We have had the capability to develop ourselves to send a colony to mars in 10 years if we really wanted to, for 50 years, so yes we're late. But I for one am very happy we've got some real vision and development towards it now.
True.
You know what else is true? We could breathe on that new continent, there would be enough nitrogen compounds to grow food, anyone who wanted to go back home could eventually do so, our colonists bodies would not deteriorate due to the low gravity, and if our colonists there got into trouble, we could send help before they all died horribly.
But yes, it does mean bringing your own air and being self sufficient, but we do both of those things on the ISS already
The martian atmosphere is 2.8% N2. For comparison, Earths atmoshpere is 78.08% N2, while also being more than 100x as dense. And Earth already has soil, and a developed nitrogen cycle, while Mars doesn't.
So there is nowhere near enough Nitrogen in-situ on Mars to support any form of agriculture. It has to be brought from Earth.
> mars has enough gravity to prevent bone loss
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2017/07/407806/traveling-mars-will...
So yes, lowered gravity has negative impacts on our bones and physiology in general. The gravity on Mars is 1/3 that of Earth. And that's after spending several months in-transit at microgravity.
> But yes, it does mean bringing your own air and being self sufficient, but we do both of those things on the ISS already
The ISS is not self sufficient, and relies on continuos supply runs from earth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncrewed_spaceflights_to_the_I...
We just don’t know if the 1/3 gravity will cause bone loss problems - going to the moon is the best way to study it, but who knows. Probably, people will just age 3x faster in terms of bone mass on mars. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceflight_osteopenia
And yeah, the first years of a mars colony are gonna be dependent on earth. We’d definitely make sure we have enough rockets that they can abort if shit goes south on supply missions, but there’s no reason earth can’t supply them at first.
Nitrates on mars will probably be in the form of nitrate salts.
Btw. agriculture also requires soil. Which the martian regolith isn't.
> We’d definitely make sure we have enough rockets that they can abort if shit goes south on supply missions
Have enough rockets where? On mars? Using what fuel? Using what ground installations like scaffolds and launch pads? Also, launching between Mars and Earth is only possible during specific time windows. For an Earth-Mars transit, these occur ~once every 2 years. So if "shit goes south" outside these windows, the amount of rockets won't matter.
No. It is always possible, but the optimal windows happen every two years. There is another 2nd optimal window, that happens every 5.5 months, which flies by Venus before continuing on to Earth/Mars.
Transfer outside that window is possible, but requires more energy, which increases the transfer time, limits the payload, or both.
Chances are, Mars may have local concentrations of nitrous minerals (as does Earth), and these can be used to run a large enough agriculture. Few plants know how to consume atmospheric nitrogen anyway.
Air pressure and temperature can be maintained below transparent domes, greenhouse-style.
Dim sunlight looks like a much bigger problem, which can't be fixed by any terraforming.
Which would have to be found, ideally near the equator (otherwise landing and solar power generation is going to be a problem), mined and transported. And since Nitrous minerals aren't fertilizer, it would have to be processed (which is an energy intensive process even on earth, where we get to use atmospheric Nitrogen in the Haber-Bosch-Process).
And of course there is no soil on mars, so we have to bring that as well.
Of course we won't be able to do this now, and still won't be in 10-15 years. In 30 years it's hard to predict: there can be a huge technological breakthrough, or a total loss of interest and regress in capabilities.
The question I am asking isn't "is it possible". The question I am asking is "is it worth it". I see a lot of comparisons with Columbus, colonising America and the first Lunar landing flying around in such discussions. Well, all of these, and in fact most grand far-fetched undertakings of mankind, as un-romantic as that may sound, were the result of a cost-benefit analysis;
Columbus expected to find a valueable trade-route.
Colonising America promised resources, taxes and geopolitical power.
Landing on the Moon showed off who got the biggest most badass rockets to a geostrategic opponent in the middle of a cold war centered around, well, rockets. There is a reason no man has been on the moon since the 70s.
Trying to colonise Mars promises...what exactly?
