Why colonize Mars and not the Moon?

[lifeonmercury]

Ensuring that the colonists have an extremely high birth rate on Mars would eliminate the need to find such a large amount of volunteers to go there.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Ensuring that the colonists have an extremely high birth rate on Mars would eliminate the need to find such a large amount of volunteers to go there.

Nonsense. Complete utter abject nonsense. Seriously, you should think more before you post.

The sort of "extremely high birth rates" that you need to get a million people in a century run into the hundreds. Not only do people not have hundreds of children, you couldn't do it in a hundred years anyway.

 

[lifeonmercury]

I didn't specify how big the original colony would be. Sending 200,000 people who plan on having a high birth rate is easier than sending a million.

 

[Vanadium 50]

would eliminate the need to find such a large amount of volunteers to go there.

Sending 200,000 people

You're contradicting yourself.

It's probably a good time to stop digging this hold you are in.

 

[lifeonmercury]

Was just thinking of a potentially better way to get to a million by the end of the century, which apparently is Musk's goal.

 

[Al_]

There are also traces of water in deserts. That doesn't make them swimming pools.

Most deserts have wells, oases, cave pools, even rivers. The Moon is HUGE! It's size, considering the probabilities, makes many things likely. We just need to find those exceptional places.

 

[gleem]

.

"Following the successful test of the launchpad abort system in May 2015, Elon Musk indicated that the Dragon capsule platform, launched on a Falcon Heavy launch vehicle, could be used to transport robotic space probes across much of the solar system, including Earth's Moon, Mars, or Jupiter's moon Europa.[37] Musk indicated that Dragon could transport 2 to 4 tonnes (4,400 to 8,800 lb) of useful payload to the surface of Mars."

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_2

The Apollo capsule and lunar lander had a combined mass of 22, 000 Kg. with a crew of three for a 12 day trip. It seems that it is going to take more than rocket science to put an appreciable colony on Mars in even 100 years. I don't think there is an equivalent Moore"s law for rocket propulsion so shear number of rockets will probably be the answer. I don't think Musk has the money to do it himself and as far as sending astrotourist to get a close up picture of Mars is concerned who will give up a year or more of their live to sit in a confined space for that picture. Even a cruise on a submarine is at most 90 days

Much will depend on the success of Musk's Red Dragon project aimed at making a soft landing on Mars with a launch expected in 2018!

Does anyone know if there is a project to see how well humans could live without support for two years in a hermetically sealed structure in a hostile environment on Earth with present day technology? Living on a fixed supply food, water and oxygen and seeing how long it would take to develop a sustaining environment. And what about the social issues that can arise? Can a hundred strangers live compatibly in a relatively confined environment and for how long? Would it be like living on a submarine? I hope not.

 

[PeroK]

OK, so we went from the first controlled powered flight to ten commercial transatlantic flights per day in 44 years. The first manned spaceflight was in 1961, so 44 years after that was 2005. I think a reasonable conclusion is that manned spaceflight is not on the same curve.

And, commerical air travel has also, largely, technologically stagnated. The supersonic commerical aircraft came and went and now we're still at the same speeds of the 1960's.

In 1976 when Concorde was launched I think most people would have expected that 40 years later the flying time from the UK to Australia, say, would be 4-8 hours (at most). Instead, it's still 24 hours, give or take.

And, although construction has developed, we are still using the Forth Rail Bridge (1890) and the Brooklyn Bridge (1883) and London, famously, has largely Victorian sewage and underground railway systems. And, nuclear power has not taken over from conventional coal, oil and gas as once might have been expected.

Instead, it's been communications, IT and certain areas of medical and genetic research that has surged since the 1960's. Generally, in other areas like, say, car manufacture things have got better, cheaper and more reliable. But, the basic specification is not a lot different from 50 years ago.

One argument against the over-optimistic timescale for Mars is that, in fact, our transport, construction and power capabilities have stagnated to a large extent. Future developments may well be in other areas: robotics, medicine and who knows what else.

There is a naive view in many posts on this thread that technological advancements in all areas go on apace. But, actually, if you look a bit more closely, things tend to explode technologically to a plateau (e.g. commercial air services, the motor car) and then stagnate.

