Could a human colony thrive on mars?

[mhaze]

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

And they already are aiming to get to the moon.

Well, then they have a serious competitive advantage in colonizing other planets.

Don't they?

 

[MWare]

Betcha I know more about the Space Program, and astronomy and astrophysics than you do. Betcha.

That's might very well be true.

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

Actually, I drew the comparison all by myself. You seem to think considering the precedent of the mission to the moon cannot provide insight to a potential mission to Mars. Is this because the difference in distance is so vast?

Oh, I wouldn't be a very good candidate for the space program? Is that a fact?

Nope, it's a clearly stated opinion. I've got others too.

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.

Nope. Are you arguing here that you are or are not a good candidate for the space program?

Did you also know I worked in the Space Shuttle program for 2 years as a contractor to NASA?

Nope. I don't recall ever actually saying anything about your line of work, hobbies, intelligence, or really any facet of your personal life.

Oh, I see, I take the easy way out, is that what you are implying?

No actually I asked what was a seemingly rhetorical question of whether you've ever challenged yourself. I assume most people have at some point in their life. Thus, to restate my point:

1) You, like most people have challenged yourself at some point
2) You, like most people have seen the challenge as a reward in itself.

I apologize if that wasn't clear. I don't recall ever saying that you "take the easy way out".

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.

No.
No. But I'm one.
No.
No.
No. But I have.
No.
That's good. Not sure how any of that is an argument for not going to Mars.

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.

"Mars is the most Earth-like other world known..."
Source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_tape_030819.html

While I agree that Mars is most inhospitable to human-life, but when compared relatively to the other planets we know of, it appears that there is some consensus that Mars is indeed an earth-like planet. Are there other planets that are more earth-like that we know of? I'd be interested to learn about them. However I believe my point is valid.

I'm all for space exploration and colonization.

I must have misread your post, because I got the opposite impression.

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.

What is the basis for this opinion? Now you draw a correlation between the mission to the moon and the mission to Mars. I believe there was a great return on investment (speaking only from a technology standpoint, as opposed to political or other) from the moon mission.

"Innovations from NASA's work in space are used every day on Earth. Satellite technology that drives all manner of telecommunications, cordless appliances, smoke detectors and plastics have all been developed or refined through their use in the space program. Other commercial products, such as Velcro and the instant beverage Tang, got a big boost from their use by NASA astronauts."

Source: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/technologyandresearch/a/aboutnasa.htm

Well, maybe not Tang, but I like the other stuff.

And Mars? Cannot be compared to hopping and skipping to the Moon.

You just did, but ok, why not?

It is true interplanetary travel.

Agreed.

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.

Perhaps I'm misreading, but you seem to be saying that we shouldn't do interplanetary travel first, but rather begin by pursuing interstellar travel. Do you feel that much would be learned on a mission to Mars that could then be used on the interstellar mission (at a much later time)?

I guess I'm just not understanding your point.

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by ConspiRaider
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.

You got a motor?

Also, who exactly said interstellar travel was a Holy Gravel?

Also, who exactly said an asteroid would be a fair to good mini-Earth?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

 

[ClintonHammond]

"By making the vehicle itself - a mini-Earth"
Marshall T Savage agrees, sorta....

 

[ConspiRaider]

Perhaps I'm misreading, but you seem to be saying that we shouldn't do interplanetary travel first, but rather begin by pursuing interstellar travel. Do you feel that much would be learned on a mission to Mars that could then be used on the interstellar mission (at a much later time)?

I guess I'm just not understanding your point.

Hi MW.

Okay I'll do some quick clarifications.

Interplanetary travel MUST come first, and be totally mastered back to front, before interstellar travel can ever be attempted.

Interplanetary exploration itself - by humans and not robots - faces this enormous and limiting obstacle: The vehicle itself. The mode of transportation. What to shoot for: Putting the risk of traveling in such a vehicle in parity with traveling on a modern jet airplane.

What limits a manned journey to Mars within a tinpot rocket is the tremendous risk to the human crew. Power can be solved, essentially is to this point. We can get the rocket to Mars. A closed-loop system for air, water, food and waste disposal is a formidable obstacle. Shielding from cosmic rays - something every one of us takes for granted here on blue and friendly Earth - is a huge challenge. Mission planners really don't know if the crew would arrive alive - at Mars, or back here.

My proposal, therefore, is that instead of concentrating on Mars - which isn't going anywhere, and isn't going to eliminate its undiscovered secrets anytime soon - we concentrate on designing the vehicle. Because then we can go ANYWHERE in the solar system - not just Mars. And what will we learn along the way?

I propose we use hollowed-out asteroids as the vehicle shells. We got enough of 'em. And they are not doing anything useful, other than running around Sol and occasionally smashing into us or other celestial bodies. Or even slam-dancing into each other.

We've already been able to land a probe on an asteroid, by remote control. If you can land a probe - you can land a power pack (whatever that might be - nuke-powered engine, ion propulsion, whatever).

We get our first baby-step asteroid here - in an Earth orbit far enough away to not threaten. We bring a little moon into the neighborhood. Of course to do that, we will have had to master propulsion and navigation of that asteroid. Which is good. We certainly don't want it crashing into the blue and friendly Earth just for its own amusement.

You already know the ROI we've just attained. The ability to move an asteroid at will. Too bad the dinosaurs hadn't thought of that. We've just eliminated the threat of an asteroid collision. Comet too. Because, with the ability to maneuver asteroids, one or several can be positioned close enough to a threatening comet to just kiss it off a collision course with the blue and friendly Earth.

Eventually we send missions to the orbiting asteroid to vehicle-ize it. There's a lot to do, and it's going to take decades - centuries even. But once that is done - once we have attained the practical knowledge and experience of creating a long term human-sustaining vehicle for travel in outer space. Well then. Sky's the limit. Out we would go. To see and explore everything there is in our cozy little solar system.

And then - at some far point in the future - we'll have accumulated the knowledge and experience in space travel to get to the stars. There are about 100 billion of them in the Milky Way. Let's check 'em out.

What I fear about a tinpot rocket trip to Mars - besides the obvious concerns for the human crew on an untested journey - is that should we ever attain that - it'll be like the Moon. Abandonment of further effort for years and years and years. I want space travel to be all about a continuing, building and steady effort. A part of what being human in an endless Universe is all about.

And that means design of a space vehicle whereby the confidence level of passengers is identical to that of stepping into an automobile or boarding a jet.

 

[Earthborn]

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).

Right now the best water recycling technology only requires the input of energy. In a closed system the water isn't going anywhere, and all of it can be reused. If it couldn't, the humidity within the system would steadily increase, which is a bad idea.

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.

There are people working on tissue engineered meats, however. That's probably the way to go in a space colony. We may be decades away from producing a nice steak without an animal, but producing artificial supplements of animal protein is around the corner.

Grain crops take large amounts of space as well

But can also largely solve the air problem: it produces a good amount of oxygen.

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.

Problem with Mars is that it is quite a bit further from the sun than the Earth is, and has only a very thin atmosphere. There is just not that much sunlight to use and the wind will not have much push. Solar power on Mars is great for a superefficient rover than needs only to move a meter a day, but human habitat will require a whole heck of a lot more energy. Nuclear is the only option that I see.

TRANSPORT
Going to probably need some form of rail system for it to be efficient.

Mars is a lot smaller than the Earth, but the Earth is largely covered with water, so the surface of dry land is about the same for both. A rail system from pole to equator is an engineering task very similar in size to building a railroad across an entire continent on Earth. Yes, we have lots of railroads across continents on Earth, but those were only possible because there was already somewhat of an industrial infrastructure. We are talking here about another freaking planet where such an infrastructure needs to be built first. I think there will be a lot of "Dakar rallies" on Mars before anyone even dares to seriously propose a railsystem.

WASTE
What's left can probably be incinerated.

Incineration costs oxygen, and on Mars that will be something that needs to be produced at great cost. Waste incineration on Mars will be equivalent to encapsulating waste in molten gold on Earth: not an economic option. Everything will need to be recycled. Literally everything.

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.

Here 3d printing will become vital, though obviously like all the other necessary technologies at a technological level quite a bit higher than is currently possible as it will need to work with many more different materials than today. It will also be necessary that all the things can later be broken down to their components and reused again in the same 3d printer.

 

[tkingdoll]

The chances are a million to one, they say.

 

[MWare]

Hi MW.

Okay I'll do some quick clarifications.

Interplanetary travel MUST come first, and be totally mastered back to front, before interstellar travel can ever be attempted.

Interplanetary exploration itself - by humans and not robots - faces this enormous and limiting obstacle: The vehicle itself. The mode of transportation. What to shoot for: Putting the risk of traveling in such a vehicle in parity with traveling on a modern jet airplane.

What limits a manned journey to Mars within a tinpot rocket is the tremendous risk to the human crew. Power can be solved, essentially is to this point. We can get the rocket to Mars. A closed-loop system for air, water, food and waste disposal is a formidable obstacle. Shielding from cosmic rays - something every one of us takes for granted here on blue and friendly Earth - is a huge challenge. Mission planners really don't know if the crew would arrive alive - at Mars, or back here.

My proposal, therefore, is that instead of concentrating on Mars - which isn't going anywhere, and isn't going to eliminate its undiscovered secrets anytime soon - we concentrate on designing the vehicle. Because then we can go ANYWHERE in the solar system - not just Mars. And what will we learn along the way?

I propose we use hollowed-out asteroids as the vehicle shells. We got enough of 'em. And they are not doing anything useful, other than running around Sol and occasionally smashing into us or other celestial bodies. Or even slam-dancing into each other.

We've already been able to land a probe on an asteroid, by remote control. If you can land a probe - you can land a power pack (whatever that might be - nuke-powered engine, ion propulsion, whatever).

We get our first baby-step asteroid here - in an Earth orbit far enough away to not threaten. We bring a little moon into the neighborhood. Of course to do that, we will have had to master propulsion and navigation of that asteroid. Which is good. We certainly don't want it crashing into the blue and friendly Earth just for its own amusement.

You already know the ROI we've just attained. The ability to move an asteroid at will. Too bad the dinosaurs hadn't thought of that. We've just eliminated the threat of an asteroid collision. Comet too. Because, with the ability to maneuver asteroids, one or several can be positioned close enough to a threatening comet to just kiss it off a collision course with the blue and friendly Earth.

Eventually we send missions to the orbiting asteroid to vehicle-ize it. There's a lot to do, and it's going to take decades - centuries even. But once that is done - once we have attained the practical knowledge and experience of creating a long term human-sustaining vehicle for travel in outer space. Well then. Sky's the limit. Out we would go. To see and explore everything there is in our cozy little solar system.

And then - at some far point in the future - we'll have accumulated the knowledge and experience in space travel to get to the stars. There are about 100 billion of them in the Milky Way. Let's check 'em out.

What I fear about a tinpot rocket trip to Mars - besides the obvious concerns for the human crew on an untested journey - is that should we ever attain that - it'll be like the Moon. Abandonment of further effort for years and years and years. I want space travel to be all about a continuing, building and steady effort. A part of what being human in an endless Universe is all about.

And that means design of a space vehicle whereby the confidence level of passengers is identical to that of stepping into an automobile or boarding a jet.

Now I think I understand you much better. Thank you.

It's interesting to consider approaching the problems of space travel from a transportation perspective rather than a destination perspective. Quite possibly, it seems like a more efficient approach to the problem. Certainly any approach that lessens the intermediate risks to human crew is preferable.

As you say, this is an effort that could take decades or even centuries. Since there have been few technology projects that have been able to progress beyond the generation that began them (I can't think of one right now, maybe one of the pyramids?), it seems more likely that the average person would be more willing to have their tax money fund efforts that might achieve some milestone within their own lifetime.

Of course, who's to say this has to be a gov't run project right? I'm intrigued by the idea of corporations having their own space race (preferably not weapons corporations). But it seems even more unlikely that a corporation would undertake a multi-generational time-framed project without some sort of immediate milestone (e.g. a mars mission).

Either way, my opinion is that space exploration and colonization is an inherently good pursuit for mankind in whatever form. I still feel that a Mars colony is a good step, but I admit I have thought of this only from the perspective of a destination rather than a perspective of transportation. Is this asteroid thing a personal idea or has somebody written about this type of approach before? I'd be interested to read anything that has been written about it.

 

[Hindmost]

When we get there, we are gonna have to deal with



glenn

 

[BeAChooser]

Do you folks have any ideas about a possible human colony on mars?

I think before we stick ourselves in another deep gravity well (one where the living conditions might not be that different from living on the moon), we should try thriving in space first. There are materials in the asteroid belt that might be nice to have here. Perhaps some of that energy from the sun might be beamed down? It might be nice to have the capability of dealing with the impact threat to earth (never know when one of those might show up and put an end to it all). And if we really want to create a large habitat where humans can walk around naked, I'm not sure we couldn't do it easier in space than on Mars (think O'Neil colonies). We also could focus more on a better method for getting materials in and out of Earth's gravity well. Maybe instead of spending mega$$$ sending a few people to Mars we could test some of the ideas being floated around to do that? Wouldn't it be nice to be rid of those clunky ol' rockets? And after we accomplish all that, Mars might be easy ... if we still want to do it. In fact, then we might just have a few of the tools that would be needed to terraform mars. A better understanding of ecosystems and the means to drop bodies of ice onto the planet. Just a thought.

 

[Jimbo07]

Interplanetary exploration itself - by humans and not robots - faces this enormous and limiting obstacle: The vehicle itself. The mode of transportation. What to shoot for: Putting the risk of traveling in such a vehicle in parity with traveling on a modern jet airplane.

A better analogy would be modern cruise ships. The first European colonists travelled in abysmal conditions. The risk of death was high.

What limits a manned journey to Mars within a tinpot rocket is the tremendous risk to the human crew.

I tend to think the biggest limit is launch vehicle capacity. If you can lift it, you can put a lead wall between the sun and the crew.

My proposal, therefore, is that instead of concentrating on Mars - which isn't going anywhere, and isn't going to eliminate its undiscovered secrets anytime soon - we concentrate on designing the vehicle.

In a sense, I agree. Whether it's launch platforms, or dedicated spacecraft, we're still finding that the learning curve is steep. The ISS is a constant reminder of this fact.

I propose we use hollowed-out asteroids as the vehicle shells. We got enough of 'em.

Sure, but again, the learning curve is steep.

We've already been able to land a probe on an asteroid, by remote control. If you can land a probe - you can land a power pack (whatever that might be - nuke-powered engine, ion propulsion, whatever).

May I suggest advocacy of "learning" cruises to Near Earth Objects?

NEO Missions

Eventually we send missions to the orbiting asteroid to vehicle-ize it.

One thing about destination-based design is that several lessons are learned. By the time we are able to achieve interplanetary flight in "tinpot" rockets reliably, we may have discovered (developed) the technologies and capabilites to construct large-scale asteroid habitatmobiles.

There's a lot to do, and it's going to take decades - centuries even. But once that is done - once we have attained the practical knowledge and experience of creating a long term human-sustaining vehicle for travel in outer space.

If you're talking about centuries-long time frames, then how is a rocketry program in the here-and-now an impediment? Lessons learned may actually make the process more efficient, rather than starting a program to clumsily fumble with asteroids now.

