4 ms·

>Space migration: an obscenely expensive way to sideline earth's environmental problems If I can soapbox for a moment, I think you might be framing space colon

>Space migration: an obscenely expensive way to sideline earth's environmental problems If I can soapbox for a moment, I think you might be framing space colonization wrong. The big upside to me is that it will give us powerful new capabilities in space. If we reach the point where Mars has a worthwhile industrial base, Mars becomes the launch pad for just about everything. The weaker gravity combined with the thinner atmosphere (so you can fly vacuum optimized engines from the surface) makes it a good order of magnitude cheaper to launch mass from. For large structures destined for Earth orbit, it would eventually make sense to build them on Mars and fly them into Earth orbit. By analogy, colonizing the Americas was a pretty bad deal at first. The colonies took a ton of support and it was really hard to bring any value back. In hindsight though, it was one of the most profitable ventures ever. New technologies created exponential gains from the raw ingredients found in the new world. Orbital manufacturing is also pretty important. Made in Space is working on producing ZBLAN fiber optic cable in orbit, because gravity causes artifacts which degrade signal quality[0]. This seems like a narrow niche but I think it's not. Think about microchip fabs and turbine blades. There are a lot of high value high tech processes that could likely be improved by either the removal of gravity, or the choice of arbitrary levels of artificial gravity <1g on rotating structures. Interplanetary radiation is an issue now, but it's one that can be solved with a bigger mass budget. I suppose my main point is that this isn't space migration, it's colonization, with all the profit-motive and empire building that word usually comes with. [0]: http://www.madeinspace.us/projects/fiber/ http://www.madeinspace.us/projects/fiber/

SilasX 10y ago
>If we reach the point where Mars has a worthwhile industrial base, Mars becomes the launch pad for just about everything. The weaker gravity combined with the thinner atmosphere (so you can fly vacuum optimized engines from the surface) makes it a good order of magnitude cheaper to launch mass from. For large structures destined for Earth orbit, it would eventually make sense to build them on Mars and fly them into Earth orbit. But you could say the same of the moon, right?
- arohner 10y ago
  Yes, but Mars is easier to live on than the moon, because it has an atmosphere, it's a lot warmer and terraform-able.
  - Neliquat 10y ago
    And can't be easily blown up by nukes. Seriously. Sagan himself sat at a committee that actually considered it for "national security" reasons, and iirc, found it 'feasible'.
- nickparker 10y ago
  I haven't looked into the moon too much, but if I recall correctly it has a much less diverse selection of resources than Mars does. That said, I don't think it's an either or situation. Industry on either body will inevitably be just about 100% robotic, so at the point where we're harvesting a given resource from Mars it very well may make sense to also get it on Luna. In particular, metal deposits from large asteroid strikes are probably worthwhile. I'd love to see some literature on fuel production (pref methalox for ITS) on the moon. I have no idea whether there's sufficient resources, but if there are that could certainly be useful.

SilasX 10y ago

>If we reach the point where Mars has a worthwhile industrial base, Mars becomes the launch pad for just about everything. The weaker gravity combined with the thinner atmosphere (so you can fly vacuum optimized engines from the surface) makes it a good order of magnitude cheaper to launch mass from. For large structures destined for Earth orbit, it would eventually make sense to build them on Mars and fly them into Earth orbit. But you could say the same of the moon, right?

arohner 10y ago
Yes, but Mars is easier to live on than the moon, because it has an atmosphere, it's a lot warmer and terraform-able.
- Neliquat 10y ago
  And can't be easily blown up by nukes. Seriously. Sagan himself sat at a committee that actually considered it for "national security" reasons, and iirc, found it 'feasible'.
nickparker 10y ago
I haven't looked into the moon too much, but if I recall correctly it has a much less diverse selection of resources than Mars does. That said, I don't think it's an either or situation. Industry on either body will inevitably be just about 100% robotic, so at the point where we're harvesting a given resource from Mars it very well may make sense to also get it on Luna. In particular, metal deposits from large asteroid strikes are probably worthwhile. I'd love to see some literature on fuel production (pref methalox for ITS) on the moon. I have no idea whether there's sufficient resources, but if there are that could certainly be useful.