Why colonize Mars and not the Moon?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lifeonmercury
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mars Moon
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the viability of colonizing Mars versus the Moon for human survival in the event of an extinction event on Earth. Key arguments favor Mars due to its Earth-like day/night cycle, availability of water, and essential resources, while the Moon's extreme conditions and limited resources make it less suitable for long-term colonization. Critics argue that building secure habitats on Earth may be more feasible than establishing a sustainable colony on Mars, given the technological and logistical challenges involved. The conversation also touches on the high costs and practicality of space travel, suggesting that colonization may remain a distant fantasy rather than an immediate solution. Ultimately, the debate highlights the complexities and differing perspectives on humanity's future in space exploration.
  • #101
clope023 said:
Nothing that says you can't do both; Space Colonization is in general more exciting and finding unknown life in the oceans is still going to be 'simply' undiscovered Earth Life, while the possibility of finding truly Alien life will be a monumental moment in scientific history.
Expansion out into space opens up far more potential for the future. Unlimited expansion. Unlimited resources.

mfb said:
No one wants to vent air or all used water. But what do you do with the most toxic waste? Do you expect to squeeze the last hydrogen atom out of everything?
I'm referring to human habitat waste - why would you create toxins in the habitat? As for chemistry and manufacturing processes, if they use up water, maybe find another process, or recycle that water in it's own closed loop.
It would be relatively easy to distill water using low pressure and so yes, you can recover almost every drop out of most types of toxic waste.

mfb said:
The Chinese are looking at Mars already - it will be their next step after the current Moon program. They plan to go to Mars without a Moon colony.
But my point is this - the (expensive) Apollo program stopped when people got bored with it. Now we have basically the same idea for a mission to Mars, and won't that mission just stop when people get bored? And for China it's the same kind of national pride to be the second nation to the Moon (they hope). Maybe the first nation to Mars, they will be hoping too.

But then they will stop. Because of the expense. This thread, and Elon's talk, was about colonisation. For that, the Moon makes way more sense to do first.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #102
Hi All!

If your goal is to protect the human race from cataclysmic disasters, it isn't enough to just have colonies. These places would need to be economically independent - able to survive for centuries without any helpful input from Earth. Right now we can't even do that in Antarctica. I'd also point to the Biosphere II project that seems to indicate that we have no idea how to build an ecosystem on Mars that could provide food for us long term without massive constant input from Earth. It could happen someday, but sadly, I don't think I'll live to see humans being born on Mars.
 
  • Like
Likes mheslep
  • #103
Hi,

I think when we talk of colonies, we mean a settlement large enough to be close to self-sustaining, at a pinch. Or building up towards that point. If it grows fast and retains transport links to Earth, it will be hard to tell the exact moment it becomes possible to self-sustain.

The big difference is between a mission that just goes, makes footprints and returns (Not to belittle the Apollo science work!) and one that goes to stay, build, prospect, mine, learn, manufacture, grow and adapt.
 
  • #104
Originally I was going to say "Right now we can't even do that in Alaska." but I remembered the native eskimos. Could we even make Alaska self sustaining without trade?
 
  • #105
There are a number of reasons to colonize Mars over the moon. Firstly and most importantly, there is evidence of water on Mars, so water wouldn't necessarily all have to be shipped there. That is the best reason. Also, the gravitational difference between the Earth and Mars is much less than the difference between the Earth and the Moon. There would be far less stress upon the bodies of the colonists. Thirdly, the moon does not rotate upon an axis, the time of light and dark would be very unbalanced. Somewhere on Mars, it may be possible to find levels of darkness and light generally corresponding to those on Earth. This would greatly enhance the experience by minimizing the changes for the colonists. From another angle, we are more interested in the history of Mars than in the history of the moon. The work done on Mars would, therefore, be more desirable than the same work done upon the moon.
 
  • #106
Since the surface gravity on Mars is only 38% that of Earth's surface gravity, I imagine the people living on Mars would be much weaker than those who remain on Earth.
 
