Human colony on Mars in 2023?

[Justin39640]

I'd be interested in reading about it, but the "Logistics aside..." comment worries me. If that allows the presence of thousands of massive nuke plants on Mars and/or the import of billions of tons of material from the moons of Jupiter then it still looks like SF.

But even then Mars will still have no magnetosphere, and that problem won't go away.

Well, the logistics is the part where the tech isn't there yet obviously lol. Other than that, we're experts on creating greenhouse gasses

The magnetosphere missing seemed like a huge problem too and part of the terraforming Mars that I wasn't understanding either. Smart people still think it's possible so more research is needed on that subject by me (obviously).

Exactly, as far as I understand it the current scientific consensus is no magnetosphere = no protection from the solar wind = no atmosphere. So even if you could terraform a new atmosphere it'd just get blown off into space.

Mars still has an atmosphere. Its density is 1% that of the earth's and it's primarily carbon dioxide, but it still has one.

I am fairly sure "find a way to travel faster than light" is not CERN's stated goal. Sure, they would love to find it, but that's not how basic research works.

Never said it was, but it might be a byproduct of the research. They are studying the smallest parts of the universe to understand the big picture. Why have that much interest if you have no plans to utilize it? That includes searching for other planets IMO. You guys think that's a huge waste of time and resources too?

Any such "projected" colony on Mars would not have a snowball's chance in hell to survive if Earth suddenly died. It would die within few years. By "the biggest project in human history" I meant what LSSBB and Justin39640 actually want -- a self-sufficient colony. They did not use these words, but what else can they mean by "It would at least get us off this tiny target for space hazards"?

Ah, I love when people put words in my mouth. Maybe eventually I'd want self sustaining colonies but there's thousands of steps to get over before that point. In the last 40 years we've done zilch towards that. I find that sad.

As far as being a target, you do know that there's a decent chance (in astrological terms) that a planet killer could impact the Earth in about 30 years? It would have been nice to have that 40 year head start on it. Google asteroid and keyhole.

A quick look suggests Iraq has cost ~$3T, with the very lowest commercial Mars mission running at about $6B. Call that 'very optimistic indeed' so make it $30B, say, including budget overruns. That's a 100-fold margin vs. Iraq which makes a Mars mission look cheap.

However, that $30B figure is for a vanilla 'visit', not the founding of even a short-term colony. if people are going to do serious work up there then the radiation-proof living quarters, supply of oxygen, water etc etc needs to be established before the first people even arrive. Given that current technology sets a payload limit of ~1 tonne (Curiosity landed that way because it was very close to the limit and was too heavy for a 'bounce' landing like other missions), then we're looking at a lot of launches and have to consider the attrition rate - Mars landings sometimes fail.

But how will all this equipment be assembled? The only answer, in the absence of people, is robots. Robots with a lot more power than a Rover, as kit will have to be collected from many landing sites to a central point for assembly. We don't possess any such robots and they'll have to be developed.

Water and oxygen will require production and storage facilities which means more kit and large arrays of solar panels and/or mini nuke power plants. And let's not forget food.

I could easily go on, but won't. It would cost far, far more than Iraq. And Iraq and the bailouts were driven by events while a Mars colony wouldn't be (see below).

You pretty much just described the current game plan. Multiple unmanned trips and rovers prepping the site. As far as fuel, they have a plan to send transports with empty tanks and convert CO2 into fuel there. This tech is currently available. The first groups of people won't be colonizing anything. They'll be researchers and the like. I think it was an 18 month mission IIRC (because of how Mars' and the Earth's orbits converge)

I don't consider myself short-sighted or a 'naysayer'; I believe I've thought it through and view the idea realistically.

