1: they should run a full scale/time schedule identical equipment test on earth with success prior to launch. 2: they could use it to raise funds and televise it as well to significant profit. 3: meh, what do I know. I'm just another engineer. 4: some people would pay $$ just to vacation in that simulator.
add to this list other points you think would change this to be viable. :-)
We've been running the Mars Analogue are search Station for years. It isn't something you'd want to vacation in. Unless you're wierd in the ways we Mars-bound non-m1 people are. ;)
It should be noted that this group of students do. It represent MIT, nor do they put forth an actual study. This should be particularly embarrassing since MIT itself had a group study Mars colonization several years ago and we concluded the opposite of what this little group has concluded. They are clearly, for some unknown reason, either ignorant of the results or they are ignoring them in order to garner media attention.
The things they claim are fatal problems are things we solved a long, long time ago.
The Mars One organization, its supporters, and the erstwhile nouveau Martians are pioneers working with their own resources to bring their dream to life. We should be cheering. I am.
2022 is too soon. The project should have been started in the 70's. Logically, a moon colony should be started first because of the greater accessibility to earth. What will be learned there will help make a Mars colony successful.
The quickest way to not go to Mars is to go to the moon first. The two environments are far too different to be useful for each other.
It may seem counterintuitive, but Mars is the easier, safer, cheaper, and more useful of the two. There is nothing you can "learn" from a lunar colony which would be of use on Mars and not capable of being learned on Earth.
You are even better off going from the Martian surface to Earth's lunar surface than from the Earth's surface. The difference is that drastic, indeed moreso.
A lunar colony without the infrastructure provided by a solid Martian base is a money pit, or as I call it, a "moondoggle".
Interesting, but I guess I'm dense. I don't see why the costs would be greater, and in both cases lack of oxygen would hinder freedom of movement. However, I am merely an onlooker, and sci-fi reader, with a little knowledge of physics. I strive to be illuminated. Also, the trip to Mars would be a much greater challenge than the trip to Luna.
The first reason Mars is cheaper is because it has an atmosphere. Thin thought it is, it is enough to require less fuel than Luna. The trick is you can use aerobraking to reduce your speed at Mars but for Lina you have to take fuel for reverse thrust.
Second, getting to orbit is pretty much 90-95% of the fuel to get anywhere in the solar system. Climbing out of the gravity well is the main hurdle.
Third, Mars' atmosphere again helps once there. With hydrogen feedstock we can make all the air and water we want, and do it before we even arrive. Also, the difference between a near-absolute vacuum on the moon and op the thin one on Mars means less read shielding required adpnd your suits are much, much thinner, lighter and more maneuverable. Fourth, look at the moon footage. That hop they do isn't just for show. It happens to be the way to move around in the very small amount of gravity on the moon. On Mars your gait would be much easier and less ungainly - virtually normal compared to Luna. As CircuitGuy and DriveTrain refeenced, Zubrin's book goes into great detail on the specifics. It even includes a deeper explanation with tables on the delta-v for cruising various points in our solar system. Mars is the gateway to the stars for mankind barring some miracle breakthrough that cuts through known laws of physics or technology.
I get it. Now I believe we should have been on Mars by now. You can understand, I'm sure, you can understand how a tyro like me would assume that the closer would be easier. Like many other things I've discovered, the obvious isn't always so obvious.
Exactly. Zubrin hashed out a viable plan not only for going to Mars but for establishing a continuous, permanent and failsafe presence there, in his book "The Case for Mars." His price tag for it was orders of magnitude less than the government's cost projection at the time, and Zubrin showed how it could be done almost entirely with COTS hardware (a big part of why it could be so cheap.)
Getting sidetracked on building a Moon base as an intermediary step (instead of a completely separate endeavor,) would be a waste for several reasons, not the least of which is the fact that it's a more harsh place even than Mars. The Moon's only advantage is proximity - but the inexpensive craft Zubrin details for his Mars transit would render radiation shielding over long time periods the single biggest obstacle. Everything else would be more difficult to do on the Moon than on Mars.
Not that it wouldn't be cool to have a Moon base - and we almost certainly will at some point - just that it's unnecessary for going to Mars. And as in every case of new exploration in human history, the drive to space exploration will not truly take off (pun if you want one,) until private enterprises a.) see a ton of money to be made in space and b.) governments have sufficiently unshackled private enterprises to allow them to go after it.