  • #107
lifeonmercury said:
Since the surface gravity on Mars is only 38% that of Earth's surface gravity, I imagine the people living on Mars would be much weaker than those who remain on Earth.
That isn't in itself a problem - while they are on Mars - since less gravity means less effort is required to get some things done.
However, we don't know whether people adapted to Mars's gravity would be able to re-adapt to Earth.
What we do know is that long-term astronauts on the ISS lose body mass despite doing frequent exercise.
Recovery can take a year or more, and for some individuals there can be irreversible physiological change, (though not to the extent of rendering them disabled)
 
  • #108
Why choose from big rocks in space when floating space stations are already proven and are more feasible.
 
  • Like
Likes Stavros Kiri
  • #109
Space stations tend to be lacking in raw materials.
 
  • #110
Algr said:
Space stations tend to be lacking in raw materials.

Food you can grow, energy you can harvest other stuff you could mine from convenient sources.

Where I live the main industry is mining, the miners live hundreds, if not thousands, of miles from their work.

Its all FIFO: fly in, fly out.

FIFO is way more efficient than building permanent "colonies" at the site of mineral deposits.
 
  • Like
Likes Stavros Kiri
  • #111
clope023 said:
Nothing that says you can't do both;
Money, especially in the event colonization scales up to millions.
Space Colonization is in general more exciting
Perhaps. Certainly more hyped, more Hollywood. Space travel and exploration is exciting, with the danger being part of that; I suspect colonization would become much less exciting over time. In the event of an actual colony, it may be that the one affording 2 way simultaneous communication is more interesting.

and finding unknown life in the oceans is still going to be 'simply' undiscovered Earth Life, while the possibility of finding truly Alien life will be a monumental moment in scientific history.
Manned spacecraft and colonization of Mars are not required to explore for microbial life there. Also, If extraterrestrial life discovery is truly the goal, then it seems to me some kind of major investment in orders of magnitude better space based observation of remote solar systems is far more productive. Perhaps some interferometry with a 1000 instruments along an AU sized baseline.
 
Last edited:
  • #112
Alien life on Mars would put the breaks on colonization because our presence would likely wipe it out, or turn us into terminator zombies.

Ceres might be a better place for a colony then Mars.
 
  • Like
Likes mheslep
  • #113
Ceres is similar to the Moon as an environment, but half the size and a lot more distant.
Unless there is something very useful there that isn't available on the Moon what why would it be better?
 
  • #114
There IS something. Plentiful water. Mars and the moon would both have us trying to squeeze water out of damp sand.
 
  • #115
If money were no object, could we establish a colony on the Moon within 10 years that could survive indefinitely if everyone on Earth died? Let's say every nation on Earth contributed 25% of its GDP for 10 years to achieving this. Would it be possible?
 
  • #116
If money were no object, we could have started that in 1970.
 
  • #117
lifeonmercury said:
If money were no object, could we establish a colony on the Moon within 10 years that could survive indefinitely if everyone on Earth died? Let's say every nation on Earth contributed 25% of its GDP for 10 years to achieving this. Would it be possible?
Possible yes, Feasible no.
There would be interminable politics surrounding which nations are entitled to do what with the colony.
 
  • Like
Likes 1oldman2
  • #118
Al_ said:
I'm referring to human habitat waste - why would you create toxins in the habitat? As for chemistry and manufacturing processes, if they use up water, maybe find another process, or recycle that water in it's own closed loop.
It would be relatively easy to distill water using low pressure and so yes, you can recover almost every drop out of most types of toxic waste.
Every colony approach will need a lot of chemical industry, which will produce similar waste as on Earth. You can recycle it, yes, with a huge effort. But you can also dig up new ice conveniently located close to the station. But only on Mars.
But my point is this - the (expensive) Apollo program stopped when people got bored with it. Now we have basically the same idea for a mission to Mars, and won't that mission just stop when people get bored? And for China it's the same kind of national pride to be the second nation to the Moon (they hope). Maybe the first nation to Mars, they will be hoping too.
You brought up the Chinese Moon program...
Algr said:
I'd also point to the Biosphere II project that seems to indicate that we have no idea how to build an ecosystem on Mars that could provide food for us long term without massive constant input from Earth.
A colony on Mars would have unlimited supply of CO2 and ice, something biosphere 2 did not have. Unlike Biosphere 2, a Mars colony would not try to to mimic all sorts of different biotopes in it, and would focus on the most efficient plants to get food. Oxygen is a nice by-product, but not necessary.

