Mars Colonies are a Fantasy

[Mental Avenger]

Colonizing Mars is still in conceptual stage and it will get cleared only a set of people land on mars and analyze the conditions.

Analyzing the conditions to establish viable colonies on Mars is one of the things that does not require a human presence on Mars. That can be done with rovers, albeit much larger rovers with more advanced features. I propose nuclear powered rovers as large as an SUV, capable of relatively high speed autonomous travel, and capable of taking 10 meter core samples and analyzing them. They should be capable of deploying some type of low altitude drones and/or balloons with high resolution multispectral cameras. The rovers can collect and transmit the images to Earth.

 

[Susan]

Good for him. He has already accomplished a dozen things NASA could not come even close to doing, and ahead of all projected expectations.

I would, in an instant. So would thousands of others. It is not “hellish”, it is challenging. Man has always challenged the limits, which is why we can even discuss this via computers.

I suggest you ask Elon Musk that question. Get back to us with his answer.

[/QUOTE]
Why go to Mars to live in a cave? You can do that on Earth!

 

[Susan]

I envision Mars as eventually becoming something like Antarctica - a place of multinational exploration and scientific study with adult humans cycling in and out of research stations. I'm less sure about tourism due to the length of the round trip. Mining can be done robotically.

I think it would be totally immoral to bear a child on Mars. If it survived, it would be forever crippled if it returned to Earth. And it probably wouldn't last all that long in the abnormal Martian environment. Our bodies are exquisitely evolved for Earth and nowhere else.

We could, of course, genetically edit a child so that his body would be compatible with Mars. But then he'd be stuck there, unable to return to Earth. Imagine explaining that to a grumpy teenage Martian!

 

[Mental Avenger]

I think it would be totally immoral to bear a child on Mars.

I am sure that there were some uninformed people who thought it would be immoral to bear a child in the Americas in the 1600s. It wasn’t. In fact, the entire purpose for going to Mars is to establish viable colonies so that mankind will survive even if the Earth is destroyed by a huge impact, pandemic, or global geological upheaval.

If it survived, it would be forever crippled if it returned to Earth. And it probably wouldn't last all that long in the abnormal Martian environment. Our bodies are exquisitely evolved for Earth and nowhere else.

There is no information that supports that. Any child born on Mars would have the same bone and musculature as anyone on Earth. It would require a genetic alteration to change that, and simply being born there would not cause that. Besides, Martians might well not want to go to Earth.

We could, of course, genetically edit a child so that his body would be compatible with Mars. But then he'd be stuck there, unable to return to Earth. QUOTE]
There is no information that indicates any person would require any genetic modification to live a healthy life on Mars.

 

[Mental Avenger]

Why go to Mars to live in a cave? You can do that on Earth!

Today many people effectively live in a cave, spending most of their life in the Megabuildings that have apartments, work, stores, restaurants, entertainment etc. all in one building. They seem to do just fine. AFAIK, none of the crazies that do mass shootings or participate in violent demonstrations come from those environments.
On Mars, the underground cities will have cleaner water, air, and environments than almost anywhere on Earth except in Nuclear Submarines, which are another example of living in “caves” for long periods of time.

 

[Susan]

Mental Avenger: Please learn more about Mars. It is not like when Europeans colonized the Americas. The American continent had people living on it so that they as well as the newcomers could enjoy the basics of normal gravity, plenty of water, food from plants and animals, and plenty of air to breathe. Mars has none of this. Lack of earth normal gravity severely damages all body systems over time, and living in a place where water, food, and air would have to be artificially provided is extremely dangerous. Even (Antarctica has everything you need except warmth and food.) And don't forget cancer-causing cosmic and solar radiation.

As far as children, it's doubtful that a pregnancy could proceed normally in such conditions. And the children would have skeletons and muscles unable to support Earth normal gravity if they returned to Earth. They would have to live in exoskeletons.

So why would anyone in their right mind want to live in such a place for the rest of their probably short lives?

Why would a family want their children to grow up in a cave or underground city? And if they did, why not just do underground cities on Earth? So what's the point of living that way on far off Mars?

Here's another thing. If people want to live in alien environments, they could do that right here on Earth. Most of our planet has no human communities, and yet nobody wants to live there except temporarily. I refer to ocean bottoms and mountain ranges above 15,000 feet. If such habitats don't appeal, why would Mars which is even less habitable?