Not only those reasons but the proximity factor is largely rendered moot by the fact you can't just hop in your rocket and get there right away. In neither case is there an emergency rescue coming soon enough to do more than clean up the mess left after the emergency has run its course.
As I see it: Mars firsr, which opens the belt, which provides the mass for tether relays to be built, which then provides the means for rapid and safe travel from Mars orbit to Luna and earth orbit. Hell, call it the Galt Line for snickering.
Then from there you can build shipyards at Mars Planitia as well as mass haulers and more tether cyclers to build orbital infrastructure. Mass is cheapest from the belt to orbit.
And that is where the honest money is to be made. Personally my goal is to build the first pre-fab Martian colony company. :-D. Let Musk get us there and I'll get your colony setup.
"The quickest way to not go to Mars is to go to the moon first." You are correct here, but the real problem is that we have to get a commercial venture like SpaceX out there, rather than a government-subsidized one. Commercial ventures will make their own decisions as to the correct plan of attack.
Some of us do indeed want to set Mars up as a new frontier for freedom. The bone loss is a non-issue for one-way colonists.
Bone loss is another example of the adaptability we possess. It happens because the bone density isn't needed (a feedback if physical stress being absent on the bones). This is an area Mars enjoys a tremendous advantage over Luna in. The Gravity on Mars results in a higher resting point. Once the body has adapted the the Martian gravity the bone loss will stop.
This is only a "problem" if you'll be headed back to a deeper gravity well. This for colonists it isn't an issue.
"Some of us do indeed want to set Mars up as a new frontier for freedom. " I love the notion, but I think it's more practical to find an inhospitable out-of-the-way place on Earth. The colonists will thrive if they can find the sweet spot of trade with the rest of the world without interference from the rest of the world.
How many productive people with valuable skills would be willing to move there with all the inconveniences if the goal was to build that earth colony as an incubator for an off-earth colony?
I know many. This shouldn't be a surprise as this is how we've settled this planet. Indeed exploring the how's and whys of history gives the needed insight to how we will settle off-Earth.
Entirely. There is a significant advantage to easily harvested resources (Martian Air for example) and building what you need in a way to provide maximal utilization.
Martian oxygen will be generated by mining oxide minerals, plus a couple of chemical engineering processes. I will be glad to talk to someone about this offline.
Can we move Congress and the President to Mars to pass legislation? Then make sure they ALL have to read, and write a brief report on the legislation before voting.
1) They would know what they are passing or not. 2) Bills would not be 2500 pages long filled with unintelligible jibberish 3) It would get done quickly or we would get to vote in someone new.
They would all die in the spaceship while arguing over whether or not they should disturb the pristine ecology of the planet. What pristine ecology? Hey, I don't think like those bozos.
The little green men may still have a religious crisis unless their elite betters can convince them that the rocketship is just a weather balloon.. Let us pray for a happy outcome.
"Rail travel at high speed is not possible, because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia." Dr Dionysius Lardner (1793-1859), professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy, University College London.
Add bacteria. Easy to feed, can control their growth, and they'll transform oxygen to carbon dioxide. In addition - you don't want to VENT the oxygen - that's oxygen you need in the system and the plants aren't creating NEW oxygen - they're transforming CO2 into carbon and oxygen - so getting rid of it is just silly - you need to trap excess oxygen - not toss it out of the system. Same for excess CO2 (consider shellfish as a way).
Regardless, there are low tech ways to solve these problems, aren't there?
Here is the thing most don't realize: oxygen isn't a scarce resource on a properly done Mars colony.
Yes, low tech is the way to go. We use gas-lifht era technology and chemical reactions to extract O2 from Mars' atmosphere. We take a feedstock of hydrogen and produce water and oxygen from the CO2 laden atmosphere. If we aren't needing water as much we can recycle nearly all of the hydrogen used to extract oxygen from the atmo.
Enough so that we really won't be concerned with venting some oxygen. It will be cheaper and easier to extract more than to compress and store any excess.
Mars is very attainable. I think 68 days is far too pessimistic but the reality is that going is an unavoidable death sentence without immediate and regular supplies being brought to create a self-sufficient environment. I did a lot of research on Mars for Shadows Live Under Seashells and there is a wealth of resources on Mars to use - provided you have the know how and the ingenuity to manufacture what you need.
