Mars Citizenship Program

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Swampcat

Guest
From MSNBC's Cosmic Log:<br /><br /><center><blockquote><p align="left"><font color="orange">Would you chip in a million dollars to have someone go on a one-way trip to Mars? How about $100,000, or $10,000? It may sound like the ultimate revenge, but X Prize founder Peter Diamandis is floating the idea as a privately funded way to start settling the Red Planet.<br /><br />The idea of one-way Martian settlement missions, with no provision made for returning to Earth, has been seriously kicked around for a couple of years, with Australian scientist-philosopher Paul Davies among the high-profile proponents. Davies and others say that making the trip one-way would make the journey affordable — and that plenty of people would be willing to take the ultimate risk to push the frontier forward.</font>/p></p></blockquote></center><br /><br />A one-way trip to Mars is an idea that has been kicked around before here at Uplink, but this proposal takes a different twist.<br /><br />Included in the log entry is a link to a poll. Interestingly, over two-thirds of respondents indicate they would go to Mars to stay. <br /><br />Personally, my bags are packed. Anybody got a spare $1M to sponsor me? <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>
 
N

nibb31

Guest
$1M to spend the rest of your life in a can?<br /><br />Wait a minute, I'm sure I can lock you in a trailer in the middle of the desert for half the price!
 
S

Swampcat

Guest
<font color="yellow">"$1M to spend the rest of your life in a can?<br /><br />...I can lock you in a trailer in the middle of the desert for half the price!"</font><br /><br />With all due respect, there is no comparison between a trailer in the middle of an Earth desert and the opportunity to be a pioneer on Mars. Of course, if you don't understand that, then stay on Earth and leave the pioneering to others.<br /><br />Different strokes for different folks. It would be <b><i>my</i></b> choice, not yours.<br /><br />And who said anything about living in a can. You don't know what the accommodations would be. Besides, for all you know, I would enjoy living in a can <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>
 
S

Swampcat

Guest
<font color="yellow">"Isn't getting home the easy part?"</font><br /><br />The whole point of this concept is that you don't come "home." Or rather, Mars <b><i>is</i></b> your home.<br /><br />Not having to transport the equipment and supplies required for returning to Earth greatly reduces the cost of sending humans to Mars, though the cost of setting up a habitat capable of supporting a permanent settlement may balance those savings.<br /><br />I just thought it was interesting that someone was out there promoting this sort of thing. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>
 
J

j05h

Guest
I'd volunteer in a second. They could run $10 lottery tickets or some other way for generating a pool of random applicants.<br /><br />josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
Q

qso1

Guest
It may not be as expensive because the return leg of the trip is eliminated but how bout the cost of keeping one alive for the rest of their life on Mars. For someone 30 years old, that could require up to half a century of provisions.<br /><br />A tremendous amount of provisions such as food, medical, etc would be required if the intent is for someone to live there the rest of their lives, especially if they send resupply missions periodically.<br /><br />Excerpt from article:<br />It also assumes that all the medical, technical and logistical challenges involved in setting up a permanent Mars base can be solved for about $8 billion — far less than NASA's projected price tag.<br /><br />Me:<br />There ya go, its all figured at about $8 billion. Oh yeh, lets get that far cheaper than NASA thing in there. NASA said space station could be built for $8 billion in 1984.<br /><br />If this idea can be done so cheap, why not splurge and finance the return trip as well? Then they can really rub it in on NASA with something like, we send our citizens and bring em back for less than a NASA computer graphic study!<br /><br />Somehow I don't think they actually thought this through. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
S

Swampcat

Guest
<font color="yellow">"Somehow I don't think they actually thought this through."</font><br /><br />I tend to agree with that assessment, but it's still an intriguing idea. Who knows, maybe instead of getting $8B in voluntary receipts, they get $16B. Maybe the idea of settling Mars strikes a chord in the public and money is no problem. Technological solutions, that don't break those pesky laws of physics, can usually be found when the money is there.<br /><br />As far as your point about keeping a 30 year old alive for up to half a century, you seem to be suggesting that Mars pioneers would have little or no in situ resources and would have to have "a tremendous amount of provisions" sent to them from Earth for as long as the colony exists. Do you really believe that? Certainly, at the start, there would be certain resources that would have to be sent, but just as certainly the colonists would have to make use of available resources and their own ingenuity in order for the settlement to succeed. Otherwise, they die and that's that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>
 
