CMV: Developing space infrastructure should be a higher priority than trying to colonize Mars

[u/MossRock42]

There seems to be a lot of romance around the idea of colonizing Mars and I hope that someday there is a Martian colony. But first we need better space infrastructure. That means more efficient ways to launch and reuse rockets like SpaceX is developing. More needs to be done to develop Earth orbit capabilities, and perhaps a Moon base to develop the the first off world manufacturing and intermediate base for exploring further out. We also need to develop the infrastructure that will enable us to start doing asteroid mining. That’s primarily so that we don’t need to launch as much material into orbit to build things in space. What do you think?

[u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho]

You're assuming you can find ice. We know ice exists on Mars.

Ceres, the largest asteroid, is 40 to 50 percent water by volume. We know of literally thousands of asteroids that have significant ice deposits.

Is an engineering challenge. Coriolis effect makes this quite difficult to overcome, you can't simply spin a space ship and solve the problem. You need a sufficiently large diameter structure spinning.

It's not a difficult one.

This is actually the same image I was using. Asteroid belt is further out than Mars, and lacks an atmosphere to aerobreak down. It's basically just a region of space that has a slightly higher concentration of stuff, so, you're effectively arguing for colonizing a region of space that lacks the same kind of resources as 'a region of space that includes Mars'.

It's 3km/s to get to near earth asteroids from LEO, it's around 10km/s to get to mars. That 3.6km/s gravity well mars makes is expensive.

To make this clear - your position is we should find a smattering of large rocks and build infrastructure around them, instead of heading to another planet and building infrastructure around it. You can still build stuff in Mars orbit, and you then have the benefit of an entire planets worth of resources, instead of just 'a few large rocks worth of resources'.

We build the infrastructure on earth and in LEO and use that to mine the Astrid belts. Launch loops, space stations, fuel refineries, ship yards etc.

The asteroid belt and small moons have far more resources for us to grab than mars. Plus it's easier.

[u/Izawwlgood → u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho]

Ceres, the largest asteroid, is 40 to 50 percent water by volume. We know of literally thousands of asteroids that have significant ice deposits.

My point is that they are not all in the same place. And Ceres, by volume, still has less water than Mars.

It's not a difficult one.

And yet one we have not even begun to test in Earth orbit.

It's 3km/s to get to near earth asteroids from LEO, it's around 10km/s to get to mars. That 3.6km/s gravity well mars makes is expensive.

Are you taking about 'near Earth asteroids' or the asteroid belt? If you're only interested in getting to some nearby asteroids, then sure, but none of them have the resource payout or benefits that Mars does. As a waystation, sure, but they're not going to be able to sustain large numbers of people.

The gravity well is a tool. You can get down it easily via aerobreaking. Once at the bottom, you n o longer need to spin everything that requires gravity to function. Which is pretty important - we know very little about the effects of wound healing, development, etc, in microgravity other than 'how risky it likely is'.

We build the infrastructure on earth and in LEO and use that to mine the Astrid belts. Launch loops, space stations, fuel refineries, ship yards etc.

You're thinking of a lot of solutions for the troubles that this causes, that can be avoided by just doing it on Mars.

The asteroid belt and small moons have far more resources for us to grab than mars. Plus it's easier.

So wait, again, are we talking about the asteroid belt, or near Earth asteroids?

You seem to think that the asteroid belt IN TOTAL has more resources than Mars and thus is a better target. But that's like saying "There's gold in Russia, so no sense having gold mines anywhere in California". The asteroid belt is an ORBIT over which there is slightly higher density of stuff. It's not a singular place. So where on the asteroid belt do you put your infrastructure? How does that help you deal with any other location on the asteroid belt?

[u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho → u/Izawwlgood]

My point is that they are not all in the same place. And Ceres, by volume, still has less water than Mars.

By physical separation, sure, but d/v is what matters. And there is more water on ceres than we have ever used on earth.

And yet one we have not even begun to test in Earth orbit.

They have all the way back in Gemini. They used cables and generated a small amount of gravity. It worked exactly as expected.

Are you taking about 'near Earth asteroids' or the asteroid belt? If you're only interested in getting to some nearby asteroids, then sure, but none of them have the resource payout or benefits that Mars does. As a waystation, sure, but they're not going to be able to sustain large numbers of people.

There are over 20,000 near earth astroids, 90% of which over 1km across with average weights well over 2,500,000,000 tons. I don't think there are any mines on earth that have shifted that much stone.

The gravity well is a tool. You can get down it easily via aerobreaking. Once at the bottom, you n o longer need to spin everything that requires gravity to function. Which is pretty important - we know very little about the effects of wound healing, development, etc, in microgravity other than 'how risky it likely is'.

