[ot] Mars colonization

[Zappo]

'high CO2 levels'

hehehe

The actual amount of CO2 isn't so dangerous, it's the fact that there isn't much of an atmosphere to begin with. Oxygen extraction from rust would probably be one method, but we wouldn't want to use bacteria (or be damn careful, eww...)

He didn't say that the high CO2 is dangerous, but that it would help lychens. In my opinion, even if certain lychens could probably withstand the temperature and composition of the atmosphere, I think they'd die because of the low pressure. 1/60 of Earth's IIRC, I could be mistaken but that's the order of magnitude. There's just not enough of an atmosphere to worry about its composition. I'm for the use of genetically engineered bacteria. That's the biggest obstacle to life on Mars; we need a fairly precise pressure to survive and I have no idea of how we could change it so that it's exactly the right one. Once that is done, you could walk on Mars with just heavy clothes and an oxygen mask, which isn't bad overall.

The problem with the moon, or a moon base, is the temperature variance. During the 'day' the temperature can melt lead, during the night...

Also, although we could mine oxygen on the moon, it has no water whatsoever. Better than space, perhaps, but still a problem.

There is no way to make the Moon survivable; at least not in the close or medium future. I have a hard time even imagining the technology and resources involved. The only thing we can hope for is an underground base. On a theorical level, if the base is a mostly well closed system, you only need a good source of energy and enough tech to survive.

After that, getting CO2, oxygen or water can be done; you just breathe to get CO2; you grow plants to get oxygen (IIRC, a large tree produces enough oxygen for a human - I bet we could come up with something more efficient though); you burn hydrogen to get water (and recover some energy in the process).

It'd take energy for all of that, of course. Big solar panels, I guess, at least for now. Nuclear fusion when/if it works.

 

[Storminator]

Zubrin came to my work and gave a talk. (because, after all, check my profile...)

He lays out a very good case for Mars indeed. In it he includes a chapter on why we *shouldn't* try going to the moon first.

But mostly he shows that we've got the tech to do it now, nothing new required. If you're interested in space exploration/colonization, go pick up his book. There's also http://www.nw.net/mars/ for more info

PS

In the whole Moon vs Mars thing, my perspective has always been simple.

We should hit the moon first.

A. Its closer

B. We have done it before.

C. We can practice making a colony.

D. If we ever want to go to Mars, going from the moon would be a perfect staging area. The gravity is less, easier to launch shuttles/rockets from.

I too dreamt of seeing Olympus Mons, but am resigned to the fact that we won't in our lifetime. Walking on the moon is another story. It is very possible. Heck we could do it now, we just aren't allocating the effort.

Razuur

 

[Airwolf]

Now for my thoughts on sending people to Mars.

The biggest reason we are not going is money, plain and simple. The technology we currently have is sufficient to send people to Mars and to return them safely. If I remember correctly it cost something like 10 billion dollars just to get the space shuttle designed, built, tested, and onto a launch pad.

Here is a section of an article that talks about the cost of a Mars mission.

Martian chronicle.(plans for manned exploration of planet Mars)(Cover Story)
Author/s: John Tierney
Issue: Feb, 1999
…
NASA's profligacy became absurdly obvious in 1989, when the agency was asked by President Bush to plan a mission to Mars. It responded with a $400 billion proposal to build a 1,000-ton interplanetary spaceship the length of a football field, which would have carried all the fuel for the return voyage. It would have been assembled in orbit because it was too large to be launched from Earth - "the battlestar Galactica," as Zubrin dubbed it. At the time he was an engineer at Martin Marietta Astronautics and a member of an informal group called the Mars Underground that met occasionally to dream of interplanetary travel.
…
John Tierney (jotierney@aol.com) is a columnist for The New York Times.
COPYRIGHT 1999 Reason Foundation
COPYRIGHT 2000 Gale Group

IMHO, until the cost is reduced by at least one order of magnitude we will not be going to Mars.

Now I don't think that the idea that NASA put forth in 1989 was the best choice but it does show that cost is a serious issue.

Just in case anyone is wondering, CNN just published and article on their web site that talks about the new NASA budget requests. Sadly enough there was no major funding for any type of manned Mars mission. NASA Projects

Enjoy!

 

[Storminator]

<SNIP>

After that, getting CO2, oxygen or water can be done; you just breathe to get CO2; you grow plants to get oxygen (IIRC, a large tree produces enough oxygen for a human - I bet we could come up with something more efficient though); you burn hydrogen to get water (and recover some energy in the process).

It'd take energy for all of that, of course. Big solar panels, I guess, at least for now. Nuclear fusion when/if it works.

It isn't nearly that simple. You exhale CO2 because you inhale it. The vast majority of exhaled CO2 is inhaled. You just use all the O2 in the breath for metabolism, leaving the air you exhale "stale."

