You are not logged in.
It seems they're betting on the ion drive overcoming the small amount of drag against the thing... its gonna take a pretty powerful engine to pull that off, maybe a Hall Effect thruster instead of a regular one.
And then some. The prospect of a hypersonic balloon is, you've got to admit, innovative. Practical? Well that's something else.
Granted, a fully-developed Hall Effect thruster technology might just do the trick, but how far away is that? I know we've got tiny ones working in deep space now, but a 6,000 ft long balloon even at that altitude and pressure, is going to have some significant mass to haul as well as drag to overcome, and so acceleration to orbital velocity will be no minor task.
There's the argument that you can do the same whit a balloon or a big plane. But i think the problems with designing such a balloon or airplane are gigantic. You have to have a huge balloon or airplane and they can't go as high as the first stage. You also need to have enormous amounts of helium. And i think the plane and balloon will be as expensive to maintain and build as a rocket as first stage.
Oh I dunno. Look at http://www.jpaerospace.com/]these people who plan to go the whole way to LEO by balloon.
If they're to be believed it'll cost about $1 per ton (yes, TON) to deliver cargo or people to orbit. (I wish, I wish....)
The idea is to get the orbital balloon to about 200,000 ft and accelerate it to orbital velocity using ion thrusters. Yeh, right. Then when you want to come home, you flip a switch and your ion thrusters fire in the other direction, bringing you a gentle halt...
...they don't seem to suppose there's any atmospheric drag at 200,000 feet, yet there's enough atmosphere to keep their balloon airborne.
I suppose if you built it out of unobtainium and used unobtainerene as fuel it would be easy enough.
Or did I miss something?
You're not my banking instution, but the way you try to imply that I am some how obliged to inform you here, because I happen to believe that having some type of accountability within the banking sector is neccessary, is rather cheap. Surely you can do better than cheap slights of hand, and actually defend your pitiful exscuse of an idea.
You're the one who set yourself up as a moral paragon with nothing to hide -- until you're asked to show you've nothing to hide. Then suddenly you do. Funny, that.
I set you a very simple logical trap that somewhat to my surprise you fell straight into. (Although I suspect you don't even realise this yet.)
So yes I'm quite sure, your pompous moral bluff has been well and truly called.
How about this, I'm sooo paranoid I don't have a bank account
Well now, in that case I've got the very thing for you--an anonymous account at the Bank of Mars.
Hi Jim. Maybe the person to whom you addressed the above is simply trying to rattle peoples' chains?
Hi ... Cindy? Maybe, but then maybe I was just calling his pompous moral bluff. And now it's clear he's a man of moral straw--and perhaps financial straw too, if we are to believe what he says about his socks.
Actually, laws don't prevent crime. Laws define crime.
Quite. What I should have said was, 'Law defines what is legal, not what is moral'. Anyone who fails to separate what is legal from what is moral should steer well clear of a career in the legal profession.
Illegal does not always mean immoral.
... and I would add, immoral does not always mean illegal.
I'm no lawyer, but any honest lawer (if you can find one) will tell you that the law is there to prevent what is illegal, not what is immoral. The two rarely coincide.
The single and sole attraction of the Bank of Mars would be that the accounts are annonymous.
To clarify, I mean the single and sole attraction of the Bank of Mars in comparison with most other banks.
Hmm, and I thought the purpose of a bank was to protect your legitimate assests from immediate theft, with the prospect of increased value at the end of the day. If the sole purpose is to hide your assessts, I have to ask, hide it from what? Now I can see the value if you are extradoniraliy paranoid, or if you receive your assessts through less than legitimate means (which tends to make you paranoid.... for good reason)
Well, since you must surely be so squeaky clean, have nothing to hide, and not be paranoid in order to be able to make this your position, I'm sure we can all look forward to your immediate and full disclosure on this board of your complete financial status, including all income, assets such as bank accounts, shares, real property, cars, etc., and liabilities such as outstanding borrowings such as bank loans, mortgages, etc.
Once you've done all that, there might be some validity in what you say. Until you do, I suggest you get off your moral high horse.
(Incidentally, the Swiss banking industry developed the way it did because of the Calvinist beliefs of the section of the Swiss people who got into Banking. Today Calvinism is most truly represented in its Scottish form, Presbyterianism, but it was also the basis of English Puritanism and so was the religion of the Pilgrim Fathers who founded Massachusetts. I don't recall they were famous for their moral laxity.)
