Mars vs. Ceres

[spacester]

Good posts, guns. There are lots of reasons why I think the distinction between Settlement and Colonization is critical, and this is one of them.<br /><br />dreada (and others listening in), to clarify: mechanical means of simulating gravity fall into two groups. Those that impart forces to every molecule of your body and those that don't. Stationary bicycles and weights-and-velcro schemes, etc. do not. The only actual artificial gravity is spin-gravity: large radius spinning habitats. They make sense in orbit, but not so much on a planetary surface. This is physics, not opinion.<br /><br />guns is right on target: we cannot project colonization.<br /><br />But we can plan Settlement. I love the salmon analogy, that is cool and a new take on things. Very cool.<br /><br />The key point about spin-gravity being able to provide long-term health, and possibly procreation, is that we simply do not know, and ISS is not going to help answer the question. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[docm]

JO5H;<br /><br /><font color="yellow">AFAIK the Dragon is at a systems integration level</font><br /><br />Dragon is scheduled to fly in Q3 2008, so it would seem to me they must be cutting metal by now. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

>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 />Actually it's the opposite. The problem with Mars is that it's orbit is so close to the earth's that it takes two years for the earth and Mars to line up (for the earth to 'lap' Mars) and make a transfer possible. Since Ceres' orbit is longer (4.5 years) that means that we get a launch opportunity to Ceres every 15 months or so - setting a minimum Ceres mission at around 15 months - much better than the 26 months for Mars. <br /><br />As far as mission scheduling goes, Mars is actually in a pretty lousy orbit.

 

[dreada5]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>What the heck do you think real colonization entails? Hint - Antarctica is not colonized. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />"Real colonization"?!! These are freaking alien worlds we're talking about here, not anywhere on Earth! Do you seriously think for one second that we'll be able transport the masses from their armchairs on Earth to armchairs in Valles Marineris, Mars without their willingness to adapt to a radically different lifestyle?!! <br /><br />Colonies, by definition, on earth are not populated by the majority from the mother state and their sizes often range from thousands down to the tens. Its resident are those who adjust to <i>make it</i> their home!<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>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? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />If it turned out, as you said, that "0.38 G isn't high enough" then voila, <b>you would have A PROBLEM!</b><br /><br />I'm saying is if - repeat - IF it is a problem, then there are solutions.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>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! <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Those solutions may mean LIFE OR DEATH to colonists on the surface of Mars - hardly irrelevant! <br /><br /><br />So, what am I saying? It's not rocket science, but I'll spell it out for you: <b>Colonists may end up routinely spending periods of time in simulated higher gravity environments, *perhaps* at orbital outposts.</b><br /><br />And would such self-sufficient, non-earth people be any less of a Mars colonist because they spend their entire lives, birth to death, periodically switching between higher G environments (eg. orbiting outpost) and their alien planet's surface, if that's

 

[JonClarke]

There are several things to note here.<br /><br /><i>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. </i><br /><br />Dragon is still at the engineering mock up stage. It's booster is unbuilt, and even the Falcon 1 has yet to complete a fully successful mission. They are a long way off flying. So it can't be relied on with respect to getting tp Ceres. A vechile of Gragon's specs can serve as a baseline for a study. But we should not assume it will be available.<br /><br />Orion is at least as advanced and has a lot more expertise and $$$ behind it. Gain, the actual spacecraft that would be used might be something quite different but it makes a good baseline study. Especially as it is also being designed from the start as having beyond LEO capability. <br /><br /><i>CEV has political muscle against it, it may be cancelled after 2008.</i><br /><br />There is not the slightest evidence for political muscle against Orion or any indication. that it will be cancelled. <br /><br /><i>I'm more confident in the commercially sourced capsules being available, there is no guarantee that CEV will be purchasable if it survives.</i><br /><br />You are balancing unknowns here. Whether unproven companies can deliver actual hardware against whether Orion will be available. And why should any Ceres mission studies be limited to what is commerically available?<br /><br /><i>Simplest solution to Soyuz' limit is to meet it back in LEO via aerobraking or orbital burn. </i><br /><br />The biggest issue Soyuz is its extremely limited capacity. You simply can't go anywhere beyond LEO and return with a reasonably sized crew and a reasonable payload.<br /><br />Plus of course in 40 years time Soyuz will be approaching it's 80's birthday.<br /><br /><i>We could be doing these things with today's tech but ch</i> <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>

