Could a human colony thrive on mars?

[Jimbo07]

Actually, with a helmet and air supply, it wouldn't hurt you at all (at least not for some time). Add something like a wetsuit and you'd be fine.

I just read a blurb the other day (was it on slashdot?), about a team developing a suit to exploit mechanical pressure, rather than air pressure, for greater flexibility in future suits. The material holds you in!

...

There are several competitions sponsored by NASA and others, for design teams (of various composition) to get involved with. Space gloves, lunar landers, oxygen recovery from regolith, space elevators, etc. It's fun stuff for people to noodle with interesting ideas. Of course, by noodle, I mean conduct serious fundraising and long hours of technical effort... just not multi-billion dollar aerospace contracts.

 

[Hellbound]

But the whole point of this thread was humans living on Mars in colonies without any artificial support for everyday living.

Um, no...I thought it was simply creating a viable MArs colony wihtout needing external support. I would assume there'd be, at the least, pressurized living quarters. I wouldn't expect peopel to live in a tent pitched in the Martian desert. The temperature variation would kill you long before pressure was an issue.

IN any case, wan't the whole pressure thing in response to the terraforming idea? It's actually not that complicated to figure out what to do for terraforming (at least basic stuff, such as creating an atmosphere with enough pressure to regulate temperature, produce a greenhouse effect, and support plant life). Find a few comets or other objects fromt he Oort cloud/Kupier belt that have a lot of water ice and frozen organics/CO2, drop em on Mars. Eventually, enough of it wil be there to start building up the atmosphere and raising temperature. Then the CO2 and water frozen in the ice caps melts, speeding up the process, etc, etc, etc.

Of course, it is horribly complex and difficult to come up with the means to do it

But the low pressure is, IMO, a minor problem compared to other difficulties.

 

[jimbob]

Jimbo07, The engineer is a good magazine (I get it free at work)

Huntsman:

It was electrostatic shielding (your point is of course still valid )

 

[Hellbound]

Ah, just a blurb, no details

I wanted to look into that. I'll check NASA later and see if I can find any more info.

 

[BeAChooser]

"Humans do not feel this pressure, because internal pressure of liquid in human body matches the external pressure."

That is not the same as this:

"do not explode outward because internally, your body is applying approximately 14.7 pounds per square inch of outward pressure."

Like I said, you do don't appear to understand the physics.

Do you realize that if you subject a liquid to external pressure of 1000 psi, there will be an internal pressure of 1000 psi. That doesn't mean that if you put that liquid in a vacuum it will explode because it has a 1000 psi internal pressure. This, by the way, is what makes liquids essentially incompressible.

 

[Hellbound]

Yeah, that's also why ideas like "gel-baths" are looked at for G-force resistence. Archimedes Principle, isn't it?

 

[jimbob]

Damn, my google-fu wasn't qquite as good as I wished (I read the rint article a year or so ago, and tried searching for it).

I think the ESA is also doing something...

Why am I thinking about a Bussard "Parachute"?

It seems that it won't work for accelerating an interstellar ship, but you need to slow down at the other end. Maybe it is more amusing than just turning the spaceship round

 

[ConspiRaider]

That is not the same as this:

"do not explode outward because internally, your body is applying approximately 14.7 pounds per square inch of outward pressure."

Like I said, you do don't appear to understand the physics.

Do you realize that if you subject a liquid to external pressure of 1000 psi, there will be an internal pressure of 1000 psi. That doesn't mean that if you put that liquid in a vacuum it will explode because it has a 1000 psi internal pressure. This, by the way, is what makes liquids essentially incompressible.

But I'm NOT a physicist, correct? I'm an engineer. I'm making a point on a discussion board. What you're doing is counting protons.

And now you will tell us about your Ph.D. in Physics, the books you've written about physics, and then follow up with a thesis on how you intend to prove - on Mars, in person - that its comparatively weak atmospheric pressure will have no fatal or even deleterious effects upon tank top, cutoffs and sandal-clad future human inhabitants.

 

[ConspiRaider]

Um, no...I thought it was simply creating a viable MArs colony wihtout needing external support. I would assume there'd be, at the least, pressurized living quarters. I wouldn't expect peopel to live in a tent pitched in the Martian desert. The temperature variation would kill you long before pressure was an issue.

IN any case, wan't the whole pressure thing in response to the terraforming idea? It's actually not that complicated to figure out what to do for terraforming (at least basic stuff, such as creating an atmosphere with enough pressure to regulate temperature, produce a greenhouse effect, and support plant life). Find a few comets or other objects fromt he Oort cloud/Kupier belt that have a lot of water ice and frozen organics/CO2, drop em on Mars. Eventually, enough of it wil be there to start building up the atmosphere and raising temperature. Then the CO2 and water frozen in the ice caps melts, speeding up the process, etc, etc, etc.

Of course, it is horribly complex and difficult to come up with the means to do it

But the low pressure is, IMO, a minor problem compared to other difficulties.

I really don't know. I brought up atmospheric pressure probably because it is frequently overlooked as an obstacle to other-world colonization in casual conversations.

I really don't understand the rabid, desperate fascination with Mars and the wishful thinking - sometimes even spilling over into the scientific community - that human colonization is really just around the corner. If we just spend a trillion or two. So many people are so incredibly mis-informed about the uncompromising harsh realities of any such endeavor. But - that's science in the 21st century. It is being invaded and corrupted by fiction. People are watching too many science shows on TV. They forget that the number 1 priority of TV is the attainment of ratings. By any means necessary. If you have to do that with fuzzy logic and gross over-exaggeration in the realm of science - so be it.

Terraforming is a science fiction word. Emphasis on "fiction". We don't even know what effects little changes we attempt here on Earth - to alter the weather - will have. And we live here. We evolved here. So how could we even begin to guage the effects of "earthifying" another planet? We cannot. It's just something we saw in Alien II at the movies - and so therefore it must be possible. How can you make Mars "earth-like"? Answer? You can't. Mars has its own dynamics.

If any planet was going to be earthified - I'd pick Venus before Mars. We know that an atmosphere has no problem staying put on that planet. We know that gravity is not a problem for us humans - it's about 90% of ours. I doubt that would have deleterious effects. We know it's closer to Earth than Mars: Lined up (closest distance), it's 26 million miles away. Mars is about 48 million miles away.

We'd all, however, have to go to Venus and bring shovels. And start shoveling that excess atmosphere into deep space. On Venus - it's taking stuff away. On Mars - it's putting things on, and then praying they'll stay on.

 

[BeAChooser]

But I'm NOT a physicist, correct? I'm an engineer. I'm making a point on a discussion board.

Actually, one would expect most engineers to understand the physics here.

And now you will tell us about your Ph.D. in Physics, the books you've written about physics

I make no claim about my expertise. I'm willing to trust the NASA website when it says people will not "explode" in a vacuum.

and then follow up with a thesis on how you intend to prove - on Mars, in person - that its comparatively weak atmospheric pressure will have no fatal or even deleterious effects upon tank top, cutoffs and sandal-clad future human inhabitants.

Actually, I made no such claim. Too bad my attempt to simply correct some misinformation that you posted has so upset you that you must misrepresent what I've actually said and what the sources I posted said.

 

[Michael Redman]

would it be possible for this to happen someday?

Yes, and it almost certainly will.

Think of the materials we have today, compared to what we had 100 years ago. Think of the energy we have at our disposal, compared to 100 years ago.

Most of what we have we have gained in the last 100 years. This change is accelerating. It is almost silly not to assume that we will have materials, energy sources, and other technologies beyond our imagination in another century.

Somebody is going to find a value in having people on Mars, whether it's some mineral, the view, or simply a fun place to try pole vaulting. As technology progresses, the relative cost of going to Mars, and staying there, will continue to drop, until the benefit outweighs the cost.

Maybe 50 years, maybe 500, but it will happen.

 

[Michael Redman]

Although we wouldn't suffer physically from the lack of pressure, I don't think we can breath at that pressure, because each lung full of air would not contain enough oxygen, even if we were breathing pure O2.

I'm probably completely wrong in my assumptions, but it seems to me that if we need 20% O2 at 14.7 psi, we would need pure O2 at at least 3 psi, and that's assuming an equivalent exchange efficiency.

Wait, maybe the exploding from inside thing is right for the wrong reason. What would the boiling temperature of water be at that pressure?

 

[Hindmost]

Although we wouldn't suffer physically from the lack of pressure, I don't think we can breath at that pressure, because each lung full of air would not contain enough oxygen, even if we were breathing pure O2.

I'm probably completely wrong in my assumptions, but it seems to me that if we need 20% O2 at 14.7 psi, we would need pure O2 at at least 3 psi, and that's assuming an equivalent exchange efficiency.

Wait, maybe the exploding from inside thing is right for the wrong reason. What would the boiling temperature of water be at that pressure?

Assumption is correct. The Apollo project had a pure oxygen atmosphere. They ran at a partial pressure of about 4 psi--if I recall. It was done to save weight, however it was also part of the cause of the Apollo 1 fire. Space suits still use pure O2 to help with dexterity..that may be changing in the future. The shuttle uses a 80-20 atmosphere if I recall

glenn

 

[Corsair 115]

If any planet was going to be earthified - I'd pick Venus before Mars. We know that an atmosphere has no problem staying put on that planet. We know that gravity is not a problem for us humans - it's about 90% of ours. I doubt that would have deleterious effects. We know it's closer to Earth than Mars: Lined up (closest distance), it's 26 million miles away. Mars is about 48 million miles away.

Venus does have one potential problem: its day is longer than its year. That surely might play some havoc with human circadian rhythms, what with one day on Venus lasting the equivalent of 121.5 Earth days.

 

[Hokulele]

Venus does have one potential problem: its day is longer than its year. That surely might play some havoc with human circadian rhythms, what with one day on Venus lasting the equivalent of 121.5 Earth days.

You have obviously never been to Las Vegas.

 

[Corsair 115]

You have obviously never been to Las Vegas.

Neon lights don't count as sunlight!

 

[Cuddles]

First, astronauts are NOT human guinea pigs. They are temporarily in space to perform work - and then they come home.

And there have been absolutely no experiments done on the effect of microgravity on humans during the course of that work?

Nobody said this was gonna be easy. Tremendous difficulty. But it is far more feasible - far more - to create long term habitation space vehicles than it is to try and make-pretend that Mars is just a smaller Earth requiring a bit of tweaking and tuning. Mars is inhospitable for human life, animal life, plant life. That's how it is.

What an odd argument. Mars is inhospitable for human habitation, therefore it must be easier to go somewhere that is even worse. No-one is suggesting we will be happily skipping around in daisy fields on Mars. But on Mars, or any rocky planet, there are some big advantages over simply floating around in space.

Firstly, an atmosphere. In space you have to have a completely self-contained box to live in and take all your own atmosphere with you. On Mars you have to have a self-contained box, but it doesn't have to be as strong and you can get some gas from outside.

Secondy, radiation. In space there's a hell of a lot it and you need all kinds of shielding to stop it. On Mars, not so much. Even a thin atmosphere and very weak magnetic field is better than nothing. It's also very easy to just dig holes and build underground.

Thirdly, safety. If something goes wrong in a spaceship, you're pretty much screwed. If you lose some air, it's lost for good. If some equipment is damaged, you can't replace it. On a planet, you would be making your own air from the existing atmosphere so if you lose some you can replace it. If something is damaged you could repair or rebuild it using local materials (although I admit this would depend a lot on the type of colony. A small research post would have similar problems to a spaceship, but permanent colony would likely have manufacturing capability). In space there are also problems with impact from micro-meteorites (and not so micro ones if you're unlucky). However, while these aren't a problem on a planet there are other things such as dust storms that could cause similar problems.

Finally, gravity. Planets have it. Yes, Mars' is only about 1/3 of Earth's, but that is a lot better than nothing. So far we have no data about how much gravity is necessary for human life. Maybe 1/3 gravity is low enough that it will cause unsolvable problems for long-term living. On the other hand, maybe it won't. The important point is that it is there and it is free. In space, you have to make your own gravity. Cetrifugal force is all very well, but that means energy to make it spin, bearings that wear out and serious problems in steering dues to angular momentum. Also, to get 1G over a whole human body requires very large structures, certainly bigger than most asteroids, otherwise you will only get 1G at your feet while the rest of your body has much less, which pretty much eliminates any point of having it in the first place.

Basically, to live in space you have to do everything from scratch, while to live on Mars you have a solid foundation to work with. Maybe space living will eventually prove to be more feasible, but to pretend that it is such a cut and dried case as you make out is just silly, and ignores many of the best minds' thoughts and work on the subject. It is also silly in the extreme to pretend that everyone who disagrees with you either hasn't read or doesn't understand your argument. This is a tactic usually only seen from woos and not from those trying to actually have a sensible discussion about something.

 

[Cainkane1]

So when ae we going?