-----------------------------------
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Oh, I don't know, perhaps instuting a policy that allows you to identify the accounts with the individual might be a way to help.
... which would defeat the purpose of the bank in the first place.
The single and sole attraction of the Bank of Mars would be that the accounts are annonymous.
Your analogy is lame because it is effectively "I'm going to close my eyes so I'm not responsible." Yeah, the bank isn't immoral, it completely lacks any morality what so ever.
Not so. Have you never heard of the expression 'common carrier'? It simply means it's a service provided to everyone who can pay, regardless of whether what they do is moral or legal or not. That covers not just banks and airlines, but electricity, mail, gas, gasoline, water, clothes stores, supermakets, newspapers, TV companies, .... you name it. I could go on, and on, and on.
Your objection is what's lame here. It's ridiculous to suppose the whole of human life could or should revolve around the prospect that a tiny proportion of customers might be crooks or terrorists. Followed to its logical end, that would produce the most oppresive police state since the Gestpo, Stasi and KGB all rolled into one.
Go your way, and Al-Qaida have won.
The difference is that if terrorists are sending encrypted data or have untraceable accounts with someone else I can't do anything about it. But if I am the custodian of one of those accounts, and even suspect whose it is, I have a choice to make. Divulging that information destroys trust in the bank, the foundation of its business. Holding that information would make me, or you, or the Swiss or whomever runs the bank, an accessory to whatever acts those funds are used to finance. If you know you are holding money for murderers and do nothing, you're allowing it continue. If you set up elaborate security so that even you don't know who has money in your bank, you just fooling yourself. You can't have dealings with criminals and not drift into criminality yourself. Trust me on this.
Hold your moral horses here just a minute.
Let's say you own a bank which operates as described earlier. You have every reason to believe that 99% or more of your account-holders--perhaps even 100%-- are legitimate, upright citizens who just don't want everyone to know how rich they are--which is a perfectly proper and reasonable position to hold.
It's put to you that perhaps 1% of your clients are criminals who are 'hiding' their stolen money in one of your secret accounts, but you have no idea which 1% that might be. Indeed you don't know for sure that any of your customers are criminals. You didn't seek such people as clients, but because of the way the bank works, you don't know if such people have banked with you or not. (Incidentally, most conventional terrestrial banks would have some difficulty establishing this information for themselves also.)
Indeed you have no way of ever knowing if you have such account holders, far less any way of telling which particular accounts they hold.
What it the moral thing to do in this situation?
I say the answer is "nothing." This is because your service is both legal and moral, and in any case there is nothing effectivee you can do.
To stop the service (or not start it in the first place) because it might attract clients who are criminals would be analogous to stopping (or not starting) an airline service because some of your passenegers might be criminals escaping justice--which would be a preposterous reason to stop.
Unlike all this talk of drug businesses, clearly both legally and morally reprehensible, and requiring the transportation of physical objects between planets which is both expensive and risky, a Bank of Mars is NOT illegal and NOT immoral--even if some immoral or criminal people might make use of its facilities.
The Swiss certainly did not set out to court a criminal client base, but they have instituted policies that are attractive to certain people, criminals among them. ... A similar banking scheme on Mars would be no different, it may have practical value but we have to understand the implications.
Doubtless. But the huge advantage of a sort of Swiss-style banking policy on Mars is that all the trillions and trillions of MBs piling up in the Bank of Mars could be loaned out (that's what banks do, after all) to fund development projects on Mars itself. It would be a way of finding the money needed for this without having to beg it from governments on earth.
Mars might be able to become financially self-sufficient very rapidly indeed, and with financial self-sufficiency, all the other kinds will either follow shortly or not matter much.
And I don't see or hear anybody going around claiming Switzerland, land of Toblerone chocolate and cuckoo clocks, is a rogue state.
A banking haven perhaps has potential, were one inclined toward doing business with criminals. If you were to take this route, you'd have to be totally discrete and never yield records, or all credibility would be lost and the operation would collapse.
Totally discrete banking is not, as such, an indication of willingness to do business with criminals. Switzerland is famous for its totally discrete banking. True, some of its customers may be criminals but probably the vast majority are not--they just want to organise their financial affairs so as to minimumize their exposure to taxation, a highly worthy ambition I'd say. After all if you make it easier than necessary for politicians to tax you, you just encourage them. I'd never like to have it thought I was encouraging politicians.