Yeah, a few tiny problems with that assumption:
a) Earth goverments can easily shut down launches from Earth. Since any Mars Base would be dependent on resupply for probably a very long time, that effectively gives them control.
b) Establishing a Mars Base doesn't work without government support to begin with, so they have their hands in from the start. And even if they didn't, being ruled by a corporation or billionaire overlord instead of a government would be a prime example of "Out of the frying pan - into the fire".
c) In a bid for Braveheart-Style "Freeeedoooooom!", Mars colony has no leverage over Earth. Zero. There is no Unobtainium on Mars.
d) Any ungoverned, larger group of humans, left to its own devices, will eventually form some kind of government, if only out of the need for self-organisation. Proof: The entirety of history.
Regarding d); Now, our Earth governments may not be ideal solutions. And yes, maaaaybe Mars Gov. will be an ideal utopia. I kinda doubt it.
Because that group would be under constant psychological pressure from several life-threatening dangers, where one mistake by one person could kill everyone. They live in a planet-sized dead wasteland, with very limited resources. They are locked in crowded habitats for most of the time. Their lifespan is likley cut short by radiation damage and low-gravity related physiological deterioration.
Now, I am not a psychologist, nor a political scientist. But under such conditions, I imagine the outcome of any government-formation-process to be...unpleasant.
I'm not saying that this desire is rational, or that the result would be a libertarian utopia, etc. But "all progress depends on the unreasonable man", as history also shows time and time again.
Boston was founded in a breathable atmosphere and a livable climate, in a land that contains building materials, wildlife, liquid water, and arable soil, all shielded from cosmic radiation by Earths magnetic field and in a gravity well our physiology has evolved to cope with.
Yes, life for the colonists was hardship and back-breaking work, but the basic building blocks for survival existed.
Which of these blocks are present on Mars?
Like I said, pure delusion. We can still barely manage to launch rockets into space, and it still costs thousands of dollars per kg of cargo just to get to LEO. No human has lived in space for an extended period of time at a range beyond the ISS (400 km, while Mars is 400 million km).
The Moon is very inhospitable, but it's close enough we could have just shuttled an endless stream of ready-to-live habitat modules there, one after another. The tech was there. The will was not.
I'm not saying it would have been rational to do it in the 1970s, but we could have!
On the other hand, what we actually did do (to the Earth) wasn't exactly rational, either.
Really? What machines would be used to build these shelters? How do they get to Mars? How would they be powered? What auxilliary materials will they require and how do those get to Mars?
Launch? Maybe.
Launch while also having to launch everything the people we send there need for the rest of their lives, and also launch everything needed to power and maintain that robot for as long as it's required? Hmmmmm...
But okay, let's say we do all that. We can now dig up Mars-dirt. How do we make that into airtight shelter that is also proof against cosmic radiation?
Better than to hand-wave them wouldn't you agree? Because these issues are real, hard and very limiting factors, and they don't go away by throwing money at them. And I'm pretty sure I am not the only person who keeps raising these issues.
> Serious plans involve sending hundreds of rockets every year
That would be a really neat trick.
Mars's synodic period with Earth is 780 days (about 26 months) and the resulting transfer window lasts a few weeks at most. So if you want to send even 100 rockets per year, you have to start +200 rockets within that launch window.
To put that into perspective, since 1960 there were a grand total of 50 Mars missions, that includes unsuccessful ones, which were more than half: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_Mars Most of these missions didn't land anything on Mars, and not a single one involved landing the spaceship itself, or had even remotely the kind of payload capacity that a colonisation effort requires.
So unless someone has a workable idea for a completely new propulsion system, I'm afraid there won't be "hundreds of rockets every year".
Edit: Oh, I almost forgot, small question: How do these "hundreds of rockets per year" get back to Earth? Because, if they don't, well, that's gonna up the launch costs somewhat, wouldn't it?
No, I can launch 200 rockets the same day if I have sufficient rockets, launch pads, reload-capacity on these pads, fuel, and personnel.
We have none of these things, and they cannot be solved by throwing money either. Just one example why not: Launch sites have geographic requirements.
> If you have a really deep pipeline of several, the rockets could also be coming home
A pipeline of what, rockets!?
The fuel-requirements of a spaceship far outstrip it's payload capacity. That's not me saying that, but physics.
