7 ms·

The moon is in general a better place than Mars for a first attempt at a space settlement in part because there's more options for monetization. It might not pa

by api 4y ago

The moon is in general a better place than Mars for a first attempt at a space settlement in part because there's more options for monetization. It might not pay for the whole thing but it would at least offset it a bit. There are other big reasons too, like help being only days away instead of months away in the event of a catastrophe. Once we figure out how to do a space settlement on the moon, then we could try Mars. Mars is likely a better long term home for humans but it's about 60X as far away in terms of travel time.

TomSwirly 4y ago
Before any of these things, it would be better to make sure that we survive here, on Earth - and right now, this looks like it's seriously in doubt.
uncertainrhymes 4y ago
If only we had some other long term home closer at hand.
- yrgulation 4y ago
  One that we keep digging in instead of digging asteroids, the moon or mars. It’s like taking a poo in your living room because you already have the space available. We should offload all destructive resource gathering off this planet, precisely so we keep our home clean.
  - TomSwirly 4y ago
    The idea that we will move heavy industry off the planet sounded entertaining in the 1970s. Now it's just sad. No, space won't save us. We have to stabilize the planet first.
    - yrgulation 4y ago
      We do, and one of the methods is externalising to space. But yes, we have to stabilise it. Both can be done at the same time, they are not mutually exclusive and neither is to the detriment of the other.
  - slg 4y ago
    Gathering resources isn't the really destructive part. Using and eventually disposing of those resources is the what is ruining the planet, not digging them up.
    - hutzlibu 4y ago
      Open pit mining (for coal) is literally destructing all landscape, along with forests and villages. And gold mining and co. uses some very nasty chemicals. Etc. Etc. So sure, burning coal is dirty, but so is extracting it. But since space mining is a really long term project, I would first try to make the processes here on earth a bit better. (With the challenge of raising the standards globally)
    - yrgulation 4y ago
      I imagine there’s plenty of space in … space to slingshot garbage far enough that we’d never have to worry about it again. Just because mining isn’t popular in the media, it doesn't mean its clean. The amount of pollution and destruction it causes is unimaginable. Let alone the dependency on non democratic countries for rare resources, which just like oil and gas, are finite.
      - mulmen 4y ago
        The problem with slingshotting things is the enormous energy required to escape the gravity well. Space based manufacturing will be a thing. Raw material import/export is prohibited by the laws of physics.
        yrgulation 4y ago
        > Space based manufacturing will be a thing. That is preferred. Why manufacture anything here when you can have better processes outside. I.e.: welding works better outside earth's atmosphere through cold welding. Pretty sure there may be other manufacturing processes that can be done better out there with the aid of bots and little human interaction. > the enormous energy required to escape the gravity well. Enormous based on what we know so far. I am sure if we put effort we'd reach far. I imagine people 100-200 years ago thought building massive metal based ships that carry thousands of people and are the size of a building block required enormous energy. Yet we do it for fun these days.
  - survirtual 4y ago
    This is very correct. Earth is a treasure of life and biology. Space is filled with endless resources but no known life. The equation is very, very simple. Protect the life on Earth at all costs and reduce interference in natural evolution. Migrate off-world to barren wastes and mine them. Every feasible activity that can be done off world, should be. Use those space resources to build self-sufficient extra-terra systems and eventually migrate all modern / advanced tech off of earth, and remove all traces of our existence there so that new intelligence can take root. Leave behind only humans who live simply.
    - sneak 4y ago
      > Protect the life on Earth at all costs There will eventually be a threat to Earth's biosphere that we simply lack the technology to divert, avoid, or remediate. Pretending that this isn't true eventually results in human extinction.
      - survirtual 4y ago