Anyway, how can the Swiss know which clients are criminals and which are not? Firstly, there is no requirement to hold an account in your real name.
In a properly run discrete modern banking system, the bank itself wil not know even the assumed identities of its clients. Done properly over the net with full-power modern encription, each account would carry a unique code that alone enables access to funds held in it.
So Osama bin Laden stashes 50 million dollars in your bank after the US government and its allies try to seize his assets, used to fund terrorist activities. What do you do?
What do you do about internet use in uncrackable code right now? What do you do about untraceable funds held in nominee accounts right now?
How far do you go in abolishing privacy in your hunt for terrorists? Go much farther than we have already and the terrorists will have won.
If the Bank of Mars became a favored place to stash your illgotten gains… (sorry, bank discretely) the value of the Mars Bar (symbol, MB) will steadily appreciate against the dollar, euro, yen, etc., which will lead to a regular boost in the value of accounts held in MBs and a regular fall, so far as the Bank of Mars is concerned, in the cost of holding these foreign currency accounts, in terms of MBs. -- a win-win situation for the Bank of Mars.
All right then, how about off-earth banking? You know, where you can stash all your ill-gotten gains so nobody knows?
Nice. Another important illegal activity.
Off-earth banking would not be illegal. Its customers may be doing illegal things elsewhere in the Solar System, but of course the Bank of Mars would neither know this nor be interested--so long as the illegality does not happen on the territory of the Republic of Mars--in the long tradition of the Swiss banking industry.
BTW, I'd like to propose the Martian money unit should of course be called the 'Bar', so you could for example say, "The US Dollar is worth 1.75 Mars Bars".
The one thing that costs essentially nothing to export in terms of transport costs is information; data, be it scientific ... or porn?
OTOH, why go all the way to Mars? Just about anywhere in interplanetary space would do just as well--and better than Mars, which keeps rotating-- as the place to locate your transmitter.
All right then, how about off-earth banking? You know, where you can stash all your ill-gotten gains so nobody knows?
Now I've had a chance to think about it, banking might well be the key. It's ideal-- all that has to move back and forth is information, and the profits are huge. Now suppose a condition of keeping your banking on Mars was that you had to visit the place at least once every ten (say) years?
Then of course, to qualify as a Martian citizen and so gain tax-exempt status from every other government, you'd have to visit every five years, say?
...the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states in in its simplest terms that in any process energy out can never equal or exceed energy in; in other words, no process can ever be 100% efficient.
What about matter - antimatter?
When you quoted me as above, you did not also quote what I also said at the same time, namely that the Second Law is...
The basic Law of the macro- (as opposed to quantum-) universe
Matter/Antimatter reactions take place at the quantum scale where, among other oddities, strange things happen to time and the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply. The Second Law describes the physical effects of time on events at the macro world--the world we 'experience' every day.
Richard P Feynman, one of the greatest physicists of the modern age, Nobel Prize-winner, participant in the Manhattan Project, only member of the Rogers Commission to reveal what really went wrong with Challenger and an early advocate of nanotechnology, once pointed out that antimatter particles (for example, an antielectron) can be described entirely in terms of equivalent matter particles (for example, an electron) that are moving backwards through time.
Make of that what you will.
Thermal Depolymerization, can injest most anything involving carbon and convert it to oil, gas, and its mineral byproducts
If that's true, why not feed it CO2 from the atmosphere and solve the world's energy and (supposed) global warming problems at a stroke?.
I must say I'd not heard of Thermal Depolymerization until now. I googled it and came up with some ineresting references to, mostly in favor.
However there is something about TP that leaves me with a skeptical taste in my mouth. It tastes of perpetual motion machines as, if it operates as advertised it seems a clear contender for defying the Second Law of Thermodynamics(*)--like the CO2 scrubbers for coal, gas or oil powered electricity geneerating plants I heard tell of recently. These convenient devices are supposed to filter out all the CO2 in the exhaust gasses from power plants and turn them back into oxygen and soot, but have the obvious flaw that they require more energy to operate than the power plant in question produces, so if that energy is created by another carbohydrate-burning power plant the net effect is more CO2, not less. OTOH, if the energy used to drive the scrubber is renewable, why not just turn off the power plant? You'd have more CO2-free power for the grid that way, for a lot less hassle.
