Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I dont understand the desire to 'colonize' mars or any other uninhabitable resource-void planet. It just doesnt make sense. if you have to transport ever single needed item in order to be a successful colony, you are DOOMED.
An investment in near-earth space stations would be better. They both have the same requirements - food, oxygen, water, shelter - but Mars has the increased risk of getting onto - and off of - a planet surface.
What makes you think that Mars has no resources? We know that Mars has water. And the planet is bound to have mineral deposits that we can make use of. Crops can be grown in an enclosed environment for food. Oxygen can be extracted from the water.
Why the desire to colonize? New frontiers to conquer for one thing. Pushing out into the solar system and colonizing Mars is a worthwhile goal. Some people would point out that colonizing other bodies in the solar system would ensure the survival of the human race if an extinction level event were to occur on earth such as a large asteroid impact.
What makes you think that Mars has no resources? We know that Mars has water. And the planet is bound to have mineral deposits that we can make use of. Crops can be grown in an enclosed environment for food. Oxygen can be extracted from the water.
Why the desire to colonize? New frontiers to conquer for one thing. Pushing out into the solar system and colonizing Mars is a worthwhile goal. Some people would point out that colonizing other bodies in the solar system would ensure the survival of the human race if an extinction level event were to occur on earth such as a large asteroid impact.
think about previous human exploration of new frontiers - there were readily available building materials, food, water, temperate climate, and atmosphere. The early explorers brought temporary sustenance, shelter and tools to get them established. While losing their prepped food, shelter, and tools made thing much more difficult, it did not mean certain death.
On Mars - and other uninhabitable planets like it - everything necessary to sustain life has to be manufactured and brought to the planet. Yes, there is frozen water trapped in the soil and at the poles that can be used to generate potable water and a breathable atmosphere. However, the equipment to make that possible must be brought with them. Assuming redundancy the first failure is a major inconvenience - The second failure is death. Manufactured and transported shelter failure = death (you cant just go shelter in a cave or build a lean-to). Crop failure = death. Critical tool failure = death. oh, and yes, there are minerals - perhaps even metal ores - but what do you DO with it? Smelting and forging inst really something that can be done without major infrastructure.
Yes, you can plan and implement redundant systems as much as you want but at what point does it simply become impracticable? And for what? We cant terraform.
if the goal is simple exploration, then sure, go to mars. but if the goal is to find a suitable "disaster recovery site" then mars is not the answer. Perhaps we should invest in terraforming technology and start here on earth (or the moon - it's closer). Rather than racing to mars, let's simply make the existence outside the earth's atmosphere a reality (i.e. comfortable space station; not tubes and airlocks)
What makes you think that Mars has no resources? We know that Mars has water. And the planet is bound to have mineral deposits that we can make use of. Crops can be grown in an enclosed environment for food. Oxygen can be extracted from the water.
Why the desire to colonize? New frontiers to conquer for one thing. Pushing out into the solar system and colonizing Mars is a worthwhile goal. Some people would point out that colonizing other bodies in the solar system would ensure the survival of the human race if an extinction level event were to occur on earth such as a large asteroid impact.
Although underground water may be available on Mars, or beneath the ice caps, it would have to be extracted. That would require some major tools to do. It's a big operation. The general thought is that Martian water is probably high in toxic salts. That would require a major filtration system, not only for use to drink or to make fuel and oxygen, but to provide for food crops as well. Keep in mind that humans don't breathe pure oxygen. All the equipment required for a colony large enough to preserve the human race would have to be sent to Mars. Sure, plants could be grown hydroponically. But would there be enough of the right kind of plants to ensure the nutritional requirements for humans, enough to ward off the risk of extinction?
Take into account that Mars has a very thin atmosphere, has no global magnetic Van Allen belts, is exposed to intense solar and cosmic radiation, and has less gravity than the Earth. There are several small or localized magnetic fields on the Martian surface, but that's not a substitute for a global magnetic belt to reduce incoming radiation from space. Radiation would limit the time a person could spend outside even wearing a pressurized suit. And the weak gravity of Mars would have an effect on human bone and muscle structure. Vigorous daily exercise could help reduce that, but long term? I don't know. It doesn't look all that optimistic. The thing is that Mars is not the Earth.
Although some people do indeed tout the notion of Mars as a refuge to ensure survival of the human race, they often tend to overlook Mars' location. It's closer to the Asteroid Belt than the Earth is. The number of craters on the planet can attest to that. There's very little atmosphere on Mars to slow even small incoming meteors. A colony on Mars is likely to be wiped out more quickly than the population of Earth.
