Because it's very unlikely the first expeditions will be completely independent of Earth - they're likely to rely on continued support for survival, much like the ISS needs resupply ships. Closed-loop life support probably won't be solved before we get to Mars.
So how do you respond to things like Mars One, which more or less seems to be a suicide mission in which people will be shipped to Mars, and assuming they make it that far will basically be on their own to survive?
Mars One seems to be using the business model of the underpants gnomes [wikipedia.org], and leaving a lot of things unanswered.
Apparently people dying on another planet will make for good TV.
I'm extremely sceptical that they can achieve their roadmap or anything close to it, do you share this scepticism? If so do you think they're mostly finished at this point (ie the project will fade into obscurity) or do you think the Mars One group will achieve something significant in the future?
Primary galactic cosmic radiation bombards the surface of Mars because its magnetic field is too feeble to turn high-energy charged particles aside, but most colonization plans envision human-constructed habitations on the surface. How much work is being directed toward finding subsurface features (lava tubes, sinkholes) which can provide radiation-hardened locations for long-term habitations? (and perhaps a word about popularizing both the risk and subsurface habitation to address it).
I thought it was just artists who envisioned martian habitations on the surface? Dirt is, after all, one of the better protections against radiation, temperature changes, micrometeorites. But underground dwellings aren't very artistic.
I also assumed that burrowing would be a early colony strategy, as several meters of rock makes great radiation shielding. Also, you are going to want to start to bring mineral extraction and fabrication technology online quickly to minimize resupply needs. So, while colonists mine resources, they can be constructing habitat space at the same time. Has any thought been given to martian mining procedures? If there is or was frozen water in sub-soil permafrost, isn't there a good chance that if you go deep en
How far away are we from remotely constructing a fully human-ready, self-sufficient Martian living environment (mining, farming, fabricating, energy production, etc.)?
It's in Earth orbit, which means the moon gets about the same amount of solar radiation per unit area as the Earth...
You're technically correct, which as we all know is the best sort of correct.:-)
The issue isn't the amount of light per unit area, it's the 2 week periods of darkness that will likely kill off your plants. Plants don't really like to grow in two week on/two week off spurts.
I believe the most likely way we'll actually have any impact on Mars is via genetically engineered microbes, as we've recently seen Darpa has mentioned. http://science.slashdot.org/st... [slashdot.org] This, at first blush, seems harmless, Mars is already dead. But given the increasing evidence that Mars and likely many other celestial bodies have in the past and maybe even at the present microbial life on them, and that it's extremely likely all of the planets in the solar system routinely trade biological materials via as
or.. they wouldn't be able to survive here because they like a dry dead planet with almost no oxygen and water. Assuming the universe is engaged in this large scale panspermia, aren't we getting hit by alien microbes constantly? why would the ones we make be so much more dangerous?
or.. they wouldn't be able to survive here because they like a dry dead planet with almost no oxygen and water. Assuming the universe is engaged in this large scale panspermia, aren't we getting hit by alien microbes constantly? why would the ones we make be so much more dangerous?
Because mundane microbes wouldn't make a very good science fiction plot.
Seriously though, if we were constantly getting hit by alien microbes,we haven't found any yet, so constantly seems like a bit of a stretch. Panspermia on the whole seems entirely improbable. First, you need a planet on which the conditions for life exist. Next, you need some sort of cataclysmic event like a meteor impact which strikes the surface of the planet hard enough to eject a portion of the impacted planet. Then the life forms
"In short, the Bugs we design here, and send there, will eventually come back to haunt us."
Back contamination by meteoric spallation will take literal geologic eons. Meanwhile, Mars would be an ideal place to experiment with advanced GMO technology free of Earth's pests of the legal kind.
And never vote Democrat either, because that's where the anti-science wackos congregate. Seriously, if we're going to get anywhere, we need a new pro-science party.