(*)The basic Law of the macro- (as opposed to quantum-) universe when considering any process is the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states in in its simplest terms that in any process energy out can never equal or exceed energy in; in other words, no process can ever be 100% efficient. Any process that appears to defy the Second Law, either doesn't really defy it or doesn't work.
Using history there was no commercial need for England to create colonies in the americas. But they did.
None of the English colonies were paid for or controlled by the government; all of them were started by people who either went to make their fortune (Virginia, for example) or to have freedom to practice their own kind of religion (Massachusetts, for example)
...that is that at this moment there is no commercial need for a space, moon and mars bases.
This is unfortunately true today. The ISS is living proof of it, I suppose.
That's why I've said before that I'm a believer in SSPSs as the way forward in space; I think they can be commercially viable in the near future given cheap enough access to space (please go away Shuttle--and NASA too?) rising oil prices and at least a degree of von Neumann machinery...
This should automatically lead, as SSPS construction and operating activity grows, to an increasing number of people in space... a true space base, if you like. And as raw material is mined on the moon and sent into orbit by mass driver, we have our moon base too.
With a growing population off-earth and traffic between earth, space and moon causing the cost of access to space fall farther, it would soon mean that a Mars expedition would be something that was cheap enough to be undertaken by a non-government agency or society; the National Geographical Society, maybe?
Returning deuterium to Earth and selling it is a POSITIVE cash flow of millions.
Not if nobody'll buy it because it's basically already free to the people who want it (nuke reactor people) here on earth.
Yeah but they have almost no gravity so if people are living on it they will become boneless blobs, that can't go anywhere except space.
Well, Mars is real handy for R&R&G (G is gravity) And anyway, there could be a rotating habitation up there alongsides Phobos.
I think there these options:
1. Von Neumann machines
2. Cheap access to space (similair cost of sending something by slow boat from Japan to the US)
3. Spend trillions of dollars.
Or all of the above (although don't hold your breath for number 2 as stated. 'Cheap' is a relative term, and what you seek here is, well, just a tad overhopeful.)
The problem with making O'neill colonies are that they are tremendous structural, engineering and physical tasks.
As so are any major projects on Mars or the moon.
Question: Is a mass driver feasable to launch cargo from Mars to orbit? Does anyone know if the Martian atmosphere is too dense for this? (I personally don't see why it should be, but just don't know. But whatever, the moon has a lower escape velocity and no significant atmosphere.)
We will need a large well trained space construction crew and a way to protect them from radiation and low g hazards. These people need food and a place to stay and the materials to make these colonies
Wouldn't Phobos and Deimos be ideal space construction bases? They could provide accommodation (in tunnels) that also protects from radiation, and a supply of raw materials. Meanwhile, Mars is on their doorstep with food, etc.
The delta-V from Mars to either moon (surface to surface) would be trivial compared with Earth to anywhere, and if the Martian atmosphere can be used for re-entry aerobraking,the round trip delta-V is probably less than using the moon, which lacks two handy little natural satellites of its own.
Mars with its almost terrestial day and atmosphere will be an easier place to use domes than say the moon, and a lot cheaper to operate than say the use of spinning colonies. The materials that plants need are readily available on mars
I fear the solar and cosmic radiation flux on both the moon and Mars will rule out such domes. Not just human inhabitants but animal and vegetable ones would receive unaccepatable doses of radiation.
Any such farms on Mars (and the moon) will have to be buried underground and use artificial light or mirrors as you say
O'Neill-type space colonies would be easier to design to avoid these issues and already being outside a planetary gravity well, would be in a better position to make cheap deliveries.
I don't think Mars is going to attract many colonists until we've got von Neumann machines and other processes working there long enough to have terraformed the planet enough to make the environment acceptable enough for human habitation. That must surely take hundreds of years.
Sorry. O'Neill-type space colonies could be ready and in use much sooner and cost less.
And talking of terraforming, I wonder if terraforming Venus might just be possible more quickly than Mars? How? Put a nice big sunshade at the Lagrange point between Venus and the sun? Work on its atmosphere with microbes to cause its CO2 to break up into O2 and soot? Just a thought...
