The Case for Mars

[columbus]

In these dispiriting times, it is occasionally healthy to look to the future and wonder what mankind could achieve.

At the risk of being a cynical downer,
I see such colonies as more like cancer metatasising than pioneering.

Humans are congenitally incapable of getting along with each other or the biosphere we already have. Spreading our dysfunction into the rest of the solar system, before we manage to get ourselves on track, here on the planet we evolved on, is worse than stupid. It's the suicide of the human race.

Anybody who thinks that the human race can afford to launch a sustainable community to Mars, but doesn't think that doing that in Africa or South America or whatever is financially or politically or resource feasible, is an idiot.



Tell me you can supply potable drinking water to Bangladesh and I might believe you can do it on Mars. Until then, you make no more ethical sense than Cortez.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

At the risk of being a cynical downer,
I see such colonies as more like cancer metatasising than pioneering.

Humans are congenitally incapable of getting along with each other or the biosphere we already have. Spreading our dysfunction into the rest of the solar system, before we manage to get ourselves on track, here on the planet we evolved on, is worse than stupid. It's the suicide of the human race.

Anybody who thinks that the human race can afford to launch a sustainable community to Mars, but doesn't think that doing that in Africa or South America or whatever is financially or politically or resource feasible, is an idiot.



Tell me you can supply potable drinking water to Bangladesh and I might believe you can do it on Mars. Until then, you make no more ethical sense than Cortez.
Tom

And on top of all that, Mars is the gayest planet.
Yes...even more so than Uranus.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Rocket fuel would be needed to boast a payload into parking orbit around Earth for refueling, from there a combination of rocket fuel and light sail propulsion could be used for propelling the craft to Mars..

Leaving Earth orbit is not the problem but getting to that point is. Rule of thumb 90% of rocket fuel is used to lift only the rocket fuel itself. Another rule of thumb: each pound of payload requires 10 pounds of the best rocket fuel. To move a population into orbit is not a good idea. It would take too much fuel. Each person requires 10 times their weight in fuel. We cannot save populations by loading them into rockets for that reason.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

In these dispiriting times, it is occasionally healthy to look to the future and wonder what mankind could achieve. Our individual contributions to the great tapestry of human history may be large or small, but with the power of imagination, ambition and understanding we can maximise our impact within the brief span of our lifetimes upon this earth. There is nothing wrong with a little day dreaming if it gives us hope for the future and gives us a chance to remember that we have so much potential.

I have posted this video a few years ago, but I figured it might be overdue for another outing in the need for something uplifting and inspirational. It essentially covers much of the substance of Robert Zubrin's book "The Case for Mars" (published in 1996 and updated and revised for 2011). Zubrin was also the founder of the "Mars Society" in 1998. Although the daily headlines may overwhelm us with bad news, the potential for mankind to take a leap in to the stars is still there. Perhaps, it is more urgent than ever for us to gain some perspective on who we are, where we are going and what place we really have in the universe.

Should mankind go to Mars? Do you believe we will? Will it be within your life time? Would you want to be one of the first people to set foot on the Red planet? Would you move to Mars to help colonise it and begin a new future for humanity? Will we discover evidence of life or its fossilised remains on the martian surface?

Your thoughts and comments are welcome fellow martians.

Earth is too narrow, to ensure the survival of the Human Species. It's too easy to wipe out higher life forms-- one missed asteroid crashing to the surface, and Good Bye Humans (and pretty much any critter larger than a beetle).

Mars? Well--- Hollywood has given us a false picture-- the "atmosphere" on Mars is closer to the Moon, than it is to Earth. It's so close to vacuum, it may as well BE vacuum as far as Earth based life is concerned.

I totally forgot: RADIATION! Mars lacks a Van Allen Belt, because it has no magnetosphere...! Standing on the surface of Mars, for a couple of days? Could give you all the radiation that is considered safe to be exposed to, for your entire life!

It would take millions of years to import gasses from earth, or Venus or wherever, via rocket powered craft. The physics simply isn't going to work, using chemical propulsion.

