Newbie Mars Question -- one person, one way

[cuddlyrocket]

Not going to happen if politicians have to vote for the budget. Little upside for them, and lots of potential downside.

 

[pathfinder_01]

"If the goal is colonization, why not plan for the first people going to stay? It's not suicide, it's settling. This is different from the "lone wolf" being described above. I give a single explorer only months or a few years survival time. Instead of that scenario, a large crew journeying to Mars and settling becomes a sustainable effort. Even just 6 people could begin the work of creating the first Mars town.”<br /><br />I would think that is would probably be suicidal to do it without the option of a return trip. No one knows the health effects of living on mars for long periods of time or if it is even possible to give birth to healthy children. It will probably take a few mission just to prove that it is health. <br /><br />In Addition these colonists would be stranded on mars in a way no person is stranded on earth. Have a need for medical care not found on mars, well tough luck. Get a real case of cabin fever? Want to take a vacation? Again tough luck. <br /><br /><br />“This would likely be a private venture, but not necessarily a profit-driven one. A visionary billionaire could do it, or a TV network, university, etc. The more interested parties, the more some costs can be spread out. I still like the Ports-Authority model, where a consortia builds Phobos base while leasing volume to others and supporting small Mars settlements.”<br /><br />There are very few private ventures that are not profit driven and I doubt even Bill Gates could afford to supply a growing colony on mars indefinably and I really doubt that whoever inherits his money should things go sour will be likewise inclined. A TV network wouldn’t want to get within fifty miles of it for fear of the bad publicity should the mission go wrong (or heck the declining publicly should the mission be boring). A university might, but I doubt many are able to give those sums of money indefinably. <br /><br />I can see a phobos base working but odds are either the colonist colonized phobos before mars or many years

 

[yoda9999]

Mental_Avenger:<br />I believe that setting up a viable, self-sufficient colony on Mars to protect humanity from extinction should be one of the most noble and pressing goals we could have. Even if we started today, there is no guarantee we can save humanity before a major catastrophe destroys all life on Earth. But if we don’t start, it is absolutely certain that we cannot save humanity. <br /><br />Me:<br />Would building a space habitat like an O'Neill cylinder be cheaper and livable than a Mars settlement?<br /><br />I don't think these 2 objectives are the same:<br /><br />1. landing people on Mars<br />2. settling on Mars<br /><br />Doing #1 does not imply having to do #2. Landing on Mars, to me, is a necessary human achievement milestone. For my own selfish reason, I want to see someone land on Mars. #1 is far more important to me than #2.<br /><br />We could use Mars for some industrial commercial purpose. We might need some human and robot labor on Mars.<br /><br />But settling people on Mars just for the sake of settling? I don't know about that. There has to be a good commercial reason to settle Mars.<br /><br />If Earth becomes unlivable in some ways, we might have refugees going to Mars. But I still wonder if a space habitat would be cheaper and more livable?

 

[spayss]

What variable would male Earth unlivable? Hasn't happened in the last 3 billion years. A supernova explosion? That would toast Mars even more..<br /><br />How would living on Mars ever be more viable than living on Earth? If 99.9% of Earth's population was destroyed in an asteroid blast, the Earth would still be a better place to live a week later.

 

[spacefire]

you forget that in the event of an asteroid strike many people, and possibly civilization, would die because of the destruction of the industrial/agricultural infrastructure. That's why we need to establish colonies on other planets. Naturally, on a planet like Mars, the infreastructure in the pre-terraformed era will be much more robust and able to deal with catastrophic events much better than the fragile Earth eco-dependent infrastructrue. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[lampblack]

<font color="yellow">What variable would male Earth unlivable? Hasn't happened in the last 3 billion years. A supernova explosion? That would toast Mars even more.. </font><br /><br />On principle, it's just never a bad idea to have at least a few of the eggs in a different basket.<br /><br />Of course, this is assuming that one believes the human race is worth preserving. I suspect most folks would agree that it is. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[mental_avenger]

pathfinder says: <font color="yellow"> No one knows the health effects of living on mars for long periods of time or if it is even possible to give birth to healthy children. It will probably take a few mission just to prove that it is health. </font><br /><br />No one knows for sure, but IMO there is a very high probability that humans will do fine at .38G. As noted, testing for health issues can be done in Earth orbit long before the first man sets foot on Mars.<br /><br />pathfinder says: <font color="yellow"> In Addition these colonists would be stranded on mars in a way no person is stranded on earth. Have a need for medical care not found on mars, well tough luck. Get a real case of cabin fever? Want to take a vacation? Again tough luck. </font><br /><br />Our ancestors were often effectively in the same situation, traveling hundreds or thousands of miles from home into new territories where people had not gone before. There was no way for them to return home for medical help. In addition, the medical care we could have available on Mars with the very first colonists is many orders of magnitude above what those colonists could have had even if they had had the ability to return home. Bottom line, throughout history, tens of thousands of pioneers have already done what you seem to feel is too risky.<br /><br />pathfinder says: <font color="yellow"> I can see a phobos base working but odds are either the colonist colonized phobos before mars or many years have passed and there are enough people on mars to justify the base. </font><br /><br />On Phobos a man would weigh about 2 grams. Although it is probable that the gravity on Mars is sufficient for human health, there is not doubt that the gravity on Phobos is not. They don’t even have the option of spinning to create artificial gravity the way a wheel space station would. Although Phobos might be used as a way station, it will never be colonized. Personnel with have to rotate <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>