lifeonmercury said:
If money were no object, could we establish a colony on the Moon within 10 years that could survive indefinitely if everyone on Earth died? Let's say every nation on Earth contributed 25% of its GDP for 10 years to achieving this. Would it be possible?
10 years sound super optimistic. Using the estimated cost of SpaceX's ITS (there would be several similar projects with so much money), but with single-use transport ships because we won't use more than one or maybe two transfer windows: $200 million for ~300 tons. Let's be optimistic and say $500/kg, mass production would help. $100 trillion GDP per year, 25% over 10 years: $250 trillion. That would allow transporting 500 million tons to Mars. At 100 tons per person (maybe pessimistic, but we don't have so much time for R&D), that corresponds to a population of 5 million. Not bad. R&D costs should be negligible on that scale, materials shipped to Mars should be much cheaper than $500/kg as well. Unfortunately scaling that far won't work: we cannot have 1/4 of the world population work on building spacecraft s. We don't have so many raw materials, and we don't have so many experts.
 
  • #119
lifeonmercury said:
Let's say every nation on Earth contributed 25% of its GDP for 10 years to achieving this.
For many of the developing countries in the world, there is no spare GDP. Cutting out a 1/4 in these places means cutting out the bone, i.e. the water supply, food, basic necessities.
 
  • #120
houlahound said:
Why choose from big rocks in space when floating space stations are already proven and are more feasible.
I do like the idea. Floating space stations can also be somewhat mobile to go to places where resources are, and then leave to go elsewhere.
 
  • Like
Likes Stavros Kiri
  • #121
The moon is a terrible option, while much easier to reach it has almost zero terraforming options - very little water, virtually no atmosphere and no useful soil chemistry. It would take eons to convert the moon into anything resembling a viable biosphere. Mars would be much easier, it has significant water reserves, a tenuous atmosphere, and a soil composition potentially capable of supporting life. The down side is it is vastly distant compared to the moon. I believe the moon is entirely viable as a base, with sufficient support materials to make reaching Mars a realistic option.
 
  • Like
Likes Stavros Kiri
  • #122
phyzguy said:
It's certainly a good question, but I think there are two main reasons that people have fixated on Mars rather than the moon:
(1) Mars has a day/night cycle very close to Earth. The moon has a 4 week day/night cycle. During the two week night, it gets extremely cold, and solar power is not available for generating energy.
(2) Mars has a ready supply of water, which is essential for any human colonization. The moon may have water in permanently shadowed craters at the poles, but this has not been proven. Elsewhere on the moon is extremely dry, so water does not appear to be available.
I think another (3rd) very important reason is that the moon can never have atmosphere, because of the low g (escape velocity is much smaller on the moon than on earth, thus gasses escape in space ...).
That, besides giving no terraforming capabilities, would imply huge indoor controlled life-support facilities, that would increase the cost too much.

Also I think the smaller gravity on the moon can in fact be a problem by itself. Remember that g on the surface of the moon is only 1/6 of the g on the surface of the earth.
[+ no atmosphere would imply no protection from asteroids and stuff, as well as from cosmic and other harmful radiation (even from the sun - no ozon ...).]
 
Last edited:
  • #123
Stavros Kiri said:
[+ no atmosphere would imply no protection from asteroids and stuff, as well as from cosmic and other harmful radiation (even from the sun - no ozon ...).]
On Mars the radiation is also a problem, so that you would need to cover habitats with metres of Mars dirt to protect people inside. And even some fairly small meteors would make it through the thin atmosphere to the surface. There is no ozone on Mars either! Basically, for these things it's not so different from the Moon.
 
