New Mars Forums

Go get 'em, Shaun! 

I'm with you all the way on this one...

Anyone who's had the opportunity to own that wonderful MOLA globe of Mars -:you and I, for one:- can plainly see that Mars once had a watery past, and I just can't imagine why so many people are attempting to disprove that Mars once had rivers, seas, etc...   ???

B

Not me...I happen to like tall women... 

My guess about the effects of Martian gee is that people would grow taller, but not that much more, perhaps a 10% increase in height..?  Your guess is good as mine, at least until they get that biosatellite experiment going in a couple of years...which should answer a LOT of questions about the effect of .38 gee.

B

I agree...how many times has pure "speculation" actually become reality?  A lot more than many people care to admit... 

B

Very interesting, Bill...  I've read accounts of what its like to spend a tour of duty in Antarctica, and the psyschological problems that come about from being in that type of environment, but being on a small sailboat on something like a round-the-world race would have to be a pressure cooker, for sure!

So it's really that bad, huh?  What do crews do on those long, RTW races?  Do they threaten to kill each other or something? 

If there's one thing about human psyschology that I have a hard time fathoming is how a group of close friends and associates can turn on each other with such viciousness when faced with a high-stress, inescapable environment...and perhaps it's a major weakness of mine, but I just cannot abide being "yelled at" or the like AT ALL.  If somebody starts going off on me for no apparent reason, there would be a world of woe to follow... ???   Either you treat me nice, or else some very *bad* things might happen...I guess I shouldn't be part of a crew of a RTW race or anything, huh?

This is probably the No. 1 reason why I work at home these days...I wasn't capable of dealing with the office politics, squabbles, the yelling, etc...life is far too short to have to deal with things like that...lol..and I must say I'm far happier being in an environment in which I have full control of who I want to be with, when I want to be with.

So, yes, Adrian, I'd be quite interested in your findings as well when it comes to the crew psyschology, how much fighting/arguing goes on, how people resolve their differences, etc....   

B

In light of Adrian's comments concerning psychology, I thought it might be a good time to start a new thread on this topic...

The subject of psychology is a difficult one for many people to get a grasp upon, because of its subjectivity and ambiguity, not to mention the fear many people seem to have of this subject..lol.

But when it comes to things like space missions and enclosed enviroments, psychology is possibly one of the most important things that must be taken into consideration..after all, "sanity" is the most important quality in an enclosed environment...as the folks that "winterover" at Pole Station in Antarctica can readily attest! 

If we're going to have people living in enclosed environments for long periods of time, with absolutely no means of escape whatsoever, there is no getting away from the risk that someone(s) might go "wacko" and endanger the rest of the crew.

So...how do we screen for this type of thing?  Anybody who's read KSR's Red Mars probably remembers the "double binds" the candidates were faced with in the selection process to set up camp on Mars...it seems there's always a way to "beat the test" so to speak..after all, we're talking about some very smart people here.  Also, how do the rest of you feel about the use of mind-altering drugs to control so-called "negative" urges and the like...if we had a "niceness pill" for example that everyone could take...might that be a sensible thing to do in light of the grave risk of someone losing their temper, even for a second?  On a mission to Mars, there can be no "power plays", no feelings of jealously, retribution, grudges, etc...all of which could spell doom for everyone.

Also, should the idea of having a "hierarchy" on a Mars mission be questioned?  Why should be there a previously designated person in "charge?"  What if that person has his/her own ideas that could place everyone else in danger...should the others obey without question?

I could go on all night here..but I think you get the idea here. I'd love to hear your ideas, opinions, etc on this *very important* topic, one that we know so little about even in this age of technological prowess and knowledge.

B

I think the real problem with the widespread ignorance of math and science has to do with our modern educational system (I'm talking about the U.S. here..I really can't speak for other countries).

When I was a small child, I loved school with a passion, and I was a huge fan of science, astronomy, etc...and I relished going to school every day and learning whatever I could.  I was every teacher's favorite student, etc.  However, by the time I got to high school, I had been "turned off" to learning in general, and while I read SF books by the dozen, I was somewhat of an "anti-intellectual" in school...I just did what I needed to get by, but no more (just imagine the frustration I caused for my parents.. ???  ) 

I honestly think that secondary education simply takes the spirit out of learning, and it all becomes a game of grades, class rank, standardized examinations, etc...and I was seriously turned off by all that.  There was so much focus on "rote learning" (which is far worse now, I hear), that I found school to be rather boring and a waste of my time...and while I must say I had some excellent teachers along the way, the "spark" I had when I was younger dimmed and was almost extinguished, and while I went on to university and did fine there, I never really recaptured that intellectual "spark" until much later, like my late 20's...when I realized how much I was denying myself...and these days, I'm doing my darnest to make up for lost time...lol...