So I have to launch M rockets to bring N rockets back home, with M being a multiple of N. And then to bring M home, I have to launch L rockets, with L being a multiple of M. Did anyone say "geometric growth"?
No, that's not why. Starship uses Methane/LOX because almost all modern rocket engines do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Rocket_engines_using_...
> Mars has water and CO2
Yes, it does. What is doesn't have: lots of available energy, industrial facilities, storage tanks, or any of the other things required to actually make in-situ methane/LOX production feasible.
You don't have to believe me, the helpful folks at CSS have provided all the numbers and background data:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wum8_8sWdeU
That is simply not true. Starship has been built for Mars and Elon has said it himself that making fuel on mars makes it using methane the only option. It's not some exploratory science craft that can live in the luxury of just importing everything from Earth. It's a relatively very cheap, massive water tower free of NASA's hope-ending bloat that is the only current realistic shot at our species being multi-planetary.
Yes that is true, as shown by the link I provided. Methane/LOX is simply one of the go-to options for liquid fuel rocket engines these days, whether or not these engines are intended to go to Mars or not.
And btw. SpaceX themselves market Startship as a transport vehicle "to carry both crew and cargo to Earth orbit, the Moon, Mars and beyond." https://www.spacex.com/vehicles/starship/
> the only current realistic shot at our species being multi-planetary.
I'm curious: How does building a base on Mars, that is 100% dependent on regular support from Earth to survive, contributes neither resources nor self-sustaining living space to our species, cannot terraform the planet, and cannot serve as a backup in case Earth goes boom, make our species "multi-planetary"?
A multi-planetary species has permanent settlements on more than one planet or moon, that are either self-sustaining, or contributing (resources), or both. These settlements serve a role beyond bragging rights and exploration. A Mars base, insofar as we could currently make it happen, doesn't do that.
If a 15th century nation brought 5 guys to some bare-rock-island in the middle of the Atlantic and left them there with the promise to drop by every now and then to bring them food, that doesn't make them a colonial power.
> free of NASA's hope-ending bloat
Funny that you mention NASA, because they actually do have a plan to make humanity multi-planetary: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/artemis/
Other than Mars, the moon is near enough to actually make permanent bases feasible, which could provide a platform for further space exploration (Launching something from 1/6th of earths gravity uses a lot less energy). Luna is near enough to support a colony, including rotating crew, and it actually has a resource that could become useful in the not-so-far future, that could be worth exploiting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3#Moon
Wtf is that "argument"? You proved nothing. Methane is the way because of ferrying all the fuel to mars isn't an option, full stop.
> bla bla because we dont have bases on 10 planets/moons we aren't multiplanetary
With the more urgency we should press on then. Humanity has advanced on other fronts enough that it's becoming a real inconsistency/risk because we can die to nuclear, viral reasons due to tech while still being trapped here
> free of NASA's hope-ending bloat
You actually don't know what you are talking about. Please see SLS's budget per launch/kilo VS SpaceX's offerings. NASA was not going to get much of anything done by itself when it comes to not just science, other than scamming money from congress for things that look good but don't work towards realistic human off-world migration
> Moon
This is part of the NASA-specific not hurrying out when your house is on fire strategy. Yes Spaceship will go to moon, but that's far from the main goal because it's not good enough. The mission to go to the moon is literally more of a PR thing funded by that japanese billionaire for SpaceX
Optimal transfer orbits have short windows, but there are other orbits available if you’re prepared to wait longer, including ballistic capture orbits, elliptic transfer orbits, and making use of aero braking (skimming through the high atmosphere) for orbital capture.
As for the return journey, it’s unlikely that many of the initial rockets will be coming back. Return journeys will likely be limited to passenger rockets. There won’t be much else to bring back until there is sufficient infrastructure on Mars.
So what's the plan, launch all those rockets into LEO, and then have them sit there for up to 2 years before sending them on their merry way?
Whos doing maintenance? Who repairs these rockets when they get hit by space debris? Who'd even know one was damaged? What's the backup plan when almost inevitably some of them will fail come travel-day? More rockets? Whos doing maintenance on them, and who pays for them?
