Colonization of Mars
- Thread starter TMD
- Start date
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Martian atmosphere isn't exactly good for balloons. Too thin, less than 1% of Earth one.
How many of them lived at 1/3 g? Most of the other issues might be solvable on a small scale - live underground or in shelters, bring your own plant biomass, melt ice for water and oxygen, etc (though I wonder if there’s a good source of material for fertilizer? I guess human excrement would have to stored and processed). But given the human experience in microgravity, I suspect 1/3 g is a slow death sentence. And I suspect human reproduction would produce gruesome results. If I were Elon I would definitely have a mission that just tried to create a self sustaining rat colony for a few years to see what happens.
Titan always struck me as a more hospitable place with a lot more resources to offer, but at that point you are traveling nuclear. IMO chemical rockets even to mars is not all that practical.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 17,040
- Reaction score
- 24,190
Hence my comment about the "anti-riot" happening, where all the non-rioting people rank up and use whatever force is necessary to stop the riot.
Given that the typical terraforming timelines run into centuries or millennia, that is a problem to assign to your HS and college students for ideas in how to correct.
None of them in particular, though Titan would have the advantages of a thick atmosphere and entire lakes of organics. Though if gravity does end up being a problem, it might require a planetoid being spun up and the population largely occupying an upside down belt shaped living space near the surface.
Psyche16 might be an ideal candidate, in that it has all the economic justification you could want…assuming you tunnel into it with sufficient efficiency. That would probably require a lot of mining just to get to a settlement sized level.
National control would be absolute until/unless self sufficiency were achieved. Until then, all a government has to do to retain control is…wait.
In regards to Mars's 38% surface-gravity if a space-station can be built in the future that has rotating structures to simulate gravity through centrifugal force then having section at Mars level with a laboratory housing lower primates. Could then conduct experiments with breeding-pairs to see if conception, gestation, birth (That should be easier in reduced gravity) and growth of their offspring are affected in any negative way.
Eventually you would want to work up to chimps, who are something like 97-98 generically identical to humans, for long term, more accurate tests (honestly I consider it more likely that human volunteers would just wing it and see what happens before anyone waited for that).
The advantage of rats and mice is much shorter reproduction cycles and larger litters for more specimens. If there’s a fundamental problem with mammalian reproduction in low g, it probably occurs in most everything: every complex multicellular life form developed at 1 g and and the basic reproduction cycle is relatively similar across mammals. Human reproduction then has a slew of extra problems due birthing effectively happening prematurely compared to other mammals, but mice and rats would be a cheap way determining if complex animal life could exist at all.
ETA: mice rats also are much lower mass and would be much less resource intensive to keep alive.
That alone makes it a high priority.
It can supply both methane and plastics to contain them.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 17,040
- Reaction score
- 24,190
I would assume that a colony would have lots of fire doors and independent life support systems. Seal the airtight doors and vent a burning area to vacuum to put out the fire. (with the knowledge that anyone who cannot get into a rescue ball before the area is vented will die.)
What I'd really like to see is movies or TV shows showing a riot that breaks atmospheric integrity and as a result kills everyone in the volume, before large groups of people are in space long term. Deliberately establishing that antisocial violence is threatening the lives of the entire colony in the public mindset.
What I suspect will happen is that there will be a riot of some kind that kills everyone in the volume, and when the riot instigators are found (a colony will have total surveillance) they're charged as terrorists for the megadeaths.
BlueAbyssal
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 14 January 2024
- Messages
- 410
- Reaction score
- 767
Not that you’re suggesting this, but I don’t think it’s worth going to Titan to ship hydrocarbons back to Mars. For the Martians, they’ll already be mining plenty of water, and carbon is extremely common in the atmosphere, so they can avoid all the extra work of building the relevant infrastructure on Titan, maintaining it, then shipping refined materials back to Mars.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 17,040
- Reaction score
- 24,190
If you're using nuclear-thermal rockets, even basic Methane makes an excellent reaction mass. Ammonia does as well, if you have access to lots of nitrogen and hydrogen. Ammonia is actually the better reaction mass, since it's liquid and nearly as dense as water.
