You are not logged in.
robS, my point was to outline that human exploration without human colonization as an end product is intellectualy dishonest. If one is a proponent of space exploration, but against human colonization, then it begs the question of why send people at all, robots will always be cheaper, and vastly more effective at exploring. I know the argument is old hat.
For the record Impaler, no one who is serious about mars thinks a mars apollo mission is a good idea.
Offline
Oh Brother... GOLD mining as an economic justification? Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is, even if Mars had deposits far richer then any on Earth (exceedingly doubtful) the mass of equipment needed to establish and conduct modern mining operations is just staggering. A hundred tons of gold is more then the largest mine on Earth produces from Open Pits that are miles across and which process in excess of a hundred thousand tons of ore a day. Not to mention the price of gold is horribly unstable in the long term, a few decades ago it was worth a fraction of its present value and a few decades prior to that it was worth even more then today (inflation adjusted), if the demand for gold jewelry declines the price will collapse.
Are we trying to have a serious discussion here or are we engaging in 'soft' Sci-Fi fantasy unhinged from reality? I'm getting the sense that half this forum is trying to be serious and engage in at-least a minimum BOE calculations and sanity checking and the other half is engaging in the wildest fantasies. Am I out of line to expect a high caliber of engineering and logical rigor on the forum, I thought that was the point of the Mars Society?
You really are guilty of a basic error in thinking that gold mining on Mars will be like deep mine gold mining in South Africa. I think the Mars colonists would be exploiting gold veins at or near the surface, bearing in mind no one else has had the chance to exploit them. They should be able to tackle the mining with basic power tools. I doubt you would get anywhere near 100 tonnes per annum. But even 500 kg could raise revenue of $25million, with perhaps a profit of 50% = $12.5 million. I don't think that's a fantasy.
Given the growth in the Chinese and Indian economies (both great lovers of gold) I doubt we'll see any real collapse in the gold price, though obviously it could go down as well as up.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Louis : Gold mining is exactly the kind of operation that is extremely steel-consuming. Everything, in fact, will be steel-consuming, as everything will need tools, and most of the time tools are best made of steel.
We will need shitloads of steel. Period. It can't be replaced for many tasks, including the most basic ones for survival.
You also really are guilty of a basic error in thinking that gold mining on Mars will be like deep mine gold mining in South Africa. You don't need large loads of steel to dig gold ore out when it is at or near the surface.
Some steel may be involved in transport (although you can also used bamboo, fibre glass and other materials for trucks and barrows etc).
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Well, right after the initial "tin can" base setup, it might not be quite so confining if the folks there had supple, lightweight mechanical counterpressure suits, instead of the clumsy gas balloons we have been using. Think vacuum-proofing "underwear", and ordinary outer clothing suited to the weather and the job. We've known how to do this since 1969. Only inappropriate compression requirements are holding it back today.
Then there's habitats. Big open spaces inside, and good panoramic views outside, tend to support mental health. Sounds like the "tin can" approach is the wrong one, long term. The old science fiction transparent pressure domes concept points the right way, it just has to be done with regard to meteroid repair and radiation protection. Clear walls, solid roof.
The real problem is open-"air" agriculture on Mars. 7 mbar total P, 0 mbar water vapor partial-P. Ain't gonna happen until Mars gets terraformed some. That means dry-land plants and animals and soil organisms will need the same sort of clear-wall/solid roof dome that the folks live in, just whopping larger to cover the acreage. I dunno how to do that, but I bet we do know in less than 50 years.
Meanwhile, it might be possible to do aquaculture farming in ponds under an ice-plus-regolith cover. Done right, the water plus ice supplies the external pressure on the organisms. No spacesuit needed, just a wetsuit and oxygen scuba rig. No pressure dome. But because there is no pressure dome, this concept is scalable to very large acreages very easily. Underneath cover like that, we're talking artificial lights for the photosynthesis, whose waste heat keeps the water liquid.
