The Colonization of Mars

Funny, for law class we're creating a consitution for a Mars colony/the planet.

I see the ocean as more of a stepping stone. Yes, living underwater would be harsh, but that's the point, isn't it? Deep-sea living on Earth is small potatoes compared to living on an alien world. Ideally, we would want to perfect survival under water, then learn how survive in space for longer periods, then on Luna, and finally bring that experience to Mars.

Again, the issues with Mars are cost, and time. Buzz Aldrin proposed an interesting way to get around those roadblocks called Mars Cyclers I think a combination of space elevator, cylclers and space stations could probably significantly reduce the costs of a Mars colonization in the long run.

I don't see where the leap from deep sea to Luna is coming from. One is a super high pressure environment, the other is a super low pressure environment, none of the technology associated with undersea colonies could really apply towards space colonies, except maybe air recycling (and they would probably just get the oxygen by splitting sea water into hydrogen and oxygen, something you won't want to do on Mars since you can filter the carbon dioxide directly into oxygen, and something you can't do on the Moon because water is so precious).

I could see colonizing the Moon as a stepping stone to Mars (since the Moon is a natural spaceport and refueling location), though the truth is that it would ultimately be easier to colonize Mars in the long run, and again Mars is a different environment from the Moon so there wouldn't be that much technological overlap (no easy carbon sources, for example, are on the Moon, so plastics would have to be brought in from Earth instead of made on site). For instance, you can't grow crops on the Moon's surface - there's no atmosphere to block out deadly radiation from space, unlike on Mars, so your plant would all get cancer and die unless you used a super-thick dome (we are talking several meters worth of thickness to block out the worst of the gamma radiation)of some kind, and that would be really really expensive to build. Also the Moon lacks for many vital resources, while Mars doesn't - even finding water would be a problem on the Moon, while Mars has thick ice sheets.

Besides resources, the Moon also just doesn't offer much of interest commercially. Since the Moon was formed from the shrapnel left behind when the early Earth smashed into another planet (Theia), Moon rock is basically the same thing you'd find on Earth - indeed, NASA confirmed its mostly silicon oxides, a.k.a. sand - so lunar mining operations would be pretty limited when it comes to platinum-group metals. There's no real geologic activity either, so geothermal energy goes out the window...I could go on, but I think you are starting to get the picture.

Not to say that colonizing the Moon isn't a bad idea in the long run, just that the whole idea of using it as a stepping stone to Mars doesn't make much sense - you colonize the friendlier world with more abundant resources first, then work on the high maintenance ones like Venus, Luna, and Mercury. Don't get me wrong though, the Moon has some nice things going for it. First, its closer, so its easier to ship supplies between the Earth and the Moon, and if something goes wrong you can evacuate back to Earth. The Moon has also collected over the ages plenty of Helium-3 particles from the solar wind, and yes, these are a feasible energy source in the future if we figure out nuclear fusion. Since it has no atmosphere and is shaded from the sun every thirty days, the Moon would be an excellent location for astronomical observatories. It would also be a nice place to store such things as the last vials of polio and other dangerous diseases - it isn't like they are ever going to escape from the Moon. And finally, since it has such a low gravity well, the Moon would make a great spaceport since it takes only a small amount of rocket fuel to lift off.

I can see a sort of trade triangle forming along these lines. Mars produces food for and resupplies asteroid mining operations and the Lunar bases (it would be cheaper to send the food from Mars than from Earth, even to the Moon, due again to the fact that it is far cheaper to get products into outer space from Mars than it is to do the same from Earth due to the lower escape velocity of Mars), the asteroid miners ship their product to the Moon where it is processed into orbital solar power satellites and other various zero-g industries, and the Moon maintains the orbiting solar power stations which feed the Earth an abundant supply of clean, wireless energy, as well as the zero-g industries which bring the Earth novel medicines and alloys which can only be produced in low-gravity environments. Earth then ships to the Moon and Mars high-technology goods and medicines or "luxury" products like wood furniture.

Thread Hop:

A lot of technologies are similar between deep water and space exploration but the pressure hull plating and so on, would be very different. However, all of the environmental systems and habitat control, which are far more important, are the same. What's so hard about stopping pressure? It's a sealed can of different strength levels. Oooooo O Oooo.

Anyway... @OP

For colonisation of Mars is probably more easily done by first sending a wave of robots to effect climate change. We would periodically send humans there and back once we've set up the refuelling infrastructure and so on (thereby cheapening the cost of travel). I think actually, the first two big problems is getting stuff into space (making a space elevator or equivalent) and once that is cheap, orbital factories. I want orbital factories because I want space-only spacecraft which is far cheaper, and do not need to land... just dock at space stations. That eliminates much of the problem of trying to send people back and forth in an expensive manner since a lot of fuel is burned going ground to orbit.

Then at Mars itself, I'd like to have a docking station, a space elevator and then automated ground stations. Something that lasts while humans aren't there because I think it problematic to require human presence (for instance, if there's an accident, I don't want the whole project to die horribly and a trillion dollars is lost).

Wheres the fun in that? We need humans there. For trouble shooting if nothing else.

The Colonzation of Mars... Will never happen UNTIL NASA gets some REAL funding and the US Gov't gets its shit together (And we ordinary folk are responsible for that part. because the gov't just wants to enslveu s down the line to keep us from having a future). I'll be dead before it happens, too. But the idea of fighting for our future over my grave sounds like great underground music.

