• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Could a human colony thrive on mars?

Cainkane1

Philosopher
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
9,011
Location
The great American southeast
Do you folks have any ideas about a possible human colony on mars? Would all of the clothing and food and toilet paper come from earth? How could wastes be properly be disposed of? I realise that vegetables could be grown hydroponically but how about cloth for clothing? Grow cotton maybe?

I personally wouldn't want to live in an environment where you couldn't go outside without a full spacesuit but what are you guys ideas and suggestions and theories?

Will we have to deal with Little green men? No seriously.
 
It seems that we aren't even sure we can figure out a way to land a manned vehicle, so it may be a moot point. The extreme distance would probably result in the scaling back of unnecessary luxuries like clothing and toilet paper. You probably couldn't have any waste that wasn't reused for something.
 
I could probably survive on these....no problem, seriously.
 

Attachments

  • mars bars.jpg
    mars bars.jpg
    2.1 KB · Views: 197
There isn't going to be any kind of a human colony on Mars, given the direction that human space exploration is currently mired in.

Why would anyone want to go tens of millions of miles away just to live in a totally artificial environment? You can get that here in Los Angeles and it's a mite closer.

Everything about the planet Mars is wrong for humans. One third the weight. Can't breathe the paltry atmosphere. What kind of shielding does the planet provide from cosmic rays? Damned little. Circadian rhythm? Forget about that. What would people do? Fish? Ski? Swim? Hunt game? Go birdwatching? Race cars?

So, we'd have to haul thousands of tons of building materials, equipment, power generators - everything - to build an underground or domed artificial zone so that people could go there and do - what? Say they went to Mars? That's a lotta trouble just for bragging rights.

Possibly we'll be silly enough to invest hundreds of billions just to get a little ship there, land, and hope to hell we can get it back without casualties. Big waste, in my opinion.
 
There isn't going to be any kind of a human colony on Mars, given the direction that human space exploration is currently mired in.

Certainly not in the next few years, but never is an awful long time.

Why would anyone want to go tens of millions of miles away just to live in a totally artificial environment? You can get that here in Los Angeles and it's a mite closer.

Obviously, you would not be a very good candidate for the space program. Do you really need to ask this question? So you feel going to the moon was a big waste of time too?

Everything about the planet Mars is wrong for humans. One third the weight. Can't breathe the paltry atmosphere. What kind of shielding does the planet provide from cosmic rays? Damned little. Circadian rhythm? Forget about that.

What does that have to do with anything? It's usually these kinds of comments that motivate others. Some people do things specifically because they are hard. You must have challenged yourself at some point, no?

What would people do? Fish? Ski? Swim? Hunt game? Go birdwatching? Race cars?

Hmmmm, whatever could there be for a scientist (any discipline) to study on an extraterrestrial earth-like planet. Certainly anything discovered there (or in the pursuit of getting there) couldn't be applied here in any way.

So, we'd have to haul thousands of tons of building materials, equipment, power generators - everything - to build an underground or domed artificial zone...

Maybe the solution isn't something quite so obvious. I don't have anything particular in mind, but nobody has yet asked me to come up with a plan.

so that people could go there and do - what? Say they went to Mars? That's a lotta trouble just for bragging rights.

How does the line go? "One small step for bragging rights..."

Possibly we'll be silly enough to invest hundreds of billions just to get a little ship there, land, and hope to hell we can get it back without casualties. Big waste, in my opinion.

Certainly large government expenditures with a scientific purpose couldn't possibly stimulate the economy, advance scientific progress and scholarly pursuit worldwide, and produce technologies which may benefit all of humanity (even those who never leave their hometown). What a spirit of adventure!
 
Why would anyone want to go tens of millions of miles away just to live in a totally artificial environment? You can get that here in Los Angeles and it's a mite closer.

Possibly we'll be silly enough to invest hundreds of billions just to get a little ship there, land, and hope to hell we can get it back without casualties. Big waste, in my opinion.

i'd completely disagree :)

landing humans on mars would be in my opinion the greatest achievement in mankind's history....

and cost wise? Even at $1trillion that only equates to one war in Iraq (projected) - the major international economies could more than bear that kind of expenditure over the course of several years...and maybe as a bonus they'd have less loose change for tanks and missiles ;)
 
Last edited:
Certainly not in the next few years, but never is an awful long time.

