New Poll: Moon Yes, Mars No

[najab]

><i>Any failure that would require getting a significant number of colonists off Mars would probably not be surviable anyhow.</i><p>Not necessarily. Disease, crop-failure and loss of major infrastructure components come to mind.</p>

 

[scottb50]

<<Why? Unlike the ISS (which you bring up), the colonists on Mars will have many resources available. Any failure that would require getting a significant number of colonists off Mars would probably not be surviable anyhow.>><br /><br />Which is why colonists are way in the future, not a near term prospect.<br /><br /><<If exploration is the only goal, that can be done cheaper and more safely with appropriately sophisticated robotic explorers. />><br /><br />If we had people and the equipment on Mars we could do what the MERS have done in days instead of months. Robotic mission just bring up more questions, that could be answered with hands on capabilities. <br /><br />"Now there is a sound scientific response." Sorry I don't personally think it is that big of a problem, but if I said that I would be answered by those that think it would be. All I'm saying is water offers the best option for shielding and it's probably better to be safe than sorry. It's sort of like the anti-nuclear people, their mostly full of s***, but hey won't change, it's better to appease them than fight with them. <br /><br /> " <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mental_avenger]

<font color="yellow">Not necessarily. Disease, crop-failure and loss of major infrastructure components come to mind. </font><br /><br />Virtually all communicalbe diseases run their course in much shorter time than required to get back to Earth. Other diseases are either not that serious, or not survivable anyhow. The advantage of having dozens of cargo/habitat modules is the ability to quarantine in necessary.<br /><br />Shortages caused by crop failure could be resupplied from Earth just as fast, and a whole lot cheaper, than bringing everyone home. Any crop failure should be eventually reversible.<br /><br />Another advantage of dozens of habitat/work modules is that losing any one or two of them won't jeopardize the colony. Anything that was capable of damaging a significant number of the modules all at once, would probably kill everyone anyhow. I cannot imagine what that would be, an intense meteor shower?<br /><br />In any case, the infrastructure required to allow the escape of all of the colony would simply not be practical. It would be akin to having an ocean liner as a lifeboat for an ocean liner.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>

 

[najab]

I'm thinking of a disease that kills a significant percentage of the colony's population - to the point that it is no longer viable. The survivors may want return, especially if the political climate back on Earth has turned against further attempts at colonisation. In your plan there is no possibility of return, regardless of circumstance.

 

[mental_avenger]

<font color="yellow">Which is why colonists are way in the future, not a near term prospect. </font><br /><br />Delaying colonization would only increase costs tremedously, and in the end, the colonists would face the same problems once they did get there. Delaying the possible problems only moves them through time, it does not eliminate them.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Robotic mission just bring up more questions, that could be answered with hands on capabilities. </font><br /><br />Only if they continue with the woefully inadequate robotic probes they use now. Big Al could do most of the surveys that humans could do, only much more economically. Big Al, as I have envisioned him, would be semi-autonomous, have limited core drill capabilities, and be able to move (relatively) fast over the surface. Big Al is a marvel of human ingenuity and cutting edge technology.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>

 

[mental_avenger]

<font color="yellow">In your plan there is no possibility of return, regardless of circumstance.</font><br /><br />There is room for a return ship or two to remain in orbit, if it comes to something like that. But maintaining the cyclic return system that Scott described would too expensive, and require far too many resources, not to mention manpower.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>

 

[scottb50]

Big Al might be great, but a geologist would be infinitely better. Especially with a laboritory where specific tests could be done on samples.<br /><br />As for colonization, again I think it would be possible, what I am talking about is laying the ground work for it. Colonizing Mars just to colonize it is a waste of time. If there is no reason then why bother? The same with the Moon, exploration, stable deep space observatories an such make sense. But colonizining it ?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>I have yet to see, other than a pronouncement, any scientific reasons why we could not stay there from the get go.</i><p>Another (non-scientific) reason why colonisation should not be the stated goal of the first Mars mission is that you won't get much support from the politicians. Basically your proposal would boil down to "Give me $30 billion, and in return I'll put 100 people where you can't tax them."<p>If we go with the MMAP, then colonization will be a covert goal - after the first few missions, when there is enough equipment and infrastructure on the surface it can be made overt. After all, what is the Government going to do when the astronauts simply refuse to come back - send someone to arrest them?<br /></p></p>

