After Mars - And why we should go indirect.

GCNRevenger · 2004-05-16 21:38:50

Mmmm but you can't make the jump from MarsDirect to Martian colonization that easily, it won't fly in the legeslature for one thing, and as previous stated MD is not well suited to colony building.

"Hey Senator! Were exploring mars! Now lets build a colony!"

"Wait a minute Mr. Ninja, you didn't say anything about staying on Mars in your direct flight proposal, now my science advisor says that you wasted all the billions we gave you for the direct flight arcitecture we can't use?"

...And again with the pretty pictures. I don't think that its enough to count on enough people being captivated by images and demand to send humans. Robots are perfectly capable of showing us all the pretty post-card sights on Mars, and thats what we'll do if its only the pictures and video we're after.

As for captivating people by showing human progress, you have a chicken/egg problem there... No little dinky science mission will do these things, only a persistant and growing colony, but you can't do that without getting support first.

Calmguy · 2004-05-16 23:46:59

Save us, CommonSenseMan!

deagleninja · 2004-05-17 07:27:10

So what to do? We do both exploration and colonization. NASA puts forth a plan before Congress to use a similar plan to Mars Direct (meaning that return capability is there but infastructure is left behind with each mission). Should things go better than expected, explorers then have the option of staying on Mars for an additional two years. As conditions improve more people will opt to stay. This approach gets past the chicken/egg problem.

I know that it is unreasonable to hope that seeing more of Mars will turn everyone into deagleninjas (Mars obsessed), but it can't hurt. Human attention span is short I know. What I've been saying for years is that we need an all out marketing attack over 5 years to boost public interest. NASA could help by spending a few million more for a microphone here and time-lapse camera there.

I don't like the arguement that robots are giving us better bang for our buck either. If you include the costs of each launch vehicle, the costs of each rover/lander/orbiter we have sent to Mars you reach an astonding amount of money. Spirit and Oppertunity have done great science but it takes them months to do what humans can do in days. Robots are better suited for colony automation and orbiting satellites than ground work. This is a real problem that most don't see.

Let's take a closer look at robots. The most optimistic projections for a Mars manned landing have us there in no less than 20 years. Our robots are going to be a lot better in 20 years than they are now. What does that mean? The case for robotic exploration is growing while valid reasons for manned missions are losing ground. It is important to note that a good case for sending humans is insufficent now, what about in 20 years when humans on Mars are near worthless?

Combined with fears that a human presence will invalidate any exobiological research, it is easy to see a scenario where humans get no closer to the surface of Mars than Phobos.

I'm asked many times why Mars now instead of Mars later, this is another great reason. We need to prove to ourselves that we still are pioneers and explorers. We can not be content to sit back and let machines do our exploration for us. We are turning into a race of hermits that only observes new worlds but doesn't seek them.

One historical truth that Dr. Zubrin is aware of....a society that ceases to expand, collapses. All great societies have meet their ends when they reached a point where they thought they knew and have done it all. Comments like, 'what does Mars have to offer us, its dead' show the signs of decadence and decay. People have to move past instant gratification.

GCNRevenger · 2004-05-17 08:20:12

Ah, but MarsDirect is not suited to colonization. Hoping that you maybe get cramped half warn out Hab modules close enough together to link them together doesn't cut it, and the way MD is layed out, most of the mass sent is involved with the Hab or ERV systems, which have to be re-sent for every mission. There simply isn't alot of spare mass associated with the vehicles to use for cargo (domes, diggers, water plants, larger reactors, etc) and the flight rate that MD can achieve is pretty limited by the Ares-SDV launcher. Its worth it to wait for a colony-capable arcitecture, since only one or the other will be built most likly.

I have no trouble agreeing with you that humans can do more science than robots can, but right now everybody seems to be quite happy with the amount being done or don't want to spend money on space exploration of any sort at all.