Where are all these rockets coming from btw.? Spaceships aint cheap, they have to earn their keep by doing things like ferrying commercial cargo into LEO. Who can afford to have a fleet of them sitting around doing nothing?
Look, I'm not saying that any of this is impossible. I'm just saying that a VERY hard task, that we have never done before, just got an order of magnitude harder. At what point in this hardship am I allowed to wave a little cost-benefit-analysis and ask what exactly we gain from sending people to Mars (aka. nothing that can't be done better with robotic probes)?
> Return journeys will likely be limited to passenger rockets.
Let's start with: return journeys will be limited to rockets that are still operational after landing in a rock-desert, with zero support structures, on a sheet of powdery regolith-dust, and after having been blasted for months with Martian dust-storms, and subjected to extreme temperature differentials.
An inflatable hab...that somehow remains stable and sealed after getting "buried" under a pile of rock?
Ten years of strong-willed national effort was enough to get us humans landing on the moon. From where we are now, you honestly don't think ten years of strong-willed national (or even international) effort could get us a robot capable of digging holes?
Yes, I do think that.
Because there is a big difference between an exploratory vehicle that carries a number of scientific instruments and can be powered by a few solar panels or a small nuclear battery...
...and these beautys: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_boring_machine
Just for comparisons sake: Perseverances MMRTG provides 110 watts of power. A single metric horsepower is 735.5 watts. I leave looking up the power requirements of even a small machine that would be capable of digging habitats into the martian bedrock, as an exercise to the reader.
I vehemently disagree that we need a 700 meter/week behemoth, sized for heavy rail, to dig out a habitat for one or two dozen humans. I'm imagining something more like a small-ish Roadheader[1], two to four times larger than Perseverance. It would either need to be Diesel powered (yes, shipping the diesel would suck, but it doesn't need to run forever) or we'd need a small solar farm and a couple Tesla batteries powering the thing (we probably want that anyway, for our habitat).
It would take months to dig out a cave large enough for 10 to 20 humans, and there are hundreds of other problems to solve to actually turn a small, potentially unstable Martian cave into a livable habitat. We know the first steps will be slow; that's OK. Besides, we have a decade of engineering to refine the design. Don't underestimate humans.
A (very) small roadheader starts at around 8 metric tonnes, and requires around 20kW of power...just for operating the cutting head. And that's a really small one.
Again, for comparison, Perseverance: 1025kg, 110W of power
> It would either need to be Diesel powered
That would be a neat trick on a planet with an atmospheric pressure of 610 pascals, where oxygen registers barely above a trace element.
> or we'd need a small solar farm
Or maybe a not so small one.
Using Tesla solar panels https://www.tesla.com/solarpanels as a reference point, they produce up to 400W and are just shy of 2m². That's on Earth. Solar irradiance on Mars is 59% of Earths, so these panels will probably produce ~240W apiece. So to meet the energy requirements of even a small roadheader, we need 83 of these panels, each of which is ~21.5kg in mass, so a total of 1.784t in solar panels alone.
Note, that is without cabling, inverters, electronics, spare panels, support structures, etc. ... or the batteries for that matter. Production numbers are also for peak sunlight conditions on Mars, so best-case daylight during the martian summer, and no dust storms.
So depending on how heavy the batteries are, I reckon we are already looking at around 12-14 tons of equipment, just for digging with a single machine. And that doesn't include any prefabricated parts, spare parts, airlocks, other heavy machinery, support beams, other auxilliary materials....
I mean, these roadheaders will require new drill heads every now and then, won't they?
What's the payload capacity of our current space ship designs again? Because...
> It would take months to dig out a cave large enough for 10 to 20 humans,
...we need food and water and medical supplies and power and space suits, and a lot of other things for all these people. Oh, and habitats, because they will need somewhere to live during all these months bevore the cave is ready.
> So depending on how heavy the batteries are, I reckon we are already looking at around 12-14 tons of equipment, just for digging with a single machine.
So you're saying a single Starship could ferry 7 to 8 full rigs? 14 tons of payload is not a big deal right now, much less with 10 years of project-of-national-importance funding. Let's send 2 (one backup) along with lots of other nice goodies for setting up shop then.