 

[spayss]

Eggs in another basket is a fine idea if within a plausable scenario. At an expense of hundreds of billions of dollars a plausable scenario is necesary and not one just thrown up to justify some footprints. What scenario?<br /><br />Spacefire:<br /><br />Re the breakdown of infrastructure on Earth....what does that have to do with Mars? If one really believes that's a possibility then hundreds of billions spent on asteroid survival would be much more productive than the same to keep a few dozen folks on Mars.<br /><br /> The imperative to go to Mars is always a bit contrived. Nothing wrong with the dream or excitemnet of it but the justification gets tenuous.

 

[yoda9999]

Future Earth could be unlivable by some people due to war, poverty, disease, pollution, overpopulation, unemployment, etc. Might make artificial habitats on Mars more desirable for some people.<br /><br />Back to the original topic, if you don't want all your eggs in one basket, then the first settlements on Mars should be in diverse locations and each start off with only a few people. Some of the settlements could start off with just one or two people.

 

[mental_avenger]

yoda asks: <font color="yellow"> Would building a space habitat like an O'Neill cylinder be cheaper and livable than a Mars settlement? </font><br /><br />IMO, definitely not. The big advantages of Mars are the temperature stability, the availability of resources, and the ease of radiation shielding. One thing often overlooked is the need for nitrogen, which is available on Mars in sufficient quantities. On both the Moon and on an O’Neill cylinder, all the nitrogen would have to be imported. It is necessary for both the atmosphere and for growing food.<br /><br />yoda says: <font color="yellow"> We could use Mars for some industrial commercial purpose. We might need some human and robot labor on Mars. </font><br /><br />Another common fallacy. Commercial trade with Mars will not be practical for a long time. Earth is still the best place for manufacturing. Earth is still also the best source of resources that are to be used here.<br /><br />yoda says: <font color="yellow"> But settling people on Mars just for the sake of settling? I don't know about that. There has to be a good commercial reason to settle Mars. </font><br /><br />Eventually, but not for a long time. Any commercial use of Mars will probably be in manufacture of materials and spacecraft to be used in the outer solar system. Mars may also be the main base for the primary asteroid defense system of Earth.<br /><br />yoda says: <font color="yellow"> If Earth becomes unlivable in some ways, we might have refugees going to Mars. </font><br /><br />I doubt that it will ever be practical to send people to Mars en mass. All persons going to Mars will be people with skills needed for the colonies and physical attributes that are desirable, at least for the first 50 years or so.<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]

spays asks: <font color="yellow"> What variable would male[sic] Earth unlivable? Hasn't happened in the last 3 billion years. A supernova explosion? That would toast Mars even more.. </font><br /><br />A large comet or asteroid impact. The nuclear winter following such an impact could wipe out most of the plants on Earth and therefore most of humanity. That would take quite a few years. It depends on how large and dense the globe-circling cloud is and how long it lasts. A comet that had sufficient poisonous volatiles could kill everyone much quicker. <br /><br />spays asks: <font color="yellow"> How would living on Mars ever be more viable than living on Earth? If 99.9% of Earth's population was destroyed in an asteroid blast, the Earth would still be a better place to live a week later. </font><br /><br />On Mars, since everyone will be living in CELSS, neither of the above described situations would a problem. If 99.9% of Earth’s population was destroyed by starvation, the survivors would return to the stone age if they was lucky. The last months of global starvation would be worse than any war that has ever been imagined.<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]

yoda says: <font color="yellow"> Back to the original topic, if you don't want all your eggs in one basket, then the first settlements on Mars should be in diverse locations and each start off with only a few people. Some of the settlements could start off with just one or two people. </font><br /><br />Good point. But impractical. Small, individual CELSS (Closed Environmental Life Support System) would be difficult to maintain and require too many resources for per person. Fairly large colonies could be set up around several separate central greenhouses. Individual habitats could be linked to the central system, but able to be individually sealed if necessary. Routable interconnections could be used to connect habitats to alternate central systems if one should have a problem or fail. All other resources and labor would be shared, which would be a lot more efficient. On Mars, just surviving would be a full time job at first. Everything will have to be as economical and efficient as possible.<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>