'A City on Mars' is a reality check for anyone dreaming about life on the Red Planet

[Admin]

Ecologist Kelly Weinersmith discusses important unanswered questions about human space settlement in her new book, "A City on Mars."

'A City on Mars' is a reality check for anyone dreaming about life on the Red Planet : Read more

 

[jimsuber]

We have both the technology and the intellctual where-with-all to accomplish it. Still, given current political trends, coupled with the fact that govenments ultimately control testing of appropriate efforts, it is naive.

 

[billslugg]

In order to settle Mars, an enormous amount of money is going to be required. Investors who provide the money want to know about returns, of which there are none. Taxpayers aren't going to sign up for a black hole of spending, it is bigger than any vanity project. Don't worry about Mars, it isn't going to happen in our lifetimes.

 

[Fission]

Establishing a human presence on Mars has been actively pursued by NASA which has pushed the idea that humankind might destroy the Earth and this is the back-up plan. That is described as ""naively optimistic". I see that argument as ignorant. If we turn the Earth into a barren, toxic planet, to me, that is the end. I just do not see a barren, rocky, hostile planet as the future for mankind in that setting. We will never release water as in Dune.

While the returns for scientific space exploration from such a project are just about zero, I disagree that there are no returns for investors. The rewards are not about actually being there and finding riches. It is not about an escape for humanity. Those are only side aspects of the program for them. The rewards are in getting there. The updated designs for space travel and the design and manufacture of all the equipment needed to survive once there are investments that will be made and compensated in the near future. The mission can fail but fortunes will be made!

 

[billslugg]

There are only three ways to generate tangible wealth, farming, mining and manufacturing. Every other economic activity either moves wealth from one pocket to another or destroys it. There is nothing we could mine, manufacture or farm on Mars that could make it economically attractive to invest in a permanent colony. The only reasons to go there are scientific or tourism. No money in science and not enough tourists.
We might get some humans thre, it is well within our capabilities, but a thriving colony? Not in our lifetimes.

 

[Atlan0001]

"2001: A Space Odyssey" space stations in Earth, Moon, and L-point orbits, and Stanford Torus Phoenician, Athenian, Roman, Carthaginian, Zanzibar, Singapore-like space-island colony city-states and other multi-utility ("farming," "mining," "manufacturing," shipbuilding and shipping, and more....) facilities in and on the surface high ground and high seas of space orbiting L4 and L5 . . . and potentially orbiting Venus and Mars as well as orbiting just outside the asteroid belt . . . will have a far more solid and superior anchor on space frontier masses and energies, resources and expansions, permanency in every way than any attempt at [down in a gravity well] human Mars colony settlement primacy (singularly always potentially disastrously, a "Damocles Sword" that would always be hanging by a single thread without supporting space colonization, including a cloud city-like supporting colony or colonies orbiting Mars, first).

 

[Fission]

There are only three ways to generate tangible wealth, farming, mining and manufacturing. Every other economic activity either moves wealth from one pocket to another or destroys it. There is nothing we could mine, manufacture or farm on Mars that could make it economically attractive to invest in a permanent colony. The only reasons to go there are scientific or tourism. No money in science and not enough tourists.
We might get some humans thre, it is well within our capabilities, but a thriving colony? Not in our lifetimes.

As I mentioned, the manufacturing component is at attractive investment for any NASA connected contracts. They are guaranteed by the government. Contracts for new generations of rockets capable of the mission, capsules, housing on Mars have already been signed. Mission support is probably more costly than the mission. Contracts for resupply missions will be necessary.

Are we talking trillions yet? And that is all built and paid for before any human footstep on Mars. Is it worth it? I am for investing in saving the planet Earth so we don't need such a foolish, costly and ineffective back up plan after we wreck the Earth.

 

[Atlan0001]

#6 cont'd:

Stephen Hawking, Newt Gingrich, and many others in many different fields, have called it, a birth in space colonization and expansion, an imperative for continuing human survival, if not the survival of life itself on and from Earth itself. No luxury or some other time about it.

 

[billslugg]

The manufacturing you describe is taking place on Earth, not Mars. It is being done for national pride and to return some scientific data, there is no contribution by Mars per se. Since none of it has a value here on Earth, it is actually a reduction in our wealth. For good reason though, I am all for national pride and can't wait to see the latest scientific data.

 

[billslugg]

Space colonization is a worthy long term goal, but we are way premature. It should only be done with discretionary funds and we have none of them. We don't have enough for our Earthly needs, let alone Mars'. If we don't drop this boondoggle in its steps, we won't have an Earth to come home to. The push to colonize Mars is OK by me if done by Musk with Musk's money. It is OK if done for the science. But to "insure humanity's survival" is bogus, since we would be diverting funds we need to survive long enought to send a craft there. It is a matter of misplaced priorities which will be our downfall.

 

[Atlan0001]

The manufacturing you describe is taking place on Earth, not Mars. It is being done for national pride and to return some scientific data, there is no contribution by Mars per se. Since none of it has a value here on Earth, it is actually a reduction in our wealth. For good reason though, I am all for national pride and can't wait to see the latest scientific data.

Bill, did you just say that frontier expansionism on its own yields no expansion, has never in history yielded an expansion on its own, of energies and wealth to homelands become integrally part of that very expansionist frontier? Your own island of Britain from the 1500s to 1945 being just one example? That empire didn't dump billions or trillions, or more, of material mass onto the island, but frontier expansion out from the island did accrue expanding industry and wealth to the island! Britain, a form of closed system before frontier expansionism, didn't have enough wealth to meet its "earthly needs" except via bloody wars (a poor but imperative natural ebb and flow alternate form of frontier . . . a poor but imperative natural closed systemic ebb and flow alternative to a more benign outland frontier expansionism). Neither did Spain have enough wealth to meet its "earthly needs" circa 1492CE (and it wasn't going to get it without opening to itself its outland American frontier), nor Rome 750BCE, nor any other life or life group anywhere in any time in any world or universe. It's a matter of the physics.

 

[Classical Motion]

I believe that close examination and study of the moon would be much more beneficial for us in understanding our planet and it's interaction with space. And by that I mean the moon's atmosphere and the fields around it. And the way the moon interacts with our M field....and our charge belts. Not to mention it's only only dark and quiet place we have left to look and listen.

 

[Fission]

Space colonization is a worthy long term goal, but we are way premature. It should only be done with discretionary funds and we have none of them. We don't have enough for our Earthly needs, let alone Mars'. If we don't drop this boondoggle in its steps, we won't have an Earth to come home to. The push to colonize Mars is OK by me if done by Musk with Musk's money. It is OK if done for the science. But to "insure humanity's survival" is bogus, since we would be diverting funds we need to survive long enought to send a craft there. It is a matter of misplaced priorities which will be our downfall.

I agree that space exploration, not colonization, is a worthy goal. But that is done far better and at less expense by robots. NASA had been doing a great job on the scientific end before the survivalists took control.

Speaking of an Earth to come home to, "a single SpaceX rocket flight emits about 336 tons of carbon dioxide—the equivalent of a car traveling around the world 70 times" —according to John Cumbers, a former NASA synthetic biologist and CEO of SynBioBeta. The Mars colonization program should immediately be terminated and the savings invested in combating climate change.

 

[Ken Fabian]

I agree that space exploration, not colonization, is a worthy goal. But that is done far better and at less expense by robots. NASA had been doing a great job on the scientific end before the survivalists took control.

Speaking of an Earth to come home to, "a single SpaceX rocket flight emits about 336 tons of carbon dioxide—the equivalent of a car traveling around the world 70 times" —according to John Cumbers, a former NASA synthetic biologist and CEO of SynBioBeta. The Mars colonization program should immediately be terminated and the savings invested in combating climate change.

I agree that looking out for planet Earth must be our priority and global warming is very serious and urgent (and made worse by delay) but because I don't expect any space colony attempts to proceed - and even crewed there and back again missions look very unlikely - I expect NASA's Mars colony programs to be in the form of feasibility studies/thought experiments, not rocket launches. Perhaps some overlap with uncrewed exploration for science sake - we don't know where significant mineral ores are or even if the exist, let alone a comprehensive map of every mineral ore a self reliant colony would need - so a better understanding Mar geology for knowledge sake could arguably be part of a Mars colony program.

The way I see it nothing less than a comprehensively capable advanced industrial economy can possibly do self reliant survival off Earth and planned economies running long term on charity from Earth, ie relying on Earth's comprehensively capable advanced industrial global economy, won't do it. If it can't trade and pay it's way (and it can't) it won't happen and there will be no need to oppose it.

I think the solution to space launch emissions isn't cessation of space programs but the development of zero emissions rocket fuels and/or genuine negative emissions offsets. The satellites that observe our planet and climate have been extraordinarily useful in quantifying, understanding and confirming the extent of the climate problem - I think the only significant gap in that coverage is tracking of sulphate aerosols.

An enduring healthy, wealthy Earth is the essential prerequisite for any genuine possibility of permanent inhabiting of space. I suspect it may never be viable but I don't oppose trying to find ways to make it viable - and that means commercially viable and capable of delivering a positive return to Earth investors.

 

[Atlan0001]

The above is a lack of knowledge concerning the physics and a total dismissal of all history telling and proving why frontier was pursued. A total blindness to, and dismissal of, reality. Climate is going to change and not to some beautiful heavenly Utopian keep.

You don't pay so much, risk so much, and push so much for frontier creation and exodus when you are contented with what is! And the world is in no way in, or going to be in, such a peaceful contented state!!!! Without expansionist frontier it is moving into tidal waves of war, bloody and ever more bloody, dark ages in its place (the shredding of civilized structures and infrastructure)! There is a law called "Murphy's Law." Every attempt at peaceful and dynamic prosperity and order of civilization in a closed system of frontier-less (insular / in-turning / un-opening) world will beat the drums of shrinking minds, mindless frictions, conflicts, and bloody wars to extinctions!