  • #124
Stavros Kiri said:
I think another (3rd) very important reason is that the moon can never have atmosphere, because of the low g (escape velocity is much smaller on the moon than on earth, thus gasses escape in space ...).
That, besides giving no terraforming capabilities, would imply huge indoor controlled life-support facilities, that would increase the cost too much.
Woah! Terraforming is waaay far in the future. Just look at the amount of stuff needed! Even to use Mars own water, that's millions of mirrors or thousands of nukes to melt it, hundreds of years for it to happen.
This thread is about colonising, not terraforming.
Yes, keeping it indoors and doing life support is much more possible - have you ever seen those big industrial greenhouses that grow tomatoes and such? That's the kind of thing you need for a colony.
So, I think the Moon is much easier to colonise because it's closer.
 
  • #125
Moon is closer purely in terms of travel time (signals and rockets). In terms of required rocket size to reach it (delta-v requirements), it is actually further away until we build a lunar space elevator. In terms of Earth similarity and availability of everything interesting for a colony it is much worse.

By the way: Hydrogen, oxygen and potentially carbon are also needed as rocket fuel, which will always be wasted. If you want to re-use rockets and/or get anything from the colony back to Earth, you'll need a constant supply of it.
 
  • #126
mfb said:
But you can also dig up new ice conveniently located close to the station. But only on Mars.
On the Moon you can dig up water ice too!
It is well established that there is enough water on the Moon to allow us to colonise it, maybe a city size.
Living in sealed habitats, with very little escape of water.
"Now that we have detected water that is likely from the interior of the moon" http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-262
The surface temperature at the poles is -110 C. It is not known exactly how deep the cold goes, but the core is maybe 2000 C, so you can drill something like 5% of the way down before it's above zero. Pretty deep. At depth, under pressure, maybe there is liquid water! Certainly any water there from the formation of the Moon would still be there.
 
  • #127
mfb said:
Moon is closer purely in terms of travel time (signals and rockets). In terms of required rocket size to reach it (delta-v requirements), it is actually further away until we build a lunar space elevator. In terms of Earth similarity and availability of everything interesting for a colony it is much worse.

By the way: Hydrogen, oxygen and potentially carbon are also needed as rocket fuel, which will always be wasted. If you want to re-use rockets and/or get anything from the colony back to Earth, you'll need a constant supply of it.

In terms of rocket size, the delta-V is not all that determines rocket size. If you carry 5 times as much stuff, you need 5 times as big a rocket.
(And btw, on the Moon, it is easier to build a magnetic laucher than a space elevator.)
 
  • #128
Al_ said:
It is well established that there is enough water on the Moon to allow us to colonise it, maybe a city size.
Reference?
Traces of water and relevant amounts of water are different things.

The interior temperature profile is not uniform with radius.
Al_ said:
Certainly any water there from the formation of the Moon would still be there.
Or hydrogen and oxygen bound to other elements.
This is a science forum. You cannot randomly make up claims without evidence backing them.

Al_ said:
In terms of rocket size, the delta-V is not all that determines rocket size. If you carry 5 times as much stuff, you need 5 times as big a rocket.
Obviously. But carrying it 100 times further does not change the rocket size. Going to Moon one-way (=the main payload direction) is harder than going to Mars. The magnetic launcher is not a magnetic lander, unless you are really, really precise with landings. A magnetic launcher big enough to launch a rocket (which landed earlier) will be extremely massive.
 
  • #129
Al_ said:
On Mars the radiation is also a problem, so that you would need to cover habitats with metres of Mars dirt to protect people inside. And even some fairly small meteors would make it through the thin atmosphere to the surface. There is no ozone on Mars either! Basically, for these things it's not so different from the Moon.
True for now, but Dr Zubrin* has a plan to change all that a lot faster creating exact earth-like atmosphere, warming it up with greenhouse effect (just like we do on earth), to make sure it's a good colony plan.

In other words: can't live indoors for ever! ...