A final thought - if surviving an extinction event, such as a massive asteroid impact, here on Earth is an objective, how long would it take to equip deep road and rail tunnels, all over the world, for the purpose? I'd guess it could be done in a few years - maybe less - at a fraction of 1% of the cost of a Mars colony, and the (far greater number of) survivors would emerge right here on Earth, not living on the hell-hole that is Mars with no way of returning. Elton John's 'Rocket Man' hit the nail on the head

Ha! The Dr Strangelove plan! Still 10 to 1 ratio??? Favorable physical qualities??? lol

You can guarantee those deep holes in the ground won't be covered by an ocean after such an event or that they could survive seismic activity caused by a MASSIVE asteroid strike?

If you know there's a bomb in a building you don't dig a hole in the basement to hide in, you leave.



Afterthought: At some point we WILL be hit by a massive asteroid. It might be 30 years from now or 300000. Either way, doing nothing about it today won't help us at all later. Hoping that it won't happen anytime soon isn't a logical solution either. Personally, I always feel better with more than one basket.

 

[Mark6]

As far as being a target, you do know that there's a decent chance (in astrological terms) that a planet killer could impact the Earth in about 30 years? It would have been nice to have that 40 year head start on it. Google asteroid and keyhole.

I assume you mean this one. At 460' calling it a "planet killer" is quite an exaggeration.

Actually, no asteroid capable of totally wiping out human species had hit in at least a billion years. If another K-T impactor (10 km) hit tomorrow, survivors would find themselves in the world still far more hospitable than Mars. And you do realize that Mars, being closer to asteroid belt, gets hit more often than Earth? We are far more likely to witness a civilization-destroying impact on Mars than on Earth.

 

[CapelDodger]

Actually, no asteroid capable of totally wiping out human species had hit in at least a billion years. If another K-T impactor (10 km) hit tomorrow, survivors would find themselves in the world still far more hospitable than Mars. And you do realize that Mars, being closer to asteroid belt, gets hit more often than Earth? We are far more likely to witness a civilization-destroying impact on Mars than on Earth.

However vast the disaster the default position is surely to stick to the planet your species evolved on. A disaster which makes Mars the preferred location is not worth insuring against. On the plus side, if it should happen, it'll be a heck of a show.

 

[Justin39640]

I assume you mean this one. At 460' calling it a "planet killer" is quite an exaggeration.

Actually, no asteroid capable of totally wiping out human species had hit in at least a billion years. If another K-T impactor (10 km) hit tomorrow, survivors would find themselves in the world still far more hospitable than Mars. And you do realize that Mars, being closer to asteroid belt, gets hit more often than Earth? We are far more likely to witness a civilization-destroying impact on Mars than on Earth.

If a K-T hits tomorrow, we're extinct, cause we're embarrassingly ill prepared for such an event.

 

[GlennB]

You can guarantee those deep holes in the ground won't be covered by an ocean after such an event or that they could survive seismic activity caused by a MASSIVE asteroid strike?

The Frejus road tunnel in The Alps is ~1200m above sea level, while the Eisenhower tunnel in the Rockies is at ~3000m. I haven't looked for high tunnels in Asia and elsewhere but I'll guess that similar exist. They won't be covered by oceans in an asteroid impact.

Point is that if we're looking for a survival plan it would make more sense to build high tunnels here, from the pov of their capacity, the cost and ease of equipping them and the location they're in when the 100-year 'asteroid winter' (or whatever) clears.

That nobody has an interest in doing so suggests to me that the hugely slower, low capacity and more expensive Mars plan will attract even less interest.

 

[Iamme]

I`d give hardened criminal prisoners the first crack at this.
(Envisioning people at the boarding gate anxiously seeing them off and waving and saying, ``Bye bye...dont forget to write!`` Followed by a

 

[Roboramma]

That nobody has an interest in doing so suggests to me that the hugely slower, low capacity and more expensive Mars plan will attract even less interest.

Yep.

Below is mainly reply to other posters:

Not to mention: and then what? An asteroid strikes the earth (we can build a self-sustaining Mars colony, but we can't deflect and asteroid strike??), but human civilization survives on Mars. Tens or hundreds of people go on building difficult to maintain shelters and hydroponic farms. Even if it is "self-sustaining", for how long? How long before their civilization collapses due to some internal or external event and the precarious knife-edge of existence on Mars is tipped one way or the other?

