What is a workable plan to settle on Mars in your mind?

hawkwing43 · February 2015

Yes I know there is a current plan to go there under Mars One, but really could that plan work?
It's a one way trip, with no return to Earth, that's it your home for life if you go.

http://www.mars-one.com/mission/roadmap

But really are we ready to setup a colony on a new world?

But for I add my 2 cents of an idea, lets hear what you guys think. 2024 isn't that far off, the planned launch of the 1st group, with 2 year apart launches after that, I just don't know if this current plan is a good one.

theredcomet · February 2015

China will get there first given the state of western space agencies atm. (not saying it's good or bad - just stating an observation)

manwolfbear · February 2015

I say yes and no. Technology as of today is giving us a greenlight with making the idea feasible. However, I say no due to the complicated nature of humans being able to cohesively integrate themselves into productive communities. Living on Mars is less of a science experiment and more of a social psychological experiment. Would there be a new charter for Mars Law or would local law would be used. If local law is used who's law would it be?

Being ready and trying it out are completely two different things. Regardless, simply due to technology allowing us to do it no social hangups will stop us from trying. I think this is the beauty and ugliness of human nature to do something just because we can.

deaftravis05 · February 2015

possible, yes... but there are risks I'm not too sure about.

Solar storms and how Mars will treat the settlers.

kimony · February 2015

Sell them (Martians) a KOA campground franchise. That ought to get things going.

hevach · February 2015

First, and most important? Don't tie it to a profitable commercial venture. At this stage in space development, that's fine for low earth orbit - there's money to be made there and humans have turned a net profit there, and right now most of the potential money is just not being made. But Apollo did not turn a net profit from related developments, and deep space isn't even beginning to pay off financially. There is science aplenty to be had on Mars, but there is not money there. At least not yet.

Mars One's plan, which they don't like to talk about anymore (the contract to get an interview actually says the interviewer can't ask about it) still requires it to become the most popular and successful media project the world has ever seen by two orders of magnitude, and to remain so for longer than any media project has remained at any level of profitability.

Still first, if you must make it a commercial venture, that venture should not involve a reality TV show designed to promote competition discord and danger in an environment that demands absolute control where surprises are fatal.

Second, and to Mars One's credit, is don't fall for the pipe dream of out-of-the-box sustainability. Far more launches, far more missions in a short amount of time, and far higher stakes if even one is lost than a supported colony. This is one of two things Mars One has done right (the other is the morbid and rarely discussed plan to sterilize the colonists because the colony won't be able to support population growth).

Third, always have an abort option, it is immensely cheaper and more likely to work to bring the mission home if it fails than to attempt to salvage it by sending more one way trips. Mars One's abort plan is to let our first feet on another planet die there because the prime time ratings dipped too low, and that's a metaphor best left for fiction to explore and reality to stay far away from.

Fourth, don't have the owner rocket company that you claim is going to take you there going around saying that under no circumstances will they ever be involved in your plan. Because that's just kind of pathetic. But hey, if they are, just put in your interview contract that interviewers can't ask you why Elon Musk asked you to stop saying his name.

mimey2 · February 2015

I think we should follow the 'Arnold' plan. Namely:

"Get your TRIBBLE to Mars!"

steamwright · February 2015

I think it inappropriate to work up a Martian colony concept before we actually put a human on Mars for even the length of times the Apollo teams were on the moon. Far too much could go wrong leaving our brothers and sisters dead, or worse, stranded to a slow death. One need only look to Apollo 13 to realize how even the best laid plans go far astray. We must proceed carefully. I'm not suggesting turtling and delaying space by centuries, no amount of planning makes space completely safe, but I'm suggesting now that we've made the one giant leap, we make smaller steps. Repeat the moon landings first until they are commonplace and we can establish a non-partisan base as a dry run for all future reaches.

Frankly, I'd feel a lot better about it if there was also a base built either mid-way or orbiting Mars, complete with rescue craft: anything to keep them alive until full help could arrive in an emergency.

noroblad · February 2015

IMHO it is stupid. We have a perfectly viable moon that we could colonize first....

jonsills · February 2015

I'm not sure I'd want to colonize Mars; the resources there aren't that hard to find, and are still at the bottom of a gravity well (not as bad as Earth's, but 1/3g is 1/3g any way you look at it).