 

[Mental Avenger]

Mental Avenger: Please learn more about Mars.

I clearly know far FAR more about Mars than you will ever know. I have been studying and researching this subject in great detail for over 15 years. I have had discussions with scientists at JPL, Malin Space Science Systems, Arizona State University SESE, The Planetary Society, and many other space scientists.

As far as children, it's doubtful that a pregnancy could proceed normally in such conditions. And the children would have skeletons and muscles unable to support Earth normal gravity if they returned to Earth. They would have to live in exoskeletons.

There is absolutely no information that supports your claims. None. Since few would ever be returning to Earth, that isn’t an issue. However, there are hundreds of millions of older people on Earth with less than 1/3 of the bone strength and muscle mass they had when they were young, who manage just fine here.

Why would a family want their children to grow up in a cave or underground city? And if they did, why not just do underground cities on Earth?

I suggest you ask the more than 200,000 people who signed up to go to Mars if possible, and the other millions who understand the science and possibilities who would go if it were possible. I am one of those. Just because you don’t understand the possibilities, the adventure, and the historical significance does not mean it is not a great opportunity for others.

Here's another thing. If people want to live in alien environments, they could do that right here on Earth.

You just don’t get it. I suggest you spend several years doing some critical research on this issue.

 

[Susan]

LOL
You have no idea who you are talking to with those ridiculous and insulting remarks. Personal attacks always indicate a weak argument.

 

[Mental Avenger]

You have no idea who you are talking to with those ridiculous and insulting remarks. Personal attacks always indicate a weak argument.

There were no personal attacks, just facts. You made several claims without any scientific backup or support of any kind. Since there have been no studies of prolonged habitation at .38 G, there can be no evidence, let alone proof of your claims. However, over 1 year at zero G, so far has only resulted in temporary and relatively non-threatening changes. In .38 G, people would be able to move about, exercise, and live fairly normal lives. There is nothing to suggest they wouldn’t.
My knowledge of the several sciences involved in Mars Colonies, along with confirmations from top scientists in the field concludes that life for humans on Mars would not be hazardous, and in fact suggests that inhabitants of Mars Colonies could live longer, with fewer and less severe ailments.

 

[John Andrew Karr]

Currently we're not ready for human existence on Mars. But we could be pushing technology to get us there (and back again) faster and safer, technologies for temporary shelters, and start some terra forming trials.

Why not begin now? Contests for viability could be created. Award a few million in grant money for winners as incentive. I'd rather we not pull asteroids in Earth space where they could damage us. Asteroid harvesting from Mars would be safer.

 

[Mental Avenger]

Currently we're not ready for human existence on Mars.

We have all of the technology to establish viable self sufficient colonies on Mars. We just don’t have the funding.

But we could be pushing technology to get us there (and back again) faster and safer, technologies for temporary shelters,

There will be very little need for return trips back to Earth for a long time.
Robotic supply ships sent ahead of time could be prefitted with basic plumbing, wiring, and fittings to be used as habitats when the first colonists arrive.

and start some terra forming trials.

Terraforming Mars is not an option. An atmosphere would require a quadrillion tons of gasses, and without a magnetosphere the atmosphere would be stripped away as fast as it could be created.

Why not begin now? Contests for viability could be created. Award a few million in grant money for winners as incentive. I'd rather we not pull asteroids in Earth space where they could damage us. Asteroid harvesting from Mars would be safer.

No need for such contests, we already have the technology.
Asteroid mining is a pipe dream, and a subject for a different forum.

 

[John Andrew Karr]

We have all of the technology to establish viable self sufficient colonies on Mars. We just don’t have the funding.

There will be very little need for return trips back to Earth for a long time.
Robotic supply ships sent ahead of time could be prefitted with basic plumbing, wiring, and fittings to be used as habitats when the first colonists arrive.

Terraforming Mars is not an option. An atmosphere would require a quadrillion tons of gasses, and without a magnetosphere the atmosphere would be stripped away as fast as it could be created.

No need for such contests, we already have the technology.
Asteroid mining is a pipe dream, and a subject for a different forum.

So, you’d be ready to pack your bags tomorrow, provided there was adequate funding?

Nine months to get there at best, inadequate protection against radiation, inadequate failsafes on every system critical to survival, taking pretty good chances on a safe entry and landing, and then setting up camp with the same high risks. And you won’t much need a way back off the planet?

Sounds unlikely.