There's clearly things we could do to keep folks on Mars sane and healthy and living productive lives. But it won't (and can't) look like Earth until the planet is terraformed.
I agree, living inside a tin can is definitely not the way to do it. Even nuclear sub crews need lots of time ashore.
GW
One option until we have the desired domes would be to put video display screens on the walls of habs showing live what is going on outside, to act as substitute windows. I think that would help.
I agree MCP suits should be developed asap.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
RobS: Indian culture could easily come to the realization they are over-paying for Gold and opt for different Jewelry styles, cultural practices are subject to change under market forces and they are changing no ware faster then in the rising Asian states. Meanwhile Political uncertainty that drives up Gold prices also makes financing of new Maned Space flight missions exceedingly unlikely so 'gold from space' is a self defeating idea, the stability necessary to make any space adventuring possible would deflate the gold price. The same logic can be applied to virtually any rare resource that might be obtained in space, if we haven't figured out how to recycle or substitute for those materials in coming decades were not going to be living in a world that can afford ambitious space programs.
clark: Actually I agree with you LIVING on Mars is insane, the serious people talk only about exploring Mars in what amounts to a Martian Apollo program.
GW: Nuclear Subs, ISS and every single long-duration isolation study show that tin-cans are perfectly adequate for a multiple years when you select tough individuals. A mars first landing expedition crew is going to be selected from people with nerves of steel and I have no doubt they will be able to cope with isolation and confinement if given space station levels of volume.
Well Musk talks about living on Mars, so take it up with him since he is the one building the rockets and capsules that will make it possible to get to Mars. I think it's highly arrogant to think people won't want to live on Mars. People live in all sorts of God forsaken environments on Earth. To live on Mars will be to be part of a highly interesting project that will bring the individual huge kudos when they return to Earth.
It's also arrogant to think Indians will give up on cultural practices that have been around for thousands of years.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
In my novel, I never made any reference to tunneling! I was assuming they'd start with surface placer deposits left by catastrophic floods. I wonder if there are any? It'd be nice if there are. There is supposedly an article somewhere, maybe given as a talk at an early Mars Society conference, about how Martian geology should resemble that of early Earth, which apparently has the bulk of the terrestrial gold deposits. If anyone knows where it is, let me know.
Regarding video display screens: we'll soon have three dimensional ones. I imagined people on interplanetary flights and in the Mercury station having "picture windows" made of them. They'd choose a view and it would be programmed to behave like a window; the sun would come up, clouds would drift across the sky, the sun would set and the stars would come out, etc. I suspect that it would help a lot, but it wouldn't be identical to a real window.
Clark: Now I understand your point. I agree with you that human colonization should be the ultimate goal. I am not sure that I would call the alternative intellectually dishonest. People might feel that human life is so precious that it is immoral to risk lives by sending them to Mars, so robotic exploration will have to do. I don't agree with that position, but I could see someone arguing it. I could also see a lot of people arguing that settlement on other worlds is driven by silly utopianism, by irrational notions of manifest destiny of humanity, and by misplaced economic priorities. We hear those arguments all the time. I don't agree with them, either; but then I do have a utopian streak, and I do believe in a sort of manifest destiny for humanity.
Offline
RobS, to clarify, I think it is intellectually dishonest to be for human space exploration but also against human colonization. I make this comment based on the post from Impaler regarding rationale discussion on the subject of Mars exploration (i.e. Mars Apollo).
I think the argument for the settlement of other worlds is this side of crazy. I find it funny if people come here and expect that "crazy" doesn't live here.
Writing suggestion- delve into the DSM IV manual and cherry pick some neuroses to afflict your martian colonists. Not the debilitating kind mind you (though that might be fun), juyst the OCD type that cause a person to develop certain traits, both positive and negative, to deal with the mental issue.