So I'd expect the Titan hydrocarbon mines to be playing Space OPEC, providing reaction mass to all the colonies.
In addition to Mars the Moon would be another destination that would benefit from hydrocarbon shipments from Titan.
BlueAbyssal
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 14 January 2024
- Messages
- 410
- Reaction score
- 767
Ammonia is better, but if you've got refueling on Mars or in Martian orbit, or tethers, then you've got essentially the performance of an NTR without the extra mass, and methane's advantages over hydrogen in terms of density are hampered by its low Isp.
I could see Titan supplying hydrocarbons to locations that are low on carbon, because they'll have a comparative advantage there. Just not to Mars itself, not for a long time.
Perhaps not, but covering the planet in forests is a project that will take centuries to complete, if not longer. We don't have a good idea of how much carbon is stored in the crust, but the atmosphere has plenty for a population of, say, ten million people, with reasonable recycling efficiencies using carbon at a rate comparable to that of wealthy Americans in the present day (thousands of years' worth).
A Martian colony would be a very expensive and doubtfully useful experiment in extreme survival that would not ensure the survival of the species.
It would not be profitable, even if Mars were covered in heavy metals and rare earths.
From the launch of the first spaceship, Mars would become a curse for taxpayers, a curse that would become irreversible when the first children were born in the colony. They would no longer be able to return; it would not be possible to evacuate the colony and cut the expense because the children would not survive the earth's gravity. Spending would grow with the increase in population, and it could be centuries before the arrival of the first lawyers.
The colony would never be self-sufficient without heavy industry that allowed them access to groundwater and would continue to import almost everything.
Imagine that the star began to emit flares or begins to swell initiating the change into a red giant, the entire population of the earth would die, the colony would not last much longer without supplies, even if they were buried in the Martian soil.
Now imagine a series of orbital arcologies equipped with rotational gravity and propulsion systems, if necessary, they would migrate to the outer sections of the solar system, anchoring themselves in orbit of an outer moon and exploiting the resources of the Kuiper belt.
Founding a planetary colony is the same as buying a farm when you fail in the city, you will no longer be able to get out of there unless you win the lottery, a dead end.
It would not be profitable, even if Mars were covered in heavy metals and rare earths.
From the launch of the first spaceship, Mars would become a curse for taxpayers, a curse that would become irreversible when the first children were born in the colony. They would no longer be able to return; it would not be possible to evacuate the colony and cut the expense because the children would not survive the earth's gravity. Spending would grow with the increase in population, and it could be centuries before the arrival of the first lawyers.
The colony would never be self-sufficient without heavy industry that allowed them access to groundwater and would continue to import almost everything.
Imagine that the star began to emit flares or begins to swell initiating the change into a red giant, the entire population of the earth would die, the colony would not last much longer without supplies, even if they were buried in the Martian soil.
Now imagine a series of orbital arcologies equipped with rotational gravity and propulsion systems, if necessary, they would migrate to the outer sections of the solar system, anchoring themselves in orbit of an outer moon and exploiting the resources of the Kuiper belt.
Founding a planetary colony is the same as buying a farm when you fail in the city, you will no longer be able to get out of there unless you win the lottery, a dead end.
T. A. Gardner
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 18 February 2021
- Messages
- 1,731
- Reaction score
- 3,115
The way I see it, the first thing you need for a Mars colony is a way to shield the planet from the solar wind. That alone will cause the atmosphere to start to thicken, be it CO2 or whatever. It stops being stripped away.
That, in turn, raises the planet's surface temperature.
Next is getting water. With a thicker atmosphere, surface water--liquid water--is possible. This means it's now possible to bring in species from Earth that will create oxygen and absorb CO2.
