• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cases for the colonisation of Mars

Is it such a terrible thing to do something challenging because it is a challenge? You know the wide eyed inquisitive wonderment we got as kids when presented with a new place to explore? Why should we squelch that? We climb mountains because they are there. We dropped a bathyscaphe into the Challenger Deep just to prove we could. We base jump off cliffs, rappel into sinkholes and raft down the Brahmaputra all just to see what it is like and what we might find through doing it.

In the grand scheme of things the expense of space exploration pales in comparison to what we spend down here (heck we spend more money on porn every year then we do on NASA).......and let us not forget that the money spent to explore space is still spent down here on Earth. It's not like we stuff $300 million into a vault on the spaceship and launch it to the stars.

Let's face it, things are never going to be totally fixed here on Earth and if we wait around for perfection to happen then we simply will be postponing things that fill us with awe and inspiration while mucking around finding new things to complain about.
 
Once these planets/habitats are self-sufficient they may provide relief for overcrowding of the Earth- one that does not involve stripping the planet bare in order to support tens of billions of humans.

Never happen. The population on Mars will grow natively and that will make up the vast bulk of Martians.


Many conflicts on Earth seem to stem from a competition for resources, which may one day seem exceedingly ridiculous considering the matereal wealth available to a solar-system spanning species versus that available to the planet-bound.

It took a hundred and fifty years after the discovery of America before the New World really began to take off as a place to raise a family.

And that was with a gigantic and existent merchant marine fleet. We're still in the period where Queen Isabella is funding Christobal Colo'n.



I know it's exciting to look ahead to this stuff, but even if you eat your Wheaties, you may not see even a Mars landing, much less a colony on Mars, or even the Moon.
 
If we can learn terraforming, it would be worth colonizing Mars. But we can't even prevent the rain forests from disappearing, or terraform the Sahara desert.


"During the last glacial period, the Sahara was even bigger than it is today, extending south beyond its current boundaries."



In any case, humans decided to get rid of the rain forests in favor of stuff that actually benefits humanity. Just like the US and Europe and China did hundreds to thousands of years ago. Preserving them is something only of importance to concrete canyon dwellers living the high life in countries that have long since become relative economic juggernauts. It's similar to bemoaning the loss of the teenagers of bushmen to T-shirts and city life.
 
Oh, BTW, we should colonize Mars and terraform it because, if nothing else, it will create a place with a different government outside of Earth's control, when it gets critical mass. Like any frontier, it will end up wilder and a place to go homestead. The intellectual elite will flee there to start businesses, and it will become the new Center of Empire, so to speak, while the old center dies a slow death, collapsed under the weight of it's own oppressive laws. Eventually New York gets sacked by some guy from Ceres. Historians write books about how astounding and inconceivable that used to be.
 
Oh, BTW, we should colonize Mars and terraform it because, if nothing else, it will create a place with a different government outside of Earth's control, when it gets critical mass. Like any frontier, it will end up wilder and a place to go homestead. The intellectual elite will flee there to start businesses, and it will become the new Center of Empire, so to speak, while the old center dies a slow death, collapsed under the weight of it's own oppressive laws. Eventually New York gets sacked by some guy from Ceres. Historians write books about how astounding and inconceivable that used to be.
I agree with the sentiment (see post #20) if not the Ayn Rand'esque capitalist-utopia bits.

In your previous post you mention the "new world" taking a century and a half to take off and become a place to raise a family (assuming, of course that the people dwelling here did'nt think it already was such a place), but you claim that habitable off-world colonies (like a terraformed Mars) will not accommodate immigrants from Earth- I think you are right regarding the time that it will take For Mars to be developed, but I disagree that the available space won't ease population concerns here on Earth. 150 years ago we travelled about on domesticated animals- I don't think it is unreasonable to extrapolate an increase in technology and efficiency that will allow mass transit to another planet.

The planet may be smaller, but it has no oceans
 
Last edited:
Mine the asteroid belt?

... just a thought.

There's just not a lot of good stuff in asteroids for terraforming. The stuff we would need is in comets. If we could routine destabilize all those dust bunnies and aim them at Mars, we could probably start interesting something up. Problem is that it would take somewhere between hundreds to hundred thousands of years to complete. And the comets tend to be waaaaay out there. There is the Oort cloudWP. Aiming would very be difficult. And, given that collisions between celestial bodies can be very ... ah ... violent (and we'd need a lot of collisions), Mars would be much less suitable for life than it is now in the mean time.
 
"Make it explore space for us" isn't what I had in mind at all. When I say intelligent and conscious, I mean sovereign as well. This new species would explore space like we explore our planet. Space would be its natural environment, ideally. What this new species does is up to it.

Still, I don't know what an intelligent species would think of us for creating them for such an explicit purpose. There's always the possibility of them going all Cylon on us, even if we didn't mistreat them.