I always thought it would be fun to examine a sudden case of severe claustraphobia on a person living on Mars. How about the need to be clean? Oh the humanity to need to clean your hands and be out of handi wipes! Think of the mania as this poor soul pours over the latest results on water ice harvesting. Or what about someone who needs to check every hab portal 4 times before they can feel safe, having to go through this routine day in and day out, and the problem only getting worse as the hab expands?!
Enjoy crazy.
Offline
clark: Human exploration IS vastly higher in it's scientific YIELD vs a robotic only exploration scheme, it's just vastly more expensive too. Robots are cheap and within out current budget, when budgets are available to send 100 mt to Mars we would switch to sending 100 mt of people/supplies rather then sending 100 mt of disposable robots. Look at Antarctica we have the budget to send several thousand tons of stuff their every year so we send thousands of humans to do the exploration. If we could only afford to deposit 1 ton on the continent then we would do it with a robot because 1 ton is well below the human/robot cost/benefit transition point. A harsher environment and a longer more arduous journey do push that transition point higher, and you can argue that improving robotics will further increase the transition point by making the robot return more information more efficiently. But there's a limit, our most sophisticated rovers will in a year collect the data that one competent field geologist will collect in a one hour EVA. I think the transition point to human missions being more productive will be somewhere around that 100 mt surface cargo level.
As for 'serious people' not being interested in a Martian Apollo like Exploration (let me be clear I mean a Mars Direct, conjunction trajectory, 500 day surface stay with pressurized rover support). Every government space program is talking about Human exploration NOT colonization, anyone talking about colonization is not 'serious' if we take serious to mean intellectually rigorous and realistic about budgets and engineering rather then the meaning I think your going for which is more 'fanatically devoted' kind of serious. If Zubrin and Musk actually think their will be 'multiple planetary civilization' in their lifetimes then they are NOT being serious in my opinion, they are useful for a serious Exploration though cause all that tech they are working for is a prerequisite for exploration. This is no different from Wernher Von Braun who dreamed of all kinds of space adventurism that was vastly ahead of its time but still accomplished a great deal.
louis: It's arrogant for me to think a culture might change and commodity prices might crash again??? Your responses are just so far beyond the pale it's clear their is no point in trying to debate with you. Perhaps so of the other posters (Glandu seems to be a realist) can carry that flag.
Last edited by Impaler (2012-06-04 20:35:57)
Offline
My guess, for what it is worth, is that governments won't claim they are aiming for settlement; only for establishing a base of operation with a rotating crew. They will do this because the settlement approach will cost trillions and is politically unacceptable in consequence, at least for the first decade. It's a step farther down the road, a phase 2 or phase 3, shall we say.
I'm not sure there's much point for us to debate whether the cultural value of gold jewelry in Indian culture will change or to discuss whether the idea it will change is arrogant or not.
Offline
I am of the opinion that space exploration is stunted precisely because it lacks the type of real purpose engendered by colonization as a goal. Exploration is a means to an end, not an end unto itself. We explore to see what is there- except we already know what is there. We have machines that can see farther and better and safer than ever before. If we want to know more, we can continue to invest in robotics and machine intelligence- there is no rush. Mars and the heavens will be there next year, next decade, next century. If we learn in drips and drabs, so what?
There is nothing rationale about humans in space unless there is a point for humans to be there. There is no point unless we plan to live there. In the next 20 years we will see a significant change in how space is viewed, and how it becomes further integrated into the terrestrial economy.
And for the record, no one alive today will see a mars colony in their lifetime (unless they live to 120), however, we will see the first space based "colony" before the end of the century. Some of us might make it to that.
Mars Apollo as you decribe will retard space development by about 30 years.
Offline
Glandu wrote:Louis : Gold mining is exactly the kind of operation that is extremely steel-consuming. Everything, in fact, will be steel-consuming, as everything will need tools, and most of the time tools are best made of steel.
We will need shitloads of steel. Period. It can't be replaced for many tasks, including the most basic ones for survival.
You also really are guilty of a basic error in thinking that gold mining on Mars will be like deep mine gold mining in South Africa. You don't need large loads of steel to dig gold ore out when it is at or near the surface.
