Mars vs. Ceres

[mithridates]

A bit of an open-ended question. If we are looking at exploration and colonization over the next 100 years (nothing longer than that because in the _really_ long term you can imagine all sorts of new technologies that would naturally make the larger destination more attractive), which would be the better target? Including everything - distance, cost, interest, long-term viability, industrial initiatives, etc., which one would be the better location to concentrate on? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>>A bit of an open-ended question. If we are looking at exploration and colonization over the next 100 years</i><br /><br />It depends on whether you mean just Mars or Mars and it's two moons. Including cis-Mars resources, the choice in the mid-term is Mars over Ceres. This assumes water (and other volatiles) as a first-order part of their economic development. Ceres is better for expanding out into the Main Belt, but Mars (esp. its' moons) have much easier access to Earth and Luna. Mars has vast quantities of water available, and if Phobos or Deimos have anywhere near as much H2O as has been suggested, then cis-Mars makes sense first, with Ceres after. I still think pushing for Mars first over the Moon makes sense, too. We know where the water is on Mars, and it's much easier to get at than on Luna. Does the Moon need a research base? Maybe, but I think industry is going to flourish around Mars first. <br /><br />Ceres is probably a stretch technologically as well - cis-Mars will be hard enough. Ceres is far enough from the sun that solar power is probably out, so you have to have nukes. Mars can (just barely, IMHO) be done with solar, and even then some kind of concentrator is essential for anything more than rovers. Using that tech (in space mirrors/fresnel) would then make a push on to Ceres easier. <br /><br />One interesting thing about Ceres (and the gas giant ice moons) is the possibility of establishing atmospheres and melting the surface ice. You might need a huge fresnel lens to focus enough sunlight to do it, but it could eventually be melted. <br /><br />On both Mars and Ceres, the real question is probably which one allows humanity to spread Life more effectively and quicker?<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[dreada5]

Good post J05H. <br /><br />Pretty much agree with you except for the bit about Mars before Luna. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> IMHO it will always make sense to go to Luna first, if for nothing more than to trial out systems, build up confidences and establish, relatively quickly, the first off-world base (even if it's ineconomical, small & basic). This can be achieved through relatively low-risk missions.<br /><br />Wrt. to Ceres. If it does indeed hold as much H2O as is claimed, then it wil no doubt become a very attractive destination for private industry in decades to come. Would it be explored before Mars? I don't think so. For one, although possible to reach, its much further away. And if the goal post-Lunar exploration is to eventually set up a large, advanced habitat on Mars to support future colonists, then the planet's abundant resources will be much more attractive than flying an extra 1AU out to Ceres to obtain resources. Perhaps once the martian habitat starts to grow and a training base/observatory operates on the moon, people may start looking for ways to cut costs of transportation across these worlds and then Ceres' resources and its almost non-existent surface gravity may become a more cost-effective source of resources and later fuel our expansion out towards the outer planets.

 

[PistolPete]

Mars, without a doubt. Mars has way more resources than Ceres. Also, despite the fact that it may be only slightly more delta v to get to Ceres from Earth, the travel times would be much greater meaning more supplies would have to be brought along for the passengers. Also, there are more launch windows to Mars then there are to Ceres (roughly once every 4.5 years, compared to once every 2 years for Mars).<br /><br />While Ceres may make a convenient outpost for mining the asteroid belt, it would not make a good place for human colonization. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

For colonization it has to be Mars over Ceres, because Mars has surface gravity of 0.38 G. For long term human health, gravity is bound to be important, though it could turn out that even 0.38 G isn't high enough!

 

[dreada5]

To be honest I'm not certain why there is a big concern about having 1g gravity. Astronauts currently manage 6 months on ISS, zero-g, so 0.38 has got to be of some use and if not then there are a few ways to ensure settlers get exposure to sufficient artificial gravity on a daily basis.