Obviously, you would not be a very good candidate for the space program. Do you really need to ask this question? So you feel going to the moon was a big waste of time too?

What does that have to do with anything? It's usually these kinds of comments that motivate others. Some people do things specifically because they are hard. You must have challenged yourself at some point, no?

Hmmmm, whatever could there be for a scientist (any discipline) to study on an extraterrestrial earth-like planet. Certainly anything discovered there (or in the pursuit of getting there) couldn't be applied here in any way.

Maybe the solution isn't something quite so obvious. I don't have anything particular in mind, but nobody has yet asked me to come up with a plan.

How does the line go? "One small step for bragging rights..."

Certainly large government expenditures with a scientific purpose couldn't possibly stimulate the economy, advance scientific progress and scholarly pursuit worldwide, and produce technologies which may benefit all of humanity (even those who never leave their hometown). What a spirit of adventure!
Betcha I know more about the Space Program, and astronomy and astrophysics than you do. Betcha.

Since when did I equate establishing a human colony on Mars with landing on the Moon? I didn't. You made the assumption.

Oh, I wouldn't be a very good candidate for the space program? Is that a fact? Did you know I volunteered for the Shuttle program back in the late 70s, while in the military? Naturally I wasn't qualified - few are. Did you also know I worked in the Space Shuttle program for 2 years as a contractor to NASA?

Oh, I see, I take the easy way out, is that what you are implying? Really? How many people do you know who write screenplays? Or run their own business, started from scratch? Ever been to Russia? Ever been inside the Great Pyramid at Giza? Ever been on commercial radio as a disc jockey? Ever go on acting auditions? I've done them all. And still kicking.

Are you actually stating that Mars is an Earth-like planet? And just what would you consider is Earth-like about it? Its atmosphere? Its atmospheric pressure? Its gravity rating? Its weather? Its electromagnetic fields? Its orbital inclination? Its seasons? Its topography? Its temperature? Its plate tectonics? Its volcanic activity? Its oceans? Its life? Mars, in fact, is a completely alien and harsh world that could only sustain humans encapsulated within an artificial bubble. At best.

I'm all for space exploration and colonization. But this isn't the way to do it. Look at the Moon. 35 years since we went. And it's next door. Going to a planet, planetoid or moon just for the hell of it - today - isn't gonna provide quite as much ROI as you indicate. And Mars? Cannot be compared to hopping and skipping to the Moon. It is true interplanetary travel. To do that - you start with the vehicle. And my proposal is to start - immediately - gaining all knowledge necessary to power, shield, navigate and habitize asteroids as space vehicles. That's the only way we'll ever attain the Holy Grail of interstellar travel. So we start with interplanetary travel. By making the vehicle itself - a mini-Earth.
 
I guess it depends on a number of definitions and variables...

For example, what do you mean by "thrive"? A self-sustainable population of how many people? Growing or steady numbers? A self-sustainable base where some people would stay for a certain time (say, 3 years and then are substituted) studying Mars would qualify?

Or you are thinking about something like large dome-cities or even terraforming projects?

A small base, on the next decades, maybe it will become technically feasible. The other options, well, who knows... I guess they are quite far in the horizon, since they would require some major scientific and technological breakthroughs.
 
To the OP, it seems unlikely that a human colony would be remotely feasible in the forseeable future (50+ years). Radiation is the real killer at present.

There are a lot of folks at NASA trying to solve essentially this very problem, because even the first crewed missions will probably have to rely on harvesting resources from Mars. This looks to be the only way to get the mass fraction down, unless we go to fundamentally different launch and propulsion technologies (i.e. Orion -- not the Orion capsule, the old Orion concept). This research is called "In-Situ Resource Utilization," or ISRU. Read about it here.

Practicing NASA engineer here, by the way. All opinions mine alone.
 
Well if we are talking about a viable colony (and not just a few researchers) we're talking about some massive infrastructure needs just for them to either be supplied from afar or to supply themselves.

As technology stands now, no it is not feasible. Could be in the near future. Assuming you're talking a sizable settlement (small town size) here's some concerns.

WATER
Right now even the best water recycling technology would still require some small amount of input to maintain the system. Fortunately Mars can supply this via the icecaps (carbon dioxide and water).