 

[halman]

Mental_Avenger,<br /><br />I find it amusing that a thread about a poll indicating greater public support for a mission to the Moon over a mission to Mars has become a thread on how to colonize Mars.<br /><br />Be that as it may, I have to question your assertion that supply ships bound for Mars can launch as often as ones bound for the Moon. If I understand Hohmann transfer orbits correctly, the launch windows only occur every couple of years. This type of flight path is the minimum energy method of reaching Mars from Earth, allowing the most payload per given launch vehicle. Of course, other orbits can be used, but there are still only a few which are feasible with our current engine technologies.<br /><br />Please elucidate how ships can be launched to Mars without regard of the relative positions of Earth and the destination planet. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[orzek]

Mental <br />I am still waiting for your list of "sources". If you cannot provide one can you provide at least a link to where you have given a list? <br /><br />As concerning your plan, you seem very confident in its success, though again it seems to me you are too optimistic in your method. How much do you think it will cost to start colonization straight away with your plan? It seems to me the figure could easily reach trillions (a guess of course). And if you are trying to cut costs by making the colonization one way with limited return capability, what happens when things go wrong? Are the colonists doomed to die? No matter how much time you put in planning you cannot forsee all the factors that may have a bearing on the success of the colony. And if there is something that is missed that results in the loss of the colony, wouldn't that be a huge waste of cost,resources and human life? You cannot hope to start a colony on another planet just like that without any previous experience especially on a harsh planet like mars. <br /><br />And despite your assertion of the distance being irrelevant, missions to mars can only be sent during certain windows as pointed out by Halman. Are you expecting to send all your cargo ships all at once? And I still ask you, due to your unsatisfactory answer, how are you going to land them accurately enough on the surface of mars so that they are not too far spaced apart? Will you need to set up a costellation of gps satellites around mars? The technology is not mature enough to land a large group of cargo ships remotely to the same spot on mars. You also seem to place faith in an SUV sized AI robot which I don't think exists yet or will exist in the near term future. <br /><br />And lastly since you have spent a lot of time thinking about a colonization of mars and say you have cad files, would you be willing to give us a glimpse of what you have drawn in terms of equipment and spacecraft. And how do you expect to put your cargo ships in

 

[najab]

Actually, if you don't care about transit time, there exists a minimum energy orbit between any two points in space at any time. Homann transfer orbits just represent a solution that minimizes both energy and time.<p>Conversely, if you don't care about energy, there is a minimum time orbit as well.</p>

 

[scottb50]

The propellant is a minimal factor, the amount to get to Mars is not that much different if you go at the optimum time or a less optimum time. If you increase the outbound energy it takes more energy to establish a Mars orbit so the least energy consuming departure would probably be when Mars is the farthest away. The same energy enroute and less to establish orbit.<br /><br />If energy was not a consideration you could get there pretty quickly, accelerate at 1g and decelerate at Mars gravity into an orbit before going to the surface. Not too practical though. <br /><br />The best bet is chemical engines for the initial boost, ion engines enroute and chemical engines to establish orbit and descend and ascend from the surface. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