Some steel may be involved in transport (although you can also used bamboo, fibre glass and other materials for trucks and barrows etc).
Sorry, even if the scale is lower, efficiency can only be reached through steel. Steel is tougher than bamboo, Steel is more shock-resistant than Fiber-glass or other fibers for composites. Fiber-glass is generally not very strong. Kevlar & carbon fibers are very tough to make, even here on earth(IIRC, only japanese know how to make carbon fiber).
And you have yet to prove there was enough volcanic activity on Mars to have provided the planet with interesting veins. That's why exploration missions are essential. 500 days, not 30 days. To find out what's really there & what can be done. Only once you've got a proper picture, you can accurately plan for settlement.
And there is another problem : while the colony works on exports, it does not work on self-improvement. As GW said, everything has to be built there : atmosphere, soil, water supply. Better focus on them than on random exports. Would be sad to see the colony lost due to excessive effort made into exports. That's one of the things that killed Norwegian settlements in Groenland - too much effort in capturing live polar bears & falcons, not enough on stabilizing wood supply & other essentials(cliamte change also was deadly to them).
El_slapper. Real facts are stubborn : it will be tough.
[i]"I promise not to exclude from consideration any idea based on its source, but to consider ideas across schools and heritages in order to find the ones that best suit the current situation."[/i] (Alistair Cockburn, Oath of Non-Allegiance)
Offline
louis wrote:Glandu wrote:Louis : Gold mining is exactly the kind of operation that is extremely steel-consuming. Everything, in fact, will be steel-consuming, as everything will need tools, and most of the time tools are best made of steel.
We will need shitloads of steel. Period. It can't be replaced for many tasks, including the most basic ones for survival.
You also really are guilty of a basic error in thinking that gold mining on Mars will be like deep mine gold mining in South Africa. You don't need large loads of steel to dig gold ore out when it is at or near the surface.
Some steel may be involved in transport (although you can also used bamboo, fibre glass and other materials for trucks and barrows etc).
Sorry, even if the scale is lower, efficiency can only be reached through steel. Steel is tougher than bamboo, Steel is more shock-resistant than Fiber-glass or other fibers for composites. Fiber-glass is generally not very strong. Kevlar & carbon fibers are very tough to make, even here on earth(IIRC, only japanese know how to make carbon fiber).
And you have yet to prove there was enough volcanic activity on Mars to have provided the planet with interesting veins. That's why exploration missions are essential. 500 days, not 30 days. To find out what's really there & what can be done. Only once you've got a proper picture, you can accurately plan for settlement.
And there is another problem : while the colony works on exports, it does not work on self-improvement. As GW said, everything has to be built there : atmosphere, soil, water supply. Better focus on them than on random exports. Would be sad to see the colony lost due to excessive effort made into exports. That's one of the things that killed Norwegian settlements in Groenland - too much effort in capturing live polar bears & falcons, not enough on stabilizing wood supply & other essentials(cliamte change also was deadly to them).
El_slapper. Real facts are stubborn : it will be tough.
I agree it will be tough, but not impossible.
You seem unable to break free of the spell of how we do things on Earth. A bamboo tow truck for instance would, for instance, be perfectly capable of take a 100 kg load of gold ore (earth equivalent - everything will be lighter on Mars). Let's suppose we mine 100 tonnes of gold ore to get one tonne of 50% gold which we ship back to earth. And let's suppose we might the 100 tonnes of gold over 330 sols during an earth year, that will be 300 kgs per sol. I can imagine a team of say 3 working with power tools and a pressurised mini digger achieving that sort of throughput.
The mini digger could tow the trucks back to the mining base/processing centre. At periodic intervals a larger vehicle, an ISRU produced vehicle, would tow a series of trucks to the rocket launch site near the main base.
There would be need of steel but not vast amounts. The power tools and mini digger would come from Earth but things like replacement drills and electric motors could be made on Mars.