A vote for me gets the IRS the microscopes they so direly need! I don't have PACS, just millions of grad students writing grants! Whatever is leftover from the campaign, I will use to build gargantuan cannons that run on superconductors, that fire invisible stuff! Also I recently read an authortative article that subverts whatever 'fact' you happen to mention at a social function.
In order to be viable, a Mars colony must pay for anything they need to import from Earth. Given that nothing on Mars will be cheaper than on Earth (economy of scale, no space suit required, third world wages, shipping costs), how can they maintain a positive trade balance with Earth?
Most scientists argue that the ISS is not viable and provides little science knowledge with respects to its costs. Money that could be better spent on other scientific pursuits. The SCSC is one example. It would have been 20x more powerful than the LHC which has produced orders of magnitude more data than the ISS, but was cancelled to give money to the military contractors who built the ISS. The whole space spinoff thing is also a fabrication [fas.org] by people with financial incentives in the aerospace industry.
Umm, research and development? Digital services and products? Telecommuting? Outsourcing? Entertainment? Tourism?
What is this website again?
Yes, it will be very expensive to bootstrap, but once most of the resources by mass can be sourced locally, it is not that hard to imagine a reasonable trade balance in our age.
Decades ago, Jerome Pearson produced detailed plans for a lunar space elevator for NASA Institute of Advanced Concepts, seeking to enable lunar mining and lower-cost access to water in space.
Since any human missions to Mars would benefit from (if not outright require) large amounts of water (either split into propellent and oxidizer, used as radiation shielding, or even just for life support), do you feel that construction of such a device would be a net benefit? Why or why not?
The first visit of the transport to Mars will not be crewed. If a cycler is used, why not fill it from Mars, which is easier than from Earth, and the infrastructure is already going to be built up on Mars anyway.
Also, all of you idiots posting about Mars One are just that: idiots. We're supposed to be asking him about colonizing mars, not about reality TV shows.
I don't mean this in a cynical, "why do anything," sort of way, but what exactly is the objective? Glory? No breathable atmosphere, no native food source, little to no natural resources, high radiation, and likely a very shortened lifespan as a consequence. Not to mention social isolation. Most explorers come back, and most migrants travel for a better life, so it seems like you are doing this wrong.
Maybe in a "hold my beer and watch this," kind of cool. Like lighting fireworks off on your head. You'll get "cool points" until you're prematurely dead, and then everyone will just shake their heads and wonder what you were thinking, and you will be dead. That's Mars.
Given Apollo level funding and political will (from the US and other involved nations), what do you think the major steps to getting to Mars will be and how long do you think it would take to actually put a man on Mars?
One of the more interesting aspects of Robinson's books to me are the socio-political ones. Specifically, the fact tha Mars was a new place, with initially a very intelligent population, it came to be a place to rethink society and economics, in often painful ways. Also, there were attempts due to resource pressures on earth, of using it as an escape valve for human populations, which it could never completely be.
Assuming we ever make it to Mars, do you see it as a likely spot to foment revolution? Do
Do you think it might be easier to colonize the upper atmosphere of Venus first? It seems there are several advantages to this approach (easier access to solar power, an existing magnetic field, close to earth-normal gravity). If Venus is an easier target, why not start there first?
the surface temperature is high enough that you aren't going to do much there until you stop the greenhouse effect and cool down the planet quite a bit. It might be a great Terraforming project, though.
One of the speculated effects of a large meteor striking earth is throwing large amounts of dust into the atmosphere, and cooling the planet by blocking incoming solar radiation. We can land on comets and such, so it is probably possible to land an engine or solar sail on a large meteor, and steer it into
so I love the exploring attitude. This has parallels to early colonists to America. But my sense is
a) that the costs to get there , are , adjusted for inflation, way higher. b) the costs to live there are even higher: you can't grown corn there, or hunt deer (tho granted, no Indigenous Tribes) c) that a lot of the explorers, whilst marketing as 'for the crown' were doing it for profit.
So costs are way higher, comparatively, and, show me the money?