m_a: <font color="yellow"> Cargo vessels to Mars can be launced as often as Moon cargo vessels. </font><br /><br />Well, you can launch them, but if you want the planet to be there at the same time as when you get to its orbit, you're going to have to time it within the 26-month cycle like everybody else.<br /><br />Timing is everything. <br /><br />More deltaV = quicker trips BUT any way you go, you have to leave at just the right time. For a given trip time, there is an Earth-Sun-Mars angle you must launch at. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">Actually, if you don't care about transit time, there exists a minimum energy orbit between any two points in space at any time. Homann transfer orbits just represent a solution that minimizes both energy and time.</font><br /><br />Um, not quite. Are you talking about multiple orbits? IOW, you leave Earth, get out to Martian orbital radius, miss Mars, orbit the Sun some more before you get to Mars' orbit at the same time as Mars?<br /><br />Hohmann minimizes energy, maximizes time. You need that much energy to get out to the orbital distance of Mars. Any less energy, you cannot insert into Martian orbit. Any more time, and you're either talking about extra orbits, or more energy.<br /><br />So your statement can be read as true, but only in the sense that you've decided to take much longer than you ever needed to. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">The propellant is a minimal factor, the amount to get to Mars is not that much different if you go at the optimum time or a less optimum time.</font><br />Assuming you mean "optimum time" = "correct launch time" and "less optimum" = a few hours later or earlier, this is true; the trajectory correction maneuvers will be fairly small. But you might be talking about the difference from cycle to cycle. There is a fairly big difference between 2007 and 2013 for example.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">If you increase the outbound energy it takes more energy to establish a Mars orbit so the least energy consuming departure would probably be when Mars is the farthest away</font><br />Wrong. What do you mean by "outbound energy"? The least energy consumption is at the smallest orbital radius of Mars at arrival. This radius is also your maximum radius, so the smaller it is, the lower the energy of the transfer orbit you had to establish. This is why 2015 will be a cheap year - all your popular time of flight trips arrive at Mars in Summer. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">The best bet is chemical engines for the initial boost, ion engines enroute and chemical engines to establish orbit and descend and ascend from the surface. </font><br />That's actually an interesting idea. Maybe the ion engines could alter the trajectory so that at Mars arrival, you are going nearly tangential to Mars' orbit. This would reduce the arrival deltaV. Hmm.. I wonder if it would actually work . . . I'll have to look at that sometime.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>Um, not quite. Are you talking about multiple orbits? IOW, you leave Earth, get out to Martian orbital radius, miss Mars, orbit the Sun some more before you get to Mars' orbit at the same time as Mars? </i><p>Yup. Or even trajectories that include multiple Venus/Earth flybys.</p>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Cargo vessels to Mars can be launced as often as Moon cargo vessels<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Why is this even a discussion topic ? <br />Bandwidth and latency are two entirely different things. You can have a 100mbps pipe, but if this comes with 200+ ms latency you are going to get fragged ten ways to sunday.<br />Same with mars, if you need a certain circuit board to fix malfunctioning power distribution systems in couple of days or be hosed, all those en-route cargo canisters with food resupplies and postcards from home aint going to help you.<br />ISS is an excellent example of how much trivial stuff can go wrong and if you have to wait six months to get the needed replacements you can be in pretty deep before you can say blueberry pie.<br /><br />Yes, there are things you can do to prevent this stuff, use multi-purpose reconfigurable hardware with lots of reduncancy etc., but unless you have an imaginary budget, you can only go that far.<br /><br />And analogies with how people have gone far from home before without any hope of resupply really dont hold water. You can live off the land on earth most of the places if you have enough wits and stamina without having any equipment with you. Thats not the case anymore when you leave the friendly biosphere.

 

[nacnud]

A couple of technologies that could help address the latency problem could be 3D printing to make mechanical parts and conducting (and semi-conducting) polymers that can be printed to make electrical components. Now if these technologies can be combined to make more printers from raw ingredients, which can be shipped from earth if necessary, any component needed is on the next supply ship.<br /><br />However although I have heard of these technologies I have no idea of how mature they are or how long development of them may take... or even if they are suitable for building a Mars colony.<br />

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>A couple of technologies that could help address the latency problem could be 3D printing to make mechanical parts and conducting (and semi-conducting) polymers that can be printed to make electrical components. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Such technologies if those could be used to any reasonable extent, also called "disruptive technologies" for a reason, would transform world economy beyond recognition so that it would not be a question of whether we want to colonize mars, but where in the vicinity of solar system would you want your next vacation to be.<br />As such, those are really beside the point of this discussion. As are nanoassemblers, super-strength nanofibers, cheap controlled fusion etc etc.

 

[najab]

3D printing already exists in the form of laser stereo lithography. However it is limited to expoxy and acrylic materials. It would be truly amazing if somehow the technique could be applied to stronger materials.

 

[nacnud]

Hummm… I was not really describing nano scale technologies which are many decades away but more of an extrapolation of where rapid proto-typing machines like these might be in ten years time. <br /><br />They probably won’t be useful where the material is to be subjected to exacting conditions but for were something could be used as a short term fix or in benign conditions ie a new door hinge, low pressure/temperature valve etc.<br />

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>3D printing already exists in the form of laser stereo lithography. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Yes, i know. So do small nanofibers and lots of other promising technologies. But its far from being useable to advance the cause of humankind expanding to space, as of yet.