Before we invest heavily on human presence on what is essentially a bare rock? We really need two things:

1) atomic powered space craft-- that is, space ships with on-board nuclear energy supplies. This will have the lovely effect of solving much of Earth's energy issues as well-- Win Win.

2) We ought to consider "bombing" Mars with comets-- fetched from the OORT cloud, from out beyond Pluto, atomic rockets attached to guide these watery missiles to impact on the surface-- delivering a nice payload of water and other gasses, and heating up the planet some too. The rockets don't even need to be sacrificed-- under robotic AI control, when they get close to Mars, and the trajectory is sure, they detach at the last minute, flying into a save Mars orbit, to be re-used and re-attached to the next comet.

A dozen years of comet-bombing Mars would thicken the atmosphere considerably. And give Engineers excellent data in large object movement, via atomic rockets.

3) Phase two? Grab come carbon-dioxide moonlets from Saturn's rings, or Jupiter's orbit-- and lob *those* into Mars, giving it a nice thick percentage of lovely Green House CO2, so it can begin absorbing sunlight, and warming up.

Bonus: The increased CO2 would feed rapid mutated plant growth, which would eventually begin producing O2.

4) Why limit it to Mars? Venus is a much better terraforming candidate! It already has a thick atmosphere, that could be modified via modified green algae, seeded into it's upper atmosphere. A few hundred years, the CO2 could be significantly reduced, allowing the planet to cool off to a more comfortable temperature. No comet bombing needed-- just a regularly scheduled atomic rocket, flying from Earth to Venus, skimming the atmosphere, launching it's microscopic payload of CO2 eating (and Methane eating) bacteria and algae. During the skim, it'd take direct samples of the upper atmosphere, to monitor the progress. It'd loop round Venus a couple of time, then head back to Earth orbit, for a reload. Never landing, it could last hundreds of years, making the loop back and forth.

5) Eventually, orbital habitats could be built from asteroid materials, around Venus, Mars and Earth too. Heck-- build these all over the solar system-- put them in leading and trailing solar orbits same as Earth (so they'd be close by for convenient travel).

I see space habitats as much more likely than a Mars Colony-- they'd use the abundant materials in the asteroid belt, and in orbits of the gas giants.

Mars? That's thinking too small, IMO.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Leaving Earth orbit is not the problem but getting to that point is. Rule of thumb 90% of rocket fuel is used to lift only the rocket fuel itself. Another rule of thumb: each pound of payload requires 10 pounds of the best rocket fuel. To move a population into orbit is not a good idea. It would take too much fuel. Each person requires 10 times their weight in fuel. We cannot save populations by loading them into rockets for that reason.

This is why we need non-chemical engines-- atomic energy is the only practical solution.

 

[Brickjectivity]

At the risk of being a cynical downer,
I see such colonies as more like cancer metatasising than pioneering.

Humans are congenitally incapable of getting along with each other or the biosphere we already have. Spreading our dysfunction into the rest of the solar system, before we manage to get ourselves on track, here on the planet we evolved on, is worse than stupid. It's the suicide of the human race.

Anybody who thinks that the human race can afford to launch a sustainable community to Mars, but doesn't think that doing that in Africa or South America or whatever is financially or politically or resource feasible, is an idiot.



Tell me you can supply potable drinking water to Bangladesh and I might believe you can do it on Mars. Until then, you make no more ethical sense than Cortez.
Tom

Tom, I did not catch you reference to Africa and South America. There are communities there aren't there? Are you referring to colonies like Liberia?

Yes its dangerous to send people to Mars both for them and for us. Yes, if they succeed they will evolve separately. They probably won't often be able to visit Earth or us them. People who come to Earth will be grounded here. Without constant population interchange the viruses and bacteria will eventually diverge, and the allergies will diverge, too. Eventually the populations won't be able to breed together. It is an ethical minefield, yes; full of uncertainties. Its kind of crazy like trying to sail to the edge of the world. Its kind of like that.