For past 50 years, Mars has been 20 years away. In 60s, they say people will be on Mars in the 80s. In 80s, they say people will be on Mars in the 00s. Well it's 2010s and they say people will be on Mars in 2030s. Cmon you all, don't you see a pattern here?
Mars has always been 20 years away, provided the money is dumped into realizing it as soon as possible.
In the 60s, there was a Cold War fueled space race going on, but all manned missions got aimed at the moon. After that, there was very little incentive to dump the resources into it. It probably couldn't have been done in 20 years with 1960s technology anyhow, and naturally both sides wanted to pluck the low-hanging fruit first. Mars is hard. Going to the moon and back is a cakewalk by comparison.
There are actually some compelling reasons to go to Venus first including cost and transit time but also more human-favorable gravity, greater protection from radiation and possibly the only other place in the solar system which currently offers temperatures and atmospheric pressures close Earth norm - albeit only at a 30-mile altitude. So, why not cloud cities on Venus?
BTW loved the Mars trilogy - have you read 2312 yet?
The resource useage is exponentially higher in cloud city. If you are planning a self sufficient colony (or close) you really don't want a flying colony, you want it on the ground. Yes the temperature and pressure are nice, but that's all it has going for it. If you want Venus, go underground. That takes care of the pressure and 2 meters of foam insulation and heavy duty heat exchangers deal with the temperature. You could put a spaceport in the clouds though, with a high pressure blimp to get you down
Some people think that we should send someone to Mars as soon as possible, even if they can't do much before they return home. Simply leaving a human bootprint would be worth it. Others think that unmanned missions should first build up enough Martian infrastructure to support human "colonists" with a reasonable level of comfort. Only then should people be sent. Where would you put yourself on this continuum? What sort of activities should Martian astronauts be able to do before you would think the expensiv
The public loses interest after the first few trips. You must make visible progress to keep the funding going, or better yet start with a colony. If you do a "wave the flag" trip, that's likely all you'll get.
Why colonize Mars instead of just building colonies in space? It seems to have many disadvantages and hardly any advantages. It's incredibly far away. You still have to deal with a large gravity well every time you want to come or go. You can't create artificial gravity on Mars, so you're stuck with 38% Earth gravity. We don't even know if humans can be healthy long term living in such low gravity. Colonies in space seem as good or better in nearly every respect. About the only advantage Mars has is access to raw materials, but space colonies could mine those from asteroids or the moon.
Engineers, space physicists and tech magnates are quite talented in delta V, derivative trading and the Lambert problem but are, unfortunately, very poor biochemists. In recent times there has been much excitement concerning extraterrestrial water and very little consideration of nitrogen -- the reduced form is literally the stuff of life. Given that 78% of the air you breathe is nitrogen, Mars has a paucity of 2% in its already tenuous atmosphere and that the Martian soil more closely resembles Clorox (TM)
What do we think should be the composition and density of a Martian atmosphere modified to accommodate human life and a reasonable greenhouse effect and how long do we think it will last (given that Mars lost its original atmosphere)?
What would have happen to Earth to make Mars look more habitable? And I'm not talking Earth-ending asteroids, I'm talking slower progression changes. What is the tipping point or scenarios where this would make sense?
"There are things that are so serious that you can only joke about them"
- Heisenberg
Re: (Score:3)
Dates (Score:2)
One way death trip ... (Score:2)
So how do you respond to things like Mars One, which more or less seems to be a suicide mission in which people will be shipped to Mars, and assuming they make it that far will basically be on their own to survive?
Mars One seems to be using the business model of the underpants gnomes [wikipedia.org], and leaving a lot of things unanswered.
Apparently people dying on another planet will make for good TV.
Re: (Score:2)
Mars One is a pyramid scheme. They aren't shipping anyone anywhere.
How many planets have you explored so far? (Score:1)
Also, do they have beachfront property, and can we party on them?
and I think its gonna be a long long time (Score:2)
And there's no one there to raise them if you didn't
And all this science, I don't understand
It's just my job, five days a week
Will my martian kids grow up to rebel? (Score:1)
Or will they remain a colony of Imperial Britannia forever?