S

Swampcat

Guest
<font color="yellow">"Personally, we need to tackle the moon before we get to Mars. Just seems logical to me."</font><br /><br />The germane difference between Mars and the Moon, of course, is the travel time getting there. The impetus behind one-way trips to Mars is the time and cost of getting there and back. For the Moon, that isn't really a consideration.<br /><br />But I agree that the Moon is a logical first step. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>
 
J

j05h

Guest
freeze-dried food for one person for 40 years is only several tons: 5-10. Bulk is a bigger issue. You would assume the colonists would have tools for building greenhouses and Khalili-type domes. A lifetime's supply of food from Earth should very quickly become supplemental to local food. <br /><br />Personally, the first empty module would get Bunnies on the top floor and chickens below. With a few worms and all your vegetable scraps, you'd have some good soil in a few years, just in time for finishing any greenhouse construction. <br /><br />The one-way plan mentioned above includes regular shipments of parts, new vehicles and people. The point is to grow a colony, not let 2 pour sots starve to death in front of the TV cameras. The sooner we start the sooner we can go. <br /><br />I'm all for a mission like this, but still think the action is going to be on Phobos before Luna or Mars. The timeframe for producing a useful facility there is far shorter than the others, we already have most of the tech needed. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
S

Swampcat

Guest
<font color="yellow">"The point is to grow a colony, not let 2 pour sots starve to death in front of the TV cameras."</font><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />Given the current popularity of "reality" TV programs I wouldn't be surprised to see something like this actually happen. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>
 
T

thinice

Guest
With reality show, it is even simplier than that. Just send participants somewhere, without knowing what planet they are going to. Let them figure out for themselves. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />
 
Q

qso1

Guest
swampcat:<br />Technological solutions, that don't break those pesky laws of physics, can usually be found when the money is there.<br /><br />Me:<br />And if the money is truly there, there would be no reason not to bring back the crews.<br /><br />swampcat:<br />you seem to be suggesting that Mars pioneers would have little or no in situ resources and would have to have "a tremendous amount of provisions" sent to them from Earth for as long as the colony exists. Do you really believe that?<br /><br />Me:<br />Not a question of belief, we have yet to prove, key word prove that we can grow food on Mars for even five year Mars base schemes and last I checked, Mars has no food sources. Ideally after a few years it may be possible as the base expanded, there could be food grown on Mars to support future crew expansion. IMO however, there will still be just as much expense in supporting crews on Mars for such lengthy periods as there would be in simply having the return leg.<br /><br />Nobody in there right mind is really going to be prepared to spend their entire remaining years always in EMUs or habitat modules.<br /><br />First time we have a situation where a crew that could have avoided some unforseen situation resulting in their death by having a return capability thats not there, kiss this scheme goodbye. <br /><br />But if someone really wants to test this, set up a similar program in the worst place on Earth and see how long the colonists last.<br /><br />Bottom line, if were going to do Mars right, have a return capability which would prove useful in other ways. This idea is half arsed IMO. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
Q

qso1

Guest
swampcat:<br />I tend to agree with that assessment, but it's still an intriguing idea. Who knows, maybe instead of getting $8B in voluntary receipts, they get $16B.<br /><br />Me:<br />And then they have funding to do return trips. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
Q

qso1

Guest
JO5H:<br />Should answer a lot of questions about one-way Mars architectures.<br /><br />Me:<br />The key question is this perception that a base or colony which will require support from Earth for at least a few years is somehow less expensive if we just leave the colonists there.<br /><br />If this paper were a NASA SSTO proposal, it would be laughed right off the SDC board because when NASA presents something, critics rip it to shreds. Something like this comes along, and oh its so easily doable.<br /><br />Case in point...<br />Excerpt from the paper:<br />An extraction mechanism should be fairly easy to develop and both gases are useful as buffer gases.<br /><br />Me:<br />Should be fairly easy to develop...thats like saying the LH-2 tank for the X-33 is within our technical capability which was proven wrong. It is then stated its not yet a proven technology. So how can one figure this to be cheap?<br /><br />A substantial part of the expense of any program is not the hardware or journey, its the people on Earth who must design, test, and get the equipment operational. The engineers, technicians, QA personnell, and so on. That is where the vast majority of expense with any major aerospace program is entailed and when you look at the truncated capsule with the ability to carry a rover over 20 feet long, this hardware is a bit more ambitious than what I've seen in recent years. <br /><br />Excerpt:<br />It is planned that there be an onsite 40-year food supply from the first manned landing and continuously maintained at that level or greater during operations.<br /><br />Me:<br />Food has always been a major concern in NASA proposals, namely the tonnage. Were talking tonnage for what Robert Zubrin called the "Battlestar Gallactica" Von braun Mars mission which was roughly three years total travel and surface time. Having a 40 year supply from the first manned landing? Lotta tonnage folks!<br />To say nothing of how long will that food actually last, is it all freeze dried, how long wi <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
C

craig42

Guest
If it's going to be a true colonization mission they will need to be some discretion in the choosing of applicants to get the right number of male and females. Else the colony would only last a lifetime.
 