* Check out:
(e.g. especially 1hr 13'&14'+ spot on the video)
 
Last edited:
  • #130
houlahound said:
Food you can grow, energy you can harvest other stuff you could mine from convenient sources.

Where I live the main industry is mining, the miners live hundreds, if not thousands, of miles from their work.

Its all FIFO: fly in, fly out.

FIFO is way more efficient than building permanent "colonies" at the site of mineral deposits.
Which brings up the idea that tele-presence (Virtual Reality plus remote robots) will make a big impact on space. Maybe live in orbit of a moon or asteroid, or underground, and work on the surface or in a deep, dangerous mine! You basically work like you are the robot, but no pressure suit, no worries about meteorites, radiation, mine collapses, oxygen, toxic gases. You need to be close enough so that the signal delay is a fraction of a second, so maybe 1000km away. You might live in a large, luxury, habitat. Maybe like a cruise liner with low gravity and robots!
 
  • Like
Likes Stavros Kiri
  • #131
mfb said:
This is a science forum. You cannot randomly make up claims without evidence backing them.
I gave a reference. The NASA link.
 
  • #132
Al_ said:
Woah! Terraforming is waaay far in the future. Just look at the amount of stuff needed! Even to use Mars own water, that's millions of mirrors or thousands of nukes to melt it, hundreds of years for it to happen.
This thread is about colonising, not terraforming.
Yes, keeping it indoors and doing life support is much more possible - have you ever seen those big industrial greenhouses that grow tomatoes and such? That's the kind of thing you need for a colony.
So, I think the Moon is much easier to colonise because it's closer.
(+see/cf. my previous reply) You really need to see Dr Zubrin's plan etc., which, as far as I know, is the prevailing plan to go. Colonizing and terraforming Mars go together hand-in-hand, if you want to have a permanent successful colony. In other words: you can't live indoors for ever!
You better create true earth-like atmosphere (they can do it almost within the century). The plan and the goal is to do that! ...

[e.g. see "The Mars Underground" on YouTube]

e.g. on the following edition:



around on 1hr 10' spot Dr Zubrin sais that Mars can be terraformed by 23rd century, not 33rd! ...
They have a good plan.
 
Last edited:
  • #133
mfb said:
But carrying it 100 times further does not change the rocket size
But, in practice, you need to carry more stuff. Food, shielding, spares, tools, maybe oxygen and water. And more fuel to get home, carrying more stuff back with you so you can survive the trip back..
 
  • #134
Stavros Kiri said:
In other words: you can't live indoors for ever!
You can't live in confined spaces for ever, true.
But how about walking between and around a shopping mall, an indoor park, botanic garden, a spa, a swimming pool, sports arena, greenhouse?
And then go to the office and put on a VR headset and do your work operating a robot that works outside.
I don't think people would feel claustrophobic doing that. They could live inside forever, I think.
 
  • Like
Likes Stavros Kiri
  • #135
I' ve added to my edittings ... above (cf. ...), e.g. refs full science videos from YouTube, not quite sci-fi according to Dr Zubrin's plans, following the "Mars One" and "Mars Direct" missions and plans (etc.). All realistic ...
 
Last edited:
  • #136
Al_ said:
You can't live in confined spaces for ever, true.
But how about walking between and around a shopping mall, an indoor park, botanic garden, a spa, a swimming pool, sports arena, greenhouse?
And then go to the office and put on a VR headset and do your work operating a robot that works outside.
I don't think people would feel claustrophobic doing that. They could live inside forever, I think.
I am right with you there, I almost agree, almost thrilled and excited too about such solutions, if there is no other way ...

But if we have a choice, and a better plan (e.g. like Dr Zubrin's), I would choose the latter, as it resembles (once completed) "mother earth" ...
And there is nothing like Home and "Mother Earth"! ... (even if we have to call it "mother (or father) Mars" ... [in the unforseeable future ...])
[Indoors and VR , even for nostalgia, is just a substitute, and may not be good enough ...]
 
Last edited:
  • #138
houlahound said:
Why choose from big rocks in space when floating space stations are already proven and are more feasible.

