Space Colonization Economics, Part 3

[chris_gerrib]

Based on the analysis of Part 1 and Part 2 of colonial economics, a simple factor emerges: if it is cheaper to ship supplies in than to obtain them locally, the supplies are shipped in

Comments

[jordan179]

... saying we can't colonize space because some colonies fail is like saying we can't have powered flight because some planes crash.

Very, very well said. The idea that we must never try to colonize other worlds because some colonies would fail implicitly argues that such colonization is just a pointless indulgence, not worth pursuing if it costs lives.

[knockout_mouse]

You may have a movie franchise (or at least some funny YouTube videos) on your hand with "Stoners In Spaaaace!"

Seriously though, thank you for posting this series, I am quite enjoying it. Can't wait for Part 4!

[knockout_mouse]

Doi. I meant "hands". I just can't win with the typos, can I?

[chris_gerrib]

Yeah, I amused myself with that one...

[kalance]

The technology for colonizing is certainly there. It's been there for a good few decades. Even for self-sufficient colonies. The only thing stopping us right now is funding really. At the moment, few people in power can see a moon or Mars base as anything more than a research post. They don't see them as likely to produce a "return" on an investment, and just as a waste of time and money.

It probably won't be until someone can demonstrate that a colony on the moon can not only sustain it's population without the need for constant supply shipments, but can also send back useful resources. Given the scarcity of aptly named "Rare Earths", and how valuable they are to modern industry, a probe locating some rich deposits of these metals in easy access on either the moon, Mars, or even Ceres, might be enough to spur the private sector into taking the big leap of faith into the solar system

[jordan179]

The only thing stopping us right now is funding really. At the moment, few people in power can see a moon or Mars base as anything more than a research post. They don't see them as likely to produce a "return" on an investment, and just as a waste of time and money.

Note that this has already changed -- Richard Branson of Virgin views his long-term goal as a commercial Moonbase, and Elon Musk of Space X is planning to ultimately build Mars-capable spaceships. They are not "people in power" in the political sense, but they are multi-billionaires," with serious business plans to finance such operations by incremental phases.

Given the scarcity of aptly named "Rare Earths", and how valuable they are to modern industry, a probe locating some rich deposits of these metals in easy access on either the moon, Mars, or even Ceres, might be enough to spur the private sector into taking the big leap of faith into the solar system.That's one possibility. It's true that we haven't proven the existence of such concentrations on Luna, but it's a

[kalance]

Given what we know about the formation of the moon, Luna should almost definitely have Rare Earths. In fact, there's no reason it shouldn't contain similar ratios of minerals. Unless I miss my guess, most of it's lighter surface is silicate based minerals, and its "seas" are more ferrous based. Just like Earth's own land and seas surfaces.

Thinking about this kind of future makes me very wistful. Though I'm pretty certain I'll never leave Earth's atmosphere myself, I'd still feel very relieved to know that it's a direction we're heading in.

Inflatable Houses

[kalance]

I've always suspected that there will be two common types of extra-terestrial colony layouts:

For planets with a substantial atmosphere (mars), they would be made of rather lightweight, connected modules. Sort of like the ISS, but horizontal. Domed cities seem impractical, because they would require so much more atmosphere. Very inefficient. The most spacious places in a Mars colony would be hydroponics and factory facilities. Habitation areas would probably feel more like a submarine interior in both space and setup.

For planets without significant atmosphere (moon), I'd think that long term facilities would need to be subterranean. If only for safety's sake. Without an air buffer of some sort, every pea sized rock that happens to wiz by would be a real threat. Surface shelters capable of resisting moderate or severe meteorite impacts would be very costly, and expensive to ship. Digging tools would be much cheaper, though teams would obviously need to live on the surface initially.

[jordan179]

This is true to start with, but in the long run, assuming that there is a steady supply of reasonably cheap energy (solar or nuclear), the habs can be made very spacious. Also, subterranean habs can take advantage of existing cave systems, such as the Lunar lava tubes.

[kalance]

The strangest thing, in my mind, is how fervently astronomers are searching for "Earth-like" planets. Depending on how far along in development they are, these are the planets humans will be least>/i> likely to thrive on. Any planet that possesses an abundance of microbial life will, more than likely, lead to a "War of the Worlds" scenario for us. Any oxy/nitro planets we colonize would have to be barren to start with, allowing us to seed it for our own use.

Sci-fy genres aside, I think the best planets to settle are those like Mars. A little more than .5Gs. An atmosphere that is non-corrosive. And maybe holds the possibility for terraforming. After all, with a little water and potassium nitrate, what's to stop plants from growing on the surface? A thicker atmosphere and some Geothermal vents would do wonders for the ambient temperature too...