Also, do I have to send them birthday presents, cause it's really really expensive to ship there.
Mars One? (Score:4, Interesting)
What's your opinion on Mars One?
I'm extremely sceptical that they can achieve their roadmap or anything close to it, do you share this scepticism? If so do you think they're mostly finished at this point (ie the project will fade into obscurity) or do you think the Mars One group will achieve something significant in the future?
Re: (Score:2)
"Won't Mars children grow up too tall and thin-boned to ever return to Earth?"
They won't be like us, but they will have a highly popular sitcom.
Radiation abatement (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was just artists who envisioned martian habitations on the surface? Dirt is, after all, one of the better protections against radiation, temperature changes, micrometeorites. But underground dwellings aren't very artistic.
Radiation abatement: Rock, lots of rock. (Score:2)
Turnkey Accomodations (Score:2)
How far away are we from remotely constructing a fully human-ready, self-sufficient Martian living environment (mining, farming, fabricating, energy production, etc.)?
Re: (Score:2)
Snow. (Score:1)
what will they do on mars without snow?
Re: (Score:2)
It's in Earth orbit, which means the moon gets about the same amount of solar radiation per unit area as the Earth...
You're technically correct, which as we all know is the best sort of correct. :-)
The issue isn't the amount of light per unit area, it's the 2 week periods of darkness that will likely kill off your plants. Plants don't really like to grow in two week on/two week off spurts.
Teraforming (Score:2)
I believe the most likely way we'll actually have any impact on Mars is via genetically engineered microbes, as we've recently seen Darpa has mentioned.
http://science.slashdot.org/st... [slashdot.org]
This, at first blush, seems harmless, Mars is already dead. But given the increasing evidence that Mars and likely many other celestial bodies have in the past and maybe even at the present microbial life on them, and that it's extremely likely all of the planets in the solar system routinely trade biological materials via as
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
or.. they wouldn't be able to survive here because they like a dry dead planet with almost no oxygen and water. Assuming the universe is engaged in this large scale panspermia, aren't we getting hit by alien microbes constantly? why would the ones we make be so much more dangerous?
Because mundane microbes wouldn't make a very good science fiction plot.
Seriously though, if we were constantly getting hit by alien microbes,we haven't found any yet, so constantly seems like a bit of a stretch. Panspermia on the whole seems entirely improbable. First, you need a planet on which the conditions for life exist. Next, you need some sort of cataclysmic event like a meteor impact which strikes the surface of the planet hard enough to eject a portion of the impacted planet. Then the life forms
Re: (Score:2)
"In short, the Bugs we design here, and send there, will eventually come back to haunt us."
Back contamination by meteoric spallation will take literal geologic eons. Meanwhile, Mars would be an ideal place to experiment with advanced GMO technology free of Earth's pests of the legal kind.
Exports (Score:1)
Is there anything that Mars could profitably export to Earth?
Re: (Score:2)
And never vote Democrat either, because that's where the anti-science wackos congregate. Seriously, if we're going to get anywhere, we need a new pro-science party.
Re: (Score:1)
we need a new pro-science party
A vote for me gets the IRS the microscopes they so direly need! I don't have PACS, just millions of grad students writing grants! Whatever is leftover from the campaign, I will use to build gargantuan cannons that run on superconductors, that fire invisible stuff! Also I recently read an authortative article that subverts whatever 'fact' you happen to mention at a social function.
Financial self sufficiency (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, research and development? Digital services and products? Telecommuting? Outsourcing? Entertainment? Tourism?
What is this website again?
Yes, it will be very expensive to bootstrap, but once most of the resources by mass can be sourced locally, it is not that hard to imagine a reasonable trade balance in our age.
Lunar Space Elevator (Score:3)
Since any human missions to Mars would benefit from (if not outright require) large amounts of water (either split into propellent and oxidizer, used as radiation shielding, or even just for life support), do you feel that construction of such a device would be a net benefit? Why or why not?