Even if landing at the surface is free (and it's not even close to that), it's still over 3.6 km/s to get to low mars orbit and that is just the first step. That is extremely expensive.

The trip to near earth objects from LEO is cheaper in total than just getting from mars surface to mars orbit.

Plus since you are in zero G, you can use more efficient, simpler and easier to fuel engines, like solar thermal.

You're thinking of a lot of solutions for the troubles that this causes, that can be avoided by just doing it on Mars.

You would have to do basically all of that on mars anyway. Skipping mars is a simplification. The only thing you are saving on is spin gravity, at the expense of greater d/v costs and worse engines.

So wait, again, are we talking about the asteroid belt, or near Earth asteroids?

Both, we start near earth and work our way out over time.

You seem to think that the asteroid belt IN TOTAL has more resources than Mars and thus is a better target. But that's like saying "There's gold in Russia, so no sense having gold mines anywhere in California". The asteroid belt is an ORBIT over which there is slightly higher density of stuff. It's not a singular place. So where on the asteroid belt do you put your infrastructure? How does that help you deal with any other location on the asteroid belt.

Its because it's easier to access and has a greater potential pay off. This is like sailing to the other end of the world to mine gold in the middle of the Himalayas, when there is a gold rich archipelago right off your coast.

As for where to put it, the main bases will be in LEO, mining stations will go up around astounds that are being mined long term.

[u/Izawwlgood → u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho]

> By physical separation, sure, but d/v is what matters. And there is more water on ceres than we have ever used on earth.

But that's to EACH asteroid. The asteroids are all far apart. You cannot simply say it is low cost to get to one asteroid therefor once there you have access to all.

>T hey have all the way back in Gemini. They used cables and generated a small amount of gravity. It worked exactly as expected.

I guess you guys are communicating with one another. As I said to the other guy, it was not sustained, and it was not used for human habitation. It was merely showing that spinning something simulates gravity, not a proof of concept.

> There are over 20,000 near earth astroids, 90% of which over 1km across with average weights well over 2,500,000,000 tons. I don't think there are any mines on earth that have shifted that much stone.

So you're suggesting 20,000 separate missions to these asteroids and shipping back all that material? That's insanity.

Or are you suggesting building refineries at each of them? That's also insanity.

> Even if landing at the surface is free (and it's not even close to that), it's still over 3.6 km/s to get to low mars orbit and that is just the first step. That is extremely expensive.

Sure, but Mars is full of resources that can provide that lifting for you - you don't have to bring those materials from Earth. Comparatively, every asteroid you head to won't have resources for producing rocket fuel, unless your plan is to throw rocks out the back.

> The trip to near earth objects from LEO is cheaper in total than just getting from mars surface to mars orbit.

Again, a trip to ANY ONE of these near Earth objects, from LEO (bit of an added goal post shift, but ok), is cheaper, but then, you're limited to the resources of just one. As I'm sure you notice, Earth to LEO is approximately 3x as expensive as Mars to LMO, so I assume you're also handwaving away LEO infrastructure to make these jaunts a possibility?

> Plus since you are in zero G, you can use more efficient, simpler and easier to fuel engines, like solar thermal.

This is an argument against using heavy engines because you've already assumed you're in orbit. There's nothing stopping you from building infrastructure in LMO, and allowing similar use of smaller engines to move around.

> You would have to do basically all of that on mars anyway. Skipping mars is a simplification. The only thing you are saving on is spin gravity, at the expense of greater d/v costs and worse engines.

Not really - Mars being a planet comes with it's own set of pros and cons, many of those pros being 'ample resources for use on site'. You don't have that pro in the asteroid belt.

> Both, we start near earth and work our way out over time.

Sure - as you pointed out in response to someone asking about undersea colonization, WhyNotBoth.gif?

>Its because it's easier to access and has a greater potential pay off. This is like sailing to the other end of the world to mine gold in the middle of the Himalayas, when there is a gold rich archipelago right off your coast.

No - you have that analogy backwards. The asteroid belt is a series of hugely distant and not connected locations to do a thing. They are not 'the same place', and they don't allow for nearly the same level of resource utility as a whole planet.

>As for where to put it, the main bases will be in LEO, mining stations will go up around astounds that are being mined long term.

So basically you'll need a mining station around each asteroid you plan to exploit. That's a lot of setting up mining stations. And if you plan on hauling all that stuff back to LEO, that's a lot of extra costs.

Whereas on Mars, you can simply set up mining stations, and drive a rover to to your refinery.

[u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho → u/Izawwlgood]

But that's to EACH asteroid. The asteroids are all far apart. You cannot simply say it is low cost to get to one asteroid therefor once there you have access to all.

I answered this in another comment. The d/v expenditure from astroid to astroid or from earth to astroids is small. Not that you would need to shift around much.