So, I can only imagine what it's like for the multitudes of people of "average" intellectual ability...learning is just a bunch of work as most people see it, and other than getting the "grade"...there is hardly any incentive to really take the time to learn about our amazing universe, or to really figure out the role of humanity in this world that we live in...instead it's all about doing "what it takes" to get whatever degree or training that will result in the highest possible earning power...after all, it's all about making green, right?  *sigh*

As for politicans...I don't even want to go down that route...  ???

B

Actually, Bill, I'm a bit familiar with the oceanic "conveyor belt" theory...and the fact that the ocean's currents operate in a 3-D fashion has serious implications for the potential of sudden and dramatic climate change.

It is indeed possible that a sudden increase in the meltwater of the Arctic region around Greenland could force the Gulf Stream to "dive" under the sea before it reaches Europe, and yes, without the warming influence of the Gulfstream waters, Europe would be in the deep freeze.  England, Demmark and Germany are all at the same latitude as central Canada, so it doesn't take much of an imagination to envision what would happen if the Gulfstream stopped flowing towards Europe...

As for glaciation, that would take hundreds, even thousands of years before glaciers actually rolled over the cities of Europe, but the consequences of a drastically changed climate would still be quite dire for that part of the world...especially "interior" countries such as Germany and Austria, which would have exceedinly long, bitter winters, with short, cool summers.  Certainly, the economies of the northern countries would fail, leading to mass migrations away from that area of the world.

As for North America in this scenario, the main problem would be drought, as cooler Atlantic waters would limit the flow of moisture into the interior of the continent, and hardship would likely follow as well, with massive crop failures, etc.  I can only imagine that the southern countries would experience a tremendous boom and become economic powerhouses as people and capital make a mad rush to the south...lol...so there would be winners as well as losers if this sort of thing would happen.

B

I was questioning the 'integrity' of Josh's proposal as well...sorry Josh!

I know this was discussed a while back, but I just wanted to clarify whether it was indeed possible to site a dome over a symetrically round crater, excavate the regolith in the crater floor to a depth of a few meters, line the ground with reinforced material like steel-lined Kevlar, put the regolith back in (and 'treat' so it would have the properties of Earth-like soil so plants could grow in it), and build the rest of the dome (which would be extending up from the under-floor material) out of transparent polyethylene plastics, which would cover the bowl-shaped crater. 

Sure, the inhabitants would be living inside a bowl, but if it was large enough, you would still have reasonably long sight lines, and the tremendous pressure would be pressing down as well as up against the surface of the dome...so the whole thing would look like a partially squished beach ball with its bottom portion buried in the sand.

Would this sort of thing be practical?  Or would there still be too much pressure being exerted along the perimeter of the dome where it comes out of the ground and arcs overhead (where it changes shape as well)?

B

Thanks for the words of encouragement 

Glad my poem could be a source of inspiration...

B

Hi!

Well, I think you could kill two birds with one stone by locating a geothermal source of water, which is possible if you drilled deep enough into the regolith.  The water would come up under its own pressure, and it could be harnessed for energy as well.

The obvious source of water on Mars, however is the polar ice caps...just chip a bit off and melt it, although this would require a good deal of energy.  As for energy, I think the two best bets besides geothermal, would be solar and nuclear.  Hyper-efficient solar panels (I'll let Josh explain the details of that    do have the potential to provide a majority, if not all of a settlement's energy needs, although I think a nuclear power plant of some sort would be needed as a backup system.

Anything else you need, just let us know 

B

I've decided to create a new thread based on what clark has posted under the "titles system" thread...

What you've just said illustrates the key difference in the thinking of many of us here on this board and the way you typically look at things...the source of many a debate !)

While it's always prudent to look at the realistic side of the coin, I've often wondered about your intrinstic doubt of humankind's ability to create the worlds we imagine on Mars (or elsewhere), due to limitations of the environment, technology, etc.