Certainly that will happen long before they are able to make a mission back to earth possible from Mars based resources and manufacturing.

I suppose we could include a return-vessel on Mars as a way of re-colonising the Earth in the event of a disaster. But now this high-tech space-craft will have to be maintained (and the requisite expertise maintained as well) until the earth is suitable for re-habitation.

Anyway, I find it hard to believe that fewer humans would survive on earth (where were everywhere) than on Mars in the event of an asteroid strike.

For instance, when it comes to devastation as a result of the initial event:
- Submarine crews
- miners
- officials with access to bunkers
- people living on the other side of the planet, in places where forest fires, etc. are unlikely

And modern technology should allow for survival in spite of the lack of sunlight:
- artificial lighting and hydroponic farming.
- food preservation
- etc.

We are much more well placed to survive an impact than the dinosaurs were. Yes, total population would be greatly reduced, and yes much of our civilisation would be destroyed, but as a species we would survive. Likely we'd even maintain something close to our current geographical range (at least I suspect we'd continue to inhabit every continent except antarctica).

Want to invest in protecting humanity from the devastation of asteroid impact? Awesome. Fund cataloguing of near earth objects. Fund a mission to deflect the course of an asteroid as a test of the viability of the methods of doing so. It will be much more useful (for this stated goal) than a Mars colony, and much less expensive. I think it will also have greater side benefits as well.

 

[ben m]

Just imagine what sort of on-Earth survival capsule you could make for the cost of a Mars colony. Design your Mars hab, but instead of sending it to Mars, put it in a shockproof shell on an earthquake-proof anti-shock bungee tower. Heck, suspend the bungee tower from another bungee tower. Go nuts. Build 1000 comfy, autopilot-based Felix Baumgardner-like near-space balloons. Asteroid's coming, 1000 people zip up above the atmosphere where they can withstand the shock wave, then land when the fires have burned out. Oh, they need hand-hammered titanium balloons? They need to carry a month's worth of oxygen? Go for it, whatever you need, it's still cheaper than going to Mars.

 

[Puppycow]

Not exactly Neil or Buzz:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25694877

This actually going to happen then?

Ryan MacDonald is one of those who could be jetting off on the one-way mission to Mars, he told BBC Breakfast: "I really want to live on Mars - I can't think of anything more exciting than that."

Exciting in your imagination. Sounds incredibly confining and, as a consequence, boring in practice. There are prisons with greater freedom.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Any such "projected" colony on Mars would not have a snowball's chance in hell to survive if Earth suddenly died. It would die within few years. By "the biggest project in human history" I meant what LSSBB and Justin39640 actually want -- a self-sufficient colony. They did not use these words, but what else can they mean by "It would at least get us off this tiny target for space hazards"?

If a self-sufficient colony is the long term goal, then surely an only somewhat self-sufficient colony would be an acceptable intermediate goal? I had assumed you didn't need to be spoonfed that, and took the logical next step of providing intermediate goals for the intermediate goal.

You completely failed to understand what I meant by "intermediate goals". I mean goals which actually produce financial return.

Are they supposed to be Scottish, as well? You asked for goals that would justify a colony on Mars until it reached self-sufficiency. There they be. I don't know what else you wanted - some kind of Martian beaver whose pelts could be sold to ladies back on Earth?

And the ones you listed:

1) So far the argument has won out. And it will continue winning out as long as robots get smaller, cheaper and smarter, while humans remain in Model 1.0. Yes, a live geologist on Mars can accomplish more than a rover. How many rovers can you send for the cost of one manned mission? Collectively they can accomplish more than that geologist.

2) Circular argument. Increasing habitat sustainability only pays for itself if there are habitats to pay for themselves.

3) True, but the fewer live humans are involved, the more cost-effective it is. Not a good basis for colonization.

4) Same as #2. Research on how to keep humans healthy in space only pays for itself if there is a reason to keep humans in space.