 

[dreada5]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> dreada (and others listening in), to clarify: mechanical means of simulating gravity fall into two groups. Those that impart forces to every molecule of your body and those that don't. Stationary bicycles and weights-and-velcro schemes, etc. do not. The only actual artificial gravity is spin-gravity: large radius spinning habitats. They make sense in orbit, but not so much on a planetary surface. This is physics, not opinion. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Spacester, not trying to project colonisation. Just saying that there are always possibilities and unexpected ways to accomplish goals. If we discovered anti-gravity tomorrow, that'd put a whole new spin on things. (no pun intended). <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />The most determined are forever finding round about / non-traditional ways to accomplish the seemingly impossible. Those who contend otherwise don't know what they are talking about. <br /><br />Btw, don't know if you've heard, but there are concerns about gravity generated through centrifugal acceleration, in that it does not impart the same force to every molecule of your body. But I guess nothing's perfect!

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"So long as somebody goes, does it matter?"</font><br /><br />Huh? Jon, of course it matters. Many of us aren't content to sit in our easy chairs and watch others have all the fun. Maybe you are, but then you get to go to Devon Island and play with the polar bears <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />. Maybe even, given your expertise, you'll be one of the ones that gets to ride on that government-authorized-passenger vehicle. I'm supervisor of an inventory auditor crew. Fat chance of me catching a ride on one of them government vehicles. Are you suggesting that only the elite should get to go to space and us hoi-polloi should be happy to experience space vicariously? Hmmm?<br /><br />You don't come right out and say it, but there's a clear undertone to your comments that leads one to assume you hold this opinion. It's this opinion (i.e.;"it's OK, as long as somebody does it and they have all these qualifications") that some of us here disagree with. I would hope J05H is wrong and Orion flies (the sooner the better) and you might end up being right that Dragon never flies (of course, there's always the LocMart effort), but when you answered his post, you immediately defended Orion, questioned if private enterprise can ever deliver a craft and threw out a strawman question about a government versus commercial Ceres mission. No one suggested that government couldn't go along. Their astronauts will just have to pay for a seat like everyone else. <img src="/images/icons/wink.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>

 

[Swampcat]

As to the thread topic:<br /><br />IMO, it is way too early to speculate on Mars vs Ceres. At this point in the game, that's like asking should we go to LEO or Alpha Centauri. Unless Dawn brings us some clear cut, overwhelming evidence of the value of going to Ceres, Mars is the obvious, logical choice...after we've established ourselves on the Moon. I understand how people feel about getting to Mars (and I'm not against you), but, IMO, we really need to prove we can handle things effectively in cis-lunar space before making the big leap to Mars. <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>

 

[j05h]

