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

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-09-20 14:56:55

But much of going to the moon is of little value as well other than to practice closer at home.

Ditto for Mars. True there's some raw science stuff and the life question is somewhat interesting... But there's little there of any practical value either. Aside from another flag-hole of course.

As for colonisation... I favour the asteroids. Mars can kinda help you live on the moon. And the moon can kinda help you live on Mars. But neither help you kuch beyond that. Learn to live on/in/near a rock in the middle of space and you can live anywhere in the solar system.

ANTIcarrot.

RobertDyck · 2004-09-20 15:32:41

- Mars has gravity, asteroids have so little gravity it may as well be zero.
- M-type (metal) asteroids have an extremely high concentration of iron, nickel, and cobalt, and all 8 precious metals (Gold, silver, and the 6 platinum group metals: platinum, palladium, irridium, rhodium, ruthenium, osmium). These metals are in metalic form, not oxide minerals, so they're easy to extract. However, there isn't anything else, not even enough carbon to combine with iron to make steel.
- C-Type (Carbonaceous chondrite) asteroids have tar, and hydrated minerals such as clay and gypsum, as well as pebbles (chondrules) of rock and oxide minerals of various metals. They have carbon and nitrogen in their tar, and hydrated minerals can be baked at extreme temperature to extract water leaving dry Portand cement.
- dead comets: some near-Earth objects that appear to be C-Type asteroids might be dead comets. That would mean the surface is dry for a few feet due to ice being boiled off, but the core would be dirty, salty ice. No one has confirmed the existance of a single dead comet. Comets we've observed have either continued out of the inner solar system, crashed into Jupiter, or completely boiled away leaving loose rock chunks.

No asteroids have aluminum or titanium in minable concentration. The Moon does, but it doesn't have any nitrogen and hydrogen is extremely scarce. You need hydrogen to smelt titanium from ilmenite ore. The Moon also has iron, but it's oxide minerals; much more difficult to smelt than an M-type asteroid. Smelting iron from oxide requires carbon monoxide. The Mond process to concentrate ferrous metals from metalic ore (M-type) also requires carbon monoxide.

Bottom line: the Moon and asteroids have everything you need to support a colony, but not together. The Moon or any single asteroid does not have what it takes for industrial processes much less life support for a self-sustaining colony. Only Mars has everything on one body.

BWhite · 2004-09-20 15:34:47

Bottom line: the Moon and asteroids have everything you need to support a colony, but not together. The Moon or any single asteroid does not have what it takes for industrial processes much less life support for a self-sustaining colony. Only Mars has everything on one body.

I concur.

And that is why my Mars Society membership always gets paid first.

Grypd · 2004-09-20 17:37:24

Mars is the place for a real Human colony, but it is quite a distance.

If we want to colonize then we have to be able to send decent amounts of people and that takes larger colony ships being made in space. And it is just too expensive to do it from Earth.

Frankly we should use the resources of the Moon and Asteroids to make our colonisation of Mars possible.

RobertDyck · 2004-09-20 18:11:04

Nope. We don't need resources from the Moon, asteroids, or anywhere else to send large numbers of colonists to Mars. We can do it from Earth. And, no, it doesn't take half a trillion dollars. I could give you my mission plan but let's just say Mars Direct or a derivative of it (like mine) can be done affordably and now. You can mine M-type asteroids for precious metals and make a profit, but you'll never be able to colonize them. In fact, you have to mine asteroids in pairs: M-type for precious metals and nickel, C-type for carbon monoxide and rocket fuel. Again, you can never mine just a single asteroid; you require at least a pair.

Dook · 2004-09-20 18:18:55

There are more than a few members of this forum who believe in creating a mass exodus from the earth. I call you all the "Moononites" because you want a hundred thousand people on the moon for no reason other than 'well, it's the next step'.

It's completely insane and stupid. There is no benefit from this kind of act and it's a great risk to human life.

The smart way to colonize mars will be to land there a few times and conduct surveys and science. Put up a dome and see if we can grow something and if we can put a small permanent presence there. Land a few more people and put up a few more domes while continuing the scientific study of mars. Build an automated greenhouse gas factory and put up a mirror. When mars has an atmosphere the population would increase but not at the rate you want. Giant ships full of humans leaving the earth for mars? Sigh...

deagleninja · 2004-09-21 04:36:36

Good posts BWhite and Robert. When you have a choice between asteroids, the Moon and Mars it should be clear that only Mars has everything we need to sustain and support the growth of a human presence.

Science is wonderful, but even here, Mars is a much better target even without the possibility of life being added to the mix.

By the way, Mars Express has narrowed down the methane concentrations to three regions highest in water vapor. Seems pretty obvious where our next rovers should go now.