We've always been good at building machines and changing the environment to suit us, so I say we stick to what we know.

What strikes me as incredibly foolish is expending immense amounts of energy and resources on something so profligate as sending a human colony to Mars, etc. In my opinion, helping to develop a species our mental equal that could live on Mars is a far better use of our time, our energy, and our resources.

See, I don't see the point in this. We might as well not colonize Mars at all if we're not even going to go there ourselves. I suppose we could set up trade deals to bring needed resources back to Earth, but for me the main appeal of space travel is seeing new places and worlds, not just the practical aspect.

In a way we're already doing what you describe; we send probes out into space to explore for us. But it's just not the same as actually stepping onto the soil of a new world ourselves. I can look at photographs of another country, but it's just not the same as going there myself and experiencing everything first-hand.
 
Last edited:
Doesn't the core of Mars need to be reignited?

Errr...Why? On Earth, the magnetic field is a powerful safeguard from one hazard, solar proton emissions. It channels these emissions around the planet, for the most part, and shields us from their direct consequences (radiation and electrical network interference) and from their effects in eroding the atmosphere.

Without it, as on Mars, we have to otherwise protect ourselves and the planet. For the atmosphere, there's nothing we can do about the erosion, so, simply put, we'd have to manufacture enough gases to compensate for those stripped away. The stripping is a slow, steady process. It is estimated that it took on the order of a hundred million years to strip Mars of it's original atmosphere. If we can create the atmosphere in, on the outside, 10,000 years, then there should be no problem in keeping that atmosphere stable against the solar erosion effect.

The radiation is a little different. However, the troubling radiation is protons. As they are charged particles, they can be stopped by the mass of a physical radiation shield - in this case, the atmosphere. Alpha particles, consisting of two protons and two neutrons (a helium nucleus) are stopped by a shield made up of sheet of paper. They are not dangerous to humans unless the alpha source is lodged within or right against the body. Single protons have better penetrating power, but not that much better. Since they are charged, they are deflected by nuclei, and give up kinetic energy through ionization of atmospheric atoms and are simultaneously scattered. A few hundred meters of 1 bar atmosphere serves to pretty much blunt the average CME's radiation effects. Humans on Earth have never been historically affected by solar proton radiation, even when the protons are funneled to Earth in the magnetic polar areas, all thanks to our atmosphere.

The only remaining hazard is to electronics, which is affected by being flooded with charged particles. These electronics can be protected by hardening and magnetic shielding, processes which are technologically well-known. Since the hazards on Mars are known ahead of time, then electronics on Mars will likely have to be routinely hardened, especially before the atmosphere is complete.

The second question is, How?, and I'll leave that with only the reflection that it would be handy to have a magnetoshere if that could be arranged.
 
what may be the only intelligent species in the Universe.

you talk about Humans? you think we will become an intelligent species?
 
Is it such a terrible thing to do something challenging because it is a challenge? You know the wide eyed inquisitive wonderment we got as kids when presented with a new place to explore? Why should we squelch that? We climb mountains because they are there. We dropped a bathyscaphe into the Challenger Deep just to prove we could. We base jump off cliffs, rappel into sinkholes and raft down the Brahmaputra all just to see what it is like and what we might find through doing it.
None of these things are colonization. Exploring hostile places is one thing. Actually settling in and raising children is very different.
The best reason for colonizing is because there's nobody already there to bugger you around. That's the reason just about every corner of Earth has been colonized by humans.
EVERY corner??

I attract your attention to 71% of Earth's surface which has NOT been colonized. It is called "ocean".

I will believe in colonizing Mars the day first baby is born in immensely more benign and accessible environment of continental shelf.
 
Bottom line, we use the right tools for the job, and for some jobs, astronauts are the right way despite the inherent cost and difficulties.
Mackey, would you be willing to expand on this? In our current phase of Mars exploration, do you have specific jobs in mind for which you think humans would be the better "tool"?

Are these jobs which robots are currently doing, or jobs which are not currently being done in this phase?

Do you envision shifting existing funds from jobs robots are doing, to support human-based jobs? If so, how much of a shift, and which robot jobs would you eliminate?

Or do you envision an increase in funding, to support human based jobs? If so, how much of an increase do you anticipate, for each human job created?

Either way, what benefits do you envision from creating human jobs in this phase of our exploration of Mars, and how do you think they compare to the associated costs?
 
Still, I don't know what an intelligent species would think of us for creating them for such an explicit purpose. There's always the possibility of them going all Cylon on us, even if we didn't mistreat them.

Of course there is. Anyone with teenagers in the house knows all about that. All we can control is how we treat the new species, and if we don't pull the God/creator thing out of the hat, we should do all right.

We've always been good at building machines and changing the environment to suit us, so I say we stick to what we know.