Yeah, terra forming is a long way off, if ever, but why not experiment? Nobody saw us splitting atoms 100 years ago or going to the moon.

 

[Mental Avenger]

So, you’d be ready to pack your bags tomorrow, provided there was adequate funding?

Absolutely. At 72, having been to 22 different countries, 218 cities in 29 US States, 250,000 airline miles, skydiving, scuba, spelunking, acting, singing, musician, and dozens of other things, I am ready for something new.

Nine months to get there at best, inadequate protection against radiation, inadequate failsafes on every system critical to survival, taking pretty good chances on a safe entry and landing, and then setting up camp with the same high risks. And you won’t much need a way back off the planet?

Apparently you have not kept up with current technology. Six months with the optimum Hohmann Transfer Orbit, radiation shielding is no problem, proven electronic systems provide safe transport. Landing is being perfected by SpaceX. Habitats in the hulls of Robotic Cargo Vessels safe, secure, and comfortable. No need to go back to Earth.

Yeah, terra forming is a long way off, if ever, but why not experiment?

No need to waste the time and resources. It won’t be done.

 

[Susan]

Well, when I talk to scientists and engineers who study and operate on Mars as well as those who study the health of ISS astronauts, I am definitely hearing about major health concerns. We must be talking to different sets of scientists. I really do not have time to cite studies, because they are so readily available if you are looking for them. If you are not, then you will not find those results.

 

[Mental Avenger]

I really do not have time to cite studies, because they are so readily available ....

Since there are no studies at .38G on humans, or even animals, especially long term studies, there are no such studies to cite. Nothing even close.

 

[YetAnotherBob]

I envision Mars as eventually becoming something like Antarctica -

Actually, the reason we have no colonies or cities on Antarctica is because there are international treaties saying we can't. The continent is actually claimed by several Nations, all of which are parties in the treaty. No economic development is allowed, only scientific bases. It's really worse than the Moon that way.

 

[Catastrophe]

If any are interested, google low gravity studies.

You will find plenty like these:

1. Can low gravity kill cancer? Cells set for study on ISS
   

   Medical

   Having already cured many diseases and conditions that were once a death sentence, medical researchers continue to strive to help us live longer and healthier lives. Read about the latest advances here.

   newatlas.com
   low-gravity-kill-cancer-cells-space
   There are quite a few studies that have been completed or are ongoing at the International Space Station that explore the effects of low-gravity on living organisms and human physiology.
2. Artificial Gravity: NASA Spins Up New Study | Space
   https://www.space.com/1089-artificial-gravity-nasa-spins-study.html
   18/05/2005 · A new NASA/university collaboration will systematically study how artificial gravity could be a way to beef up the overall health of crews on future space exploration jaunts.
3. • Humans may need fake gravity to reach Mars without brain ...
     https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/11/01/humans-may-need-fake...
     01/11/2017 · Nasa may need to invent a spaceship with artificial gravity before humans can venture to Mars, after a new study found weightlessness causes worrying changes in the brain.
   • 
     
   • Is the low gravity on Mars a problem? | Yahoo Answers
     
     

     Is the low gravity on Mars a problem? | Yahoo Answers

     With gravity on Mars being roughly 1/3rd that on Earth, Would it make colonisation impractical?

     uk.answers.yahoo.com
     19/03/2013 · Answers. No, Mars has enough gravity for Adults (and possibly children) to adjust to the low gravity with exercise and medication. The real problems are: -Low temperatures, the temperature on Mars can get down to -180 Degrees (F). -Further away from the sun. So it would be harder to produce solar energy. -Thin atmosphere.
   • 
     
   • • Attention Mars Explorers: Besides Low-Gravity, There's ...
       https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/01/25/2121231
       One of the least solvable problems on Mars is the low gravity. It boils down to the situation where Marsians will never be able to return to Earth as they are unable to survive the high gravity there.
     • The Strange, Deadly Effects Mars Would Have on Your Body
       https://www.wired.com/2014/02/happens-body-mars
       Since then, more than a thousand different technical studies have been conducted, most of them making the assumption that Mars lay little more than 20 years in the future.

 

[Mental Avenger]

There are currently no studies relevant to humans living on Mars, and there is currently no way to simulate long term living at .38 gravity. Zero G studies are not relevant.
If the PTB had built a proper Space Station, such as Station V as was depicted in 2001: A Space Odyssey, they could easily do studies at .38G (Mars), .166G (Moon), or any other value. With 1G at the rim, any other G force could be experienced in one of the spokes at different levels between the rim and the hub. As it is, they wasted billions of dollars and 21 years on the relatively useless monstrosity they have now.