Once you're there say 200 years or so, you have a cooler, habitable Earth-like planet. Just keep importing things like seeds, small quantities of various tiny lifeforms, etc., to build biodiversity. At that point, Mars is habitable for real, and humanity likely can survive fairly easily outside without massive life support, etc.
Okay, humans on Mars will evolve into a "Martian" variety of human. No big deal. They are just another country that's really far away to deal with commercially. Yea, it would take centuries but so long as you have a shield from the solar wind this isn't so difficult to do.
That, in turn, raises the planet's surface temperature.
Next is getting water. With a thicker atmosphere, surface water--liquid water--is possible. This means it's now possible to bring in species from Earth that will create oxygen and absorb CO2.
Once you're there say 200 years or so, you have a cooler, habitable Earth-like planet. Just keep importing things like seeds, small quantities of various tiny lifeforms, etc., to build biodiversity. At that point, Mars is habitable for real, and humanity likely can survive fairly easily outside without massive life support, etc.
Okay, humans on Mars will evolve into a "Martian" variety of human. No big deal. They are just another country that's really far away to deal with commercially. Yea, it would take centuries but so long as you have a shield from the solar wind this isn't so difficult to do.
If goal is economic, I do not see mars as generating anything of value you could not get on earth much easier.
If the goal is human survival post earth, then mars needs to 100% self sufficient, which seems like a very high bar to ever reach on any scale that would matter.
If the goal is libertarian utopia, I do not see that either - the nation, company, or NGO that funded the project(s) will retain absolute control of the investment it made, be it the USG, Musk, or some other billionaire(s). Sovereignty will not be given to poors, and for all intents and purposes, anyone below the billion mark is poor.
I think the moon is a much better settlement option, outside the lower gravity - Mars doesn’t really have anything more to offer and the moon is much closer, with easy transfer of resources to and from earth. Mars only makes sense if you consider terraforming an atmosphere an actual possibility, and personally I do not for this century (ETA: or really ever, but certainly not in the age of chemical rockets).
So I really do not see the point of Mars settlement, but Elon or anyone else with hundreds of billions to throw at the problem is welcome to try.
If the goal is human survival post earth, then mars needs to 100% self sufficient, which seems like a very high bar to ever reach on any scale that would matter.
If the goal is libertarian utopia, I do not see that either - the nation, company, or NGO that funded the project(s) will retain absolute control of the investment it made, be it the USG, Musk, or some other billionaire(s). Sovereignty will not be given to poors, and for all intents and purposes, anyone below the billion mark is poor.
I think the moon is a much better settlement option, outside the lower gravity - Mars doesn’t really have anything more to offer and the moon is much closer, with easy transfer of resources to and from earth. Mars only makes sense if you consider terraforming an atmosphere an actual possibility, and personally I do not for this century (ETA: or really ever, but certainly not in the age of chemical rockets).
So I really do not see the point of Mars settlement, but Elon or anyone else with hundreds of billions to throw at the problem is welcome to try.
Last edited:
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Well, it's not exactly the first thing. The colony could shield itself underground (and it would took dozens of millions of years for Martian atmosphere to thicken even with solar wind out of question).
The most promising idea to dealt with solar wind issue seems to be a magnetic deflector. A big (thousand km range) coil of superconductive wire, placed in Sun-Mars L1 Lagrange point, directly between Sun and Mars. By running current through the coil, the magnetic field would be created, capable of deflecting charged particles fron the Sun. Just a bit, of course, but it would create a "shadow" behind the shield, covering Mars and protecting it from high energy particles.
Wouldn’t the solar wind exert a pressure on the coil, requiring a constant acceleration to maintain the L1? As well as a constant current?
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
I'm afraid it would took MUCH more time. 200 million years, if we would wait for the atmosphere to thicken by natural outgassing. The Mars isn't exactly very geologically active; there are almost none active volcanism to replenish the atmosphere.
So to thicken the atmosphere, a gases must be added by artificial ways. Melting polar caps, for example. Or inducing the volcanism by controlled asteroid strikes & boring down (through atomics & radioactive melting) to still-hot mantle - so the heat could reach the massive ammounts of water, trapped inside Martian porous rocks.
