The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

Martin_Tristar · 2005-05-10 17:14:43

Dook,

Firstly, I don't have any issues with the explorer mission using Mars direct concept for the primary mission of science, surveying and locating a settlement site for future expansion.

What I am saying is that we need a overall strategy / roadmap to get people, equipment and resources into space and onto the planetary bodies. ( Moon and Mars ) I am not talking about the Star Trek style space vessels but I am not talking about the apollo capsules either. What we need to do is design, contruct and launch new larger current technology spacecrafts in orbit and from automated construction center/s on the lunar surface.

While we are building the larger human centric vessels we are using the Mars Direct Concept for explorer missions to the Martian surface in multiple locations. We need an overall plan to work towards to meet these goals for every group from sciences, colonists, business and government.

Gennaro · 2005-05-10 17:24:27

I believe the discussion is too much either or. Either it's nothing but science robots until Mars has been fully terraformed (which will take a thousand years) or it's 50,000 permanent settlers before the end of the century.

I would rather suggest a gradual, organical transition. Initially, no one will go to Mars (and much less anyplace else) to take up permanent settlement and have babies. The Solar System is not and never will be the New World. What could happen are people signing on for 5 or 7 year contracts to work on Mars. In exchange they will receive numerous benefits for the rest of their lives which they supposedly would spend on Earth. Think of it as a sort of professional military service (but for loftier goals).

What will set off Martian settlement will be spontaneous responses to economical needs, and in that sense it's really just an organic continuation of the in situ resource utilization used by the early science and mining operations. This of course presupposes an environment which offer several potentials for indigenous production, like Mars does and the Moon does not (the latter most likely to forever remain more of an oil rig than a community, provided there is anything to mine practically at all).

At first, almost everything will be shipped from Earth, that's only rational, but it's equally rational to switch to indigenous production of as much as possible as soon as means become available and demands appear. Agriculture, livestock and fishponds will in turn create demand for bricks, plastics, glass and steel. Suddenly, you not only have an agricultural sector, but a metals, ceramics and petro-chemical industry as well, which unlike the export sector is entirely directed towards "homemarket" consumption.

New niches will prompt the need for more people and will create incentives for people to stay longer and perhaps eventually even to bring up children on Mars. As long as the right to return to Earth is guaranteed and rewards are affluent, recruitment will not be a problem. If you do it right, in other words, tying it to governmental regulation, Mars service will be seen as possibilty, not a predicament. More people will in turn create needs for more construction material, various forms of manufacture, maintainance services, communications, improved living conditions, entertainment, you name it.

This is physical economy, the only real economy worth paying attention to, i.e the links that tie different sectors together and give rise to and possibilities for new sectors to expand. That is what eventually will turn a semi-permanent presence into a permanent settlement, but it will happen only at a pace and scale that correspond to actual needs, i.e organically. It will never happen because someone wants to send 10,000 people somewhere in a colony ship in order to test his latest idea of the "auto manufactured" city.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-05-11 02:23:28

Hi Gennaro!
I was interested to see your comment about fully terraforming Mars in a thousand years. You may be right about that kind of time period but I have my doubts.
While I'm optimistic about creating a much denser CO2 atmosphere quite quickly, I have my doubts that 'full' terraforming can be achieved in as little as 1000 years. To begin with, humans would have trouble with CO2 levels much higher than about 1% of the atmosphere. So we'll need to convert the early high-CO2-concentration atmosphere into a low-CO2-concentration atmosphere before we can breathe it.
Obviously we'll need at least 150 mb O2 partial pressure for our physiology and we'll need about 500 mb total pressure for radiation-shielding purposes. So we'll need about 350 mb of buffer gas. Unfortunately, there's simply not enough argon or nitrogen on Mars (as far as we know) to do the job.

Transporting vast quantities of nitrogen to Mars from whatever source, probably steering volatile-rich comets from the Kuiper Belt, is far-future technology.
I suppose we may attempt it within a thousand years but it seems like such a massive project and our priorities may change before the technology becomes available(?).
We may make do with a 500 mb CO2 atmosphere on Mars for a very long time, using full-face masks and re-breathers for outside work.
But maybe I'm wrong.

