By Harry Keller
Editor, Science Education
Updated 3/22/15
[Update 5/8/13: Please see “Mars – A New Beginning,” Harry’s follow-up plans for this article and discussion. Update 5/18/13: See Martian Rhapsody: Chapter 1 – Landing. -Editor]
The Mars One project has received quite a bit of press lately. This project plans to establish a human colony on Mars in 2023 with four people. The project is the brainchild of Bas Lansdorp, a Dutch businessman. You must give him credit for creativeness. Much of the financing will come from a 24-hour television reality show that will follow every step of the project, including watching the new “Martians” as they adapt to the harsh Mars environment.
According to the Mars One website, this project will use existing technology. The habitat consists of modules that will arrive on Mars over a period of years and will be moved into place by a Mars rover. The first colonists will do the final assembly. Every two years, four more colonists will arrive until the total population consists of twenty immigrants. At that point, the colony intends to be self-sustaining, requiring no additional supplies from Earth. No kidding! At $10,000 per pound, Earth will not continue sending oxygen, water, food, Mars suits, and more to Mars regularly.
If you haven’t guessed yet, the trips by the colonists will be one-way only. There’s absolutely no provision for bringing them home. Even with an estimated $6 billion budget, the money just isn’t there. So, who will these colonists be? Interestingly, Lansdorp proposes to charge for the privilege of taking a one-way trip to hell. But, I’m getting ahead of myself.
Bas Lansdorp
The technology does exist to ferry materials, habitats, and a few people to Mars. The technology exists to produce enough solar power to eke out a sort of living there, in principle. The concept of establishing human habitation on another world must create a sense of excitement in anyone who has the time to pay attention. The educational opportunities would be enormous. The new colonists would be “going boldly where no one has gone before” – unless NASA gets there first with their round-trip Mars program.
It all looks exciting even if very dangerous. One misstep would spell death for the entire colony. It’s reminiscent of those who left Europe to colonize the New World or those taking their chances in the American West. Many died on the trips and after arrival from a wide variety of causes. The numbers for the Mars mission will be much smaller, and any rupture of the habitat will exterminate them all. If food production falters, they could all starve. Failure of water processing and reprocessing will doom them. These are the easy parts.
The true problems arise when you look more deeply into the circumstances under which the Mars colonists will live. Skip over the problems with four people traveling in cramped quarters for the eight-month trip to Mars. They pale in comparison to living on the planet.
Radiation
Problem number one is radiation. Interplanetary space is filled with solar and cosmic radiation. The former originates from the Sun and fluctuates on an eleven-year cycle. The latter originates outside of our solar system from cataclysmic star events and black holes. Both are potentially deadly.
NASA has estimated that a three-year round-trip and visit to Mars by astronauts would expose them to about one Siemen Sievert of radiation, the recommended lifetime dosage. Annual exposure on Earth at sea level is in the milliSiemens milliSieverts range. The effects of radiation exposure include cataracts, increased likelihood of cancer, and sterility. Without radiation shielding on Mars, colonists will be doomed to very shortened lifespans and would be unlikely to reproduce. Children, if born, would have even more problems because rapidly developing cells are even more sensitive to radiation effects.
The reasons that radiation is such a problem on Mars but not on Earth arise from the two things that shield us Earthlings from radiation: our atmosphere and the Earth’s magnetic field. The Martian atmosphere is about 1/100 that of the Earth. Essentially all radiation arrives on the surface. Mars has no magnetic field. Scientists postulate that it is solid to the core and so has no liquid interior to generate a magnetic field. The Earth’s magnetic field deflects arriving ionic cosmic rays and solar radiation, although gamma rays are unaffected. This deflection to our polar radiation is the reason that we see the aurora borealis near our north pole but not near the equator. Those light displays are caused by energetic ions impacting the atmosphere.
The proposed Mars One habitats have no evident radiation shielding, and radiation is not mentioned on their website. The best shielding would be a thick layer of liquid hydrogen, but water can also function reasonably well. Oddly, metal shielding, unless very thick, makes cosmic radiation worse because the rays hit metal atom nuclei and create a shower of new radiation from what was a single ray.
The colonists could go underground to avoid radiation, but Mars One has no such plans. They do hope to build extensions to the shelters from the Martian soil. We don’t know how feasible this plan is or whether the thickness of the soil walls will be sufficient to avoid significant radiation damage.
Moving on past the radiation issues, which may never be adequately resolved, you will encounter a number of more mundane issues. These fall into two areas: physical and psychological.
Physical Problems
The physical problems have to do with life support and expansion. Life requires air, water, food, and shelter. With one percent of Earth’s atmosphere, Mars has an atmosphere that we cannot breathe. It’s mostly carbon dioxide (95%) anyway with oxygen only as a trace component. Even if you compressed it, you still could not breathe it. The colonists must live in a pressurized environment and must scrub the carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air to prevent stress and eventual death from hypercapnia. Oxygen must constantly be generated from some source to make up for oxygen consumed by the colonists.
Plants grown for food can perform the functions of carbon dioxide removal and oxygen generation, but early plans for Mars One suggest that the space allotted for plants may not be sufficient for these purposes and must be supplanted by mechanical and chemical processes, which will require power.
Substantial supplies of water will be required to support even four colonists who will be living in a water-poor environment. The interior of the habitat may actually be moist because it will not take much water to saturate the small atmosphere contained there. Most edible plants transpire, and a moist atmosphere will reduce their water requirements. Water will come from three sources: water carried on the mission, water recycled from colonists, and water “mined” from the Martian soil.
This last source may be a problem because the best location for water is near the Martian poles, but the best place for solar energy is near the Martian equator. We do not yet know if reasonable amounts of water exist below the Martian surface at the equator. Water is also the most likely source of oxygen. Electrolysis of water produces hydrogen and oxygen gases. Therefore, water is necessary for both its own value and for replenishing air. Because colonists must venture outside and so step through an airlock, losing air in the process, and because the habitat will certainly have at least minor leaks, air must be constantly replaced.
The initial six habitat modules have been allocated in pairs. One pair has been reserved for food production. The exact nature of the plants to be used has not been described by Mars One. Unless colonists have a decent radiation shield, the plants will neither grow nor reproduce well. Assuming such a shield is available, the plants must convert sunshine to edible plant matter. The solar intensity is about 43% of that on Earth, which will necessitate the use of efficient plants that can grow well in eternally cloudy Earth climes. Most food plants must have strong sunlight. Hybrids may be developed to compensate.
Even so, it’s unclear whether the amount of space allocated for food production will suffice to feed the entire colony. Even if the space is adequate, the diet will be monotonous. The inefficiency of animals for food sources means that the entire diet must be vegan. Yeast or similar organisms must be grown as well to provide B12, which cannot be obtained from strictly plant sources. Colonists will never again see a steak or filet of fish. They will have eggs or milk products. They won’t even have the produce of trees – nuts, apples, citrus, etc. There will be no pepper, cinnamon, or vanilla.
Only the most efficient plants can be utilized for food on Mars. The variety will certainly be limited. We cannot yet tell if colonists can grow some ginger or basil to help alleviate the monotony of diet.
Shelter will remain a serious problem for the foreseeable future. Four people will inhabit six small modules of which four are reserved for mechanical and food purposes. The shelter must remain airtight and insulating at all times. Temperatures on the Martian surface drop to far below freezing at night. Although the atmosphere is extremely thin, very strong winds create sandstorms that can erode anything exposed outside, including the shelters. The materials from which shelters are built must be strong enough to withstand the winds but light enough to ship to Mars, a real engineering challenge.
NASA’s Curiosity Rover
Heat will be lost through the walls of the habitat even with the best insulation. This heat must be replaced. The Mars colonists will find absolutely no coal, no oil, and no natural gas to use as an energy source. Only solar and wind energy will be available unless they bring along a nuclear power generator. Small ones, such as is being used by NASA’s Curiosity rover, can provide some power but not enough for this purpose. Heat will be a serious issue for Mars One. Their plans call for large flexible solar panels to be rolled out onto the Martian surface to capture the wan sunlight. The plans do not show calculations for expected energy capture during the long Martian winters. With a “year” twice as long as ours, winters are also twice as long.
In addition, batteries must store this captured solar energy. Lots of batteries will be needed to hold enough energy for heating and other purposes such as oxygen generation throughout the Martian nights. The Mars One information does not include battery specifications. Even the most efficient batteries are heavy and will have to be lifted from Earth to Mars at $10,000 per pound.
The colonists must work outside of their habitat in the harsh Martian environment and so must have Mars suits that are the equivalent of space suits. Maintaining these will be crucial to extending the colony. Without petrochemical sources, it’s unclear what materials will be used to replace the plastic components of these suits.
If the colony is to be self-sustaining, it must be able to expand using local materials. Water is too precious to use for making concrete or even adobe if the basic materials could be obtained. Note that cement requires lots of heat to make. To make iron, iron ore and enormous amounts of energy are needed. Converting iron to steel requires more energy and lots of carbon, but Mars has no fossil fuels as sources of carbon. Similarly, copper, zinc, and tin all require massive amounts of energy – far more than the solar arrays will provide.
Colonists will have to expand their solar arrays as they expand the colony – if such expansion can be done at all. The high-technology required for manufacturing these arrays will be far beyond the capabilities of the Martian colony. With nothing to export, the colonists will have to depend on Earth to send them the needed materials and will become interplanetary beggars. If they have children, they’ll have to expand their food tanks. Of what will they construct them? Indeed, what building materials will the colonists have for any purpose, even for making cooking pots or children’s toys?
Medical issues have not even been considered. The colonists would not have any access to modern medicine. They would have to be carefully screened for genetic factors that predispose to disease. Medical problems that we can handle readily here would result in death on Mars.
Psychological Pressures
Even if power, air, water, food, shelter, and building materials can be resolved, a very unlikely result, the colonists must face extreme psychological pressures. A single small error by one colonist can kill them all. This could happen on any day.
Only digital material could be imported from Earth on a regular basis. With sufficient power, the colonists could watch videos and listen to music. However, conversation with Earth-bound families and friends would not be possible. The round-trip delay for radio transmission is between 6 and 40 minutes. Say, “Hello,” and you hear a response 20 minutes later on average. All communication with Earth would be asynchronous.
What would it take to make life on Mars bearable? How could you overcome the monotony of food, of view, of company, of smells, of cramped living spaces? You would never smell a pine forest again or see the ocean. There are no “amber waves of grain” or even cityscapes. You’ll have no blue skies or clouds and no hope of ever experiencing them again in person. You’ll be subject to extreme cabin fever.
It looks like Mars colonists will be in a constant state of stress from a long list of sources. How can you stand this sort of stress? The answer typically lies in hope for the future, in the belief that you’re building something for your children and future generations. Unless the problems of radiation, power, water, building materials, repairing and replacing Mars suits, and the rest are solved, you’ve just sentenced yourself to a life in prison, and that prison is the closest thing to hell that any living person can experience over protracted periods. Without hope, Mars One is doomed today.
Unless and until the Mars One organizers provide clear and detailed explanations of exactly how they will deliver the ability for a colony on Mars to grow and flourish, this project is dead on arrival.
John Mark Walker: "If educational communities can continue to push platform integration and content portability, in the future, students may be able to design their own personalized degrees from smaller, modular chunks that cross institutional barriers" (
Richard Koubek
Judith McDaniel
Tim Fraser-Bumatay: "Although the format leaves us far-removed physically, the online forum has its own sense of intimacy" (Judith McDaniel, "
Ryan Kelly: "For me to be able to work with people clear across the country for an extended period of time opened me up to new things" (Judith McDaniel, "
Daniel Herrera: "As a Mexican American, I know that words of identity are powerful; so to discuss white privilege with my professor and classmates in a face-to-face class would have been terrifying and impossible" (Judith McDaniel, "
Cathy Gunn: "Traditional methods for effecting change at my institution aren’t getting us even to a trickle yet, let alone to thinking about or planning for a wave!" (
Educational Technology and Change Journal 
Dear Sir,
your entire story is based on reading only a headline. If you would read the Mars One website, which I would before writing so many unfounded words, you would know how many experts and even universities are busy at this very moment to solve the problems you anticipate. Would you really assume any organisation that tackles such tremendous task and responsibility to not solve these issues. I wonder from which planet your are. Ah, earth. Well that explains… :-)
Greetings and please… next time, do your homework first.
I spent quite a bit of time reading all of the pages on the Mars One website searching for answers. I read entire articles regarding the project.
Not one word was written regarding radiation shielding.
The explanations of power sources were very cursory, just mention of thin, flexible solar arrays. Power storage was not mentioned.
Saying that people are busy solving these problems belies the claim that Mars One is using “current technology.” I find it disingenuous that Mars One now says that it has people working on problems that it has not publicly alluded to.
My article refers to potential problems that have not been solved. A response that says that they’re being worked on basically verifies what I wrote. Many of these problems may be resolved during the ten years before the planned first human launch. I suspect that some will not.
Radiation and power are the primary issues. Psychology is another issue that’s more difficult to quantify and plan for.
Without sufficient radiation shielding, plants will not breed, and food will dwindle causing starvation. Life expectancies will shorten. Children will be, for any practical purposes, sterile by the time they are ready to reproduce.
The area that must be covered to provide adequate solar power has not been mentioned, nor the weight of panels required to cover that area. The issue of removing Mars dust from the panels has not been mentioned either. Exactly how sufficient power will be stored for the Mars nights has not been described, nor has the mass of batteries to be used.
Nowhere do I read about the thickness or the nature of insulation to be used in the modules or how much mass must be dedicated to this crucial resource in the launches.
I don’t see how exactly local resources will be turned into building materials. On Earth, we used vast quantities of water and fossil fuel to turn our agrarian society into an industrial one. Even adobe bricks required water.
Water is mentioned on the Mars One site but only as something that requires proper siting. We’re not certain of underground water resources on Mars. Those at the surface are at the poles where sunlight would be a problem.
We certainly do not know if our species can adapt to the incredible monotony of Mars. Occasional punctuation of emergencies only heightens the psychological stress.
The initial sentence of the response by Pieter Hoogstad says more about his homework than about mine.
As of at least 22April there are words on the Mar One web site about radiation. Basically they say that a layer of a few meters of rock provides and Earth-like radiation environment. I agree but “a few meters” means they need more than one very, powerful rover. Not a little battery powered tractor but large machines. We are likely talking about blasting and jack hammers and dump trucks. This CAN be done but their $6B budget is low by two orders of magnitude.
Radiation is not the issue if you can dig a deep enough hole and cover it over. So you dig a trench 12 meters deep, roll the inflatable tube down there, blow it up then back fill the trench. Now remember how long it took NASA to drill a hop a few centimeters deep
Yes, I’ve already commented here on this issue.
To recapitulate, radiation on Mars would not be a problem if exactly two things can be handled satisfactorily. The first is the amount of soil available to move around. Right now, we don’t know for sure. Without substantial erosion processes, it appears that granular material will be limited in quantity, but we’re not certain. If you cannot dig deeply and cannot procure large quantities of granular surface material readily, then the next part doesn’t matter.
The second issue is energy. As you rightly mention, it will take vast amounts of energy to move or to dig — if you have something to move or soft enough material to dig into. The artist’s conceptions make it look easy. Just suppose that you’re going to cover over one of those artistic modules that are maybe 3m high and 4m in diameter. (Note that those artist drawings have mysteriously vanished from the Mars One site.) The exact amount will depend on the angle of repose of the material and the means being used to mound the material up. It might be on the order of more than 20 cubic meters of material. With a density of around 1500 kg/cu m, that’s 30000 kg to move just to cover one of the modules. Some of that material must be lifted to a height of 6m. Little electric Mars buggies will not be capable of that work. Larger machines will not be sent to Mars.
The power is to come from 3000 sq m of solar panels. The site (newly) says that the average solar gain on Mars is about 500W per sq m. That amount must be at the equator because it will be much lower at the poles. It also may be the number for the period of the day when sunlight is shining on the panels. Under ideal circumstances (no dust, Sun directly overhead), the efficiency of solar panels might be 12.5%. So, you’ll get 75W per sq m. I checked one brand of this sort of panel and found that it weighs 1.55 kg/sq m.
Putting all of this together, you’ll get 225 kW from about 4660 kg of solar panels. For those thinking in British units, that’s a bit over five tons. Putting those panels on Mars will cost an estimated $100 million.
Wait! That’s not enough. The panels stop generating power when the Sun goes down. Curiously, the Martian day is just a tad longer than the Earth day, although the Martian year is over twice as long. Anyway, the excess power (hopefully there’s an excess) must be stored to last through the night when it’s really cold. Storing solar power requires batteries.
Most hybrid vehicles use Nickel-Metal-Hydride technology, which is reliable but heavy. Lithium-Ion technology is lighter but it’s long-term reliability is uncertain. New ultra-lead batteries promise very good long-term reliability with comparable weight. Let’s go with the lightest solution, lithium, and take the figures from the GM Volt. It’s battery provides 16 kW-hr from 180 kg. The 225 kW “average” generation of the solar panels may be for around 10 hours and so five us 2250 kW-hr of power. At least 2/3 of that must be stored for non-light usage — about 1500 kW-hr. Allowing for a very small margin of error, you’d have to have 100 of those Volt packs or 18000 kg of batteries. Those batteries will cost $400 million to move to Mars.
The costs mentioned above do not include the purchase costs for the panels and batteries, just the estimated $10000 per pound delivered to Mars. I’ve ignored the necessary electronics because it’s certainly lighter than the panels and batteries.
For a self-sustaining colony, those batteries must last nearly forever. It’s unclear when, if ever, a Mars colony will be able to make its own batteries or refurbish the ones it has. But batteries do not last forever. Battery life may be between 10 and 20 years under good circumstances.
Is a daily power supply of 2250 kW-hr sufficient for all purposes in this colony? Most will likely be used for heat. We have insufficient data to determine the heat requirements of the colony. Machinery will use lots of power as will oxygen generation and water extraction.
What happens to our colony when the batteries begin to fail?
NEW MEMBER: THIS ARTICLE THAT YOUR WROTE IS EXCELLENT.
NOW I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SOME SUGGESTIONS ” OUT OF THE BOX”
1. WHY NOT MOVE THE ISS ON A SLOW JOURNERY TO MARS. THEN USE IT AS A MOTHER PLATFORM FOR
MARSIANS (I.E. ONCE THEY LAND THEY ARE NO MORE EARTLINGS,)
2. THE ISS HAS DEMO THAT ASTRONAUTS CAN LIVE ON ISS FOR OVER A YEAR.
3. THESE PEOPLE STAY ON THE ISO AND RUN THE PLATFORM . THE SPACE X FERRYS THE FOUR MARSIANS GO TO THE SURFACE. NOW
TO SET UP A COLONIAL.
4. HAVE SPACE X AND ONE OTHER COMPANY DOANTE TWO SPACE VHIECLES PLUS PILOTS.
THEY FERRY THE MARSIANS TO AND FROM THE SURFACE.
5 FORGET THE SOLAR PANELS 4.
. THE PRIMARY POWER SOURCE. YOU MUST HAVE NUCLEAR GENERATOR.
6. WIND TURBINES WOULD ALSO BE USED.
THESE WIND TURBINES HAVE ALTERNATORS NOT GENERATOR FOR DC. THEY CONVERT DIRECTLY TO AC POWER AND RUN EQUIPMENT DIRECTLY. AND A DC GENERATOR WITH BACKUP BATTERIES AS WELL THREE SOURCES WILL BE NEEDED FOR FAILURES AND WEATHER CONDITIONS.
7. NOW WHEN THE MARS HURRICANES DUST STORMS COME 200MPS AND LAST FOR WEEKS OR MONTHS SOLAR PANEL WILL BE USELESS. . WIND TURBINES WITH THE PROPER FLITERS CAN RUN IN HOSTILES CONDITIONS
WHEN THESE TWO FAIL THEN NUCLEAR FOR LIFE SUPPORT WILL BE THE FALL BACK.SYSTEMM. TURBINES WILL ALSO, ALLOW THE COLONIAL BASE TO BE LOCATED NEAR THE POLARS AND A WATER SOURCES, SOLAR CANNOT.
8. ALL THE DISCUSSION ABOUT BURIYNG THE MOBILE STATION WITH DIRT ETC. NOW WHAT ARE THE TWO ITEMS THAT MARS HAS THAT DONT NEED ANY TRANSFER TO A DIFFERENT MEDIA. WIND AND ROCKS. THATS RIGHT ROCKS BETTER THAN SANDS THAT IS GOING TO BLOW AWAY DURING THE MONTHS DUST STORMS. PLACE A EXO CARBON FIBER OVER PIPE INTERCONNECTI.E. FOUR INCH PIPE HAS REDUCED SIZE INSIDE 3.5 INCHES 2.5 INCHES ETC IN ORDER TO FIT AS A UNIT.THE MOBILE LIVING QUARTEFS PLACE A RADIATION TARP COVER OVER THE SKELTON THEN MIX THE ROCKS PEBBLES WITH EXPOSY NO WATER NEEDED SPREAD THIS IN INCREMETIONS OVER THE TARP UNTIL THE STRUCTURE IS COVERED. WONT BLOW AWAY AND THE LAY UPON LAYERS CAN BE ACHIEVED UNTIL A THICKNESS IS OBTAINED TO STOP THE RADIATION.
9. THE MARS TEAMS ONE WOMAN AND THREE MEN, THREE MEN AND ONE WOMAN OR TWO COUPLES. A SEXUAL ARRANMENTS SHOULD BE ESTABLIHSED BEFORE DEPARTURE TO STOP JEALOUS AND EMOITIONAL CONDITIONS AND STABLEIZE THE SETTING, REMEMBER THESE PEOPLE AREN’T COMING BACK.
10. ENOUGHT FOR TODAY, BUT FOOD SHORTAGE COULD STARVE TO DEATH EVERYONE. THEREFORE, I BELIEVE WE NEED ALIQUID DIET ENHASSMENT.
11. THE JAPANESE ARE GRWOING A ALGAE THAT REPRODUCES 500 TIMES THE NORMAL RATE, WHICH COULD BE USED IN MANY WAYS FOOD AND FUEL.
12. EXO SUITS FOR THE PERSONNEL , THESE SUITS NOW BEING DEVELOPED FOR THE DISABILITED AND THE MILITARY GIVE A PERSON 5 OR 10 TIMES THE BODY STRENGTH. THIS WOULD ALLOW THE MARSIANS TO DO PHYSICAL WORK WITHOUT BURNING MORE CALORIES AND BECOME WEAK AND TIRED AND CONTINUED LABOR I.E. CARRYING ROCKS AND BOULDERS TO COVER THE FACILIITIES.
13. FINALLY, WHERE IS ALL THE ANTI RADIATION MEDICIE’S THAT WE HAVE OR CAN DDEVELOES OR WE ARE USING ALREADY TO REDUCE SOME OF THESE CONCERNS
OK ENOUGHT FOR TODAY, I FIND THIS LEAVE A REPLY SCREEN VERY TROUBLESOME TO USE YOU CANT BACK UP AND COME TO THE SAME PLACE.. AIRBORNE PATHFINDER. WILL BE MY NAME ON THIS MARS ONE SITE. .
You have made several suggestions. Some are interesting. Some will take a long piece to explain.
I’ll take the short ones first.
Wind power: Not practical on Mars because the air is 1% of that on Earth. Those high-speed wind storms cannot even lift sand into the air. Sand particles may roll along a bit, but only dust goes into the air.
Nuclear power: Practical in the long run but difficult to ship to Mars. Alan Bond has a plan to do that in about 20 years. By then, he thinks, we can bundle up the parts of a practical nuclear reactor and ship to Mars. It will not require the huge containment shell. Note that nuclear power does not last forever. Fuel runs down. Refueling requires additional fuel that cannot be obtained on Mars in the near future.
Food: Algae can be used, but is not sufficient. Initially, a variety of fast-growing varieties of food plants supplemented by yeast grown on the inedible plant parts looks like a good approach. You can algae to that, but it has to be processed (water removed etc.) before eating. Could be a good additive to improve nutrition.
Solar Power: Most efficient in terms of moving mass to Mars. Only fails in dust storms. Must have alternative back-up that will last for weeks. RTGs can fill that role (sort of micro nuclear power plant) and provide heat for the cold environment.
Sand as Radiation Shield: Will not blow away because of extremely thin atmosphere but may shift. Requires periodic maintenance.
Gender of Settlers: 4:0 not viable for future. 2:2 makes most sense. There are arguments for other ratios, but these fail to note that more settlers will be on the way — unless everyone dies first.
Exosuits: Remotely piloted (and even autonomous) vehicles are more efficient.
Many other ideas are more controversial and have valid opinions on both sides. It’s a matter of how to combine technologies to get the stuff to Mars and have it be usable there for human survival. In ten years, the decisions could be quite different than today.
The Mars ONE project should be cancelled immediately, since sending young people to Mars with no hope of ever getting back safely is an ill conceived notion from the very start. There is no pressing need to go to Mars at all and Mars will always be there. The continuous stress of providing oxygen and removing carbon dioxide in very cramped modules would kill the young explorers in a few days. Sanity must prevail. Some day, NASA will have a fly past but not before all the technological problems have been solved.
While there are a great many problems to solve, the provision of oxygen and scrubbing of carbon dioxide would seem to be one of the least, and something we have over a century of experience with if you think back to early submarines and then forward to the ISS and projects like Biosphere II
And what else shall we stop people from doing because they might get hurt? Common sense and best practices sure, but don’t tell little Johnny and Susie they can’t climb the tree, teach them how to to it and what to watch out for. We’re all going to die, which is not to say we should throw lives away needlessly (how about warfare then) but that dying is preferable to hiding in a closet waiting for the sky to fall.
Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry
Hi Brett,
Exactly. The O2 and CO2 issues are not difficult. There will be some practical issues on Mars, where conditions are indeed difficult.
Mr. Shaw suggests that Mars will always be there. If earlier explorers had heeded that advice, we would never have reached the poles of the Earth or the tops of mountains. The air will always be there. So, why bother to attempt to fly in it today?
Living on Mars has many challenges. Getting there is merely scaling up what we already can do. Yes, scaling has challenges too, but these are not the fundamental ones that living on Mars poses.
Can we recycle human wastes safely and efficiently for decades? Will 38% gravity have negligible impact on health? Can enough water be dug with relatively primitive instruments to supply the colony’s requirements? Can food be grown and regrown from seeds collected for decades without loss of viability in a Martian environment? Will enough energy be available to ensure that the entire settlement does not freeze every living thing to death? Those are larger questions.
Smaller ones such as the nature of the habitat walls remain to be solved. These must withstand the pressure on the inside and the UV and cosmic radiation on the outside while keeping heat in.
I could go on and on. People will be addressing these problems. I don’t see them being solved as rapidly as Mars One assumes, but you never know. The future has a way of fooling us.
Freeze-up would be nearly fatal to such a project; several smaller areas and energy sources would increase flexibility for maintenance, and improve chances against losing everything in one disaster. In this case redundancy would be a good thing but adds to payload unless you can manufacture on site.
My birthday wish would be a 3D printer that churns out sheets of Solar cells
Attention to explosive, flammable, pressure loss hazards: the more passive it can be designed the better – so storage of compressed gasses, batteries, motors, wiring. Toxins could be much more insidious than mere CO2
It seems wiser to plan on at least limited inputs; if that seems difficult better rethink the entire project. A delivery of 100kg bounced down within 50km (maybe there are more efficient payload sizes depending on the tech) could bring in new seed varieties and other specialty items invented later – sorry, you still have to make your own toilet paper…
There is even a psychological benefit, they will not feel quite so cut off if there is a bounder coming in a couple times a year.
I think I already mentioned Kim Stanley Robinson’s Mars trilogy but maybe Hugh Howey’s Wool omnibus would be more appropriate: just building a hole on Earth that four people could live in for years, completely self-sufficient, would be quite a project.
I’m looking at Mars, Venus and the crescent Moon tonight (you can cover all three with a fingertip outstretched) and I think our grasp of distance and size is poor, whether the distance to a point of light in the evening sky or how many electrons are dancing on the head of a pin.
Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry
Hi Brett.
“… manufacture on site.” This is the ultimate goal, of course Much energy will be necessary for this result — energy to travel, energy to dig (mine), energy to refine, energy to manufacture. Without any great pool of (carbon-based, for example) energy on Mars, it cannot be bootstrapped from scratch. In the near-term, only fission reactors have the potential to deliver sufficient energy to make a settlement “self-sufficient.” Solar would require such extensive arrays of cells and such enormous storage facilities that it could not be done with imports from Earth. There’s just too much mass to move before you’d have energy for mining, refining, etc.
Your wish may be granted. 3D printers for electrical circuits are already on the drawing boards. However, the raw materials are a different matter. You must have feedstock, and such a printer would have little use if all of the feedstock had to come from Earth. Again, you’re in the mining, refining, etc. conundrum.
Generation of toxic gases from an accident is certainly a concern. What if a motor shorted and melted down? The insulation could generate seriously toxic gases that would be confined to the habitat without any good means for venting them because of having no air to replace them with. Thus, design must include electrical insulators that do not do this.
Batteries can be maintained outside of the internal atmosphere as can any compressed gases, mostly O2 and H2 — not toxic.
Fifty kilometers away from the habitat would be a challenge to reach. Five would be acceptable. Even more will work as long as it’s within walking distance of one hour or so each way. Low gravity compensates for bulky Mars suits (mostly for insulation) making the trip similar in time to one on Earth: 5-7 km/hr. Eventually, fast rovers can extend that distance, but those require some advances in power storage as well as the power source to charge them.
I have read KSR’s series. Starting with 100 settlers is cheating. Also cheating is the constant underlying assumption of virtually unlimited energy supply. He never tells us where all of this energy originates, except in the early “Rickovers.” He makes some really wild assumptions about technological advances but has some things not advance much at all. It’s like imagining traveling to an airport in a 19th century stagecoach. His descriptions of the surface of Mars and its geology (areology) are magnificent and show a real command of the planet’s surface. He also avoids Andy Weir’s error of thinking that high-speed winds on Mars can blow things down (until the planet has enough atmosphere to breathe). However, he does fall into the nitrogen trap. It’s a long read filled with pages at a time of descriptions of the panoramas of Mars that seem to go on forever.
We humans are ill-equipped to fathom the vastness of space of the enormous worlds just beneath the precision of our unaided vision. That’s just the spatial dimension. Time also confounds us. Who can truly say that they understand what a billion years is? Most of those arguing against evolution fail completely to comprehend the vastness of time and what it can do.
The only reason for canceling Mars One is lack of funding or, by similar logic, the discovery that the funds raised are being misappropriated.
It may never get off the ground, but that’s for the future to determine. I think that actually landing four people on Mars to live out their lives there is a true longshot. Yet, 100 sane people remain in the running for the dubious honor of being the first chosen to found a colony on Mars. I say, “chosen to found” because being chosen does not mean actually going. Going does not mean getting there. Getting there does not mean that they will succeed. However, the largest hurdle is the first one.
Based on what little I have seen of these intrepid explorer-to-be, they are dead serious and intelligent enough to understand the odds of success are slim. Like so many explorers of old, they are optimists who will prepare for the worst while hoping for the best.
Also, like those ancient explorers, they will have many obstacles to overcome, including ennui.
They will line the walls of the crew transit vehicle with water and cover the larger inflatable section of the mars hab with a layer of Martian soil to protect against radiation you haven’t read enough of the website it’s written in the mars-one FAQs
I’ve written quite a bit already about the Martian “soil” (actually regolith) covering the habitat. This “layer” is to be “several meters” thick. They don’t explain how so much soil will be moved or kept in place, and they do not say where such a large volume will come from.
A very good point, the nature of the regolith, the sort of earth-moving equipment and the structure required to support say 1m of cover. Inflatable? Hmm…
I have yet to comment on the “inflatable” part. Will there be rigid structure underneath? Without it, decompression will be a disaster with tons of regolith collapsing the inflatable area.
Whatever design is used, it must allow for decompression, a real possibility over a decades-long life span of the colony structure. A pebble-size meteorite or simple stress failure can create a loss of air that will collapse the inflatable portions.
There’s also the calculations as to what load the inflatables will carry given lower gravity and lower pressure.
The density of dry sand is around 1600 kg/m^3, 60% more than water. The height of “several meters” could be three meters, about a single story building height. You’d have 4800 kg/m^2 of material. At 38% of Earth’s gravity, the acceleration of gravity on Mars is about 3.8 m/s^2 and results in a pressure of 18kN/m^2 or 18kPa. One atmosphere on Earth is about 100 kPa meaning that the pressure of all of that sand is around 1/5 atm.
Well, the inflatables can withstand that pressure as long as the pressure remains above 1/5 atmosphere. If the atmosphere in the habitat were to be pure oxygen, then that would be the pressure to duplicate the partial pressure of O2 here on Earth. The Mars One site suggests that nitrogen (N2) be added to the air, which would mean a higher pressure inside of the habitat and more air loss do to leaks and diffusion.
Were the inflatables to decompress and not have rigid internal supports, they would collapse under the weight of all of that regolith. A 50m^2 area, which is in the range suggested by the website, would have a mass of 240000 kg or 240 metric tons. On Mars, the weight would be the same as about 100 metric tons on Earth, and the volume would be, of course, undiminished.
Both building up and digging out (but see below) would be very large projects, and that’s just for a single inflatable module.
Needless to say, large earth-moving equipment will not be ferried to Mars. The regolith-moving project would require months, if not years, to complete. A year without adequate radiation shielding would not be a disaster, not even a serious health risk unless a rare powerful solar event occurred. As more colonists arrive, this activity of piling up regolith would have to continue indefinitely. Without cement, the covered shelters would look much like sand piles whose slopes would depend on the angle of repose of regolith.
Collapse and reinflation would move the covering material, which would have to be piled up all over again. Materials inside of the collapsed structures would be crushed, and may or may not be usable depending on their nature. The integrity of the inflatable material would also be questionable after a collapse.
All of the above presumes adequate supply of nearby regolith, of which we have no guarantee.
Thank you for providing some cold, hard numbers – last time I calculated an escape velocity was 1988. Since we are talking low grav, how many meters of water would provide adequate shielding? Submerge hab in tank? Dig channel for hab, roof with 2m of water tank? 3m? I like the idea of “bury with regolith” less and less.
Water would be worse than dust and sand and rock (regolith). You’d have to get it. You’d have to contain it or it would just sublimate away. Then, it would just freeze. Sand may be 60% more dense but is more available with less cost. Water on Mars will be precious.
If we could land inside of a large crater and had excavation equipment, we could have the colonists live in caves. We’d have to fill them with inflatable bags to hold in the air.
If you could find a location with deep enough regolith, the you could dig out a small hole, maybe 1.5 m deep. Drop a solid module in there. Cover over with removed material plus some from surrounding area.
The problem with all of these schemes is that they take so much time. Besides, they have too many ifs. If only we could get a full-sized backhoe with solar power on Mars, we could excavate the entire site, plunk the modules into it, and cover it over. Fat chance!
Note that the colonists will be, in effect, cave dwellers. LEDs can supply enough UV to keep them healthy but not so much as to raise melanoma levels. They’ll only see a horizon when on an EVA or looking at a monitor.
If you’re claustrophobic, do not apply.
Well I wasn’t proposing an open swimming pool, but obviously you want a considerable reservoir somewhere, even with good recycling.
But since you mention it, how about a Mars hot tub? An enclosed bubble that fizzes oxygen as the CO2 dissolves into the water. Oh I would risk a little radiation for that… Please sign the radiation waiver first, ma’am.
Obviously not open. Any leak would result in water loss. You could not spend the heat energy to keep it liquid. Then, there’s all of the distillation of Mars soil. Water is slightly better as a radiation shield than rock I’m told. However, the logistical problems of just using Mars sand will win out handily.
There is no way you’ve looked through the web sight the mentioned all of those things in the FAQs
The site has been updated.
How about making money on Earth and selling a dream ?
Lynn,
Thank you for your comment. Mr. Hoogstad has, in just a couple of lines contradicted his own thesis. People at work on problems means unsolved problems that may not be solved by 2023. Neither he nor I can say whether they will be solved or not.
This is a grand adventure. It’s worthy of serious thought, not playing games. Even if every problem we recognize today were to be solved, the problems in a venture as complex as this one are like layers of an onion. Many solved problems merely reveal additional, previously unsuspected problems. We cannot determine how many will crop up.
The 2023 date was chosen, not because it’s the end point of a carefully designed schedule, but rather because it’s near enough to generate excitement and far enough to make statements such as Mr. Hoogstad’s to the scoffers.
I like the idea of heading out to Mars, but I like it much better if it’s done more soberly. I’d like to see a Moon base first.
Let’s hope they solve these problems or there will be some very rich lawyers working for some very upset families who watched their families die on Mars Reality TV!
In the first place, this project may never get off the ground. I’ll believe it when the first supply modules land on Mars. Love the concept but not too much into the reality.
In the second place, those who are chosen (if the program moves forward) will certainly be people with few or no family ties. It will be difficult for an estranged second cousin to sue.
It’s fairly clear that we have or will have technology to get four people to Mars in one piece with reasonable likelihood of success, although not 100%. It’s also obvious that they can sustain themselves for awhile, maybe even a year (Earth year). After that, all bets are off.
The longer the stay, them more the problems multiply. With no source of substantial energy, they cannot refine metals or even work them into useful shapes. Three thousand square meters of solar arrays just won’t provide enough power to do more than survive. Things wear out. The only replacements either come with them or have to be shipped from Earth.
The 1% atmosphere that’s almost entirely CO2 and has lots of carbon monoxide too cannot be compressed to breathe. Unless we find a way to raise the air pressure and add oxygen to the air in less than a few centuries, those settlers are doomed.
Living on Mars will make the early pioneers in the American West and Australia look like people on a picnic.
The Mars One people have many hurdles to overcome before I’ll believe that they’re serious. One of these is establishing a training center for settlers-to-be. Another is designing, equipping, and sending the first supply modules to Mars. One important PR hurdle is putting their money where their mouths are by keeping all proceeds in an accessible location related to the project. The project leaders could well remove all substantial funds from access and so prevent those attorneys from making any real money. If they don’t, they’ll have more credibility. Of course, the applicants will be signing away many of the rights of next-of-kin to sue and those finally chosen (if they ever get that far) will have more papers to sign. The country in which the operation is run will have its own laws. If a country with laws making suit difficult were to be chosen, we’d have less faith in the project leaders.
I would really like to see their Project Management Plan for this project. Having plans for, or someone working on a solution to an issue is not proper risk management. Everything that Mr. Keller highlighted in this article are risks. Risks involve management in order to mitigate. Having another project to mitigate the risk… sure may eliminate or reduce the risk, but until a solution exists… today, the risk is still very high.
Until you understand Project Management Principles, or can provide the Project Management Plan for this project, I suggest that you not comment. I wonder if a Plan even exists for this project, and how they have determined a cost analysis of $6 billion for this project. Unless everyone is expected to provide donations toward project goals, I simply don’t see how it;s possible. And expecting to have risks solved by donationary actions just adds another risk to the issue when efforts prove that funds are not sufficient to resolve the initial risk issue.
Good analysis. If carried through, this is a gigantic and extremely complex undertaking.
I focused on the risks that may not be immediately obvious to the casual reader and are also significant risks that can be explained readily to most readers.
Having read extensively over the last several months in the area of the Martian environment, I have found still more risks that cannot easily be mitigated.
We all are aware of many of the risks involved in just getting four people onto the surface of Mars alive. They involve taking off, landing, and the months of travel in a small space while entirely dependent on life-support systems and on the compatibility and sanity of the four people.
Long-term, sustainable living on Mars depends on continuing support from Earth in the form of more take-offs from Earth and landings on Mars over a period of years. The Mars One project suggests a ten-year period of such flights. One risk is whether that’s sufficient. The larger risk, as Cal points out, is continuing funding for that long period. It’s not adequate to raise $6 billion for preparation and the first manned flight — even if $6 billion is sufficient for that purpose. Billions more must be raised and on a schedule to support another flight every two years.
Without having done anything close to a detailed budget, just having looked at various other estimates for putting people on Mars, I would guess that you’d have to get nearer to $10 billion initially and another $1-2 billion annually until the project’s end. These numbers assume more efficient lifters and shuttles than possible today.
The mathematics of risk are quite interesting. I recently had to guess the answers to two five-answer multiple-choice questions for reasons I won’t discuss here. The chances of getting at least one answer correct were 46%, not 40% as most would assume. It was almost a coin flip. Lucky me. I did get one correct.
If you have 100 independent risk factors and can mitigate the risk of each to 99% success, your likelihood of succeeding is about 37%. In real life, the number of risk factors depends on the complexity of the project, and the likelihood of failure ranges all over the place.
A settlement on Mars requires such complexity that the number of risk factors could reach 1000 or more. Even if there were only 100 and the likelihood of failure of each were down to 0.1%, the likelihood of success would become only about 90%. Would you go on that basis?
Personally, I’d like to see something above 95%, preferably above 99%.
To reach 99% success with 1000 risk factors, you’d have to have a probability of failure of 0.00001005. That’s about 0.001% for each and every one of the 1000 elements. If you can build a system with only 100 risky components, 99% success means an individual failure rate of 0.01%. Some components can have backup. Two 90% components backing each other up will improve the success rate to 99%. Two 99% components make for a combined success rate of 99.99% or a failure rate of 0.01%. Yet, duplicate components mean greater lift-off mass and more than double the expense of one component.
Hand-waving about humans being able to take care of contingencies will not do here. Having people to fix things is just one more factor in the overall risk analysis and may bring that 99% item up to 99.9%, the extra 9 being because a person has a 90% likelihood of being able to fix the thing that broke. Not all components are accessible to people either.
Risk and cost are complimentary factors in designing any large project. How much risk is acceptable for landing four people on Mars?
I think this reporter did a great report on this issue Mars One. It is the organisation which has to come up with many explanations to his questions. But there are always kool aid drinkers who believe everything they are told by “authorities”, especially if the whole affair is funded by Reality TV Programs!
Mars One has been focusing on many of the issues I raised initially and others raised later. I wish I could take credit for this but cannot know that I had any impact at all. I view these questions as rather obvious, and they should have at least been mentioned specifically as ones that the organization was working on in their initial announcement.
Two issues remain that are difficult to engineer away — energy and gravity. Too little of the first will be available through solar cells. The effect of 38% gravity is totally unknown and could make colonization of Mars not viable until we can re-engineer the human body.
If radiation doesn’t (deservedly) kill these lunatics shortly after they leave near Earth orbit, muscular atrophy and bone loss will ensure they are unable to set foot outside of their rocket let alone wear spacesuits. But of course, no-one will survive to reach Mars.
If Peter Hoogstad and Bas Lansdorp volunteer to put their money where their mouths are, I will also happily purchase pay-per-view for the privilege of watching them lose both their sanity and their lives.
While my gut reaction may mirror that of Vitaly, I have to remember many previous crazies. Don’t forget “Fulton’s Folly.” Also, realize that a real effort to overcome these problems will have great benefits for “Earthlings.”
My article casts light on issues that the Mars One website has swept under the rug. Radiation will not kill the Mars voyagers on their trip. Even NASA has determined that a three-year round trip to Mars will expose the astronauts to a barely acceptable radiation dosage of about one siemen (the typical lifetime dose of a Earthbound human).
However, as you raise crops and harvest seed for the next crop, radiation damages viability until after a few generations, your crops won’t grow. After perhaps ten years, the effects of radiation on the colonists will begin to show as greater cancer incidence, increased rate of eye cataracts, and decreased organ function. The worst effects are reserved for any children because radiation does the most damage to rapidly developing cells (which is why it’s used to kill cancer in our bodies). Without adequate radiation shielding, having children on Mars would be a very cruel activity that only the most extreme sadist could contemplate.
There are many more issues. The point here is that we can visit Mars, but we can’t stay there until a large number of problems are resolved. Just attempting to solve them, even if the excuse is lame, is a worthy undertaking.
We should not be suckering people into thinking that going to Mars is a great adventure that will be filled with wonderful exploration. As things stand today, it would be “cruel and unusual” punishment to send anyone not fully aware of their fate to Mars. The Mars One site does not fully inform. I simply seek to light up the dark corners.
That radiation dose is one sievert. Sorry for the slip.
And you do!
????
I wanted to mention that you are right when you say “I simpy seek to light up the dark corners”
Thank you.
Some of the people posting here have helped greatly in that task.
Well Vitaly, to solve the problem of no gravity they could include a spinning room inside the shuttle. the spining creates artificial gravity in the middle and has already been demonstrated here on earth. the spining on earth actually increases the gravity within the room. in space the right ammount of spin could generate sufficient gravity to make a semi-normal environment.
Talk about doing homework… You clearly do not even understand the mechanism behind artificial gravity and centrifugal force. The rotation of earth actually *reduces* the effect of natural gravity, not enhance it. The “gravity” found in a spinning chamber is found along the *circumference* of the chamber, not in the middle. There are difficult enough issues to resolve with a project of this scale without adding bad information to the mix.
A spinning room inside the shuttle would be tremendous overkill adding complexity and weight unnecessarily. You might imagine a spinning vehicle. I’m sure that NASA has considered that. It must add lots of complexity too. Is the gain worth the cost? Apparently, NASA says no, or they would have done it already.
The spinning of the Earth creates a pseudo-force everywhere but the poles and getting strongest at the equator. This force is directed outward away form the Earth as you would notice if you ever played on a playground merry-go-round. Without gravity, we’d all be propelled out into space. But then, without gravity we wouldn’t be here in the first place. Neither would the Earth or our solar system.
You want to spin the entire structure, if you are going to spin – and it certainly solves a lot of the physiological effects of null gravity. Spinning a room inside, or even spinning the structure around a hub means that if ever there is a problem with the bearings and/or seals, you will have a catastrophic failure as the motionless elements try to match the speed of the spinning section. Might as well set off a bomb.
Spinning spacecraft are as old as science fiction — well, almost.
Using bearings would be a very bad idea. Everything must spin because of keeping air inside. The fuel cost of spinning fast enough plus stopping spinning is one problem.
I think that a greater problem is that spacecraft are too small. The effect of a rapidly changing acceleration (pseudo-gravity) field on our sense of balance would be disorienting. You’d go from zero gravity at the axis to whatever you chose (e.g. 0.5 g) at the periphery in a rather short distance. Moving about in a non-uniform pseudo-gravity field would upset our internal systems like crazy. Depending on size and rotation, you could have a difference of 0.1 g between your head and feet in one orientation and none if you laid flat across the field.
Then, there’s the Coriolis effect. No fun for your inner ear.
Spinning is for space stations, not space craft. Space stations have their own problems because you have to dock with them — not so easy if they’re spinning.
It’s time for someone to invent a gravity generator. :-)
There is another idea. Hold onto that last stage that’s normally jettisoned. Tether it to the spacecraft. Rotate the pair around their mutual center of gravity. If the tether is strong enough, you can have Martian gravity on the trip.
Deservedly? Are you a psychopath? If this is legit and all safety measures are in place this should be encouraged for the advancement of humanity. Without exploration we’d still be living in caves.
I support seeking new frontiers. All safety measures are not in place yet because the exact nature of much of this initiative is not yet known.
This discussion is about two things. One is shining a light on the various aspects of establishing a Mars colony that the Mars One people have not revealed. The second is sharing ideas about how to overcome as many of these problems as we can.
Some are very sanguine about the concept of Mars One. I’m more skeptical. By challenging those running the show, I hope that we’re all keeping them honest and even telling them things that they may not have yet thought out thoroughly.
Good observation, use of the word “deservedly” is very telling of this individual and the tone of many Mars One critics. But then cowardly schadenfreude is a hallmark of the unfit who would probably suffer mental breakdown if they ever did find themselves in a life-threatening situation. This is precisely why Mars One seeks “playful” candidates, or individuals who understand how self-control works with respect to sanity.
Yet I count myself among the Mars One critics, I am very concerned the project will never leave the ground. I don’t think any sooner than a 2040 departure is realistic. However, I admire the childlike spirit of enthusiasm from so many who have courageously stepped forward believing they will carry-out the remainder of their lives 50 million miles away from home (during apposition anyway [and it’s “apposition,” not “opposition,” we don’t protest Mars every time Earth flies past]).
I too applaud the (public) spirit but believe the date is rather optimistic. Estimating 2040 is rather pessimistic, though. Aim high! Perhaps, around 2030, we will see a manned Mars landing by someone.
Harry is correct on the issues he raises. I do think we will send humans to Mars before 2050. The energy and radiation issues he poses are real and have not been solved. While we have learned a great deal on the International space station the stress of living in a Mars colony is magnified many times. Steven Hawking has suggested that mankind needs to think about and actually venture into space. A great deal of study must go into life in space. It has some relation to our forefathers venture into the new world, but not much. We have much more to learn about life in small cramped spaces. The trip out and back to Mars is at least three years or more. Who should go?
Who is capable of going? I think man will go beyond the confines of Earth, but there are many unanswered questions. Harry has started the list that must be answered.
It’s NASA that may be sending some people on that three-year round trip. The Mars One trip is ONE-WAY!!!
Those colonists will be stranded in a resource-poor environment for as long as they live, which may be a short time. The shortness may be due to an accident. Eventually, it will be due to lack of food, water, or heat unless some serious answers to some severe problems are found.
In the long term, radiation will do them in unless they can burrow underground.
You seem to be under the belief that it is kinder to have a round trip to Mars and back than to leave settlers there permanently, yet you also show some knowledge of the loss of bone-mass caused by extended exposure to reduced gravity. I’m just curious why you believe NASA would show more sense than the Mars One team by bringing astronauts back to our own planet, where the levels of gravity would either cripple or kill them after that amount of wastage.
Anonymous, your argument is unfounded. Please read further.
Per the Wikipedia article pertaining to the International Space Station:
“To prevent some of these adverse physiological effects, the station is equipped with two treadmills (including the COLBERT), and the aRED (advanced Resistive Exercise Device) which enables various weightlifting exercises which add muscle but do nothing for bone density, and a stationary bicycle; each astronaut spends at least two hours per day exercising on the equipment. Astronauts use bungee cords to strap themselves to the treadmill.”
I know you’re focusing in on “but do nothing for bone density”, BUT there is an individual named Valeri Vladimirovich Polyakov, and he holds the current record from 1994-95, when he spent one year, two months and 14 days (437 days) in space between launching on Soyuz TM-18 and landing on TM-20.
Furthermore, and according to his Wikipedia article:
“Polyakov volunteered for his 437 day flight to learn how the human body would respond to the micro-gravity environment on long-duration missions to Mars. Upon returning from his second spaceflight, Polyakov held the record for the most total time in space. This record, however, was later broken by Sergei Avdeyev and is currently held by Sergei Krikalev. Data from Polyakov’s flight has been used by researchers to determine that humans are able to maintain a healthy mental state during long-duration spaceflight just as they would on Earth.
Polyakov underwent medical assessments before, during, and after the flight. He also underwent two follow-up examinations six months after returning to Earth. When researchers compared the results of these medical exams, it was revealed that although there were no impairments of cognitive functions, Polyakov experienced a clear decline in mood as well as a feeling of increased workload during the first few weeks of spaceflight and return to Earth. However, Polyakov’s mood stabilized to pre-flight levels between the second and fourteenth month of his mission. It was also revealed that Polyakov did not suffer from any prolonged performance impairments after returning to Earth. In light of these findings, researchers concluded that a stable mood and overall function could be maintained during extended duration spaceflights, such as manned missions to Mars.”
Also, “Astronauts subject to long periods of weightlessness wear pants with elastic bands attached between waistband and cuffs to compress the leg bones and reduce osteopenia.”
Harry and Anonymous, one major problem that HAS NOT been addressed is the following:
“After long space flight missions, male astronauts may experience severe eyesight problems. Such eyesight problems may be a major concern for future deep space flight missions, including a manned mission to the planet Mars.”
Had not heard of the eyesight issues. Would low gravity be an issue as with lengthy stays on the Moon and Mars?
The weightlessness will be an issue on the 8-month trip to Mars. There may not be enough space in the travel vehicle for serious exercise, but I can’t know for sure without further data.
Hi Harry,
For some reason I was unable to reply to your comment, so replying here. This was the original comment:
“Had not heard of the eyesight issues. Would low gravity be an issue as with lengthy stays on the Moon and Mars?
The weightlessness will be an issue on the 8-month trip to Mars. There may not be enough space in the travel vehicle for serious exercise, but I can’t know for sure without further data.”
The eyesight issue has been a big concern as of late. It’s not well known yet, as the issue was only discovered last year. There isn’t much literature yet, but found the following synopsis:
“Because weightlessness increases the amount of fluid in the upper part of the body, astronauts experience increased intracranial pressure. This appears to increase pressure on the backs of the eyeballs, affecting their shape and slightly crushing the optic nerve. This effect was noticed in 2012 in a study using MRI scans of astronauts who had returned to Earth following at least one month in space. Such eyesight problems may be a major concern for future deep space flight missions, including a manned mission to the planet Mars.”
Having said this, their vision MAY return to normal once entering Mars’s atmosphere, but unfortunately, we do not have any long term studies or data of how vision may be affected by lower gravity environments. The mission would be utterly useless if the astronaut’s vision is either impaired, or they suffer permanent blindness.
Wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of weightlessness being an issue while en route to Mars. MarsOne has not released any information on the specifications of their space crafts.
Should they arrive safely on Mars, their bodies will be re-subjected to Martian gravity, which is 37.65% of Earth gravity. If the astronauts returned to Earth, it is unknown as to how their bodies will respond when re-exposed to Earth’s gravity. We cannot assess or ascertain how long term exposure in low gravity environments will affect human bodies, as we simply do not have the data. For example, on Earth I weigh 153 lbs. On Mars, on 57.6 lbs. As of today, it is unknown in determining how that would affect my body on Mars, and/or when returning to Earth.
I appreciate your information. Very useful. Indeed, we do not know about long-term weightlessness and the human body. Apparently, the osteoporosis will not be so severe as to have bones break in Mars gravity. Muscles can be maintained, even in small spaces if not too small. That issue must addressed. You also have to convince the colonists to maintain a steady and dull exercise regimen for eight months.
Thank you Harry and I’m glad you’ve found the information useful! Totally agree, but one must worry that if there are plans for returning these intrepid individuals back to Earth, what would the long term affects in low Martian gravity have been to their bodies? You bring up an excellent point, aside from the fact that these astronauts must engage in consistent exercise routines, how will they be motivated to continue their training for up to eight months during the journey?
lol ignore this part of my previous reply: “For some reason I was unable to reply to your comment, so replying here. This was the original comment:
“Had not heard of the eyesight issues. Would low gravity be an issue as with lengthy stays on the Moon and Mars?
The weightlessness will be an issue on the 8-month trip to Mars. There may not be enough space in the travel vehicle for serious exercise, but I can’t know for sure without further data.”
Replying to comments on here is a tad bit confusing lol. As you can see, technology and I have a love/hate relationship :).
So let’s sum up the low resources thing. Just the natural resources alone would put them on the same pay scale as Bill Gates. The corporate and scientific communities would pay billions to get what the colony would have to sell. Don’t think for a minute that just corporate america alone wouldn’t jump at the chance to monopolize on that. They would eventually be able to order anything they wanted once they make themselves a viable society.
It’s a fascinating venture, despite the immensity of the whole thing. And small change in the vast scheme of things.
Some will criticize that the money should be spent on the poor, as it were – and yet we have box office and gaming sales into the billions.
As an incentive to adventure, education, research and a spirit of inquiry, if not wonder, it is money well spent. Spinoffs will certainly be useful back here on Terra Firma.
I heard a view the other night that procedures and facilities that only the wealthy could afford were somehow unworthy of pursuit and immoral. The comment was in regard to sleep research, and particularly a drug that advanced the sleeper rapidly into useful sleep patterns (meaning you could in theory get by on four or five hours of sleep)
Without disregarding the need to look after us all, more or less, to some acceptable minimum, the means to do that have often been discovered and developed by the more outlandish personalities among us, aided by personal wealth or patrons.
Besides, the current governments of the world do not seem particularly interested in these sort of expenditures, either afraid of such criticism from the mediocracy or generating it themselves.
I will have to wait until one-man asteroid prospecting vessels are created as my psychological profile is not, shall we say, conducive to smooth group dynamics.
Hi Brett,
I’m with you on the solo activities. ;-D
I certainly see the potential for spin-off benefits. Today, we’re around where we were in perhaps 1945 with respect to going to the Moon in regard to going to Mars. We went there 25 years later. It can happen. It must happen someday.
http://www.ere.net/2013/06/11/the-art-of-filling-the-most-desired-job-in-history/
This is a great article! How to take a crazy venture and turn it into a teachable moment for personnel recruiting!
Let’s especially note item 3: “Tout training and education.” In most schools, PD is just a check mark on a sheet. In industry, training has all but vanished. Instead, these companies lobby Congress for more H1B visas. Whiners!
Personnel should be viewed as an asset to be developed, not a replaceable part!
All right, let’s analyze this resource issue. Right off, there are no fossil fuel resources — no coal, no oil, no gas. Without that once seemingly endless energy supply, what can you do with other resources — if you can find them? You cannot drill because that takes lots of energy. You cannot even dig without plenty of energy. You can just scratch around on the surface but only in small area because moving long distances requires more energy.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that some enterprising soul solves the energy problem sufficiently so that you can dig and drill. Let’s also, just for argument’s sake, say that someone finds a valuable resource, for example large deposits of vanadium or some other valuable mineral. Mineral ore has lots of impurities in it and must be extracted. More energy!
So, now you have something valuable — on Mars! This mineral has no value on Mars. Who will buy it? Anyone there is only interested in food, water, air, and protection from the horrendous elements, mostly incredible cold, which requires — you guessed it — more energy.
Anyone living on Mars could care less about some mineral unless it can be traded for something useful from Earth. Lifting something from Earth and carrying it to Mars costs an estimated $10,000 per pound. There’s no energy on Mars, except solar, so how do you get enough energy to lift anything off of the planet? You have to import it from Earth. Oops! More huge expense. That mineral must be worth more than diamonds. It’s just not a viable scenario.
Not corporate American nor huge multi-nationals have any interest in all of this. They don’t play guessing games. We have no clue whether any mineral resources exist on Mars except for the obvious ones. You won’t find diamonds because there’s no coal from which to form them. The lack of plate tectonics and millions of years of water erosion eliminate more. So far analyses of the Martian “soil” have yielded no excitement on the commercial front. Only scientists care.
Only putting an atmosphere significantly better than the current 1% of Earth’s pressure and with oxygen, not 95% carbon dioxide, in it can change things. If you could get the atmosphere up to 10% of Earth and have most of that be oxygen, then you’d have some hope. The carbon dioxide (the carbon monoxide would react with the oxygen) in the air would make it poisonous until it was extracted by hardy, genetically engineered plants. People would still have to have pressure suits and breathing apparatus but could work outside longer than now. A thin ozone layer would protect against ultraviolet to some extent but not lots. Consider the UV on mountaintops, where the pressure is much higher than 0.1 bar. Cosmic rays would be slightly attenuated. No food could be grown outdoors.
Two things must happen for corporations to be interested in Martian natural resources. Firstly, they must be located and verified. Secondly, the cost of transportation back to Earth plus the transportation of the exchanged trade goods to Mars must be low enough to justify the whole business. Neither is even near to being true today.
I cannot imagine natural resources from Mars being of value to Earth, for the reasons mentioned – but their value is in developing the Martian economy/colony. Which is practical stuff like aluminum for building, copper for wiring, various kinds of glass and in particular minerals for crop production of a serious nature… and the first question that comes to mind there is Nitrogen scarcity.
Mars colonization has value for scientific reasons: simply colonizing a mildly (compared to anything but Earth) hostile planet and how to solve those problems – which will be useful for longer expeditions to moons of Jupiter perhaps, or Saturn.
Asteroid mining starts to make more sense as you spread out into the Solar system, simply because anything you find there does not have to be lifted out of Earth’s gravity well. I do not know what asteroids may have in store: frozen water and methane would be as valuable as anything.
Aside from the simple curiousity and regular scientific experimentation are the science projects that might not gain approval on Earth: serious and ‘unethical’ genetic engineering, nanotechnologies of the self-replicating and pervasive sort; who knows what else? Recall the very small chance that black holes possibly generated in the LHC might propagate and you have a taste of weird events might take place in a locale that removed from Earth’s meddling legislators.
Persecuted minorities and survivalists would be willing for considerably greater risks and privations than others. Or a well-developed colony could be a lifeboat to preserve vestiges of humanity in the event of apocalyptic events on Earth – thinking particularly of collisions with large objects from space, although I would never underrate the human ability to invent (and release) something that could not be stopped.
Viruses, properly engineered, could leave the Earth green and lovely – and quite fatal to anyone with a primate genome.
On that happy note, I will bid goodnight and off to bed: sweet dreams.
When a Mars colony can be truly self-sustaining and grow to more than a few dozen individuals, then and only then will resources begin to enter the picture.
In the short run, the primary resource will be energy — unless something makes water or air scarce. Food will be grown using energy and recycling plus some addition from Mars itself but slowly.
Only an atmosphere will truly change the equation, and that atmosphere must be at least 0.1 bar and possibly more, not the current 0.01 bar. If you could make Mars have an atmosphere of 0.2 bar and mostly oxygen, then people could live there without extreme issues. Properly designed greenhouses could grow plants without pressurization. And so it goes.
A handful of troglodytes on Mars will not be building a vibrant economy soon. They won’t be sending asteroid mining expeditions out. They won’t even be mining Mars.
Really, it doesn’t really matter it is a ONE-WAY trip for those 200.000 people who are willing to go. From the more than 7 billion people on earth, there are really a lot of people who are prepared to give their live to science. Everyday thousands of people die during war not wanting to die, you really care about the 4 people dying pretty early even if they are aware of the big chance that will happen?
Ok, maybe we should send with them some suicide-pills just in case they get in a situation like a slow painfull dead so they don’t need to suffer longer than they want to.
Suicide on Mars is rather trivial. Just step outside without a suit. Less painful would be to seal off a module and slowly let the air out. You lose consciousness and then die.
Plenty of people die on Earth everyday unnecessarily from war, starvation, pollution, and preventable disease. That’s true. What are four more, you say? What if they were your family? It’s too easy to dehumanize others. If a foursome ever does go on this one-way trip, we should all be cheering for their success and try to understand what they’re facing. Symbolically, they would be much greater than just four more Earthlings. We’re all doomed to die, but we should have the opportunity to make the most of our lives.
I agree with Frank. We will eventually land humans on Mars.
Living there, as Harry points out, is problematic. However, problems are the stuff of invention, and NASA’s primary business is problem-solving via the invention of new technology to address new problems. To date, NASA has registered over 6400 patents. The problems associated with survival on Mars or other planets will generate thousands more.
Re the Mars One project — this is just one of many likely efforts, but my guess is that it will take an organization such as NASA to make it work.
Another option is to prepare the planet in stages, just as we construct space stations that orbit earth. In this scenario, we’d build space stations that orbit Mars, and these would serve as operational bases for on-ground preparation and construction. Roundtrip flights to and from earth would be eased by these orbiting platforms at both ends.
In time, Mars could become a habitable planet.
There are many other options for colonizing distant planets. Richard Gray reports “Two Earth-like ‘blue-planets’ discovered orbiting distant star” (Telegraph, 4.18.13). There are problems of survival in water worlds such as these as well as distance — 1200 light years away. But, again, problems inspire innovation.
It took humans 60-to-340K years to spread from Africa to the rest of the planet, overcoming geographical problems along the way with inventions. Given time, we’ll spread out into other planets. -Jim S
“Given time, we’ll spread out into other planets” The primary issue here is how much time. The time issue also comes into play with respect to transforming Mars to having a breathable atmosphere. Even if we had a technological path to increasing the atmosphere to 50% of that of the Earth and making it have enough oxygen to breathe, the energy requirements would be staggering.
The Moon is much closer than Mars and has only slightly less atmosphere (0% versus 1% of Earth). Resupply is much easier. The same problems exist as with Mars, except that the gravity is much less (16% versus 38% of Earth). The sunlight is much stronger (100% versus 40% of Earth). Without dust, solar cells would work much better on the Moon than on Mars. So, why go to Mars when the Moon is so much closer. We could even rescue Moon colonists (Lunarians?) if necessary.
A colony on the Moon would be a testing ground for all of the technology required to go to Mars. If people can survive and thrive on the Moon, then Mars would be a logical step.
My guess is that the human race is just naturally arrogant and that we’ve already put people on the Moon, although for just a few days at at time. Mars is at the edge of possibility, actually past it in my opinion. It can capture the imagination of our planet. So, why not go for it?
In the 1950s, people were confidently predicting that mankind would soon be building undersea habitats and living there full time — at least by 2000. Obviously didn’t happen. The technology is and was there. It was an exciting new frontier. A full half-century later, we still haven’t done it.
It’s great to dream of magnificent explorations and new horizons. Occasionally, they become reality. Mostly, they don’t. I love the dream and am glad that Bas and Pieter are putting some solid research on this gossamer framework. If I’m still around in 2023, I do not expect to see a colony on Mars or anytime soon thereafter. I’d be surprised if you’ll see one in 2050. We’re more likely to have undersea dwellings than to have dwellings on Mars. We’ll also benefit more from the former than from the latter.
Lunarians? You know we – er, they – are going to be called Loonies!
Yeah why don’t we go to the moon. Sounds 1,000’s of times more logical to me. But you also raise an interesting point. Although it’d be cool to say we’ve colonized Mars, why not spend the time and resources developing our own planet (particularly in how we use the oceans – probably the greatest untapped resource we have). It would seem to be far more beneficial.
It’s good to explore the concept of going to Mars. Practically, I see a transient Moon base as the best path forward. It means that I probably won’t be around to see the first Mars settlement. I might make it to the first round-trip manned Mars expedition. That’s sad for me, but we cannot let our emotions set our agenda.
It’s exciting to go to Mars, but what are the benefits? The only ones I see are very long term. Those don’t require such precipitous actions as a settlement in ten years. I am deliberately placing my fictional Mars settlement at an unknown time in the future but using only technologies that exist or are reasonably close to existing with one or two exceptions allowed under author’s license. I doubt that we’ll be on Mars in ten years. Twenty years is possible for a landing but a stretch for a settlement. Because we cannot predict new technology breakthroughs, I could be wrong. Indeed, I expect a Mars settlement within 50 years and quite possibly within 30 years.
It may not happen anyway. In the 1950s, people were confidently predicting undersea settlements by 2100, some sooner. You can see how far that’s progressed. There’s a vast frontier right at our doorstep that’s unused as living space for people. (I don’t count houseboats. :-) )
I remain convinced that thinking about a settlement has many benefits. It’s fun and costs very little money while putting no lives in danger.
I hope that you’ll join me in this adventure, this thought experiment.
Harry Keller
Smart Science Education Inc.
“There are problems of survival in water worlds such as these as well as distance — 1200 light years away. But, again, problems inspire innovation.”
I saved this remark for a separate comment. This has nothing to do with Mars.
People understand that 1200 light-years is a long distance but may not realize fully its implications. Support that further investigation revealed that one such planet was a real candidate for colonization. What would have to be done?
The first thing you must know is that the given planet WAS a candidate for colonization. We’re looking at it as it was 1200 years ago. Geological time being what it is, that may not be much of a problem, but it does deserve thought.
Next, you must determine whether colonization actually is possible. How can you do that without probing the candidate planet closely? We could send a probe to the planet. The probe could beam back information about it. With our first interplanetary probe just now leaving the solar system, we’re hardly ready for such an undertaking, but let’s assume that we have a crash program to prepare an interstellar probe within ten years.
Such a probe would have to have lots of fuel and a long-lasting energy source. But these are engineering problems to overcome and only lots of money and ingenuity are necessary for that.
Sometime around 2025, the probe takes off. After about five years, it reaches 50% of light speed and ceases using fuel for acceleration. It’s 2031. Now, we wait. Somewhere around 4231, the probe nears the planet and begins to decelerate. It approaches the planet and achieves orbit. It’s now 4240 or so. It does its analysis and sends back the information at the speed of light. We receive the information around 5440. If it’s positive, we can send people, and they’ll arrive around 7640. We’ll receive the first images of landing on the planet around 8840.
If this all does not seem absurd to every single reader, you are not thinking at all. Even if we could rapidly reach 99% of the speed of light, the final date would still be 6440.
Problems do inspire innovation. The innovation required here would be FTL (faster than light) travel. Einstein settled that one for us. It turns out that even if he’s wrong, there’s still the time travel aspect. FTL means time travel. Time travel (backward, not forward) means time travel paradoxes. In theory, you could know the outcome of tomorrow’s football game and make a fortune betting. That’s without the problems of physically altering the past. Such things fundamentally alter the nature of our universe.
Simply, you cannot travel or send a probe to a planet 1200 light-years away and have it return in a few years or a few decades or even a few centuries.
Human migration expansion may most likely be in the order of 10lys every 3000-5000 years, What is interesting about the vision for a human presence on Mars is that individuals like you are now probing the ways to do this within the next 20 years, the more debate like this the more likely it will happen in this time frame.
Have you considered the possibility of trans space travel. Where if einstein was right and space and time are related a dense enough mass could bring together two separate parts of physical space.
Way out of my league, but I know if a better understanding of time and space were discovered it would be the most amazing thing since we discovered how to use fire.
The weak, wan force of gravity yet acts continuously and instantly (?) across the universe. It does not seem to be a particle, while light behaves both as a particle and a wave, which has never made me happy. The little quantum physicists can explain to untrained people like me is just weird – and makes me suspect they have much more to unravel.
Perhaps like the ants we are good at analyzing things at our scale like their grains of dust and chemical markers, but completely oblivious to the freight train roaring overhead.
And it is our arrogance to suppose that of course we would not miss something at the large or small scale, or any kind of stimuli we are simply not equipped to perceive or comprehend – and we dismiss it out of hand therefore, and go on about forming our conclusions with the (possibly very little) ‘facts’ that we have.
But the scientific method insists we use only concrete ‘truths’ using such terms as ‘verifiable’ and ‘repeatable’ with good, rational reason – and yet, perhaps, so very, very limiting.
Yes, gravity does diminish rapidly so that only the most massive of agglomerations of matter can affect very distant objects measurably.
No, gravity does not propagate faster than light. According to Einstein, nothing of use does.
Simply put, every bit of matter, including photons of light, behaves both as waves and as particles. Smaller and lighter means more like waves; larger and heavier means more like particles. Even a planet has a wave function, but it’s wavelength (haven’t actually calculated it) is probably less than the Planck distance. If not, it’s so small as not to matter.
Hi Brett,
Your final comment requires a reply from a scientist.
“But the scientific method insists we use only concrete ‘truths’ using such terms as ‘verifiable’ and ‘repeatable’ with good, rational reason – and yet, perhaps, so very, very limiting.”
There is truth in what you say but not complete truth. There really is no “scientific method.” Rather, there are methods and approaches to science investigation and analysis. Science never takes its range as complete. That is, it always assumes that there is more to know.
What science does know, it assumes can be revised, usually in small ways but very rarely in large ones — plate tectonics being one such example. Knowing in science is never absolute. However, your remark raises the issues of verifiable and repeatable. These are nearly the same and apply to data. What good is data if you cannot reproduce it at some later date? It falls from experimental data into anecdotal observations. These may be fine for brainstorming and getting ideas but too readily mislead and/or confuse our thinking.
The realm of science is not total. It deliberately limits itself to the knowable, the testable, the reproducible, the verifiable. Mostly, beauty falls outside of the realm of science, although some hints have been discovered. I don’t expect a complete “science of beauty” ever to become reality. Beauty changes with the era, the culture, and the individual. It is one of many areas that lie, in large part, beyond science.
So, yes science does limit one, and that’s not only fine, it’s as it should be. Scientists, as with the practitioners of so many trades, have strictures on what they can do. Beethoven did not create great sculptures. He was limited to music and even more to the instruments available for making it in his day. He did not compose for the synthesizer. These limitations do not make his work or him any the less. We all recognize the arena in which he practiced his art. So it is with science.
Do not lament the limitations of science. Rather celebrate them.
Yes, science is not merely ‘knowledge’ but ‘to know’ – and if so, obviously to know the truth.
All current knowledge began as imagination, sometimes in tandem with observation, followed by testing.
I think you missed my point that modern science increasingly refuses to allow the imagining and, worse, assumes it is both capable and accurate in the testing.
Let us propose that the Universe is mostly made of blue matter, simply because ‘blue matter’ is a concept we can imagine, regardless of its accuracy. Call it magic if you like, but don’t get hung up on what we actually ‘know’ about ‘blue’ or ‘matter’
Now suppose humans can’t see the colour blue, can’t taste it, cannot perceive blue or matter that is blue whatsoever. We are not even equipped to grasp the concept of ‘blue matter’ because our mind doesn’t bend that way and certainly we cannot see, smell, touch or hear it.
So we dismiss it and build theories only with what we have, with what we can perceive and imagine. Is that science? Or is that faith? Faith in the ultimate human ‘knowability’ of the Universe. And am I some kind of heretic for suggesting this flaw?
Well, “blue matter” used to be “dark matter.” That’s pretty much accepted now. The new “blue matter” is “dark energy,” which may be just about anything including an error in the theories.
Imagination, in some ways, is the most important aspect of science. I reject the term “modern science” because it’s always today’s science — even 100 or 200 years ago. People seem to excoriate and praise modernity whenever they are. (Yes, I meant “whenever.”)
“Modern” science is no different that 20th or 19th century science. The processes and modes of thought haven’t altered. The body of knowledge, of course, has expanded. You’ll find people who lack imagination in every field. In science, they’re the “foot soldiers” who painstakingly fill in the gaps left by the scouts who move ahead to new frontiers.
Science does not refuse to allow imagining. It requires imagining. But not just any old imagining. Whatever you imagine must be and always has been required to be transformed into a question that can be answered in a repeatable fashion so that one person’s answer can be checked with actual measurements by another. That’s the province of science. Outside of that province lies another great expanse of understanding (in contrast to knowing) for others to explore. That second region will never be plumbed by science. It is the area that involves what we call the “human spirit” and imagination, for imagination is not just imagining the answerable and the repeatable but the completely impossible and even other things that are neither impossible nor repeatable. I can imagine solid objects passing through each other and gravity being canceled. I can imagine beauty so extreme that it drives sane people to insanity.
So, also, I can imagine people living their lives on Mars in the near (1-3 decades hence) future even though I don’t expect to see it in ten years and may not see it in 20. Perhaps, it’s fortunate that we have science fiction writers and that a great many of our scientists have been big fans. These stories have opened up their minds and imaginations.
“Modern” science is NOT increasingly refusing to allow imagining. Scientists always have to appreciate the complexity and ambiguity of empirical work. Measurements are NEVER totally precise. Therein lies one of the crucial aspects of the nature of science (NoS). Anyone who thinks otherwise is not a scientist and also does not understand science. Scientists DO think that any physical phenomenon can be measured, in principle. One goal of science is extending the range of the measurable. I do NOT think that such a viewpoint stifles imagination. Rather, it expands imagination.
I’ll just finish off this rant on the nature of science by noting that your comment could have been written in 1963 or 1913 or 1863. Each of those times believed that they were dealing with “modern” science and indeed they were. You cannot just see selected parts of the science effort and make conclusions about the whole. If you go to the places where true exploration of science is taking place, you will find more than ample examples of truly remarkable imagination at work.
Great rant – nothing livens up the discussion like a good rant, particularly where the rantor tends toward the erudite and witty.
I should not have used the hypothetical ‘blue matter’ as it seems to have been too close to ‘dark matter’ which is inferred from descriptions of the motion and nature of the universe which appear to come up short on the mass by about an order of magnitude.
And so beautifully simple then to create some dark matter – only one type, apparently – to form a placeholder for the moment.
It was not the sort of matter I was refering to, as its existence can at least be supposed indirectly (note my use of the singular purely for convenience) but is also a reminder that our horizons are broad and undefined when seeking to know.
Which is not by any means knocking the effort – just the attitude. While we should do the best with what we have, I just want to make the point that humans are limited enough without presuming we pretty much got things figured; even though, as they stand, few if any of us could grasp the details of every discipline, let alone synthesize one grand explanation for this place in time and space.
It may be that the discipline has not yet been coined, nor the mathematical tools created (discovered? Imagined?) to deal with things we do perceive, let alone those we do not. And it seems the height of hubris to dismiss what we cannot measure or perceive as nonsense.
I have seen too many scientists rubbing the numbers and using salesmanship to promote their views, their projects, their departments, their politics to ever grant them carte blanche again – which is also not to say I don’t want the very best engineer designing the bridge or chemist designing new drugs.
“Imagination is more important than knowledge.” — Albert Einstein.
It’s not that knowledge is useless. It’s all relative. Apropos to Brett’s comments, imagination is crucial to science. So it knowledge, It’s just that imagination is MORE important.
There have always been plenty of “hacks” in every field who lack imagination. Then, there are the few who have it and the fewer who have lots of it. These are those who advance their particular field.
Just because you happen to see lots of hacks does not mean that the creative minds are gone. Science has not changed since Einstein in its essentials. It remains a grand exploration of knowledge.
Governments tend to be conservative — even rather liberal ones. They are more likely to spend their money (taxpayer money) on small, incremental advances than on bold leaps. They are more likely to seek projects with high probability of success even if that success is minor than on projects with high probability of failure even if success would mean a groundbreaking advance. It’s the nature of the creature.
So, you may well look out at what’s going on in science and come to Brett’s conclusion. It’s how the landscape looks. You have to delve more deeply into the valleys and cols of that landscape to find imagination being exercised. You can find people in science as elsewhere who almost cannot start a day without an imaginative idea. They still exist. They just don’t tend to get most of the funding — until they make an important discovery. Before then, they may even be labeled as crackpots.
I think it has already been said with great elegance: “There are two kinds of scientific progress: the methodical experimentation and categorization which gradually extend the boundaries of knowledge, and the revolutionary leap of genius which redefines and transcends those boundaries. Acknowledging our debt to the former, we yearn, nonetheless, for the latter.” bonus points if you can tell me where that came from without using Google!
Very elegant quote. I never played that game and so had to look it up. Amazing that such a remark should originate in a game. Would that more of us had that yearning.
Late 90s, golden age of computer games.
They gave Planet an atmosphere of nitrogen, which is probably easier in most respects than almost no atmosphere, like Mars.
Just outlining the project, it appears that the vast expense and effort is getting there, personnel and equpiment and supplies, in good shape.
Problems on arrival are: shelter in a radioactive vacuum, long-term energy and food supply.
Goal: exploration for water and minerals. Anything else could be done better on Earth and transported (genetically engineered organisms, for instance)
There is no reason to go there now except exploration and construction of facilities for further exploration. Any prospector will tell you that you’re not going to simply start mining. Orbital and surface analysis provide at best starting points.
Complex biological experiments, especially terraforming, comes later. Really a working economy is the first order of business after basic food and shelter are in place. This can only be exploration and development.
I prefer the idea of distributed small machines rather than large equipment, for the lower lift weight but also possible manufacture locally, but even earthside we haven’t improved much on drilling, explosives and heavy machinery – I just keep thinking how cool it would be if you just dumped out a box of ten billion ‘ants’ that could network the ground with mains and tributaries and went looking for whatever material is demanded. Ten billion grains of hematite or potassium perchlorate or bornite an hour would pile up. Obvious game would be for them to bring all materials necessary to replicate back to the 3D printer-assembler and make a few cousins. The process could be jump-started with drilling of course.
Make environmental regulations much more stringent, such systems would be an improvement Earth could well use. I know it is a bit beyond current technology, but we need to start thinking about mining at the cellular or crystalline scale as part of the nanotech revolution.
Think of it from here: you have already seen plant roots and ice crystals break rock, not to mention sudden changes of temperature. It is not unlike parallel computing converted to mining.
And I would point out the vast deserts of the Earth that have received only minor attention at reclamation, relatively speaking, compared to what they provide, as a platform, compared to the surface of Mars. But we do want to go to Mars, hmm?
Excellent ideas, Brett. I especially like your noting that our deserts can be reclaimed more readily than Mars can. It’s also easier to live in the seas than on Mars. As long as we’re at it, I’ll note that settling Antarctica would also be a cake walk compared to Mars. It’s certainly easier to get there.
After all, Antarctica has plenty of oxygen and may have large petroleum reserves for energy. It doesn’t do well on solar but has plenty of wind energy. As is the Sahara, it’s a desert — the driest desert on Earth if I recall correctly.
If you think about it long enough, here’s the only unsettled continent on Earth — only transient visitors. Energy is the most serious issue. With enough energy and excellent insulation, you can have internal greenhouses for food using the same technology as Mars One.
How many people would sign up for a one-way trip to Antarctica? How many for two years on the Moon? How about permanent residence in the middle of the Sahara desert? All of these together would make great preparation for Mars. All of these individually make very interesting puzzles to solve with clever engineering.
People are both hasty and conservative creatures. Curious.
Brett, I like your idea of “ants.” Scale may be a critical factor, especially considering the implications of weight and size. In the larger scheme of things, size may be important. In this case, especially in the early stages of the settlement project, tiny may be better. We’re beginning to appreciate the advantages of small drones over manned bombers, and the future for miniaturizing has always been bright. For cost effectiveness and less risk, perhaps a nano-scale approach might be practical. Perhaps the first “settlers” could be nanobots the size of ants. Transporting and sustaining issues would be reduced drastically. Control could be facilitated by Mars-orbiting satellites or manned stations.-JimS
The “ants” are one of Brett’s neat ideas. We cannot implement it right away any more than we can send a settlement to Mars right away. A serious problem would be finding resources for reproduction. As Brett says, mining is not so easy. Deep mining would be essentially impossible, even for the ants. Powering the ants would present another problem to solve, especially in the extreme cold.
Sending a pile of mechanical ants to Mars may stir the blood in the more nerdy of us, but would not capture the imagination of the world the way that Mars One does. They’re making headlines. I suspect that Mars One will fizzle in a year or two. Will it rise repeatedly like a phoenix, or will a settlement on Mars just be shelved for another generation or two the way that manned exploration of the Moon was after it was done?
As they used to say, “Stay tuned to this station.”
Interesting things: deserts have, in relative terms, unlimited solar energy to provide electricity to pump seawater and free heat for distillation. If residue (sea salt) is undesirable, pump the stuff back into the sea at 75% saturation.
Soil organisms already do constant warfare on our own ‘regolith’ to obtain the minerals they need to trade with plants for sugar. Lichen is the most basic such symbiotic relationship – with a protective layer it could be engineered to grow during summer months, over ice with even traces of water.
Maybe the ‘ants’ need help from ‘mites’ and ‘beetles’ for sure, and certainly I would rather experiment with some of this technology on Mars – if simply for the reason that self-replicating technology is rather more dangerous than your basic backyard nuclear bombs and long-range missiles.
See also “Greening the Desert” on Youtube.
Re: granting scientists carte blanche — don’t grant anyone carte blanche. Scientists are people too.
Some people think that university scientists are immune from the profit motive and so are more “pure.” Not so. They fight like alley cats for grant money. They angle for corporate sponsors and consultancies. They squabble over publications.
If you’re going to be a scientist, better to be a professor at a small college or work for a large research-oriented corporation or non-profit. The small college probably cares more about your teaching ability and considers publications a plus. Research institutions provide support and camaraderie. Both are more relaxed than universities. I know. I was a professor in one as well as a research scientist in the R&D department of a corporation.
Don’t trust scientists. Do trust science.
You should refer to an expert such as Kip Thorne for your answers.
Such speedy travel, often abbreviated as FTL, has some obstacles. Current science suggests that you would require some very strange matter indeed to create a wormhole gate to a distant location. Such a hole would then have a diameter smaller than an atom. I haven’t see more recent calculations. The issue here is that theoretical calculations may suggest some possibility of FTL, but the practicality of such travel seem to preclude it ever happening.
The second problem regards time travel. FTL travel results in time travel as a side effect. Even if physical matter cannot move more rapidly than light, what if you could send signals faster? Then, you could now the future before it happens. The paradoxes that result would throw all of space-time into chaos. The theoreticians must find a way out of that problem.
Basically, to travel FTL, your physical being would have to be distorted beyond recognition or life. Doing so, even for mere information, would violate the consistency of our universe.
We are discovering new planets every day/week/month. It’s obvious that we’ll wait until we find a earthlike planet within a 5-30 ly distance instead of making plans to go to a ridicules far 1200 ly planet.
It does seem as though a potential habitable planet will be found within a dozen or so light-years. It would still require nearly a century to travel there.
http://mars-one.com/en/faq-en/19-faq-health/185-will-the-astronauts-suffer-from-radiation
See this link for a discussion of the radiation problem.
The Mars One website does cover some of the issues of radiation. The problems during transit are minor compared to those of living on Mars.
According to the site, “… the habitat will be covered by several meters of soil …” If you visit the website, you’ll see no such thing. The habitat modules are sitting right on the surface, not several meters below it.
Certainly, several meters of soil will afford reasonable protection against solar and cosmic radiation. However, there’s no mention of how all of this soil will be moved or even if enough loose soil is available to move. The website is quite vague about exactly how many meters of Martian soil will be required.
This sort of quickly passing over very difficult issues is typical of the site. The issues are sort of like the proverbial onion. “Solving” one issue just uncovers others. “Covered” could mean scooped up and deposited on or it could mean dug down into and buried. Each has its own problems.
If you cover the habitat, the strong, albeit thin, Martian winds will blow off the cover over time. The colonists will have to constantly renew that cover. Going underground means enormous amounts of excavation requiring similarly enormous amounts of energy, a resource that’s in short supply on Mars. There’s still the issue of how deep the Martian soil is and how plentiful.
Remember that Martial soil does not resemble Terran soil. It contains no organic matter and no water, at least not anywhere near the surface. It’s basically inorganic dust, silt, and sand. When piled up, it can only have so much slope before it falls. One artist rendering shows some soil-covered areas, but the soil could never have that shape without some cementing compound added, and water will likely be too scarce to waste on such extensive construction.
Let’s just assume that the artist’s rendering is fanciful and that it’s just there to lure unsuspecting prospective colonists with lovely but fake images of their future home. The colonists still must grow food. This food requires light. Artificial light will be a problem due to inefficiencies. There will be some, of course, but perhaps not nearly enough to grow food plants. If you’re buried under “several meters” of soil, how will you get sufficient sunlight to those crucial plants?
Now comes the good part. If you put those plants up where they will receive lots of the wan Martian sunlight (40% of Earth’s), they’ll be subject to all of the radiation that you’re protecting the colonists from. That radiation will not be strong enough to kill the plants during a normal growing cycle. However, it will damage their DNA and reduce their fertility. After several generations of DNA damage, the seed production will decline and eventually disappear.
I understand that Pieter Hoogstad and Bas Landorp are working on these and many other problems along with some scientists and engineers. I really do wish them well in solving them. I also wish that they would be more forthcoming regarding the unsolved problems. To do so may create some bad PR, but having others point them out must be worse in the long run.
Personally, I believe the first step to a realistic colonization attempt on Mars would be a viable terraforming plan. Maybe when sending the pods over, have some containing some hardy lichen. Also, there have been some sturdy bacteria populations found in the Cherynobyl reactors feeding off the radiation, so we know that life can adapt to the high levels of radiation.
If these lichen and bacteria can begin to grow successfully on Martian soil, they will be the first step to producing a breathable atmosphere.
The anonymous comment regarding lichen and bacteria has the right spirit but not too much science.
The lack of an atmosphere and of water in the “air” will hinder lichen, and radiation will certainly make it difficult for them to survive in any event.
Not being an expert on extremophiles, I can only say that most bacteria will, if possible turn into spores in a Martian environment. If they can take advantage of brief water and warmth on some slopes of the southern hemisphere in the Martian summers, the amount of oxygen produced will be minimal, too small to have an impact and quickly used up by various chemical reactions in the oxygen-starved environment.
I could go through a calculation of the amount of air required and the amount of bacteria that could produce that amount of air in 100 years, but It will not be a few hundred square meters operational just a few weeks of each year.
The extreme cold means that metabolism will be halted most of the time, even if sunlight falls on the ground, and most of the planet will not be warm enough at any time of the year for bacteria to grow fast enough to affect the atmospheric composition.
The bacteria would have to have chloroplasts to convert sunlight into energy and then would have to have carbon dioxide, a major component of the atmosphere but still less than on Earth, to convert to oxygen.
The only hope for single-celled organisms to affect the atmosphere would be chemical energy rather than solar. You’d still have to have water and have bred the organisms specifically for this purpose. Still, the impact would be insignificant. Terraforming would require another mechanism to jump start the process.
harrykeller, what about genetically modified microorganisms?
For anything to grow anywhere, it must have energy and material. The energy is required to make order out of disorder. The material is necessary because you cannot just make matter appear from nowhere.
We will not be able to modify any organism to become other than carbon-based. All life on Earth works this way.
Temperature affects biological reactions profoundly. Every Earth-bound organism requires water to function.
Low temperatures may only slow life down, but Mars temperatures will stop it for all practical purposes except for short times each Martian year in the southern summer where temperatures may reach 27°C on some favorable slopes when the Sun is highest in the sky.
There’s also likely to be some water, albeit very briny, and will be light. On these small patches, some organisms that can stand radiation and long spells of extreme cold and dryness might be able to grow. They still must have carbon.
The Martian atmosphere is about 0.6% of that of the Earth. It is mostly carbon dioxide (around 95%) with only 0.0013% oxygen. The Earth’s atmosphere is about 0.035% carbon dioxide. These facts all make photosynthesis a real possibility on a small patch of Mars for a small part of each year.
The most promising area for such activity is Hellas Planitia, a very deep, 7152 m, impact crater in the southern hemisphere. The air pressure there is about double that of the Mars average but still only about 1/30 of that on the top of Mount Everest.
It’s just conceivable that you could modify some strain of cyanobacteria to be resistant to radiation by using genes from other bacteria and also to form spores that could wait out the long winters with no water and outrageously low temperatures.
You would have life on Mars! That life would be the equivalent of pond scum, but it would be life.
The amount of oxygen generated each Martian year would be scanty. Even if it did not react with compounds on the surface, it would take centuries and probably thousands of years to generate enough oxygen to affect the surface. Consider that the total mass of Mars’s atmosphere is about 25 teratonnes. (A tonne is 1000 kg; the prefix tera denote 10 to the power 12 or a million millions.)
Your modified bacteria would probably only generate a few kilograms of oxygen each Martial year at best and probably much less. Suppose that you were able to seed enough such cyanobacteria in the best spots on Mars to be able to generate 25 kg per year of oxygen. Just doubling the Mars atmosphere to be 1.2% that of Earth and 1/15 of the pressure on Mount Everest would require a thousand billion years. Considering that our solar system is less than five billion years old, that time is a bit too long.
However, the above scenario overlooks one problem. Making oxygen means using up carbon dioxide. Unless inorganic processes constantly replace the CO2, only the content of that atmosphere would change, not the pressure.
Mars does not have a carbon cycle (or a nitrogen cycle or a sulfur cycle or a phosphorous cycle). Mars does have carbonates on its surface that could be slowly decomposed by some process or other to release CO2. We don’t really know if this is happening.
Even if we could be sure that more CO2 is entering the atmosphere and even if we could increase bacterial output by several orders of magnitude, you’d still be waiting a billion years just to begin to change the atmosphere.
With enough available water and power, you could set up an electrolysis plant to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Again, the impact would be small unless you have thousands of such plants. Setting up such a program would probably cost in the trillions of dollars.
I’m afraid that we’ll have to take Mars as we find it at least within this century.
Something that extruded a covering or developed a shell could perhaps grow in the equatorial areas, but then water seems available only near the poles, where it is unimaginably cold *sigh* and it would have to self-correct for genetic damage at a prodigious rate. hmm hmm big problem
Until there’s an atmosphere of more than 0.01 bar of 95% CO2, growing anything won’t work. Too much CO2 hurts plants too. The radiation will slowly, over generations, cause problems too.
Air can fix some of these problems. The UV issue goes away with enough oxygen. GCR is reduced but not eliminated. Solar radiation goes way down, except for solar storms.
People can live in homes without pressurization and with only a thick roof to protect against radiation not shielded by a planetary magnetic field. Plants could grow in the same environment if you covered the roof with solar cells and used LED lighting underneath. What you lose in efficiency (only around 20-30% efficient) could be partially made up by producing only limited wavelengths.
Then, there’s the issue of temperature. I don’t know of any simulations that attempted to estimate the greenhouse effect from a 1/6 bar atmosphere of mostly O2 with the right amount of CO2 (from that already there). My guess is that even equatorial temperatures would go below freezing at night.
I may have mentioned previously that adding air to Mars has a scary side effect that few consider. The strength of gales on Mars will be greater than on Earth due to the lack of a large (very over-sized, actually) moon. Growing crops outdoors, even with an atmosphere, may be impossible because they’d just get blown away.
Such winds also will pick up sand and pebbles and be potentially fatal to anyone outdoors at the time. Structures will be built into hillsides or low and partially underground for both radiation and wind reasons — once there’s real air.
[…] NASA’s Curiosity Rover This project plans to establish a human colony on Mars in 2023 with four people. https://etcjournal.com/2013/04/08/mars-one-exciting-adventure-or-hoax/ […]
I dont think Mars is the way forward. I think space stations are the way to go. The space station I see would have the capacity to create its own gravity, expand outwards using modules which could be created from within when the materials and resources are available, be self sustaining in terms of food and oxygen creation and have propulsion. It should have separate parts that would be capable of separation should the need arise. Mars has very little to offer in my opinion and should not even be considered unless more water and mineral resources are found there.. great article by the way, it seemed to me to be very well researched and insightful..
I agree partially. A space station would have to be much more advanced than what we have now for people to live there for years. I don’t see a space station as a colony with children and so forth.
Although the radiation problems are greater on the Moon, it makes a much more likely base for a colony. It does have water. The Sun is strong enough. You can find partially shielded locations that can be augmented to create reasonable radiation shielding over time. Multiple missions can land preparatory people and equipment to get ready for a real colony. Those people do not have to stay forever and can be transients. Rescue is possible as is resupply in event of problems.
If we are ever to get to Mars, the Moon make the perfect trial location. The primary difference from Mars is the lower gravity (16% instead of 38%). That will affect bone strength.
Getting to Mars someday will prepare us for moving onto a “waterworld” like those currently being discovered, but small enough not to crush us with powerful gravity. Two large ones have been found 22 and 40 light-years away. It’s a long trip to either. Even 22 light-years would take upwards of 100 years of travel with current technologies. We may be able to reduce that to 40-50 years in a decade or two. Time dilation would mean that the colonists would not age so much, and we may have figured out some hibernation technologies by then.
The space station still is important for numerous reasons. I just don’t see it as the actual colony.
‘Even 22 light-years would take upwards of 100 years of travel with current technologies’.
Isn’t this a significant understatement? Using current technology it would take in the region of 70,000 years to travel 4 light years to the nearest star to our solar system.
Well…. That is more than 100 years. (Notice how I hedged my remark.)
Thank you for joining the discussion.