Similarly, plants release O2 because they are striping the C out of the air for their metabolism. In other words, both plants and animals are cycling materials, not generating them.

In both of these cases the raw materials are already present in our atmosphere. On the moon you have to ship them in, at an enormous expense. That's one of the beauties of Mars. It already has enough oxygen to sustain a large population. It's just locked in CO2 and spread all over the planet. If we gather it up (big fans) and break down the CO2, we can breathe. And there's already CO2 for the plants...

PS

 

[Number47]

I think the biggest problem with terraforming Mars isn't whether to use lichens or bacteria. The big question is, what can survive the windstorms? If it can't hold out against the Mars weather, life will only grow in secluded areas, not enough to make the impact we need.

How about this idea? We send all our spent nuclear fuel to Mars to warm it up! Yeah! Then the water will melt, a more hospitable weather pattern can take hold. It's perfect! Except for the toxic materials, of course.

 

[Zappo]

It isn't nearly that simple. You exhale CO2 because you inhale it. The vast majority of exhaled CO2 is inhaled. You just use all the O2 in the breath for metabolism, leaving the air you exhale "stale."

Similarly, plants release O2 because they are striping the C out of the air for their metabolism. In other words, both plants and animals are cycling materials, not generating them.

Yep, I know. What's wrong with that? You don't need to generate materials if you can recycle indefinitely what you already have.

In both of these cases the raw materials are already present in our atmosphere. On the moon you have to ship them in, at an enormous expense.

Yeah, but it's a one-time shipment, or maybe once-a-year. And the cost is enormous but still nowhere close what you need to send something to Mars.

That's one of the beauties of Mars. It already has enough oxygen to sustain a large population. It's just locked in CO2 and spread all over the planet. If we gather it up (big fans) and break down the CO2, we can breathe. And there's already CO2 for the plants...

Mars doesn't have the pressure to let us survive without a suit. The composition of the atmosphere is irrelevant when your blood is boiling. I doubt that even plants would survive that. We would need to live in underground and costly to maintain bases in any case, so we can try it on the Moon for a start. Assuming that there is some way to free enough nitrogen into Mars' atmosphere to get the pressure right, it will undoubtedly take centuries (besides, I don't know where that nitrogen would come from).

I wonder if Mars has enough gravity to hold an atmosphere at Earth's pressure. If it hasn't, we're screwed.

 

[Agback]

(Then again, I do plan to live for at least 120 years... )

... or die in the attempt, right?


Regards,


Agback

 

[bolen]

The best fiction book on this is (IMHO) Voyage by stephen baxster. I kinda agree with you but it hard to justify a mars mission even for scientific research. Look at what else we could fund with that money. Athough it is more reasonable then the international space station.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

I think the biggest problem with terraforming Mars isn't whether to use lichens or bacteria. The big question is, what can survive the windstorms? If it can't hold out against the Mars weather, life will only grow in secluded areas, not enough to make the impact we need.

What windstorms?

Sure, wind can reach impressive speeds on Mars - but thanks to the low atmospheric pressure, you'd hardly feel a thing...

 

[Storminator]

Yep, I know. What's wrong with that? You don't need to generate materials if you can recycle indefinitely what you already have.Yeah, but it's a one-time shipment, or maybe once-a-year. And the cost is enormous but still nowhere close what you need to send something to Mars.

But if we're going to except an enormous cost, we might as well go whole hog and skip the moon. If the only reason to go to the moon is to get ready to go to Mars, lets save the money and go right to Mars.

Mars doesn't have the pressure to let us survive without a suit. The composition of the atmosphere is irrelevant when your blood is boiling. I doubt that even plants would survive that. We would need to live in underground and costly to maintain bases in any case, so we can try it on the Moon for a start. Assuming that there is some way to free enough nitrogen into Mars' atmosphere to get the pressure right, it will undoubtedly take centuries (besides, I don't know where that nitrogen would come from).

Except that you can change the pressure on a localized level. (That's what I meant by the atmosphere is spread all over the planet, the big fans, the gathering it up part). If you lose some of your atmosphere on the moon, you have to wait until the next shipment comes in. If you lose some of your atmosphere on Mars, you turn the fans on and suck in some more. Big difference.

I wonder if Mars has enough gravity to hold an atmosphere at Earth's pressure. If it hasn't, we're screwed.

Mars almost surely DOESN'T have the gravity to hold and earth like atmoshpere. But you don't really need it. Experiments show you can get by at a much lower pressure. Think about it: You don't need a pressure suit to climb Everest, and the atmospheric density at the summit is a quarter of sea levels' density. Granted that's still a far cry from Mars' atm density, but it's survivable.

But the real question is, what do you get from the moon? There's no real reason to go there except to prove the technology. Might as well do that on Mars, which has planet level resources to exploit.

PS