        Agreed. Rogue black holes, gamma ray bursts, or even the very fundamental constants of known physics shifting to a more stable form and that new rule propagating at light speed imperceptibly — and countless, countless other possible dangers. We are no where near the technological level to deal with these, as we cannot even deal with simpler world-ending events (meteor strikes, desertification, proper stewardship of emerging AI, nuclear war). In addition to all the other reasons one can muster, our advancement in technology can easily be motivated and justified by the objective of Earth preservation and propagation. It will be interesting to see, however, as we potentially discover other forms of life maybe in places we actually think are barren, how we as a species cope with that. But we are not even remotely at that problem space yet.
    - api 4y ago
      That'd make a great sci-fi world setting: primitivists who occasionally hop in their spaceship and plug into a superintelligence. Seriously though: I do think a far future option for preserving the Earth is to move at least heavy polluting industries off world. All technology is not going to happen but we could put Shenzhen on the moon. I could see the moon being Earth's industrial park.
lumost 4y ago
Both the moon and mars likely have similar problems for human settlement. Both have highly abrasive dust ready to shred machinery, no breathable atmosphere, and limited gravity. In principal there may be greater concentrations of carbon on Mars for various purposes.
- ace2358 4y ago
  I though mars also has water which would be hugely helpful. Neither of the celestial bodies have mediums for growing food in so that either has to be manufactured or carted over. Either way it’s a huge challenge to overcome.
  - blacksmith_tb 4y ago
    So does the moon[1]! It is also a much shorter drive away. 1: https://moon.nasa.gov/news/155/theres-water-on-the-moon/ https://moon.nasa.gov/news/155/theres-water-on-the-moon/
    - ace2358 4y ago
      Neato! Thanks for sharing
    - asah 4y ago
      1/100th the concentration of the Sahara desert...
    - samatman 4y ago
      Not only shorter, but consistent. Getting to Mars is not that bad... sometimes. Other times you're really going to want to wait until sometimes comes back.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  All dust is abrasive (or at least as abrasive as a material of that hardness can be) when it's new and yet to be worn down by the environment. God knows how many machines are rolling around mines, foundries and scrap yards as you type this. Moon dust is only an issue insofar as the kinds of people who wind up doing aerospace engineering don't tend to have the kinds of work backgrounds that make one good at designing things for low margin industrial environments so they're apt to make rookie mistakes in that area. This isn't a hard problem. Every major rubber components manufacturer probably has some gray beard who can look at your dust under a microscope and then tell you exactly what you need to do for your application. The huge temp swings, now that's actually a real problem.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> There are other big reasons too, like help being only days away instead of months away in the event of a catastrophe Just imagine you need complec heart surgery - you can make it from the moon to a hospital in 3 days. On mars, you are probably dead
- Johnny555 4y ago
  If you're in such serious condition that the moon base doctor can't repair it on the moon, then you're probably not going to survive liftoff from the moon, 3 days in transit with whatever life support can be provided by your fellow astronauts, and then withstand landing and final transport to a hospital.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    > such serious condition that the moon base doctor can't repair it on the moon Imagine you are one of the first 100 people on the moon, how many doctors will they have, 1? 2? How much medical equipment will they have, how large does the base get before they ha e an x-ray? Will they even have a dentist? Are they going to have an MRI to find out why you have persitent pain in the chest? Are they even going to have a surgical theater? They definately won't be able to do a liver transplant. But they might not even be able to do something basic like fix a broken jaw and a root canal.
  - erikpukinskis 4y ago
    Moon liftoff is relatively gentle… the Apollo lunar module didn’t have seats… the astronauts stood during landing and ascent. It experienced like a half a G.
    - midoridensha 4y ago
      Yes, Moon gravity is very low. If you can't handle liftoff from the Moon, you can't handle a helicopter ride either.
      - samatman 4y ago