Chemical rockets represent current technology. Other technologies that could be created with current knowledge have the ability to shorten the 4 light-year trip you mention to somewhere between 50 and 150 years depending upon a number of variables. Still, a trip of 20 light-years or more would be daunting in the extreme.
Serious issues include reaction mass (Newton’s third law and all that) and heat dissipation (those exhausts will be very hot even if the drivers are not). Some proposed schemes have exhausts operating at up to 10% of light speed, a remarkable achievement if it ever happens.
Any plan must include means to slow down. You don’t wish to get there and just zip by. Again, a number of schemes have been proposed, and none are tested except the ones that must use still more reaction mass.
The bottom line remains the same whether we’re talking about hundreds or thousands of years. Star travel will not be taking place soon. We’d all better settle down and appreciate our own solar system for the lifetimes of those here today.
For many of us of a “certain” age, the prospect of human exploration of the solar system is beyond our lifetimes, but our children may see it.
So, the Moon and Mars represent the only potential for any sort of colonization within a decade or two. Both have severe problems with Mars being the greater in the short run but perhaps not for the longer run. I happen to think that even a transient colony on the Moon is tremendously exciting, but that’s probably because I’m a scientist.
The Mars One project can engage the minds of even the most humble non-scientist, and that may explain why it was chosen.
I believe at a constant acceleration of 1g it is a lot quicker than you think, but of course you have to flip half-way and decelerate the second half of the trip. Voyager took over three decades to clear the Solar system but it was not accelerating much of the time.
There’s a problem with long-term 1g acceleration. Where’s the reaction mass coming from? Let’s assume a relatively light vehicle at around ten metric tonnes. That’s 10,000 kg. Accelerating it at 1g (~10 m/s^2) would require a force of 100 MN. If the velocity of the ejected mass (rocket exhaust for example) were an outrageously high 0.1% of the speed of light (10^5 m/s), then the mass would have to be ejected at a rate of 1,000 kg/s to maintain that acceleration (if my off-the-top-of-my-head calculation is correct). That’s clearly impractical.
A sustainable acceleration would be at least two and likely more orders of magnitude lower. Say that you’re planning to fly 20 light-years. Then, you have ten to accelerate and ten for negative acceleration.
Let’s call a light-year 10^13 km just to make things easier. Let’s call a year 3×10^7 seconds. Your speed, in non-relativistic terms, is just acceleration times time at constant acceleration. Distance is one-half of acceleration times the square of time. Take the speed of light as 10^8 m/s and the value of 1.0 g as 10 m/s^2.
Let’s try to accelerate at 0.01g or 10^-4 km/s^2 for 10 l-y or 10^14 km. That will take the square root of 2×10^18 seconds or about 1.4×10^9 seconds. That’s around 40 years. How fast are we going, non-relativistically? Multiply time by acceleration to get 1.4×10^8 m/s. Big-time oops. We have exceeded the speed of light. Clearly, at this acceleration and distance, we must acknowledge Einstein.
Temporarily ignoring this problem, we still must have reaction mass at around 10 kg/s. For 80 years, including the second half of the voyage, that makes 2.8×10^10 kg. Impossible! We have to settle for much, much less. How about 0.0001g? That only extends the trip time by a factor of ten despite reducing the acceleration by one hundred. Now, it will take 400 years to get to the halfway point. The reaction mass has been reduced by ten but still is outrageous.
In simple terms, we do not today have a way to provide for constant acceleration to a light-years distance object. We just cannot do it. Also, it doesn’t make much sense (except for time dilation reasons) to go anywhere near the speed of light because you waste so much energy adding on a small increment of speed.
Can you get to 0.1c reasonably? Accelerating at 0.0001g, it would take 10^4 / 10^-6 = 10^10 seconds or about 333 years. Ramping up the acceleration to 0.001g would make it 33 years to read one-tenth of the speed of light. In that time, the ship would go 0.5×10^-5×10^18 = 5×10^12 km or 0.5 l-y. Slowing down would take as long. The intervening transit time would be 19 l-y / 0.1 c = 190 years. Overall, the trip would take 256 years. If the target were just ten l-y away, then the middle portion would only take 90 years, and we’d arrive in a mere 156 years after departure.
Now, I certainly could have made a mistake in arithmetic. Please check because I did this all in my head with no paper or calculator. These numbers seem to square with what I’ve read from others, though.
Being one of those people that is seriously thinking about joining Mars One, I kinda wonder how many actually understand the risks involved with this. First Colonies fail and this will be no exception. But to me the cost of it ( my own life) is well worth price for what it will entail. In their website they do mention the possibility of a rescue mission, which is both foolhardy and a major waste of resources. I do wonder if they have a contingency plan in place that if this does get launched and it somehow all goes bad enroute or on the surface that the colonists won’t have to suffer. If I’m going to die I prefer it to be as quick and painless as possible and not suffering from Oxygen deprivation.
Anyone thinking about doing this remember what the cost is and ask yourself if you’re willing to make that kind of sacrifice. And if it actually succeeds (which I have my doubts on) lets hope History will remember them fondly.
Now time to go see how I can sign up for this bit of lunacy :)
Ronald, I admire your courage. It will be ten years before the first quartet leaves for Mars if all goes well with this undertaking. You’ll have lots of time for second thoughts.
Radiation and energy will be the primary issues for the first Mars colonists whether they arrive in 2023 or 2053. Today’s technology makes these issues very serious. You can solve the radiation issue with burying the habitat under enough soil, if you can get it. However, such a task will require lots of energy. Mars is a very energy-poor planet without fossil fuel or hydrological power, the primary movers for industrialization on this planet. You also won’t have animal power.
Everything must be powered from solar and maybe some wind. If your solar collectors get covered with dust, you must go out and sweep them. They must be huge because the current efficiencies remain somewhat low, and the sunlight is only 40% of that on Earth. Can sufficient quantities of solar collectors be transported to Mars at $10,000 per pound? They’ll have to be! Will that change the schedule or alter the financing? Can’t say.
Oxygen deprivation is not so bad. You feel short of breath and lose consciousness and eventually life. Sudden decompression would be another matter, very painful but short.
When the first Mars colonists arrive, I’m sure that they will be remembered for as long as civilization remains. How will they be remembered? As bold pioneering colonists or as hapless fools? That’s the real issue. Fully informed candidates will help to make it the former rather than the latter.
I’m a natural skeptic but even i realise a multimillion dollar project manager isn’t going to put all his planned secrets for success up for all the world to see…
It’s a multibillion dollar project, $6 billion to be precise, although I suspect that will be insufficient. A program such as this one can have no trade secrets, at least none that impact survivability. The technologies capable of being employed are all known.
Until a few days ago, the website mentioned flexible solar arrays but did not even suggest a size. Now, we have specifics to consider.
This is good because the program no longer relies on a few researchers who may be overly sanguine about the whole thing. Every person with Internet access can comment. Each criticism can be met with responses from the world as well as the Mars One organizers.
Thousands of details must be worked out. We’re just at the high-level concepts now. If enough people pitch in with their ideas, we may be able to solve 90% of the problems. I believe that we’ll not solve the remaining 10% in the next few year before the first flights are scheduled, and the entire project will be postponed or scrapped.
Predicting the future is a risky business. I could be wrong in either direction. We could have 50% of the problems still unsolved or could solve them all. We’ll see. For now, I’ll stick with my thinking that no humans will arrive on Mars in 2023 to take up residence, but that, if they do, they’ll not survive for as much as ten years. It might even be as short as ten months or ten weeks before they succumb.
Gentleman,
I´m appalled that intelligent men would even spend time discussing this absurdity.
First of all, you bit the bait, moved by the scientific challenges, mankind´s next frontier, brave men in a new planet… But this, boys, is about SHOW BUSINESS and GIGANTIC PROFITS never before seen on a single project. The call for entries is a reality show casting, endorsed by Big Brother co-creator Paul Romer and probably TEN SEASONS. (Or at least as far as they can manage to carry this on for big bucks. I suspect it will be staged to look real, as so many seen in the show business in the past. At least I hope so.)
Aside from being completely barren, radiation alone makes Mars inhospitable to mammals. Throw in lack of oxygen, water (ice is NOT water) and extremely low temperatures to polish it all up. There is absolutely NO WAY to colonize a barren, waterless, powerless, oxygen free, -64c land. Period. (Not to mention crucial personal hygiene and waste disposal.) NASA´s round trip expedition does make some sense, yet only as a super exclusive sightseeing trip on taxpayer´s money.
As a reality show, Mars One can make billions in airtime rights alone, since, if it does go forward, it will sure be a fever worldwide, feeding mankind´s innate, infinite sadism and insanity. A preposterous, super clever way of making MOUNTAINS of money legally, (would love to see the release form) depicting a suicidal mission of no contest to hard science. Four indescribably gullible or downright mentally challenged (sorry, Ronald) “lab rats” perishing on the TeeVee, with content duly edited according to the “story” producers want to show. If, in a sudden bust of lucidity they finally realize they´ve been had and revolt cursing producers, we will not see. Period. That is, again, IF this is a veritable mission to land on Mars. After all, landing is indeed, possible, maybe with only half the crew, but survival IS NOT.
In that case, it´s a 21st century, high-tech Coliseum style blood bath, where they will slay each other on camera over the last chocolate bar. And it will be legal. There is no court of law able to rule over space.
It´s either a hoax, a staged reality show or a perfectly legal killing. With all due respect, one needs only five minutes to figure it out. It´s a no brainer, boys. No brainer at all.
But of course, that is my opinion. You are certainly entitled to yours.
As a purely theoretical discussion, we don’t really know whether long-term survival on Mars is feasible. For today, the answer must be no. Things change. At one time, travel at speeds above 60 mph was deemed impossible. So was heavier-than-air flight.
The challenges here are immense and are like the proverbial onion. As soon as you solve one, another is exposed.
In my opinion, it’s much easier to colonize the Moon AND much less expensive. No one seems to be interested in that. You have double the solar energy there and much cheaper and faster resupply.
I fear the “been there, done that” mentality prevails here. The engineer side of me says we should to the prototype before moving to the full-scale version.
If even one Mars One mission, even the initial unmanned one, gets to Mars successfully, things will change.
However, even so, the Mars One organizers will be criminally liable if they knowingly sent humans to their possibly painful death.
By shining a bright light on the issues of a Mars colony, we can assure that the colonists volunteer with full knowledge of the risks, and the organizers are held accountable if they ignore any of the real problems we can foresee.
Without any real chance of survival for the colonists, I believe that the audience will be small and the transmission of video will be shut down.
The good news is that the Mars One website has already been updated to answer some of the questions. The bad news is that many more remain.
Many of the issues you mention are quite real. However, waste disposal should not be a big problem. All wastes must be recycled. The technology exists for that already. Waste handling can be thoroughly tested here on Earth beforehand. Without extreme recycling, the colony will perish rapidly as it loses its organic matter and ability to form an artificial ecosystem.
The two very, very large problems are radiation and power. If radiation can be dealt with, not just for colonists but also for plants used for food, and a reliable power system with lots of power can be put in place, then the other problems can be addressed and possibly solved.
You can make air from the rocks. For example, analysis of Martian soil indicates calcium perchlorate and iron sulfate. The perchlorate can produce oxygen. The food plants will not be available in sufficient quantity to replenish oxygen for the colonists. Yeast, necessary for vitamin B12, uses oxygen.
Water is available in some areas of Mars, but we don’t know how much or how deep. Ice is just solid water. Heating it will give you water, but you must have plenty of power. This water is likely to be undrinkable without further treatment, and that treatment most probably will be distillation and will require enough power to boil the water. Oddly, Mars can be helpful here. Putting the still in a sealed compartment that can open to the outside in a controlled fashion will make the pressure low enough to boil water without heating much at all. The distillation apparatus must have a condenser that must be cooled, but Mars can do that rather nicely. You still must supply the heat of vaporization of the water, which is one of the highest of any substance.
I’d like to see responsible people with knowledge and real scientific thinking skills plus serious engineering creativity undertake the analysis and solution of as many of these problems as possible.
This is what our species is good at. We solve problems, and the solutions make life better for all of us — most of the time. Even if we never colonize Mars, the effort is worthwhile.
In the meantime, Anonymous Girl has taken the extreme of my position that everyone involved must be acutely aware of the problems, issues, and dangers of colonizing Mars.
I’m not worried about someone making money. My concern is that the Mars One people are running a huge scam. We cannot tell if they are serious until they show us they have solutions to enough problems that we can see the potential for solving them all.
The 3000 square meters of solar collectors are one example. I did not see that number on earlier iterations of the website. Now I see it, but I don’t see the batteries necessary to store that solar power. Once I see them, I must see how they will be maintained for 100 years.
“My concern is that the Mars One people are running a huge scam.”
Precisely. “Fishy” is what my radar is picking up. Their short video says that, “For every component, we have at least one potential supplier.” Component of what? Has all equipment been designed? The very architecture of the camp site is 100% flawed due to radiation exposure alone.
The site drawings are very misleading. In another part of the site, they say that the habitat will be covered with “several meters” of “soil” (Martian regolith). It’s totally unclear how that much material will be moved or if enough is readily available.
Or what landing site they have chosen. Easier to dig horizontally but location, location, location – which on Mars is water, water, water.
You must admit though, even with such potential for disaster, just the fact that even a single human set foot on such a distant world will bring a whole new concept to the table.
The Apollo missions are an example of how launching against time still makes big marks in the books even when everything isn’t quite worked out. 3 men died on the ground during a test, and it wasn’t looking all that great for another 3 some time later. But the show went on, assuming you follow the presented versions and don’t head off into conspiracy theory. That’s a whole different thing, and while it’s a possibility here, sure, it won’t matter, as you can bet that the popular consensus will be that man walked on mars. Even if they all die within a week, it’s a feat never pulled off before, as nobody has set foot on red soil for so much as a minute, or even gotten anywhere close just yet.
I’m with the idea of “let them go for it”… I don’t see the harm in trying anything… There will always be problems when there are so many things that can go wrong. But if it’s all real, and the selected few that get on the bus are all fully aware and everything has been disclosed to them, there’s no moral issue. It would be no different than holding a cup of something in front of someones face and telling them “it should taste like nothing you’ve ever tasted before, and you’ll be the first one to ever taste it if you drink this, but if you do, you’ll die”… And they drink it anyway.
For someone with nothing to lose and everything to gain, there’s nothing wrong with being in the original colony, even if it ends in utter tragedy within a few minutes time of setting foot on the surface.
The moment that happens, history will once again have been made, and the knowledge that humans can make it there at the very least will be proven at that point. Analyzing what went wrong is a job for those back home, and anyone that signs up for the next ticket to 4th rock will already be well aware of what happened to the first crew. They may see the same fate as the first, but would hopefully have been held in waiting until a workable fix had been devised to prevent history repeating itself.
As for money, bah, so what. It’s not like just anyone has the kind of cash to fork over to “just do it”… And you’ve got to keep research flowing back here on 3rd to continue the quest.
The idea of it being on TV has a very “Truman show” quality about it, but wouldn’t this be like the ultimate train wreck? Ain’tcha just GOTTA watch?
How I see it 101, YMMV ;)
Steve
Thanks, Steve, for you thoughtful comments. I really do understand your position. I just happen to believe that dying just after arrival will taint the entire project and set it back years if not totally scuttle it.
My view is that you probably can, with 10 years and enough money, put four people on Mars and have them survive for a year, barring a meteor strike or something else that really cannot be planned for.
The fab four will never have a ticker tape parade or a champagne celebration. If they have enough ingenuity, they may have some slightly alcoholic home-brewed beverage once they’ve done the work necessary to survive at all.
The project funding depends on worldwide interest in this project — greater than the Olympics. It also depends on continuing interest. Ghastly death will enormously decrease the interest, in my opinion. The reality show will bring the colonists into everyone’s home for months while they prepare. They’ll almost be family. Seeing them die would be very harmful to the entire concept.
If the first pod lands successfully on Mars, I’ll be more interested. If all of the serious survival problems are solved satisfactorily, then I can see the possibility of really doing the colony.
However, four people with limited resources will be hard-pressed to survive the first Martian winter. Realize that Martian seasons are twice as long as those on Earth. Winter on Mars is no picnic. Heat will be the most crucial factor. It’s why a Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) may be a good idea. It will heat one module and provide enough electricity for LED lighting in it too.
Total dependence on solar panels is dangerous. The weak sunlight is lower in the sky, and the days are shorter in winter. Yet, winter is when you must have the most power.
Those colonists must realize that their chances of survival for ten years are low and that they may not make it to two years. New inventions in the next five or so years could change this assessment, but that’s how I rank it today.
They should still go for it — for now. The necessary advance planning and preparation means not waiting for everything to be worked out before beginning. Indeed, beginning means working everything out.
Only time will tell. If the plans aren’t much better and many more questions answered in five years, the mission will not go in 2023.
Water.
The Mars colony must have water. Mars does have water and may have lots of it locked deep below the surface. New discoveries suggest that this deep water is gradually coming up to the surface in some areas.
This water is in the Martian dirt. Analyses of Martian dirt indicate that it contains soluble salts, especially calcium perchlorate and iron sulfate. The water nearest the surface is like a eutectic mixture of water with one or more of these salts and others in lesser concentrations.
Even if you can get the water and melt it, you still must remove the salts. It’s the old desalinization problem again but with nasty salts instead of plain old sodium chloride (table salt). It’s likely to require distillation to remove these salts, and distillation takes lots of energy.
You might be able to drill a deep well to get less salty water, but you don’t know where to drill or how deep. Drilling is energy-intensive too.
Water may never be readily available on Mars without virtually unlimited power.
Indeed, “ice is NOT water”. When I think of melted Martian ice, alka-seltzer tasting water comes to mind, but I see it´s even worse. They will need a custom-made device to work as an artificial, optimum “water fountain”. Presenting the “Martian Super-Melter-Filter Magic 2023”! This one alone might require its very own mini nuclear motor and, say, U$ 1 million in research just for the prototype.
I neglected to mention that drilling would produce ice and not water. You cannot pump ice. Therefore, you’d have to heat the area at the bottom of the “well.” As you drew up water, you’d very quickly deplete the warm area and have to heat an ever-increasing region. Only a real nuclear power plant could do that, although it could be one of the “micro” plants that are only about 25 meters long. After around 30 years, its fuel exhausted, the heat source would be gone, and the colonists would have to rely entirely on other water sources, especially recycled water.
Does Mars warm up at all as you dig? Or is Earth warm
Does Mars warm at all as you dig? Or is this feature on Earth solely due to a liquid core?
The exact nature of the core of Mars is uncertain, but is believed to be liquid. A large fraction of sulfur in the iron core may be preventing it from being magnetic. Scientists aren’t sure.
Relatively trivial depths in the Martian crust won’t show much increase in temperature from the average values of well below freezing. For example, drilling to a few hundred meters would find no liquid water.
if I remember correctly, the first waves of intrepid settlers to the New World didn’t survive either, and subsequent ‘settlers’ (perhaps including the Asians across the Bering Straight) only relocated because what they faced back home was far worse. So all we really need to make this work is some really ardent political/religious oppression somewhere …
But seriously, since we’re talking Science here, and yes, I have no doubt there were a great many eager funding-strapped labs around the world lining up to send their gear but not their bodies (or their daughters), but seriously what sort of psychological profile would accept a mission like this, and what sort of society might arise from a colony of twenty such seriously abberant profiles? We might want to workshop on *that* problem a bit, before we ship two dozen manic-depressive zealots up to a live webcam fishbowl.
I touched on the psychological challenges in my column. They go deep. Monotonous terrain, monotonous food, monotonous company, and so on punctuated by extreme hazards that will happen and are probably unpredictable as to time and as to exact nature. On Mars, there will be no second chances. If one colonist loses his or her mind, either that one must be subdued and possibly killed, or they all die.
The range of comments truly staggers me. We have a potential volunteer and, at the other end, an extreme skeptic who says it’s all just a way to make huge amounts of money off of the fatal woes of others.
As a scientist, I’m interested in the scientific questions here. Can it be done? Unlikely, but what are the primary obstacles, and what is required to overcome them?
Radiation
Energy
Air
Water
Food
Building Materials
Maintenance and Repair
Expansion
Sanity
The above list may not be complete, it’s sufficient to give anyone pause. Truly creative solutions to the Mars problems may help us all here on Earth.
Perhaps I should clarify my previous statement. Yes I am willing to go on a one way trip but I am not willing to go on an out right suicide mission. With a set goal in mind and planned the obstacles can be overcame. Remember we went from no human spaceflight to a man on the moon in 10 years and there the technologies had to be developed from scratch. A Mars Mission has something of a head start. One has to have some faith and anyone that does makes it through the selection process and training has 8 years to decide if they can really do this. And me personally if I do make it that far I will not hesitate to drop out if I don’t think it has any chance of success, success for me being defined as being survivable. If I do go I’m hoping to die of old age, but know accidents will happen and while can you can try to plan for them, you can’t anticipate everything that will go wrong. I do not have a death wish.
In response to Anonymous Girl, is it such a bad thing that they are looking to make money off of this? While governments and universities will do the hard science it will be corporate interests that will push us out among the planets. Frankly I hope he does make alot of money off it, it might inspire other corporations and make them realize that space based industries while expensive to set up have a bigger rate of return for that investment.
Bravo, Ronald. You join quite a few hopeful volunteers. I guarantee that you all are not doing this for money, which would be useless in any event on Mars.
Hope springs eternal.
When the first habitat pods land on Mars, I’ll give more credence to this scheme. I still will consider colonists are going on a suicide mission. Until I see a demonstration otherwise, it’s only a matter of how long the suicide requires. Barring a serious accident or a meteorite strike, I can see survival for a year if everything goes well. I’m assuming that colonists will arrive at the beginning of the Martian “summer” where they land. After a Terran year, they’ll be heading into winter. As with colonists on Earth, that’s when the real test begins.
The power from sunlight will decline as will temperatures. It could be a cold day in the depth of winter when a dust storm reduces power production so much as to threaten survival. Now, those 3000 square meters of solar panels must be cleaned off in temperatures cold enough to freeze carbon dioxide (dry ice). Those Mars suits had better be good at keeping heat in.
Our new Martians tumble out of their habitat with brooms and start to sweep for their lives. It’s awkward in the suits. One person may take a minute to sweep ten square meters. If all hands, four people, go at it full bore, it will take an hour and a quarter to do it all. Realize that they have to be careful where they step.
However, safety procedures will mean that one person must stay in the habitat at all times. So, you’ll only have three sweepers who will take closer to two hours to complete their task. Will they have enough oxygen for that? Until the details of the Mars suits are released, we don’t know.
The extreme cold will mean that more power must be used for heat i the winter just as during Earth’s winters. Less sunlight means slower food production.
If the colony survives and if the organizers succeed in financing the second set of four colonists, the Martian spring will see four more hardy souls arriving. If the colony dies, the entire project will probably be scrapped.
The fact that we are having this discussion, may be the best justification for the Mars-One project.
Could it succeed as presently conceived? Not likely. Will problems be solved? Certainly. Will ALL the problems be solved? Eventually, but probably not by 2023. Will the Mars-One project actually put people on Mars? Does it really matter?
When President Kennedy proposed that we should land a man on the moon within a decade, current technology at the time made the mission utterly impossible. Many thought the project was foolhardy and a waste of good money that could be used to feed the poor, etc, etc. But to most, the vision was inspiring. It stirred the imagination, and kindled the fires of innovation. Virtually unlimited government funding certainly helped, but without the vision, and the energy it produced, the lunar program could not have succeeded.
I am signing up. I am 60 years old now. I’ll be 70 by the planned launch date. If I win the lottery and actually go, hey, what have I got to lose? Even if I know it’s a suicide mission, it would be worth spending my few remaining years to step foot on Mars.
But, I really don’t expect to go anywhere. I just want to participate in promoting the vision, so that maybe we will be inspired to move closer to someday making Mars colonization a reality.
Good for you, Roy! My initial response to the Mars One project was similar. When I first viewed the site, it was beautiful but lacking in content. Everything I read was marketing hype. The images were impossible concepts for Mars.
They’ve updated their website so that it handles some of the objections but mostly in a cursory manner, although sometimes with some specificity that lacks depth. The solar cells are an example where they say how large they must be but fail to disclose how the power will be stored.
To me, as a scientist and engineer, it’s more about solving the problems than about being on Mars. That goal clearly has the intention of generating excitement. I’d much rather see a Moon colony filled with transients as a trial for many of the ideas before actually going for Mars.
Even if every problem has a solution devised for it, any engineer will tell you that the actual deployment will not work as planned. Even were I able and interested in spending my remaining days on Mars, I’d like to know that the systems were all tested in a similar environment first.
That was my first reaction as well. There are conflicts between the profile required and the profile likely to sign up. In my case, there’s little left for me on 3rd rock, and strangely enough, one of the ways I have always thought of dying would be worth everything that transpired to do so would have been to witness an “earthrise” from the surface of the moon. Mars certainly surpasses the qualifications there (in terms of dying somewhere nobody else has), so I’d put it on my list of surrogates.
But does that disqualify me, overqualify me, make me not fit the profile required? Who knows, but I got to thinking about it shortly after realizing that it’s going to be tough to find people that have nothing to lose, yet won’t pose a problem for the survival of the project as a whole.
Add the idea that those that go will need some cash to lay down ahead of time, and the window gets that much more narrow.
Even if everything else gets solved, the colony participants themselves will ultimately “decide” the fate of the entire thing. For success, I’d think that each candidate would need to:
Have nothing to lose
Have the drive to become whatever is required of them to be a useful part of the colony
Have the courage to leave earth knowing they may readily perish at any point, but will never return regardless
Be tough as nails under the most stressful of situations
Have the ability to think on their feet
Show psychological stability
Play well with others
Be physically strong
Be physically in top shape
Have money to hitch the ride
… .. .
The list goes on and on. Point being, there may not even BE 4 people that fit the mold required. There are tons of conflicts in that list that would disqualify the majority of the entire world population.
Steve
Steve,
I have a slightly different read on selection. I’m sure that others look at it in yet a different fashion.
First, a quote from the Mars One website: “In the first years, the Mars settlement is not a suitable place for children to live.”
Combine this with the fact that the goal is to establish a self-sustaining colony, which means children eventually.
Then, there’s the necessity of being able to fix anything that goes wrong on the spot as well as the ability to get along with people you’ve known only since the training program began for the rest of your lives.
As I put these together, I come up with not too old and not too young. Youth is impetuous. An old person would become a burden too soon in the timeline of colony. Someone in their thirties today would be in their forties at blast-off and in their fifties when the last settlers arrive. They’d reach their eighties, when their cost-benefit ratio (being cold-blooded about it) would become a drag on the colony, forty years after arrival, enough time to have made significant contributions to the colony and be deserving of the care of the others.
They’d be old enough to have a stable, evaluable personality and enough life experience to put to use in a very challenging environment. So much for age.
I’d not be in favor of people with nothing to lose but instead of those with more to gain than to lose.
Courage, drive, and toughness are important and hard to measure.
The training program will wash out those unable to get into top physical condition and get the others to that state. You only have to be healthy to start.
Intellectual capability will be important because the training will be both physically and mentally challenging. Being able to think creatively is also important because it’s hard to teach in a short time.
DNA testing will advance, and we’ll see people excluded for genes related to Parkinson’s, Huntington’s, ALS, and so on. If you have those things in your family history be prepared to be rejected if you happen to have inherited those genes.
As children will not be part of the colony until it’s stabilized and its future is ensured, the earliest colonists need not be breeders. They’ll be subjected to the most radiation because shielding will take months to put in place. Later arrivals will see much less radiation. Lots of radiation reduces fertility and increases the likelihood of miscarriages and birth defects. Therefore, the first four should have already all of the children they care to have, possibly none.
Unfortunately, there will be no room for the physically disabled or the mentally or emotionally handicapped.
I’m too old to qualify, by the way, so that my opinions are not selfish. I’d just as soon hang around here and enjoy my grandchildren anyway.
I’d expect that many more will be selected for training than will be chosen to fly. A training program will be designed to also be a selection program.
You must be smart, have a low heart rate and blood pressure, a low respiratory rate, strength and flexibility, be short but not too short, be slender but not skinny, be independent in character, have the ability to improvise readily, and be social but not so social that you’ll miss having more than three friends.
With all due respect, the maximum age of the volunteers should be less than 40 years now. To be older than 50 years in 10 years from now seems to me like a waste. We should reduce the risk of sending people who will become weak because of age much sooner than younger volunteers. Pretend that a 75 year old fellow will enroll… He will be 85 when he leaves earth. The odds for him to die during the 7 months trip are higher than the odds he’ll ever set foot (wheelchair?) on Mars. It would be such a waste. So please, let only ‘young’ people volunteer…
While I understand what you’re suggesting, I think that setting a specific age limit would be a mistake. The process of checking health will remove the feeble and about-to-be-feeble.
I’ll use myself as an example. When I was 50, many mistook me for under 40 due to my energy and appearance. Let’s say that I had been able to enroll at 40 and leave at 50. It’s been over 20 years since that date, and I still hike three miles daily over very hilly territory. At 60, I was still climbing 10,000-foot mountain peaks. That would have been ten years into the settlement. It would now be over 20 years, and I have every prospect of lasting another 20+ years without requiring a wheelchair.
Is 40 years too soon to become a burden on the other settlers? If so, then some who are 20 and will be 30 at launch will be a burden at 70 or even sooner due to Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s and so on. I know such people.
You may say, “With all due respect,” but I don’ think you have much respect for those who are just a bit older.
These days, those without genetic problems will last until 90 years very well and be very mobile and mentally active. This is according to my physician. Between 90 and 100 years, most decline and die. In tne years, those figures may be pushed out a bit by stem cell research.
The most important part of the testing and training will consist of a thorough DNA analysis and a rigorous physical program that builds and checks fitness. Just five years ago, I was swimming a half mile every day vigorously using free style and butterfly strokes. I only stopped because I moved and lost my pool. My resting heart rate is below 60 beats per minute. I do think that I’m too old to apply now because I’ll probably only last another 20 years and that would mean just ten on Mars, the last five may not be a burden, but they would also not be fully contributing years either. I see no problem with a healthy 40-year old appllying, none at all. In fact, a person who is 50 at launch would be a tremendous asset due to knowledge and maturity. People routinely mistake me for 50 years old.
I suggest that you put aside your stereotypes of older people and look at the realities.
Ronald,
I have no problem at all with profit. I do have a huge problem with profit through deceit if they: a) knowingly send four people to death; b) skimp on quality for the sake of profit margins leading to unnecessary deaths; c) market a reality show as a serious and responsible scientific endeavor IF it really is not. All issues contestants cannot control or be aware.
Another point to consider is that universities also seek profit for their technology. So you have technology salesman on sales commission. Scientists write convincing papers, duly reviewed by peers before being published in accredited journals, when the academic community reaches a consensus: “Yes, this is true.” Many of such papers turned out to be not true at all. Some took years to fall and at least one that I know of, was a downright hoax uncovered by its very author. (The amazing physicist/mathematician Alan Sokal.) So… Be it known that the very tech being considered for this venture might be flawed for numerous reasons, including the downright impossibility of reproducing the Mars environment for safe testing.
And here´s where I come from: Think of all the chipped (meaning, computerized) cars of today. Their very sensitive electronics can´t resist the salty sea breezes and extreme heat of the tropics. They will oxidize, fry and/or malfunction. Manufacturers know that. Selling expensive chips is how they decided to increase sales, neglecting safety. Someone I know nearly suffocated locked inside a car on a 140F hot afternoon in a deserted parking garage. It would not start and windows and doors would not open. She was able to break the glass, but cutting the safety plastic film between the glass sandwich was a challenge that took some time. That remained her “breathing hole” for hours, before security found her late at night. Now, picture that scenario if she was on a highway. Her breaks would not work. Picture it into the seven months to Mars… I say the stress itself is venom to the immune system, and, as Harry mentioned, keeping sanity is a huge challenge.
Mars One is a non-profit organization. As you can see from another of my comments, it’s quite possible for criminal liability to be placed on the instigators of Mars One not to mention civil penalties if they knowingly deceive and cause foreseeable early death. Nothing the colonists sign can waive criminal penalties. These people must take care.
By raising real issues of unavoidable danger, we ensure that the Mars One people are aware of them and thus cannot ignore them. As a non-profit, they cannot skimp to increase profit, but may do so if their advertising receipts for their 24/7 reality show fall short of expectations. You can also expect cost overruns.
Instead of simply saying, “Do not do this,” we must say, “Do not go forward until you have a good solution to all of these problems.”
The marketability of their show will be very small (limited to sadists) if they do not have the solutions and do not share them.
It’s clear to me that we should have a transient colony on the Moon before attempting a permanent colony on Mars. I guess there’s no fun and lots more cost in that.
Did someone say, “Boldly go where no one has gone before”?
Bold is great, but sometimes you go too boldly.
Still, I hope that people do solve many of these problems. Many of these solutions will help us here.
Keep thinking!
“Another point to consider is that universities also seek profit for their technology.” This is an important issue but outside of the topic here.
As a former university professor, I have lots to say about how universities are run and how other profit-making organizations prey on the university system. I’ll leave all of that for another discussion.
Great discussion, I was carried away by the dream until you reminded me of the cold, hard facts that I should already have known from reading science fiction like Kim Stanley Robinson’s Mars trilogy and Ben Bova’s Mars.
And that’s what worries me, that this program actually damages the dream, abuses the dream to create some monstrous reality show that never intended to actually put folks on Mars.
I do want to land on Mars, and the one way ticket is not objectionable to me – but of course I am one of the dreamers, and there are two sure ways to make a profit: dreams and fears.
My new fear is that Mr. Keller is right to bring up this considerable array of problems that we mostly unqualified dreamers were quick to overlook – or worse, dismiss.
Although going out in an explosion en route or a decompression on the surface is probably quicker (and more glorious) than starving to death in an open boat in the South Pacific, it’s those dessicated, emaciated corpses in a tin can on a desert planet 100 million kilometers from home that is the most disheartening image I can think of for space exploration.
Interesting site
http://www.universetoday.com/14824/distance-from-earth-to-mars/
Nice link.
As a scientist (and engineer), I found the entire program too diaphanous. Bas Lansdorp and Pieter Hoogstad have made it a bit less tenuous but still have much to do. The vision is great, of course.
Perhaps, we should consider how a Mars colony might be financed. A reality show is one approach. Is it the best? I don’t know. In this instance, the question is one of whether Mars One is real or just a way to make money. The only way to test these hypotheses in the short run is to see whether public information leads or misleads.
Those artist pictures of the first colony were way off the mark and suggested the mislead hypothesis.
For me, the information remains thin. I’d like to see information regarding how much food and water will be sent to Mars with the colonists. I’d like to see what the insulation will be and how much heat loss is expected in the cold nights of Martian winters. I’d like to know that plants can be grown for food under Martian conditions and will propagate. How exactly will a complete diet be attained under Martian conditions?
Even if I know all of these things and many more, I’d like to know how the human psyche will survive in a continuously cold and dry environment. I’m talking about inside the habitat because energy requirements will mean keeping the temperature rather low and the air quite thin. On the other side of the equation, the food modules will have to be relatively (emphasizing that word) warm and moist.
How many people will be willing to go to a place where they’ll never again see a lake or pond, a bird or butterfly, waving wheat or green forests? Where you’ll never feel a cool sea breeze on your face or the warmth of a summer day? Where you’ll never hear, non-recorded, the rustle of leaves or the splash of a waterfall?
Instead, you’ll have a cold, dry, gritty existence without new friends, except those four that arrive every two years until 20 have arrived and whom you will not choose. You’ll never go outdoors in just your own skin or even ordinary clothing. Frequent outdoor excursions in your Mars suit (much like a space suit) will cause wear and tear on those suits. How much repair material will the colonists have with them? The food selection will be extremely limited. Meat and dairy are completely out of the question. Recent medical evidence suggests that may be a good thing.
However, a complete mix of nutrients is absolutely necessary. Mars probably has the minerals. The colonists must get more, much more. The plants they eat must contain all of the vitamins necessary to good health plus enough of the right oils. B12 is not available from plants. Colonists must grow yeast using some of their plant produce to get that. Once you’re used to it, dried yeast is reminiscent of Parmesan cheese — not so bad really.
I don’t expect that colonists will have lots of leisure time in such a demanding environment. They’ll constantly be seeking out water (as ice) sources and mining them — can’t just pump the stuff at those temperatures. Initially, they’ll be digging to make radiation shielding and then to maintain it.
How will our intrepid Martians ever expand their little colony? I’ll save that discussion for another time.
And more on the human psyche, although it is politically correct to send up a group mixed according to gender and race, I was thinking about the pros and cons of each.
Sexual tensions would be more of a problem for the under forty crew, and in this particular case, due to the one-way aspect, an under forty crew is not advisable. Over sixty would be preferable, some health problems related to age could be selected against.
Dying in a remote camp with only modest medical facilities will be an interesting discussion of itself – who decides when the cyanide pill gets handed out?
Would it relieve the monotony to have different cultures represented, or would four people (growing to twenty) be a more cohesive team if they were from similar backgrounds?
Some research has been done, particularly with the space programs, but I think this mission ups the ante considerably. Also, judging by some of the antics we have seen at NASA, the psychological profiling at present is by no means 100% accurate or successful.
Or at any rate politics has interfered with the psychological selection process. This would also be true if the Mars One show is to be televised: is the cutie worth more to us than the cook? the movie star prefered over the mechanic?
The problem with sending people over sixty to Mars is that they must all be strong and capable ten years later so as not to be a drag on the putative colony. I’m still having problems visualizing this colony becoming independent of Earth. If it is to do so, it must have members who can work hard for 20 or more years. They must be strong and flexible without arthritis or other physical impairments. They also must have no mental problems, no senile dementia of any form — e.g. Alzheimer’s. Eventually, if the colony really does develop, it will have sufficient surplus resources to afford members in old age. I’d see around age 50 as the best age for the first colonists and am willing to entertain other ideas.
Dying will happen. The Mars One site discusses it briefly. It suggests cremation. I think not. Where will all of the energy come from? Somehow dead bodies must be recycled for their valuable water. A ghoulish suggestion of cannibalism may creep into some minds, but that won’t work as the colonists will have digestive systems fully adapted to a vegan diet and will likely sicken on ANY meat. Also, cannibalism tends to cause disease.
One way of disposing of dead is to expose them to the Martian atmosphere, but that loses all of the water. I’m sure that some means can be devised that will allow dessication of bodies with capture of most of the water and that uses little power. At that point, it becomes a matter of whether reclaiming nutrients from bodies is worth the cost. Perhaps not, in which case burial of the dessicated corpse would be appropriate.
Getting back to the question of colonist age, I would definitely favor age selection based on expedition number with earlier expeditions have an older age. However, the Mars One people have set up a very different means of making that choice. In a nod to the various reality shows, they’re having the audience vote!
This approach suggests to me that the entire activity is just a hoax. With an 8-to-10 year interval between the first and last expeditions and issues of radiation for the earliest colonists, you just cannot allow the hoi polloi to make this decision. It’s a foolhardy idea that is only being done to enrich the Interplanetary Media Group (IMG), who will run the reality show and pay license fees to Mars One in order to fund it. Yes, they must make enough money to cover their costs and the Mars One licensing fees. I still think that this nod from Mars One to IMG means that Mars One is not devoid of pecuniary considerations.
I am appalled that they would sacrifice their goals so blatantly for this grandstanding play to get higher ratings.
Isn’t der a possibility dat mars one must be hiding the truth by saying dey r using current technology cuz dey certainly must have discussed all dese issues.dey Wundt boldly cum out with dis project 2 d public if dey hadn’t cum with solutions 4 d problems stated by Harry.jus think abt d criticism dey will receive if doesn’t happen!!!
If only we could make Stargates a reality…sigh.
LOL!
Haha glad I could add some levity to these heated debates! LOL if only it could be that easy huh?
Yes, Jason. BTW, most of the heat seems to have come from Mars One itself. One or two posts may have been a bit over the top, but mostly we’re having an excellent and sane discussion.
Hi Harry, totally agree, they’re generating massive press with this dog and pony show lol. Currently it appears to include mostly smoke and mirrors. I’m glad we’re all having these discussions, but it behooves the Mars One staff to engage in the same discussions, as to NOT immediately put these astronauts in danger. I’ve noted on here that some of the counter arguments have consisted of “well if we didn’t have explorers come to America, we wouldn’t be here. They were brave, etc., etc.”. Well yes, BUT they also knew they could rely on the natural resources of the area for their survival. What resources will the astronauts be pooling together from the surface or even under the surface of Mars??
Jason, I completely agree with this analysis. The comparison with early settlers and polar explorers goes only to psychology and not to physical reality.
As I’ve written before, Mars is devoid of fossil fuels. You cannot use oxen, horses, or any other beast for work. It all has to come from solar energy unless you can get a nuclear power plant there or somehow use the ultra-thin atmosphere’s strong winds. There’s just no vast quantity of stored energy as we have on Earth to jump-start a civilization on Mars. There’s not even wood to burn.
Speaking of which, fire would be wasteful in the habitat. All heat must come from human bodies and electrical resistance heating. The insulation has to be incredibly efficient.
There’s no food, either plant or animal source, ready to harvest on Mars. It’s unclear whether enough food can be grown just to satisfy the caloric necessities of four people on a continuing basis. I’d guess not but will get to the calculations later.
Atmosphere control within the habitat would obviously require keeping CO2 at non-toxic levels, plants being the preferred choice. But plants produce O2 as we know – could the O2 levels become too high, accelerating failures due to corrosion but more importantly creating a fire trap? Seems to me I read somewhere that even 25% O2 makes it very difficult to suppress fire. Wouldn’t want the atmospheric controls to be unreliable.
Speaking of which, don’t want to run out of lightbulbs either. Can a 3D printer make a lightbulb?
Thanks, Brett. I’m enjoying your creative inquiries.
I haven’t yet done the math, but I believe that the human respiration will outpace the plant photosynthesis by quite a bit. If anyone has data, I’d like to see it.
We don’t have exact dimensions for the habitat modules and have to guess. I’d like to use the artist sketches despite their other errors. The artist may have the sizes right. The Mars colonist in suit is 2-1/2 grid squares high. The module is 6 squares wide with a circular base. The maximum height for colonists is 190 cm. Each square is about 80 cm. The external base radius is about 240 cm or 2.4 m. Insulation will take up some of that distance and has to be very strongly insulating. I’m guessing about 50 cm will be necessary. That leaves an internal base radius of 1.9 m and an area of πr^2 = 11.3 sq m. The initial habitat appears to devote two modules to food production (the ones with the windows in them). Allowing about 20% of the area for work space, that leaves 18 sq m for food production.
Can four people use 18 sq m of “farm” to feed themselves? How much CO2 will plants growing in that space use? That amount is equal to the amount of oxygen generated.
The Mars One site says, “The first four will also be carrying a device similar to a portable greenhouse, that will allow them to grow their own food.” I’ve been going entirely on the artist’s drawings, which include no such module. The “portable greenhouse” is a wild card. It must be pressurized to some extent. Details of its construction and size would help me to evaluate its viability.
I’m sure that LED lights will be used. They’re small, light and last for ten or more years. The program would readily be able to deliver a 30-year supply. I cannot say what will happen after 30 years if anyone survives that long.
Thank you Harry and I’m glad you agree! Yes of course, and it makes you ponder as to just how much the psychology of this entire endeavor will affect these astronauts. They will be encountering an ENORMOUS amount of sensory deprivation, so undoubtedly it plays a major role on this expedition. Have any discussions by Mars One begun regarding this issue?
Totally agree with your sentiments, and you must, like I do, have the feeling of these astronauts starving whilst attempting to establish their colony. What is your assessment, rough estimate, as to what the minimum threshold should be, sustenance-wise, for the colonist to survive for any sufficient length of time?
Hi Jason,
I’ve been working on so many different aspects that I haven’t yet been able to do the food calculations. They claim to have 50 square meters of food growing space. Food takes time to grow, although higher CO2 (up to 3x our norm) can speed up growth. They plan to optimize the lighting with LEDs specifically chosen to activate chlorophyll. If done well, the leaves will look black because all light is being absorbed.
Much depends on the plants chosen. I’ve already discussed that issue. I have not seen anything from Mars One. Perhaps, they don’t wish to scare applicants with the actual food list. I mean, what if you hate broccoli and see it on the list?
Essentially all plants produce some amount of indigestible cellulose. That must be recycled somehow. Bacterial digestion would seem to be the best bet. Some space must be allocated for that. The result should be the sugar breakdown products in suitable form for yeast growth. Yeast will be essential for health (B12) without any (other) animal products available — probably ever.
Hydroponics may not work well enough to feed the colonists. Transforming the Martian regolith into soil should be possible with water, organic material, bacteria, and some chemical treatment, for example to adjust the pH.
The diet will most likely consist of greens, roots, and legumes plus the yeast. Eventually, there may just possibly be room for a very few herbs and spices that will be a true luxury after hundreds of bland meals. My own experience suggests that marjoram and rosemary are quite easy to grow. You can also grow green onions and garlic. In the growing chambers, it may be warm and damp enough to grow ginger.
The best food plants will have edible greens and roots because so little will be wasted. Some are just not feasible. Corn is one such example because it’s too tall, produces too much waste, and has too little food value.
In short, it’s almost impossible to estimate the food production and health of the colonists without a list of plants to be grown. Which plants will provide necessary oils? Which will give them the vitamin C, which the vitamin A, which the vitamin D, and so on? Where will protein come from? Not much is necessary, but you cannot go without it. Which will be the carbohydrate providers? Does Mars have enough iodine to prevent goiter? Nutrition is complex and is not even fully understood. The diet must be varied and include everything necessary for good health.
Did some reading, CO2 is generally added to greenhouses as 1) it increases production and decreases time to maturity 2) natural consumption by the plants means levels will drop to a point where it inhibits growth due to lack of CO2
Augmentation starts at 400ppm and can increase to 1200ppm which is not harmful to humans. More here:
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm
The regolith will require some manipulation to produce soil.
The living constituents of Earth soil are not all known, an understatement, although you will certainly need different fungi to extract minerals from the soil.
I do not see hydroponics as more than a temporary solution (no pun intended).
Here is an amateur look at the problem (although more advanced than I could do, it seems to ignore radiation problems we have discussed here) that nevertheless gets the discussion about soil going:
http://chapters.marssociety.org/winnipeg/soil.html
Hi Brett,
The augmentation of CO2 in greenhouses to speed plant growth is a well established practice as your nice link indicates. Going from around 340 ppm (our natural atmosphere) to 1000 ppm appears to be optimum for growing plants. Excessive CO2 can be harmful to them.
Note that prolonged exposure to 1000 ppm CO2 for humans can cause cognitive problems. An hour or two necessary for tending plants would not be a problem. Therefore, a colony should have at least a closed door to the plant chambers and guidelines for time spent there.
Your second link has lots of good data from unmanned Mars missions that may help to establish how to process regolith into soil. However, their conclusions are amateur chemistry at best. Some are correct; others are not. (My PhD is in analytical chemistry.)
The most difficult problem may be the high levels of iron in the Sojourner samples. These may not be representative of the planet as a whole and also not of the Mars One landing site. Excess iron is toxic to humans and may impair plant growth. I don’t know if anyone has studied this.
I suspect that your remark regarding hydroponics is correct. Many plants will not grow with their roots constantly submerged in water if my sources are accurate. Anyone have information on this?
Venus.
It used to be standard science fiction fodder for people to land on Venus and find a lush, warm world. After all, it’s closer to the Sun.
Today, we know better. The temperatures, fueled by the closer Sun and an extreme runaway greenhouse effect (~95% CO2) is far above that required to melt lead. It’s so hot that the sulfuric acid rain never reaches the surface because it evaporates first.
Chemists will recognize this as an extreme situation because very hot distillation condensers use sulfuric acid in the thermometer well when temperatures are too hot for any oils.
The atmospheric pressure at the surface is around ninety times that of the Earth. The surface winds are slow, but the CO2 is so highly compressed that it behaves much as a liquid would. At higher altitudes, the wind speeds are extreme, 360 km/hr (about 220 mph).
Curiously, Geoffrey Landis has actually suggested, as a thought exercise, colonizing Venus with floating cities that would sit about 50 km above the surface. The pressure there is about the same as that at Earth’s sea level. The air, being mostly CO2, is denser than on Earth so that a bubble of Earth air will float. He considered an enormous bubble, large enough for many people to live in. You’d still have sulfuric acid clouds above you.
Imagine a giant dirigible filled with ordinary air or, for buoyancy, an air-helium mixture. People could live inside of that ship on Venus but could never venture to the surface. Even going outside of the craft would require oxygen tanks, protection from sulfuric acid in the air, and some way to avoid being blow away by mega-hurricane force winds.
I don’t think the Mars One project really cares much about volunteer’s health, all they want is landing there, the rest does not matter. Dying of disease or radiation? getting killed? That is not the main concern. If the project demands volunteers living in good health, the cost would go astronomically.
True, but I think if you expect ESA or NASA standards this adventure will not take place at all, so perhaps the answer is somewhere between that and Mars One. There certainly are people willing to take risks that government bureaucrats would never approve, and Mars is certainly high risk even if we do solve all the problems pointed out here (and no doubt more to come). If you could promise me five years of reasonable living on Mars I would take that risk, as I would be 60 by then. A surprising number of applicants are only 19, 20, 21 and either do not understand the proposition or see it as a reality show and never expect to follow through.
You point is well taken. Young people tend to believe that they’re invincible, however. They believe that they can solve any problem and can show off their skills to the world with this project. They really think that they’ll be the founding fathers and mothers (assuming that some women do volunteer) of a new race of Martians.
The reality is sobering.
If the colony really is to be self-sustaining, then younger applicants will be preferred. But, how much younger? Old enough to have acquired skills and mature judgment but young enough to reproduce several times.
When I first commented on this post that was the one thing I was alluding to, I get the feeling that most of the people signing up for this are only doing it for the 15 minutes of fame and are not really aware of the risks involved or do have a death wish of sort, Two profiles that should not be on this. As I said before I am willing to go on a one way mission but not an outright suicide mission as by the time this is launched if it is on time I will be 47.
And after some reading over the past few days I think i may have a good idea on what they are planning to use to address some of the problems. For power we are all assuming that solar is going to be the major power source, but I wonder if they are planning on launching a few self contained mini nuclear reactors. There seems to be several companies that are waiting on Approval from the US Nuclear Commission to deploy them here in the States, for a Mars colony no such approval would be needed. And from the designs I’ve seen it may not be to hard to modify a Dragon Capsule into one. Solar power could be used to supplement these, especially during the summers, where the reactors may be just about turned off and extend their life time.
Parts and supplies can be covered with the use of 3D printers, why carry all your supplies when you can just print out what you need?
though the Material needed for the printers would still be problematic unless suitable replacements could be found on Mars. And if martian regolith could be used in 3D printers, they could be used to make more effective radiation shielding. Bricks stack up a lot better than what loose dirt does.
I’m willing to bet most of the food will be grown with hydroponics combined with grow lights. Which ironically we can probably thank the illegal marijuana growers for since it seems they are ones that pioneered the most effective way to do it.
All in all I think most of the solutions to the problems are already there or area year or two away, we just have to think in new ways and try to abandon the old way of doing things.
My first thought was for nuclear reactors too. However, their sheer mass, the radiation issues, and the limited lifetime of perhaps 30 years make this solution less favorable. Possibly, a version small enough to send to Mars could be made. It still would have to refueled or replaced when it ran out of fuel. The colony would not meet the goal of being self-sustaining. If one small enough could be created, then it might be a way to have power while getting set up, especially power for construction work.
Can Martian regolith (the loose covering of dust, sand, and rocks over solid rock) be used in 3D printers? Unlikely. The printers either build up or cut away material. Regolith would not be appropriate for the latter and would have no way to stick together for the former.
The 3D printer still could play a role if sufficient raw material were included with it when shipped. It would only be creating small parts. There remains the issue of bootstrapping technological engineering on Mars. The entire Mars One concept relies on technology. Unless the colonists can build and replenish a technological society, they will ultimately fail. They cannot live on, in, or by Mars dirt.
The regolith mentioned will probably be an important part of food production and could form the basis for making soil. Hydroponics is conceivable but must have adequate fertilizer and trace minerals to function. Also, it limits the range of plants you can grow. Many require water AND air in contact with roots.
Using artificial illumination with nuclear power might be an idea, but you will run out after 20-30 years. If you use sunlight for power to create artificial light for growing, you immediately lose around 90% of the sunlight energy. It’s better to use the sunlight directly for such a critical operation and not waste your power generation capability.
An arrangement of reflectors could funnel extra light to the plants to more closely approximate Earth levels of sunlight. You might have to do a very good job of designing these for the Martian winters so that you can grow all year around. Using LED lights powered by your batteries may work but will draw down power that must be used for heating and oxygen production (and waste recycling and more) during the outrageously harsh Martian winters.
All of the solutions are not yet there. Some that seem to be will not work as presently designed. Our small discussions here represent but a small part of what must be done before even the first unmanned module leaves the Earth.
I’m not so sure about what you say. For the volunteer colonists to land and die of foreseeable causes would be a PR disaster and might even be criminal, depending on jurisdiction.
Either the Mars One project will solve all of the problems well enough so that colonists can survive for some years, or they manned launch will never happen. Whether they can even raise $6 billion is in question as is whether that’s enough.
It’s much easier to explore in theories and prototypes than actually to send people out there. At this moment, I say the prospects are grim. There may be around a dozen serious problems to solve. There must be a hundred lesser ones.
The radiation problem can only be solved with lots of energy. Lots of energy requires a huge investment in launch mass, probably more than is currently budgeted. Any breakdown in energy production will be fatal. The colonists cannot live off the land.
Legal Jurisdiction:
Crimes are tried according to jurisdiction: city, state, federal, country and international laws and treaties. There are no laws, or court able to rule over crime/death on Mars. It´s, quite literally, no man´s land. (Rather strange writing such thing, but I guess it´s a preposterous statement to go with the preposterous endeavor.) Furthermore, organizers would not be held accountable due to the release form covering all risks (would love to see it). Proving whether they were aware of sure death, but did not disclose it, is nearly impossible for it would require nothing short of admission, Martians would not survive to testify and the crime scene cannot be investigated. Knowingly or not, since organizers are not scientists, claiming scientific ignorance would be possible, feasible and reasonable. Blame would fall on suppliers. Anyway, it would be a preposterous legal case if tried through some loophole I might have missed.
PR Disaster
They´ll be collecting royalties for a decade during “the making of”. After that, they might call it off and it would still be very profitable.
I’m afraid you’re a little bit off on this. The “loophole” if it can be called that is generally taken as the jurisdiction over the location of the entity in question. In other words, for example, litigation here on earth for example is typically dealt with by the city/county/state/country of the headquarters of the company in question. This concept is used regularly as made evident by the internet.
Piracy is an excellent example… Sites that host these activities are being set up these days where the legalities of such an operation do not impose penalties as severe (if at all) as, say, the united states. This would be no different.
You do however make an excellent point that burden of proof and the like would be difficult, if not impossible. I hardly envision a crew being sent to investigate wrongdoing such great distances, yet society as a whole has illustrated in the past that there is no limit to the lengths we will go to find out the truth. The two concepts are clearly in conflict with one another, and pose a significant burden on the very fabric that legal systems are made of.
It’s not a great surprise however that we would once again be encountering something like this – here in the US, the legal system is losing ground simply due to antiquity for starters, and proves over and over that it can’t deal with the issues that arise as quickly as they come up. Clearly, a system that barely works for one rock alone would be brought to it’s knees by adding another, nevermind the idea that it’s so far away.
The more I think about this entire thing, the more I get pushed to coming to the conclusion that there’s just no way. And certainly not in a decade. It’s not to say that we shouldn’t be trying things that push the envelope, but this is more like “pushing the post office”. I digress…
Steve
Not being a legal scholar, I can only guess about legal details. I would imagine that the “crime” would be putting the colonists on the ship bound for nearly certain early demise. Thus, the jurisdiction would not be Mars at all. That’s just where the victims died, if they did. If you shoot someone who does not die immediately but is transported to a hospital across the border, does not the shooting location determine where the perpetrator is tried? Just my thoughts. Mars One and its directors cannot escape justice if they skip due diligence.
If we point out flaws that they ignore, then they may be criminally liable for the potential deaths of the colonists. The only way out for them is to claim that the likelihood of death was low and accepted by the colonists — sort of like a backpacking trip to a wilderness area being guided by a professional.
For Mars, such an example could be ignoring the dust storm threat to power or even having inadequate power. Dust storms on Mars have been measured to cut out 80% of the sunlight. In addition, they can cover solar cells sitting on the ground with dirt and block 100% of the sunlight. The Mars One site takes the former into account but not the latter. Mars dust storms last for days (sols). It would be difficult indeed to do an EVA to clean the solar panels during a dust storm. Even so, they’d just get covered again. Loss of power would result in loss of heat and death from hypothermia in short order. Even if the colonists managed to survive, their food crops would be destroyed resulting in them starving to death. Inadequate preparation for this almost certain eventuality would be a crime in my book.
Inadequate overall power, even without storms, would subject colonists to extreme living conditions and would be tantamount to torture. Would this be a crime?
It would seem that making the solar cells self-cleaning would be much preferable to EVA but better yet a long-lasting and more robust sort of power – nuclear perhaps, using something other than a steam turbine technology as output?
Fortunately, solar cell cleaning would only have to be done every 100 sols or so, except for the occasional dust storm. Sand is only slightly blown by the thin Martian air making cleaning easier. You can’t use yard blowers, of course. Air is too thin.
Fine dust fills the Martian air. It rains down very slowly on the surface.
Maybe five annual EVAs (Martian years) would be necessary for cleaning and could be planned to correspond to other outdoor activities.
However, dust storms are another matter. The center of such a storm will block about 80% of the sunlight. With so much dust in the air, it will drop onto the solar collectors and block even more light, possibly over 90%. That would be a serious crisis and would require immediate action by several colonists at once to get the dust off of the collectors.
If the colonists have a few RTGs (radioisotope thermoelectric generators), a dust storm will not be life-threatening. They’ll still have heat and small backup electricity generation. After a few decades, the RTGs would be at half power. By then, the colony would either be a success or a failure. If the former, means for reliable power must have been found, and the RTGs would be reminders of a time gone by.
In the short run, they would provide otherwise-expensive (of power) heat generation. I suggest that going to Mars without them is foolhardy.
Well you could have a r/c sweeper but EVA would have to be relatively commonplace in any event, hopefully much more manoeuvreable and resilient than space suits
But I was thinking solar arrays ranked and racked so you could just give them a quick flip upside down and back. Adds a little to the original layout, but reasonable.
At $20 a gram, any extra mass is a problem. The solar arrays are flexible to save mass. Any structure would add considerably to the overall mass. At 40° N, the arrays should be tilted to the south. Initially, they’ll certainly be flat. Eventually, they should be sitting on mounds of dirt to be angled more to the Sun. Then, dust will slide off of them to a certain extent. Some cleaning will still be necessary but not as much. Depending on the angle, dust storms may no longer be fatal.
Legal jurisdiction might prove interesting.
Indeed.
For all intents and purposes this is the M1 colony belonging to whom? Who has jurisdiction to try criminal negligence in another country, let alone off-planet? Even if we do have legal agreements, such as for Antarctica and the Moon, how to enforce? Are they valid if 100 people claim the entire planet and demand independence, supported by their multinational corporation or not? Possession being nine tenths of the law, let alone the practicalities of enforcement – of course someone could drop a nuke on them I suppose, but what is the point?
The Mars One folks expect the colonists to declare independence as soon as is practical. The jurisdictional aspects would be on behalf of their relatives here on Earth (for civil matters) and with the national, provincial, state, or county agencies with respect to criminal matters.
Knowingly causing the death of another human, especially one not desiring their demise, is a crime most everywhere. The legal issues will probably revolve around foreseeability and negligence, but a good lawyer can probably explain much better and more accurately than I. If one does not show up, I’ll ask one of the three lawyers in my family to help us out.
BTW, possession is nine points of the law.
Re: the nuke drop — LOL! I really did laugh when I read that. Who would spend the money to send any sort of retribution device to Mars? I would see being on Mars as being worse punishment than many harsh prisons. It is definitely life without possibility of parole. The scenery is stark. The food sucks. You have to spend much time at hard labor. Escape is impossible — really — worse than Alcatraz ever was. The heating systems stink and so do your fellow inmates due to limited sanitary facilities. Everything is recycled so that you’re drinking your — well, you get the picture.
On the positive side, you own an entire planet. There are no guards, but the planet compensates for that benefit.
I’ll be surprised if the first launch in three years takes off, but I do support the virtual adventure of figuring out if you can do this. This topic should be undertaken by thousands of science classes around the world. If I had the resources today, I’d immediately set about creating a set of Smart Science® explorations around this theme. Then, everyone could examine these concepts on their own at their own pace.
If the project continues, I’ll certainly have those resources ready for use before the first unmanned launch date.
“This topic should be undertaken by thousands of science classes around the world.”
I was thinking quite the same, Harry. A case study waltzing through several disciplines and huge learning potential ahead. Thank you for the excellent article, as well as all posters for their interesting incursions.
Ya, the nuke comment was flippant, more of a comment on what we will spend to kill people as opposed to exploring our worlds. And I read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress lol
Would it be possible that any colonies that are established on Mars or elsewhere in the solar system fall under the jurisdiction of the UN? From what I’ve read of the Outer Space Treaty no single country can lay claim to any celestial body or piece of that body, though it is being debated if this extends to private citizens. And that the planets within our own Solar System basically belong to all of mankind. While the UN really doesn’t have the means to police off planet colonies, maybe its time we start thinking about giving it those means. Cause even if Mars One fails how far off might the next attempt be?
One poitive aspect of space colonization to some individuals and groups would be independence from the bureaucratic poison that is the UN. Certainly I can’t see a Martian colonist having much use for the point of view in whatever state you care to insert. it would be irrelevant and there would be no way to enforce resolutions against the colony except to cut off supplies, and that would mean a UN with a lot more reach than it has currently.
But this ability to cut supply might also argue for UN involvement to prevent abuse. As a colonist the ultimate aim would be independence. From a practical standpoint, I could not think of a more sure way to guarantee failure than the UN actually being in control of such an endeavour.
As with the New World your main groups of settlers, at least after the initial exploration and trials, would be the disaffected, from survivalists to religious groups. The fact that this is a corporation (using a non-profit shell) is telling. It is too early to say what minerals will be found, or where (if?!) water will be available – without water this is all meaningless – but profit was also a huge motive for explorers and colonists in the past.
The colonists would be independent if they so chose. I’m not clear as to how they will truly remain independent of Earth resupply and what they will use to barter for it.
In any event, UN membership is voluntary. There are no “United Planets” or the like. Only the threat of withholding resupply can be used to police the colonists — as a group. They have to do their own policing of individuals.
Thank you, Anonymous Girl. NASA and JPL should be doing something like that to support their real Mars mission.
Food.
I’m not an agriculture expert and am just using good old common sense here. If you know more that I write, please respond.
We all know about food chains and food webs. The producer biomass is about ten times that of the primary consumer biomass. Energy is consumed, lots of it, every time you move up a trophic step in a food web. On Mars, energy is life. You cannot waste it.
Therefore, all food will be plant based. You will have no meat, fish, poultry, eggs, or dairy. Processing food also takes energy. You will be eating whole foods. Cooking food takes energy. Because cooking can also heat the habitat, you may be able to do some cooking. Assume that much of the plant food you’ll eat will be eaten raw.
Plants will not supply vital B12. You’ll have to grow yeast. Can you grow it is such a manner that you also obtain a drink much as brewing beer? That’s something someone else will have to answer.
You’ll be growing plants that have maximal nutrition and minimal waste. These plants must grow in as little sunlight as possible. They may even be engineering specifically for Mars One.
Now, I begin to stray from what I know and move into the area of speculation. I may be unaware of solutions to these food issues.
Grasses produce lots of cellulose relative to grain and so are not great candidates for Mars even though they handle dryness and cold relatively well. I would not expect to see bread on Mars. Corn is a grass and will also not work well on Mars. Flax might be a good thing to have for omega-3 fatty acids.
Fruits and nuts (real nuts, not peanuts) require trees. These generally are inefficient in requiring years to bear fruit, lots of cellulose to support them, and lots of space in which to grow. Midget trees do exist but still would be inefficient for Mars. Do not expect fruit and nuts in your diet.
You can grow green, leafy vegetables. Brassicas are easy to grow and tolerate cold weather well. They grow fast and have plenty of vitamins. Expect to be eating lots of bok choy.
You definitely must have legumes. Be sure that you’ve imported the bacteria that allow them to fix nitrogen. You might grow peas, lentils, or a number of beans. You’d be seeking the ones that grow best with least light and heat. I’m not sure which those will be. You may be eating your bok choy with fresh lentils. Drying and reconstituting the lentils may be too inefficient. You’re growing indoors and so don’t have have to save from season to season.
Underground roots and tubers form the remainder of your diet. Which will grow best and most efficiently with the least amount of waste material? I’m not sure. Candidates are beets (eat the greens too), peanuts (lots of oil for your diet and good protein), carrots (a bit slow growing), and potatoes. Add your own favorite underground food. You may be eating lots of beets and peanuts spiced with yeast. You better have good teeth for all of the chewing of raw foods you’ll be doing.
Speaking of spices, you will not be growing peppers (trees) or any of several other herbs and spices. They are not efficient. I would not expect to see onions, garlic, or ginger on Mars, but someone may prove me wrong on this. I suspect that your food will taste like itself.
Food variety will be limited but most be sufficient to guarantee a balanced diet. Personally, I’d really miss a good fresh orange or mango, but some are made of hardier stuff.
On the positive side, your diet, if it is truly balanced, will be much healthier than most on Earth. No cholesterol. No trans-fats. No refined sugar. No gluten. No hormones. No meat fat. Lots of vitamins. Lots of fiber.
You won’t get fat on Mars.
I found the portion of the Mars One site devoted to food production. Nothing appears about specific plants. It claims high-efficiency food production using LED lights of correct frequencies. If perfectly done, the plants would appear to be black having absorbed every bit of light!
The sunlight will have been used to make the power to run the LEDs at 12.5% efficiency, which is the current value for flexible solar arrays. An advantage is that the LED light can run all day and night.
The hydroponic growing trays will be stacked to achieve a total of 50 square meters of growing area. They must have research to suggest that’s sufficient to feed four colonists indefinitely and allow for some surplus for emergencies. Does anyone out there know more?
One nice aspect of all of this is that there are no insect pests on Mars. If sufficient care is exercised in preparing the seeds and other materials being sent to Mars, other plant pathogens (bacteria and viruses) may also be excluded.
No mention is made of B12.
Maybe they will send animal test subjects first? From the first day to space human used a lot of animals to test living environment. If a monkey in Mars could survive in an automatic feeding environment over one year, the Mars base should be proven safe enough.
Present CO2 levels on earth are 300 to 450 ppm but plants can go higher, even if growing chambers have to be temporarily off-limits, so the thin Martian atmosphere can be compressed and add to biomass/oxygen production.
The idea of compressing the Mars atmosphere has some merits but many problems. CO2 is heavier than air and could be pumped in small quantities to the plants if they are surrounded by gas-tight walls and covered, even loosely. You would probably improve food production somewhat in this manner. You’d also be making more oxygen but not enough to supply the humans.
The sticky point here is that the pump will wear out. Compressing from around 0.01 bar to around maybe 0.5 bar (another post on that later) is not so easy. Perhaps, pumps without moving parts would be possible. Good filters would keep out Martian dust. Here’s a problem waiting for a creative solution.
Note that we don’t have a reason to build such a pump for Earth use.
Thanks, really enjoying the discussion – seems to me the entire operation is going to depend on organic and biological adaptations of plantlife for specific purposes (producing stock to create plastics) and as a more efficient and elegant means of gradually incorporating Mars into the colony in the form of water, hydrocarbons, carbohydrates and amino acids – much of this is there on Mars, the issue is extraction and likely exploration for the micronutrients required.
I am not able to calculate what size vat of what algae could produce what oil, but I think it can be done; however, 2023 seems pretty optimistic for this kind of a self-sustaining ecology. But setting a ten year target will motivate people where a 50 year target will not.
Now what would really make it fun is a translucent material that stops hard radiation… don’t tell me that is a contradiction, physicists, tell me about gamma ray diffraction and X-ray absorption and weird stuff nobody has thought of yet. I don’t believe human knowledge is anywhere close to complete, even though any one person can grasp any more than a slice of what we know already.
If we’re just going to live in caves or mounds, well, whole lot of Earth untouched and ready for development.
Mars has two sorts of radiation to deal with: solar radiation and cosmic rays. Solar radiation comes along fairly constantly until there’s a solar event. Then, it spikes. You can shield yourself from most of these readily. You’re being showered with high-energy ions (charged particles). Truly severe solar “storms” are rare, occurring less often than one every decade. Strong storms happen every 3-4 years and may be dangerous to exposed astronauts and Martians. They’re of little concern to those inside of even moderate shielding.
Cosmic rays are a different creature entirely. Most are extremely energetic protons, the nuclei of hydrogen atoms. A few of these atoms are moving so fast that they have the energy of a macro object, such as a baseball, moving a speeds of around 100 km/hr. Most are less energetic but still quite powerful.
A mere few millimeters of metal will not stop these high-energy particles. Those that do encounter atomic nuclei will essentially explode them and create a shower of energetic particles, making the radiation worse than if there were no metal at all.
Fortunately, humans can travel for a few years in space without suffering significant ill effects from cosmic rays. They will see a small increase in cancer and cataracts from the extra radiation. Decades of exposure will create serious effects, which is why the Mars habitat must be shielded.
Mars has neither a heavy atmosphere nor a magnetic field to protect surface dwellers. The Mars One project proposes using “several meters of Martian soil” to shield their colonies, both the people and the plants being grown for food. Without shielding both would succumb to the radiation in time.
The soil, really regolith, must be heaped up over the habitat reasonably soon after arrival. Months can be allowed but not years.
Interestingly, clear plastics subjected to enough ionizing radiation become cloudy. Only very thick layers of material can stop cosmic rays. The best shield turns out to be liquid hydrogen because of the lack of the showering effect you see with metal. Of course, liquid hydrogen is impractical on Mars. You cannot really send shielding to Mars. This is why the Mars One people have suggested using the available regolith and heaping it very high.
It’s totally unclear whether you can move this material to the necessary thickness with the energy available to the colony and whether a landing site that has watery soil has enough to cover the colony.
The extreme cost of trips to Mars prevents using test animals first. Animal cruelty groups would object strenuously in any event, and without the ability to adapt to unknown problems, an animal would not be a valid substitute for a person. We already have lots of data on humans and animals in microgravity.
Besides, one year is not enough to test safety for a lifetime with no resupply potential.
Here’s the Mars One website on a matter related to Brett’s last question, “As more astronauts start arriving it will become necessary for them to manufacture certain supplies themselves, rather than relying on Earth. Two examples are:
A method to construct additional living area.
A machine that makes plastic, so they can create plastic products or foils.”
You cannot manufacture plastic out of thin air, even Martian air that’s thinner than most. ;-) Our current plastics are all carbon-based and require rather pure chemical feedstock. It’s conceivable that plant waste could be processed biologically by bacteria to create chemicals that could be used to make plastic. They’d have to be separated from the mixture first. The entire process is quite complex. One machine may not be able to make more than one type of plastic, and many types are used in creating plastic-based artifacts. Sometimes, toxic solvents must be employed. Until I see specifications on this “machine that makes plastic,” I’ll consider it just more “thin air.”
The other claim regarding additional living area has similar flaws. How can we expect to build anything that’s airtight and have connections to the remaining habitat with stone-age materials? The equipment may be modern, but the building materials are the Martian rocks and “soil.”
It’s important that colonists eventually be able to build such structures without any materials from Earth, only equipment lifted to the planet with them. Otherwise, the colony will be eternally dependent on expensive resupply missions from Earth.
The raw materials of Mars are rocks. The rock may be ground down into sand, but remains the same compounds chemically. Converting even the simplest metal ores into metal requires high temperatures. Building structures requires lots of building materials. Forming the Martian sand into something usable would take huge amounts of energy, much more than the colonists can spare from the 3000 square meters of solar panels contemplated by the Mars One people. We can skip the idea of making metal on Mars for the near term anyway.
Making mud and heating to brick also requires plenty of energy and will not make airtight shelters. Even making mud requires lots of water that the colonists can ill afford to just let evaporate into the thin Martian sky.
Unless the colonists have virtually unlimited energy, they’ll be hard pressed to do anything but merely survive.
The Mars One website devotes one page to water, oxygen, and food.
The water part is reasonable if their assumptions are correct. Essentially, they replace water lost in the recycling process with water reclaimed from “wet” Martian soil through distillation. Surface water will be ice with lots of salts in it. These salts mean that you must add more heat that is required for pure water to get evaporation at a rapid rate. Using the near-to-vacuum pump called the Martian outdoors, you can help things along. The Mars One people expect the rovers to collect and deliver the soil rapidly enough, when they’re not otherwise busy, to maintain the necessary water supply. Extra water will be stored as reserve.
Their plans for oxygen are short and rather thin. “Oxygen can be produced by splitting water into its constituent parts, hydrogen and oxygen.” As proponents of a hydrogen economy know, energy requirements are high. You’ll also have to have plenty of water. (See above.) They also say that oxygen will be stored in reserve. They must have transported pressure tanks and pumps for that purpose. The pumps must be maintained for a very long time, at least until inexpensive transport to and from Mars becomes feasible, if ever.
The odd remark is the last paragraph. “The second major component of the Living Units’ atmosphere, nitrogen, will be extracted directly from the Martian atmosphere by the Life Support Unit.” It’s unclear exactly why this step is required. We can live without breathing nitrogen. The thin Martian atmosphere is only 2.7% nitrogen. Almost all of the rest is carbon dioxide. The remaining important gases are argon at 1.6%, oxygen at 1600 ppm (0.0016%), and carbon monoxide at 800 ppm. The site does not explain how the nitrogen will be extracted. I can imagine that during cold Martian nights, you’d only have to chill the air a bit more to freeze out the CO2 as dry ice and be left with the remaining gases plus some residual CO2.
The nitrogen (N2) concentration would rise by maybe 33 times. The oxygen would also, a side benefit that would yield 0.05% O2, not much really. However, the carbon monoxide (CO) concentration would also rise to around 0.025%. Even concentrations as low as 100 ppm are considered to be hazardous to human health. In the concentrated air, those concentrations are 25000 ppm. The combination of CO and hemoglobin to form carboxyhemoglobin is slow to reverse and so tends to accumulate over time even with low concentrations of CO.
The Mars One site makes no mention of this problem. Some sort of heat or catalyst or both would be necessary to convert the CO into CO2 before entering the living area. Even if all the CO were so converted, the high CO2 concentration could be hazardous to colonists’ health.
However, you don’t have to have nitrogen in the atmosphere. Except for nitrogen-fixing bacteria in symbiosis with legumes, nitrogen is inert in the atmosphere. It’s not the fraction of oxygen in the air that’s crucial to life but its partial pressure. That the pressure that oxygen would have if all other gases were removed from a gas mixture without changing the volume or temperature. For us, it’s about 0.2 bar. You could safely breathe pure oxygen at a pressure of 1/5 atmosphere and even lower.
A low pressure would make leaks less likely and explosive decompression also less likely. Modern spacesuits use low-pressure pure oxygen.
Why has Mars One decided on this peculiar addition of nitrogen to the habitat air? The process is costly for energy and has serious hazards with respect to Martian air contaminants that are quite poisonous.
They plan to send the astronauts with their living quarters? Are they insane?! I will say this much. Human pain and suffering and slow death will make for a very popular reality TV show.
Thank you for joining in the conversation. Without some breakthroughs, your vision may come true. I’m not enough of a cynic, although I do tend to be quite cynical, to believe that the Mars One people will launch people to certain death.
Therefore, if there is a manned launch, there will be a decent possibility of survival for ten years. They may be hoping that advances in technology will extend that. What is “decent”? Might be 90%. Can’t say, and I guess that Mars One will never reveal their estimate.
BTW, I really hope that real pain and suffering, not just psychological, would not attract viewers but will repel them.
A different power source.
You don’t get much power but you do get heat. Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTG) use the heat from radioactive decay to generate electricity from thermopiles. They have to dump their excess heat and, with proper shielding, produce little radioactivity. The ones made with plutonium will keep producing their 100 W, more or less, of electricity and, more importantly, their heat for 20-40 years. They’ll slowly run down. You can put the far ends of the thermocouple out in the Martian cold to get more electricity at the cost of losing a little more of the heat.
This all is important not because of the trivial amount of electricity but because making heat from stored electricity is wasteful. Heat is the most low-down, degraded form of energy there is. It should be the by-product of other useful activities rather than their primary purpose to the extent possible.
The Martian habitats can use as much heat as they can get.
‘We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard…’ -US President JFK, 12 September 1962
He went on to say ‘that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.’
The same applies to Mars, there are many challenges (and Harry and the others are right to point them out) we must overcome them, but we are resourceful and can do so.
To clarify, I am a Biochemist and freelance science and business consultant, as well as in senior management of a small global genetics data management company. The Mars One project has the ability to encourage, inspire, and unite the world, and lead to countless innovations of benefit to all of us. I have already read many hours on the topic since hearing of it and am keen to see this project succeed, I am also willing to offer my skills and expertise to the Mars One team, who I will be contacting directly but can also contact me by replying to this post if interested.
And there may be Mars One biggest legacy even if it doesn’t get off the ground, a Call to Arms. Instead of endless debate about how to do it and its costs they have decided “We are going, now figure out how we will live and survive there” The names I’m seeing attached to this are giving me hope. While I don’t know Bas Lansdorp or even trust him, I do trust Elon Musk and SpaceX. And frankly Elon doesn’t seem like the type of business man to put his name or his companies name on the line on something unless he knew it had a good chance of success. And I think that could probably be extended to the rest of the Mars One suppliers.
I applaud your enthusiasm and can-do attitude. You’re essentially saying that you may not make it, but you’re going to go as far as you can because someday, on some schedule, it will happen.
I have to agree in principle. We may not colonize the stars in this century, but we certainly should look at colonizing our own solar system. It’s mostly a matter of whether we’re ready. A lot can happen in ten years. We saw that with Apollo. The technology then was incredibly crude compared with today. OTOH, the challenge of colonizing Mars is some orders of magnitude greater than landing a person on the Moon and bringing that person back.
This challenge could define the 2020’s the way that Apollo defined the 1960’s. Being the first is always difficult. “You can tell who the pioneers are by the arrows sticking out of their backs.” While stereotypical this phrase has some truth in it.
The pioneers don’t always win. Just look at Bricklin and Frankston who invented the electronic spreadsheet, Visicalc. Their company was swallowed by Lotus, which in turn was eclipsed by Microsoft.
Hello Sam.
I am with you in spirit. Big challenges are good things to have. In every job I did, I sought out the larger challenges. If someone said it was impossible, that was a magnet for me. I did many “impossible” things in my life. They were always the most fun!
The problem with Mars One is having a large quantity of impossible challenges, not just a handful. Finding a solution to one challenge just reveals another.
Solving yet-unsolved challenges enriches us all. Even if every challenge is not solved in time, we still benefit measurably. As you so nicely say, we also benefit in spirit from attempting this effort together.
Despite my net negative take on this project, I feel that I am, in an odd way, a part of it now. By paying attention and applying the knowledge gained from a world-class education and the experience of decades of science, engineering, and practice, I can add some small measure of benefit to the project.
By pointing out what will not work, we all can provide an incentive to the Mars One project either to find a way to do the “impossible” or a way around the problem. Since my humble article has been published, I’ve been privileged to have been visited by thousands of interested people in this virtual space. I will continue to write and discuss the pros and cons of colonizing Mars here.
Sam, your background fits well with my own work on Smart Science® explorations, the online hands-on science lab system. I’d like to continue our conversation.
[…] By Harry Keller Editor, Science Education The Mars One project has received quite a bit of press lately. This project plans to establish a human colony on Mars in 2023 with four people. The project… […]
Forget about Mars. There’s far too little to work with there. We should be considering one of Saturn’s moons instead.
@Anonymous,
Surely, you’re joking (Mr. Feynman??). Saturn is a long, long trip, probably not possible for a manned mission in the next couple of decades. Only one of its moons has any hope of colonization, and it has 14% of Earth gravity with surface air pressure of almost 1.5 times that of Earth. It’s air is almost entirely nitrogen with no oxygen at all. The temperature is about -180°C, far below the freezing point of CO2. At that temperature, no water exists in the air. High winds also are likely.
Mars, perhaps unbelievably, is much more hospitable.
That has a level of difficulty that would probably make going to Mars a walk in the park. For that to happen I see the need of one of two technologies being developed. Either faster spacecraft that don’t require chemical rockets, though possibly majorly ramped up Ion engines might work for this. Or the advent of suspended animation for the crew or part of the crew since you probably want 2-3 people awake at all times for emergencies. Though I think the best way to do that would be having the crew rotate in and out of hibernation.
I’m with Ronald here. Even going as far as Mars is a stretch today. Venus is totally impossible to visit, although closer than Mars. Mars is at the edge of our technology for human space travel.
The whole Mars One phenomenon is based on “It just might be possible” followed by “What are the obstacles?” The answers to that question were all in the area of “We can probably figure that one out.”
It’s all speculative, but you must begin early. If the solutions and technology do not develop, you can just postpone everything by two years. Choosing 2023 as the human launch date has the “by the end of the decade” feel of the Apollo program. It’s far enough in the future that the “put up or shut up” date does not put too much pressure on the project but soon enough to excite people’s imaginations.
In other words, it’s perfect for public relations. A five-year program to put people on Mars is a guaranteed suicide mission. So, we all can watch as the program to turn certain failure into success unfolds. It’s certainly exciting.
If we do get people on Mars, and they do have a livable habitat, then they’ll probably last about a year. After that, all bets are off. So many factors impact long-term viability that it’s just impossible to account for all of them. The second manned launch window of 2025 should include resupply and possibly even scratch sending people in favor of keeping the first four alive. Eventually, we’ll have the ability to rescue them if this whole idea fails and they’re still alive.
Damn all this sounds so hecticly cool. I would do this anytime. This is living to the extreme
I’m not even sure where to begin on this…. Though perhaps I should say you’re probably one of those that don’t really understand the risks of this. The term Technological Caveman keeps coming to mind when I think of what the living conditions will be like and actual cavemen probably would’ve had it easier.
Love that term: technological caveman. Captures the essence of life on Mars at least for the first there.
What creates huge problems for a self-sustaining colony is the simple fact that the colony must depend on technology for survival but will not have the resources to recreate the technology.
For example, it can use LED lights but will not be able to make them. It will use microchips for a number of purposes but will not be building a fab to make them. At a much simpler level, it will be using copper wire without the ability to smelt copper.
To build a technological society, you must have very large amounts of power. The 3000 square meter solar array may be an adequate power source for survival (as long as a dust storm does not blot out the sunlight for too long) but does not create enough power for refining ores.
Even the batteries they will use to store power come from an advanced technology that Mars cannot have even in a few decades. The batteries will be dead before they can be duplicated on Mars.
In simple terms, the Mars colony will be dependent on Earth resupply into the foreseeable future. Shipping advanced technological mini-factories won’t work because you’ll require one for each technology. You also must find appropriate raw materials. It may be a bit difficult to just walk out and find zirconium, iridium, and praseodymium, for example. Even copper may not be found locally, and going 1000 kilometers or so to find a copper ore vein won’t work until the colonists have some serious supplies for air, water, power, etc. in a travel vehicle that can dig and load ore.
Self-sustaining could mean barely surviving in technological caveman mode. The image of expanding human civilization in an alien land should be expunged from anyone’s mind who actually believes such nonsense. I’ve been searching the site and have found only vague references such as “At first [production] will be limited to provisions, oxygen and water, but will soon expand to everything they might need: solar panels, new living quarters and plastic components.”
The means for producing plastics, solar panels, and airtight new living quarters is not discussed anywhere.
Yes, it’s cool. It certainly is AN extreme of living but only for a few people who can hack it.
I may comment on potential selection processes. It cannot be a simple lottery. That WOULD be suicide.
For the colony to survive at reasonable cost, there must be a space elevator in Mars orbit first. Of course, another space elevator in Earth before that.
The space elevator concept has been around for a very long time and was popularized by Arthur C. Clarke. It cannot be done until a material of sufficient tensile strength per linear density can be manufactured. Even then, this material must be completely safe and not degrade in sunlight, heat, moisture, cold, or vacuum. Carbon nanotubes have been proposed, but the manufacturing challenges are enormous.
Were the “rope” holding the space elevator together to break, the carnage would be incredible as it fell down from the sky.
Only a single elevator could travel up and down at a time on a single installation, and its mass would be limited.
Perhaps, these problems will be resolved by 2050 or around that time.
The cost of construction would be possibly unprecedented. The savings, however, would also be huge.
Certainly, this concept will not help the Mars One project one bit.
Yes, obviously the Mars One project doesn’t want to wait that long (2050). However a Martial space elevator (use Kevlar) is easier to build than an Earth space elevator (carbon nanotube) due to lower gravity in Mars. BTW, Lunar space elevator is the easiest, it could even be built with steel !
Yes, the materials are easier if the gravity is less. The primary problem with Mars space elevator will be transporting all of the materials to Mars and assembling it there. Once it’s done, then life becomes much easier. Because the Mars One settlement is planned for above 40° N, the elevator will not be readily accessible to them. Once again, the wait will be long (ca. 2050) unless Mars One changes their plans.
As much as I like the adventure of figuring out how to do it, I still think that Mars One will become Mars Once or even Mars Once Upon a Time.
LOL That’s about as accurate as it can be put I think ;)
Steve
Now to go off on a tangent with this. while milling around work yesterday and it being slow I started to think. While I still think Elon Musk would notput his name or SpaceX’s name on the line what if he was doing it for reasons we may not know yet. If we we have a colony on Mars we have loved ones, family and friends (if it actually thrives) there. Now we have a market for ships that can make the trip in weeks ( or even days) instead of months. Faster ships would mean perhaps a thriving tourist industry, the ability to ship resources from Mars back to Earth. We have an idea on how to build faster ships, but without the need there is no reason to build and test those designs, A colony would create that need. And possibly SpaceX will be poised to fill that need. SpaceX could build the ships in Orbit, A variation Spaceship One could be used to ferry people back and forth to those ships. its something of a conspiracy theory, but one I could live with and would like to see come to fruition.
Faster ships would be nice. Today, they’re all chemical rockets. How might they become faster?
You cannot escape Newton’s third law. Faster means ejecting more mass at higher speed or at least more momentum per time out the rocket exhaust.
Right now, we give the spaceship lots of velocity in a big hurry and then let it coast, except for course corrections. Instead, the ship could be accelerating constantly on the trip, either increasing velocity on the first part of the voyage or decreasing velocity on the second part.
A nuclear reactor has been proposed by some for this purpose, and it might shoot out very hot hydrogen at very high speeds. I think that NASA’s NERVA program did something like that.
The calculations aren’t terribly hard but probably require some calculus to get them right. Ten years is enough time to reactivate the program and make this sort of space travel possible. Does anyone have any idea of how much the time to Mars would be shortened?
Hello,
In the category of electric engines, magnetohydrodynamic engines are reported to deliver a thrust of 200 to 4000 newtons per engine, with ejection speeds between 100 to 1000 km/s, and using an electric power about 2 MW. This means that with ten engines, the needed electric power would be 20 MW, and the thrust would reach 2000 to 40000 newtons.
Please refer to the Wikipedia MHD page, (in french)
An electric power of 27 MW could be obtained with a mini reactor such as the Hyperion model (still to be implemented), if appropriate cooling can be obtained in space. It can also be based on solar panels.
I am not familiar with the formulas to calculate the acceleration and speed based on the ejected mass, which you can find on wikipedia. Apparently, the ship speed is:
S= E * ln (m1/m0), where S is the ship speed, E the ejection speed, m1 the initial mass of the ship, m0 the final mass, ln the neperian logarithm.
Can anybody confirm, and check my calculations ?
Lets assume a space ship about 120 metric tons, including 20 tons for the reactor, 10 tons for its cooling device, 10 tons for the engines, 20 tons for the propellant, and a 80 tons payload (including a 40 tons Mars lander). A 40’000 newtons thrust would imply a 0.3m/s2 acceleration.
With an (optimistic) ejection speed of 1000 km/s, and a mass ratio of 120/110, the ship could attain a speed of 95 km/s, including the initial 7,8 km/s impulse as an Earth satellite . This would be approximately eight times the minimum speed for this journey (the liberation speed, about 11.2 km/s). The trip duration would then be less than 40 days, with an acceleration phase of 80 hours and a deceleration phase of also 80 hours.
With less optimistic figures, an ejection speed of 200 km/s and a thrust of 2000 newtons, the acceleration would be 0.087 m/s2, and the speed would be only 26 km/s (including the initial satellisation speed), the duration of the journey would be about three months. In order to have higher speeds and a shorter trip duration, we could increase the mass ratio, e.g. with 40 tons of propellant. We would then use 20 tons during the first part of the trip, with a mass ratio of 120/100, and a speed of 44 km/s. The trip duration would then be about 2 months.
Maybe the number of engines is too optimistic, it changes the thrust but not the final speed.
Of course this electric propulsion cannot be used in Earth or Mars atmosphere. There is a need to send the ship in orbit with a classical launcher, such as the Falcon Heavy (53 tons of payload), and to use a chemical Lander in order to land on Mars.
Use of solar panels in place of a nuclear reactor could also be considered, as it would produce less electric power but could perhaps be more secure. The difficulty would be appropriate positioning of a large array of solar panels.
By the way, if we use a nuclear reactor, when the fuel is consumed, we do not need to land it on Earth, which would present some risks. We should rather send it to the Sun for disposal.
Erratum. With a thrust of 2000 newtons, and a ship weighting 120 tons, the acceleration would be 0.016 m/s2. The liberation speed of 11.2 km/sec would need 59 hours of propulsion.
Clothing.
What will our Martians wear? We cannot be raiding our local department and sending stuff to Mars with each fashion change. The colonists won’t have to be concerned about black tie dinners.
Seriously though, clothes wear out. How will new ones be made? The assumption of no continuing supplies from Earth means that the Mars clothing industry must be home grown.
The first step in this analysis must focus on what clothing will be necessary. We don’t know until we understand the habitat environment. The greenhouses must be reasonably warm for optimum plant growth, maybe 20°C or so. The rest of the habitat must only be warm enough for human survival. It could be 15°C or 20°C depending on the quality of the insulation and the constancy of the heat source.
Heat can be a problem during Martian dust storms when the solar generators will be at 20% of capacity. Just as with any ecological system, our technological ecology has lots of interaction between its different parts.
I think we can safely assume that the internal temperatures will not be any higher than necessary for satisfactory plant growth and that plants will be selected that grow well without high temperatures. Higher temperatures will means less clothing required and less clothing manufacture. I’ll take 18°C as a target temperature for now.
Colonists will not have to have shoes for indoor wear. They could have some sort of sandals, but that would be a luxury on Mars. We can safely assume that the only footwear will be some sort of socks at 18°C and would be barefoot above around 22°C.
We can go through similar analysis for the remainder of clothing. The Mars One site does not mention clothing anywhere that I can see. The primary question becomes one of where do clothing materials originate.
We can readily eliminate wool and silk from consideration as well as nylon, polyester, and other synthetics. The former are eliminated because of the problems with raising animals, even insects, on Mars. The latter are eliminated because of the cost of importing the machines, the lack of feedstock, and the toxicity of many of the manufacturing protocols.
We are left with plant-based fibers. Three come to mind: cotton, flax, and hemp. Cotton is too difficult and wasteful to raise as well as awkward to turn into thread. Flax and hemp should be possibilities and have the side effect of having edible and healthy seeds. I’m not sure how difficult it will be to extract the fibers from the plants. Someone may have experience to contribute.
Once you have the dry fibers, you must commence to spin them into thread. With wool, that would require a spinning wheel. Will the colonists have one? They’d better have something to use. After having thread, you must weave cloth. I’m sure that dyes will not be used for the first batches. Later, you might use beet juice of other natural by-products of food production to get some color into the otherwise drab environment. So, you must have a loom. Has Mars One put a loom on their supply list? They’re not saying.
Finally, the woven cloth must be cut and sewn. Will the colonists have a sewing machine, or will all sewing be done by hand? Who supplies the patterns? Are sewing needles and scissors included in the supplies. How about sharpening stones? Are colonists being trained in sewing at all?
I don’t expect to provide all of the answers to these and many other questions. However, I raise them to illustrate how complex this undertaking really is. You cannot simply consider heat, light, food, water, air, and shelter. That much barely gets you to subsistence.
The list is much longer than most realize, and in every list there are artifacts that much be repaired and replaced.
Hello Harry and others,
Having clothes, which seems needed, implies some washing. Otherwise cohabitation may become difficult. Water for this purpose can be spared from the 50 liters per day which is recommended by the site. Some soap can be delivered in the payloads from the Earth, as the settlers will not be fully independent from Earth, a least during the first 20-30 years (and may be indefinitely). Settlers will also need soap for their personal toilet, being able to have showers.
Local soap production can be considered, but it implies having a surplus of oil, some chemical products (caustic soda, which can be produced with ordinary salt and the appropriate device), and probably water.
More generally this is the question of having or not some sort of chemical industry, Harry has already explained why iron and steel production would be very difficult in the first period, even with a large supply of energy (e.g. a small nuclear reactor, such as the Hyperion model).
We would need an idea of which minimum chemical “industry” we would need, and with what basic inputs and devices, and for which weight. Minimum means with a production of very small quantities, corresponding to the needs of the colony, and using the simplest possible inputs (we should avoid hazardous materials, as much as possible, in order to facilitate their transport).
It should be relatively easy (compared to live and delicate payloads) to drop raw materials nearby in the interval between landing and industrialization. A space elevator would be lovely, but the construction thereof impractical until a much advanced state of affairs (decades away).
Initial work has to be prefabricated and machinery dropped in duplicate or triplicate: lots of redundancy to allow for landing failure, mechanical failure and spare parts. All such payloads must be retrieved, so methods for travel of 200km at a time and EVA or remote manipulation are required (both, really).
New methods in pilot for producing aluminum, for instance, could prove useful. But a working industrial economy is not the near-term goal, so if you need an excavator, a bore, a rover, you better drop a few and not too close to your prime site either.
Aluminum production, just as an example, requires bauxite or some other aluminum mineral feedstock. We’re nowhere near being able to mine minerals on Mars. Out in the near-vacuum? Out in the radiation? Far from the habitat? Dangerous in the extreme!
Who on Earth would send a production facility to Mars? Who would pay? Won’t happen until Mars can deliver value to Earth. You can only go so far on reality show ratings.
