Moon Versus Asteroid Colonization

[JohnHunt]

If the goal would be to establish an off-Earth, self-sustaining, colony the quickest way possible, which makes more sense? Colonization of the lunar surface or colonization of either an asteroid directly or LEO but using asteroidal material? Basically it's an issues of lunar verses asteroidal resources.

Arguments for Asteroidal-based Colonization:- Different asteroids provide a variety of materials including volatiles which may not be easily obtained on the lunar surface.
- Nearly zero-gee gravity makes the transport of large quantities of materials theoretically easy.
- No need to develop expensive lunar landers and ascenders. May not need to develop a heavy lift launcher.
- Entire small asteroid or coment could theoretically be moved to an Earth orbit.
- Volatiles may be mined from the sunny side of the asteroid thereby avoiding equipment fractures due to the extremely low temperatures found in lunar craters.

Arguments for Lunar Colonization:
- Always three days away.
- Less need for life support supplies during travel because travel time is much less.
- If something goes wrong (e.g. Apollo 13) the astronauts can return in a few days.
- Equipment wouldn't be tied up during long voyages.
- Lunar gravity may prove useful in the handling of materials in mining operations.
- Teleoperated robots have shorter lag time when they are always just a few seconds away thereby allowing safe initial development where the lives of the astronatus are not put at risk.

[jsteele235]

John, I tend to favor the moon option. Lifting out of the lunar gravity well should not be that big a deal. Energy required for lunar orbital or escape velocity is only 4.6 % of that required for earth orbital or escape velocities. Use of mass drivers on the moon seems very feasible. I did some calculations assuming that acceleration would be limited to 3g, to make for a passenger-usable system. This would require a mass driver length of almost exactly 100 km to achieve escape velocity. Building what amounts to a mag-lev train track of this length doesn't appear to be that much of a technological stretch.

The moon also seems to be better suited for shielding from cosmic radiation and solar wind protons. It's easy to take for granted just how much protection Earth's atmosphere provides. To provide protection equivalent to Earth at sea level requires approx. 35 ft. of water, 4.5 ft. of steel, or 3 ft. lead. Covering habitat modules with lunar soil would probably require 15 - 30 ft. based on the reference (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1972LPSC....3.3235M) I was able to find. Having traction for soil moving equipment, and then having the soil stay in place seems to argue for a little bit of gravity.

[Sam Fraser]

With the confirmation of water ice at the poles, the moon is now probably the frontrunner for the first ISRU operation. Permanently lit areas like crater rims and mountain slopes can provide solar energy 24/7 and don't experience wide temperature swings like most of the moon. Permanently shaded ares provide easy access to cryogenic temperatures for storing volatiles. Of course, being 1.5 light seconds and 3 days' travel from Earth is a big plus compared to an NEO operation. I think the Japanese and others are studying the feasibility of a robotic mining operation on the lunar surface teleoperated by humans in lunar orbit. Just send a few suitably equipped Sundancer modules from Bigelow Aerospace to lunar orbit and let the fun begin.

[JohnHunt]

O.K. So far two of you favor the Moon for colonization over an asteroid. I also believe that the Moon beats an asteroid. But for the sake of discussion, let me push you guys a bit to see if your decision still stands.

Sam, concentrations of water ice on asteroids can be quite high (percent wise). Can you say the same about the Moon? When we impacted the lunar south pole we blew up a lot of regolith but only got a couple dozen buckets worth of water. How certain are you that water can be reasonably and easily extracted from the Moon?

JSteele, I agree that the amount of fuel needed to get off of Luna is small. Just look at how small the fuel containers (http://projectmoonwalk.com/missions/sites/default/files/images/altair.preview.jpg) are on the Altair. But the fuel needed to escape from an asteroid is yet even less. Also, aren't little thrusters safer than high-thrust rockets?

Sam, as for permanently lit areas, is this really an argument favoring the Moon? Wouldn't asteroids also have permanently lit areas?