 

[qso1]

Agreed that .38 gravity is probably not going to cause much difficulty. Only when adjusting back to 1 "G" might some temporary difficulty be encountered. In zero "G" the adaptibility has been shown to be in part based on the person involved. Some Russian Cosmonauts were taking up to a week to adapt to 1 "G" after a few months in space while Shannon Lucid adapted quite well, at least publically...after a few months aboard ISS.<br /><br />Key question, can humans survive years of zero "G" and this is not yet known with a high degree of certainty as only a few folks have gone past six months in zero "G". <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>

 

[dreada5]

I'm keen to see how effective centrifugal/artificial gravity is when implemented in space.

 

[gunsandrockets]

"To be honest I'm not certain why there is a big concern about having 1g gravity. Astronauts currently manage 6 months on ISS, zero-g,..."<br /><br />Why you should be concerned too...<br /><br />Bone Loss Still a Challenge for Space Station Crews<br /><br />... And 'managing' the ill-effects from a short 6 month flight is a long long way from coping with the potential effects of low G from spending an entire lifespan on Mars. How can we colonize Mars if we don't even have a clue if human reproduction is possible there?

 

[mithridates]

Wouldn't the easiest way to simulate a 1g (or more) environment when on a colony abroad be a metallic-type suit in a room with a magnetic floor?<br /><br />The responses are interesting so far. Two things I've been wondering about is exactly how much money is saved from the lower gravity of Ceres compared to Mars, and how advantageous it would be for Ceres to have a moon or two. As far as I know the jury's still out on that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[dreada5]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Wouldn't the easiest way to simulate a 1g (or more) environment when on a colony abroad be a metallic-type suit in a room with a magnetic floor? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Uhm... no, unfortunately that wouldn't simulate gravity. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[dreada5]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Why you should be concerned too... <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Precise 1 G environments are not plentiful across the solar system. Will this mean that humans will be unable live in other solar system locales?<br /><br />Why must the definition of colonisation be limited to a colonist spending "an entire lifespan" there?<br /><br />There are obvious indications that technology can evolve in the near future to the point where we can through, mechanical means, simulate forces of gravity as required. Also space medicine will likely be able to mitigate, with greater success, some of the negative effects of weightlessness.<br /><br />There are numerous solutions on the horizon. So in terms of the challenges faced in settling the final frontier, I don't personally don't see having 1G as a big concern right now.

 

[no_way]

Two most important variables : signal roundtrip, and transit time.<br />Delta-V is overrated, IMO, as you can always send up one more Progress with full propellant tanks. This places the nearby bodies in order of simplicity:<br />Moon, NEOs, Mars, Ceres ... Europa ?<br /><br />Signal roundtrip is most important for teleoperated semiautonomous machinery, which is think will get most of the work done in any future off-world establishment. <br />Transit time is all-important for crewed missions, as we have very little knowledge in organisms capability to survive long-term outside of the Van Allen belts, in zero-g and in low-g environments.<br />Again, lab mice should be on board of every deep-space mission beyond GEO.

 

[arkady]

Errm, all the technical stuff aside ..<br /><br />Ceres is "small" rock floating in space, whereas Mars offers a brave new world. To me the answer is obvious.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "<font color="#0000ff"><em>The choice is the Universe, or nothing</em> ... </font>" - H.G Wells </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"Ceres is "small" rock floating in space...."</font><br /><br />After the Dawn mission visits Ceres, you may have a different opinion.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>To me the answer is obvious. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Which makes it obvious, that you are not familiar with the famous O'Neill quote : "Surprisingly, the answer will be inescapable - the best site is "somewhere else entirely."<br /><br />I recommend becoming familiar with his work.

 

[j05h]