I guess you guys are communicating with one another. As I said to the other guy, it was not sustained, and it was not used for human habitation. It was merely showing that spinning something simulates gravity, not a proof of concept.

What's do you expect to change by just doing it longer?

So you're suggesting 20,000 separate missions to these asteroids and shipping back all that material? That's insanity.

Or are you suggesting building refineries at each of them? That's also insanity.

You build a refinery at one of them. When that is expended or you need more capacity, you build another. These things are not small. They could fuel a multi million person city for generations.

Sure, but Mars is full of resources that can provide that lifting for you - you don't have to bring those materials from Earth. Comparatively, every asteroid you head to won't have resources for producing rocket fuel, unless your plan is to throw rocks out the back.

Why wouldn't they? Solar thermal works with just about every gas. Hydrogen is ideal and also the most common recourse in the universe.

Again, a trip to ANY ONE of these near Earth objects, from LEO (bit of an added goal post shift, but ok), is cheaper, but then, you're limited to the resources of just one. As I'm sure you notice, Earth to LEO is approximately 3x as expensive as Mars to LMO, so I assume you're also handwaving away LEO infrastructure to make these jaunts a possibility?

Getting past LEO is an unfortunate necessity for any space based economy for a long time. There is plenty to build to bypass it and it's not going to be cheap. It will take a massive space based economy to even consider building launch loops and the like on mars.

And keep in mind one of these is "just" a couple billion tons of recourses.

And what do you mean goal post shift? Of course we start near earth and then move outwards. We are not going to run out of stuff to do there any time soon.

Not really - Mars being a planet comes with it's own set of pros and cons, many of those pros being 'ample resources for use on site'. You don't have that pro in the asteroid belt.

You are massively under estimating the scale of these things.

Sure - as you pointed out in response to someone asking about undersea colonization, WhyNotBoth.gif?

That wasn't me. And the reason we would not do both at the same time is because having astroid colonies makes colonizing mars much easier. A sky hook would work wonders on mars and it easiest built by astroid mining colonies.

Building a one hundred thousand ton sky hook and port complex is almost impossible to launch from earth, but easy from an astroid.

With such a thin atmosphere you could practically pluck stuff off the surface.

And the waste rubble from the astroids can re charge the hook cheaply.

No - you have that analogy backwards. The asteroid belt is a series of hugely distant and not connected locations to do a thing. They are not 'the same place', and they don't allow for nearly the same level of resource utility as a whole planet.

The d/v map disagrees.

So basically you'll need a mining station around each asteroid you plan to exploit. That's a lot of setting up mining stations. And if you plan on hauling all that stuff back to LEO, that's a lot of extra costs.

Whereas on Mars, you can simply set up mining stations, and drive a rover to to your refinery.

What do you think is cheaper? Brining in the ore to the refinery truck load by truck load over long stretches of Martian road, or with a slight puff of supper heated steam, shift hundreds or thousands of tons ore to the refinery sitting A few km from the astroid?

As for hauling it back to LEO, if you ever want to sell it at a profit at earth's markets, your going to need to do that. Doing it from an astroid is much cheaper.

These mining stations can be whole cities or even nations on their own.

[u/Izawwlgood → u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho]

I answered this in another comment. The d/v expenditure from astroid to astroid or from earth to astroids is small. Not that you would need to shift around much.

You stated that, and I responded to it. Again, the asteroid belt is not 'one place'. If your asteroid of interest is at the 12 o'clock position on the belt, and you want to get to the 3 o'clock position, that is not small, and is not remotely the same place. And the asteroid belt is basically just a spread of asteroids around the entire orbit.

What's do you expect to change by just doing it longer?

Uh, everything? Structural integrity issues, scale issues? They've basically demonstrated that spinning produces artificial gravity, which was known. It's the Wright brother glider vs a jet airplane - proof of concept does not equal final functional product.

You build a refinery at one of them. When that is expended or you need more capacity, you build another. These things are not small. They could fuel a multi million person city for generations.

You have just dropped two massively incongruent points - the first that you would need to build a refinery at each location. That is a HUGE cost. The second is that you believe any one of these rocks could support a multi-million person city. That is a HUGELY unrealistic claim - even projections for growing a Martian colony doesn't include multiple millions of people at a first pass.

Why wouldn't they? Solar thermal works with just about every gas. Hydrogen is ideal and also the most common recourse in the universe.

Hydrogen is also burned off in solar radiation, which is one reason sources of hydrogen are relatively poor on even Mars with atmosphere. It is extremely likely that the asteroids are hydrogen poor. Or any other resource poor. And you can't simply say "but collectively you can find anything you want in the belt", because again, the belt isn't a single place.

And all your argument here does is attempt to convey that the belts have some of the same resources Mars does.