Well then. Sky's the limit. Out we would go. To see and explore everything there is in our cozy little solar system.

Agreed.

What I fear about a tinpot rocket trip to Mars - - is that should we ever attain that - it'll be like the Moon. Abandonment of further effort for years and years and years.

If we're playing at being advocates here, then I suggest that this is more a question of politics than technology. I suspect that a change in administration could just as easily spell the end of a grandiose asteroid construction project as it could the end of a Mars trip.

And that means design of a space vehicle whereby the confidence level of passengers is identical to that of stepping into an automobile or boarding a jet.

That would be nice. I can't see it happening with asteroids before rocketry, though...

 

[MWare]

Already some folks seem to be taking a distinctly low tech approach to space travel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pecdOMgSbmM

 

[ConspiRaider]

Now I think I understand you much better. Thank you.

It's interesting to consider approaching the problems of space travel from a transportation perspective rather than a destination perspective. Quite possibly, it seems like a more efficient approach to the problem. Certainly any approach that lessens the intermediate risks to human crew is preferable.

As you say, this is an effort that could take decades or even centuries. Since there have been few technology projects that have been able to progress beyond the generation that began them (I can't think of one right now, maybe one of the pyramids?), it seems more likely that the average person would be more willing to have their tax money fund efforts that might achieve some milestone within their own lifetime.

Of course, who's to say this has to be a gov't run project right? I'm intrigued by the idea of corporations having their own space race (preferably not weapons corporations). But it seems even more unlikely that a corporation would undertake a multi-generational time-framed project without some sort of immediate milestone (e.g. a mars mission).

Either way, my opinion is that space exploration and colonization is an inherently good pursuit for mankind in whatever form. I still feel that a Mars colony is a good step, but I admit I have thought of this only from the perspective of a destination rather than a perspective of transportation. Is this asteroid thing a personal idea or has somebody written about this type of approach before? I'd be interested to read anything that has been written about it.

Hi MW -

You're right on, that a sea change in attitude about this - and many other issues as well - must permeate the global human society before serious work in the exploration of space by actual live humans can get underway. Absolutely correct. And how far away are we from that? I hate to even think about it, because the answer is too depressing. In this country - the United States of America - a horrifically large segment of Americans do not even wish to accept the reality of evolution. Look forward to being Raptured, or having the Mayans clean the slate in the autumn of 2012. Human society would have to reshape its thinking to a point where a vast majority of people accepted that life is here and now, that we're all part of a continuing chain of survival and progress, and that efforts begun today may benefit humankind 400 years from now. Or 4,000. That is a tall, tall order. Who thinks like that? Crackpots like me, that's who. And of course many enlightened and esteemed members of this forum. And others. But it's not nearly enough.

On the asteroids as space vehicles: It's not really my original idea. Parts of the logistics are, but I'm just noodling, imagining the reality of it. Science fiction writers of yore have gotten there first. The example I always use - the one that intrigued me - was the Star Trek episode For The World Is Hollow And I Have Touched The Sky. The society in a hollowed-out asteroid, journeying off into space, seeking a suitable planet for colonization. That's the one where Bones falls in love with Natiri, I think her name was.

There are enormous challenges to overcome in getting such a mode of space travel in place. Spanning decades, but really a century or more. Just think about the logistics of plucking out an asteroid from the Asteroid Belt and getting it here. Huge challenges. Yet - we've already landed a probe on one.

It can be done. Essentially everything can be done. But a giant section of the world's populace, and therefore their governments - does not believe it. There are too many "With God, All Things Are Possible" mindsets out there. With People, All Things Are Possible. That's what I choose to believe...

 

[jimbob]

Inbreeding.

The ingreased radiation will increase the mutation rate so this would be more important than for a similar sized population on Earth. Lots of frozen ova and sperm?

I tend to think the biggest limit is launch vehicle capacity. If you can lift it, you can put a lead wall between the sun and the crew.

Why not use water, you'd need it anyway.