Andy Weir wrote "The Martian" (amazon) which showed a variety of ways a single human could survive alone on Mars using is intelligence and very little else to sustain himself.
" I did a lot of research on Mars for Shadows Live Under Seashells and there is a wealth of resources on Mars to use - provided you have the know how and the ingenuity to manufacture what you need. " The book As It Is on Mars is a story that goes into great detail on this. Two astronauts come with an inch of dying on Mars after a disaster kills the rest of their crew. They meet up with another astronaut who was on a one-way suicide mission to Mars. They work their tails off and use supplies to build a greenhouse and just enough food to keep them alive. After that they thrive. They contact earth and show them the amazing residence and greenhouse they've constructed, mostly with native materials. People on earth are envious of this "easy wealth" (which they built working 70 hours a week while rationing their food) from Mars that should be shared with earth. Earth gov'ts want to take over their three-person community and get in on the gold rush. They don't realize the real wealth came from hard work, not "Mars". When I say it it sounds far-fetched, but the author will have you suspending disbelief. I don't know why the books is virtually unknown. It's as good as Asimov or Clarke, but I guess he never promoted it well.
try the Andy Weir book, its very impressive and relies heavily on the sole human on Mars and what he scrounged from resources left on the Red Planet. In this book you don't have to suspend belief at all, its very informative, very scientific, and has a lot of humor (as you;d expect from some who knows hes literally alone on a planet).
Incidentally, nothing in Shadows Live Under Seashells isn't based on actual science.Every aspect of Mars, like every other projection made throughout the book, is entirely grounded in fact. :)
The problem is in the origin of the nitrogen. Normally, plants leach it out of the soil (which is why farmers use nitrogen and rotate crops) in order to grow, but only their decomposition and bacteria in the soil return that nitrogen for use by more plants. Burning the plants ties up the nitrogen as well as the oxygen, so you still have the same problems (only on a longer scale) with making sure your plants can survive.
The real problem being pointed to here is that humans are used to breathing in a nitrogen-rich atmosphere - not an oxygen-rich one. Air pressure is one problem, but air composition is the bigger one - as oxygen levels rise, even normal breathing (which is critical to bodily processes) would tend to bring too much oxygen into the body such as when one intentionally hyperventilates. At some point the excess oxygen (if it can't get flushed out of your system) will kill you.
What they need to be able to do is combine the oxygen through combustion with something in the soil to create a waste-product. No idea what that would be. Terraforming is a lot of art at this point - not much science.
The other issue is in a hypoxic (O2 rich) atmosphere, the ability to combust (because combustion is the process of rapid oxidation), is greatly increased. Ask the astronauts of Apollo 1. Prolonged health concerns aside, you could turn a relatively safe material (say, the covers for the domes and the equipment used in life support and power generation) into a readily combustible fuel really quickly.
Pure (or very high concentrations of) Oxygen is quite dangerous. However, that is an issue if the system in place to regulate the partial pressure of Oxygen breaks down.
It is not just a matter of O2/N2 mix. A person can survive quite well in an O2 rich environment with a lower pressure, or an O2 reduced environment with higher pressure, until Nitrogen Narcosis becomes a problem.
Divers, particularly those that are nitrox or rebreather certified, are pretty familiar with these issues, although they generally think about higher pressures, not lower ones. Climbers think about the O2 pp.
and just what does your non-moronic (?) suggestion of fires do to the CO2 levels in their enclosed bubble?
my first concern regarding morons is actually who would be motivated to spend $6Billion (probably over 2x that in reality) just for the first mission/group. and just whose $6 Billion they are spending/confiscating.
Assuming this is a real problem, and a steady-state condition between the plants and people cannot be achieved... How about the CO2 scrubbers that have been in use on submarines for 40 years?
OK, now you have just added more equipment and $$! :) I know nothing about how much space, power, fuel, chemicals, etc. CO2 scrubbers use. But I can see that technically the Oxygen problem could be solved - every pound of mass from Earth used to solve it though gets more and more pricey. Hopefully you do not need an Ocean for low cost/use of materials operation.