Then, in some time perios Mars would have atmosphere and hydrosphere. Not sure abou 200 years, though. It looks like it migt took at least order of magnitude more.
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
This could be solved by using magnetic sails tethered to the construction, or solar-powered thrusters, or other means.
Unfamiliar with magnetic sail.
Thruster requires reaction mass. In any case, any failure, either technical, fuel related, or intentional, would have very severe repercussions. I cannot imagine anyone roles the dice on centuries of terraforming when one accident could set progress back by a hundred years or more.
SUPER=BUG
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 25 September 2024
- Messages
- 604
- Reaction score
- 1,586
At the moment, it is not appropriate to settle anywhere due to the lack of suitable motivation, and to be honest, we will only see the creation and application of lunar research stations in the next 20 years.
T. A. Gardner
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 18 February 2021
- Messages
- 1,731
- Reaction score
- 3,115
No, it doesn't. The atmosphere would increase exponentially at first. Within decades it would be several times thicker than it is now without the solar wind stripping it away. This could be increased by things like using carbon (lampblack) to darken the polar CO2 ice caps and melt them.
Then you add in human activity. Think lots and lots of air pollution. You want mega amounts of air pollution initially. Anything that thickens the atmosphere and isn't like totally deadly is good.
Then you import algaes, stromatolites, bacteria, and other microbial life to gobble up the CO2 and convert it to O2. Anything that dumps nitrogen into the atmosphere is good.
Another, if it can be managed, is planetary bombardment. Add energy and get the planet's core hot and liquid again. That means a magnetic field. Drop both of Mars' moons into the planet for example. They're worthless as moons (too small), so bombard the planet with them. If you can go to the asteroid belt, send some larger ones Mars' way.
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
I'm not sure natural outgassing on Mars is strong enough. No water surfaces, and no volcanic activity. Melting polar ice caps would clearly be required to replenish the atmosphere.
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
They are extremely valuable as orbiting spaceports. Especially Deimos - the cheapest (in terms of delta-v) supply of water ice in Solar System!
The theory is good for a civilization that has enormous resources and an enormous interest in Mars. But the electronic device you describe should be huge and would need some kind of maintenance and propulsion to keep up with its position, Lagrange points don't have unlimited capacity to hold large masses.
Perhaps it would be cheaper to build an envelope of superconducting particles in orbit around the planet.
Possibly what stopped the rotation of the core was the apocalyptic impact that generated the Hellas depression, the Marineris valley and the three largest volcanoes in the solar system.
It's not guaranteed that the core will spin again after an impact, perhaps the ancient asteroid is still preventing it in the heart of the planet.
In addition, the re-starting procedure would generate monstrous earthquakes during the adjustment of velocities, perhaps for millions of years, perhaps creating a new Venus covered in active lava.
An approximation of the kind of life that the Martian colonists would have can be seen in the differences between the planned space station of 2001 Space Odyssey and the sad reality of the International Space Station that we have managed to build during twenty years.
Ascending in a Russian rocket, not being able to wash or wear clean clothes for months, living among bags of excrement and cancerous radiation, returning to earth with half muscle and bone mass and a completely altered circulatory system ... Who would want to live up there more than necessary?
The station is only 400 km away.
How a year in space affected Scott Kelly's health
www.snexplores.org
Nearly a year in space changed Scott Kelly’s genes, brain function and more, NASA’s Twin Study shows.
www.snexplores.org
Ascending in a Russian rocket, not being able to wash or wear clean clothes for months, living among bags of excrement and cancerous radiation, returning to earth with half muscle and bone mass and a completely altered circulatory system ... Who would want to live up there more than necessary?
The station is only 400 km away.