Finally, I would suggest the following prerequisites for large-scale construction on Mars:

1) Construction must first become largely robotic, without the need for hundreds or thousands of human construction workers.

2) Lightweight power source, small enough to be shipped to Mars. A laptop-sized power station: that would be something!

3) Powered space flight. It has to be said. Crawling through space at constant speed isn't going to hack it. Without a propulsion mechanism, I just don't see large-scale space exploration.

That's why I think having more than a few hardy scientists on Mars, like an Antarctic base, is beyond the foreseeable future.

 

[mfb]

The first manned spaceflight was in 1961, so 44 years after that was 2005. I think a reasonable conclusion is that manned spaceflight is not on the same curve.

It is not on the same curve if you throw away your rocket after each use (or need months of repairs in case of the Space Shuttle). We would not have commercial transatlantic flights if you would have to throw away the airplane after each flight.

A new curve is starting right now, with the first rocket recovery just a year ago.

Mars will have 999,000 people who have been there for up to fifty years, but it's more isolated and less comfortable than Antarctica.

With 999,000 people, it is not as isolated, and more comfortable than Antarctica.

Does anyone know if there is a project to see how well humans could live without support for two years in a hermetically sealed structure in a hostile environment on Earth with present day technology? Living on a fixed supply food, water and oxygen and seeing how long it would take to develop a sustaining environment. And what about the social issues that can arise? Can a hundred strangers live compatibly in a relatively confined environment and for how long? Would it be like living on a submarine? I hope not.

Biosphere 2 for the isolation in terms of matter, Mars 500 in terms of psychology with a small group and isolation in communication (they artificially added a realistic light-speed delay).
A Mars colony would never be isolated - it can take CO2 from the atmosphere, water from the ground, and other elements in smaller quantities from the environment as well. Making oxygen out of water just requires ~200 W/person. Food is the more interesting part, and reparing/building stuff independently will need a larger colony.

2) Lightweight power source, small enough to be shipped to Mars. A laptop-sized power station: that would be something!

Solar cells produced on Mars. Probably organic solar cells. They have a poor efficiency, but if you can mass-produce them that is fine. You are not really limited in space on Mars.

That's why I think having more than a few hardy scientists on Mars, like an Antarctic base, is beyond the foreseeable future.

Which part exactly do you see as unrealistic in the ITS concept?

 

[Algr]

What is unrealistic is the reason why people would want to go to mars. In the 18th and nineteenth centuries the appeal of Europeans moving to America was that bountiful natural resources made life easier in America then it was in Europe. There was immigration because of the promise of a better life in the new world. In this thread we are working to show that Mars colonists won't all die. The idea that Mars could offer a better life then Earth has not been suggested. Only very unlikely scenarios ever result in Earth being less habitable then mars.

So much of the talk about Mars colonies seems more like reliving past glories rather then looking to the future. Exploring Mars will be nothing like the moon landing or the western frontier.

 

[strangerep]

Heh, since this thread is mostly pure fantasy, I think the squillions of dollars should be spent on:

a) Very large baseline optical telescopes that can determine more reliably whether any earth-like planets really do orbit neighboring stars.

b) Establish robotic nuclear-powered space stations in deep space (between the stars) that can act as signal repeaters, as a prelude to...

c) Robotic missions to the most promising, nearest earth-like exoplanets. (E.g., androids and other AIs colonizing the exoplanet(s) first.) Maybe plant seeds/spores if exoplanet has no plant-like life of its own.

d) Huge multi-generational ark-like spacecraft to transport Earth animal+human life between stars. (This assumes the androids don't shoot us out of the sky as we approach "their" planet.)

Hmmm. Might be doable by the year 3,000 AD if we haven't all murdered each other by then (this being rather more likely than a "natural" extinction event).

 

[PeroK]

Solar cells produced on Mars. Probably organic solar cells. They have a poor efficiency, but if you can mass-produce them that is fine. You are not really limited in space on Mars.
Which part exactly do you see as unrealistic in the ITS concept?

The whole concept is unrealistic because it would be a very long process (even if theoretically possible) to set up the manufacturing supply chain on Mars. For example, for a city of one million people on Earth, just how many manufacturing processes, factories, suppliers and industrial products do we depend on? And, how much agricultural land and livestock is required to sustain 1 million people? This is the boring stuff, I know! All these things require either lots of machinery or large numbers of workers in the first place. Not to mention the things so obviously missing on Mars: oxygen, ready supply of water and a non-lethal temperature.

