The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

smurf975 · 2004-06-08 22:55:01

I found http://nanodot.org/article.pl?sid=02/01/02/1651257]this post on http://nanodot.org/]nanodot.org which points to an article by K. Eric Drexler that appeared in the October 1984 issue of the L5 News. You can http://www.foresight.org/NanoRev/Mars.html]read the article here.

The author has some really good points (IMO). For instance:

From NASA's perspective, a Mars mission offers another Apollo-like project that would bump down the old, familiar tracks that once led to glory — and there would be no awkward threat of competition from private enterprise.

If you take this context of the article in which they state that Mars has no economical value. This can be correct because what happens after Mars Direct? Maybe it will be like the Moon project.

geo_flux · 2004-06-09 00:05:17

I don't think i've ever heard of a way in which a mars colony/outpost could be economically viable in the short term. There isn't a government on the planet that would spend billions on an unprofitable scientific experiment that has little public support. There is even less chance of a corporation doing it.
Unless we can find a way to make money out of Mars it will forever be a dream.
Pessimistic maybe but history repeats itself.

geo_flux

deagleninja · 2004-06-09 07:29:53

I agree, history does indeed repeat itself. So why would anyone go to Mars? For the same reason they always have, to get away. Mars isn't a vacation destination, it is a world. A world with as much land surface as Earth.

We don't need a good argument to go to Mars. We need a good reason not to go. Mars can and will be home to millions of people one day. They will have plants, animals, children, dreams and tragedies. Everything that you and I take for granted as part of our lives, they will have as well.

Do we have the technology to thrive on Mars? Yes. Do we have the money? Yes. Do we have the will? No.

The only thing stopping humans from settling Mars is humans. Our concerns are wrapped up in day to day life and stories that the media tells us are important. In short, our priorities are screwed up. Most Americans believe that this war in Iraq is more important than having a second planet even though the costs are the same. We have spent more on SDI/'Star Wars' than it would cost to land several missions on Mars and yet we have no space-based protection from ballistic missiles. We spend more on the interest to our National Debt (that no one seems to think is important) every year than it would cost to maintain constant human missions to Mars.

Until we can pull our collective heads out of our asses, we aren't going to do anything worthy of this great country we in.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-09 08:00:39

I agree, history does indeed repeat itself. So why would anyone go to Mars? For the same reason they always have, to get away. Mars isn't a vacation destination, it is a world. A world with as much land surface as Earth.

You know that, and I know that, but we can't command the kind of capital such an undertaking requires. Those that can are comfortable and don't want to leave. As for politicians, they don't care about a bunch of people that want to move to Mars. Even if they work to make it happen on behalf of their constituents the beneficiaries won't be around to vote for them, so it would be a complete waste from their perspective.

The reasons for colonizing Mars aren't economic reasons, but in order to start the process we need an economic reason.

smurf975 · 2004-06-09 08:03:28

The reasons for colonizing Mars aren't economic reasons, but in order to start the process we need an economic reason.

Yeah like it said in the article the people for Mars should draw up a good business plan. However you'd need to know more about Mars before you can really do that.

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-06-09 08:07:14

On the other hand...
Can Mars be profitable in the near term? No.
Are there other places that could be settled for less? Yes.
Are there other places that could sustain more people? Yes.
Are there other places that are nearer? Yes.
Are there other places that could be profitable? Yes.

The other places being the Moon, the L points and the Asteroid Belt. Even though the possibilities for profit are marginal at best and are based on a lot of assumptions, both could form a trade link with Earth/LEO in the near term much easier than Mars could. People will go to mars for the sake of colonization, but for other reasons, they'll probably go elsewhere.

ANTIcarrot.

clark · 2004-06-09 08:12:21

Unda the sea!
Unda the sea, that's where we will be...

2/3rd's of Earth is "unda" the sea- plenty of space to go live in.

Living on Mars... doing what? You will all live the rest of your lives in a glorified indoor mall.