If preservation of the human race is a significant goal, then building extremely large spacecrafts that can be moved around in space would be a better option.
Another hurtle to overcome is getting on and off Mars. Currently, the US has had the most success in actually getting equipment to land safely on the surface of Mars. There have been about 44 missions, or attempted missions, to Mars (of all countries) with both landers and orbiters. Only 19 were successful, and of those 3 were partially successful with the orbiters intact, but failure to successfully land on the surface. There has never been any attempt for a return mission from the surface of Mars. Historical Log
Can Earth do better in landing and eventually taking off from Mars? Sure. But we aren't at that stage yet. it's going to take a lot of time and practice. Can we eventually get people to the surface? I think so, but I think most likely as relatively short-term missions of a year or two. However, I don't think Mars will be considered as an Earth 2.0.
I don't get this whole push to get people to Mars...
Maybe it's because when you do something very different and try to meet a difficult challenge, you end up learning a lot and have the potential for surprising discoveries. It happened while getting people to the moon, so how much more of an opportunity with taking people to Mars. Besides, who knows, we might need another planet at some point.
I'm more puzzled by people who always want to shut down attempts to grow and learn.
I don't get this whole push to stop people from trying to advance science and the boundaries of our thinking.
Last edited by Thoreau424; 12-20-2016 at 02:33 PM..
I'm more puzzled by people who always want to shut down attempts to grow and learn.
I don't think anyone it shutting down attempts to grow and learn. I think it's redirecting the avenues of exploration to more tenable pursuits. Mars is more than likely a one way trip. . . and for what? Lessons learned from a Mars project could just as easily be learned by a Lunar project.
To make interplanetary travel more efficient, the launch point should be outside earth's atmosphere which means an orbital launch platform. We arent there yet. Our money and engineering should be invested in the development of large-scale space platforms and transports. Orbital infrastructure from which space faring vehicles can be assembled.
Maybe that platform should orbit the moon rather than earth. Perhaps we being our non-Terran mining and resource harvesting future on the Moon so that when we discover the need for additional parts or resources to meet the unique demands we can get it from Earth within weeks rather than the months it would take if we were on Mars.
I dont think anyone on this forum wants to shut down and attempts to grow and learn - i think there are different points of view and debate allows us to further explore and learn.
think about previous human exploration of new frontiers - there were readily available building materials, food, water, temperate climate, and atmosphere. The early explorers brought temporary sustenance, shelter and tools to get them established. While losing their prepped food, shelter, and tools made thing much more difficult, it did not mean certain death.
On Mars - and other uninhabitable planets like it - everything necessary to sustain life has to be manufactured and brought to the planet. Yes, there is frozen water trapped in the soil and at the poles that can be used to generate potable water and a breathable atmosphere. However, the equipment to make that possible must be brought with them. Assuming redundancy the first failure is a major inconvenience - The second failure is death. Manufactured and transported shelter failure = death (you cant just go shelter in a cave or build a lean-to). Crop failure = death. Critical tool failure = death. oh, and yes, there are minerals - perhaps even metal ores - but what do you DO with it? Smelting and forging inst really something that can be done without major infrastructure.
Yes, you can plan and implement redundant systems as much as you want but at what point does it simply become impracticable? And for what? We cant terraform.
if the goal is simple exploration, then sure, go to mars. but if the goal is to find a suitable "disaster recovery site" then mars is not the answer. Perhaps we should invest in terraforming technology and start here on earth (or the moon - it's closer). Rather than racing to mars, let's simply make the existence outside the earth's atmosphere a reality (i.e. comfortable space station; not tubes and airlocks)
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar
Although underground water may be available on Mars, or beneath the ice caps, it would have to be extracted. That would require some major tools to do. It's a big operation. The general thought is that Martian water is probably high in toxic salts. That would require a major filtration system, not only for use to drink or to make fuel and oxygen, but to provide for food crops as well. Keep in mind that humans don't breathe pure oxygen. All the equipment required for a colony large enough to preserve the human race would have to be sent to Mars. Sure, plants could be grown hydroponically. But would there be enough of the right kind of plants to ensure the nutritional requirements for humans, enough to ward off the risk of extinction?
Take into account that Mars has a very thin atmosphere, has no global magnetic Van Allen belts, is exposed to intense solar and cosmic radiation, and has less gravity than the Earth. There are several small or localized magnetic fields on the Martian surface, but that's not a substitute for a global magnetic belt to reduce incoming radiation from space. Radiation would limit the time a person could spend outside even wearing a pressurized suit. And the weak gravity of Mars would have an effect on human bone and muscle structure. Vigorous daily exercise could help reduce that, but long term? I don't know. It doesn't look all that optimistic. The thing is that Mars is not the Earth.