Let's think through the steps after getting to Mars. You start off with a shelter for a few people and some solar panels. And, then, of course, you mass produce solar cells? How do you start to mass produce with no supply chain?

What sort of manufacturing capability can we ship to Mars? A steel foundry? How are we going to make plastic without petroleum? How are we going to build and sustain the agriculture required even for a small colony? As nothing will grow or live out in the open on Mars, everything must be covered and all raw materials for life - humans, animals and plants must be artificially provided for. So, just how big a "greenhouse" is required for one million people? Not to mention a whole transport infrastructure. A motor car has about 30,000 parts. So, you either ship your vehicles from Earth or you have the capability to manufacture all these parts on Mars. But, wait, how many people, products, tools, machines and natural resources do all the factories that make all the car parts rely on? That's just a car. What about building, equipping and running a modern hospital?

The fundamental problem is that, with the technology of today and of the foreseeable future, you cannot sustain more than a few people on Mars without a significant infrastructure and you can't build the infrastructure without lots of people and pre-existing resources from Earth. It would, I suggest, be a very slow boot-strapping process and it's easy to see how any such project would just become overwhelmed by costs and practical difficulties.

It is pure fantasy to believe that we can live, work, manufacture on Mars in the foreseeable future. We live in a semi-technological world where the basics are essentially free (oxygen, food, water, plants and animals). Mars would be a wholly technological world, where everything would have to manufactured artifically in some way. This is way beyond our current capability, even with an unlimited budget.

There's no doubt Musk could get to Mars, but I have really no idea what he's going to do when he gets there.

 

[strangerep]

There's no doubt Musk could get to Mars, but I have really no idea what he's going to do when he gets there.

Well, if he takes (and continues to take) a generous number of drongos and nincompoops, (not to mention telephone sanitizers, telemarketers, etc, ) he's probably performing a good public service. I.e., SpaceX = Ark Fleet Ship "B".

I volunteer several of the gardeners who "work" at Sanctuary Cove (and at least 2 of our network "technicians") to be in the vanguard.

 

[Stavros Kiri]

The whole concept is unrealistic because it would be a very long process (even if theoretically possible) to set up the manufacturing supply chain on Mars. For example, ...

... This is way beyond our current capability, even with an unlimited budget.

There's no doubt Musk could get to Mars, but I have really no idea what he's going to do when he gets there.

You make good points there. Check out Zubrin's ideas also for feedback (see earlier above) e.g. see my post

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-colonize-mars-and-not-the-moon.899537/page-8#post-5665701

and the videos prior to that ...

and see what you think ... + come back for discussion. You may be right ... . But the discussion will show, perhaps ...

 

[Stavros Kiri]

Well, if he takes (and continues to take) a generous number of drongos and nincompoops, (not to mention telephone sanitizers, telemarketers, etc, ) he's probably performing a good public service. I.e., SpaceX = Ark Fleet Ship "B".

I volunteer several of the gardeners who "work" at Sanctuary Cove (and at least 2 of our network "technicians") to be in the vanguard.

L.o.l. but may be true ... (?)

 

[256bits]

What is unrealistic is the reason why people would want to go to mars. In the 18th and nineteenth centuries the appeal of Europeans moving to America was that bountiful natural resources made life easier in America then it was in Europe. There was immigration because of the promise of a better life in the new world. In this thread we are working to show that Mars colonists won't all die. The idea that Mars could offer a better life then Earth has not been suggested. Only very unlikely scenarios ever result in Earth being less habitable then mars.

So much of the talk about Mars colonies seems more like reliving past glories rather then looking to the future. Exploring Mars will be nothing like the moon landing or the western frontier.

You make a very good point.
Trade is what kept the New World operational.
The search for a sea route to the markets in the east led countries to launch a great number of ships with the hope of finding the eastern passage by sea, and reap the rewards.
Of course, North and South America were in the way.
Settlements were established to exploit the bounty of the New World.

A space settlement would have to have some commodity that Earth would need in order for Earth people to be in support of sustaining the settlement with supplies at great cost.