> So to meet the energy requirements of even a small roadheader, we need 83 of these panels, each of which is ~21.5kg in mass, so a total of 1.784t in solar panels alone. > ... I mean, these roadheaders will require new drill heads every now and then, won't they?
1.8t in solar panels and some extra for new drill heads is really not that much tonnage for the kind of project we're talking about. And remember, we're re-using all this electrical infrastructure for our habitat.
> ...we need food and water and medical supplies and power and space suits, and a lot of other things for all these people. Oh, and habitats, because they will need somewhere to live during all these months bevore the cave is ready.
They live on Earth before the cave is ready. Why send them at the same time?
Remember: the original point was that digging a habitat-sized cave on Mars is really not the hard part here, and something we could accomplish within 10 years if we wanted to. 15 to 20 tons of payload and some moderate engineering challenges have not really disproved that notion. Yes, there are plenty of other hard parts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starship_flight_tests
> 14 tons of payload is not a big deal right now
Correct...to low earth orbit, it isn't.
But we aren't talking about LEO deployment here. We are talking about a flight to Mars. And we won't be deploying that paylod in space, we have to land it, with the ship, with zero support structures on the ground.
> They live on Earth before the cave is ready. Why send them at the same time?
Then please show me the robotic infrastructure that is capable, with no pre-existing support structures, of building a sealed habitat, after self-unloading from a landed spaceship, and self-assembling itself from it's packaged form. All steps have to be done with no human help on site.
Show me that this works here on Earth. And then show me that same thing, but this time, any remote control has a 6-minute delay (and that's still generous, because 3 light minutes is the lowest possible distance between the 2 planets), and it has to be done at in an antarctic dry valley.
Then we can talk about that working on Mars.
So we have a vessel capable of ferrying 100 tons to Mars that's already had 55 seconds of controlled flight from a launch where it was missing 3 engines, developed by a single non-government company. And this is supposed to make me pessimistic about a concerted effort from the United States government being able to make this thing (or something like it) work in the next ten years?
> But we aren't talking about LEO deployment here. We are talking about a flight to Mars.
I was using the payload-to-Mars number, about 100 tons. That does require refueling in orbit. That's expensive, but a pretty simple orbital rendezvous, which we've been doing since 1965.
> And we won't be deploying that paylod in space, we have to land it
Parachutes, aerobraking, skycranes ... these are well-solved problems on Mars. You think we've already hit the limit of mass that's possible to land on Mars?
> Then please show me the robotic infrastructure that is capable, with no pre-existing support structures, of building a sealed habitat, after self-unloading from a landed spaceship
Let's revisit the original point being made:
> Pretty sure we could design and launch a digging robot in 10 years, I dont really buy that as the bottleneck to mars exploration
An extra ~14 tons (half of which we need anyway) and a couple of months of digging is pretty clearly not the bottleneck.
But to actually address your point: the robots don't need to make it move-in-ready, they just need to set up enough that the arriving humans can do it relatively quickly (days). If humans have to IKEA-assemble things and weld* some stuff, that's fine. (*yes, harder on Mars, but possible). Since the spaceship itself will have to be a livable habitat, obviously the hope would be to re-use most of that. We send pre-emptive missions to set things up (dig holes, set up solar panels, gather basic resources), and another manned mission to finalize the hab. Bonus points if we can just scooch the ship into the cave after it lands as the initial hab.
I think we're just deeply divided on what we think ten thousand focused engineers with hundreds of billions of dollars in budget can accomplish in 10 years. Remember, we're talking about a national or international focused initiative here.
Good. And once it makes the trip to Mars and lands successfully, with 100t of payload, then I will accept it as an argument.
> Parachutes, aerobraking, skycranes
We are not talking about a 1025 kg science vehicle here, we are talking about 100t of cargo, that has to land in the same place, preferably intact. Good luck making a parachute that carries that weight in a 610 pascal atmosphere.
And latest the colonists will have to land a ship there, or they are stuck. So no, without ships being able to land on Mars, intact, Mars Colony is not happening.
And btw. since you mentioned Spaceship: I'm pretty sure landing the thing on mars and letting it take off from there, is what it says on their own website: https://www.spacex.com/human-spaceflight/mars/ (scroll down to the "TO MARS AND BACK" diagram)
> they just need to set up enough that the arriving humans can do it relatively quickly (days).
> We send pre-emptive missions to set things up (dig holes, set up solar panels, gather basic resources)
Good, then show me that the robots can do that, under the conditions pointed out above.
> I think we're just deeply divided on what we think ten thousand focused engineers with hundreds of billions of dollars in budget can accomplish in 10 years.
No I don't think we are. I am well aware that nothing about a Mars colony is physically impossible, or outside the reach of contemporary human technology, if we really want to do it. I think it would take somewhat longer than 10 years, given the technological difficulties, but I don't think it is impossible.
The thing where I think we disagree is, given all the problems I pointed out, whether or not it is worth it jumping through all those hoops just for...yeah, for what? For science? We have robots doing that on Mars, and they don't require habitats, or food, or water. Resources? Mars doesn't have any Earth doesn't already have in abundance. Land? The entire planet is an airless, freeze dried, irradiated, toxic wasteland. As a backup plan? Even after a thermonuclear war, Earth would still be more inhabitable than Mars.
Wanna invest the time and effort of 10000 engineers and hundreds of billions of dollars working in international cooperation into space programs? Fine by me! Here are a few suggestions:
- The DART test was a huge success, we should develop that, because defending earth from asteroids could come in handy at some point
- A moon base sounds awesome. btw. the Moon might actually have a valuable resource we don't easily get on Earth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3#Moon
- Please build more deep space telescopes
- ISS is getting old
- There is lots of garbage in LEO that we need a solution for
- Eventually we will need much better propulsion systems
>> We send pre-emptive missions to set things up (dig holes, set up solar panels, gather basic resources)
> Good, then show me that the robots can do that, under the conditions pointed out above.
For your consideration (I have no idea on the merits of this company, but I see it on this site every once in a while):
Yes, I do think so too, and thanks for the discussion, I enjoyed it alot!
> I want to see Mars terraformed in the next few hundred years
I think it will be a few centuries until we have the technology to do that, and then carrying out the task will probably take further centuries, but I do think it is a worthwhile goal to work towards.
However, if I were looking for a first terraforming target, I would recommend Venus instead. Reasons being, the planets gravity (which we cannot do anything about barring some serious SciFi-esque breakthroughts in physics) is much closer to Earths (~0.9g), energy may be easier to come by due to it's proximity to the sun, and while its magnetic field is weak, it is still stronger than that on Mars.
> which starts with learning how to terraform Earth
Luckily, that is surprisingly easy. The biosphere is self regulating, so if Humanity manages to pull itself together and stop actively ruining it, it can undo the damage caused so far. Nature will do so anyway, eventually, the question our species has to answer is if we still want to exist by that point or not.
This guy is trolling. Think if Kennedy said the same about funding the Apollo program only after computers were 50 times smaller and we had solved the F1 vibration problems, among the thousand other ones.
Blinded by wanting to feel right in an argument to the point of proving themselves wrong. It's a bit dark to be on the hopeless side doing that though. Even if it proves hope absolutely prevails here.
Hell, you could even have humans do the digging assisted by machines and just live on the surface for the first few months while they build
Yes, and that "prefabbed house", that is sturdy enough that we can "bury it" under a pile of rock [1] thick enough to provide adequate protection from cosmic radiation, where does that come from? How much mass is that? How is that mass transported to mars? What machines and tools are required to assemble it there, and how much mass are those? How is the energy for these tools provided?
[1]: Just to be clear what a pile we are talking about here: If we used the water-shield method, it would require 5m of water for a 50% reduction in radiation intensity.
Is that true? Maybe if you never ever go outside but you might as well just dig a very deep cave here on Earth if your entire is to prove that humans can live in extremely inhospitable environments.
Back when Kennedy first harnessed the whole US towards something truly greater, the odds seemed infinitely worse. But they got it done. Including minituarizing a room-sized computer to fit in a box just to serve as cruise control for Apollo.