Mars Colonization Discussion Thread

[tater]

The signal to noise ratio (overall) was better back then, as nearly every single person on the net was in STEM.

[Diche Bach]

11 hours ago, DDE said:

Actually, from some of the unflattering descriptions of Edison, he was the Elon Musk of his era, mobilizing or downright appropriating talent and then selling it on the back of a lot of PR. His smear campaign against Nicola Tesla, Westinghouse and alternating current is legendary - he tortured a convicted man to death over several hours in front of an audience in the failed bid to prove AC to be deadly.

That may well be true; I don't doubt it. Still, my point remains. Edison was "responsible" for watershed historical developments that contributed to altering the human condition permanently. If you disagree, you should take it up with whichever Wiki groupies keep vigil over his page!  Or are you willing to accept that most if not all of the following is true?

Quote

Thomas Alva Edison (February 11, 1847 – October 18, 1931) was an American inventor and businessman, who has been described as America's greatest inventor.^[1] He developed many devices that greatly influenced life around the world, including the phonograph, the motion picture camera, and the long-lasting, practical electric light bulb. Dubbed "The Wizard of Menlo Park",^[2] he was one of the first inventors to apply the principles of mass production and large-scale teamwork to the process of invention, and because of that, he is often credited with the creation of the first industrial research laboratory.^[3]

Edison was a prolific inventor, holding 1,093 US patents in his name, as well as many patents in the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. More significant than the number of Edison's patents was the widespread impact of his inventions: electric light and power utilities, sound recording, and motion pictures all established major new industries worldwide. Edison's inventions contributed to mass communication and, in particular, telecommunications. These included a stock ticker, a mechanical vote recorder, a battery for an electric car, electrical power, recorded music and motion pictures. His advanced work in these fields was an outgrowth of his early career as a telegraph operator. Edison developed a system of electric-power generation and distribution^[4] to homes, businesses, and factories – a crucial development in the modern industrialized world. His first power station was on Pearl Street in Manhattan, New York.^[4]

 

[kerbiloid]

To say the truth I don't believe in any universal mega-productive inventor, Edison or not. They are just humans and have a limited time even to dream, let alone implement. Just people love heroes, it's easier to remember them all.

But maybe Edison and Musk personal abilities are a little different theme than Mars itself.

Edited February 25, 2018 by kerbiloid

[tater]

For Mars colonization, someone is going to have to invent some, indeed, any economic way in which Mars can pay its own bills, or it's a non-starter. Maybe they can genetically engineer sand worms that make spice, and people on Earth will buy it at any price to prolong life. Short of that, "Why?"

[kerbiloid]

15 minutes ago, tater said:

any economic way in which Mars can pay its own bills

For example, getting credits for Martian project. It works.

P.S.
They should find either a platinoid deposit, or an alien crash site. Otherwise there is nothing to sell on Mars.

P.P.S.
Wanna help Mars colonization? Review the NASA photo open database and find a crashed saucer. Get the Mars right from your chair.

Edited February 25, 2018 by kerbiloid

[DDE]

2 hours ago, tater said:

For Mars colonization, someone is going to have to invent some, indeed, any economic way in which Mars can pay its own bills, or it's a non-starter.

True that, it's a wall we've hit and it's the wall many people don't want to see.

[PB666]

9 hours ago, tater said:

For Mars colonization, someone is going to have to invent some, indeed, any economic way in which Mars can pay its own bills, or it's a non-starter. Maybe they can genetically engineer sand worms that make spice, and people on Earth will buy it at any price to prolong life. Short of that, "Why?"

I don't know if I would go that far. I could see a research colony. But that would be like way far in the future.

The problem with colonizing mars is that its a type of confinement that humans are not really used to. Colonies require a sort of venture space, and I can see that if the colony were build deep underground, but a surface colony with children, etc, doesn't sound feasible. Human species needs to set higher aspirations that the current circumstance (consider the debates we have lately). Not too much in there about research or progress.

 

[kerbiloid]

Is a monasterium on a far little island a colony?

[Diche Bach]

10 hours ago, tater said:

For Mars colonization, someone is going to have to invent some, indeed, any economic way in which Mars can pay its own bills, or it's a non-starter. Maybe they can genetically engineer sand worms that make spice, and people on Earth will buy it at any price to prolong life. Short of that, "Why?"

At the risk of beating a dead horse, this I think is why the comparison of Musk with guys like Edison or Ford (or pick ANY famous and influential creator/inventor/capitalist/mogul since the industrial revolution, those are just two that I as a Yank happen to think of first . . .) is apt: Musk's dreams require commerce. He would do well had he exemplified his role-modeling by naming his electric car "Edison" instead of Tesla, no matter how romantically appealing or truly brilliant the latter might have been. Edison and Ford (and many others, like I said, just the two names that jump out in my mind first) were SUCCESSFUL at making themselves fabulously rich AND at changing the world, making it "better" arguably although not without a whole lot more "worse" to right along with it. More specifically, people are not going to become a multi-planetary species based on principle alone. There has got to be money to be made, livelihoods to be fostered, well-being and lifetimes of fulfillment to be achieved.

This is why I believe he, despite his great capacities, his drive and his visionary ambitions is ultimately misguided.

The way to make space "pay for itself" is to: (a) make living in space safe and comfortable and that means a real space station where the next few decades can be spent sorting out artificial gravity, radiation protection, closed-circuit organic reclamation systems, and all the other myriad technology necessary (and organization, and policy, and law, and philosophy, which are all frankly just as lacking as the nuts and bolts and circuit boards part of the equation); (b) fetch a juicy chunk of asteroid or comet or whatever close enough to be harvested = pay for it all.

If Musk tomorrow would come out with outlandish overly ambitious plans to accomplish THESE things, I would become overnight his most ardent advocate.

Going to Mars before this stuff is well-sorted is just plain stupid.

Edited February 25, 2018 by Diche Bach
clarification

[tater]

44 minutes ago, PB666 said:

I could see a research colony

Humans would volunteer to liver their lives, and have children On Mars for research? No growing population with children, and it's not a colony, it's a base.

[sevenperforce]

Mars would be a good place to mine cryptocurrency. 

[tater]

14 minutes ago, Diche Bach said:

If Musk tomorrow would come out with outlandish overly ambitious plans to accomplish THESE things, I would become overnight his most ardent advocate.

Going to Mars before this stuff is well-sorted is just plain stupid.

I think your list of goals is certainly true for the colonization goal technically, but I still see no possible answer to the economics. If making a colony requires an X trillion dollar bootstrap of money never to be seen again, then goal one is someone making that money to give away, since Mars cannot ever pay for itself.

That said, I want him (and Bezos) to concentrate on space travel, including human space flight, because it's much cooler than the stuff on your list. I don't expect to be around for space colonies, but I love me some cool rockets .

1 minute ago, sevenperforce said:

Mars would be a good place to mine cryptocurrency. 

So would someplace with better insolation. Like a sun-sync orbit.

[sevenperforce]

3 minutes ago, tater said:

I think your list of goals is certainly true for the colonization goal technically, but I still see no possible answer to the economics. If making a colony requires an X trillion dollar bootstrap of money never to be seen again, then goal one is someone making that money to give away, since Mars cannot ever pay for itself.

Bingo.

That being said, I would love to be proven wrong.

3 minutes ago, tater said:

That said, I want him (and Bezos) to concentrate on space travel, including human space flight, because it's much cooler than the stuff on your list. I don't expect to be around for space colonies, but I love me some cool rockets .

Agreed.

3 minutes ago, tater said:

5 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Mars would be a good place to mine cryptocurrency. 

So would someplace with better insolation. Like a sun-sync orbit.

I was thinking heat rejection. Iceland has become a prime cryptocurrency hub because it's cold, and you need a heat sink for running big servers. Mars is the only place close enough to the sun that solar power is viable but that still supplies a constantly cold atmosphere for heat rejection.

You might be able to do better with a sun-synch satellite with a ginormous radiator array, but radiators can only get you so far.

[tater]

7 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

I was thinking heat rejection. Iceland has become a prime cryptocurrency hub because it's cold, and you need a heat sink for running big servers. Mars is the only place close enough to the sun that solar power is viable but that still supplies a constantly cold atmosphere for heat rejection.

You might be able to do better with a sun-synch satellite with a ginormous radiator array, but radiators can only get you so far.

Good point. A polar lunar crater might be better. More sun, and put the radiators into the ground in deep shadow.

Neither needs a single person, however. That just decreases profit by requiring life support.

[PB666]

44 minutes ago, tater said:

Humans would volunteer to liver their lives, and have children On Mars for research? No growing population with children, and it's not a colony, it's a base.

I'm talking about a colony, where basically having and raising children is part of the research. Again, non-economic fully sponsered colony testing the bounds of humans in space.
The critical problem with Mars is neither the radiation or the low gravity. The problem is the lack of an atmosphere, so its going to be a couple raising one child at a time and much of their duties would be childrearing in nature.

Million individuals, no. Think more along the lines of 50 individuals,  a tribe. We have tested everything about humans on the ISS but one, reproduction. At some point in time this will become a subject of study.

 

[kerbiloid]

We just must do something with this.

Spoiler

 

(Btw, the left photo is a ready to use  banner of Martian Autonomous Dominion. 1+3 circles and a horizontal scratch)

 

9 minutes ago, PB666 said:

The critical problem with Mars is neither the radiation or the low gravity. The problem is the lack of an atmosphere, so its going to be a couple raising one child at a time and much of their duties would be childrearing in nature.

You can make air and protect from radiation. But you can't make a gravity.

9 minutes ago, PB666 said:

Think more along the lines of 50 individuals,  a tribe.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058530/

Spoiler

 

Edited February 25, 2018 by kerbiloid

[tater]

8 minutes ago, PB666 said:

I'm talking about a colony, where basically having and raising children is part of the research. Again, non-economic fully sponsered colony testing the bounds of humans in space.
The critical problem with Mars is neither the radiation or the low gravity. The problem is the lack of an atmosphere, so its going to be a couple raising one child at a time and much of their duties would be childrearing in nature.

Million individuals, no. Think more along the lines of 50 individuals,  a tribe. We have tested everything about humans on the ISS but one, reproduction. At some point in time this will become a subject of study.

 

I tribe that requires an insane amount of outside input. Not even enough people to train replacements for all the specialties they need. It's not a colony, it's an outpost that happens to have kids (hard to imagine a government sponsoring such a thing given the dubious ethics of experimenting on children that way).

[kerbiloid]

2 minutes ago, tater said:

I tribe that requires an insane amount of outside input.

So, that's a reason for them to conquer the old Earth and become its rulers. Then they will be self-sufficient together with extramartian colonies.
(Wasn't Mars for that in all sci-fi history?)

[PB666]

I should point out that in my preferential model for transplanetary transfer that somehow gravity is provided for and there is a massive ship that carries humans from Earth to Mars in a fairly well protected spacecraft.
This model depends on however fusion as a power source, as we know does not yet exist and may not be feasible in space. But if we assume we could get humans relatively quickly to ES L2 in which they could be transferred to MS L2 and then to Mars fairly quickly one could lower the amount of GCR experienced along the route. Again such a journey only works well if alot of humans are packed in fairly small space. If you can get the transit radiation down, then a Martian colony is possible. The problem is one that should be tested, this doesn't mean it will pave the way for self sufficient colonies. Humans could preferentially travel to mars during periods of lower solar magnetic fields and lower sun-spot activity. In addition males could travel to Mars before the age of 12 to limit testicular SNP accumulations (lowering germline accumulation of SNPs)

A necessity IMO is that there must be underground colonization. Colonization on the surface is a non-starter, for research or otherwise.
Other aspects.
1. Complete surface robotization of activities.
2. Dust abatement systems (this would including sweep a perimeter around a base of all free dust and placement of dust control systems at the perimeter)
3. A means of cleansing robots free of dust for inspection and repair underground in a pressurizes work environment.

The need for a economically viable colony is not a necessity as long as the colony is within an externally sustainable size. The base assumption is that our ability to transport materials to LEO and then to Mars will go down over time, and that the transport costs of non-perishables will be fractional compared to the cost of transporting humans. Consequently the base would be sustained for lengthy periods of time. There is a model in which a colony might achieve a higher level of sustainability, that is if the colony could find a source of geothermal energy (ideally in proximity of a few kilometers from a source of water). In such a model steam and surface radiation can be used to generate electricity required to run the internal systems required to generate light and run greenhouses on LEDs underground. In this model the colonist could provide their own food (using robots to supplement labor) or even greenhouses on the surface with radiation resistent varieties of crops, again managed by robots (though, given the problems with pressurization this is far future stuff). The larger problem, provided a source of water, is not the growing of food. The problem is the conversion of metal and raw earth materials into useful materials. Again, bulk shipments from Earth (or from asteroids) will be a neccesity. The good thing is that Bulk metals are fairly resilient to reentry as long as the user transports them from where they land.

What I see is that Mars colonization (non-economically) is a serial and parallel sets of solvable problems. Humans over their history are very good at solving these types of problems and inevitably they will be solved. A concorde is a non-economical way to travel, and yet for a few decades humans traveled on concorde. Of course the flaw in the Concorde is that several problems in supersonic travel went unsolved and overtime it was recognized as problems. So for Mars colonies to survive, problems that develop (in design, in concept, in technology) would need to be solved quickly and in an apolitical manner.

24 minutes ago, tater said:

I tribe that requires an insane amount of outside input. Not even enough people to train replacements for all the specialties they need. It's not a colony, it's an outpost that happens to have kids (hard to imagine a government sponsoring such a thing given the dubious ethics of experimenting on children that way).

Maybe not a government, but a company that runs into a brick wall trying to start a colony. And again, we cannot compare a Martian colony with Jamestown, which had an assumption that the colonist would survive on their own, but the assumption of a research colony would be run in such a way as to test the best ways to survive on its own. So that if the research colony was successful in providing say half of its food, then it could add 25 members based on the provisional alotment of resources.

BTW, I think that for certain countries (i.e. China, India) such ethical limitations may not be perceived as the west. If the goal is to claim by habitation/colonization then the ethics fly out the window.

My point is lets not close the door on colonization before the research is done. If the research is done and comes up with a no-go, then its probably a no-go.

The reason this is not tested in space is that space has the following limitations
1. Unavoidable GCR.
2. Lack of gravity.
3. Confined by pressure (Same on Mars but with the provision that soil underground provides a force to that counters habitation pressure, and vessels can be larger.

 

Edited February 25, 2018 by PB666

[sevenperforce]

1 hour ago, tater said:

Good point. A polar lunar crater might be better. More sun, and put the radiators into the ground in deep shadow.

Neither needs a single person, however. That just decreases profit by requiring life support.

That's the problem.

[tater]

1 minute ago, sevenperforce said:

That's the problem.

I know, right? Robots are even better at being colonists than we are

 

Edited February 25, 2018 by tater

[Green Baron]

9 minutes ago, tater said:

 Robots are even better at being colonists than we are

They don't declare independence on first chance :-)

 

Edit: definition "colony" ...

Edited February 25, 2018 by Green Baron

[sevenperforce]

18 minutes ago, tater said:

I know, right? Robots are even better at being colonists than we are

I have yet to come up with a single role for people that cannot be better handled with telepresence.

Anyway, a polar lunar station might still not be as good of a heat sink as Mars. Atmospheric cooling > lithocooling.

 

[Bill Phil]

3 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

I have yet to come up with a single role for people that cannot be better handled with telepresence.

Anyway, a polar lunar station might still not be as good of a heat sink as Mars. Atmospheric cooling > lithocooling.

 

Not when there's barely any atmosphere to speak of.

[Kerbal7]

47 minutes ago, PB666 said:

If you can get the transit radiation down, then a Martian colony is possible.

My point is lets not close the door on colonization before the research is done.

I not only close the door on Martian colonization, I slam it shut. You dismiss with a hand-wave a whole lotta stuff about colonizing Mars. E.g., the long term gravity effects of living on Mars, we don't know what they are. But I bet you they're not good. The residential technology doesn't exist for a semi-independent space station. How does it exist for living on Mars?

I'll quote you a couple passages from Kelly's, Year In Space.   

Quote

 

Our urine processor, though, has been broken for about a week, so our urine is simply filling a holding tank.

I can feel it. I can sense the levels with a high degree of accuracy based only on the symptoms I’ve come to know so well: headaches, congestion, burning eyes, irritability. Perhaps the most dangerous symptom is impairment to cognitive function—we have to be able to perform tasks that require a high degree of concentration and attention to detail at a moment’s notice, and in an emergency, which can happen anytime, we need to be able to do those tasks right the first time. Losing just a fraction of our ability to focus, make calculations, or solve problems could cost us our lives. And we are still learning about the long-term effects of breathing so much CO2. It may cause cardiovascular problems and other issues in the future that we don’t yet understand.

 

We can't get the things working to keep 6 people alive in low earth orbit. How can we do it on Mars?!? No way. You guys give us a whole bunch of capabilities that don't exist in the real world.