 

[DDH]

...
We live in a semi-technological world where the basics are essentially free (oxygen, food, water, plants and animals)...

Last time i checked food, water, plants and animals weren't free. Everything you want, you'll have to pay for, even on Earth. I could even argue that oxygen isn't completely free on Earth.
I agree that the bootstrap process of establishing a colony on Mars (or the Moon) would be a very slow (as long as there isn't a good reason to do so).

 

[PeroK]

Last time i checked food, water, plants and animals weren't free. Everything you want, you'll have to pay for, even on Earth. I could even argue that oxygen isn't completely free on Earth.
I agree that the bootstrap process of establishing a colony on Mars (or the Moon) would be a very slow (as long as there isn't a good reason to do so).

I did say "essentially" free. You can grow your own food and rear your own animals and draw your own water. It's called living off the land. Many people still do that. Plants, animals and a water supply do not require human technological intervention. Nor does the supply of oxygen, which occurs naturally in the Earth's atmosphere.

Perhaps it would have been better to say that the costs are essentially minimised on Earth. If you go to Mars, nothing can live or grow there without 100% human technological support.

Where do you buy your oxygen?

 

[Al_]

What is unrealistic is the reason why people would want to go to mars. In the 18th and nineteenth centuries the appeal of Europeans moving to America was that bountiful natural resources made life easier in America then it was in Europe. There was immigration because of the promise of a better life in the new world. In this thread we are working to show that Mars colonists won't all die. The idea that Mars could offer a better life then Earth has not been suggested. Only very unlikely scenarios ever result in Earth being less habitable then mars.

So much of the talk about Mars colonies seems more like reliving past glories rather then looking to the future. Exploring Mars will be nothing like the moon landing or the western frontier.

You make an excellent point. There are many people currently signed up for a Mars mission, but once it gets underway (if it ever does) and the sheer danger, tedium, physical discomfort, slow progress, and hard work becomes apparent there might be a drop off in enthusiasm. And Earth might not be too happy about spending money on an indefinite basis to ship out spares to a colony that gives little or no profit back.
A colony needs something to sell to Earth in it's early stages, something valuable. A Lunar colony could sell many things. Communications services, entertainment, rocket fuel for satellites (that doesn't need expensively lifting from Earth), rare metals, small satellite parts to Earth orbit, etc. A Mars colony could provide some of these things too, but the delivery times for comms and materials are far, far longer. That hampers the ability to sell things back.
This is another reason why the first colony should be on the Moon, not Mars!
I think, the Moon colony can pass the initial dependant stage much more quickly. Then, living on the Moon could be really great - if you live in a large, airy, well lit habitat underground protected by meters of rock, with hundreds of other people, and with a good job making a lot of money delivering stuff to Earth, paying for frequent shipments of new kit you recently ordered from Earth. Prospecting for Gold, Platinum, Ice etc. Building materials processing plants. Innovating ways to use Lunar resources in the strange environment. Piloting remote robots out on the surface or digging beneath it.

 

[Al_]

How are we going to build and sustain the agriculture required even for a small colony? As nothing will grow or live out in the open on Mars, everything must be covered and all raw materials for life - humans, animals and plants must be artificially provided for. So, just how big a "greenhouse" is required

To grow food in space, you don't need pressurised greenhouses with wide expanses of thickened glass. Just use a rotating mirror to focus light down through a single porthole window into an underground shielded plant habitat. The mirror moves to track the sun. The light is diffused around once it gets inside. Radiators pick up the heat and circulate it back up to the surface where shaded radiators dump it as IR.
If you site the mirror at the Lunar poles (in some places) you can have 24/7 light.
Given the regular dust storms this is not possible on Mars.

 

[dkotschessaa]

I saw a documentary about Mars One this weekend.

::searches forum for threads about Mars One::

Oh dear.

Nevermind.

::flees the scene::

-Dave K

 

[DDH]

I did say "essentially" free. You can grow your own food and rear your own animals and draw your own water. It's called living off the land. Many people still do that. Plants, animals and a water supply do not require human technological intervention. Nor does the supply of oxygen, which occurs naturally in the Earth's atmosphere.
Perhaps it would have been better to say that the costs are essentially minimised on Earth. If you go to Mars, nothing can live or grow there without 100% human technological support.
Where do you buy your oxygen?