JSteele, One could argue that an asteroid of a sufficient size would provide the same hemispherical protection that the Moon does (i.e. solar and cosmic radiation won't pass through the asteroid). Also, asteroidal material still gravitationally settles down even in a rubble pile asteroid. So, couldn't you cover a habitat with enough regolith either way?

---------

Although I just played Devil's advocate, I think that the Moon is the place to go first. Let me acknowledge a strong point made by Sam, namely the short communications time for teleoperated robots on the Moon but not for any yet known asteroid. These factors may not matter so much after we colonize space but I'm specifically asking for the initial choice of colonizing the Moon verses an asteroid.

--------

As I think about it, I can add two additional arguments in favor of asteroidal colonization:
- The lunar night is two weeks. An asteroid should be able to be found which has a much shorter night, perhaps even 24 hours.
- Some asteroids contain certain atoms not easily found on the Moon such as carbon and nitrogen needed for a self-sustaining base.

----------

O.K. but you guys haven't fully addressed some of the other argument in favor of asteroids:
- No need to develop expensive lunar landers and ascenders.
- Entire small asteroid or coment could theoretically be moved to an Earth orbit

[JohnHunt]

Unrelated to this post, but an idea that just came to me is that one could lay plastic over the soil within a permanently shadowed lunar crater, seal it on its periphery and then set up mirrors around the edge of the crater pointing to this covered spot. As the soil heats it would off-gas it's volatiles (e.g. water) and get trapped under the plastic. Then one could connect a hose to this plastic and extract the water. As the top surface thaws and heats up it would begin to progressively melt lower layers thereby releasing yet more water. This could be the simplest way of extracting large quantities of water from the Moon.

[Rhyshaelkan]

Volatiles would boil off into the vacuum inside the plastic. They would have to be siphoned off quickly. Otherwise the building pressure will be more than the plastic can stand. But being an permanently shadowed crater, controlling the outgassing should be simple. Just turn the mirrors away from the crater and you can stop the process.

[Phenix]

- The lunar night is two weeks. An asteroid should be able to be found which has a much shorter night, perhaps even 24 hours.
- Some asteroids contain certain atoms not easily found on the Moon such as carbon and nitrogen needed for a self-sustaining base.

----------

O.K. but you guys haven't fully addressed some of the other argument in favor of asteroids:
- No need to develop expensive lunar landers and ascenders.
- Entire small asteroid or coment could theoretically be moved to an Earth orbit

John, you are doing an excellent balance analysis, I just like the way you are thinking on the pros and cons. Joe has stated elsewhere, a mining mission is of low cost and is easy to understand as the first step toward the forum readers.

Exactly, crawling of a resonable size asteroid to a the stable and safe location such as the lagrange point L-4 is totally possible. The question is how much do we need to invest to make it happen ? It is funny, I realize that I am thinking an ant :D

[Rhyshaelkan]

Having traction for soil moving equipment, and then having the soil stay in place seems to argue for a little bit of gravity.

This is a big plus in my book. Watching the astronauts working at the ISS on NASAtv, a little gravity might actually be a boon. Luna has light enough gravity to magnify your strength, but heavy enough for a definite up and down.

I suppose in an 'Moon vs. Asteroid' comparison one has to think of your overall goals.

Are you wanting to preserve humanity?
Luna is closer allowing for faster development over time. Starting first with tele-operated bots. Then after the infrastructure has reached a certain point, send in the humans to finish projects that even the best bots cannot do.

Are you trying to make money?
Asteroids have the potential of vast riches. But one has to compute; what materials are you returning, market for said materials, how much can be extracted in how much time, length of mission, manned mission vs. robotic mission, launch opportunities, return opportunities.

Luna's resources have little direct value for Terra. Iron, aluminum, oxygen, titanium, magnesium etc. They can all be produced cheaper on Earth when you factor shipping costs. However, when you factor into shipping costs, if you could supply goods in space to a demand in space. Then it looks more attractive.

An example might be powersats. They are prohibitively expensive due to launching it from Terra. However if launch and built from Lunar materials overall costs become a fraction.

Regarding making money, with gross oversimplification of the details, asteroids would be faster money, Luna the slower. However there is also the publicity of a successful mission, a huge nod towards asteroids.

