New Mars Forums

I think that method is what is visible in the Metro pictures I posted above. It's used in the metro and in various types of mountain rooms we have in my country. I didn't know what it was called but I heard it referred to as sprying cement. It looks like cement and is sprayed on the bare mountin so it can be painted and made to look less intimidating with relatively low effort and cost.

Perhaps this also insulates?

Agree, but how do you insulate a whole habitat....?

In Northern Europe and most of Russia - cold regions both - the most efficient system is central heating works that heat water to the point of boiling and then pumps it out into insulated pipes and then into domestic houses, and into to water heated radiators. This system works, but the houses are insulated and the temperature is minus 20 or something, not minus 100..... The heating is achieved by burning gas or rubbish. It would be hard to achieve with only solar power or wind.

On Mars you are up against much worse challenges, and larger areas to heat, probably....

i loved all the info on the lava tubes and the link was super interesting.

Humanity could be on Mars already for the cost of a small chunk of the US military budget, or the annual expendiiture on soft drink ads, across the globe.
Sick priorities....

Fantastic responses, very interesting. How hard is it to insulate the cave so air can't escape... and keep the skylight?

Thanks Rob! Yes, I was more interested in the basic how-to of it, than whether it's needed. It doesn't need that much imagination to think of future scenarios where something like that might be desirable and
Your earlier examples and this paragraph sums it up for me.

Just one thing: Would you be able to leave it while the gravity is operational? Or does the spinning mean it's impossible to leave the room while it's moving?
In terms of energy - could it run off solar power or would it need something more heavy duty?

The Expanse is awesome as a series, I like the tech and the politics - but not some of the unrealistic or annoying politically correct stuff they added. I think I missed that shot of the Mars Marines training for Earth gravity. I think there are some gaps to the logic though; like how do the Mars and Asteroid  belt societies pay for themselves; that would require space travel suddenly being dead cheap - the author never explains how that happens.

Great explanations!  Do you think something like that could be designed so it's non-intrusive. I.e. so that somebody on Mars enters this 1 g gravity room and it feels exactly like they are in a normal room on Earth?

Would it be possible to get in and out of the Earth Gravity room from normal Mars gravity, while the room is operational> Or would you have to turn the gravity (i.e. spin) off to leave the room?

In that "Gravatron" ride  from the picture - you couldn't walk around, could you? You'd be constantly pressed towards whatever part of the structure it is that's moving.  I'm probably one of very few people who have never been in a ride like that at a tivoli. I never liked those spinning rides.

I agree. That makes perfect sense. One step at a time.
No point in daydreaming about huge settlement projects on Mars if viable settlement in inhospitable regions on earth isn't possible.

For example: To state that people would flock by the thousands to live on Mars... well.... why don't people already want to live in the Arctic or Antarctica in that case?
Neither the poorest people on Earth, nor the richest or anyone in between  -- apart from some scientists, and Arctic natives want to live there!   

And those who live in the Arctic are not running any impressive greenhouse projects; they are importing everything from milk to apples. Without huge state subsidies they'd have extremely hard lives
Including things that could probably grow there, with a bit of good will. For example, in Greenland you could probably squeeze in a crop if you really wanted to - but they are still importing everything.

I'd be much more confident if a group had a go at it to live for 5 years without outside support, on Antarctica, growing their own food and trying to make as much as they can themselves.
That would show that people can make a go of really challenging situations.
Perhaps Arctic / Antarctica isn't ideal due to the dark winters. That wouldn't happen on Mars.

High up in the Himalayas - some inaccessible place where the air is almost unbreathable might be a substitute. And remember: Mars will be 10 times harder and more challenging even than the most inhospitable place in the Himalayas! Let's not fool ourselves.

@Rob
It's the "corporation" wording that got me going.  Tom is right that I am extremely suspicious against corporations, particularly those that are big enough that they are able to start any kind of operation on Mars, whether mining, or running some kind of relocation service.