I probably took your words too literal but everything costs something.
No matter where, on Earth, Mars or the Moon, an initial investment is required to set up the place/farm etc. The costs for the setup of a colony on the Moon or Mars will be ( 6 or 7) magnitudes higher than those on Earth, but i believe it IS possible to do it. It would require a different mentality, though. Most products on Earth have a designed life expectancy and they aren't made to last long. When something fails, it can't be repaired in most cases. You don't want that on another planet or the Moon.
Let me take the example you took, the motorcar. How many of those 30000 parts are really essential for the primary task of a car? (Besides, an electric motor is much simpler than a internal combustion motor, requires less resources to run and the electricity is renewable.).

I firmly believe that it can be done in a foreseeble period of time. It only requires a general will to do it. Consider a "When worlds collide" situation. A very large object will strike Earth in 20 years. Don't you think there would be some colony's on the Moon and Mars by that time?

 

[PeroK]

No matter where, on Earth, Mars or the Moon, an initial investment is required to set up the place/farm etc. The costs for the setup of a colony on the Moon or Mars will be ( 6 or 7) magnitudes higher than those on Earth, but i believe it IS possible to do it.

I'll like to see your costing model for 6-7 times. It could easily be 6-7 thousand times more expensive, possibly more. Not to mention the issues of feasibility and timescales. Even a flight to Mars for less than $1million per head would be good going.

I firmly believe that it can be done in a foreseeble period of time. It only requires a general will to do it. Consider a "When worlds collide" situation. A very large object will strike Earth in 20 years. Don't you think there would be some colony's on the Moon and Mars by that time?

You can firmly believe anything you like. It would be a major achievement to set foot on Mars in 20 years.[/QUOTE]

 

[PeroK]

You make an excellent point. There are many people currently signed up for a Mars mission, but once it gets underway (if it ever does) and the sheer danger, tedium, physical discomfort, slow progress, and hard work becomes apparent there might be a drop off in enthusiasm. And Earth might not be too happy about spending money on an indefinite basis to ship out spares to a colony that gives little or no profit back.
A colony needs something to sell to Earth in it's early stages, something valuable. A Lunar colony could sell many things. Communications services, entertainment, rocket fuel for satellites (that doesn't need expensively lifting from Earth), rare metals, small satellite parts to Earth orbit, etc. A Mars colony could provide some of these things too, but the delivery times for comms and materials are far, far longer. That hampers the ability to sell things back.
This is another reason why the first colony should be on the Moon, not Mars!
I think, the Moon colony can pass the initial dependant stage much more quickly. Then, living on the Moon could be really great - if you live in a large, airy, well lit habitat underground protected by meters of rock, with hundreds of other people, and with a good job making a lot of money delivering stuff to Earth, paying for frequent shipments of new kit you recently ordered from Earth. Prospecting for Gold, Platinum, Ice etc. Building materials processing plants. Innovating ways to use Lunar resources in the strange environment. Piloting remote robots out on the surface or digging beneath it.

That's pure science fiction.

 

[Al_]

That's pure science fiction.

In what way is it science fiction? It hasn't happened yet? Are you saying it can't? Or won't?
I think all the technology required is ours already.

 

[mfb]

The whole concept is unrealistic because it would be a very long process (even if theoretically possible) to set up the manufacturing supply chain on Mars. For example, for a city of one million people on Earth, just how many manufacturing processes, factories, suppliers and industrial products do we depend on?

Preparation on Earth is a key point, of course. Develop a smaller, easy to repair, ... solar cell production tool. It will also be interesting on Earth in places where area doesn't matter. Then build it on Earth and ship it to Mars. High-tech products are the last things a colony will start producing on their own, but those components don't have a large mass, so they are easy to ship.

As soon as those tools produce something exceeding their own mass, they start getting useful.
Many products can be simplified. A motor with 30,000 pieces is just a few percent more efficient than a motor with 100 pieces.

How are we going to make plastic without petroleum?

Methane production from CO2 and water, longer hydrocarbons can be produced from methane. This is all standard chemistry.

It is pure fantasy to believe that we can live, work, manufacture on Mars in the foreseeable future. We live in a semi-technological world where the basics are essentially free (oxygen, food, water, plants and animals). Mars would be a wholly technological world, where everything would have to manufactured artifically in some way. This is way beyond our current capability, even with an unlimited budget.