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-09-21 08:03:50

What mars also has is a (comparatively) huge gravity well and a very solid wall at the end of colonisation. Even after terraforming, I seriously doubt mars could support as many as two billion people. And even if you do terraform it, it'll revert back to it's current state after a few thousand years because it simply isn't big enough to retain a decent atmosphere.

The asteroid belt alone can probably support closer to two trillion. True a M or C class can't support much life seperately, but it only take a small nudge to move two small M & C class asteroids so they they collide and 'stick' together. (In fact asteroids where this has happened naturally probably aren't rare.) And again, you can do this practically anywhere in the solar system you want. And to be perfectly honest that gravity problem was solved way back in the ninth grade, when the pecular motion of a ball on the end of a spinning string was observed.

Realistically it shouldn't be a case of one or the other, but both. Mars will probably come first though, as it is better known.

ANTIcarrot.

Dook · 2004-09-21 08:15:17

Mars won't revert back to it's natural state after a few thousand years because what we use to build an atmosphere (mirrors, greenhouse gas factories) will still be on mars and it will top it off every now and then.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-21 11:45:52

Here is a web site that I came across today in researching mode on the topic of asteroid use.

Projects to Employ Resources of the Moon and Asteroids Near Earth in the Near Term

http://www.permanent.com

Grypd · 2004-09-21 19:21:39

There are more than a few members of this forum who believe in creating a mass exodus from the earth. I call you all the "Moononites" because you want a hundred thousand people on the moon for no reason other than 'well, it's the next step'.
It's completely insane and stupid. There is no benefit from this kind of act and it's a great risk to human life.
The smart way to colonize mars will be to land there a few times and conduct surveys and science. Put up a dome and see if we can grow something and if we can put a small permanent presence there. Land a few more people and put up a few more domes while continuing the scientific study of mars. Build an automated greenhouse gas factory and put up a mirror. When mars has an atmosphere the population would increase but not at the rate you want. Giant ships full of humans leaving the earth for mars? Sigh...

Dook we wont immediately go for colonisation of Mars we have to send people to do the research first. But when we do decide to start putting colonisation of the planet on our agenda then we have to use something other than the launches from Earth to do the job. It also should be noted that you may call me a Moon firster but I dont plan to Colonise the Moon only use its materials. This frankly makes sense but as to colonisation of the Moon it is not necassary but its materials are.

The terraforming of Mars has been said to take either decades or centuries. How do we plan to do it depends on the people on the ground to be able to work the machines to terraform Mars. This leads to the simple statement. If you want to terraform Mars you have to colonise it first. The more people the faster the terraforming goes. If there are no people how do you plan to terraform mars. Well frankly lets do it the fast way, this involves people making machines to create greenhouse gases and to crack atmosphere out of the soil. It involves the making of a solletta array to direct more light to the planet to heat it up. It may involve the deliberate crashing of Snowballs onto Mars to create atmosphere. This involves people on the ground working and not small scientist groups. When we do have an atmosphere what then we need plantlife and this will require Human intervention on a grand scale.

So Dook sigh all you like if you want Mars you send people and a lot. Anything else will not work. Terraforming is the greatest Engineering challenge we have ever done it will take a lot of work. Of course your way we could wait till Mars warms up but thats cause the Sun had gone to a red giant and we are extinct.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-22 10:11:06

Another reason why mars is a poor choice may be due impart to our current fuel tank technology and or fuels.

Misbehaving liquid sent into space
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996435

A satellite filled with water will show how liquid sloshes in space, helping engineers design better fuel tanks for future spacecraft. Unpredicted waves in the fuel tanks of rockets and spacecraft have been blamed for several mishaps in the past. Now, as spacecraft components get smaller and missions grow longer and more ambitious, fuel tanks represent ever-larger proportions of the craft. "A little fluid motion in old spacecraft wouldn't have been a big problem but for new ones it's causing trouble.
The satellite was originally scheduled to fly aboard a NASA space shuttle. But after all the shuttles were grounded following the Columbia disaster in 2003, the project was shifted to the Ariane 5 ECA rocket, designed to carry payloads of 10 tonnes.

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-09-22 10:12:13

Mars won't revert back to it's natural state after a few thousand years because what we use to build an atmosphere (mirrors, greenhouse gas factories) will still be on mars and it will top it off every now and then.

Great. From the logic that brought us McDonalds burger boxes and the destruction of the Kyoto protocol comes the idea of the disposable atmosphere.

I can't think of a quicker way to throw away the resources of the solar system than letting them leak away into space on Mars. What a wonderfully far-sighted idea.

I also can't help but wonder if Mars will ever be charged $46/barrel of replacement atmosphere...

ANTIcarrot.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-22 10:18:08

Replacement by the barrel for atmosphere, should be real costly trucking it in from where ever it can be supplied from.

How does one slow the effect? Gravity seems to have some part in the equation, another is magnetic field and indirectly the mass of the planet I think is the last. But how can we effect changes to either on a planetary scale or of how much of a change is needed to stop or slow this from happening?