Mining dosen't make sense (asteroids are cheaper).
Growing food dosen't make sense (unless it's to support manned asteroid mining, which can probably be done by robots).
Supplying the Moon Colony? Perhaps, but then we need a Moon Colony and exspensive launch technology on Earth to make that work (exspensive launch technology works against a Moon Colony in the first place)

deagleninja · 2004-06-09 08:37:15

'On the other hand...
Can Mars be profitable in the near term? No.
Are there other places that could be settled for less? Yes.
Are there other places that could sustain more people? Yes.
Are there other places that are nearer? Yes.
Are there other places that could be profitable? Yes.

The other places being the Moon, the L points and the Asteroid Belt. Even though the possibilities for profit are marginal at best and are based on a lot of assumptions, both could form a trade link with Earth/LEO in the near term much easier than Mars could. People will go to mars for the sake of colonization, but for other reasons, they'll probably go elsewhere.

ANTIcarrot.'

First of all, no one has proven to me that Mars can't be profitable or that it even need be. I don't see the destinations of your choice being profitable either.

Once you escape LEO, the solar system is your oyster. L1, the Moon, and asteroids all lack atmospheres so that you must take addition fuel in order to insert yourself into orbit. Mars offers aerobraking and is therefore cheaper.

Lastly, the Moon or asteroids will NEVER be able to support more people than Mars. On the Moon, you MIGHT have a source of water in the form of ice trapped underground at the poles. This is a very finite source of water that will be depleted despite the best recycling programs. Mars also offers a 24 hour day that our plants could use to grow on the surface. On the Moon, plants would need to be grown underground meaning a lot of energy will be needed just for agriculture.

I know Mars isn't the only destination in the solar system, but don't you think that if we can mount an effort to put people anywhere permanently, that they should have the chance to thrive there?

In a contest of where humans have the best chance to thrive, Mars wins hands down.

clark · 2004-06-09 08:41:58

Mars has a lack of nitrogen- the plants need that. Mars will need a greenhouse just like the moon, and the light is 40% less than Earth standard. That pretty much means you have to add lights to grow them properly.

The air pressure is to low on Mars, no terrestrial plant can grow under those conditions (not to mention the superoxidized dirt).

deagleninja · 2004-06-09 08:54:38

Clark, no one is saying that Mars is perfect. I'm simply saying that it comes the closest to being 'Earth-friendly'.

On the Moon, greenhouses aren't possible. Two weeks of day followed by two weeks of night mean plants can't adapt. Micrometeorites would also punch holes in your dome until it resembled swiss cheese.

Sunlight isn't a problem. Once you leave Earth's atmosphere you are recieving 10x as much solar radiation so you can see that our thick atmosphere blocks and reflects a lot of sunlight that never reaches Earth. On Mars the air is thinner and more incoming light reaches the surface. Plants should recieve as much if not more light on the surface of Mars than they do Earth.

Air pressure problems are solved by a dome. Some terrestrial plants can survive on Mars albeit microscopic ones.

clark · 2004-06-09 08:59:15

On the Moon, greenhouses aren't possible. Two weeks of day followed by two weeks of night mean plants can't adapt. Micrometeorites would also punch holes in your dome until it resembled swiss cheese.

I really don't see the moon's cycle as an issue. The plants won't have to adapt, we just provide light, or shade as neccessary. It's not exactly the hardest problem to solve.

as for the micrometerorites- the bases will be buried under moon dirt. Put some aerogel between the base and the moondirt for added protection.

Both the moon and mars will be hard, which is the point.

deagleninja · 2004-06-09 09:11:21

Well, see that's my point Clark. if you have to provide light and then shade, you are better off doing both deep underground without the fear of micrometeorites.

I want to see people on the Moon as well as Mars, don't get me wrong. My concern is that if the government(s) do mount a seroius effort at colonization it needs to be in an environment where humans can eventually be self-sufficent. I don't see the Moon ever severing its dependancy on Earth until the colonists develop their own space travel abilities. Meanwhile on Mars, our colonists could be well on their way to terraforming the planet by then.

Ian Flint · 2004-06-09 12:52:34

Deuterium. It is 5 times more common in Martian water than in Earth water.

It is used in CANDU nuclear reactors in the form of heavy water to moderate reactions. Heavy water makes up 20% of a CANDUs capital costs.
http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/ … ...er.html

It is the fuel for first generation fusion reactors.

It is a fuel for second generation fusion reactors.