Well, the experts think otherwise.
If in doubt, I trust the experts.

Just some points:
- With water and a small reactor (~$1000?), you could produce your own oxygen for ~5 kWh/day, about 1 Euro/day with European electricity prices. 1/4 of that if you take the raw electricity production costs. Similar with CO2, and Mars has an unlimited free CO2 supply. That cost is negligible. You don't even need oxygen from plants which will come as bonus.
- Water ice has been found just a few meters below the Martian surface. Water is basically free, you just have to dig it out. It can be re-used within the station.
- A large station won't have any heating issues. Make it larger and it will need cooling.
- Plants on Mars will need a greenhouse-like environment. We use greenhouses on Earth already. They will be more complex on Mars (pressure, temperature), but it's not something never done before.

There's no doubt Musk could get to Mars, but I have really no idea what he's going to do when he gets there.

Okay, back to the basics: Musk doesn't want to build a colony on Mars. He wants to make a reliable transport service, allowing others to establish a colony.

 

[PeroK]

Well, the experts think otherwise.
If in doubt, I trust the experts.

It's nonsensical to claim that there is a consensus among the world's technology, engineering, medical and other expert communities that a colony on Mars is anything but science fiction for at least the 21st Century.

The fact is that it's not even clear yet whether we can get one human crew to Mars and back alive. That's the engineering reality. The ISS is reality. Communications satellites are a reality. A mission to Mars might be possible. A colony is out of the question.

 

[mfb]

There is quite a broad consensus that it cannot be ruled out.
And there are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke's_three_laws]Clarke's[/PLAIN] laws, of course.

 

[gleem]

It is clear to me that we cannot consider a colony on Mars until we have had first hand experience of what it is like on Mars. We must send a team to study the planet and determine precisely the problems and issue facing humans. I think the Bioshpere 2 project showed we have a lot more to do on sustainable habitats. Same with the Mars500 project which didn't even include women for the longer duration experiments. We may have the technology to solve many of the problems we know but we do not really know all the problems and whether the solutions we know will be practical.

The Apollo 17 mission including the Lunar module weighed about 45,000 Kgs. The mission was 12 days. Only three astronauts. No ability to remain on the moon for more than three days. So what would it take to take for a three man (?) flight crew (about 400 days round trip) to deliver a landing party (4-8?) with supplies and equipment for a 26 months stay to assess the issues and possible solutions for colonization?

 

[Stavros Kiri]

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.

I agree about FIFO, especially in our modern times, when technology allows it and makes it simpler. But historically it hasn't always been the case. As a matter of fact, the so-called "Agricultural Revolution" happened and thrived just exactly because of "non-FIFO": i.e., in other words, they owned land to better cultivate it ... [and the key and difference was that they started staying in one place ...] (before, as nomads, no big progress).

All this might also be useful [in the future] if history repeats itself ... e.g. in Mars.
[e.g. allowing the colonists to grow their own land, products, mine etc. ... - could speed things up for terraforming ...]

 

[Vanadium 50]

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.

I looked at the famous Solar System Subway map, and if I am reading it right, Mars has a deltaV of about 19,000 and the Moon about 15,000. Am I doing it wrong?

Interestingly, the deltaV requirements for Mars-from-Moon and Moon-from-Earth are very close to each other.

 

[lifeonmercury]

Musk doesn't want to build a colony on Mars. He wants to make a reliable transport service, allowing others to establish a colony.

Some may not take it seriously, but Mars One is planning a small Mars colony. Musk may not be directly involved in that but it's still being planned.

 

[dkotschessaa]

Some may not take it seriously, but Mars One is planning a small Mars colony. Musk may not be directly involved in that but it's still being planned.

Mars one has been tossed out as unfeasible. That's what I was referring to earlier. Lots of threads on this forum about it

 

[gleem]

Mars One is analyzed by MIT. Doesn't look good for any such project in the near future.

 

[Chronos]

The big roadblock I see is payload. Launches are crazy expensive. Current costs are 15-20K per kilo, and that is just to get stuff into low Earth orbit. Getting it to Mars is going to raise the cost exponentially. Until we come up with a much more affordable way to get stuff into space, all this Mars talk is just a pipe dream. A viable mission to Mars would just about bankrupt any country on Earth in the foreseeable future. The fact anybody is seriously talking about it is worrisome - what do they know/think they know that we don't? Its like England announcing a plan to send their entire fleet to America in 1500.

