New Mars Forums

Well, although I am an environmentalist, I don't think the Earth really has a set carrying capacity.  Malthus thought that Europe would be destroyed by overpopulation.  That was over a hundred years ago and it didn't happen.

My basic idea is this:  As the population increases people will do two things naturally --

1.  People will find better and more efficient ways to produce food, power, etc.

2.  People will voluntarily limit their family size if they feel like they are running out of room or resources.

These two things are already happening in industrialized nations.  The problem is when people aren't educated enough to control family size or if they are too beaten down and hungry to innovate.

Another problem is when rich, educated societies (like the U.S.) waste resources.  For example: instead of helping to control AIDS in Africa, America had to start a war with IRAQ.  The government also pays some farmers not to produce to keep prices up/stable instead of just destributing our surplus to famine stricken parts of the world.

The "carrying capacity" of a planet will increase and keep pace with the population of that planet if the people are educated and unselfish.

Mars right now has a carrying capacity of zero, yet we are already talking about millions and billions of people living happily on that planet.  People create the carrying capacity of their planet.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Earth turned into a perfectly sustainable Courosant (spelling?) city planet supporting hundreds of billions of people.

If the jump from suborbital to LEO is only one order of magnitude then X-Prize contenders can easily do it.

It's simple:

The X-Prize is $10 million.  Most people agree that at least one team will make it work.

If LEO is one order of magnitude harder to reach then the Prize should be a mere $100 million.  If the X-Prize is reached (which is very likely) then many more millionaires will be willing to donate to the $100 million LEO prize.  The X-Prize teams will have already built up an infrastructure and expertise so they will have a running start to reach this new goal.

The main point is this:  If the difficulty increases by one order of magnitude and the prize increases by one order of magnitude then the results will be exactly the same -- 10-20 contenders with one or two eventually reaching the goal.

Well I hope it works.  One thing I can't stand is how the Mars Society and other organizations don't report on what the heck is going on.  I never know how much money has been raised or how much a project is progressing until they "unveil" the final product.  It's like how the USSR hid it's launches until they were in orbit.

Give me some real progress reports, Zubrin (MIT, whoever)!!!

Ad Astra,

Umm...I hope you're referring to the Biosatellite that the Mars Society already has in the works.  If not, you're about a year late and a mouse short.

I'm not sure how well the Biosatellite is progressing but I haven't heard any terrible news about it.  So, they are probably still just trying to raise the money to launch it ($15 million).

GCNRevenger,

I beg to differ.  I would bet my family fortune (about $12.50) that every last one of the X-Prize contenders is considering LEO.  They just don't talk about it much because they can't even accomplish suborbital yet.  Just watch, when one of them wins the X-Prize, they won't stop talking about LEO.

Here's another way that private industry could compete with NASA:  After the X-Prize is accomplished a few more Generation-X multimillionaires get excited and donate $500 million to the Y-Prize -- 3 people in LEO in the same vehicle twice in two weeks.

Then after that is accomplished even more million/billionaires pitch in with a $5 billion Mars-Prize -- 3 people to Mars and back.

Winning the X-Prize will excite many many people.

The funny thing is, in 40 freakin years of space travel not a single vehicle has been tested to create artificial gravity.

That is worse than stalling nuclear power, SSTOs, Mars missions, and everything else.

If we are ever going to live in space we will need artificial gravity.

Ok, why four months?

Why not Coriolis forces for 4-6 months?  We haven't even tried it for one day yet.

Boy, with 15 billion dollars per year at its disposal for 40 years (that's 600 billion dollars!) , NASA should have been able to answer every last question and more on this message board.

We need a smiley tearing its hair out in frustration.

Good replies.

My first thought was also "unlikely", GCNR, but ever the optimist I have come up with some scenarios that might make it possible:

As for investors and the bottom line...I am a businessperson myself with a good understanding of those things.  I think angel investors would be the most likely to get the ball rolling.  Then, as the private venture gathered some steam (and credibility) real investors just might jump on for the ride.  It might turn into another internet bubble, but it might put someone on Mars before it popped.  Another strong source of financing could be membership dues from any participating organizations like the Planetary Society or the Mars Society.

Clearance to launch and operate nukes in space is important.  That is why the leader of this private venture would have to have good connections in congress (if launched from USA).  Or they could just find another country that will grant them access at an expedited rate.  The Transnational companies in "Red Mars" kind of used small countries as pawns to get things done on Mars.  It's plausible.

Yes, RobS, the Mars Society is building up to this very situation.  They could possibly be the ones to do it.  Maybe if the Biogravity satellite is a smashing success it will inspire some billionaire to become the angel investor we're looking for.

When we talk about private corporations we usually think of profit hungry capitalists who are only worried about quarterly reports.  However, there are still some long term thinkers out there who just need to be convinced of the true (albeit very long term) value of Mars.

It may be improbable, but it's not impossible or implausible.

(Is "implausible" a word?...Mission Implausible!...
Dunt-Dunt...Daaaada!...Dunt-Dunt...Duuuudu!)

One thing I don't understand is why people think that to prepare for a Mars mission we need to spend more than 6 months in zero-G.

A mission to Mars will consist of 6 months in space outbound, 18 months on the surface, and 6 months back.

If you want to prepare for a Mars mission you should get a rotating space station up there to create artificial gravity equal to that found on Mars.  0.38g is what the astronauts will have to be prepared for, not zero-g.  As a bonus you will work out the problems of rotating ships in space, so you can use artificial gravity to and from Mars.  This will make arguments for studying zero-g null and void.

The Russians will love this too because it will essentially turn the ISS into nothing more than a tourist destination.

It's all so simple.

It looks fun, but I would hate to trip and fall in one of those things.  Give me an ATV instead.

I'm glad nobody voted for nukes.  Here's a nice terraforming slogan:

No Nukes For Mars!  (rockets, yes -- bombs, no)

And bumper sticker:

No Cockroaches On Mars!  ???

I'd go with a combo of anything and everything that is gentle (no nukes or asteroids).  It would be nice to find a big comet full of nitrogen or other breathable inert gasses.  We could push it into Mars orbit and shave of pieces of it to drop into the atmosphere.  I don't like just letting the whole thing crash in at once, though.  There will be settlers on the planet already and I wouldn't like it to destroy any settlements.

Can this be real?

It says that a 200 meter diameter near earth asteroid (NEA) is on a collision course with Earth.

"We are nearly certain that it will enter the Earth's atmosphere in the year 2016." -- principal investigator.

Check it out here:

[http://www.space.com/news/asteroid_british_000915.html]http://www.space.com/news/asteroid_british_000915.html

GCNRevenger,

I agree with much of your argument about SSTOs.  One assumption I always have is that I wouldn't be launching stuff into orbit just to service some existing market.  My idea is that these vehicles will be developed for a company/country that has its own agenda/market, like agressive settlement of Mars.
If you just want to make money in today's market, definitely keep that SSTO small.

I still don't see why it is so hard to couple three stages of a rocket together.  Why isn't it as easy as clipping an extenal fuel tank to the bottom of a bomber?