I just don't see how this would pan out. Homesteading on a planet which doesn't even support life?

I also come from an Arctic country and I think we know perfectly well why so few people live in the Arctic areas: The distances are huge, costs for everything gets hugely inflated, crops can not be grown at all, or only during a short period. Native population have to be propped up by central government, or they would all simply leave, alternatively live in total deprivation. None of their traditional activities are profitable in the least.
On Mars we'd have all these problems x1000

The only thing that is profitable in that region is oil/gas or mines. Even then, distances and logistics cause problems.

So given all this: If somebody just wanted to homestead, they'd be better off doing it in the frozen Arctic -  at least there, you can subsistence hunt and there is air to breathe. Technically you could run a greenhouse all summer 24/7 in the Arctic.

But on Mars, you don't even have air to breathe, and that's just the beginning. I can't see ANY way that anybody could AFFORD to homestead on Mars, given that every single thing has to be transported to Mars.

For the price it would cost them to homestead on Mars, they could buy a palace in Manhattan.

The only situation under which people would move to Mars, would be if there was something very lucrative they could do there, that would justify the expense of running the colony.

The question then is - who runs this operation?
This is where I thought you were suggested a one-stop-shop corporation, and where my suspicions kick in.

If Americans are involved - we'd have the suing culture. Things would go wrong. People would die. The company would be sued out of existance at the first mishap.

Whereas I personally would possibly trust a not-for-profit/at cost  cooperative or perhaps state owned venture.

I think the prerequisite for colonisation of Mars is:

1) Earth is over populated in the extreme. I.e. large crowded cities on Greenland, in Northern Siberia, Arctic Canada etc. Perhaps as a result of people having to flee the equatorial area due to greenhouse heating and a warmer climate making these areas uninhabitable. The situation is intolerable and people are prepared to take huge risks for a break.
2) Some natural asset is discovered on Mars that would finance the building of the colony and provide private enterprise with enough incentive to invest in Mars.
3) Some kind of user owned co-operative is set up by the colonisers that let them run affairs and control the profits from the exports.

Sorry I know this was poorly written - I don't have time to structure it properly but wanted to respond.
Basically - gutted but I just can't get it to add up.

Agree with Tom on this. A trip back to earth at a time of the person's choosing (within reason) needs to be included in the deal - no ifs or buts.

There can not be allowed to be be a situation where people are "stuck" on Mars because they can't afford to pay a ticket back. That could lead to some serious exploitation and a suicidal state of mind for some people.

I also don't agree with the "loan" proposition that was mentioned earlier.
When a corporation needs to relocate workers, they pay for the relocation - that's the norm in civilised societies. It's not like a private person could ever realistically finance a trip to Mars anyway - even if they worked their entire life for it, possibly!

The way I think things will turn out: A colony consisting mainly of scientists is established and runs for a decade or so. They then discover something that could possibly be profit generating to do, on Mars, while at the same time space travel is made more efficient and cheaper. Suddenly there is a requirement for regular workers.

How do you incentivise somebody to move to Mars and live under dangerous and uncomfortable conditions? The scientists did it for the love of science. But would a construction worker or miner feel the same way?  There'd likely be a gender imbalance for a while (as always happens in "frontier" situations). So to add to all the other inconvenience, a lot of male workers would be single.

Quite likely you'd need to pay these people well, rather than try to get them to sign up for some humongous loan....

Colonisation of Mars by families in search of a better life, and possible homesteading of Mars won't happen within our lifetime, if ever. Sad, but almost certainly true.

In order for that to happen, either it has to become possible to be completely self-sufficient on Mars, like homesteaders in the early days of the USA. But even then, they had shops where they bought things that couldn't be bought or produced locally.....

Or else, some extremely valuable commodity has to be found on Mars in bigger and more accessible quantities than on Earth.  Apparently that is not particularly likely to happen.

Thanks for the really helpful info about windows and how to make them radiation proof. Really educational, and I have been wondering about this.