W

webtaz99

Guest
This proposal is madness.<br /><br />The thing to do is build a self-sufficient space station in Lunar orbit from mostly Lunar materials. Once it has proven to be self-sufficient, send it to Mars. Even if the trip takes 2 years, so what? Once in orbit around Mars, it can act as a base for Mars colonization research. At least this way the experimenters will have a fall-back in case of life-threatening failures of life support technologies on the surface. Also, learning to make a self-sufficient station will make creating a self-sufficient Mars research station that much easier. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

Swampcat

Guest
Response to no one in particular:<br /><br />To all the nay-sayers I have one piece of advice. Don't go. Stay home. Ignore the "Mars Citizenship Program." It ain't for you.<br /><br />I'm quite aware that there is a considerable amount of thinking that needs to go into any effort to put a colony on Mars. I'm not naive about that. I also know that there are a lot of people who would be willing to go even if some of the technological issues were not completely solved. Yes, maybe these people are somewhat suicidal, but then how many of those that left Europe, heading for America during the Colonial Era, actually made landfall in America. Many died enroute. I'm sure many of those who stayed behind considered traveling to America to be crazy and suicidal. What's new?<br /><br />Personally, though I would jump at the chance to go to Mars, I'd rather go to the Moon and I'd rather not go until there was a reasonable assurance that I had some chance of survival. I'm not <b><i>that</i></b> crazy.<br /><br />Another point -- one can always come up with reasons why something is crazy or wrong or foolhardy or just plain stupid. Fine. I respect your opinions. I even share a great deal of your skepticism and it's a good thing to provide constructive criticism. OTOH, frankly I don't hold the view that a one-way trip to Mars is a bad idea. Maybe not for the first humans to go there, but sooner or later, if there is ever to be a human colony on Mars, a one-way trip will be the norm. Otherwise, you're not really building a colony. You can argue that humans will never colonize Mars, but that, IMO, would be incredibly shortsighted. Yeah, maybe be don't have all the technology that is needed right now, but who's going to develop it? NASA? Along comes a guy who says let's get something going and we'll figure it out as we go. At least he's trying and I find that admirable. Chances of it succeeding are likely slim, but I consider it an interesting idea and hope something comes of it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>
 
N

no_way

Guest
Im very likely wrong, but Diamandis is probably playing a more complicated game here than it first appears.<br />This whole thing is aimed at one thing : raising the public awareness about space.<br />You see, he did something extraordinary, he set things in motion for private spaceflight to become a reality and the first fruits are there. SS1 flew, and there is a nascent suborbital industry, new regulations and everything, IOW some great things are afoot.<br />But this was not the end goal to begin with, it was the first step. The real goal obviously is to become a real spacefaring species, with colonies, routine transportation etc etc.<br />But to achieve that, enough people have to first be aware of the great opportunities, a subset of these people have to be actively thinking towards these goals, and even smaller subset has to actively work towards these goals. It was the same with flight. A great lot of people dreamed about flying like birds, a lot of them thought of possible solutions to make men fly, and some of them tried to make it. Most failed, some succeeded and that was all it took.<br /><br />Now, Diamandis is probably not happy at all with the public and media response he got to success of X-Prize. I mean, the importance of it does not sink in with most of the people for long time to come. If you ask any average Joe, he probably does not remember the event, or if he does, he does not get whats so special about it. I mean, no regular people went to space as a result, and the ship itself is in Smithsonian. Big Deal. Just another pointless aviation stunt .. <br /><br />Now Diamandis comes with a wacky idea that everybody immediately gets, moving to Mars. If it was a random wacko proposing the scheme like that, nobody would listen. But everyone knows that this guy has pulled of crazy stuff before, he has credibility, so it makes experts and "talking heads" to think twice before brushing him off as a lunatic, and thats all that he needs : to get this idea of space
 