1) How many rovers can you send? One. Two, at the outset. NASA has demonstrated profound incompetence at the kind of scaling you suggest. There is no "collectively" when one prototype, designed-from-scratch rover is sent at a time. Curiosity is a perfect example: designed from scratch, prototyped, one is all that was ever built or will be built in the foreseeable future.

3) After successful solutions are proven, yes. During development, the fewer live humans involved, the more expensive it becomes to correct any unforeseen problems.

2,4) Actually, showing that application development is substantially impeded by a lack of basic research on the subject is exactly what justifies that research.

I don't consider myself short-sighted or a 'naysayer'; I believe I've thought it through and view the idea realistically.

Are you kidding? You're the naysayer in these threads. It's rare for you to say anything but nay. You don't budge a foot unless someone shoves you an inch at a time.

 

[Mark6]

If a self-sufficient colony is the long term goal, then surely an only somewhat self-sufficient colony would be an acceptable intermediate goal? I had assumed you didn't need to be spoonfed that, and took the logical next step of providing intermediate goals for the intermediate goal.

Are they supposed to be Scottish, as well? You asked for goals that would justify a colony on Mars until it reached self-sufficiency. There they be. I don't know what else you wanted - some kind of Martian beaver whose pelts could be sold to ladies back on Earth?

You are still not getting it. Initial colony costs money. It is a resource sink. To build it, you need funding. Now, it is a pretty safe bet that a colony will not become self-sufficient for at least 50 years (actually, I think it is more like 500, but let's be generous). So the question is:

Does the colony have to got back to Congress (or whatever is the funding body) every year for 50 years to beg for more money?

Or do they manage, after 5 or 10 or 15 years, to manufacture something that allows the colony to pay for itself the way fur trading posts did?

If the latter, then the colonization problem is solved. An intermediate goal is met, and from here on the colony grows automatically. If the former, it remains vulnerable to vagaries of the funding body... until the funding body tires of the endless resource sink.

Do you NOW understand the concept of "intermediate goals"?

 

[Mark6]

1) How many rovers can you send? One. Two, at the outset. NASA has demonstrated profound incompetence at the kind of scaling you suggest. There is no "collectively" when one prototype, designed-from-scratch rover is sent at a time. Curiosity is a perfect example: designed from scratch, prototyped, one is all that was ever built or will be built in the foreseeable future.

That's a problem of politics and of limited funds. If Congress will not give NASA enough money to have economy of scale in unmanned exploration, what chance is there for Congress to authorize the far more expensive manned colony?

 

[Mark6]

2,4) Actually, showing that application development is substantially impeded by a lack of basic research on the subject is exactly what justifies that research.

To you and me, maybe. Not to people who hold the purse strings. In 1960's and 70's there was a number of underwater habitats throughout the oceans. They were doing oceanographic research, as well as research on how human body behaves under pressure. Quite a bit of this research was sponsored by oil companies interested in undersea drilling. Now only one such research habitat remains (two IIRC got converted into underwater hotels). The reasons for lack of interest:

1. Oceanographic research turned out to be more cost-effective with ROV's. Same for underwater oil exploration.

2. That leaves studying humans themselves under water. And it is not a sufficient, for it is circular reasoning.

Congress: "You want to live underwater? OK, what for?"
Woods Hole Institute (or similar research body): "In order to study how to live underwater"
Congress: "Ummm... bye"

Same in space, except far more expensive.

 

[GlennB]

If a self-sufficient colony is the long term goal, then surely an only somewhat self-sufficient colony would be an acceptable intermediate goal?

One relying on regular supply landings, I presume?

OK - upthread I estimated a mission cost for a similar thing and made a start on listing some of the vital characteristics of such a colony. Now you have a turn instead of just throwing around cheap+nasty comments.

Assume a colony with turnover of personnel who stay for a substantial length of time, like the ISS. Give us your estimate of the number of deliveries of gear, supplies and robotic collection/assembly devices that would allow it to be habitable from the first arrival of humans and allow them to perform some task that might be of use either now or in the future. Don't forget that these people need to get back home.