I'd have thought the best solution would be to set up some robotic factories first (that would take some doing). I'd have thought it best to try to build a basic support infrastructure before the first colonists arrive. If not to build it, to at least send it there in previous journeys, ready for assembly.

Including the supplies for a return journey to Earth.

It would make long-duration nuclear submarine cruises seem like a picnic.

 

[Jimbo07]

Why not use water, you'd need it anyway.

Oh, I'm sure something can be worked out. My point had more to do with the lifter than the actual material.

As banal as it is, I think spacelaunch is the BIG problem. That's why I got involved with space elevator stuff in school.

 

[ConspiRaider]

A better analogy would be modern cruise ships. The first European colonists travelled in abysmal conditions. The risk of death was high.

I tend to think the biggest limit is launch vehicle capacity. If you can lift it, you can put a lead wall between the sun and the crew.

In a sense, I agree. Whether it's launch platforms, or dedicated spacecraft, we're still finding that the learning curve is steep. The ISS is a constant reminder of this fact.

Sure, but again, the learning curve is steep.

May I suggest advocacy of "learning" cruises to Near Earth Objects?

NEO Missions

One thing about destination-based design is that several lessons are learned. By the time we are able to achieve interplanetary flight in "tinpot" rockets reliably, we may have discovered (developed) the technologies and capabilites to construct large-scale asteroid habitatmobiles.

If you're talking about centuries-long time frames, then how is a rocketry program in the here-and-now an impediment? Lessons learned may actually make the process more efficient, rather than starting a program to clumsily fumble with asteroids now.

Agreed.

If we're playing at being advocates here, then I suggest that this is more a question of politics than technology. I suspect that a change in administration could just as easily spell the end of a grandiose asteroid construction project as it could the end of a Mars trip.

That would be nice. I can't see it happening with asteroids before rocketry, though...

Good stuff indeed, Jimbo. Excellent.

It's a helluva long shot on the rocket-based quest to Mars. And - it would have to go perfectly. Zero slip-ups. And yet look at the reality of space travel, in our timid steps so far. A capsule catches afire on the launch pad, because it was overlooked that pressurizing with 100% oxygen at sea level was not the same as the risk of doing that in space. 3 astronauts die from breathing fire and smoke. A series of little mishaps combine to cause Apollo 13 to blow up 205,000 miles out in space. Hard work, creativity and luck got them back. If that happened on the way to Mars? They've bought the ranch. A piece of foam insulation - FOAM fer chrissakes - shoots off the Shuttle and damages wing heat-shield tiling. Crew burns to death on re-entry.

That's just playing around in our own neighborhood. And so a trillion dollar gamble - played out tens of millions of miles away - HAS TO go perfectly in every way. If anything goes wrong - the public support, and funding will vanish for years and years and years.

I think the risk is way too high. And really - all we'd essentially be doing, in the unlikely event that a human-crewed Mars rocket mission proceeded with absolute perfection, is planting a flag, collecting a few rocks, doing a few tests. And then running back here. I'm not saying we wouldn't learn a few things. But I don't think nearly enough to justify the risk, or to promote the steady progression towards space travel as routine.

 

[BeAChooser]

Already some folks seem to be taking a distinctly low tech approach to space travel

ROTFLOL!

http://www.gla.ac.uk/R-E/pub/news/slingshot.html "Scientists hope to send materials to the moon by firing them into orbit with a giant catapult!"

 

[BeAChooser]

With People, All Things Are Possible. That's what I choose to believe...

I agree. Be A Chooser.

 

[BeAChooser]

I'd have thought the best solution would be to set up some robotic factories first (that would take some doing).

Robotics and manufactoring are in the process of undergoing a drastic transformation as our ability to manipulate smaller and smaller bits of matter improves. It very well could be that the best way to conquer Mars is with tiny machines that have orders to transform the environment more to our liking.

 

[BeAChooser]

As banal as it is, I think spacelaunch is the BIG problem.

I tend to agree.