You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
If we are only considering privately funded missions to mars, I think solar or wind would be the only choices. Who is going to sell a couple pounds of fissionable material to us? The U.S. goverment would never allow it. And if they did, how would we keep it safe while we were still on earth? Someone is likely to try to steal it from us, killing lots of good people in the process.
So if we go with solar or wind, we just have to accept the fact that we are going to have HUGE panels, and at times we will have serious power restrictions. I don't see this as a deal-breaker. We just have to make them as thin and as practical as possible, and then plan the mission around them.
All things equal (which of course they are not), I would prefer solar because of the lack of moving parts, although they DO require sombody to sweep them off occasionally. And during dust storms the light at the surface is reduced but it is not zero (I saw the figure on the old message board but I can't find it anywhere.)
The plant issue really makes it obvious that Mars is a better choice for a colony. Summing up what others have said:
1. Radiation--The radiation on the moon is severe. Solar flares will toast plants regularly. On Mars the radiation is almost completely negligible (for plants.) On the moon the shielding is VERY heavy and will require Herculean efforts to put it in place (or to dig enormous caverns underground.) On Mars, just throw a tent up.
2. Atmosphere--The Martian atmosphere is almost exactly right for plants, just a little low on pressure. Remember that plants DO NOT need 1 earth atmosphere to survive. Just a tiny fraction of nearly pure CO2 will do fine (also in The Case for Mars). This means you can tent a LARGE area with a thin material.
3. Light - On Mars, the light is dim but it is not a huge problem. Plants exist, thrive and are cultivated on Earth at extremes of latitude, where the light is dim and the growing seasons are short. On the moon the long night is a big problem, solvable with artificial light, but at a great energy cost, which is NOT free. Solar panels, sent from earth, are not cheap nor are they light.
4. Nutrients - on Mars, we have most of what we need. Hydroponics eliminate the need for soil and organics. The technology does not need to be developed, it is already perfected. It works. The moon requires more fertilizer from earth.
5. WATER - We know it's on Mars, we're just not sure how much or the best way to get it. On the moon? MAYBE a tiny bit at the poles in a dark crater. Enormous tankers will have to be sent, even with recycling. This goes along with ANYTHING that is made with hydrogen (like plastics)--it is just not available on the moon.
6. Trajectories - It takes MORE rocket fuel to sent a payload to the moon than Mars. Why? Both destinations require escape trajectories, with Mars costing a little bit more (NOT a lot more). But on the Moon, you have to brake with rocket engines, and the cost is NOT negligible. Since you need additional tonnage of material to set up your greenhouse on the moon, and it costs more to get it there, this is a severe penalty.
In short, in the plant department, Mars rules. We will ultimately depend on plants, just like we do on earth, wherever we go.
Clark,
You bring up an interesting point, that it would be good to go to the moon because of the difficulties involved would make us stronger when the time comes to colonize other worlds. This argument could be applied to both worlds, however. We could say that the distance problem on mars is at least comparable to the resources problem on the moon. So in some ways going to either world will "exercise" us, just in different ways.
In my humble opinion, overcoming the problems of the moon colony will only require "brute force" solutions. If we just pump materials and energy into the colony it will be successful. An independent Martian world, however, will require some really creative thinking, in all aspects of life. New governments will be created, just as in the United States 200 years ago. In fact, the USA mirrors Mars in many ways. It had plenty of resources and was largely independent from Europe. A new government was created, and it prospered. In contrast most of the colonies of the old world never amounted to nearly as much as the United States. The colonizing forces of Europe moved in, removed the resources and left. Many former colonies that were ruled directly by Europe are still in an awful mess. Which states today represent the best chance for the eventual expansion of our species, the United States or those colonies directly ruled by Europe?
A final note: If we are using the moon and Mars to "practice" our colonizing skills for other worlds (in our solar system or others), which one will really prepare us for what lies ahead? A dead rock where a near-sure bailout is only 3 days away, or an active, varied world where we have to make due with whatever comes our way?
-Jim Oliver
Pages: 1