I don’t want to promote any product here, but suffice to say I have shares in a company currently producing and in pilot for commercial production of aluminum from non-bauxite sources at half the cost of current electricity-hungry methods. New processes that rely on chemistry rather than smelting will be very advantageous on Mars, as they have made it profitable to mine former tailings even here, at least for precious metals. Every material on Mars will be as precious as gold to Martians, at least for the first century or two. Using and recycling solvents will be an industry unto itself.
Aluminum is one of the most common elements (after hydrogen and helium) in the universe and very common in our solar system. According to some reports, lots of albite (NaAlSi3O8) is found in Martian soil. Significant amounts of other aluminum-containing minerals also are found there, illite, kaolinite, and anorthite.
You still have the problems of providing chemicals for a chemical extraction process. You still have to heat whatever you refine to melt and form it. I expect both of the problems to remain insoluble on Mars for at least one and likely several decades.
A Mars shuttle and a substantial revenue stream from the Mars settlement could change that time schedule.
You never know what the future will bring. So, I have to limit my skepticism to the here and now. As things stand, no aluminum production on Mars. Unless things change, aluminum will continue to be seen only in Earth imports.
My note on hygiene crossed paths with your note.
Local resources means mostly the regolith, which appears to be highly oxidized as well as alkaline when mixed with water.
It may well be worthwhile for colonists who plan on indefinite residence to have a scheme for separating useful materials from the regolith. Yes, that is chemistry and would mean a miniature chemical industry. Chemistry usually requires energy and some dangers of explosion or toxic by-products. It’s conceivable to establish a separate facility for such work and to dispose as our ancestors did by just dumping somewhere nearby.
The primary components of regolith appear to be silicate minerals, silicon dioxide, calcium sulfate (gypsum) and iron oxide (rust). Silicon dioxide is inert sand. The iron oxide may be useful in small quantities as a dietary supplement. Refining it into metal would be a stretch until power is plentiful.
I’d like to see that all minerals necessary for life are readily available on Mars. I don’t see iodine or selenium in the analyses so far, but these may be below the detection limits of the rover analyzers.
[…] a rational list of all that can go wrong, check out Harry Keller’s excellent article, Mars One: Exciting Adventure or Hoax? at ETC Journal. [Keller has a PhD in analytical […]
Hygiene.
I have not seen a single word on the Mars One site devoted to hygiene and related matters.
In the latter category, make-up will be a huge luxury. Yet, these people will be on television. I know it’s trivial, but just imagine that some people have trouble starting a day without fixing up their faces. Men shave, after all. Even if you can get some sort of razor to Mars, how long will it last? What about hair cuts, let alone beauty salon hair styling?
At the level of mundane but important, you’ll find toilet paper. Yes, that’s a small item. How hard can it be? Well, you won’t have trees for paper manufacture. You might use some extra leaves from the food growing activities if they’re large enough.
What about soap? We take soap for granted. How clean can you get without soap? Martians will not be taking baths. Even showers would be a problem with limited water supplies. Expect basin baths and head dunks. But, soap will be a problem. You cannot just ship soap and more soap to Mars. Making soap is not really a technological feat, but does require some oil and some alkaline material. People used to use wood ashes. The Martian soil (regolith) may be alkaline enough. We really aren’t sure. Oil would have to come from plants grown for that purpose, but the entire growing area will be for food in the beginning.
Even if you can manage to bathe, sponge bath style, once a week, you still have to wash your clothes in as little water as possible using as little soap as possible, assuming that you can even make soap. Forget bleach. If the habitat is not humid, you can just hang the clothes somewhere to let them dry.
All of the hair clippings and nail trimmings will have to be recycled somehow. Hydroponics won’t do. You’ll have to have real soil with bacteria for that.
I think that you’re beginning to get the picture now. As long as Earth resupply is plentiful, all can be well. At $10000 for a pound of soap on Mars, it will be tough on the colonists who would like to be clean.
So… Brett’s Bath & Laundry could be the most prosperous industry on Mars? Hmm…
I think this goes to the heart of what Mars One is about: something other than the old communal gathering of government-appointed bureaucrats, something closer to the old exploration and colonization mindset that drove the Rennaisance, the Enlightenment and the Industrial Age. Not without a few disasters and slaughter, true enough.
But am I hearing, in the guise of technical skepticism, the old arguments about dragons and falling off the edge of the Earth?
If we set lose a number of human beings on the face of Mars, keeping them alive is certainly a big problem, with many technical difficulties. Even twenty people is research and exploration, not a colony. But if you put enough people up there and send up a rocket each month with such materials as can be negotiated, they will solve these problems.
I appreciate all the constructive criticism, wouldn’t have it any other way, but the university and governmental institutions of our day are bureaucrats and patricians who are not willing to risk their next tee time, let alone their own skin. It is adventurers and risk-takers who will make Mars happen, even if some die in the attempt.
The technology of the last exploration was sail and navigation, boat-building and wood-working and smithing. Obviously the technology has changed, but a colonization is, at least, hundreds of people. The Mars One proposal is far and away better than anything the US government or Europe have put forward in the last thirty years. I expect and hope it will draw the people who really want to go into space, and who are able and qualified, into this bold new venture.
In so doing it will inspire new technologies and new solutions for Terran problems – even our many social problems, among which I might rate stagnation and litigation just as high as illiteracy and starvation.
Many ifs. If the “colony” survives. If travel to Mars can be reduced in cost by an order of magnitude. If television rights can continue to generate revenue. If we Earthlings are still excited about life on Mars after seeing the baldfaced reality of it. And so on.
On the exploration part, I know that 20 is really just an exploration trying hard to be a colony. I also know that we’re past the age of sending people off on trips to near-certain death for at least several of them. We’d like the possibility of death to be low enough for a reasonable likelihood that all will survive.
Monthly resupply is not an option. Resupply will be once every two years. However, resupply need not be restricted to a single vehicle.
A nice big Mars shuttle could ferry several landers at a time to Mars. (See my previous post on shuttles.)
We still have the obstacles of money and many known and unknown technical problems to be solved.
I understand many westerners are terrified of death, to the point where many people will not even attend funerals, and more to the point it is bad for business. Also, from a US perspective, the lawyers are pretty much consulted on what colour of shoes to buy (a slight exaggeration, but wait for it).
However the Challenger inquiry pointed out that engineers calculated a 1:100 chance of catastrophic failure for the shuttles (which management changed to 1:100000 what’s a few zeroes, more or less) and I believe most of the non-civilians understood this and flew anyway.
Back to liabilities, at what odds would you forbid a sane person from attempting this flight? Especially in Europe, which has legalized suicide and euthanasia for the mere earthbound? And then there is India and China…
It’s not a matter of forbidding It’s a matter of public relations. Just say, for the sake of argument that each person has an independent likelihood of death within one year of arrival on Mars of 20%. Many would take that risk. Many do take similar risks here on Earth. Four such people would have a risk that at least one will die in that year of 60%. Rather high.
It gets complicated with four people arriving every two years. Let’s just go with 20 people all at once. Now, the likelihood of a death would be 99%. It’s almost certain. In a reality TV setting, what would that mean?
If we were to put 20 people in a room and put them on TV and guarantee them fame, but tell them that someone will shoot one of them dead while they’re all there, who would go? If they had to spend the rest of their lives in prison as well, would anyone still go?
No, that’s a specious argument as ‘shooting’ someone is an act of violence, not chance. Even if the odds are similar as an excercise, the perception is not. Although the shuttle disasters provoked inquiry, they did not stop the shuttle program and the dead are seen as heroes.
Ah, come on.
The shooting was just an example and could be random to the participants and even to the perpetrator using dice or a random number generator. For twenty people to have a 50% of one or more dying, the individual odds would have to be under 4%. I’ve not included group disasters for simplicity.
If you’re given this opportunity for just $38 (U.S. price) for the application and your individual chance of death is accurately forecast as less than 4%, then you might choose to do it — the other problems not bothering you. The organizers would have a 50% chance (were the situation as I posited) of everyone surviving for long enough to ensure that no one would hate them and that they might even be hailed as visionaries and heroes.
If just one person died, then people would understand because of the dire circumstances facing these newcomers to a new world.
Were the first four to die under unpleasant circumstances — lots of pain, maybe some gore, certainly something that those on Earth could feel — then the entire program would undergo review by whatever government has oversight. It might be shut down. It would be delayed until an independent assessment of risk had been made and corrections recommended and carried out. Those recommendations could cost so much as to end the entire effort.
The first four must make it to Mars and survive until the second four arrive for this mighty adventure to succeed. Were the first flight to explode upon launch, the blow-back would be different. It would be more like the Challenger. Mars One would be delayed for two years and would continue with new hope. The second manned launch could not fail though, for that would spell defeat and an end to it all.
It’s all about perception.
If Mars One or any other attempt to involve Mars in continuous exploration gets going, it should have an improved method of getting from here to there and back again.
I propose a Mars shuttle. The current method of a single-use vehicle for every single transport is wasteful.
Several engines for deep-space travel have been proposed. Take one with good long-term prospects for reliability and a good mass to force ratio. Build your shuttle in Earth orbit. Ferry materials and a Mars lander to it in the usual manner.
With good design and appropriate ratios of cargo mass to shuttle mass, you can shorten the Earth-Mars trip to maybe four months. (see Nicola’s remarks). The cargo would land using standard Mars lander physics. It could include people or just supplies. The unmanned shuttle would then fly back to Earth. Note that the return trajectory would not be ideal, but that you have two years for each supply trip plus return trip and refurbishing/repair time. Someone skilled in orbital analysis can work out the details.
You’d have to lift reaction mass for both Earth-Mars and Mars-Earth trips instead of just one. The extra mass for the return trip could be less than than the outbound trip due to carrying much less mass (no cargo) and having less of a speed requirement.
Note one benefit for the colonists. If they could get a small rocket launched to the shuttle, it could carry Mars rocks that would sell for a good price, at least initially, and help fund continuing operation of the shuttle.
An operating shuttle would also mean, at least in theory, that Mars colonists could return to Earth in the event of a disaster that did not kill them all and that also permanently eliminated the use of the Mars base for the future. Such a rescue would take many years, though.
I can see you getting the Virgin and Amazon founders interested in something like that, among others.
LOL! Not my game. I’m a science and software person. Someone should take it up, though. From a audience point of view, the Mars colony has the excitement. From my scientist/engineer point of view, the Mars shuttle has that beat hands-down. It could cut the cost of getting to Mars by half and speed it up twofold.
In a response, I mentioned probabilities. Every venture risks death or injury, even crossing the street or flying on an airplane.
Mars One must be at least as safe as current space operations in its launch and travel phases. That way, we’re at least likely to get there.
My issues begin with landing. They fall into categories. The first is survival, by no means certain at this date. The second is self-sustaining growth, almost impossible with what we know today.
If Mars settlers can survive for ten years before succumbing, they would have beat the odds as I see them. They also would have endured almost prison-like conditions (minus the guards) for that time. They would be heroes and have paved the way for a future that could include expansion beyond Earth.
I’d like to see a better future for them. I don’t with today’s technologies. Tomorrow could change that view. If you’re an applicant, then you’re either crazy or a remarkable optimist because you believe that the solutions will come soon enough to save you.
I hope so too, but I’m not ready to bet my life on it. I’ve seen too many instances of very long delays in hoped-for technology advances.
I’m curious which launch site they intend to use, Baikonur is probably best for legal jurisdiction but I couldn’t find anything on the M1 site. Guiania would work, can’t see the US permitting them to launch, but maybe if enough US sponsors are involved they will clear them a spot – physically and legally.
Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry
I’m curious to see if and when they contract with any launch site. That will be an indication of reality, of them being for real. I’m still holding back on my opinion as to whether this enterprise will truly move forward all of the way. I still enjoy the challenges and the idea that some really smart people with deep knowledge of some of these fields will seek answers to the difficult questions.
Oh, they do say Falcon Heavy for lift, so that might be an indication.
Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry
Seriously I wouldn’t launch from the US just to avoid their legal system: you’re liable to have 347 aunts, uncles and cousins suing you if your astronaut gets the sniffles. OK slight exaggeration – but the legal and political ramifications are just as interesting as settling the New World was, and a lot more complex.
Could this whole project be scuttled by the UN declaring all Mars development under international (ie their) jurisdiction? Doubt it, because national interests, even theoretical, would not agree to leave it in UN hands, but they might put a ten or twenty year moratorium in place.
Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry
First things first, there is no guarantee that the resolution and video quality transmitted back to earth is good enough. Even send a unmanned probed to mars to send back HD (1280 x 720) LIVE video requires a huge breakthrough. See how poor the interplanetary bandwidth we have now, only compressed pictures instead of live videos were sent back from Opportunity. If this remains unsolved, what the project mainly rely on is naught.
By 2023 or earlier, the resolution issue should be resolved. It’s only a matter of money. The current rovers have too little power to beam a signal to Earth and must beam up to a satellite with more power first. Even so, that satellite has limited power.
With enough power on the surface of Mars, you can beam strong signals to Earth. This signal will vary (and even disappear entirely) depending on the relative positions of the two planets.
We should all realize that “real time” with respect to Mars broadcasts means after a delay of around 4 to 20 minutes. It behooves the rebroadcast people to hold the material somewhat longer to ensure that it meets reasonable broadcast standards. Who would notice?
High-resolution video cameras on Mars is not a problem. It’s only the signal-to-noise ratio upon reception on Earth. The Mars One people would have to build or commandeer three large high-gain antennae on Earth or do something equivalent in space. Decent video will be possible. The technology is advancing fast so that lift mass will not be an issue for the cameras themselves. Power for the cameras will also be small. Only the transmission signal requires significant power. It can be compressed and sent in a redundant fashion so that video quality should be anywhere from good to excellent.
Satellites 3 months before and behind Earth orbit would prove valuable for intra system communication and would give a new perspective for astral observations.
Not sure, but think it should be 4 months for stable orbit. Should be done before any serious exploration beyond the Moon.
There is a study in 2011, saying that interplanetary bandwidth could raise to 100 gigabit/second by twisting laser light.
However, “The trouble is that beams spread out as they travel. Hemmati and his colleagues estimate that receiving OAM data from a transmitter as distant as the sun would require a kilometer-wide telescope.”
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/07/a-high-bandwidth-interplanetary-.html
Great article. One problem with long-distance laser communication is the air, but satellites, including in the Earth’s orbit at stable locations, could communicate with satellites around Mars. Both could relay to and from the ground by other means. Right now, we have no real reason to increase the bandwidth to Mars. A settlement that depended on high-resolution video to earn money for its support would change that equation.
Well both Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic are positioned to become shuttle programs, although I believe they have focused on orbital and possibly lunar flight. Bezos is quite secretive, for all I know he has already begun planning a moon base, which realistically is the next step, not Mars.
Interesting …
Brett, I agree that a base for transients on the Moon would be very logical. Mr. Spock would definitely opt for that. :-)
The Mars effort is much more, well, inspiring. It’s more of a Captain Kirk move. Going to the Moon first will pay additional dividends and improve the likelihood of success greatly for the Mars program.
It’s a emotion versus rationality decision. Mars will deliver much more money through pay TV than the Moon would. Even though we’ve never had people living on the Moon in a habitat, the Moon base would be unexciting to the average Earthling. Too bad. It’s very exciting to me!
I do believe one day human will land on Mars, but not Mars One. They will not go to Mars, all their doing so far is making money. If they eventually do not raise enough money for Mars, they can declare the project fail, but their pockets will already be full. If they got enough money, hey it’s even better! Since they do not have necessary technology, they could simply launch and send people to death and let the world watch how they die (money come in like waterfall) . It’s a single way ticket? yes, a single way tick to make lots of money, very brilliant.
Very cynical. You could be at least partially correct. The real money will come from the 24/7 reality show. It won’t continue long enough unless they send at least one unmanned supply module to Mars. If successful, that landing will bump the ratings through the roof.
If enough money is coming in, they can send more supply modules. They’re expensive, but with billions coming in, siphoning a few millions into the pockets of the organizers would be easy. There’s no oversight, after all.
The initial manned mission scheduled for 2023 is likely to be postponed allowing for more milking of the public for more money. Eventually, they have to put up or shut up. Once the cost exceeds the income, they’ll shut up and shut down the entire operation after having providing some unusual training to a few lucky people.
Unless lots of things change, they will not put up because loss of the entire first manned expedition will trigger lots of investigations and could even lead to criminal charges. Mars One actually putting people on Mars is a long shot, maybe around 20-to-one. I’d make it longer, but you cannot predict the next breakthrough. In five years, enough breakthroughs could make the mission feasible but still very dangerous. You have to have time to test and engineer breakthroughs. Some only take a year or so. Others take several years to turn into reality. Unless all of the necessary technology is ready by 2021, the 2023 flight will not happen.
Better communication, as you suggested in your last note and as amplified by Brett’s remark, is one requirement. Better battery technology in the form of nanotube lithium-ion battery electrodes is another. RTGs that can produce more power and are totally safe in human habitations are another. Better solar technology will help a great deal.
Yes, with all the new breakthrough in the next decade, going to Mars could be feasible, but at what cost? Mars One declare they need 6 billion USD. The Mars Science Laboratory project took 2.5 billion USD to develop Curiosity and landed in 2011. With 6 billion, I wonder what could they accomplish? If they use the money honestly, maybe they could send partial equipment to Mars, and then they run out of budget. So the volunteers could stay on Earth as would-be heroes? (phew!).
There’s a certain amount of arrogance in that idea: if I had the money to build a yacht, for instance, I would have it built in Taiwan or Korea, not Europe or the US
6 billion is a lot to them – more, they can have hundreds of people living the high life for the cost of one western millionaire. Not sweatshop, good jobs, nice homes and qualified people. Certainly NASA can go through 6 billion over lunch, as so many western governments and their parasitical organizations. That don’t impress me much.
Yes, Brett, the idea of the lowest bidder is great, and I am also glad you mentioned the Chinese and Korean people. However it’s still challenging to build and land 40 metric tons of shipments with 6 billion USD while NASA landed 1 metric ton Curiosity with 2.5 billion USD (including research cost). Which means price per ton is 1/16 as NASA did.
I really like the quantitative financial discussion here. This project will crash or move forward depending upon their ability to raise money. I am not very sanguine regarding using reality TV to fund such a massive undertaking. The ratio of 16-to-1 grabs my attention.
Certainly, a factor of 2-to-1 could be overcome. To achieve success, Mars One must accomplish two things: find more sources of funding and reduce the cost of delivering each metric ton to Mars. If they can achieve factors of two in each, there’s still a fourfold shortfall. The only way out of that problem would be reducing the mass lifted to Mars.
Unfortunately, I think that they’ve underestimated the mass required for sustaining four people indefinitely on Mars. Each parameter of the mission seems to be set below sustainability but high enough for believability by the general public.
Virgin Galactic spaceship 2 will not scale up to deliver into LEO but will require a complete new system called spaceship 3 (SS3) I cannot see this being ready anytime soon,
Elon Musk’s Spacex Grasshopper will be a game changer being able to deliver many smaller loads for less than the cost of a Falcon9 Heavy, Lower mass Mars delivery would also avoid the problem of need for hypersonic retro-rockets for landings on Mars.
A new beginning.
This discussion has been wonderful, and I thank all of those who have participated. I’d like to take this entire issue to another level. Please stay tuned, watching ETC-J for a new beginning of the discussion about Mars.
ETC-J is working on a serialized fictional account of the first Mars settlement so that those who are not so technically oriented can participate. We’ll have plenty of science and will address those issues we’ve talked about here and many more in the context of the possible actuality of a Mars settlement. We’ll also have personalities and their reactions to crises. We’re making the assumption that it will happen with 20 years, maybe ten or so. We will use only technologies that we have or that can be predicted within this time frame to become available. Exceptions will be made to this rule only if there absolutely is no other way and we’ll still make every effort make it scientifically sound. As a scientist, I wouldn’t have it any other way.
You’ll read about some real surprises in the episodes. We’ll be as creative as possible and will encourage all of you to write in with your ideas about how to solve the problems facing the settlers in the most recent episode. Some of your ideas will find their way into future episodes and will be acknowledged in the discussion.
If you know a science teacher, be sure to clue them into what’s going on. We’ll have special challenges for science classes to discuss. We invite science teachers to respond on behalf of their classes and to sign with your school name. I’m hoping that my own business, Smart Science Education Inc., will be able to fund some prizes, but I cannot make promises about that yet.
While prompted by this discussion of Mars One, any resemblance to the actual Mars One program is unintended. We will use the best ideas from anywhere, including Mars One, in our narrative, but this is NOT Mars One.
Watch for the first episode soon and be ready with your commentary on any science errors in each episode, solutions to the problems facing the settlers as narrated, and the science class challenges. I’m looking forward to a stimulating discussion.
This is called hard science fiction, at the opposite end of the spectrum to fantasy. Hard science fiction goes back to Jules Verne writing in the age of steam about things that were not to exist for another century at least (search ‘8 Jules Verne inventions that came true’) and continues today in authors like Bova, Pellegrino, Robinson (Kim Stanley, sorry Spider) and the late Crichton and Sheffield.
It is not limited to technology but most important to the genre is examination of social, ethical and ecological aspects of our present trajectory through history.
At the edge of today are cybernetics, biological engineering and genetics, nanotechnology and molecular assembly, and just maybe new frontiers in quantum computing and our understanding of time and gravity, so you can see that the boundaries between reality and imagination are not boundaries at all but merely horizons, curves in the road ahead.
Limiting the scope to present or likely in the next decade is useful, but what is the story? Simply landing? Ten years of success despite setbacks? The first romance/marriage on Mars? The first child? Or something more dystopian – human clones banished to Mars or maybe retreating to Mars…
Thanks, Brett. I’ve read hundreds of S-F novels and short stories from Larry Niven to Harlan Ellison. That encompasses the range you mention.
I cannot guarantee anything because I am only keeping about a half chapter or so ahead of the publishing. I wish I could guarantee to be as good as your favorite author, but my writing has always been factual until now. We’ll all see if I can spin a decent yarn, include some societal commentary, explore interesting personalities, and keep the science on track.
I’ll enjoy everyone’s opinions — good and bad.
Uhhh.. the Siemen (S) is a unit of conductance (the reciprocal of the ohm). The Sievert (Sv) is a unit of radiation dose. This error has been repeated several times on this page and makes me doubt that anyone here knows what they are talking about.
Sorry about that. I meant to correct that mistake and forgot.
Absolutely, I use both and just transposed them in my mind. A day later I realized what I had done. Dumb dumb dumb. But really, who cares in the long run.
You’ll have plenty of opportunities to catch me on errors as we move forward. Keep an eagle eye. I can always use a good editor. :-)
Nobody’s perfect. ;-)
This publicity stunt will obviously never happen. It does, however, bring out some interesting thoughts and discussion. Bas and his friends have found a novel way to generate public interest and put some money in their pockets – that is all.
I’m interested to see where space exploration takes us next. It won’t be a one way trip to Mars, but should still be exciting.
I agree.
SpaceX will try and launch missions in the 2016-2018 windows, The 2018 mission will most likely with their Red Dragon capsule design maybe even include “Inspiration Mars” idea for a biglow habitat module with a husband and wife flyby of Mars. Mars One may help finance spaceX 2016 test to keep the money flowing. meanwhile NASA may have solved some of the other problems like supersonic retro rockets and food supplies.
Another major breakthrough is Alan Bonds Reaction Engine that enables Single stage to orbit, Amazingly the Engine has now been proved workable
With backing could be flying around 2020
Most people won’t truly understand the potential for such an innovation. It’s truly simple in concept but very complex in practice.
As a space rocket/plane takes off it uses air as the oxidizer until the air becomes too thin at the highest altitudes. Then, it switches to on-board liquid oxygen.
Because the take-off mass is much less without all of the extra oxygen, this rocket can reach orbital velocity with a single stage, reducing the complexity and cost of space missions enormously.
The technical hurdles to achieving this goal were extreme, but they seem to have been overcome. The remaining issue is reliability of the new internal complexity that will replace the external complexity of current rockets.
TROY Mars Mission
The Troy mission concept arises from a feasibility study, performed to confirm the capability of the SKYLON launch vehicles does enable large human exploration mission to the planets.
Seems that there’s a loophole in general relativity.
http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/14/18253709-warp-speed-scotty-it-may-actually-be-possible?lite
You cannot travel through space faster than light waves (or particles). Some physicists think that you might be able to bend and stretch space so that you can reach a distant point faster than light in normal space would. Seems a bit far-fetched, but the equations say it’s possible. No one yet knows if it’s practical, but experiments are underway to find out.
Even if it works, the energy requirements will be immense.
Dear Harry,
Please have a look at my WordPress page and you’ll find we have similar thoughts. You’ll find it under http://marsonce.wordpress.com/
I am a Dutch graduated motorcar technical engineer living in Israel since 1992. I have a lot of fantasies, do make mistakes, but share your initiative enormously. I admire your English which is your and regretfully not my mother tongue. Surely you’ll notice when you read my Mars-once project from which I am building a site now. Hope to stay in serious contact.
Jim Hasenaar.
Hi Jim,
Thank you for writing and for the compliment.
You have some interesting ideas. Mars challenges us very strongly. I’m not going to do extensive calculations in discussing your thoughts, just indicate where I think they are likely to lead.
On “Reliable Energy,” you suggest that the solar power arrays be increased to allow splitting of water into hydrogen and oxygen for later use in fuel cells. I implied the “increased” part because electrolysis of water is inefficient due to something known as “hydrogen overvoltage.” Electroanalytical chemistry was my graduate student major and my thesis work. This one problem reduces efficiency of hydrogen (and oxygen) generation by close to one-half. Solar panels are only about 10% efficient. Fuel cells are about 50% efficient, much better than burning hydrogen but not as good as . You get maybe 2.5% of your solar energy back as electricity assuming all other parts are perfectly efficient.
However, they aren’t. In particular, you have to compress the hydrogen and oxygen into pressure tanks. Compressors use plenty of power and will reduce efficiency even more. Your solar arrays are becoming really large now. The real problem with this approach is that compressors have moving parts and wear out. You’ve replaced the problem of worn-out batteries with worn-out compressors.
I have to acknowledge that spare parts for compressors are easier to ship than spare batteries and that compressor technology is lower than solar cell technology. Repeated repairs could extend the lifetime of those compressors, but compressing hydrogen and oxygen to hundreds of bars is rather tough on compressors, especially the corrosive oxygen. I have no figures on the lifetime for fuel cells but believe that it depends greatly on contaminants in the oxygen and hydrogen feeds. Eventually, the catalysts in the cells become poisoned and lose efficiency. I am not aware of whether in situ regeneration is possible.
This is not a true long-term solution. It’s less efficient than batteries but will last longer although not forever. Resupply will be required.
I’ll ignore the piece on geothermal energy because you’ve superseded it with the fuel cell article. Deep drilling on Mars would certainly be a problem.
I too see energy as the number one issue on Mars. The air is too thin to turn wind power generators, even with rather high wind speeds.
I am strongly opposed to bringing livestock to Mars for rather simple reasons. In the first place, it’s totally unnecessary. Humans can live very well on vegetarian diets supplemented by yeast and are likely to live longer and be healthier as well. There’s much evidence supporting this view. It would be a problem for settlers used to eating flesh, but not as serious as other adaptations required to live on Mars.
As anyone who has studied environmental science knows, food webs sort out into food pyramids. The energy loss at each step up the pyramid is about 90%. This simple fact means that you must grow TEN TIMES as much plant matter to obtain the same nutrient value from flesh as from plants. The Mars One people propose 50 square meters of plant growing space for their settlement. If you choose to use animals for half of your food nutrients, then you’ll have to have 300 square meters just for the plants plus space for the animals. You’ll also have the problems of providing the animals with oxygen and removing lots of carbon dioxide from the air. You have to dispose of unwanted animal material. You could just dump it outside, but that approach has problems too.
Using animals for food is an extravagant luxury for Mars, equivalent to printing money or shipping gem-quality diamonds there. It’s very costly and quite useless. Living in close proximity with animals also promotes disease.
Martians will be vegetarians for the foreseeable future. Those who are considering emigration to Mars just have to get used to it. Putting animals on Mars would subject them to cruelty as well.
The Jimmy hut structure will not work because of radiation. You must shield the inhabitants from serious solar and cosmic radiation. Besides, you don’t have to have ponds on Mars, and they will be counter-productive. Water will be as precious on Mars as gold is on Earth.
Trees will not be available on Mars for a long time due to the size and root structure. Very large structures will be necessary to allow trees, even dwarf trees, to grow. These must be shielded from radiation coming from the sky and so must grow under artificial light, which must be reserved for growing the most efficient possible food plants.
People can adapt to a wide variety of environments. Just look at people in the Arctic regions or in extreme deserts. They do not have chickens running about. Our long-ago ancestors, before inventing the control of fire, ate mostly fruits, roots, leaves, flowers, and insect grubs. Some may have eaten some raw fish. Raw mammal flesh is rather undigestible for humans just as it is for chimpanzees. There are no trees on the tundra, and those in deserts are limited to a few odd-looking varieties near oases. Mostly, desert-dwellers and tundra-dwellers see nothing but sand or ice for kilometers around.
The problems with life on Mars are serious. Having trees and animals around is not a requirement and actually would create additional problems. Let the settlers paint frescoes on the insides of habitat. They can plan for a future time when dwellings will be larger if such a thing ever becomes possible. Sun-powered 3D printers that use sand as raw material indicates that something could happen to provide a means for building on Mars in the future. It won’t be water-based unless we can somewhat terraform Mars. But that’s another topic entirely.
Have seen some indications vegetarian diet is not appropriate for women who are still experiencing menstruation, including where protein and iron supplements are used. Although this also should not be a Mars One problem as hopefully they will not be sending anyone under 55 years old.
I see there are now nearly 80 000 applicants, which is $3 million in application fees alone.
You’ll find plenty of misinformation about vegetarian lifestyles. Hindus and Buddhists have been doing it for centuries and continue to have children. I know people who have been vegetarians since birth and are strong, healthy and have children. You can get plenty of iron and protein from a plant-based diet, more than anyone must have. The only failing is B12, which you can obtain in abundance from yeast.
On Mars, efficiency will be required for survival. Animal-based food is inefficient by an entire order of magnitude. It’s that simple. Genetically engineered crops will be able to supply more than enough nutrition despite the limited growing space. Adding animals will make this proposition hopeless.
Thanks for checking applicant numbers. That number is so large that it must include many fools. Just think, you can even enroll an acquaintance as a joke if you can find a video to include. “Happy birthday, you’re going to Mars.” LOL.
Brett sat in the Living Room, plucking a chicken: every tenday the four of them slaughtered and shared one the the little creatures. Transgenic they were, a few twists from a Muscovy, a few turns from some lizard that made them even more efficient than their Terran ancestors. And the meat is all dark, thought Brett, dark they were and golden-fried.
He was chuckling to himself at this when Marien walked in with her ukelele. She smiled, dark-eyed and golden-skinned. Without asking she began to sing and strum with her two remaining fingers. Another tough old bird, thought Brett, smiling and joining in.
From the communicator film ALIS joined in, harmonizing, and then the film rippled, showing Erik and Keisha in the rover. In 2021 quantum computing had been discovered and ALIS was quickly incorporated into the M1 expedition. The size of a walnut, s/he contained all the literature, music and technical history of mankind and more, s/he was, at least to them, a living being.
They all sang along to the ukelele, a few of the hundreds of verses created to The Green, Green Hills of Earth.
Heinlein was certainly a capable wordsmith and tale spinner. I believe that I have read ever story he wrote, many as they were being published. Nutrition science in 1947 was extremely limited. People fervently believed that meat was a critical part of a healthy diet. Today, we know better, although meat-producer organizations spend millions to convince us otherwise. Meat is an acquired taste.
You can also live soley on meat, provided it is fresh. Since much of our meat is produced or finished with grain, it is assumed to be inefficient on that basis. However, I have eaten many a grass-fed steer that saw little or no grain on the farm, as well as wild game that of course eats only graze or browse.
As a scientist you should not dismiss the marvel of the rumen, which is able to take fiber we could not eat, from land that would not grow much grain and certainly not vegetables, and turn that into 100% complete food for humans. I would certainly not be feeding space chickens grain but grasses and insects.
From where would the insects come, and what would they be eating? I can write all day about health, but the real reason for a Mars mission being vegetarian comes from the inefficiency of creating meat calories compared to creating plant calories.
We’d hardly grow grasses on Mars due to their inefficiency, making too much cellulose and too little grain. Grain is inefficient too if you have to grind and bake it. Every bit of plant material counts, and plants will be selected and bred to have as much as possible edible by humans. The leftovers, which would be as small as possible, should be digested by bacteria and then fed to yeast that will be harvested to supplement the nutrition.
Note that a 100% meat diet will cause scurvy. It also raises the likelihood of colon cancer significantly.
Many uneaten parts of vegetables grown would be food for chickens – many kinds of vegetation would provide a basis for adequate nutrition that could be boosted by insects, even something simple as fruit-flies but there are insects that would be edible for humans also.
With regard to scurvy, while I am not recommending a meat diet but only meat supplemet, it is not true that a meat diet causes scurvy – as I said, not if the meat is fresh. Our Viljalmur Stefansson studied the Eskimo diet and ate nothing but meat for several years to prove this point.
Dear Harry,
Thanks for your detailed answer.
Concerning livestock I did not write the animals need to be for half of the food nutrients. I was talking about a few chickens, rabbits, fish and bees. I don’t believe they need so much more square meters just for the plants they consume. Remember I am also not talking about cattle. Besides that, animals also have a social function.
Anyhow I’d certainly advice to experiment with trees and herbs in the Jimmy-hut despite radiation from the rooftop windows. The rest of the hut is pretty well protected against radiation. See how they grow and who knows plants and trees can better adapt to the circumstances than living creatures.
In any case a solution or certain kind of adaptation against radiation need to be found not to change human on Mars in cavemen. Experience sunrise and sunset are built in human existence.
Concerning water you write that water will be as precious on Mars as gold is on Earth. I am not sure you are right here. Satellite pictures in the past showed a release of a substantial amount of water after volcanic activity. I presume there is a lot of water underground.
You ignored the piece on geothermal energy. Well that will be the definitive solution once deep drilling on Mars is possible. To get once and for all rid of the dependency of the sun. I don’t see why this drilling needs to be a problem?
The day after tomorrow I’ll publish the website mars-once.com
Maybe interesting to see the chapter ‘Other energy suggestions’ the right side of the page about parabolic heat, and the chapter ‘Practical ideas’ where is written how one can e.g. bring a drilling tower to Mars.
It will take a long time to establish the ability to drill deeply and to have the necessary technology to utilize such wells. Would be good if can be done. In short run, RTGs seem to be a way to create heat and some electricity.
Maintenance.
As Jim Hasenaar’s blog and my remarks illustrate, the greatest problem for long-term self-sustaining settlements on Mars will be maintenance.
In the short run, it’s all about energy. Then, about air. Then, about food. Then, about radiation. Somewhere, sanity comes in. However, if you can solve all of these problems, you must address the fact that only technology can sustain you, and technology requires electrical energy plus life requires heat.
Compressors, rovers, and other devices have moving parts. Batteries have a finite number of charge-discharge cycles. Solar panel materials may decompose due to UV radiation and high-energy radiation. They may erode due to dust storms. Oxygen and moisture inside of the habitat can attack the materials there.
Can the Mars regolith be converted into building materials? How widely must mineral gathering expeditions range to retrieve valuable raw materials? What processes can be used to turn minerals into air-tight walls and replacement parts? Will 3D printing technology advance to the point where parts and equipment can be made without using petroleum-based plastics? It has today but still requires rather high-tech materials — except for that sand-based, solar-powered version. How long with solar panels remain efficient and functional under the unceasing ultraviolet, x-ray, cosmic ray, and solar radiation that rains down upon the Martian surface? Does anyone even know?
Through careful selection of technologies to use along with some new technologies being developed today, settlers can get by if they have a cleverly chosen cache of spare parts for maybe 50 or so years.
By that time, the waning interest in Mars may rekindle and new technologies for getting to space, e.g. the next generation of Alan Bond reaction engines along with new ion-propulsion engines for shuttling back and forth, could make it less expensive to resupply Mars. Occasional resupply could be the result of using the settlers to perform local science investigations. Fifty years is a very long time, ten computer technology generations, in modern terms. Completely new ideas and concepts for use by the settlers could come to fruition well before then and be sent to the settlement using research funds.
Only with a great faith in the potential for solving the long-term settlement issues can settlers make this voyage with hope for the future. Otherwise, they face a future with ever-decreasing ability to survive as things wear out and slowly decompose.
I believe that someday we will solve all of these problems. Setting out to Mars in ten years likely is jumping the gun by as much as ten or more years. I hope Mars One hangs around long enough to see good solutions to some of the problems so that we can all enjoy the process and the potential side benefits to us of developing new technologies. Their efforts, if in earnest and not just for money and show, could build the foundation for future attempts to make Martians a reality.
UvrA
“Bringing Life to Mars” by Christopher P. McKay 1999 Scientific American
Click to access BringingLife.pdf
I hate to get off of the main topic here and off onto dietary styles and preferences. The problems of animals on Mars are so extreme that I have determined that our first Mars settlers will be vegetarians, even vegans. With a very limited amount of growing space and light energy for plants, every square centimeter of growing space and joule of energy must be used as efficiently as possible. Each step up in the food chain loses about 90% of the energy input from the previous level.
Plants will be carefully chosen to grow fast, have high nutritional value, including fiber, and have little waste (eat it all). What waste material is unavoidable will be recycled through bacterial decomposition by carefully selected and bred bacteria and then that digest will be used as growth medium for yeast. Both the digest and the yeast can be used to supplement the Mars diet. The yeast are critical because they provide the B12 only available from animal sources. Fortunately, our requirements for B12 are very small indeed.
The settlers may eventually choose to import animals if interplanetary commerce develops and they have a sufficient surplus of food. Animals each carry with them many problems, among these are the different gut bacteria than humans use and that are required for health. The Mars habitat should not be contaminated with unnecessary bacteria that may also harbor viruses.
The preparation of materials for Mars will involve extensive sterilization. The people will also have to undergo careful treatment before leaving Earth. Even so, it’s unclear that the efforts will succeed. Until Mars looks more like Earth, care and efficiency will be required to live there.
I think diet will be a large part of the conversation once on Mars, so I don’t know that it is irrelevant or off topic. Anyway, humans certainly need living things around them, but perhaps a first effort should stick to plant life alone. I understand the Anarctic research station requires each individual to spend three hours a day minimum in the green room with plants, running water and solar-spectrum lighting.
I understand every kilogram costs, yet I would not be looking for anything like minimum requirements for such an endeavour – extra room, parts, propagation material and power would be the best, at least the 50% over minimum that is standard engineering.
A good segment on CBC The Current this morning included two Applicants, a discussion with a Psychologist who is part of the M1 selection advisory and a conversation with Canadian astronaut Julie Payette (who has such a beautiful voice I would listen to her read the phone book) who was also quite skeptical, not about going to Mars but of this attempt.
Hi Brett,
You’re right on top of this issue. Yes, food is critical. It’s just that I consider personal food preferences beside the point, which is how to provide a constant and nutritious food supply. With a limited area for growing things (stacked racks of plant growing trays) and limited energy (Mars One plans for ONLY solar), animals will drain critical resources. If a Mars settlement does happen in the near future (within 25 years), it will begin with a plant-only food supply. Assuming that frequent resupply does not occur, the plant-based diet will continue for a while. Any animal addition, even insects, will have to be very carefully evaluated. Any creature with a short reproduction span can mutate and suddenly fill the habitat with unpleasantness or worse.
The first life forms, aside from humans, in a Mars settlement must be carefully selected plants, bacteria, and yeast. One set of bacteria are necessary in human guts for health. Another set will be used to digest plant “waste,” the undigestible plant parts, which will be minimum. The yeast will turn this digest into food supplements for the settlers.
Plants will be chosen and even genetically engineered (good genetic engineering, not RoundUp-style engineering) to grow fast, be as nutritious as possible, and have few inedible parts. They must be also selected for variety. You wouldn’t like eating nothing but beet roots and beet greens three times a day for years. They will have to be pollinated by hand as required unless nano-robotic insects can be programmed to do that automatically.
Nano-engineering could change a number of features of a Mars settlement effort. I expect nano-electrodes to make batteries lighter and longer-lasting long before 2023, for example.
A Mars settlement will be very high-tech. Sustaining that level of technology in an environment that would make the meanest American West frontier look palatial may be the greatest challenge of all. Even if you can find a solution to every problem to making a settlement on Mars, you still have maintenance and repair to handle. The 3D printing technologies won’t handle the task today, except for minor repairs using a limited supply of consumables. Mars must have lightweight printers that use local materials.
well , seems truly a hoax, or commercial fraud, you could say
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/782672.shtml
“The project organizer said in an interview last week that the complexity of the project has far exceeded the company’s imagination, adding that it would be hard to stick to the original plan of sending one person to live on Mars by 2023.”
http://www.china.org.cn/china/2013-05/20/content_28870081.htm
“Meanwhile, a Xinhua reporter found that the Mars One company was registered on June 23, 2011, in the Netherlands with one employee. Its office, is in a rented apartment in the city of Amersfoort, with “simply some tables.” ”
I don’t know why a Chinese reporter exposed the fraud instead of a Netherland reporter.
With $3 million in the bank from this venture, Mars One should be more visible. Lack of a substantial office proves little. The reporter is so vague that it’s hard to believe the investigation was thorough.
Most observers agree that the project is too complex to be completed in just ten years when FOUR people (not one) are supposed to go to Mars. Without lots of money, they will not even come close. Much of that money must go into research and innovation.
With all due respect to most Chinese people I wouldn’t exactly put a lot of stock into stories coming from a state controlled Chinese paper, they have been know to reprint The Onion articles thinking they were fact and not satire..
The article left much to the imagination. Somewhere under the words, there may be some truth, but it’s unclear. I suspect that both items of interest were taken out of context.
It is true that non-profit Mars One also has a for-profit sister company.
I believe that the discussion remains an important one and wish Mars One well in at least getting to a rational plan for putting a settlement on Mars. Just that much will require more than the $3 million already received from those who wish to be on the first manned flight to Mars.
This report may help clarify the position so far:
So far over 78,000 people from 120 countries have decided that going to Mars would be way more awesome than staying at home. According to a Mars One press release, the US (17324), China (10241) and the UK (3581) have the most applicants.
78,000 applicants simply means the number of people who have signed up with their email address, date of birth, and country of residence. The number of people who have actually gone beyond that free step and paid an average of $38 (£24) to complete their registration could be anywhere between around 600 (the number of online videos) and 78,000.
“It is only logical that many people are still working on their profiles,” says Lansdorp, adding that “Mars One chooses not to distinguish between people at different stages of their application”. He argues that not paying the fee doesn’t necessarily mean an applicant doesn’t want to go to Mars.
Thank you for the update. Considering the Chinese report indicated that 10,000 Chinese want there money back and that only 600 have uploaded a video, far fewer than 78,000 must have paid their fee, and the Chinese article is even more suspect.
It appears that Lansdorp has not so precipitously abandoned his project as the article indicated. It’s far too early for him to throw up his hands and declare the project too complex.
That might happen if no one pays a fee. ;-)
It could happen if he cannot get the reality show started.
We have much more time before these events might happen. If he gets a few thousand paid applicants, phase one will have been a success. I’m sure that the initial selection will be automated. People will look at the videos for how these people will look on television. It’s a TV show, after all. Some large number will be chosen for the final processing through the mechanism of the show, and a large audience will wait to see who is “fired.”
Everyone, please visit https://etcjournal.com/2013/05/17/martian-rhapsody-chapter-1-landing/. Would love to have your feedback as we move forward. Expect one chapter/episode per month — faster if I can manage it — to review, remark on, and analyze. Let’s continue this conversation in a new way.
Well, I replied over there, but my name appears to be Anonymous, so see if you can figure out which one is mine!
I have a question about the required user agreement needed to be accepted prior to applying. Essentially, you are giving up all of your privacy rights. I understand the need for this while on the mission but what about those who don’t go on the mission, they have still given up all of their privacy rights. There are other concerns about that agreement, as well. has anyone looked into the legal ramifications that those who do not go on the mission, may be subjected to?
Thank you for your comment.
I think that the privacy rights are being forfeited due to the reality show business. Millions of people will be watching you. There’s also the necessity for the producers of the supposed trip and the reality show to investigate your background. While the show producers may care a great deal, the trip means that you’ll be isolated with just three other people. Every one of those people must be secure in sharing this activity with the other three. The depth of the background check required means that you have to release everything including medical and criminal records.
If you do not end up on the mission, then some of this information should not be shared outside of those with a need to know. I have no idea as to the laws respecting this issue.
If you are on the reality show, then you’re giving up lots of your privacy during the video recording but should not have to divulge background information to the world. Again, I’m not the legal person to ask. Even were I knowledgeable in the law, it might be the wrong law. I could be a U.S. attorney, but the show being produced in the Netherlands would make me totally incompetent to judge these things.
I don’t expect to have a good answer to this question because we don’t have the final word regarding jurisdiction as far as I know.
Thanks, Harry. I agree with your interpretation and as far as being one of the final contestants, I fully understand the desire and need to have those people to be fully exposed for many of the reasons you mentioned plus others. This endevor is being broadcast to help in raise the funds, therefor, they will want to exploit everything the applicants do. (This is not being said in a negative manner, it’s just a necessity to promote the program) Although the eliminated applicants information shouldn’t need to be divulged, I saw nothing, in writing, saying that it wouldn’t be used down the road for whatever reasons “the company” or any of its subsidiaries chose to use it for. There was even a clause about them being exonerated for moral inpropriety, or something to that effect. Before I sign away all of my future privacy rights,I would like to know that I didn’t just give up thiose rights for life, should I not be selected.
I would feel the same way were I to apply. In some jurisdictions, you may be covered by the local law, but we don’t know that, or at least I don’t.
I found this other site with an article posted on may 1st 2013(?), and written by a person named Stuart Debar. At least the last 3 paragraphs are directly lifted from this article. There is even more plagiarism through out the article. As well as both articles’ titles being identical to one another. So who’s plagiarizing who?
Here’s the url to the other article.
http://vadamagazine.com/01/05/2013/tech/mars-one-exciting-adventure-or-hoax
Thank you for letting me know. The last FIVE paragraphs are word-for-word from my work. Seems that this is not just a blog but an online magazine that may even pay its authors.
I have sent a polite request for adding appropriate attribution to the article.
The article has been withdrawn with apologies.
I wonder… if there are some nice lumps of ice out in the Belt or, failing that, orbiting the Sun (ie comets) that could be, with some effort, steered into a decaying orbit around Mars, to leak methane, water and whatever else into the atmosphere. That seems to be the cheapest and quickest way to raise the pressure, only…
It’s a lot easier to do it before you have colonies on the ground that could be accidentally impacted (even a near miss or ejecta)
Methane is really not the best – water is obviously prefered, followed by ammonia. But even methane would raise the surface pressure and cause some warming. It’s really the only way you’re going to get that kind of atmosphere on Mars in any time-frame shorter than centuries.
You would want it to end up in the warmest region possible, to speed evaporation – even better, have your steering motor detach in front of the incoming payload and use the exhaust to slow it/melt it for the last several hundred orbits.
Sure it sounds far out – the whole project is far out – but I think this is a more reasonable way to ‘improve’ the atmosphere of Mars than diddling around with lichens and pixie-dust (to melt the existing polar caps, which are unlikely to be more than dry ice)
Further out you find one of these, smaller engine it takes to nudge it into the right orbit. Multiple, semi-automated attempts on smaller targets would be preferable.
Let me pose it like this: Given a billion dollars, could you intercept a 500m diameter ball of ice within the orbit of Saturn and a time-frame of twenty years and put that into an low, decaying orbit 3km above the surface of Mars?
Okay we need fifty of those.
Interesting thought. Some theories say that most of Earth’s water came from asteroid bombardment.
Methane is fine because it’s not toxic. Ammonia is bad because it is toxic. Once enough oxygen is in the atmosphere, if ever, both will be broken down.
The only way that asteroids could help Mars is if we found some that were going to pass close by. A robotic craft could fly out and nudge the asteroid into an intercept course. It’s the opposite of what we’d do if one was headed to Earth. Calculations would have to be precise to avoid destroying our settlers. If not too large, asteroid would burn up in atmosphere despite it being so thin. Not sure of what that size would be. If asteroid were large enough, it would impact ground and possibly awaken volcanic activity — a long shot, I know. Volcanoes do spew gases and would help with the atmosphere. More air is better no matter the composition.
As we go through the novel, some ideas will surface that are wild but not as wild as cowboy asteroids.
Many of those asteroids are very icy. If so, they would break up in the Martian atmosphere and dump a bunch of water onto the planet. There may be plenty of water underground. Methane would be an addition to the greenhouse effect. Not sure that we can find that on asteroids.
Forgot to add this
Students Exploring the Universe with Radio Telescope
A new program is giving middle-school-aged youth the chance to take remote control of a large, research-grade radio telescope and expand their cosmic explorations beyond what the eye can see. The National Radio Astronomy Observatory’s (NRAO) 20-meter-diameter telescope in Green Bank, West Virginia, is joining a global network of telescopes bringing the excitement of hands-on research to young people via 4-H, the nation’s largest youth development organization.
Anne Nealon, a student at Broadway High School in Rockingham, Virginia,
remotely operates the NRAO 20-meter telescope from her school library.
CREDIT: Russ Kohrs, NRAO/AUI/NSF
The program, funded by the National Science Foundation, will provide some 1,400 4-H youth with access to robotically-operated, research-grade telescopes. They will use the telescopes to survey galaxies, track asteroids, monitor variable stars, and learn first-hand how scientific research is done.
The telescopes are part of a world-wide network called Skynet. In addition to the NRAO 20-meter radio telescope, the network also includes a 24-inch optical telescope at the University of North Carolina’s Morehead Observatory; the 41-inch reflecting telescope at Yerkes Observatory in Williams Bay, Wisconsin; six telescopes in Chile; and six more under construction in Chile and Australia.
When the telescopes are not performing their primary scientific mission of observing gamma-ray bursts, they can be used for educational purposes. The new program, called Skynet Junior Scholars, will train 140 4-H leaders and other informal educators in West Virginia, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. These leaders will then assist their 4-H club members in observing cosmic objects with the telescopes. Along the way they will be mentored by Skynet Junior Scholars staff and the scientists who use Skynet telescopes for their own research.
The NRAO 20-meter telescope is the only radio telescope in the network, providing a unique capability for the young observers’ research. “Much of today’s professional astronomical research is multi-wavelength, with scientists using combinations of radio, optical, infrared, or other telescopes to gain a complete picture of the objects they study. Adding our 20-meter telescope to Skynet gives students the same ability and provides them with a better understanding of modern research,” said NRAO astronomer Glen Langston, who serves as the 20-meter telescope Project Scientist.
The NRAO 20-Meter Telescope
CREDIT: NRAO/AUI/NSF
“Students really get jazzed when they experience the role of being a scientist first-hand. The 20-meter telescope allows us to provide that experience to anyone, anywhere,” said NRAO Education Officer Sue Ann Heatherly. “When a student realizes that he or she can successfully do science, it can be a game changer. Students are actually more likely to pursue STEM careers. 4-H recognizes the need for more scientists and engineers in the U.S. and so does NRAO. We want to do our part.”
Heatherly is one of three principal investigators for the Skynet Junior Scholars program, along with colleagues from the University of North Carolina and The University of Chicago’s Yerkes Observatory. Under the program, which formally began October 1, 4-H club leaders may complete free professional-development workshops at NRAO in Green Bank, at Yerkes Observatory, or online through the Astronomical Society of the Pacific.
The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation, operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc.
Skynet Web Site
NRAO Education Programs
This is great stuff. The only problems are limited numbers of students who can use it and the amount of supervision required so that students do more than just look.
You certainly can find ways around these problems given enough time. For example, access can be expanded by forming teams across the country. The preparation time requires trained coaches, and you can train teachers in what sorts of research can be done. You also can record sessions and play them back for other students so that real-time access is no longer a problem. That’s what my business does for science education.
Thanks for a solid dose of (actual, not TV as Mars One intends) reality. I think ultimately you’re being kind and your article nicely objective; as far as I can see, Mars One is nothing but a publicity stunt intended to make a few people rich at the expense of others. I do believe in going to Mars, but half-baked promises based on a highly speculative funding model simply sound like the mid-late 19th century canal mania; of course we built the Panama and Suez Canals, but there were plenty of mad schemes that never got anywhere, and this sounds too much like those.
You could be entirely accurate. I just think that we should fully air the issues of going to Mars.
I’d love to see us on Mars in my lifetime. However, I also tend toward a more conservative path to going there. A Moon base for transient occupation could test out many of the ideas for Mars with much less danger, although not anywhere near zero.
It’s quite interesting that the Mars One project is unlikely but possible. It’s that hint of possibility that makes the whole thing so engaging. Protestations to the contrary, they are working right now with smoke and mirrors. I sincerely doubt that the people running this program would consider going themselves.
Who will be first on Mars? Will it be NASA, an international consortium of nations, or private enterprise?
I was just reading the BBC about lab-grown burgers, maybe this will be a good way forward to feed those living on mars, but again 10 years is optimistic maybe 20 years ideal for NASA in 2033
I too noted that.
You may have read the rationale for this development was to reduce the environmental impact and having to raise and slaughter millions of animals daily. More greenhouse gases are emitted by raising cattle than by all of the automobiles in the world. Vast quantities of water are required as well.
The technology for creating Petri-burgers is likely to be beyond the scope of what can be done on Mars. Meat, even raised in dishes, is unhealthy. This particular research is being done because people become used to eating meat, and it’s hard to get them to change even if it’s proven to be harmful to them. It would be easier just to have everyone stop eating beef, pork, and other mammal meats. We know that won’t happen. So, we’re seeking an alternative that has less negative impact on the planet.
Another point is about Tooth Ache, there will need to be some very clever developments to be able to provide it. On Mars will there need to be some sort of Medical AI Robot and full Medical database?
In answer to your last sentence, an AI medical robot is a very unlikely development. A full medical database is almost certain to be included on suitable media and would take very little space or mass.
Settlers must be self-sufficient and so will certainly be trained in medical procedures. These will include tooth extraction as well as the obvious bone setting, suturing, infusing of saline solution, use of anesthesia, sterile conditions, excision of lesions, and so on.
Dentistry is making large technological strides of late. It may be that in 10-15 years, properly trained people will be able to fix ordinary dental problems without years of study.
The 2 biggest problems I see about the proposed plan is the scale and water.
first the scale. According to their site, they plan to send ahead 2500kgs of supplies. so in 2023 you will have a crew of 4 with anough food, water,air,tools,machinery etc. that would fit into a large moving van. and those figures do not include the proposed solar cells or batteries as you pointed out in previous posts would blow the 2500kg figure off the map. so you have 2 men, 2 woman and a van full of equipment and food on a planet with sparse energy and their only resorce being dirt. outside the pages of a sci-fi novel I cant see how they could do anything other then huddle in the dark and hope to live one more day.
and those days would be very limited because aside from the radiation the one thing Mars One has been very good and side stepping is the issue of water and air. Both of these will need to be shipped in massive quantities, the proposed figure of 2500kg of supplies cannot possibly include air and water because even if that figure ONLY accounted for air and water it would not be nearly enough to sustain them for 2 years. so that leaves us with attaining water from Mars itself. The website does a good job of mumbling something about getting water from the soil but this is 100% untested and a complete wildcard. and again stretching the realms of sci-fi to think that they could extract enough water from the frozen soil to maintain all 4 of them for 2 years. The only confirmed source of water is at the poles, thousands and thousands of Kilometers away. So in order to make this venture work you cannot send 4 people and a box of hand tools and some seeds, you would need a massive venture, dozens of men and woman with a ship loaded with generators, building equipment, earth movers, and kilometers of pipeline. essentially your first priority would be to send enough crew and equipment to build a mining and processing plant at the pole. oh and a very very large nuclear generator to provide the energy because again as you pointed out solar energy alone barely gives them candle light and enough warmth not to freeze to death…..maybe.
so can it be done with existing technology? yes I believe so…if it was a national or multi national venture stretching into the trillions of dollars then yes I believe without enough manpower and enough money we could gain a foothold on the planet but this pump up aproach of sending two couples, a hammer and a box of seeds is foolhardy at best.
And that’s assuming they survive the landing because aside from shelter and resources the other issue they are very tight lipped on is actually landing there. in 2012 NASA was over the top with back patting and joy at the fact that they landed something the size of a small car safely on the surface. by comparison the supply ship and colony ship will be the size of a house. That feat alone will take more then our current level of engineering.
Assuming the 4 man crew does not invent replicators to turn rocks into food,air,water and holly movies then you will have to grow the colony by feeding it supplies. this turns into a logistically nightmare because you want the colony to grow, so you send supplies with 4 colonists, 2 years later you send 4 more colonists only this time you need twice as many supplies, then 2 years later another 4 colonists only this time you need even more supplies. and this supply train would continue to grow and grow. the website says they plan for the colony to be self sustaining within 10 years but even if the colony survived and had some breakthrough by then that would allow them to become self sustaining, getting to that point is beyond realistic, at the 10 year mark we would be sending a supply ship that would rival a trans Atlantic freight ship in size. Even if the reality show took off, there is no way they could generate enough profit to maintain a supply mission of that scale.
The colony must be self sufficient within a few weeks to months in four life necessities: food, air, water, and energy. Without those, the entire mission is hopeless. Given sufficient energy, they can manage the others if a source of underground frozen water is close by. You can make oxygen from water. You can scrub the CO2 from the air with energy. You can grow food with light energy, water, CO2, and some basic nutrients that will be recycled: nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, and trace nutrients that are available even on Mars.
The supply problems the remain are more prosaic: clothing, toothbrushes, machinery, and the like. These wear out and break. With no organic resources, settlers will have to be capable of repairing or replacing all of these.
As you imply, some of these are short-term issues while others are long-term. Clothing can be patched until new clothing arrives from Earth in the short term. In the long term, settlers must grow fibers to turn into thread, yarn, and cloth. The first four settlers would not be expected to have that capability. The necessary skills and equipment would come later.
They’ll have 3D printers. Thermoplastic feedstock will have to replenished for quite some time as will other feedstock as more advanced printers arrive. Eventually, Mars will have to find a way to refine raw materials, plant and mineral. That will be a challenge.
Freighters will not be necessary, but good planning will. A more important sustainability will be Earth-bound funding. Keeping the cash flowing for ten years will be another large challenge.
Hi Don,
Well, we assume two men and two women. The first colonists will, by the organizers’ admission, not be allowed to reproduce. The environment will be too harsh for infants and small children. Having one of these die on their reality TV would destroy ratings.
WRT huddling in the dark, they will very much be living from day to day in a cold, dim environment but not as stark as you suggest.
The planners have a plan for radiation that turns the habitat into an above-ground cave. They’ll heap three meters of lovely Martian regolith over it. This effort will take many months, but radiation can be tolerated for up to three years before a lifetime exposure is reached — with the expected levels.
WRT water, there’s good evidence, although not proof yet, that water still flows on Mars. It’s just in one small area very specially situated and depends on the fact that highly contaminated water can stay liquid down to very low temperatures, almost to dry ice temperatures.
Nevertheless, you are right about no proven location with water. Realize that much of the water will come with the settlers on the initial modules and will be recycled. They will only have to add to that supply to replace water lost to oxygen generation, leaks, and so on. They may only have to make a liter or so each week from local sources.
They will certainly have to have a better source of heat than solar cells. I have some ideas about that in Martian Rhapsody.
And, you’re also right about the habitat modules being the size of a very small house. Most of these won’t have to land as softly as Curiosity, and the final crew module can be softly landed by a good pilot. The first ones have to work independently and so won’t necessarily be able to land so softly but won’t have to.
We can put four people on Mars in 10-15 years with enough supplies and know-how to last for about a year. Some good fortune along with incredibly great planning will be necessary for that. Due to the unexpected problems and even the expected ones being worse than we thought, the one-year milestone is crucial. They have to make it to two years. That will be tough. Just one serious problem will leave them with no backup. They’ll have used up extra supplies and/or cannibalized equipment just to survive. Another serious problem before the two-year resupply will spell the end of these brave and/or foolhardy adventurers.
Recall that many of our early explorers from the fifteenth to the twentieth century lost their lives on what many considered foolhardy escapades. What happened to Amelia Earhart?
If we can put people on Mars successfully for two years and then piggyback that success with four more — and so on, then the real issue will be making Mars itself livable. Martian Rhapsody explores this issue too.
The unexpected may lurk on Mars, something no one thought possible. I’m not talking about aliens or ghosts real scientifically rationale dangers that are not be considered. Martian Rhapsody takes a pass at that as well.
As you point out, the mission is theoretically possible but everything we have discussed in this post so far puts an enormous emphasis on the theoretical part. the mission MIGHT succeed if they are infused with a fantastic streak of good luck. As you pointed out. a single single mistake or piece of back luck (bad leak, decompressed modual) will endanger them, more then one accident may doom them. as you also pointed out the first settlers in any grand exploration mission met with sickening fatality rates but while many have compared this mission to previous historical missions I would like to counter that all of the previous explorations in history had a huge advantage over the Mars One colonists: they all had air and water, even if the land was harsh there was still rain and they could all live off the land because the land could grow crops. these are all advantages the Martian colonists do not have.
The other major difference between past settlements and this proposed one is the scale. South America, The west, Australia, each of these were explored by large expeditions so the fatality rates could be absorbed. Lets assume you have a colony of 100 people and you loose half your crew in the first few months due to accidents and illness. you still have 50 explorers, the mission is viable. If the Mars One suffers a 50% loss they are down to two people and the odds are overwhelming that they will die shortly thereafter.
all of this aside, Probably the biggest hole in this plan is the fact that they are doing a blind drop. they will send a rover to look for a good spot but a rover can only tell you so much, then they will drop 4 people with no way back. I think this is a stroke of hideous negligence on the part of the planners. I think in order to make a successful colony you absolutely need advance scouts. It is a must that you plan for a team with a return trip to scout out the environment for a few months first then report back. As you pointed out there are no doubt unforeseen dangers.
This fear of unforeseen danger is emphasized by the fact that we only recently discovered that the soil on mars is covered in toxic chlorinated salts. Until this point we had no ready to think the dirt on Mars was fundamentally different then our own but now we know that the soil posses an extreme health risk. The idea that we may encounter another deadly surprise is very high.
Don, you hit on the biggest hole in the plans. The settlement location must be known more thoroughly, especially with respect to water resources. We know that they’re there somewhere under the surface, but no one can look deeply enough to estimate the volume available. We can only send so much water in the modules. Enough to last for two years, even with recycling, could scrub the entire mission.
While perchlorates (not exactly chlorinated salts) are not your normal Earth salts, they are very soluble and are readily removed from the dirt. With some clever chemistry, they could even help produce energy. Heating them produces oxygen, another useful resource. They are strong oxidants and would not be something you’d like in your greenhouse soil or food, but they’re not toxic in the sense that arsenic, lead, and cyanide are. Upon decomposition of sodium perchlorate, you have ordinary salt and oxygen.
Your remark about the unexpected is on point, nevertheless. In ten years, we can expect to know much more. Will it be sufficient to guarantee success? I doubt that we’ll ever be able to guarantee success. Will the likelihood of success reach the point of success in crossing a busy street or flying around the world? Perhaps. How about comparing it to scaling Everest? Lots of people spend lots of money to do that despite very strong risk of death. If going to Mars can have that low (or high depending on viewpoint) of a risk factor, then it will happen.
There are many factors that can cause failure before or shortly after landing on Mars. They can all be minimized (but not eliminated). It’s survival past one Earth year that concerns me the most. So much can go wrong in that first year including insanity.
Don,
You mention the ability to grow crops etc. that other pioneers had. To me that’s no big deal. What those earlier pioneers did have was a large energy resource in trees. They also had building material in wood.
On Mars, there are no buried or living energy sources. There’s nothing you can use as a building material. Even if there were, it wouldn’t be airtight. You could not breathe the air even if you could compress to breathable pressures. Both the CO2 and CO content are toxic.
No, you won’t see a Martian settler sitting on a porch whittling Martian rocks.
Only by injecting lots of oxygen into the air can the future of Mars become viable for people. Only by having really good solar power can a modern society become possible there, although higher air pressure would make wind power feasible due to the very high speed of wind on a planet without a large moon.
On physicsforums.com we had discussed possible colony solutions (assuming a blank check budget) and several had suggested landing in a crater and sealing off the top and installing solar cells over the sealed surface of the crater. this would give you an enclosed environment where the geology did most of the work for you in excavating the earth for your settlement (is it still earth if you are on Mars?).
Do you think sealing off the top of the Crater would be enough? would the walls of the crater keep an airtight seal?
I have doubts that solar panels over the top of the crater would be enough, unless solar energy becomes a magnitude more efficient in the future I maintain that the colonists would need to rely heavily on nuclear energy.
Of course sealing off the top of the crater doesn’t do much good for radiation unless you formed the seal out of a massive network of tubes and filled those tubes with liquid hydrogen. to keep the hydrogen refrigerated would take even more energy.
Water would work but would freeze. The Mars One plan of 3 meters of dirt seems the least awful of all alternate schemes. However, the task of covering a crater would be overwhelming on energy-poor Mars.
As far as the highly theoretical issue of airtight crater walls, the surfaces are not smooth and would pose a problem where the artificial cover met them. You certainly could find a sealant if you decided to do this, but it’s too much of a mid twentieth-century science-fiction approach. Covering a crater is way too ambitious for early Mars missions.
For long-term Mars life, two things are crucial. One is air. The other is energy. If those can be fixed, then Mars settlements are feasible. Eventually, you might even see plants growing on Mars.
I have to add that air on Mars (above the 0.01 bar there now) would be a curse and a blessing at the same time. With maybe 0.1 bar of 90+% oxygen, you could breathe the air if you adapted long enough. Having 0.15 bar or 0.2 bar would be much better. However, denser air would mean stronger winds. Given that the wind speeds reach 200 mph today, what would a more dense air do at those speeds?
It would do two things. Firstly, it would be able to drive wind power generators for lots and lots of power. Secondly, it would blow down most structures and unprotected plants, especially trees.
I have to assume that engineers can solve the problems and that air on Mars must happen to use the planet for living. It’s an enormous undertaking that I’ve considered in Martial Rhapsody along with many of the other things were discussing.
I believe the minimal stable pressure for a human to breath in is .53 bars. I think .1 bar is still way to thin.
I agree with that that the key to all of this lies in energy. with enough energy anything is possible and while the crater idea is far fetched, the reason we were considering it was based on the idea of starting off with a large enough space for a colony to grow rather then Begin with a small modual and having to expand out. but again this would be dependent on vast energy supplies.
The Crater Idea not withstanding, and assuming access to a powerful energy supply I think Liquid Hydrogen would be a better solution for radiation protection then using water or soil. first it would be more effective then water and its 14 times less massive then water so you wouldn’t have nearly the issues of strain and stress on the modual walls. but again this all comes down to energy because solar panels just wouldn’t do it. the Hydrogen would have to be kept at -253C to be stable. Using soil walls is far more energy conservative but opens up a can of worms when considering structural integrity .
One final advantage to using Liquid hydrogen shielded walls is that they could be transparent and allow sunlight into greenhouses and such.
I did some quick calculations a while back that fit with what my gut feeling was. Three meters of sand produces a pressure of about 1/5 atm. Given the necessary internal air pressure, it should come close to a balance. Structural integrity would be better without the air pressure constantly threatening to explode the habitat.
People live now at altitudes that have a pressure of around 0.75 bar. You cannot go much lower without oxygen supply issues. However, that’s at about 1/5 fraction of oxygen in the air. Having 100% oxygen would be toxic at 1.0 bar. Our space missions, I believe, use 100% oxygen at around 0.2 bar. I’ll have to check, but if so, then we could drop to the partial pressure of O2 at altitude, maybe 100% oxygen at 0.16 bar would even work. Someone must have studied all of this for space flight long ago.
Liquid hydrogen is just too exotic for a primitive situation such as the first Mars settlement.
The following article details how people have adapted to living at extremely high altitudes and subsequently, very low pressure but no human has adapted to the point where they can survive at 25,000ft above sea level (aprox. .37 bars).
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n…evolution.html
Of course the article I am citing is talking about Earthbound respiration of typical Nitrogen/Oxygen air. As you stated, using pure O2 would alter the pressure requirements but I am still skeptical of going as low as .16bars.
this conversation is beyond expectations.
thank you for all the information leading to the conclusion that i don’t want to be apart of the mars one mission.
James,
Thank you for visiting. My personal preference is being a part of the conversation but not the actual mission.
There were those who attempted to reach the South pole. They knew the risks were severe and many perished. I’m simply not THAT person.
I am all for the idea of exploration. I think exploring Mars and even setting up an outpost would be a tremendous scientific milestone. It is just this particular approach to that mission that I have doubt and criticism for. If NASA announced they were going to Mars in 2023 I would believe it. But as we have pointed out the many holes over the last few months, Mars One has a very noble dream but unfortunately not a lot of reality behind that dream.
With Inspiration Mars aiming for 2018 and NASA looking at a round trip in around 15 years, Mars One is merely pushing the envelope. Well, not merely. They have money on their minds too.
I maintain that 2023 is just a magic number that’s too far to discount entirely the possibility of new inventions and lots of money making it possible. It’s simultaneously soon enough to capture people’s imaginations. Any slip would have to be around two years. IF they stay in business, I’m betting on a double slip to 2027 (give or take due to two years being imprecise). They probably know that that’s a more reasonable date but would not have 100,000 people ponying up money to be considered if they told the truth.
This sort of show person always stretches the truth and sometimes tells outright lies. Why not 2023, you can imagine them saying among themselves, it’s POSSIBLE. Sure, it’s unlikely in the extreme, but after around five years, we can just announce that unexpected engineering problems force a delay of two years. So, it’s 2018 and the date is now in 2025, only seven years hence. In 2021, they make another similar announcement for a launch date of 2027. Gee, only six more years, but now they’re in the soup because they have to send their first unmanned supply modules six years before manned launch.
This simple fact makes the above scenario a joke. The real drop-dead date is six years before launch or 2017 for the 2023 launch date. That’s when the first supply launch must happen. Only magic will get us there from here, IMO. OTOH, ten years to first supply launch is entirely possible. Even eight could be made with some luck and lots (and lots and lots) of sweat and money. That logic puts them pretty much aligned with NASA’s schedule for the first landing and return.
Oops! NASA getting there at the same time would take lots of wind out of their sails.
Finally, I just think that going it alone is a losing strategy for a program of this magnitude. Now that they’ve made their splash, they should seek partners such as NASA to help make the entire program of Mars exploration a reality and not just a reality show.
the very fact that the majority of the mission was being funded by a reality TV show put me on the offensive right away.
The many technical issues and engineering and logistical problems not withstanding let us look at the reality TV portion that is set to fund this whole operation.
They have announced that the reality TV program will begin right away and take us from the beginning, starting with the initial pool of applicants then follow them through training and selection until we have the final group of colonists, which the audience will ultimately choose.
This is a 10 year process (assuming they don’t postpone like you predict Harry…which I am inclined to agree with you) so this show will go on for 10 years following the rigorous training and selection processes….. I am doubtful that it would capture people’s attention for more then a season. As evidence I submit a reality TV show many years ago that followed Cirque du Soleil, the selection of various applicants and their training to join the troupe. it was fairly low on drama as reality TV shows go and as such it lasted I believe 13 episodes. That brings me to my main point: Drama. reality TV shows are fueled by drama, its a staple and very much expected ingredient. those shows that have lasted many years have mastered how to milk as much drama and back stabbing as possible out of reality TV casts. This same formula would spell disaster for a real life mission such as sending people into space. If the mission is to have any chance of success you want your crews to work together as well as possible and have the absolute minimum of drama. But no drama would mean no interest and thus no ratings.
Even assuming that the show manages to limp along for 10 years, we then have the catch that the audience picks the crew, again this spells disaster in more languages then I can speak because a random selection based on who seems more glamorous or more devious or more exciting (as interpreted by Joe public) is NOT the crew you want to send on an extremely dangerous and sensitive mission.
Then the crew lands on Mars and the show is broadcasting their exploits 24/7 (according to the website) again technical issues of streaming live video from Mars not withstanding, The audience on this planet will not stay glued to their seats day in and day out to watch 4 people sitting in pods and not moving much or doing a lot of anything exciting (because in a limited environment you want to conserve as much energy as possible) so the audience decides after a few months that they have followed the show for 10 years, they know the crew, they watched the crew get there, the crew doesn’t seem to do anything so they get bored and turn off their sets (or tablets),
…….
Now what? This was your whole plan to keep these 4 men and woman alive, this was your cash cow. This was how you were going to fund a steady stream of supplies to Mars….but the show goes off the air so what do you do now? how do you get supplies to your crew? will the government step in and fund emergency relieve? which government, this was an international hodge podge….. and as we all know international co-operation is an effortless and speedy process right?
Even if the show stayed on the air, sending a supply ship will cost hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars. That in and of itself should raise enough red flags to keep this plan from making it off paper.
So Engineering and science aside I think The first responsibility that Mars One has is to come up with a realistic model to properly fund and support the colonists before they build some much as a single seat for the ship.
Hi Don,
You have explained very well one of the three major problems with this effort. The first is the obvious technical issues. The second is having settlers maintain sanity in the face of an unending, dull, and hostile environment outside the habitat and a dull and monotonous internal environment the same four people for at least two years. The third is raising the money and keeping it flowing over the continuing two-year cycle as you have explained.
Without the threat of giant insects or other Martian life, the reality show quickly becomes very dull. Little changes. Instead of 24/7 live streaming, weekly digests of the best moments may work. Only about 43 minutes are required for an hour show after all. Also, only about 22 episodes are required per year to make money so that you can skip around. The summer especially can use some decent programming.
Still, without some sort of “hook,” the show will have only the most Mars-loving viewers, perhaps not enough to generate the requisite viewership. I think that Mars One is foolish and not really very creative to limit themselves to this funding mode. If they attempt to do so, then the first manned launch will simply not happen, either because of insufficient funds for the various launches or because it will be obvious that they won’t be able to continue and so will be launching a suicide mission, albeit a very slow suicide on Mars without any resupply or additional people.
Having the audience involved in picking the crew is very foolish unless there’s really not much difference among the final choices. Even so, the audience vote must not be decisive.
I have ideas about solving these problems. I hope that Mars One does too or will just admit that the entire idea was folly. Without more ideas, better ideas, and not so much of a Pollyanna attitude, this plan will fail.
I agree with you that there is a very high probability that this endeavor will fail. there are just too many question marks. Mars One seems to be taking an overly optimistic approach that unfortunately is unwarranted due to lack of preparations. Years ago there was article stressing the proper preparations when trekking in the wilderness. The article stemmed from a local story in Alaska where a young out of towner hick hiked his way into the rural country with the dream of back packing through the hard country, wanted to recapture the spirit of the great explorers. the last town he passed through ( I forget the name as its been 15 years) the locals warned him that it was foolish because he had no prior experience with camping or any wilderness training at all. he optimistically insisted he could do it and set out of town. he was found dead from exposure two weeks later. I get the same feeling when I read about Mars One.
I stressed in my last post all the problems with the idea of funding through a reality program but the biggest problem is that its not permanent. in order for this to work the need to plan for a continuous source of income for supplies and unfortunately that is the stopping point, greater then all the technical hurdles because the one thing as a race that we have not achieved is a guarantee of continuous funding for anything. call it a weakness of our economy but nothing lasts forever. Forever is what you need to plan for in this case because you have no return trip. Even if the Mars reality TV becomes the Truman show of real life and it brought forth a river of funding….nothing lasts forever. no show in history has lasted forever(not even the Truman Show). No government sponsored program has lasted forever. Even some of the most successful companies in history eventually fade.
Mars One gives no worry to the lack of continuous funding because their plan hinges on the flawed premise that the colony will be self sustaining in 10 years. But that will not be the case. As we explored earlier here, it will take a tremendous effort. a staggering amount of manpower and machinery and mind boggling amounts of power before the colony can provide for itself. that wont happy in 10 years with 20 people and a handful of pods and solar cells.
The only two ways this could work is if The colonists had a lock in for continuous supplies and manpower, not just 20 colonists and 10 years of supplies but an ever increasing chain of supplies and people and many decades, perhaps centuries before they could produce everything they need. The other way would be for a huge nationwide or planet wide shove in the beginning. trillions of dollars and a massive push of factories and landscape altering. Mars One offers neither of those approaches. thus their plan is doomed from the start.
Hi Don,
Good analysis. I am also not sanguine but not quite as gloomy as you.
On Mars itself money is, of course, useless. Getting supplies from Earth for a new trips will be very important for survival. The big trick will be transitioning to self-sustaining. It’s not impossible, just super unlikely with today’s technology.
The settlers can grow enough food to survive. They can have enough heat and electricity for maybe 100 years. If they can get enough additional supplies before Earth cuts them off, they can last longer.
One hundred years is a long time. By the end of a century, self-sustaining Martian colonies may well be very possible. Even the gloomiest of pundits would concede that.
So, it’s all about the next year, the next two years, the next decade, etc. after first landing. I see a number of critical milestones that can spell success or death (and failure, of course).
First off, let’s all agree that living conditions will be harsh, physically and mentally. That harshness (no medical facilities, no picnic parks, and so on) will grind into the beings of the settlers and may unsettle them sufficiently to doom the entire enterprise. “You mean you REALLY meant it when you said no return?!”
Assuming that the more direct technical problems can be overcome (getting there, radiation shielding, water sources, electrical sufficiency, air leak prevention, and so on), the settlers will soon be living a dull and spare life. Spare supplies along with good planning will allow survival for about a year, assuming no catastrophe.
The second year will be a huge challenge. Things will begin to wear out. Some may not have been planned for adequately. Settlers will have to cannibalize one machine to repair another and may run out of options before the two-year mark. If the funding continues, then two years on, the relief column arrives. Also, if people are turned off by viewing the setters’ lives, recruitment could be a serious problem.
With four new settlers and more supplies, the surviving original settlers have a better shot at another two years. If funding and volunteers can continue for the entire five-launch sequence, then they have a small chance to go to twenty years. (Lots of ifs here.)
The long-term survival of a Martian colony depends heavily on altering the atmosphere. Without a plan for that, it’s all futile.
I am not gloomy about the prospects of a martian colony….just the prospects of a Mars One Colony. :)
If I honestly thought they were serious I might give them more support.
I agree that if they can make it to the century mark they will have good odds but getting to that point in the manner currently laid out will take a lot of innovations and a much beefier funding plan. Its entirely possible that if they can make it to the century mark then they could conceivably constructed facilities to manufacture batteries and solar cells as well as other synthetics such as 3D printer stock. getting to the point where they can construct those facilities will be really amazing but I wont say impossible because a century is a very long time for us. In the last century we have transformed our society to a degree that would be difficult for the average person from 1913 to comprehend. so I am willing to believe that if we set up camp on Mars and can keep the colony maintained for the next century who knows what will be around to assist them.
Yes, it’s a great deal about how and when to start. It’s also about what to do about air.
Currently, manufacturing on Mars is not a possibility but it must be someday.
In the short run, technology can probably allow a subsistence sort of living on Mars for a time. Repairs will be a major issue, and spare parts must be available as well as spare raw materials. Three-D printing will be very advanced in ten years and could be an important part of the repair system. The design for a given part could be sent from Earth for the printers. At least one printer might use solar power directly to fuse Mars “sand” to make parts. We cannot know exactly where 3-D printing will be in ten years and so cannot make better predictions. It could be the savior of a future Mars settlement project.
True manufacturing of larger objects requires raw materials. Currently all such operations require refining of ores or of petroleum feedstock. The latter will not be available on Mars. Vegetable feedstock from farming will be to small to use for organic-based manufacturing. Refining of inorganic materials requires lots of digging, which must have plenty of energy. Then, the actual refining of, for example, iron oxides to iron metal takes lot more energy. Energy is in short supply on Mars. Currently, only solar energy is available. In ten years, the technology could be better, more efficient and more robust, but there’s an upper limit to efficiency of solar cells and we’re already about 1/5 of the way there with no real hope of reaching 100%. The same is true of battery technology. For batteries, nanotechnology holds the hope for much better batteries with higher energy density and longer life.
If solar cell and battery technology advance rapidly enough, then a Mars settlement in under 20 years becomes less of a subsistence venture, and the hope of huge solar arrays creating large amounts of energy could presage real manufacturing, but there’s a catch. The solar cells and batteries would have to be capable of being made on Mars — a bootstrap operation.
The other major change on Mars must be air. Current space suits use 100% oxygen at 1/5 of atmospheric pressure (if I have my facts right) to get the same partial pressure of oxygen as we have here. You can reduce that to 1/6 atm and still function well. How much oxygen would you have to generate on Mars to reach that level across the entire planet? Where would the oxygen come from? How much energy would be required to release it? These are important questions for the long-term future of Mars. Lichen won’t do. They’d take millenia.
Recent Advances in both Battery tech and solar cells make the future of Mars habitation look a little more realistic. There is currently an untested design for a new cell that if it pans out will double the efficiency of Solar power generation. 3D printing has had a huge impact on battery tech as well, I just read an article on it and it seems with 3D printers they can produce cells that are truly tiny yet no less efficient so you get a battery of the same size but with much higher density. If both of these designs take hold it would greatly improve our prospects.
As for Terra forming, that’s a distant prospect. I agree one that is needed if we are ever to truly thrive on Mars but large scale alteration of a planet’s biosphere takes unbelievable amounts of energy and time. As you pointed out as well, where would the O2 come from? everything comes from somewhere. currently and even in the near future we don’t have anywhere near the technology or energy to produce a planet wide amount of O2. If Mars had Oceans and we have an unlimited energy supply we could release the O2 from the water over a course of many generations. But that would take more water then Mars currently has, even at the polar caps.
If we look into the very distant future, if we branch out and gain the capability of our entire solar system (what Dr. Michio Kaku refers to as a type II civilization) then it becomes possible because we could tap the raw materials of other bodies in the system. Transport the water from Europa and Nitrogen from Titan and you could construct an atmosphere like our own. But currently this is the purest of Sci-Fi talk, we are easily a thousand years from such an ambitious plan.
Any currently permanent facility on Mars will have to remain a closed one, with enough time an energy I would think moving the living facilities underground would be best but again this is going to take generations of excavation.
stay tuned for the next 100 years.
Thank you for the continuing dialog, Don.
Yes, we must have nearly unlimited energy for Mars. May the fusion projects bear fruit!
An interesting side note. Mars above the permafrost level is strangely devoid of hydrogen, the most common element in the universe — by a huge margin. This lack may have important consequences for the future of Mars settlements. Can’t say for sure how much. On Earth the surface is saturated (in a sense) with hydrogen.
Harry its always a pleasure to have someone you can hold an intelligent conversation with.
I actually had no read about the lack of hydrogen but I am very curious, do you have a citation?
Sorry, Don. That’s merely a surmise based on evidence accumulated during my research. The air has none. It’s mostly CO2. The rocks are not hydrated, at least not on the surface. There are no hydrocarbons (surprise! haha).
Any hydrogen is buried. How deeply? Can’t say. Could be just a meter or less.
Water not only sublimates at the surface but is broken into oxygen and hydrogen by the strong UV and other ionizing radiation strafing the surface of Mars. Once H2 forms in the Martian air, it has the highest velocity of any air molecule. I’s also the least dense and so rises naturally to the heights of the atmosphere where its high velocity readily overcomes the weak pull of Martian gravity and it’s off to space with the hydrogen.
Reading analyses of Martian “soil” shows no hydrogen-containing minerals. It’s fairly certain now that Mars has water frozen beneath the surface where the regolith is sufficiently deep. Where else might hydrogen reside in more than trace amounts?
You won’t find any LiH or BeH2 or boron hydrides on the rather oxidized surface of Mars. It has perchlorates! Any CH4 would be long gone as would any NH3. Too volatile. We know about H2O. HF? Forget it. That’s the first 8-element period. As for Na, Mg, Al, Si, P, S, and Cl, well, those are mostly oxides where you find them. I haven’t see any suggestions of NaOH, Mg(OH)2, Al hydroxides, or even H2S.
It’s just something that caught my fancy.
If Hydrogen were more plentiful it could have been a real boon to the colonists. assuming sufficient energy and easy access to hydrogen you can extract alot of resources. Mix the Hydrogen with with CO2 we exhale and you can synthesize water and methane, store the methane and you now have another energy source. consume some of water and use the rest to break it down to hydrogen and oxygen. breath the oxygen and exhale CO2, mix the CO2 with the Hydrogen and repeat.
Not quite so simple. CO2 + H2 -> C + H2O (not balanced). Further reduction of C to make methane will not happen so readily. While thermodynamically favored, this reaction has a very large activation energy. Even heating carbon in hydrogen to rather high temperatures produces C2H2 (acetylene) instead of methane.
Four people will produce a relatively trivial amount of CO2 in any event. I say relatively because in terms of water and carbon production, it’s not very useful.
Note also that H2 is a nice fuel in its own right. I imagine the ships to Mars operating on H2 + O2 and having some left over in the tanks to use for burning more slowly for heat and water — maybe even to use in fuel cells.
If any hydrogen were available on Mars, it would not be in the free form of H2 gas. It would be bound up in compounds, mostly water, and would be unavailable. OTOH, generation of oxygen in the habitat would most likely be by electrolysis of water, and that would create H2 as a by-product. It would take energy to compress it for storage. How to use it afterward is unclear. Making water would use up precious oxygen.
The key to Mars is oxygen. Would be interesting to calculate exactly how many metric tonnes of O2 would be required to create a pressure on Mars of 1/6 bar. Not exactly sure how to make this calculation. Perhaps, assume the end result. Treat air as though all at same pressure. Calculate mass of column of O2 at that pressure to get pressure. Shouldn’t be too hard as a rough estimate. Multiply amount of O2 per unit area by area of Martian surface. O2 is 32 g/mol. STP gives us 22.4 l/mol. Multiply by 6 to get Martian end result desired: 134.4 l/mol or about 1/4 g/l. The pressure we seek is 1/6 bar or 16,666 N/m^2. Mars gravity is 38% of Earth. Earth’s acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s^2; on Mars it’s 3.7 m/s^2. F=ma. One liter of O2 at 1/6 bar on Mars weighs about 0.25 g/L * 1 l * 3.7 m/s^2 = 0.93 g-m/L-s^2. That’s 0.00093 kg-m/L-s^2 = 0.00093 N/L. One square meter of Mars surface must have 16,666 N of force from air pressure. That’s 16,666 / 0.00093 L = about 18 million liters. Mars surface area is about 144.8 million km^2. Call it 1.5×10^8 km^2 or 1.5×10^14 m^2. So we must make 2.7×10^15 liters of O2 (at Mars pressures) or around 6.7×10^14 g = 6.7×10^11 kg = 6.7×10^8 metric tonnes, 670 million metric tonnes of O2.
The number is huge but not astronomical.
I just realized that I could have done the calculation in a much shorter way. Sigh.
Those figures are assuming a 1/6 bar atmosphere of O2 but I think you would need to increase the figures because a pure O2 atmosphere would not be advisable. I did a little research and NASA no longer goes the pure oxygen at 20% pressure route anymore. the current atmosphere on the ISS is 101.3KPa with a high concentration of Nitrogen similar to Earth air. the pure O2 mixture was abandoned due to safety issues. apparently the solid O2 mixture resulted in a disaster for the Apllo 1 crew. (I actually didn’t know this, learn something new every day)
A solid atmosphere of O2 would have lots of complications, flammability being one of them. I would also think that free O2 would be highly reactive and readily mix with other compounds , including the gasses that the inhabitants would exhale. wouldn’t carbon monoxide begin to build up? correct me if I am wrong on that.
The Grissom et al. tragedy of Apollo I was due to a number of factors. One was 100% O2 at a pressure above atmospheric. Such high pressure oxygen causes otherwise inert materials to burn violently. The inside of the cabin was filled with velcro, which is such a material.
Reactions in gas phase have equilibria dependent upon partial pressures of the gases. We depend on our air having a partial pressure of oxygen of about 0.2 bar. Whether that’s 100% O2 at 0.2 bar, 50% O2 at 0.4 bar, or 20% O2 at 1.0 bar makes little difference.
Reaction rates are more complex, depending on numbers of collisions per unit time and the energy of those collisions (temperature). The lower pressure would tend to compensate for the higher concentration almost completely. The primary difference for fires is that the inert case might siphon off some of the energy and make a fire a bit less violent, but not markedly so.
While terraforming Mars would require more than just air, the air is crucial. It’s also the largest factor I see. The less of it you have to make, the better. Using pure O2 at partial pressures of high mountain villages is the best way to go. The advantages are huge. There’s nothing flammable on Mars, except what we bring there. However, flammability is not really an issue any more than it is here on Earth.
I cannot speak to NASA’s decisions regarding ISS or space suits. The space suits operate at 0.29 atm.
Thats good to know, thanks for clarifying. I didn’t take into account the lower pressure and also much cooler ambient temperature of Mars would help to stabilize things.
as to the space suits, I should have been more specific in my last post, it is only the ISS that keeps a full pressure near Earth Mix. the suits are still kept at low pressure pure O2 in order to allow flexibility, at a full bar of pressure the poor astronaut would be stiff as a board with his arms and legs jutting outward. personally I would have loved to be a fly on the wall during the early testing of the space program to see them figure that out through trial and error :D
I get the feeling that the ISS is kept at 1.01 bars for the comfort of the astronauts and cosmonauts. considering they spend 6 month tours up there, it makes for an easier transition back to earth if their bodies didn’t adapt to 1/5 pressure over the time there.
The expeditions up at the ISS also spend their time performing expermiments. most of the later expiditions have been concentrating on the effects of micro gravity on the body. from an experiment point of view, if you are looking for the effects one stimuli(or lack of stimuli) has on the body you would want all other conditions to be earth like to rule out contamination of the experiment.
that is my thought anyway.
I’m sure that you’re right about that. Have to wonder what the impact of lower pressure would be on long-term living. Also, what happens when astronauts don a space suit and leave the ISS for EVA. Won’t sudden lower pressure cause the bends as saturated N2 comes out of solution in blood. It works. So, they know what they’re doing.
Interesting side effect of having an entire module at low pressure is much lower boiling point of water. At around 0.16 bar, it’s something like 56°C. That’s far below 100°C. Couldn’t boil eggs. Good thing it’s well above body temperature, though. It’s near to the usual temperature of water heaters. Enough for a mild first-degree burn.
Re: 2nd comment. Could be right but at quite a price in equipment and heavier walls to keep in higher pressure. I guess you can test impact of pressure right on Earth but not microgravity.
Re: The bends. most people don’t think about that I bet. Decompression sickness is typically thought with deep sea divers but you are right on the money that its an issue for astronauts too. Space walks are not the instantaneous events that the movies portray, on the ISS (starting with expedition 12)the preparation for an EVA is an overnight stay in a special modual to normalize their bodies to the low pressure of the suit, during this preparation they pre breath pure O2 to help flush nitrogen from their bodies. that is also one of the reasons they breath pure O2 during their walks, flexibility of the suit is one, but breathing pure O2 further reduces the issues of decompression.
Back in the late 80s NASA build a Hard shell suit that used ball bearings for the joints. this design allowed for the occupant to be kept at full pressure. I never heard any follow ups on the design however and as far as I know it is not in use today so I guess they ran into issues with reliability of the joints staying flexible.
Keeping the Station at full pressure could also be for operational efficiency. If the station were kept at 1/5bar then any new crew coming onboard would have to sit in the airlock for 8-10 hours before boarding the station. By keeping the ISS at 101KPa, a crew can dock then come onboard right away.
Thank you, Don. Excellent contribution to this discussion.
Second comment is especially apropos. Good reasoning!
How about making a satelite which travels to ice asteroids and or other asteroids and then steers those asteroids to mars to increase gravity and water on mars to terraform it?
Hi Nick,
Very creative!
I’m not convinced that a greater gravity on Mars is necessary. It took millions of years, maybe tens of millions, to remove the atmosphere. If we can replace it, it will hang around for quite a while. Then, there’s the problem that an asteroid large enough to add even 1% to the Mars gravity would wreak havoc on Mars when it impacts the planet, sort of like the extinction of dinosaurs on Earth. I guess that wouldn’t be a problem if no one is there, but the times required to seek, find, and steer asteroids to Mars would be on the scale of many decades. I’m sure that we’ll have habitation on Mars by then. We have to find a faster way.
Assuming that you could make a robotic vessel with enough fuel to travel around the asteroid belt, find suitable asteroids, and nudge them toward Mars, the result could add to the water on Mars. Indications are that there is plenty of water on Mars to support human habitation. Possibly, additional water will not be necessary. The dangers to life on Mars, once it’s there, are too great to pursue this approach unless we delay settlement for a century or so.
Other challenges to using asteroids, would be the power and complexity of the craft needed. Right now our probes are amazingly complex yet extremely delicate and light weight objects. Currently NASA has plans to capture an near Earth asteroid but it will be an extremely small one, last reports I read said they were looking for an object a few meters in size. To re direct an asteroid that would have sizable amounts of water(likely hundreds of meters in size) would take tremendous amount of power to tug said object out of its path and precision direct it to land on a specific spot on Mars.
capturing asteroids might be a good idea for down the road, maybe not slamming them into Mars but parking them in Mars orbit so the colonists have ready access to water and other raw materials on the asteroid but this would have to be very far down the time line because our technology is just not there yet.
I agree that the technology for bringing asteroids to Mars is not fully developed. The theory is simple enough. Find asteroids in the right orbits so that you can “nudge” them out of orbit. It will take several years for that nudge to result in an encounter with Mars.
The precision simply does not exist to make that encounter result in an orbit around Mars. You’d have to meet the asteroid on its way and make some adjustments. I really don’t see that happening. It would also be quite difficult to pinpoint the “crash site” of the asteroid.
The whole scheme is extremely perilous and would produce only minute improvements in either gravity or water supply. In time, the low gravity may prove to be a boon. Fewer backaches, for example. :-)
Capturing primarily water and gas asteroids for Mars terraforming needs to be a priority, due to the potential for accidents once any kind of permanent infrastructure is established. It will be beneficial activity as the intercept must be made some distance away (and therefore detection and analysis even further out) so that it can be nudged into low Mars orbit with the least energy possible (we don’t want to land them, we want them to disintegrate 5 to 10 km above the surface). This operation requires precision rather than brute force with current technology – although we are capable of nuclear explosions, the most energy with the least mass that might be conceived of, that would be imprecise…
Although a nuclear charge that broke up an asteroid at the correct velocity and proximity might produce a very nice distribution of smaller pieces… At present I don’t believe it’s legal under space law to lift a nuke into orbit, so unless we have some way to assemble them off-planet (and even that would make a lot of folks very nervous) it’s not even an option. My preference would be fast, light intercepts at great distances where even a small nudge could have huge effect.
Now if I gave you an enormous chunk of frozen methane and water, could you convert that into fuel in situ?
Does anyone have an estimate of the fraction of asteroids that contain significant amounts of water versus those that are mostly rocky? Might be a needle in a haystack.
The final tally is not yet in on the amount of available water on Mars. Before spending lots of effort on the asteroid solution, we should know it’s necessary. There’s evidence of a large sea on the early Mars landscape.
The Martian atmosphere is thin (1% of Earth at surface) but strong enough to burn up high-speed small meteorites. What is the largest size that will burn up before hitting the surface? I don’t know. It’s certainly much smaller than on Earth.
Not sure about nukes to break up asteroids and send pieces to Mars. Being rocky, they’d have some elements that would become radioactive. Most half-lives are reasonably short, but the debris would be scattered all over the planet.
The time required for a nudged asteroid to reach Mars would be years.
A large chunk of frozen water and methane is unlikely to be found. If it were, it would have lots of sand and rocks in it. Heating those materials would jettison them into space unless confined. That means mining, transporting, sealing, heating (with solar electricity?), electrolyzing water to get H2 and O2 (with more solar — don’t need methane if you do that), and then funneling to rocket nozzles to burn. My take: beyond all hope.
What about a massively parallel effort?
Cheap erector vehicle accompanied by fourteen sensor vehicles; primary solar sail, secondary gas jets
X 10000
Erector sets up a mast, sensors rendezvous, whole thing turns into a solar sail and start to slow that puppy down.
Destination: near Mars orbital path.
It would be overly optimistic to aim for a breathable atmosphere, although it would be nice to at least grow edible crops out in the open.
Early goals would be to warm the planet and lower surface radiation (I can’t remember how much of our protection is due to atmosphere and how much to magnetosphere).
It would take decades for solar sails (if you could build and steer them remotely) to move even a small asteroid to Mars orbit. It’s all about momentum and inertia.
I would certainly aim for breathable atmosphere or at least an atmosphere that did not require Mars suits. Maybe the equivalent of scuba gear. The poisonous nature of Mars air would have to be changed and must oxygen added. Too much CO2 and CO in current atmosphere, if you can even call 1% of Earth an atmosphere.
I think it can be done within a generation, maybe faster IF we choose to do so. Getting the pressure up to at least 17% of Earth would be the major issue. As I’ve commented here, it would take 670 million metric tonnes of O2 to do that. This number is not astronomical. It’s not even mind-bending. It is, however, huge.
Blocking radiation is another story. The O2 would help with UV because of the O3 formation in upper atmosphere. No possible amount of air will stop cosmic and solar radiation of the high-energy ion type. We have lots of air PLUS magnetic field to deflect and stop ions. Outdoor activities on Mars would be limited — forever. We cannot get that core magneto going on Mars. There is the possibility of generating local magnetic fields to shield colonies IF enough energy can be found.
No remote steering – completely autonomous. Knows only what it’s looking for (less than 500m diameter, greater than 50% potential liquid and gas) where it is, where Mars orbit is and how to achieve a reasonably gentle meeting of the two by dragging its butt. Decades is probably the time-frame we need to look at for terraforming.
Main drawback is that it interferes with any human activity in the vicinity until the operation is over, although it would take several years for incoming to begin. They need a self-destruct, something that detects an hourly ping from Earth within some time frame – six months maybe – and failing that is armed.
That and you would feel like superman, at least until your body
acclimated to the lower gravity. but when you first got there you
could impress your friends by leaping over the habitat in a single
bound :)
I agree that the technology and mathematics to use Asteroids in the
manner we were speaking is way off, its not feasible for anytime in the
foreseeable future. Crashing them into the surface would not only
endanger any settlement there, but if you *coudlnt* pinpoint where the
asteroid crashed it would be useless to the settlement because
realistically if the rock was rich in water and metals but landed even
100 miles away it might as well be a world away as far as the early
settlement is concerned. point in reference: your scenario for the
colony on Mars
Rhapsody.
I don’t think anyone *knows* what the long-term effects of 38% gravity would be except for a certain measure of osteoporosis and some muscle atrophy. I doubt that it’s quantitative at this time.
Given that P.E. = mgh and that your jump effort puts a certain amount of energy into it, you should be able to jump about 2-1/2 times as high as on Earth. At my age, I can jump about a foot. :-( So, leaping over the habitat is not in the cards for me. Some volleyball players I know can jump three feet or more and would be able to hit the 8-foot mark on Mars. Wow! Imagine volleyball on Mars. Imagine basketball where even the weak players can dunk with ease — until their muscles atrophy. Imagine football where you can pass the length of the field readily (as a pro quarterback) and ends can jump up and reach to 15 feet to snag a pass. Soccer would not change all that much except that kicking the ball in the air would more often result in out of bounds. Baseball would be impossible because nearly every fly ball would become a home run. Water sports would mostly be the same, though.
On the other topic, distances would be a huge problem early on. Eventually, a long-distance rover would have to become available. I see NASA and NSF funding such a development so that settlers can range far to do science for them. It’s one export that Martians can provide — Mars science. Nothing physical can be exported from Mars to Earth at anything close to a rational cost. You could send back Mars “trophies” (rocks, for example) for millionaires though.
I agree that any sort of physical export from Mars inst likely until a much more efficient transport is invented. So Far the Orion Project is the only feasible rapid transport I have see that had possibilities. It was developed back int he 50s but it relied on a Nuclear pulse propulsion system and fallout was a major issue. the VASIMR engine claims it is theoretically possible to get it Mars in 5 months but that’s just on paper. in reality they don’t yet have a power source that could sustain a trip that far.
But even at our primitive level of transport I feel that return trip is a necessity before we start putting anyone on Mars. The idea of a one way trip I feel just isn’t realistic. cheaper perhaps but even if the crew understands the risk I don’t think any responsible organization would strand 4 people with no hope of return.
“I don’t think any responsible organization would strand 4 people with no hope of return.”
Well, we have no shortage of irresponsible people here on Earth.
Mars One is intent on stranding not just four, but four, then eight, then twelve, then sixteen, then twenty people on Mars. As though, somehow, twenty is a magic number for self-sustaining.
I think that they KNOW that they’re not going to Mars in 2013. With three supply trips before the manned trip, we’ll all know the real date when the first supply mission launches. Only four years to wait for that schedule slippage.
Note that the slip has already taken place.
yeah I tend to agree that the likelihood of Mars One following Through is slim, I would be more optimistic if they seemed serious about it, like not basing it on a reality TV show for starters. actually having though though many of the technical issues such as power supply, reliable water, replacement parts, radiation just to name a few.
When NASA gives us a date for the first manned mission I will believe it, not that NASA cant be bogged down in bureaucracy and politicking but for no other reason then the fact that they are true experts at putting things and people into space. Mars One on the other hand has no experience or any real expertise in any sort of space travel.
To that end, Mars One’s travel plans hinge on Space X as their Taxi but as of this Date Space X claims that not only do they not have a contract with Mars One but the organisation has not even contacted them yet.
First of all, no matter how ludicrous Mars One may seem to us, it has put a spotlight on Mars as a place to go. I give them that much credit.
WRT the technical issues, they have give broad outlines of the solutions to water, power, and radiation. They ASSUME that they can get the details worked out. I don’t see replacement parts on their list but haven’t visited their updated site.
What I have not seen is them truly addressing the self-sustaining part of their mission. So far, it’s all been hand-waving. Some really deep thinking must go into this area before we send anyone on a one-way trip as a part of any operation.
Two areas must be considered in detail. The first is how to survive on Mars for generations assuming that planet remains essentially as it is. The second is how to make the planet more hospitable to human life, which requires some atmosphere modification as a crucial first step. If you can generate 670 million metric tonnes of oxygen, then you can imagine a future on Mars. Otherwise, people on Mars will literally be troglodytes, underground cave dwellers.
I suspect the energy required to build extensive settlements underground on Mars will rival that required for the oxygen.
I suppose there is truth that they are raising Mars awareness, I tend to think of it more that they are getting false hopes up but as we established, I am more gloomy then you are :)
Re: Mars One and replacement parts: I believe I read something about using 3D printers because that is the buzzword right now. though I don’t recall if this was directly off their website or mentioned in an interview somewhere. either way its not a valid solution currently because 3D printers don’t make things out of thin air (though many people seem to have that impression) so you would need printer stock which would need to be shipped from earth. It is possible that at some point, they will figure out how to use martian regolith as printer stock but that will require boots on Mars first and lots of experimentation with the local materials before you knew if it was a viable idea.
Even if they do figure out a way to use Martian Regolith as printer stock, they will need a far more robust energy source. Solar power would need to be at least two magnitudes more efficient before we could rely on it for a self sustaining colony. What we have now would be sufficient for a temporary base, keeping a science team on the surface for a year. but to live and grow we need a power source that rivals that of fossil fuels.
You’d be quite interested to know that there is an operational 3-D printer using beach sand as feed stock and sunlight as the energy source. The sunlight runs solar cells for the machinery and focuses on the sand to melt it. Clearly, this printer operates only during sunny days and only in the middle hours of the day. It’s merely a demonstration model but shows that the future may include things we’re not thinking about much today.
Having said all of that, it’s more than obvious that melted sand (or regolith) cannot form many replacement parts. How many can be made of glass, after all? No, we must have organic feedstock similar to thermoplastic for many uses. While I can imagine recycling cellulose discards from the farm, that hasn’t reached the level of practical application yet. Genetically modified bacteria anyone?
Regarding false hopes. In some sense, that’s what all hopes are until realized. When John Kennedy spoke of being on the Moon by the end of the decade, he didn’t know that. He was raising hopes in the expectation that by so doing, he was enabling that which would not otherwise happen. (I hope that wasn’t too convoluted.) In other words, you cannot succeed without trying. You won’t try unless you believe that you can succeed.
I think that Mars is possible. I know that it’s outrageously difficult, more so than the Moon by orders of magnitude, especially for colonization. If only a few thousand smart people focus part of their attention on it, problems will be solved.
I cannot see today how a colony on Mars can truly be self-sustaining, but I can imagine ways that aren’t technically feasible yet. So it is that I’ve begun my own odyssey that I call Martian Rhapsody.
Re: Terraforming Mars, I think underground settlements or (assuming a more efficient radiation shielding becomes available) Domed cities. will be more feasible in the foreseeable future. To give Mars a breathable air and pressure will take More air and water then I think we could spare from Earth. It would need to be harnessed from elsewhere in the system.
Yep, Don. Air is a tough one. The surface minerals of Mars are hyper-oxygenated. It’s only a matter of releasing the O2. ;-)
The ordinary means to do so will not suffice. Oxygen-generating plants of the magnitude necessary would dwarf most Earth industrial operations. We don’t have the energy or materials to build them on Mars. A bit of out-of-the-box thinking is required here.
See Martian Rhapsody for one idea that is no more hare-brained than any other.
I agree with you on holding onto an idea that is just out of reach and I agree that Mars is not only possible but very likely that we will put boots there before the century is up. Mars One just leaves a sour taste in my mouth. However in the spirit of big dreams I will go along with you and say that they are doing some small amount of good by generating awareness. they are making Mars Hip I suppose so that will bring more eyes to it.
Thanks, Don. I too see the sour side of Mars One, especially the for-profit part that’s rarely mentioned in articles and never in press releases. That’s life. You work with what you have and discard the pits from the olives after eating the flesh. I’m sure that the first plans for reaching the South Pole were equally incomplete and that the first expedition never left Europe. (Don’t know that but expect that people are always the same dreamers.)
I don’t expect to live to see the first settlement on Mars. Were the Moon the target, I could see that, but a Moon settlement would have only temporary residents.
Re: Sand 3D printing: you are correct, I am very interested to hear that. I wasn’t aware that was a thing yet. I will read up on that.
Re: Moon settlements. I know you are very excited about this idea and all things considered equal I tend to agree with you. Mars is the target because it is new and exciting and hasn’t been done yet but I feel an outpost on the moon is far more practical. it can serve as a way-station for future missions and the habitat on the moon would be a very interesting testing ground for all sorts of experiments. Tests in lighter (but not micro) gravity, tests in telecommunications ect…
It is a far more realistic idea because it is within easy supply range and crews can be rotated out like the ISS. Energy is less of an issue because it receives the same amount of solar energy that we do. If we add a little surplus with each supply mission we can build up the facilities over time.
But the Interest just isn’t there… Why cant they Come up with Moon One? ;-)
Moon has *more* sun that we do because no air, no weather.
I’m not so much excited about the Moon as simply rational. Your arguments are correct. But, we’ve been there. We haven’t **lived** there, but no one cared so much about living at the South Pole as much as going there either.
I suspect that the primary problem with the Moon is that we won’t really ever colonize it. You cannot terraform the Moon. Living an entire life there is not a great idea for a number of reasons. A Moon colony could not be self-sustaining. It has even less water than Mars (lots less).
It’s a pragmatic step. Since when was pragmatism exciting? It’s a costly step and a useful one but not entirely necessary. The Mars shuttle could even lift off from the Moon after the settlers had spent some time there preparing.
However, no one can see financial benefit from Moon base, not even NASA. That’s too bad. It’s a challenge that would reap rewards for future generations who will be going to space in greater numbers.
The Troy project has had some resents boosts from ESA and also from the UK government investment.
This YouTube presentation last year by Alan Bond is intresting
Great flick! Bond has taken the Skylon concept a step further. The price tag for three missions (at the same time) to Mars and back … $100 billion.
I like the nuclear power plants that convert CO2 to O2 + CO, which then become fuel for use on Mars and for ferry back to return vehicle that’s been orbiting all along.
If only Mars One had this level of planning (and intelligence), they might have a chance. The date for supply launch: Nov 2026. For manned launch: Dec 2029. For arrival back on Earth: Aug 2031. Time on Mars for 18 explorers: 14 months.
For any of these things to happen we need a Major shift in our priorities as a civilization. Currently we invest 0.5% of the annual budget into NASA. and even then the government is still trying to shave their budget. but more depressing is how many individuals sneer at NASA like it is a colossal waste of money. In order for us to branch out into the solar system we need as a society to redefine our budget in terms of education and exploration. Perhaps this goes back to our conversation earlier in the day about Mars One serving a need by generating buzz about Mars. Maybe something good will come of it.
NASA the idea is not a colossal waste of money, but NASA the organization is encumbered with the weight of many bureaucrats trying to protect their little bit of turf (as with any government organization) and it seems like the actual launches are accomplished despite the inefficiency.
There are limitations on group think as well as benefits: the underlying socialist ideology of any corporation or government department is to thwart innovation and risk-taking: it interferes with the smooth functioning of the bureaucracy – a bureaucracy which need only produce results in moments of panic (minor, we’ll cut your budget; major, the _____ will beat us to the Moon, Mars, whatever).
During World War II the English-speaking world engaged all kinds of scientists, engineers and just plain crackpots to attempt whatever cockamie scheme they thought might, just might, have a chance at beating the Axis. After WW II this continued, to a lesser degree, with the Cold War and the Moon Race.
Now… well, what is our goal? What is the cause?
Yes, we need to feed, clothe and shelter the people of the world – and find better ways, even fun ways, to do so. But I think the political leadership of our time has no real goals other than to come out on top personally and culturally (and nationalism ranks so low in the culture as to be trivial or non-existent in many cases)
I can only suggest not voting for them. Political leaders must win elections if they are to lead.
NASA has trimmed down quite a bit. The bureaucrat-technician ratio has to be lower. NASA bureaucrats are engineers (AFAIK). NASA is less bureaucratic than State or ED. NASA uses so little of our money that it should not be a scapegoat for waste in, for example, DoD.
PS: Guess why Microsoft has trouble innovating. Guess why Apple could do so in the past but not any longer. Guess why we should support small companies.
Because the greatest likelihood is that nothing will come of Mars One, I do hope that this at least will.
Compare the NASA budget with that for just one new “Cold War” weapons system.
Directly that point Harry: The U.S NAVY has just ordered 52 LCS-1 warships at a total cost of $38 Billion dollars. And that is by far not the majority of their budget, that is a single project design to boost their fleet in the Pacific. so that is more then double NASA’s entire yearly budget for a single project of one branch of the military.
If they ordered 50 ships instead an donate the change to NASA it would add 1.2 Billion to the space agency’s cash flow. that’s a lot of science.
Agreed.
In fact just working off the publicly released numbers, in 2011 the US spent 683.7 Billion dollars spread out over the various military branches.
so IF we diverted just 2% of that total to NASA it would literally double their budget. and that doesn’t even include the CIA,FBI and NSA’s budget. but they are not as forthcoming with public records of their spending….go figure ;-)
Nasa is talking about using a 3d printer to build a moon base using moon materials . Could we not do the same on mars to at least build the protection from radiation and maybe even bigger structures?
Harry mentioned that we currently have 3D printing tech that can use sand and sunlight to make 3D printed items out of glass. I do not think our currently technology could make use of Mars Regolith, its very different from Earth sand and Lunar dust. In addition we do not have any to experiment with and Mars is much further away so a solar powered 3D printer might not work out so well..
It might be an option further down the road but right now our current technology cant make use of it.
To build a Moon base with a 3D printer would require a REALLY big printer. :-)
Protection from radiation depends on number of nuclei per unit depth and on depth in direction of radiation — more or less upward and down to the horizon. Liquid hydrogen and lithium hydride are very good shields but almost impossible to use. Mars One was fine with three meters of Martian “dirt” aka regolith. I have not done calculations but assume someone in a university provided this number to them. Note that three meters is typical height between floors of a building.
The more distant Mars also has less atmosphere to interfere with sunlight but some dust in air to attenuate it somewhat. There certainly is enough sunlight if you make the mirrors that concentrate it a bit larger. It’s merely about getting enough energy on a small area. Every time you double the distance from the Sun, you have to double the mirror diameter, ignoring atmospheric effects.
The composition of Mars regolith is certainly very different from beach sand. Both have in common lots of silicates. Desert sand is probably closer to Mars in terms of amount of impurities although not in their identities. Some impurities would decompose at the high temperatures involved, especially the hyper-oxidized compounds such as the perchlorates. Potassium perchlorate melts at 525°C and decomposes at ~600°C. Silicon dioxide (quartz) melts at above 1600°C.
Regolith samples so far indicate substantial amounts of the following:
Al2O3 (corundum) M.P. = 2072°C
MgO M.P. = 2852°C
CaO M.P. = 2613°C
Lots of other compounds show up as well. These are not minerals but seem to be their constituents, e.g. SO3. The three listed are refractory. The could make decent material if you can heat them sufficiently to melt them. The quick cooling would mean that you would get glassy substances that would probably be fragile in the same sense as ordinary glass.
It’s interesting that no carbon-containing compounds show up. That may be an artifact of the analysis methodology. It’s odd considering that the atmosphere is 95% CO2. Nitrogen is also missing.
The regolith contains lots of silicon and iron, modest amounts of magnesium and aluminum, and significant amounts of sulfur, sodium, and calcium.
The most common mineral on the surface appears to be albite, NaAlSi3O8. Some minerals contain hydrogen, e.g. serpentine.
Martian regolith may contain large amounts of water (up to 60%) in some areas.
Glass made from regolith would likely be colored due to the large amount of iron present.
Let’s make it clear that living on Mars has three enormous problems, both long-term and short-term.
The immediate problem is energy. We cannot do much without it. The only serious energy supply is from the Sun. Nuclear energy will probably be an absolute necessity for the initial settlement of Mars. Only it’s exact nature remains to be determined. Much solar energy also will be required because we won’t be able to build a society on Mars dependent on just nuclear energy.
A mid-term problem is radiation. This is a very serious problem that can only be reduced by going underground — digging or burying.
The long-term problem is air. Without breathable air, colonies on Mars will be stuck with a troglodytic existence. Air will reduce the radiation problem but not eliminate it. Martian regolith contains massive amounts of oxygen. The power to turn that into 670 million metric tonnes of gaseous oxygen is immense and not available through solar panels unless they can be manufactured on Mars in large quantity, a prospect that is quite dim due to the energy required for manufacture.
I have addressed all of these problems in Martian Rhapsody.
To me, all other physical problems are solvable. Psychological issues remain.
I feel Nuclear energy will be vital to jump starting a Martian colony because it will deliver a large amount of sustainable energy in the beginning when solar power alone will not be able to fill all the power requirements of the colony. In order to build a real outpost we will need factories and that will require huge amounts of energy. but as you pointed out Nuclear energy will be a temporary solution because Mars cannot provide the fuel itself so Nuclear fuel will need to be shipped from Earth. But in the beginning it can maintain them until they have enough solar arrays to keep them growing. There are already designs that will double a Solar panel’s efficiency if the design turns into a working prototype. However considering the currently solar panel provides 12% efficiency, that still isn’t saying much. If Solar energy continues to grow however, when Solar panels can provide say 90% efficiency, then Mars Colonies have healthy chancy of self sufficiency.
Air of course is another big one, if the colony has access to sufficient water and reliable energy they can make as much O2 as they need. Building a pipeline to the poles will be needed for permanent settlement. This of course means decades of work, perhaps centuries before Mars becomes a self sustaining settlement. 10 years is woefully unrealistic.
The psychological problems have been a concern of mine from the beginning. and I feel they may be a hurdle even more daunting then the engineering challenges. Our technology will continue to improve over time but human nature remains the same. I think any colony that does not offer a way home will be faced with some pretty severe dangers with their crew. Humans do not respond well to isolation and abandonment. Even though the Crew would be volunteers I feel the physiological triggers would be the same. left on a desolate planet with no way home and the realization that they will never see their world again, Crew members might think they are ready but when they cross the point of no return all bets are off. Crews on Mars will need the reassurance that if something goes wrong they can always go home again. If not then I think you would be facing unpredictable physiological responses. The crew could be fine….or one of them might not be able to handle the idea of being stranded. I don’t feel physiological screening would be sufficient either because the crew ill be facing a scenario that no other human on Earth has ever faced before. Compared to those challenges. sustainable energy and air seem simplistic.
I’m not sure a cosy little team, whatever the selection method, is the best way to go. Yes, yes, I’ve taken the seminars where we ‘proved’ that teams do better than individuals.
But I’m not so sure that a crotchety old bastard who can’t get along with anyone might not be your best option, especially one with extensive experience making electronics and plumbing work. A settlement colony with warm, clean air wafting out of the hydroponics module and everybody sitting around the mahogany table in lab-coats planning Phase IV would be much nicer for television audience, of course, but I think the grubby, grimy old hag in coveralls is probably a better bet…
Sure won’t get the ratings though. This whole aspect of making the project into a reality show is the weak link that would worry me. Nobody wants to watch a reality show – they want to watch a bunch of narcissistic, provocatively dressed soap actors pretending its a reality show.
At many points the presentation of a ‘show’ is going to conflict with the realities of operation – this is a problem.
while I agree with your comments in regard to the reality show and its tendency to be based on drama and sensationalism more then reality and pragmatism, I do not think an individual is the best way to go. reality show aside, a team has many advantages to an individual, redundancy being one of them. What if the sole crew member broke his leg during the landing? what if he got sick on the flight there and was incapacitated when it came time to land the ship? injury aside there are many tasks that would require team work. not to mention my concerns on what effects isolation would have on the crew, those effects would be magnified if there was a single person with no other human contact.
Yes, you really cannot expect a single person to have all of the requisite skills and knowledge — even with the help of Earth-bound experts. Some operations will simply require more than two hands. Four is probably a good compromise. Even so, serious problems remain with respect to psychology.
The “show” is one of the real problems. While 24/7 may work for a while, it’s not sustainable. Edited weekly hour-long segments with narration are more likely in the long run. You can still make money off of this for the continuing support of the colony. Every two years, you add to the cast until you reach ten years. By then, everything is different.
Don,
Thank you for your contribution.
Using the current best technologies, the highest efficiency for a solar panel (theoretical) is around 33% according to something I read a while ago. Using mirror backing and layering of junctions with different wavelength sensitivities, you might get close. The best lab solar cells are at around 20%, but they aren’t flexible — yet. The efficiency of a flexible panel is around 12% as you suggest, but solid cells are up around 16%. We cannot expect 90% when plants are only at about 0.2% by the time you convert their output into electricity. Still, getting 1/3 of photonic energy into electricity would be very good.
Allowing for return will ensure lots of takers. It will be very tough on Mars. Living “underground.” Eating a limited and not spiced diet. All cooking in microwave ovens — water boils at hot water heater temperatures and flames are inefficient. Darning socks. Unchanging landscape that you cannot visit except in a pressure suit. Facing the possibility of death every day. Mostly, though, having no real future, nothing that you’re building for, no expectation that your children or grandchildren will live a “normal” life, only a slim possibility that many generations in the future might have the ability to build and expand. That sense of working together to make a viable future is absolutely necessary. If a depression hits the Earth economy, the Mars people will feel abandoned (because they will be) and will have to avoid suicidal tendencies.
The 24/7 concept has been tried before. I believe the website is called Justin.tv
The founder of that site rigged a webcam to his hat, hooked it up to a laptop in his backpack and proceeded to record his life 24/7. he rounded up a few others who broad casted off his website offering similar 24/7 feeds. It was a novelty at first but later it died out. the website is still there but the format has changed considerably. from what I can tell the main focus these days is a web cam broadcasting nature scenes and interesting weather. If there are still 24/7 broadcasters, their ratings have dwindled and they are very hard to find.
This is because there is only so much a viewer can take of 24/7 anything. unless the action changes every day the viewer will get bored. there would likely be tremendous ratings during the launch and landing but after a few weeks after the landing the routine would settle in and there would be very little to see. At least as long as everything was going well there would be little to see and that is the problem, Reality TV shows thrive on Drama and Drama is the very last thing you want if you want a successful off world mission. Mr. Lansdorp wistfully compares his prospective show to the Olympics. I have read more then one interview with him and he always brings up the Olympics. and the fact that they brought in 4 billion dollars for the London games. unfortunately much like the technical aspects of his mission I feel Lansthorp has been undeservedly optimistic. The Olympics. are not a fair comparison for several reasons:
-The Olympics. have been around for decades and are an international sports competition. they have an established following.
-The Olympics. only come on once every 2 years and only for a few weeks, not 24/7.
-The Olympics. is a sports competition featuring many nations. The majority of our civilization is obsessed with sports and everyone wants to cheer for their country as part of national pride.
Mars One has almost none of those things going for it, there will be a multi national aspect to it and I am sure viewers from the prospective Astronaut’s countries will tune in initially in great numbers to cheer them on but the broadcast does not have sustaining power. not everyone is interested in science and exploration, If Space exploration and planetary science and settlement held the same grip on our attention as the Olympics. then Mars One would not be a thing because if we globally held science in that regard then NASA wouldn’t be working on a shoestring budget and we would likely have established an outpost on Mars long ago. NASA has been planning a manned mission to mars for decades but the one thing holding them back is money. Their last estimate for a return Mars Trip was 100 Billion and nobody wanted to pick up the check.
Even if the Show had Olympic ratings it would not last, interest would wan and unfortunately if this show will be the Martian’s life line to supplies, a dip in ratings could be deadly.
A successful Mars show has to have edited versions once or twice a week, with narration. The 24/7 idea will only work for a few very intense periods — pre-launch through launch, pre-landing through landing, and anything else similar. Continuous coverage of the settlement set-up may be interesting to enough people.
The edited shows can include clips from training, narration, and much more and could attract many viewers if the producers and ‘writers’ are good enough. They probably would have enough interest for twice a week (plus repeats) for the initial months and then dwindle to once a week. I expect that most audiences with any interest at all can sustain it at that rate.
The program will require additional funding. The budgeted amount, $6 billion, is too small, and the planned funding sources are insufficient. They are sufficient, however, to make Lansdorp quite wealthy as he siphons off funds from his for-profit production company before they reach the non-profit Mars program.
Just slip this in here in case my fellow Mars fans missed it:
Taken from here:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/02/astrophoto_mars_south_pole_by_mars_express_spacecraft.html?wpisrc=most_viral
Thats gorgeous. I have never seen Mars in such rich detail. Thanks for sharing that.
Re: Lansdorp becoming quite wealthy.
This is really my first wall in believing that Mars One is serious. all the technical challenges aside, Its very easy for Lansdorp to put up a show and document groups being selected and trained without the costly investment of building anything. when the ratings dip or when the launch date of the first supply ship is delayed beyond the point people will find acceptable, I suspect the show will go away and Mars One will quietly dissolve.
How quietly depends on a number of factors. He can keep up appearances until no one notices or cares.
Since the atmosphere is 96% CO2 why can’t you just use scrubbers to retrieve the O2?
Scrubbers are chemicals such as CaO (CO2 + CaO -> CaCO3). They don’t create oxygen. CO2 can be electrochemically changed to CO and O2 (2CO2 -> 2CO + O2). This reaction takes power, of course. You’d have to arrange to vent the CO safely. It is rather toxic. With a nuclear power plant or lots and lots of solar panels, you could arrange to make O2 from CO2. However, this approach is useless for terraforming. You’d change the 1% (relative to Earth) CO2 atmosphere into a 1% O2 atmosphere.
Alan Bond’s own Mars program (the Troy project) uses the CO and O2 as fuel for rockets to take off from Mars and return to Earth. Carbon monoxide replaces hydrogen as the fuel; oxygen remains as the oxidizer. He compresses the CO2 in the Martian air into appropriate water cells and runs an electrical current through it. It’s a bit more complex, but that’s the basic process.
Thanks Harry
So breathable oxygen can be made from the the atmosphere. I wonder if there are plans for this in mars one?
I would think Mars One has no such plans to convert the air as Harry Describes. Mainly because it would take an obscene amount of energy and other resources. What Harry detailed looks very simple on paper but in reality it would be a monumental undertaking. The other problem would be as Harry mentioned, you would only have 1% air. At the end of the day you would really be no better off because you still couldn’t go outside, you would still need a pressurized environment.
Having a such an environment would actually be more trouble then its worth because the Oxygen, while too thin to breath would still be good and slowly corroding the metallic components of your gear.
The big problem on Mars is that it once had lots of air but it slowly lost it over billions of years. so now you need to add air back, you need to get that air pressure back up to levels we can stand. sadly there is no technology that makes something from nothing. any time we are creating something like O2 all we are doing is converting one substance into another. There is lots of Ice on Mars, if you could get at it and if you had energy to spare you could make plenty of O2 from the melted Ice, whether it would be enough to bring the planet up to 20KPa(the level we would need to survive without suits) remains to be seen. However, even if you did have a Total Recall like reactor that melted and converted all the ice, then you have another problem: you still need water and you just used it all for air.
The only way to truly terraform Mars is to import a tremendous amount of material. This is not a realistic option given our current space program, for now we will have to be content living in structures and creating small amounts of O2 to support select groups.
It appears that people can survive on Earth at 16 kPa partial pressure of O2 and so that should be enough for Mars. We don’t know how low you can get if you adapt over generations, but it’s probably not much lower than 15 kPa. That means we must generate about 670 million metric tonnes of O2. If we did not remove the CO2, then that would be toxic until reduced. You’d have to breathe through a filter that removed some of it, but you could walk about on Mars without pressure suit or O2 tanks.
As I explain in Martian Rhapsody (unpublished chapters), Mars has the O2 required. No imports are necessary. However, you do required vast amounts of energy.
Mars One plans to electrolyze water for O2 in the habitat and has NO plans for terraforming.
The very low pressure of O2 means that corrosion will go at around 5% of the rate on Earth. Many corrosion mechanisms use water as a catalyst and would not operate rapidly in the extreme dryness of Mars.
If and when Mars gets that 15+ kPa of O2, people will also have to use lots of lip balm. :-D
Electrolyzing massive amounts of water to make air has a very significant side effect. Where does the hydrogen go? You cannot let it out into the air unless you have a spark-free planet. :-(
You’d have to use up around 700 million metric tonnes of water. The water on Mars, according to most recent estimates amounts to at least 1.6×10^17 kg or 1.6×10^14 metric tonnes, more than 200,000 times as much as required. At least, you’d have plenty of water left if you chose that route. The problems are time and energy. Even if you could make a million metric tonnes of O2 per year, it would take 670 years, and that’s rather ambitious. And you still have to get rid of all of that hydrogen. No, you have to find another way.
No, Mars One uses electrolysis of water.
On the same line would a space suit life support system create enough breathable oxygen just using batteries or would/could it be a supplemental form of O2 supply in the LSS unit?
The real problem with enclosed breathing is removal of CO2. You start with 20% O2 on Earth. If you’re in a box, you reach 1% CO2 when O2 is just 19%. At that level, you begin to feel symptoms. About the time that CO2 levels reach toxicity (7%), O2 levels have also dropped to non-sustainable levels (13%). Oxygen or air tanks add to the oxygen and push out air that has excess CO2 in it. If you merely added oxygen, the volume of air would increase and slightly dilute the CO2, but you’d die from the CO2 eventually. Space suits remove CO2 AND add O2.
I think they should send at least 4 Radio Isotope Generators to start with and not totally rely on solar, that way they would have guaranteed energy for two years using maybe two and having backups. That may be enough power to run jackhammers and other tools to break up hard regolith and make it easier to shovel.
I wonder if they could design a lightweight bobcat for moving large amounts of regolith to cover inflatable habitats or maybe some other lightweight foam that hardens that can be pumped over them before placing regolith to add some rigidity to the structures which would also probably guard against leaks .
One of these habitats should then be used as the greenhouse for growing food which would give a larger growing area, and once the first one is done start on a second to serve as a secondary grow area. Then others can be used for larger living areas.
At least one RTG will be a requirement for each small living area because of its heat byproduct. Heating solely from solar panels is just too dicey. A month-long dust storm would freeze the settlers to death without that backup. It also frees up electricity for other, more valuable uses. This concept is covered in Martian Rhapsody. The larger inflatable areas should have two apiece. The initial settlement may have one or two inflatables.
Because the “greenhouse” will have plants on shelves, it doesn’t have to be huge. Other factors are involved in optimizing growing conditions. Those are also considered in Martian Rhapsody.
The Martian regolith consists of rocky sand and dust and should not require jackhammers. Those would be necessary only upon reaching bedrock. The initial landing site must have deep regolith and lots of subsurface water.
The “bobcat” would not look very much like one because it must be a multi-purpose vehicle. The first landing cannot afford much in the way of special-purpose larger items. It will be operated by a couple of RTGs to give enough power to move slowly and push things. It must be remotely operated to save on oxygen, suit wear-and-tear, and radiation exposure. Again, I explore this topic in Martian Rhapsody.
We have to face the simple fact that the first four (or however many) settlers will be operating on a bare subsistence level for two years and may come perilously close to failing often. Only that second manned flight will relieve the danger and monotony somewhat. Each subsequent flight will provide more people, more space, and more advanced technology until a reasonably sustainable colony develops.
Long-term sustainability still requires technologies we don’t have yet and a short-term (decades at most) way to get 15kPa of O2 in the Martian air. I view these problems as being solvable and explore them in Martian Rhapsody, albeit in a fictional setting. Reality may not be so friendly.
How difficult would it be to send a small kubota tractor to aid in the regolith moving?
Impossible because of incompatible fuel mechanism. Packaging is also an issue. Mars vehicles will be specially built. They cannot just be tossed together out of steel and ICEs. Steel is too heavy. Titanium may cost lots more on the ground but will cost lots less upon delivery due to “shipping costs.” An ICE is no good on Mars. Inflatable rubber tires have more problems than I can enumerate. The seat, steering wheel, and more will be jettisoned as useless because these vehicles must be remotely piloted. And so it goes.
sending heavy lifting equipment will be vital to forming the colony for the reasons you pointed out but as of yet I do not see any plans to send such heavy equipment. I have seen small forklifts that can run on battery power but for the larger earth movers that they would need to make underground structures or to cover the structures, those I have only ever seen running on diesel power. I have no area of expertise here so maybe someone could help, can you run a combustion engine in an Oxygen free environment? If you can then its becomes a matter of not only sending the equipment but shipping tons of fuel for the earth movers. This would be impractical to say the least.
If you cannot run combustion powered vehicles in the near vacuum of Mars’ surface then that would limit the kind of gear you could even use. Special Units would have to be designed that only ran on battery yet had enough power to fill their excavation needs.
To run a combustion engine, you must have something to combust. Mars has no fossil fuels. It’s more efficient to use electricity directly than to convert it into hydrogen and oxygen or to CO and O2. All equipment on Mars will run on electricity. No free oxygen; no available fuel.
Except for the battery problem. You could run ICEs on hydrogen and oxygen or on CO and O2. It would be inefficient and would require compressing the gases into tanks. But you would not be dependent on batteries.
So, I’ll amend my comment to say that INITIALLY all equipment will run on electricity. The energy density of tanks of H2 and O2 may favor using them for larger equipment until new battery technology arrives on Mars.
If the project gets as far as the second set of colonists landing then I feel strongly that more private industry and possibly also international involvement and maybe NASA involvement all cooperating to make it a success, perhaps business sponsors will get involved for the publicity. The longer the mission continues without major mishaps, will I feel increase the odds of continued success. Then maybe Elon Musk will get more involved since he already has his own plans for a colony at $500000 per person and build upon the structure that is already in place. Perhaps it will drive mining industries to set up and start to mine a moon of mars and mars itself, or they will have a shorter distance to the asteroid belt.
I hope Mars One at least gets the funding to get started and has success with the first wave of settlers, and hope they alter plans to send up at least a couple of nuclear power generators to guarantee some dependable power source to backup solar power.
Ultimately, the real players here will join together. This effort cannot be sustained by one group alone. Whether Mars One will remain in the mix is unknown at this time. It’s a bit on the vapid glitzy side for me to endorse it. It does make for good fiction stories, however. :-)
With the interest of Elon Musk and Alan Bond on the private side, it can go somewhere. NASA and ESA also have an interest. At least 100,000 of the world’s citizens have an avid interest. That number has to multiply by 100 to include those who might donate five dollars to the effort.
Corporations will vie for sponsorships of a true mission to Mars.
I expect that it will take $10 billion to place a colony on Mars, possibly more. Ten years is a tight schedule. Twelve or fourteen makes more sense, but I’d love to be wrong on this one.
I also note that competition may make sense for the initial lifter design and other engineering innovations but that we cannot have two separate mission-to-Mars efforts going on simultaneously past the design and initial testing prototype stage. Everyone can contribute ideas, but the best ones must win.
We can be on Mars and can do so long-term. Really long term requires oxygen, however. I can imagine ways to get 30% out of solar cells that will make power a non-issue for Mars. There’s more than enough water. Living underground by digging or piling up will reduce radiation to acceptable levels. (We’re being radiated here on Earth constantly, a problem that may ultimately limit lifespan despite any medical advances — or not.) Food can be grown efficiently for a modest population and augmented by growing single-celled lifeforms that are more efficient than ordinary plants but not as tasty. You can even have robot insects pollinating plants within a few years.
I’ll repeat myself. Only 670 million metric tonnes of O2 stand between us and real Mars colonization. Mars One has shown that finding colonists is not a problem. If you could breathe on Mars, their number would soar and you would be able to charge, as Elon Musk suggests, to get there. Don’t know that $500,000 is a sustainable fee. Maybe for the first dozen or so?
Add Richard Branson to the mix. Space Ship Two is proving to be more than many expected. It’s second powered flight was perfect and paves the way to next year’s first commercial space flight.
Buy a ticket now before the $250,000 price tag goes up again.
I haven’t heard any Mars talk from him, but his path to space could be how we get ready for Mars.
You seem to be forgetting that the FAA as not yet granted the Commercial License, and most likely won’t for years to come. And, going 69 miles up for a joy ride and a few minutes of weightlessness proves nothing. Many will be killed in this adult Disneyland for the wealthy. Space is for trained astronauts, not Lady Gaga. After the first death or crash, they will be shut down, most likely forever.
And, Virgin Galactic just lost the contract to take astronauts to the ISS – International Space Station. The Contract was given to Russia through 2016. Virgin Galactic or SpaceX has a very poor performance record. I don’t see how Virgin Galactic can survive without contracts with NASA.
Space X’s concept of reusable rocket stages has failed, at least on the 3 unmanned missions to the ISS. On the third mission, the Dragon had to saved by the robotic arm.
The reason NASA never wasted billions and huge amounts of time and effort on reusable multistage rockets is because of the the huge amount of thrust that is needed to leave earth’s orbit, especially with heavy payloads. That thrust usually damages the the first two stages beyond repair. And, the idea that those stages then could come down to earth safely using left over rocket fuel in each stage is bull. It works at very low speeds, e.g., the SpaceX grasshopper where it goes up 900 feet at a very slow speed, 32 mph; but it does not work at very high speeds, e.g., 5,000 mph going miles up, e.g., 50 miles and more before entering outer space with a million pounds of thrust. The first and second stages of all three of of SpaceX unmanned missions to the ISS have fallen into the ocean and were not reusable.
Anyway, Space X has proven nothing with its reusable multistage rocket. And, if it were not for funding from NASA, Space X would not exist.
The point of the SpaceX Grasshopper technology is landing, not taking off.
Private business will participate in one way or another in space exploration. We’re in the early phases now. Suspend judgment for just a while and let things sort out.
Instead of thinking all the applicants are loonies and have a death wish we should be optimistic that there are some that are capable and have what it takes given the right training that there chances and desire to succeed will drive them to do just that. Think of them as true trailblazers willing to put themselves at great risk to succeed at great accomplishments. There must be a handful that have what it takes and hopefully the weeding process will select them and even if the public picks who gets to go first it wont have any effect on outcome because they will all be capable to the same degree.
I also hope that the originator is not in it for money and is truly in for the success of the mission, and I don’t think the world would leave people stranded on mars and not come together to try and save them or come together for the continued success of the mission. I believe this because nations all have some plan for colonization or trips to mars and if something were to occur I think they would pool resources and get involved.
Once the colony is proving that it can be self sustaining and no one is dying, and more people and industries get involved then more and more engineers, chemists, doctors, scientists will not be so skeptical as taking the trip to join the colony. Only when more and more people and industries get involved then the chance of major failure decreases. This will drive the creation for new quicker rocket technology to speed the trip, make it easier for people to go on excursions and not stay for the duration. There could be literally thousand of colonists on mars in as little as a hundred years all contributing to its increased expansion and building habitats that can sustain a greater amount of foodstuffs and industry start-ups creating plastics and metals being used for stronger and more durable habitats. With the success of creating a livable environment on mars will give new hope for setting out to other planets in the solar system. I think everyone who becomes aware of the Mars One endeavor should not let the fact of reality TV show make them skeptical and pessimistic but create enthusiasm and optimism for its success, and an enduring success this will be key to a greater involvement, once it appears a great number of people back it then it will be easier for the space industry to jump on the bandwagon and fuel a faster growth and more diversified population that starts to grow on mars.
Then mining companies would be that much closer to being able to mine the moons of mars for possible platinum and this would certainly get business rolling and start an whole new era of space engineering and mining once large profit margins were involved. Next would be the relative close distance to mars of the asteroid belt which would offer short distance travel times from a mars base or even a mars space station outpost.
All of these things and more are cause for a successful outcome to Mars One or any Mars colony plan.
Mining asteroids, moons, or Mars for Earth consumption will not become a profitable venture in the foreseeable future. The transportation costs are overwhelming.
I don’t think that the applicants are loonies — well, at least not all of them. Many considered the explorers of years gone by to be nuts. Some died. Some became famous. Some luck was involved, but careful planning and full awareness of the dangers were critical factors for success.
The first efforts could result in death. That’s happened with previous ventures. Success will breed success once it happens. I hope it happens the first time out. I see very limited prospects for Mars One being successful. They did, however, bring lots of publicity to the concept. More people thinking about it will result in more and better ideas.
By 2100, we will have thousands on Mars.
Spaceworks Engineering, Inc. just received a phase I grant from NASA to develop a suspended animation system for long term space flight. the company has a very promising concept an if it works out it would be a short cut to long term trips until we can develop faster propulsion systems.
I was skeptical at first but this company is not talking cryogenics, instead they lower the subject’s core temperature by 10 degrees and put them in a mil state of hypothermia, the body shuts down to preserve heat and metabolic functions slow to a crawl. This solve the roadblocks of how to pack enough air,water and for for a year long trip as well as concerns about crews staying mentally active and healthy. it would also be a boon for radiation protection since you could concentrate your protective materials to the sleeping chamber or even enclosed around the stasis chamber itself. when the crew arrives the system brings up their core temperature and awakens them. They have already used this technique on subjects for up to 10 days and are now testing to see how long they can go.
Good grief! Who are the subjects and what if they don’t survive?
I feel like I’m reading a science fiction novel from 1960 sometimes here.
The mass savings in food, water, and air could indeed be used for shielding. Another possibility would be magnetic shielding if a superconducting magnet could be used. A bit tough in space, of course. The entire ship would have to be non-magnetic — no steel anywhere. Wonder how strong the field would have to be.
Just imagine a group of “sleepers” in their sleep pods heading out to somewhere (Titan?) surrounded by a strong magnetic field (along the ship’s longest dimension. Only the ends of the ship would have to have actual shielding.
Upon arrival at the destination, they awaken and have food, air, and water for their mission, maybe a month or two. Then, it’s back in the pods for the return trip.
Because they haven’t been totally suspended, they will age some but not as much as we back on Earth. Their six-year adventure might age them for three years. Does anyone know the aging effects?
We won’t overcome the speed of light anytime soon, but we can have faster ships. It’s all a matter of power and reaction mass. For Mars, the trips only take place at two-year intervals. That means that a shuttle must be faster than two years making the round trip. Right now, it’s about eight months (varies depending on exact configuration of Earth and Mars). Better systems could cut that in half. The big benefit would be less radiation exposure. The return trip would not have to be so fast as long as the shuttle gets back in time for refitting and provisioning.
If one works out well, then I can see another as well, both heading out within a day of each other every two years on a regular schedule. You too can go for just $500,000 (hehe). In Alan Bond’s concept, return trips are optional and cost nothing extra. You get to stay or return as you choose, just no choice of specific return dates — only once every two years.
His colonists (in the Troy Project scheme) can come back if they don’t like it after two (or four or six or …) years.
But what’s not to like? No crowds. Less sagging of body parts from gravity. Only healthy foods. No crime (at least not at first). All of the health benefits of hypo-pressure (whatever they may be). And you get to start a new civilization. Forgot, no courts, no lawyers, no income taxes. Libertarians must salivate at the thought. ;-)
Considering all the interest it is generating, the One Way ticket seems less and less of a drawback – even the notion that you could go back to Earth in the case of drastic medical or equipment malfunction makes a huge difference to the psychological aspect. However I feel that many of the more suitable candidates will be turned off by the reality show aspect – I know that, for me, is more of a drawback than the prospect of a One Way ticket. I have no interest in making a spectacle of myself or having my personal life dissected by the media, and I suspect I am not alone.
The $500 000 price tag is about right – millions of first world candidates could come up with that kind of money by selling everything they have. As a fee for leisure, it is still cheap – even the Russians have drawn several customers at $20 million just for a few dozen orbits of Earth. I’m guessing at $500k a pop you could take a couple dozen people a month up to something like this http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/293366.stm for a long, long time without running out of customers (as you can see the idea is not particularly new and is a lot easier to effect than Mars One).
I think all the worrisome aspects are technical, as this discussion continues to show. 3D printing shows great promise, and more technologies will come to bear (as well as originate from) on Mars settlement. Technologies that can leach CO2 out of the thin atmosphere for organic chemistry but without requiring photosynthesis – or maybe a photosynthetic organism (a simple relationship between lichen, mold, genetically engineered mites) that can occur, however slowly, at -90C
I have observed spiders moving about at -35C when I disturbed them in the bark of a tree, though for how long they survived after my rude awakening I do not know – they sure were sluggish though!
To me, Mars is the place to fool around with nanotech and genetic engineering of the more extreme sort – for instance a process that soaked up CO2 too efficiently could end life as we know it on Earth (which is why the folks who would meddle with climate change make me more than a tad nervous with their evangelism – I digress).
Thank you for this comment, Brett.
Were I on Mars, I’d not wish to see experiments of that sort taking place. If it’s too dangerous for Earth, it’s too dangerous for Mars. That’s my view.
Regarding the rest, one-way tickets, hotels in the stars, and so on, I think you’re fairly correct, except that I suspect that the numbers of people ready to pony up 1/2 million dollars for a few nights in the hotel is a bit shy of millions. It’s probably more like thousands or tens of thousands, but that’s plenty to sustain the development. The hotel probably won’t house more than a thousand or so a year anyway.
The wealthy, high-tech visionaries seem all to be thinking about Mars these days. Wonder what those whom we haven’t heard from think.
The physiological effects of no gravity then low gravity for 3 years ie. 2 year stay plus round trip time can’t be determined until human bodies are actually subject to that amount of time in space. Only when we have someone who is capable of surviving it can any outcomes and effects be determined.
I wonder if a miniature capsule could be designed that could house mice or some other life-form to perform the required trip length and landing and see some effects.
Even the planned expedition to the ISS by NASA astronaut Scott Kelly and Russian Cosmonaut Mikhail Kornienko scheduled for 2015 will just be scratching the surface of a Mars trip. Astronauts returning from 6 month stints require long recovery times on returning to earth and require help getting out of the return capsule, not to mention other effects. http://science1.nasa.gov/ . It remains to be seen what a year long stint will require for recovery.
Without these knowns of physical effects on the human body a Mars landing may be doomed from the moment of landing. Only when it actually happens can we see what will happen. Whoever takes the first trip will have to be in top physical shape and try and stay close to that shape by exercise in the cramped space capsule for the outbound journey. They may find they are partially incapacitated upon landing and not be capable of performing the simplest functions of survival at that time and be left in dire straights from the get go.
If the first landing ends in failure it will let future travelers know that some form of artificial gravity will have to be developed before any future manned trips can be made.
In any event someone has to take the chance to make whats unknown known about the human bodies ability to cope, hopefully with success on the first try.
Jason,
You raise a very important issue. The lower Mars gravity makes the issue less severe but does not eliminate it. We know that mere exercise does not prevent the loss of function due to lack of constant gravity on our bodies. It only reduces it. I don’t know of any study that shows what the effect of eight months of weightlessness followed by 38% of Earth’s gravity will be. With extensive exercise during those eight months (or suspended animation), might a few days acclimation on the Martian surface be enough to prepare for activity? Initial activity will not be all that strenuous. You will have to stand and walk but not much more.
It’s a good question that should have a better answer than any we’ve seen before heading out to Mars.
We also can hope for faster transport systems ten years from now and reduce that eight-month transit somewhat.
We also have no idea as to the long-term effect of 0.38g on our bodies.
Re: Aging in suspended animation: I have not seen any data on the effects of aging. It is not Cryogenic so the body will still age, since metabolic functions are slowed by up to 70% I do not know if this will slow the body’s aging as well. Considering this has never been done fore more then 10 days and the cases where it was performed were for medical treatment and not intended as a means of space travel, I suspect no one has paid any attention to the age factor yet. Now that space works Inc. is under a NASA grant to develop the technology for just that function I imagine effects on aging will be documented.
The one thing Suspended animation does neglect is the effects of 0G on the human body. Currently we combat those effects on the ISS with very intense workout regiments. Since the occupants will be sleeping for almost a year it is a concern that their bodies will suffer more then active astronauts would. This is however something we are capable of testing if the project continues and eventually moves into phase III. I would imagine final testing might involve putting a subject in suspended animation on-board the ISS. this would allow the subject to be tested both for long term sleep and sleep in a 0 G environment. The subject would also be monitored by the crew of the ISS so if any problems arise they can assist. this will give us a true acid test of seeing if the technology is viable for long term travel.
If it pans out and they actually do successfully use this technology to travel to Mars, it would open the doors for the rest of the solar system. Time is the major roadblock between us and most of the solar system. Manned travel to Titan is out of the question because at our current propulsion speeds it takes 7-9 years to get there, it would be exceedingly difficult to subject an occupant to that kind of isolation, not to mention 14-18 years worth of supplies. However if we had a reliable method of suspended animation then it becomes at least possible to send men and woman out to the further reaches. There would still be plenty of hurdles such as long term 0G exposure and the cost of supplies (even in suspended animation they would still need air and intravenous foods) as well as a power source that could sustain the ships’s systems for 2 decades. but all of those concerns (except for the 0G) are a matter of money. throw enough money into a project and supplies and power are not a show stopper.
It wont happen next year but it at least becomes something we can think about with a strait face.
Hi Don.
A 70% reduction in metabolism should be accompanied by a similar reduction in bone loss etc. Perhaps, the limbs could be at an even lower temperature to reduce bone loss and muscle atrophy even more.
Biological systems are very complex. It’s possible that suspended animation could accelerate aging.
You’re right about air and intravenous feeding and hydration. Still, a reduction in air, food, and water of 70% is not to be taken lightly.
Radiation damage would proceed at the same rate in suspended animation, but the repair mechanisms in the body would be impaired. This fact makes some sort of shielding imperative. Heavy enough shielding to make a difference is just not feasible. Only magnetic shields would be an option, IMO. The North and South poles of the shield would be open to ion radiation and would have to have thick shields.
It’s a tough call here. Should you use suspended animation without shielding? Is sufficient magnetic shielding even practical? Power for the magnets could come from a fuel cell operating off of the hydrogen and oxygen propulsion reserves.
The risks of radiation damage increase without shielding. How much is this increase? Does anyone even know?
This is an excellent engineering challenge that requires deeper thinking than I have time for right now.
The idea of Magnetic shielding is very exciting because if we managed to make it work, it opens up a universe of possibilities. Such as manned exploration of Europa, which currently is impossible even if we had the methods to get men and woman there. Europa is in the middle of Jupiter’s radiation belt and it kicks off 540Rems. 400-500 is an instant lethal doze. However if the Keller-Mark II magnetic shielding was employed then they could protect a small group on the surface for a short time. :)
It also solves yet another problem for propulsion. Even if Nuclear pulse engines were a thing right now, one of the major setbacks is still radiation. even though you are cutting down timed exposure by going faster, radiation unfortunately becomes exponentially more lethal the faster you go. so if you were going a fraction of c, the radiation would be hitting you like a bullet. solid shielding would be ineffective.
I wish they would get on with this suspended animation already, I would love to go to sleep and wake up 100 years from now to see if we got these things to work :)
Don, I really like your example of Europa. There may never be a reason for people to go there, but there might be.
Cosmic radiation comes at us from all directions at nearly the speed of light. Our puny speeds make no difference to its effect or impact. Einstein explained it all with his special theory. Adding two velocities in relativistic terms yields:
s = c^2(v + u)/(c^2 + vu)
Where v an u are the added velocities (speeds if along same line).
Consider a cosmic ray particle traveling at 0.9c, might be faster. Consider space ship at 0.1c, very fast for a space ship. The relative speed cannot be c, that’s impossible unless the particle is traveling at c already (a photon).
s = c^2(.1c + .9c)/(c^2 + 0.09c^2) = c/(1.09) = 0.917c
That’s about a 2% increase in speed and a 4% increase in energy.
You’d also have the rays coming from behind with speed of -0.9c.
s = c^2(.1c – .9c)/(c^2 – 0.09c^2) = -0.879c
That’s nearly a 2.5% decrease in speed and a 5% decrease in energy.
You’d net out ahead of the game if my calculations are correct.
Solar radiation is much slower. The outward trip would have less solar radiation impact, while the inward trip would have more.
Sort of straying a little, but maybe not too much: what happens to the momentum of mass when that mass is converted to energy via radiation? Would that explain the acceleration of the “universe” presently attributed to Dark Energy?
Just a thought that occured while I was listening to how Lord Kelvin underestimated the age of the Earth considerably using heat calculations because he failed to take account of the heat due to radioactive decay, treating the Earth instead as a solid, cooling ball of mud.
And since we’re on the topic of radioactive decay, I have never heard that it is reversable: can mass be formed from energy, or does this violate the rules of entropy? I would guess that if mass could be formed from energy it would happen in a Black Hole…
What I’m getting at (from my uneducated musings) is that we need some better source of propulsion than chemical rockets and that there is an enormous amount of energy around us in the form of mass – present nuclear generation seems a tad clunky, both with the radioactive waste and with the need for a thermal interface to produce energy in a form we can use.
Momentum, both linear and angular forms, is always conserved in every interaction. Photons carry momentum. When, for example, an electron and positron annihilate, the photons carry off the momentum. When you jump, the Earth recoils so that the total momentum of the Earth-you system remains unchanged. Unlike energy, momentum does not have lower or more degraded forms. Force is equal to the time-rate change of momentum, F=ma if mass is unvarying. Otherwise, it F=dP/dt, where P=mv is momentum.
The equivalence of mass and energy is one the cornerstones of Einstein’s theory (as in E=mc^2). They are interchangeable — in both directions. Entropy (third law stuff) always increases in every reaction (unless perfect, but nothing is perfect). Usually, this means that some energy is lost to heat. Heat is the most low-down degraded form of energy and exhibits itself as molecular motion — more randomness = more entropy.
Even empty space is creating matter from its intrinsic energy fluctuations all of the time. Particle colliders make particles from the kinetic energy of the colliding particles. Mass from energy.
Nuclear decay makes heat the same as burning coal does. We use the heat in a similar fashion. You can make a nuclear reactor very hot indeed if the materials containing it are sufficiently refractory. Add hydrogen, and you have a very hefty push for your rockets. You can do even better using ion propulsion systems that require electricity. Not being a power plant engineer, that’s the furthest I can go without lots of research.
It doesn’t look as though fusion will work on a small enough scale for space travel. Solar sails are too slow for manned space travel. Thus,we are left with fission and chemistry in space.
Getting to space is a different matter. No one has tried a rail gun for the initial acceleration, meaning that chemical boosters much be less expensive. Too bad.
Fusion power seems to me not unlike trying to run an ICE on gunpowder – love to be proved wrong. But thanks for answering – is the sum of energy and mass in the universe always constant then? I always thought particle colliders were just trying to smash things into smaller and smaller pieces, but the energy involved in something like the LHC must create some interesting states, if only for an instant (I recall some discussion of creating black holes and even propagating black holes – assuming that didn’t happen hehe).
Then some fellow tells me there is no such thing as ‘matter’ in the sense of ‘stuff that is there’ but that it is a manifestation of gravitational fields… and there we get way over my head – but I sense the answer to some very difficult problems, and technology that will make the present look simple.
Three important physical system quantities are energy, momentum, and entropy. All are made up — means of keeping score. You cannot ask for a bucket of energy, for example.
As for these quantities in the universe —
The total energy (and mass, which is the same thing) of the universe is a constant.
The total momentum of the universe is a constant.
The total entropy of the universe only increases and is not constant (unless there are absolutely no reactions taking place).
These statements are also true for a closed system, which is a physicist’s ideal model. There’s no such thing in reality.
The universe must be defined as growing in all directions at the speed of light if considered finite or must be considered as infinite for the statements strictly to be true. However, relativity puts bounds on the size of an expanding universe — not really the “size” in our usual sense but on its contents being in the same space-time existence, accessible to each other. But that’s beyond this discussion.
The recent creation of the Higg’s Boson in the LHC is an example of creating matter from energy. The earliest cyclotrons and synchrotrons were also known as “atom smashers” because that’s literally what they did. Some smashes resulted in unexpected (at the time) particles such as anti-matter. We’re far past that day now.
People constantly worry about creating black holes in high-energy colliders without understanding that a black hole’s lifetime is outrageously short if its mass is very small. We would have no proof of its existence because it would last less long than those fleeting particles we’re creating. It’s only a theory anyway and not accepted by all scientists.
Some study the concept of matter and come up with theories. That means little to us. Matter is mostly empty, the space between nuclei is vast compared to the size of the nuclei and contains just a few errant electrons (relatively speaking). Those electrons are what make matter solid, however. Despite their wave nature, they keep us from putting our hands through walls by electrostatic repulsion of the electrons in our matter by those in the wall’s matter.
Don,
On the suspended animation thing. It would reap a fortune for those who can do it well. One hundred years is too extreme because you’d age 30 years (or more) and lose your best years to sleep (depends on age, but you understand). You’d also have one hell of a time adjusting to the new world 100 years hence.
I can see lots of takers for a ten-year sleep, beginning with those diagnosed with incurable illness. Next would be the wealthy who, like you, have an avid interest in the future. With proper investments, they’d wake up even wealthier. You may have some problems with family members, of course.
It’s a long way from ten days to ten years, but we’ve seen comatose patients (aging normally) wake up after years in a coma. It’s possible.
Just think of jumping a year ahead with only a four-month aging penalty. What might you gain by this? What would it all cost?
Except for the ill and thrill-seekers, I’m not sure we’d have lots of takers. It’s too expensive for ordinary people.
Most important cures for illness will come about within ten years — many cancers, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s (maybe), Huntington’s, diabetes, and so on. If you’re diagnosed, get the best estimate for a cure date and go to sleep. Bad news is that the disease will progress at 30% of normal rate (possibly less in some instances such as cancer where vital bodies result in more rapid spread) so that you have to calibrate well.
It’s quite possible to find ways to reduce metabolic rate even further. At 10%, much is possible and more use is likely.
So I just found this blog trying to find if Mars One will actually work out of curiosity! I have read a lot of comments in the beginning and in the end (sorry too many comments to read :o) )
I agree that a short trip is possible but making a colony in a short span of 10-20 years is not sustainable, even if feasible. I think what should happen is:
1. Have a permanent settlement on Moon. It can be an international effort when a lot of countries like US, EU, Russia, Japan, China and India have active space programs as well as lunar missions. The costs are low and learning will be great. A lot of money can be made from sponsorship rights,grants and maybe bringing in some “rocks” and sell them as jewellery items.
2. What we have not discussed yet is the advancements in Artificial Intelligence. The best rover on mars moves only a few centimeters a day – what if the machines are able to make their own decisions? We can have a lot of machines working in parallel and doing a lot of work.
3. Start work on genetically modified plans that can survive on Mars and I believe a lot of technology can come from our experience of settling on Moon.
I like Moon settlement in the spirit of the ISS. Much valuable information for future space exploration can be learned, especially for living on Mars.
The Rover slow pace is not due to lack of autonomous software but to lack of power. The RTG produces precious little of it. The speed is below what could be handled, however. It should be able to manage about a kilometer an hour, more of a slow walk than a crawl.
How to modify plants for Mars? You cannot build in radiation shields or deal with the dessication of the 1% atmosphere. Martian dirt has some unpleasant compounds in it that would probably wash out with water readily. The best modifications are already being done, as with golden rice. Plants must grow faster, put more energy into edible parts, grow in a more compact fashion, and be more nutritious. My best example of an effective food plant is the beet that delivers the food value of a root along with edible and nutritious (and tasty) leaves. The only waste is in the skin of the root and the stems, but they can be eaten for fiber and some additional nutrition. No waste at all that way. They’re not very tall either making the ideal for shelf gardening. Make them grow faster with genetics and optimized growing conditions (temperature, humidity, CO2 concentration, and lighting) and you have a great food. Turnips also have edible roots and leaves.
Nuts grow on trees and could not be grown in trays. However, peanuts (not at all real nuts because they grow underground) might be tried. The temperatures may be all wrong because they’re a hot weather plant. Flax seed is highly nutritious and provides plenty of Omega-3 oils. The stems can be processed for clothing fiber (linen).
Plums, oranges, peaches, and so on are tree fruits and would not work in a tray garden.
You might get grapes to grow, but they’re mostly water and so not very efficient. Drying them to make raisins would be nice if you can use the seedless varieties.
Tomatoes are a vine and can produce a good fruit to leaf-and-root ratio.
Cereal grains would probably be a problem to grow. They would have to be dwarf varieties.
Garden compost can grow mushrooms, which can provide flavor and nutrition.
Onions may be difficult but bunching onions (scallions) may work and provide necessary flavor to meals on Mars along with their nutrition.
Small potatoes might be grown. You cannot eat the leaves, however. The same goes for short carrots. Getting any root vegetable to grow faster will be important.
You may be able to sustain low-bush blueberries. They’re perennial and so will permanently occupy some area, but they can be moved aside when dormant.
Beans add fiber and protein to the diet. They are low-growing. I have to wonder if quinoa can be grown on Mars.
You get the idea by now. Planning for food on Mars will be a very high-tech operation.
You are very right about what you said. I am inclining more and more towards thinking that we can visit Mars with the existing or close to be “ready” technology but having a real sustainable colony is a bit distant dream and probably the reason other big national space agencies are not pursuing.
I think it requires a lot of planet engineering i.e. a source of sustainable energy and effective radiation shielding. Say if we solve the problem of energy via nuclear reactors would it not be possible to create a local magnetic shielding? This reminds me what Dr Michio Kaku once said, the planet engineering is a task of Type 2 civilisation while we aren’t even Type 1 yet.
If I could control things I would opt for setting up a base on moon as its less pricey, the gains are huge and meanwhile work on making the mars more “habitable”. I read somewhere that scientists were working on creating a GM bacteria that can convert the rock into soil and absorb CO2 from the atmosphere.
The surface of Mars is most certainly sterile due to heavy constant UV, constant cosmic and solar radiation, extreme low temperatures, and strong dessication over billions of years. While UV doesn’t penetrate far, the rays will reach down to a few meters. The cold reaches far down.
For these reasons, no bacteria, no matter how engineered, will not thrive or even survive on the exposed surface of Mars.
Most native bacteria, were there any to begin with, have degraded over the eons and are no longer viable.
Of course bacteria can remove CO2 from the atmosphere. cyanobacteria have been doing that for millenia. As to breaking down rocks, that depends heavily on the rock type. Quartz won’t work. Limestone and marble will.
here are some interesting reads on nuclear power for space that I have found.
Click to access lecture23.pdf
http://atomictoasters.com/
http://www.world-nuclear.org/
It seems we have had the potential to generate power for space flight and energy generation for some years now.
If only everyone got behind a mars mission and the funding was there we would see bases on both the moon and mars in record time.
I’d like to see a Moon base manned by transients. Living there permanently makes little sense, but we should be there. It’s a bit more difficult than the ISS, of course. It should be the testing ground for going to Mars.
Totally agree with that. If we can’t do this sort of things on Moon what’s the possibility of our success on Mars?
@Harry re: the Raiation: at normal speeds the scenario you laid out would work out however once you start moving at a fraction of c you need to take into account that anything in front of you will be blueshifted. the radiation behind you would be redshifted and its effect would be negligible however anything in front of you will be magnified to many times its original levels because the blueshifting will cause its frequency to increse as its wavelength decreased.
The blueshift/redshift/time dilation/relative mass increase/Lorentz contraction (or relativistic effects, in short) can be calculated with the following equation:
γ = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Where:
γ = Lorentz factor (the factor of relativistic effects)
v = Relative velocity
c = The speed of light
This is near meaningless to us currently because as you pointed out our puny speeds don’t even touch a fraction of c. But once we do start to employ engines that can move us at .1 c and up we will need to also be aware of the radiation. Hopefully by the time we have figured out the secrets of generating and safely employing that kind of power we will also have figured out a method of shielding us from the dust and radiation.
re: Hibernation: like I said Hibernation can open up a world of possibilities. I love what you said about disease management, we have seen that theme in sci-fi for years with cryogenics, the show stopper for cryo-sleep however is that no one has figure out how to thaw you out yet. with this new method however you are not frozen, just put into a deep sleep. I totally agree with you that the effective uses with amplify if we can refine the process, right now they are aiming for a 70% metabolic reduction but in a few decades who knows how more efficient it will be. If Hibernation proves successful then you bring other players get into the game and competition is always good for innovation. Since Allen bond started working on his single stage engine, he has over the last few decades refined the efficiency of the engine by 400%. So I am sure if Hibernation becomes a thing we could expect very low and stable metabolic rates.
@ Anirudh: I agree with you on setting up a closer base first to see if it can work before moving further out. a Moon base is a goo idea. Personally I think we should set up a fully sustainable habitat in Antarctica first. if we can master living out there then it would really paint a bright future for the Moon, and once we proved THAT worked, I think we would have real support for Mars. the biggest problem with Mars is that most educated people are doubtful that anyone can pull it off right now, there are too many holes in the plans proposed because we cant even make a self sustaining biosphere work on Earth and we have 0 experience with outposts beyond low Earth orbit. If we established a working Moon base it would prove those same ideas could work on Mars.
I’m with you on the Moon base. Don’t we already have Antarctic bases? But, they’re not fully sustainable as you’d like them to be. It’s not a fair comparison because of air pressure, sunlight, etc. differences. Besides, it’s not as “sexy.”
Strictly speaking, blue shift and red shift apply only to light.
With cosmic rays moving near the speed of light, the extra energy imparted by the ship’s speed would not be significant until that ship was speeding above 0.1c. At 0.1c, it’s about a 10% increase from particles in front of the ship. For those behind the ship, an essentially equal number, the energy decreases by a bit more that the increase of the others.
At those high energies, it all makes little difference. The rays coming from the sides are just as serious as those coming from the front.
If your ship could reach 0.9c, then things change. Your speed relative to the particles and vice versa would be
s = c^2(.9c + .9c)/(c^2 + 0.81c^2) = 0.994c
Now, the energy is about 5.8 times as great. But, you’re already encountering cosmic rays at 0.994c even if you’re standing still. You just have more of them from the front, fewer from the back, and the same from the side.
What this all truly indicates is that your magnetic shielding must be strongest at the front. You cannot have either pole of the field in that direction. You might also try electrostatic shielding, but I’m not sure how you’d develop such technology. You also should put your hydrogen fuel tanks in front of the crew compartment.
In a suspended animation ship, it may be much cheaper to shield each pod separately.
Yes Self sufficient bio-domes are what I was going for on Antarctica, There are a number of research an weather stations bur as far as I know they receive resupply shipments every 6 months.
Indeed all the conditions are not the same, you have unlimited air and water but it as as close to Mars as we can get. but I think you nailed it when you said it wasn’t as sexy.
as far as magnetic shielding, I was thinking along the same lines, instead having your poles face the front and rear, the generator should be positioned much like earth’s field so your poles are up and down so yours shield would envelope the ship like a teardrop. but having a second layer of shielding around the crew pods is just goo planning because radiation will still get in wherever your poles are. though I do like the idea of the fuel cells doubling as shielding. I have read that waste matter can also be compacted and vacuum sealed then used to line the interior of a habitat or hull of a ship. it would serve as another layer of shielding.
another thing to consider would be the computer systems. for short trips (relatively) to Mars you would not have as much of a problem but if you were going on longer journey to the outer solar system then you would need some serious AI to take care of the sleeping crew. However computer science is where we are strongest as a society and I don’t think advanced AI capable of making advanced decisions for long flights is more then a few decades away. if that.
I agree with Harry here. There is not much merit setting up a base in Antarctica as it just does not push us to the limits of technology and is not sexy enough. All the communication systems are in place and help is not that far away if needed, which means there will be less drive to succeed.
Not to mention, the question is not about technical feasibility, the technology can be developed and improved, but with will power. Here is a very interesting article from BBC which tries to answer the question “What if Russians had gotten to the Moon first?”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13041326
Any mission such as colonising Moon or sending humans to Mars requires will power which our politicians don’t have. Politicians need votes and so only implement popular policies. Advancing humanity and making lives better for generations to come is not something that you will find in political parties manifestos. A lot of people still question India and China’s space programs when they have millions of poor people. So without a public support governments around the world wouldn’t do anything and space is not commercially viable yet for private companies to take matter in their own hand. I think we are still a century or two away before space means more to us than just a “thing” to support our communication and navigation systems.
“Any mission such as colonising Moon or sending humans to Mars requires will power which our politicians don’t have.”
Amen to that, my friend. It’s become a sad world in which pandering to voters (often to their worst instincts) substitutes for real leadership.
China and India are merely attempting to prove that they belong to the elite among nations. For them, it’s about status, not their people.
“I think we are still a century or two away before space means more to us than just a “thing” to support our communication and navigation systems.”
I don’t share this dour view of the future because innovations are coming at us at breakneck speed. The possible becomes the probably much more rapidly than anyone expects. The probable then becomes the ordinary soon enough.
I do agree about the second part of the statement, though. For now, space is, as you say, just another thing to support Earth-bound technology and aspirations, such as seeing more of Kim Kardashian. How can a species that can do such incredibly mind-blowing thing also do such demeaning ones? When will we ever learn?
It’s a bit off-topic, but this discussion has me pondering world peace. You know — that thing that every beauty contestant espouses. Here is my short list of necessities for world peace.
1. Population control: too few resources for too many people is a recipe for conflict. If only we could go back to four billion people readily.
2. Universal education: the more educated you are, the more likely you’re going to have fewer children and make better decisions — such as not using war as a solution to your problems or allowing others to do so.
3. Open worldwide communications: The Internet has the promise to deliver on this. The more we know about others, the less likely we are to demonize them and wish to kill them.
The exciting part about being a part of this online journal is that it focuses on the last two items. The Internet can bring the world closer together and make conflicts less likely. It also can bring education to every person in every country.
Too many simply seek to abuse the Internet as with porn sites, computer viruses, and other ways to harm others for your own benefit. The rest of us must work against such practices tirelessly. We also must work to keep the Internet open and not bend to giant corporations that seek to enhance profits by tilting the playing field in favor of those able to pay more.
I dunno… Google Translate can result in a LOT of misunderstandings.
j/k
LOL! Excellent, Brett!
Sorry, I probably went overboard with my century or two remark! You never know how events will unfold in next decade leave alone a century. However, I do have different viewpoints to the points you mentioned above.
1. Population – I don’t think population is a problem. We are not a vulcan society as we aren’t very logical in a broader sense. In a world where we have enough resources for everyone there won’t be any desire or motivation to go the extra mile.That explains why most of us are happy watching Kim Kardashian’s body than doing anything meaningful. We will eventually reach a tipping point where it will be more profitable to mine asteroids than tunnelling the Earth miles deep. Same is the case with energy. Our energy demand is increasing exponentially so in a not very distant future it will be cheaper and sustainable to venture outside than looking inwards.We can use this forum to discuss how we can tap the endless supply of resources in space. I work in financial sector and a firm believer in the theory that no invention is a great invention unless it has a commercial use.
Also, India and China aren’t running their space program just to be part of the club, they have real reasons behind it and reaping the benefits too. Indian IT industry wouldn’t exist as it does today if they hadn’t put their communication satellites in orbit back in 80s. Same can be argued for China, although, I have a feeling that China’s space program has more to do with showcasing might than India’s. So population can be a good thing too!
2. Wars – Its a tragedy of human history that only two things push us to the edge of our capabilities – starvation and war. We would still be happy fighting wild animals if tectonic plate movement hadn’t turned large parts of Africa into deserts. There would be no GPS is there was no cold war and a little space program to speak of! While no one can predict how things would have look like if there were no wars but if our history is of any indication, there will be no major advancements without wars (Internet was also something that was developed to support military communications!).
Happy to be corrected.
What you say is pretty much true and very depressing. Both human history and evolutionary history prove that no progress takes place without pain.
However, I would suggest that you may understand, being in the financial section, that gain is another motivator. The iPhone did not come from war. Although you might call the fighting of large companies for dominance a form of war, it’s not the bullets and bombs sort.
Perhaps, you might amend the war remark to include any conflict, not just the warring sort. Larger conflicts create larger impetus toward innovation and change.
In the future, we may well see serious economic wars among nations. We’re edging toward that already. The “hot war” mindset in my country (U.S.) inures many to the real war being fought every day mostly behind closed doors as the giants of industry seek ever larger revenues and small fry look for chinks in the big guys armor.
I should add that even economic wars have casualties. They’re not measured by flag-draped coffins and swelling wards in veterans’ hospitals, though.
Right now, enough people are starving that I would also not be so sure about enough resources for all. Malthus may have been mistaken about the numbers, but I don’t think that he was wrong conceptually. It’s not just food, either. There’s water, a serious problem in parts of my country. In parts of Africa, enough clean water is not available. Mineral resources have limited availability. Then, there’s good old energy, to which you allude.
It’s a certainty that we won’t be getting fossil fuels from space. Asteroids won’t provide us with fuel either even if we could mine them at reasonable cost. The only energy from space would be solar. A polar satellite might be in sunlight all of the time. You’d just have to have a way to get all of that power back to the surface. So far, suggestions I’ve seen have been rather dangerous. High-intensity microwave beams could become misaligned and fry people and other things the errant beams hit. Yet photonic energy transmission is the only feasible approach to date. It’s not as though you can ferry batteries up and down to be charged up their and discharged down here.
There’s real hope for 30% efficient solar cells here on Earth. (That’s about as good as they’ll get.) At double typical efficiency today and 50% greater than current viable cells, much energy can be collected in any area that is mostly sunny. We have vast deserts answering to that description in many parts of the world. Just a fraction of the total desert area of the world could theoretically supply all energy needs of the entire world today. If the population were to stop growing, then only the expanding industrialization of societies would fuel more energy requirements.
Expanding technology is delivering more energy-efficient devices of all sorts, including motors. Consider what a radio circa 1950 used in power compared to today. Compare early mobile phones to those of today. How about televisions of the 1950s and today’s LCD devices?
The energy per person will peak and drop as we find better ways to deliver a decent living standard with less energy and better ways to create and transmit that energy.
However, the mindset of bigger is better has to be countered. Where I live, houses cost over $1 million. (I don’t own one.) Quaint beach cottages are being torn down to make way for 4,000 square-foot mansions (and even larger ones) because the land alone costs around $1 million. Those may be occupied by a single couple, sometimes on a part-time basis. This is real energy waste. It’s the same with automobiles and many more things. In some places, Veblen’s “conspicuous consumption” shows up starkly. Here, these mansions contrast with near slums just a few miles away. This is not healthy for a society.
It is my opinion after reading multiple online documents relating to both mars and moon missions for colonization that the technology for ISRU, Life Support, Energy generation, Water and Air production, radiation protection, food production and other factors have been well thought out over the course of the past 50 years. Ongoing technology advances only increase likelihood of success.
I believe that colonization and earth return missions are both possible at present and any time in the near future.
The only problem I see as having to be overcome is human physiology being capable of overcoming the travel effects of long term weightlessness and then enduring the reduced gravity environments while trying to stay healthy enough to perform the required functions.
And secondly financial and political backing of the missions.
Once unlimited financing is ensured the only other factor will be human capability to function.
What are your thoughts and opinions?
The basic thesis of Mars One is exactly as you state it. By making it a private venture, they avoid the political angle. Then, they focus on the financial.
Despite their sanguine views about the technology, they admit that the technology has not been developed yet for the mission. They say that the basic underlying technologies are all there. However, engineering must take place to make them into a Mars mission. Even such mundane items as growing soil must be figured out. No one has yet set up a list of plants that will provide long-term food. I’ve been working on this problem for Martial Rhapsody and have only partially solved it. The plant growing technology is rather well developed now, but we must know which plants and why.
It’s also clear that new technologies, such as new versions of SpaceX and Skylon, are coming along soon. Right now, RTGs appear to be the best bet for heat and backup electricity on Mars. I have used them in Martian Rhapsody. Newer ideas may supersede these. For example, a super-capacitor technology could revolutionize the energy industry and make electric cars the default instead of ICE-based cars.
Breakthroughs in solar cells could give Mars cells with an incredible 30% efficiency with ultra lightweight super capacitors to store the energy in. That would be a game changer. I still have reasons for shipping the RTGs to Mars, though.
So far, ISRU has seen limited application. Alan Bond suggests returning from Mars to Earth using CO and O2 from the CO2 in the atmosphere. In his scenario, it’s nuclear reactors that supply the energy to split the atmospheric CO2. The solar-cell/super-capacitor future system above could reduce the mass of Mr. Bond’s Mars missions considerably.
This is a deep topic involving a multitude of technologies spanning a wide variety of disciplines.
How much shielding would a 1 inch lead lined pocket covering just the top half of a habitat, the pocket being capable of holding 12 inches of water. So it would be 12 inches of water sandwiched between lead of 1 inch top and bottom?
How would tungsten in place of lead compare?
The water compartment could be filled from ISRU generation.
If this isn’t enough then regolith could still be used although not in the 5 m depth but somewhat lesser.
You have to shield all sides except the bottom. Cosmic rays coming in horizontally are just as strong on Mars as those coming in vertically — well very slightly attenuated due to some atmosphere. More air would help reduce horizontal cosmic and solar radiation.
Merely shielding the top is not sufficient.
I forgot the thickness of the habitat material which would most likely be aluminum would be included in the protection.
Pb would have to be lifted at $100000/kg so anything using native materials is better engineering.
The habitat material might be an aluminum alloy or titanium alloy. The latter should provide more strength per kilogram. Purchase cost must be a low consideration compared to the amount of mass required to deliver a given functionality. Due to the enormous number of alloys available, I cannot say which will win out, but I’d bet on titanium more on a hunch than on hard data.
The thickness may be a centimeter, give or take. It is not an important factor in shielding.
Click to access 06-Raumtransportsysteme-Kosten.pdf
page 6 launch costs per kg
I think its only $2000 per lb launch cost and the liner would only add about 6000 kg or 13 pounds to total habitat weight, tubular habit sections about 12 ft long by 10 ft that would be about $26000 extra per habitat 12000 kg or 26000 lb for aluminum total of 18 kg so it would be about 38 t per habitat 38000 kg about $76000000 for launch of habitat as opposed to all aluminum 24000 kg $48000000 so a difference of 28 million if my calculations are all correct.
Then the liner could be filled with water created from ISRU, and would do away with processing between 5 and 15 meters or regolith covering witch would use a lot of man hours and heavy equipment usage.
Launch costs are all over the map. Getting a pound of matter into space used to cost over $10,000. New technologies, such as SpaceX, claim to reduce that cost to under $1,000 per pound. However, that’s just low-Earth orbit. Going to Mars costs at least ten times that much. Today, it’s around $100,000 per pound if you take what NASA has done as a guideline. Soon, in a few years, it should drop to $10-20 thousand per pound.
It’s best to be conservative in our estimates and assume that going to Mars in 2023 would cost more than $10,000 per delivered pound. For each pound that must return from Mars, the current estimate is about $500,000 per pound sent to Mars and returned to Earth safely — as in an expedition. Again, that number should decline by as much as tenfold in ten years or so. Getting a single lightweight person to Mars and back would cost $50,000,000 without any capsule or gear. Obviously the capsule would add a ton or so and jump the cost to around a billion or more. More people would add on more.
Yes, Mars One is choosing to use regolith as shielding for that very reason. I’m not sure what the angle of repose of regolith is. They claim that they’re going to heap regolith up to a depth of three meters (about ten feet). That’s a lot of regolith! This is probably a reasonable number for shielding. Liquid hydrogen, not lead, is supposed to be the best cosmic ray shielding. Cryogenics are out of the question for the near future on Mars, however.
The shielding does not have to be in place instantly up arrival. The settlers have been essentially unshielded for months in space. It will probably take a month to shield the sleeping quarters, after which the remaining habitat areas that are often occupied could also be buried. You’d leave a machine room and airlock alone. This is another topic that I explore in Martial Rhapsody.
So could a gap in the upper half of the habitat be filled with hydrogen instead of water as opposed to covering it in regolith?
What about constructing the habitat in some form of carbon fiber of carbon fiber aluminum composite to reduce the habitat cost?
Cryogenics are not feasible on Mars in the near future.
I expect that composites will not be used because of their organic content (plastics of one sort or another, e.g. epoxies). Strong ionizing radiation will break down the bonds and weaken the materials rather rapidly.
How about hydrogen impregnated foam?
Foam isn’t a good choice because of lack of density. You could use something like polyethylene because of its high number of hydrogen atoms. However, the density is less than liquid hydrogen, and you’d have the problem of transport. Using ISRU is definitely preferred for everything possible, especially bulk items such as fuel, food, and shielding.
Filling just the top would do little good. the structure needs to be covered on all sides. personally I was in favor of using liquid Hydrogen filled tanks encircling the habitat walls and roof but as Harry and I debated that several weeks ago we came to the reasoning that the energy costs and complexity of keeping that hydrogen liquefied would be enormous. The first colonists just wont have the energy to spare to keep the hydrogen refrigerated. and if there is a power or equipment failure, the hydrogen would quickly decompress and rupture the tanks. Its needlessly complex.
Using Regolith seems to be the most sensible route but using inflatable habitats and covering them up seems implausible. The risk of rupture or decompression would mean the deaths of anyone in that structure. The design as the Mars One’s artists show on the website would not work, there is just no way to pile 3 meters of regolith onto the structures using the layout they display.
I think the habitats should be solid tubes and should be buried like coffins with a shaft at the end leading up to an airlock on the surface.
Digging channels and laying the habitats inside would be complicated. you would need temporary habs in place while you dug the channels and placed the permanent structures in the channels and covered them up. If you built the permanent structures first and covered them over you would need some sort of framework to hold all the regolith in place and I think that would take more effort then sinking them in the ground.
Actually, I took the trouble to estimate the weight (on Mars) of three meters of regolith and translated it to pressure. It comes to around 1/6 atm, which strangely enough matches the internal pressure that I posit for the habitat in Martian Rhapsody.
That’s the pressure on the top. The sides would have less outside pressure, of course. Add some internal structure for safety, and you have a perfectly viable habitat. The material must be robust for many reasons, most importantly abrasion and puncture resistance. You’re piling up lots of rocks and sand on it, after all. It has to be airtight.
I imagine a multi-layer composite of different materials with the requisite properties rather than one material with all properties. With internal scaffolding, loss of pressure would not mean instant death.
Yet, internal scaffolding may be impractical. Explosive decompression is extremely unlikely. Even a hole of a centimeter in diameter would take time to exhaust all of the air through the overlying regolith. You’d have somewhere between hours and days to fix the problem with a patch. We must assume that technology will be able to sense leaks by some means and warn the settlers as well as provide a rough location so that they can effect the seal quickly. We must hope that such technology will be included in the first mission, whenever it launches.
The layout shown by the artists has many problems, of which piling regolith on top of half cylinders lined up close to one another is just one. These inflatable structures must be accessible from both long sides by slow-moving rovers pushing dirt and rocks. Slowly, they will build up a ramp of such material to cover the entire structure. I suspect that covering just one such structure using rovers would require at least a month and likely much more time.
The resulting heaps of dirt will look like long hills of about 5 meters in height and perhaps 15-20 meters in width. The slopes will be rather gentle. Rovers will push dirt up from both sides in my imagining, although single-side access is a possibility, in which case the hills would be asymmetrical.
The solar cells must be far from this operation, both excavation of regolith and piling onto the structures. These sorts of issues leave much less layout flexibility than the Mars One artist imagined. But, their artist was not an engineer and was attempting to cast the site in the best possible light for recruitment and fund-raising reasons. Slightly dishonest? Yes. Typical? Also, yes.
I would rather risk radiation than being buried by regolith on Mars!
Well, to each their own. Radiation is not a risk; it’s a certainty. You will receive over 20 times Earth-bound radiation each Earth year on Mars. The likelihood of dying of radiation-induced disease on Mars without shielding is essentially 100% unless you’re already rather old.
The likelihood of being buried by regolith is minute — assuming a good job of engineering has been done with sound design and execution.
Note that an inflatable habitat unit must be maintained, as all units must, as a separate air space with the connections to adjoining units closed except when people are entering or leaving so that leaks can be isolated and handled. The greenhouse will be mildly toxic for long exposure due to higher CO2 levels required for optimum plant growth.
The greatest risk for decompression of any unit comes from meteorites, especially tiny ones that are most numerous. That three meters of regolith will shield you from those. In case of puncture, one of the layers of material will certainly be a self-sealant for small holes.
If you did have decompression of an inflatable unit sufficient to cause collapse (and did not have scaffolding) you’d die quickly enough from lack of air if there were no regolith on top and would be buried underneath the collapsed material. With the regolith, the pressure would be maintained during a slow collapse, even a few minutes, because the regolith would provide the pressurization of the remaining air.
Truly explosive decompression will kill you no matter what. The likelihood of such an event is greatly reduced with the regolith on top.
Having said all of that, I do understand that some people will find living in an artificial cave made of dirt unacceptable. You would know **every day** that that mound of dirt above is just waiting to crush your life out of existence. Yet, you could say something similar about the entire planet.
All the more reason to get air on Mars asap.
Smile!
How about High-density polyethylene (HDPE) or Borotron® high density borated polyethylene or LDPE low -density polyethylene used on submarines for radiation protection or Lead-Polyethylene-Boron.
No matter what you suggest, ISRU will trump it. The cost of bringing stuff to Mars is just too high. People who go will have to be able to deal with bizarre psychological pressures.
On a related note, what works on submarines for radiation doesn’t work in space because the radiation is different. High-energy cosmic rays are mostly ions traveling near the speed of light. Nuclear reactor radiation is mostly neutrons (alpha and beta particles are very easy to shield against). What works for neutrons is very different from what works for high-energy cosmic radiation.
It’s sort of like shielding against knives or bullets.
Those cosmic rays are so dangerous that the particles themselves rarely cause damage. The showers of particles created when they collide with a nucleus create most of the damage. It’s good old Einstein and E=mc^2 again, except backward — m = E/c^2. You’re making mass from kinetic energy. First, you have to stop the cosmic ray particle itself. Then, you have to stop all of the resulting high-energy particles (but not as much energy as the initial one, that energy has been divided up). Then, you have to stop the secondary particles and the tertiary particles until they’re all just absorbed by the shielding. A few will always get through but too few to cause a serious radiation hazard if your shielding is robust enough.
This is why Mars One estimated THREE METERS of regolith to stop the cosmic rays and solar radiation. Sand is fairly dense stuff, just ground up rock.
Sometimes brute force is better than technology. :-)
P.S.: I wouldn’t enjoy living underneath a one-story layer of dirt either.
I think I read that after the first 5 m of regolith remaining layers become less efficient.
As to the coatings, I am referring to them being coated during fabrication here on earth, not being coated on Mars or the Moon.
Like investing in radiation protection technology here on earth in the fabrication of the habitats before they are sent to be used.
Click to access NASA3360.pdf
page 301-314 gets into detail on the options relating to what has been discussed.
Nice document. Final conclusions based on Moon base may not be valid for Mars.
Note that (Figure 10, Page 322) that aluminum is the worst shield based on density. As I suspected, LiH and polyethylene are quite good. Certainly, HDPE is easier to manufacture and ship than the very reactive lithium hydride. HDPE will degrade over time and turn into powder, however, as the radiation breaks its chemical bonds.
The report (elsewhere) points out that small habitats are likely to have transported shielding being less massive than machinery to move regolith. A long-term Mars settlement must have machinery, however.
While many ideas are expressed, the conclusions are limited due to lack of knowledge of the nature of Martian regolith past a very shallow depth.
Click to access Space%20Resources%20NASA-SP-509-V3.pdf
This is an interesting read on space mining, particularly the Moon and asteroids.
Yes it is interesting. It’s a bit dated — twenty years old. But, it still has interesting material in it. Clearly, serious mining in space would be primarily for use in space. Finding useful asteroids would probably like finding gold, very difficult. The costs of searching would be outrageous if people had to do it in person. Even automated searching by robot craft would be very slow.
Do you think Paragon will have a suit design and be able to create them in time to supple the first colonist by 2022?
Here’s what Mars One has to say:
http://www.mars-one.com/en/mars-one-news/press-releases/11-news/380-mars-one-contracts-paragon-for-mars-life-support-systems
It’s a “first step” and is just a design contract. At least Mars One has begun to spend technical development money on a small scale.
There are no details yet. Will they use the stretch suit concept? How will they plan for the extreme oxidizing nature of Mars dirt and dust? What will be the CO2 scrubber technology and how will they regenerate these on Mars? What will be the air supply mix and pressure? How will they maximize durability while minimizing mass? We could be waiting a year to find out. No date for study completion has been provided.
Can they create a few suits and spare parts to be ready for launch in ten years? Of course they can. Will they be as good as they might be? Who knows? Will they run tests in a Mars-like environment? We’ll see.
I wonder why companies haven’t gotten into HE3 mining an on the moon?
I have read that this might be an objective of there lunar missions. If they in fact started mining HE3, do you think this would cause american companies and NASA to begin there mining projects?
Or do you think mining Lunar HE3 is neither profitable nor feasable?
My first reaction to Helium-3 mining on the Moon is incredulity. So, I took a look at what it all means. Why would anyone want He-3? How much is on the Moon? How can you extract it?
The Internet makes getting some answers easy, hoping that they’re good answers.
Why be interested in He-3? Because it could be used in nuclear fusion reactors is the answer I find. However, no such reactor has yet been built and probably won’t be for a great many years or even decades. There’s just no reason to mine it today. Someday, if we can solve the nuclear fusion problems, it could be a valuable fuel and make mining on the Moon possible — maybe.
How much is there on the Moon? Estimates (emphasize that word) are around 50 ppb in permanently shadowed areas, much less in sunlit areas. This means that you’d have to process about 150 million tonnes of Moon regolith to get one tonne of He-3. That’s some serious mining, and the effects would likely be visible from the Earth. Given the costs of operating on the Moon and of transport back to the Earth, energy would have to quite dear to justify this effort. It could happen some decades in the future.
How can you extract it? It’s not just lying about. The Moon regolith is rather cohesive. You’d probably have to use heavy machinery or blasting or both. Heavy machinery would require much fuel from Earth unless high-efficiency solar cells could be employed along with some excellent energy storage such as super-capacitors (still just a dream). Then, you’d only have to heat it. Possibly, you could concentrate sunlight for the heating. Finally, you’d compress it using more energy for the pumps.
Bottom line: He-3 mining on the Moon is science fiction today. A minimum of ten years will elapse before it’s possible even to consider it seriously and then only if sustainable nuclear fusion has been achieved in the laboratory.
what will everyone else think when they see this?
http://www.echinacities.com/news/Chinese-Mars-Mission-Applicants-Demand-Refund
This article was mentioned here some weeks ago. it doesn’t seem very professional and its accuracy is questionable at best. While over 100,000 people have signed up for Mars One, not every one has paid. currently Mars One has only confirmed a few hundred applicants having paid so far. With that in mind I find it slightly suspicious that 10,000 Chinese citizens have paid so far.
Yes, Don. Everyone should check the dateline. It’s May 27! That’s almost four months ago. Xinhua quoting Lansdorp may be more or less accurate, although taken out of context. It would only take two people asking for their money back to generate this sort of story from a suspect journalist.
I’d amend that quote (not actually quoted) to the 2023 date **will** not actually be achieved. With several competing Mars programs, they should eventually combine resources for such a mind-blowing scope and set a reasonable target date of maybe 2027. With Elon Musk and Alan Bond in the mix, anything is possible.
Its true. If Mars One partnered with the likes of Musk and Bond the Mission would have more muscle behind it. I watched a documentary on Alan Bond, the man is the Enstien of the Engineering world. When he completes his single stage engine I think it will make missions to Mars more practical. Instead of costing Billions to get there it would only most millions and although that is still a lot to you and me, it is far more realistic from a commercial point of view.
Granted the Skylon design is only intended for Low Earth Orbit but it would provide a very cost effective method of getting cargo, fuel and passengers up to the ISS, from there it be much cheaper to send up an inter-planetary craft, load all the cargo and fuel and take off from there.