Assuming a Mars-orbital won't cut it, though, I'd start with temporary surface habitats, prospecting for the best place to dig. Mars' atmosphere doesn't offer much protection against solar and cosmic radiation, and unless you can figure out some way to restart Olympus Mons (I'm not even clear on whether the planet still has a molten core), there's no way to add enough atmosphere to matter. Now, if you can restart the volcanoes, you need to start looking for more water - the asteroids, the Jovian moons, and Saturn's rings are all good zero-gee sources; just get your ice to Mars (thanks, Arnie!), and let it fall to the surface.

Of course, one thing that would help a lot with all this would be to develop a useable constant-thrust drive. One of our best current candidates for that is VASIMR, a coupled-charge plasma thruster currently used to keep satellites in orbit; it uses electrical charge to repel a charged plasma, giving you rocket-like thrust without the need to carry megatons of chemical fuel. If they can complete their current project of developing a thruster with an output of 200 megawatts, this would let you send ships into space with a constant thrust of about .01g. This may not sound like much - but keep in mind, the speed builds as long as the thrust is on, meaning you build up quite a velocity; approximate trip time from Earth to Mars orbit at that thrust would be about 40 days. (Interestingly, according to the table Robert Heinlein worked up for one of his between-stories commentaries in the collection Expanded Universe, at any given constant thrust the average distance to Pluto is seven times as long, so at .01g you'd need 40 weeks to catch up with New Horizons, and the entire solar system has just been opened up to exploration and exploitation.)

hawkwing43 · February 2015

I agree with noroblad, why not put a colony on the moon 1st. If it fails, then you can scrap it, and bring everyone home. It's only 3 days away or less.

http://www.space.com/21588-how-moon-base-lunar-colony-works-infographic.html

hawkwing43 · February 2015

I will add on the moon topic, you have the following that can be done.

1 Resource mining (oxygen, rocket fuel, construction materials)
2 Energy (solar power, helium 3 mining for nuclear fusion)
3 Astronomical observations from the moon's far side
4 Tourism

artan42 · February 2015

Don't bother, we've buggered up Earth and I can easily imagine us buggering up the Moon in the next few decades.

Land on it, sure, probe it, sure, research missions, sure, colonisation, nope.

iconians · February 2015

Humanity does not deserve to inherit the rest of the solar system.

How about we fix some problems here at home, first?

You know... things like world hunger. Eradicating disease. Nuclear disarmament. Environmental sustainability. Renewable fuel resources. Accessible and advanced medical healthcare for the entire human race.

Maybe address clear and present problems first before we decide to splurge on luxuries like Lunar or Martian colonies.

jonsills · February 2015

iconians wrote: »

Humanity does not deserve to inherit the rest of the solar system.

How about we fix some problems here at home, first?

You know... things like world hunger. Eradicating disease. Nuclear disarmament. Environmental sustainability. Renewable fuel resources. Accessible and advanced medical healthcare for the entire human race.

Maybe address clear and present problems first before we decide to splurge on luxuries like Lunar or Martian colonies.

Oddly, expanding into the solar system might well help solve some of those issues. Many of them are related to a lack of available resources - which can be gathered elsewhere in the system. (Water, for instance, one of the most common chemical compounds in the universe yet in short supply in usable form on many parts of Earth, can be relatively easily harvested from asteroids or other celestial bodies.)

And harvesting asteroids can also help with the nuclear-disarmament thing, because one of the easiest ways to make a huge rock move is by the Orion drive.

iconians · February 2015

jonsills wrote: »

Oddly, expanding into the solar system might well help solve some of those issues.

Might. But probably not. We would just be spreading our dysfunction to another planetary body. It's not just humanity we're putting on the moon or Mars. We're bringing our emotional, societal, and psychological baggage with us, too. And all the problems that come with it.

How long until this one-way trip to Mars turns out to be a Lord of the Flies scenario? What is there to stop their 20-odd civilization from breaking down? Before we had firm, established colonies in the New World, we had a lot of colossal failures.

Many of them are related to a lack of available resources - which can be gathered elsewhere in the system. (Water, for instance, one of the most common chemical compounds in the universe yet in short supply in usable form on many parts of Earth, can be relatively easily harvested from asteroids or other celestial bodies.)

This is demonstratably false. We have available resources to take care of every person on this planet. We have the ability to create the infrastructure to transport those resources to every person on this planet. We have the ability, the technology, and the incentive to do this for the betterment of all mankind.

What we lack is the desire to do so.

Yes, there are things such as water shortages, and environmental mismanagement. There are most definitely droughts and wildfires. But 9 times out of 10, the only reason we do not see quality-of-life improvements on a global scale is because there are individuals in positions of great power who just don't want to see that happen.

Also known as the human element. Being shot to Mars with 20 other people is not going to magically change how destructive and greedy the human race is.

