• This forum is specifically for the discussion of factual science and technology. When the topic moves to speculation, then it needs to also move to the parent forum, Science Fiction and Fantasy (SF/F).

    If the topic of a discussion becomes political, even remotely so, then it immediately does no longer belong here. Failure to comply with these simple and reasonable guidelines will result in one of the following.
    1. the thread will be moved to the appropriate forum
    2. the thread will be closed to further posts.
    3. the thread will remain, but the posts that deviate from the topic will be relocated or deleted.
    Thank you for understanding.​

Mars One Colonization--return of the adventure story?

Physsica

Planning a return trip to earth.
Registered
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
275
Reaction score
23
Location
Enceladus
Yes, it is real. They don't want to just build a 'tourist destination' though. They want to colonize. According to The Mars Society, this means they need fertile soil, water, mineral ore and an atmosphere.

Not only that, but NASA is planning on making oxygen on mars in 2020.

ETA: I think too that some people look at the moon and go, nah we've done that, we've been there. So they say, let's go to mars instead. It's the insatiable part of the human soul that wants to be out and explore and push the limits of what we can do.
 
Last edited:

GeoWriter

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 17, 2014
Messages
146
Reaction score
13
Yes, it is real. They don't want to just build a 'tourist destination' though. They want to colonize. According to The Mars Society, this means they need fertile soil, water, mineral ore and an atmosphere.

Not only that, but NASA is planning on making oxygen on mars in 2020.

I hope it works out for them! I spent about 7 years back in the 90s funded by ISRU to study ways to "live off the land" in space.

Although, like the Moon, Mars doesn't have soil--only regolith. And its atmosphere is what we call on Earth a weak vacuum!
 

Physsica

Planning a return trip to earth.
Registered
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
275
Reaction score
23
Location
Enceladus
I hope it works out for them! I spent about 7 years back in the 90s funded by ISRU to study ways to "live off the land" in space.

That sounds like a very fun job. How'd it go? What did you learn? Sorry for being so interested, but I love stuff like that.
 

GeoWriter

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 17, 2014
Messages
146
Reaction score
13
That sounds like a very fun job. How'd it go? What did you learn? Sorry for being so interested, but I love stuff like that.

Yes, it was fun! I contributed to a number of resource questions, but my main task was looking into producing free oxygen on the Moon or Mars by electrolysis of molten rock (most rock is about 40% oxygen). Sadly, my work suggested that since magma is a near-perfect solvent, finding a container and electrodes for the process was going to be a challenge. However,I did identify conditions under which the process could be operated efficiently.
A couple of my papers are in http://www.uapress.arizona.edu/onlinebks/ResourcesNearEarthSpace/contents.php and another abstract at http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19910027505
 

GeoWriter

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 17, 2014
Messages
146
Reaction score
13
An update--I'm at a planetary science conference this week and David Scott (commander of Apollo 15), in answering a question from the audience about establishing a presence on Mars rather than the Moon, commented that he's glad that people are excited about Mars, but "Mars--that's going to be many, many generations in the future." Although- I hope we can get rid of at least one of those "manys".
 

King Neptune

Banned
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
4,253
Reaction score
372
Location
The Oceans
An update--I'm at a planetary science conference this week and David Scott (commander of Apollo 15), in answering a question from the audience about establishing a presence on Mars rather than the Moon, commented that he's glad that people are excited about Mars, but "Mars--that's going to be many, many generations in the future." Although- I hope we can get rid of at least one of those "manys".

I think that David Scott is mistaken, but Mars One may not be successful. I wouldn't put any money on them, but I wouldn't take the other side of the bet either. The problem with a Mars colony is just a logistic problem. If we could get enough supplies there cheaply, then there would be a human presence there next years, but it's a long trip at slow speeds.
 

GeoWriter

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 17, 2014
Messages
146
Reaction score
13
If we could get enough supplies there cheaply, then there would be a human presence there next years, but it's a long trip at slow speeds.

Plus all those nasty health problems in space and low-g that we really haven't got perfect solutions for...If I was writing it into a story, they'd have a magical pill...
 

Physsica

Planning a return trip to earth.
Registered
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
275
Reaction score
23
Location
Enceladus
Sadly, my work suggested that since magma is a near-perfect solvent, finding a container and electrodes for the process was going to be a challenge. However, I did identify conditions under which the process could be operated efficiently.

Not sure if that was supposed to come across as funny, but I laughed :D. Sorry it took me so long to get back to you, but thanks for the info! I only read part of your research papers, but enjoyed what I read.
 