FOOD
Well now you really need water (and CO2 for plants). But man can not live on vegetables alone, contrary to PETA. Life without Bacon? Perish the thought. Livestock require a lot of resources (and room unless you want to be inhumane) though. So either you're going to need some huge habitat domes or similar structures or going to need supply shipments of frozen meat or Spam. Grain crops take large amounts of space as well so again it's lots of big structures or flour and beer from Earth at a huge cost.

AIR
Well if you're really going to be planting a lot then there's a some amount of oxygen generation there. Add in some form of electrolysis or electrodialysis and you can get oxygen from the water and carbon dioxide in the frozen ice caps.

POWER
Of course making air and lighting and heating the colony and running machinery and such all take power. Definitely talking nuclear here, supplemented possibly by solar and wind power.

TRANSPORT
Makes the most sense to build near the poles but you're going to want your main landing/launching facility closer to the equator... although maybe on Mars this is not be as much of a concern as it is on Earth due to the 1/3 G (someone can correct me if so). Going to probably need some form of rail system for it to be efficient. Unless you like the Dakar Rally a lot...

WASTE
Assuming there will be much recycling of biological waste and grey water, you still have a large amount of garbage. Probably going to want to recycle as much as you can for new raw materials. What's left can probably be incinerated.

MANUFACTURING
Raw materials will be needed to build the colony, manufacture necessities and luxury materials (don't want unhappy colonists) in order for the colony to be self sufficient. Can we get a lot of what we need right on the planet? Perhaps. But not necessarily all. At the point where you're building a huge colony on Mars it might be easier to asteroid mine for ores not available on Mars over (somehow) hauling gigantic loads out of Earth's gravity well.

Just me doing some thinking without much research so discard it a just plain wrong in some areas. Especially since some NASA people are here who probably get paid to think more thoroughly.
 
Last edited:
TRANSPORT
Makes the most sense to build near the poles but you're going to want your main landing/launching facility closer to the equator... although maybe on Mars this is not be as much of a concern as it is on Earth due to the 1/3 G (someone can correct me if so). Going to probably need some form of rail system for it to be efficient. Unless you like the Dakar Rally a lot...
The ESA launcing site in French Guyana is only 3 degrees north of the equator. Transport by ship is quite efficient. (Not that we can't build other launching sites.)
 
BlackKat said:
TRANSPORT
Makes the most sense to build near the poles but you're going to want your main landing/launching facility closer to the equator... although maybe on Mars this is not be as much of a concern as it is on Earth due to the 1/3 G (someone can correct me if so). Going to probably need some form of rail system for it to be efficient. Unless you like the Dakar Rally a lot...

The ESA launcing site in French Guyana is only 3 degrees north of the equator. Transport by ship is quite efficient. (Not that we can't build other launching sites.)

I was referring to building a launching site on Mars for our theoretical colony, presuming of course that said colony would have people and goods to transfer in both directions. Most launch sites on Earth are usually built as close to the Equator as possible (considering national boundaries). Just not sure if that is as advantageous when you're on a planet with significantly less gravity. Anyone know?
 
Last edited:
I guess it depends on a number of definitions and variables...

For example, what do you mean by "thrive"? A self-sustainable population of how many people? Growing or steady numbers? A self-sustainable base where some people would stay for a certain time (say, 3 years and then are substituted) studying Mars would qualify?

Or you are thinking about something like large dome-cities or even terraforming projects?

A small base, on the next decades, maybe it will become technically feasible. The other options, well, who knows... I guess they are quite far in the horizon, since they would require some major scientific and technological breakthroughs.

I do mean terraforming. I mean an actual civilization of self sustaining human beings living on Mars and glad they live there. I wouldn't like to live there but would it be possible for this to happen someday?
 
Do you folks have any ideas about a possible human colony on mars? Would all of the clothing and food and toilet paper come from earth? How could wastes be properly be disposed of? I realise that vegetables could be grown hydroponically but how about cloth for clothing? Grow cotton maybe?

I personally wouldn't want to live in an environment where you couldn't go outside without a full spacesuit but what are you guys ideas and suggestions and theories?

How about a "start with the basics" point of view?

What country or organization will be the first to start sending people on one way trips into space (moon, Mars, you pick it....)?
 
How about a "start with the basics" point of view?

What country or organization will be the first to start sending people on one way trips into space (moon, Mars, you pick it....)?

China. They already send people on one way trips into their mines. ;)

And they already are aiming to get to the moon.
 

Back
Top Bottom