As for spending 5-7 years on Mars and then returning to Earth, I'm considerably more confident that this won't be happening in the near future. The gravitational difference will be too great to allow acclimatized 'Martians' ever to return to Earth, unless medical technology produces a comprehensive and radical solution.
I think living on Mars for any more than a couple of years will mean living there for good.
Just some thoughts.

Palomar · 2005-05-11 07:58:31

*Hi Gennaro. Nice to see you again at New Mars.

I agree with your post, overall. Very well thought out and logical.

--Cindy

SpaceNut · 2005-05-11 09:13:10

Gennaro that said about what needs to be brought versus what is not, I do think we can do better if the right things are brought.
The informative article
Micromachines to Produce Propellant and Air on Mars is only part of it though for it is the down mass that the landers must handle that is part of the issue for not only mars but for the moon as well. If we wish to do more than a simple flag and footprint stay like the direct plan or nasa's semi direct plan have for time scales we need to have all supplies for that time frame. That does not even count the experiment equipment , rovers or anything else on the wish list.

Gennaro · 2005-05-11 13:54:08

Hello Cindy, nice seeing you too. Haven't got that much time to spend on New Mars nowadays, but I'm still here lurking around regularly from time to time. Unlike you, I'm simply not that proficient at multi-tasking, I guess. I'm so happy you liked my post! I just thought the issue needed some sort of balancing.

And hi Shaun. Well, as far as fully terraforming Mars in a thousand years is concerned, I'm simply relying on Zubrin. One mustn't forget I've studied history, religion, philosophy and some economics. I really know nothing about natural sciences, so who am I to judge. Anyhow, as far as I can see, the high CO2 levels won't be a problem with oxygenizing the atmosphere since most of it will be eaten up by blue green algae in any case (CO2 being the main feedstock for photosynthesis). Actually, we might well end up with a situation of CO2 scarcity rather than excess, because the transformation of carbon dioxide into oxygen will also lower planet temperatures significantly. That is, unless we continously add in extra greenhouse gases during the process.

I'm not sure Zubrin deals with the need of buffer gas in The Case for Mars. In fact, I think he only takes the 500 mb to achieve terran atmospheric pressure into account, and thus you might be right it would take longer than a millenium (or more specifically 900 years) for this reason. Nitrogen shouldn't be a blocker on the other hand. There ought to be copious amounts of it locked into the Martian regolith in the form of nitrates. The only reason we haven't located it it's because the Viking Landers weren't equipped to find it. That doesn't mean it's not there or scarce in supply. The argon is another matter and I really have no comment on that. Perhaps we should ask Karov? After all, he appears to be heavily into terraforming.

Tristar, I agree we need a well thought out interplanetary transportation system somewhere between Star Trek and Apollo capsules as soon as we go beyond the expendable rocket stage, which nevertheless is good enough for the initial landings on the Moon and Mars. What I don't agree with is building spaceships on the Moon. It is simply a horrendous proposition for the simple reason that there is nothing there at all right now. You'd have to build everything from scratch, and rocket tech just isn't like manufacturing fizzy cans. There would perhaps be a point to it in some distant future when we were constructing interstellar vessels going to Alpha Centauri and 61 Cygni, but that's only because we would then be speaking about Battlestar Galactica scale ships in real life and the infrastructure to do it would be assumed to be in place.

Everything we need: materials, expertise, capital, machinery, workers and comfy planetary conditions are on the contrary confined to our little blue dot for the foreseeable future. Also, current PGM output is allegedly about 120 tonnes per year. Say demand would increase by a magnitude. That still wouldn't justify a fleet of Super Stardestroyers that need being constructed in orbit/on the Moon. It could require a fleet of much smaller reusable spaceships, however, i.e no larger than can be lifted into space by launcher.

So what do we need to make space travel a regular feature (and get those metals back down here)? After hanging around this forum for some time, this is my conclusion. We need:

1.) SSTO's between Mars surface and Mars orbit.