And harvesting asteroids can also help with the nuclear-disarmament thing, because one of the easiest ways to make a huge rock move is by the Orion drive.

No disagreement there, per se. But it does nothing to address the fact it's the year 2015 and we still have countries with the capability of wiping out this entire species with just the push of a button.

I think these fantastical hypothetical projects of moon bases and martian bases belong in the hypothetical. Not the practical. I think it's a better use of resources to have Tacofangs simply build a martian colony in STO we can go to, than to spend billions of dollars marooning 20 people on another planet and hoping for the best.

hevach · February 2015

hawkwing43 wrote: »

I will add on the moon topic, you have the following that can be done.

1 Resource mining (oxygen, rocket fuel, construction materials)
2 Energy (solar power, helium 3 mining for nuclear fusion)
3 Astronomical observations from the moon's far side
4 Tourism

A colony there wouldn't even need to be sustainable to be profitable, there's a few industries that could make a killing on the moon. It probably wouldn't be something to call a colony, though, as it probably wouldn't have permanent residents for decades, but the equipment is the same whether it's the same ten people or a rotating crew.

It's also not that far beyond existing rocketry. The SLS and Falcon Heavy could work to get all the heavy equipment there (though something bigger would be nice), and would be fully sufficient to handle supply and personnel transfers. And transit time from Earth is only a few days with windows multiple times a day. In an emergency, a base could be abandoned and reclaimed faster than some oil platforms have been turned around.

revandarklighter · February 2015

hawkwing43 wrote: »

Yes I know there is a current plan to go there under Mars One, but really could that plan work?
It's a one way trip, with no return to Earth, that's it your home for life if you go.

http://www.mars-one.com/mission/roadmap

But really are we ready to setup a colony on a new world?

But for I add my 2 cents of an idea, lets hear what you guys think. 2024 isn't that far off, the planned launch of the 1st group, with 2 year apart launches after that, I just don't know if this current plan is a good one.

I'd say no because... What's the point?
I mean a research station may be in the realm of possible.
But the atmosphere is still not breathable and we do not have any way to change that. So living will mean never leaving the buildings without a suit. Which means creating buildings that could work there in the first place...
The whole colony thing is extremly expensive and has no point....

taylor1701d · February 2015

I wouldn't send humans to Mars at this point, too much risk. But what would be interesting is if they developed avatar tech, then they could send 30 or 40 man-less units to do research, surveying etc, each would be controlled by a scientist here on earth, within the avatar mech. Would achieve the same goal. And you'd avoid the awkwardness of current mars rovers.
The team could even repair the man-less suits as needed.

taylor1701d · February 2015

Also, I think a permanent settlement on Mars is a long way off. The moon on the other hand is a better first step.

starkaos · February 2015

A reason to go to Mars is the survival of the human species. The Earth is currently the only place we have and if it is lost, then it is the end for us. However, I agree with others that state that we should colonize the Moon before Mars. The knowledge we obtain from having a Lunar Base will help to make a Mars colony self-sustainable.

However, if some people want to go on a suicide mission to Mars, then let them go. The colonization of North America was based on suicide missions. After all, if colonizing Las Vegas or Arizona isn't a suicide mission, then I might need to change my definition of it.

iconians · February 2015

starkaos wrote: »

A reason to go to Mars is the survival of the human species.

To play Q's Advocate, what actions have we accomplished that merits the survival of our species at the cost of the continuing suffering of it elsewhere on the planet?

The colonization of North America was based on suicide missions. After all, if colonizing Las Vegas or Arizona isn't a suicide mission, then I might need to change my definition of it.

They weren't suicide missions. There was monetary gain involved. Las Vegas particularly so. The California Gold Rush wasn't a thing just to see if humans could do it. People just wanted to get rich and become the next John D. Rockefeller.

Christopher Columbus? He thought there was a faster, more cost-efficient way to get to the East Indies to establish trade, and bypass the Silk Road entirely.

Amerigo Vespucci? He was a financier and given a hell of a lot of money from King Ferdinand to become the chief navigator.

The English? Tobacco.

The French? Furs.

Iconians? Dominance of the galaxy.

Scandinavians? Grapes, timber, fishing.

Everybody involved in the colonization of the New World was in it for financial gain, and they were willing to exterminate, assimilate, or expel any of the natives who were already here in order to acquire that financial gain.

There is nothing Mars or the Moon offers in such a high quantity that it would merit the risks taken to acquire it, nor do we have the capacity to move such quantities from the moon or mars to Earth as to outweigh the costs of extracting it (which includes the continued upkeep of a colony).