The miners might be earning $300,000 per annum and doing other stuff on Mars as well.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
One of the topics here is what kind of environment is suitable to live in, on Mars. The first explorers are going to live in tin cans and glorified pup tents, for sure. Folks who stay are going to need something better, because of the mismatch between an un-terraformed Mars and what humans need long-term.
Up above somewhere Louis said:
"People live in all sorts of God forsaken environments on Earth."
I thought that both funny and appropriate, since I live in Texas. We here in the US had a Civil War general on the Union side, Sherman, who said that if he was faced with the choice, he'd rent out Texas and live in Hell. Life here was too tough for him. This from the guy who burned Atlanta and brought modern-style war-against-civilians to this world for the first time.
A few years ago out here on my farm, we had a plague of grasshoppers. I counted 100+ per square foot; you could not see the ground for them. Big things, 2+ inches long, some of them over 4 inches. They killed some of my trees by eating the bark off them, and tried to eat the siding off my house. Since then, things like that, just not quite as bad, have happened multiple times, including this year.
In Egypt long ago, Pharoah was a wimp: he gave up too soon because of various plagues, including "locusts", meaning grasshoppers eating everything in sight. We rural Texans are a tough bunch. I'm still here, still growing grass for the cows, and still growing peaches and figs. I actually like it here. No snow to shovel.
The people who go to Mars to stay, will have to be tough indeed. But there really are people like that.
That's not to say that tin cans will be adequate, but it's a start.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
One of the topics here is what kind of environment is suitable to live in, on Mars. The first explorers are going to live in tin cans and glorified pup tents, for sure. Folks who stay are going to need something better, because of the mismatch between an un-terraformed Mars and what humans need long-term.
Up above somewhere Louis said:
"People live in all sorts of God forsaken environments on Earth."
I thought that both funny and appropriate, since I live in Texas. We here in the US had a Civil War general on the Union side, Sherman, who said that if he was faced with the choice, he'd rent out Texas and live in Hell. Life here was too tough for him. This from the guy who burned Atlanta and brought modern-style war-against-civilians to this world for the first time.
A few years ago out here on my farm, we had a plague of grasshoppers. I counted 100+ per square foot; you could not see the ground for them. Big things, 2+ inches long, some of them over 4 inches. They killed some of my trees by eating the bark off them, and tried to eat the siding off my house. Since then, things like that, just not quite as bad, have happened multiple times, including this year.
In Egypt long ago, Pharoah was a wimp: he gave up too soon because of various plagues, including "locusts", meaning grasshoppers eating everything in sight. We rural Texans are a tough bunch. I'm still here, still growing grass for the cows, and still growing peaches and figs. I actually like it here. No snow to shovel.
The people who go to Mars to stay, will have to be tough indeed. But there really are people like that.
That's not to say that tin cans will be adequate, but it's a start.
GW
Your post reminds me of a thought experiment I like to carry out - imagining a report by a distinguished Martian scientist submitted to the equivalent of NASA on Mars, detailing the risks of a Martian mission to Earth:
"In summary the landing will an extremely hazardous undertaking. Electric discharges from the huge wind and rainstorms that occur every day on Earth may shatter the lander during descent. The lander may have the misfortune of landing in the huge planet-encircling ocean, where the craft may be swamped by towering waves. Equally the lander may have the misfortune to land in the dense rainforest, which will almost certainly mean the mission ends in disaster.
EVA will be extremely difficult on Earth given the preponderance of savage beasts that might attack the crew. Floods on Earth, even in elevated locations, are very common and may sweep away the craft.
It might be thought that a policy of landing in the central areas of continental lands with thin vegetation may be the safest option. However these are some of the most dangerous locations - very violent if localised storms similar to but far more devastating than our whirlwind storms are extremely common there and could throw the capsule into the air and bring it down with such force on the ground that the capsule would be completely destroyed.