Curiously, Musk does not like Bond’s engine and has said so publicly. Bond has delved much more deeply into this issue and so is probably correct. Musk’s reaction is that the resistance encountered from scooping up all of that air will cause enough drag to eliminate any advantage gained from not carrying oxidizer on board the ship. The air compressor should reduce the drag by creating a partial vacuum ahead of the ship, but I’m not sufficiently knowledgeable to comment further. Bond is heavily committed to his technology. If Musk continues with his viewpoint, these two will not be working together on space. SpaceX and Reaction Engines are competitors, after all, and are taking different routes to space.
Yes Sadly the two working together is unrealistic and that is a shame because with Musk’s resources, the single stage engine might become a reality much sooner.
Personally I have faith that the skylon design will work, as you mentioned, Bond has put a tremendous amount of research into making this work, in fact he has said it has consumed much of his life and he needs to see it become a reality. I think it will happen because he is not the only one working on it. the U.S Airforce has already build an air breathing ScramJet: the X-51A Waverider. Though the design is not really compatible with Bond’s goals because the X-51 is not intended to leave the atmosphere, it is a weapon system designed to reach hyper-sonic speeds then strike a target and go boom. not really what Bond has in mind but the air breathing portion of the engine works fine and the Air Force has successfully test fired the system with no reports of drag being an issue.
SCRAM jets have been around for a while. Bond has overcome a problem with excessive heating at the speeds he’d like to reach. (Compressing air heats it — a lot.) Ground-based testing has proven the viability. If he had lots of money from PayPal, he would be further along.
I agree that something like Skylon may be able to reduce low Earth orbit flights in cost. For low-cost travel to Mars, more is necessary, namely a “Mars shuttle” that can reduce the transit time and reduce cost by being reusable indefinitely. You only can go once every two years. Thus, you have to have a large load capacity (or multiple shuttles) and plenty of demand for the service.
Radiation is a problem in transit. Using aluminum as an example, radiation from GCR (galactic cosmic rays) actually increases with the thickness of material. For this reason, shorter transit time becomes very important. Using chemical rockets just has too many problems because of the large cost of lifting fuel and oxidizer into orbit.
There’s no way to get around Newton’s laws of motion. You have to have mass to toss out the rear. The best choice appears to be hydrogen. A power source to heat, ionize, and accelerate the hydrogen must be robust. A nuclear reactor looks like the only viable option today. Someday, we may be able to put a fusion reactor in orbit.
I don’t see why some products that exist could not be incorporated into some kind of shielding maybe used in combination to tackle the radiation dilemma? There are products that are out there like Hybrid Polymer Gamma Ray Radiation Shielding Material (HGD) http://www.canlaser.com/en/GammaRay.aspx or Demron which can easily be made into a suit so I don’t see why some covering for a module could not be designed http://www.radshield.com/ or maybe T-FLEX which appears to be almost as good as lead http://www.eichrom.com/PDF/gamma-ray-attenuation-white-paper-by-d.m.-rev-4.pdf
With some ingenuity I think the problem of radiation shielding can be overcome quite easily.
Hi Jason,
Some nice research there. These materials seem to be designed for stopping gamma rays. This approach has two problems that I see. Both are related to the fact that we have to stop GCR (galactic cosmic rays).
1. Gamma rays are a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that has no upper limit of energy. Other rays, such as x-rays, have specific ranges of energy. Powerful enough gamma rays will penetrate any material if not sufficiently thick. You can only stop them by wearing them down. They cannot be deflected by magnetic fields because they have no charge. Upon encountering matter (i.e. atomic nuclei), they generate a shower of high-energy particles. GCR gamma rays have extremely high energies, far beyond that of nuclear reactors.
2. The most dangerous portion of GCR are the high-energy protons (hydrogen nuclei) traveling at nearly the speed of light. Unlike photons, these have rest mass and interact more strongly with matter. No shielding material can stop them with a small thickness (of, say, 10 cm). Most materials will only make the effects worse. Only hydrogen does not have this multiplying effect. First-row elements are better than those with higher atomic numbers. For this reason, people have suggested high-density polyethylene as shielding. Hydrogen has the best results per gram because it has no neutrons in its nuclei (except for trace amounts of deuterium and tritium).
Here on the Earth at sea level, we have a nice magnetic field to deflect the protons and lots of atmosphere to attenuate the gamma rays. We still are irradiated with a lifetime dose of about one Sievert. NASA has estimated that a three-year trip to Mars and back would result in this dose even with some shielding. They indicate that the lifetime likelihood of cancer would rise around 3% as a result (if I remember properly).
Plastics with a higher density of hydrogen would help. You would not be able to manufacture those on Mars and so would burden yourself with much more material to lift into space. Using regolith is a much more practical idea for large installations. Due to the weight of the earth-moving equipment, small installations would be better off carrying the shielding material. However, rovers are necessary and can be adapted for earth moving. It’s really a matter of how much regolith can be piled up reasonably (and is available to be moved a short distance). Mars One suggests three meters. That’s lots but is feasible. NASA has papers arguing for five meters. That’s too much, IMO. It’s a difficult situation.
I believe those products do stop gamma rays which are the most dangerous to humans and electronics.
Why don’t you think they can be used?
Hi Harry,
What I mean is they can be used in conjunction with Polyethylene which seems to be capable of doing a good job. All of these products have little weight penalty for transport and can be replaced much easier if they become less effective over time or having to replace a failed habitat module which would be real difficult if a regolith layer was used for protection.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050180620_2005179931.pdf page 5
and page 32
I do not know what to think about the first link. The information did not seem very scientific or professional. This could however be a byproduct of the information being originally written in another language. What gives me pause however is that this site was obviously written prior to 2012, yet in the almost 2 years since, there is almost no reference to this material anywhere else, a search for it only brings up links to the Can Laser website, there is no objective review of it. The other problem would be that if it is polymer based, it will break down with exposure to radiation.
As for the T-Flex shielding, from what I read it relies on iron or tungsten suspended in polymers. The duel issues here are the polymers breaking down over time in addition to the fact that they would probably be pretty heavy. even if the material came in less then lead, it would still be very expensive to ship large amounts of it to Mars, and as Harry mentioned, you would need a lot of it because thickness is the key.
So far using Mars Dirt seems to be the blue ribbon winner.
Though I do agree with you that digging a habitat out from 10 feet of Mars Rock and dust would be problematic. a polymer type shielding would be great but the key obstetrical come back to cost. Even if it was very light it would be very expensive to ship. For example: many bowling balls are made of polymer materials, they weigh between 10-16lbs and come in at about 12 cubic inches. So to ship a cubic foot of shielding would cost about as much as it would cost to buy a house in the U.S.
Despite the handicaps of using Mars Soil,the cost benefits will outweigh the alternatives….mind the pun.
Polymers will break down into smaller and smaller polymer chains from radiation. What the lifetime usability of polyethylene (for one example) would be is unknown to me. If dimensional stability is unnecessary, then short polymers may be fine.
The real issue here is lifting that much material and moving to Mars. The comparison is with the extra weight for earth-moving capability. Once in place, the dirt will not just blow away. The air is too thin to blow anything but dust. It can roll sand a bit. The dirt cover may have to be stabilized with a small amount of material (something like epoxy but designed for Mars) or by using focused sunlight to fuse portions of the surface. Even that is only necessary for very long term, years or more.
There is, however, a more significant factor to me. I would not like living in a cave, essentially underground. Even if you were ready to do it, the psychological impact of long-term underground living would be greater than negligible. Maybe fake windows combined with tiny video cameras (also customized for the environment) may help. Having lighting that comes close to real sunlight should also be considered. We can do that with LEDs today.
The constant “mechanical” smell of the air would also be a problem for me. I’d yearn for “fresh” air. If you become sufficiently neurotic, you might go outside without a Mars suit on just to breathe “real air” and die.
And so it is that I return to the only real long-term solution to all of these issues on Mars — air. Make 670 millions metric tonnes of O2, and the problems become solvable.
You have crunched the numbers and shown that there is enough Ice on Mars that if it were processed, you could get your 700 Million tons of Oxygen and still have a large sea of water left over. However we have a chicken and Egg problem. IF we had that air, colonizing Mars would be easier but for the level of Industry you would need to produce that Atmosphere you would need a colony in place already. What you propose is realistically a century or more down the line IF we start aggressively colonizing today. The exciting part is that it is doable with the technology we have today, we just need the money and the will. well if we had the will the money would follow….or if we had enough money it buys a lot of will from corporations ;)
I am curious however, would we be able to manufacture an ozone layer? without it the UV would prevent plant life from growing in natural light and Humans would still have to walk around covered. Albeit wearing dark clothes and a scarf and sunglasses would be enough, no space suit needed as long as we had between 16-20Kpa. Even without an Ozone it would still be much easier to live on Mars.
Hi Don,
I’ll answer the second question first. The ozone layer is self-manufacturing. UV light breaks the O2 into O radicals that combine with O2 to form O3, aka ozone. It’s automatic in the presence of O2 and UV light.
On the first issue about making all of that O2 in the first place, I am going to reserve my answer for around chapter 5 or so of Martian Rhapsody. You’ll be surprised. It is possible, but not without risks. You have to think unconventionally, what people call “out of the box.”
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/25aug_plasticspaceships/
http://www.ilcdover.com/Radiation-Shields/
Polyethylene degredation http://www.expresspolymlett.com/articles/EPL-0000133_article.pdf
a sheet of polyethylene 3″ x 12′ x 23′ would only weigh 4.0929 lbs and would give a 30% dose reduction.
Error 1247.5017 lbs
No I was looking at another material it is the original 4 lbs.
wrong again, jeez!! it is the 1247.5017 at $10000 per lb that would cost $12,475,017 which would be quite expensive!
@Harry: wouldnt it take a considerable amount of time for an ozone to form naturally? I was under the impression that our own ozone developed over hundreds of millions of years. would having a solid O2 atmosphere speed up the process?
@Jason That doesnt seem right. I would have thought any meaningful protection would need to be much much thicker. a sheet like you proposed would only few a few millimeters thick. I have never heard of that kind of reduction from something so thin. if that were the case the ISS would be lined with the stuff.
ok your revised figures make a lot more sense :) at 4lbs there was no way it would be thick enough. at 1200lbs of material, that would be quite thick but as you said. very expensive. back to mars dirt! :)
http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/918614 figure 3 towards the end of the document has the chart
This is an old paper (2006) and looks into Fe ions instead of H ions.
Let’s take it as being accurate anyway.
Then, 10 cm of CH2 removes 30% of radiation and leaves 70%. Another 10 cm will leave 70% of 70% or 49%. Another 10 cm will leave 34.3% and so on. Using 130 cm will get us to 1% left. The final layers are absorbing mostly secondary radiation and may be much better left to other materials than CH2 (polyethylene) that may weigh less per square meter for the same effectiveness at those lower energies.
BTW, 130 cm is over 4 feet. That’s lots less than 3 meters (300 cm) of regolith. Too bad we can’t make HDPE on Mars.
The reduction of 30% for three inches may be right. To get to 99% reduction, you’d have to have 39 inches which would be around 156,000 lbs. I haven’t bothered to check the reduction required for living on Mars for 30 years. Given that some modest reduction allows for three years only, I’d say that you’d have to have at least a 90% reduction. For raising children, you should have the ability to survive for up to 100 years without significant radiation damage. That will get you to 99%.
I’m not so sure that Mars One has that with three meters of regolith, but that only has to be for a few initial years until more permanent habitation can be arranged. They should have long-range plans but seem to sweep those under the rug of “self-sustaining.” As if 20 people can conquer Mars alone.
to get the weight I am using this conversion software http://www.hibid.co.uk/metcalc/metcalc.html but it seems to give me conflicting answers for the weight
The density of polyethylene is given as 0.9 g/cc. Just go from there.
Your example sheet was 3″x12’x27′. That converts to 7.6 cm x 365.8 cm x 823 cm = 2.3×10^6 cc or 0.9 g/cc x 2.3×10^6 cc = ~2*10^6 g = 2,000 kg = (sea level on Earth) 4,400 lbs. (Check my math.)
It’s still too much weight.
Chemical reactions in gas phase are fast. The intensity of ultraviolet radiation in the stratosphere is strong. I would expect an ozone layer to form almost instantly. The delays would be due to the thinness of the air there. Most oxygen radicals would recombine with each other because they’d be close together when formed. If an O2 was nearby (in molecular terms), then the O3 would form and leave a lonely O radical to find another O2. Free radicals are extremely reactive. I would be surprised if it took more than a day and incredulous if it took a month.
I should add that 1/5 atm of O2 on Mars would equal the concentration of O2 on Earth. The presence of N2 on Earth will slow the O2 + UV -> O3 reaction (not balanced). On Mars, it will go more rapidly without those pesky N2 molecules boxing in the O radicals.
One-sixth atm of O2 is equal to the partial pressure in many inhabited areas of the Earth. With less gravity, the Mars atmosphere would extend higher (be less compressed). It’s possible that 1/6 atm of O2 on Mars would result in less UV at the surface than on Earth. You’d certainly start with less UV due to the distance from the Sun and the inverse-square law for radiation from a point source.
If we could generate 670 million metric tonnes of O2 on Mars, UV would not be an issue, except for the fair of skin.
It would also attenuate GCR somewhat and make lesser demands on shielding. Maybe a meter of regolith would do. The horizon direction would be entirely shielded.
According to my previous reported research, the current atmosphere has about 20 gm/cm^2 of shielding directly overhead out of an estimated 1,000 required. Ramping up the atmosphere to 1/6 atm would multiply that by maybe 15 to 300 and reduce overhead shielding by 1/3. The horizon would go from 450 to above 5,000, lots more than necessary. Homes would have to have very thick roofs but nothing special in the walls. If the people on Mars were able to manufacture or refine iron, which is abundant there, then it may only take 20 cm of steel covered with a meter of regolith to make a safe roof. It’s tough but better than living underground IMO.
You could also burrow into hillsides and have one side of your home open to the horizon as long as you had sufficient overhang above and beyond your outer wall.
Growing food would not work with this system if you used direct sunlight. The viability of future generations of seed stock would be suspect if you were growing right out in the open.
I have to wonder if the large amount of CO2 currently in the air would, once the O2 were added, make for quite a greenhouse effect. You might have temperatures reaching all the way up to 10°C on a nice day.
;-)
When you look out onto the world of septuagenarians today, you see lots of people who have aged themselves due to lots of tobacco and alcohol use — and possibly other drugs.
If instead, you focus on those who have not abused themselves and who have eaten well and exercised regularly, then you’ll see something quite different.
A Mars expedition should test for accelerated aging by checking liver and kidney function and other tests. One problem that Mars One will have is the tendency of the risk-takers who apply to also be those who have taken risks with their health and future in the past.
A round-trip Mars expedition does not have to be quite so stringent, but a permanent colony will require all-hands-on-deck all of the time.
I don’t think people who have not raised a family or yet to reach the age where they would not consider raising a family should go in the first stages. There are some people under 40 who have no intention of ever having children, but it’s not a typical human response even when such individuals may think at the time this is what they want.
Of course people who do go would have to be sterilized if the females were still fertile: simply too much genetic damage going on, let alone the implications of a pregnancy in such conditions.
But ideally you’re looking for someone with technical knowledge, preferably multiple disciplines, physically fit (although this is more of the defect-free sort of fitness than Olympian qualities – no organ, blood, psychological problems) and who is not attached significantly to a family. Sciences are great, but the first stages are going to require mechanical and engineering, construction and equipment operation.
The main disciplines required for the first wave that are not directly involved in erecting and establishing infrastructure will be life support, from atmosphere and waste management to medical monitoring. And next, anything to do with food production.
It would be nice to see hydroponics, soil experiments, microbiology up and running – sooner you start growing your own food the better – but it will depend on how much modular/preformed habitat can be arranged and how quickly excavation, assembly and power supply are completed. I’m guessing our intrepid explorers would already have assembled a complete mock-up several times in the coldest, driest desert we can find.
Yes, the primary skills will be practical, including botany, the practical knowledge of plant growing and breeding.
For a true colony, fertility will be necessary. It’s hard to predict exactly when children will be possible on Mars. The exposure to radiation is serious in the long run, but not in a year or two. There’s lots of time to erect substantial barriers against GCR and solar radiation.
Initially, all will have to submit to anti-fertility drugs and maybe even anti-libido drugs for the initial year.
If this project comes to fruition, then the first year is critical. My best guess is that sometime after a year (Earth year), the colony will enter a crisis from which it may not recover. No matter how much planning is done, and it’s not clear how much Lansdorp & co. really are doing, the unexpected will occur. Those unanticipated incidents will take place with increasing frequency and are likely to come to a head between about nine and eighteen months.
Life on Mars will quickly become monotony punctuated by intermittent crises. Only the hope of truly building a colony and of the relief of having four new settlers arrive after a year will sustain the first four settlers for two years. If they survive their most serious crises, then having eight people and lots more supplies that have been chosen based on the crises that have happened, will help to get past the four-year mark. It’s not obvious that surviving for two years means survival for four, but at least the chances get better.
If they survive to see the second wave of settlers, then it would make sense to have a pregnancy if for no other reason than to prove that they really do mean to have a true settlement and colony as well as a real future. It will also gain the attention of jaded Earthlings.
Is it fair to bring children into that world? That’s a rather deep philosophical question. People on Earth constantly bring children into circumstances with lower survival probability. For me, the answer lies in whether an unlimited future awaits our new Martians.
BTW, why sterilize the females and not the males? Males are much easier to sterilize, after all. Sending sterile crews to Mars smacks of defeatism. It’s the wrong message to send.
Well I guess I just know one person who was fathered by a “snipped” dad (duplicate vas deferens or whatever they call it) but it doesn’t really matter so long as children aren’t being born up there initially. I can’t see children being permitted for quite some time – I would suggest a decade minimum to study aspects of animal physiology and sort the larger problems in daily life out to a reasonably dependable process (atmosphere, energy, food, recreation) but with respect to anti-libido drugs caution is advised: psychological well-being is going to be the most important health aspect. It may be that the psychological effects outweigh the possible complications of personal relationships, although it only affects the sexual parameters, but I am sceptical. Borg or Klingon? lol
Caution with respect to any drug is advised. Mars is an extreme case and some drugs may be necessary for a limited time. Better drugs will likely appear within ten years too.
There’s little doubt that you can have children on Mars. It’s also quite likely that a child will live to a couple of years of age without any problems. Beyond that, we encounter many issues, none trivial. For example, where are playmates? Will a child without any outdoor activity become neurotic?
In other words, will children ever be a reasonable option on Mars? If not, we should abandon all ideas of colonization right now.
The alternative is to go forward with all due speed. Send as many people to Mars as we can afford, and allow them children to the extent that their food supply will support. Birth control will be imperative and must be absolutely obeyed. Unplanned pregnancies will have to be terminated immediately. This simple fact will remove a number of people from the applicant pool. I have read nothing from Mars One about this dilemma.
I don’t think pregnancies should be allowed, and probably not relationships. What happens when one goes bad and then they have to cooperate and live together in close quarters?
Some kind of an open relationship within the entire group is best – although it still doesn’t guarantee against interpersonal strife, it takes the jealousy/loyalty function out of the equation: loyalty to the group seems most important; however, such relationships are rare even here where there is nothing like the stress they will be under.
Brings to mind a collection of short stories I read one time, all about human cloning: creation of teams of clones for just such purposes, high performance and close bonding. Comes with greater psychological risk though: one team of ten clones (five female, five male) is mining an asteroid and nine of the ten are killed in a stuctural collapse. Last guy standing has a bit of a time of it.
But you can’t send humans off in a tin can, basically forever, without acknowledging such issues and dealing with them beforehand as much as possible. Attempting an asexual environment, methinks, would be the surest route to eventual psychological and interpersonal difficulties.
I might be wrong: perhaps a cenobitic scheme would work better. I have my doubts about these organizations, even on good old terra firma…
Yes, the “tin can” analogy seems appropriate for the short run, long enough for them all to lose their minds and/or lives.
We must remember that these are risk-takers and tend to be somewhat ego oriented. The potential of founding the first families of Mars would be a strong motivator that you cannot so readily remove. Someday, so they might reason, their children will view them as the equivalent of the Massachusetts pilgrims, to use a U.S. analogy. Their descendants will be the Mars “blue bloods” or royalty.
The large risk may be worth that result to some. What other incentive can you offer for a one-way trip to hell? No, I think that neither asexuality nor sterilization will work for the volunteers. Founding the original Mars blood line will work.
With respect to what is permitted by Earth, the only mechanism I can think of would be remote control of the life support system, something that is not likely raise the television ratings… or maybe it would, times they are a-changing? Let us assume the public would not support that.
In the case where you begin to colonize in the true sense of the word – raising generations of children – it would be nice to have A) cheap and reliable DNA analysis and B) extensive ability for gene therapy – to repair serious damage, of course…
Using the somewhat tenous analogy of exploration here on Earth, the Europeans sent men like Cook, Magellan, Drake, Da Gama and many others on expeditions before there was any thought of sending settlers.
I am sceptical of Mars One already, but the idea that any early group had notions of procreation rather than research and exploration pretty much pushes me completely into the doubting camp.
I believe we already have better remote sensing equipment than Mars has been scanned with so far – which, combined with the failure of various probes and landers, means we have at best a very crude idea of where water might be, for instance. A subsurface source of water near the equator would be very desirable rather than attempts to use polar ice – or at least lends itself to a solar-powered lifestyle.
But how about useful deposits of other minerals? It has to be cheaper to extract onsite after the first wave of settlement, especially if 3D printing technology can be used extensively.
A polar settlement with nuclear power might be better – simply forget about the Sun and melt a dome deep under the ice cap. So much of this sort of detail seems omitted from Mars One proposal.
If you are going to rely on 3D printing how much carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, iron, aluminum, titanium – everything – would you need and in what form? Okay build me one out in Canadian barren lands for a start.
Hi Brett. Welcome back.
I, for one, would not go on any trip where some dictatorial Earthling could cut off my life support remotely. Four smart and capable people can surely disable any such device. We all must live with the concept that the only stick we have is stopping flights to Mars. Except for that one thing, those people will be autonomous. It could be a rather large stick, of course, but it would also mean those running the program would effectively be shooting themselves at the same time.
GCR is blocked about 45% from the horizon but only about 2% from directly overhead. Yet, reasonable amounts of shielding will put the settlers at only modestly more risk than those here on Earth and similar risk to those living at the highest habitable altitudes today. Some have been living in those locations for hundreds of years. They reproduce and live normal lives.
Once even a few percent atmosphere is achieved, the radiation threat will be substantially reduced if people behave appropriately. For now, the primary issue will remain the number of hours spent outside of shielded shelters.
WRT Cook et al., We are sending our explorers — automated machines — already and have been doing so for quite a while.
If the trips to Mars are round trips, then procreation is out of the question. If they are one-way, then it’s a necessity. The only question is how soon. This is a legitimate question and has arguments on both the soon and much later sides.
The issue of where sufficient underground water near the equator lies is very, very significant. If you land in a Martian desert, then you are doomed. We must KNOW that sufficient water is at that site. We won’t know to the centimeter or even to the meter, but we will have to know within a few hundred meters at most. I haven’t seen this data yet but expect that it will arrive within a few years at most. The optimal locations for siting from a weather viewpoint are just north of the equator because of the tilt and orbital eccentricity of Mars.
The Martian poles are like ours, only worse — much worse. Once air begins to be created on Mars, the equatorial areas are the only place to be. More sunlight = more power.
I expect 3D printing to play a role on Mars if only because it’s so handy and versatile. You don’t know what may happen. However, mining and refining are a bit out of reach for the time being. Walk out and pick up a handful of dirt. Now, try to imagine getting titanium from it. Enough exploring may eventually locate useful ore deposits — or not.
Remember that Mars does not have much of a geological history. Basically, it was a bunch of volcanoes and some oceans with no tectonic plates. The oceans dried up or froze beneath the surface, and the volcanoes have cooled off billions of years ago. Most of the surface of Mars comes from basalt. It’s mostly silicates and lots of iron and sodium. Finding concentrations of any useful mineral is not highly likely, albeit not impossible. You have to ask how such concentrations would be created.
And just who will stop them on the autonomous state of Mars? You mention “allowed.” That word does not apply to people out of reach of any means to punish and who will be heroes on Earth.
What happens? They’re adults charged with a mission. They suck it up.
Does anyone have any idea about what size they would like a habitat to be dimension-wise preferably when the SLS is ready?
Hi Jason,
I wish I could convert the NASA Space Launch System’s lift capabilities into on-Mars amounts, but I don’t have the information.
Someone can check the latest numbers on the Mars One site for habitat size. I seem to recall around a five-meter diameter. I assume that’s the external diameter. With maybe a half-meter of insulation, that leaves a four-meter radius for the usable space inside or around 50 square meters of living space. That’s the size of a tiny apartment on Earth, more than adequate, if you have four or more of them, to house four people along with living necessities. It would be tight, however. That’s why Mars One suggests inflatable additions to the modules. These would be about the same width but much longer, providing maybe 200 square meters of space, quite luxurious in Martian terms. It’s not so easy to envisage the airtight floor and other aspects of the inflatable units. Under pressure, the floor would tend to bulge and lift the entire unit up.
It’s quite unfortunate (and a bit disingenuous) that Mars One is quoting all living space as volume rather than area. We don’t float (except in space). A second floor in a habitat would require stairs or ladders for access and would lose area to that purpose.
I still doubt that Mars One will ever launch anything but am ready to eat my words happily if they do.
I am with Brett on this one WRT sending explorers before settlers. I do not feel robotic exploration is enough. I think before we plan to build a picket fence on Mars, we need to put boots on it and bring those boots home. we need the kind of first person assessment that can only come from a human’s accounts of what life is like on that planet.
we also need to be 100% about that water before we land. we need to know not only that its there but how much and how easy it is to process into a potable source. yes robots could tell us but not the ones we have there now. a new generation of curiosity class probes would be needed. This is not something I feel that can be resolved in less then 10 years. discovering, testing and coming to 100% concusses on the water might take decades alone.
I do understand the desire to explore before settling. Let’s look carefully at the options.
In the first place, we can decide to put of settlement for 50 or more years. If we make that decision, then exploration by people begins to make sense. What else will we do for the next half-century?
If, however, we consider settlement a real possibility within 20 years, then things change considerably. We have to think about what exactly will a manned exploration accomplish that will help with the settlement.
WRT water, I can see absolutely no benefit to having people there. Their range will be limited. We could send several water exploration robots to Mars for the cost of one manned expedition and check out much more territory. Very low orbit satellites might be able to help locate promising areas first.
Unfortunately, this part of the Mars One program is rather empty. They’re sending up supply modules well ahead of the first manned mission. The first should be scouting for water and find it before anything more goes to that site. I think that they’re just hoping the NASA and others will deliver the information they must have well before the site selection date. Given three supply flights before the manned flight, that means that the site must be chosen by 2017. Fat chance!
It’s possible the space-based observations can find water and estimate its minimum volume within a radius of a few kilometers or better. If so, then the problem will be solved eventually (but will it be in just four years?).
WRT “first-hand assessment of what life is like,” we don’t have to have people there to figure that out. We have eyes on Mars already plus lots of instruments. Unlike the explorers of old, we know what to expect and even have the ability, if we choose to spend the money, to create a large chamber that simulates that environment (minus, I assume, the radiation). We can mimic the dirt, the light, the air — nearly everything. I’m not sure what this would demonstrate that we cannot figure out for ourselves, but you never know. It might be worth the effort just to prove absolutely that we can have people living on Mars. Perhaps, the most careful of checklists is incomplete, and we’ll only know that if we try it out.
Of course, we wouldn’t subject the test settlers to high radiation levels. That would be inhumane. We’d also have trouble truly emulating the dust storms or even high winds of Mars. We could create stand-ins for them by reducing illumination, for example.
However, I suspect that it’s better to emulate the situation piecemeal than to attempt to recreate Mars on Earth. Could be wrong here, but that’s my take on it.
My biggest concern regarding the entire program isn’t technical, it’s psychological. Can we coop up four people in a tin can for up to eight months (depending on how much we can boost transit speed) and then have them live essentially underground for years with no company except for themselves and lengthily delayed communication with Earth? Will they remain productive and retain a positive attitude in the face of an unvarying landscape outdoors, where they can only venture for very short periods, and a relatively fixed, monotonous routine?
Unless they can truly believe that they’re building a new civilization, I’d say no. They might as well go there, spend a few years being some sort of heroes, and commit suicide. With no future, what else is there?
For this reason, I think that we must have children born on Mars and have a real hope for transforming the planet to habitable status within a century. There is a chance, better than slim but not great, that it can be transformed within a decade of first arrival.
The NASA three-year, there-and-back mission is a nice idea. They clearly are not betting on settlements in the near future. Unless you reach for the stars, you won’t even grasp the planets. I’m for bold plans but not for foolish ones. Until Mars One shows more details that prove feasibility, I remain a skeptic of their plan but a fan of the concept.
Sorry for typo — should be “put off settlement.”
WRT psychological issues, I agree completely. it is a concern of mine for any permanent settlement. The closest analog we have are the research outposts in Antarctica where close knit teams spend 6 months to several years at a time isolated from civilization, working under strict conditions surrounded by a very hostile environment. Even then its not nearly the same because at the end of the day every man and woman there knows they can go home. It might be months before the next supply ship comes but there is still 100% chance of returning to civilization.
Things change drastically when you take that safety blanket away. once those 4 men and woman realize that they crossed the point of no return, all psychological bets are off. As you said, the driving goal of establishing a society there will focus them but the mind is a funny thing and we never know how it will react. you never know who will be susceptible and what will trigger it.
For this reason I think any settlement plan needs to wait until we have the funding to send a colony ship equipped with the means to return home. This way the colonists have the assurance that if something goes wrong or if they decided after 5 years that they made a horrible mistake….they can always go home. Even if it doesn’t get used, that safety net goes along way for mental health I think.
The optional return is Alan Bond’s scenario. He thinks we may be able to start in around 20 years (rough approximation). He would send robust nuclear power plants to Mars using Skylon for launch to Earth orbit and then assemble reusable pieces into a Mars shuttle. The colony would make CO and O2 from compressed “air” (really almost pure CO2) by electrolysis. CO would take the place of H2 in rocket engines so that the fuel for a return trip could be generated on the planet. This is clever.
He estimates that you’d have to pay about $500,000 (in today’s dollars) for a flight to Mars. The return trip, available only after two years and then each two years hence, would be free upon request and available space. The shuttle would return to Earth anyway as soon as it’s fueled to be used for the next flight. I assume that the delay for fueling on Mars would not take longer than six months.
He has not concerned himself with the details of survival on Mars beyond the nuclear reactor. After all, 20 years is a long time to get ready. The plans for travel require more planning, and that’s where he’s concentrated his energies.
This plan is entirely feasible. The primary question is who will pay that amount of money for a trip to hell (and back if requested) and would these people really be ready to start a new independent nation on a new world, or would they just be thrill seekers? Somehow, I see the wealth and the desire to risk your life for a new society as being incompatible, but there are all sorts of people on our planet.
I’ll just quickly clarify that I think you cannot send people to Mars expecting them to create a new nation, new society, or whatever without the hope of a real future on Mars. Only if a terraforming plan is available would this work. You could promise to work such a plan out and to return the people to Earth if it failed, but it would be better to have the plan in place beforehand.
I fudged this issue in Martian Rhapsody for dramatic effect — writer’s license.
The beauty of a return trip scenario is that it might attract those with the money to pay for it. perhaps not to start a new nation but thrill seekers as you mentioned. A multi year trip to mars would be the ultimate survival excursion.
Would it really be that popular? who knows, it travel became regular enough then perhaps. after all thousands of people travel to Mt. Everest just to say they did it and travel expenses aside, a permit to ascend Everest currently goes for $25,000. While that is a far cry from $500,000, there are plenty of people with that kind of money to burn that just might want to say ” I went to Mars and survived.”
Thrill seekers aside, the half million price tag simply makes it easier for groups like NASA to book exploration missions and the like. Bond estimates that his single stage rocket would reduce the cost of getting into orbit from $10k a pound to about $1k a pound. if it works out the way he plans, it would revolutionize the space industry.
Yes, Don. It’s truly an exciting time and likely to become more so.
Everest costs much, much more than a permit as I’m sure you know. You have to get there and have to have a guide, supplies, and bearers. You have to set up multiple camps on the way, all money you have to pay your guide. I have never priced it but expect that it’s over $100,000 to do it with any hope of return.
Is Mars worth five Everests? To a special few, it may be. After all how many people can claim to have spent three years on Mars? Compared to that, Everest is a kindergarten gold star.
A great many with $500,000 to spend (not just in the bank) will be older and wiser. A few will have inherited their millions and be seeking something to outshine their forebears. A few will have enough money and be seeking the ultimate adventure. One or two dozen queued up for the trip would be enough. How many can go at once? Don’t know. In Alan Bond’s scenario, I’d expect more than four, maybe six or so.
The real question about all of this is whether they’ll pass the sanity test. Then, there’s the issue of having an “adult” on the trip to ensure everyone’s safety, including a tranquilizer gun in case anyone goes crazy.
Another question revolves around what they’ll be doing for three years. I’d expect that they’d have to pitch in on scientific research and on building up the Mars site facilities. There’d also be basic maintenance: food preparation, waste recycling, and more. This would be “camping in the rough” taken to an extreme.
After all of this, I’m not so sure. We have several competing visions of visiting Mars. In the near term (up to 25 years or so), only one can make it. Our world will not be able to support more than one multiple-billion-dollar missions to the same place. Even if lifting to orbit costs drop, there’s still getting to Mars and all of the very advanced materials that must come along.
I have to add that the Mars “tourists” can stay for more than three years if they really love living in hell.
Sounds like the Oregon Trail all over again.
Only ten times worse in terms of environment, but with some mitigating technology.
It truly is a little daunting when you realize just how challenging the trip alone is, much less setting up an outpost or colony. the biggest bottleneck is funding because from where we stand now, Mars doesn’t offer anything exciting to investors.
If it were much closer or when we have much cheaper interplanetary transport, I think titan will be the first heavily funded project because its the Solar System’s biggest Gas station.
I agree about the daunting part. I also agree about investor interest. Where’s the ROI? It would have to be for fame and not for fortune.
However, I’d rather not import more carbon-based fuels from extra-planetary sources.
I really don’t care whether it’s hydrogen or super-capacitors, but we must create and store power from sunlight — with solar cells and wind generators — and from tides and geothermal, although the latter two will be very situational.
We also must find better ways to use power efficiently. Once the price of LED lights comes down, we’ll at least have light with low power input. Yes, they do take some mining etc. to make, but they last really, really long. Refrigeration must also be improved as more and more people move to desert areas, blowing tons of energy just to stay cool where you shouldn’t really be living makes little sense. At least put those houses underground for Pete’s sake.
Titan is way too far away for any rational exploitation of resources in the foreseeable future. I mean — Saturn!!
[…] More than 10,000 Chinese people have applied to join a Dutch aerospace project MarsOne that plans to send humans to Mars for permanent settlement, accounting for 1/8 oftotal applicants around the world. However, the person in charge of the projectadmitted in an interview last week that th… […]
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/00417/mcam/0417ML1716001000E1_DXXX-thm.jpg can you imagine digging in that to cover the habitats, not likely! Or trying to convert it into anything I think those ideas are out the window.
This is a bigger picture http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/00417/mcam/0417ML1716002000E1_DXXX.jpg
That image is of the surface. It’s really hard to tell what’s underneath. We know that the there’s lots of dust on Mars, and a layer of it obscures the actual surface. You cannot tell what is a centimeter or a meter below the surface.
It’s also just one area on a huge planet with a total area equal to that of all dry land on Earth.
Notwithstanding the digging issue, the forbidding nature of Mars shows starkly in the NASA image. Not only are there no blades of grass or clouds, there are no bacteria or other simple life on the surface of Mars.
What you cannot see, as we know, is that atmosphere at 1% of Earth normal and with 95% of THAT being CO2. There’s essentially no water in the air or on the surface shown.
Despite the lack of water on the surface or in the air, scientists see definite signs of vast oceans of underground and probably frozen water on Mars.
Digging may not be easy on Mars or may be trivial. Which it is probably depends on where you dig, just as on Earth.
For so many reasons, site selection is the most important aspect of setting up a colony on Mars. If you’re sitting on bedrock, then you cannot dig and cannot get water. You’ll die sooner rather than later.
All of the rocks and sand and dust you see in that image actually portend well because they mean that somewhere these things have accumulated to a substantial depth.
Why all of you r getting so serious abt mars one. There aim is not to settle humans and as of now with the current advancement in technology, it is a distant dream. The sole purpose to sent humans is to study their life on a spacecraft. For sure the first batch would not and is not going to land on mars. They will die en-route bcuz of radiation, food nutrients, and psychological reasons. The sole purpose to learn how and how long does it takes them to get killed. If there was any intent then first they should have colonized moon.
This discussion has two parts: can we send people to Mars, and will Mars One do it? The first part is a qualified yes; the second is unlikely, although conceivable.
1. Radiation: This is a long-term problem but not for the approximately eight months it takes today to travel to Mars. NASA estimates that three years of space radiation equals roughly a lifetime of Earth’s surface radiation, about one Sievert.
2. Providing sufficient food on board for eight months and several more is not a problem provided that you recycle water. This is probably one of the easiest parts of getting people to Mars.
3. Psychological issues are very important and must be handled by careful screening and planning of the trip. The travelers must have their time occupied in useful ways, including exercise, various drills, and scientific observations.
I’d prefer a Moon colony as a test case for Mars. Ultimately, a Moon colony will be necessary to generate fuel for space flight because it’s just too expensive to lift it from Earth. However, it is feasible to go directly to Mars even if I personally don’t like it.
Mars One is a completely different matter. This enterprise continues to look like a publicity stunt without real intentions to launch. Their first supply launch must take place in about three years. I expect them to delay it, unless they’ve already packed up and disappeared by then.
People looking at Mars colonization sort into various camps.
1. Enthusiasts — these people will hear no negatives and assume that technology will solve all. Sending people to live on Mars indefinitely requires a level of planning that is very unusual, possibly unique. They are the 100% or 99% believers in success.
2. Deniers — these people just will not consider any possibility of a settlement on Mars and continue to seek any and all reasons for it to fail. These are pessimists who won’t even pay attention to what’s going on with respect to Mars exploration now and to technological advances that make success ever more likely. They give the project about 0% or slightly more chance of success.
3. Hopefuls — these people wish the project well but have doubts. They hope that the problems will be overcome in a satisfactory fashion before initial launch. These people think that success is more than 50% likely but not very near to 100%.
4. Skeptics — these people know that it’s possible to colonize Mars but not likely, not now, or not without considerable loss of life. They give the project a small but significant chance of success, maybe 10-30%.
Arvind appears, from the note sent, to be in category 2, a denier. I’m in category 4, a skeptic, with willingness to be convinced to move to category 3, a hopeful.
More publicity will make it more likely that more people will work on the problems of living on Mars and eventually make it possible.
Mars One Is just a hype, they have created a good Hollywood script to to make us believe that they could place people in to Mars, I would bet them anything if they could send someone to moon and bring them back or for that matter just even in to space and they would fail in doing it.
Most of the developed countries hide technology, and they need many of these countries help, without which it is a dud, and I have not seen any of them coming forward to help them, space technology cannot be a privately run enterprise and would need help from such space organizations unilaterally.
Yes Raj, Mars One today it totally hype. Being unable to read minds, I cannot tell you whether the founders hope to convert hype to reality.
We can put people on Mars in ten to twenty years, but the cost will be staggering. The Mars One figure of $6 billion may just make it to a single flight, but I think it will fall short and require more It certainly will not sustain a program that is to last for ten more years afterward.
I also agree that a single entity will not succeed in this venture. Cooperation from many organizations, almost certainly at the international level, will be necessary.
Once a front-runner for heading up this effort becomes established, others will join in. Mars One is only one of a pack of potential front runners. Alan Bond and Elon Musk have interests in this area as does NASA and ESA.
As soon as a Mars colonization effort appears to be real, corporate sponsors will come readily. Big corporations will not be able to resist being a part of the most spectacular expansion of the human race in history.
Right now, we don’t know who will lead this project or even exactly how it will happen. We certainly don’t know when, but I’ll bet we’ll have people on Mars by 2035, and they might even be there to stay. Settlements on Mars are feasible and will happen by 2050 in my estimation, and I’m being deliberately conservative.
By then, we can expect emigration to Mars to be a regular event, although restricted to the few who can afford it. Space tourism to Mars will be popular too and will cost maybe $1 million per round trip, low enough cost to get plenty of rich tourists. A good chunk of that money will be used to bring important supplies to the new Martians. The first Mars industry will probably be tourism.
I think we have discussed this several times and we all agree that Mars/Moon colonisation is possible but it lacks will power. We know that any such trip will have tremendous impact on our society and culture but the “gains” are not quantifiable. Politicians are usually interested in votes so they won’t do anything unless it helps them politically, for example, Apollo missions. India recently launched a rushed up Mars mission because the government wanted to use it to win votes. Unfortunately, scientific establishments of modern world are not powerful or autonomous enough to compel governments to release funds and people generally don’t support massive budgets for space exploration.
I think it is very difficult to change the paradigm as it stands today. We will continue to have missions to solar system and outer space to increase our “learning” but colonisation is a log way ahead. In coming decades, the biggest challenge that will face us will be access to clean and sustainable energy. If Space can solve this problem then it becomes easier to justify colonisation and put in resources. If not, then we are probably few centuries away.
The other thing that comes to my mind is another world war or polarisation of world which eventually leads to space race. But again that will be short lived as race ends once there is a winner, always been like that and always will be.
So my best bet is we continue to pollute our environment until we desperately need a separate source of energy so that space ventures have “return on investment” tag attached to them or just be happy with some exploration and pictures.
The most distressing part of your scenario is that no readily foreseeable future can harvest energy from space. Let’s consider the sources of energy.
1. Fossil fuels: none of those in space
2. Solar energy: lots of that in space but must return it to Earth readily (e.g. powerful microwaves that will cook anyone or anything wandering into its path) and don’t have to go even as far as Moon to get it.
3. Wind power: no winds in space (no substantial winds, that is).
4. Geothermal power: Hahahaha.
5. Tide power: No way.
6. Nuclear fission: Even if you could find uranium on Mars or some moon or asteroid, mining it and returning it to Earth would increase the cost beyond all imagining; using breeder reactors to convert U238 into fissile material is much cheaper.
7. Nuclear fusion: When and if we crack this nut, we have plenty of water here from which to extract deuterium etc. as fuel.
The above does not comment on the current production of energy on Earth, just on getting energy from colonizing space. Even were we pretty much out of energy, which will take many decades, going to space will not fix our problems. It costs lots of energy to get there with no return.
However, consider the expeditions to the North and South poles. What possible economic benefit were they? Consider that people settle wherever they can. People live above the Arctic circle and in inhospitable deserts. If we can go, we do go. The response to the crazy Mars One offer of a one-way trip to Hell — er, Mars — was huge.
Our future on Earth looks rather bleak. In a couple of decades, it may be that living on Mars will look relatively good to a great many people suffering from multiple assaults on our Earthly environment.
Do not underestimate the will or the craziness of humans.
We humans need a bend in the road, a horizon that keeps us curious but doesn’t overwhelm with boredom or futility. Yes, do not underestimate the craziness of humans, we live everywhere from deserts and jungles full of poisonous plants and animals to arctic tundra where you can perish from the cold in fifteen minutes without proper clothing.
There might even be some benefit to having a few Martian ghosts to supervise the mythology and curiousity of future generations…
It really doesn’t matter if westerners have lost their moxie and gotten all soft and bureaucratic – we have lot of other crazy tribes that are just getting up to speed.
As for the cost, it’s a pittance – rumour has it the Sochi Olympics are now up to $50 billion (yep billion with a ‘b’ – five zero, fifty of ’em)
A veritable army of detectives and lab workers to check for illicit drugs, hormones, genes, corrupt judging, favouritism and just how many goofy hats do you have to sell to make fifty billion back (nay, sixty billion, twenty percent is barely worth the graft and the bribes)
So here is hoping Mr. Lansdorp is 1) making a serious attempt and 2) surrounding himself with very competent engineers and scientists but if he isn’t – no biggie (except maybe some stranded folks on Mars, but really, could you call that a complete failure?) it won’t be the largest scam in history by a long shot.
We are enjoying the critical bouncing around of ideas even here in the wings, so it seems to me at least worth as much as a shark pickled in formaldehyde or a skull encrusted with diamonds.
Welcome back, Brett.
Your humor is perfect. Well done!
I support anyone making Mars seem more interesting and living there more possible. I don’t expect to be able to give Mr. Lansdorp a thumbs up until at least 2016 when he should be sending the first supply modules to Mars — if he’s really serious.
I think that he’s serious about testing the waters and then could become serious if they prove positive. The funding has to be an over-the-top success before a manned expedition will launch. Otherwise, it’s an invitation to disaster.
It’s not so much that other things cost even more but rather that somehow the money must be raised. Reality TV can only go so far.
It would be great expedition to sustain the human species accidentally came into being millions of years ago. We ourselves evolutionised to reach this level of intelligence. Perhaps martian atmosphere we could do better and find a way to propel us to another universe. Im interested to travel but insufficient fund preclude me from venturing
Mohan
Mars has no atmosphere today. Creating one is one of the great barriers to colonizing Mars, perhaps the greatest. Mars ecology will have to be built up from scratch. Today, it just does not exist.
Will a manufactured Mars ecology be more or less healthy than what we have on Earth? Will lower gravity extend or shorten lives? These questions remain to be answered. If the answers are positive, then you can expect some interest in emigration.
Mars One sounds like a suicide mission for misguided people. First of all how can the world stand by and allow an organization put innocent people in harms way. There is a definite ethical issue here in that if you send people Mars without the means of return they will most like expire prematurely. The world is not in a rush to colonize another world. It will only be a mater of time before the technology and means of a return mission to Mars is available. Remember there are those who will become rich at the cost of others and unfortunately there is always those willing to jump into the fray what come may. Stop and think and let someone do this right like NASA.
Good post.
It is a suicide mission right now. Even NASA does not believe it will be possible until the 2030s, assuming all the technical issues can be sloved. And, it will cost hundreds of billions, not 6..
There are way too many science fiction junkies posting to this site. Beam me up Scotty.
Actually, no one, e.g., SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, or NASA has a spaceship capable of a manned mission to Mars. The failure rate for unmanned missions to Mars is over 50%, and the heaviest object we have landed on Mars is the Curiosity Rover, which weighed 1,982 lbs. As a comparison, the Apollo Lunar module weighted 33,213 lbs. and landed in a vacuum, with much less gravity than on Mars.
And, all these science fiction junkies that believe we can somehow make the atmosphere of Mars breathable have been watching too many reruns of “Total Recall,” or “Wrath of Khan.”
And, those that think we will be able to mine the soil and extract water and oxygen have no clue what they are talking about. Mining requires hundreds of tons of equipment and huge processing plants, which also weigh hundreds of tons, which would have a combined weight of over 1 million lbs. Not to mention the fact that all mining equipment runs on diesel or gas and require huge engines, which mostly likely can’t be converted to battery power because the batteries would have to be huge and most likely weigh tons and require huge recharging units weighing tons. It would take fifty trips unmanned trips to get that much weight to Mars. It took over 10 years to build the ISS – International Space Station and 31 missions. The ISS weighs about 960,000 lbs.
There was a “Humans 2 Mars Summit” on May 6-8, 2013 – The H2M was a comprehensive Mars exploration conference, organized by Explore Mars, Inc. to address the major challenges that need to be overcome to send humans to Mars by 2030. There were 76 speakers at this Summit, many of whom are current and former NASA scientists, e.g., Dr. Robert Braun – , Dr. Kendall Brown, Dr. James B. Garvin, Dr. Michael Gazarik, Dr. Dan McCleese, Dennis Tito, Samuel Scimemi, and Dr. Buzz Aldrin – who on July 20, 1969 with Neil Armstrong made their historic Apollo 11 moonwalk, becoming the first two humans to set foot on another world. Bas Lansdorp was also a speaker.
http://h2m.exploremars.org/
Here are a few comments about that summit:
” Earlier this month, scientists, NASA officials, private space company representatives and other members of the spaceflight community gathered in Washington D.C. for three days to discuss all the challenges at the Humans to Mars (H2M) conference, hosted by the spaceflight advocacy group Explore Mars, which has called for a mission that would send astronauts in the 2030s.”
“But the Martian dust devil is in the details, and there is still one big problem: We currently lack the technology to get people to Mars and back. An interplanetary mission of that scale would likely be one of the most expensive and difficult engineering challenges of the 21st century. Mars is pretty far away,” NASA’s director of the International Space Station, Sam Scimemi said during the H2M conference. “It’s six orders of magnitude further than the space station. We would need to develop new ways to live away from the Earth and that’s never been done before. Ever.”
“There are some pretty serious gaps in our abilities, including the fact that we can’t properly store the necessary fuel long enough for a Mars trip, we don’t yet have a vehicle capable of landing people on the Martian surface, and we aren’t entirely sure what it will take to keep them alive once there. A large part of the H2M summit involved panelists discussing the various obstacles to a manned Mars mission.”
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-05/31/getting-to-mars
Please note the most important point, “…we don’t yet have a vehicle capable of landing people on the Martian surface, and we aren’t entirely sure what it will take to keep them alive once there.”
Wrath of Khan wasn’t real?
But seriously, exploration has always involved some sitting around, conjecture and criticism – but not by the bureaucracy, they don’t matter. It is the people who are going that best make the plans. Pity the poor sucker NASA puts up there, you know they didn’t have a word of input into the decision despite the fact they passed all the tests. Oh, were those tests created by bureaucrats also? hmm
I would like to see someone capable of making the attempt involved in the planning – financing can come from anywhere. It is this idea that the financiers should be doing the planning (and through their bureaucrats at that) that I find most objectionable – and no less for having State backing. If anything that is worse, they are spending taxpayers’ money.
I buy stocks all the time – it’s a risk, but it’s not the same thing as having skin in the game. I’m guessing the billionaires might be enticed into building their own space station or even, for some strange reason, a Moon Base (good place for ‘offshore’ banking maybe) but lets see who is willing to hop the next flight to Mars.
That said, as long as an adult of sound mind is advised of all that could go wrong and the risk, I have no problem with those who are willing to take the risk doing so. NASA has proven themselves quite willing to obfuscate in the past (read the Challenger Inquiry if you don’t believe me) and I would not put a shred of faith in NASA doing it better than a private investment consortium (but I would expect the cost to be an order of magnitude greater).
Certainly any Mars settlement will not be comparable to the ISS or use conventional mining – red herrings both, although they should be mined for good ideas.
The most practical thing is to send up many redundant and automated missions to establish and make provision for an expedition. Conventional mining equipment somehow modified like a Moon Rover is out of the question: new techniques and methods are required (and might well make mining a lot more environmentally friendly and profitable right here on Earth).
But the condescending comments, the scornful references to science fiction – that isn’t criticism actually, it’s barroom belligerence.
I’d like to see a respectful dialog from everyone here. Going to Mars is a “wild” idea, but one that should be considered.
A Mars settlement mission has many large obstacle to clear. We all agree on that point. Some view the obstacles as insurmountable. Some view Mars One as just a bunch of hucksters or even as murderers. Rather than focus on the people, I’d like to consider the ideas.
We will have to dig on Mars — for water if nothing else. The volume of digging is a very important parameter. Clearly, even were we to be able to put sufficient oxygen in the Mars air, we still could not run engines on fossil fuel because Mars has exactly zero of that.
However, in the process of putting oxygen into the Martian atmosphere, we could be making lots of hydrogen. Most should be allowed to escape into space so that it does not combine with the oxygen back into water. Much could be compressed into tanks and used for fuel. Nevertheless, this would be a distant future undertaking.
For the near future on Mars, batteries must be the means of supplying energy for propulsion. Battery technology, advanced as it is, is very poor for these sorts of enterprises. Every single gram of battery would have to be lifted from Earth to space and then sent to Mars. And, the batteries don’t last. Our only hope for energy storage on Mars is to invent the supercapacitor. Until then, Martian colonists will be living in some sort of metaphorical early American West with very energy-deficient living conditions. Even if we could send them nuclear reactors, these would be just a fixed-location energy source and not allow extensive exploration. They’d run down in a few decades too.
Long-term self-sustaining occupation of Mars awaits new developments. We can do short-term in the near future but without any real certainty of survival of mankind on Mars for 50-100 years without constant resupply of critical materials from Earth such as batteries and other highly technological products requiring an enormous engineering and manufacturing build up.
Some of us can hope for those new developments, but no one can guarantee them. And so it is that we enter the world of science fiction. Total Recall and Wrath of Khan were not very realistic. They were movies from Hollywood, after all. The best “hard” science fiction considers the real world and adds on some invention(s) to create new possibilities. That is where I’d like to see us heading.
My comments were not condescending barroom belligerence; I just stated the facts as they are today. I was injecting a reality check.
A huge reality check is needed.
And, I am not totally against space exploration, but, the world has more important priorities.
I really don’t see any major benefits to be gained from space exploration, given the $ trillions that have already been spent in the last century by all nations combined. Space exploration has a $ trillion dollar negative ROI – Return on Investment. Landing a man on Mars will take at least $200-$400 billion or more, if the costs of the ISS and the Apollo programs (i.e., $250 billion combined) are indicative of future costs.
The world’s priorities should be taking care of first. World poverty is the number one priority, which includes making sure that everyone in the world has sufficient food, water, electricity, heat, proper sanitation and telephones. Twenty-two thousand children die daily, mainly from poverty. Then we should spend as much as possible on finding cures for all diseases, including cancer. Then spend as much as you want on space exploration.
http://www.unicef.org/media/media_56045.html
The exploration of space is not a race and there is no real urgency. It does not matter if we get to Mars by the 2030’s or by the 23rd century or later.
You seem to be speculating a lot on what might happen, but has not happened yet. My reference to mining was not a red herring.
How exactly are you proposing that mining will be done on the Moon or Mars? How exactly do you modify mining equipment on Earth to work on the moon or Mars that might be more environmentally friendly and profitable right here on Earth?
That is just wild speculation. Surely, if the mining equipment could be improved on earth, it would have already been done. Many improvements have been made in the mining industry in the last century. Building mining equipment that will work on the Moon or Mars will be a huge undertaking taking decades and $billions of dollars, assuming it can be done.
Just because you think something can be done, does not mean it can be done. The laws of physics cannot be exceeded, e.g., Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity states that no object with mass can reach the speed of light. There are also theatrical limitations on the amount of G-Force the human body can withstand accelerating and decelerating.
Here is another huge reality check.
It took the Curiosity rover seven minutes to drill a 2 ½ inch hole into a rock to get an aspirin-size pinch of powder to analyze. On the Apollo 15 lunar mission, it took 18 ½ hours outside of the lunar module to collect 170 lbs. of rocks and dirt. Doing work in huge spacesuits is very difficult and very time-consuming.
The Curiosity sample revealed that there might be 2 pints of water for every cubic foot of Martian dirt. I guess that sounds good until you do the math. Ignoring the fact that I don’t know how they can make that statement based on a pinch of powder from one soil sample the size of half a baby aspirin; the press loved it. This is now presented like the lack of water problem on Mars has been solved; but, it ain’t.
Since I don’t have a cubic foot of Martian dirt to weigh, I will use a cubic foot of topsoil on earth, which weighs from 75 lbs. to 100 lbs. A cubic foot of dry sand weighs 110 lbs. An average male in a temperate climate needs about 3 liters (6.34 pints) of water per day, which I will round down to 6 pints. So, you would need to process 3 cubic feet of Martian dirt daily for just one person. I will assume that 3 cubic feet of Martial soils weighs 225 lbs. at 75 lbs. per cubic foot. So for one person, you would have to process 225 lbs. of Martian dirt daily. For four people you would need to process 100 lbs. daily, 3,000 lbs. monthly and 36,000 lbs. annually. Mars One plans to have 8 people on Mars by 2024. So, then they would have to process 72,000 lb. of Martian dirt per year for drinking water alone. If the Mars Colony expands to 100 people, you would need to dig and process 22,500 lbs. of Martian soil daily or 8,212,500 lbs. annually. That is the reality check.
But, first you will have to invent equipment that can extract the water from the Martian soil and filter out all the bad stuff that could kill you, e.g., perchlorate. That has never been done; and we don’t know if it can be done. I doubt that you will get even close to 2 pints of drinkable water per cubic foot of Martian soil. To process thousands of pounds of Martian dirt annually, this extraction-filtration machine would have to be huge. Then you need hundreds of thousands of pounds of digging equipment that runs on rechargeable batteries. If you have watched any of the videos on the astronauts working on the Moon, you should know that it will be very difficult for them to operate heavy mining equipment. However, if you have watched the science fiction movie “The Moon,” you might think it will be easy. It won’t be. And, most likely the Martian dust, just like the lunar dust, will clog up the machinery and space suites.
NASA’s Dirty Secret: Moon Dust
These particles can wreak havoc on space suits and other equipment. During the Apollo 17 mission, for example, crewmembers Harrison “Jack” Schmitt and Gene Cernan had trouble moving their arms during moonwalks because dust had gummed up the joints. “The dust was so abrasive that it actually wore through three layers of Kevlar-like material on Jack’s boot,” Taylor says.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080924191552.htm
Anyway, there are many problems and unknowns that will have to be solved before you will ever establish a colony on Mars or the Moon. Based on past history, this might take decades, if not centuries.
One of the biggest problems is the very negative effects on the human body from living in weightlessness or gravity that is much less than Earth’s. It just might be that man will never be able to stay in space or on planets with much less gravity than earth for more than a year. In 2015, NASA is planning on sending two astronauts to the ISS to stay for a year, instead of the normal 4 to 6 months. NASA is very concerned about the physical as well as psychological negative effects of staying in space for prolonged periods of time. Space radiation is the second biggest concern for NASA. Actually, safety of the public and the crew are NASA’s number one concern. NASA will not send men/women to Mars on a suicide mission.
I am glad to see you are buying stocks, which is a financial risk. Hope you become a billionaire and can build a space station. Well, actually you would have to make at least $150 billion, but that assumes you already have the space infrastructure for the exploration of space, e.g., a space center like the Kennedy Space Center.
There are no billionaires that could afford to build a space station or established a colony on the Moon or Mars. And, a Moon base with a bank would be considered “off-planet” banking, not off-shore banking. But, I am sure you were jesting?
As of March 2013, according to Forbes, Caslos Slim Helu and his family are #1 in wealth at $73 billion, Bill Gates is #2 with $67 billion, and Warren Buffet is #3 with $54.9 billion.
http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/
Investors expect a positive ROI – Return on Investment to invest in anything; and, they expect that return in the near future, usually in one or two years.
Space exploration has yielded a very negative ROI.
Helu, Gates and Buffet are not going to commit all their personal wealth to space exploration that so far has a negative ROI. And, it does not appear that space exploration will have a positive ROI anytime soon, or possible ever. Warren Buffet is against investing in airlines, so I doubt that he will recommend investing in Virgin Galactic or SpaceX should they have an IPO – Initial Public Offering anytime soon.
If Virgin Galactic or SpaceX should ever do an IPO, no sane investor, e.g., Buffet – head of Berkshire Hathaway would buy any of the stock. That is why Virgin Galactic and SpaceX have not done IPOs. Their IPOs would be a complete flop.
NASA has never obfuscated the risk of Space Travel. And, your statement that a private investment consortium could do it better than NASA is absurd. None have proven that yet. And, SpaceX lost the contract to carry astronauts to the ISS. Russia has that contract through the end of 2016.
‘SpaceX takes a hit as NASA chooses Russia’s space agency instead”
http://qz.com/79888/spacex-takes-a-hit-as-nasa-chooses-russias-space-agency-instead/
What private investment consortium are you talking about?
SpaceX and Virgin Galactic would not exist without NASA’s funding. SpaceX received $400 million; Boeing received $131 million; Sierra Nevada received $125 million. SpaceX also received $75 million to upgrade its Dragon space capsule to carry crew. This is all taxpayer money, not private investors.
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/boeing-spacex-sierra-nevada-win-nasa-backing-spaceships-920664
And, you thoughts about sending automated missions to Mars are interesting. What kind of automated missions are you talking about?
The heaviest object NASA has ever landed on Mars is the Curiosity rover, which weighs 1,982 lbs. The entire Curiosity rocket ship, including the weight of the rover, weighed 8,583 lbs.
Even though the robotic arm was created over 60 years ago, no one has invented a robot that can build a simple wooden box from 5 precut pieces of wood, 2 lid hinges, nails and a hammer. No robot has ever built a house, not even a prefab house. And, no robots are used to mine ore on earth or drive mining equipment. Where is Robby the robot when you need him?
So, exactly what automated missions are you talking about?
I appreciate the reality check. Mars missions must have them. The long line of Mors One volunteers indicates that more such are necessary.
I’ll just touch on the few points you made that should be reconsidered.
The expenditures on space are way beyond the return except of communication satellites and the like in relatively nearby space. Many efforts are the same. You might suggest the same for much of the arts. Can your symphony orchestra exist without donations? I agree that we must have balance, but where is that balance? Finding less expensive AND safer ways to get to Mars should be something we can all get behind and expect some spin-off benefits from. The money spent on space will not end poverty.
(Mining on Mars is a joke. If we can get down a meter or two, it will be a huge accomplishment.)
The water problem is much smaller than you suggest. Recycling will reduce the external water requirements to manageable levels. Mining water for making air will be an entirely different animal.
Mars dust is much more corrosive than Moon dust. Other problems will arise that we cannot anticipate fully. This is why we must have many unmanned expeditions before having a settlement. We may have to have a round-trip manned mission too. Can’t say for sure.
My belief is that we’ll have to have as much participation as possible from nations and individuals to succeed. I cannot see one nation or person doing it, certainly not Bas Lansdorp. He does not have the financial staying power. With enough help, he might get it done, but it would probably not be him in charge.
For me, the current Curiosity mission is an automated one.
I agree with sending plenty of unmanned missions first. We must have them for testing, surveying, and, eventually, supplying the ultimate manned mission.
Mining on Mars will be a small potatoes activity for quite a while. We might even get down a few meters. Someday, better energy storage and high-output energy sources that aren’t too massive will make a second-stage mining possible if it’s even indicated. The only such purpose I can see now is for mining water to produce oxygen. Hopefully, most of the hydrogen will escape into space due to the thin atmosphere and low gravity. Long term, higher populations on Mars will require great mining capabilities.
George, thank you for your thoughtful post.
Getting to Mars is a huge undertaking. Getting there, on the surface, and back is clearly beyond current capabilities.
Your quote at the end is spot on. Note, however, that the most important words in that quote are “yet” and “not entirely.” The Moon was beyond reach for centuries. In 1960, it seemed impossible to get there and back. Very crudely, the increase in distance to go to Mars over the Moon is two orders of magnitude. It’s been nearly a half century since that storied accomplishment, long enough to overcome those two orders of magnitude. We just haven’t focused on doing it.
There are very good reasons for this lack of focus, and I fault no one for it. Even today, going to Mars seems silly. Why bother? Just as with the Moon, there is no direct economic advantage to doing this. Despite that, millions of people stayed up to the wee hours to watch the first Moon landing. It excites and ennobles the human spirit. It also creates spin-off technology.
Space is our final frontier (not really today because we have others but ultimately it will likely be so), and we should be considering it seriously. Is Mars One serious? I cannot read the minds of their founders. I suspect that it’s just an idea that they’re running up the flagpole. If they get enough response, they move forward another step. If not, they pocket the money they made and fold up their tents.
So it is that I and many others believe that going to Mars is not a matter of whether but of when. Sooner is more exciting but less likely to succeed. Eventually, our capabilities will overcome the reticence and, fueled by the excitement, will result in the journey.
I will not live to see 2050. So, I’d like to see the first trip before then — selfishly. In the meantime, I occupy myself with writing about what it would be like to send a team on a colonization trip to Mars.
Given the large expense of sending people there and bringing them back, I’m in favor of many unmanned expeditions to Mars and then the one-way trip that Mars One envisions. Eventually, travel between Earth and Mars will become viable, at which point settlers will have the option to return, decades older.
Total Recall is a joke, of course. However, if we can generate about 670 millions metric tons of oxygen on Mars, people will be able to breathe there. If we can generate 1/10 of that amount, then we can compress it for dwellings and pressure suits. Nanotechnology may provide the means to adapt to fairly low pressures and low partial pressures of oxygen. Enormous mining operations may not be necessary. Ingenuity can overcome many obstacles.
Just consider what life was like in the trans-Mississippi region in the early 19th century and even into the early 20th century. Compare with today. Inventions have made the difference. We cannot see well into the future. We only know that it will be different. What is impossible today (think the Star Trek communicators of the 1960s compared to the smart phones of today) will be possible tomorrow.
It doesn’t look as though we can go to Mars before 2030, not even close, today. But, tomorrow could change everything. I challenge the Mars One concept of going using technology “available today.” In five years or so, we may see developments that can, in five more years, be realized through engineering.
Future predictions tend to fall into two categories — happening sooner (and better) than predicted and not happening at all.
Personal phones fall into the former category. Cities under the oceans and flying cars (ala Jetsons but also predicted by many at one time) fall into the other. IF (big if) we ever are going to Mars, then it will happen sooner than most expect.
Harrykeller,
My last post was directed at the Anonymous post, on November 26, 2013 at 11:51 am. And, I am not trying to be disrespectful to anyone.
And, again your article was great and right on the money.
But, I am somewhat concerned about your statement:
“Total Recall is a joke, of course. However, if we can generate about 670 millions metric tons of oxygen on Mars, people will be able to breathe there. If we can generate 1/10 of that amount, then we can compress it for dwellings and pressure suits. Nanotechnology may provide the means to adapt to fairly low pressures and low partial pressures of oxygen.”
Terraforming a planet is total science fiction. And, it will continue to be science fiction until it is actually done, which I am very sure will never happen because of the laws of physics. I am not sure how you plan to generate 670 million metric tons of oxygen. Isn’t that what happened at the end of the movie “Total Recall”?
And, why do you assume that the oxygen will stay on Mars and become part of the atmosphere.
Mars’ atmosphere has been gone for billions of years. And, somehow you are going to create a new atmosphere that will not float away.
“Revealed: How Mars Lost Its Atmosphere – The Red Planet lost its protective blanket of air billions of years ago.”
As soon as you mentioned nanotechnology, red flags went up.
Other than improving the life of tennis balls and making golf balls fly straighter, nanotechnology is a joke, in my opinion. Here are some articles I have read on the subject on nanotechnology.
“How had one person succeeded in convincing managers at a top US research institution to back and promote such grossly fabricated claims?”
physicsworldarchive.iop.org
“The rise and fall of a physics fraudster
Eugenie Samuel Reich”
From
Physics World
May 2009
© IOP Publishing Ltd 2010
ISSN: 0953-8585
Click to access SchonArticlePhysicsWorld.pdf
“Locklin on science”
Nano-nonsense: 25 years of charlatanry
Posted in nanotech, physics by Scott Locklin on August 24, 2010
“I used to work next to the center for nanotechnology. The first indication I had that there was something wrong with the discipline of “nanotechnology” is I noticed that the people who worked there were the same people who used to do chemistry and material science. It appeared to be a more fashionable label for these subjects. Really “material science” was a sort of fancy label for the chemistry of things we use to build other things. OK, new name for “chemist.” Hopefully it ups the funding. Good for you guys.”
“Later on, I actually read Drexler’s Ph.D. thesis which invented the subject. I can sum it up thusly:
“Behold, the Schroedinger equation!”
Note: You have to go to the site to see the actual equation – I could not copy and paste for some reason.
“With this mighty equation we may go forth and invent an entirely new form of chemistry, with which we may create new and superior forms of life which are mechanical in their form, rather than squishy inefficient biological looking things. We shall use the mighty powers of the computer to do these things! It shall bring forth many great marvels!”
Even if you should create a breathable atmosphere on Mars. Humans will not be able to live there for very long without dying because of the negative effects on the body caused by the lack of gravity equal to the gravity on earth. NASA is working on this problem; but, as of right now, the problem has not been solved.
And, no once seems to be close to being able to create artificial gravity that will simulate that on earth.
Then, space radiation on Mars will kill most everyone. So then you are forced to build huge underground structures, which is also science fiction at this time.
Actually, NASA believes that one solution is making faster rocket ships and only staying on Mars for relatively short periods of time. The round trip travel time and stay on Mars would be less than a year. NASA stated this solution in a August 12, 2013 letter they sent me in response to a letter I sent them on the difficulties of space travel, including lack of gravity and radiation.
At this point it is all speculation. I am 64 years old and doubt that I will live until the 2030s to see what happens. Although my Mom is still alive at 91. Who knows.
Again, I am not trying to disrespect anyone. I apologize if I have.
Thank you again,George, for your thoughtful discussion. Any ordinary means to create 670 million metric tons of O2 would take thousands of years at best. Total Recall did it in seconds and is total, utter nonsense. I can see a way to generate 6 million metric tons of O2 in a day, but it’s unproven and cannot be sustained 100-fold. The point is that different ideas have yet to be thought of, and new technologies have interesting potential.
I am thinking of nanotechnology outside of the usual bounds into areas that may be more nanobiology. I cannot say because the inventions are either being made or have yet to be made. A means to carry more oxygen in our blood and to increase the blood partial pressure of O2 above that of the air may come about. There’s no big incentive today, except for artificial blood research. It’s the same as with generating oxygen — no big incentive.
We can get to Mars and back using current technology — barely and with substantial risk. Living on Mars is also possible with the same caveats. Self-sustaining on Mars and, more importantly, expanding on Mars will require more than what we have today. We will not wait thousands of years for ordinary terraforming to take place. Living entire lifetimes in small pressurized habitats does not fit our evolved psyches.
We don’t have solid evidence on long-term effects of 38% gravity on animals or humans. As far as we know, it could extend life spans. We’re discussing a great many unknowns.
Only by planning and addressing the problems of going to and living on Mars head-on will we ever be able to do so. Someday, the numerous problems will finally be solved or resolved.
I’m not a big fan of round-trip manned missions to Mars. They’re very expensive and have little purpose except for some marginal science not possible by automated means. If you can go there and come back, then you may be able to go there and stay. Spend the money of figuring out the latter. This is not to say that Mars One is a good idea. For me, it’s a prod to think of a better way.
Yes, Mars One does sound that way to many people. To others, it’s an opportunity. I stand in between these views. Mostly, I expect someone other than Mars One to get to Mars first and Mars One to wither away of its own problems.
Sending people on a one-way trip to Mars does seem criminal to some and may be according to some laws for all I know. What truly is criminal is sending them without adequate follow-up funding guaranteed beforehand. It is this aspect that bothers me the most.
I don’t know if Mars Direct has been discussed here before, but their concept seems pretty doable. Any thoughts?
Mars Direct caused the formation of the Mars Society. The history is fascinating. Such vision and effort to resolve open issues helps us keep our minds wide open.
Is it feasible? Seems like it.
Will it happen? Requires political will. The advent of China on the Moon may push us there. However, instead of competing, we should cooperate. Let them go to the Moon while we focus on Mars. Then, bring them into the process.
Colonizing Mars will require more intellectual resources than financial ones. We can get to Mars on our own dime is necessary but will have to have every idea and test those ideas and turn the good ones into reality.
I’m more on the side of Mars One than Mars Direct in that I don’t see the benefit to having lots of round trips to Mars. Practically speaking, you have to stay for over a year anyway. One round trip may be necessary to test the effects of 38% gravity on people and other aspects of living there. However, you could make the return flight optional, just have the infrastructure available in case of problems.
There are just too many variables and unknowns in the Mars equation today. Until automated flights are designed to answer them, we have to guess and then have to send people to know. Let’s find out more now. Design different Mars missions specifically for the colonization of Mars.
I read over the “Mars Direct (Summary)” and the detail report. The Mars Society was formed in August 1998 by Robert Zubrin.
It is now about 15 years later, and nothing that Robert speculated about in his “Mars Direct: A Simple, Robust, and Cost Effective Architecture for Space Exploration Initiative” report has happened. None of his target dates have been met.
http://www.marssociety.org/home/about/mars-direct
The Mars Society has great artist renditions, just like Mars One.
Those artist renditions are the hooks for the science fiction junkies. And, Robert’s report is full of details that to some ill-informed might sound plausible – but, it is pure science fiction conjecture at this point.
My definition of science fiction is very simple. If it hasn’t been done yet, it is science fiction. Many things are postulated in science, especially by futurists or futurologists, e.g., Michio Kaku; but, until they can be proven through observable experiments, or created, they are science fiction. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Showing His True Colors — Michio Kaku Explains the New World
Robert’s first problem is somehow having an unmanned heavy rocket ship orbit Mars before it lands, which has never been done.
NASA has had 3 Mars orbiters (i.e., Mars Global Surveyor, Mars Odyssey and Mars Reconnaissance) that used aerobraking to slow down to achieve a low Mar’s orbit (e.g., 100 miles above Mars); but, none of these have landed a payload on Mars.
The heavier the space ship and the faster it is traveling, the more it takes to slow it down.
Anyway, the three NASA orbiters weighed from 829 lbs. to 2,272 lbs. The MAVEN has a lunch mass of 5,410 lbs., Dry Mass of 1,784 lbs. and a payload mass of 143 lbs. and is expected to reach Mars in September 2014.
Robert plans to send an unmanned payload of 40 tonnes (88,184 lbs.), which is the weight of the ERV, 6 tonnes (13,227.6 lbs.) of liquid hydrogen cargo, a 100 kWe nuclear reactor mounted in the back of a methane/oxygen driven light truck, a small set of compressors and automated chemical processing unit, and a few small scientific rovers.
Wow, Wow, and more Wow.
The heaviest payload to land on Mars is the MSL – Mars Science Laboratory (Curiosity), which weighed 1,982 lbs. Robert’s ERV is 44.49 times heavier. The supersonic parachute used to slow the Curiosity down to about 220 mph will not work on an object weighing 88,184 lbs. So, it is not clear how Robert will land his 88,184 pound ERV and equipment on Mars. But, the devil is always in the details.
In a test, NASA did use a huge parachute to drop a 72,000 – pound payload, tying the record for the heaviest load ever extracted from an aircraft during flight, from an altitude of 25,000 feet on October 8, 2009 in the Yuma, Ariz. But, that would not work on Mars because of Mars’ thin atmosphere, which is less than 1% of Earth’s.
Then Robert states:
“The general outline of Mars Direct is simple. In the first year of implementation, an Earth Return Vehicle (ERV) is launched to Mars, arriving six months later. Upon landing on the surface, a rover is deployed that contains the nuclear reactors necessary to generate rocket fuel for the return trip. After 13 months, a fully-fueled ERV will be sitting on the surface of Mars….The first booster launch delivers an unfueled and unmanned Earth Return Vehicle (ERV) to the Martian surface, where it fills itself with methane/oxygen bipropellant manufactured primarily out of indigenous resources. “
Damn you say! This rover is somehow going to connect all the equipment, hoses, electric cables, etc. hundreds of meters form the rocket with the aid of a small truck controlled telerobotically and create rocket fuel from the air and minerals on Mars. Wow, sounds good; but, the devil is in the details. How?
NASA has tested almost everything used in space on earth before it was sent into space, e.g., rovers, Moon buggy, spacesuits, etc.
Surely, Robert can build and test all his equipment on earth before he tries to use it on Mars.
Manufacturing rocket fuel is very complicated and dangerous and requires huge plants on Earth with hundreds of people. There are no robots capable of doing it. But, by some unknown methodology and yet invented equipment, Robert Zubrin is going to have a robotic rover do it on Mars. Beam me up Scotty.
Again, this is pure science fiction.
Robert, build your ERV on earth where it is very cold, e.g., Vostok, Antarctica and see if you can manufacture rocket fuel without humans.
If you can’t do it on earth; you sure as Hades can’t do it on Mars.
Then Robert states:
“As soon as it is landed, the truck is telerobotically driven a few hundred meters away from the lander, and the reactor is deployed to provide power to the compressors and chemical processing unit. The hydrogen brought from Earth is quickly catalytically reacted with Martian CO2 to produce methane and water, thus there is no need for long term storage of cryogenic hydrogen on the Martian surface. The methane is liquefied and stored, and the water electrolyzed to produce oxygen, which is stored, and hydrogen, which is recycled through the methanator. Ultimately these two reactions (methanation and water electrolysis) produce 24 tonnes of methane and 48 tonnes of oxygen. An additional 36 tonnes of oxygen is produced via reduction of additional Martian CO2. The total bipropellant produced is 107 tonnes, or a leverage of 18:1 compared to the hydrogen brought from Earth needed to produce it. Ninety-six tonnes of the bipropellant will be used to fuel the ERV, while 11 tonnes are available to support the use of high powered chemically fueled long range ground vehicles.”
Wow, Wow, and more Wow again. – Beam me up Scotty.
Again, the details of how this will be done are missing; it is just science fiction talk. There are no robots that can do anything close to what he is stating on earth, and on Mars with round-trip signal delays of up to 40 minutes, give me a break.
Again Robert, drop your EVR anywhere really cold on Earth and see if you can do this without humans. But, make your that your radio signals have a 7 to 20 minute delays both ways, to the EVR and from the EVR, potentially 40 minutes delays.
If Robert can do that on Earth, I will apologize for calling him a science fiction junkie
Again, it is time for a serious Reality Check.
Will mankind ever be able to do this? Who knows; but, we are decades maybe centuries away from finding out.
I never doubted that we would land a man on the moon. I am pretty sure that we will have a manned mission to Mars in the 2030s, assuming NASA can solve technical problems.
I am not so sure that NASA will ever be able to solve the physiological and psychological problems of deep space travel for prolonged periods of time, e.g., one year or more.
Again, just becasue mankind can think of something or wishes it would happen, e.g., space ships going Warp 10 that does not mean it can be done now or ever.
There are physical laws of the Universe that can’t be broken, e.g., anything with mass going faster than the speed of light. And, just maybe, the negative effects or prolonged periods in microgravity can’t be counteracted.
So again, just maybe, mankind will never be able to live in deep space for prolonged periods, e.g., over one year.
That YouTube clip could be titled Michio Kaku speaks kaka. Wow! How far out is he?!
We will get to Mars. It will not be easy. All of the technology has not been realized in the form necessary. We’re not positive that it will be when we try. Yet, we will try. We will design. We will test.
We went from being a non-spacefaring world to men on the Moon in just 12 years. The first orbital U.S. satellite weighed in at under 31 pounds, less than 1/5 of the mass of a typical man. Eleven years later, we had two men on the Moon. The lunar module alone weighed more than 1,000 times as much as that first satellite.
That leap of technology was essentially unimaginable. It was “science fiction” from start to finish. I read my first science fiction book in 1953. We couldn’t even put a rocket into space then. No one could have predicted, except for the nuts, that we’d be on the Moon in 1969.
So it is that I do not dismiss out-of-hand ideas for going to Mars. We cannot know that we’ll fail until we try. Some paths look more promising than others. We can discuss the alternatives, their pros and cons, at length. Is it better to manufacture methane from CO2 and on-board hydrogen than to make CO and O2 directly from CO2? How much energy is required for each? Have the energy requirements of compressors been considered? Can a CO-O2 propulsion system lift a spacecraft from Mars into orbit?
Will 38% gravity cause negative health effects? What are they and how long does it take for them to become serious, if ever? What’s the best energy source for Mars: RTG, nuclear reactor, or solar? Should we use a combination of these? Why or why not?
Does it make sense to send lots of round-trip missions to Mars if the goal is colonization? Why not just colonize right off, with a backup to return colonists to Earth in case of unexpected problems? What should such a backup be?
This only begins the questions. George is right to be critical. Lives will be at stake along with our immediate future in expanding beyond the limits of Earth’s surface. His comments should be answered — soberly and carefully.
I was born into a world without television, with rotary telephones and party lines, with ice boxes (at least in my home), without microwave ovens, and much much more. I have watched first-hand as incredible things have happened. I wrote my first computer program in 1960 on a computer with paper tape, an oscilloscope display, a magnetic drum memory, and vacuum tubes — in machine language.
Robert Zubrin seems a bit too evangelistic for my temperament, a bit to strident. However, we must be bold if we’re to accomplish anything. Is it better to try for gigantic goals and maybe fail or to just attempt the easy things?
We must have the adventuresome and the conservative views so that one does not dominate and wreak havoc. I, for one, am cheering for Mars while asking the difficult questions to keep them honest. I will not say it’s impossible because I’ve seen the impossible happen too many times. In fact, some of my own work was called impossible by others.
Dream big and be ready to back up your dreams with lots of real hard work. Innovation is 99% perspiration — or something like that. It’s not enough just to have clever ideas. George is 100% correct on that point. But, just because you don’t have a working model does not mean that you cannot have one.
Call me the cautious optimist.
Many people have not studied the history of science and technology advancements. They don’t know that most, if not all, inventions are built off ideas that have existed for centuries.
Some men dreamt about flying like birds in BC, after all, if birds could fly, why not man. Man has always wondered about the Sun, Moon and stars. Scientists have thought about rocket flights into space for many years, centuries before I was born in 1949. Actually, rockets with small animals were sent into space in 1806.
During the 19th century (January 1, 1801 – December 31, 1900), rocket enthusiasts and inventors began to appear in almost every country. Some people thought these early rocket pioneers were geniuses, and others thought they were crazy. Claude Ruggieri, an Italian living in Paris, apparently rocketed small animals into space as early as 1806. The payloads were recovered by parachute. As depicted here by artist Larry Toschik, French authorities were not always impressed with rocket research. They halted Ruggieri’s plans to launch a small boy using a rocket cluster. (Reproduced from a drawing by Larry Toschik and presented here courtesy of the artist and Motorola Inc.)
http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/rocketry/14.html
Leonardo da Vinci’s (15th-century) dreamt about flight and found expression in several designs, but he did not attempt to demonstrate his ideas by actually constructing them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_aviation
“Konstantin Tsiolkovsky (1857 – 1935), a Russian school teacher with a scruffy beard who, without ever launching a single rocket himself, figured out all the basic equations for rocketry in 1903. Thoughts on the use of the rocket principle in the cosmos were expressed by him as early as 1883, and a rigorous theory of jet propulsion was developed in 1896. From his very broad and extensive reading, including Jules Verne’s “From the Earth to the Moon” (published in 1865), he concluded that space travel was a possibility, that it was in fact man’s destiny, and that rockets would be the way to pull it off. He anticipated and solved many of the problems that were going to come up for rocket powered flight and drew up several rocket designs. He determined that liquid fuel rockets would be needed to get to space, and that the rockets would need to be built in stages (he called them “rocket trains”). He concluded that oxygen and hydrogen would be the most powerful fuels to use. He had predicted how, 65 years later, the Saturn V rocket would operate for the first landing of men on the moon.”
Sending rockets up into space was thought about centuries before it happened. It was considered centuries before you read your first science fiction books in 1953. Sending animals into space was done in 1806 or about 147 years earlier than you read your first science fiction book.
Robert Hutchings Goddard (1882-1945), along with Konstantin Tsiolkovsky (1857-1935) of Russia and Hermann Oberth (1894-1989) of Germany, envisioned the exploration of space.
Robert Goddard was one of the three most prominent pioneers of rocketry and spaceflight theory. He earned his Ph.D. in physics in 1911. He launched the first liquid-propellant rocket in 1926. He was granted 70 patents.
http://inventors.about.com/od/rstartinventions/a/Rockets.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Tsiolkovsky
Robert Goddard’s Historic Firsts
Robert Goddard’s basic contribution to missilery and space flight is a lengthy list. His lifetime of work in establishing and demonstrating the fundamental principles of rocket propulsion included the following highlights:
1. First explored mathematically the practicality of using rocket propulsion to reach high & altitudes and even the moon (1912);
2. First proved, by actual static test, that a rocket will work in a vacuum, that it needs no air to push against;
3. First developed and shot a liquid fuel rocket, March 16,1926;
4. First shot a scientific payload (barometer and camera) in a rocket flight (1929, Auburn, Massachusetts);
5. First used vanes in the rocket motor blast for guidance (1932, New Mexico);
6. First developed gyro control apparatus for rocket flight (1932, New Mexico);
7. First received U.S. patent in idea of multi-stage rocket (1914);
8. First developed pumps suitable for rocket fuels;
9. First launched successfully a rocket with a motor pivoted on gimbals under the influence of a gyro mechanism (1937).
http://inventors.about.com/od/gstartinventors/a/Robert_Goddard_2.htm
Therefore, we did not go from non-spacefaring world to men on the Moon in just 12 years. And, the leap of technology was not unimaginable.
The leap in space flight technology has been limited. For example, we are still using liquid rocket fuel, which has been around for a long time. The first flight with a rocket using a liquid-propellant took place on March 16, 1926. Sure, we have made improvements, but liquid-propellants are not new, and they have, for the most part, reached their theoretical limits based on their molecular structures. Thousands of combinations of fuels and oxidizers have been tried over the years.
The current spacesuit is based off underwater diving suits that were invented 1837. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_diving_dress
As a matter of fact, everything used in space exploration is based on inventions created decades, a century, or centuries earlier.
Yes, science will always advance, but again, there just may be theoretical mechanical, and human psychological and physiological limitations that can never be solved.
Thank you, George, for your rather thorough recitation of the history of rocket flight. I would take exception to one of the remarks.
“2. First proved, by actual static test, that a rocket will work in a vacuum, that it needs no air to push against;”
Newton proved this in the seventeenth century. It’s called his third law.
I also will argue that the conclusion is not entirely accurate.
“Therefore, we did not go from non-spacefaring world to men on the Moon in just 12 years. And, the leap of technology was not unimaginable.”
The devil is in the definitions. I define “spacefariing” as putting objects into Earth orbit, not just sending stuff up some distance from which it falls down. The technological leap between the two is substantial. It’s not just more fuel.
Also, “unimaginable” depends on who is doing the imagining. I envisioned the average citizen, not science fiction junkies or rocket scientists. So, both of us are correct if we use our definitions of these things.
My point is that the leap from rockets sent up (with a substantial failure rate) to come back down and rockets that put satellites into orbit with reasonable reliability was large. It was another step to sufficient reliability for manned exploration, which some might define as “spacefaring.”
Much technological advancement was necessary to get from rockets to orbits. Much more was required to go from small satellites to landing on the Moon and coming back. We will soon be at the half-century mark since that first Moon landing. We have placed substantial payloads on Mars now. Moving from where we are to manned Mars missions certainly forms an imaginable and possible leap if given sufficient time and money. The primary issues now are exactly those two things. Some would have us doing it for a handful of billions of dollars in a decade or so. Others have proposed two decades and various other amounts of money for a full program of many flights.
Once the will is there and the money have been allocated, things move more rapidly than many people will expect. The primary issue surrounds whether manned Mars missions will be a “front-burner” project or a “back-burner” project. If the former, then we could well see people on Mars before 2030.
However, the current environment (politically and financially) suggests that this will not happen, but environments can change quickly. The ISRO Mars craft is on its way now. Mars One is holding a press conference jointly with Lockheed Martin and Surrey Satellite System Ltd next week.
At some point, people on Mars will penetrate the consciousness of a majority of the people in the industrialized nations. It could be a tipping point that will energize the effort, or other events could overwhelm the idea of Mars. We cannot predict the future.
We can look at what can be done today and what might be done tomorrow. The former certainly does fall short of putting people on Mars. The latter should not, although I cannot guarantee that it will not. I can only point to the ability of dedicated people with adequate resources to overcome problems. Robert Goddard is a good example of one such individual. The Apollo program is another.
All we can do is cheer-lead, each is his or her own way, as well as to keep the Mars fanatics honest by pointing out holes in their plans, not to shoot them down but to ensure that they fill them long before launch. So it was that I wrote my original article on Mars One.
It appears that your sources of information do not agree with NASA’s studies done by Space Exploration PhDs and medical doctors.
There is no current spaceship cable of a manned mission to Mars. Of course we have unmanned rockets with very small payloads that can reach Mars.
” Earlier this month, scientists, NASA officials, private space company representatives and other members of the spaceflight community gathered in Washington D.C. for three days to discuss all the challenges at the Humans to Mars (H2M) conference, hosted by the spaceflight advocacy group Explore Mars, which has called for a mission that would send astronauts in the 2030s.”
“But the Martian dust devil is in the details, and there is still one big problem: We currently lack the technology to get people to Mars and back. An interplanetary mission of that scale would likely be one of the most expensive and difficult engineering challenges of the 21st century. Mars is pretty far away,” NASA’s director of the International Space Station, Sam Scimemi said during the H2M conference. “It’s six orders of magnitude further than the space station. We would need to develop new ways to live away from the Earth and that’s never been done before. Ever.”
“There are some pretty serious gaps in our abilities, including the fact that we can’t properly store the necessary fuel long enough for a Mars trip, we don’t yet have a vehicle capable of landing people on the Martian surface, and we aren’t entirely sure what it will take to keep them alive once there. A large part of the H2M summit involved panelists discussing the various obstacles to a manned Mars mission.”
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-05/31/getting-to-mars
Please pay particular attention to this sentence:
“There are some pretty serious gaps in our abilities, including the fact that we can’t properly store the necessary fuel long enough for a Mars trip, we don’t yet have a vehicle capable of landing people on the Martian surface, and we aren’t entirely sure what it will take to keep them alive once there.”
But, sending humans into deep space for from 6 months to 9 months and then landing a very heavy rocket on Mars is currently not possible.
NASA has many publications that address all aspects of space exploration. As for the negative effects of weightlessness, there is plenty of data published by NASA. I have downloaded two of their manuals. You can email NASA and get them if you are interested.
1. “Bioastronautics Data Book” – Second Edition – Scientific and Technical Office – SASA SP – 3006 – by Charles a Berry, M.D. and Walton L. Jones, M.D. and many other Ph.Ds. This publication is 922 pages long and Chapter 8 covers Weightlessness.
2. “Guidelines and Capabilities for Designing Human Missions” – NASA/TM-2003-210785. This publication is 91 pages longs and has chapters on artificial gravity, radiation, psychosocial interaction, anthropometry and biomechanics
Here is the email NASA sent me on downloading their manual.
George,
Here is a link to download the subject document.
Jay.L.Perry@nasa.gov
Secure File Downloads:
Available until: 14 August 2013
Bioastronautics DB NASA SP 3006.pdf
33,870.54 KB, Fingerprint: dcc48a4496f0c75a06dd1cc428adef37
You have received attachment link(s) within this email sent via the NASA Large File Transfer service. To retrieve the attachment(s), please click on the link(s).
Since we have not landed a man or animal on Mars, of course we do not know what the physiological effects of living in gravity that is 62% less than Earth’s will be.
But, we do know the effects of living in microgravity, e.g., living at the ISS – International Space Station. Microgravity is sometimes called “zero gravity,” but that is misleading.
http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/what-is-microgravity-58.html#.UpdyIcRDuuo
Life on earth evolved after millions of years in Earth’s gravity. Not living in Earth’s gravity has negative effects on the human body, which is a documented fact. To assume that living in 62% less gravity will have a positive effect on the human body defies my understanding of reality.
If gravity on earth is the benchmark to achieve, you assigned it 100%. Microgravity has negative effects on the human body, which has been proven by studies of the negatives effects of living in microgravity. You would assign living in microgravity a percentage of less than 100%. This is a simple linear equation. Given those parameters, it is an invalid hypothesis to state that living on Mars with 38% of Earth’s gravity would have positive effects on the human body.
Mars One seems to ignore all the data on the negative effects of long-term weightlessness and microgravity and the potential effects of living on a planet where the gravity is much less than Earth’s. Mars gravity is 62% less than Earth’s.
NASA believes based on data collected from the ISS – International Space Station and Mir space station that the human body cannot endure the negative effects of being without earth’s gravity for more than a year. There has been very little research on the subject because very few astronauts have stayed at the ISS – International Space Station for more than 6 months. Only two cosmonauts have stayed in space over a year at the Mir space station. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight_records
The most significant negative effects caused by weightlessness are:
1. Muscle atrophy and deterioration of the skeleton (spaceflight osteopenia).
2. Slowing of cardiovascular system functions
3. Decreased production of red blood cells
4. Balance disorders
5. Weakening of the immune system.
Lesser symptoms include fluid redistribution (causing the “moon-face” appearance typical in pictures of astronauts experiencing weightlessness), loss of body mass, nasal congestion, sleep disturbance, and excess flatulence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_of_spaceflight_on_the_human_body
Valeri Polyakov holds the record for the longest continuous stay in space on the Mir of 437 days between January 1994 and March 1995. He supposedly was able to walk to a chair and sit down after he was taken from the landing capsule, but there is no film footage of this event.
However, he retired from the cosmonaut corps that same year at the age of about 54. In his rare TV appearances he appears very “fragile.” Why would this once very robust athletic cosmonaut now look “fragile”?
Many myths follow this record-breaker, largely because he is seen in public very rarely, and when he is filmed for space documentaries (filmmaker Dana Ranga referred to him as “fragile”) for sessions for the RFSA these days (such as his congratulatory video to the Mars500 crew), he is always sitting.
In the precious few instances where he is photographed standing, has he been propped up? Can he walk? Is he crippled? Why does he not stride to podiums at state events of museum openings like Tereshkova (3 days in space), or other fellow cosmonauts of the Mir era?
Why won’t the Roskosmos (Russian Federal Space Agency) make public the 50-some-odd medical publications, based on experiments in space?
What did long duration spaceflight truly to do this man’s body and mind, and why is Russian data on that subject so very hard to find?
http://pillownaut.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-ultimate-mir-man.html
“Chris Hadfield’s next mission: Intensive rehab
Months needed for bone and muscle density to recover from physical effects of space”
“Astronauts have typically lost from 0.4 to one per cent of their bone density per month in space, the Canadian Space Agency says.”
Wow, you could lose 12% of your bone mass in a year and almost 50% in 4 years. At what point do your bones start breaking from the weight of your own body? What can you physically do when you lose 50% of your bone mass. And, you will also be losing your muscle mass.
“I had trouble maintaining blood pressure to my head and therefore I felt pretty faint and dizzy. In fact, I needed to have a transfusion of normal saline to get my blood pressure up shortly after I got back,” said Thirsk, an engineer and physician who resigned as an astronaut in 2012 after nearly 29 years with the Canadian Space Agency.”
“It probably took about a year for my bone calcium level to return to pre-flight levels,” says Thirsk. “The rule of thumb is for every month in space it takes two months for the bones to recover.”
Chris only spent 5 months at the ISS. If he would have spent a year, who knows what would be wrong with him.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/chris-hadfield-s-next-mission-intensive-rehab-1.1403447
To ignore the above medical facts is disingenuous. It is once again another example of people obsessed with going to Mars. These obsessed individuals don’t care about reality.
Then there are the psychological problems were astronauts have stated that they did not think they could last 6 months without going insane.