Part of what I got from the brief article is that these guys were not bringing enough stuff to survive - like perhaps a CO2 scrubber in addition to a lighter (to be used before Oxygen levels would ignite the entire place!).
I think Mars One is a pipe dream. If they get the money and the technology working, they're recruiting people for a life sentence in a small cell, conditions that would be inhumane even for horrible criminals.
I hope I'm wrong and that someone tries it. Even if some brave people go and either die or go crazy, it moves science closer to people go building new Gulches or Americas out in space. I'm just not getting my hopes up.
They're doing it because it's there. Historically humans risked all on building boats to cross vast waters and trekking in wagons across huge deserts. Imagine being able to time-travel to, say, the year 3000 and finding Mars terra-formed, and new technologies to speed space flight enabling more people to settle there and to explore more distant possibilities. We have met the extraterrestrials, and they are us.
Individual liberty requires a frontier, like America was, to excel ,away from the confines of government and corporate artificially created limits (and looters.)
Frontiers are what happen when occupied areas reach saturation. And on the way to that point, organization gets more complex and tightened, as well, with rules and regulations introduced to the totalitarian choking point. Then those with guts look for ways to break through the frontiers, which the overcrowded culture needs for survival. Either spread to virgin territories, or clean up the mess at home.
Our planet has few areas left to spread to: polar regions, deserts, ocean bottoms, mountaintops. Not the most hospitable places, though still easier to get to than Mars. Terra-forming Earth to be fit for human life will, of course, find objection from climate crazies and gaia gurus.
Governments tend to be lenient with pioneers into new frontiers at first, until enough work and progress has been done for looters to be attracted. Even building the internet followed that formula. Just watch the current attempts to milk it.
"First steps down new roads"...and the herd soon follows. In today's world, the frontiers are internal, intellectual, psycho-epistemological. Winning individual liberty in action, not just lip service, is that frontier. Let's hope to achieve it by persuasion, not violence.
Yes. It is exciting. I agree with the engineer who said that it needs to be mocked up on Earth and with Thoritsu who pointed out that submarines have solved containment problems for decades. (I recall a SF story where a space drive was invented and the inventor bought a submarine to install it in...and off he went.)
Likely the Greenpeace activists... (tho being mars, wouldn't it be Redpeace? ) Expanding on that premise... maybe it would be a great way to get the socialist-leaners to volunteer - Go Red on the Red Planet. If you're not satisfied after being there for... 90 days... you get your money back... heh heh heh...
Going to mars is pointless. There is nothing to do on Mars.
We should focus our efforts not on getting to Mars, but on making it worth it to go to mars. For example, let's launch a gigantic Nuclear Reactor, crash land it on the Martian Ice Cap, melt the ice, and put water in the Atmosphere.
Maybe it will work, maybe it won't. But it's step 1.
No, this is a terrible idea. There is plenty to do on Mars. We don't need to put water in the Martian atmosphere as it would be a terrible waste of good hydrogen. Mars had an atmosphere with water once, it has it no more. The gravity isn't enough to keep it and the high energy radiation would split the upper levels leading to a faster bleed due to the lack of a solid magnetic field.
We can take along methane, isolate the hydrogen and create water from the Martian atmosphere. Due to the light gravity we can build ridiculously large domes. Domes large enough that you wouldn't see the dome itself while standing in the surface. And we can make the domes there. Again, partially from the "thin air".
2: they could use it to raise funds and televise it as well to significant profit.
3: meh, what do I know. I'm just another engineer.
4: some people would pay $$ just to vacation in that simulator.
add to this list other points you think would change this to be viable. :-)
The things they claim are fatal problems are things we solved a long, long time ago.
It may seem counterintuitive, but Mars is the easier, safer, cheaper, and more useful of the two. There is nothing you can "learn" from a lunar colony which would be of use on Mars and not capable of being learned on Earth.
You are even better off going from the Martian surface to Earth's lunar surface than from the Earth's surface. The difference is that drastic, indeed moreso.
A lunar colony without the infrastructure provided by a solid Martian base is a money pit, or as I call it, a "moondoggle".
Second, getting to orbit is pretty much 90-95% of the fuel to get anywhere in the solar system. Climbing out of the gravity well is the main hurdle.