The way I view the situation is based on observing past and current patterns of human existence here on Earth, in that people have a strong tendency to imagine something and they go about achieving it...and once they do achieve it, it's time to imagine something new, better, more fulfilling.  Another aspect of human society that I've noticed and which I've always found quite interesting, is that the toughest environments have a tendency to produce the highest standards of living here on Earth.  The northern countries of Europe and North America contrast sharply with the much poorer countries in the equatorial regions, although it's far "easier" to live in a place where food grows year-round, shelter/clothing is almost an afterthought, etc.  Yet in places such as the northern U.S. and Canada, where the snow blows for up to six months a year and crops only grow during a fraction of the year...look how far those societies have come in just a couple hundred of years, as opposed to tribes in the jungle have haven't advanced a notch in thousands of years.

The reason for this is simple...if a group of people truly "have it easy," then there is no need to advance in a technological manner...you already have everything you need, why bust your butt to get more?  In harsh climates, people were forced to develop technology, good farming practices, an economy capable of supporting people's various needs, etc...and this has led to the modern, technological society you find in most of the northern countries.  This has become an imbedded 'instinct' in Western society...we are never 'happy' with what we have now...and we continue to work to acheive more...and I truly think this is the result of having to struggle for our existence in the early going...having to construct sturdy houses to keep out the cold and the wind, etc. 

Now, if we extrapolate this line of thinking to Mars...its early settlers will have to work very, very hard just to survive there, possibly humankind's most difficult achievement.  But once that primary objective is achieved, there is certainly no reason to think why the Martians would stop there.  They would want the things that we dream up here on this board...lol...the clear domes, uber-sized canyon tents, and most likely, eventual terraformation of the entire planet.  After all, the early settlers will have had to develop an astonishing level of technology and expertise just to get to first base on Mars...which would give then give them the tremendous leverage needed to create an increasingly comfortable lifestyle on Mars.  Of course, there is no way to predict exactly how things would progress, and there would certainly be setbacks along the way.  However, we have a tendency to not let our failures hold us back, and we keep moving foward in an endless cycle of progression.

You state: "Imagine how it will be, not as we would have it."  Isn't the imagination the key tool that we have to achieve what we will have (want) in the future?  Without the imagination, we go nowhere...with it, we can go anywhere.  When we get somewhere, do we stop there?  No, we just imagine new dreams, goals, objectives....and the cycle continues on. 

Why you don't think this is a likely scenario on Mars is a bit puzzling to me at times...sure, when people first get to Mars, it'll be like living in a sub.  That I have little doubt.  Will it always be that way?  I think not.  As more people follow, trenches would be dug out and covered over, more sources of energy and resources would be developed, in turn attracting even more people and resources, which in turn would create habitats of increasing size and comfort, and so the cycle continues.  At what point do you think this process would stop?  At the trench stage?  The small dome stage?  Why is there any reason to think that the level of technology and the evironment would place an inmovable barrier to the creation of a full-fledged human civilization on Mars?  Why should there be limitations at all..after all, have we hit any during the 10,000 years or so of recorded history (temporary setbacks notwithstanding) ?

Of course, there is no denying the great chasm between what we want and what we actually have.  But we are constantly seeking a way to bridge that chasm.  Always.  We get what we want, and then we go find another chasm to leap over...and I really don't see how this paradigm would be an invalid one on Mars.  After all, no matter where you go, there you are.  People will still be people.  I want my big, clear dome on Mars.  So does just about everybody else.  We will not rest until we have it, and yes, if we're there in the first place, we'd find a way somehow to achieve that, however difficult it is to imagine it from where we stand right here, right now in 2002.

B

Josh, would it be remotely feasible to have a tent / dome such as you have described made of transparent material?  What you're describing sounds like kevlar-type material, which I must admit would be quite effective as a dome material, but I just can't stand the thought of not being able to see the open sky...after all, the weather is sunny there most of the time...and I hate to ruin it by having an "artificial overcast" overhead!

Also, and I know this would be horribly expensive, but would it also be remotely possible to use twin layers of regular glass (sheathed in polythene-type material), and have a layer of water in between for radiation protection?  Or just having the double (or triple) layers of glass by itself?  As heavy as glass is, that would certainly take a good deal of the pressure off the dome itself...(any idea of how much a 10cm-thick square-meter section of 'aquarium' glass weighs?)

Just tossing out some ideas, as usual...

B