It would be nice to ignore those supposed "lazy/decadent" people, but unfortunatly they control that nasty green paper that really makes rockets go and won't be convinced easily... for all the marketing and wow-making Nasa could do for Mars, people will look past the glitz and billboards when they see the price tag and ask... "Why?"

deagleninja · 2004-05-17 08:40:24

So what do you suggest? Do we just plan on NASA never sending humans to Mars? Do we strive to make the sales pitch to a wealthy minority that might be willing to invest billions collectively?

I'm not being judgemental of you GCNR, you do play devil's advocate quite well. I'm being serious, what do you think is the best option for getting people to Mars in around 20 years?

People will go eventually, but I feel it important that we don;t wait for reasons I've stated in previous posts.

I believe one thing that NASA is doing right is the recent effort to reach out to teachers and schools. If we aren't going to Mars for at least 20 years then these grade school student are our future astronauts. This will help shape public opinion of NASA over the next twenty years, but I fear that the program isn't reaching far enough. Too few schools ever see a NASA spokesperson.

What can people like you and I do to make this dream a reality?

clark · 2004-05-17 08:58:18

So what do you suggest?

Stop pretending that NASA might one day colonize Mars. It won't happen.

Do we just plan on NASA never sending humans to Mars?

NASA may, but the first trip will be small, and limited.

Do we strive to make the sales pitch to a wealthy minority that might be willing to invest billions collectively?

Go ahead and try. Don't be surprised by rejection though. Idiot billionaire's are few and far between.

I'm being serious, what do you think is the best option for getting people to Mars in around 20 years?

The Vision for Space Exploration.

People will go eventually, but I feel it important that we don;t wait for reasons I've stated in previous posts.

Your feelings are not suspect. However, colonization of Mars will not happen in our life time. It is doubtful it will ever happen. If that is indeed the case, how important is it to go to Mars right now?

What can people like you and I do to make this dream a reality?

Have lots of kids, force them to read books about Mars. [shrug]

deagleninja · 2004-05-17 09:04:11

Sound like someone has given up.

clark · 2004-05-17 09:36:58

More like I have tempered my exuberance.

Let me try a different tack: why do you believe colonizing Mars is possible? Becuase some science and math tells you we can convert gasses? Becuase some calculations on a piece of paper tell you the design parameters are plausible?

It has all the reality of a video game.

Now, ask yourself what living on Mars is going to be. What are people going to do? Why? It makes no f--king sense to go live on Mars, and subject countless other coming generations to being damned on that dead red rock.

Don't get me wrong, you've managed to whisper the sweet sound of Mars inside your posts, but it isn't enough. It never will be. You talk about the "wind" on mars- what about the wind on earth? Living on Mars means you never, ever, feel the wind on your face again. Rain? Something in movies and books. Fresh air? Never. Birds chirping in flight on a summer day as you lounge in green grass beneath the floating cotton candy clouds? Just a dream.

Why the hell does anyone want to go live in a glorified closet on Mars? The exo-biologist and the geologist have an exscuse. The astronaut to Jupiter has an exscuse. No one else does though.

Sorry.

deagleninja · 2004-05-17 09:47:33

I have to go take a drug test so I don't have the time to give your comments the rebuttle they deserve, but it is coming.

Not only is colonizing Mars possible but terraforming it is also possible. Everything must be done is steps.

Exploration
Colonization
Terraformation

clark · 2004-05-17 09:55:55

Ah, but I love this man: http://www.astrobio.net/news/article974.html]Ray Bradbury: The Illustrated Spaceman