<i>> Dragon is still at the engineering mock up stage. It's booster is unbuilt, and even the Falcon 1 has yet to complete a fully successful mission. They are a long way off flying.</i><br /><br />Dragon is past the mockup stage, but not yet to drop tests. They've selected a flight-weight life support system and are (last I heard), finishing the RCS system. Elon gives ocassional updates, they want to fly in 08 with people in maybe 2010. It is at least as far along as CEV, but I've been trying to not argue how much further along, because they are both in a nebulous state, publicity-wise. It doesn't matter because I baseline Soyuz in my schema, which actually exists, today, commercially. <br /><br />And yes, commercial availability of deep-space hardware is utterly essential to developing a new human frontier. Governments simply can not afford the expense. It required private capital to develop the Americas, it will take the same to build the High Frontier. <br /><br /><i>> There is not the slightest evidence for political muscle against Orion or any indication. that it will be cancelled. </i><br /><br />You so obviously don't live in the USA. People have bumper stickers and hats that read "1.20.09 - Bush's last day" already. Anything related to Mr. Bush is open-season if a Democrat wins in 08, and CEV as part of the VSE is going to be part of it. You know, they need to use that money saving the endangered WooWoo Butterfly instead of space exploration.<br /><br /><i>The biggest issue Soyuz is its extremely limited capacity. You simply can't go anywhere beyond LEO and return with a reasonably sized crew and a reasonable payload....<br />Plus of course in 40 years time Soyuz will be approaching it's 80's birthday.... A Soyuz flight costs at least $63 million and that buys you a lot less than you get with Orion. </i><br /><br />Got a cite on that $63 mil? I've seen $20M for a single-seat tourist and around $50 for a Soyuz lifeboat mission. I'm sure volume pricing for a Mars/Cer <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> IMO, it is way too early to speculate on Mars vs Ceres.</i><br /><br />swampy- The only pointer that I'd counter with is the more advanced state of Mars exploration right now. There's a lot of momentum (both tech and culture) for going to Mars, while Ceres is somewhat unknown. I'm still for Mars (Phobos) first over Luna, but it's entirely personal preference.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[mithridates]

<i>Actually it's the opposite. The problem with Mars is that it's orbit is so close to the earth's that it takes two years for the earth and Mars to line up (for the earth to 'lap' Mars) and make a transfer possible. Since Ceres' orbit is longer (4.5 years) that means that we get a launch opportunity to Ceres every 15 months or so - setting a minimum Ceres mission at around 15 months - much better than the 26 months for Mars.<br /><br />As far as mission scheduling goes, Mars is actually in a pretty lousy orbit.</i><br /><br />I was wondering the same thing when playing around with the orbit simulator for small solar system bodies when it certainly looked like Earth was swinging around into place a little over a year or so, so thanks for clearing that up.<br /><br />One other thing I was wondering about was the 10-hour day on Ceres. I assume that in spite of the lower solar constant that the shorter day would be a slight advantage in only having to build rovers to withstand a five hour night, though I'm not sure how that would translate into actual dollar value. It also has a very low axial tilt compared to Earth and Mars so rovers could be built to withstand conditions on a daily basis without having to plan for seasonal variations. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"The only pointer that I'd counter with is the more advanced state of Mars exploration right now. There's a lot of momentum (both tech and culture) for going to Mars, while Ceres is somewhat unknown. I'm still for Mars (Phobos) first over Luna, but it's entirely personal preference."</font><br /><br />Point taken. Perhaps my wording was a little confused. I guess what I was trying to say was that, until we know more about Ceres, there isn't much point in thinking about going there before going to Mars. <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>

 

[j05h]

swampcat- we're on the same page. Ceres may hold surprises that elevate it's importance. <br /><br />Ceres has advantages, too. It's extremely low gravity is ideal for industrial operations. Craft almost dock instead of land, 1-G centrifuges are practical and there is ample water for shipping out volatiles. The current understanding is that Ceres is similar to Europa and Enceladus in structure, with an interesting bright/warm spot. Recent impact site? Lost Atlantean City? Only DAWN will tell. 8) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>It's extremely low gravity is ideal for industrial operations.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Again, as its almost a given that any extended industrial operation will be largely automated and robotic, the two factors, signal lag and transport transit time will kill any near-term prospects for that to happen.<br /><br />Constant thrust propulsion systems and far more autonomy in robotic systems are the solutions overcome these obstacles.