(Incidentally, a sunshade at earth-sun Lagrange point is one technological fix for global warming, but that doesn't fit in with the new environmentalist religion that requires us to suffer if we are to be saved.)
Shipping deuterium to Earth most likely won't be profitable, but it will start a cash flow...
It sure will. In the wrong direction.
(Manned space has already got one of these cash flows; it's called NASA.)
A mission that harvests some deuterium (even a token quantity), ships it back to Earth, and sells it to a Canadian, will open up people's minds to the possibility of commerce on other worlds.
Yup. It would open people's minds to the possibility of going broke on a seriously epic scale from commerce on other worlds.
Anyway, why a Canadian?
When gold and platinum are found, the stage will be set for profitable export to Earth.
Gold's worth about $380/ounce these days. That translates to about $13,400/kg. At that price, and considering the likely cost of mining, refining, and transportation from the surface of Mars to the surface of earth, I don't think gold would be anywhere near a profitable cargo. Platinum, at about $750/ounce, doesn't look like a sure-fire profitable cargo either.
And anyway, you've got to find commercial quantities to mine first. They just may not exist.
So, what's going to be profitable for Mars?
Well, really it's too soon to say, but here's some suggestions:
-- scientific knowledge
-- R&R for asteroid miners
-- supply base (especially of water) for asteroid miners
-- tourism
-- "I went to Mars & all I got was this lousy tee-shirt" tee-shirts.
-- Movie locations
I am a strong believer in making space profitable, as no other way can it be made self-sustaining and thus secure for the long term. What concerns me about Mars is that I really can't see any obvious way to make it self-financing. The parallel that keeps coming to mind is Antarctica. We've been visiting the South Pole for over a century and had a permanent base there for 50 years-- but not one immigrant, or one profitable export. And getting to and from, and living at, the South Pole is a dawdle compared with Mars.
Practical, realistic suggestion for Martian profitability, please!
It would be nice to think Shuttle could save someing even though it can't same itself from a mission to the wreckers yard, or to a museum as an exhibt entitled, "How to Ruin a Space Program" --as soon as possible please, in my opinion.
I woudn't bet my shirt on either, though.
Plus, you've got to improvise some kind of grapple point on the Hubble.
Why? How does the Shuttle grapple it without there being a grapple point on Hubble?
Now, a grapple on a non-Shuttle vehicle sent to grapple it, that I can see the need for. But that can't be the hardest job in the world, surely?
Post Preview
(This is by way of a postscript)
This is written as a sort of postscript
I'm not interested in von Neumann…
... says smurf975.
I assume this is some sort of joke.
He says he's in IT, so I’m sure he must be well aware that all present day IT derives from theories first developed by von Neumann (and, to be fair, Alan Turing). Certainly, my university taught all this to the first year IT class when I attended.
For others who don’t already know, go look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neuman … nn_machine and find out something of what smurf and I have already learned:
QUOTE/
A von Neumann machine is either of two different machines(*) popularized by the famous mathematician John von Neumann.
General-purpose computer
A von Neumann machine is a model created by John von Neumann for a computing machine that uses a single storage structure to hold both the set of instructions on how to perform the computation and the data required or generated by the computation. Most modern computers use this von Neumann architecture.
Universal constructor
The term von Neumann machine also refers to the idea of a self-reproducing machine, which was first examined in a rigorous manner and popularized by John von Neumann who called it a "Universal Constructor". In principle, if a machine (for example an industrial robot) could be given enough capability, raw material and instructions then that robot could make an exact physical copy of itself. The copy would need to be programmed in order to do anything. If both robots were reprogrammable, then the original robot could be instructed to copy its program to the new robot. Both robots would now have the capability of building copies of themselves.
These machines could be used to explore—or conquer—the universe. The fact that we haven't seen any from other civilizations is a contributing element of the Fermi paradox. One of the predictions of some proponents of nanotechnology is very small Von Neumann machines which, should they become out of control, would advance over the planet as a "grey goo".
Since such a machine is capable of reproduction, it could arguably qualify as a life-form.
/END QUOTE
For more details, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clanking_r … replicator (von Neumann machines are also sometimes called 'Clanking Replicators' it seems, although I had never heard of that name for them before now.)
Cleary, nanotechnology will not get too far without considerable steps towards von Neuman machines, and at the same time, the development of serious, full-strength von Neumann machines almost certainly depends on developments in nanotechnology.