Third, Mars' atmosphere again helps once there. With hydrogen feedstock we can make all the air and water we want, and do it before we even arrive. Also, the difference between a near-absolute vacuum on the moon and op the thin one on Mars means less read shielding required adpnd your suits are much, much thinner, lighter and more maneuverable.
Fourth, look at the moon footage. That hop they do isn't just for show. It happens to be the way to move around in the very small amount of gravity on the moon. On Mars your gait would be much easier and less ungainly - virtually normal compared to Luna. As CircuitGuy and DriveTrain refeenced, Zubrin's book goes into great detail on the specifics. It even includes a deeper explanation with tables on the delta-v for cruising various points in our solar system. Mars is the gateway to the stars for mankind barring some miracle breakthrough that cuts through known laws of physics or technology.
Now I believe we should have been on Mars by now. You can understand, I'm sure, you can understand how a tyro like me would assume that the closer would be easier. Like many other things I've discovered, the obvious isn't always so obvious.
As I like to say "commence sense isn't always common or correct".
Robert Zurbin has me sold on this idea too- Mars Direct
Getting sidetracked on building a Moon base as an intermediary step (instead of a completely separate endeavor,) would be a waste for several reasons, not the least of which is the fact that it's a more harsh place even than Mars. The Moon's only advantage is proximity - but the inexpensive craft Zubrin details for his Mars transit would render radiation shielding over long time periods the single biggest obstacle. Everything else would be more difficult to do on the Moon than on Mars.
Not that it wouldn't be cool to have a Moon base - and we almost certainly will at some point - just that it's unnecessary for going to Mars. And as in every case of new exploration in human history, the drive to space exploration will not truly take off (pun if you want one,) until private enterprises a.) see a ton of money to be made in space and b.) governments have sufficiently unshackled private enterprises to allow them to go after it.
As I see it: Mars firsr, which opens the belt, which provides the mass for tether relays to be built, which then provides the means for rapid and safe travel from Mars orbit to Luna and earth orbit. Hell, call it the Galt Line for snickering.
Then from there you can build shipyards at Mars Planitia as well as mass haulers and more tether cyclers to build orbital infrastructure. Mass is cheapest from the belt to orbit.
And that is where the honest money is to be made. Personally my goal is to build the first pre-fab Martian colony company. :-D. Let Musk get us there and I'll get your colony setup.
go for it - please use your nickel$ though
Still all a waste of money ... unless we want to set up the Gulch on Mars and sign a Constitution guaranteeing individual and economic freedom.
Bone loss is another example of the adaptability we possess. It happens because the bone density isn't needed (a feedback if physical stress being absent on the bones). This is an area Mars enjoys a tremendous advantage over Luna in. The Gravity on Mars results in a higher resting point. Once the body has adapted the the Martian gravity the bone loss will stop.
This is only a "problem" if you'll be headed back to a deeper gravity well. This for colonists it isn't an issue.
I love the notion, but I think it's more practical to find an inhospitable out-of-the-way place on Earth. The colonists will thrive if they can find the sweet spot of trade with the rest of the world without interference from the rest of the world.
1) They would know what they are passing or not.
2) Bills would not be 2500 pages long filled with unintelligible jibberish
3) It would get done quickly or we would get to vote in someone new.
But why can't we just move congress and His Emmaculation to Mars.
The End.
What pristine ecology? Hey, I don't think like those bozos.
Let us pray for a happy outcome.
"Rail travel at high speed is not possible, because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia."
Dr Dionysius Lardner (1793-1859), professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy, University College London.
GIGO on display.
More productive than stealing the rival's mascot.
Easy to feed, can control their growth, and they'll transform oxygen to carbon dioxide.
In addition - you don't want to VENT the oxygen - that's oxygen you need in the system and the plants aren't creating NEW oxygen - they're transforming CO2 into carbon and oxygen - so getting rid of it is just silly - you need to trap excess oxygen - not toss it out of the system. Same for excess CO2 (consider shellfish as a way).
Regardless, there are low tech ways to solve these problems, aren't there?
Yes, low tech is the way to go. We use gas-lifht era technology and chemical reactions to extract O2 from Mars' atmosphere. We take a feedstock of hydrogen and produce water and oxygen from the CO2 laden atmosphere. If we aren't needing water as much we can recycle nearly all of the hydrogen used to extract oxygen from the atmo.
