Mars Colonization Discussion Thread

[regex]

On 10/6/2017 at 9:31 AM, tater said:

It;s funny, Blade Runner was on TV last night, and I watched a little. "Los Angeles, 2019" is the opening scene. I think that instead of tunneling under LA to make it a better place, perhaps Musk should work to make it more dystopian, so that people might actually prefer the "off-world colonies."

The Earth was ruined in Blade Runner, or at least that was the premise in the book it was based on, so encouraging people to leave was fairly natural.

I see that a lot as a reason for people being in space, in newer fiction especially. Writers have moved away from MacGuffins like mining magnetic monopoles and such to simply effing up Earth, usually through human intervention like war or global climate change, or a combination of both, to propel our species into the "more habitable"areas of the solar system.

[tater]

Yeah, I don't see those as drivers, however. Even the most apocalyptic GW scenarios result in an Earth that is completely fine to live on, and vastly superior to Mars. War is a possibility, but a war capable of driving colonialism likely makes doing the colonialism impossible.

I think it's all carrot, no stick. Make a sort of orbital paradise, or martian paradise, if you are a Mars person who imagines it's possible.

[Bill Phil]

4 hours ago, tater said:

Yeah, I don't see those as drivers, however. Even the most apocalyptic GW scenarios result in an Earth that is completely fine to live on, and vastly superior to Mars. War is a possibility, but a war capable of driving colonialism likely makes doing the colonialism impossible.

I think it's all carrot, no stick. Make a sort of orbital paradise, or martian paradise, if you are a Mars person who imagines it's possible.

Maybe economic incentives. Provided life is better in whatever colony and space travel is relatively cheap, then it wouldn't be hard to imagine people moving there. Maybe not a whole lot, but a number in the millions could be possible.

[DerekL1963]

2 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

Provided life is better in whatever colony and space travel is relatively cheap, then it wouldn't be hard to imagine people moving there. Maybe not a whole lot, but a number in the millions could be possible.

Even though space travel is cheap, that doesn't mean sustaining the colony is cheap.   And while millions of people moving are (theoretically) possible...  It's so wildly improbable as to be laughable.

[Bill Phil]

53 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

Even though space travel is cheap, that doesn't mean sustaining the colony is cheap.   And while millions of people moving are (theoretically) possible...  It's so wildly improbable as to be laughable.

Again:

"Provided life is better in whatever colony"

That was the linchpin of the argument. Of course, life being better in a colony likely won't happen for a long time, if at all. 

Sustaining any settlement isn't cheap, even ones that aren't colonies. The only question is who will bear the cost: the colony or the original settlement. It's likely the original settlement.

[tater]

I think a prerequisite for space/planetary paradises suitable to lure people is likely a benevolent AGI intelligence. Then the benefits of super intelligence make it such that we can build such a place remotely, then move people there once it's ready to accept colonists. Throw the many trillions required for such a colony at AI, with the goal of making humanity multi planetary.  

[DerekL1963]

5 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

Again:

"Provided life is better in whatever colony"

That was the linchpin of the argument.

It's not an argument it's a non sequitur that fails to address either part of my statement.  It has nothing to do with the costs of sustaining the colony.  It has nothing to do with logistical challenges of moving millions people.

[Bill Phil]

28 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

It's not an argument it's a non sequitur that fails to address either part of my statement.  It has nothing to do with the costs of sustaining the colony.  It has nothing to do with logistical challenges of moving millions people.

It has nothing to do with those statements because I was not addressing those statements. Your previous response had little to do with my original statement, which was about people moving to the colony, and not the logistical challenges of maintaining said colony nor the cost. 

I was addressing this statement:

6 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

And while millions of people moving are (theoretically) possible...  It's so wildly improbable as to be laughable.

I was not addressing:

6 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

Even though space travel is cheap, that doesn't mean sustaining the colony is cheap.

My original statement was that people may decide to move to a space colony if life is better and space travel is cheap. After your response (which did not mention the logistical challenges of moving millions of people into space, only that it was improbable, which I agree with), I reiterated the premise of life being better in a space colony, and moved on to addressing the likelihood that life will not be better in a space colony for some time, and then agreed that sustaining a settlement is not cheap. I only addressed the motivations of the potential colonists to move to the colony, not the difficulty of sustaining said colony, or the logistical challenges of transporting the colonists. I was addressing the potential motivator to make people desire to move to a colony. Those challenges of said colony are not relevant.

However, given certain conditions, migrating to space may become possible and potentially preferable. The likelihood of those conditions occurring is low, however.

And, the logistical challenges of transporting millions of people are far less than the logistical challenges of building a colony that can support millions of people.

Edited October 9, 2017 by Bill Phil

[DerekL1963]

11 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

It has nothing to do with those statements because I was not addressing those statements.

The why did you even reply in the first place?  If you don't want to talk about something, don't quote it, don't add a non-sequitur.  Just scroll on by.
 

11 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

I was addressing this statement:

Um, no, you weren't.  "If life is better" relates to people's desire to move - not to the logistics thereof.

[NSEP]

 

[kerbiloid]

On 09.10.2017 at 5:20 AM, tater said:

with the goal of making humanity multi planetary

With the goal of making humanity one-and-a-quarter-planetary.
Mars radius is 0.5 of Earth, so its total area is 0.25.

And making them to rock.

Spoiler

"Are you ready to rock?!"

 

[TheGuyNamedAlan]

#nukethepoles

i'd personally say that this is a goal for humanity to unite together and do something good for once. yes there will be challenges but hey we thought planes were impossible just a century back and now we're flying rockets into space like something you would do everyday. who knows, we could get to mars in about 10 years or so. i have high hopes since the presentation given by elon musk seems feasible and not impractical.

Edited October 18, 2017 by TheGuyNamedAlan

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, TheGuyNamedAlan said:

#nukethepoles

So radically...

[PB666]

Well, Elon wants to die on Mars. I wouldn't say that it is a practical ambition but it does take away the need for landing deltaV. lol.

Lets summarize the problem, the exploitable utility of Mars is about 1/100th of the most impractical location on surface of the Earth. Its better than being in a volcanic crater but worse than the south pole.

The resupply missions to the South Pole being  a tiny fraction of those to mars. For the cost of one colony on mars we could have a tunnel through the antarctic to the south pole allowing for an almost balmy walk there.

As Tyson points out Mars is not a practical Earth back-up either. There is no reasoning there for a colony, this might change in 200 million years. It might be more practical to scoot mars out of the system and find a way to elevate Earths orbit than to terraform Mars.

This leaves not a colony but a science station or science base. So you are not sending Elon Musk and a flying tomb, but high-end engineers and scientist.

So lets compare Mars to South Pole

Mars	South Pole
Vacuous	0.8 Earth Atm
Oxygen percentage <1%	Oxygen Percentage 29%
Scarce Equitorial Water	Water abundant with a heat source
No Living Organic Resources	Resources 2000 miles away
Dim light for Horticulture	No light six months a year
Very Dusty	Lots of blowing snow.
Requires EVA suits	Requires Arctic clothing
Abundant CO2 for plants	Nominal CO2 for plants growth
On 'Terra' firma	Dig 2 miles

So CO2 is better on Mars for growing plants, almost certainly a greenhouse would be subterranian on Mars (either a tunnel or a greenhouse covered in radiation blocking substrate) so they are equal, both require LED lit greenhouse. Though on Earth it does not need to be pressurized. The drawback of South pole is that it is on an amorphous solid subject to change. Ask yourself the basic question. . . . who would conceive and raise offspring on Mars or on a Venusian cloud floater? Before you ask that question think about the practicality of raising offspring at the south pole. Hey Johnny go outside and play,  . . . not. Diaper duty takes on a whole new meaning in a sealed container. Romantic, say go live with Inuvet citizens through a cold canadian winter. Then you are talking about colonization potentials.

I should also point out that Mars has a moon that about to disintegrate and bombard the surface, survival of inhabitants would be unlikely. So as a backup to earth its not the place.

I cannnot Nix a manned science mission. Right now its a matter of practicality in terms of trip length and health issues. Mars colonization/exploration/science base is more or less a suicide mission.

 

 

 

[NSEP]

1 minute ago, PB666 said:

Well, Elon wants to die on Mars. I wouldn't say that it is a practical ambition but it does take away the need for landing deltaV. lol.

"I'd like to die on Mars, just not on Impact"

-Elon Musk

[PB666]

6 hours ago, NSEP said:

"I'd like to die on Mars, just not on Impact"

-Elon Musk

Ambitious isn't he. I think he should set his sites on not dying during the 9.5 month transfer.

 

[DAL59]

On 10/16/2017 at 7:34 AM, kerbiloid said:

one-and-a-quarter-planetary.

Due to the lack of seas, the planets have the same area.  

2 minutes ago, PB666 said:

9.5 month transfer.

The ITS will take less than 6 months to get to Mars.  9.5 months is only for the worst possible transit with the lowest fuel.  Also, the fuel tanks of the ITS will be more than enough for solar radiation protection, plus an additional shelter was shown in the new design.  

6 hours ago, PB666 said:

about to disintegrate and bombard the surface

not for several million years.  By then it would be dissembled to make new spacecraft.

6 hours ago, PB666 said:

worse than the south pole.

The south pole has 6 months of darkness, so you can't grow food there.  Mars has a 24 hour day, so you can grow food.  Mars also feels warmer than Antarctica, because the air is too thin to wick away heat.  

#nukethepoles

[DerekL1963]

2 hours ago, DAL59 said:

Mars also feels warmer than Antarctica, because the air is too thin to wick away heat.  

The lander and rover teams who had to build insulation and heating into their vehicles to prevent them from freezing would be surprised to learn that.