This is my argument as well, a kind of cost-effectiveness. It's just where we are putting the emphasis. Places like Mars and low-orbit Earth may be worth the time it will take to alter the environment to suit our existence needs. But go much further, and we're dealing with immense, immense difficulties in exporting our needed environment.

It's not our fault. We are bound to our environment inextricably. But anyone who can be proud of their progeny doing and going and achieving remarkable things can understand the justifiable human pride in assisting a new species to cross the earth-space divide the way that species in the ocean eventually crossed the ocean-land divide. What we call human design is really just accelerated evolution, anyway.

See, I don't see the point in this. We might as well not colonize Mars at all if we're not even going to go there ourselves. I suppose we could set up trade deals to bring needed resources back to Earth, but for me the main appeal of space travel is seeing new places and worlds, not just the practical aspect.

Well, that's what we would be doing with a human colony as well. The experiences with the American New World should let us know that any Martian colony would be its own sovereign nation. And I'll confess that I went to "create a species to exist on Mars" as a way to keep this on topic. I'm really talking about that being a extra-solar system necessity.

And, yes, we should try to colonize Mars even if we can't go. I don't have any problem in being a stepping stone species to space. It's been working fine down here on earth ever since life started the whole respiration merry-go-round.

In a way we're already doing what you describe; we send probes out into space to explore for us. But it's just not the same as actually stepping onto the soil of a new world ourselves. I can look at photographs of another country, but it's just not the same as going there myself and experiencing everything first-hand.

Of course, I am weird. I have been around the world and I find that pictures of the whole shebang suit me just fine now. It's all I have of the place now, anyway. It wouldn't stop me from going again if I could, but every picture and recording of a place has become precious to me.

And it won't be us literally that goes, will it? If it is going to be our children's children that does this, what matter is it if it is our biological children or our intellectual ones?

Errr...Why?

(snip)

The second question is, How?, and I'll leave that with only the reflection that it would be handy to have a magnetoshere if that could be arranged.

I snip not to minimize your excellent discussion. I only offered the comment in a "it would be handy" way, with the comment that it would be easier on all concerned if we ignited the core before any extensive colonization. And I'm under no illusions that any of this will be done soon. These are possible long-term goals stressing the words long-term.

As for how, anybody got a Bic? We do have a heck of a lot of nuclear missiles that we keep threatening to blow ourselves up with!

Of course there's no guarantee that the planet would survive the reignition process. It might split in half like some flawed gemstone. Maybe not.

ETA: Ooh, I meant to add. I thought of a possible way the O'Neill cylinder could be adapted to the Mars surface. If you build a structure like a racetrack slanted up to accommodate high speed traffic, you could then revolve it and use the resulting centrifugal? centripetal? force to mimic Earth gravity. Just a thought.
 
Last edited:
Mackey, would you be willing to expand on this? In our current phase of Mars exploration, do you have specific jobs in mind for which you think humans would be the better "tool"?

I can cite one possibility. So far we have sent two Viking landers, a Pathfinder vehicle, the Polar Lander, two Mars rovers, the Phoenix and soon the Mars Science Lab. At this point, we still do not have a definitive word on whether there is life on Mars, despite experiments on each of these landers/rovers to look for it. The reason is because we haven't been asking the right questions, and that's a problem because robots need very specific questions to answer, and the next question depends on the answers to the previous ones. A single manned landing would have that answer within, probably, a week of landing (I'm using the Mars Direct proposal here for comparisons; it expects the team of four to land on Mars and spend 18 months there). The same argument can be made for Mars planetary evolution, geology, water survey/hydrology and other topics. Now, I think the total cost of all the missions to Mars, both ours and other countries, probably totals somewhere in the 12 billion dollar range. The Mars Direct mission could be about $55 billion. Man is expensive, but he is still (and likely will remain for the next 50 years) the most flexible computer sent out, and with the best adaptive capacity available. The rovers, as ingenious and versatile as they are, have covered only 5.2 kilometers between them. The exploration they've done could be done by two men in, easily a week, including all the science these marvelous platforms have carried out.

Are these jobs which robots are currently doing, or jobs which are not currently being done in this phase?

There may be little that men can do that a rover cannot, except to answer and answer questions that were not even framed before the mission left Earth.

Do you envision shifting existing funds from jobs robots are doing, to support human-based jobs? If so, how much of a shift, and which robot jobs would you eliminate?

Mars Direct could be done within the NASA budget for the space shuttle within ten years, leaving the unmanned programs pretty much as they are now. Current maintenance/flight status for the shuttles runs about $2.5 billion per year. Development and build costs were probably on the order of $5-6 billion per year for the first ten years of the program.

International team completes 105 day simulated mission to Mars:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090714/sc_nm/us_russia_space_isolation_1

Neil deGrasse Tyson's view:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20090714/sc_space/neildegrassetysonleavingearthonceisnotenough
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom