What is up with Mars?

[78stonewobble]

If Humanity is destroyed, then there isn't much point in having a backup. It's not like you could rebuild everything or bring people back. If everything is gone, you won't be there to lament about it being gone and there won't be anyone left to care.

But seriously, what sort of event could really wipe out Humanity totally? If we can survive in closed-loop habitats on Mars, we could survive any of the extinction-event impactors that have hit Earth in the past. We could dig ourselves underground and live off the same hydroponic tomatoes and recycled urine that would keep us alive in space. Even if 99% of humanity was wiped out, there would still be millions of survivors that would still find life much easier on a scorched Earth than on Mars.

True, but you might be underestimating what kind of global seismic shock, structures like that would have to resist.

[Nibb31]

True, but you might be underestimating what kind of global seismic shock, structures like that would have to resist.

They can be rebuilt after the siesmic shock.

I'm not saying it would be easy, or that there wouldn't be billions of casualties, but there are more chances for a decent number of humans to survive a doomsday scenario on Earth than a power failure on a Mars colony.

[peadar1987]

Actually, the airblast and seismic shock from even a very large impact are tiny on the other side of the planet. Humanity would survive the impact relatively intact outside the initial impact zone. It's the longer-term effects, nuclear winter and so on, that cause large-scale extinction. As Nibb correctly points out, if we can survive indefinitely on Mars, we can definitely ride out an impact winter on earth.

That said, if the species is to survive, we have to leave the nest some time. And I totally agree that "because it's there" is all the reason we need to explore space.

[Acemcbean]

maintaining a supply chain is pretty much beyond our capabilities

Not neccessarily true. My favorite idea for colonizing mars involves sending robotic units down first, which are also equipped with either tools for drilling or for refining/maunfacturing iron. The idea is that Mars is RICH with iron: it is common knowledge that its reddish hue comes from the rusted iron on the surface. These robotic units could then, theororetically, produce more robots, which is not unlike the birth of an organism in which 1 cell divides into 2, which divides into 4, etc. This theory is one of the few plausabile theories that, other than issues with food supply, may actually work.

[Nibb31]

Not neccessarily true. My favorite idea for colonizing mars involves sending robotic units down first, which are also equipped with either tools for drilling or for refining/maunfacturing iron. The idea is that Mars is RICH with iron: it is common knowledge that its reddish hue comes from the rusted iron on the surface. These robotic units could then, theororetically, produce more robots, which is not unlike the birth of an organism in which 1 cell divides into 2, which divides into 4, etc. This theory is one of the few plausabile theories that, other than issues with food supply, may actually work.

You need more than iron to make a robot. You also need sealant, isolation, lubricants, solvents, and lots of fairly complex components made with all sorts of materials that would also need to be sourced locally. For example, electronic component production needs all sorts chemicals. On Earth, making something as simple as a switch, a transistor or an air filter requires a complex industrial supply chain that we can take for granted. Making those things out of Mars rock would be a huge challenge.

[SargeRho]

Electronic components would probably be one of the things that will have to be brought from Earth for a while, whereas perhaps the Chassis and large mechanical parts can be produced on Mars.

[Las-pen]

I say plant some dark, GMO (to the point they'd survive) plants there. They would absorb more light, thus making the planet warmer and produce oxygen.

[Nibb31]

And what are the plants supposed to feed themselves with? Martian soil contains some of the nutrients that plants need, but not all of them. In fact, we don't know much about Martian soil, whether or not it can be used to grow plants. For all we know you might need to ship hundreds of tons of fertilizer to mix with the local regolith if you want anything to grow there.

However, we do know that the soil contains high levels of perchlorate chemicals, which are pretty toxic, meaning that humans should avoid any direct contact with soil and dust.

[Las-pen]

The magic word is GMO.

Also some bacteria to compost dead plants.

[KerikBalm]

right, because genetic modification is magic and can bypass fundamental chemical constraints...

[PB666]

http://www.spacetera.com/space-exploration/strange-features-of-mars

[lugge]

I'm not saying we are able to colonize mars, nor am I saying that we will ever be.

However, if there will ever be a second home for mankind in our solar system, then it will definitely be Mars.

From all options, as far as we know today, Mars is our best bet.

It has the least amound of problems to solve.

Assuming that other planet systems are not within our reach for the next few centuries, there are two options:

- try Mars

- do nothing and sit around for hundreds of years

[PB666]

Bzzzt, wrong answer you were spoosed to say nice pics. http://www.spacetera.com/space-exploration/strange-features-of-mars

[lugge]

Yeah, nice pics ;-)

[Bill Phil]

I'm not saying we are able to colonize mars, nor am I saying that we will ever be.

However, if there will ever be a second home for mankind in our solar system, then it will definitely be Mars.

From all options, as far as we know today, Mars is our best bet.

It has the least amound of problems to solve.

Assuming that other planet systems are not within our reach for the next few centuries, there are two options:

- try Mars

- do nothing and sit around for hundreds of years

There is a third option, one that could potentially house trillions of people. In space habitats. Spheres, Cylinders, Torii, etc. Yes they are difficult to build, but they provide a faster return in investment. Also less mass per person than a planet...

Then the fourth option, one that is as of now impossible: upload everyone to computers. Now we can use VR, and that will get better over the century, so...

Imaginr if the first man on Mars was really bored because he used VR stuff on the way...

[LN400]

Reading here what would be needed to heat up Mars (if that's needed in the first place) but one major issue here is, we as humans are utterly incapable of imagining what is completely unknown to us, such as future discoveries. Suggesting mirrors or nuclear bombs reminds me of Carl Sagan (I believe it was) who reminded us of just that. Paraphrasing here: Tell some tribesmen on a remote location somewhere who use drums to communicate across valleys, about people who communicate half a world apart and they would imagine enormous drums. Those tribesmen are us, here and now. We are imagining "giant drums", figuratively speaking, when we discuss future tech and knowledge.

Fun sidenote: It's the same utter lack of ability to imagine the unknown that gives us images of aliens with 2 arms, 2 legs, a head over and between 2 shoulders, with a face with 2 eyes, a nose, a mouth and so on. Or they have squid tentacles, or lobster claws, totally familiar to us.

I don't see how the question of "how?" can be answered with anything other than "no idea, who knows, it might even never happen, ask me again if it happens".

[wx7]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPpIjhtgGj0

Why not colonize Mars?

[FishInferno]

It is not a matter of if we should, It is a matter of when we finally will.

Lets say that you knew that once within every month your computer's hard drive would crash. It wouldn't be at a regular interval, just once within January, sometime within February, etc. What would you do? Back up your hard drive of course. That's what Mars is to us. Mars is our second chance. Our way out. Another home for us when something catastrophic happens to Earth.

Nobody said it would be easy. Sure, it lacks a magnetic field, and maybe it's atmosphere is thin. I say we are lucky it even has an atmosphere at all. We are going to encounter problems, no doubt about that. But what do we do? We solve those problems. Escape plans were never meant to be easy. Nobody said it was affordable to cheat death.

Mars is just a springboard. It will last longer than Earth when the Sun begins engulfing the planets. That could be precious time for us to spread to the outer planets and eventually other stars if we have not already. W HAVE to terraform Mars, its the only way out, and just because we can't do it today doesn't mean we won't be able to do it tomorrow.

[PB666]

It is not a matter of if we should, It is a matter of when we finally will.

I think we might have a research station on Mars, I doubt we will ever colonize mars. To formally colonize you have to have some concept of future growth, and there is none on Mars, the growth is still on earth, its easier to exploit interplanentary space for resources than to spend all the dV getting on and off Mars. Thing about space we can move a craft so it moves into optimal energy production (somewhere close to Venus orbit), and redirect comets and asteroids to harvest points.

Mars is too cold, too small, too dry.

[LN400]

There is still one heavy arguement for colonisation of Mars. The need to. If we manage to destroy this planet as a habitable planet, or if nature itself destroys Earth as an habitable planet, then Mars is perhaps the only alternative if we want to keep going. This is not a Doomsday Is Nigh speech, but it's still a heavy arguement for colonisation.

Then again.... When some of the world's brightest minds got together some years ago to discuss what to do if a massive object was heading for a collision with Earth, numerous solutions were sketched up. Still, the conclusion was that it was either technically impossible or if it was possible it would be too expensive.

Too expensive... and that came from a group of brighties...

Perhaps they were right, perhaps we will opt for extinction rather than depleting our bank accounts.

[Nibb31]

There is still one heavy arguement for colonisation of Mars. The need to. If we manage to destroy this planet as a habitable planet, or if nature itself destroys Earth as an habitable planet, then Mars is perhaps the only alternative if we want to keep going. This is not a Doomsday Is Nigh speech, but it's still a heavy arguement for colonisation.

Mars will never be more inhabitable than the most pessimistically scorched Earth will ever be.

And a backup plan that only saves 0.01% of your files is useless. There is no backup plan that will save 8 billion human lives.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Nibb31

[Superfluous J]

I can't help but read this thread's title in Jerry Seinfeld's voice.

"What is the DEAL with MARS? I mean, are those MOONS or ASTEROIDS? The WORLD wants to KNOW."

[FishInferno]

I think we might have a research station on Mars, I doubt we will ever colonize mars. To formally colonize you have to have some concept of future growth, and there is none on Mars, the growth is still on earth, its easier to exploit interplanentary space for resources than to spend all the dV getting on and off Mars. Thing about space we can move a craft so it moves into optimal energy production (somewhere close to Venus orbit), and redirect comets and asteroids to harvest points.

Mars is too cold, too small, too dry.

My point is that we HAVE to colonize Mars if we are to make it in the long run. We either colonize another planet or die, and Mars is the closest and easiest planet to colonize right now.

Gee, for a bunch of space geeks this forum has some really pessimistic views on the future

[Nibb31]

My point is that we HAVE to colonize Mars if we are to make it in the long run. We either colonize another planet or die, and Mars is the closest and easiest planet to colonize right now.

Why's that? Humanity is only a few thousand years old. There are species on Earth that have been around for millions of years without expanding out of their environment.

A colony on Mars has more chance of dying than the entire Human population spread over the Earth.

[fredinno]

There is still one heavy arguement for colonisation of Mars. The need to. If we manage to destroy this planet as a habitable planet, or if nature itself destroys Earth as an habitable planet, then Mars is perhaps the only alternative if we want to keep going. This is not a Doomsday Is Nigh speech, but it's still a heavy arguement for colonisation.

Then again.... When some of the world's brightest minds got together some years ago to discuss what to do if a massive object was heading for a collision with Earth, numerous solutions were sketched up. Still, the conclusion was that it was either technically impossible or if it was possible it would be too expensive.

Too expensive... and that came from a group of brighties...

Perhaps they were right, perhaps we will opt for extinction rather than depleting our bank accounts.

The other argument, far more important, is the expansion of the human race. Though in my opinion, the Moon and NEOs should be our main concentration to set feet on, explore, and settle, we should eventually colonize Mars.

It's like the New World in the early days of European exploration. Yes, Mars is a lot less inhabitable than the New World then, but it's the same in its core. People went exploring the world on ships, knowing they had a far greater chance of dying than of space exploration today.