[Slam_Jones]

Regarding surface vs orbital colonies: what of the psychological effects?  Those that will (or could potentially) inhabit Mars or some orbit or another will still be the biologically and psychologically similar to modern humans, right?  I imagine it's more comforting for the average human to have feet on the ground rather than on a thin piece of metal, miles above the ground, especially for extended periods of time.  Having sailed a lot, (and maybe it's just me), but it seems to reduce stress to have terra firma underfoot.  In my mind, being in a space vessel or station seems similar to a submarine... restricted area, thin walls, and a very inhospitable environment just beyond it.  Seems (again, maybe just to me) to be a bit of a stressful environment in general... imagine having an existential crisis in orbit!  Sure, the surface of Mars is pretty inhospitable, too... but at least there is dry land there, rather than vacuum or crushing water pressure.

Although if one were born and raised in an orbital colony (the permanent-resident kind), how would they feel if they finally touched down on a planet?

Just my musings on the subject

[Bill Phil]

39 minutes ago, Slam_Jones said:

Regarding surface vs orbital colonies: what of the psychological effects?  Those that will (or could potentially) inhabit Mars or some orbit or another will still be the biologically and psychologically similar to modern humans, right?  I imagine it's more comforting for the average human to have feet on the ground rather than on a thin piece of metal, miles above the ground, especially for extended periods of time.  Having sailed a lot, (and maybe it's just me), but it seems to reduce stress to have terra firma underfoot.  In my mind, being in a space vessel or station seems similar to a submarine... restricted area, thin walls, and a very inhospitable environment just beyond it.  Seems (again, maybe just to me) to be a bit of a stressful environment in general... imagine having an existential crisis in orbit!  Sure, the surface of Mars is pretty inhospitable, too... but at least there is dry land there, rather than vacuum or crushing water pressure.

Although if one were born and raised in an orbital colony (the permanent-resident kind), how would they feel if they finally touched down on a planet?

Just my musings on the subject

A lot of the orbital colony designs are designed to be huge (some big enough for blue skies and weather patterns). This tends to help reduce the feeling of a restricted area. Part of that feeling is arguably because you can't leave for long periods of time. But for a space colony in orbit, there's no reason you couldn't move to Earth. For Mars, you may not have that option. As such, I feel that the claustrophobia feeling from space colonies would be more likely to occur on planets. 

When it comes to the ground, the idea is that there would essentially be actual soil and dirt beneath your feet for a few meters (or more) and then the outer structure. Sure, you don't have thousands of kilometers of molten material beneath you, and the psychological effect of that could be an issue, but those effects may be worth it. And beyond that, you may not notice a difference at all.

[Nibb31]

5 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

When it comes to the ground, the idea is that there would essentially be actual soil and dirt beneath your feet for a few meters (or more) and then the outer structure. Sure, you don't have thousands of kilometers of molten material beneath you, and the psychological effect of that could be an issue, but those effects may be worth it. And beyond that, you may not notice a difference at all.

Mars' regolith is pretty toxic. You're not going to be walking on it,  breathing air that's in contact with it, or eating food that uses it as a substrate. It needs to be refined and the perchlorate salts removed.

Edited October 18, 2017 by Nibb31

[kerbiloid]

10 hours ago, DAL59 said:

Due to the lack of seas,

there will be no open-ground plantations and habitats.
So, either they can occupy a negligible part of total area building pressurized habitats, or they should cover the Mars with seas.
Anyway, 1/4 of total area made inhabitated looks very optimistically.

7 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

But for a space colony in orbit, there's no reason you couldn't move to Earth. For Mars, you may not have that option.

Exactly.

7 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

When it comes to the ground, the idea is that there would essentially be actual soil and dirt beneath your feet for a few meters (or more) and then the outer structure.

A sledgehammer can be a medicine against the thinwallophobia when the wall is like a battleship armor thick.
Just give the patient a sledgehammer and make him to break the floor (i.e. the outer wall) for food money.

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

Mars' regolith is pretty toxic. You're not going to be walking on it,  breathing air that's in contact with it, or eating food that uses it as a substrate. It needs to be refined and the perchlorate salts removed.

Which in turn means ocean-like volumes of water.
So, salty Martian seas are in order.

[PB666]

6 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

there will be no open-ground plantations and habitats.
So, either they can occupy a negligible part of total area building pressurized habitats, or they should cover the Mars with seas.
Anyway, 1/4 of total area made inhabitated looks very optimistically.

Exactly.

A sledgehammer can be a medicine against the thinwallophobia when the wall is like a battleship armor thick.
Just give the patient a sledgehammer and make him to break the floor (i.e. the outer wall) for food money.

Which in turn means ocean-like volumes of water.
So, salty Martian seas are in order.

Oh boy.

 

I would say before we do all this arguing why dont we create a thread 'which do you think is worse on the human body, space radiation or lack of gravity?

Maybe we can get people to actually think about the nuances of space travel.

[kerbiloid]

2 hours ago, PB666 said:

is worse on the human body, space radiation or lack of gravity?

In a rotating cylinder with 1 meter thick walls human body would feel nice. Orbital habitats rule.

[DAL59]

7 hours ago, PB666 said:

space radiation or lack of gravity

Neither exist on a venusian airship.