 

[Brickjectivity]

This is why we need non-chemical engines-- atomic energy is the only practical solution.

Hmm. Ok you've got me. With atomic powered engines we could move lots of people into space. Fission is what we do best, so what kind of fission reactors are we going to use? What is fissionable and suitable for driving billions of rockets into space?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Hmm. Ok you've got me. With atomic powered engines we could move lots of people into space. Fission is what we do best, so what kind of fission reactors are we going to use? What is fissionable and suitable for driving billions of rockets into space?

Fission isn't going to work-- unless we develop Thorium reactors.

No-- we need fusion. We need to solve the issue(s) of how to control fusion, or we are never going to get off Earth with any sort of regularity. It's simply too expensive to do with chemicals.

As mentioned earlier in this very thread, the vast majority of fuel rockets carry? Is to lift more fuel!

With atomic power, fuel is not a problem anymore-- it becomes how much reaction mass can you stuff into the craft. Water is the most likely, as we have it and then some-- salt is fine. Think a steam jet, with the water flash-boiled (which compresses) the steam-- let the steam out via a rocket-shaped nozzle, and viola! Rocket Propulsion.

With with atomic power? You'd not use a rocket-- you'd use wings, and fly into space instead-- likely steam powered propellers or turbines at low altitude, to take advantage of using **air** as Reaction Mass. Save your water mass for in the vacuum of space.

Even better: With atomic power? Constant thrust engines become possible-- constant thrust to Mars or Venus turn months and months into days. Bonus: You get "gravity" during the trip.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Fission isn't going to work-- unless we develop Thorium reactors.

No-- we need fusion. We need to solve the issue(s) of how to control fusion, or we are never going to get off Earth with any sort of regularity. It's simply too expensive to do with chemicals.

As mentioned earlier in this very thread, the vast majority of fuel rockets carry? Is to lift more fuel!

With atomic power, fuel is not a problem anymore-- it becomes how much reaction mass can you stuff into the craft. Water is the most likely, as we have it and then some-- salt is fine. Think a steam jet, with the water flash-boiled (which compresses) the steam-- let the steam out via a rocket-shaped nozzle, and viola! Rocket Propulsion.

With with atomic power? You'd not use a rocket-- you'd use wings, and fly into space instead-- likely steam powered propellers or turbines at low altitude, to take advantage of using **air** as Reaction Mass. Save your water mass for in the vacuum of space.

Even better: With atomic power? Constant thrust engines become possible-- constant thrust to Mars or Venus turn months and months into days. Bonus: You get "gravity" during the trip.

Your Thorium idea is immediately more practical than fusion. I think a mobile fusion reactor would require more onboard computers than would currently fit into a craft. I don't know know that for sure, but it seems to me that moving the reactor would greatly complicate the activity of the plasma in the reactor.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Your Thorium idea is immediately more practical than fusion. I think a mobile fusion reactor would require more onboard computers than would currently fit into a craft. I don't know know that for sure, but it seems to me that moving the reactor would greatly complicate the activity of the plasma in the reactor.

I was thinking of Star Trek, in all actuality. A lot of people don't know, but "impulse drive" was a large fusion reactor, driven by LASER light.

Essentially, small pellets of hydrogen is dropped into a chamber, which has the focus point of multiple LASER beams. When these fire, they compress the hydrogen and it fuses into helium, releasing enormous energy. In 'Trek, much of the release is used to push the craft forward.

But a contained fusion reactor, using LASER compression could be possible, and in low gravity, you'd "shoot" the pellet into the reactor.

It'd generate power in impulses, rather than continuous as you'd have with magnetic bottle type reactors. A nice bonus to this type: you can switch it on, by firing pellets at whatever rate your power demands are, so it's very scalable to demand.

I remember reading about this idea, back in the 1980's in Popular Science magazine, back before the USA went all Stupid and cut funding for fusion research, due to a rise in stupidity in the general population.... I entirely blame the GOP for this supidization of America.