It costs about $10 million per tonne.

Who said Mars has no commercial viability?

The first mission to Mars should distill some deuterium and ship it back to Earth. Since they will do so much water processing anyway it won't be much trouble to produce the deuterium at the same time. Making deuterium starting with the first mission will both offset the costs of the mission and also demonstrate the commercial viability of Mars.

I did a few calculations a while back. There are trillions of dollars in deuterium in the polar ice caps.

Here's a nice side benefit. Since the CANDU reactors enrich uranium as they use it, it can then be used in the NTRs that ship people to Mars and more deuterium back to Earth.

John Creighton · 2004-06-09 13:06:13

That is kind of interesting. So if we develop the technology to ship one tone of deuterium from mars for 1 million dollars (marginal cost), there may be a profit. If all the worlds power was produced by the CANDU reactor how much deuterium would we need annually?

Ian Flint · 2004-06-09 13:27:38

That's the problem. I can't find any information on how much deuterium a Candu uses. I found one reference to 700 tonnes of heavy water produced per year in Canada (a couple of decades ago), but that's about it.

At present the demand for deuterium seems small. I can't find any good info, though, so who knows.

It would be in the best interest of Mars colonists to push for the development of CANDU reactors on Mars to take advantage of their relatively large supplies of heavy water. They should also push for the development of fusion reactors both on Mars (for their own power) and on Earth (for a market for their deuterium).

MarsDog · 2004-06-09 13:38:02

Mars is all we got for a quickly made, self supporting habitat, far from Earth.
-
Eskimos would not move to rain forest conditions, even if they could. Similarly there are individuals for Mars. All problems are solvable with a developing lineup of volunteers.
-
The military will want Mars for a base. No self respecting Earth power would be without a Mars base. Even Bean Laden is probably planning for a new hideout on Mars
-
Profitability : Retirement, one way colony, final adventure for millionaire space tourists. The costs will come down, and instead of sub orbital sightseeing, a chance to become a true pioneer.
-
The challenge is to reduce chances of failure.

Bill White · 2004-06-09 14:04:40

That's the problem. I can't find any information on how much deuterium a Candu uses. I found one reference to 700 tonnes of heavy water produced per year in Canada (a couple of decades ago), but that's about it.
At present the demand for deuterium seems small. I can't find any good info, though, so who knows.
It would be in the best interest of Mars colonists to push for the development of CANDU reactors on Mars to take advantage of their relatively large supplies of heavy water. They should also push for the development of fusion reactors both on Mars (for their own power) and on Earth (for a market for their deuterium).

What is the duty cycle of a Candu reactor?

I read it can be re-fueled while "on power" therefore if local uranium could be mined, a Mars settlement could be power self-sufficient very much sooner than I had once thought. Ship a Candu to Mars then fuel with Mars mined uranium.

What about using supercritical CO2 are the working fluid? Design an appropriate alloy turbine blade (one not eaten by scCO2) and a smaller (lighter) blades might well produce the same power.

Ian Flint · 2004-06-09 14:48:40

Exactly.

Natural uranium for fuel. Abundant heavy water for a moderator. Online refueling. Weapons grade material as a waste product to conquer the Earth. CANDU is the way to go for Mars.

Bill White · 2004-06-09 14:50:44

Exactly.
Natural uranium for fuel. Abundant heavy water for a moderator. Online refueling. Weapons grade material as a waste product to conquer the Earth. CANDU is the way to go for Mars.

How small can a Candu go?

How much can be omitted from the delivery rocket from Earth?

Ian Flint · 2004-06-09 17:29:28

I heard they were bigger than other reactors...I think. But, I just e-mailed the CANDU Owners Group with some questions. If they respond I might actually know something. :laugh:

I hope, when Smurf started this thread, that he wasn't actually expecting us all just to give up and say, "Oh yeah, your right. Mars isn't a good target after all." :laugh:

smurf975 · 2004-06-09 17:34:50

I hope, when Smurf started this thread, that he wasn't actually expecting us all just to give up and say, "Oh yeah, your right. Mars isn't a good target after all." :laugh:

No way, but the article posted are not my arguments. Its just that I think he has valid points that shouldn't be ignored and must be discussed. So that when you encounter a real life anti mars person you have your arguments straight and are prepared for any possible angle that person may come from. And also it help developing a business case for Mars.