<i>> Good post J05H.<br />Pretty much agree with you except for the bit about Mars before Luna. IMHO it will always make sense to go to Luna first, if for nothing more than to trial out systems, build up confidences and establish, relatively quickly, the first off-world base (even if it's ineconomical, small & basic). This can be achieved through relatively low-risk missions. </i><br /><br />Thanks! Trying out space systems was what ISS and Mir were for. We could use derivative spacecraft now to explore the entire inner solar system. Dangerous? Yes. Rewarding? Very much so. The Moon is a very different environment than Mars and there is only so much technical crossover possible. Insulation being one that is totally different due to Mars having an atmosphere, thermal differences are another. <br /><br />No spaceflight is low-risk. Which provides the greater payout? Mars or the Moon? That is my question. Mars is my answer, but in terms of resources and potential biology. We can garden Mars if it has no life, but the Moon will be much more challenging. There is still no guarantee that the polar hydrogen is actually water, but we know there is ice all over Mars. Ontopic, we also know that Ceres has tons of water which is a good sign for the future.<br /><br />I'm definitely a Mars-Firster, but that is partly because I just don't see Lunar water as a sure thing. Mars development should, IMHO, start from orbit instead of a ground base. Phobos/Deimos make decent tele-ops platforms and could provide plenty of shielding and resources. Surface access would eventually be provided by a reusable methane rocket. I really don't think we need the Moon to do that, and it is a distraction from the Mars goal. This is partly bio-preservation until we have better answers, plus experience with long-term zero-G platforms.<br /><br />On Ceres and other low-gravity worlds, the simplest solution is spin-G. The small-scale version is a centrifuge inside a large inflatable Hab. Larger versions a <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[bad_drawing]

Guns post inspired me to run with the thought of what if its not possible to procreate in Mar's or Cere's low gravity. I envision future colonists behaving like salmon... that is making long journeys back to where they were born (in this case, Earth) in order to succesfully procreate. I bet there would be some good hotel specials for that.<br /><br />Back to the question, I'd say Mars. With the info we have now it seems to me like the better choice. Of course that may all change after DAWN makes its rounds.

 

[dreada5]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>[Moon] is a distraction from the Mars goal.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I, on the otherhand, can't help but see the moon as vital stepping stone.<br /><br />I think if NASA plans for extended, dedicated operations on the Luna then yes, I'd agree. But AFAIK, the plan is to develop CEV (2007-2020), a requirement for any interplanetary mission and test it (2020-25) on the closest, easiest to get to/back planetary body ie. the moon! And also test it on NEO type missions. Once that's complete we'll be ready for planetary ops further away ie. MARS and more challenging objects further away, ie. Ceres.<br /><br />Plus, the moon is a <b>distinctly</b> lower risk mission than is Mars for a number of reasons such as:<br /><br />- probability of CEV equipment failure increases with flight duration<br />- probability of high radiation exposure increases with mission duration<br />- mars tele-medicine is more difficult<br />- emergency return journeys are longer<br />- comparatively less knowledge of mars surface ops. <br /><br />So, relatively speaking, a Luna mission would be "low-risk".<br /><br />If NASA ends up staying there running a moonbase, then indeed it'll be bad news for Mars. But I'm watching closely to see what happens to ISS during the next decade because that may be a model and a likely indicator for what NASA may do at Luna. Ideally I'd like to see NASA (incl. ESA, RSA, JAXA etc) wash their hands of ISS middle of next decade or play a much more minor role whilst ISS is managed/serviced commercially (more so in NASA's case than the other agencies, but still). If that happens then NASA could do the same at Luna, set-up a base infrastructure, pioneer operations and then allow private industry to take over, whilst they move onto Mars, post 2025.<br /><br />

 

[j05h]

<i>>I, on the otherhand, can't help but see the moon as vital stepping stone. </i><br /><br />That's fine. My argument is largely that we can do Mars exploration from a base on Phobos, using today's technology. We can do this as quickly as Lunar landings, if not sooner. <br /><br /><i>> <br />Plus, the moon is a distinctly lower risk mission than is Mars for a number of reasons such as:<br /><br />- probability of CEV equipment failure increases with flight duration<br />- probability of high radiation exposure increases with mission duration<br />- mars tele-medicine is more difficult<br />- emergency return journeys are longer<br />- comparatively less knowledge of mars surface ops.</i><br /><br />The moon is probably lower risk, but only marginally so. I'm not interested in the CEV, it's unproven and may never fly. What can we do with Soyuz, Dragon or Lockmart's "other" capsule? I'm mostly interested in Russian/Soviet hardware as a base vehicle, with whatever add-ons are needed to get it to Phobos. The actual Mars lander can wait till they've got robotic ops going on the surface. Dragon is being designed from the ground-up as lunar-flyby capable. Radiation is as much an issue on the Moon as Mars, and it's closer to the Sun (and we've got Solar Maximum on the way). I discount your telemedicine assertion as diagnostics take longer than the Mars signal trip-time. Emergency return isn't an option for Mars, but won't always be an option on the Moon, either. I'm thinking specifically of someone being trapped in the frozen depths of Shackleton Crater, miles from their ascent vehicle. We can come up with horror scenarios all day, of course. For surface ops, we have two working rovers on Mars right now and nothing on the Moon since 1972. Yes, the rovers are machines and Apollo had men onboard, but we have about the same amount of ground-truth between them. <br /><br />I don't want private industry to take over the ISS - it is a white elephant and it would drag down any consortia. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[rocketman5000]