The two technologies must go together, hand-in-hand.
I hope this has helped clear up any confusion.
(*) Here I am guilty of failing to make it clear that there are two things both called 'von Neumann machine'. This is because I'm used to calling the first kind 'von Neumann engine', 'von Neumann architecture', or 'von Neumann algorithm'. Of course being in IT, smurf will know all this already but for the rest of you, sorry for the confusion.
No one has ever beaten a 1% per-week boiloff because nobody has ever needed to.
There's much truth in what you say, but LH2 (or LD2) boiloff is and will remain a non-trivial problem nevertheless. Take a look at http://www.dunnspace.com/cryogen_space_ … torage.htm
The SEI "Battlestar Galactica" and the more recent NTR-powerd Boeing "Mega CEV" nor the MarsDirect liquid hydrogen-from-Earth operate ERV concept wouldn't even enter the realm of reason with that kind of 1%/wk boiloff rate.
Yup. Indeed so. They've all got this same problem, I'm afraid.
However I would point out that at least as far as MarsDirect is concerned, now that we are sure there's plenty H2O on Mars it's not actually necessary to bring all that LH2 from earth. It requires a redrafting of the plan, but I don't see why we shouldn't end up with a better mission profile than before.
I'm pleased we appear to agree that the Martian export market for D2 is basically non-existent. (Although I'll admit the idea of Airship Hindenburg-like re-entry vehicles has a certain comic appeal... could we make their landing ground Lakehurst NJ, do you suppose, just for old times sake?)
In space, the only heat sources of consequence are from the Sun and the vehicle itself; thermally isolating a tank to achieve extremely low boiloff isn't that hard...
In space, no-one has ever bettered a 1%/week boil-off rate for LH2. I'm assuming no improvement for LD2. So, a 'standard' Hohnmann elipse from Mars to Earth taking 260 days or 37 weeks and a bit, will loose over 30% of its LD2 cargo in transit. A solar sail or ion powered transit is likely to take longer and loose more.
On Mars, I don't see a reason why it couldn't be handled as a gas most of the time either, and just like on Earth, only liquified as needed. The lower temperatures, thinner air, and dimmer sun would make it even easier...
The difference beteen terrestrial and Martian ambient temperature, etc., is as nothing compared with LD2's boiling point of abouit -250 C. And I really don't see how you're going to either launch into orbit or have reenter a planetary atmosphere something with roughly the density of the Hindenburg airship, if not the overall size. Just think about the heat shield requirements!
The thing that really sinks this project-- as I said before-- is that fusion reactors (when we have them) will make their own D2 almost as a byproduct from their waste heat, making the cost to them of D2 effectively zero and available as and when required, right on their doorstep. Apart from a small tank of the stuff sufficient for the occassional re-start--which they can fill for themselves easily anyway, why should they want to bother with huge storage facilities? Why ever should they want to import the stuff at astronomic cost from Mars?
I think it might be best to drop this idea as the non-starter it is and look for some other way to make a profit from the Red Planet.
I'm sorry but you started out a few messages back saying...
No I meant with robots building robots: Robots building machines. For instance if you agree that robots now do almost all the car building. Now if you would put in a remote radio control and a computer and make it do stuff like the mars rovers are doing, then you have robots building robots.
...which sounds remarkably like you plan on making the whole process automatic, which no humans actually present, but just at the end of a radio link.
I'm not interested in von Neumann; I just want affordable and working solutions. If I were thinking like you I could say: “Well just wait until we have faster then light travel.”
Now you say you don't want von Neuman machines. But that's pretty much what you said you wanted without actually using the name, as quoted above!
(You see, the only "affordable and workable solution" is, in the end, a von Neuman machine. So I suggest you get interested.)
I’m sorry but everything I said is already happening here on Earth except for human intelligence like robots.
Without enormously more intelligent machines than today, none of what you say is or will happen with robots. The car factory robots you use as an example, for instance are nothing but highly, highly specialist idiots.
Which is not needed. We got six billion humans.
Absolutely. and of course we can do it that way. But that's not what you started out proposing. And if you do do the job with humans that's fine, but the cost will be out of sight.
I thought the idea was to do this economically. And that'll happen with von Neuman machines one fine day, but not this century. OTOH, you're not going to have enough humans on Mars to do the job this century either.