You're looking for logical reasons, but an irrational, yet innate compulsion of human beings to explore the world and the cosmos may also play into the picture.

-Dave K
 
  • Like
Likes 1oldman2
  • #139
mfb said:
Reference?
Traces of water and relevant amounts of water are different things.

The interior temperature profile is not uniform with radius.Or hydrogen and oxygen bound to other elements.
This is a science forum. You cannot randomly make up claims without evidence backing them.

Yes, but the NASA link goes on to say the traces they found on the surface are just the start - they found evidence of primordial water deeper down, chemically bound into rocks.

I take your point about the temperature profile. But even a worst estimate says there are many kilometers of depth where ice can sit. And below that, with pressure, water can exist. The 0 C boundary gets shallower as you move away from the poles. So we can ask the question, is there any, and how much?

As you say, it might be chemically bound to other elements. The closest analogies we have are stony asteroids and Earth. In both cases, water or ice often exists in the primordial state. Some is chemically bound to rocks, but often some is free. Free water moves, and gathers in reservoirs.

I'm saying there is a smoking gun for Moon water.
Prospecting and digging/drilling for it is much easier than on Mars.
If it's there, we can colonise the Moon faster, easier, cheaper, more profitably and more safely than Mars.
And I'm saying even if it's all chemically bound, that's not going to pose as big a difficulty as going to Mars.
 
  • #140
If there are indications of substantial free ice deposits under the surface on the Moon that does improve the feasibility of at least maintaining a small manned base there.
I think that so far though there only have been some indications of subsurface ice near the poles, whether or not in useful amounts unknown at present.
Extracting water from silicate rocks and other minerals is probably never going to be an economic proposition.
 
  • Like
Likes Stavros Kiri
  • #141
Stavros Kiri said:
(+see/cf. my previous reply) You really need to see Dr Zubrin's plan etc., which, as far as I know, is the prevailing plan to go. Colonizing and terraforming Mars go together hand-in-hand, if you want to have a permanent successful colony. In other words: you can't live indoors for ever!
You better create true earth-like atmosphere (they can do it almost within the century). The plan and the goal is to do that! ...

[e.g. see "The Mars Underground" on YouTube]

e.g. on the following edition:



around on 1hr 10' spot Dr Zubrin sais that Mars can be terraformed by 23rd century, not 33rd! ...
They have a good plan.

You are not going to terraform Mars while people are living on the planet. Even then I don't know if it is possible. Before you can have any surface water on the planet, the atmospheric pressure must be increased significantly. Is Mar's gravity sufficient to hold a higher atmospheric pressure, or would it just bleed off into space? If not, then the only way to terraform Mars would be to significantly increase its mass. That would not be advisable while people are living on the planet. If Mars does have sufficient gravity to hold a higher atmospheric pressure, it will require trillions of metric tons of gasses to be produced before liquid water on Mars' surface could exist. That is on a scale that makes all the greenhouses gases we produce on Earth tiny by comparison. Even given multiple centuries, we would not be able to produce that much atmospheric pressure artificially on Mars.
 
  • #142
Stavros Kiri said:
I' ve added to my edittings ... above (cf. ...), e.g. refs full science videos from YouTube, not quite sci-fi according to Dr Zubrin's plans, following the "Mars One" and "Mars Direct" missions and plans (etc.). All realistic ...
It is definitely "SciFi." We do not even have the technology to send an astronaut to Mars and get them there alive ... yet. Nothing about "Mars One" / "Mars Direct" is realistic. There is a very good reason why there have been no manned-missions outside of low-Earth orbit since 1973. We are not willing to risk the lives of the astronauts to solar and cosmic radiation. Any manned mission to Mars within the next decade would be suicide.
 
  • #143
I think in any case the best way to go [for a really promissing colony] is the Mars Direct project (originally by Robert Zubrin, Martin Marietta and David Baker [1990]).
The cost runs to 1/8 over the other ones, and speeds up time a lot too. [One of the ideas is to use gradually existing resources on Mars than to carry from Earth ... and with final goal to terraform Mars using vegetation and greenhouse effect ...] (see cited videos earlier above).
 