During his stay on Mir, Thagard, a physician and engineer who had flown four shuttle missions, repeatedly told ground controllers that he wanted to speak with his family and colleagues more than once a week, as he’d been doing, and that he felt isolated. Poor planning by NASA and the Russian space agency kept him from conducting most of his experiments, putting him at loose ends. He lost 13 pounds because he didn’t much like the Russian food—soups, jellied meats and fish. After returning to Earth, he told reporters that if the mission had been extended another three months, he might not have made it.
Then there is the incident of the Mir space station in 1997, where commander Vasily Tsibliyev was physically exhausted and his mental health had deteriorated under the stress of living in that bizarre miniature world for more than four months. Vasily’s actions almost destroyed the Mir and unmanned supply ship from earth.
Astronauts who have spent months aboard the Mir have told debriefers that psychological challenges were the toughest part of the mission, and said that a mission to Mars would fail unless these problems of confining people to small spaces can be fixed.
“Russian cosmonaut Valery Ryumin says succinctly,
“All the conditions necessary for murder are met if you shut two men in a cabin and leave them together for two months.”
“He (Valeri Polyakov) stayed in orbit for so long to prove that a healthy mental state can be maintained for the duration of a manned mission to Mars – and when he disembarked back on Earth, he insisted on walking on his own to prove that this would be possible on Mars. But his psychological evaluations noted a marked deficiency in his emotional state and overall mood. He was observed to be much more morose than usual and easily irritated by simple questions.” http://listverse.com/2012/12/31/10-issues-that-are-hindering-avoyage-to-mars/
http://discovermagazine.com/2001/may/cover/#.Uo-5UcSTiCk
Many astronauts have reported feeling fatigue after only 4 months in space. But, many astronauts are not honest because they are obsessed with space travel, e.g., Valeri Polyakov. They have a vested interest not reporting anything negative about space exploration.
I can begin to imagine how most astronauts will feel after a six or nine month trip in a small space ship to Mars and then staying on Mars in isolation for months or years. The space on the space ship will be 100 times less than on the ISS – International Space Station.
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/A_Bumpy_Road_to_Mars.html#ixzz2lPHAB3Ii
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
NASA is planning for astronauts to stay longer (i.e., one year) at the ISS to study the long-term effects, but it has not happened yet.
HOUSTON — NASA will shortly announce plans to double the mission duration of some astronaut expeditions to the International Space Station, NBC News has learned. Beginning as early as 2015, some of the astronauts and cosmonauts sent into orbit will remain there not the usual six months, but for a full year.
“Even the current standard “duty tour” of six months in space is an operational accident with no rational medical basis. NASA doctors preferred about 4 months as the optimal mission duration, when station astronauts were transported on shuttle flights.
Cosmonauts agreed. They reported growing fatigue in the final month or two of their half-year space sojourns.”
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/48807002/#.Uo-qE8STiCk
So, after only 4 months in space, cosmonauts reported growing fatigue.
So, what will Mars One astronauts feel like after being cramped in a small spaceship for 9 months? Will they even be able to walk onto Mars’ surface? No one knows!
Now someone is going to tell me about artificial gravity, which has not been invented – it is just a theory, except in Science Fiction movies – Beam me up Scotty.
NASA has not been able to create artificial gravity in over 50 years of space exploration. Most likely, the gravity on Mars will be insufficient to stop these negative effects. Mars gravity is 62% less than Earth’s. So, anyone staying on Mars for more than a year will most likely die or have so little muscle and bone mass that they will not be able to do anything, so they will die.
It will take decades if not centuries to study and try to fix these problems. And, that assumes they can be fixed.
However, it just might be that humans will never be able to live in space for prolonged periods of time.
The physical laws of the universe can’t be ignored or changed.
Thank you, George, for such a complete set of references. “We don’t have” equates to “we haven’t built” in my mind. It’s more a matter of can we build and will we build. Both are difficult questions to answer accurately. I tend to be somewhat optimistic and so may answer in a slightly biased fashion even though I’d prefer to be unbiased here.
We definitely don’t know how or even if we can keep people alive on Mars as a certainty. So, we have to find out by doing more testing. Eventually, we’ll figure it out. It’s more a matter of how long that will take (2024, 2030, 2050, etc.). I can almost guarantee that people will have walked on Mars by 2050. In 1950, I would have been very skeptical about men on the Moon by 1970, after all. There had not been a single orbital flight at all at the time. Sputnik I happened in 1957. In just over 20 years, men were on the Moon. That’s an enormous leap, far beyond what we’re discussing now.
Regarding the 38% gravity, no one knows. Yes, ~0% gravity is a problem. Yes, we are designed, by default, for 100% gravity. No, the biological curve connecting health effects and gravity cannot be linear because no biological curve seems to be. Were it so, then 200% gravity would be good for us, and we’re pretty certain that it just ain’t so.
Gravity is crucial to our existence in many ways. Would 90% gravity help alleviate old-age problems such as arthritis and circulation? Maybe. We were not designed for living 80 to 100 years, but rather more like 40 to 50 years. Life beyond 50 could be better in slightly lower gravity. It’s not been tested.
We’re dealing with exactly two data points here, 0% and 100% of Earth gravity. The number of curves connecting them is essentially infinite. Lower gravity a bit, and your heart has less work, your joints won’t deteriorate so much, and you don’t have to carry around so much muscle mass, mass that limits your lifespan (there’s a real correlation here). Thus, I can argue just as well as you (because neither of us has actual data) that lowering gravity a bit may add to average lifespans if not to maximum lifespan. Where does that curve peak? Where does it dip strongly downward as it approaches 0%? No one knows, not even NASA.
It might peak at around 60% and be more or less equal to 100% when it’s at 38%. Once we have people on Mars long enough, we’ll have three data points. Even that will not be enough to create an entire curve, but it will help to indicate trends. We may have some people on the Moon for long periods by then and get ourselves a fourth data point at 16%. I’ll bet on some health problems at that level, but maybe not serious ones unless returning to Earth with its outrageously high gravity.
Right now, I’d give a lot to live my remaining days at 80% of Earth’s gravity. I have an arthritic knee and four degenerated lumbar disks. I doubt that any serious negative effects would result from a 20% reduction in gravity. I know that I’d have less pain and more movement.
I have to admit that I’d not trade living on Earth at 100% gravity for Mars at 38% because Mars looks like hell to me, not because I’m afraid of 38% gravity. I’m sure that in all of the history of human expansion on this planet that many of the places people have gone have looked like hell to some and like opportunity to others. So, I suspend judgment on the personal preference to live in such a hostile environment. Not for me, but possibly for some. Martians could see the life expectancy curve become narrower with the peak shifted to higher values. It could also become wider with a lower-value peak or even just shift without changing width.
Guess what? We have no way of knowing until we try. So it is that I support the concept of going to Mars but not the particular modes that I see now.
Congratulations to the ISRO (Indian Space Research Organisation). They have just achieved escape from Earth orbit of their Mars orbiter Mangalyaan, a 1,350-kilogram (3,000-pound) vehicle . After three mid-course corrections and a final insertion burn, it will settle into Mars orbit in about ten months — if nothing goes wrong.
If all goes well, India will join a very select club of Mars-exploring nations.
I hope that all nations capable of this sort of feat can join together to make the first manned flight to Mars happen sooner that any one can accomplish alone.
Thank you, harrykeller for your rebuttal,
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on what I said about technological advances and your definitions of how quickly we have advanced in space travel. The devil is in the details.
Newton’s third law was only theory. Newton never did an experiment in a vacuum to prove it; Goddard did.
As far as heavy payloads, not sure what you are talking about.
You stated:
“We have placed substantial payloads on Mars now.”
Maybe I missed those landings on Mars. Maybe your definition of heavy payloads is very different than mine.
The heaviest object landed on Mars is America’s Curiosity rover that weighed 1,982 lbs. The heaviest object ever landed on Earth’s Moon was the Apollo Lunar Module, which weighed 32,399 lbs., which landed into what was a vacuum for all practical purposes. We currently do not have the technology to land anything that heavy on a planet with an atmosphere, even one as thin as Mars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_the_Moon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Command/Service_Module
The Apollo Command/Service Module which orbited the moon weighed about 66,871 lbs., but it did not land on the moon. The Apollo space ship weighed about 100,000 lbs. which included the 32,399 pound Lunar module.
America’s Curiosity rocket ship had a total weight of 8,583 lbs., which includes the weight of the actual rover of 1,982 lbs. But, only the 1,982 pound rover landed on Mars; the rest of the rocket just crashed into Mars, so that does not count.
NASA said landing the rover was the most complicated landing ever attempted and was “seven minutes of terror.” The techniques used to land the 1,982 pound Curiosity rover will not work on much heavier objects.
So, NASA had trouble landing the 1,982 pound Curiosity rover, but somehow Mars One is going to land rockets with huge payloads. How?
Mars One plans for Six Cargo missions? There is nothing on the Mars One web site that states the payload of each mission. How many pounds of equipment and building material does it take to build a Mars Colony for 8 or more people?
The payload of the space shuttle was 53,600 lbs. to go to LEO – Low Earth Orbit – 99 miles to 1,200 miles above earth; to go to GTO, about 22,000 miles above earth, the payload is only 8,390 lbs. It takes lots more rocket fuel to go higher, so the payload is less.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Earth_orbit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_transfer_orbit
I like to use the ISS – International Space Station as an example. The ISS is small compared to the Mars One colony.
It took 31 missions to build the ISS – International Space Station over about a 10-year period. The payloads of those 31 missions averaged 22,242 lbs. with the largest being 42,600 lbs. But, that was only going up about 220 miles above earth. It did not take a lot of rocket fuel to dock with the ISS as it was being built. And, there is no atmosphere in space. Landing a rocket on a planet with gravity and an atmosphere requires lots of rocket fuel, the heavier the payload, the more rocket fuel and thruster power that are needed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_of_the_International_Space_Station
The total weight of the ISS is approximately 1 million pounds and six people currently live there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station
http://www.howmanypeopleareinspacerightnow.com/
I think it is somewhat unrealistic to assume that anyone can build a colony on Mars that houses 8 people that weighs less than 1 million pounds.
Will NASA ever build a spaceship capable of landing these huge payloads on Mars? I pretty sure they will, but most likely it won’t be until the 2030’s and that assumes they can overcome the technical obstacles.
I hope they do. Then we can see if man can live for prolonged periods in the very hostile environment on Mars.
But, as I have already stated:
Yes, science will always advance, but again, there just may be theoretical mechanical and human psychological and physiological limitations that can never be solved.
Then there is the fact that for the most part there is absolutely nothing to do on Mars 24-7 for months without going stir crazy, which I will discuss in my next post in addition to the problem of DCS.
Sure if you are a scientist, you might carry how experiments, but, you will not be able to spend that much time away from the habitat. And, that will get boring after a few weeks most likely. And, you need lots of equipment to do experiments. But, as a Mars One colonist, why would you need to do experiments, even if you are a scientist?
Here is a link to a great NASA article on DCS – Decompression Sickness on Mars? The article does state that “The acceptable level for DCS risk on Mars has not yet been determined. Mars is a great distance from Earth and therefore from primary medical care. The acceptable risk would necessarily be defined by the capability to treat DCS in the Rover vehicle, in the habitat, or both.”
The Mars Project: Avoiding Decompression Sickness on a Distant Planet
Johnny Conkin, Ph.D.
National Space Biomedical Research Institute
Houston, Texas 77030-3498
Click to access TM-2000-210188.pdf
This article talks about what you will have to do before an EVA – It talks about lengthy periods of breathing oxygen in the habitat before you walk on Mars. Most people think that you will just put on a spacesuit and leave the habitat.
Nope, that is not how it works.
George, you have a wonderful set of facts. Thank you for providing them to all of us reading this. I agree with nearly all of your conclusions as well. Getting to Mars will be very difficult indeed. Discussing these matters using natural language also is difficult due to the imprecise nature of language. I appreciate you bearing with my efforts to communicate clearly.
I consider the Curiosity rover to be substantial but not “heavy” in the meaning that you assign to it. We have far to go just as putting a 31-pound satellite is not the same as putting people on the Moon. They had a long way to go too. They had to scale up by more than three orders of magnitude and manage some very tricky technology to land on and take off from the Moon. The same is true for Mars, only much more so. Yet, it will have been at least 50 years since the Moon landing before any manned Mars landing. That should have been long enough, but no one put the money or engineering into developing a Mars plan. It’s all been on paper. So, I believe that we don’t really know what we can do until we try. It may fail for any number of reasons, but we must strive to overcome those obstacles and see what we actually can do.
I still consider Mars One to be a long shot. They have delivered lots of noise and light but little substance. That could change on December 10. We’ll see.
Let’s consider Newton’s Third Law for a moment. It’s a law, not a theory. The science had been well established for a very long time, centuries actually. Some uninformed people actually believed that rockets had to push against air. Goddard seemingly had to demonstrate that they were wrong. It’s too bad when opinion trumps science and has to be demonstrated to be incorrect. However, it was opinion and not science that had to be handled here.
Decompression sickness (the “bends” for divers) is a serious matter. The ISS and spacecraft run at roughly atmospheric pressure. Space suits operate with 100% oxygen at much lower pressure. It takes a long time for our body to adjust to lower pressure because nitrogen dissolved in the blood will outgas forming bubbles and cause severe pain and even death.
A Mars habitat must have the same atmosphere as a space suit, more or less. The nitrogen is unnecessary and expensive to maintain on Mars. Where would it be obtained? During the trip from Earth to Mars, the space craft atmosphere can readily be adjusted to the lower pressure. After all, you have much more than some hours for the flight. Leaving the habitat for EVAs would be quite easy if the Mars suits and the habitat environment were kept as the same pressure, as they must be. You would simply put on the suit and leave the habitat through an air lock.
I don’t think that Mars will ever have an atmosphere equal to that of the Earth. It could have a mostly oxygen atmosphere of four or five percent of Earth in a matter of decades or shorter if some clever mechanism can be found — a new invention, perhaps. That’s not enough to breathe or even to walk about in unprotected from low pressure. It would have other value, however. Getting up to around 15% of Earth pressure will be a tall order but not impossible given sufficient time and creativity. It will take lots and lots of time. Right now, it looks like centuries, but that estimate could change.
Hopefully, these discussions will help others to think more deeply about the serious problems of living on Mars, many involving questions unanswerable without putting people there.
Harry,
At least we agree that Mars One is a long shot.
Also, I am not sure when NASA will be able to land anything heavy on Mars, e.g., materials and equipment weighing even six tons, i.e., 12,000 lbs., which will be very problematic for building a space colony that will most likely need hundreds of thousands of lbs. of materials and equipment to build.
I am not trying to be argumentative just for the sake of argument; but you have made a number of statements that defy my understanding of space travel and human physiology. Of course, I am only a lowly CPA, with a BS in Accounting and Minor in Philosophy from Bradley University – 1971 – Go Bradley Braves. But, I am a voracious reader and researcher.
Therefore, I hope you do not find my statements offensive, which is not the intent.
Your statement:
“A Mars habitat must have the same atmosphere as a space suit, more or less. The nitrogen is unnecessary and expensive to maintain on Mars. Where would it be obtained? During the trip from Earth to Mars, the space craft atmosphere can readily be adjusted to the lower pressure. After all, you have much more than some hours for the flight. Leaving the habitat for EVAs would be quite easy if the Mars suits and the habitat environment were kept as the same pressure, as they must be. You would simply put on the suit and leave the habitat through an air lock” is problematic for a number of reasons.
I find it interesting that Mars One believes that they will need nitrogen for the Mars One habitats, which they claim will be extracted directly from the Martian atmosphere, which is 1.9% nitrogen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars
I find it interesting that NASA maintains an earth-like atmosphere at the ISS – 21% oxygen and 78% nitrogen and at the same atmospheric pressure. Why doesn’t NASA remove all nitrogen from the air at the ISS and lower the atmospheric pressure in the ISS to the same pressure as in the spacesuit?
The ACS – Atmosphere Control and Supply System at the ISS insures that the proper mix of Oxygen and Nitrogen are maintain at the ISS to ensure the air is ideal for healthy human living. Why does NASA think that nitrogen in the air is essential for healthy human living? Why is the ISS kept at about the same atmospheric pressure as on earth? Why doesn’t NASA lower the atmospheric pressure to 50% or less of Earth’s?
Click to access ethosHandbook.pdf
It was not clear from what you wrote as to what the atmospheric pressure you believe will be necessary for a Mars habitat; but, it sounds like you think it can be much lower. But, humans don’t do well in environments with low atmospheric pressures.
“Humans do not tolerate low atmospheric pressures well. It is like when humans climb mountains.
The human body can perform best at sea level, where the atmospheric pressure is 101,325 Pa or 1013.25 millibars (or 1 atm, by definition). The concentration of oxygen (O2) in sea-level air is 20.9%, so the partial pressure of O2 (pO2) is 21.136 kPa. In healthy individuals, this saturates hemoglobin, the oxygen-binding red pigment in red blood cells.”
“Atmospheric pressure decreases exponentially with altitude while the O2 fraction remains constant to about 100 km, so pO2 decreases exponentially with altitude as well. It is about half of its sea-level value at 5,000 m (16,000 ft.), the altitude of the Everest Base Camp, and only a third at 8,848 m (29,029 ft.), the summit of Mount Everest. When pO2 drops, the body responds with altitude acclimatization,” up to certain heights; after which you die.
http://www.answers.com/topic/oxygen-toxicity
I find it interesting that NASA has done research on this subject: “The Mars Project: Avoiding Decompression Sickness on a Distant Planet.”
Apparently, NASA believes that people living on Mars will be living in habitats that have an atmosphere like Earth’s, i.e., air composition and pressure. So, apparently NASA does not believe you will be able to just put on a spacesuit, go through an airlock and walk on Mars because humans living on Mars will have to live in habitats they have an atmosphere similar to Earth’s.
What do you know that NASA apparently does not?
Man evolved breathing an atmosphere that is about 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and 1% other gases at basically 1 atmosphere of pressure at sea level. Why do you believe man can live on Mars for prolonged periods of time without an atmosphere similar to Earth’s, at a much lower atmospheric pressure with no nitrogen?
Breathing only pure oxygen for too long is bad for the human body.
“Now what would happen if you breathed 100 percent oxygen? In guinea pigs exposed to 100 percent oxygen at normal air pressure for 48 hours, fluid accumulates in the lungs and the epithelial cells lining the alveoli. In addition, the pulmonary capillaries get damaged. A highly reactive form of the oxygen molecule, called the oxygen free radical, which destroys proteins and membranes in the epithelial cells, probably causes this damage. In humans breathing 100 percent oxygen at normal pressure, here’s what happens:
1. Fluid accumulates in the lungs.
2. Gas flow across the alveoli slows down, meaning that the person has to breathe more to get enough oxygen.
3. Chest pains occur during deep breathing.
4. The total volume of exchangeable air in the lung decreases by 17 percent.
5. Mucus plugs local areas of collapsed alveoli — a condition called atelectasis.
6. The oxygen trapped in the plugged alveoli gets absorbed into the blood, no gas is left to keep the plugged alveoli inflated, and they collapse.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/question4931.htm
“An atmosphere containing 100% oxygen is toxic to animals and cultured animal cells, bacteria, fungi, and plants. In humans, breathing 80 — 100% oxygen for 8 hours or more causes irritation of the respiratory passages, and after 24 — 48 hours it causes lung damage.”
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/oxygen-toxicity#ixzz2mRfmgkRJ
As far as I know, the longest astronauts have had to breathe 100% pure oxygen was 12.6 days during the Apollo 17 moon mission. Breathing pure oxygen for that period of time was tolerated; but, it will not be tolerated on a 6 to 9 month trip to Mars. And, surely you are not suggesting that people living on Mars will be breathing an atmosphere of 100% oxygen for months or years. Let’s not forget that the danger of fire is huge in a pure oxygen atmosphere. And, surely you are not suggesting that humans living on Mars will be living in a habitat with an atmospheric pressure much less than Earth’s.
http://airandspace.si.edu/explore-and-learn/topics/apollo/AS17/a17sum.htm
Why are you assuming that anyone would be comfortable living in anything less than the same atmospheric pressure and air composition as on earth for prolonged periods of time?
Several systems are currently used on board the ISS to maintain the spacecraft’s atmosphere, which is similar to the Earth’s. Normal air pressure on the ISS is 101.3 kPa (14.7 psi); the same as at sea level on Earth. An Earth-like atmosphere offers benefits for crew comfort, and is much safer than the alternative, a pure oxygen atmosphere, because of the increased risk of a fire such as that responsible for the deaths of the Apollo 1 crew.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISS_ECLSS
The longest manned space flight in a rocket ship was Apollo 17, which was 12.6 days. Breathing pure oxygen for that period of time was tolerated; but, it will not be tolerated on a 6 to 9 months trip to Mars.
http://airandspace.si.edu/explore-and-learn/topics/apollo/AS17/a17sum.htm
I admire your research. You have some great statistics and information that will be useful for all of us.
There are two aspects to atmosphere: the total pressure and the partial pressure of oxygen. Well, there’s much more such as concentration (PP) of CO2, toxic gases, temperature, and so on.
The total pressure becomes important when you change environments because excessive drops in pressure causes the bends (decompression sickness). As I understand it, that’s why NASA has pressurized the ISS to roughly 1 bar. A lower pressure would lessen the strain on the walls of the station but would necessitate long acclimation periods when leaving Earth to visit the ISS. I guess that they just decided that 1 bar was better overall.
Mars is a different matter. I was not suggesting that Mars One would do this or that. I was only discussing what might be done for anyone living on Mars for an extended period. The partial pressure of O2 at Matucana in Peru is around 0.16 bar. People live there very nicely. Therefore, it is possible to live in a pure oxygen atmosphere at 0.16 bar.
What are the expected effects? Except for the lack of nitrogen, it’s the same as Matucana on human physiology. The boiling point of water at that pressure is well above body temperature at around 50°C (don’t remember exact number). You’d have trouble boiling eggs but then Mars won’t have any eggs. Power is such a precious commodity on Mars that I would imagine all cooking being done with microwaves anyway.
Might 0.16 bar of pressure have deleterious effects on humans? Could be? Would 100% oxygen be a problem at that pressure? Not at all. Would fires be a problem? No, because chemical reactions depend on the partial pressure of oxygen, not the percentage of oxygen in the air. A 2-bar atmosphere with 10% oxygen would burn things pretty much the same as in Earth-normal atmosphere. So would a 100% oxygen atmosphere with 0.20 bar pressure. It’s all about the partial pressure. (There would be some effect on the transmission of heat at different pressures, but not enough to alter the basics here.)
Aside from nitrogen causing decompression sickness, I don’t know of any human impact of N2 or lack thereof in the air.
If you tried to breathe pure oxygen at 0.10 bar, you’d probably suffocate. Pure oxygen is not the problem. If the partial pressure of oxygen is well above 0.20 bar, say at 1.0 bar, then it oxidizes the mucous tissues of the lungs, eventually causing permanent damage and ultimately death. But, we breathe O2 at 0.2 bar for our entire lives without serious consequences.
At the lower total pressure, the calculations for carbon dioxide poisoning would have to be done over, but that’s simple arithmetic.
I am speculating on this matter because I have seen no real data on living for a long time at 0.16 bar of nearly 100% oxygen. It would be less due to CO2, water, and other minor gaseous contaminants. There’s no obvious reason why it would be fatal or even debilitating. There may be unknown reasons.
Mars has many unknowns. Even if we had the hardware to go there today, we shouldn’t just because of those unknowns. Ten years should be enough time to explore those and to develop the necessary hardware to go to Mars, but we’ll never do it unless the money can be raised. So, we must work on knowing the unknowns (and spending money to do so) and on developing financing while engineering the necessary hardware. Right now, there are several competing schemes for the trip (direct, link up in space, build in space, and I don’t know what else) as well as the round-trip versus one-way controversy.
Can we land four people with enough equipment to live on Mars for a few years and be ready in ten years? Theoretically, maybe. Can we follow up with more landings and more people? If the maybe is a yes, then we can, but it will be expensive even if SKYLON works as advertised.
I am assuming that the sages at NASA and elsewhere are correct about being able to put 4-6 people on Mars for an extended period, maybe 18 months, in 15-20 years. NASA will bring them back. Mars One will leave them marooned. Mars Direct would make the return trip possible (and plan to do so), but it could leave that trip open as an escape hatch in the event of unforeseen problems with gravity or equipment.
I think that getting four people to Mars alive and having them survive for about a year on the surface is definitely possible in the 2015 time frame. Beyond that, all bets are off for now. Self-sustaining? Tough to do. Adding more colonists? The expense after the shine of the first trip has worn off would be a major issue. Unless we have much more inexpensive means to get to Mars, it will be like the Moon — just sitting there and taunting us 50 years after we first set foot there.
Mars provides no economic benefit to us. Neither does the Moon unless we mine it for water to electrolyze into hydrogen and oxygen to use in space flight beyond low Earth orbit.
I’m reminded of the American frontier at which hard cash was very scarce. But, Mars would be much, much worse. No furs to trap, no gold or silver to mine and send to the East coast, much greater expense to send any materials back home. It won’t even have fossil fuels. If anyone ever does find platinum or neodymium on Mars, the expense of getting it back to Earth will outweigh any value it may have here.
The only thing Mars can provide to Earth in the near future is science.
Harry,
I am assuming the 2015 time frame above was a typo. We will not have anyone landing or living on Mars until the 2030’s earliest, according to NASA, which assumes we make huge technological advances.
Don’t want to nitpick, but the people living in Matucana, Peru at 7,802 feet above sea level do not breathe pure oxygen; they breathe air that is 21% oxygen and 78% nitrogen, and 1% other gases, which is the same as it is at sea level. Living at higher altitudes does take an adjustment period for people born at lower altitudes, e.g., sea level. Oxygen deprivation or hypoxia is not fun. I remember skiing at A-Basin in Colorado in 1972, where the base elevation is 10,780 feet and the top elevation 13,050. It took a while not to be out of breath.
But, that does not change the fact that breathing 100% pure oxygen for prolonged periods of time is not good for the human body, as I stated and cited evidence as support for that in my last post.
And, NASA decided on 1 atmosphere of pressure and an air mixture of 21% oxygen and 78% nitrogen, and 1% other gases because that is the most healthy atmosphere for humans and the risk of fires is less than in a 100% Oxygen atmosphere.
Anyway, let’s assume everyone is happily in their Mars’ habitat breathing whatever at whatever atmospheric pressure. Now what?
What will you do on Mars or in your habitat without going stir crazy?
You can’t go outside and have a smoke if you are bored. This would not bother me, since I don’t smoke; but my wife is a different story.
Drinking booze will be limited to what you were able to bring on the spaceship, which most likely won’t be much.
Talking to friends and relatives on earth will be very limited, thereby increasing the feelings of isolation and likelihood of more people going stir crazy. Your mobile phones will not work.
The distance between Earth and Mars is constantly changing because of their two different elliptical orbits around the sun. The closest known approach to Mars was 34.98 million miles, and the farthest is about 250 million miles. On average, Mars is 140 million miles from Earth. Wireless radio signals travels at 186,200 miles per second or 11,172,200 miles per minute. So when Mars is at its closest distant, it takes a radio signal about 3 minutes to travel from Earth to Mars, and vice versa. When Mars is at its farthest, a radio signal takes about 22 minutes. When Mars is at its average distance, it takes a radio signal about 13 minutes. Bottom line, to send a radio signal from Earth to Mars and then receive a radio signal back from Mars to Earth can take from 6 minutes to 44 minutes, with an average round trip time of 26 minutes. Talking to anyone on earth will be problematic at best.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/astronomy/q0254.shtml
http://www.space.com/16875-how-far-away-is-mars.html
Well, let’s assume all the Mars One folks are a hardy bunch who don’t smoke or drink booze and don’t care to talk with friends or relatives on Earth, then what?
What do you do on Mars for 16 hours per day, assuming you are able to sleep for 8 hours, for the rest of your life without going stir crazy?
You will most likely go stir crazy within a few months after landing on Mars, especially after you have spent from 6 to 9 months cramped in a very tiny space ship from Earth with three other astronauts, assuming you don’t murder one or two of them. You will most likely go stir crazy on the trip to Mars.
Everyone thinks it will be real cool walking on Mars in a very heavy bulky spacesuit. For arguments sake, let’s assume we have a new space suit that weighs almost nothing and feels like a jogging suit with a helmet and a air tank on your back.
Anyway, what do you think you will do walking on Mars? How far do you think you can walk? What exactly do you think you will see other than dry cold dusty desert, unless you land by a mountain?
How many days will it be before you are absolutely totally bored walking on the Mars? This won’t be like walking in the desert at Big Bend National Park in the spring when all the plants are blooming; it will be cold boring dusty Martian desert. You won’t see a snake or Desert Tarantula or any desert rats.
You can’t walk to a park and go fishing or hunting or bird watch. You can’t walk your dog because he/she is still on earth. There are no Six Flags, McDonalds, Burger Kings, Taco Bells or Pizza Huts or local taverns on Mars to walk or drive to.
So, what exactly do you think you will do on Mars for the rest of your life without going insane?
Hades, better yet, what do you think you will do for a few months without going insane?
You can’t sit around a campfire at night roasting S’mores and singing Kumbaya with your fellow explorers.
What will you do to keep your sanity?
This has been discussed some, but I can comment while leaving the technical criticism (and solutions) to the several million engineers, techies and inventors who make a living at it.
Food Production: even if it is possible to ship enough grub (and retrieve it) for the initial expedition, it will be necessary to grow your own – creating an Earth biosphere of sorts is not simple but is more practical than trying to create an atmosphere on a planet. A supply of organic materials will greatly change the nature of the venture, even down to construction materials. Otherwise you’re stuck with vitreous and metallic materials for building with.
One might suggest that we learn how to build beams and panels from a wheelbarrow full of sand before we hie ourselves off to the desert planet.
Construction: you aren’t sending anybody over there to sit on their butt and go insane. Number one, it is probably not a good idea to send folks who make a big deal out of strolls in the park, on the beach and kibitzing around at 6 Flags. No, that is not the psychological profile we are looking for, although an appreciation of strange beauty rather than visualizing anything non-Earthly as bleak might be helpful.
Communication will be like this: bulletin board, text, messenger – all turn-based. The flip side of that is the argument that having onsite operators for exploratory robots makes a lot more sense (ie no time-lag) Entertainment had better be part of the psychological setup – I find it unlikely you will find four introverts who are quite happy to ignore each other, although the gregarious sort are not likely to be happy limited to three companions, even with some communication back home.
Virtual entertainment is obviously the best bang for your buck – many Earthlings already spend nearly their entire life submerged in such constructs, although their usefulness to this particular endeavor might be called into question.
You aren’t sending Dick and Jane over there to swim around like fish in a bowl; surely remote exploration would be much preferable in that case. However the exploration, development and engineering challenges, on top of the personality types desirable for such operations, should mandate an almost Asberger-like fascination with the Red planet and engineering, chemistry skills to match.
Hey, for a good start a television show featuring four individuals in a mock-up on Earth would be much more interesting (to me at any rate) than a dozen bimbos, petty criminals and narcissists on a desert island.
I would like to see some experiments with simulated Martian regolith well before the first manned Mars mission followed by in situ experiments in the same area. Glass made from sand will be brittle and not useful for many applications. Until water is plentiful, making adobe-like material is not feasible.
Metals are a real problem because you begin with ores and must refine them. Refining takes enormous amount of power. Power is in short supply on Mars unless you ship a new nuclear reactors there.
The nuclear reactors would have to be the real thing, not RTGs. Solar power is unreliable due to dust storms and limited due to dimmer sunlight, atmospheric haze, and limits on how efficient solar collectors can be. Only nuclear power could refine metals given what’s available today.
However, refining metals presumes that you have collected the ore. We don’t even know where to find ore deposits or if they exist. It certainly would take lots of power to mine any deposits.
Building a society on Mars comes back again and again to power.
In the short run, you simply have to have a few people survive. That means air, water, and food. With a modest amount of power, you can do that.
The suggestion that Mars settlers or visitors could remotely operate scientific rovers or other automated explorers is a good idea. It would give them something to do and save lots of the cost of putting those devices on Mars.
Clearly, all sorts of Earth-created entertainment can be beamed to Mars and stored in low-power, high-capacity memory banks. Given the memory-cost curve, by 2025 you’ll be able to store all of the awful television ever created on a few grams of electronics for the trip to Mars and then constantly beam up the new junk for the entertainment of the Mars people. You can include all music and sports as well.
To survive, the crew would have to have a variety of skills. Two would have to have some serious medical training that includes elementary surgery if there is such a thing. At least one would have to be a serious agronomist. One would have to be very, very good at diagnosing and fixing equipment problems. One would have to have excellent leadership skills. And so it goes.
For actual settlement, the people would have to have a feasible vision for a future on Mars. If Earth were to pull the plug on Mars funding, the result would likely be very harmful to those on Mars until they have reached critical mass in terms of a self-sustaining operation. I don’t see that happening with a mere 20 people as Mars One plans.
Power, as mentioned above, will be the primary determinant. With enough of it, fifty or one hundred people may be able to make life bearable on Mars and promise a real future there.
The effects of 38% gravity remain unknown. Innovative means to add to the atmosphere also are undiscovered. Both must be resolved before Mars will ever be a real emigration destination, and not just a tourist location. Every other problem can be solved with enough time, money, and ingenuity. (That’s not to say that Mars One will do it by 2023.)
For now, really living on Mars must remain speculative and so remain in the realm of science fiction. I’ve found it very interesting to speculate in fiction about this possibility and have written most of a book about it. The last few chapters are still in outline form, and the early chapters need lots of editing yet, but this book explores many of the topics discussed here in the context of characters attempting to live and thrive on Mars. I’ve assumed that the first settlers arrive somewhere between 2025 and 2035 but have deliberately kept the exact date vague. What if a plan similar to Mars One really did happen?
This business of 100% pure oxygen is a common misunderstanding based on ambient pressure here on Earth.
Were we to replace every molecule of CO2 on Mars with a molecule of O2, we’d have 95% pure oxygen on Mars. You could hypothesize 100% pure oxygen for the purposes of argument if you chose. Such an atmosphere would not sustain life nor would it allow fires to burn.
It’s the partial pressure of oxygen that counts. This is the product of the total pressure and the fraction of the gas with only slight corrections for non-ideal gas behavior.
At about 1,000 millibars and 21% O2, the partial pressure of O2 here at sea level is around 210 millibars. In Matucana, it’s around 160 millibars.
If we could magically put 160 millibars of pure oxygen on Mars, you could breathe and make fires. However, that’s 670 million metric tons of oxygen and would require some outrageous amounts of power to create by any means you can imagine.
NASA decided on the higher pressure for its operations because of decompression sickness. Astronauts would have to go through a slow decompression at some point between preparing to leave the Earth and going into the ISS to avoid that problem. They do have to do that when performing EVAs because the space suits are easier to manufacture if they don’t have to hold as much pressure. Going from low to high pressure is not a problem.
All chemical reactions (include binding O2 to hemoglobin) with gases depend on the partial pressure of the gas, not it’s concentration. [This is my specialty as I have a doctorate in chemistry and am a former university professor of chemistry.) Pure oxygen at 210 millibars is not a problem.
It is possible that living for a long time at a total atmospheric pressure of 210 or 160 millibars has hazards we’re not aware of. These hazards would not be related to the air being almost pure oxygen.
I hope that my exposition puts the pure oxygen issue to rest.
The psychological issues are another matter entirely. Can we find people who can be happy and productive with few companions and a work schedule that amounts to maybe half-time on Earth? Their contact with Earth and the people they may know there would be asynchronous only. They would be unable to step out and run around the block. They could not have pets or even see live animals. Can the solitary personality be highly productive? We do have a few examples, such as Isaac Newton and Cavendish, but these are exceptional cases and did not get on well with others. This area is outside of my expertise and so I can only comment as a lay person.
With respect to muscular atrophy it seems to me that your best option is to accelerate at 0.4g to midway and then turn around and decelerate at the same rate. I don’t know what the fuel requirements would be – if they are too great then your other option is a spinning toroidal ship that creates an artificial gravity.
You simply cannot have your astronauts getting out on Mars with neck muscles that won’t hold your head up – after listening to the physio and rehab Chis Hadfield has been going through weightless over that distance is not an option.
You only have to hold your head up in 38% gravity. The Mars Direct concept had a tether between the habitation module and the spent motor modular and spun the two around their center of gravity. Even if you only had 20% of Earth gravity, you may have enough so that Mars would not be a challenge.
This is not an easy area to analyze because we currently have just two data points with any validity: 0% and 100%. It could well be that 90% gravity prolongs life. It’s unlikely that 110% gravity will be good for us in the long run but could be useful for young people to strengthen muscles and even hearts for long life. Old people would not benefit from high gravity, and lengthy periods at high gravity would likely cause extra degeneration of joints.
The area of gravity and health is one of the large unknowns for occupying Mars. Until we have people there for years, we won’t know. Suppose that 38% gravity has serious negative health effects. Then, no one will go there, and we’ll have to find a way to bring back those who have. Suppose that the Mars gravity has positive health effects overall. Then, we will have lots of pioneer types signing up. Speculation is futile right now, except in fiction.
Harry,
Thanks for your update on the oxygen. I think you are saying that breathing pure oxygen 24-7 at a lower pressure (210 millibars) on Mars will not be a problem. I will assume that the risk of fire is also lower at 210 millibars. I am in no position to argue chemistry with someone who holds a doctorate in chemistry. The studies I read were done by medical doctors; and, they stated that there were problems breathing pure oxygen for prolonged periods of time, e.g., coughing, pulmonary oxygen toxicity, damage to lung tissue, fluid leakage into the air sacs, and shortness of breath. Just maybe all these problems go away if you are breathing pure oxygen at 210 millibars. However, no one has breathed pure oxygen at 210 millibars 24-7 for a few months or a year, so the idea that it won’t be harmful is pure speculation.
Humans involved breathing air, which is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 1% other gases; to assume that breathing pure oxygen 24-7 for months or years at a lower pressure will not be harmful, is to me, absurd. Why would you even want to do that? To me, living in an Earth-like atmosphere in your Mars’ habitat is far more important than having to go through a prebreathe oxygen protocol for an hour or so before doing an EVA.
And, your speculation about pumping 670 million metric tons of oxygen into the thin Martian atmosphere is very problematic. Problematic even if someone somehow could build an earth-like nuclear plant costing billions and weighing millions of lbs. on Mars. It takes 5 to 7 years to build a nuclear plant on earth; it would most likely take 100 years to build one on Mars and cost $100 billion or more, assuming it is even possible, which most likely it is not. It is not clear how one gets the nuclear fuel, e.g., Uranium-235 or plutonium-239 safely to Mars. Let’s assume you somehow build one nuclear plant and now have the huge amount of energy needed to produce 670 million metric tons of oxygen, how to you stop it from floating off into space? From my research, you don’t! For the most part, Mars’ weak magnetic field would not keep the solar wind from blowing away the 670 million metric-tons of oxygen that cost trillions to create; not to mention that Mars’ gravitational force is not sufficient to keep the 670 million metric-tons of oxygen from floating away, even if the solar wind was zero.
Do you know how hard it will be to build anything from scratch on Mars?
Have you ever gone scuba diving in very cold water? I have; it was 38 degrees Fahrenheit at a depth of 85 feet at the bottom of a rock quarry in Racine, Wisconsin in July of 1972, surface water temperature 70 degrees Fahrenheit, air temperature about 90 degrees Fahrenheit. I wore a quarter-inch neoprene wetsuit, with quarter-inch hood, boots and gloves. Have you ever tried to do anything in a quarter-inch wetsuit wearing quarter-inch thick gloves? It is very difficult even with the buoyancy of the water. For colder water, you have to wear a dry suit, which is much bulkier and heavier, and much harder to do anything mechanical, e.g., build something.
Now we have the Mar’s surface where average temperatures are minus 67 degrees Fahrenheit. I guess if it is summer and you are not near the poles and it’s around noon, you might have a few hours where the temperature is 68 degrees Fahrenheit, but you will still have to wear a very bulky space suit that will protect you from freezing temperatures.
Building anything in a spacesuit on Mars will very difficult; and, most likely you will not be building anything from scratch, e.g., using lumber, metal sheets, a hammer, electric drills, screws, nuts, bolts, nails, etc.. Most likely, anything built on Mars will have to be built just like the ISS – International Space Station was built.
“Building the International Space Station”
“When the ISS is completed it will cover an area as big as a football pitch and weigh 455 tonnes. It would have been impossible to build ISS on the ground and then launch it into space in one go; there is no rocket big enough or powerful enough. To get round this problem the Space Station is taken into space piece-by-piece and gradually built in orbit, approximately 400 km (249 miles) above the Earth’s surface.”
It took 10 years and 31 missions to build the ISS at a cost of $150 billion, which weighs 924,739 lbs. with a habitable volume of 388 cubic meters, which is 612 cubic meters less than the 1,000 cubic meters habitat envisioned by Mars One. The Zarya was the first and heaviest module (42,600 lbs.) lunched to build the ISS.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/main/onthestation/facts_and_figures.html#.UqCwBcRDuuo
The heaviest object every landed on Mars is the Curiosity Rover, which weighed 1,982 lbs. So, to build a structure as small as the ISS on Mars would take at least 466 (924,739/1,982) missions, which would probably take 150 years [(466 missions/31) * 10 years)], which assumes all 466 missions are successful, which is extremely doubtful.
Of course, this is all silly talk because NASA’s annual budget is about $18 billion, of which about $4 Billion is devoted to space Exploration. And, it is very doubtful that it will be increased any time soon because there are many more priorities. The politicians in America, who represent the majority, realize that space exploration will never have a positive ROI – Return on Investment, and there are many more important priorities, e.g., education, health-care, illegal drug war, military defense, pensions, etc. You may not agree with those priorities, but who cares; vote for a different politician that is pro space exploration, or run yourself on a pro space exploration ticket – Good Luck! I will address the huge problem of funding in a future post.
All this talk about rovers being able to build stuff is very futuristic. Robotic science has made few meaningful strides in the pass fifty years. There are actually physical mechanical limitations to robotics that will never be overcome, e.g., a robot or rover that can pick up a nail, hammer, and two pieces of wood and nail them together. Robby the robot does not really do much, except in science fiction movies.
“Robotics: Scope and Limitations of Robots”
http://www.brighthubengineering.com/robotics/26215-robotics-scope-and-limitations-of-robots/
Remote Control Robots will never be able to do 99% of what is done by humans.
“Limitations”
1. Assembly dexterity does not match that of human beings, particularly where eye-hand coordination required.
2. Payload to robot weight ratio is poor, often less than 5%.
3. Robot structural configurations often constrain joint limits and thus the work volume.
4. Work volumes can be constrained even further when parts of substantial size are picked up or when tooling/sensors added to the robot.
5. The robot repeatability and/or accuracy can constrain the range of potential applications.
6. The closed architectures of most modern robot control systems make it difficult to configure the robot in automated cells where a variety of devices have to be integrated.
http://eaal.groups.et.byu.net/html/RoboticsReview/body_robotics_review.html
You mention that two people would have to have some serious medical training that includes elementary surgery. Good point. One problem, no one has performed any surgery in space or on the moon or Mars. There are many obstacles to overcome that may be insurmountable. I guess it will still be easy to do sutures and bone fractures in space, but a ruptured appendix is probably not possible nor are serious compound fractures. Not sure how a tooth abscess will be handled, especially in spaceship with no gravity or weightlessness.
Click to access EmergenciesinSpaceDaveWilliams.pdf
I just read something about the Mercury flight that was news to me.
“On the last Mercury flight, an astronaut experienced a near-syncopal episode on return due to orthostatic hypotension caused by microgravity-induced cardiovascular changes after only 30 hours in space. Since then, this condition has remained one of the most problematic medical emergencies associated with space travel and has even been implicated in the uncertain deaths of 2 of the cosmonauts during reentry. It appears most frequently in female astronauts but is almost always more severe the longer the flight. Some astronauts returning after a prolonged mission (i.e. Mir) are essentially incapacitated, requiring supportive care for days before recovery. Therefore, it will be imperative to solve this problem before there can be any reasonable interplanetary missions (Mars’ gravity is about three eighths of Earth’s). In the past, countermeasures have included applying lower-body negative pressure and giving the astronauts fluid loads immediately before leaving orbit to return to Earth.
Florinef has been tried in an attempt to restrict the loss of this fluid load but with very limited success. Midodrine, a selective a1 receptor agonist that increases peripheral resistance and decreases venous capacitance, has been considered for pretreatment for reentry syncope. However, the physiologic adaptations to microgravity such as a loss of extracellular fluid volume, possible cardiac muscle deconditioning and down-regulation of vascular capacitances suggest that the problem may require a more complex and integrative solution.”
So, it appears that this problem has to be fixed, assuming it is fixable, before we sent humans on a 6 to nine month space flight to Mars.
Click to access EmergenciesinSpaceDaveWilliams.pdf
Hi George,
You ask questions that many do but back them up with data. Good job.
I will have to come back to discuss all of what you’ve said.
Regarding the oxygen, I take the opposite view. Until someone tries breathing 200 millibars of pure O2 for a few months, I must assume that it will work just fine because there’s no theory to suggest otherwise. We should agree that this is probably the least of the Mars problems.
WRT generating O2 on Mars, you’d have to send fully assembled nuclear generators to Mars. They don’t have to be huge. The TROY project would do just that. It would take centuries to generate enough O2 if you could figure out how to mine the H2O, a much larger problem than the nuclear power.
The O2 will not float off into space or be blown away by the solar wind — in the next few centuries. It took millions of years to blow away the original atmosphere. Any H2 generated would leave more rapidly due to less mass and higher velocity.
Mars suits and repair materials would also have to come from Earth.
WRT comments regarding commercial sponsorship, it’s just like buying commercial time for the Super Bowl. The same logic applies. The Super Bowl adds nothing to our world but is very popular and attracts lots of sponsorship.
Although I rarely watch sports on TV, your contention that the Super Bowl adds nothing to the World is obviously and totally wrong.
The obvious intangible that it adds is entertainment, as do all televised sports. It also adds many jobs and creates many products, which are sold for $ billions. So, because of sports, many corporations exist, many people have jobs whereby they can provide the necessities (e.g., food, clothing, housing, etc.) for their families.
People being entertained by watching sport competitions goes back many centuries, e.g., Ancient Olympic Games – 776 BC, Roman Gladiators – 3rd century BCE. Television has ensured that millions around the world can watch sports 24-7.
http://www.olympic.org/ancient-olympic-games
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladiator
Millions of people pay money to watch sports on cable, e.g., HBO PPV. The HBO PPV for the Oscar De La Hoya fight sold 12.8 million units, Mike Tyson 12.4 million, and Floyd “Money” Mayweather 9.6 million – these are broadcast without advertising. Prices can range from $14.99 to $54.99 for boxing PPV events. Very few would pay to watch a documentary about traveling to Mars or the actually landing on Mars; they will watch a few minutes on the nightly news. Bottom line, most people could care less about Mars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay-per-view
“Sports are big business. Combined, the “Big 4” leagues in America, the National Football League (NFL), National Basketball Association (NBA), the National Hockey League (NHL) and Major League Baseball (MLB), bring in about $23 billion in revenue during a typical year, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg. U.S. sporting equipment sales at retail sporting goods stores are $42.6 billion yearly, according to U.S. government figures. A reasonable estimate of the total U.S. sports market would be $440 to $470 billion yearly.”
http://www.plunkettresearch.com/sports-recreation-leisure-market-research/industry-and-business-data
Companies pay billions to run ads on televised sports events. The larger the viewership, the higher is the cost per second to advertise. For example, the average cost of a 30-second advertisement at Super Bowl SLVII, which was watched by 108.4 million, in 2013 was $4 million. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/04/sports/la-sp-sn-super-bowl-ratings-20130204
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_advertising
They pay billions for advertising because they are assured that millions will watch those sporting events, which they hope will help them sell their products and make billions in profit over and above the cost of the advertising.
It is no longer entertaining to watch space ships being lunched – at least not for the majority of people in the world – most people will watched it on the nightly news, assuming it is not too long of a segment.
Now a new science fiction movie like “Gravity,” which broke a new box-office record with $400m take, is entertaining.
Alfonso Cuarón’s Gravity has passed the $400m (£250m) mark in global box-office takings, becoming October’s highest-grossing live action film release of all time, according to the Hollywood Reporter.”
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/nov/04/gravity-box-office-record-400m-october
What is funny about this movie is that many science fiction junkies believe it actually happened just like in this movie. It did not! No astronaut has ever traveled 60 miles in a space suit after an accident repairing a satellite to get back to the ISS. The film has many other technical inaccuracies.
But, science friction junkies don’t care; it is real to them. Most of the Mars One applicants are science fiction junkies that have no clue what space travel is about, or the actual dangers.
“Scientists shed light on the accuracy of ‘Gravity’”
http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2013/10/07/gravity-film-facts/2935641/
Obviously, I know that the Super Bowl (and all professional sports) is entertainment. Mars One is based on the concept of making the trip to Mars into entertainment. It is an epic battle between man and the universe. Will it succeed as entertainment? Can’t say.
Gravity was an interesting exposition but so far out into fiction as to detract from the experience. I have had an interesting discussion with their science adviser about the lapses. Some are trivial and do not impact the plot. The business about explosion debris staying close enough together after a trip around the globe to appear as a loosely aggregated bunch of “missiles” is nonsense. This is a major plot element.
The special effects are simply superb.
I guess I’m not a science fiction junkie, but I am a science junkie.
It is very important that all of the potential risks of any Mars mission, Mars One or not, are fully aired. I see the most significant risk of a one-way mission as loss of funding going forward. That would doom the initial colonists AT BEST to becoming a group of high-tech cavemen struggling to survive and AT WORST to a lingering death from lack of essentials whether air, water, food, or heat. The feeling of being abandoned is horrible to contemplate.
How can anyone say that the only reason we have not colonized the Moon or Mars is because we lack “will power”?
There is no lack of will power. NASA, Bas Lansdrop, and Elon Musk have plenty of will power.
However, there are existing technological and financial reasons it has not happened. The technological difficulties are huge and most have not been solved. And, there are huge financial obstacles.
Someone mentioned an important financial concept that everyone should be familiar with is ROI – Return on Investment, which is a key component of Capitalism. Not sure what you are talking about when you state that because we continue to pollute our environment, eventually, space exploration will have a positive expended ROI. How?
The entire financial world runs on this very important concept – a positive ROI. An important financial mechanism everyone should be familiar with is the IPO – Initial Public Offering, which is one of the most important methods private businesses use to raise capital to grow their operations. An IPO is where a company goes from being a privately own company to a publicly traded company where the stockholders own the company. The private company does this by selling common stocks in one or more of the financial exchanges, e.g., NYSE – New York Stock Exchange. IPOs are the cheapest method for private companies to raise capital, but only if the IPOs are successful.
Comments like “As soon as a Mars colonization effort appears to be real, corporate sponsors will come readily” and “Big corporations will not be able to resist being a part of the most spectacular expansion of the human race in history” are very interesting but are just wishful thinking. Corporate sponsors will only come readily if they believe there is a positive ROI. And, there is really no way colonizing the Moon or Mars will ever generate a positive ROIs. The Moon are Mars are very radiated and dangerous places where man most likely will not be able to survive and will require continual resupply from earth, which will always make them too expensive to be profitable, and that assumes they have something that can be sold, which they don’t.
IPOs only work if enough people believe they will get a good ROI on their investments, which is why they buy the stock.
To date, space exploration has had a negative $ trillion dollar ROI.
This is why you will not see any IPOs – initial Public Offering by new space exploration commercial ventures, e.g., SpaceX – Space Exploration Technologies, Virgin Galactic. They are privately funded; but have received hundreds of millions from NASA, which is funded by American taxpayers.
These privately held ventures would not exist without NASA’s financial help, and NASA as a client. Very few investment firms would recommend buying stock in space exploration companies, e.g., Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. –whose CEO is Warren Buffet – 3rd wealthiest person in the world in 2013. Buffet would never recommend investing in a space exploration company – Buffet does not recommend investing in commercial airlines because they are a huge financial risk.
What exactly is the “tremendous impact” that colonizing the Moon or Mars will have on society?
You are right that the gains are “not quantifiable,” because they don’t exist. There is not one quantifiable benefit that anyone can identify from landing men on the moon, except to bringing back a few hundred pounds of worthless Moon rocks. Yes, our understanding of space travel was expanded, but so far there have been no quantifiable benefits to mankind that result in a positive ROI.
There are no quantifiable benefits from colonizing the Moon or Mars. There is lots of mindless speculation, e.g., because of pollution on earth, mankind will have to move to another planet or we will be able to mine valuable ores and minerals and somehow ship hundreds of thousands of tons back to earth. Sure!
Not to be sidetracked, but let’s look at sending people to Mars because the world is dying from air pollution, which is a huge stretch. The smallest state in the USA is Wyoming with 576,412 people as of July 1, 2012. The biggest commercial jet is the Airbus, which can carry 525 passengers. It would take a rocket ship that could hold 525 passengers 1,098 round trips to Mars. The population of the USA is 314 million; it would take 598,095 roundtrip flights to send the population of America to Mars. Not sure how you build a colony on Mars capable of supporting even 25 people. But, who cares about reality.
President Kennedy was not a huge space exploration advocate, but, he knew the importance of winning the Cold War with Russia. So, he urged Congress to allocate lots of money to landing a man on the Moon before Russia. What NASA learned from landing men on the Moon is that the Moon is not made of cheese and it is a very dead worthless object that is pointless to colonize. And, it is a very dangerous place, especially the deep space radiation and lunar dust.
As far as your contention that politicians are primarily interested in votes that is not a revelation, after all, if you don’t get the votes, you don’t get elected. But, you seem to forget why politicians go into politics, which in many cases is because they are egomaniacs; but, even egomaniacs have visions. At least in America, we live in a constitutional republic. We elect a President via an Electoral College voting system, and members of Congress by majority state vote.
Presidents and members of Congress represent all the people in the USA. The Federal Government has a budget which is created by the President and Congress. These budgets reflect the values of the majority of Americans. Congress is responsible for determining how are tax dollars are spent.
Most Americans could care less if anything is spent on space exploration. Sure, if questioned, many will say it is a good idea. But, it depends on how the question is phrased. If you said, should we spend $500 billion colonizing the Moon or Mars this year, most would say, “of course not!”
The percent of the Federal budget spent on NASA or space exploration is roughly 4%; the percent spent on welfare is roughly 10%, the percent on defense 22%, healthcare 26%, and pensions 23%. The requested 2013 NASA space budget was $17.7 billion, of which 22% or $3.89 billion was for space exploration. The 2011 actual was $18.4 billion, of which $3.864 billion was on space exploration. The estimated 2012 actual is $17.8 billion, of which $3.738 billion was spend on space exploration.
Click to access 022212_budget_charts.pdf
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/welfare_budget_2012_4.html
So, it would appear that Space Exploration is not that important to those who have been elected to represent the will of the majority. You may not agree with that. So, I suggest you vote for representatives that run on a huge explore space platform. O’ wait, there have been none, so you will have to get enough votes to put your name on the ballot. I might vote for you. But, the majority of people who run for congress or the President will not have space exploration as a priority, especially now with so many unemployed, underemployed and so many living in poverty. So, even if you did get elected, the funds allocated to NASA would not change much.
What exactly does the cost of the Sochi Olympics, armies of detectives and lab workers checking for illicit drugs have to do with anything. And, we don’t have armies of lab workers checking for illicit drugs. And, those activities benefit mankind. Going to Mars benefits no one.
There is nothing to be gained by going to Mars. Nothing! There is nothing to be gained by colonizing the Moon or Mars.
All you doom and gloom folks about global warming are funny. We are still in the tail end of the last ice age because the ice sheets of Greenland and the Artic have not melted. The global world temperature now is not as warm as it usually is and the sea level is at least 10 to 20 feet less than it usually is. But, man is so vain that he considers the last 500 years as sufficient information to predict the future; it is not.
While it takes the earth 365 days to orbit the Sun, it take the Sun about 250 million years to complete its orbit. Also, it takes the Earth 26,000 years to complete one full cycle of precession. And, the earth’s orbit around the Sun is an ellipse which can take 413,000 years to complete. Milankovitch discovered this and his theories are now known as the Milankovitch cycles. Then there is the fact that as the Sun completes it 250 million year orbit, temperatures change.
“The Earth’s orbit is an ellipse. The eccentricity is a measure of the departure of this ellipse from circularity. The shape of the Earth’s orbit varies in time between nearly circular (low eccentricity of 0.005) and mildly elliptical (high eccentricity of 0.058) with the mean eccentricity of 0.028. The major component of these variations occurs on a period of 413,000 years (eccentricity variation of ±0.012). A number of other terms vary between components 95,000 and 125,000 years (with a beat period 400,000 years), and loosely combine into a 100,000-year cycle (variation of −0.03 to +0.02). The present eccentricity is 0.017.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
During that 250 million year orbit, the earth gets much warmer at some points and much colder (e.g., ice ages). Over 15 million years ago the temperature on earth was 10 to 15 degrees Fahrenheit higher, the sea level were 75 to 120 feet higher. As the earth gets warmer, the carbon dioxide levels go up substantially higher than they are today. Man’s carbon footprint has had little to do with Global warming.
http://sciencefocus.com/qa/how-long-does-it-take-sun-orbit-galaxy
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/last-time-carbon-dioxide-levels-111074.aspx
All right, George, you’ve covered a great deal of ground here.
“How can anyone say …?” By simply saying it. People say lots of things, sometimes sage, sometimes silly. :-)
ROI — Where’s the ROI in Antarctica? Where’s the ROI in the Hubble or Webb telescopes or even the Mauna Kea telescope or Keck? What about CERN? We do lots of stuff just to find out. Frequently, we find out nothing. Sometimes, we find out really cool stuff that has no financial value. Rarely, we find out something that makes money. I don’t think we’ll see an industry erupt in black holes or dark matter.
Companies will spend money on anything that garners eyeballs. It’s why advertisers pay so much for ads in the World Cup and the Super Bowl. Manned exploration of Mars would get lots of eyeballs. Doesn’t mean that the math would work out. Just means that it might.
I am not among those who hanker for Mars because we’re messing up the Earth and must move all of the world’s population to a new planet. That’s just madness. It’s cheaper and much more feasible just to fix things here.
Saying “There is nothing to be gained …” misses the essential point that not all gains jingle in your pocket. I hope that we’re better than that as a species, although I do wonder at times.
We are not in the tail end of the last ice age. That’s long over. We should have peaked in temperature and be heading, ever so slowly, into the next ice age now. Extra carbon dioxide and methane have kept us from that fate but by too much. Most of these gases have been produced by our society, including such practices as massive livestock production (methane) and massive burning of fossil fuels (carbon dioxide). These changes have been measured and determined to be the cause of warming, not the reverse.
On Mars, we’d like to inject as much of those gases as possible into the atmosphere to increase the surface temperature. If, by magic, we could create a 160 millibar oxygen atmosphere with human-tolerable levels of CO2 and CH4, the surface of Mars could be as livable as Siberia — maybe. But, there is no magic.
The side effect of building up an atmosphere would be to increase the power of Martian storms. Right now, they’re way past the worst hurricanes in wind velocity. The thin atmosphere makes these winds risible for humans. We could stand in one an barely notice. With thicker atmosphere, they’d be a real hazard.
Simulations suggest that we’d have similar winds on Earth were it not for our overly large moon. If these simulations are correct, then an atmosphere on Mars could be deadly and require that all buildings be built with roofs at the surface or with other precautions against the very common rocks flying through the air at 100 mph or more.
While I agree with you that Mars is a real heavy lift and may be too much, it’s still useful to consider what may be — both the positive and the negative.
I enjoy our discussions because you have excellent erudition. I fear that you’ve slipped a brain cell wrt global warming, however.
Harry, you state: “ROI — Where’s the ROI in Antarctica? Where’s the ROI in the Hubble or Webb telescopes or even the Mauna Kea telescope or Keck? What about CERN? We do lots of stuff just to find out. Frequently, we find out nothing. Sometimes, we find out really cool stuff that has no financial value. Rarely, we find out something that makes money. I don’t think we’ll see an industry erupt in black holes or dark matter.”
Cool stuff for whom? No one cares if black holes (i.e., invisible stars) are real, no one! Well, I am sure Stephen William Hawking cares and most scientists, but, not the average person. The big bang theory can’t be proven, it relies on man-made assumptions.
Did matter or energy always exist? It is more plausible than creationism, at least for me as an atheist. We reject the idea that God was a first cause, but accept the theory that energy and matter always existed and were first causes. Too funny
There is no positive ROI for any of those things you mentioned, which is why it takes governments to support those activities. And, those things would not exist without governments. Private businesses will never contribute enough to keep those projects alive. This is way the exploration of space will have to depend solely on governments.
CERN has contributed nothing to mankind and never will. CERN is creating manmade collisions and creating sub-atomic particles that exist for a nanosecond that proof nothing. Do those experiments outside of a particle accelerator; if you can’t prove those experiments without an accelerator, you are not dealing with the real world – pure and simple – just manmade collisions. CERN has not proven the Higgs Boson or the Higgs field; and the results at CERN cannot be audited by other scientists – you have to take their word on it. CERN is a total lie that can’t repeat its experimental results. Albert Einstein is turning over in his grave. Without the governmental support from the 20 member states, CERN would not exist.
I posted great responses on Physicfocus on the article “ HIGGS DESERVES HIS NOBEL PRIZE – BUT THERE’S MORE TO PHYSICS THAN THE FAIRYTALE LONE GENIUS
By Tara Shears On October 11, 2013
http://physicsfocus.org/tara-shears-peter-higgs-nobel-prize/#comments
Here is part of what I posted:
“The Higgs Fake – How Particle Physicists Fooled the Noble Committee” by Alexander Unzicker.
He also wrote “Vom Urknall zum Durchknall – die absurde Jagd nach der Weltformel” which translates to “From the Big Bang to bang By: The absurd hunt for the Ultimate Theory”, which was awarded the science book of the year award in Germany. He also co-authored with Sheilla Jones: “Bankrupting Physics: How Today’s Top Scientists are Gambling Away Scientific Credibility.
“Today’s scientific theories explaining the universe are brilliant and imaginative, but can they ever be verified? And if not, is it still science?”
http://www.sheillajones.com/
No it is not still science, it is science fiction!
You can’t prove these statements: “Most of these gases have been produced by our society, including such practices as massive livestock production (methane) and massive burning of fossil fuels (carbon dioxide). These changes have been measured and determined to be the cause of warming, not the reverse.” I can site other studies that disagree.
Carbon dioxide levels have been much higher on earth than they are now, hundreds of thousands, millions of years before man walked on the face of the earth. If you want to blame man, knock yourself out. You can’t prove that contention or hypothesis neither could Vice President Al Gore. But, the liberal press agrees with you and thousands of mindless young people, who don’t have a clue. There are many more theories that are most plausible than blaming man.
“Carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere”
“The present level appears to be the highest in the past 800,000 years and likely the highest in the past 20 million years, but well below 10% of its 500-million-year peak.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere
“A Science-Based Rebuttal to Global Warming Alarmism”
We are in the tail-end of the last ice age because the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist. I am sorry you do not agree with that fact.
“It is known that at least four distinct ice ages have occurred in the past two million years, implying a cyclic nature of planetary warming and cooling during that period. The most recent ice age peaked about 20,000 years ago, when glaciers covered much of North America and extended as far south as the Ohio River. At its greatest extent, the icecap over what is now Hudson Bay was nearly two miles deep. We are still at the tail end of that Ice Age.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-05-17/news/0605170191_1_ice-age-wgn-cooling
“Ice ages”
“An ice age, or more precisely, a glacial age, is a period of long-term reduction in the temperature of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Within a long-term ice age, individual pulses of cold climate are termed “glacial periods” (or alternatively “glacials” or “glaciations” or colloquially as “ice age”), and intermittent warm periods are called “interglacials”. Glaciologically, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres. By this definition, we are still in the ice age that began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/earth/water_and_ice/ice_age
And, all my brain cells are in order; although my wife might disagree; but, she is a youngster at 42, who was born the same year I graduated from college.
I appreciate your information George, but of course anybody who has a position in a government or institute of higher learning cannot agree with you or they risk at least ridicule, at worst loss of funding and/or their job.
If you go here http://www.ipcc.ch/ you will find nothing but endless lists of meetings, committees and a political process built like an upside-down pyramid, with the actual science at the bottom.
The basis of the ‘science’ is computer modeling with reams of data that has been approved and selected by scientists who have been approved and selected by politicians, environmentalist groups and a few token voices from ‘industry’ – mostly bureaucrats from very large corporations or not even corporations but associations representing corporations. ie the UNIPCC is a political contraption, not a scientific endeavor.
There are so many layers of bureaucracy and data at this point that it would be impossible to coordinate and model any coherent signal from the mess, even if those seeking to do so were impartial (they aren’t).
Nobody tries to follow the data any more, the maze is too deep and complex. We have moved from ‘consensus’ to ‘fact’ since the Rio Summit with a few troublesome moments when the mathematicians got involved – but they were submerged in the media tsunami created by the UN.
Today, every time there is an extreme weather event (which we all know about within minutes due to the internet and 24 hour news) it is cited as ‘proof’ of climate change, much like shamans and priests of old would use these same events as indications that the gods were angry and needed to be appeased.
Appeasement in the case of the UN seems to be mostly about distributing tax dollars from the developed world to the developing world and setting up a cap-and-trade system that in fact changes no carbon production at all but moves the cards around so that countries and industries can, through the aforesaid distributions (and a nice cut for the carbon traders) make it appear as though they were lowering their emissions, or at least purchasing offsets.
And while we’re talking about carbon, 0.03% CO2 is not a significant driver of greenhouse effect whatsoever, nor does raising it to 0.04% or even 0.05% make much difference. Or to make it sound larger you can switch to parts per million as 360ppm sounds more impressive.
Just as a simple illustration you can think about the difference in heat on a night with or without clouds and a day with or without clouds: it’s not CO2 making the difference.
With respect to the supposed lowering of the pH in the oceans you might want to consider whether it is those 3 or 4 molecules of CO2 in 10 000 ever so gradually dissolving into the ocean (as they always have and always will) or whether it might be the millions of tonnes of effluent in the form of sewage (treated and untreated) agricultural and landscape runoff.
And speaking of chain reactions, some of the very interesting ‘alternatives’ to old pesticides that have been marketed because nobody knows anything about the new stuff – how about those?
I know in my own industry we switched from Roundup, which has gotten a lot of bad press in recent years, to Garlon – which is far more toxic to fish and residual for years (while Roundup neutralizes as soon as it hits the soil).
But that’s not what it’s about – it’s not about the environment, it’s about controlling the world through committees, associations, power structures which are unaccountable and use processes which are indecipherable.
Notice all the UNESCO sites the last couple decades? Isn’t it nice to have their Seal of Approval on every little corner of your country.
Of course nation-states are so passe.
So… suppose climate change is real (and we’re not supposing, the evidence is that the climate has always changed) and suppose it is anthropological and that the burning of hydrocarbons is responsible, is in fact the main driver of climate change.
All that.
Just what exactly is it you intend to do?
Please, I’ve listened to the kids for twenty years now, no the answer is not bicycles nor hydrogen nor electric cars nor windmills nor solar cells. All neat stuff, hardly scratches the surface of the problem.
We are a small, secondary depot on the outskirts of civilization here: northern Canada, far from the immense volumes of goods and services that radiate from New York and Los Angeles or even Vancouver and Toronto. We move, give or take, 200 tonnes a day.
The sort of culture where you would do without those goods is unimaginable today. The closest, and it’s still not close, is North Korea.
Are you seriously talking about feeding a city of 1 million people with backyard gardens? Farming is not exactly a new science – even hydroponics has been around for quite some time: since the time of the Romans according to a quick google of hydroponics/history.
On good land you might support a family of four with 60 acres (24 hectares) I said good land – homesteads on the prairies were 160 acres for a reason: often mediocre soil and poorly watered.
Which incidentally brings the Mars One project into sharper focus, if you thought I was getting too far off the beaten track.
With intensive, multi-layered, climate-controlled, artificially illuminated facilities you could bring the footprint down a lot, though it is doubtful small enough to fit in your back yard.
You may have noticed many people in cities do not have back yards – just as a few of them also live without vehicles.
This is because there is a vast, complex, energy-intensive network of rail lines, highways, water and sewer pipes and communications networks that supply our towns and cities. And jetliners to fly UN officials and their apparatchiks around the world for their meetings.
So you are going to tax fuel or you are going to not permit fuel and you are, I suppose, going to limit the number of children people are allowed to have (see China, One Child Policy, how is that working) and well, just what exactly is it you are going to do?
If we need solutions it is new methods to transport goods and people around, it is immense sources of power that produce little or no emissions. Solutions. Not regulations – or at least not constant reams of mindless, complex and politically motivated regulations.
You can’t make what we have work in the long term, no matter how many meetings you have, no matter how many volumes of research and regulations you produce.
Artificial photosynthesis? Cold fusion? Machines that can produce electricity by messing with time and space?
Seems to me Mars exploration is the perfect laboratory that might produce bits and pieces of the puzzle. In fact it seems to me that if we shut the entire UN IPCC down and spent the money on Mars research we would be much further ahead.
The change in ocean pH is demonstrably caused by increased CO2 concentration. The oceans cover much of the planet and are deep. Effluents may have local impact, but it takes really large amounts of something to affect our oceans. So, let’s put that aside.
Mars has no hydrocarbons, at least not enough to be considered as a fuel resource. If any, they are traces.
Earth has lots of buried carbon. We built modern society on it. We use it to refine ores. Without it, we would not have steel in any quantity today. It is finite. Using it is causing us serious problems that are growing in severity. For both of these reasons, we must find another way.
One way is improving insulation, making more efficient motors, using more efficient lighting (incandescent assumed virtually unlimited power), and so on. Another way is finding new sources of power. Yet another way is educating everyone, which has been demonstrated to reduce population growth. We’re in trouble. It’s all hands on deck. We must not dismiss any idea that will help ensure our energy future. Why do white-collar workers still commute? Why are so many rooftops in desert areas (Los Angeles, Phoenix, etc.) devoid of solar collectors? Go to Germany, not the sunniest country, and see what they’ve done.
There’s no single solution.
We don’t have to go to Mars to change. If we go to Mars, the power cannot be from fossil fuel. We will have to have figured something out. Solar power alone won’t do either.
“The current ice age, the Pliocene-Quaternary glaciation, started about 2.58 million years ago during the late Pliocene, when the spread of ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere began. Since then, the world has seen cycles of glaciation with ice sheets advancing and retreating on 40,000- and 100,000-year time scales called glacial periods, glacials or glacial advances, and interglacial periods, interglacials or glacial retreats. The earth is currently in an interglacial, and the last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago. All that remains of the continental ice sheets are the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and smaller glaciers such as on Baffin Island.”
While my terminology may have slipped, the conclusions remain. We are in an interglacial period and should be slipping into a new glacial. Global warming or climate change or whatever you term it has put off that slow slide back.
It hardly matters to us what the CO2 levels were 500 million years ago — more or less — when the first multicellular life forms appeared. What matters is the pattern of the last few tens of thousands of years. We’re way outside of any CO2 range in that period. For the Earth as it has been for the last 100,000 years, we’re in uncharted territory.
The “snowball Earth” (assuming that the evidence is correct) was halted by the slow build up of CO2 from volcanoes that punched their way through the ice. Once enough CO2 entered the air, the so-called (and misnamed) greenhouse effect kicked in and started melting the ice. Positive feedback from less albedo and other effects of opening up the ice moved the Earth quickly from a “snowball” to more normal conditions.
CO2 can warm us up. So can methane. The positive feedback from melting glaciers that allow more insolation to be absorbed means that warming is happening faster than it otherwise would. The vast stores of methane trapped in clathrates deep beneath the sea could be released if the temperature keeps on rising in a “Big Burp” that would accelerate global warming immensely. Vast areas of inhabited land could be underwater. Large agricultural areas could become too dry or too wet to support crops. Because we’ve not been there before, no one can say for certain exactly what will happen. It will be different, and it won’t be good. The only questions are those of time and extent of environmental devastation. It could take a long time and cause unpleasant but manageable damage, or it could happen in a few decades and be catastrophic. The models are not accurate enough to tell us. I, for one, would rather not experiment with this, but everyone is entitled to their druthers.
I have yet to be convinced that 0.04% CO2 in an atmosphere of 79% N2 + 20% O2 has any significant impact whatsoever, let alone in comparison to solar activity and H2O vapor. I know it absorbs a small band of infra-red. So what? CH4 makes a little more sense, but we’re talking about the conjecture and modeling of an enormous bureaucracy selected for political alignment and support of global warming theory. It’s not science, it’s politics.
Let us presume they are correct and that the Earth is warming and that it is driven by the burning of hydrocarbons (which is probably the way they should have worded but doesn’t support the sell of a carbon market) and not by altering the chemistry of the world’s oceans or solar cycles or cosmic radiation.
Harry makes the comment he, “would rather not experiment with this,” as though it was optional. It isn’t. There is no realistic alternative to hydrocarbons, and particularly liquid hydrocarbons, to support humanity as it presently exists. None. It’s not an experiment, it’s the reality, and no UN committee is going to change it, at least not without political changes the likes of which are presently unimaginable – and probably undesirable.
In any case a scientist who comes along as you are going over the falls and figures out you are going over the falls because her models predict it and then recommends you purchase some paddles from her good friend who just happens to have set up a paddle market on a raft that is right beside you is not much help when you’re going over the falls. The time to speak out against hydrocarbons was about a century ago for liquids and two centuries ago for coal.
I have lived near the coast all my life: the boat ramps, wharves and beaches are as they always have been – no change. If some South Pacific atolls and deltas are subsiding into the ocean there are much better explanations than rising sea levels: the sea cannot rise in one part of the world and not another. It’s not rising here.
I work in the transportation industry, I have not traveled much but I have been briefly through some larger cities like Vancouver, Seattle, the San Francisco Bay area, Sydney (Australia) and Beijing. China is a country which can employ draconian measures if it so desires, the kind of power green fascists dream of. China has implemented with an iron fist the One Child Policy and, if it so decides, major polluters can be taken out and shot.
Gonna take a lot more than that if you want to stop the rivers of automobiles, transport trucks, electric lighting and all the trappings of a modern world.
Frankly I’d much rather deal with a changing climate.
We have to engineer ways to grow our food and get ourselves around despite what comes. I have no respect whatever for the UN in terms of democratic methods, accountability, bureaucratic efficiency or scientific reliability. The entire Climate Change debacle has been initiated, funded and marketed by the UN.
If the UN was City Hall it would be the equivalent of bringing in murderers and drug dealers off the street and giving them an equal vote with doctors and teachers. Environmentalists who wax apoplectic at the notion that corporate-funded research is unbiased nevertheless expect us to consider their research pure as the driven snow.
Welcome back, Brett. Thank you for your contribution. You have some interesting arguments. I’ll begin at the end.
“Environmentalists who wax apoplectic at the notion that corporate-funded research is unbiased nevertheless expect us to consider their research pure as the driven snow.”
Well, no one is that pure. Radical environmentalists are just as biased as greedy capitalists. There actually are people at neither end of this spectrum. You don’t hear them often because they’re not screaming as the others are.
CO2 is warming up the planet. This has become an incontrovertible fact (except among the extremes). Even if we stopped all fossil fuel burning tomorrow, the warming would continue for some years. Won’t happen, of course. The discussion should have moved to what to do about it long ago. It is in this portion of the discussion that your arguments have the most sway.
We can, as you suggest, just deal with it. We decide that the billions or trillions of dollars necessary along with loss of life is just part of living in the 21st century. This is the most likely outcome for the world because all of the current effort to reduce carbon pollution is insufficient to stop the increase. It may well be that no effort will do it.
However, there is another aspect to this problem — finite resources. No matter how many alternative sources of fossil fuel are found (e.g. tar sands), we are using them up at an ever-increasing rate, and they will run out someday. But, long before then, the cost of extracting them will rise as will the cost of energy.
The issue we face is simply whether to wait for the inevitable event of non-fossil fuels being cheaper than fossil fuels or to act earlier to make this happen artificially (e.g. a “carbon” tax and alternative subsidies). Given the inevitability of the rise of the cost of fossil fuels and the necessity of finding ways to reduce our usage, it makes some sense to provide financial incentives, both carrot and stick, to prepare for this future.
All of this argument has nothing to do with pollution or the environment. It’s just basic common sense.
When you add in the environmental factors, the argument becomes truly compelling. You might as well begin to keep people away from the Internet as try to stem the flood of problems that will arise in the near future. We cannot stop it from happening. You are correct in that we will not switch to another mode of living just because a new environmentalists say so. I live next to a beach too. In my town, SUVs are the dominant vehicle, and expensive sporty cars are second. The market determines all. These people can afford expensive cars and expensive, frequent gas tank fill-ups. So, they ignore the cost and do what they choose. (We also have a large concentration of Prius cars because there is some liberal spill-over from Venice and Santa Monica here.)
Brett, you are quite correct in your comment about no alternative being available if you add the qualifier “today.” Tomorrow also, but not forever. We have no choice. Someday, we will have to have alternatives. The question is how soon and which alternatives.
We are not going over falls but rather down rapids of increasing danger. At some point, we just have to get our of our canoes and portage. When?
I find it amusing that environmentalists think that when the fossil fuels are exhausted, man will have to switch to electric vehicles and that the era of the combustion engine is over; too funny.
What is even funnier is the fact that there are most likely trillions of gallons of untapped oil reserves in the world. And, one little fact that is keep out of the public’s eye is that the Earth produces oil daily.
So, man may never run-out of oil; but the oil companies want you to think we will because it keeps the prices of oil elevated. A barrel of oil was $2.88 in 1960; there is no reason except greed for it to be $109 per barrel today. Gasoline should be no more than 50 cents per gallon.
The Earth is producing more oil daily than humans are using. It makes sense to believe that the Earth is still producing oil just like it has for hundreds of millions of years. It is not like all the Earth’s oil was created millions of years ago and then the Earth stopped producing more oil for unknown reasons. It may be deep in the oceans, up to 7 miles down, and will be very difficult to extract, but man will find a way; and, that is not science fiction. And, if the Earth is really producing more oil daily than it consumes, then mankind will never run out.
“A New Theory – The Earth is a Perpetual Oil Generating Machine! (The last thing the elites want you to know)!”
http://www.dailypaul.com/136256/a-new-theory-the-earth-is-a-perpetual-oil-generating-machine-the-last-thing-the-elites-want-you-to-know
“Why the world isn’t running out of oil”
Decades ago, the world was told it was running on empty. Today, we have more oil than we need. What’s fuelling the boom in black gold?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/oil/9867659/Why-the-world-isnt-running-out-of-oil.html
This report talks about trillions of gallons of oil reserves that have not been tapped or barely tapped, which means the Earth will not run out for at least the next 20 centuries or more, by which time other combustible fuels will have been created.
“Moreover, as well as bountiful oilfields in North America, Russia, Saudi Arabia and other producers in the Middle East, there are massive, barely tapped reserves in South America, Africa and the Arctic: not billions of barrels’ worth, but trillions. So the planet is not about to run out of oil. On the contrary, according to a Harvard University report published last year, we are heading for a glut.”
But what is funnier is that those wacky environmentalists like President Jimmy Carter and Vice President Al Gore must have their heads buried in that oil sand if they believe that the huge oil producing companies won’t come up with other combustion fuels made from inexhaustible natural resources, e.g., algae fuel.
Do those environmentalist wackos actually think that the largest corporations in the world, e.g., Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil, Sinopec Group, China National Petroleum, and BP – British Petroleum, are just sitting around with their heads up their arses and not developing fuels to replace gasoline?
Me thinks not!
Hydrogen is the most difficult gas to contain, being the smallest molecule and quite explosive. Fuel cells, with billions of dollars in research, are a good option for small, specialized operations – not commercial use. Compared to hydrogen you should feel quite safe letting your children play with gasoline and matches: at least they are less likely take down the entire neighbourhood.
The only way hydrogen makes sense is if it is produced by electrolysis from solar energy, or through bacterial action. The way hydrogen is actually produced, because it is far cheaper, is to strip it from hydrocarbons. Electrolysis is outrageously expensive, and the amount of power that would be required is simply not going to work with solar cells – at least not for commercial applications.
Except for bacterial, hydrogen seems to be a product or by-product of other energy sources (well bacterial too, but there might be a few of them that can pump it out on the cheap).
People exaggerate the danger of hydrogen. Gasoline is more dangerous for several reasons.
The points you make regarding storage and production are valid and must be resolved. Storage must be a high pressures because cryogenics are too troublesome. Electrolysis from water encounters hydrogen overvoltage. I have done research (not just Internet but at-the-bench) in this area. I might be solved if people truly desired it.
OTOH, methane also provides dual usage (combustion and fuel cells). It’s easier to store and to obtain (natural gas). It does produce CO2 when burned or used in fuel cells. You’ll see one CO2 for two H2O molecules. Liquid hydrocarbons are close to one-to-one.
There’s been lots of research in the area of direct sunlight to hydrogen, but no usable results yet. Sunlight to methane is rather easy, as you know.
“There is nothing to be gained by going to Mars. Nothing! There is nothing to be gained by colonizing the Moon or Mars”
Hmmm,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Good cite. Just as “never” is a long time, so it is that “nothing” is a small amount. You might argue no gold or diamonds or rare minerals, but “nothing” is being extreme and falls in the same category as the “glittering generality.”
Harry, my astute antagonist,
I am still not clear on why you want man to live at 200 millibars of atmospheric pressures breathing pure oxygen on Mars. Would you please refresh my memory?
Why would there be a theory on something that man does not have a need to do for any reason, e.g., breathing pure oxygen at 200 millibars for a few months or years? Just for the record, the air pressure on Mars varies by season and is from 6 to 10 millibars.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/LaurenMikulski.shtml
It would appear that if you go from 200 millibars to 10 millibars, you will have to deal with some sort of decompression issues on Mars. But, let’s forget about that issue for now, and deal with the adverse effects of living at 200 millibars of pressure.
There are theories that apply and data to support the fact that living at low atmospheric pressures is not good for humans, which can be verified based on the results of living at high altitudes where the air pressure is much less.
This is common sense to me, but it is backed up with scientific theory and data. The common sense part is that after millions of years man evolved from lower life forms that crawled out of the oceans/seas and began living at 1 atmosphere of air pressure at sea level breathing a mixture of air that was then and is now 21% oxygen, 79% nitrogen and 1% other gases.
“The human body can perform best at sea level, where the atmospheric pressure is 101,325 Pa or 1013.25 millibars (or 1 atm, by definition). The concentration of oxygen (O2) in sea-level air is 20.9%, so the partial pressure of O2 (pO2) is 21.136 kPa. In healthy individuals, this saturates hemoglobin, the oxygen-binding red pigment in red blood cells.”
“Atmospheric pressure decreases exponentially with altitude while the O2 fraction remains constant to about 100 km, so pO2 decreases exponentially with altitude as well. It is about half of its sea-level value at 5,000 m (16,000 ft.), the altitude of the Everest Base Camp, and only a third at 8,848 m (29,029 ft.), the summit of Mount Everest. When pO2 drops, the body responds with altitude acclimatization.
“Mountain medicine recognizes three altitude regions that reflect the lowered amount of oxygen in the atmosphere:
High altitude = 1,500–3,500 meters (4,900–11,500 ft.)
Very high altitude = 3,500–5,500 meters (11,500–18,000 ft.)
Extreme altitude = above 5,500 meters (18,000 ft.)”
“Travel to each of these altitude regions can lead to medical problems, from the mild symptoms of acute mountain sickness to the potentially fatal high altitude pulmonary edema (HAPE) and high altitude cerebral edema (HACE). The higher the altitude, the greater the risk. Research also indicates elevated risk of permanent brain damage in people climbing to extreme altitudes. Expedition doctors commonly stock a supply of dexamethazone, or “dex,” to treat these conditions on site.”
“Humans have survived for two years at 5,950 m (19,520 ft.) [475 millibars of atmospheric pressure], which is the highest recorded permanently tolerable highest altitude; the highest permanent settlement known, La Rinconada, is at 5,100 m (16,700 ft.). At extreme altitudes, above 7,500 m (24,600 ft.) [383 millibars of atmospheric pressure], sleeping becomes very difficult, digesting food is near-impossible, and the risk of HAPE or HACE increases greatly.”
So if man is living at 200 millibars of pressure on Mars, how will man digest food and live, or sleep properly?
Earth’s atm – standard atmosphere is a unit of pressure equal to 101325 Pa or 1013.25 millibars. It is equivalent to 760 mmHg (torr), 29.92 inHG, and 14.696 psi. At 20,000 feet, air pressure in millibars is 465.63.
The highest city in the world is La Rinconada, Puno, Peru at 16,728 feet – a gold mining town. The air pressure is approximately 518.76 millibars. The population was 30,000 in 2009 and varies with the price of gold. The city has no plumbing and no sanitation system and there is a significant contamination with mercury due to the mining practices. And, it is famous for the child sex trade, where young underage girls are used as a human magnet to attract miners. Wow, why are crap holes like this allowed to exist?
http://peru21.pe/actualidad/investigaran-trata-menores-rinconada-2118337
That should clear up any thoughts that living at an atmospheric pressure of 200 millibars on Mars will be possible; it will not be; and it will kill you.
Hi George, and thank you for illuminating this area.
The examples you provide all depend on breathing 21% O2 air at reduced pressures.
The reason for altitude sickness is a low **partial pressure** of oxygen, not the total atmospheric pressure. There simply are not enough O2 molecules in each breath to sustain life. Replace the N2 with O2, and you can get enough. It’s that simple. It’s why mountain climbers on Mount Everest carry oxygen bottles for the last ascent — to add enough extra O2, displacing the N2, to breathe.
Yes, the Martian atmosphere is around 1% of Earth sea level pressure. The exact number is unimportant. It’s also 95% CO2. Even if you compressed it, you’d die from CO2 poisoning, from lack of O2, and even from carbon monoxide poisoning. To go out onto the surface of Mars requires a Mars suit, which is essentially a space suit and does provide the necessary pressurization. There are some new technologies that will make those suits less bulky, however.
Mars colonists must live in pressurized quarters. They must breathe artificially generated air. Fixing the Mars atmosphere will take centuries according to the most optimistic estimates using current technology. We require a breakthrough to do any better. However, the amount of energy required to liberate oxygen from water, CO2, or minerals is huge. Only science fiction, such as a portable fusion power plant, expresses any hope of solving this problem.
If we can generate O2 on Mars in volume, which will expunge the CO, then we might be able to pressurize the Mars air to support Earth life. Note the “might” in the last sentence. We may be able to get there in less than a century, but it would require nearly fantastic resources that Earthlings are unlikely expend on Martians. (Semi-humorous use of s-f terms)
Harry,
By the way, my wife and two step-children are fellow Canadians from Winnipeg, MB, Canada. I don’t mind visiting Winnipeg in the summer, but the winter with a few months of minus 40 Fahrenheit, which is the only time Fahrenheit and Celsius are equal, is not for me.
It would appear that we will have to agree to disagree on many things.
I am a realist; you are a futuristic idealist, a futurologist, that believes most all dreams can come true and that science will eventual overcome most all physical, chemical, and human physiological realities; it won’t!
I belong to DDO – Debate.Org and have created a number of forums. Two of my favorite creations are:
1. “Myths about Space Travel.”
http://www.debate.org/forums/technology/topic/33509/
Another was
2. “Confirmation Bias Cannot Be Beaten”
http://www.debate.org/forums/debate.org/topic/31943/
What have I learned from belonging to DDO? I have learned that there are lots of science fiction junkies, even a mechanical engineer from MIT; and even scientists suffer from confirmation bias.
My definition of science fiction is anything that has not been created or done yet.
I don’t believe that just because someone dreams that someday something will be possible that it will be possible; most dreams, just like fairytales never come to fruition.
Physical reality is a biatch!
“Forget space travel: it’s just a dream”
“HUMAN EXPANSION across the Solar System is an optimist’s fantasy. Why? Because of the clash of two titans: physics versus chemistry.”
“Moore’s law tells us that every two years the number of transistors in an integrated circuit doubles. Futurologists assure us that the total volume of humanity’s knowledge doubles every five years. Why, then, shouldn’t our ability to lift a payload double every five, 10 or even 20 years?”
“Sadly, the analogy does not apply. In the case of electronics and information systems, we are dealing with soft rules, related to the limits of human ingenuity. In the case of space flight, we are dealing with hard rules, related to the limits of physics and chemistry.”
“Rocket engineers and scientists have been battling these limits of physics and chemistry for years, with diminishing prospects for further gains.”
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/planets-galaxies/the-future-space-travel/
I believe that the laws of physics and chemistry are immutable and can’t be exceeded no matter how much you dream they can be, e.g.:
1. No object with mass can exceed the speed of light. Actually, it is very unlikely that a rocket ship will ever go even 100,000 mph; and, no human could withstand the G-forces of accelerating to 100,000 mph if that human experienced more than 6 G’s for more than a few minutes.
“The record for the highest speed at which a spacecraft has launched and escaped from Earth’s gravity is held by the New Horizons probe. This 1,054 pound (478 kg), piano-sized spacecraft, which launched in January 2006, sped away from the Earth at a blistering pace of 36,000 miles per hour (almost 58,000 kilometers per hour).” “At present, the four interstellar spacecraft include Voyager 1, Voyager 2, Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11. Voyager 1 is speeding away from the sun at the quickest pace, at a speed of more than 38,500 mph (more than 62,000 km/h).”
But, don’t forget those are objects weighing less than 2,000 lbs.
http://www.livescience.com/32655-whats-the-fastest-spacecraft-ever.html
2. Humans cannot live for prolonged periods in microgravity, weightlessness, or gravities like on Mars.
3. Spinning and rotating an object does not create artificial gravity. Centripetal acceleration to achieve earth’s gravity is science fiction and will never work. The size of the space ship or space station needed to even test the idea of centripetal acceleration is huge, which will not allow it to ever be tried to even see if it works. And, no space ship that big can ever be sent to Mars. And, speeding up and slowing down repeatedly will not create artificial gravity; however, it will create G-forces.
4. Humans cannot withstand more than a few minutes of acceleration or deceleration of 9 Gs force without death or serious bodily harm.
5. The laws of chemistry argue that there is hard limit to how much energy you can extract from rocket fuel, and that no amount of ingenuity will change that.
6. Terraforming is pure science fiction. Too many people have watched reruns of “Wrath of Khan” and “Total Recall” too often.
7. Intergalactic travel will never be possible because of the time required to travel to the next galaxy (i.e., hundreds of thousands of years or more); the size and weight of the spaceship needed is not possible; and, generations of humans can’t be created in space. Talk of this is silly science fiction nonsense.
8. Robots will never be able to do complex tasks remotely, even with a human standing a few feet away. It has not happened on earth yet. Why? Physical limitations of robots can’t be overcome.
“Could we Terraform Mars?”
“Unfortunately, while the Red Planet is argued to be the easiest planet in our Solar System to turn into another habitable world, it is still a pretty difficult thing to do with so many hurdles to jump over. Terraforming Mars requires three very important changes – building up its atmosphere, keeping it warm and keeping the atmosphere from being ripped from it and lost to outer space. So in short, and in practice, terraforming Mars is impossible, but that doesn’t mean that some scientists haven’t thought about it!”
http://www.spaceanswers.com/solar-system/1518/could-we-terraform-mars/
The filming of the first manned-mission to Mars from takeoff, 6 to 9 month flight, and landing on Mars will be very lacking in any details, and very boring. The novelty of man landing on the moon and space travel is over. Of course, people will watch the evening News and say, “WOW,” we have a man on Mars; then, they will continue eating dinner and watching the rest of the news, sports or Dancing with the Stars, which is one of my wife’s favorites. Sixty-Seven percent of Americans regularly watch TV while eating dinner.
Point being, corporations won’t be paying billions to advertise on a TV program about the actual landing on Mars. Very few people with watch that program because it will be way too boring. Now, they will always pay to advertise at sports events and science fiction TV series and movies because millions are guaranteed to watch because those sports events and science fiction TV series and movies are entertaining.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/television-watching-statistics/
I must have missed the start of the “epic battle between man and the universe.” When did it begin exactly? Very few people would characterize space exploration as an epic battle; many considered it a waste of talent, time, and money.
“According to a 2010 CNN/ORC poll, 50% of Americans agreed that the money spent for the space shuttle program – which ended last year – should be spent elsewhere. And in a 2009 Gallup poll, the percentage of Americans who believe the U.S. space program should be scrapped jumped four points: From 4% to 8% in an 11-year period (1998-2009).”
Then I have to listen to all the clueless tell me the BS on how space travel has benefited mankind with new inventions, e.g., GPS.
Well, surprise, surprise! The concept of GPS existed way before Sputnik 1 was launched in 1957.
And, the idea of putting a satellite in space was thought about at least one-half century before it happened. The mechanics of space flight had to be solved first.
“Ivan Alexander Getting (January 18, 1912—October 11, 2003) was an American physicist and electrical engineer, credited (along with Roger L. Easton and Bradford Parkinson) with the development of the Global Positioning System (GPS). He was the co-leader (the other being Louis Ridenour) of the research group which developed the SCR-584, an automatic microwave tracking fire-control system, which enabled anti-aircraft guns to destroy a significant percentage of the German V-1 flying bombs launched against London late in the Second World War.”
Yes, putting communication satellites into space was a small leap for mankind and has benefited mankind, especially now that our kids can spend 24-7 texting, even with one hand.
I am glad more Germans are using solar panel on their homes; however, the German government is largely responsible for the success by providing financial assistance. The cost to install solar panels on your home in Germany, Italy, and Australia is about 40% less than in America and Canada.
Harry, do you have a solar panel on your home? If not, why not?
I don’t; it is too expensive. And, you need a wood stove or gas heat to back it up in cold areas; and providing hot water in the winter and air conditioning in the summer is problematic .
The world is killing itself. Overpopulation is a huge problem. Education will not stop the overpopulation problem. China had the right idea with the genocide of baby girls. But, most people will never agree to that. All governments in the world need to enforce a two child per family limit. All men and women who have had two children need to be fixed so they can’t have more children. Birth Control shots should be given to all teenagers in most countries, e.g., India, China, Africa, Mexico, etc., especially to the poor and uneducated teenagers of the world; but, that will most likely not happen until it is too late.
Electric cars are a joke, especially in the winter in cities with huge traffic problems, e.g., Chicago. You can’t sit in a huge traffic jam in Chicago when it is below freezing running your electric car heater for one-two hours while driving to work, especially when you will face a one-two hour drive home in the evening, especially if your one-way commute is over 45 miles, which is common for many. And, you can’t pull your boat, pop-up camper, or snowmobile using an electric car; so you have to own both an electric car and fossil fuel car or truck. The problem is that battery technology has for the most part reached its theoretical limits, and not much more progress can be made in that area.
I am pretty confident that WWIII will happen within the next century because of countries like China, North Korea and Iran and the other third world toilets in the Middle East, e.g. Pakistan; and, I believe this statement by Albert Einstein is right on the money:
“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” ― Albert Einstein
Assuming the earth is not too radiated after WWIII and the world population is reduced to a few hundred thousand, maybe the human race can start over.