2.) SSTO's between Earth surface and Earth orbit.

3.) Interplanetary liners between Mars orbit and Earth orbit falling into two main categories:
a) High Isp, artificial gravity passenger ships, piloted, for example GCNR.
b) Lower Isp cargo ships, unmanned, down to solar sails in complexity.

4) Earth orbit to Lunar surface craft.

5) Perhaps some special Earth orbit to NEO and Mars Orbit to Main Belt ship class. Such ships could perhaps carry both Earth imports as well as propellant (from water) for both interplanetary liners and SSTO's for the (Earth) surface return trip.

All of the above would be manufactured on Earth, save perhaps for som final in orbit assembly. Thus, we also need:

6) Superheavy expendable terran launcher.

Gennaro · 2005-05-11 14:25:54

SpaceNut, in situ resource utilization has been a cornerstone of the Mars Direct plans from day one. The Sabatier reaction for example has featured prominently in Zubrin's writings all along.
I naturally counted on it when writing my message. Interesting article though.

Gennaro · 2005-05-11 14:39:47

Oh yes, I forgot. Shaun, the gravity discrepance:

As for spending 5-7 years on Mars and then returning to Earth, I'm considerably more confident that this won't be happening in the near future. The gravitational difference will be too great to allow acclimatized 'Martians' ever to return to Earth, unless medical technology produces a comprehensive and radical solution.
I think living on Mars for any more than a couple of years will mean living there for good.
Just some thoughts.

Hm, so you say. I was of the impression that irreversible harmful effects due to low gravity started being important when you approached micro gravity, and that 1/3 Earth gravity would be quite okay after an initial readjustment. Could some additional light be shed on this?

If they can't take 5 years on Mars, how long then can people practically stay there? I find the one-way ticket to Mars solution simply outside the realm of reason. Who would ever sign up for life confinement in a dusty unbreathable cold desert? Of course you'd have to let people return to Earth. Dull red colours everywhere outside a cramped dome and cave complex forever. No, it's a definite no-no.

dicktice · 2005-05-11 19:04:06

A span of 1000 years! Everything mentioned re. hardware would be ancient history by then. Venus will have floating atmospheric cities, with remote surface mining for resources. The Moon will be riddled and habitable below ground. Space colonies will proliferate. Earth and Mars will be preserved as nature reserves, with suitable human population constraints. Fuel sources and propulsion systems in use then are unguessable, since we don't even know what we don't know in that regard. Medically, ditto. Genetically, regarding all life, ditto. Artifical-intelligently, ditto. Military progress, predictable--since that's what we humans do--but hopefully self limiting. Space telescopes comprised of laser-coordinated arrays up to a spherical parsec in diameter, might be possible by then, for extra-Solar planet discoveries and expedition communications, in all directions at once.

SpaceNut · 2005-05-11 19:36:31

Yes a Sabatier reactor might just be the make or break of lunar of Mars regolith but what is the landers down mass for such an item. Since it needs heavy shielding ect... Thinking small more complegte package style selfcontained items, that could be launched on a much smaller rocket. I my way of expressing this, would be less of a problem to land.