More later.

[jsteele235]

Maybe it's a mistake to frame the question as an either/or proposition. The moon and asteroids have characteristics which are in many ways complementary. Although I consider the moon a hugely valuable chunk of real estate, the lack of volatiles is a serious drawback. This is in spite of evidence of ice. I'm all in favor of sending robotic probes to test the composition of as many NEOs as possible. Given the percentage of meteorites which are carbonaceous chondrites (~5%), some hunting may be required to find good candidates for asteroid volatiles.

I'm not convinced that 100% self-sufficiency is a realistic goal for either moon or asteroid colonization. Even if it's possible, I'm not sure that it would be the most desirable approach. We seem to manage OK without Boise, ID or Paducah, KY being 100% self-sufficient.

[Sam Fraser]

Hi John, my previous post omitted a lot. However, I won't clarify for now, as Rhyshaelkan makes a point about the overall goal.

I don't see a space colony as a first logical step. Bootstrapping space as PERMANENT envisions means shorter-term projects that are profitable to fund the next stage. If we think SPS is the logical first step, for example, the moon is closer and has enough useful materials for building a powersat. Any volatiles the moon lacks and other vital consumables can be cheaply produced on Earth, then launched using very low-cost mass-produced rockets with a high failure rate (can't find the link right now that expands on this CATS concept).

Of course, there may be other proposals that make NEO ISRU a frontrunner as the first step. I personally think a manned NEO mission is more dramatic and would arouse more public interest, but whether it's the moon or NEOs, that just boils down to slick marketing and innovative fundraising. The hard part is identifying the first short-term goal that kickstarts a sustainable growth path to permanent space settlement that doesn't require tens of billions of upfront funding and decades to implement, like a space colony suggests to me.

[JohnHunt]

> I don't see a space colony as a first logical step.

I understand the concept of starting with NEOs and proceeding in a step-wise manner with a self-sustaining colony being a goal but only after several other goals have first been achieved. It is a very logical, planned pathway.

That's not the purpose of this thread. I am asking what we should do if we chose to make a self-sustaining colony our urgent priority. Why would we do this?

You all may not think that self-replicating technology could ever destroy Earth's ecosystem. But if you look at the top of PERMANENT's front page you will see that Mark Prado sets this as a reason to exploit asteroid and lunar resources.

Or, if you thought that this was theoretically possible, you may feel as though there was no way that such a thing could happen prior to a self-sustaining colony being established during the normal course of space development.

Perhaps, but please, for the sake of this thread, let's presume that we want to err on the side of caution and purchase the insurance policy as soon as possible. After the insurance policy is purchased, then we can proceed to develop space for other purposes.

So no, making money is not the goal here unless it speeds up (instead of diverting us from) developing a self-sustaining colony the quickest way possible. Now, of course, the quickest way possible would be to put 100% of the Earth's GDP into developing a self-sustaining space colony. But I am presuming that the establishment of an off-Earth, self-sustaining colony would have to fall within a NASA-level budget or perhaps (as things are looking now) may have to be done largely outside of NASA.

[moonus111]

I just had to add this tidbit to this thread.

NEO's (asteroids) are not going to be allowed in earths Sphere of influence. The public would be outraged by the danger inherent in such a plan. Even if the roid is not large enough to do any damage, people will be concerned and it will be all around bad PR to tow a roid close to earth.

Even mitigating this by taking it to the moon for processing may even be a PR blow to a company attempting to do so. The risk is not that the roid will do damage, the risk is the negative publicity generated by the task. Even if the fear is unjustified, it will still foment opposition.

[Rhyshaelkan]

Shoot the dissenters!!

Whaaaat, I thought we wanted PERMANENT to be some sort of Freemason secret society for world domination!! :p:D

Just kidding naturally.

[Sam Fraser]

That's not the purpose of this thread. I am asking what we should do if we chose to make a self-sustaining colony our urgent priority. Why would we do this?

Define "we" and "self-sustaining"? :rolleyes:

[joertexas]

I just had to add this tidbit to this thread.