 

[dan_casale]

First off....NajaB, Scottb50 and Spacester, thanks for joining in. I keep looking for Frodo to join us.<br /><br />Mental,<br />Thanks for your comments on the schedule. Your right about the launch windows for Mars, but the only two that I have ever heard mentioned are conjunction class and opposition class. I chose to use standard windows to keep the discussion simple. Equipment could be launched in either window, but biological payload should only be launched in conjuction class windows. I also chose to ignore the 11 year sunspot cycle, which might make some Mars windows completely unuseable. I completely agree with Scottb50's idea of using water and hydrogen as shielding. It would be very bad PR to reclass a mission half-way to Mars from Biological to equipment.<br /><br />I completely agree that equipment could be launched at any time and that ALL equipment containers could double as habitat for humans, plants and/or animals. I also believe that the habitat should try to self assemble and "dig-in" for the proper level of radiation shielding. A lot of heavy equipment will be needed to complete the job when the colonists arrive.<br /><br />Sorry you don't agree about the elevators. I have read a number of papers that demonstrate their practically, so I will continue advocate their use. The lunar elevator could allow for satellites to be "dropped into" or "plucked from" GEO. Would this make servicing satellites practical?<br /><br />I have seen a number of different plans for beaming electricity to Earth. Drilling 1000's of feet for oil is not always practical but we do it anyway. Once we start beaming power to Earth, we may wonder why we did it any other way.<br /><br />NO_WAY:<br />You are quite right about the time delay problems. I'm not sure about the Mars delay but I'll put forth the following guesses: Moon - communication delay 4 seconds, resupply delay minimum 3 days. Mars - communication delay 5 - 10 minutes, resupply delay 3 months for conjuction cl

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">I completely agree that equipment could be launched at any time</font><br /><br />NO<br />IT<br />CAN'T<br /><br />Not if you want it to arrive at Martian orbit at the same time that Mars happens to be there.<br /><br />I completely agree that it would be nice if it were true.<br /><br />Folks, there are facts and there are opinions.<br /><br />The fact is, if you want to go to Mars, you need to decide how long it is going to take and then you need to launch (inject into your chosen transfer orbit) at the correct time according to that chosen trajectory.<br /><br />This is fact, not opinion.<br /><br />It's really not that complicated, but a lot of smart people here seem to not accept that things are not the way we would like them to be.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dan_casale]

So you are saying that it is not possible to hit Mars anywhere in its orbit from anywhere in Earth's orbit given enough time and propellent? I'm not saying this is a good idea, just that it is possible. <br /><br />But I am perfectly fine using the two standard launch windows, opposition and conjuction.<br /><br />Here is the colonization document we were working on before the great M&L crash...<br />All the links are good.<br /><br /><br />Unanswered questions:<br />Is 1/6 gravity enough to maintain human health?<br />How much of a problem is the 672 hr day? (28 earth days)<br />What is the minimum amount in each category that can be used to bootstrap?<br />How long would your human ideally spend on the moon before returning to earth?<br />Do you know of any additional websites/books that could be researched in for further data on the physiological side of spaceflight/colonization?<br /><br /><br /> <br />Possible locations<br />Moon Locations:<br />Reasons to go:<br />Supply parts and propellants to LEO and GEO.<br />Alter the paths of asteroids that might strike Earth.<br /><br />Poles:<br />The south pole is believed to have the most water and was selected for the industrial site. The industrial site would house the electrical generation, and smelting facilities. <br /><br />Equator:<br />Several equatorial locations have been considered. Two on the earth-side near the horizon, and one on the middle of the far-side directly opposite earth. The two earth-side bases would receive/send earth supplies. The far-side base would be used during the new moon and as an observatory.<br /><br />Habitats:<br />Surface built domes:<br />Built by telepresence controlled robots prior to human arrival.<br />Inside surface is coated to prevent air loss possible coating are:<br />Aluminum: Mined from lunar resources<br />Glass: Mined from lunar resources<br />Fused rock<br /><br />Lava Tubes:<br />Discovered by manual exploration or orbiting sensors. The lava tubes have the inner surface sealed to prevent air