by api 4y ago

TomSwirly 4y ago

Before any of these things, it would be better to make sure that we survive here, on Earth - and right now, this looks like it's seriously in doubt.

uncertainrhymes 4y ago

If only we had some other long term home closer at hand.

yrgulation 4y ago
One that we keep digging in instead of digging asteroids, the moon or mars. It’s like taking a poo in your living room because you already have the space available. We should offload all destructive resource gathering off this planet, precisely so we keep our home clean.
- TomSwirly 4y ago
  The idea that we will move heavy industry off the planet sounded entertaining in the 1970s. Now it's just sad. No, space won't save us. We have to stabilize the planet first.
  - yrgulation 4y ago
    We do, and one of the methods is externalising to space. But yes, we have to stabilise it. Both can be done at the same time, they are not mutually exclusive and neither is to the detriment of the other.
- slg 4y ago
  Gathering resources isn't the really destructive part. Using and eventually disposing of those resources is the what is ruining the planet, not digging them up.
  - hutzlibu 4y ago
    Open pit mining (for coal) is literally destructing all landscape, along with forests and villages. And gold mining and co. uses some very nasty chemicals. Etc. Etc. So sure, burning coal is dirty, but so is extracting it. But since space mining is a really long term project, I would first try to make the processes here on earth a bit better. (With the challenge of raising the standards globally)
  - yrgulation 4y ago
    I imagine there’s plenty of space in … space to slingshot garbage far enough that we’d never have to worry about it again. Just because mining isn’t popular in the media, it doesn't mean its clean. The amount of pollution and destruction it causes is unimaginable. Let alone the dependency on non democratic countries for rare resources, which just like oil and gas, are finite.
    - mulmen 4y ago
      The problem with slingshotting things is the enormous energy required to escape the gravity well. Space based manufacturing will be a thing. Raw material import/export is prohibited by the laws of physics.
      - yrgulation 4y ago
        > Space based manufacturing will be a thing. That is preferred. Why manufacture anything here when you can have better processes outside. I.e.: welding works better outside earth's atmosphere through cold welding. Pretty sure there may be other manufacturing processes that can be done better out there with the aid of bots and little human interaction. > the enormous energy required to escape the gravity well. Enormous based on what we know so far. I am sure if we put effort we'd reach far. I imagine people 100-200 years ago thought building massive metal based ships that carry thousands of people and are the size of a building block required enormous energy. Yet we do it for fun these days.
- survirtual 4y ago
  This is very correct. Earth is a treasure of life and biology. Space is filled with endless resources but no known life. The equation is very, very simple. Protect the life on Earth at all costs and reduce interference in natural evolution. Migrate off-world to barren wastes and mine them. Every feasible activity that can be done off world, should be. Use those space resources to build self-sufficient extra-terra systems and eventually migrate all modern / advanced tech off of earth, and remove all traces of our existence there so that new intelligence can take root. Leave behind only humans who live simply.
  - sneak 4y ago
    > Protect the life on Earth at all costs There will eventually be a threat to Earth's biosphere that we simply lack the technology to divert, avoid, or remediate. Pretending that this isn't true eventually results in human extinction.
    - survirtual 4y ago
      Agreed. Rogue black holes, gamma ray bursts, or even the very fundamental constants of known physics shifting to a more stable form and that new rule propagating at light speed imperceptibly — and countless, countless other possible dangers. We are no where near the technological level to deal with these, as we cannot even deal with simpler world-ending events (meteor strikes, desertification, proper stewardship of emerging AI, nuclear war). In addition to all the other reasons one can muster, our advancement in technology can easily be motivated and justified by the objective of Earth preservation and propagation. It will be interesting to see, however, as we potentially discover other forms of life maybe in places we actually think are barren, how we as a species cope with that. But we are not even remotely at that problem space yet.
  - api 4y ago
    That'd make a great sci-fi world setting: primitivists who occasionally hop in their spaceship and plug into a superintelligence. Seriously though: I do think a far future option for preserving the Earth is to move at least heavy polluting industries off world. All technology is not going to happen but we could put Shenzhen on the moon. I could see the moon being Earth's industrial park.

lumost 4y ago

Both the moon and mars likely have similar problems for human settlement. Both have highly abrasive dust ready to shred machinery, no breathable atmosphere, and limited gravity. In principal there may be greater concentrations of carbon on Mars for various purposes.

ace2358 4y ago
I though mars also has water which would be hugely helpful. Neither of the celestial bodies have mediums for growing food in so that either has to be manufactured or carted over. Either way it’s a huge challenge to overcome.
- blacksmith_tb 4y ago
  So does the moon[1]! It is also a much shorter drive away. 1: https://moon.nasa.gov/news/155/theres-water-on-the-moon/ https://moon.nasa.gov/news/155/theres-water-on-the-moon/
  - ace2358 4y ago
    Neato! Thanks for sharing
  - asah 4y ago
    1/100th the concentration of the Sahara desert...
  - samatman 4y ago
    Not only shorter, but consistent. Getting to Mars is not that bad... sometimes. Other times you're really going to want to wait until sometimes comes back.
throwaway0a5e 4y ago
All dust is abrasive (or at least as abrasive as a material of that hardness can be) when it's new and yet to be worn down by the environment. God knows how many machines are rolling around mines, foundries and scrap yards as you type this. Moon dust is only an issue insofar as the kinds of people who wind up doing aerospace engineering don't tend to have the kinds of work backgrounds that make one good at designing things for low margin industrial environments so they're apt to make rookie mistakes in that area. This isn't a hard problem. Every major rubber components manufacturer probably has some gray beard who can look at your dust under a microscope and then tell you exactly what you need to do for your application. The huge temp swings, now that's actually a real problem.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

> There are other big reasons too, like help being only days away instead of months away in the event of a catastrophe Just imagine you need complec heart surgery - you can make it from the moon to a hospital in 3 days. On mars, you are probably dead

Johnny555 4y ago
If you're in such serious condition that the moon base doctor can't repair it on the moon, then you're probably not going to survive liftoff from the moon, 3 days in transit with whatever life support can be provided by your fellow astronauts, and then withstand landing and final transport to a hospital.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > such serious condition that the moon base doctor can't repair it on the moon Imagine you are one of the first 100 people on the moon, how many doctors will they have, 1? 2? How much medical equipment will they have, how large does the base get before they ha e an x-ray? Will they even have a dentist? Are they going to have an MRI to find out why you have persitent pain in the chest? Are they even going to have a surgical theater? They definately won't be able to do a liver transplant. But they might not even be able to do something basic like fix a broken jaw and a root canal.
- erikpukinskis 4y ago
  Moon liftoff is relatively gentle… the Apollo lunar module didn’t have seats… the astronauts stood during landing and ascent. It experienced like a half a G.
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    Yes, Moon gravity is very low. If you can't handle liftoff from the Moon, you can't handle a helicopter ride either.
    - samatman 4y ago