@ Joesolo

Well eventually yes but I don't think they need to immediately be there. I'm all for human colonisation but that's how I'd do it. Set up the robotic infrastructure first before we start sending the humans. In this case, I'm using robots for what they're useful for; automated processes. And the automated processes are there to support human colonisation. So bam, two birds with one stone... I save money using robots and still get humans into space and onto other planets permanently.

Hm, I seem to recall someone suggesting some kind of station that essentially orbited between Mars and Earth. Or maybe it was the Moon and Earth?

I thought it'd be easier for a station above earth and one above mars, or maybe one above the moon and you have orbital factories there, since gravity is pretty low in comparison but that still leaves the problem of Earth-to-Orbit, even if the moon was turned into a giant self-sufficient factory.

Nah, it was specifically some kind of transit thingy for taking people and supplies from one place to another.

What do you mean a transit thingy? Like a way station or what?

Hm, it was supposed to be some kind of ship/station hybrid that orbited between two bodies, rather than simply around one, in a figure eight or something. So when it was near Earth, you'd put people and what not on board, and then off load them when you got it to where it was supposed to go. Thinking about it, it was probably the moon, since that doesn't have a weird orbit.

Oh I see, well you'd still need the space elevators for cheap ground-to-orbit movement, since our infrastructure and current resource locations are all on Earth.

I think it was proposed by one of the astronauts shortly after the shuttle was declared decommissioned. He suggested it as a way to get experience with building stuff that was both off the shelf and space dedicated. An orbital elevator would definitely be nice.

First problem in any colonization attempt is to get initial infastructure up. After you got first colonies and facilities up, cost goes down pretty quick.

Let's pull some totally incorrect math, shall we? These all hypothetical and no way reality stuff

To colonize Mars and make it viable, the colonizers need to build space elevator to easily brign stuff to orbit(100 currency), space facilities to maintain ships and people(50), then build the ship in those facilities(another 50), load up and send ship(35), have it touch down and set up infastructure on Mars(200), set up spacestuff on Mars side(150) making total cost 100+50+50+35+200+150=585 of whatever currency.

Now let's say another planet is found and they want to colonize it. They can use the ship they got earlier. This reduces cost, since you don't need to set up facilities on Earth side and you got ship alreadt, leaving total cost to 585-100-50-50=385. Over time, building these thigsn will also become easier and faster, futher decreasing the cost.

So we jsut need to get initial stuff ready and we can start expanding more there.

It's made of expensium. Right now, we can't afford it.

We should colonize ocean floors first... At least that way we can rescue the colonists if the life support systems go to Hell.

edited 19th Oct '11 6:45:26 AM by SavageHeathen

colonising the Ocean bed is actually harder than colonising the moon.

Seriously, ppl underwater might as well be in the surface of Mars, for all that matters. I havent heard of any succesful underwater rescue as of yet. Besides, they would face all type of problems such as pressure, decompresion, etc... Whereas one would have to be an idiot to let the life support systems fail in a hypothetical lunar base. Our experience with the International Space Station shows that. The technical capabilities are there. If the US invested 100% of its military budget in space, we would be already talking about colonising mars.

I am certain that if i get to live my life expentacy and humanity doesnt go to hell, I will live to see permanent pressence of men in the moon. Weather it will be us or the Chinese, it depends on how we invest in space here at home, not only the goverment, but also the private sector, right now.

edited 19th Oct '11 7:15:33 AM by Baff

IMO, the ideal would be large-scale underground —> moon —> oceans —> Mars.

And if I am not wrong the US has some pretty darn big bunkers, and I bet we dont even know about the existence of the most important ones.

The Cold War-gone-hot bunker for the Congress is impressive for its age.

I mean literal cities underground, however.

chuckles at the terrible climate impact that would have*

I think USAF, that instead of having cities build as bunkers, we will have modern cities begin to dig down, or rather, I would say they already exist.

also http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/10/mexico-city-architecture-_n_1004058.html

edited 19th Oct '11 7:31:00 AM by Baff

Problem is most people aren't capable of thinking in the long term. No one's going to invest money in terraforming Mars when the gains will come 100+ years after the investors death.

So it might be that democracies fail against authoritarian capitalist nations like China and Russia.

Finaly found the science magazine(2005) where there was article about terraforming Mars. It proposes use of modified bacteria that can fix damage caused by radiatio to their DNA. Also, according to article in 10 years the amount of greenhouse gasses on Mars would reach the point where more greenhouse gasses are released due to planet warming up than is lost. In about 1 000 years Mars would be safe from radiation. 10 000 years and it would have it's first rains. 100 000 years and it would Earth like conditions.

Nobodu could even plan futher than 20 years and even then the investors woudl be called insane.

Nice thing about bacteria though is that they are self-maintaining. After the initial, really not too expensive investment of oh, say, 50 million (the average cost of a Martian lander), we could "seed" Mars with these modified bacteria and then have to do nothing else.

Thing is, the process would be sped up much much faster than the hundred thousand years if we combined it with, say, the orbital mirrors and whatnot which I discussed.

Another thing to consider, is that the way genetics is going, we might have a life extension therapy within our lifetimes. If you could live for a few hundred or more years, I think you'd be a bit more interested in investing in terraforming projects - after all, the "I won't live to see it happen" excuse goes away at that point.