a goal first and foremost and not because it can be turned into a consumer product in the next 5 years. Consumer level products will certainly happen, and when markets get a hold of this gen1 tech the first thing they will do is make its creation cheaper and more efficient. SpaceX can do what they are doing because there is a market for getting shit into orbit, and they are not testing proof of concept (putting shit into orbit to begin with) But they are making a better rocket from the demand to put Satellites in orbit and making parts of the step more efficient.
I think the part of pure science that is mostly overlooked, is that when we learn something new about how reality is, is that it helps us omit all the things that are false in a way that rational reasoning people can all come together to collectively understand. Even if the new fact contradicts what what we knew before we adapt quickly. Reason must drive our society forward, and these kind of pure scientific pursuits push human understanding in an unbiased way, to not be undervalued. Most people thought sending a probe to Pluto was stupid, and unfortunately you can always make the case for doing shit in space for science is not "valuable" right in this moment in time. That probe paves the way for a rover, and a rover paves the way for the next step. No one at SpaceX legit just prayed their rocket would work.
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 45,580
- 73,690
Thanks for the answer. I think the difference between us is A: I don't think a permanent, self-sustaining base on mars is feasible in the next 30 years. B: I don't really value a longitudinal study on the effects of low gravity or radiation on humans. C: I think whatever mars-base projects we try now would end up being a huge venture to ship a bunch of tents to mars for some astronauts to camp out in and then come home in a couple weeks. D: I think the best way to get a sizable base on mars or the moon or to do anything in space is to improve our ability to either move resources into space (IE: better than rockets) or to improve our ability to utilize materials outside of earth (asteroid mining and construction).