Desert areas are subject to massive sandstorms - far worse than our own in destructive force - which may completely bury the capsule so that the crew are buried alive without hope of rescue. But even areas of grassland carry huge dangers. Brush fires would quickly incinerate the capsule.
Many areas which look superficially attractive landing sites from orbit are now known to consist of regolith and organic matter saturated with water, so that a capsule would simply sink into the ground and be enveloped.
The ascent from Earth will be extremely challenging, given that planet's gravity is three times our own. It is not yet known whether we will be able to manufacture rocket fuel in situ, but the ascent will require something like ten times the amount of propellant a comparable launch on Mars would require. It cannot be acceptable that we send Martians to planet Earth simply to expire there in an extremely hostile environment without being sure we can return them home.
Our conclusion therefore is that we should undertake further studies with a view to effecting a landing in 30 sols' time, resources permitting."
Puts things in perspective I feel!
Last edited by louis (2012-06-17 14:55:30)
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Interesting thought experiment. Sure makes the premise behind H. G. Wells's "War of the Worlds" sound silly.
GW
"I don't even wear boots fighting prickly pear cactus anymore, damn near go barefoot"
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Nice quote, Louis, but the thing is we don't know yet how to land more than 2 tons on Mars. We have plans for landing more, but as long as it's just plans & noone does it, we don't really know how.
Landing on earth is not easy for us earthians, but we have a huge advantage over martians : we live here & know all the tricks. Americans did choose water landings because of their carrier fleet making recover easier & safer, USSR did choose desert landings due to lack of carriers & great number of appropriate deserts. Both of them did know & master the environment they did choose for the landings. Martians would not have that luxury. Their capsules would sink in the oceans, burn in the woods, be attacked in urban terran(by dogs or humans), sink in swamps.....
Once again, I believe we can land on Mars. Just, let's not assume it's easy. Politics means failure is not an option. and when you here this sentence, you know that your management has lost control of the situation.
[i]"I promise not to exclude from consideration any idea based on its source, but to consider ideas across schools and heritages in order to find the ones that best suit the current situation."[/i] (Alistair Cockburn, Oath of Non-Allegiance)
Offline
Nice quote, Louis, but the thing is we don't know yet how to land more than 2 tons on Mars. We have plans for landing more, but as long as it's just plans & noone does it, we don't really know how.
Landing on earth is not easy for us earthians, but we have a huge advantage over martians : we live here & know all the tricks. Americans did choose water landings because of their carrier fleet making recover easier & safer, USSR did choose desert landings due to lack of carriers & great number of appropriate deserts. Both of them did know & master the environment they did choose for the landings. Martians would not have that luxury. Their capsules would sink in the oceans, burn in the woods, be attacked in urban terran(by dogs or humans), sink in swamps.....
Once again, I believe we can land on Mars. Just, let's not assume it's easy. Politics means failure is not an option. and when you here this sentence, you know that your management has lost control of the situation.
I wasn't denying the reality of the problem! But how you feel about a problem often determines whether you can resolve it. It often does pay to look at problems from a different perspective. It sometimes helps at work for instance when someone gets upset about an issue to ask them if this issue is going to make the headlines in the press the next day - given the answer is no, it immediately helps put things in perspective. I think the thought experiment at least lets us realise that we are lucky in that in many ways Mars is a benign planet for human beings: better one third gravity than three times gravity! better carbon dioxide than sulphur dioxide etc. But I am not underestimating the difficulty of EDLA (we ought to add ascent to EDL) to Mars.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Landing on earth is not easy for us earthians, but we have a huge advantage over martians : we live here & know all the tricks. Americans did choose water landings because of their carrier fleet making recover easier & safer, USSR did choose desert landings due to lack of carriers & great number of appropriate deserts. Both of them did know & master the environment they did choose for the landings. Martians would not have that luxury. Their capsules would sink in the oceans, burn in the woods, be attacked in urban terran(by dogs or humans), sink in swamps.....