  • #144
|Glitch| said:
You are not going to terraform Mars while people are living on the planet.
It will happen gradually ...
 
  • #145
|Glitch| said:
It is definitely "SciFi." We do not even have the technology to send an astronaut to Mars and get them there alive ... yet. Nothing about "Mars One" / "Mars Direct" is realistic. There is a very good reason why there have been no manned-missions outside of low-Earth orbit since 1973. We are not willing to risk the lives of the astronauts to solar and cosmic radiation. Any manned mission to Mars within the next decade would be suicide.
In that case and in that sense even this whole discussion would be sci fi (which I don't think the OP or the mentors would have liked). But it is actually realizable science projects for the future. There is a difference.

What you mean before 1973 the technology was better? Or they didn't value human life back then (as much as we do today)?
I think there are many reasons why "there have been no manned-missions outside of low-Earth orbit since 1973", the most important one is I think budget cuts (due to non immediate practical use of such projects since then and thereafter, while the space station near the Earth was more useful and affordable ...).

|Glitch| said:
Any manned mission to Mars within the next decade would be suicide.
You have to watch the video (Zubrin etc. explain it all - even the time frame, which in fact shifted than the original).
 
  • #146
Here's a thought: did anyone old enough on this forum anticipate the emergence of the internet, say, forty years ago? I certainly didn't, that's for sure. It even slipped through the fingers of most SF writers of the day - although, if my memory serves me well, E M Forster in 'The Machine Stops' came pretty darn close; and that was way back at the start of the 20th Century. The point I wish to make is that the future remains generally unknowable, especially as it applies to technological advances. Therefore, proposing the setting up of a permanent colony on Mars using current technology is one hell of an ask. If I may offer the following quote, here's one take on the challenges of trying to do just this, given present limits:

‘Here we have an arid, frigid, waterless dust-bowl of a world, too puny to retain a breathable atmosphere assuming, of course, one could somehow be magicked up in the first place. Furthermore, Mars’ present rarefied CO2 atmosphere and absence of a global magnetic field offer no long-term protection against the solar wind, cosmic rays and other lethal forms of space-weather. Then one must consider those biological issues raised by the planet’s low surface gravity. Far from promoting a bounding sense of well-being, its atrophying effects could quickly wreak havoc upon the human constitution, reducing any would-be colony to a community of cripples. If all this isn’t enough to deter future colonisation, the Martian soil itself contains dangerously high levels of toxins, oxidising salts such as calcium perchlorite. So one can forget about growing crops on Mars, still less engage in wild speculations about turning the Red Planet green! Mars therefore must be considered a poisonous, irradiated wilderness, inimical to life as we know it: a kind of ultra-high altitude Atacama Desert all over, and many times more inhospitable. To conclude then, unless the technologies can be found to address these issues, which seem wholly improbable, even over the long haul, all notions of establishing permanent colonies on Mars, never mind terraforming the planet itself, must remain the stuff of purest fantasy.’

That's one view - mine, actually. Yet it is set in the present, or at most the near-future. But what may happen after many tomorrows is anyone's guess. After all, the history of science is littered with naysayers who've been proved wrong, often ignominiously, even hilariously wrong. So what's so special about our present time that allows us to draw a line under any potential future progress, and say that's it, folks?

Personally speaking, assuming buffoons like D Trumpski and his ilk don't call time on us all, I believe we - 'Homo deus', or whatever version we'll be by then - will eventually settle on Mars. And it won't be because of errant space rocks or aliens with the mindset of The Beano. Instead, our descendants will do it just as explorers back in the long ago did it: i.e. following the money (whether it was Inca gold, angling after honours, or just following the reindeer). Remember, whatever Mars itself might bring to the table, it does also happen to be conveniently close to the Main Asteroid belt. Plenty of mineral wealth for the taking there. Probably too the 'Reds' or whatever the Martian settlers choose to call themselves, will have a quiet chuckle about attitudes back in the early 21 century. I hope so. Anything else is a failure of imagination, plus the failure of a halfway decent historical perspective.