Bradbury: There's a scene in "Moby Dick," where Ahab is going after the white whale, and Starbuck says to him, "Where's the profit in this?" And Ahab touches his heart and he says, "The profit is here, man, the profit is here."
So the answer to all this is not incredible wealth, but incredible wealth of love and well being. A freedom to express joy instead of sorrow and melancholy. It has to be sold on the basis of a higher aesthetic, but an exciting one. Again, ask your children, and they will respond with shouts of joy! They will not demand gold or silver, or all the profits that we're speaking of on a practical level - they want the joy of going to space.
I talked with all the astronauts in Houston thirty years ago, before we moved into space with the Apollo project. I went down for Life magazine to do a series of articles about our plans to go to the moon. I was in a room with eighty astronauts, and they were all being very practical, all very practical. But it was announced from the front of the room by the Life editor that Ray Bradbury was sitting in the back of the room. Sixty astronauts jumped to their feet and rushed toward me. Why were they doing that? Because of the joy of knowing I cared about space. That I knew what it was to go up and look back for that first view of Earthrise, the joy of space, the joy of being on Mars, and the joy of finally moving to Alpha Centauri.
It's on this higher level that children can give us this gift - we have to look to the children, and not the practical people, who say, "Stay here and solve the problems before you move." Because if you stay here, you'll stay here forever, and Earth will be a mausoleum if we stay here for ten thousand years. We cannot do that.

I look forward to any other points of view on this.

Ian Flint · 2004-05-17 10:04:33

An argument from 1700:

Why would you want to leave civilization for some untamed wilderness? What are you going to do for a living? How can you think of raising children there? They don't even have a single proper school? I here there are savages there that scalp white men. And the climate, how will you stand the climate?

An argument from 50,000 BC:

Uggh...ooggh...Ack!!!???

Translation: Why would you want to leave this tropical paradise? It is freezing there in the north, and there are vicious animals. Why would you choose to use tools when you can just pick ripe fruit here at home? Why would you want to wear clothes when you can run naked right here? You will never feel the warmth of a tropical pool again!

Why the hell does anyone want to go live in a glorified closet on Mars? The exo-biologist and the geologist have an exscuse. The astronaut to Jupiter has an excuse. No one else does though.

Why does anyone ever leave home? The world is a big scary place, but some people have to strike out for unexplored territory -- it's human nature. We as a species have expanded nearly all we can on Earth. Some of us (a very small minority, yes) are ready for a greater challenge.

Ian Flint · 2004-05-17 10:08:04

clark,

I love it when you answer your own questions. :laugh:

clark · 2004-05-17 10:15:09

As do I. :;):

Why does anyone ever leave home? The world is a big scary place, but some people have to strike out for unexplored territory -- it's human nature. We as a species have expanded nearly all we can on Earth. Some of us (a very small minority, yes) are ready for a greater challenge.

You're using a false analogy. Going to live on Mars is not the same as our previous experiences.

Go live in the Saharra. How sensible is that? How far are you pushing the boundaries? Look, manifest destiny. In the desert. It is human nature, afterall.

John Creighton · 2004-05-17 10:21:13

Go live in the Saharra. How sensible is that? How far are you pushing the boundaries? Look, manifest destiny. In the desert. It is human nature, afterall.

Given enough power we can pump water form the sea. The key is a cheap source of energy. There is one town that lives under a desert. Of course it is the opal mines that drew people to that town.

RobS · 2004-05-17 10:33:28

There are a lot of people on Earth now who live in very extreme conditions. People who live in the Canadian arctic can't easily go outside for six months; their kids can't either. It's pitch dark in some places for months, or they have an hour of sun per day. I think I'd prefer going outside in a spacesuit twice a week to that. People who live in small Canadian arctic villsges don't go to malls much, either.

On Mars there will be imported consumer goods every 26 months. Most likely, semipermanent residents will get a certain free weight allocation on each flight (say, 30 kilos) and will shop on the web to choose the items they want. They will buy children's birthday presents, anniversary gifts, some spare wedding and shower gifts, clothes for themselves, etc. In between arriving flights, once there are a few dozen people there, there will be flea markets and informal sale of used items.