And, global warming is not being caused my man! The earth is going through one of its normal cycles that have happened before. There have been at least 5 major ice ages in Earth’s 4.54 billion year history.
But, we will also have to agree to disagree about man causing global warming. You can’t prove me wrong, but, I have proven you are wrong, e.g., Milankovitch cycles.
“Geologist Connects Regular Changes of Earth’s Orbital Cycle to Changes in Climate”
It is known that Earth’s orbit around the sun changes shape every 100,000 years. The orbit becomes either more round or more elliptical at these intervals. The shape of the orbit is known as its “eccentricity.” A related aspect is the 41,000-year cycle in the tilt of Earth’s axis.
Glaciation of Earth also occurs every 100,000 years. Lisiecki found that the timing of changes in climate and eccentricity coincided. “The clear correlation between the timing of the change in orbit and the change in the Earth’s climate is strong evidence of a link between the two,” said Lisiecki. “It is unlikely that these events would not be related to one another.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100406133707.htm
Over long periods of time the temperature of the Earth alternates between a cold ice age phase and a warm interglacial phase. Very small changes in the Earth’s orbit result in only a 4 degree Celsius in the global mean temperature which can have very dramatic impacts on the Earth system. One such change is shown above. The tilt (obliquity) of the Earth with respect to is orbit around the Sun varies between 22.2 and 24.2 degrees. When the tilt is low (between 22.2 and 23.4 degrees) ice sheets grow and when the tilt is relatively high (between 23.4 and 24.2 degrees) the ice sheets melt away. The ice age reached its peak 18,000 years ago when the tilt had risen to a value of 23.4 degrees from a low of 22.2 degrees 32,000 years ago. Since then the tilt has reached a maximum of 24.2 degrees (10,000 years ago). Today, the Earth’s tilt measures 23.5 degrees, and the large ice sheets have disappeared. The three orbital parameters that are affected are the eccentricity (how circular the orbit is) which varies with periods between 400,000 and 100,000 years; obliquity (how tilted the Earth is with respect to its orbit around the Sun) which varies with a period of about 40,000 and affects the solar radiation most strongly at the poles; and precession (changes in the distance between the Earth and Sun in a given season) which varies with a period of about 23,000 years and affects the solar radiation most strongly at the equator. These changes in the orbit of the Earth produce changes in the solar radiation received by the Earth that vary over periods of about 40,000 years, strongest at the poles, and 20,000 years, strongest at the equator. These changes can be matched with the cycle of the ice ages as revealed by the geologic record; however, the largest variation of the ice ages over the past million years has a period of 100,000 years. The 100,000 year cycle is thought to be the result of the interactions of the 40,000 and 20,000 year variations in solar radiation and various geophysical processes that occur on the Earth over long periods; however, this is a subject of continuing research.
http://earth.rice.edu/mtpe/cryo/cryosphere/topics/ice_age/compare.html
Man existence on earth is about 7 million years. The Earth is about 4.54 billion years. So man has been on Earth for about 0.001542 of that total 4.54 billions years. The industrial revolution began about 300 year ago, so that is 0.000000066079295154 of the time earth has existed (300 divided by 4,540,000,000).
I am glad to see that more people are posting to your post. But, it all boils down to confirmation bias.
Those who believe colonizing Mars will be possible will not change their minds; and, people like me who deal with reality will not change our minds. And, I will most likely be dead and gone for decades before the next astronaut states, after putting his foot on Mars:
“That’s one small step for man, a giant leap for mankind.”
But, after that happens, it will take centuries to colonize Mars, assuming it can be done, which is very unlikely because there is nothing, nothing at all to be gained.
I wish you well with the publication of your book or books.
All right, George. You have the usual set of wonderful facts and a bunch of conclusions, some right on and some based on guesses. It would take me all day to answer you fully. Please do not feel insulted if I shorten my response.
Having lived in central Massachusetts, I can only imagine what it’s like to be at -40 degrees but know about -20 degrees Celsius because I experienced that.
As I said, you’re entitled to your definition of s-f. Mine is slightly different in that it requires only demonstration of principles and not full implementation before moving out of the s-f arena. In other words, a prototype is good enough for me. The SKYLON tests demonstrate to me that SKYLON is no longer s-f but may not be good enough for you because not one SKYLON has yet been launched.
We’re not all that far apart on this, but far enough that we can have fun disagreeing with each other.
I will quickly go through your numbered items.
1. No object can travel faster than light; no information either. Mass not required for this simple fact of our Einsteinian universe until Einstein is proven wrong. Won’t happen soon if ever. We’re stuck in our little solar system, possibly for the life of the universe, unless we can live for thousands of years and travel at sub-light speeds to other stars.
2. We KNOW that humans cannot live, as things stand, for long in microgravity. We do NOT know about 38% of Earth gravity. We just DO NOT KNOW. You should not keep saying we do. There’s every likelihood that after around 60 years of age, we’d be better off at a slightly lower gravity, say 80%. It’s even possible that 80% for a lifetime could prolong life. We just do not know.
It’s quite possible that some means will be found to reduce the effects of microgravity. Large animals are complex systems, and we don’t know whether adjustments can be made to ameliorate the impact of low gravity. But, you’re right. Today, that’s science fiction.
3. The Mars Direct mode of creating artificial gravity by using a tether between the habitat and an exhausted motor module would allow for enough gravity (maybe 20% or 30%) to avoid the most serious effects of microgravity. It certainly would be enough to allow people to stand up on Mars at 38% when they arrived. The really long-term (years) effect of 38% gravity is totally unknown. This is why we must have a way to come back if it turns out that it will be fatal in the long run. This is also why I am so wary of Mars One. They posit no return option. At least all of the others at least provide a “trap door” return option.
4. Huge acceleration is not necessary for any planned, even s-f, manned solar system exploration — or even stellar exploration. There are other problems, though.
5. Yes, we’re pretty much at the practical limit with H2-O2 engines of chemistry. Physics can help, and Alan Bond is working on that with SKYLON. Some say it won’t work, but he has successfully tested his engines. In a few years, we should see a actual rocket powered with this technology.
Simply put, much of the lift weight of a rocket is fuel and oxidizer. If you can eliminate the oxidizer, then you can lift more payload. Elon Musk insists that the air resistance necessary to capturing the O2 from the air will more than eliminate the gains of not carrying O2 on board. I don’t think so because the rocket will be actively sucking that air in and not pushing it aside, which is what today’s rockets do. We’ll just have to wait and see who’s right.
There’s also the possibility of launching with a linear magnetic accelerator — more s-f, I know — that would reduce the necessary fuel and oxidizer. We have only begun to delve into alternatives to launching on top of a big bomb.
6. Terraforming is s-f indeed. It’s theoretically possible but practically impossible in any reasonable length of time.
7. Intergalactic travel is just completely ridiculous. Interstellar travel is difficult enough even in our own stellar neighborhood. For now, both are s-f. Finding a way to live longer and to survive in cosmic radiation for years would help make stellar travel possible, but why would we — at least for the next few billion years until the Sun explodes?
8. The likelihood of a robot truly mimicking human abilities to perform complex tasks that require any adaptability is small. Precisely repetitive tasks are no problem, though. Given enough time, robots may do more than we currently imagine, but I agree that this is in the realm of s-f.
9. (virtual number here)
(a) building up atmosphere — Herculean task that will take centuries without tremendous breakthrough.
(b) warming planet — depends on how much warming you require; could reach Siberian climate range based on modeling — not quite s-f but close, probably by your definition and not by mine.
(c) atmosphere being ripped away by solar winds — not a problem because that took millions of years in the first place. If we can build it up in centuries, then we can casually add to it over millenia and maintain it nicely. This is a non-problem. The first issue is the most serious and unsolved (and possibly unsolvable) problem.
10. The build up to the Apollo landing took many years. The excitement of the landing remained. I cannot say how jaded our populace will become as more virtual reality becomes available to them. I hope that they retain enough connection to reality to recognize a major historic event and be excited about it.
11. Please allow me a tiny bit of hyperbole. I like the sound of “epic battle between man and the universe.” In a sense, it began with the taming of fire and continues on many fronts. I view Mars as another skirmish of that battle that we may win or lose. I think the outcome is undecided even if it’s still mostly s-f. I don’t think that Mars One is on the right track, though.
12. Space and new inventions — not my rationale, just an after-the-fact rationalization with a germ of truth. We have pushed forward in some areas faster because of it. It’s unfair of you to say that any unrealized technology is s-f and then to cite theoretical ideas of the past as the reason that nothing came of the space program. You’re the one who insists that it doesn’t count unless you’ve done it. I really don’t get this argument.
13. Government support is crucial to accelerating adoption of this sort of technology. It speeds the movement to mass production and the lowering of costs. It represents a joint decision by the population (majority anyway) to invest in the future.
14. I had solar panels on my home in 1978. I’ve moved since then and now live in a rented house that had been surveyed for solar and deemed inappropriate due to a tall house to the South. The story of my early solar panels might be interesting for readers who like to learn of such things. It was in Massachusetts.
15. You and I are in strong agreement regarding overpopulation as a severe world problem. Education has been demonstrated to reduce birth rates, especially education of women. This is where we seem to disagree. Education is at least a palatable solution but a slow one. The dramatic ideas to which you allude will, as you say, never be implemented. We must do what we can as quickly as we can.
16. The pure electric car has many problems and works mostly as a “town car.” In California, where I live, the number of cars per person exceeds one. Electric cars make a great second car for those who just must have a second car. The technology is improving, as it must.
If we can ever generate hydrogen efficiently and without fossil fuels, then hydrogen would be a great option for a fuel. It can merely be compressed and not liquefied. It’s safer than gasoline. It can be used for ICEs and fuel cells. And so on. Except in Iceland, it’s still s-f to you and nearly so even for me.
17. We will, it appears, continue to disagree on this issue. We are in an interglacial period today and should be heading into an new glacial. Instead, we see things getting warmer. CO2 definitely contributes to warming as geological science has proven.
Depends on how you define man when saying how long we’ve been on the Earth. I see times of 100,000 years but not millions for homo sapiens. Man is a very late-comer with a huge impact. Before man, you would not see the Earth from space at night so lit up as it is. Man has turned fertile areas into deserts and probably caused the extinction of a number of larger land animals directly (by killing them) or indirectly (by out-competing them for food) or both. Just look at Manhattan for an example of a relatively large transformation of landscape, and there are plenty more. Point being — man has transformed much of what was before man expanded explosively around the planet. Part of that expansion (as you so correctly point out — the industrial age) involved digging up sequestered carbon and burning it to create more CO2 in the atmosphere. Billions of people doing so can affect the entire planet. I say that they have done so. You point to an alternate explanation that I don’t think has the power to explain what’s happening. Our species has wrought enormous changes on the Earth.
Instead of arguing over proven facts about man-made CO2 and its effects, we should be discussing what to do – and we have.
As I indicated before, in one sense it doesn’t matter. Energy is rapidly becoming more expensive as the easy fossil fuels are used up at an increasing pace. Soon enough, alternate energy will be cheaper. We must have the infrastructure to use it. We should be planning now for a very different future. I fear that we’ll have to deal with the fallout of our addiction to fossil fuels and that the impact will be severe before economics solves this problem. You’re welcome to disagree because neither of us can PROVE the other entirely wrong. Showing an alternative theory does not disprove an existing theory, especially when both COULD be true simultaneously. I’m not convinced regarding Earth tilt. You seem to think the tilt hypothesis automatically disproves man-made CO2 warming. Not so.
I don’t think that there’s great value in colonizing Mars. I do think we’ll do it anyway. It’s like the answer the mountaineer gives when asked why climb the mountain. “Because it’s there.” The second unspoken part is “Because I can.” That second part is not yet true for Mars. When it is, it will happen because of the first part.
The above does not mean that I expect colonies on Titan or Venus. Maybe in a century or two. Maybe never.’
We had damn well better do a good job on the planet we have and stop breeding ourselves into extinction.
Please forgive my error in the post on oil.
I said trillion of gallons of oil reserves; it should read “trillions of barrels of oil reserves.”
Harry,
I thought I had posted this yesterday, but, I don’t see it, so I will post it again.
This is in response to your comment about running out of fossil fuels.
I find it amusing that environmentalists think that when the fossil fuels are exhausted, man will have to switch to electric vehicles and that the era of the combustion engine is over; too funny.
What is even funnier is the fact that there are most likely trillions of barrels of untapped oil reserves in the world. And, one little fact that is keep out of the public’s eye is that the Earth produces oil daily. So, man may never run-out of oil; but the oil companies want you to think we will because it keeps the prices of oil elevated. A barrel of oil was $2.88 in 1960; there is no reason except greed for it to be $109 per barrel today. Gasoline should be no more than 50 cents per gallon.
The Earth is producing more oil daily than humans are using. It makes sense to believe that the Earth is still producing oil just like it has for hundreds of millions of years. It is not like all the Earth’s oil was created millions of years ago and then the Earth stopped producing more oil for unknown reasons. It may be deep in the oceans, up to 7 miles down, and will be very difficult to extract, but man will find a way; and, that is not science fiction because there is profit in oil, so large corporations will find and drill for it. And, if the Earth is really producing more oil daily than it consumes, then mankind will never run out.
“A New Theory – The Earth is a Perpetual Oil Generating Machine! (The last thing the elites want you to know)!”
http://www.dailypaul.com/136256/a-new-theory-the-earth-is-a-perpetual-oil-generating-machine-the-last-thing-the-elites-want-you-to-know
“Why the world isn’t running out of oil”
Decades ago, the world was told it was running on empty. Today, we have more oil than we need. What’s fuelling the boom in black gold?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/oil/9867659/Why-the-world-isnt-running-out-of-oil.html
This report talks about trillions of barrels of oil reserves that have not been tapped or barely tapped, which means the Earth will not run out for at least the next 20 centuries or more, by which time other combustible fuels will have been created.
“Moreover, as well as bountiful oilfields in North America, Russia, Saudi Arabia and other producers in the Middle East, there are massive, barely tapped reserves in South America, Africa and the Arctic: not billions of barrels’ worth, but trillions. So the planet is not about to run out of oil. On the contrary, according to a Harvard University report published last year, we are heading for a glut.”
But what is funnier is that those wacky environmentalists like President Jimmy Carter and Vice President Al Gore must have their heads buried in that oil sand if they believe that the huge oil producing companies won’t come up with other combustion fuels made from inexhaustible natural resources, e.g., algae fuel.
Do those environmentalist wackos actually think that the largest corporations in the world, e.g., Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil, Sinopec Group, China National Petroleum, and BP – British Petroleum, are just sitting around with their heads up their arses and not developing fuels to replace gasoline?
Very briefly, oil production companies are seeking oil everywhere. Some places are more expensive to drill and produce. Doesn’t matter how much there is if you cannot get to it.
More costly to extract, more costly at the pump, more likely some other fuel will replace it. Has nothing to do with environmentalism. A separate issue.
The energy corporations are seeking more ways to keep the money flowing. You can own an oil well or field exclusively. A process for fuel from algae is not so readily controlled. Won’t be used until there’s no choice AND it’s less expensive.
I like hydrogen myself due to flexibility in production and use. Someday, maybe.
Harry,
Too bad I didn’t see this post earlier this year, like May 2013. I would have loved responding to most of these science fiction junkies.
Most of the posts confirm what I already knew.
Too many science fiction junkies who know nothing about reality or deep space travel post mindless nonsense comments.
You countered most of the nonsense with facts; but, these folks don’t care – they are science fiction junkies. Their realities exist in science fiction movies.
I love this one where Dan Smith states that without exploration we would be living in caves. Well, that would not seem to reconcile with evolution. If we evolved from apes or monkeys in Africa, we probably lived in trees or the deep bush. But, regardless, what does our living in caves have to do with exploring deep space and landing a man on Mars?
But, let’s assume that man did move out from the caves and explore. Man was not facing an environment with deep space radiation, almost no gravity, and there was plenty of food, water,and air; and the temperature in Africa was not minus 80 degrees or colder at night; and, eventually man learned to build fires and cook. Mars has nothing to support life.
Anyway, just more mindless gibberish by science fiction junkies that have no clue about reality.
I need to stop posting to these. It accomplishes nothing.
Yes, some have truly emotional rather than logical responses to this concept. No, you are not accomplishing nothing.
You are accomplishing bring the many readers of this column valuable information and advancing the cause of rationality.
By challenging some of my assumptions, you are forcing me to improve my language and rhetoric. I appreciate that. You and others are also forcing me to adjust my approach to this matter. I do read and process the data.
I just received a personal communication from Bas Lansdorp. We may have a greater impact that you realize.
It’s good to hear that you’ve been directly contacted by Bas. You’ve got good stuff here (and, apparently, some frothing, wild, self-destructive madness)
Although I haven’t had a chance to dig through all the information that’s been collected in the dimensions of these discussions (I’ve only just been made aware of this post and these comments) it appears there is much that could be useful to him if his (and their) intention is truly genuine…
It is my belief that much can be achieved in ten years of considered attention by applying reason and imagination.
Basing progress on extant foundation, seeming miracles have been advanced in shorter times when proceeding with the benefit of open cooperation.
Personally, I would favor a “LunarOne” more as a basis for further biological and nonbiological expansion into the inner planetary spaces, (and from there, farther) but then again I am just one voice and tend to favor my own ideal.
That is to say, I have a bias: I favor, in general, a mutual-benefiting progress…
The principles that support the Thermodynamic expansion of diffusion tends to draw our imagination into the capabilities of our own mechanic potential.
Word?
(dlp)
This is, more or less, my rationale for supporting this discussion. Even if we don’t move the physical development forward, we do move consciousness forward. Unlike evolution, humanity moves ever forward. Our minds imagine a “better” world, and we endeavor to create it.
Better, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder. Myriad examples can be cited of better for one being worse for another. Still, many of us hope for and envision a future that is better for all.
Is Mars colonization necessary for that future? I doubt it. Might Mars colonization contribute to that future? Possibly. I tend to be an optimist. I expect that reaching for the stars will have positive benefits for us all.
As for those who say that going to Mars or the Moon is worthless, I could have said the same about many ventures in the past. What value to seeking the South Pole?
The expansion of knowledge is always valuable. Some may argue that the reward does not justify the expense, but to argue that there’s no reward at all neglects the intangible and indirect rewards.
On the other side, some suggest great mining opportunities on Mars and asteroids. This concept is utter nonsense in the foreseeable future. It’s at the level of believing that oil revenues from Iraq would fund the costs of invasion and occupation — pure fantasy.
We always get something from exploration, never nothing.
Wow, you got a personal communication from Bas Lansdorp; I only get personal communications from NASA, a legitimate scientific space exploration organization.
Glad you find me challenging and acknowledge that I am the face of reality. I too enjoy exchanging information with you. I would love to hear more about your home supplied with electric power solely from solar panels in Massachusetts. Not sure why I thought you lived in Canada.
This will be one of many announcements from this snake-oil salesman Bas Lansdorp; his deadlines will be pushed back until NASA lands a man on Mars; and even then, he will never raise enough funds to establish his Mars One colony – he is a total fraud. Too bad he can’t raise as much money as his overinflated ego.
Mars One is really one of the biggest Cons in a long time. Actually Bas’ PowerPlane® technology may be one of the biggest cons in a long time or maybe they are coequal.
I read that Bas has come up with a lame excuse as to why he will not go to Mars.
“When asked if Bas would like to join this mission to Mars he responded, “I have a really nice girlfriend, and she doesn’t want to come with me, so I’m staying right here.”
http://averagenobodies.com/tag/bas-lansdorp/
What a fraud! What a coward!
Christopher Columbus must not have had a girlfriend or wife; otherwise he would have stayed at home, instead of going exploring.
Bas and his colleague Richard Ruiterkamp founded Ampyx in 2008. I can’t find any published financials on the company. I suspect it got a millions in grant money from the government through taxpayers who have no idea their money is being wasted on BS like PowerPlane technology. I suspect they have made very little money selling products.
Bas and Richard came up with the idea of “PowerPlane® technology”, which is totally ‘pie in the sky’. It is not visionary; it is insane; it is not dealing with reality, just plain silly nonsense.
http://www.ampyxpower.com/Our-Mission.html
Watching his video “Flying like the wind” exposed his insanity to me. Maybe he is not insane, but clever as a fox in how to scam lots of money from the stupid.
http://www.tedxamsterdam.com/flying-high-like-the-wind/
So, he is suggesting that we build huge airborne wind generator gliders that we somehow keep high up in that air attached to cables and collect lots on electric energy because the wind is guaranteed. After all, they weigh less than conventional wind turbines, cost less to build…. And, if they are really high up, no innocent birds will be killed by turbine blades.
I see that Bas Lansdorp is from the Netherlands, where weed in small quantities has been decriminalized since 1972, which was a huge mistake. Other than great art work, not sure what the Netherlands have contributed to the World.
I don’t know if Bas and Richard smoke dope, but it sure would explain a lot.
This is a sidebar, but here is my favorite video on marijuana; it is very informative and funny too.
Video: Is marijuana harmless?
Posted at 1:46 PM on November 28, 2012 By Ed Morrissey
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/11/28/video-is-marijuana-harmless/comment-page-2/
Anyway, through Ampyx and the $ millions he received in grant money from taxpayers, Bas can go jet-setting around the World promoting silly nonsense like Mars One and PowerPlane® technology.
Wow, he might be the first jet-setting snake oil salesman.
The chances that Mars One is or will become a scam are high. Even if not the former (sometimes those who dole out the Kool Aid drink it themselves), its failure will make it the latter. I’m not sure if I give this venture even a 100-1 chance of success. I’m just not ready yet to make it a zero.
My once-upon-a-time home in Massachusetts had solar panels added on when we added a garage and office (over the garage with 1,000 square feet of space, a small kitchen and full bath) to it. That was long ago, and solar electricity was in its infancy. We put up thermal solar panels, 720 sq. ft. of them, a rather large installation. The hot water was stored in a 2,000 gallon tank. (Sorry for old units — was long ago.) It worked fantastically and cut our electric bill by half (totally electric house). Never had to heat any water in summer. Added forced hot air for winter as well as water pre-heat. Our Vermont Castings Defiant already had reduced electric bills by 1/3. I spent many a wonderful day cutting, splitting, hauling, and stacking wood from our 13-acre wooded lot.
My wife and I acted as general contractors for both the initial construction and the addition. I was the electrical contractor, although unlicensed and just learning in the beginning. It’s amazing what you can accomplish if you have the will. The story is a very, very long one that will not interest most readers here. I’ll just say that it was an adventure and that our children were born while we lived there and were raised there. It was hard to leave behind. We grew our own corn and other vegetables and made yogurt in our pantry by the gallon.
Now, I’m on a new adventure to change the face of science education forever and make good science education affordable and available to everyone. Selling that house helped to finance our new venture.
Reality, reason, and their relation to rationality
In my opinion these are not the same thing and many people have, in general, the propensity to conflate them.
That is they seem to think having a rational basis for understanding reality means that they have a direct conception of the pure, objective nature of reality.
To me, that is quite understandable as an emotional or pathological response with a psychological basis.
Currently, I tend to view rationality as the application of the principles of reason (typically described as a set of logical mechanics, for example, in science, mathematics is a popular rigor) to the observation of experienced perception.
From this application, Science is a historical basis that statistically correlates phenomenon into a set of expected behavior. (Repeatability)
That is different than saying that science or statistics, or mathematics or logical reason is a direct description of reality.
Modern physics has wonderful examples of this:
As we turned into the twentieth century the statistical basis of our shared perception failed to correlate to the reasonable basis of our historic existential description.
Some extremely simple and readily conceivable examples include the property of duality in mater objects and the uncertainty parable regarding the observation of inertia and position. (I present uncertainly because it’s utility involving Plank’s constant was useful in understanding other parts in the literary body of modern physics, not because it’s an objective property of reality)
These presented themselves as an apparent irrationality of behavior based on our historical conception of reason.
That is to say that our application of reason through rationality didn’t correlate with manifest reality. It required the introduction of an extension of our mutual imagination to expand the concept of reason.. This could be likened to a kybernetic feedback process.
Imagination presents a hypothetical enhancement or extension to the mechanic of reason and that enhancement is tested experimentally until the feedback of imagination required outside the main line of the loop is reduced to zero. (Well, closer to zero)
Our body of reason is expanded by new material for rationality, but fundamentally objective reality appears unchanged. (Experimentally Dual slits behaved the same before and after the process of theoretical expansion)
This kind of feedback loop is also used in the engineering method. Science is the reasoned description of an isolated historical event situation (isolating variables in an experiment) and engineering is the application of that body of reason to thoughtfully move our condition from one historical situation to another.
Direct exploration of extraterrestrial environments is an engineering enterprise, (that is, it can not be done individually, it requires a body) and due to its novelty it necessarily requires the application of imagination to complete the process.
Novelty can occur without imagination but applying reasoned imagination we can effectively increase the odds..
Thermodynamic diffusion can do work, it can heat me as a simple fire when I’m cold and cook my food, and I don’t require much understanding of reason to do that, but by applying reason and very importantly and perhaps even more importantly, imagination to the fundamental process I can do more than that with some factor of efficiency.
If you lack the reason to leverage imagination, that is not a conception based in the material of objective reality.
That is, you are not a realist, or even an objectivist. You are simply denying the fundamental charity of human creativity.
(Again, this is just my current opinion, it may sound like I’m stating fact but that is a defect in my ability to use verbal language)
This set of discussions are a wonderful example of collecting the creativity of human imagination in application to an engineering enterprise.
Whether this specific enterprise (Mars One) leads to the beginning of a fantastic star voyage (I’m sure someone might choose some other more popular word there) or some huckster living it up in the Bahamas with my ten dollars, that’s a probability distribution that is yet to be determined.
Personally, it’s a distribution that’s worth the ten dollars for a ticket on the ride.
That these ideas here (whether fully, partially, or ill conceived) were presented in a public form they expand the breadth of our shared imagination and thus can be leveraged into any number of other endeavors inside or outside this terrestrial sphere.
And this is only one of the many discussions that have engaged as a result of this event.
And so (to me) this, that and those, are probably worth my ten dollars alone regardless of what Bas ultimately does with my money.. (My change?)
Thanks for contributing!
Word,
(dlp)
Darn it,
I meant: organized engineering enterprise..
The remark about requiring a body doesn’t make as much sense with out using a organon or ergon word in there.
I’m sure I’ve got some other issues in there too, but that one is a pretty striking non sequitur.
leedouglas
(dlp)
By writing so extensively, you have also contributed your time to the goal of reaching beyond Earth orbit, hopefully to people on Mars someday.
I continue to have my doubts about Mars One. It’s more and more obvious that it’s a bootstrap operation fueled more by optimism and hope than by hard cash. It’s like Tinkerbell. If enough people believe, it may happen. It has the other issue that it must appear real for enough people to believe.
Based on the crowdfunding numbers, it has not yet reached critical mass. If joined by another effort (ESA, NASA, Reaction Engines, et al.), it may make it. Right now, it looks as though Mars One as a solo enterprise just won’t get there. Because it’s the most ambitious, I like it but must remain rational and skeptical because real people are involved and can die horribly.
I also am concerned because the first manned trip to Mars MUST succeed or put the entire endeavor back by many years. Failure is not an option here. Unless Mars One has ALL of its ducks lined up, it will fail.
I made the mistake of printing this out at work (all 314 pages (!) — sorry, boss!) and read it like a thriller novel. Harry, will you continue to write on this?
Thank you for checking in with us. We appreciate reader comments greatly.
On the Mars front, let me turn your attention to an interesting article in NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/18/business/international/from-india-proof-that-a-trip-to-mars-doesnt-have-to-break-the-bank.html.
The gist is that India does on the cheap what others spend tons to do. Not only that, they’re faster.
To answer your question directly, I will continue to write as long as interest continues in our readers, new continues to be made in the area of human Mars landings, and my editor continues to publish my articles and comments.
I have already written a couple of follow-up articles on this topic as well as a novel taking the premise of Mars One and attempting to make it viable, not an easy task. It required making quite a few assumptions about the science of living on Mars that we don’t have the answers to yet as well as believing that the global economy will be booming by the time we are ready to go. A recession economy will never send settlers to Mars.
The first chapter of my novel, Martian Rhapsody, is on this site. I have written thirteen chapters, a prologue, and an epilogue. The first chapter is OK. The last seven or so chapters work well. I’m reworking chapters 2-4 for what seems the millionth time so that readers will both get the necessary background information and have an exciting plot to follow with interesting personalities involved. Can’t have you give up in the middle of chapter 3 when there’s a real payoff in chapters 8 and 9 to get to. Enough on my fiction efforts.
Personally, as a scientist, I find the idea of living on Mars irresistible. There’s so much working for it, so much working against it, and so much that we just don’t know. Mars is one-ninth the mass of the Earth but has over one-third of the gravity at its surface. If low gravity does not ruin health, it may help it. Imagine as one example that people with enough money go to Mars at the age of 65 so that the strong Earth gravity does not cripple them with osteoarthritis and that osteoporosis does not cause bone breakage as readily. Imagine that people’s hearts don’t have to work as hard there and so do not fail as readily. If we can truly live there, it could be a geriatric paradise — better than Florida and without hurricanes. Nothing like 38% gravity to put that spring back into your step!
New developments could put a one-way trip to Mars in the $250,000 region, possibly much less, for a ticket for one. Technology could allow self-tending gardens to provide food. No one knows what will be possible in 20 years.
I have to get back to those rewrites and to my “day job” as CEO of Smart Science Education Inc.
Thank you for writing and for enjoying our little discussion here.
Mr. Keller:
Yes, I have indeed read the chapter you published for Martian Rhapsody along with its comments and your updated articles on this site.
I am no scientist by any stretch of the imagination; I am merely a professor of English. But if reading through this dialogue captivates me as much as does the finest literature that I pass on to my students, I imagine many readers feel equally rapt.
Your talent for exquisite writing shines here. You have engaged a great variety of thoughtful and enthusiastic people across disciplines while hitting on topics from chemistry, biology, and math to economics, sociology, and ethics. It would be wonderful to publish these dialogues as a kind of “Dialogues Along The Way” series for others to read. This first set is the infancy, of course, and in the next set, we might make it to the toddler stage. Can you imagine reading this same discussion by experts and lay people around the world from, say, 1940, with respect to having humans walk on the moon? We could examine the obstacles that were overcome with ease as well as problems not yet solved. We could be amused by the pragmatic doubters and inspired by the sanguine dreamers.
Thank you for pointing us to the NYT article of Feb. 17 regarding India’s accomplishment. I have to say that I’m not in the least surprised to see the best minds of India’s achieve such success. I believe they have probably the best educational system in the world, including their renowned IITs. My favorite sentence was one regarding project director Subbiah Arunan: “Mr. Arunan slept on the couch in his office through the 18 months [allotted for the project], rereading his favorite P.G. Wodehouse novels to relieve stress. ‘This is the Indian way of working…’” I had to laugh because it was the Indians I met while I was in graduate school, those brilliant, hardworking engineering students, who turned me on to the lovely humor of P.G. Wodehouse.
Of course, when lives are on the line, expensive redundant testing of everything becomes vastly more important. Surely it will be the combined intelligence and work ethic of the Indians, Russians, Europeans, Chinese, Americans, and everyone else that will allow humans to spend time on Mars in ways not violating Geneva Convention-style ethics..
I do hope you continue with these engaging dialogues and that you consider publishing them for folks of the future to enjoy.
I can only say, “Thank you.” I have rarely, if ever, received such laudatory remarks. When I wrote my PhD thesis, I was barely able to string sentences together. Shows that you can teach an old dog new tricks.
The dialog is indeed book length at this point. It’s even somewhat daunting to realize how much I have written here, but I remain committed to responding to those who take the time to comment.
WRT publishing, that would involve substantial editing work that I don’t have the time for. I’m certainly old enough to retire but am fully engaged in my “day job” as CEO of Smart Science Education Inc. It’s a great idea, though. I hope we can find a way to do this.
I’m also struggling with editing my now-completed book to get the boulders of science exposition out of the way of the flow of the story and making the characters more real to the reader. Fiction, as I’ve discovered, is entirely different writing than non-fiction.
I’d like your thoughts on the book (you knew I would say that). Let’s connect. Write the editor with your email address, and we can exchange notes. His email is on this site at https://etcjournal.com/2008/10/01/jim-shimabukuro/.
I’ll add that the vision of a discussion such as this one regarding a Moon landing from circa 1940 would be riveting today. I’d really like to see what the perceived obstacles were and which were real and which illusory. I’d enjoy noting the actual problems that were never even considered in 1940.
It would be most illuminating to read about what people then thought would be the impetus for Moon landing. How many would have come up with a space race with the Soviet Union? How many would have denigrated the effort as being far too expensive and too hazardous for the astronauts? (What were astronauts called in 1940?)
Assuming successful trips to the Moon multiple times, how many would have foreseen abandonment of Moon missions for decades thereafter? I expect that most would have assumed a permanent Moon colony would be the next step, but would it have been a temporary posting for scientists or a real colony?
The problems with Mars are greater on the Moon, except for the travel time and cost. Instead of little air, no air. The same radiation problems without any decent solution. Very limited amounts of water in just a few locations. No hope of building an atmosphere. Much more problematic gravity issues at 16% on the Moon versus 38% on Mars.
We will not build a Moon civilization, although the Moon could be a temporary post for a modest number of people who would be doing science and perhaps mining water to convert to hydrogen and oxygen using solar power. Those would be sold to rocket ships.
Ah, but wait. That scenario is just so last century. Now, we have a new and very exciting way to go into space with fusion power. No more hydrogen-oxygen rockets to the great regions beyond near-Earth orbit. Those hydrogen-oxygen mines must become deuterium-tritium mines. Blast it all, there’s just so much more of the stuff on Earth, and it weighs so little that it makes little sense to mine it on the Moon. There goes another IPO down the drain!
As for today’s Mars nay-sayers, I would like to point out that all of the people scaling Everest every year spend lots of money and face high risk of death for a pointless exercise. Where’s the great Everest gold mine or rare-earth mine? Put together all of the money spent on climbing Everest since Hillary, and see if you have enough to finance Mars. With advances in technology, it might be sufficient. Some of the same people who climb Everest may be very willing to do Mars. It has a much bigger mountain to climb as well.
There are far too many comments to read them all, so I’m not sure if this was mentioned already. One of the issues with getting to Mars is the distance with current technology it would take around 8 months. However, a few months ago there was an article posted that mentioned that the university of Washington is currently working on a fusion engine that could possibly cut down the travel time to Mars to 30 days. They expect to have a ship ready by 2020, though they said if NASA wanted to help out with more money they’d have it ready even sooner. This fusion engine would make transporting materials to Mars far easier.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/10/nasa_fusion_engine_fast_mars_trip/
As for radiation, there have been some promising studies on using plastic and lead together to protect against cosmic radiation. Although, I’m not quite sure how effective it would be in the long term?
I still realize this doesn’t solve all the issues the people there would expect, but it’s a start to know that some of the issues might be resolved by 2023 when this mission is planned. Perhaps other solutions will be made in the next 5-9 years? Although, if I was involved with this project I would probably wait for more advancements in android technology (Japan is already making great strides as we speak in humanoid looking androids; wonder how they’ll look by 2023?) and send them out first to build habitations, modules, etc, before sending humans.
Thank you for this link, Martin.
This is truly an exciting development. Unfortunately, the article leaves out the stuff that I enjoy, the numbers. However, the prospect of using nuclear fusion for something useful makes me very happy. So what if it’s not a power station?
I’d really like to see how the trip gets trimmed down to 30 days. Cutting it in half to 4 months would have been a breakthrough. Thirty days is a scientific miracle. While solar power may be possible, what about fission as the power source?
In any event, 30 days to Mars will make things very much different. The radiation exposure during the trip will be very acceptable. Radiation on Mars can be reduced through a number of strategies.
The cost of moving mass from Earth orbit to Mars will be much less.
I’m for robots but not for androids on Mars. Special-purpose robots will be easier, cheaper, and lighter.
GOOD THING MARS ONE IS HAPPENING. LESS MORONS ON THIS WORLD. HOPEFULLY THEY SUFFER A PAINFUL DEATH FOR BEING DO STUPID.
I doubt that a handful of people leaving Earth will impact the overall quality for the rest of us. Intelligence will be one of the tests they’ll have to pass before being chosen. Thus, there will NOT be fewer morons left on Earth.
Wishing anyone a painful death is incredibly trollish and should not be an opinion expressed on an open forum such as this one. We’re here to discuss the pros and cons of this particular mission concept and contrast with others.
Mars is in our future. It’s just a matter of how and when. Some think that Mars One is ill-conceived and doomed to failure. Others cheer them on for their pioneering spirit and think that they will ultimately overcome adversity and difficulties.
Inspiration Mars has just pushed its launch date back from 2018 to 2021. Similarly, Mars One has pushed by its manned launch data from 2022 to 2024. NASA’s manned mission to Mars is later than these and so hasn’t slipped — yet. I expect all of these schedules to slip again.
Putting people on Mars, even temporarily and even just sending them on a flyby, is an incredibly difficult task. We have the technological capability but haven’t built and tested the actual technology yet. Getting the technology ready will be very expensive. Both unknown technical issues and potential funding shortfalls can extend the dates still further.
Inspiration Mars may get going by the end of the 2020s if it isn’t dropped entirely. Mars One could have someone on Mars around that time or a bit later if it remains in business that long. NASA will have people on Mars no later than 2040 according to my analysis.
The positive side of Mars One is that it’s focusing more people’s attention on the issues associated with a Mars trip and so making the actual trip more likely sooner. I don’t see them being able to fund the eventual mission as they’ve planned it. I will be surprised if they even get their first tiny Mars lander launched, let alone on the surface of Mars. However, it would be a delightful surprise.
I should add that these private ventures and NASA aren’t the only players here. Other countries are going to space. India had a very successful launch of a Mars lander recently, and China is planning a Moon trip soon. Mars is such an enormous undertaking that I hope that all of the Mars projects can come together into a single project that will provide us with a manned mission to Mars.
SAYING SPACE IS OURS TO TAKE. SOUNDS BAD FOR HUMANS
ALSO WHY GO TO MARS IF YOU CAN GO TO IT IN VIRTUAL REALITY AND NANOTECHNOLOGY CAN HELP PEOPLE LIVES AND THE ENVIRONMENT.
YEAH ANOTHER PLANET TO RAPE OF IT RESOURCES.
Nearby space is ours because no one else is there. Whether it’s “ours” as in all of us or “ours” in the sense of many individuals has to be determined. The former seems better to me.
Personally, I see no issue in comparing Mars in reality to Mars virtually. You can visit the Grand Canyon virtually too, but I challenge you to compare that experience to the real one. At least in my experience, there’s just no comparison.
Nanotechnology may help lives and the environment sometime in the future. We’re not there yet. Don’t really know what this has do with going to Mars.
As to the rape of planetary resources, what is happening on Earth had caused extermination of huge numbers of species and the impoverishment and death of millions of people. That cannot happen on Mars. You might say that Mars looks like a raped landscape in some sense. It’s only missing litter and the detritus left over from the actual destruction of our landscapes.
Yet, the Earth can heal if allowed to do so and has in many areas. Other areas are being destroyed or compromised today. That destruction should stop, but it has nothing to do with Mars.
By eventually terraforming Mars, we will be destroying its natural state, a destruction that far surpasses what is happening on Earth. OTOH, you can argue that we’re rescuing Mars from the fate that was sealed about 3 billion years ago and giving it back the life that it either had or almost had.
What resources can we “rape” from Mars? There’s no coal, no timber, no oil, no natural gas, no crops, no indigenous animals to kill or domesticate, no indigenous peoples to kill or enslave, and not even air to steal.
It definitely has some mineral resources that must be located, mined, and refined before they have any value. But mining requires large amounts of energy that Mars has little of. Refining requires even more energy. Once mined and refined, given some magical energy source, it can be used on Mars but must be transported at great expense to Earth to be used there. It’s much cheaper to recycle and mine our own materials here.
Is the smart thing to remain in your shell and attract as little attention as possible? It works for clams I suppose.
Remember: along with the Renaissance came a good many explorers circling the globe, and yes some of them died horrible deaths. I wouldn’t call any of them stupid although certainly some lost their financial backing when they returned with glorious descriptions of far-off lands, strange cultures, flora and fauna – but no goldmines.
I have followed this discussion from the beginning, around the time Mars One was announced (although some of my comments are ‘anonymous’ due to where and how I carried out my logon)
It has been an entertaining and varied discussion, and I hope it will continue to update as new Mars One developments and other Mars-related issues come along.
There are many problems with space exploration – to reach a relatively close neighbour, the friendliest planet in the Solar system next to Earth, is an enormous task with our current level of knowledge. Never mind space travel, this little neighbourhood jaunt will take everything we currently have for a manned mission.
From a social perspective it is like saying we shouldn’t have entertainment or sports because it costs too much and if you divided it all up you could certainly build another school or hospital and staff them. But poor people need inspiration too, quite aside from the knowledge gained by stretching to go further than we have before.
I applaud the explorers and wish I could go with them – perhaps there will come a day when cranky old machine operators can climb into a tentacled asteroid miner and spend several years hunting for rare elements, water and oxygen, scavenging from abandoned facilities and wrecks. Until then I will enjoy the show, sipping coffee from my Mars One or NASA mug.
Brett,
Thank you for this excellent remark. I’m with you in some sense on every point.
Exploration seems to be a strong human drive. Without it, our species may never have left Africa. It certainly would not have populated the Americas — three times if you include the last one from Europe.
Exploration is always a risk. You risk your lives and lots of money. You risk having no tangible reward. Like old-fashioned oil drilling, you have lots of dry holes before you hit a gusher.
I guess one reason I’m attracted to these programs is that I’m a scientist, and science is like that. Plenty of scientists have lost their lives in their pursuit of knowledge. One discovery may follow years and years of work. You may be on the verge of something big, and someone else beats you to it. To me, the parallels are very apt.
The greatest unknown for long-term settlements on Mars remains gravity. We can expect breakthroughs in most other areas, especially space travel (as the link from Martin indicates).
We just don’t know what the impact of 38% gravity will be on the human body or on any other animal. Our knowledge of the effects of gravity on people is limited to two data points today: 100% and 0% of Earth gravity. There’s absolutely no way to fit a curve to those two points and predict what Mars gravity will do to people. In addition, we have no hope at present of changing the gravity on the surface of Mars to suit our health.
We can be rather certain that 200% gravity will be quite deleterious to our health. Logically, we can even expect that 120% will be bad too. Drawing an downward-sloping short line segment on a graph of health plotted against gravity makes sense, although we can only guess at its slope.
By simple extrapolation, gravities slightly less than 100% should be beneficial to our health., although 100% could be the optimum value. After all, we’ve evolved for hundreds of millions of years, since animals first appeared on land, to function well at this level of gravity.
On the other hand, our land-dwelling ancestors evolved from sea dwellers. In the ocean, the effects of gravity are essentially nullified by buoyancy. In a sense, we evolved from zero-g animals into one-g animals.
It makes some sense, therefore, that lowering gravity a bit will allow us to stop compensating for the strong gravity. The huge question regarding Mars is exactly how far that logic can go. Will 90% gravity be better than 100%? How about 80%? When does the curve hit its maximum and turn downward to the poor health experienced at 0%. Does 38% lie above or below 100% in terms of health and life expectancy? No one knows.
We also do not know whether we will adapt to the low gravity and whether children born in this environment will be better adapted than those who began life at 100%. Anyone can guess, but how can you know? It’s certainly a risk for both the immigrants and the future natives.
I have never seen a single word from Mars One regarding this issue.
Hello Everyone,
Sorry I haven’t posted in a while, life grabbed me by the leg and made a rag doll out of me.
Harry: WRT your comments about Gravity, while we have no data to show us the effects of partial G, I tend to be optimistic that it would be beneficial as you have suggested. We evolved in a 1 G environment and while micro gravity experiments have documented that we require gravity in order for our biology to function properly, I don’t see where 1 full G would be needed, the very presence of any gravity would nullify the effects we have documented in micro gravity. We wont know of course until we can establish a science station on either the moon or Mars but I would think even a weak gravitational pull would serve the functions our biology demands. Meanwhile the effects of a low gravity environment can easily be imagined, such as less stress on cardiovascular and skeletal systems.
Martin: WRT your discovery of the plans for fusion powered rockets, I see some problems. I think the idea is brilliant but its not new, Freeman Dyson tried the same thing back in the 50s and 60s. he and a team tried to perfect an engine that relied on controlled Nuclear fission. the power of such a design was obvious, they calculated that such a design could easily propel a ship large enough to take an entire colony of scientists into space and each any target in the solar system within months. All the math checked out and scale models easily demonstrated that the design would work. what they couldn’t work around was the fallout, both physical and political. radiation fallout from each launch would have unavoidable effects on the environment. Politically the public was becoming very weary of Nuclear anything.
That being said, a fusion powered rocket would suffer the same problems as a fission powered one, Orion was designed to propell itself with a series of nuclear pulses that would react against a pusher plate and thrust the craft onward. The article you presented proposed a very similar design, they want to ignite a fusion reaction and direct it in a stream that would thrust the rocket forward. Both designs however have the same problem: Radiation. I feel this design will suffer the same fate as Orion because there would be no way to use it without kicking off a deadly amount of radiation into the air.
This is all assuming the design would work in the first place. We have been trying to make fusion power a reality for 60 years with little progress. the only success Fusion power has enjoyed came recently when researchers for the first time tested a fusion reaction that gave off more power then it absorbed. But this was on a microscopic scale and the experiment as a whole still consumed 100x more energy then the actual fusion reaction gave off.
Don’t get me wrong, I am all for some new Wunderkin power sore that will get us around our staler neighborhood quicker, I just don’t think Fusion power is anywhere near the point where we can power ships.
Hi Don,
As I indicated, we only have two data points. It’s obvious to me that lowering gravity a bit should help health. It’s obvious that 0% gravity has failed to aid and has harmed health. Therefore, I suggest that 1% gravity would not be much better. Where does the curve reach parity with 100%? Where is the peak? Is it a smooth curve with just a single maximum? Is the Moon’s gravity at 16% helpful or harmful? Same for Mars’s 38%. I am optimistic that 38% will at least be in the ballpark compared to 100% and will not have serious effects on health, but I wouldn’t bet my life on it, not yet.
The fusion power idea is immense. As explained, this power plant will only be engaged in outer space. Having one pulse per minute will never get anything into space from ground level. Thus, you have no radiation hazard to Earth from its operation. You do have to consider the astronauts on board, however, and I have seen nothing about this issue yet.
Rocket engines work by conservation of momentum, not by pushing against something. The more momentum in your rocket exhaust, the more push you get. Momentum is velocity times mass. The fusion engine will be using small masses but very, very high speeds.
Excuse me while I go off into math world for a moment.
Momentum is mass times velocity, H = mv.
Kinetic energy is one-half of mass times the square of velocity, E = 1/2 mv^2.
Solving for H in terms of E, you get H = m*√2E/m = √2Em.
Physicists call the change of momentum “impulse.” Energy in, impulse out. That could be the mantra for rocket engines.
The impulse is proportional to the square root of the energy produced times the square root of the mass ejected. If you double the energy and halve the mass, you get the same result.
Back to normal space.
If you can increase energy production in a rocket engine by a huge amount, then you can decrease the mass you toss out the back by plenty too. Chemical energy (e.g. hydrogen-oxygen explosions) cannot hold a candle to fusion energy (E=mc^2). After all, c in Einstein’s famous equation is really, really huge — the speed of light = 100,000,000 m/s. Square that to get 10,000,000,000,000,000.
This is hardly the place to go into the amounts of energy and mass involved in detail. For now, we’ll just take NASA’s word for it. One fusion explosion per minute for three days is supposed to accelerate our spacecraft to a high enough speed to get to Mars in 30 days, about eight times as fast as current technology. If the mass being ejected is 5% of that being used in chemical rockets, then the energy must be 20 times greater for equality and, because of the square root thing, 1280 times as great for an eightfold improvement in speed.
A thousand-fold improvement in energy production is nothing for nuclear processes compared to chemical ones.
If you can achieve nuclear fusion with the proposed configuration, AND you can focus the energy to push the reaction products (should be helium, unused fuel, and the vaporized metal confinement rings), then you can indeed do this thing.
One thing is unclear. If the rocket has people in it, they will be exposed to neutron and gamma radiation from the engine. Hydrogen fusion does not use ordinary hydrogen. It uses isotopes, a common and stable deuterium and a rare and unstable tritium. The first contains a neutron. The second has two. These combine to form helium, which has two neutrons (and two protons from the two hydrogen nuclei). As you can see, one neutron has been left out. It is ejected in a random direction with plenty of energy.
Because neutrons have no electrical charge (they’re neutral as their name implies), they can zip right through matter more readily than can their charged brethren, protons and electrons. Plastics and water are good for stopping neutrons but give off gamma rays when they do so. Therefore, shielding must mix in some heavy elements to stop the gamma rays, which also are uncharged — really a sort of very energetic form of X-rays. In calculating the advantages of fusion rockets, this extra shielding must be accounted for.
In summary, this scheme produces so much power that it certainly will work. The basics of using metal rings to confine a deuterium-tritium plasma and produce fusion have been demonstrated.
We still have to lift this contraption into space as usual. However, Skylon may help out there with a less expensive lifting device. You will not see nuclear-assisted blast-offs from launch sites on Earth.
This whole idea is so good that I am going to revise sections of Martian Rhapsody to use it.
Most people probably don’t get a good idea of how the fusion rocket engine works from many of the published accounts.
A bit of deuterium-tritium plasma (not sure how this is made) is injected into a container of metal that is squashed very quickly with a powerful magnetic field. They have the parameters just right so that this 30-fold compression is enough to initiate fusion of the already-very-hot plasma.
The metal container explodes, vaporizing the metal and ejecting the vapor out of the rear of the ship, the only place it can escape. The extreme energy and, therefore, temperature make for a very high-speed exhaust. A minute later, things have cooled down enough to place another metal capsule in place ready for the next injection of plasma, magnetic field pinch, and explosion.
Sounds a lot like a Rube Goldberg device, but the engineers insist that it works — at least for a single cycle in a test set up.
The real trick will be making it work repeatedly and reliably for three days without cessation and then being able to do it again just as reliably a month later.
Because tritium decays with a half-life of 12.5 years, the initial charge should be adequate for a one-month trip. If the return trip is years later, some mechanism for compensating for the loss will have to be devised.
These are all engineering challenges that can be overcome. There’s no new science to discover here.
I see how it could be an issue, however considering NASA has partially funded the project I don’t think they would have overlooked such an issue in regards to radiation in the atmosphere, perhaps they have solved it? I’m also aware of the 1960s projects, but the projects were scrapped due to lack of funding and because we didn’t have the technology.
Either way, I have learned of another propulsion system that NASA has been working on, which is even faster than fusion powered rockets. To give you an idea,the fastest probe we have ever launched into space is Voyager 1 (using gravity assist from the gas giant Jupiter) which is travelling at 38,120 MPH) NASA is working on Magnetoplasmadynamic thrusters which would achieve speeds over 200,000 MPH. At that speed we could reach Mars in 7-8 days instead of the 30 it would take with fusion and 8 months it takes with current chemical powered rockets of today. Even at those speeds, interstellar travel would not be conceivable but it would at least allow us to travel within our own system with more ease.
Unfortunately, the article I read and which is posted below does not give a date estimation on when the craft would become available.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/fs22grc.html
Excellent find, Martin.
This article just goes to show that technology will advance and eventually make planetary travel much more efficient and rapid.
As this is on nasa.gov, it must be representative of what NASA is thinking. There is one minor error in the article, which is rare for NASA. Once you have an arc, you have a flow of electrons. Heating up the cathode after forming the arc is not necessary, although an arc will heat it very hot very quickly.
I’ll also note that the article compares this MPD thruster only with other electrical propulsion systems. It neither compares it with fusion nor chemical thrusters. We can safely assume that it will beat the pants off of chemical propulsion in space. However, I expect that we’ll still be using chemical rockets to lift off from Earth, although it would be neat to have a magnetic rail boost to get spacecraft started.
As to timing, the article shows functioning engines today. There seem to be two issues. One is mentioned in the article and has to do with the plasma material. Currently, lithium is being used, but hydrogen would be preferable for various reasons. Also, the images show rather small engines. Either you have to have tons of them, or you must scale these to larger sizes. There will probably end up being a fairly large number of larger engines. I don’t see them scaling indefinitely.
Therefore, some more engineering is necessary before MPD engines find their way onto interplanetary missions. I expect that the time required is mostly a function of money.
MPD is simpler than fusion. Is it better? Can’t say. Depends on developments.
I thinks that it’s worthwhile to pause and consider the MPD development in more detail. I cannot speak to the engineering because I have little information about it, and it appears that NASA has that well in hand.
It’s the science part that fascinates me. This is an engine that will be designed to operate in the vacuum of space. It has a reported exhaust speed of 100,000 m/s. That’s really huge, the equivalent of 210,000 mph or 360,000 kph.
How does it work? How can you estimate the speed of a spacecraft using this engine? What does it mean for the time to travel to Mars?
These questions all have readily available answers, although a few assumptions will turn calculus into mere arithmetic. First, the quick overview of how it works. When an electrical current passes through a wire that runs perpendicular to a magnetic field, it experiences a force that is perpendicular to both. This force is proportional to both the strength of the field and the amount of electrical current.
The magnetic field can be created by the electrical current flowing to the electric arc if you do the geometry right. The basic science here has been known since the nineteenth century. In the case of MPD, the electrical current is the arc and the plasma passing through it.
The speed you can achieve depends on the mass of the spaceship and the mass of ejected “fuel” as well as its speed of ejection. Two assumptions here are that the amount of fuel is small compared to the spaceship mass and that we can neglect the Earth’s gravitational field.
If we assume that the spaceship is out in space far enough from Earth, then we only have to use conservation of momentum. Physicists use this word with great specificity. It means mass times velocity. Simply, the amount of momentum in the rocket exhaust matches exactly the change in momentum of the spaceship.
Furthermore, we don’t have to know the actual numbers, just the ratio of fuel mass to spaceship mass and the speed of the exhaust. The math is easy, but I won’t use up space with it here. If we use 1% of the spaceship mass as fuel and the exhaust speed is 100,000 m/s, then the spaceship will increase its speed by 1% of 100,000 m/s. Starting from rest, it will reach 1,000 m/s.
The closest approach of Earth and Mars is around 50 million km. A spaceship cannot go in that straight line, however. Taking double that number as the actual trip distance (probably somewhat less), we see that our ship will travel 100 million km at 1,000 m/s. Dividing the two numbers and converting distance units, I get 100 million seconds as the trip time — plus time to accelerate and to “decelerate” (negative acceleration) at trip beginning and end. More on that later.
It comes out to about 115 days. By expending 3% of the ship’s mass as fuel, the time reduces to 1/3 or around 37 days, in the ballpark of what the article suggests. You have to use another, equal amount of fuel to slow down at the end. You’d be traveling to Mars at a speed of 3,000 m/s in this scenario.
You have to spend time accelerating to this speed. The time required depends on the force exerted by the MPD engine. Assuming constant acceleration, the time is just the acceleration divided by the final speed. In rocketry, acceleration is often given as g force, a multiple of Earth’s gravity. So, 1 g is exactly one times Earth’s gravity. The MPD engines will not be able to produce that amount of acceleration with a reasonably sized spaceship or at least 10 metric tons. The ship would be all engine. Consider an acceleration of 0.01 g. One g is 10 meters per second per second (rounded up). The acceleration would be 0.1 m/s/s. Dividing that number into the speed of 3,000 m/s gives 30,000 seconds, which is 50 minutes — quite fast.
Force is mass times acceleration. To achieve this acceleration (0.01 g), our 10 metric ton (10,000 kg) spaceship has to have engines producing 10,000 kg x 0.1 m/s/s = 1,000 newtons. This is equivalent to the weight of 100 kg on the Earth’s surface. In British units that’s about 220 pounds.
I haven’t seen any thrust numbers for the MPD drives behind considered. Even if they only produce 22 pounds (100 N) of force, the 10 metric ton spaceship will still achieve its interplanetary speed in less than 9 hours. If the ship is much more massive, you just scale appropriately. A 50 metric ton ship will reach cruising speed in 45 hours with an acceleration of 0.001 g.
Note that a quick trip to Mars will reduce radiation and zero-g problems significantly.
[…] problem, according to science blogger Harry Keller of Educational Technology and Change in “Mars One: Exciting adventure or hoax?” posted April 8, 2013. While Keller acknowledged the excitement of the pioneering spirit, […]
HA GOOD LUCK ON A RED PLANET. I WILL BE ON EARTH TO
WITNESS SINGULARITY AND LIVE FOREVER.
With all due respect to Ray Kurzweil, the singularity is not here and may never be. Funny things happen when you approach any sort of singularity. The usual mathematical models fail.
As for living forever, how can you do that when it appears that the universe will not last forever (something about the laws of thermodynamics that you might like to look into), and even our own Sun will collapse and fry the Earth’s surface in around 4 billion years, nowhere near forever. Mars, however, will be outside of the lethal destruction zone.
Four billion years is a very long time, and we cannot even be sure that humans will be around for even a million more years. Having survived for 200,000 years, give or take, we may get by for another such period if we don’t destroy ourselves or our planet first. We have effectively stopped evolving due to extreme gene pool mixing.
All you out there who see no reason to go to Mars should realize that there’s little reason to climb mountains (e.g. Everest) but lots of people do it anyway. There were scant reasons to emigrate from Europe to the new world, a dangerous voyage taking months with many challenges to survival on arrival. The same can be said for the westward migration in North America.
People are strange beasts. They do strange things for strange reasons. History has to sort it all out. We’re not able to look back on the Mars era from that vantage point.
For now, let’s enjoy the speculation and do our best to conceive of the problems of living on Mars and the potential solutions so that the first trip there is more likely to succeed — if we can have such hubris.
This is a way to kill us for population control
That comment is so far off that I was tempted to ignore it.
Let’s consider that premise. How will sending four people to Mars have any significant impact of a population of billions? Even the grand total of twenty planned would be insignificant.
Who is trying to control population? It’s hardly Bas Lansdorp. He could find many more efficient and inexpensive means for that.
I must ask anyone seeking to join this discussion to provide us with more thoughtful comments. Stick to the issues and avoid vaporous remarks.
Population problems are a reasonable topic of discussion but not on a forum dedicated to addressing the issues surrounding people living on Mars. There’s just no relation between the two.
That is pretty laughable. As a world wide population we are expanding at a rate of approximately 1 billion every 12 years. that is a little over 83 million a year. Even if they were shipping a new set of colonists every single year and kept doing so for eternity it would be comparable to trying to empty the pacific ocean with a thimble. In fact that would be more realistic because the ocean’s volume is finite where as the population keeps expanding.
Hadn’t looked up that rate of population growth. Rather imposing!
It’s nearly 160 per minute. We’re discussing sending four people every two years! In other words, the population growth PER SECOND is greater than the number being considered to send Mars EACH YEAR.
If we get into population growth on Earth as a topic, it will get weird. However, we must consider population growth on Mars. Will Mars be a “nation with a high standard of living”? Those on Earth today have low or zero population growth (except Australia with its very high immigration rate).
In terms of available technology and education level of people, it will be. Zero new population growth on Mars would not bode well for what is intended to be an expanding colony. Sending four people there every two years will hardly create that expansion.
No, they must “Be fruitful, and multiply…” Of course, the conditions for raising children must be there too. Until we see a means to build expanding settlements on Mars, this just won’t work.
The Mars One folk speak much too glibly about a self-sustaining colony. What if every colonist had 8-12 children? The meager materials being sent to Mars will not sustain that. The settlers must be able to create new habitation space, new farming area, and so on.
It’s possible, but unlikely due to lack of funding and fully developed technologies, to put some people on Mars and have them survive there for an extended period. Having an expanding and self-sustaining settlement there is a giant leap beyond what’s being discussed today.
Two problems face anyone making such plans. These problems cannot be readily brushed aside. The first is energy. Wind power is no good on Mars because the air is too thin at 1% of Earth. Until the air becomes denser, it will remain out of reach. Once it does get thick enough, Mars has tremendous winds that can power a civilization and even wreck one.
Solar power is weak when it comes to powering real expansion. The mining and refining operations necessary to building everything in an expanding civilization cost huge amounts of power. Solar will provide for basic life support and a bit more. Note that the Martians won’t have large reserves of organic materials for plastics until they have large farms.
There are no tides, and geothermal power is likely to be out of reach for the foreseeable future. Without rivers or even a water cycle, hydroelectric power is not an option. Nuclear power is possible, but would take some real ingenuity to develop on Mars to the point of powering an expanding civilization.
The second problem is gravity. As I have commented a few times, no one knows what 38% gravity will do to human health. Interestingly , we can test that gravity on plants but not on animals. The long-term effects of 38% gravity on human health could be positive, negative, or negligible. The impact on infants and their life expectancy are even more unclear.
I can understand that some people are willing to take that risk. Will they also be willing to risk their children?
The peopling of Mars will not happen soon unless some real breakthroughs happen, truly amazing, unexpected, and powerful breakthroughs to provide energy and to handle any problems of gravity.
An article just appeared on Fox News, “Astronauts’ hearts become spherical during prolonged trips in space, study finds” (http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/04/01/astronauts-hearts-become-spherical-during-prolonged-trips-in-space/).
The article suggests a problem for a trip to Mars. By the time we get to Mars, the trip will have probably reduced its transit time to four or fewer months. The one-month duration suggested with MPD technology will make all space travel issues go away, except for the usual dangers of equipment malfunction.
Instead of looking at this potential, the article focuses on an 18-month trip to Mars and back, possibly without landing, although they did not specify that aspect of the journey.
The heart has less work to do in zero-gravity environments. It decreases in mass. If your heart has much more work to do, it increases in mass, a dangerous condition. What will happen in 38% gravity? We still don’t know.
I think for short term travel the effects are manageable. Short Term might even bee a year or two. we have already studied the effects of o% gravity for periods of up to a year with no irrecoverable effects on the cosmonauts and astronauts in question.
The Human body responds poorly to reduced gravity but after decades of research we have discovered that the human body has a surprising ability to bounce back. I personally am not aware of any astronaut or cosmonauts suffering permanent damage due to prolonged stays in orbit. If anyone is aware of such cases I would be interested in hearing about it.
I think for the duration of the trip the travelers will see few ill effects of .38 G. As you suggest they might even see benefits of reduced gravity. However the problems will arise when said travelers return to Earth. they will suffer a difficult transition much like any astronaut today but I don’t feel that it will be impossible to readjust.
Yes Don, those are my feelings too.
Well , clearly the mars one project is not up to NASA standards , or even present time military risk assesment standards . On the other hand small scale military operations in WW2 was routinely designed to take risks of the same kind , the kind you dont come back from .
Our grandfathers generation won that war by being willing to take great personal risks . If there are thousands of volunteers for Mars one who are willing to take great personal risk in order to advance spaceflight , then this is a great ASSET which could potentially be exactly what is needed to remake SPACE into our generations equivalent of WW2 . Human beings can achieve incredible things when they are fighting for survival , especially if they are chosen well for exactly that .
Thank you for your comment, Ole, and your spirit.
I expect that the risks of getting to Mars will be less than the WW2 operations to which you refer. The risks of living on Mars are currently difficult to quantify and may be much greater.
While the Mars One operation does not countenance a return, it does hope for long-term survival, as was true of those populating North America and Australia when these were wild and unexplored territories.
Because of our communications abilities, those who seek out new worlds will not labor incommunicado to be heard from or not only many years later. This simple fact puts an entirely new spin on settling Mars.
Future Mars pioneers will have stark and even personal information about the first ones to go there. They will be emotionally affected by what they see and hear. It will not be so remote as earlier expeditions on our world. Instead, we will all see it up close and personal in our living rooms.
For this reason, the likelihood of failure must be minimized lest we pull back unnecessarily. It’s curious that our great success in landing people on the Moon was followed by a decades-long hiatus — over a half-century since the first landing. Have we really teased all we can from our enormous satellite with manned expeditions? Is the risk so great, or is it the cost that holds us back?
Neither is enormous today. The risks are much smaller, and so is the cost. Within a decade, those costs will drop even further as hybrid air-breathing rockets come of age.
I seems that the Moon has become mundane, even banal — so much so that we don’t consider going there to be worthwhile anymore. The costs of staying there are great, and having a Moon station would be the next logical step. No one seems willing to finance such a venture, possibly because of no clear return on the investment. Yet, we see many looking very much farther outward to Mars, the only potentially habitable planet, other than Earth, in our solar system.
We’re spending $8.7 billion on the James Webb Space Telescope. Would it make sense to put a telescope on the Moon? Would it cost less? Might it be operated by a small, rotating crew in a Moon station? Would that mission provide valuable data in preparation for colonizing Mars? Has anyone even done the analysis?
The James Webb telescope is best understood by comparing it to the Kepler project which cost less than 10% of JWT , and Kepler is the more important one .
In the same way a Moon mission would perhabs be 10 times cheaper than a Mars mission , but its not in fashion because the wrong president tried to make it HIS legacy .
A moon colony would ofcourse be the logic next steb , because long term lifesupport is the most urgently needed teknology to be develloped . Most of it could be developped on earth , but for some strange and depressing reason Closed Cycle Ecologies has been a ”TABOO’ subject ever since the failure of Biosphere 1 , a rather naive but extremely well planed experiment back in the early nineties .
Absolutely nothing important has hapened in this criticly important area since 1994 , thousands of simple and cheap experiments are screaming to be done … My person conviction is that it was the unpleasant smells of the experiment which made everybody involved behave like retarded cavemenn . Bad smells has the ability to neutralize all rational behavior in favor of an irresitible urge from the subconscious to revolt agaist the unpleasantness…In short they should have chosen the creew AND everybody involved in the decision proces from among the at least 40.000 people in the US who was born completely whithout the ability to smell anything !
Think about it : a mashine-based long term lifesupport system will demand enormous investments , enormous compexity of equipment , and enormous expenditure of electric energy . Nature already knows how to do all this in a cheap and energy efficient way , we only have to ask the right questions …THAT and to stop behaving like retarded cave menn !
I think that closed-cycle ecologies can be done without awful smells. The planned Mars One habitat would have a number of modules that could be isolated from the circulating airflow if necessary. Processing human waste can be unpleasant, but the means exist to do so without undue air pollution. Ole is right that we should be working more on this aspect of living on Mars.
I’m not so interested in limiting the Mars applicants to those who are not able to smell.
The life-support systems for Mars One (or equivalent) will require plenty of good engineering beforehand. That will require some investment. Of course, that engineering will involve using nature’s best methods.
For a closed ecology to be without ”awful smells” it will have to in an almost perfect balance between the chemical activities of many different lifeforms .
Close to nothing is known about how to achieve such a balance , even if many of the necesary experiments could be done for a few thousand dollars.
As an example you could isolate an ant colony and a few sqare meters of its natural forage-area , and measure the development of ALL the different components of the enclosed atmosphere over a long period .
Theoreticly there should exist many specifik ”solutions” to the stability problem , where a limited number of lifeforms will exist in a naturally stable combination , which includes naturally stable population sizes.
Only after the sucsesful longterm stabilization af many kinds of these isolated ecologies , would there be any chance of making one where humans are the main endproduct .
In such a system , Knowledge and not mashinery is the driving force , wich is similar to the difference between software and hardware.
To solve the same problem by ”engineering” would require an enormously heavy , comlex , expensive and energyconsuming system of mashinery ,which would constantly need non-reneavable raw materials such as chemival reagents and catalysts .
Unfortunately, it will be some time before any real ecological systems can be created on Mars. For the immediate future, aspects of the ecology will have to be artificial. We’ll be dealing with bacteria, chemicals, plants, and people. Without a full ecological system in place, you can’t just add in ants or any other creature. The results could be disastrous. Even the bacteria will be carefully selected and maybe engineered to the tasks being performed.
Besides practical problems, in my opinion there are the psychological issues which will not be easy to deal with. There is no vegetation on Mars, no animals, no singing of the birds, no flowers to be smelled, etc., etc. When children are born, where do they play? I think it would be very cruel to the children to expose them to this area.
In a well designed closed ecology , a limited number of animals , birds and flowers could be part of the lifesupport-system. They wil live inside the closed habitat and be chosen for the way they can contribute to the stabillty of the the overall biological system .
I don’t see animals in the earliest Mars settlements. We must assume that a real energy crunch may arrive and not allow for feeding animals. We certainly cannot use them as food sources — too inefficient. We can use plants, algae, and yeast and not much else.
Some of the food plants could be brought out into the general areas as they are in the flowering phase to provide necessary psychological relief from the tedium of metal walls and red, dry, rocky landscapes outside.
Using animals as pets or simply as something more Earth-like will be quite difficult. I really don’t see this step taking place until the colony is self-sustaining. I don’t see it at all for mere visits to Mars.
The first animals on Mars will be very carefully chosen for hardiness, value to colonists, and lack of pestilential nature. It could be a pollinating insect, for example. Perhaps mechanical pollinators will be an available technology by then, though. Initially, the colonists will have to pollinate their plants by hand. Another example is earthworms. They improve the soil but may grow too large in numbers without some controls — no “early birds” on Mars.
This is a reply to Ole Burde: I would call it animal cruelty to take animals to Mars. People have a choice, they don’t. And in case these animals survive the trip what would they eat: Plants or themselves?
I’m going to upset some people by siding with Inka on this one. Most importantly, animals are unnecessary and will use up precious energy that must be conserved for other purposes. You can choose to exclude animals for reasons of cruelty or for just plain practicality.
Regarding taking animals to Mars: Why are animals treated as an object and not as living beings? Why does anybody think they have to do what we want? Look at the farms, the rodeos, circuses what these creatures have to endure. I am not an activist, I just love all living beings. How arrogant “humans” are who think we can do with them what we want, and for the sake of science you can torture and kill them.
Now, people want to go to Mars so that they can leave their mess on earth behind. I want you to consider the thoughts of Albert-Schweitzer:
“We must fight against the spirit of unconsious cruelty with which we treat the animals. Animals suffer as much as we do. True humanity does not allow us to impose such sufferings on them. It is our duty to make the whole world recognize it. Until we extend our circle of compassion to all living things, humanity wil not find peace.”
Recent investigations have shown conclusively that animals, even as low evolutionarily as birds, have feelings and not just physical ones. Certainly, mammals such as cows and sheep display all sorts of human-like emotions.
Try to imagine yourself standing in line on the way into a slaughter house hearing the sounds ahead and smelling death — realizing that most animals have much better ability to smell than we do. People have observed real fear in these about-to-become-burgers cattle.
These are religious or philosophical notions – and not new by the way: these ideas existed at least 2500 years ago in what is now known as India and are best exemplified in the religion of Jainism, which centers around non-violence to everything – plants, animals and your fellow human beings. Jain priests often wear only a loin-cloth or nothing at all to minimize their impact on the environment – sometimes a mask is worn over the face to avoid accidentally inhaling insects or even microorganisms, and feather duster is employed to sweep where they will walk and where they will sit for the same reason.
As a friend of mine observed, “It would never work in northern Saskatchewan.’
Although humorous, the same holds true of many modern versions of this non-violent philosophy – they are the beneficiaries of tropical climates even in those northern climes, where human technology has created the infrastructure to provide food and heat in every part of the world.
If you are an Eskimo or Inuit, there isn’t papaya and bananas and all manner of fruit growing around you – as far as vegetable matter you are restricted pretty much to lichens, that wonderful symbiosis between fungi and algae, that is toxic unless you soak it and boil it – or eat it out of a caribou’s rumen which has already accomplished the same thing.
Haggis, anyone?
Likewise much of the non-tropical world, while providing occasional meals of nuts and berries, more plentifully supplies complete protein in the form of animals who are much better than us at turning inedible (to humans) fiber into food and at digging, climbing and snatching morsels that are beyond our reach. So humans are predators by nature.
How we treat animals is significant and often used to judge our character – cruelty to animals is not measured in the quick kill and consumption but in the way certain people will not make a quick kill and will torment an animal needlessly is an indication of how they will treat their fellow man.
So the idea that we will use animals or not is a religious or philosophical one, while unnecessary cruelty to animals is a psychological indicator of mental states we consider undesirable and threatening.
We cannot eat grass, wheat-grass enthusiasts aside, we are unable to digest many of the components of grass or woody plants to get at the nutrients inside. Ruminants have worked around this problem with multiple stomachs, the first of which is a rumen where various bacteria digest these materials: the cow, sheep, goat, deer or moose then consumes these bacteria and their byproducts in second, third and fourth stomachs.
Many religions have rules about what they may eat and how it may be eaten. The essence of western civilization is tolerance of such ideas, not forcing them on those around us.
Actual animal cruelty is a separate topic and should not be confused with eating animals or using them for food in a manner we consider humane.
As we learn (or more likely re-learn) things about animals there is nothing wrong with changing our practices to make animal husbandry more humane. Ignorance is not the same as deliberate cruelty as long as it is addressed when we better understand the situation.
I have found a great deal of satisfaction in raising small flocks and herd for my own family’s consumption – I enjoy having animals around and have a dog as a pet which I would not eat, except in a survival situation, but hopefully the dog (a hunting breed) would prove more valuable in procuring game so I wouldn’t have to eat it – an unlikely scenario in this day and age.
Religious and philosophical arguments about keeping animals ought to be treated as just that – keeping animals and killing animals in a humane fashion for food and clothing do not belong in the same discussion as torturing animals for psychological pleasure.
In closing I would point out that your food, clothing and shelter, where not procured from animals, is procured from the cutting down of trees in order to grow other crops, and in mining of materials from the Earth which greatly disturbs the environment. It is essential in such arguments that the proponents of a non-disruptive philosophy not brand their opponents as cruel or deviant simply because they do not agree. A lack of distinction between humane practices and animal cruelty is an indicator of religious, not scientific thought.
Hi Brett,
You have provided an eloquent response and have pointed out some potential holes in the vegetarian argument, principally the necessity for some peoples historically to eat animal flesh to survive.
However, I think you have it backward. The human race was able to expand into those regions because members chose to eat more and more animal flesh not the reverse. Once established, there certainly was no choice anymore.
We can go back and forth endlessly on whether this expansion to nearly every corner of the world has been a good thing. It just is.
NOTE TO READERS — the remainder of this contribution is far off-topic. It has a remote relationship to living on Mars because I am certain that animal husbandry and animal pets will not be part of the Martian lifestyle for a great many decades, if ever.
I can illustrate that our dentition is not that of a carnivore, but that won’t convince you. I can also point out that the Inuit diet results in shortened life span, although long enough for reproduction. Numerous studies have shown that eating lots of meat shortens your life expectancy. In very ancient times, no one expected to live to 90 or so years anyway.
Before our ancestors tamed fire, lots of meat was simply not possible. Raw green game is virtually inedible for us. Carnivores slide of chunks of this meat with their sharp, knife-like molars and swallow them whole. A much more acidic stomach than ours plus much shorter intestines make this mode possible. My father ran his own restaurant and would order sides of beef. He left them in the cold locker until the mold on the surface was an inch thick. By then, the meat was partially digested by bacteria. Cooking completed the process and allowed people to digest this unnatural feast.
What was a natural diet before fire? We have good evidence that roots were an important part of that diet in addition to fruits and leaves. Roots are important because the dirt on them contained the trace quantities of vitamin B-12 required to avoid anemia. (Soil bacteria produce this chemical.) We can assume that they ate some amount of live insect larvae just as Australian aborigines did when discovered by Europeans. (Don’t know if they still do.)
For any human habitation near water, and they had to have water, some water life would have been added to the diet, mostly freshwater shellfish, the easiest to collect. Before fire probably means before fishing nets and so on. All in all, we probably had a mostly vegetarian diet before fire supplemented by some raw insect and shellfish protein, which was not absolutely required for survival but helped in lean times.
What fire and meat-eating did for humans was to allow them to spread into cold and dry areas that were without sufficient plant foods for survival. Fire also had another important side effect. It allowed us to digest more of the plant foods we ate. While cooking may reduce quantities of micronutrients, it makes more of the macronutrients available to our bodies. Even without meat, fire provided for a human population explosion.
Unlike Inka, I don’t put animal cruelty at the top of the reasons to shun meat eating. The number one reason for me is my health. Despite my advanced years, I have a low resting heart rate of about 60 and low blood pressure. My diet ensures me a lower likelihood of cancer and autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and diabetes.
The second reason is that raising enough meat to feed the hungry mouths of billions of people necessitates animal husbandry practices that are bad for our environment. It unnecessarily uses up valuable resources and pollutes our environment like mad.
Associated with raising meat is the simple scientific fact of trophic levels, a subject taught in middle and high school. You learn there that each level uses only about 10% of the food energy contained in the previous level. In overly simplistic terms, that would mean that you could feed ten times as many people on the soy used to feed cattle as you can with the cattle. Eating meat is very inefficient.
The “Friends don’t eat friends, and animals are our friends” argument is, for me, a bonus. I find it relaxing to my overall psyche to know that my survival does not require killing animals. If you go a step further and skip eggs and dairy, then you’re not causing the early death of those animals that produce these things as soon as their production drops. Eggs and dairy products also tend to be injurious to our health.
If you prefer to eat what you’re used to over eating what’s good for your long-term health and what’s good for our crowded planet, that’s your prerogative. It costs you more money in the price of your food and in your doctor bills. Plenty of people decide to drive SUVs despite higher costs for them when they buy and when they drive plus a greater load on the environment. That’s the way our free market works (as long as the wealthy corporations keep their thumbs off of the scale).
Life is about making choices and paying for them. As long as you make them with as much information as is available, that’s fine. Nearly all of my friends eat meat, and that’s their decision. I don’t talk about my decisions unless asked.
Harry, I totally agree with your explanation why you do not eat meat and many of my friends don’t either. We brought a T-Shirt to a friend in Munich with the inscription mentioned by you: “Animals are my friends and I do not eat my friends”. But there is a misunderstaning: I do not put animal cruelty at the top of the reasons to shun meat eating. I, unfortunately, still eat a little meat although only if raised and slaughtered humanely (organic). What I wanted to say is that it is abuse to take animals on a 8 months trip to Mars. People hopefully know what to expect and can prepare for this. These animals, however, must be very scared and frightened, they do not know what is happening and that is what I consider as cruel. As you wrote in your other e-mail how terrified the cows and pigs are waiting in line to be slaughtered and smelling what is happening. You surely know what Paul McCartney said that if slaughter houses had glass walls nobody would eat meat. My remark “if the animals survive what would they eat plants or…?” was meant to be sarcastic for which I apologize.
Thank you Inka. You must be a sensitive and intelligent person. Paul McCartney is but one of many famous vegetarians. Even some prizewinning body builders are. I raised two healthy, strong children as vegetarians all of their lives. They are now 37 and 38 years of age and in excellent health, proof that you don’t have to eat meat to be healthy. It’s a choice, one that often is made for you (as I did with my children) but which you can readily change later in life.
Regarding Mars, I really cannot see shipping cows to Mars. They’re too heavy to justify the effort and require far too much food to be able to grow it there, let alone during the trip.
The current eight-month trip may become one month by the time we really do get there. You could sedate an animal for the trip if you were truly determined to get one there. My issue with animals on Mars is their value as compared to their cost.
Note that I am not lumping yeast into the list of animals for this discussion.
Animals for food make absolutely no sense in an extremely energy-poor environment. You simply cannot afford the waste of energy to grow food that will produce one-tenth the value (calories etc.) of the food they are fed. There’s also the matter of water and air wasted. Meat is a luxury on Mars that we cannot afford.
This analysis extends to fish, reptiles, amphibians, and insects. It would be easy enough to ship live eggs from any of these to Mars. However, they all have the same basic inefficiency. Even were colonists interested in eating insects, they are difficult to confine and may turn into troublesome pests.
I expect that humans will be the only animals on Mars, other than the single-celled sort, for a very long time. The new Martians have the opportunity to build a new world the right way. Our ancestors had many constraints as Brett indicated. These resulted in decisions that reduced health and life span in favor of expediency and even of survival. We know how to get around those problems today.
I expect Martians will have no interest in firearms. Who would even try to spend billions of dollars to invade that barren planet? Without weapons, they won’t be killing each other very readily either. (Knives, “blunt instruments,” and strangulation remain available for that, though.) With a longevity diet forced on them and the potential benefits of lower gravity (also potential negative effects), they may well live past typical Earth life spans.
Their diet will not include barbecues that add carcinogens — even to vegetables. It will be much like the “Engine 2” diet that has been getting lots of press lately. This is an extension of a vegan diet that uses whole foods rather than ones processed to remove, for example, the bran and germ from wheat. It does not use oils and refined sugars (including turbinado sugar). You can be certain that any food that early Martians grow will be eaten whole for its food value, its ability to fill stomachs, and the extra energy costs of processing food.
I’m not suggesting that they’ll eat entire plants unless all parts are edible. A program to breed plants for Mars may make a larger percentage of the mass of those plants edible. Once on Mars, I’d expect breeding to continue.
Choosing the right plants will be a critical part of the Mars planning. As an example, beets have edible roots and leaves. Only the stalks must be discarded, and they can be used to feed yeast or recycled into organic compost for growing more food. Yeast will provide plenty of vitamin B-12 and must be included. The B-12 in animals comes from bacteria in the soil and will not be available on Mars. Omega-3 oils can be obtained from flax seed or hemp seed. These also provide fibers for making rope and cloth. Trees will be a problem on Mars in the early years, even dwarf varieties. Our settlers may have to go without oranges, apples, mangoes, etc. or grow a very few small trees in special shelters that may come with later flights — a decade or more into the colonization. These are just a few ideas surrounding the issue of food on Mars.
Cooking will also be different. The temperature of boiling water will be only around that of our hot water taps here. Baking is a very inefficient use of energy. Microwave cooking will be the norm, and new ways to prepare food may be invented that use the cold, dry Martian air. Much food may be consumed raw or only slightly cooked.
The conquest of Mars is a fascinating area for speculation.
The adaptation of fire was very important, not just for making meat safer and more nutritious but also roots, vegetables and cereals we do not digest properly, raw. Probably the only food that doesn’t benefit from heat is fruit and maybe insects – I’m not sure about insects.
But I find your dental explanations problematic Harry (and by the way I know we are getting off-topic, stop me when it’s no longer amusing) having looked into the mouths of various sheep, goats, cattle, camels and rabbits I find in none of these herbivores the sharp teeth that humans have in the four front corners of their jaw.
Also their eyes are placed to give a wide angle of vision to the side and rear while humans, like other predators, are designed to focus on things up front.
True, our teeth aren’t hooked like a carnivore for holding prey, but then we have something most carnivores don’t: a powerful set of appendages known as hands.
We are truly omnivores – I recommend at least small amounts of meat in your diet, perhaps fish if you find the warm, furry ones unappetizing. Few vegetables contain all the amino acids we need and even soy is not complete. There is growing evidence that vegetable oils are not so good for us in the amounts we can now produce effortlessly – and that we are much better equipped to digest fats from animal sources.
I have seen people severely jeopardize their health with a vegan diet, to the point where they were pale and thin and had no resistance to minor infections, ending up in shock, in hospital with doctors hemming and hawing about removing bits and pieces of their body that were shutting down. Longevity with poor health is not a goal I care to achieve; our focus on long life, while understandable, is often misguided (not to mention a real opportunity for charlatans).
I accept your claims that we eat too much meat – this is supported by the research of cardiologists in particular, but they still recommend 6 to 8 ounces three times a week (as opposed to my diet which often consists of 10 to 16 ounces five or six times a week).
Hunger is the most powerful driver of the human mind – thirst is more important but only has two or three days to work on us and then our mind is failing in delirium – while hunger, after two or three days, has just sharpened our focus to such a point we may become violent.
I doubt very much that humans have not always grabbed whatever was close in times of hunger – which, until the 20th century, was most of the time.
Thank you Brett, for your thoughtful reply.
The science is not in your favor here. We miss absolutely no essential amino acids from a completely vegetable-based diet. Excessive fat/oil from any source is injurious. So is excessive protein.
One could eat nothing but donuts and call that vegan. Clearly, that’s not at all healthy. You could eat sugar and Crisco too. I espouse eating a wide variety of whole vegetable-based foods. See the Engine 2 cookbook for some ideas. I try to avoid processed foods and all animal-based foods. I am very healthy and so are my children.
I said longevity because most people respond to that. The most important thing is health and having the healthiest possible life no matter how long. You don’t have to eat any meat to achieve that. We can eat modest amounts of meat, very modest, without endangering ourselves. I just find it easier (for me) to eat none at all.
Our incisors are equipped for eating apples and carrots. The canines are vestigial, hardly a carnivore’s teeth. Our molars are like those of a horse, grinding rather than slicing. In the end, it’s results that matter.
After four decades of vegetarianism, I continue strong and healthier than ever with rarely being ill.
I forgot to agree with your final paragraph. People will eat grass and leather if they are hungry enough. I recently read the story of Lewis and Clark and was struck by the enormous amount of meat consumed on that expedition. Those people had long, physically exhausting days and ate up to nine pounds of meat daily. That’s 36 quarter pounders. Given the seasons and the locations that went up into North Dakota, they could not have survived on vegetation alone — not even close.
But, we’re not in frontier times today. We have a choice. They did not. Neither did the bulk of our ancestors. Even those who did have a choice did not have the knowledge. Many ended up with gout, heart disease, diabetes and other diet-related problems. We don’t have all of the answers yet, but we have a direction. Many eat eggs and bacon for breakfast, baloney/salami sandwiches for lunch, and steak and potatoes for dinner — or the equivalent. This excessive consumption of animal products will cause health problems and not just with longevity.
Martian settlers will not have this choice, in my opinion. The waste of energy and resources in raising animals for food will not be an option with such an energy-poor and resource-deprived situation there.
In case it’s not obvious, I do not endorse faddish diets such as the “paleo diet” or eating nothing but brown rice and kale. In eating, variety is not only the spice of life, it’s the stuff of good health.
People interpret vegan and vegetarian in many ways. You can be a vegetarian and eat nothing but pizza with extra cheese. You can be a vegan eating nothing but PB&J on white bread. Neither would be healthy.
While I eat vegan at home, I allow a bit of egg/dairy when out as necessary. While I keep only whole foods (100% whole wheat products, for example) at home, sometimes white flour is all that available when eating out.
Still, you can make good decisions in restaurants. I local Mexican restaurant has no real vegetarian foods except with lots of cheese. So, I ask that their fajitas be all vegetable and to steam them instead of sautéing them. I get corn tortillas instead of wheat because the corn is whole grain (and tastes better). I ask for sliced avocados on the vegetables in place of the meat and ask for extra salsa. The result is mouth-watering good unless you’re used to a huge amount of fat in your food.
Unfortunately for the Mars settlers someday, all of these options will not apply. First, they will be eating freeze-dried rations for a long time. Then, they’ll have a limited amount of early harvest greens. Finally, they will get some peas, roots, etc. They’ll have to settle for dried yeast in place of grated hard cheese (not bad at all if you try it). They will have no baked goods and nothing grilled. It reminds of the New England boiled dinner without the meat. I think that they can be clever enough to grow some ginger, rosemary, marjoram, and other herbs and spices to add flavor. Some processing of Martian regolith may provide salt, but you don’t have to have much of that.
Exactly what to grow and how much of each will be a complex decision. By reviewing vegetarian and near-vegetarian cultures around the world along with the latest research, we will be able to make plans for adequate nourishment without resorting to vitamin pills or other supplements that will not be available on Mars.
Psychological issues are a crucial component of any long-term Mars mission, especially a permanent one. How would I fare when I love looking out over the ocean or a lake? The view of a forest or green plains is restful. There’s something about the sound of birds chirping that reassures us subconsciously that all is well.
These will be missing on Mars. We can provide the images and sounds, even the smells, artificially. I don’t know whether that will be enough. If we can hold out the prospect of transforming Mars into a planet capable of growing vegetation, even sparsely, that may be enough for the pioneers to live for.
Of course, there will be vegetation on Mars — in the “greenhouses” that grow their food. For energy efficiency, the lighting will be magenta and make the leaves look black — not very reassuring. “Composting” will be indoors and smelly. Dealing with that problem will be important.
With regard to children and cruelty, I would like you to consider whether it’s cruel that children are born above the arctic circle or in deserts here on Earth. I think that variety and human interaction are the most important parts of early childhood. Later, children should have playmates, but there are situations today where these are few as on isolated farms.
The Martian habitats will have room for children to play. It may be a different sort of play that you may be used to, but is that bad by definition?
While I agree that the nurturing environment for children on Mars must be considered, just think about pioneers on the American prairies and how isolated they often were. We can provide them with much more mental and emotional stimulation even on Mars. We must ensure that we do.
I agree with the first two paragraphs of your reply. With regard to children and cruelty, I agree that children born in deserts or above the arctic circle are not quite the ideal environments for them, and children born on Mars would not know the differences they are missing. I also agree that human interaction is important, however, where do they get the variety? And although thoroughly choosen, will the parents be able to give the children stability and warmth? They definitely have to explain to them at a later age that they are from Earth and how life was on Earth. May be the children want to visit this planet but cannot. I think they might feel like prisoners.
The “prisoner situation” is in my opinion the difference between pioneers on the American prairies – and they were isolated – and the settlers on Mars. The pioneers knew they could go back, but the settlers on Mars cannot.
These are not easy questions, and I don’t mean to sound glib.
Many immigrants to new continents had to face similar (but not even close to identical) circumstances. They faced fairly likely death but had hopes of survival. They wished to found new civilizations and have their children have children into the indefinite future.
The environment would be harsh for them and their children. They would have to explain to their roots to their children but also the dream they carried with them. Along with these was the near certainty that neither they nor their children could return from whence they came due to lack of means.
For Mars, the situation has similarities. Immediate return for settlers is simply not possible. The future holds out the hope of regular commerce between Earth and Mars as the costs and transit times decline. You’d still have to save up plenty of money, and you’d have to have something of value to sell on Earth.
There is a good possibility of rare metals on Mars without the overburden of millenia of sediments and of the complication of plate tectonics. Will there be diamonds? Physical trade would require high value per unit mass. These have that. Mining on Mars will be very difficult until excellent energy sources are available there.
For now, there’s little else the Martians can offer except for scientific exploration. That can bring in some money but not all that much and with some uncertainty as to how long such funding will last.
Feeling like prisoners? As long as Mars offers a decent life and the potential of creating a new civilization, it’s not so bad. After all, Earth could be portrayed to youth on Mars as an overcrowded planet that is rapidly destroying itself. Mars will be really tough for a couple of generations. Beyond that, it’s hard to say what new technology will open up for the planet.
Just suppose that means is found to build up the atmosphere from 1% of Earth to 10% of Earth (even 6% would be remarkable). Even with 100% oxygen, you’d still suffocate, but a small compressor on your back would allow you to walk about on the surface. Radiation levels would be lower (not low enough for extended outings, though).
Mining might be done remotely as would separating the ore.
The immediate future depends on energy and whether 38% gravity has serious side effects. The longer term future depends additionally on improving the atmosphere. If these “big three” can be managed, perhaps through some unexpected breakthroughs, then Mars has a future. Remember that its land area is equal to that of Earth.
I can understand that there will be always people who hope to find a more exciting, adventurous Life somewhere else or want to be in the history books. This, however, is not for me, for us. We enjoy our five cats, the Rocky Mountains, the outdoors, the animals, sports like skiing, skating, tennis, biking, hiking etc. We like to feed the birds in Winter in our front yard and the squirrels in our back garden. We love our wild flowers and the view from our windows to the Rockies. We like to meet friends here in North America and Europe and like to visit interesting places in North America and Europe.
Actually, reading about this Mars One project made us aware again how lucky we are to live on such a wonderful planet Earth, who in our opinion is not overcrowded. Earth can still be saved.
We wish all the best to the new settlers on Mars and may be that the “big three” can be solved in 10 years. Right now we think that they are used as guinea pigs for may be material gain in the future.
I, like you, like it here just fine. But, I have a rather good life in Southern California really close to the ocean. Plenty of people are not as fortunate as I.
Earth can be saved from its current trajectory into some serious problems. I have driven across the United States around 40 or so times and have visited every state except for Hawaii along with every large city here. You can readily find enormous open spaces still.
I also have lived in many areas. For example, Fort Collins in Colorado was spectacular. I hiked in the Rawah Wilderness — what an experience!
Yet, we’re running out of water here in SoCal. Despite all efforts, air pollution plagues many cities. Lots of people still commute long distances to work while burning fossil fuels like they are an infinite resource. Extreme weather is becoming commonplace. But, enough of Earth.
I think that settling Mars in ten years is probably a bit early for a secure and self-sustaining future. The temperatures there can make Siberia in winter look like a spring day. The dryness makes the Sahara, Gobi, and Atacama deserts look lush. As I think of it, it even makes the driest and coldest desert, Antarctica seem pleasant. At least it has air and life. The water is right there without digging and isn’t heavily contaminated with toxic chemicals.
The success of Mars One depends on far too many ifs to make me happy. When people do go there, I hope they do it right and open up a new frontier instead of just dying young.
Transforming Mars will be necessary in the long run. Fast and inexpensive transportation will be necessary in the short run. The most immediate requirement for success is better energy sources. Solar just cannot hack it for real self-sustaining settlements. Solar panels, even flexible ones, weigh too much to allow the huge area necessary to be sent to Mars. It’s likely that the settlers will barely have enough energy from them to survive. RTGs will be essential for backup electricity and heat that doesn’t depend on the solar arrays.
A Mars dust storm will block out sunlight and cover the arrays with dust possibly for months. The settlers will freeze to death without RTGs or something similar. The future of living on Mars depends on being able to exploit natural resources, all inorganic. Mining is energy intensive. Refining is more so.
In the long run, nuclear power is our only current energy source that can meet the Mars energy requirements.
This is dangerous thinking: I want to fly on an airplane but I cannot – am I a prisoner? I don’t think so. I want to be the President but I cannot – am I a prisoner? Who sets the limits and what is reasonable? The amazing thing about humans is that we ARE able to adapt to conditions ranging from -50C to +50C and rainfall of 10m a year to 10cm a year. There are optimums, sure – but an ideology that emphasizes only optimums are acceptable is problematic.
Human interaction is essential, yet also the source of most serious problems, once basic needs such as food, water and temperature (clothing + shelter) are eliminated.
Natural settings are good for us psychologically – people who overwinter in the Antarctic are required to spend a few hours a day in a ‘green room’ for their own good. This would obviously be a component of any Mars colony. More important the psychological makeup of the residents – not necessarily the touchy-feely warm fuzzy type as I suspect a certain amount of stoicism will be essential.
Thank you, Brett.
Yours is parallel to my thinking. Surely, children are not prisoners just because they’re born in Fiji and cannot travel to China, Russia, or the United States.