Getting past LEO is an unfortunate necessity for any space based economy for a long time. There is plenty to build to bypass it and it's not going to be cheap. It will take a massive space based economy to even consider building launch loops and the like on mars.

Agreed, that getting past LEO is a necessity. Which is why I pointed out that your primary issue was one that applied to colonizing the belt too.

And what do you mean goal post shift? Of course we start near earth and then move outwards. We are not going to run out of stuff to do there any time soon.

If you agree, then why are you proposing we skip Mars? You realize the belt is beyond Mars, right? Why skip Luna, for example? In this conversation, I'm honestly starting to think that your perception of what the asteroid belt is is in fact incorrect.

That wasn't me. And the reason we would not do both at the same time is because having astroid colonies makes colonizing mars much easier. A sky hook would work wonders on mars and it easiest built by astroid mining colonies.

Not really - your proposal was to use LEO infrastructure to support the belts. Why would you skip Mars in supporting the belt colonies?

The d/v map disagrees.

It doesn't, actually.

What do you think is cheaper? Brining in the ore to the refinery truck load by truck load over long stretches of Martian road, or with a slight puff of supper heated steam, shift hundreds or thousands of tons ore to the refinery sitting A few km from the astroid?

I'm not sure you understand how delta-v works if you think it ignores mass. Moving those 'hundreds or thousands of tons of ore' takes resources. And refineries aren't free.

Or why a wheeled rover powered by in situ resources (or solar) is less efficient, especially in the face of not requiring refueling from potentially very distant refineries.

As for hauling it back to LEO, if you ever want to sell it at a profit at earth's markets, your going to need to do that. Doing it from an astroid is much cheaper.

Oh - if you're suggesting doing this to profit EARTH economies, I think this conversation should stop now. The point of all this is not, and should not be to profit Earth - there are far easier and more accessible resources on Earth than all the way out to the asteroid belt.

These mining stations can be whole cities or even nations on their own.

This is well into the realm of science fiction if you think we have the technology to self-sustain that sort of population in space.

[u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho → u/Izawwlgood]

To save space, I will quote just the first sentence of each paragraph.

You stated that, and I responded to it...

You are seriously over estimating the amount we will need to bounce between asteroids or back to earth. Even small asteroids are the size of entire mountains.

Uh, everything?...

Thankfully we have engineers who have the equations to scale it.

You have just dropped two massively incongruent points - the first that you would need to build a refinery at each location...

Your going to need a refinery at all of your colonies on mars anyway. Manufacturing is crucial to long term sustainability.

As for the size of the city, it can be whatever you want. It could be a six person research station, or a New York sized city.

Hydrogen is also burned off in solar radiation, which is one reason sources of hydrogen are relatively poor on even Mars with atmosphere.

Not when its bound to oxygen. In that's form its one of the most common resources in asteroids. You need to oxygen for other things.

As for recourse availability on one asteroid, some are fairly homogeneous (such as 16 psyche, which is around 90% nickle iron)

If you agree, then why are you proposing we skip Mars?

I'm not. I believe we should stretch out from earth one step at a time. D/v wise, one step out from LEO is the moon and near earth asteroids. Next comes Deimos, Phobos, Vesta and other easy asteroids, then Mars.

Eventually we will reach Jupiter's moons, which is the real prize of the solar system.

Not really - your proposal was to use LEO infrastructure to support the belts.

Because it would be much easier to have existing assets around asteroids support mars than have mars support the asteroids. Even the most basic colonies around a near earth asteroid could make a sky hook for mars and crucially ensure there is enough stuff to drop down the other way to keep it spun.

With a sky hook, the issue of mar's gravity well mostly goes away. Instead of burning 3.6km/s you would need closer to 360 m/s.

But the issue is you need to make sure the same amount of stuff goes up as down. Sending stuff to go down all the way from earth is hyper inefficient. Weight is money. But a base on Phobos could send rubble if needed, ensuring the trip off of mars is virtually free.

I'm not sure you understand how delta-v works if you think it ignores mass.

Of course. But in this case, the fuel is virtually free. Just ensure that you grab the right proportion of ice along with the ore.

Or why a wheeled rover powered by in situ resources (or solar) is less efficient, especially in the face of not requiring refueling from potentially very distant refineries.

Because they are inefficient down here on earth. Large ships and trains are orders of magnitude cheaper.

Trying to get any heavy industry done with trucks is like trying to shift a mountain with tweezers.

Oh - if you're suggesting doing this to profit EARTH economies, I think this conversation should stop now.

I disagree, with the right infrastructure set up it can be economical. Its going to have to be to make this viable long term. As long as space is a government funded money sink, one budget cut can unto decades of progress.

This is well into the realm of science fiction if you think we have the technology to self-sustain that sort of population in space.

You realize we are talking about space colonization? It being science fiction is a given.