Re: (Score:1)
Mars One (Score:2)
What's the point? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't mean this in a cynical, "why do anything," sort of way, but what exactly is the objective? Glory? No breathable atmosphere, no native food source, little to no natural resources, high radiation, and likely a very shortened lifespan as a consequence. Not to mention social isolation. Most explorers come back, and most migrants travel for a better life, so it seems like you are doing this wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
Because it's fucking cool.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe in a "hold my beer and watch this," kind of cool. Like lighting fireworks off on your head. You'll get "cool points" until you're prematurely dead, and then everyone will just shake their heads and wonder what you were thinking, and you will be dead. That's Mars.
The Martian (Score:1)
Of course you have read Andy Weir's novel "The Martian", what did you think of it? Are you excited about the upcoming movie adaptation?
How long till boot on surface of Mars? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
new technologies? (Score:3)
Where's the kaboom?! (Score:2)
Revolution? (Score:2)
Assuming we ever make it to Mars, do you see it as a likely spot to foment revolution? Do
What are your thoughts on Venus? (Score:3, Interesting)
Q: What are your thoughts on Venus? A: hot. (Score:2)
One of the speculated effects of a large meteor striking earth is throwing large amounts of dust into the atmosphere, and cooling the planet by blocking incoming solar radiation. We can land on comets and such, so it is probably possible to land an engine or solar sail on a large meteor, and steer it into
Re: (Score:2)
who's payin (Score:2)
Mars is 20 years away (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Mars has always been 20 years away, provided the money is dumped into realizing it as soon as possible.
In the 60s, there was a Cold War fueled space race going on, but all manned missions got aimed at the moon. After that, there was very little incentive to dump the resources into it. It probably couldn't have been done in 20 years with 1960s technology anyhow, and naturally both sides wanted to pluck the low-hanging fruit first. Mars is hard. Going to the moon and back is a cakewalk by comparison.
Now it pr
Re: (Score:2)
Yes [imgur.com].
Surfacism - why Mars and not Venus? (Score:2)
There are actually some compelling reasons to go to Venus first including cost and transit time but also more human-favorable gravity, greater protection from radiation and possibly the only other place in the solar system which currently offers temperatures and atmospheric pressures close Earth norm - albeit only at a 30-mile altitude. So, why not cloud cities on Venus?
BTW loved the Mars trilogy - have you read 2312 yet?
Re: (Score:2)
How much infrastructure needs to be there first? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Chocolate (Score:2)
Any chance a chocolate company will sponsor one of the Mars exploration/colonization missions?
Why Mars instead of building in space? (Score:3)
Why colonize Mars instead of just building colonies in space? It seems to have many disadvantages and hardly any advantages. It's incredibly far away. You still have to deal with a large gravity well every time you want to come or go. You can't create artificial gravity on Mars, so you're stuck with 38% Earth gravity. We don't even know if humans can be healthy long term living in such low gravity. Colonies in space seem as good or better in nearly every respect. About the only advantage Mars has is access to raw materials, but space colonies could mine those from asteroids or the moon.
Follow the Nitrogen (Score:2)
Engineers, space physicists and tech magnates are quite talented in delta V, derivative trading and the Lambert problem but are, unfortunately, very poor biochemists. In recent times there has been much excitement concerning extraterrestrial water and very little consideration of nitrogen -- the reduced form is literally the stuff of life.
Given that 78% of the air you breathe is nitrogen, Mars has a paucity of 2% in its already tenuous atmosphere and that the Martian soil more closely resembles Clorox (TM)
Martian Atmosphere (Score:1)
What about the toxic soil on Mars? (Score:2)
Perchlorates, a reactive chemical and toxic to human is present in the soil on Mars. [space.com] This will prevent the use of the soil for agriculture and will be hard to avoid as colonists will bring the dust into habitats. How do plans to colonize Mars deal with the presence of Perchlorates in the soil?.
What would it take to make us move? (Score:2)