Assume that the current limit of ~1 tonne payload climbs to ~2 tonnes with superior technology that is developed 'soon'.

That's all. Put some plans and numbers on the table, however rough they are.

 

[Mark6]

I agree. In fact the very cure to the problems found on Earth may be found in exploration elsewhere. It would at least get us off this tiny target for space hazards.

I just don't understand the hostility.

Arrogant attitude such as displayed by Beelzebuddy and Justin39640 is the reason for hostility. Basically, proponents of space colonization do not understand how world works, and when it is pointed out to them accuse others of being narrow-minded.

Also, they keep throwing "eggs in one basket" argument because they do not have any other convincing reason. Then get mad when told that a) this is simply not something vast majority of humans care about, and b) if protecting Earth from asteroids is REALLY what they want[1], then there are much better ways to go about it than setting up shop in an incredibly hostile place which gets hit MORE often.

[1]Of course, protecting Earth from asteroids is not really what they want. It is just an excuse for setting up colonies.

 

[ben m]

Yep. If living on Earth is like putting all of our eggs in one basket, then a Mars colony is like taking your emergency-backup egg and throwing it into pounding surf on a rocky shore of South Georgia Island.

 

[Mikemcc]

Yep. If living on Earth is like putting all of our eggs in one basket, then a Mars colony is like taking your emergency-backup egg and throwing it into pounding surf on a rocky shore of South Georgia Island.

If living on Earth is like putting all of our eggs in one basket, then, at present given that we haven't tried to push ourselves, a Mars colony is like taking your emergency-backup egg and throwing it into pounding surf on a rocky shore of South Georgia Island. Fixed...

 

[Mikemcc]

To you and me, maybe. Not to people who hold the purse strings. In 1960's and 70's there was a number of underwater habitats throughout the oceans. They were doing oceanographic research, as well as research on how human body behaves under pressure. Quite a bit of this research was sponsored by oil companies interested in undersea drilling. Now only one such research habitat remains (two IIRC got converted into underwater hotels). The reasons for lack of interest:

1. Oceanographic research turned out to be more cost-effective with ROV's. Same for underwater oil exploration.

2. That leaves studying humans themselves under water. And it is not a sufficient, for it is circular reasoning.

Congress: "You want to live underwater? OK, what for?"
Woods Hole Institute (or similar research body): "In order to study how to live underwater"
Congress: "Ummm... bye"

Same in space, except far more expensive.

That just demonstrates that Congress (and yourself) doesn't understand how technology develops.

 

[Mikemcc]

One relying on regular supply landings, I presume?

OK - upthread I estimated a mission cost for a similar thing and made a start on listing some of the vital characteristics of such a colony. Now you have a turn instead of just throwing around cheap+nasty comments.

Assume a colony with turnover of personnel who stay for a substantial length of time, like the ISS. Give us your estimate of the number of deliveries of gear, supplies and robotic collection/assembly devices that would allow it to be habitable from the first arrival of humans and allow them to perform some task that might be of use either now or in the future. Don't forget that these people need to get back home.

Assume that the current limit of ~1 tonne payload climbs to ~2 tonnes with superior technology that is developed 'soon'.

That's all. Put some plans and numbers on the table, however rough they are.

No settlement is going to be self sufficent anytime soon unless you are prepared to use multiple Orion type lifting vehicles to put the infrastructure in place to start with... Even then, without doing prototying and trial runs you won't know what technology works to lift into place in the first place!

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I don't know why the big controversy. I am all for it. Got to start somewhere. I'd apply myself if I was 10 years younger and in better health.

Yes, I'd probably die. No, it wouldn't be in vain. No more than Robert Falcon Scott's death was in vain. Everyone knows it has to be done. In is inevitable that we will one day, as a species, grow up and leave the warm cozy nest, or die trying. It will be real tough on the first ones, but that's life. At least this way it is funded by private enterprise, so it takes exactly zero away from any programs for making this planet a better place to live.