VitaminJ · 2005-05-11 19:47:21

Everyone here at the Mars Society Forums doesn't care one bit about science or even about a human mission to mars. Your main goal is human settlement outside of the earth regardless of the place. The moon? Asteroids? Martin even wants to develop the outer planets. You even fight Mars Direct because it doesn't take enough people to mars soon enough even though Zubrin's plans detail constant mars landings. And his plan was the most aggressive plan to get there ever. Fighting it is shooting down your own aggressive space plans.
These settlement ideas are a complete disregard for the technology and science we still need in order to do these things more successfully. We don't even know if we can grow food on mars and you want a base with hundreds of people? That's not the smart way to do things.
You are all trying to convince me that this is an urgent priority, that we need to settle space now but the one question you haven't been able to answer is-why? To help mankind? NASA's robots can do it all with less cost and without risk to human life. The giant earth destroying asteroid-just isn't a credible argument. Platinum? Maybe but we only need a very small base for that. The reasons just dont stand up to scrutiny so why do you all want human settlement of space?
If we try to settle space it's not going to be like Star Trek, it's going to be like the ISS. If we build a moon base it's going to be like living in a single wide mobile home, only you can't go outside unless you are in a pressure suit. If we settle mars it's going to be like living in a double wide mobile home. This is the level of our technology.
You say everything at the bases will be fine, no worries, nothing will ever break, no funny smells, the plants will always thrive, plenty of food and air and water for everyone. Sounds like a paradise.
The earth is the real paradise, space is a huge wasteland full of radiation and temperatures extremes, the moon is a dull grey lifeless blob, mars is a cold empty Sahara, and asteroids are rocks. You think moving humans out to these things to permanently live is in any way a good thing?

Dook, lots of us care about science and Zubrin! You are single handedly fighting off a lot of hostiles -but don't let them get you down. Keep up the good fight.

To those who think about massive futuristic space corporations, fine and well, but these are VERY long term ideas. We should be focusing on the next decade or two. -- there has to be a first landing before we can think of building up to get big industries or colonization out there -- if we don't start with something doable, then we will never start at all and there will never be sci-fi megacorps or colonization. A long view is a good thing but not if it destroys the chance to get started at all.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-05-11 20:15:19

VitaminJ,

"We all care about science and Zubrin" - don't you think we do too !!!! We need a overall strategy and infrastructure document that will provide the framework to alter what we have governmental and non-governmental globally to meet short and long term goals for humanity in space.

When I am looking at the Mars Direct concept it could be an Apollo style missions and then go nowhere after the initial landings. We need to have them with a purpose - to settle humans on Moon and Mars. We need to balance scientific part of the mission with surveying and site preparation for large outpost / settlement developments. ( where to public can see progression and eventual benefit )

BWhite · 2005-05-11 20:44:28

Heh! Don't argue with me.

Dr. Michael Griffin testified before Congress (under oath?) that the prospect of permanent emigration is perhaps the greatest justification for sending humans out there.

Grypd · 2005-05-12 02:49:24

There are a lot of states who are looking at space as a place to expand there influence.

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/2 … Washington times, Robert Zimmerman

This is an article about this view of what is likely to come. Just the natural tendency to Empire Build.

It is the natural tendency for mankind to want to expand and grow. I have said this before science's main job is to make it easier for mankind to do this.

Gennaro · 2005-05-12 08:08:25

Wow, I wonder whether Robert Zimmermann reads the New Mars Forum? Felt as if I recognized elements from my posts down to the very sentences.
:laugh:

On the other hand, his are only the natural conclusions.

RobS · 2005-05-12 12:22:43

Regarding the adequacy of Martian gravity: we simply don't know. My guess is that 0.38 gees is not a serious problem long term, but it's a guess. Six months before someone flies back to Earth they began wearing weights and progressively increase the weights' mass. On the six-month flight back to Earth the ship is spun at 0.38 gee initially, gradually increased to at least 0.75 gee by the time you reach earth. With a one-year adjustment back to terrestrial gravity, people should be able to return (but it's a guess, like I said).

Regarding thickening the atmosphere: we still have no evidence of nitrate deposits, so Zubrin is guessing. We also don't know whether 500 mb pressure is possible by releasing all major CO2 supplies. I suspect in another decade we'll have a better "volatile inventory" for Mars and will have better measures of the available CO2 and water, at least.

-- RobS

SpaceNut · 2005-05-12 13:01:57

Another thought is to wear a spandex to add compression to all areas that are possible to aid in body fluid control, muscle strengthening and toning.

Dook · 2005-05-12 15:47:12

Martin: Not true. Mars Direct as designed by Zubrin was a plan for consistant landings of habitats and humans on mars every three years.

I think what you meant to say is that it's not aggressive enough for you.

Also you keep saying "We need..." We absolutely do not need 50,000 people in space. We don't need the drain on our pocket books and on our ongoing science projects.