Lillith1991

The Hobbit-Vulcan hybrid
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 12, 2014
Messages
5,313
Reaction score
569
Location
MA
Website
eclecticlittledork.wordpress.com
This is VERY interesting to me. We're certainly getting closer to star trek type exploration of the cosmos. Maybe some of our decendants will be born on colonies in the next hundred years?
 

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
The problems faced in establishing some form of sustainable colony on Mars:

1. Radiation. Mars has no significant magnetic field, and solar radiation already has stripped much of the Martian atmosphere, leaving only a tenuous (1/100 the atmospheric pressure of Earth) veil consisting almost entirely of carbon dioxide, with is about 1.4 times as heavy as the nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere of our planet. Earth's magnetic field deflects most charged particles emitted from the Sun. Not any protection like that on Mars.

2. Water. Mars has some water, that is certain. But not much anymore. That too probably has been stripped via solar radiation and the effect of weak gravity; water vapor is much lighter than our nitrogen/oxygen mix.

3. Energy. Mars gets about 1/4 the intensity of solar energy that the Earth gets. Solar energy was just barely enough to keep the two wonderful small solar rovers, Spirit and Opportunity, roving. The bigger thing, Curiosity, runs on a nuclear engine. It's about te size of a Volkswagen Beetle. There exists no fossil fuel resources on Mars. Energy-generating technology will need to be shipped there from Earth.

4. Construction materials. Likewise, not really available locally on Mars. Yeah, there's a lot of iron oxide, so, theoretically, you could make iron. But that takes a heap of energy. See No. 3, above.

5. Food. The concept of growing crops on Mars is fraught with difficulty, including both the radiation and weaker sunlight issues. The necessity of water might be overcome, but also there's the need for any plant crop to have organic material, and things like phosphate and nitrate fertilizers, to grow.

6. Glass. If you're going to establish a colony on Mars where plant crops can be grown, among other things, you need transparent biosphere kinds of places, which would require glass. Glass is heavy. The idea of transporting glass material for construction of such things on Mars is, frankly, ridiculous, purely on the basis of the energy cost. And on Mars there exists no free silica for the manufacture of glass, as far as we can tell. Free silica exists on Earth only because of the surficial chemical refinement via plate tectonics that has been going on for four billion years. Mars has no such plate tectonic history which would generate free silica.

In addition to which, the manufacture of glass, even with free silica available, is yet another immense energy problem.

7. Return. Given the absence of energy resources on Mars, any possible return from the Martian surface would require that the energy resource necessary to launch be sent to Mars from Earth. The initial energy cost of such a thing is, literally, astronomical. We had a hell of a time sending a Volkswagen-sized vehicle to Mars to explore the surface. The quantity of fuel needed to re-launch such a thing back into space on a return voyage to Earth is immense. This alone is why we've never even tried to design a robotic mission to retrieve surficial material from Mars. Not to mention the issue of actually getting a relaunchable vehicle safely there.

8. Hostility. Mars is a hell of a hostile place for complex Earth-based organisms such as ourselves to survive. There might be some micro-organisms living on Mars, or some that may have lived there in the past, but we didn't evolve to survive in the conditions existing on the surface of that planet. The amount of life-support technology necessary to sustain a human "colony" is frighteningly huge. And frighteningly expensive.

9. Gravity. Mars gravity is about 1/4 that of Earth. It cannot possibly sustain a nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere, or sufficient atmospheric pressure of any gas to allow people to go about without space suits.

10. Oxygen. On Earth, free diatomic oxygen, the stuffe we breathe that sustains our metabolism, exists only because plants produce it via photosynthesis. Oxygen is intensely reactive, and without continual replenishment, would disappear from our atmosphere very quickly. Generating it chemically can be done, but not on the scale necessary to sustain any significant population. You need plants. See several of the items noted above.

In short, we are never going to "terraform" Mars. We might send a scientific team there to explore a bit, but the concept of a continuous colonial occupation of that planet is the stuff of science fiction. I like science fiction as entertainment and food for thought, but I don't conflate it with reality. Even the concept of a manned scientific exploration of Mars runs hard against the wall of expense in a way I see difficult to overcome. Plus we've now had astonishing success with robotic missions, themselves very expensive, but being so successful that they render the necessity of sending actual humans there less pressing.

We are part of the planet we live on. We are here because this planet has the conditions in which we can survive and prosper. Earth wasn't created for us; we came into being because Earth is the way it is, chemically and physically. We are part of it. Earth is the planet we need to be most concerned about. Mars is no refuge for human existence. If we fail to make it on Earth, we, as a species, just plain fail. There are no guarantees that Homo sapiens will succeed in the long run of organic biology on this planet.

caw
 

Physsica

Planning a return trip to earth.
Registered
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
275
Reaction score
23
Location
Enceladus
Maybe they will just have to settle for a vacation spot. :) I'm sure there's people out there willing to shell out billions trillions to visit. Not me. The thought of ever being in space freaks me out. Which is weird, coming from a space physicist.
 

Jacob_Wallace

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Messages
250
Reaction score
2
Location
Tennessee
A tourist destination wouldn't be very cost effective. It'd cost billions just to build, and insurance through the roof since you're effectively putting people in a bubble surrounded by instant death. Then the dangers of flying into space, more insurance. Then the fuel it'd cost to fly people back and forth. Only millionaires could afford the gas to go there, and well, there's not that many millionaires in the world to offset the billions it'd take to build.

You also run into the same problem Futurama pointed out. We're only fascinated by the moon because it's mysterious. If you could actually go there, it quickly becomes obvious that it's little more than a lifeless rock.

Then again, I could be wrong. Not a whole lot to see on Mt Everest, it's dangerous, and permits cost about $10,000 IIRC, yet people go there every year. But then, nobody had to spend billions of dollars to create a habitable environment on Mt Everest either.
 

benbradley

It's a doggy dog world
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
20,322
Reaction score
3,513
Location
Transcending Canines
I was just reading today's article from Popular Science on the Mars One effort:
http://www.popsci.com/article/mars-one-build-simulated-colony-one-way-astronauts

But just getting a human being safely into low earth orbit is hideously expensive. While it's sure to get cheaper with more entities doing it, it won't be getting a LOT cheaper. It takes a lot of technology to accelerate someone to 7 miles per second (orbital speed, the minimum to stay in space without falling back to Earth) and also keep them alive, enough that the fuel cost is a small percentage of the total.

I'll really be impressed if they raise the money for it, or equivalently, get SpaceX to donate a manned launch.

If it weren't for the (perceived) really big stakes of the Cold War, we might not have been to the Moon by now.

Quoting a carefully selected part of the PS article:
The company estimates that getting the first crew to Mars will cost about $6 billion, to be be funded primarily through a reality-TV program about the red planet's first colonists.

Skeptics of the mission abound,...
 

milkweed

Abuses commas at will.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
2,119
Reaction score
151
Location
Somewhere between here and there
This is VERY interesting to me. We're certainly getting closer to star trek type exploration of the cosmos. Maybe some of our decendants will be born on colonies in the next hundred years?

I believe that they are already being born on extant earth world colonies... and "conspiracy" does a jim dandy job of letting us know otherwise!

K-
 

GeoWriter

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 17, 2014
Messages
146
Reaction score
13
Here is a comment posted yesterday by Apollo astronaut Harrison (Jack) Schmitt addressing the need to go to the Moon before tackling Mars. Enjoy.

The following is my longer list of why the Moon is on the "critical path"
as well as the fastest path to Mars:

1. We do not yet know what constitutes the best and, indeed, actually workable techniques to land very large (>40 tonnes?), crewed and un-crewed payloads on Mars.
2. We need time, large rockets, realistic spacecraft, (all of which would be components of a human lunar initiative) and high altitude Earth atmospheric tests to learn how to manage entry and descent through the thin Martian atmosphere,.
3. We need to design Mars spacecraft, and test their use in a lunar context, that serve both to enter, descend and land and to train to enter, descend and land while in transit.
4. We need at least one generation, and maybe two generations, of young men and women with experience in again operating and supporting crewed spacecraft in deep space before taking on Mars.
5. We need to help NASA develop permanent, Apollo-like efficiency that proves it can routinely, frequently and successfully operate in deep space so that it can lead the more difficult effort to explore Mars.
6. We need to use the Moon to again demonstrate to the taxpayer, the White House, and Congress that major, complex space endeavors require a sufficient management reserve of funding that allows schedules to be maintained and overall costs to be minimized in the face of inevitable and initially unknown technical issues.
7. We need to know if one-sixth g stimulates human re-adaptation, after adaptation to zero g, as a guide to engineering design and crew operations related to three-eights g on Mars.
8. We need to test procedures and train crews and flight controllers for autonomous and very rapid Mars entry, descent and landing operations with autonomous and accelerated landings on the Moon before doing it for the first time at Mars.
9. We need to test procedures and train crews and flight controllers for near-autonomous Mars surface operations on the Moon before finalizing the design of hardware and operations for the surface of Mars.
10. We need to use the lunar regolith, particularly its finest grain fraction, as a realistic test for a wide variety of Martian sampling and analytical systems and techniques.
11. We need to develop and become comfortable with operating space nuclear power plants on the Moon that in turn can provide sufficient energy for operations on Mars.
12. We may need to consider whether Mars crews, based on ISS experience, should spend extended periods working together at a lunar settlement before it being necessary to do so on a mission to Mars.
13. We may need lunar water to fill the radiation shields around large crewed spacecraft for long duration transit in deep space.
14. We may need lunar helium-3 for the fusion rockets potentially required to shorten the journey to Mars.