 

[spacester]

dreada5, yer preachin' to the choir! <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">The most determined are forever finding round about / non-traditional ways to accomplish the seemingly impossible. Those who contend otherwise don't know what they are talking about.</font><br /><br />Ayup. My only purpose was to constrain the discussion to Newtonian physics. I'm ALL about non-traditional, but I'm an Engineer who is not willing to ignore known laws of physics. I'm an unabashed dreamer, but find dreaming pointless if not grounded in known science.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Btw, don't know if you've heard, but there are concerns about gravity generated through centrifugal acceleration, in that it does not impart the same force to every molecule of your body.</font><br /><br />Hehehe, <br />I think it's safe to say that I have more than a passing familiarity with the subject. I've only posted on it since forever.<br />***<br />Effects of prolonged exposure to microgravity:<br /><br />fluid redistribution<br /><br />fluid loss<br /><br />electrolyte imbalances<br /><br />cardiovascular changes<br /><br />red blood cell loss<br /><br />muscle damage<br /><br />bone dama <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dreada5]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>What I'm guessing you are referring to is either gravity gradient or Coriolis forces. Simply put, if you have a large enough radius to deal with Coriolis, gravity gradient is a non-issue. <br /><br />The 'on every molecule' is meant to refer to what physics calls 'body forces', as opposed to point loads or distributed loads. All methods other than spin-gravity (and mythical anti-gravity) apply loads to the exterior of the human body and hope to have the desired effect. Spin-gravity in fact imparts a uniform force throughout an entire body, when stationary. It's only when the body *moves* that Coriolis forces appear, with the effects appearing by the 'confusion' experienced by the inner ear. <br /><br />I'm a HUGE fan of spin-gravity. IMO humans will adapt quite easily to a reasonably well designed spin-g habitat. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Agreed. I'm a big fan of "spin-gravity" too. <br /><br />Which is kinda partly why I absolutely love the movies Space Odyssey and 2010 and even managed to watch my way through...wait for it... Mission to Mars & Red Planet! <img src="/images/icons/shocked.gif" /> (yeah I know)<br /><br />Spin-gravity is the way to go.

 

[JonClarke]

<i>Huh? Jon, of course it matters. Many of us aren't content to sit in our easy chairs and watch others have all the fun. </i><br /><br />Me neither. But then, I am not going to get to Mars, let alone Ceres. Therefore what is important is that people go not which group they prepesent. That is a win for all of us.<br /><br /><i>Maybe you are, but then you get to go to Devon Island and play with the polar bears .</i><br /><br />I wish!<br /><br /><i>Sadly no Maybe even, given your expertise, you'll be one of the ones that gets to ride on that government-authorized-passenger vehicle. </i><br /><br />Again I wish! But I would too old and would not pass the physical.<br /><br /><i>I'm supervisor of an inventory auditor crew. Fat chance of me catching a ride on one of them government vehicles. </i><br /><br />I wouldn't run down your own skill. It is an absolutely essential one for a complex operation like space exploration. When we have Moon bases and Mars expeditions there will be someone doing that job out there and many doing it on the ground.<br /><br /><i>Are you suggesting that only the elite should get to go to space and us hoi-polloi should be happy to experience space vicariously? Hmmm? </i><br /><br />Depends what you mean by elite. The people on the first expeditions and stations on Mars or Ceres will be the elite. Just like the people who presently go into space. Eventually ordinary people will be able to go. But we are only just entering that phase with near earth space, and a lot longer before it will happen with Mars or Ceres. IMHO of course!<br /><br /><i>You don't come right out and say it, but there's a clear undertone to your comments that leads one to assume you hold this opinion. </i><br /><br />As I have already pointed out, I don't hold this opinion that space should only be for the elite.<br /><br /><i>It's this opinion (i.e.;"it's OK, as long as somebody does it and they have all these qualifications") that some of us here disagree with.</i><br /><br />So yo <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>

 

[Swampcat]

Jon, I apologize if I've mischaracterized your opinions. It's just a little hard sometimes to read you.<br /><br />So, you don't get to go to Devon Island? I guess I misremembered something I had read awhile back. Haven't you been involved in some of the Mars analog sites?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"But I would [be] too old and would not pass the physical."</font><br /><br />That's why we need to speed this stuff up..before we all get too old to go <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"I wouldn't run down your own skill. It is an absolutely essential one for a complex operation like space exploration. When we have Moon bases and Mars expeditions there will be someone doing that job out there and many doing it on the ground."</font><br /><br />Well, when they start putting grocery stores on the Moon or Mars... Seriously, I'm glad to see I was wrong about your attitude. I don't really disagree with the requirement that early missions will require certain qualifications that most of us don't have. And of course, suggesting that I would want the first missions to Ceres to Mars be crewed by unqualified astronauts is another one of those, um, red herrings <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"When you say that that government 'could go along' on a mission to Mars or Ceres you appear are assuming that a NGO could pull together enough expertise for such a mission. Until relevant flight hardware and expertise can be bought off the shelf and costs orders of magnitude less than it does now I can’t see that happening."</font><br /><br />I was just having a little fun, Jon. OTOH, we'll just have to see who gets there first. My money (what little of it there is) is on a private organization "for a whole range of reasons." <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>