Commodore · 2005-05-12 16:55:55

Also you keep saying "We need..." We absolutely do not need 50,000 people in space. We don't need the drain on our pocket books and on our ongoing science projects.

Then how do we justify our science projects?

Martin_Tristar · 2005-05-12 17:06:50

Dook,

No, that is what I mean, its a small scale habitat that wouldn't support a permanent colony base. A permanent colony base would support more than 75 personnel and 350 droids in one location. The MD habitats could only be used for explorer missions, initial landing sites and / or remote location sites for use by explorers , scientists and surveyors for exploring territory, planetary research, mapping and co-ordinating large operations.

Anyhow - you are just talking about the application fo NASA current small budget and not the budget it will have when the public finds out they are not going to be the world leader in space within 20 years with the Russians, ESA, Japan, China, India and many others that could combine or work together on tasks that would benefit both parties.

We have forgotten that Private Enterprise funds alot of the development and research into space for NASA and receive grants for that work. There will be a time when the private sector will decide whether or not to continue with the current arrangements or branch out for themselves into space. It depends on how it is done and where the funds are drawn from and the income generated.

Dook, you have issues about humanities ability to move off this world and expand across the planetary system with a combination of human and human -controlled droids and self -functioning droids. If you don't think we have the technology go see honda's robot site and watch the videos. Using that same technology in telerobotic droids and self-functioning droids in space you can expand humans quickly.

Dook · 2005-05-12 17:41:18

Science gives us improved technology to make our lives better but most of all it gives us an understanding of the universe we live in, the one that God created for us.

You can think that science and space exploration's goal is humans living permanently in space. I think it will happen some day in the future but if you think it's going to happen in the near future, well, you are dreaming. I don't understand why that would in any way be a good, beneficial thing for humans to do, other than scientists doing research.

Martin: MD probably wouldn't be enough to support much of a mars population. I think we would need a few fully operational habitats, at least two operational in-situ rocket production units, maybe a large array of those zirconia ceramic grids that make oxygen out of CO2, a tested way to get water from mars regolith, a 100% human waste recycling machine, and greenhouses with plants. MD only accomplishes part of that, but it's a start. If MD or NASA's DRM works I believe it is the best way for you to get your wish of having a permanent settlement there, and it's (or some version of it) the only plan that has any chance of getting humans on mars in the next 20-30 years.

About your private research funding research for NASA...I'm not sure that is true. There are private donations/grants to unniversaties for research into many scientific areas but I wouldn't consider those for NASA.

I have issues? Dude, you are the one feeling this intense need to abandon the earth and move 50,000 people (children included I bet) off this paradise and into incredibly hostile environments where we don't know enough about growing food, the effects of low or no gravity on pregnancy and on the bones of growing children. We don't have a truly 100% recyclable waste system. We don't have a way of making enough oxygen, enough water, on planet repair parts we will need, or enough energy to support this many people on mars.

And still you haven't answered the biggest reason NOT to do this. Why?

Martin_Tristar · 2005-05-12 18:31:48

Dook,

You asked Why ?

Answer :

In our history we have evolved through overcoming our environment and creating new technologies through conflict and hardship. We have explored 90% of this planet and we need to expand our horizons by going into space to evolve into the next society.

Many other reasons are around for getting some people off the planet but the best one is the eveolution of science, technology, and society. We live on the outer edge of our galaxy and we need to develop technologies to explore our current neighbours the only way is to be out there testing the technologies in a real environment and that means human colonies out in space. We are social beings that need our sense of community and family.

I hope that answers your question why we should go with humans and why we need to be there. If you don't think the human race can do it then you don't have faith and trust in the human spirit and desire to succeed.

P.S.

We should support changes to the name of the sun to "SOL" and earth to " Terra " a name older than the current name and then we would have humans from the planet terra and in the future we would also have humans from the Planet Mars. in the Sol Star System.

Grypd · 2005-05-12 18:50:00

Dook asked why go to space and colonise. Its a good question and one we need to be able to answer.