It would be a lot like Phoenix, Arizona. A monument to man's arrogance.

starkaos · February 2015

iconians wrote: »

To play Q's Advocate, what actions have we accomplished that merits the survival of our species at the cost of the continuing suffering of it elsewhere on the planet?

We have this problematic thing called survival instinct. Even if the world will be better off with our demise, we will still use all our energy to continue on being a nuisance.

They weren't suicide missions. There was monetary gain involved. Las Vegas particularly so. The California Gold Rush wasn't a thing just to see if humans could do it. People just wanted to get rich and become the next John D. Rockefeller.

Christopher Columbus? He thought there was a faster, more cost-efficient way to get to the East Indies to establish trade, and bypass the Silk Road entirely.

Amerigo Vespucci? He was a financier and given a hell of a lot of money from King Ferdinand to become the chief navigator.

The English? Tobacco.

The French? Furs.

Iconians? Dominance of the galaxy.

Scandinavians? Grapes, timber, fishing.

Everybody involved in the colonization of the New World was in it for financial gain, and they were willing to exterminate, assimilate, or expel any of the natives who were already here in order to acquire that financial gain.

Still is a suicide mission. Most people require some incentive to go on a suicide mission. History only includes the successful explorers not the thousands of explorers that perished thousands of kilometers from civilization.

There is nothing Mars or the Moon offers in such a high quantity that it would merit the risks taken to acquire it, nor do we have the capacity to move such quantities from the moon or mars to Earth as to outweigh the costs of extracting it (which includes the continued upkeep of a colony).

It would be a lot like Phoenix, Arizona. A monument to man's arrogance.

All probes have only looked at the surface of Mars or the Moon not hundreds of meters below the surface and even then it is only a fraction of the surface so it is premature to say that there is nothing to merit the risk of going to the Moon or Mars.

The moon is not limited to resources, but its unique environment. Astronomy and production of certain items are better on the Moon than on Earth. So even if there is nothing on the Moon, there is still a reason for people to go there.

lilchibiclari · February 2015

taylor1701d wrote: »

I wouldn't send humans to Mars at this point, too much risk. But what would be interesting is if they developed avatar tech, then they could send 30 or 40 man-less units to do research, surveying etc, each would be controlled by a scientist here on earth, within the avatar mech. Would achieve the same goal. And you'd avoid the awkwardness of current mars rovers.
The team could even repair the man-less suits as needed.

The speed-of-light delay would mean that the guys controlling the avatars would have to be orbiting Mars instead of being on Earth, unless you like having a four to ten minute delay between when your "body" trips over a rock and falls over and when you find out about it.

iconians wrote: »

How about we fix some problems here at home, first?

You know... things like world hunger. Eradicating disease. Nuclear disarmament. Environmental sustainability. Renewable fuel resources. Accessible and advanced medical healthcare for the entire human race.

Maybe address clear and present problems first before we decide to splurge on luxuries like Lunar or Martian colonies.

We need to address hunger, disease, war, and environmental sustainability in Europe before we start sending people to the New World!

iconians · February 2015

lilchibiclari wrote: »

We need to address hunger, disease, war, and environmental sustainability in Europe before we start sending people to the New World!

True then, true now.

hawkwing43 · February 2015

I agree with what was said on the Hunger issue. Yes we need to address it, and yes there are people in power stop us from helping it. It's a double edge sword, meaning we have the means and will to do it, but you have forces in place that stop it from happening.

Sure we can end hunger for all on this planet right now, but until you address the greed factor, and the quest for power, you will always have that as an issue.

shandypandy · February 2015

mimey2 wrote: »

I think we should follow the 'Arnold' plan. Namely:

"Get your TRIBBLE to Mars!"

Followed by giving the people some air.

theraven2378 · February 2015

I'd wait until we have the technology to move the heavy equipment first, once the infrastructure is built up then send the colonists.

For the infrastructure, things like water gathering plants, power and life support systems need to be put in place, furthermore, I'd build the colony underground with underground atmosphere processors for the breathable air with artificially created gardens and forests to help with oxygen generation as well as good food and power production facilities.

Only then would I consider sending colonists.

jonsills · February 2015

Heavy equipment's easy. We could start shipping that this afternoon, given funding and desire. It doesn't matter to heavy equipment if it's sent on a Hohmann orbit and takes a couple of years to get there.

Passengers and life-support supplies are a little more delicate.

What is a workable plan to settle on Mars in your mind?

Comments