Bill White · 2004-06-09 18:14:37

I heard they were bigger than other reactors...I think. But, I just e-mailed the CANDU Owners Group with some questions. If they respond I might actually know something. :laugh:

I suspect RobertDyck, here at these boards, could tell us a great deal about CanDu.

geo_flux · 2004-06-10 02:24:01

Deuterium. It is 5 times more common in Martian water than in Earth water.
It is used in CANDU nuclear reactors in the form of heavy water to moderate reactions. Heavy water makes up 20% of a CANDUs capital costs.
http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/ … ...er.html
It is the fuel for first generation fusion reactors.
It is a fuel for second generation fusion reactors.
It costs about $10 million per tonne.
Who said Mars has no commercial viability?
The first mission to Mars should distill some deuterium and ship it back to Earth. Since they will do so much water processing anyway it won't be much trouble to produce the deuterium at the same time. Making deuterium starting with the first mission will both offset the costs of the mission and also demonstrate the commercial viability of Mars.
I did a few calculations a while back. There are trillions of dollars in deuterium in the polar ice caps.
Here's a nice side benefit. Since the CANDU reactors enrich uranium as they use it, it can then be used in the NTRs that ship people to Mars and more deuterium back to Earth.

Hang on, aren't fusion reactors still experimental at best with no operational models anywhere in the forseeable future? Or is one of us getting fission and fusion mixed up?

If I'm hearing u right, for Mars to be profitable we need all power generators on Earth to swap over to CANDU nuclear reactors before we go to Mars so that there is a market for the deuterium; but we need to go to Mars before that to get the deuterium to make the generators feasable, but we need to build the reactors first to make the mission profitable..... Isn't that just circular logic that would never practically happen?

In the current world climate all actions need to make a profit, where the profit in Mars???

Ian Flint · 2004-06-10 08:12:46

If I'm hearing u right, for Mars to be profitable we need all power generators on Earth to swap over to CANDU nuclear reactors before we go to Mars so that there is a market for the deuterium; but we need to go to Mars before that to get the deuterium to make the generators feasable, but we need to build the reactors first to make the mission profitable..... Isn't that just circular logic that would never practically happen?

Currently there are 32 CANDU type reactors in the world. I don't know the specifics yet, but let's just speculate. If a CANDU uses 10 tonnes of deuterium per year, that is $3.2 billion worth of deuterium for the whole bunch. (10 tonnes X 32 reactors X $10 million/tonne = $3.2 billion)

It's not a huge market but it's a start.

Hang on, aren't fusion reactors still experimental at best with no operational models anywhere in the forseeable future? Or is one of us getting fission and fusion mixed up?

As far as I understand we are on the verge of economical controlled fusion. I don't understand most of this stuff, but it looks like we're making progress:
http://www.fusionscience.org/SEAB.99Apr … Taylor.pdf

The Tokamaks actually produce power, but they still use more than they produce.

MarsDog · 2004-06-10 08:23:10

CANDU information:
canteach.candu.org

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-06-08 22:55:01

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#2 2004-06-09 00:05:17

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#3 2004-06-09 07:29:53

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#4 2004-06-09 08:00:39

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#5 2004-06-09 08:03:28

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#6 2004-06-09 08:07:14

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#7 2004-06-09 08:12:21

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#8 2004-06-09 08:37:15

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#9 2004-06-09 08:41:58

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#10 2004-06-09 08:54:38

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#11 2004-06-09 08:59:15

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#12 2004-06-09 09:11:21

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#13 2004-06-09 12:52:34

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#14 2004-06-09 13:06:13

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#15 2004-06-09 13:27:38

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#16 2004-06-09 13:38:02

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#17 2004-06-09 14:04:40

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#18 2004-06-09 14:48:40

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#19 2004-06-09 14:50:44

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#20 2004-06-09 17:29:28

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#21 2004-06-09 17:34:50

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#22 2004-06-09 18:14:37

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#23 2004-06-10 02:24:01

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#24 2004-06-10 08:12:46

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#25 2004-06-10 08:23:10

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

Board footer