Certainly, some of you can add items to this list and current unknowns will add others. Others may argue with some of the specifics. We can add, of course, in addition to all the above requirements for a Mars mission, the scientific and economic returns of permanent activities on the Moon are incalculable. Just look at a mere six Apollo landings, only covering a small portion of the Moon¹s near side, with no diminution of scientific return from first to last and as yet just a hint about the economics of lunar resources.

Finally, only with respect to Mars itself, we need to robotically test for extant life at the geologically stable cryosphere-hydrosphere interface under the Martian surface in order to establish habitat, spacesuit and operational design constrains for exploration.

I have no doubt dedicated and motivated young men and women can do all of the above if guided by competent and courageous leaders. We have seen similar achievements in the past. We know a great deal more about Mars and working in space now than we knew about the Moon and working in space in 1961. Deep space, however, remains just as risky as it ever was with the added complications relative to Mars of a long journey, lack of real-time communications, and a Martian atmosphere that is too thin to be much help to entry and descent but to thick to ignore.

Happy Easter to all!

Jack
 

lpetrich

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 26, 2007
Messages
277
Reaction score
37
1. Radiation. Mars has no significant magnetic field, and solar radiation already has stripped much of the Martian atmosphere, leaving only a tenuous (1/100 the atmospheric pressure of Earth) veil consisting almost entirely of carbon dioxide, with is about 1.4 times as heavy as the nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere of our planet. Earth's magnetic field deflects most charged particles emitted from the Sun. Not any protection like that on Mars.
Simple solution: live underground. The Earth's atmosphere has a column density comparable to 10 meters (30 ft) of water or 3 m (10 ft) of rock.

3. Energy. Mars gets about 1/4 the intensity of solar energy that the Earth gets.
Mars's semimajor axis is about 1.524 AU (Earth = 1 AU), and its orbit eccentricity is 0.0934. That makes it vary between 1.382 AU and 1.666 AU. To find what intensity, take the inverse square: 1/1.91 to 1/2.32 to 1/2.78. Not quite 1/4, but still small.

4. Construction materials. Likewise, not really available locally on Mars. Yeah, there's a lot of iron oxide, so, theoretically, you could make iron. But that takes a heap of energy. See No. 3, above.
Mars rocks, like Earth rocks are essentially metal silicates. Plenty of raw materials in them if one can fractionate them by element. Failing that, one can cut blocks of Mars rock and use it as a raw materials, as we Earthlings have done for centuries with Earth rock.

5. Food. The concept of growing crops on Mars is fraught with difficulty, including both the radiation and weaker sunlight issues. The necessity of water might be overcome, but also there's the need for any plant crop to have organic material, and things like phosphate and nitrate fertilizers, to grow.
Closed-cycle ecosystem. Need I say more?

6. Glass. ...
If one wants to build greenhouses on Mars's surface. But one could bury the farm areas along with the rest of the colony.

7. Return. ...
A good indicator of the difficulty is the orbital velocity of a "surface satellite".
  • Earth: 7.92 km/s
  • Mars: 3.55 km/s
  • Moon: 1.68 km/s
So for Mars, one will need a sizable rocket.

8. Hostility. Mars is a hell of a hostile place for complex Earth-based organisms such as ourselves to survive. ...
Or ANY organisms. It does not have liquid water on its surface, except perhaps in places like the bottom of Hellas Planitia in local summer.

9. Gravity. Mars gravity is about 1/4 that of Earth.
More like 0.38 that the the Earth.

10. Oxygen. ...
We'd live in enclosed habitats, oxygen and all.