You simply could not be more wrong or more of a dreamy enabler of new dark age. You think that if mankind becomes less fertile, the world will be more than enough. Such belief is exactly the opposite of the lessons of history and proofs of its physics. As Will Durant said, it is from the least advanced, most fertile, peasant stock from which comes; from which is bred, the most dynamic and greatest peoples. Aldous Huxley agreed in his classic class dystopian novel 'A Brave New World'. Like inbreeding computer hardware and software, shrinking populations, inbreeding humans, will develop glitches and mutations and degrade from within. A frontier-less system, a growthless system, will never be anything like what you dream of, wish for, and call for. That is simple history and physics.

 

[Fission]

I agree that looking out for planet Earth must be our priority and global warming is very serious and urgent (and made worse by delay) but because I don't expect any space colony attempts to proceed - and even crewed there and back again missions look very unlikely - I expect NASA's Mars colony programs to be in the form of feasibility studies/thought experiments, not rocket launches. Perhaps some overlap with uncrewed exploration for science sake - we don't know where significant mineral ores are or even if the exist, let alone a comprehensive map of every mineral ore a self reliant colony would need - so a better understanding Mar geology for knowledge sake could arguably be part of a Mars colony program.

The way I see it nothing less than a comprehensively capable advanced industrial economy can possibly do self reliant survival off Earth and planned economies running long term on charity from Earth, ie relying on Earth's comprehensively capable advanced industrial global economy, won't do it. If it can't trade and pay it's way (and it can't) it won't happen and there will be no need to oppose it.

I think the solution to space launch emissions isn't cessation of space programs but the development of zero emissions rocket fuels and/or genuine negative emissions offsets. The satellites that observe our planet and climate have been extraordinarily useful in quantifying, understanding and confirming the extent of the climate problem - I think the only significant gap in that coverage is tracking of sulphate aerosols.

An enduring healthy, wealthy Earth is the essential prerequisite for any genuine possibility of permanent inhabiting of space. I suspect it may never be viable but I don't oppose trying to find ways to make it viable - and that means commercially viable and capable of delivering a positive return to Earth investors.

Is it even wise to mine others planets? I am totally biased by the movies Total Recall and Avatar. And what happens when the off Earth resources dry up? When does that process end. I am a strong believer in the scientific exploration of space and the development of near Earth applications (but specifically not the "Space Force" that Trump initiated.

However, beyond Earth orbit, at this time I believe that exploration should be limited to a better understanding of the heavens without commercializing the heavens. We need to first show that we can commercialize the Earth without destroying the planet.

 

[zayshaa]

As I mentioned, the manufacturing component is at attractive investment for any NASA connected contracts. They are guaranteed by the government. Contracts for new generations of rockets capable of the mission, capsules, housing on Mars have already been signed. Mission support is probably more costly than the mission. Contracts for resupply missions will be necessary.

Are we talking trillions yet? And that is all built and paid for before any human footstep on Mars. Is it worth it? I am for investing in saving the planet Earth so we don't need such a foolish, costly and ineffective back up plan after we wreck the Earth.

Theres literally nothing we could do to earth that would make it less habitable than Mars

 

[Atlan0001]

To life, Earth is nothing more than a rock it has terraformed to live in / on, while on its way to expanding out into the expanding universe to join the life that has already made the transition from a single rock or mudhole to many rocks and mudholes conquered and terraformed. Conquered, to also mean overturning any life that might have gone before it.

Life is as much an expansive mass-energy -- to infinity -- as the universe itself is (the infinities of universes in their own versions of discreet quanta are). The talk of protecting the universe from life . . . and/or from life's conquest of some life that's gone before (such as the dinosaurs' takeover from the life that went before, before its mass extinction from treading a treadmill going nowhere) . . . is a dangerous slap in the face of the life force, the apex of the pyramid of fundamental forces. It is in fact a threat to life. And life (the fundamental nature of life) will treat it, a one rock or mudhole idiocy, as very threatening to life demanding the fate of the dodo bird or the fate of the dinosaur (from within or without, or from both at once). In any case, a violently capitol fate.

 

[Pi triphosphate lover]

What's a matter with your home? Are you too good for your home?
If you figure out how to terraform that chlorine surface into livable conditions, please apply that to our own planet. We also could use oxygen, maybe you can work on that for 1% of 40% of my pay. Thanks your humble slave

 

[Fission]

Theres literally nothing we could do to earth that would make it less habitable than Mars

How about an atmospheric layer that blocks sunlight but traps heat. Boils the surface like Venus. Allows excess UV radiation to reach the surface and chokes off life.

 

[Atlan0001]

How about an atmospheric layer that blocks sunlight but traps heat. Boils the surface like Venus. Allows excess UV radiation to reach the surface and chokes off life.

Oh, when does that super massive and energetic super terrific super volcano (super volcanic) age arrive on Earth?! I can hardly wait!