 

[arkady]

Been away for a while, and totally forgot I posted in this thread. But just rediscovered it, and actually find the subject rather interesting, especially after examing the link you provided. Thank you for that. <br /><br />Now first of all, I'm all for NEO missions. Actually pretty much any space endeavor you can think of, and I most certainly see great potential there. Rereading my post, it does seem a little condescending. <br /><br />But I still fail to see how you can compare Mars to a man-made orbital platform. I regard myself as a dreamer, and as such, I envision not just "small" habitats housing say a couple of thousand individuals. I'm thinking millions, or billions really. Long have I thought about the possibilities of construction in space, but structures on this scale, even if there were to be many, simply exceeds my wildest dreams. (and that's saying alot!)<br /><br />And yes, I did thoroughly read through the O'neill article you provided, and it does raise a lot of valid points. He is right that many of the problems associated with constructing orbital platforms are exactly the same on Mars.<br /><br />Now. <br /><br />I'm slightly hesitant as to even mention terraforming, the subject doesn't sit well with many people, and also as the OP wanted to keep the speculation within a reasonable timeframe. But why not start where the greatest potential lies?<br /><br />I guess it depends on the defination of potential in this respect really, and I do realize that orbital platforms provide a number of advantages over planetary settlements. I think what I'm trying to convey is that however marvelous and extraordinary such a structure could be designed, it will never ever even come close to the spectacle of Mars. To Valles Marinaris or Olympus Mons. Mars is a place. An orbital platform is just an advanced mobile home. To me.<br /><br />And maybe it is just me. I'm absolutely thrilled watching the footage returned by our two favourite rovers. But every time I enthusiasticly try <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "<font color="#0000ff"><em>The choice is the Universe, or nothing</em> ... </font>" - H.G Wells </div>

 

[mithridates]

That's a good point. I guess after DAWN arrives we'll have an idea of what Ceres actually looks like. It's true that people are strongly influenced by actual images of places which is why I'd like to see a rover there eventually as well, plus solar flyers in the atmosphere of Venus (because Venus Express, though perhaps helpful, really doesn't do a thing to inspire people the way the images from Magellan did). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[arkady]

Yes, it will be exciting. <br /><br />It's just that however interesting a place it may turn out to be, it's size (or well mass really) will still equal only about 4% of our Moon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "<font color="#0000ff"><em>The choice is the Universe, or nothing</em> ... </font>" - H.G Wells </div>

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">. . . not all things comes down to just technical analysis.</font><br /><br />Indeed.<br /><br />Hi arkady, it's great to see you again! You are cordially invited to join us over on my new forums. See the sigline. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[thalion]

If we're talking main-belt asteroids, I'd pick Vesta over Ceres: it's closer, and has a lower-inclination orbit. The longer synodic period compared to Ceres is well worth it, IMO.

 

[mithridates]

That could actually prove to be an advantage actually when it comes to terraforming - a body of its size can still hold an atmosphere for hundreds of years, and with a surface area around 2% (I think, or maybe even 1%) of Mars that means that any efforts we make to create an atmosphere would be repaid at a much greater rate; or to put it another way, the amount atmosphere of required for half a bar of atmosphere on Ceres would barely register a difference if spread out over the entire surface of a planet as large as Mars. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[mithridates]

The only problem with that is that as far as we know Vesta doesn't have any water, which would be a huge disadvantage. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>