NEO's (asteroids) are not going to be allowed in earths Sphere of influence. The public would be outraged by the danger inherent in such a plan. Even if the roid is not large enough to do any damage, people will be concerned and it will be all around bad PR to tow a roid close to earth.

Even mitigating this by taking it to the moon for processing may even be a PR blow to a company attempting to do so. The risk is not that the roid will do damage, the risk is the negative publicity generated by the task. Even if the fear is unjustified, it will still foment opposition.

There are proposals to capture asteroids in Venus' orbit for just this reason...

JR

[moonus111]

There are proposals to capture asteroids in Venus' orbit for just this reason...

JR


That's a damn good idea.

[joertexas]

That's a damn good idea.

Conisdering that a very close perigee is highly desired to change an asteroid's orbit from heliocentric to planetary, I'm all for using a planet I happen to not be standing on at the time. ;)

JR

[Phenix]

> I don't see a space colony as a first logical step.

I understand the concept of starting with NEOs and proceeding in a step-wise manner with a self-sustaining colony being a goal but only after several other goals have first been achieved. It is a very logical, planned pathway.

That's not the purpose of this thread. I am asking what we should do if we chose to make a self-sustaining colony our urgent priority. Why would we do this?

You all may not think that self-replicating technology could ever destroy Earth's ecosystem. But if you look at the top of PERMANENT's front page you will see that Mark Prado sets this as a reason to exploit asteroid and lunar resources.

Or, if you thought that this was theoretically possible, you may feel as though there was no way that such a thing could happen prior to a self-sustaining colony being established during the normal course of space development.

Perhaps, but please, for the sake of this thread, let's presume that we want to err on the side of caution and purchase the insurance policy as soon as possible. After the insurance policy is purchased, then we can proceed to develop space for other purposes.

So no, making money is not the goal here unless it speeds up (instead of diverting us from) developing a self-sustaining colony the quickest way possible. Now, of course, the quickest way possible would be to put 100% of the Earth's GDP into developing a self-sustaining space colony. But I am presuming that the establishment of an off-Earth, self-sustaining colony would have to fall within a NASA-level budget or perhaps (as things are looking now) may have to be done largely outside of NASA.

John, I like the approach of your concerns about Colonization prior following the logical path of Space development driven by business. This thread should be renamed as something like "The Noe's arch is to return". On the political side of this thread, I am starting to understand the "insurance policy" concept along with what Rhys exposed in the "Moon Exploitation" thread.

Please, could you open a new thread and define precisely what would be frame surrounding the "insurance policy" concept ? I am sure that this concept is very intersting :).

[Rhyshaelkan]

Insurance policy: Self-sustaining human habitation so that if the human race offed itself on Earth, the human race as a whole would go on. ;) lol We do not need to open a new thread for every new topic. What we do need is work on our wiki. So that we could have answers to many of these usual questions.

Sorry if that came across harsh, I am in a playful mood. ;)

[Phenix]

Insurance policy: Self-sustaining human habitation so that if the human race offed itself on Earth, the human race as a whole would go on. ;) lol We do not need to open a new thread for every new topic. What we do need is work on our wiki. So that we could have answers to many of these usual questions.

I am discovering what is the meaning of the "insurance policy", I would be glad to hear what others have to say for a debate. Now, if everything has been defined, yes, then let it be wikied ;)

[Sam Fraser]

Not just human life, all life. A gene bank and human colony deep underground on (in) the moon would ensure Earth could be revived after an asteroid strike, massive coronal mass ejection, gamma-ray burst or some other cosmic calamity causing a mass extinction. Of course, it could be argued the chance of any of those events happening is vanishingly small.

[Phenix]

Merci Sam :) Yes, for the sake all of life, we need to preserve the genes for regenerating all Earth Life in case of devastation.

I am having difficulties to understand this :

Perhaps, but please, for the sake of this thread, let's presume that we want to err on the side of caution and purchase the insurance policy as soon as possible. After the insurance policy is purchased, then we can proceed to develop space for other purposes.