 

[Mental Avenger]

The human body is quite adaptable. Stunt pilots can withstand up to 10 G forces for short periods of time. Formula 1 drivers experience 4G – 6G while cornering, and can handle those forces for hours. Mountain climbers can acclimate to very high altitude in a few weeks, during which the body creates more red blood cells. Astronauts acclimatize to zero G quickly, and acclimatize back to 1G in a short time, dependent upon how long they were at zero G.

 

[YetAnotherBob]

Why go to Mars to live in a cave? You can do that on Earth!
[/QUOTE]
Some do. Consider Manhattan, huge high rise artificial caves. Hong Kong even more so.
But you are missing the point. Living in caves isn't the reason for going. There are several reasons, all summarized in other posts here.
For the first generation at least, conditions on Mars will be harsh when compared to those here on Earth, at the mall say, or in a formal garden. But a generation or two later, Mars will be much more comfortable, at least in the habitats.
Outside, of course, it will still be fatal. But then, so is Ohio in mid winter outside and naked. We live quite well inside however. So will those second or third generation Martians. True, they will have to dress in high tech special suits to survive outdoors, but so do the Ohioans (Buckeyes). They survive by dressing for the weather or staying indoors. Snow suits or space suits, it's really just a difference in what the climate requires. Humans aren't actually suited for any temperate winters after all. We do it by adapting with artificial skins that are adapted for the climate. Humans have done that rather well for tens of thousands of years. Mars is just more of the same.

 

[dfjchem721]

Trips to Mars should be limited to robots. We need to spend all available resources to stabilize our planet, the only viable place for humans to survive long term. Ultra-costly space exploration missions are a waste of money that should be spent on environmental remediation. Screw Mars, it is a barren waste land. Cheap robots can tell us all we need to know about planets, etc. If earth becomes inhospitable, we will all revert to stardust.

In the end, it won't matter if we have "colonized" the Moon, Mars etc. Our species will go extinct without earth's viability. Will at some point anyway, but why speed things along with massive boondoggle spending programs like a trip to Mars. Get a grip, people.....

 

[Catastrophe]

Have we not done enough damage to "our" planet without contaminating other planetary bodies [inc Moon, Titan etc.]. I fail to see why a species which arose from the accidental demise of the dinosaurs should think that it has a "God-given" right to anything within damageable radius. Mars and the Moon for starters.

Cat

 

[Yevaud]

Ultimately, this renders to a cost/benefit analysis. What is there to Mars that would be ultimately valuable to us?

Research? As noted, this can be adequately done using purpose-built rovers.

Living space? That's an awful difficult thing to justify, given the sheer distance, small amounts of material we could send and the limited number of people as well.

Terraforming, Doctor Forward and such notwithstanding, is a hugely difficult thing to pull off.

And really, if we can build the proper and in-depth infrastructure with which to even manage limited landings on Mars, there are far better targets to apply this to. The Asteroid Belt is chock-full of resources and, if we can get to Mars in any meaningful way, then we can get to the Belt as well - where there's a real economic incentive to do so.

All this IMO, of course.

 

[YetAnotherBob]

Trips to Mars should be limited to robots. .....

The robots currently being used on Mars and in orbit around it are lmited rather drastically by the need for human operators, where those operators are on a twenty to fifty minute time delay.
Several geologists have noted that the complete last 25 years of robotic exploration on Mars could have been done by a competent geologist in about two hours.
You are both underestimating the people and overestimating the robots.
Just to give on example, NASA had evidence for life on Mars in 1976. They have again several more times, but it has never been difinitive proof. A man on the scene with a simple microscope would have been able to provide a positive answer, yes or no in a day or so. The robots still can't tell. It's been close to forty years now, and we still don't really know.
But you are quite correct in that establishing a Martian Colony will not be a short term economic move. The Moon however, will be. Within ten years, if done well, that will be more than paying for itself.
Mars will need an additional century at least.

 

[Yevaud]

I overestimate none of this. In point of fact, one of our old SDC Moderators was Doctor Jon Clarke, who in fact was/is a project scientist for various Mars rover projects. His skew on their capabilities was far different than yours, I'm afraid. Within their limitations they are quite capable.

Agreed about the Moon.