Although some people do indeed tout the notion of Mars as a refuge to ensure survival of the human race, they often tend to overlook Mars' location. It's closer to the Asteroid Belt than the Earth is. The number of craters on the planet can attest to that. There's very little atmosphere on Mars to slow even small incoming meteors. A colony on Mars is likely to be wiped out more quickly than the population of Earth.
If preservation of the human race is a significant goal, then building extremely large spacecrafts that can be moved around in space would be a better option.
Another hurtle to overcome is getting on and off Mars. Currently, the US has had the most success in actually getting equipment to land safely on the surface of Mars. There have been about 44 missions, or attempted missions, to Mars (of all countries) with both landers and orbiters. Only 19 were successful, and of those 3 were partially successful with the orbiters intact, but failure to successfully land on the surface. There has never been any attempt for a return mission from the surface of Mars. Historical Log
Can Earth do better in landing and eventually taking off from Mars? Sure. But we aren't at that stage yet. it's going to take a lot of time and practice. Can we eventually get people to the surface? I think so, but I think most likely as relatively short-term missions of a year or two. However, I don't think Mars will be considered as an Earth 2.0.
There are obviously obstacles to be overcome and hazards which must be faced, and so any attempts at colonizing Mars can't be made until we have the capability to do so.
However, NASA's goal is to have a man on Mars sometime during the 2030's and is working toward that goal with project Orion. Once the new SLS rocket is ready, it will launch the Orion capsule in an unmanned flight into cislunar space 40,000 miles beyond the moon. This is anticipated to take place in 2018. After that, it will be done with men on board.
By the end of the 2020's NASA wants to do a one year manned mission in cislunar space before embarking on manned flight beyond the earth-moon system.
NASA’s First Flight With Crew Will Mark Important Step on Journey to Mars
When astronauts are on their first test flight aboard NASA’s Orion spacecraft, which will take them farther into the solar system than humanity has ever traveled before, their mission will be to confirm all of the spacecraft’s systems operate as designed in the actual environment of deep space. After an Orion test campaign that includes ground tests, systems demonstrations on the International Space Station, and uncrewed space test flights, this first crewed test flight will mark a significant step forward on NASA’s Journey to Mars.
This will be NASA’s first mission with crew in a series of missions in the proving ground, an area of space around the moon where crew can build and test systems needed to prepare for the challenge of missions to Mars. The mission will launch from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center Florida as early as August 2021. Crew size will be determined closer to launch, but NASA plans to fly up to four astronauts in Orion for each human mission.
There are obviously obstacles to be overcome and hazards which must be faced, and so any attempts at colonizing Mars can't be made until we have the capability to do so.
However, NASA's goal is to have a man on Mars sometime during the 2030's and is working toward that goal with project Orion. Once the new SLS rocket is ready, it will launch the Orion capsule in an unmanned flight into cislunar space 40,000 miles beyond the moon. This is anticipated to take place in 2018. After that, it will be done with men on board.
By the end of the 2020's NASA wants to do a one year manned mission in cislunar space before embarking on manned flight beyond the earth-moon system.
NASA’s First Flight With Crew Will Mark Important Step on Journey to Mars
When astronauts are on their first test flight aboard NASA’s Orion spacecraft, which will take them farther into the solar system than humanity has ever traveled before, their mission will be to confirm all of the spacecraft’s systems operate as designed in the actual environment of deep space. After an Orion test campaign that includes ground tests, systems demonstrations on the International Space Station, and uncrewed space test flights, this first crewed test flight will mark a significant step forward on NASA’s Journey to Mars.
This will be NASA’s first mission with crew in a series of missions in the proving ground, an area of space around the moon where crew can build and test systems needed to prepare for the challenge of missions to Mars. The mission will launch from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center Florida as early as August 2021. Crew size will be determined closer to launch, but NASA plans to fly up to four astronauts in Orion for each human mission.
If NASA is able to meet its goal of having a man on Mars during the 2030's I may live long enough to see it.