What does it mean to purchase an insurance policy for ? Is it related to the cost of preserving genes or existing lifes being selected for Colonization that would have a price per existing life form?

[Sam Fraser]

Hi Phenix, I hope I've understood your question correctly.

An "insurance policy" is really just an expression. It might be confusing for someone who doesn't speak English as their first language. When I think about it, it might not be very accurate. For example, when we want a normal "insurance policy" for our house in case of fire, earthquake etc., it doesn't mean we build a second empty house somewhere else while living in the first house.

Maybe a better word is "backup". Just like you (should) back up all your important data from your PC and store in a separate place, we should back up every lifeform as gene samples and store in a separate location. When I back up my office data, I copy onto an external hard drive and take with me home. That way, if the office burns down, I can easily restore my data to a different PC.

So, for the sake of this discussion, "purchasing an insurance policy" really means creating an underground gene bank on the moon to ensure life can be reintroduced to Earth after a calamity. A team of skilled technicians and engineers would be required to live on the moon to expand and maintain the facility. That would be the minimum "life insurance policy" we would need, I think.

[RaresH]

I think I've read about the concept of a gene database stored off world. Although I don't think it's entirely necessary to store it off world it does add an extra level of security. There are people working towards that goal I'm sure. Before we start storing gene banks off world we'll probably already have one or two here and by then we should have a viable space industry started. Most of us here probably would agree that the first step to any significant industrial or other infrastructure is a sustainable means of supplying fuel and raw material.

This is also why some of us, hopefully most, support a mission to an near earth asteroid in an industrial capacity. Because there is nothing that will get us working towards a colony in space faster than the promise of wealth, short of a calamity. The other option is to take it slow and hope we're able to develop appropriate measures to any of the various dangers we are likely to face as a species.

[Phenix]

Hi Phenix, I hope I've understood your question correctly.

An "insurance policy" is really just an expression. It might be confusing for someone who doesn't speak English as their first language. When I think about it, it might not be very accurate. For example, when we want a normal "insurance policy" for our house in case of fire, earthquake etc., it doesn't mean we build a second empty house somewhere else while living in the first house.

Maybe a better word is "backup". Just like you (should) back up all your important data from your PC and store in a separate place, we should back up every lifeform as gene samples and store in a separate location. When I back up my office data, I copy onto an external hard drive and take with me home. That way, if the office burns down, I can easily restore my data to a different PC.

So, for the sake of this discussion, "purchasing an insurance policy" really means creating an underground gene bank on the moon to ensure life can be reintroduced to Earth after a calamity. A team of skilled technicians and engineers would be required to live on the moon to expand and maintain the facility. That would be the minimum "life insurance policy" we would need, I think.

Yes, English is not my first language and your explanation does help to clear out some doubts. lol :), the PC "backup" reference to the "insurance policy" gets to the point of a "Disaster Recovery policy" and that is a more accurate definition for safeguarding gene banks. Howerver, I do not think that putting "All the eggs in the same basket" would help safeguarding the gene banks on the Moon only. Any ideas from others on that ?

[Rhyshaelkan]

At least we would have two baskets then. One on Earth and one on Luna. Better than what we have right now. One good asteroid strike, plague, assorted extinction theories, and we are back in the stone-age, or worse.


As mankind continues to spread(most notably and currently, in Brazil). More and more virgin bio-force of this planet is disturbed. I envision many large asteroid habitats, on the order of 10km dia. x 50km long used as nature preserves. As the entire habitat is essentially artificial, we can tailor each habitat to suit a certain location on Earth. Thus preserving a snapshot of Earth and specimens of that location.

But those habitats are not for the near term. An human insurance policy is of foremost need.

[Phenix]

An human insurance policy is of foremost need.

We cannot sustain life without the proper ecosystem even in the near term. How would you recreate human life even from gene banks without all the life forms that appeared before our species ?

[Rhyshaelkan]

Humans do not need animals to survive. I am all in favor of saving an snapshot of Earth's various ecosystems in an habitat or 1000. But humans have to watch out for themselves first. Animals do not have the intelligence to save us.

Humanity is working on semi-closed ecosystems such as the ISS, submarines, life aboard ships, and research stations at Antarctica. Our efforts at Luna will need to be an closed loop if we would ever want to be self-sufficient.

[prometheuspan]

i think the asteroids beat the moon for the reason of the gravity. You have to climb back out to get away, and building a centripetal pseudo gravity system is only complicated if theres already a low g present.

This may not seem like a big deal but the thing most non engineers miss is
scale effects.

A rotating (ex) asteroid several miles long and a few hundred meters in diameter
could make for a mini civilization or micronation for the colony.

You just can't pull that off once you are inside of lunar gravity.

Further, and more important, the sense of it all is that you do the NEOs first, tow them to lunar orbit, and THEN do the lunar colony, its an order of operations thing.

We cannot sustain life without the proper ecosystem even in the near term. How would you recreate human life even from gene banks without all the life forms that appeared before our species ?

by 2050, or so, you'd just design new animals from scratch.

[moonus111]

I have to say I'm with phenix on this one. The only way we are going to get the green's/global warming ppl on board is by having large expansive forests on O'neills and stuff like that. I don't want to live in a place where I don't have the option to go visit the park, and by park I mean 100's of square miles of it. Beauty is needed to live! I really didn't like silent running the movie, but the point was good...

This is not to say that we will be producing food in this inefficient manner. Onion style O'neills, spheres of water, and Onion Berns are probably better at food production.

Back on the subject of moon vs asteroids, I think we've settled that the asteroids are just out of grasp and the moon is simply the intermediate step to get a greater bounty. It is very true that any large scale settlements would be better built with asteroid material, but getting the infrastructure to get people there requires the moon because our solar system is earth-centric, and the economy will long be earth centric.

Note though that a cheap means of moon launch, the magnetic rail gun thing (can't remember what its called) will allow it to compete for a very long time. However since men cannot live their entire life on the moon it may be that asteroid miners, and moon miners live in the same places & get along?!?!

[Rhyshaelkan]

Yes. Let us not forget why this forum exists. It is to find doable solutions to what PERMANENT stands for. Which is why fusion drives and space elevators are for the Off Topic section.

[prometheuspan]

I have to say I'm with phenix on this one. The only way we are going to get the green's/global warming ppl on board is by having large expansive forests on O'neills and stuff like that. I don't want to live in a place where I don't have the option to go visit the park, and by park I mean 100's of square miles of it. Beauty is needed to live! I really didn't like silent running the movie, but the point was good...

mever saw it could you explain it to me?


Back on the subject of moon vs asteroids, I think we've settled that the asteroids are just out of grasp and the moon is simply the intermediate step to get a greater bounty.

the reverse is true, it takes more delta V and more fuel to get to and then get back up from the moon. the asteroids are actually MORE accessible than the moon is. The Asteroids are the intermediate step to get to the moon.

The best reason for this amongst all the others is that you could only really solve that paradox well by giving people month long passes on the moon but living in lunar orbit.

It would be a cycling life style.

You need those asteroids in orbit around the moon to support any kind of large scale colonization.



It is very true that any large scale settlements would be better built with asteroid material, but getting the infrastructure to get people there requires the moon because our solar system is earth-centric, and the economy will long be earth centric.

our solar system is sun centric. It requires the same delta v to go to the moon as it does to use the moon for orbital assist.

using the interplanetary highway that makes any point in the solar system accessible, but particularly the earth orbit ring.

how convennient then that it is that earth crossers are the ones we want to capture anyhow?


Note though that a cheap means of moon launch, the magnetic rail gun thing (can't remember what its called) will allow it to compete for a very long time. However since men cannot live their entire life on the moon it may be that asteroid miners, and moon miners live in the same places & get along?!?!

Same people on shift rotation. Thats almost hilariously funny. lol

Yes. Let us not forget why this forum exists. It is to find doable solutions to what PERMANENT stands for. Which is why fusion drives and space elevators are for the Off Topic section.

oh, good, thats what i was hoping to hear.

that and that you have a nice off topic section.