Excuse any typos.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes 1oldman2
  • #147
Al_ said:
I gave a reference. The NASA link.
[...]
Yes, but the NASA link goes on to say the traces they found on the surface are just the start - they found evidence of primordial water deeper down, chemically bound into rocks.
It is still a reference that they found traces of water. More traces of water are deeper down.
There are also traces of water in deserts. That doesn't make them swimming pools.

Asteroids were never completely molten, and Earth has water only because it has surface water - if surface water would escape to space, the crust would be very dry today.
Al_ said:
But, in practice, you need to carry more stuff. Food, shielding, spares, tools, maybe oxygen and water. And more fuel to get home, carrying more stuff back with you so you can survive the trip back..
You'll have to produce food at the destination in both cases, shielding for the trip doesn't have to be too heavy in both cases. Tools and spare parts are needed in both cases - you don't want to wait days to fix your CO2 scrubbing or even a leak in the hull. Oxygen and water are easy to extract on Mars, and much harder on Moon. Fuel to get back can be produced on Mars, producing it on Moon is very challenging.

Going to Mars is very similar to going to the Moon. Payload is just longer in a largely inactive spacecraft . Humans consume a bit more food and need a bit more space. That is offset by the lower delta_v requirements. As destination, Mars so much more habitable than the Moon.

|Glitch| said:
Is Mar's gravity sufficient to hold a higher atmospheric pressure
It is. In the very long run, you probably want an artificial magnetic field, but that is not impossible either. The ice caps have enough CO2 to increase the surface pressure enough to make oxygen masks sufficient. And studies show this could be a second stable state - the CO2 would raise the temperature enough to keep the CO2 in the atmosphere.
|Glitch| said:
Any manned mission to Mars within the next decade would be suicide.
Like going to the moon within this decade in 1961. And then Apollo happened. But we don't have to be there in 10 years. There is nothing wrong with landing on Mars in 2037.
Dr Wu said:
Therefore, proposing the setting up of a permanent colony on Mars using current technology is one hell of an ask.
Well, if it is possible with current technology (or things close to it - dedicated R&D is always necessary), completely new approaches can only make it easier.
 
  • Like
Likes 1oldman2
  • #148
Stavros Kiri said:
It will happen gradually ...
So you intend to toss asteroids at the planet while people are living there? That is rather reckless.
 
  • #149
Stavros Kiri said:
I think another (3rd) very important reason is that the moon can never have atmosphere,
I think it is unlikely that Mars can be made to have a breathable atmosphere either. Raising the Martian surface pressure to Earth's 100 kPa with Martian gravity means an air column 2.6 times higher than earth's, wrapped around a planet with half the diameter. Instead of a space boundary at 50 miles, Mars` would be at 130 miles.
 
  • #150
Stavros Kiri said:
In that case and in that sense even this whole discussion would be sci fi (which I don't think the OP or the mentors would have liked). But it is actually realizable science projects for the future. There is a difference.

What you mean before 1973 the technology was better? Or they didn't value human life back then (as much as we do today)?
I think there are many reasons why "there have been no manned-missions outside of low-Earth orbit since 1973", the most important one is I think budget cuts (due to non immediate practical use of such projects since then and thereafter, while the space station near the Earth was more useful and affordable ...).You have to watch the video (Zubrin etc. explain it all - even the time frame, which in fact shifted than the original).
Before 1973 we took great risks with astronauts lives. Had the first lunar landing in July 1969 took place during August of that year, none of the astronauts would have returned to Earth alive. There was a large X-class solar flare during August 1969 that would have killed all of them instantly. A three day trip to the moon may have been an acceptable risk back then, but a six month trip to Mars today is certain suicide. There are several universities working on various solutions to provide adequate radiation shielding (without having to transport large quantities of lead from the surface of Earth), but they aren't there yet. MIT estimates they will have a solution by 2026.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top