Turning Phobos and Deimos into colonies
Cowd
properly, a hell of a lot more pleasant, than planetary ones. As for
terraforming, it's an order of magnitude less practical than orbital
settlement. Considered practically, it seems reasonable that orbital
colonies around Mars will in the short and medium term support many
more people than Mars proper. Phobos and Deimos seem perfect for the
job.
How many people could you support with O'Neill Islands made from
Phobos and/or Deimos? How much of the necessary resources is present
in the rocks, and how much would have to be imported? Any further
considerations regarding such a venture?
Brian Davis
> Orbital habitats are easier to construct and support, and if done
> properly, a hell of a lot more pleasant, than planetary ones.
Although I'd point out that the current factual basis for that
statement is a little bit lacking. Particularly for population
numbering more than a half-dozen.
> As for terraforming, it's an order of magnitude less practical than
> orbital settlement.
Depends on your timescale and technology.
> it seems reasonable that orbital colonies around Mars will in the
> short and medium term support many more people than Mars
> proper.
Here I really *don't* see this; what do you mean by "short" and
"medium" term here? Days? Months? Years? How many people? With what
sort of support system? On Mars you have a variety of resources you
can acquire with nothing too much more sophisticated than a pump and a
heater... that's a big head start in the "practical" department.
> How many people could you support with O'Neill Islands made from
> Phobos and/or Deimos?
How much infrastructure do you think it will take to convert an
asteroid into an O'Neill? And where are you getting that
infrastructure from? If you are talking hollowing out asteroids to
provide some protection, that's one thing. Constructing O'Neill's...
that's quite another.
--
Brian Davis
Magnum 360
Well the O'Neil Islands could proably support 100,000 plus people, but
weather you could ever make them is another thing altogher. Its likely
that they never will be made simiply because of the expense in
building them. However Phobos and Deimos would play an important role
in making any kind of mining operations on mars to work well. Now here
is the one big problem with mars ever being a big colony and that is
simiply the gravity is one third of earths, basicly humans would not
be able to live there more than 6 to 9 months max realy more like 3
months and of course the same could be said about Phobos and Deimos.
So the role Phobos and Deimos might play would to be stock pile sights
for your refined ore form mars then a big cargo ship could pick them
up from the moons and bring new people to mine and take the others
back to earth.
Now lets change the technogly a bit here. Lets say you could make 1G
gravity on mars and Phobos and Deimos with some kind of force field or
something but only in small areas like a room. Now colonies on mars
and Phobos and Deimos would spring up but would still be small about
1000 people per mine on mars. Phobos and Deimos would get bigger ones
of maybe 5000 plus becuase of the mines dropping there refined ore
there. Now companies at this point might consider trying to building a
O'Neil Islands because they want more miners there. This is likely to
be as far as a mars colony is likely to ever go in my view.
However if we say that you could genetically change people how wanted
to live in space and mars to where low gravity was not a problem. Then
the whole outcome could be very different and mars could one day
become a great colony and maybe one day a green planet. But if that
was the cases why build O'Neill Islands at all.
Tim Little
> Orbital habitats are easier to construct and support, and if done
> properly, a hell of a lot more pleasant, than planetary ones.
That seems a big stretch. Why can't a habitat on a planetary surface
be made at least nearly as pleasant?
> As for terraforming, it's an order of magnitude less practical than
> orbital settlement.
You don't need to terraform a whole planet, just enclose a portion of
it in a habitat and control the interior.
It comes down to the question "it is easier to construct a sealed
habitat in a completely inhospitable environment from the resources of
Phobos, or the resources of Mars?" I know which way I'd answer.
- Tim
Johnny1a
> properly, a hell of a lot more pleasant, than planetary ones. As for
> terraforming, it's an order of magnitude less practical than orbital
> settlement.
It's a meaningless comparison right now, because we don't have the
necessary knowledge and technological resources to do either. Both
building O'Neil habitats and terraforming Mars are beyond the current
state-of-the-art, claims of enthusiasts aside. We can't even make
more than a first-approximation guess as how difficult either one
would be.
We _could_ put people on Mars right now, if the political will/money
were made available (modulo the time to actually build the machines
and make the trip). We _might_ could sustain a permanent settlement
on Mars' surface with current or near-future technological resources.
> Considered practically, it seems reasonable that orbital
> colonies around Mars will in the short and medium term support many
> more people than Mars proper. Phobos and Deimos seem perfect for the
> job.
Terraformation isn't necessary for habitation on Mars. It would
require much less in the way of new engineering and new science to
establish a functioning settlement on the surface of Mars than to
_build_ a worldet in orbit. Mars already has several of the necessary
resources _in situ_, the orbital hab has to ship them in.
Radiation shielding, for ex, is _vastly_ easier on the surface, even
allowing for Mars' thin atmosphere. All it takes is _dirt_ (or
regolith), abundant on the surface. In orbit, that same rad shielding
has a delta-V cost for every gram. Mars may well have supplies of
usable water available on or near the surface, too. Every gram of
water in the orbit-hab has that delta-V cost again.
That's not to say that there aren't serious challenges even for a Mars-
surface settlement, regarding recycling biologically-usefel materials,
maintaining plant and animal life, etc. But every single problem
faced in that area by the surface-settlement is also faced by an
O'Neil in Mars orbit, plus that tiresome delta-V cost again.
(For a comparison of what O'Neil's habitats would require vs. the
state of the art, consider Biosphere II.)
>
> How many people could you support with O'Neill Islands made from
> Phobos and/or Deimos? How much of the necessary resources is present
> in the rocks, and how much would have to be imported? Any further
> considerations regarding such a venture?
It's hard to see how going on the surface isn't cheaper, faster, and
easier.
John Park
--John Park