Like all good questions I think it will be impossible though to give one definite answer as there is a lot of opinion involved in the equation.

We could use the race card, This is that it is a genetic imperative that we have the Human race spread out as best as possible so no single disaster could wipe us out, as almost happened happened 75,000 years ago when a supervolcano erupted. (It actually did wipe out one human species the so called hobbits, but we survived...Just).

We could say for humanity to thrive it needs new places to get resources and to find novel ways to use them and to allow us to grow into more potential. While supplying our society with this resources.

We could say that we live on an overcrowded world where the majority of the Human race live in poverty but all want the two car, satelite television, microwave oven dream. But for this to happen more resources than this world can provide without a drastic drop in the rich societies standard of living

We could do the Nationalistic side where we are going to go forth and colonise space because we are country X and those people in Y and Z would grab it first if we let them.

We could say it is due to mankinds need to see for themselves personally what is in the next glen and over the next hill.

We could say we need to go forth so that we can learn new things and to do old things in different ways. It will happen as necessity is the mother of all invention. We can do those really highly risky life endangering experiments where if it goes wrong we can contain our errors.

Still after all this I think the reason we will go and colonise is ALL OF THEM

Dook · 2005-05-12 19:22:49

Science, technology, and society evolve from new technologies and new understandings of the universe that are discovered by research, not fools errands. We don't need 50,000 people in space to discover new things, in fact, that would consume all of NASA's resources and time, and much more. Also, no serious scientist would use 50,000 people as 'test subjects' to see how long they last on mars. It's a good thing it won't happen.

I'm sure that some day we will venture out into deep space, it may only be 1,000 years from now but fighting for that now is like fighting for a seat in the year 2050 Super Bowl.

Grypd, in response to your arguments:
The earth destroying asteroid is possible but a slim risk. There probably is as much risk as a nearby star going supernova and releasing radiation that causes total extinction on the planet.

Um. Hobbits? You're not serious, are you? I got an A in Physical Anthropology and they never mentioned Hobbits.

How is our planet overcrowded when vast stretches of Australia, Africa, Asia, Russia, Antarctica, Canada, the USA, the oceans, and Arabia remain empty of humans. Any of these places is more hospitable to human settlement than anywhere in space. A lack of resources, which there isn't (platinum? debatable), has nothing to do with poverty and likely never will. Poverty is happens when a population exceeds it's economy.

There is plenty of 'space' for everyone. I'm not one bit worried that China, or some other, will take it all.

NASA robots see over the hills better, more cheaply, and without risk to life.

I'm all for doing new things, new ways. But risking many people on some crazy unnecessary adventure and attempting to use the name of science is absurd. No reputable scientist would support this plan today. In 2050? Maybe. But I'll be too old to go to the Super Bowl then anyway.

Dook · 2005-05-12 19:25:18

Really we agree. I'm sure that some day we will have 50,000 people in space, I just think it will be around the year 2300.

When do you see it happening?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2005-05-10 17:14:43

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#152 2005-05-10 17:24:27

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#153 2005-05-11 02:23:28

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#154 2005-05-11 07:58:31

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#155 2005-05-11 09:13:10

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#156 2005-05-11 13:54:08

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#157 2005-05-11 14:25:54

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#158 2005-05-11 14:39:47

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#159 2005-05-11 19:04:06

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#160 2005-05-11 19:36:31

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#161 2005-05-11 19:47:21

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#162 2005-05-11 20:15:19

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#163 2005-05-11 20:44:28

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#164 2005-05-12 02:49:24

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#165 2005-05-12 08:08:25

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#166 2005-05-12 12:22:43

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#167 2005-05-12 13:01:57

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#168 2005-05-12 15:47:12

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#169 2005-05-12 16:55:55

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#170 2005-05-12 17:06:50

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#171 2005-05-12 17:41:18

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#172 2005-05-12 18:31:48

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#173 2005-05-12 18:50:00

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#174 2005-05-12 19:22:49

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#175 2005-05-12 19:25:18

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

Board footer