It might be possible, but I seriously doubt NASA will have a crew on the Martian surface in the 2030s. The exception would be if it can be an international venture. The cost would be extreme any way you look at it. It's not that I think such a mission wouldn't be worth it, but we'll have to wait and see what happens. There are already some worries that the next president may might some seriously deep budget cuts to the field of science. He could slash a Mars mission simply because it was Obama's idea to reach Mars with a manned mission by the 2030s. One thought is that he might want to focus on the Moon before any attempts to reach Mars. He may also put the Asteroid Retrieval Mission on the chopping block as well. What President Trump Means for NASA
Frankly, I do think establishing a manned base on the Moon would be a good first step, but I also think snubbing any potential manned Mars missions is a very bad idea. Kennedy set the goal for a manned mission to the Moon by the end of the decade (1960s). He was assassinated before the mission took place, and was replaced by Lyndon Johnson. Johnson didn't eliminate lunar goals after becoming president.
At some point, we're going to have to have some deep space manned missions that are beyond the Moon. And were going to have to have some unmanned missions to the surface of Mars that can successfully lift off from the Martian surface and return to Earth. This is all going to require practice before sending people. As it is, the landers and rovers that have arrived safely on Mars landed by parachutes, inflated balloons and braking thrusters. None were intended to leave Mars. That's something that has to be worked on and shown to be successful before sending people. The idea of sending people to Mars on a one-way trip that Mars One has in mind is absurd.
In middle of the last century, it was thought that we'd have bases established on the Moon and manned missions to Mars by the end of the century. It didn't happen. Then there were two catastrophic accidents with the space shuttle program, which delayed things even more. I hope I'm wrong, but if science budgets are severely slashed, NASA's goals may be crippled again. Perhaps the private sector can pick up the slack. Or maybe some other countries may take up the lead. In any case, I'd rather take our time and do things correctly and safely, than rush things too much just for the sake of bragging rights over who was first to land a manned mission on Mars. But I also think that we do need to keep pressing on.
The idea that some people have about trying to reach Mars to establish a second Earth as a way to ensure the preservation of humanity from the risk of a potential global catastrophe is not a valid solution simply because Mars is located much closer to the Asteroid Belt than the Earth is. Whatever the efforts may be to explore space, the cost to do so is still going to be astronomical and considered as long term goals. Ideally, such ventures, even just to travel to Mars, should be an international venture.
It might be possible, but I seriously doubt NASA will have a crew on the Martian surface in the 2030s. The exception would be if it can be an international venture. The cost would be extreme any way you look at it. It's not that I think such a mission wouldn't be worth it, but we'll have to wait and see what happens. There are already some worries that the next president may might some seriously deep budget cuts to the field of science. He could slash a Mars mission simply because it was Obama's idea to reach Mars with a manned mission by the 2030s. One thought is that he might want to focus on the Moon before any attempts to reach Mars. He may also put the Asteroid Retrieval Mission on the chopping block as well. What President Trump Means for NASA
Frankly, I do think establishing a manned base on the Moon would be a good first step, but I also think snubbing any potential manned Mars missions is a very bad idea. Kennedy set the goal for a manned mission to the Moon by the end of the decade (1960s). He was assassinated before the mission took place, and was replaced by Lyndon Johnson. Johnson didn't eliminate lunar goals after becoming president.
At some point, we're going to have to have some deep space manned missions that are beyond the Moon. And were going to have to have some unmanned missions to the surface of Mars that can successfully lift off from the Martian surface and return to Earth. This is all going to require practice before sending people. As it is, the landers and rovers that have arrived safely on Mars landed by parachutes, inflated balloons and braking thrusters. None were intended to leave Mars. That's something that has to be worked on and shown to be successful before sending people. The idea of sending people to Mars on a one-way trip that Mars One has in mind is absurd.
In middle of the last century, it was thought that we'd have bases established on the Moon and manned missions to Mars by the end of the century. It didn't happen. Then there were two catastrophic accidents with the space shuttle program, which delayed things even more. I hope I'm wrong, but if science budgets are severely slashed, NASA's goals may be crippled again. Perhaps the private sector can pick up the slack. Or maybe some other countries may take up the lead. In any case, I'd rather take our time and do things correctly and safely, than rush things too much just for the sake of bragging rights over who was first to land a manned mission on Mars. But I also think that we do need to keep pressing on.
The idea that some people have about trying to reach Mars to establish a second Earth as a way to ensure the preservation of humanity from the risk of a potential global catastrophe is not a valid solution simply because Mars is located much closer to the Asteroid Belt than the Earth is. Whatever the efforts may be to explore space, the cost to do so is still going to be astronomical and considered as long term goals. Ideally, such ventures, even just to travel to Mars, should be an international venture.
I agree that we need to be able to get back off the surface of Mars once we're on it. NASA understands that as well and is obviously factoring that into their goals for a 2030's landing on Mars. But it's true that the goal for a 2030's landing may not be reached for one reason or another. Time will tell.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