 

[Al_]

The big roadblock I see is payload. Launches are crazy expensive. Current costs are 15-20K per kilo, and that is just to get stuff into low Earth orbit. Getting it to Mars is going to raise the cost exponentially. Until we come up with a much more affordable way to get stuff into space, all this Mars talk is just a pipe dream. A viable mission to Mars would just about bankrupt any country on Earth in the foreseeable future. The fact anybody is seriously talking about it is worrisome - what do they know/think they know that we don't? Its like England announcing a plan to send their entire fleet to America in 1500.

To be fair, Elon Musk is on track to get the launch cost down to around $5000/Kg. But his idea for a Mars shuttle uses two launches per trip, one up to LEO with just fuel for the other. So that's around $10k/Kg.
Although I agree with the basic idea that a Mars colonisation mision is extremely expensive, given the quantity of stuff that is needed. Lunar colonisation is far more affordable, even though there is no delta-V advantage. You can take fewer spares, knowing they are just a few days away. The items you take will not need to last so long. Emergency food, water and air backup stores will be less.

Mars has a deltaV of about 19,000 and the Moon about 15,000

Aerobraking on arrival at Mars gets you some free delta-V, and parachutes too, whereas for the Moon you need rockets to enter orbit, to de-orbit and to land. So overall, the figure is very similar.
(But of course, the extra mass of the heatshield and parachutes is significant.)

 

[mfb]

@lifeonmercury: I don't take Mars One seriously. They have a good PR department but nothing else.

The Apollo 17 mission including the Lunar module weighed about 45,000 Kgs. The mission was 12 days. Only three astronauts. No ability to remain on the moon for more than three days. So what would it take to take for a three man (?) flight crew (about 400 days round trip) to deliver a landing party (4-8?) with supplies and equipment for a 26 months stay to assess the issues and possible solutions for colonization?

1.7 kg/day food for ISS astronauts. Water and oxygen can be recycled. A 30 month mission (staying 26 months on Mars doesn't make sense in terms of orbits) of 8 people would need 12 tons of food, assuming nothing is produced during the mission. A small contribution to the overall mass. The spacecraft design will determine its overall mass.

I looked at the famous Solar System Subway map, and if I am reading it right, Mars has a deltaV of about 19,000 and the Moon about 15,000. Am I doing it wrong?

Interestingly, the deltaV requirements for Mars-from-Moon and Moon-from-Earth are very close to each other.

The arrows are aerobraking/aerocapture/landing along the arrow direction. You don't need rocket fuel for those. Or just a little bit for propulsive landings.

To be fair, Elon Musk is on track to get the launch cost down to around $5000/Kg. But his idea for a Mars shuttle uses two launches per trip, one up to LEO with just fuel for the other. So that's around $10k/Kg.

Careful with the numbers. Falcon 9 is below $5000/kg already (if you don't order any extra features). SpaceX is not "on track" for that, it achieved that goal already. The ITS, currently under development, is planned to reduce the cost below $50/kg. A flight to Mars would need several tanker flights (~5), leading to costs of $150,000 to $500,000 for "human plus 3-5 tons of payload to Mars".

 

[Al_]

Ok, let me throw a tangent in here. How about colonizing Diemos?
Deimos has one advantage that the other two don't - near-zero gravity.
Like Mars, it has a day/night cycle that Humans and plants can adapt to. Many people consider it probably has water ice. The delta v budget is such that it's actually one of the easier places to mine ice to return to Earth orbit. It has locations where a PV panel can give 24/7 power. The near zero-gravity means landing is a low-cost maneouver.
If the spacecraft creates g-force by rotating during it's trip out, it can contiue to do that at Deimos.
It can use Deimos dirt as extra shielding.

Oh, and I forgot. It has no dust storms, so food production based on mirrors directing light through a porthole into a plant habitat is possible.

 

[phinds]

Ok, let me throw a tangent in here. How about colonizing Diemos?
Deimos has one advantage that the other two don't - near-zero gravity.