How a year in space affected Scott Kelly's health
How a year in space affected Scott Kelly's health
Nearly a year in space changed Scott Kelly’s genes, brain function and more, NASA’s Twin Study shows.
www.snexplores.org
Nearly a year in space changed Scott Kelly’s genes, brain function and more, NASA’s Twin Study shows.
www.snexplores.org
Attachments
Last edited:
This +1. Any effort that could establish a permanent settlement on mars, even one still reliant on earth, would probably be far better spent doing…almost anything else in space. And the technology that could make Mars remotely practical likely unlocks far more useful prospects elsewhere in system. There just is not much to recommend mars outside proximity, and if that is the main advantage, the moon has ice and lava tubes as well.
I suggest a ratio of ten females to each male...
Last edited:
SUPER=BUG
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 25 September 2024
- Messages
- 604
- Reaction score
- 1,586
It's a bit puzzling for non-native English speakers... Chick? Is that chick I understand?
It's a bit puzzling for non-native English speakers... Chick? Is that chick I understand?
chick
chick - Definition:
chick [chik] (plural chicks) noun 1. Young woman: an
considered offasie 114t Conty, Shorening of chicke
chick - Definition:
chick [chik] (plural chicks) noun 1. Young woman: an
considered offasie 114t Conty, Shorening of chicke
It is I believe specifically American English slang; I think the British equivalent would be ‘bird’? Which is equally confusing to a non native English speaker…
BlueAbyssal
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 14 January 2024
- Messages
- 410
- Reaction score
- 767
I know of no one who things the goal is solely economic, but this also isn’t true. We don’t just mine things because they’re easy, we mine them because they’re economic enough and there’s sufficient demand that even more expensive mines are still profitable. Or as I noted a page or two back, a Martian colony will have to be extremely inventive to thrive, and those inventions can be licensed back on Earth.
That is the case for anyone living beyond Earth. Doesn’t mean it isn’t ultimately worthwhile to try.
I know of no one suggesting a libertarian utopia outside of people who don’t like libertarians. But regarding Mars’ sovereignty, by sheer virtue of distance and communications lag it will have a substantial amount of freedom from Earth by fiat. Think of how much flexibility ambassadors had in the age of sail. When it could be months or years before you got a reply from your government, you had to be independent.
The Moon has a far worse problem with dust, and doesn’t have the variety of raw materials that Mars has. ‘Easy’ transport off really only happens if you have a mass-driver; it’s likely lunar bases would prefer to save their hydrogen for purposes aside from burning it, as water is pretty rare on the Moon. Al-LOX is possible, but getting the aluminum out won’t be cheap and usually requires carbon, which the Moon is very poor in. As we also don’t know what gravity is good for us other than 32.2 ft/s/s (9.81 m/s/s for you metric types), we cannot say if the Moon will be enough, or if we need more.
As for terraforming, I don’t think objecting to Mars settlement for that reason makes sense. We don’t need to terraform the entire planet right from the start, and everyone serious about Mars that I’ve seen thinks it will be a long process. Paraterraforming much smaller regions is a possibility, and one that could emerge within a few decades of a settlement’s establishment.
That’s a better attitude than dogmatic claims that it simply cannot be done, but vast orbital habitats are practical by comparison. And I say that as someone who is more interested in O’Neill habitats than Mars.
Minor note: we aren’t sure if there’s any ice on or in Deimos. A few years back I read speculation that the data was closer to both moons being bone-dry. No way to know without ground truth.
If humanity only did exclusively what was needed, our society would be poorer, smaller, hungrier, more diseased, and less entertained. The only truly monumental goal, to me, is actually terraforming Mars. Everything else? Not so much.
I’ve noted some of the Moon’s disadvantages already, and another is that the Moon is too close for truly independent human settlements to emerge. As for ‘more useful,’ how do you define that? I do agree that any level of effort that makes settling Mars practical also unlocks asteroid mining in the main belt, constructing large orbital habitats, building bases all over the Moon, and more besides.
Similar threads
-
The possibility of the colonization of Venus put forward by NASA- Started by bearnard97
- Replies: 50
-
-
-
-