RobertDyck · 2004-09-22 10:48:27

Replacement by the barrel for atmosphere, should be real costly trucking it in from where ever it can be supplied from.
How does one slow the effect? Gravity seems to have some part in the equation, another is magnetic field and indirectly the mass of the planet I think is the last. But how can we effect changes to either on a planetary scale or of how much of a change is needed to stop or slow this from happening?

Gravity is caused by mass of the planet, so you can't change that. However, on Earth the magnetosphere recaptures so much lost hydrogen from the atmosphere that water in meteoroids and volcanoes add more water each year than is lost to space. A strong magnetosphere on Mars would retain the atmosphere. Starting a dynamo in the core of the planet is a truely ambitious project; but if the Mars core is still liquid it should be theoretically possible.

Martian Republic · 2004-09-22 12:03:36

Replacement by the barrel for atmosphere, should be real costly trucking it in from where ever it can be supplied from.
How does one slow the effect? Gravity seems to have some part in the equation, another is magnetic field and indirectly the mass of the planet I think is the last. But how can we effect changes to either on a planetary scale or of how much of a change is needed to stop or slow this from happening?
Gravity is caused by mass of the planet, so you can't change that. However, on Earth the magnetosphere recaptures so much lost hydrogen from the atmosphere that water in meteoroids and volcanoes add more water each year than is lost to space. A strong magnetosphere on Mars would retain the atmosphere. Starting a dynamo in the core of the planet is a truely ambitious project; but if the Mars core is still liquid it should be theoretically possible.

I have heard of the dynamo theory about how the magnetosphere is created and maintained, but I think the theory stinks and is not really what going on and is based on junk science. But, that just my opinion. But, putting a magnetosphere around Mars does have value as you noted for preserving the atmosphere of Mars beside other benefits of having a radiation shield. Personally I think we will have to go back to science based on a Kepler Model of a unified field of all energy vs science based on a Newton Model to figure out how to generate a magnetosphere.

Larry,

RobS · 2004-09-22 17:28:47

The current rate of loss of the Martian atmosphere is so small, it can be ignored. If we created a thick atmosphere somehow, it wouldn't escape into space in less than billions of years. The loss rate in the early life of the solar system was higher than it is now because of terminal bombardment and other factors. The bigger problem is the atmosphere combining chemically with the Martian surface materials and becoming part of the crust.

-- RobS

SpaceNut · 2004-10-01 12:56:46

While much research has and is on going it making Mars more hospitable or at least into how we might survive if we go.

reference site
http://www.marsonearth.org/

SpaceNut · 2004-10-06 07:18:38

For any and all of the plans for moon or of mars they all boil back down to a small group of variables that defines the ship or ships that we will use to do each.

1 crew size
2 Habitat
3 duration
4 consumables
5 reusuability or expendable
6 cargo or equipment to do mission
7 where are we going
8 transfer points to change or assemble vehicles ( earth to LEO, LEO to lunar orbit, Lunar orbit to lunar surface)

Unfortunately the numbers are linked together some more tightly than others. Man can not survive if he does not have food, water, oxygen, fuel, and power sources.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2005-01-13 02:37:58

But much of going to the moon is of little value as well other than to practice closer at home.
Ditto for Mars. True there's some raw science stuff and the life question is somewhat interesting... But there's little there of any practical value either. Aside from another flag-hole of course.
As for colonisation... I favour the asteroids. Mars can kinda help you live on the moon. And the moon can kinda help you live on Mars. But neither help you kuch beyond that. Learn to live on/in/near a rock in the middle of space and you can live anywhere in the solar system.
ANTIcarrot.

but maybe more work can be done and we will be better able for this stuff in the near future

Grypd · 2005-01-13 15:36:00

This is probably the wrong bit for this but recently read that "The problem with it being so cold on Mars is its so cold on Mars".

Mars has the capacity to be warmed by mankind and to actually do all the wrong things we are doing here on Earth to actually improve a planet. We could do easily feasible things to Mars which will increase its tempature and with that get an increased atmosphere. This is the go forth and multiply bit.

Mars has no where like the potential in resources as do the asteroids but it does have the capacity to be changed to become a lot better for life. And since we consider the Asteroids to be floating resources then when we go after them it will become a lot easier to be resupplied with essentials like food from Mars/or the Moon than anywhere else. Where would you like to bring up a family someplace like a collection of space junk like the ISS or a real world less gravity of course but somewhere you can walk on.