J

j05h

Guest
> The key question is this perception that a base or colony which will require support from Earth for at least a few years is somehow less expensive if we just leave the colonists there. <br /><br />George Herbert's plan would call for regular shipments to Mars at each 26month interval, mostly new colonists and spare parts. However, in the discussions on sci.space.policy when he wrote that essay, he also said that it would be very easy to do a one-way mission in only 1-2 HLV launches. The base should produce research results immediately, and other products (housing for others, specialty items, Mars Water, etc). It doesn't need to be an economic loss forever.<br /><br /> /> If this paper were a NASA SSTO proposal, it would be laughed right off the SDC board because when NASA presents something, critics rip it to shreds. Something like this comes along, and oh its so easily doable. <br /><br />Maybe, maybe not. If we are going to Mars and other places, we should discuss mission profiles. One-Way to stay makes a lot of sense, if we know the place is livable. As a prospective colonist (or explorer), trading lasting fame and a nuclear bulldozer for a ride home might make a lot of sense. Not sure as much for a government-funded flight. It definitely makes sense for a professional adventurer or scientist. <br /><br />The really fast way to any off-Earth colonization is via a rich religious group. If the Messiah is on Mars or buried under Shackleton Crater, there would be every possibility that we'd have the faithful there first. <br /><br /> />Should be fairly easy to develop...thats like saying the LH-2 tank for the X-33 is within our technical capability which was proven wrong. It is then stated its not yet a proven technology. So how can one figure this to be cheap? <br /><br />You are saying that basic industrial processes, used the world over, are as hard as the LH2 tanks that Lockheed flubbed? I'm not sure exactly the quote (it's truly been years since I read his essay), bu <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
S

Swampcat

Guest
no_way, I think you're point is well taken. The "Mars Citizenship Program" may not be the way Mars is colonized, but it <b><i>is</i></b> a way to do it. The idea that $8B is enough to start a settlement on Mars is probably wrong, but the process of getting the funds for a Mars settlement is, IMO, what Diamandis is thinking about. It also doesn't hurt to have someone out there promoting this sort of thing if for no other reason than to keep it in the public's collective mind and getting people to consider Mars colonization as a possibility. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>
 
Q

qso1

Guest
Like private enterprise, this is an idea that will have to be demonstrated to see if it actually works. Obviously it has attracted believers on this board so who knows.<br /><br />I'm no expert, I just figured that the cost of returning cannot be that much. I don't recall ever seeing actual cost breakdowns on Mars missions proposed in the past other than the total cost. The Herbert plan involving regular supply missions at 26 month intervals, all this ability to sustain a Mars colony yet none of this genius can overcome the difficulty of returning them? A difficulty that IMO, is still a bit less than getting out of Earths gravity well to begin with. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
Q

qso1

Guest
swampcat:<br />To all the nay-sayers I have one piece of advice. Don't go. Stay home. Ignore the "Mars Citizenship Program." It ain't for you.<br /><br />Me:<br />I wasn't planning to go one way or the other, its not like someones gonna come and say "You look like you'd like to go to Mars, we'll offer you a seat". My interest in this is purely in seeing what kind of ideas are presently emerging as the result of private industries growing interest in human spaceflight. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
L

ldyaidan

Guest
I don't see that it will take 40 years of provisions per person. I do think that 5 years of provisions should be sent. That should give ample time for greenhouses/animal husbandry to be set up, to grow their own food, as well as resupply ships, and more colonists. It's not like they are being thrown into space and forgotten. Once they have established a base, then there is a destination and others will want to follow. I also don't see that it would have to be a one way trip. I do think colonists would need to sign on for a minimum of 5-10 years, however. Technology won't stand still just because we've launched the colonists. If anything, it will give momentum to find cheaper, faster access. I think it's a great idea. However, I'd recommend a starting a lunar colony this way first. <br /><br />It's closer, easier to reach for sending resupply missions, rescue missions if needed, and would be motivational, since anyone could step out in the backyard, look up at the moon and say "People live there." It just makes more sense to try things out in our backyard before sending them to Mars. Seems to me that with sending them a limited amount of supplies (and 5 years is a lot of supplies) it will help motivate the colonists to get the greenhouses built, as they can easily see that their supplies will run out in the near future. Besides, re-hydrated food is going to get old really fast. They will be very happy to have fresh food. By setting up the lunar colony first, trade routes can be opened up, with the lunar colony providing H3, or other resources, in exchange for supplies and luxuries from earth. Ideally, once the lunar base is up and working, then it can become the launch point for the Mars mission(s), increasing the importance/capabilities of the colony. Considering current air traffic on Earth, it would seem that, logistically, having a few places that launch to the moon, then letting the lunar colony handle launces to other places in the solar sys
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts