Colonising Mars and a meme I found

[p1t1o]

Saw this and it made me think. Thoughts?

 

Should we be thinking of colonising places on Earth, perhaps not literally Antarctica, but maybe areas of Siberia, Canada etc. before we realistically consider colonising Mars?

[Scotius]

I will answer with a meme too:

We should take care of the one planet we can live on. There is no question about it. But... what if a 'dinosaur killer' class asteroid or a comet comes a-knocking one day? It would be good for humanity to have a backup somewhere safe, hmmm? Also, Mars makes handy staging area for exploration and exploatation of the bonanza of Asteroid Belt. Which might help take the pressure off Earth's ecosystem when we start digging (drilling) there, instead of here.

In a nutshell: Let's do both

[Bill Phil]

Well, we do have research bases on Antarctica. And people have been born there. 

I don't think we should colonize space for fear of asteroids. With a smart space program we can track and divert asteroids regularly, no colonization needed. Rather, space offers a massive expansion of our civilization. The resources of space are nothing to sneeze at.

And people live in Siberia and northern Canada. Not a lot, but they live there. And we aren't realistically considering colonizing Mars. Musk is a dreamer but SpaceX is a business first.

[Green Baron]

A running experiment (i mean a real controlled one ;-)) for veggies in Antarctica: http://eden-iss.net/

[p1t1o]

I mean, if a dino-killer hit the Earth at some point in the future, how likely is it that it would screw up the environment so bad that it would be worse than a bone-dry, 6millibar, -50C desert with no magnetosphere?

Dont tell me theres water on Mars, its still as dry as a bad joke.

[Green Baron]

It wouldn't.

Yet if we mess planet A up, there is no planet B to live on.

Edited October 1, 2018 by Green Baron

[James Kerman]

Apparently we just have to wait a few centuries if current trends continue. 

I think the issue is can we create a closed loop biosphere for Mars, or even here on Earth.

[kerbiloid]

2 hours ago, p1t1o said:

Siberia, Canada

The lungs of the planet which are burying the atmospheric carbon as peat?

1 hour ago, Bill Phil said:

And people live in Siberia and northern Canada. Not a lot, but they live there.

Because they have southern regions and logistics.

 

9 minutes ago, James Kerman said:

I think the issue is can we create a closed loop biosphere for Mars, or even here on Earth.

+1

Spoiler

 

Edited October 1, 2018 by kerbiloid

[Green Baron]

28 minutes ago, James Kerman said:

Apparently we just have to wait a few centuries if current trends continue. 

I think the issue is can we create a closed loop biosphere for Mars, or even here on Earth.

I doubt it. A real closed loop is - at least in the scale of a human lifetime and in the size of a city - an illusion. Energy is needed and waste must be disposed of. Both can be minimized by recycling and high efficiency, but still, a little loss is always.

Edited October 1, 2018 by Green Baron

[kerbiloid]

On Earth there is no need in a closed loop even in a vault, as we have a lot of air and water for free, just clean it and pollute again.

Edited October 1, 2018 by kerbiloid

[juanml82]

IMHO, before thinking about colonizing Mars we first need to know if pregnancies are viable in Martian (or Lunar, for that matter) gravity

[James Kerman]

15 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

I doubt it. A real closed loop is - at least in the scale of a human lifetime and in the size of a city - an illusion.

I know.  I was thinking about the ability to feed 6-10 people during early missions - unfortunately that seems to mean algae and crickets will be the cuisine, washed down with recycled water but if we want to become an interplanetary species we need to feed ourselves off Earth.

13 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

On Earth there is no need in a closed loop even in a vault, as we have a lot of air and water for free, just clean it and pollute again.

The same technology may prove useful on Earth if there is a biological event that decimates food production.  If the decline in bee population continues 70% of agriculture production will be wiped out and meat production is probably unsustainable now (depleted fish populations, the environmental and financial cost of livestock) all this as the worlds population continues to grow.  I really don't want to eat crickets and algae but it's better than the alternative.

[kerbiloid]

7 minutes ago, James Kerman said:

if there is a biological event that decimates food production. 

Even in this case you don't need to regenerate oxygen and water. It's a lot of them outside of the vault. So, it's not a closed loop, it's just a carbon recycling.

12 minutes ago, James Kerman said:

I really don't want to eat crickets and algae but it's better than the alternative.

You can feed them to some tilapia or so. Or use as fertilizer for a proper food growing.

***
A lifehack.
Taking a pair of small scorpions to Mars, a little bit later you gain

Spoiler

because of cosmic radiation.

 

[cubinator]

Space colonization requires technologies and methods that are also essential in preserving our planet. Mars colonists will need to live efficiently, sustainably. The two goals - populating space and preserving Earth - will occur in tandem, advancing and benefiting one another. Mars exploration can be beneficial to all humans.

[magnemoe]

2 hours ago, p1t1o said:

Should we be thinking of colonising places on Earth, perhaps not literally Antarctica, but maybe areas of Siberia, Canada etc. before we realistically consider colonising Mars?

Its live people in Alaska and Greenland who is harsher than Canada and lots of Siberia. 

Two reasons for this, one is an native population, second is mining and other resource extraction who is illegal in Antarctica.
Now 200 years ago you might got fishing villages there there but today you have very long range fishing ships, Falklands islands was populated because of wailing and fishing.

Mars has the same problem in that its nothing you can export from Mars. You can do science and we will probably get an permanent station or perhaps multiple. 
I can find business cases in the 30-100 year perspective for:
Earth orbit: way-station from ground to orbit crafts over to spaceships, 0-g manufacturing, assembly and servicing of space assets, tourism, science, refining of resources from the asteroids
Moon: mining for stuff to use in space, tourism, science
Astroids: Mining for stuff to use in space or return to earth, some science. 
Mars: only science, yes you will get a few tourists, but far from paying for the base. 

[wumpus]

One issue is that we can settle Mars and then presumably terraform it.  Presumably it would be easier to terraform Venus: start by seeing life in the clouds, then wait for the inevitable oxygen catastrophe.  After that you can begin terraforming in ernest.

So far, the only justifications in colonizing Mars is "because it's there" and "plan B".  I have to wonder if the next generation would share the same ideals.  They may well want to leave and go back to Earth (expect this to be an obsession with teenagers, although they may also feel trapped by the reduce gravity and have issues working out enough to thrive on Earth).  Consider the common story of "there are no second generation commune members" and wonder if Mars colonization will be similar.

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, Green Baron said:

A real closed loop is - at least in the scale of a human lifetime and in the size of a city - an illusion.

It might be doable, we did one test who failed because of curing concrete and other issues. 

Now if you include a  town and put this on Mars it would not work at least not as an independent colony. 
You will need loads of technology to keep this running, just try to imagine the supply chain to make spacesuits. 
That is the real issue with trying to make an independent colony in space as an Earth 2. You need lots of advanced technology to live in space, technology who have very long production chains. 

[tater]

I assume colonizing Mars is not a thing (ever) until it is demonstrated that 0.38 g is enough for humans to reproduce without health problems. The rest is a soluble problem, but on a planet, gravity is fixed.

Get back to me when we have mammalian data (including breeding a few generations of some animals) at 0.38g.

Regardless, the technology to be able to cost-effectively move large masses to someplace like Mars gives us the ability to either build spinning habs in space, or to mitigate many existential threats that involve impacts on Earth.

[Cassel]

11 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

It might be doable, we did one test who failed because of curing concrete and other issues. 

Now if you include a  town and put this on Mars it would not work at least not as an independent colony. 
You will need loads of technology to keep this running, just try to imagine the supply chain to make spacesuits. 
That is the real issue with trying to make an independent colony in space as an Earth 2. You need lots of advanced technology to live in space, technology who have very long production chains. 

Earth 2 :-)

What about food production? On Earth, huge surfaces are needed for this. It would be the same on Mars, but more expensive, growing plants inside the bases is not an option.

[kerbiloid]

It's easier to build an underground Mars right on Earth than bother with the natural one.

[magnemoe]

5 hours ago, Cassel said:

Earth 2 :-)

What about food production? On Earth, huge surfaces are needed for this. It would be the same on Mars, but more expensive, growing plants inside the bases is not an option.

You can use vertical farming for insane yield for m^2, this makes little sense on earth as its both capital and manpower intensive while farmland is cheap. 
In space you will grow fresh vegetables as you want fresh tomatoes and salad. You import grains and frozen meat, you can probably do do fish to but import other fish. 
 
 

[YNM]

6 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

vertical farming

Where ? Here ? There ?

 

TBH "colonizing Mars" is less of a fact and more of an idea. It's fine to have an idea, but stating an idea as a fact is where it gets problematic.

[DAL59]

15 hours ago, p1t1o said:

Saw this and it made me think. Thoughts?

 

Should we be thinking of colonising places on Earth, perhaps not literally Antarctica, but maybe areas of Siberia, Canada etc. before we realistically consider colonising Mars?

Antartica is much easier than Mars to reach, but is very different.  While Mars is cold, the thin air does not wisp away heat very fast, and the wind blowing stuff is not an issue.  There is also actual rocks and solid ground with building materials, not just ground buried under miles of ice.  Also, antartica goes dark for 6 months a year, making agriculture in antartica harder than on Mars, which has Earth length days (most plants can easily survive 40% light, or can be bred to, otherwise they wouldn't survive cloudy days(some plants would even be fine at the orbit of Saturn)).  A better analogy would be colonizing a mongolian mounaintop where you can't breath.

 

[DerekL1963]

5 hours ago, magnemoe said:

You can use vertical farming for insane yield for m^2, this makes little sense on earth as its both capital and manpower intensive while farmland is cheap. 

It's also insanely energy intensive.

Anyhow, the idea of "Mars as a refuge from a dino-killer" is laughable nonsense.  It's going to be practically impossible to build a colony that can long survive the absence of supplies and support from Earth.  Even here on Earth, it's so difficult that nobody with a tech level past the bronze age has even seriously tried in at least a millenia.

[kerbiloid]

6 hours ago, magnemoe said:

vertical farming

Doesn't a vertical farm shade a ground surface proportional to its height and the Sun angular height? Especially at higher altitudes.

How densely can the vertical farms be stacked to stay out of each other's shadow? Isn't this distance it at least the same as if it were a horizontal farm?

Let's put these things horizontally:

Spoiler

 

Upd.
Say, we have a row of 10 vertical greenhouses 20 m wide, 100 m high.
They are placed at least in 20 m from each other, otherwise they would shade each other's sides.

If this happens at lower latitudes, the sun is above the head, and their upper floors shade the lower ones.
The balconies unlikely help here, as they create the shadows, too, and only part of each floor stay unshaded. So, they have to be shifted horizontally and turn the vertical farm into a horizontal one.

If this happens at higher latitudes, say 45N, then every tower makes a shadow in average 140 m long.
So the the next row of the towers can be placed only in 200 m behind this one.
This means that we gain 100 * 20 * 10  = 20 000 m², but loose  200 * ((20+20) * 10 - 20) = 76 000 m².
As the sun angle is less sharp than if we were just using horizontal farms (that's good), finally we have twice less plowland per same used ground area.

They often draw solar arrays as fields but I can't remember a solar panel tower.
So, looks like something is wrong with the vertical farming idea. Maybe they are useful as a local exotics somewhere in a city center.

1 hour ago, DAL59 said:

Also, antartica goes dark for 6 months a year

I'm afraid the Martian ice caps exist at similar places. This helps them to stay caps.

P.S.
I have a feeling that the colonized Mars would be not "2nd Earth", but "2nd Chile" in terms of area.
Some colonized mountain ridge around a lower-latitude crater with ice deposits.

Edited October 2, 2018 by kerbiloid