Actually 'fleets' had nothing to do with the contrasting landing strategies of the US/Soviets (the Soviets had the worlds second largest Navy and even 'Carriers' all be it a bit smaller then the Nimitz class). It was entirely the result of launch sight, both nations wanted a sight ware the necessarily south-eastward drop zone for the 1st and 2nd stages wouldn't crash on cities, wouldn't be recoverable by foreigners and which was as close to the equator as possible. The geography to satisfy all those conditions had to be the coast of Florida or Texas for the US (politicians just split the pork by putting Mission Control in Houston and the launch pad in Florida). In the Soviet Union the Kazakh waste-lands were the best they could do. Once you have a launch sight and drop zone that nature of the zone dictates your emergency escape system landing style, an abort from KSC means the capsule falls in the water, an abort in Baikonur means it falls on land. If the capsule must already have one capability (splash-down vs landing) it would be extra work to design it with both so you just use one system for emergency landing AND intentional landing. Which system is 'better' on purely technical merits has never really been resolved.
Last edited by Impaler (2012-06-21 17:51:34)
Offline
@Impaler : didn't know that. Thanks for the info.
Doesn't change my point much, though : Americans & soviets were well aware of the properties of their respective landing zones.
[i]"I promise not to exclude from consideration any idea based on its source, but to consider ideas across schools and heritages in order to find the ones that best suit the current situation."[/i] (Alistair Cockburn, Oath of Non-Allegiance)
Offline
How will we live in 100 years? Mars holidays and 3-days working
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3444532
Romulus or Nüwa?
ROMULUS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49zzpomSLOk
The First City on Mars
Cities will get busier, meaning buildings will get taller, while underground and underwater buildings will be the norm
Flexible furniture and light-up walls could put pay to decorating the home, while cooks will print food in the kitchen
We could work for three days and attend meetings remotely via holograms to save time every week
In 2116 we may even holiday in 'caravans' that are delivered by drones or take a trip to Martian and lunar colonies
Mars Settlement Likely by 2050 Says Expert – But Not at Levels Predicted by Elon Musk
https://scitechdaily.com/mars-settlemen … elon-musk/
What Will Mars Look Like In 100 Years?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOCDjlE6IJ4
Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2022-09-04 12:00:33)
Offline
If we look to the South Pole
1,000 in winter to about 5,000 in the summer, giving it a population density between 70 and 350 inhabitants per million square kilometres ...but Mars will be a longer stay.
Antarctica as a Mars Analogue
https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=9798
in the mean time there could be a scientific break through
Both the U.S. and China are investing in nuclear fusion, and expecting results.
'UK's nuclear fusion quest to harness 'limitless clean energy' takes major step forward'
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/ … amak-ukaea
ITER unites world’s scientists in quest for green, safe fusion power
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science … sion-power
Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2022-10-19 13:55:35)
Offline
Earth developments transferring to Mars?
world in 2060 - these technologies will change everything
Offline
Mars Biodome
Tour the mock Mars habitat where 4 NASA analog astronauts will spend the next year (video)
https://www.space.com/nasa-mock-mars-du … video-tour
This is the first of three CHAPEA missions NASA is using to investigate how to best design and plan for future missions to Mars. The four-person crew will live and work inside the habitat while coordinating with mission control operators to conduct activities similar to those expected of a real astronaut crew, actually on Mars, including the 22-minute communication delay that exists between Earth and the red planet
I would hope more than 22 people per Biosphere, the USA or NASA beat the Russian Soviets in 1969 however overall as a humanity achievement in colonization we have moved little since those 54 years past. That achievement can never be taken away from the USA as much as Flat Earthers might wish it, I would hope the feats are not part of history.
Musk has changed the game, he has talked of a million men on Mars but he is also know to miss certain dates and deadlines.
'2069 Alpha Centauri mission'
on to other worlds?
https://web.archive.org/web/20171221061 … 19511.html
Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2023-09-18 09:14:19)
Offline