Colonizing a zero-gravity environment? I don't think so. Visiting for maybe up to a year at a time, OK, but for many years at a stretch? Current medical science says, if I recall correctly, that that is likely to be fatal. Exercise can keep up muscle mass but does nothing to impede the severe loss of bone mass and the long term (multi-year) effect on organs is unknown but not likely to be beneficial. We've had people in space for at least a year, so we know that can be done but I don't think that extrapolates readily to say 10 years, and a COLONY implies decades.

At any rate, you can if you wish simply write me off as a pessimist. I think the whole idea of colonizing anything but the moon in the next 50 years is a pipe dream and I really don't expect a moon colony to happen in that time frame either but I do admit the technological and political challenges for the moon MIGHT be surmountable in that time frame.

 

[Al_]

Colonizing a zero-gravity environment? I don't think so. Visiting for maybe up to a year at a time, OK, but for many years at a stretch? Current medical science says, if I recall correctly, that that is likely to be fatal. Exercise can keep up muscle mass but does nothing to impede the severe loss of bone mass and the long term (multi-year) effect on organs is unknown but not likely to be beneficial. We've had people in space for at least a year, so we know that can be done but I don't think that extrapolates readily to say 10 years, and a COLONY implies decades.
.

How about artificial gravity?
https://history.nasa.gov/DPT/Techno...al Gravity Status and Options NExT Jul_02.pdf

 

[Al_]

I do agree that the Moon is much easier. We need to prospect for water first, just to confirm what many people suspect, that it's there underground in some spots. But even with that delay, it's a much quicker project.

 

[phinds]

How about artificial gravity?
https://history.nasa.gov/DPT/Technology Priorities Recommendations/Artificial Gravity Status and Options NExT Jul_02.pdf

Did you READ that powerpoint? It's for vehicles in space, not for colonies on the ground.

 

[Al_]

Did you READ that powerpoint? It's for vehicles in space, not for colonies on the ground.

Yes, but at Deimos, the base would be kind of still in flight. It could just stand off the surface on a thin rod, supported at it's centre point, rotating away. You would come and go from the station using tiny jets, like they use for a spacewalk.

 

[phinds]

Yes, but at Deimos, the base would be kind of still in flight. It could just stand off the surface on a thin rod, supported at it's centre point, rotating away. You would come and go from the station using tiny jets, like they use for a spacewalk.

I think you are vastly oversimplifying the whole thing but again, I'm just seriously pessimistic about all of this and think the whole concept of colonization in the near future is silly at this time.

 

[dkotschessaa]

Yes, but at Deimos, the base would be kind of still in flight. It could just stand off the surface on a thin rod, supported at it's centre point, rotating away. You would come and go from the station using tiny jets, like they use for a spacewalk.

Cool sci-fi idea, and I mean that as a complement actually. I'm waiting for someone to say why it isn't practical. lol

 

[rootone]

Well one thing that would be difficult would be attaching the thin rod spoken of on to the surface of Deimos.
Since initially the rod will be rotating along with the rest of the spacecraft .

 

[dkotschessaa]

Well one thing that would be difficult would be attaching the thin rod spoken of on to the surface of Deimos.
Since initially it will be rotating along with the rest of the spacecraft .

I figured you wouldn't start rotating the thing until everything was hooked up.

 

[gleem]

I might have missed this in a previous post but has anybody looked at Robert Zubrin's Mars Direct proposal. He carries some credibility as an aeronautical engineer and entrepreneur and is at least carrying out Earth based studies on the issue of working on Mars. He has a solution for zero gravity at least in transit.

 

[PeroK]

I might have missed this in a previous post but has anybody looked at Robert Zubrin's Mars Direct proposal. He carries some credibility as an aeronautical engineer and entrepreneur and is at least carrying out Earth based studies on the issue of working on Mars. He has a solution for zero gravity at least in transit.

Looking at the Mars Direct website, you get a real feel for the "surviving on the edge" element that is lost on the more optimistic posters on this thread. The pictures on their website should be a reality check. With current technology it is obviously basic expedition living and, hopefully, getting back alive.

 

[lifeonmercury]

With current technology, would it be possible to create breathable air inside a facility using tha gases in the Martian atmosphere? Obviously a lot of nitrogen would be needed in addition to the oxygen.