Mars Colonization Discussion Thread

[tater]

Just now, kerbiloid said:

There are many Everest-high mountains, and usually they are not overpopulated.

Down Range.

Launch hazard area for an Atlas launch:

 

[DAL59]

3 hours ago, PB666 said:

Be more careful before you attribute material.

It automatically quoted you.  I was quoting your quote of @GreenWolf

An Everest space center would give maybe 1% more payload per rocket for much, much worse logistical and weather difficulties.  Not worth it.   

(Though I wonder if New Shepard could be used to hop tourists to Everest)

[tater]

7 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

(Though I wonder if New Shepard could be used to hop tourists to Everest)

No, the passengers land with parachutes (it's windy up there, all the time), and even so, there is not room to land anyone at the summit.

On top of that, the summit is frequently in the jet stream, not terribly amenable to precision landings (or any normal wind limits on liftoffs, as well).

[DAL59]

I know.  It is a terrible idea.  

On 10/23/2017 at 10:40 PM, tater said:

and see what 0.38 does to people

What's the difference between studying .38 gees on Mars vs in an orbital colony?  Why not send some mammals to Mars too?  

[tater]

3 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

What's the difference between studying .38 gees on Mars vs in an orbital colony?  Why not send some mammals to Mars too?  

A spun LEO hab makes sense for a few reasons. 

1. Safety. Home literally minutes away. Board the attached D2/CST-100/Soyuz, and leave.

2. Cost. Vastly cheaper to spin up a couple Bigelow habs than it is to go to Mars.

3. Once set up, you can also test lunar gravity, or whatever else you like.

[JucheJuiceMan]

If we want a habitat that can take a lot of people, that would take 50000 to 100000 Saturn Vs.

[DAL59]

1 hour ago, JucheJuiceMan said:

If we want a habitat that can take a lot of people, that would take 50000 to 100000 Saturn Vs.

Or just launch a bunch of reusable ships.  (BFR)

4 hours ago, tater said:

Safety. Home literally minutes away. Board the attached D2/CST-100/Soyuz, and leave.

True, but we know humans can survive at least a year of zero gravity, so there can't be a problem with Martian gravity so dire to require immediate evacuation.  If humans can't survive Mars gravity for several years, a few months in trnasit back to Earth doesn't make a difference.  

 

4 hours ago, tater said:

Cost. Vastly cheaper to spin up a couple Bigelow habs than it is to go to Mars.

I agree, but I thought you were talking about an actual orbital colony, with several hundred people.  It would be easier to sent a few dozen people to Mars than build an O'neill cylinder.  

4 hours ago, tater said:

you can also test lunar gravity, or whatever else you like.

Or you can test lunar gravity with a lunar base.  Only three days return time.  However, I do not think you could test Martian gravity on a lunar base.  Mars is much more suitable for colonization than the moon.  

[Bill Phil]

59 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

 I agree, but I thought you were talking about an actual orbital colony, with several hundred people.  It would be easier to sent a few dozen people to Mars than build an O'neill cylinder. 

Huh? 

A Mars colony with the population ( or at least the ability to support that population) of an O'Neill cylinder (about 10 million, maybe less) would cost way more than an O'Neill cylinder, assuming the quality of life is the same.

A colony of a few hundred people is more like a station. But even so, that would be much cheaper than an equivalent Mars base.

It'd be way cheaper to just set up a station with a crew of a few dozen people and then simulate Martian gravity than to actually send a few dozen people to Mars. Essentially what Tater is saying is to do just that, not actually build a colony.

[DAL59]

14 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

A Mars colony with the population ( or at least the ability to support that population) of an O'Neill cylinder (about 10 million, maybe less) would cost way more than an O'Neill cylinder, assuming the quality of life is the same.

I agree.  I just meant setting up a small base on Mars would be easier than putting a million people in LEO.  

[tater]

2 hours ago, DAL59 said:

True, but we know humans can survive at least a year of zero gravity, so there can't be a problem with Martian gravity so dire to require immediate evacuation.  If humans can't survive Mars gravity for several years, a few months in trnasit back to Earth doesn't make a difference.  

We know exactly ZERO about humans in 0.38g.

We know for a fact that there IS a problem with 0g for extended periods. We know nothing about mammals breeding in 0g, and if there are adverse effects there, as well.

This is a thread about colonization. That means raising children by definition. It would be entirely unethical to have children on Mars without knowing what the implications are of 0.38g ahead of time. A spinning hab, then raising mammals, possibly primates, is obligatory, otherwise the colony is in fact an experiment that would never be allowed on Earth due to the ethics of the unknown risks.

 

 

1 hour ago, DAL59 said:

I agree.  I just meant setting up a small base on Mars would be easier than putting a million people in LEO.  

Why would you put a million people in LEO to find out if Mars was safe for long term habitation?

Edited October 31, 2017 by tater

[Piatzin]

How feasible is an underground complex? It would shield the place from the weather and radiation, and it would be easier to perform mining operations

(Sorry if someone already posted this, I haven't read the whole thread yet )

[Nibb31]

Weather is negligeable on Mars. Don't believe everythin you saw on The Martian.

An underground complex would shield from radiation. However, it requires heavy machinery. Heavy engineering isn't something that's easy to develop for space and is an area where we have zero experience. Maintenance, lubricants, radiators, filters, power, hydraulics, etc... all need to be especially developed for a very specific environment. We also know very little about Mars geology under the surface, the toxicity of the regolith, mining in low gravity, etc...

Also, what's the point of going to Mars if you're going to spend the rest of your life underground. You could do that on Earth.

 

Edited October 31, 2017 by Nibb31

[Piatzin]

19 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Weather is negligeable on Mars. Don't believe everythin you saw on The Martian.

There are dust storms - weak, yes, but they could disrupt sensitive machinery

[tater]

The ideal place for a Martian colony, IMHO, from a real estate perspective (assuming access to water is a given prerequisite) would be inside a canyon or crater. You'd bury the facility, but have windows. Windows would have deep overhangs, also covered in regolith. Since you're in a crater/canyon, the distant view would be of a (geological) wall/cliff, with at most a sliver of sky above when standing back from the window. Take a couple steps back, and you can still see the ground (and the canyon wall), but no sky. Make sure any sleeping quarters are farther back. You can walk tot he window at will, and your dose rate of GCRs is slightly higher due to the sliver of solid angle that is sky.

[Nibb31]

4 hours ago, Earthlinger said:

There are dust storms - weak, yes, but they could disrupt sensitive machinery

Put your sensitive machinery inside a shelter. Problem solved, and easier than digging un underground complex.

Edited October 31, 2017 by Nibb31

[tater]

The sensitive bits are likely solar panels. The drop in surface insolation means that they really need some nukes, not just solar.

Back to having kids on Mars, it would honestly be illegal in most countries to send people to Mars to have kids if medical-ethical guidelines as usually dealt with by the IRB are a thing. Risk-benefit would fail, as would informed consent (the kids cannot consent by definition, and their parents can't consent to harm them). I think the risk-benefit problem that drives this (the unknown nature of 0.38g on embryos, and growing kids) is what needs to be addressed in LEO before anyone even thinks about "colonizing" Mars. Such studies need to involve years of research models (other mammals, likely) at the very least. If somehow you could get living creatures to Mars easier than tethering 2 habs on orbit, then I suppose you send regular crew missions, and breed mammals on Mars for a while until you can determine if it is safe. If a surface colony requires a centrifuge for human biology, then colonizing that world is a non-starter, IMO. Better to build an orbital colony at the required g level. Note that a spun test hab can serially test different g levels until no problems are shown, then establish a lower limit on acceptable gravity.

[PakledHostage]

On 30/10/2017 at 12:05 PM, tater said:

No, the passengers land with parachutes (it's windy up there, all the time), and even so, there is not room to land anyone at the summit.

On top of that, the summit is frequently in the jet stream, not terribly amenable to precision landings (or any normal wind limits on liftoffs, as well).

Off topic, but  Eurocopter (Aérospatiale) did "land" an AS350 on the summit of Everest some years ago:

And people have flown paragliders off the top on several occasions. A top-level Nepalese paraglider pilot named Babu Sunuwar even flew his climbing guide off the top in a tandem kite about six years ago for a documentary called "Ultimate Descent":

 

Edited November 1, 2017 by PakledHostage

[regex]

13 hours ago, tater said:

The ideal place for a Martian colony, IMHO, from a real estate perspective

is in low Earth orbit, or amongst or inside asteroids.

[tater]

21 minutes ago, regex said:

is in low Earth orbit, or amongst or inside asteroids.

While I agree, entirely, this is a Mars colonization thread  .

[regex]

4 minutes ago, tater said:

While I agree, entirely, this is a Mars colonization thread  .

I heard Elon Musk was going to build a golden city there.

[tater]

That helo vid is amazing. That's like 4000m above the service ceiling. 

[kerbiloid]

If craters and canyons are not enough stable (as random natural structures), a big excavation for a Martian base could be done with nukes.
Several more nukes can form underground reservoirs for fluids.

Edited November 1, 2017 by kerbiloid

[tater]

Guys at LANL were working on a "subselene" drill. They use a nuclear reactor to generate heat to melt lunar regolith (simulant). It bores a hole, leaving a glass tube.

[Nibb31]

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

If craters and canyons are not enough stable (as random natural structures), a big excavation for a Martian base could be done with nukes.
Several more nukes can form underground reservoirs for fluids.

Would you want to live in that ?

[kerbiloid]

20 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

Would you want to live in that ?

On Mars - definitely.
On Earth - if required.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Explosions_for_the_National_Economy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagan_(nuclear_test)

1. Don't use it immediately, expose for 1-2 years. Radiation will be gone.
(Just don't explode calcium-rich rocks like atolls, but unilkely on Mars there were a lot of anthozoa.)

2. They anyway will cover the excavation with a thick layer of concrete.

3. Living in a granite-rich house or near a geological fault, you'll catch much more radiation. As well, as if spending a lot of time in a dungeon.

4. Mars is not radioprotected from above, unlike the Earth. The excavation will not prevail in the radiation balance.

 

22 hours ago, tater said:

Guys at LANL were working on a "subselene" drill. They use a nuclear reactor to generate heat to melt lunar regolith (simulant). It bores a hole, leaving a glass tube.

A motto for them: "We're making the Moon made of cheese!".
Literally.

Spoiler

 

 

Edited November 2, 2017 by kerbiloid