Enough so that we really won't be concerned with venting some oxygen. It will be cheaper and easier to extract more than to compress and store any excess.
Andy Weir wrote "The Martian" (amazon) which showed a variety of ways a single human could survive alone on Mars using is intelligence and very little else to sustain himself.
The book As It Is on Mars is a story that goes into great detail on this. Two astronauts come with an inch of dying on Mars after a disaster kills the rest of their crew. They meet up with another astronaut who was on a one-way suicide mission to Mars. They work their tails off and use supplies to build a greenhouse and just enough food to keep them alive. After that they thrive. They contact earth and show them the amazing residence and greenhouse they've constructed, mostly with native materials. People on earth are envious of this "easy wealth" (which they built working 70 hours a week while rationing their food) from Mars that should be shared with earth. Earth gov'ts want to take over their three-person community and get in on the gold rush. They don't realize the real wealth came from hard work, not "Mars". When I say it it sounds far-fetched, but the author will have you suspending disbelief. I don't know why the books is virtually unknown. It's as good as Asimov or Clarke, but I guess he never promoted it well.
http://www.amazon.com/Martian-Andy-Weir-...
astronomical.
Light a match you MIT academic morons! Burn some of the plant stuffs and make O2 into CO2.
I'm sure there are real problems with the colonization of Mars, but too much oxygen isn't the showstopper.
The real problem being pointed to here is that humans are used to breathing in a nitrogen-rich atmosphere - not an oxygen-rich one. Air pressure is one problem, but air composition is the bigger one - as oxygen levels rise, even normal breathing (which is critical to bodily processes) would tend to bring too much oxygen into the body such as when one intentionally hyperventilates. At some point the excess oxygen (if it can't get flushed out of your system) will kill you.
What they need to be able to do is combine the oxygen through combustion with something in the soil to create a waste-product. No idea what that would be. Terraforming is a lot of art at this point - not much science.
It is not just a matter of O2/N2 mix. A person can survive quite well in an O2 rich environment with a lower pressure, or an O2 reduced environment with higher pressure, until Nitrogen Narcosis becomes a problem.
Divers, particularly those that are nitrox or rebreather certified, are pretty familiar with these issues, although they generally think about higher pressures, not lower ones. Climbers think about the O2 pp.
my first concern regarding morons is actually who would be motivated to spend $6Billion (probably over 2x that in reality) just for the first mission/group. and just whose $6 Billion they are spending/confiscating.
Completely, agree, with the waste of money point.
I know nothing about how much space, power, fuel,
chemicals, etc. CO2 scrubbers use.
But I can see that technically the Oxygen problem could be solved - every pound of mass from Earth used to solve it though gets more and more pricey.
Hopefully you do not need an Ocean for low cost/use of materials operation.
Part of what I got from the brief article is that these guys were not bringing enough stuff to survive - like perhaps a CO2 scrubber in addition to a lighter
(to be used before Oxygen levels would ignite the entire place!).
I hope I'm wrong and that someone tries it. Even if some brave people go and either die or go crazy, it moves science closer to people go building new Gulches or Americas out in space. I'm just not getting my hopes up.
Our planet has few areas left to spread to: polar regions, deserts, ocean bottoms, mountaintops. Not the most hospitable places, though still easier to get to than Mars. Terra-forming Earth to be fit for human life will, of course, find objection from climate crazies and gaia gurus.
Governments tend to be lenient with pioneers into new frontiers at first, until enough work and progress has been done for looters to be attracted. Even building the internet followed that formula. Just watch the current attempts to milk it.
"First steps down new roads"...and the herd soon follows. In today's world, the frontiers are internal, intellectual, psycho-epistemological. Winning individual liberty in action, not just lip service, is that frontier. Let's hope to achieve it by persuasion, not violence.
Jan
We should focus our efforts not on getting to Mars, but on making it worth it to go to mars. For example, let's launch a gigantic Nuclear Reactor, crash land it on the Martian Ice Cap, melt the ice, and put water in the Atmosphere.
Maybe it will work, maybe it won't. But it's step 1.
We can take along methane, isolate the hydrogen and create water from the Martian atmosphere. Due to the light gravity we can build ridiculously large domes. Domes large enough that you wouldn't see the dome itself while standing in the surface. And we can make the domes there. Again, partially from the "thin air".