Martian Republic · 2005-01-13 17:50:06

This is probably the wrong bit for this but recently read that "The problem with it being so cold on Mars is its so cold on Mars".
Mars has the capacity to be warmed by mankind and to actually do all the wrong things we are doing here on Earth to actually improve a planet. We could do easily feasible things to Mars which will increase its tempature and with that get an increased atmosphere. This is the go forth and multiply bit.
Mars has no where like the potential in resources as do the asteroids but it does have the capacity to be changed to become a lot better for life. And since we consider the Asteroids to be floating resources then when we go after them it will become a lot easier to be resupplied with essentials like food from Mars/or the Moon than anywhere else. Where would you like to bring up a family someplace like a collection of space junk like the ISS or a real world less gravity of course but somewhere you can walk on.

I suppose it would depend on what we do in space and how much building that we choose to do. But, if we do enough building whether it on the Moon, Mars or building a space station, I don't think it would make that much difference. Like if we had an ISS station either the moon or mars I doubt that we would want to have much of a either one of those places either. But, if we were to build a super size ISS several hundred people on board like possibly a Space Island type space station would not be too bad or possibly after we start mining that asteroids for resources and use resources to mile in diameter wheel space station, but that would probably be sixty or more years into the future. In a space station that big we may have several hundred thousand people on board then it would not make any difference.

I think it would come down to what we choose to build and what we are willing to spend on it and whether or not we have access to either the technology and the material resources.

Larry,

Grypd · 2005-01-15 16:18:08

There are a few simple things that can be done to actually start the process. All of which consist of using the planets actual resources to increase the dencity of the atmosphere. And these are all forms of manufacturing or by increasing the heat absorbed on the surface.

And any building a soletta array to focus more sunlight on Mars should not really be that difficult an endeavour

asdfghjkl · 2005-01-16 15:14:03

The smart way to colonize mars will be to land there a few times and conduct surveys and science. Put up a dome and see if we can grow something and if we can put a small permanent presence there. Land a few more people and put up a few more domes while continuing the scientific study of mars. Build an automated greenhouse gas factory and put up a mirror.

My essay exactly. :laugh:

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2005-03-11 21:51:12

there was bad news before on budgets

now there is questions on NASA's management, the rising US debts and the cutbacks on missions like Voyager

now there is some pressure on Mars

from space.com

NASA Mars Program Under Scrutiny
By Leonard David

NASA’s Mars program could undergo major alternation, driven by budgetary and technical issues, as well as science goals.

“We’ve been getting inputs, advice, actions items…from the road mapping teams,” said Doug McCuistion, Mars Exploration Program Director at NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C. “Nothing is finalized at this point. There have been no final decisions made or, frankly, any interim decisions made as yet.”

A scenario now under active discussion is slipping the mobile Mars Science Laboratory from 2009 to 2011 – a move that could see the building of two rovers to double-up the science that can be gleaned from the red planet, as well as reduce program risk.

NASA is engaged in an extensive campaign of “roadmaps” – a way to flesh out the details of a multi-year Mars effort that could lead to a humans-to-Mars effort by 2030, as listed on some NASA planning charts.

McCuistion said the potential to slip the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) to 2011 is on the table, but it is not confirmed.

“The MSL discussions are swirling around a couple of things,” McCuistion said. “One of them is robustness of the science and the technology.”

Bigger than either of the now on-duty Mars Exploration Rovers – Spirit and Opportunity – the MSL is a “huge leap forward” from those smaller machines, McCuistion noted, being larger in mass and able to carry 10 times the payload mass.

Risky business: science eggs in one basket

Getting a much larger MSL safely down onto Mars means use of new technology, not air bags as utilized in the last three successful NASA Mars lander missions. “So there’s technology risk trying to get to the surface of another planet,” McCuistion added.

Another issue flagged by Mars road mapping officials regarding MSL is science risk. Plopping down in an uninteresting area of martian real estate is one concern. So too is the potential for a failure. Putting all the science eggs in one basket – in one large and costly lander – is risky business.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#201 2004-09-20 14:56:55

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

#202 2004-09-20 15:32:41

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

#203 2004-09-20 15:34:47

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

#204 2004-09-20 17:37:24

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

#205 2004-09-20 18:11:04

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

#206 2004-09-20 18:18:55

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

#207 2004-09-21 04:36:36

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

#208 2004-09-21 08:03:50

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

#209 2004-09-21 08:15:17

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

#210 2004-09-21 11:45:52

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

#211 2004-09-21 19:21:39

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

#212 2004-09-22 10:11:06

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

#213 2004-09-22 10:12:13

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

#214 2004-09-22 10:18:08

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

#215 2004-09-22 10:48:27

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

#216 2004-09-22 12:03:36

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

#217 2004-09-22 17:28:47

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

#218 2004-10-01 12:56:46

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

#219 2004-10-06 07:18:38

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

#220 2005-01-13 02:37:58

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

#221 2005-01-13 15:36:00

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

#222 2005-01-13 17:50:06

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

#223 2005-01-15 16:18:08

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

#224 2005-01-16 15:14:03

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

#225 2005-03-11 21:51:12

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

Board footer