I believe that once "we" get back to the moon and develop a base we should not be quick to leave. I don't think money from NASA should be pumped into running the base, but rather it should be turned over to someone (gov't agency, private enterprise, maybe a university) The infastructure would be much to valuable to abandon in my opinion

 

[JonClarke]

<i>I'm not interested in the CEV, it's unproven and may never fly. What can we do with Soyuz, Dragon or Lockmart's "other" capsule?</i><br /><br />If you aren't interested in the CEV because it is unproven and may not fly, why are you interested in Dragon of Lockmart. They are equally and proven and may notr fly either. Not only that they are not anywhere near as far down the development track. That leaves Soyuz. Great machine though it is, it has severe limits.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> Not only that they are not anywhere near as far down the development track. That leaves Soyuz. Great machine though it is, it has severe limits.</i><br /><br />Dragon and CEV are not even at the drop-stage test, that's why Soyuz was first on my list. AFAIK the Dragon is at a systems integration level, the CEV team is designing an interior - I don't think either is particularly far along compared to Soyuz. CEV has political muscle against it, it may be cancelled after 2008. I'm more confident in the commercially sourced capsules being available, there is no guarantee that CEV will be purchasable if it survives. Simplest solution to Soyuz' limit is to meet it back in LEO via aerobraking or orbital burn. We could be doing these things with today's tech but choose to put them off. At between $20 and $40million, it's a bargain compared to CEV/ARES I's estimated costs, and it's commercially available right now.<br /><br />I can't emphasize how important a component's commercial availability is. I'm not talking about NASA missions, but human missions by diverse interests. If you can't buy it, you can't go. I'm not getting into this again, but CEV and ARES rockets are not going to be available to anyone else. Rand Simberg used to say that NASA should be making it possible for National Geographic to fly to Mars, not going itself.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"...what if its not possible to procreate in Mar's or Cere's low gravity. I envision future colonists behaving like salmon... that is making long journeys back to where they were born (in this case, Earth) in order to succesfully procreate..."<br /><br />Very imaginative! Sounds like a good foundation for a SF story.<br /><br />There are many things science does not yet understand about human biology in offworld conditions. Those who contend otherwise don't know what they are talking about.

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Why must the definition of colonisation be limited to a colonist spending "an entire lifespan" there?"<br /><br />What an unserious statement. What the heck do you think real colonization entails? Hint - Antarctica is not colonized.<br /><br />"There are obvious indications that technology can evolve in the near future to the point where we can through, mechanical means, simulate forces of gravity as required. Also space medicine will likely be able to mitigate, with greater success, some of the negative effects of weightlessness."<br /><br />Those 'solutions' are completly irrelevant to colonizing the surface of Mars. The only application your solution could play a part in is for an L-5 type colony in freefall! <br /><br />"There are numerous solutions on the horizon."<br /><br />No. How can there be a solution when science can't even answer yet if there is a problem? Or how great a problem it might be?<br /><br />You don't know if 1G is needed for long term health. Nobody knows yet. I myself hope that very low gravity levels, even those as low as the moon will be enough. But nobody knows the answer today. I repeat -- How can we colonize Mars if we don't even have a clue if human reproduction is possible there? <br /><br />If - repeat - IF nearly full gravity is required than only two types of habitats hold out hope for solar-system colonization: spinning artificial worlds in free-fall such as O'Neill colonies, or bubbled-cities floating high in the atmosphere of Venus.