There will be greenhouses and eventually domed spaces fifteen or twenty meters across (they'll start small), then larger. The domes can easily have canaries in them. One of the pleasures of living in Seville, Spain, a few years ago was to walk down the street and hear canaries (which maybe 5% of the city population has as pets). There will always be "singing in the rain" if you're outside (in the dome) at 3 a.m. when the dome sprinklers are turned on. There will be movie nights when everyone gets together to watch the latest earth movie on a projection television. Once you've got a dozen or two people there will be informal concerts, skits, dance nights, singalongs, and all sorts of things people did to entertain themselves in the 19th century that have mostly been forgotten in modern North American suburbs. Once Mars has a hundred people there will probably be an informal symphony orchestra (all those high-achievers will include a lot of people with musical instruments, and maybe some can be persuaded to leave their guitar or flute on Mars when they return home). There will be a single's nightclub on Frisol and Satursol nights in the cafeteria with the Spanish female astronaut doing flamenco and the Czech astronaut playing keyboard.

You get the idea. An entire culture will develop there that will have its own pleasures and diversions. In my novel, as soon as there are fifty or so people, they build a "dacha" a dozen kilometers away from the outpost so there's a place to get away to. It happens to be perched on the top of the cliff of Valles Marineris. As soon as a second outpost is build a few thousand kilometers away, people request assignments at the other outpost for a period of time to get a change of scene.

As for why people will go; yes, technology is not the entire answer. People will go because it is a challenge. As Earth gets richer, the cost of space travel will get relatively less. In industrialized nations, the economy is growing relative to the population at 2 to 5 percent a year. Three percent means the economy doubles every 24 years, which means in a century it doubles four times and is sixteen times larger than it was a century ago. That means that half trillion dollar projects we can't imagine funding now will be easier to fund in 2104.

-- RobS

GCNRevenger · 2004-05-17 10:40:01

Hey, you'll get no argument from me that going to Mars is a great thing for our species, the trouble is convincing the people who decide if we go or not that its worth the expense... Living on Mars is possible physiologicly since we understand enough chemistry to do it, and people operate on fairly well understood chemical mechanisms... I think its a tossup if Terraforming will ever work, but thats a project for the next century when we get really good at biotechnology/nanotechnoloy.

Now, the question is convincing those in power that its worth the modest-to-large fiscal expense, right? Ultimatly I think that it is a battle of degrees, that enough people do want to go, but not if the price tag becomes outrageous and not if they won't ever see that it will probably work. The big determining factors then go somthing like this...
~A science-centric mission arcitecture that is easy to sell but not suited to colonization is a bad idea, since you'll have to pay for two means of getting to Mars, whereas a colony-capable system can do both missions just fine. One ship, not two, saves money AND political capital.
~The technology exsists today for limited colonization, its a matter of engineering really, so things like Prometheous and a revived Nerva project are paramount objectives to reducing the cost of colonization.
~The time frame is not impractical, but probably for this generation and PlanBush... so do we spend today on a science mission doomed to transience, or spend on the means to do it right tomorrow?

Overall, you have to first reduce the extreme cost and time scale of colonization substantially before trying to sell it to Congress... this is really step one.

clark · 2004-05-17 10:41:53

As for why people will go; yes, technology is not the entire answer. People will go because it is a challenge. As Earth gets richer, the cost of space travel will get relatively less. In industrialized nations, the economy is growing relative to the population at 2 to 5 percent a year. Three percent means the economy doubles every 24 years, which means in a century it doubles four times and is sixteen times larger than it was a century ago. That means that half trillion dollar projects we can't imagine funding now will be easier to fund in 2104.

Bold = Not In Our Lifetime. My point.

Perhaps colonization will happen at some point in the future. America was colonized by Europe centuries after it's (re)discovery, I grant you all that. However, colonization of Mars in the 22nd century is hard to get behind as a goal. How do you sell an idea that won't be realized until our great great grandchildren?

Ian Flint · 2004-05-17 14:07:26

clark,

You're using a false analogy. Going to live on Mars is not the same as our previous experiences.

Generally, when one argues, one states a thesis and then lists supporting evidence.
How is going to Mars different?

Go live in the Saharra. How sensible is that? How far are you pushing the boundaries? Look, manifest destiny. In the desert. It is human nature, afterall.

Roads are being built to cross parts of the Saharra right now. Arabic nomads have thrived in the Saharra for centuries. Look at America's desert southwest. There are cities all over the place. I live in a desert myself. To the desert I say, "Been there, done that."

You should have at least said, "Go live under the ocean." See, nobody's done that yet. That would be 'pushing the boundaries'. If my analogies are false, yours are just plain wrong.

clark · 2004-05-17 14:17:23

Ian, no offense meant.

So how is going to Mars different?

Well, for one, the basic neccessities for life- as in just being able to "live" requires the artifical manufacture of air, water, inhabitable space, food, advanced power production.

Now, this is important because we have never had to manufacture our air before. We have never been dependant upon advanced infrastructure (as in anything more complex than a knife and flint) for our survival.

Any idiot can go out and live in just about any environment on Earth using only his basic instincts and some basic tools.

To live on Mars you need solar power or nuclear power- you can't chop down any trees. You need this power to create air and water- you can't collect it for free. So, from the get go, we are inhabiting hostile terrain to build advanced machinery to create a minimum amount of livable space... for what? So some can live on Mars? For what? Just to say we could do it.

Well swell, let's go live in an active magma chamber of some Mexican volcano while we're at it!

quasar777 · 2004-05-17 15:40:19

i don`t terraforming Mars will happen anytime soon, certainly not less than 300 yrs. building up a Moonbase is imho more important than terraforming Mars. w/ a MoonBase we could then build @ L1.

quasar777 · 2004-05-17 15:46:31

of course that doen`t mean going to mars isn`t a priority i think the most practical plan has always been MarsCycler. this we kill 2 birds w/ 1 stone, Mars & Moon colonies would both be smaller as a result, but we would have redundancies w/ this. i don`t think the public would go for permanent Mars residents, & besides i think permanent residents would get bored.

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-05-17 17:03:25

The main difference between going to Mars and going to the New World is that there was the prospect of stricking it rich in the new world. Unless you discover alien artifacts on mars it's unlikely you'll produce anything worth returning to earth within your own life-time. This is important as people are on the whole greedy bastards, and are motivatred by profit.

Of course mars will be a tremendous pull for mountain-men, tax-dodgers, cults, and anyone else who wants to escape the rules of earth. For instance if this whole homosexual marage swings too far in either direction then those in the other camp may wish a fresh start on a new world.

But even if you do get people and the government interested in space-solonisation, mars is not prime real-estate. The moon is closer, the asteroids are more profitable and L1 will have full gravity and plenty of employment. In theory at least mars is the council-estate of the inner solar system.

As to terraforming here are a couple of other issues to consider:
1) Mars is too small to retain an earth-like atmosphere. It will evaporate after a few centuaries without a truely massive import of bulk materials. Then you're back to square one.
2) It will probably work out cheeper to build O'Neils equal to double the surface of mars than terraforming the planet.

ANTIcarrot.

Ian Flint · 2004-05-17 17:34:17

clark,

So the difference between expanding to Mars and expanding to any place on the Earth is basically one thing -- Life. Right? Terrestrial fuels use wood, oil, coal, etc. -- all based on dead organisms. Oh yea, and we would have to manufacture air.

I agree with you. Now let's go to Mars.

But seriously, every group of people that has ever set out to settle new territory has always taken their technology with them. The Pilgrims didn't just decide to abandon their lifestyle and live like the natives with teepees, bows and arrows, and animal skins. They used contemporary European construction techniques, clothes, farming techniques, etc.

As for 'dependence upon advanced infrastructure' -- The Mormon settlers of Utah were. Sure, they could have all decided to live like mountain men, but I think that would have destroyed their culture. They flooded the desert with irrigation and set up an advanced street grid for their Utah cities among other things. And today, along with everyone else in America, they are very dependent upon advanced infrastructure. If our infrastructure suddenly collapsed there would not be enough wild game to feed us all.

On Mars it will take a bit more (understatement) just to survive. But the point is, Martian settlers will not just take knives and flint, they will take all the technology available to them. The technology to produce solar power is well tested and the technology to make breathable air is available, too. We just have no pressing need for those technologies here on Earth. Just as a heavy fur coat was useless to the tropical homo stay-at-homus but a necessity for the arctic homo exploratorus, so is the solar panel/air maker useless to Earthlings but a necessity for Martians.

When we go to Mars it will be the hardest thing the human race has ever done, but so was every other expansionist activity in human history. So, I'd have to say my analogies are right on the mark.

By the way, I never get offended by you, clark.
I do have a moral duty to make fun of your pathetic attempts at conversation, though.

Well swell, let's go live in an active magma chamber of some Mexican volcano while we're at it!

Oooh, I just got a brilliant idea. I am now officially forming the Magma Society. Our goal is to build a colony inside an active volcano. And yes, the Magma Society purposely shares the initials 'MS' with the Mars Society to confuse its members into contributing to our cause. On to Magma...? ???

clark · 2004-05-17 18:21:04

But seriously, every group of people that has ever set out to settle new territory has always taken their technology with them.

The difference though is that these people didn't up and die when their shovel failed. The difference was that the technology didn't make it possible, it just made it easier. Mars, if it breaks, you die.

I'm glad you never get offended Ian, it shows the level of your intellect.

Euler · 2004-05-17 18:59:12

The difference though is that these people didn't up and die when their shovel failed.

But they did die when their technology failed. And a lot of them still died when their technology worked perfectly.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-05-16 21:38:50

Re: After Mars - And why we should go indirect.

#27 2004-05-16 23:46:59

Re: After Mars - And why we should go indirect.

#28 2004-05-17 07:27:10

Re: After Mars - And why we should go indirect.

#29 2004-05-17 08:20:12

Re: After Mars - And why we should go indirect.

#30 2004-05-17 08:40:24

Re: After Mars - And why we should go indirect.

#31 2004-05-17 08:58:18

Re: After Mars - And why we should go indirect.

#32 2004-05-17 09:04:11

Re: After Mars - And why we should go indirect.

#33 2004-05-17 09:36:58

Re: After Mars - And why we should go indirect.

#34 2004-05-17 09:47:33

Re: After Mars - And why we should go indirect.

#35 2004-05-17 09:55:55

Re: After Mars - And why we should go indirect.

#36 2004-05-17 10:04:33

Re: After Mars - And why we should go indirect.

#37 2004-05-17 10:08:04

Re: After Mars - And why we should go indirect.

#38 2004-05-17 10:15:09

Re: After Mars - And why we should go indirect.

#39 2004-05-17 10:21:13

Re: After Mars - And why we should go indirect.

#40 2004-05-17 10:33:28

Re: After Mars - And why we should go indirect.

#41 2004-05-17 10:40:01

Re: After Mars - And why we should go indirect.

#42 2004-05-17 10:41:53

Re: After Mars - And why we should go indirect.

#43 2004-05-17 14:07:26

Re: After Mars - And why we should go indirect.

#44 2004-05-17 14:17:23

Re: After Mars - And why we should go indirect.

#45 2004-05-17 15:40:19

Re: After Mars - And why we should go indirect.

#46 2004-05-17 15:46:31

Re: After Mars - And why we should go indirect.

#47 2004-05-17 17:03:25

Re: After Mars - And why we should go indirect.

#48 2004-05-17 17:34:17

Re: After Mars - And why we should go indirect.

#49 2004-05-17 18:21:04

Re: After Mars - And why we should go indirect.

#50 2004-05-17 18:59:12

Re: After Mars - And why we should go indirect.

Board footer