Assuming that the technical problems of living on Mars can be overcome, those children will be the founding parents of a new nation or even nations. There’s as much space on Mars as on the Earth to create nations.
And, sure the Earth is not totally a crowded and polluted place. However, compared to Mars, it’s very crowded. You just cannot compare a few dozen people on a land mass that matches our planet’s to seven billion people.
Necessarily, the livable space on Mars will make this comparison invalid in the short run, but those people will be looking forward — probably the most forward looking people in our solar system. They have to be to survive and thrive.
Unless gravity and radiation become impossible to live with, Mars will be conquered by humans. Every single remaining problem can be dealt with. Ultimately, Mars will have an atmosphere that may be 15% of Earth’s and close to 100% oxygen. Long before that, inexpensive compressors will allow people to move about on the surface without expensive Mars suits to guard against low pressure and cold.
This all is not to say that Mars One will solve these problems. First, it has to solve the problem of paying for the first trips. Then, it has to continue to fund Mars for another decade at a minimum. This is a heavy burden because going to Mars is very expensive. Possibly, someone could charge billionaires $100 million for a round trip. They have too much money anyway.
Hi Brett, I do really do not know what you mean, can you explain?
What I mean by dangerous thinking is that we can actually make prisons for ourselves if we base our understanding of the human condition on pampered western society. Indeed some people seem to desire a constant pool of victims to maintain their income or just a feeling of superiority and self-approval.
We should be careful that the prison is not our own mind or worse, make someone else feel they are in a prison when they are not.
One can endorse stoicism while rejecting cruelty and stupidity – but the greatest danger to every civilization has been decadence. One should never, in a free society, consider themselves forever a victim: this is a prison stronger than concrete and steel.
It is a serious business, controlling and corralling a group of people by first making them believe they have a problem – and then offering a solution. Do not believe for a moment this sort of system is only used to sell soap.
Hi Brett,
We agree on this issue. This is why I spend my “day job” on helping to improve how our schools teach pupils how to think.
Convincing people they have a problem and then “selling” them the solution must go far back in time. Isn’t that sort of what shamans did?
I recall a commercial, “Aren’t you glad you use Dial? Don’t you wish everyone did?” The problem here was body odor.
Today, we see it everywhere. As a scientist, I’m sensitive to homeopathy, Kombucha, probiotics, protein mixes, and so on — the chemical solutions to all of your problems from incontinence to impotence. This list includes vitamin supplements. Doesn’t everyone realize that these are SUPPLEMENTS to avoid shortages in your food. The necessity for them increases with age for a number of reasons.
Yes, decadence, sloth, etc. are the internal rots that can destroy any society. It happens when the society is too successful. What’s happened to the middle class in America in recent years is preventing this sort of rot at the middle levels anyway.
I don’t expect to see decadence on Mars for a long time, except for the rich visitors paying $100 million per trip.
When I was young, I desired wealth but not as much as freedom to do what I liked doing. Now that I’m relatively old, I seek money as security and freedom. I see that you can work hard for a couple of decades to pile up enough money to do what you’d really like to for the rest of your life (if you are fortunate enough to have that option), but I chose otherwise. So, here I am late in life working long days and seven-day weeks.
I’d really like to learn writing really well and use that ability, once perfected, to do neat things.
I call scam.
Hi Yuri. Many people have suggested that Mars One is just an elaborate scam. It may well be that. It could be a half-scam — the founders wishing to make money and maybe get people to Mars as well. Because of the intertwined for-profit and non-profit entities here, you can’t tell how much money is being funneled from the non-profit into the for-profit and into the founders’ pockets.
Anyone entering into this project must do so with eyes wide open and with care.
I am watching with interest to see exactly how far the project continues. I know that they will continue to do things that aren’t too expensive as long as they can get money to do so. I really doubt that we’ll see the first habitat modules land on Mars in six years — or even ever. The technological and financial hurdles are just too high.
It could be done, but will require much more money and other resources, tightly focused on Mars One.
I agree with Harry and Yuri. It is interesting to watch Mars One closely in order to find out how much money will be finally end up in the founders’ pockets and if he ever wanted this project to take off.
On the other hand so many people replied to Harry’s column with different ideas, thoughts and knowledge. I learned a lot about Mars and space.
Reply to Brett: I now understand your reasoning. But
(…..imagine no possesions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You may say I’m a dreamer …) Sorry, I strayed but I love John Lennon’s lyrics.
But imagine that the Founder of Mars One is just one of those you mentioned, who wants to lure you into his trap to make you feel special to go to Mars and he makes a lot of money. And then these people have also to pay for this! A little bit crazy right? As Harry Keller said, which I consider the most knowlegable on this forum, there are too many ifs. It sounds to me like a religious sect who collect the money from you and then they order you to commit a collective suicide.
Mars One seems to be a prison to me because there is no way out of hell. Everybody on earth has the chance to get out of any situation if they want to, basta.
Inka, you make a very valid comment on hell here. I’ve made a similar comparison.
The problem with that comparison is that hell is in the eyes of the beholder. No matter how good the support facilities, most of us would consider Mars to be hell. The unvarying landscape with no hope of change or even of touching it with bare hands would be enough to make it hell for many.
Here’s the first paragraph of the yet-unpublished second chapter of Martian Rhapsody.
“The four hopeful settlers stare open-eyed at the vista that confronts them. Mars stares back, red-faced and malevolent. They discern nothing friendly or helpful in that stare. Some might see indifference, but they’d be wrong. If ever mankind faced evil, it is here in this impossibly alien and lifeless environment.”
A longer, second paragraph expands on this theme.
Yet past pioneers have faced hellish situations before. The barren arctic wastes make living there seem impossible. The North American plains become impossibly hot in the summer and incredibly cold in the winter, especially in the northern plains. Yet, Native Americans lived there and even ventured out in the dead of winter alone on foot with only a buffalo skin to warm them as they slept on the cold, hard ground. The Australian outback seems about as inhospitable as anything short of Antarctica can be.
The challenge of conquering a new environment and the excitement of creating a new nation will attract some who do not worry about their own lives and view the rewards as greater than the risks. The risks are so great that these will be few and hopefully will be fully cognizant of the risks before embarking on this course of action. Far too many today will view the hope of a new life on Mars as better than the hopelessness of their current lives. I hope that the selection process will eliminate those semi-suicidal people.
Once a Martian settlement program (whether or not Mars One) winnows down the applicants to a manageable number, the interest in these individuals may spark support from the world. This entire operation is without any real precedent. I can’t imagine any point in my own life when I would have volunteered for this endeavor, but I tend to measure risks and rewards carefully. I have taken large risks but not with my life.
There are people who live in ways I find amazing and distasteful, from extreme poverty and inhospitable climes to dangerous and uncomfortable. Often you will find them laughing, joking – and raising families.
We have a class of people in western society called thrill-seekers, some who appear suicidal to the rest of us. A small percent of rock-climbers, skiers, hikers, pilots and occupations like fisher, logger, police and soldier are going to die each year.
It is reported that PTSD is much more common amongst US troops than British from the same theaters (NY Times May 16, 2010 Benedict Carey)
Hard to put this down to anything other than attitude: the psychological base, not genetics. It is worth investigating.
A litigious society does not help this baseline stoicism, nor does our increasing propensity to have panels of experts motivated chiefly by fear of litigation writing the regulations for everything from playgrounds to apple pie.
Mars One will not be sending anyone who perceives the mission as anything other than an adventure and a privilege. With well-meaning critics and some mean ones too there is no way they will walk into this uninformed.
A reacreation/greenhouse facility is essential to any long-term endeavour, even a winter in Antarctica. It would be foolish to send up young people or to encourage families in the initial stages of Mars exploration – to do so would be bad publicity among other reasons.
I was amazed to learn a little about what 3D printers have been doing and where they’re going from a little detour I took – if you haven’t seen one work, couple simple videos over on wiki or youtube well worth a peek.
Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry
Excellent comments, Brett.
And, yes 3D printing is moving ahead on many fronts. One will be required equipment on Mars for sure along with plenty of feedstock. You will be hard-pressed to create that there.
Paranoia seems to be creeping into our culture and doing so too much for my comfort. It’s even the small things. I go to the market and see people wiping the handles of the shopping carts with sanitary wipes. Do they have any clue about the amount of bacteria in the air? Do they even know that they have to contaminate their fingers and then get that contamination into their mouths (or nose — ha-ha)? Do they realize that a good immune system is their best defense against all but the most virulent diseases?
Yes, Harry, the hell is in the eye of the beholder and I agree with your two last paragraphs. I also have taken large risks but not with my life.
What you describe in your paragraph about past pioneers, I definitely feel that they had a terrible life in these environments but they had water and could breath the air.
P.S.: Thank you for the Martian Rhapsody, interesting that they actually make people aware about the dangers.
The first Martians will have water because they will be settling in a location scouted for that very purpose. That water will be frozen underground and heavily contaminated with inorganic toxins. The benefit of no air is that distilling the water at that low pressure is very easy. It will boil below room temperature, even with the dissolved solids.
The air situation is another problem entirely. The only long-term solution is terraforming Mars. I have proposed a solution in Martian Rhapsody in chapters not yet published. However, this solution has never been tested and so may not be viable. Using sunlight to generate electricity with which to electrolyze water will probably require centuries to create enough oxygen to make a difference. It also has the problem of what to do with all of the hydrogen. Only radical ideas can solve the air problem.
The good new is that “only” 670 million metric tons of oxygen will be sufficient to make Mars livable from an atmospheric viewpoint. Until there’s air, Mars will be a dead end for colonization. The same is true for energy. Gravity is an unknown. The rest can be handled with sufficient creativity (innovation and ingenuity).
Yes, it was very interesting to speculate if Martian settlers can survive. I thank you very much for a scientific insight regarding this problem. I have learned quite a lot and am curious what will happen in the future. Thank you again.
Today, I received a press release from Mars One. Phase 2 of the candidate selection process has begun. When reading a document such as this one, it’s important to note what was left out.
First, what was included.
Automated processes thinned the original 200,000+ applicants down to 1058, as reported in a previous release. These candidates were asked to provide a medical statement of health and also asked to open their profiles up to public scrutiny. The Mars One people had little to do and no expense in making these requests. A total of 353 people either chose not to reveal themselves or failed the health examination.
Now, 705 remain, 418 male and 287 female.
The final team will consist of two men and two women. Several teams will be trained as their full-time jobs.
The release said that all of the 705 remaining applicants will be interviewed by Mars One.
Mars One is negotiating for television rights to the next steps of this program.
The oldest person remaining is 71 years of age. Sixty-five hold doctoral degrees. The United States has the largest number, 204 members. They are followed by 54 Canadians, 44 Indians, 36 Russians, 27 Australians, and 23 Britons. Curiously, only ten of the 36 Russians are female.
Not included were a number of items.
The initial number of teams being trained was mentioned only as “several.”
The release did not mention or even hint a final selection date or time of the start of training.
The nature of the interviews was not divulged.
This release focused on people and made no mention of any technical aspects of the Mars One program.
The entire list of 705 people is given along with their place of residence, gender, and age plus a link to the information, including video, that they sent in as part of the application process. You can see this information, as I did for one person, Dan, who is 52 and lives in Annandale, U.S.A.
Anyone chosen will be ten years older by the time they reach the surface of Mars — and older still due to more postponements of that launch that are almost certain to occur as issues such as money and a good landing site remain unsettled.
I wish the Mars One people great fortune because they’ll fail without plenty of luck. Right now, they’re in the position of someone racing toward a chasm with faith that a bridge will appear across it by the time they arrive.
I like the “bridge over chasm” analogy. Computing power moves that fast, a similar critique was applied to the Human Genome Project but it finished ahead of time as I recall. Banking on the same increases for 3D technology seems to be part of the equation here. However, compare to improvements in batteries and solar cells might be a more realistic curve.
Indeed!
Both solar cell and battery (or energy storage) technology must advance by huge amounts in a few years. They cannot wait until days before launch for new technology, after all.
A better analogy might be building an airplane from odd parts while on a runaway train heading for a broken bridge over a chasm. If you can get the airplane done, you’re saved. Good luck!
This project has too many moving parts and too few resources for my comfort. Perhaps, I’m overly conservative, but I think not. Throughout my career, I have repeatedly attempted the so-called impossible. Once my employer was sued because I ran a project that produced a full-featured electronic spreadsheet from blank paper to news conference and demo on six months with essentially no employees. The suer claimed intellectual property was stolen, but it wasn’t. They just weren’t used to having very small programmer groups with very smart programmers. Fewer people make for faster projects until you hit a limit that depends on the project. Six months can be a long time for 1-3 talented programmers.
Mars One has too many dimensions to run as an ultra-lean project. The quality assurance alone staggers my mind.
They will not launch with smoke and mirrors. It will take a huge investment and plenty of outsourcing to the most savvy engineering firms on the planet.
Yes, you guys have all the scientific problems under control and you think that there is a big problem. But I also think that there are smaller problems which cannot be solved so easily. What about female hygiene, how many tampons would they have to transport to Mars, what about washing their hair? There is not much water to drink so what about showering and washing their hair and dishes? etc. etc.
Clearly, you are afraid to leave your name to such a sexist comment.
It was less than a century ago that neither women nor men washed their hair more than once a week, often much less. We now have more efficient means to keep clean, and these means apply to both genders.
Tampons are a rather recent invention. Women lived without them for tens of thousands of years.
Dishes will be handled as will cooking. All members of any space-faring group will have to join in these activities regardless of gender.
How about human waste? What about toothpaste and toothbrushes. Oh golly! No ultrasonic toothbrushes.
I think there will be, besides other problems, one major stumbling block to realize Mars One. The cost will be probably much higher than $6 Billion. Eric Donovan, a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Calgary, who has been involved in NASA space missions, is sceptical that the mission will ever come to fruition. “My No. 1 concern is that I don’t know how this could be real. The level of planning, technology and quality control necessary to make it a reality would put the total cost at closer to $100 Billion than $6 Billion” he said. So far Mars One has collected about $500,000.00
Assume for a moment that MO actually raises $6 billion and that new technology makes getting four people on Mars possible for that figure.
Where is the money for the next four human launches plus any unmanned missions coming from? It would be cruel in the extreme to send four people to Mars and then simply to abandon them because of failing finances.
No, this entire plan is full of flaws that will become more apparent as time passes.
That is an excellent point I did not even think about it!
This one small point is illustrative of the entire Mars One project. It was begun with much wishful thinking and few facts.
There are only two reasons I can accept for doing this. Either the founders are just going to collect money and spend some of it as long as it’s profitable — and then abscond with the rest. Or, these are true believers who just haven’t really thought the entire process through.
Wishes are great. I love them. To make them come true requires attachment to reality and, in this instance, plenty of cold, hard cash.
Truly, these are the facts. I tend to believe that Mars One is a scam, just a feeling. However, it is amazing how many educated people applied for this one-way mission. Did they ever question anything? It seems like as if they want to be something special – the first settlers on Mars – and for that they throw everything out of their lifes: their relatives, their friends, their pets, hobbies, all this for living a life in hell?
Hi Harry, if you wouldn’t mind to give me your face book address, I would like to share a link with you.
sir,I like seeing mars ,please this mars project, he is an indian, young person ,and accept in this project ME..,
I see 29 people from India in the list of 705 applicants in the second round. Of these ten are males under the age of 30.
Aman
Gopal
Yogesh
Amulya
Abhimanyu
Sarthak
Arun
Nagarajan
Arindam
Palash
[…] Para quem quiser aprofundar seus conhecimentos sobre o tema, o professor indica o texto “Mars One: Exciting Adventure or Hoax?”, do químico Harry Keller, que enumera as problemáticas da radiação, condições físicas e […]
Many people have brought up the very legitimate criticism that Six Billion is a ridiculously light budget for what they want to do. Realistically it is at least a magnitude short of reality, maybe two orders of magnitude. But Harry brings up an even more pressing concern, one that I have been asking since the beginning.. assuming you do eventually launch, you have just made a life long commitment to keep these people alive. How will they do it? What if the show gets cancelled? How will the Colonists survive without a perpetual supply train from Earth? The only Answer Mars One has given to this end is a lot of hand waving and a vague statement about the colony becoming self sustaining.
Lets assume that the colonists fail to grow food on Mars, this is a reasonable concern because to date there is no evidence that this is possible. This means Mars One will need to keep supplying the ever growing group of colonists forever. Even if they cancel future trips after the first group, they will need to keep sending supplies for the first four…Forever. This is a totally unrealistic endeavor and an impossible situation because the company cannot afford NOT to send the supplies as cutting off contact would be a Death Sentence for the colonists.
Considering there are no functional models of a self sustaining biosphere here on Earth, The math is not in favor of the Colonists becoming self sustaining. And as I mentioned. its not realistic at all to assume Mars One has the resources to keep sending a supply ship every two years. Sadly the best thing for the candidates is for this venture to be a hoax because if it isn’t, if Mars One REALLY does plan to go through with this, it will be disaster.
The self-sustaining issue looms large. It’s a bit different than what you say. While growing food could fail, that’s unlikely. Highly efficient LED lighting, recycling organics, scientific monitoring of soil, and so on make food a good bet. The settlers should have a backup supply of freeze-dried food in case of disaster. They will bring some and can make more because freeze-drying is a snap in the conditions of Mars.
An endless supply train to Mars is not necessary for survival. However, continuing traffic to Mars will be in their interest for other reasons. Survival could mean that these people are the 21st century equivalent of Paleolithic living. They’re living in a high-tech cave with limited rations and constant cold as well as a very harsh external environment.
Self-sustaining requires that the entire planned population of twenty immigrants arrive along with plenty of habitat material, lots of the latest machinery, and more backup and replacement supplies. Leaving four people with only what’s planned for them upon arrival will doom them to that high-tech Paleolithic life I alluded to. It may not kill them, but it will be worse than a prison in many respects.
Self-sustaining also requires energy, i.e. a substantial source of power. Wiithout that, they will be unable to mine minerals. They won’t be able to refine the minerals into metals. They will not be making chemicals.
How will they replace their clothing as it wears out? When will they be able to take a hot shower instead of a quick, cold, needle-spray shower? Will they grow flax or help and spin the fibers into thread and yarn? Will they have a loom to weave fabric? Will they have the skills to fashion cloth into clothing? Where will they get the materials to expand their habitat? How can they build anything that is airtight and that can be connected to existing modules? How will they repair pumps (both gas and liquid) that are crucial to their survival (recycling waste, removing excess CO2, etc.).
It is fairly easy to imagine surviving for a year or two without any help from Earth, but things wear out, break, or fail over time. Unless that second expedition arrives in two years, the first ones will be toast long before the natural end of their lives. I can imagine spare parts and ingenuity solving the first many crises, but resources are limited.
Without sufficient energy, you will not truly have a self-sustaining colony.
Earlier, you suggested that the energy source should probably be nuclear power. What does that mean in practice. How can you transport nuclear power to Mars and what are the security measures?
Small nuclear power plants can be created readily with relatively small amounts of material. While radioactive, the fuel is not extremely so and is readily shielded. Because you’re on Mars, you don’t have native animals, plants, or even people to worry about. You can build a plant in a nearby depression and run power cables. No containment vessel is necessary there. No one will be able to steal the fuel and construct a bomb.
The single problem here is the residual radioactivity at the site itself. Even meltdown will not harm the settlers if the siting is done well.
Is this a good long-term solution? Probably not, but early on you must have lots of power for mining, refining, and creating oxygen from water.
I expect that good long-term Martian power solutions will come from innovations. Today, I cannot see a great way to make lots of power on Mars for the next hundred years. If you do, please write.
I think for long term plans the only viable solution is solar power. currently it is not up to the task because the efficiency is so low. but it is a technology that we have reason to invest in here on Earth so it will continue to improve. I recently read an article on a new type of solar cell that is spherical instead of a flat panel. it theoretically has greater efficiency an can even operate during cloud cover. it also takes up a fraction of the land space so a large array can be constructed in a small area. If solar power continues to evolve then there will be a point where it will be sufficient to sustain outposts on Mars.
Other then Solar power I don’t see any viable solutions because every other power source we use here is fuel driven and it wouldn’t be self sustaining for the colony if we had to keep shipping the fuel there.
Tidal power is out because of no large moon or oceans. Fossil fuel is out because of no fossils. Wind power is out because air is too thin.
That leaves solar, nuclear, and geothermal power. All are feasible but none are great.
If Mars could be given a bit more atmosphere, then wind power would be a real possibility.
That’s the nutshell power situation. Much more could be written about each.
The sunlight hitting the Earth’s surface at zenith (noon on the 21 of June) is about 1 kilowatt per square meter. Mars is about half that. The best commercially available solar cells collect maybe 20% of the power striking them – at zenith, when clean (dust on Mars has already been discussed)
For practical purposes all requirements that cannot be met with storage must be calculated for a ‘winter’ day – not noon during summer time. Working with 10% of 100 mW/m^2 is probably a more reasonable guestimate that would allow for wear and tear, low light and present technology.
But even if you could collect 100% at full solar exposure it would take a large area to support the kind of endeavor Mars One proposes.
This is why solar cells on Earth are only a niche market and why they are not practical at present. When you invent a solar cell that can be rolled out like a carpet over several hectares and run anywhere close to 50% efficiency then we will all be ready to buy shares.
Energy aside, it is well work checking out the problems that Biosphere 1 and 2 ran into (actually it is the most pertinent research available to Mars One) and then transferring that in your imagination to Mars…
A great and worthy project, but Mars One is being shall we say optimistic about the present technology. It will be interesting to see the legal defense for this project and whether international law can be applied if national law refuses them permission to launch. Perhaps they are banking on that to shut the program down…
Welcome back, Brett. Your last line gave me a chuckle.
I’m not sure how you transitioned from 1 kW/m^2 (Earth at zenith) to 0.0001 kW/m^2. How did you lose a factor of ten thousand? I’d expect more like ten, giving us 100 W/m^2. Perhaps, just a slip.
Given virtually unlimited vistas (equal to entire dry surface of Earth), the area is not the problem. Solar energy problems lie in two areas. The first is the cost of lifting the solar cells (even if rolled up) from Earth to being free of our gravity. The best low-mass cells today would have an enormous cost to produce sufficient power for survival. Of course, we could have a breakthrough.
Solar cell efficiency is another problem. The maximum theoretical efficiency, as I recall (could look it up) is around 30%. One thousand square meters of solar collectors could make 100 kW of power during 1/4-1/3 of day or about 600 kW-hr. Some arithmetic should provide an idea of how many thousands of square meters will be required.
The second big problem is energy storage. Batteries, even the best commercially available technology, are very heavy per kW-hr stored and has a limited lifetime of maybe 10-20 years. The cost of lifting sufficient batteries to Mars is much greater than the solar cells. Unless the settlers can refurbish the batteries with local materials, they will die soon after the batteries do.
Harry this discussion continues to be fascinating! Great job. A thought re solar energy on Mars. Reminds me of the old saw: Where there’s a will, there’s a way. The issue is sustainability. Perhaps priority could be given by planners to developing technology for use on Mars, using Martian materials and environmental features, to create a new generation of.panels optimized for life there. The best procedure would require the least amount of shipping size and weight. Offer a huge monetary prize for the winning idea(s). The point is that survival on Mars is a goal, but the most important outcome may be the problems and questions that are raised and addressed. We have a choice: We can view the problems as obstacles or as challenges. Life is problem-solving. Another way of looking at this is that we need problems to feed our insatiable need to learn. In this sense, Mars is just another in a long line of problems that makes us human.
One of the major problems with settling Mars is that there’s no priority here on Earth for solving Martian problems. We have too many of our own!
The Martian crust is much like ours in many ways and unlike it in that its history does not include billions of years of plate tectonics. Nevertheless, scientists have suggested that we will find veins of minerals that can be mined. We have the hope of a future involving mining.
Mars settlers will have some high-tech resources, to be sure. However, they won’t have them in large quantity. They won’t have clean rooms for making electronics. And so it goes. In effect, they’ll be taking a huge step backward in technology while having the most modern technology at their fingertips. It’s a very odd paradox.
Having a 3D printer that can use sunlight and regolith in the oxygen-free atmosphere to fabricate technology such as solar cells would be a real breakthrough. Who on Earth will bother? Mars One doesn’t seem to have the resources to offer a prize large enough to justify the effort. Can it even be done? After all, regolith is an amalgam of various minerals that have been broken up. Can you make anything useful from such a mixture? Is separation possible beforehand without lots of energy? This is a multi-step problem.
hmm… math is not my strong point, but I suspect it was actually my writing that caused the problem. High noon on Mars is going to be like early morning light levels on Earth. The strength of the sunlight is about half that reaching the Earth’s surface.
Although I have read of experimental solar cells approaching 50% efficiency, the commercially available (in other words tested and manufactured for more than just pure efficiency) products are all somewhat under 20% and considerable less as the angle of the Sun decreases below 60 degrees and into the night. I do see solar being used up here (55°N) but primarily to run remote signals equipment.
I’m guessing the habitat will be so insulated that heat loss is minimal, otherwise heating the place would be a nightmare at -80 Celsius. Since it is to be covered with regolith there won’t be much gain from the 20 Celsius that occurs on the surface on a ‘summer’ day.
On Earth burying yourself is a good strategy – between the Tropics where there is no permafrost and/or at a depth where the temperature is comfortable. On Mars I think the relatively shallow proposal Mars One is going with will be a constant drain of heat even though the top few inches do melt a bit, as NASA found out lol
Cut optimal Earth solar levels in half to roughly 700W/m^2 to get Mars optimal conditions. Cut Earth efficiency of twenty percent in half to 10% (to allow for dust and unknowns, half is probably not conservative enough for extraterrestrial safety margin) staying with commercially available products or 70W/m^2.
Cut in half again (we aren’t absorbing anything at night) for 35W/m^2 and take 60% of peak value as an average and we get realistic full-time power, minus nominal power loss through resistance and batteries, of around 20W/m^2 which still does not allow for loss due to malfunction – I would prefer to go with 10W/m^2 as the expected constant input from solar cells currently available to incorporate a standard safety buffer of half the load, again I don’t like standard engineering buffers with extraterrestrial conditions. Because the installation is going to be near the equator I haven’t bothered with seasonal fluctuations.
Are we any closer? To get your 100W/m^2 you would need much more efficient solar cells and no safety margin. I like my 10W/m^2 assumption better and sorry if that’s not what I wrote previously.
One additional point — no air means slightly better solar gain, but dust in what air there is means less. I just took 1/10 as a possible Martian/Earth ratio for purposes of rough estimate. It is more likely to be between10 and 50 W/m^2 for about 8 hours daily near the equator.
New solar designs have hemispherical micro-lenses over the elements allowing for less loss due to angle of light. They sort of reach up and capture more of the light.
Mars will still have to have huge solar arrays and massive battery packs for people to survive. The costs of lifting all of that material could well doom the entire enterprise long before lift-off.
No matter how good the insulation, it will never be perfect and will be much less. The subsurface temperatures on Mars must be much lower than on Earth and so will not help so much. The air has almost no thermal mass and will not be a large heat sink except in very high winds. Radiant losses to space will be an issue. Heating with solar electricity cannot work well. it’s too inefficient. The settlers must have a reliable heating source separate from the solar.
Harry, terrific questions, exactly the type we need to energize our problem-solving cells. Ask the right questions, and answers will come. The fact that we can ask these questions in the first place is an indication that answers are possible. Think of the impact the age of discovery — 15th-16th century — had on our world. Gold and spices were the original goal, but these ultimately became minor compared to the breadth and depth of questions that emerged — some of which are still playing out today. The cat’s out of the bag, Harry, and no amount of doubting will lure it back in. We’re going to settle Mars, one way or another, or if not Mars, then some other planet. The question isn’t IF but WHEN. In the meantime, we need to ask, as you’re doing, all the tough questions to facilitate the process.
Totally true, Jim. Mars, by a very large margin, is our best hope for off-Earth colonization today. Only the low gravity poses a totally unknown and possibly unsolvable problem to settling.
Mars might be able to use any “alternative” power source except for tidal. Even geothermal is a possibility if locations where the crust is thin enough exist.
Wind power is hopeless now despite 200 mph winds. Once terraforming begins, the atmosphere will become thick enough to harness those powerful winds for power. However, the turbines could not be shipped readily to Mars, Sufficient manufacturing ability would be necessary to make the turbines there.
Nuclear power will do for a while but would create problems in the long run.
Therefore, you are right for the near term. Solar with some nuclear augmentation is the only way to get power. A weaker sun means that you won’t get as much power per acre on Mars as on Earth.
In addition to breakthroughs in solar power, we must also find better ways to store power. Batteries are heavy and don’t last. Research on supercapacitors using nanofibers may be the way.
Essentially, Mars will be a frontier with shortages of energy and refined metals for quite a long time after initial settlement. The first pioneers must be hardy souls.
Why go to Mars in the first place? Earths surface has about 30% area that is not inhabited, because of water scarcities. But then, those areas are many times better for human habilitation as the Mars environment, and yet, humanity has no plans to revitalize it’s desserts, but instead plans to go to Mars. How stupid! All of our energy needs could be fulfilled by installing solar power plants in desert regions, which could also desalinate salt water, and plant huge amounts of trees there. There are systems wich enable trees to grow even in the most arid deserts, and once trees provide shadow, other plants can start to grow there too. Then simultaniously we reduce the need for fossil fuels and provide more bio mass, so that all problems of oil/gas scarcity and climate change can be significantly reduced.
The combination of solar, desalination and permaculture have not been given enough attention. While some could see this as at least a partial solution (along with massive reforestation programs) to the purported carbon dioxide/heat problem, I see it as just an interesting experiment. However we should not discard the possibility of a Mars (or Lunar) experiment producing leaps in technology that would in turn aid such programs on Earth – certainly this is the legacy of the US and Soviet space programs.
If you are interested in reclaiming desert, this is a great video:
Brett, I think you nailed it. Ultimately, the value of Mars One and similar explorations is that it forces us out of our intellectual comfort zones. The question isn’t “Is it possible?” but “How can we make it possible?” And it’s on the backs of questions that we spread the light of science and technology into the darkness. And the benefits of this progression are immeasurable, providing information and solutions for problems far beyond the original scope. In the end, whether we can survive on Mars is irrelevant. What’s really important are the breakthroughs and innovations that are made possible by the effort, by the process, by the journey. The real value is, as always, in the questions and not so much the answers. In this regard, Harry has been raising a wide range of insightful questions that challenge the planners of Mars One and similar projects. You and others who have been actively participating in this discussion are amplifying, expanding, stretching, and challenging these questions to create a discussion that’s sure to advance the real search for answers, which is occurring in the greatest frontier of all — our collective human intelligence.
Rob — thank you for raising this issue. You asked, “Why?”
To the best of our knowledge, we are the only species on the Earth that asks, “Why?” It is a quintessentially human quality. Our young children ask, “Why?” It must somehow be part of our nature.
Brett and Jim have answered the question directly, but their answers are based on assumptions. For example, they may assume that the fallout from a Mars journey will be much greater than the journey or its costs.
The real answer, from my viewpoint, is that we can’t help ourselves. It’s in our nature, just as always asking that pesky question is. In a sense, when you ask the question, you are answering it. This answer is certainly more philosophy than engineering or science and so may not satisfy you.
I’ll take the question on more directly. Doing Mars does not prevent us from reclaiming deserts if we so choose. Reclaiming deserts does not prevent us from doing Mars. You cite a statistic that 30% of Earth’s landmass is uninhabited by people. Let’s look a bit more closely at this issue.
Firstly, uninhabited does not mean lifeless. Reclaiming those deserts will destroy the habitat for the plants and animals that live there now. Is that something we desire? I have traveled through every state in the United States except for Hawaii. When you do that, you see stark contrasts — enormous population density in a small number of locations, some smaller density in lots of places, and almost no people per square mile in most of the space out there.
At least from this perspective (allowing for differences in other areas of the world), we are not hurting for living space. Neither desert reclamation nor inhabiting Mars is truly necessary now or in the near future. We do not go to Mars to open up more living space for humanity. Using our current space more wisely will do just fine.
Instead, we are looking at Mars as a challenge to humanity, a stepping stone to the stars. An unimaginable time from now, Earth will be incinerated by our dying Sun. By then, we must have moved on or found a way to deflect our expanding star’s outer shell of million-degree gas from our planet.
Long before the death of our planet, we must move outward. Our technology right now is weak when facing colonization of Mars just as it was when Polynesians were expanding across the Pacific.
The impetus to see what’s beyond the next mountain remains irresistible for at least a significant fraction of our species. You might as well tell the tide to stop as attempt to prevent us going to Mars.
You can join the debate regarding when, how, who, and so forth. You can discuss why. But, you are not going to be successful in debating the whether. We went to the Moon. We will go to Mars. Eventually, we will have a colony on Mars. It is unlikely to be Mars One unless they pull a rabbit out of their hats. Nevertheless, I applaud them on one point. They are not awaiting the usual cautious exploration methods of nations. However, their vision requires enormous funding far beyond any that seems likely. In a way, that’s unfortunate. However, such is the fate of pioneers.
I too have a vision, but not of space travel. My vision involves the use of educational technology in science education. I faced many of the same problems that Mars One faced, although on a much smaller scale. I had detractors and supporters. I lacked sufficient funds. I could go on with more parallels. Mostly, I was ahead of my time. My vision was not supportable in the marketplace of 1999 when I developed the first prototype. I expect a similar fate for Mars colonization. In 1999, I had a working product being used in a school. I had all of the necessary technology available. Repeated launch attempts looked good but ultimately were unsustainable. Now, after 15 years, we’re flying and look to achieve orbit this year or next.
The vision and the human spirit are what count.
Jim,
You make a number of excellent points. I don’t necessarily agree completely with every one of them, but your concluding sentence sums it up nicely, and I wholeheartedly concur.
This leads to the question, “What if all questions were answered?” I hope that’s impossible. New frontiers are a necessity lest we become just so many sheep.
Check out the latest press release from Mars One posted elsewhere on this site.
You have to give credit to Bas Lansdorp et al. They are doing things. However, the efforts so far remain at a rather low budget level when compared with the overall task of landing people on Mars with sufficient materials to allow them to live for a normal human lifespan there.
The TV deal is supposed to generate the necessary funding for the entire project, according to earlier press releases. We’ll have to wait until 2015 to find out.
Note that the launch date is now set for 2025, far enough in the future to ensure no accountability. It will not take ten years to train the settlers, but a chosen few will get free room and board for several years until Mars One fizzles.
Even the vaunted mission to Mars of an automated explorer in 2018 is small potatoes compared to what NASA and others have done and, more importantly, compared to what Mars One has planned. The Mars One mission in maybe 2025 is much greater than any space program mission ever done before.
I give them credit for audacity, and as long as they can find excuses for pushing back their launch date, they may make it when technology catches up and the others (NASA, ESA, etc.) decide to join in. Such a joint undertaking will most certainly necessitate alteration of the mission parameters.
At this moment, a landing site on Mars has not been chosen as well it should not be. No one knows where on Mars sufficient water can be found to sustain a colony. The landing site must be near the equator to have enough solar power year-round. Water reserves will have to be a meter or so below the ground, and no Mars mission has dug that deeply.
The planned landing in 2018 is performing only publicity-stunt experiments. When will a dozen landers with the ability to dig down into the Martian regolith be landed at promising spots around the equator?
NRC Nixes Mars One
The United States National Research Council has just released a report (available through the Washington Post here: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/national/us-approach-to-human-space-exploration/1079/) on reaching Mars with human explorers.’
This 286-page report was commissioned by Congress and puts all Mars programs, not just Mars One, in the trash heap. It says that no commercial program for Mars exploration, let alone colonization, will succeed. It further suggests that NASA cannot do Mars alone. It must take on other partners such as the ESA and China, plus it must increase its budget. Current plans won’t work and even are unsafe.
The report suggests three possible paths to Mars, one of which involves establishing a Moon base. (The others involve asteroids or the moons of Mars.) This idea has been floated in this column a few times. Some argue that the Moon, with no atmosphere, is not a decent model for Mars with its difficult, thin atmosphere. They miss the point. We have lots of experience landing on Mars and will have much more before a human mission goes there. The Moon will allow us to learn more about living in a near vacuum (Mars has 1% of Earth’s atmospheric pressure), shielding from cosmic and solar radiation, and about low gravity, not microgravity as the ISS has. The Moon has about 16% of Earth’s gravity; Mars has 38%. The Moon will at least add to the two data points we currently on gravity and human health: 100% and 0% of Earth’s gravity. If 16% is not seriously harmful, then 38% should not be either.
I have not read through the report but must assume that it does not contemplate technology breakthroughs in the next decade. This is the wild card in going to Mars. Will we see better solar collectors, better batteries, better (as in magnetoplasmadynamics) propulsion systems, improved motors, and so on? Certain of these ideas could substantially alter the Mars equation.
Unfortunately, without any breakthroughs, the NRC probably is correct. Mars One would be doomed from the outset. NASA’s budget allocations are too small. (China is ready to spend lots more on space.) President Obama’s choice for an asteroid-oriented stepping stone to Mars will waste lots of resources unless the asteroids are the only goal, and Mars is just a sideshow. If we’re going to Mars, we should focus on that goal and avoid distractions.
Even so, the report would have us reaching Mars around 2050. Mars is difficult but not that difficult. The Cold War allowed us to spend enormous quantities of money to put men on the Moon. Today, space exploration is viewed by many as wasteful when we have so many people in poverty, undernourished, and undereducated.
We could do both, but it would require quite a reformation of our current relatively unregulated capitalism.
I skimmed through that report a few days ago when they made it public. As soon as I read the recommendation about establishing a Moon base, I couldn’t help but think of you Harry :)
Thanks for thinking of me, Don.
Elon Musk Joins Mars Quest
Elon Musk is known for Tesla cars and SpaceX as well as other ideas such as the hyperloop. Now, he has said that he will put people on Mars in 10-12 years (http://www.cnet.com/news/spacexs-elon-musk-hopes-to-put-humans-on-mars-in-10-years/).
Suddenly, Mars One doesn’t look so crazy anymore. While Musk has declared that we must colonize Mars, he is not claiming that his effort to put people on Mars by 2026 will be a colonization mission. He also has a strong track record of doing what he says he will do.
Ten years is a long time for technology these days, and no one can be certain that we won’t see advances that make colonizing Mars viable. No can be certain that we will either. Therein lies the problem.
Unlike Bas Lansdorp, Elon Musk is being careful in his predictions. He is allowing for the current trajectory of new technology development and not basing his plans on breakthroughs. While Lansdorp says that he’s using current technologies, there are aspects of colonizing Mars that must rely on innovations. The most significant of these appear to be in the area of energy storage and production.
A colony must have ample energy to be more than a high-tech cave with cold, thirsty, and calorie-poor living conditions. The cost of lifting sufficient of today’s batteries to Mars is just too great to imagine more than the minimum for sustaining life being sent. The same goes for solar arrays.
If we see an energy storage breakthrough and a significant decrease in the cost of lifting mass from Earth to space, then a Mars colony will have a fighting chance. These could happen soon enough for a 2024 or 2026 mission — or not.
Musk answered the question of why spend all of that money on Mars when Mars can return essentially nothing to Earth to pay for it. He points out that the human race must become multiplanetary to avoid extinction in the event of an Earth catastrophe. The sooner we start, the sooner we ensure our survival as a species.
A couple days ago a CBC interviewer was asking the organizer for the Great Pacific Race if he didn’t feel guilty for putting people in danger – namely the Coast Guard, for having to rescue some boats that the support crews were unable to get to (it was very rough)
He said ‘not at all’ – good man. I can’t imagine what sort of world it would be if we were all safe at home eating porridge and washing our hands fifteen times a day. Ooh, some vegemite in the porridge today!
There are still stupid stunts – racing the car down main street has (1) been done before and (2) ended up with innocent bystanders getting hurt. But exploration, challenging the human limits in every way, these are admirable, despite risk and sometimes tragedy.
Then the stuff that is something between stupid and admirable:
Hi Brett,
As that video suggests, every individual has different levels of danger they are willing to endure to accomplish something.
Lindberg was not the first to attempt the New York-Paris nonstop flight. Several others tried and died. What for? A cash prize — plus fame, lots of it. The prize prompted those people to make the attempt. The cost of trying may not have been fully covered by the prize. It was a sort of dare that some could not resist. You can imagine them saying, “I can do that!” and ignoring the potential dangers. Of course, they were interested in going down in history, and Lindberg did, but it’s unclear exactly how much becoming famous played in their calculations.
When the first Mars colonists lift off, the world will be a different place. However, people will be the same. Among a number of motivators, the “Spirit of St. Louis” will be included.
“Mars mission opens its doors to scientific community for 2018 lander.”
This is the headline of the latest Mars One press release. Mars One is soliciting bids for creating four “demonstration” payloads for this mission, the 2018 Mars One Lander. To generate maximal publicity, they are creating a competition for a university-created payload of up to 2 kg in mass.
To make some money, they are auctioning off two more payloads to the highest bidder. They are also announcing an “educational” payload, making a total of eight payloads planned for this mission.
These payloads are:
1. Water extraction (10 kg)
2. Soil acquisition (15 kg)
3. Thin film solar power demonstration (6 kg)
4. Camera system (5 kg)
5 & 6. Open for random proposals (2 kg each) for highest bidder
7. Educational payload (2 kg)
8. Winning university experiment (2 kg)
These add up to 44 kg of mass in payloads to which you must add various support systems. Proposals for the first four (the demonstration payloads) will be chosen based on a number of criteria, and those that are self-funding will have priority consideration. Smaller masses and power requirements also will receive greater consideration.
Payload 3 will provide power for all of the other payloads.
Payload 2 will provide soil for payload 1.
Payload 4 may be the proof of payload 1 by showing actual liquid water along with at least one additional test.
The university winner will be determined, after initial screening by Mars One, by a vote of the Mars One community.
You can see how cleverly this all is being put together to generate maximum publicity and revenue.
It’s been a long time coming, but chapter two of Martian Rhapsody is here! All of the chapters have been written now.
“U.A.E. plans Arab world’s first mission to Mars”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/07/16/u-a-e-plans-arab-worlds-first-mission-to-mars
They plan to be there by 2021. This is not a “Mars One” mission. It’s unmanned. Yet, the UAE has the funds. Would they partner with some other attempt to accomplish a manned mission?
Martian Rhapsody imagines a four-person manned mission in which one is a Muslim.
Many people have speculated that no single nation will be capable of doing Mars colonizing alone. Can nations get over their nationalistic feelings long enough to band together and guarantee the future of the human race?
“Does alien life require an ocean?”
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2014/0722/Does-alien-life-require-an-ocean
While Mars is mentioned in the many articles that have picked up on this item, the Mars angle is a bit obtuse. Because Mars probably had one or more oceans in its early history, it could have had life.
This analysis relates to current Mars because of the wide seasonal temperature swings there. However, we already knew about that.
I guess that Mars has become newsworthy these days and is used by journalists whenever they can.
Interesting, I love science fiction and have dreamed of eventual space colonization, but know I probably won’t see much progress in my lifetime. If I believed I would I might be trying to be an astronaut, but I don’t. As a mechanical engineer going for my PhD, my practical instincts are too strong. We make progress all the time but the risks and challenges are massive mountains that will take time to overcome. I for one think it was wise to wait a couple decades after the moon landing. We have had time to study the health of previous astronauts and learn of the array of problems that we didn’t dream of back then.
MarsOne’s plan will not work, that is for sure, but I think an idea like this could eventually if we tread carefully. Any premature disaster might push the time-frame of mars visits back decades.
Loved your breakdown of the combination of risks influencing chance of success in the comments, that is a concept of probability that the general reader might not understand. To reiterate, if you have 1000 risks and your chances of failure are only 0.1% then your chance of success is: 0.999^1000 = 0.368 or only 36.8%! You will probably fail and it is very likely you will!
For my view on the problems mentioned. Great research and work, some of the problems can be dealt with but probably not the way MarsOne vaguely hints at.
Problem 1: radiation
I also think the colony design of MarsOne is ludicrous. Having surface hab domes and inflatables covered by soil is just dumb. The best solution is to bury everything and have a passage entrance with a turn to minimize radiation. This is the largest and most obvious problem as you pointed out, otherwise everyone will be sterilized and have health problems down the road. burying also reduces hab risks based on dust storms and other factors. As mars is pretty dead geologically this would be a pretty permanent solution, and burying also will mitigate heat loss as well, the main energy drain. The deeper the better really. Assuming we’d have the power to do this based on solar energy IS viable, it will just take a long time, but why waste your solar? We have humans. So astronauts can live semi-permanently in the landing pod while the work is being done.
Problem 2: physical
Humans are versatile. Assuming they are still in decent shape after 8 months (could be if NASA’s exercise equipment continues on its current track). Note that to stop bone and muscle atrophy all you need is periodic exercise, maybe twice daily that match the accelerations normally experienced on earth. NASA is working on equipment that can do this for every muscle and bone. Spinning the thing, as you say is both impractical for a small space-ship and wouldn’t work unless it is a broad ring like a station.
Now, back to humans. Mars is mostly rock, I think if we could bring some shaped charges supplemented by old-fashioned hand-drills and pick-axes that shelter could be drilled. Miners made huge tunnels with nothing else back in the day. It will take time and occupy the inhabitants as they know digging underground will yield valuable research data and make the colony more permanent. You can search and find faults and porous rock to make the task far easier. Under even 10 meters of solid rock the risk of collapse of inflatables is nonexistent. And most meteorites will not penetrate that deep. Several problems nipped in the bud. Being inflatable allows the colonists to deflate them one-by-one for some maintenance on the inflatables if need-be as well.
Heating: the main problem will be more cost-effective the deeper you go, so this could be an ongoing project until the habs rest at even 50 meters deep with solar-powered radiative-heating to supplement. It’d be doable.
Problem 2: power
I think the solar panels could work, you’d have to haul it all out there but it would work when the sun is up quite well and the colonists would obviously tend them and sweep them off daily. Redundancies in the grid would ensure that meteriorite damage would not cripple the grid of course. During the day, given enough sq meters, you’d have an excess of power and use the power for big tasks. You’d time the labor to coincide with the peaks and get a lot done on good sun days.
Obviously some battery system is needed (which will wear out). This is the main problem with solar even here and the reason why it is not viable for more than a fraction of our grid here on earth. For a small colony, enough batteries could be shipped out, but they would fail eventually and batteries are notoriously hard to recycle. So they would probably need double the normal number as backups, bury them deep so nothing could happen to them, and ship in new ones every decade otherwise the colony would die. This would be unacceptable even if such excellent batteries existed. Luckily electric cars are also pioneering this field. If this project is held of for another 20 years I’m guessing battery technology will be far better. In the meantime I think relying purely on solar is dumb. For many reasons. I’m a mechanical engineer, I’ve studied grids, and you need an on/off power source to boot up for the inevitable times when the skies are darkened by dust-storms–or who knows what. We usually use coal and natural gas for this currently. Nuclear works but is not as on/off and takes a while to boot up and shut down. Obviously the former are out of the question unless we find vast carbon reserves somewhere there, so nuclear is the ONLY viable option as a backup. If I were on the team I’d also ship some old-fashioned human-powered equipment. Forget high-tech, we need cranks and bicycles, gears and pulleys. Anything that reduces the need for electricity. We’d bring back the pre-industrial way of doing things before power did our work for us and would simultaneously stave of boredom and give a sense of purpose.
Some day, this could work, humans can act as the backup given enough tools and human-powered redundancies. But it won’t be on Mars-One’s time frame, that’s for sure.
Hi Dan.
Thank you for joining the discussion. You make many good points. When I began this process, I did a similar, but clearly not identical analysis. Since then, I’ve learned much more.
Let’s take your issues in order. Settlers must mine water to replace the inevitable losses. They MUST recycle. Otherwise, it’s hardly “self-sustaining.”
CO2 must be removed, or the settlers die. The best approach appears to be electrochemical right now, but that could change. Some sort of loop that freezes it out of the air might work if run when temperatures are below -150°C but would have real engineering problems with water vapor gumming up the works or being lost. I have assumed that a decent solution can be found in 5-6 years, giving enough time to implement.
Oxygen must be provided too, in equal quantity to CO2 to remove. Electrolysis may fix that problem halfway. You still must convert H2O to O2.
Skipping around — nuclear power will eventually be absolutely required — unless fusion can be done with low-mass equipment by then. Initially, solar can work. The primary problem with solar is the large battery mass required. Without a breakthrough, e.g. supercapacitors, the cost of lifting enough batteries to Mars may stall any coloni\zation efforts indefinitely. Nuclear power will fix this problem. Just put the power plant on the other side of a hill.
I would see plants being grown with Aeroponics. Human waste should be used in various ways, especially extracting water and nutrients such as potassium, nitrogen, and phosphorus.
LEDs are efficient, and would only be used in red and blue wavelengths to save power. Solar cells can get around 20% efficiency today, but Mars has less strong sunlight and lots of dust in the air. The first settlers will have to have a huge array and keep it clear of dust. I haven’t run the numbers here, but certainly you can grow plants, especially if they’re designed specifically for this task. New science is helping already to customize plants for purpose even with out GM.
Later settlements, after the first two years, can add new features and technology.
You would not be able to make solar cells on Mars for a very long time unless someone makes a 3D printer that can do it directly from Martian regolith — not likely!
Psychology is very serious. The first settlers must bond, must have lived in isolation already and proven their ability to do so, and must have great tolerance for ennui. After the first few weeks or months, Mars will be boring, boring, boring (unless an accident livens things up and maybe kills them all). The hope of the second mission must keep them going. All settlers must have the hope of terraforming Mars.
The initial Martians cannot go underground. It just requires too much energy. Their outdoor (space) suits will not tolerate the amount of labor required to do it by hand. Once sufficient energy resources, equipment, and people have arrived, underground is an option. Certainly, some underground space should be created for shelter from solar flares.
The radiation isn’t as bad as everyone says. Three years of space equals a lifetime on Earth. Mars shields 50% of the cosmic and solar radiation, meaning that you get a lifetime Terran dose in six years. Most of that comes from overhead because the thin air does block some from near the horizon.
The cheapest means for radiation shielding is just to heap up regolith. With the automated rovers working on it, that should take only a few months, only a small fraction of the six-year window. A bigger problem is frequent EVAs. They have no shielding then. Their suits will exacerbate the radiation issues. Therefore, as much as possible must be done by remote control. The settlers will spend lots of time inside being bored, not that the outdoors is very exciting without any plants or animals.
New propulsion technology is already being tested that could reduce Earth-Mars transit time from 8 months to 4 months or even just over one month. Atrophy during travel should not be a problem for Earth-to-Mars due to lower gravity on Mars. The reverse is not true and could be serious for someone returning.
In summary, Mars colonization has one serious problem, whether we do it now or in 50 years: gravity. We just do not know the impact of 38% gravity on humans. We can readily test it on plants but not animals today.
Mars One has two serious problems. The first is lack of detailed design. The design for such a mission consists of thousands of pieces. So far, they’re just playing with landing a small device on Mars with really weird RFPs and such. Even if successful, this would represent less than 1% of what they must do to put people on Mars and an even smaller percentage of what must be done for them to survive indefinitely.
The second problem is financing. Even if they manage to raise enough money for landing settlers on Mars, these settlers cannot survive mentally or physically without further missions. Those will take even more money. I see nothing that allows enough ongoing funding to make even their modest goal of twenty people on Mars.
Mars can be done and done in the “near future.” If that is to happen, we cannot expect it to be from a sideshow such as Mars One. It will take global cooperation to get humans on Mars permanently.
Despite all of above, I have found it fun to speculate as fiction about how the Mars One project, with many modifications, could take place. As I now have a good science fiction author helping me, I may (or may not) be able to whip my novel or novella into shape.
If we can solve every engineering problem and if gravity does not fatally harm the colonists, then I give a fully funded Mars colonization effort somewhere in the 2030s about a 70% chance of success. Many explorers have set out with less hope of survival.
Of course technology could progress more rapidly and surprise me. Alternatively, some of the many problems may remain intractable at that time. We get to wait and see while we spend lots of computer bits discussing these things.
Interesting, I was focusing on the technology problems and just assumed 38% gravity would be fine and people would just be weaker on average. That is a really important consideration before going there! If it is a problem some sort of gyroscopic exercise machine may be needed to keep people healthy which would be another complication.
I like your idea of starting with RTG’s for backup and transitioning over time. It looks like a good, solid technology. I know that usually thermocouples are very inefficient but I guess in the realm of radioactive decay you’ve got a lot of extra energy to waste. The best thermal systems incorporate a liquid medium to absorb maximal thermal energy and a phase change and turbine array to capture the mechanical work of the expansion. However, this would require even more water unfortunately, so you are right that nuclear generators like this will take a long time to assemble on mars.
I had no idea the radiation was that low! I mean that’s not great, but I assumed the radiation was lethal in months in space, not just a lifetime recommended dose. (assumed space stations had good shielding) That does give some room to work and a nicer time-frame upon landing I guess.
Aeroponics is an interesting idea, why did you pick it for the novella? Does it have lower water/nutrient requirements?
thanks! Found your chapter 1&2, I will try to read them after work. Thanks for the discussion! I am also excited to see where technology goes over the next 20 years. I’d love to see mars be viable one day.
Hi Dan,
It’s great to have such an engaged person to exchange ideas with. I’ve finally found a real writer to help me with my book — a Hugo award winner too. Those first two chapters will be considerably revised in the near future. If you can get past the writing of a tyro and see the actual story unfolding, that will be great.
The solar concentration technology sounds wonderful. I see lots of development effort before they could be used on Mars — or even on Earth at scale. Whether it will go to Mars depends on the time of the Mars missions and the time it takes to develop, commercialize, and reduce the mass of concentration systems. It may be easier to use new reactor technology to ship a small nuclear reactor to Mars. You’d gain maybe 20 years to figure out solar concentration technology.
That makes it about 35 years from now, and absolutely anything is possible by then. I’d expect trips to Mars could, with optimal Mars-Earth positioning, to take a month or less. I’d expect 3D printing to do lots of things we can only imagine now. I’d expect medical diagnosis to be quick, cheap, and accurate. And so it goes.
The pioneers must put up with substandard living conditions. It’s always been that way. For those who follow, the new world is wide open. That expression, “the new world,” will take on a whole new meaning in the near future. It’s exciting.
The radiation issues are serious, just not critical in the short run — except for solar flares. In time, plant DNA damage will reduce viability of the seeds for the next generation of crops. In time, cancer rates will skyrocket among settlers. Within a year of arrival, preferably less, the settlers must have decent radiation shielding.
BTW, there is no shielding on spaceships. Turns out that metal just amplifies the impact of cosmic rays on human bodies. An unaltered cosmic ray is likely to pass through a body without interaction. It’s more likely to encounter a metal nucleus in solid metal and create a massive shower of energetic particles that are very likely to interact with bodies and damage them.
Putting water storage at the top of Mars habitat modules will help considerably. Hydrogen atoms are great at reducing cosmic ray problems because most cosmic rays are hydrogen nuclei. If you can find lots of water on Mars, then it’s not hard to have a large space at the top of each module to hold the water shield.
For an inflatable module, heaping up regolith makes sense if you can get it done in a few months with those relatively weak rovers. You have to dig for water anyway. Why not use the surface material instead of just moving it somewhere else?
Have some fun doing calculations. How much air pressure is necessary to hold up three meters of regolith on Mars? What is the partial pressure of oxygen in our highest cities? (Three meters of regolith should be adequate to reduce cosmic ray levels to, for example., those in Denver.
Thanks Dr. Keller! I just read your bio and some of your other articles. Interesting stuff. My advisor got her PhD at Berkely, but other than that most of my connections are on the East Coast. I’m a Johns Hopkins Mechanical Engineering student and my PhD is in Biomechanics–we are developing models and imaging techniques/algorithms to study the development of glaucoma and the soft tissues of the human eye. Brand new to research, but excited and trying to find my field. I want it to be somewhere developmental and am excited about alternative technologies and the biomedical engineering fields. An avid science-fiction reader too and follow space technologies pretty closely. :)
Thanks for your interesting info on radiation. I have only given it a cursory study in my Heat Transfer class, but that didn’t go far beyond calculating view factors and intensities. I have zero experience with nuclear theory though general physics covered the basics. regolith piling should definitely be done anyway as the easiest short-term solution to shield from radiation. I definitely agree with you on that now, though 3 meters is quite a lot to support pressure-wise. I’d probably not want to rely on purely inflatables and put in a solid framing to bear the loadings. Otherwise rupture is likely with that much weight. That’s interesting that metal amplifies cosmic rays. I guess that’s due to the greater density and size of nuclei? I had heard microwave radiation was completely blocked by metal, but I’m guessing this stuff that it amplifies is far higher energy. Are there any solid shielding methods that they’ve developed? (I’ll look into it myself as well). The only things I’ve seen mentioned in the discussion is water-based or liquid hydrogen, which are both far more complex due to containment issues.
I am still unsure why you think labor will be so limited in the pressure suits. Is it really that easy to break them, that wielding a lightweight shovel, pick, or winch would cause perforation? I understand you don’t want to be completely careless while working, but I thought fabric technology was pretty good with nanotechnology and composite improvements and they could always double up or use gloves as well. Though martian landscape may be sharper and more dangerous than I imagined. Your story’s 2nd chapter certainly pictured it so.
Hi Dan,
That’s good thinking.
The inflatables would certainly have some ribbing underneath to maintain shape and provide backup support.
I’ve done the math. It turns out that if you use the density of dry sand, then the pressure of three meters of it is equal to roughly 1/6 atm, which is right on the money for what the pressure of a pure oxygen atmosphere could be in the hab.
NASA does not use 160 millibar (or 200 millibar) O2 in its spacecraft because of the bends. Yes, it’s like diving. On Earth, you have the high pressure. To go to space, you’d have to spend a long time adapting to the lower pressure to avoid the bends. So, they simply make the air in space like that on Earth. Space suits, so I’m told, are different and do use low-pressure pure oxygen. Space walks cannot be done at the drop of a hat if that’s true.
On Mars, everything sent there must be as light as possible. Martian chairs would collapse on Earth. The habitat modules would require more reinforcement were the pressure inside higher. You save lots of mass with lower pressures. You also can pop in and out of your Mars suits in a jiffy.
The best material so far for cosmic ray shielding is hydrocarbon polymers. Water is close. Cosmic rays are not rays at all but rather super high-energy protons. Their energy is well beyond gamma rays. After all, they are traveling almost as fast and have rest mass too. Shielding material must absorb the debris from cosmic ray collisions. That shotgun shower of particles from the first collision with a heavy nucleus cascades as the daughter particles hit more nuclei. Eventually, the particles have lost enough energy to be absorbed with only heat as the outcome (and some radioactive nuclei).
The problem with extended work in Mars suits is that no material is immune from fatigue, chafing, and wear. Shoveling would be a worst-case activity. Much better to operate a digging machine. Clearly, less wear and tear would result.
Perhaps, someone will invent self-healing materials that will stand up to the pressure. I would expect Martians to perform safety checks on those suits regularly and to repair any signs of wear before they get out of hand. Even so, the fatal results of a breach in the suit would mean that they would be used as gently as possible. Heavy labor seems like a foolish thing to do unless lives depend upon it.
New technologies for space suits will use pressure wrap in place of pressurization. I’m not sure exactly how much benefit that will provide in some areas, but it would mean that a tiny tear would only cause blood blisters, frostbite, and the like. An abrasion-resistant outer layer would probably be a good idea on top of some insulation. The head and hands would probably have to have alternate technologies. The head would almost certainly be in a hard helmet. Hands may have to be pressurized unless the pressure wrap works at very small sizes and does not restrict movement. All must be heated as well.
As far as the pshycological problems:
1. Annoyances: Stress and annoyance is magnified when you are around the same people all the time. Little things become mountains. Fights happen. This is why the group must be tight-knit and cohesive enough.
2. Boredom: a big problem. MarsOne mentions entertainment and downloads from earth, allowing movies, maybe even simple games, and following some things on the internet. I suspect this will all get boring over time. Just look at the vast amount of bored kids that have live streaming at their fingertips? I best way to stave of boredom is labor and purpose. This is the main problem of MarsOne in my opinion. All the excitement is about getting there, but if there isn’t anything important to do those people will be bored out of their minds. I, as an engineer, know for a fact that I could live anywhere if I was regularly working and building things, this is what I love. My dream is to buy a plot of land out in the woods somewhere and build everything: the house, the gardens, a spring-house, design old-fashioned sustainable systems. All this would be fun for colonists on mars which is why it is more important to ship equipment to work with. The point shouldn’t be to minimize the human labor, but to maximize it. Give ppl a way to directly work to speed up the process of things like heating, food generation, etc. and their life there will have purpose. Better yet, engineer a system by which they can work to make their lives better and expand their colony and it will become a vision. Currently MarsOne just kinda slaps them there with nothing to do but wait around–this is dumb.
When you consider living as the first pioneers on Mars, realize that you’ll be a high-tech caveman (or woman). You may have lots of high-tech toys, but the realities of energy, air, food, and water will intrude and show you that you’re barely subsisting. Might be great if you like to write or draw, but for building things, not so much.
Hmmm, maybe so. I was envisioning expanding and securing life as being fun–I’ve always been romantically attracted to the idea of the day-to-day challenge of survival and betterment that must have faced the early pioneers. This rosy-glassed view no doubt has it’s flaws and things it overlooks though. After reading your story I realize without trees, plants, or animals, doing much of anything productive is difficult, as the tools needed to improve life would need to be technological and limited to what you brought. I thought digging storage and colony extensions underground might be fun though. It’d be long, but worth it in the long run as time went on.
LOL!
I have a great job opportunity with a local construction company for those who love digging holes. No degree required. Minimum wage. No benefits.
Having done lots of digging in my life, I can say that it stays interesting for a very short time. When building my house, the excavator had dug the trenches for the foundation and forgot to expand one where the 6’x10′ fireplace would sit. I discovered this the day before concrete would be poured. I put on my gloves and hat and grabbed my shovel. As I recall, there were three yards to move by hand by one person (me) in one day. I was young and quite motivated. It was August, hot, and humid in the Northeast (with plenty of bugs).
Manual excavation of sufficient volume for living by hand would be a horrendous undertaking. Doing that inside of suits that feel like a Turkish bath and limit mobility would make it worse. Knowing that one slip will kill you would make it unbearable to me. You’d have to get up every day for weeks on end with that in front of you. There may be some who could do that. Would they also be the ones with the science, engineering, and leadership talents necessary for colonizing Mars?
The sages back on Earth should have plenty of science and plenty of preparation for the arrival of the next settlers. There’s always videos and holo-pong. The settlers can play bridge or Scrabble until the cards and tiles are worn out.
The entire settlement will settle into a routine after some months. That routine will become monotonous. Only the hope of the next arrivals and the hope of someday terraforming Mars will keep them going. If either is lost, so is our entire species’ hope of expanding to the planets and stars.
It will be crucial that the mission controllers on Earth work ceaselessly to provide hope to the settlers. Mars will be depressing at first — after the initial rush of excitement. A few supply modules and four people will never be able to create a self-sustaining colony there. It’s unclear to me that even 20 people and a score of modules will be adequate, but that’s what Mars One plans. They’d have to pull some remarkable technology (and huge amounts of money) out of their hats to accomplish that!
Harry, the image of a handful of people crammed into a small space on a desolate, inhospitable planet for the rest of their lives is disconcerting, but it may not be the reality. There’s still quite a bit of time before the Mars One (M1) manned launch, and as the reality draws near — assuming that it does — the excitement will be palpable the world over. Historically, the excitement factor has fueled investment in exploration, research, development, innovation, invention. Mars will be no different. Every successful threshold crossed in the project’s preparation will ramp up the excitement. This means that M1 won’t be the lone project for long. Others will quickly follow, and soon they may take the lead, perhaps dwarfing M1. With additional competition will come an acceleration in the development of technology geared to Mars settlement. Cost and common issues will necessitate shared standards and resources so the projects will look for ways to work in concert. M1 will serve as a prototype for efforts dominated by the private sector — at least in the early going — governments being too unwieldy to keep up with the pace. The orbiting space station supported by an international effort will likely serve as a model for collaboration, and the Mars colony may grow exponentially as a result of a growing number of “partners” climbing aboard. With every breakthrough, the excitement factor will spread like wildfire, and in time the transformation of Mars into a habitable new world will become less a pipe dream and more a dream come true. Never under estimate the power of dreams. Where there’s a dream, there’s a way.
Mars is too big for even the largest nations to do it alone. Certainly Mars One is too small to do it alone. I get that they expect to be some sort of catalyst, but they have to overcome the credibility issue. People have to believe before they will invest time, money, and their selves.
The Mars One people appear to have a roadmap, one that is being adjusted as the realities present themselves. Getting applicants and winnowing them is too easy to impress the big players. The mission to Mars with a lander is bigger but not even close to what some nations already are doing.
Unless Mars One has a serious partner that is contributing resources and not just getting paid, or unless Mars One has a big accomplishment, they will be relegated to the fate of cold fusion.
Someday, someone will rally the world around a Mars colonization mission. It will happen. A decade or so later, travel to Mars will become accessible due to technology improvements, both lifting to Earth orbit and shuttling to Mars. The time window for travel to Mars will open wider as faster shuttles are created.
Traffic in goods between Earth and Mars will be slow to develop, except for those that can be sent electronically.
There is one thing that could accelerate the pace of colonization enormously. That is the discovery that 38% gravity improves human health and lifespan. Because it could go the other way, don’t hold your breath.
Even if 38% gravity is unhealthy, genetic engineering could adjust humans to be healthy on Mars. Those same genetic changes may make life on Earth a poor choice. Then, we’d have two separate races of human beings: Earthlings and Martians. Now, that would be strange indeed.
The spin-offs in modifying/repairing our own planet alone make this a worthwhile laboratory. It is evident there are more than enough qualified people willing to take the risks involved.
If the techniques developed on Mars lead to ways of reversing desertification on Earth – or ways of making deserts (including polar deserts) productive then we have a quarter of a planet right here to work on.
I believe the technology exists to do much more than we are with the Earth’s harsh ecosystems – and to enhance, rather than degrade quality of climate and biodiversity. Mars makes an excellent poster-child: if it can be accomplished there, maybe some individuals and corporations will be encouraged to try it here.
Building with native materials, and with materials that can be derived from biological processes has to be the way of the future – mining has to change, to become unobtrusive; mined hydrocarbons are at best a stepping stone and cannot be relied on for the long term, even if that is much longer than the most negative prognostications.
Mars is a laboratory that offers no shortcuts, no massaging of the data, no political hype – if it doesn’t work, you’re dead. Can’t get much more decisive than that.
I do worry that the legal structures involved are becoming too complicated to hold charlatans and confidence artists to account. Failure will put enormous pressure to create international laws and courts that will erode national laws and sovereignty.
There was some pressure to do this in the last decade, at least on humanitarian grounds and to control weapons of mass destruction; however, it is safe to say that present attitudes in Russia, China and the US are much more laissez faire if not completely opposed to international structures being given such power, at least under the guise of the UN and its associated rogue states and NGOs.
Don’t be surprised, however, if there appears to be any chance of success that international law will soon come into place restricting such development – although I think it will be some time, if ever, that Martian territory seems relevant in economic terms to the nations of Earth.
If the idea of settling Mars is still science fiction, the idea that Mars or any lump of rock and ice will be independent is, for the foreseeable future, fantasy.
Brett, you always have something interesting to contribute.
I’m not so pessimistic about Mars but am certainly concerned about Earth.
Given the distance and cost of travel, anyone on Mars will be quite independent with respect to any sort of police action. The primary threat is withholding supplies, preventing future missions necessary to ensure the transition to self-sufficiency.
Because the flights are done in public, that’s not too likely. As long as our Martians aren’t extremely revolutionary, public pressure will keep up the supplies. If the first settlement doesn’t collapse and die, more will follow. International treaty prevents any nation from claiming Mars as its own.
In time, Mars will become completely self-sufficient assuming no fatal flaw that prevents settlement at all.
Science and popular media will help to fund Mars programs and keep up popular support. Will Mars be a laboratory for Earth? That remains to be seen. It’s just so different.
OTOH, the incredible amount of technology necessary to make colonies on Mars guarantees that something good will come of it for Earth. Throw enough darts at the board, and you will hit a bull’s eye.
As for the Earth itself. We have raped it. We destroyed yet unnumbered species as we spread around the globe; so many disappeared just like the dodo.
If you’d like a bit of optimism, I can recommend “Abundance” by the head of the XPRIZE Foundation, Peter Diamantis. While he oversells some of the items, the overall spirit is pretty much correct. We’ll have a rocky road for a while, but technological innovation can fix essentially a\ll of our problems. For me, the issue is one of whether deterioration reaches the tipping point before innovation stops it. Peter says, “Yes.” I say, “Maybe.” It won’t be easy, but it is possible.
The possibility is why I am using my own talents to improve science education around the world. I must do what I can to contribute to the solution and not just sit around and bemoan our circumstances.
I think that educating every person will slowly but surely solve every problem if we can just survive long enough. Name a problem, and I’ll explain how education can theoretically solve it. I started 15 years ago, but few were ready to consider my rather radical approach. Now, it’s received quite readily.
For food, water, and oxygen:
all trace amounts at mars. MarsOne talks about doing it all without recycling which is retarded. The more you process the surrounding soil the farther you have to go to get more. Eventually your are talking walking a mile just to haul soil back. Stupid. I think the capability should be there, but it should be portable, with a driveable rover and only used to supplement the losses over time. We need a recycleable system for the water especially (this is the easiest and NASA is working on retrieving water from human waste). The carbon dioxide we could just vent as they say. The atmosphere is already mostly CO2 so there’s no loss, but I’d definately want to suck the water, heat, and oxygen out before venting. Honestly it might be better to not try, not sure, I haven’t studied filtering technologies.
So there’s oxygen and water. We need recycling for sustainability and those systems will need power that humans cannot provide. Therefore solar. Plants would supplement the conversion of CO2 and provide food, but honestly, you’d need a ton of plants, way more than would fit in a hab dome. Plants can’t make photosynthesis near the speed we metabolize, and we’d need a huge are to grow enough, so mechanical systems are needed and they are all very energy intensive from what I know.
This is the main problem with plants, the vast amount required to feed and photosynthesize, not, in my opinion, what you mentioned about them living. They would live fine. You have human waste to feed them, which plants love, but you’d probably want to filter some of the uric acid before dumping it on them. You should research hydroponics. We already are developing factory-grown plants in efficient spaces away from sunlight. The main problem will be power for the LEDs, which will require a much larger solar grid, the plants can have the used, dirty water coming after human use and we can retrieve some clean water from their respiration. I think the constant LEDs will be too big of an energy drain but should be there for a backup when there is no sun. My reason: solar panels are at best 12.5% efficient. Whereas solar concentrators are near 100%. My proposal for the plants is to bring healthy seeds in shielded containers and wait until space underground has been excavated. Then plant them. Solar concentrators can be designed using optic cables for transporting light after collection by mirrors, whereby light can be transported through cables and shine on the plants in a concentrated form underground. This will require a lot of collectors, but would theoretically work. During dark times other than the night (Which plants are already used too) say, a two-week dust-storm the backup LEDs can come into play using the backup generators to keep the plants alive. We already have LEDs that are tuned to grow plants. Now forget efficient plants and hybrids. You can grow whatever in near-earth conditions. The problem will be scale as I said. Keeping a few plants alive, or even a roomful would be quite doable and reproduceable. But it wouldn’t be near enough to eat unless you had a massive farm and massive number of solar collectors and concentrators. Such a system is robust once in place and easy to tend, but would cost billions to transport. Luckily, collectors are mainly glassy (silicon) components which tend to exist in large quantities within rock and sand. If we could just get it hot enough such things would be manufacturable some day on mars and are far simpler than photovoltaic panels and could support many, many plants. Again, this will take a long time, but is doable.
Sorry to type so much, just excited about this topic! Been researching all day!
To reiterate, plants need a near-earth concentration of solar energy, but sunlight intensity decays as a power of 3 with distance, as it is spreading out in 3 dimensions. So mars effectively, has only 30-40% the sunlight intensity of earth. We could engineer other plants, a long process, but my solution as a humble engineer is to concentrate it back to 100% of earth levels. You can’t stick them out exposed to real sun anyway otherwise the radiation will kill them, so glass in its current form is out of the question. We have LEDs that mimic sunlight and getting more energy efficient, but why convert sunlight into electricity, then electricity back into light? That’s too complex for anything but the bad times! So that’s why a solar concentrator is the way to go. The technology to do this, collect light, concentrate it, and carry it in optic cables already exists and has been patented by a Canadian entrepreneur. It would be perfect. You’d just need about 60% more square footage of collector than you had plants and you’d have converted martian sunlight to earth levels.
Hi Dan,
Thanks for continuing the conversation. Actually, sunlight spreads out in a spherical surface that decreases as the area, in other words the inverse square rather than cube of distance. That’s bad enough. Please don’t make it worse. :-)
The sunlight could be as strong near the equator as on Earth at higher latitudes were it not for the omnipresent dust.
I cannot prove this, but I suspect that it’s easier to get photovoltaics to power LEDs than to pipe light in, despite the losses. You just have to have enough area. It’s certainly more flexible. It’s easy to light up many levels of plants. Once you get nuclear power, switching and scaling up is easy as pie.
Settlers must have reliable backup. For reasons of efficiency, expense, and mass, I have my settlers using RTGs for heat and for backup. Mars One is not going that way.
Right, it’s area, oops! I actually had the sneaking suspicion I was wrong typing that, heat transfer knowledge from undergrad days. ;)
Well LEDs and flexible photovoltaics is the way NASA is going with their space garden so there is probably a reason. I’ve given the idea of solar concentration some thought though and I’m pretty sure it could be turned into cells and panels as well. You’d need an appropriate lens or prism to bend the light inward with an appropriate outer and inner coating and angle to create total internal reflection, then it will just bounce around until it gets an angle that carries it into the optic cable. An array of these kinds of micro-lenses could be easily modularized to manufacture a solar concentrator panel. This is actually the principle of concentration in lasers so it’s already proven. However, I also have no way of knowing if it will be better once all the losses are factored in, though I hope NASA pursues the idea as I am convinced it could be better. Optic cable solar concentration is pretty new.
I have found your novella and am looking forward to reading it after work today.
Dan,
Send me your email address (see my profile), and I’ll send you updated chapters.
Mars is a great hope with a land area equal to that of the Earth. It’s close enough that future trips will take around the time it took to get from London to Boston in colonial times, and with similar risk.
Only terraforming will make Mars a viable target for colonization long-term. Most people do not understand that you don’t have to have 70% nitrogen in the atmosphere. It’s that 21% oxygen that makes the difference. Pure oxygen at 20% of atmospheric pressure works just fine and won’t cause fires. My estimates suggest that 670 million metric tons of oxygen will do the trick (about 15% of one atmosphere) to make Mars habitable for people. That’s thin and some may get altitude disease.
You won’t be able to boil an egg. Boiling water will be at hot tap water temperature. OTOH, there’s no reason to have eggs on Mars and lots not to.
The soil is as toxic as bleach, but there’s a benefit in that as the book suggests.
Ever since 1492, “The New World” meant the Americas. Now, that phrase can mean something different and more accurate.
To Dan:
Interesting background and work you are doing.
Through my time as science club adviser at Newton North High School, I met some remarkable people. They went to MIT, Brown, and Johns Hopkins for the most part. One did a PhD in biomechanical engineering after an MIT ME degree. He is now a partner in the company that just did the design for the new Google phone (project Ara, you may have heard of it). That degree took seven years due to the unfortunate selection of an adviser.
I hope that your degree goes faster and that you find the career that most fulfills you afterward. Best part of getting a doctorate is that they can’t take it away from you. You have it for the rest of your life. Enjoy!
Reality check. No one is going to Mars. So don’t be throwing the earth under the bus even though the earth is under the bus already. And if you want to spend that kind of $$$ fix some of the problems that exist right here on earth.
We will go back to the Moon and to Mars. It’s only a matter of when, not whether. There’s also the how. I’m not sanguine about Mars One as the mode. NASA might or might not make it. Someone will and will do so before 2050.
We will fix much of what’s wrong here with technological innovation. Money will be less important if the thinking is good enough.
The money to go to Mars is large but not overwhelming. I’m taking a wait-and-see approach to all of this, while commenting from the sidelines. I am surely not going to Mars myself in my lifetime.
Money.
Let’s be clear here. Many have remarked on the cost of a Mars mission and how the money can better be used elsewhere.
I could make many different responses to this criticism. For example, exactly what is the tangible benefit of all of the football programs in the US? Add up just the media money spent on football each year to get a huge sum that could readily put us on Mars. BTW, joy is not a tangible benefit.
I might point out that the Apollo program ran into the same criticism. The benefits were far ranging. They included injecting money into the US economy. We could use more of that today.
The future of mankind. This one is a bit ethereal. Someday, our planet may become uninhabitable due to meteor strike, climate catastrophe, or simply too many people using too much of our resources. Having another planet available means that all of our eggs are not in one basket.
Spin-offs of research also are cited as benefits of going to Mars. Personally, I don’t consider Tang much of a benefit of the Apollo program, but some other government-funded research has added to our science and technology. For me, this isn’t the big item that some make it out to be.
In the end, we will go because it’s there (as in why climb a mountain) and because we can. There’s something in the human spirit that insists on exploring and breaking barriers, to finding out more and delving into nature’s deepest secrets. OTOH, there are conservative personalities who object to these things.
Some people genuinely prefer things as they are. Change is unsettling. Others are never satisfied. I understand both tendencies. Read history. You’ll find examples to support both sides, but the bottom line always turns out to be that change is good for the future.
Today, we sit on a planet buffeted by unparalleled change. Perhaps, we changed too much too fast. Yet, we cannot halt change, nor can we halt its acceleration. People on Mars will become possible because of advances in technology. Therefore, people on Mars will happen.
No amount of hand-wringing will change this simple fact. You might as well have tried to stop Marco Polo or Columbus or Magellan or NASA with its Moon program. Change and times conspire to create events.
See you on Mars! (Not really — but we will see someone there before mid-century.)
People who are not invested in space exploration love to criticize the cost of space exploration. The truth is that currently the US government spends 0.5% of its total tax revenue on NASA programs. Thats about 17 Billion dollars and while that seems like a stunning amount, think about the previous sentence…that is just one half of one percent of what the US government spends every year. 640 Billion goes to our armed forces and while we need those. If you trimmed just 1% off the military budget and gave it to NASA you would be quadrupling NASA’s funds.
As Harry pointed out, we spend far more on totally frivolous programs like sports. and Video games and cosmetics. The year that they ended the Apollo program(due to budget costs) that same year Woman in the US spent the same amount on Makeup products.
Necessity is the mother of invention, if we had no investment in exploring space, we would have no satellites or cellphones or Tang or Velcro.
personally I could not live without the last two.
sorry for the typo in my last post. I mentioned donating 1% of the Military budget, I meant to say 10%.
Either way, the point is well taken. We were spending a nickel on every budget dollar to get to the Moon. Now, we are spending less than a penny for space. Space isn’t cheap.
Nevertheless, India showed us that it doesn’t have to be THIS expensive. They now have a satellite orbiting Mars at 1/10 the cost of NASA’s satellites (more or less — forget exact numbers).
LEO activities pioneered by NASA have produced GPS, satellite TV, on-site news coverage of the middle East, and much more. They’ve also produced spy satellites and the like.
As I keep repeating, the question is not whether we go to Mars but rather when and how.
Two recent developments make going to Mars a certainty in ten years, give or take a few. One is fusion power, announced by Lockheed. With a 2×3-meter fusion generator of 100 MW capacity in five years, we have the power both on the Mars shuttle and on Mars itself.
MPD (magnetoplasmadynamic) propulsion can get us to Mars in about a month. This technology is nearly ready as well. Using a fusion generator to power it means that we can do it all. It’s only a matter of money.
Even the money part will decline. Elon Musk and Alan Bond (odd how both have 4-letter first and last names) have plans to make LEO much less expensive. Fusion and MPD will take a shuttle out of LEO to Mars readily.
I said that it’s a matter of when and how. It’s also a matter of who and why. (The where and what certainly are known.) Will it be NASA or ESA or Mars One (fat chance!) or some consortium that we don’t even have today?
The why part is what we’re debating in this thread. None of the answers will cure poverty or cancer. They might in some oblique fashion help both somewhat, but that’s not why.
Robert Kennedy uttered a quote long ago. I remember when it first played on television. He said (as I recall), “Some see things as they are and ask why? Others see things as they might be and ask why not?”
Poverty. Disease. Hunger. War. Crime. The list of things as they are goes on and includes: Mankind stuck on Earth forever.
Now, think of things as they might be without any of these things anymore. Do I think that Mars is more important than curing cancer or eliminating poverty? Not a bit. However, not every person on Earth is useful for cancer or poverty cures. Some have different skills. We must fix all of the above and more. We cannot do them one at a time because that’s not how it works. Some people are good at medical research. Some are good at engineering space travel.
It’s just a matter of resource allocation. One of those resources is people. Another is money. If you accept that the US must remain viable in space, then you allocate some money for that. Hopefully, you find even more money for cancer and poverty.
Opening up Mars for permanent human settlement will be one of the greatest accomplishments of humans ever. Only those other few items I listed above can vie for first place. No more hunger anywhere in the world (without total annihilation of humanity) would eclipse it in the short run. So would ending cancer. In the very long run of a century or more only longevity could come close to settling Mars.
I admit that there’s no rush. Mars has been sitting there for over four billion years. It can wait. Humans have been here for 100 thousand or more years, depending on how you measure that. At some point, technology will make it easy enough to go (not at all “easy” of course), and we will go.
Looking at the pace of technology, I see that happening sooner than many, within a decade, but only if investments are made toward that end today. Saying that we should use the money for something else is very nice and politically correct, but it ignores how the real world works. The first settlement on Mars may well be Chinese if we dither. It should be a joint, concerted effort of a number of players. Mars One has the right idea in this regard even if they don’t have a plausible path to funding it. Get away from international rivalries, and use the best from anywhere and everywhere.
Fusion and MPD may well put Mars in the range of fund raising capabilities of even Mars One, although I doubt it. However, it will make the cost much lower than the tens of billions of dollars that some have estimated.
I am putting the finishing touches on Martian Rhapsody now. It shows how it is possible to do this and what it might be like. It uses the Mars One scenario of just four settlers followed every other year by four more. That’s twenty people in ten years (really eight if you count from first to last landing and twelve if you count the preparatory equipment flights). Some may die. Children may be born within ten years. New technologies may allow settlers to use native materials to fashion airtight dwellings with good radiation protection, to grow adequate food supplies plus reserves, to reach reliable and plentiful water supplies, to remain warm indefinitely on a very cold planet, and to begin a process that will make possible walking on Mars without a pressure suit or oxygen mask, with only protection against the cold.
If the low gravity does not harm people, it may help them. Hearts have less work. Joints have less wear. Our ancient predecessors lived under water where gravity does not count. Living on dry land required compromises that involved gravity as well as the dryness. Our adaptations to gravity are not perfect. Lower gravity could extend lives. If so, then the Mars emigration boom will happen. Imagine that!
Welcome to Mars Lodge. Please remember to close airlocks behind you! Don’t forget our solar relaxation area at the center of Olympus Gardens: our dedicated satellite focuses sunlight amongst the trees while providing instant communication with Earth through the new tunneling router. Have a pleasant day!
I think tech that will allow life support in the areas of energy, food and recycling has enormous implications right here on Terra Firma…
Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry
Hi Brett,
Excellent point.
There is only the question of whether a Mars project will actually spur such innovation. I grant that it should.
Of course, the tunneling router is pure s-f. You cannot transmit information faster than light speed without violating Einstein and creating nutty paradoxes. Knowing what will happen before it happens has enormously gigantic implications.
The problem of terraforming Mars will be a tough nut to crack. As things stand today, you can take thousands of years or you can spend hundreds of billions of dollars to reduce the time to a few hundred years.
My book takes a novel approach. It’s novel in several ways. One very important way is ignoring nitrogen. Take away all of the nitrogen in our atmosphere, and we still survive. Water boils at a very low temperature completely messing up every cookbook, but we can get by. Plants are a different problem because nitrogen-fixing bacteria don’t work anymore, and we have to find a different means to put available nitrogen into the soil.
If we can put just oxygen into the air of Mars, we’ll have maybe 150 millibars of O2 and 10 millibars of CO2 along with traces of other stuff. That’s right on the edge of survivability for both and also not too far from the lowest pressure we can live in. Those are enough hints.
We won’t see satellites beaming sunlight to the surface of Mars anytime soon. It’s not profitable yet, and no government can afford to do it without permission of its people — many simply cannot afford it at all.
You’ll be interested to know that the XPRIZE Foundation has plans for a biogenesis project to make organisms that can survive on the surface of Mars. No details yet. Stay tuned.
Theoretical Quantum communications has moved on since Albert Einstein’s “spooky action at a distance” now know as entanglement.
Currently there is no use of quantum entanglement without a conventional non-FTL communication line to exchange parameters and measurement results as qubits are random.
Can I suggest you look up QEC
Not sure if this helps https://sites.google.com/site/exosnews/physics/qec
Maybe a “tunneling router” is not just pure s-f.
Hi Timothy,
Yes, I have read much about quantum entanglement. I have yet to read that anyone has violated that FTL issue with it. No matter what the process used to achieve FTL, there has always been a “gotcha.”
True FTL will make it possible to know the future with absolute certainty. That would create some serious paradoxes. FTL is equivalent to time travel in some senses. Yet, we know, from Heisenberg, that the future is uncertain. We cannot have it both ways.
Everyone should understand that there is no such thing as instantaneous communication. The world you see through your eyes is delayed by the time it takes light to travel to them (plus neural delays). You are always looking at the past.
Movies such as “Interstellar” may be cool to watch, but they are just as much fantasy as Sleeping Beauty or Pinocchio — or more recently, Frozen. The wormhole is a gimmick to explore sociological issues.
I have listened to a few lectures on the subject and I understand your point about FTL being pure SF. Out of pure cussedness, completely without theoretical substance, I refuse to agree: if we believe something we won’t try to look for other solutions. Worse, we will try to defend our established conceptions.
FTL even for pure information would make things a whole lot more complicated, perhaps too complicated for the humans. This human has a difficult enough struggle with distance and time stretching and contracting to accommodate c but a certain gleeful anticipation of the day when c joins Newtonian physics on the Useful But Not Quite Accurate shelf of human endeavours.
Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry
I too would love to see that happen. The paradoxes prevent it for ordinary situations. It’s conceivable to break the paradox by “paying” somehow for it. In effect, you’d have to “be” next to the communications object during the interchange. Returning to your true space-time location might require aging by the time required for light to go that far.
To speak without delay to someone a light-year distant, you’d have to go into some sort of limbo for a year while space-time adjusted back to ordinary reality. This way, you could not benefit from advance knowledge of the future, but you would be able to carry on a true dialog for however long you chose while sitting in some sort of space-time bubble isolated from the normal flow of space-time.
If this sort of thing were possible, then it would be better than traveling back and forth physically and taking lots more than two years for the round trip. Once life-extension technologies are available, people might do this. Certainly for Mars, it’s not a big deal if you can have a real conversation and just pay with ten minutes of your life. You probably waste much more than that on television shows. ;-) Besides, you could be reading or writing or watching entertainment while awaiting return to your normal time-stream.
All of the above is heavy s-f, but it’s not fantasy like hyperdrive and wormholes are. If someone presented this idea to me as real, I might even believe it. It’s such a good idea that I might even write a story based on it. I don’t know that anyone else has suggested this.
Plants without N is a difficult problem; my first impulse is to state ‘impossible’ but perhaps plants that harvest, scavenge, hoard Nitrogen? This could be a much larger problem than Oxygen or Carbon if you plan is to terraform.
Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry
Finding nitrogenous veins on Mars will be like finding gold. Both will be found. The atmosphere has 2% N2. Typical Mars regolith is basalt or at least volcanic in origin.
The elements are there. There’s double the iron on Mars surface compared to Earth. However, you cannot just enclose some piece of Mars, water it, and add seeds.
Hello Harry
Thank you for keeping this great thread going.
I am not sure how FTL allows you to see into the future?
If you could overtake the light emitted you might “see” into the past, but surly whatever speed you go you cannot see what has not yet happened. I think the idea of reversing the arrow of time is flawed, How ever fast you travel you will not actually ‘move back’ in time, therefore no paradox can occur, (what has happened ‘has’ happened).
Back to Mars the ‘one on one’ with Elon Musk at MIT was very enlightening, Inflatable Solar Panels on mars!
Elon implied that MarsOne have never contacted SpaceX, but he was willing to sell a Dragon V2 capsule capable of just Near Earth or Lunar Orbit/landing if they had enough money to buy one, Anyway much better to wait for the Next Generation Mars version :)
This business of time travel and FTL being equivalent appears to be wrong, but is merely nonintuitive. Rather than spend lots of space attempting to explain, I am quoting Wikipedia on the topic.
“… any theory which permits “true” FTL also has to cope with time travel and all its associated paradoxes…”
The reference cited for this assertion is Gott, J. Richard (2002). “Time Travel in Einstein’s Universe”. pp. pp. 82–83.
There are more extensive discussions. For example, at http://www.physicsguy.com/ftl/html/FTL_part4.html#chap:unsolvableparadoxes, you’ll find the following.
“To intensify the point I will make, we can let the signal which was sent to O be a picture of the victim, or even an ongoing video signal of the victim’s body. Thus, O has evidence of the victim’s death before Op has fired the weapon (a plain ol’ violation of causality). However, at this point O can decide to stop Op from firing the gun. But if the bullet doesn’t go out, and the victim never dies, then why (and how) would a video signal/picture of the victim’s dead body ever be sent to O? And yet, O has that video/picture.”
I don’t enjoy bending my mind around these paradoxes, but I have spent the time to do it in the past. It’s quite real and remains real no matter what the mechanism for FTL transmission of information. Of course, FTL transmission of matter contains the transmission of information as a subset. Some s-f authors have had bizarre self-correcting mechanisms in their imagined universes to fix these problems. I am not convinced.
Haha! No surprise that M1 has not contacted SpaceX. They are playing at Mars travel and have yet to build their tiny “toy” Mars lander. Don’t get me wrong. For any such organization even to put an inert pebble on Mars would be a huge accomplishment. It is the ultimate goal of people on Mars against which I compare this effort and deem it small.
Somewhere in my second volume of my Mars trilogy, I should do this. Communication by space-time bubble would be great. I think that both sides would have to pay due to relativistic considerations. If you have an hour conversation and you’re ten light-minutes away, then the effect is that of taking an hour and ten minutes for the conversation. Cool!
It gets rather more serious when you leave the solar system.
Buzz Aldrin Weighs in on Mars Trip.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2014/10/25/buzz-aldrin-really-wants-to-send-people-to-mars-and-leave-them-there-for-a-long-time/
The famous Apollo astronaut has made himself clear. When we sent people to Mars, we should not bring them right back again. His approach is somewhere in between that of Mars One (the forever option) and NASA (the short stay option).
Eventually, Mars colonists would be able to return. However, that would happen after lots of people, maybe 100, were on Mars. By that time, the technology to bring people back for reasonable cost will exist, and the Mars program will be an ongoing operation that has costs very much reduced from those today due to more efficient lifters and better means for the Earth-Mars transit.
Aldrin’s view is that a quick round trip (either a month or two years) will be over, and without any incentive to do it again. We will have put people on Mars and, just as with the Moon, will pull back because it’s so expensive to do those round trips.
Let’s face it, we have two issues with Mars. The first is the huge costs of going there and of being there. Martians must grow their own food and recycle all waste: feces, urine, exhaled CO2, uneaten plant matter, and even worn out clothes. The article also mentions the possibility of **too much** oxygen from growing the large amount of plant material necessary to sustain the Mars explorers. The plants eaten will use of oxygen and produce CO2. The uneaten plant matter can be composted to result in the same chemistry. CO2 in our air is 400 ppm. Were it all converted to O2 by plants, then it would add only about 0.04% to the roughly 20% already here. Plants cannot create O2 without available CO2. So, where’s the problem?
If the air in a Mars habitat is nearly 100% O2, then only the pressure is important. It will be low by sea-level standards. Adding more can only aid the new Martians. I’m not sure where the author found this argument, but it makes no sense.
We have discussed the real problems of living on Mars at length here. The author, Abby Phillip, should have consulted this treasure trove of Mars information before writing her piece.
In another part of the article, Ms. Phillip suggests that we send only women on the trip because they are smaller and use less energy. She cites the University of Hawaii’s HI-SEAS Mars mission to prove her case. However, small men exist. Many men are smaller than quite a few women. It would make sense to send small people to Mars initially due to the large cost of lifting mass, both their mass and the mass of food, water, clothing, etc. necessary to support them. These pioneers should, by the same arguments, be thin as well. I imagine that any Mars training program will involve weight loss for those who are heavier than necessary for life. Optimum body mass varies even for those of the same height, but I am sure that programs of maximum health with minimum mass can be created. (Mr. America need not apply.)
As I go through what I hope is my last reading of Martian Rhapsody (at 33 chapters, 290 pages, and 67, 000 words), I am making sure that these issues are dealt with rationally and scientifically. Another author commented that he spent more time reading his books than he did writing them. I truly understand this remark now. Lots more time!
Mars One continues to milk every dollar they can from their franchise. Because money is their potential Achille’s heel, they must do this. Bas Lansdorp certainly does not have the billions required in his bank account.
[NOTE: I have published Martian Rhapsody as an Amazon e-book for 99 cents. See what my most optimistic assessment of a program to begin settling Mars with four people looks like. There’s just no chance that my fictional crew will match the real one, but the speculation is fascinating. It will take on the order of a year to get the second book of the series written. In the meantime, enjoy the 68,000-word novel.]
Their latest move is selling the exclusive interview rights for the remaining 663 candidates, 15 minutes per candidate. These will be video interviews conducted by the Mars One chief medical officer in English and will also allow for separate interview time before and after the official interview.
In other words, Mars One is exploiting the 663 remaining candidates to raise money for themselves. This is all above board, and makes sense for the four people who may go if this entire program succeeds, a remote probability until much more money appears. Some subset of the remaining 559 people may gain some publicity if they are chosen by the media.
The risk of having enough money to do the first step and then not to continue means that this enterprise should have some independent oversight to ensure that they can put up more missions to secure the lives of the first settlers.
Then, there’s the risk that 38% gravity has long-term effects. Setting up a rotating space station to simulate 38% gravity with sufficient magnet shielding to reduce radiation to acceptable levels is a huge undertaking, comparable in magnitude to landing people on the Moon. Of course, we could do mice for much less money and hope that the result scale to humans. But no one has yet to try it out.
Soon, I’ll have to revisit the Mars One site and see what has changed.
As a professional engineer, with a background in R&D and process development, my view is that the Mars One project is laughable in its sheer naivety and lack of any credible pathway to achieve the stated aim. The proposed timetable is also ridiculous; even if one accepts a ‘proof of concept’ mission in 2018, translating this into a deployed system within 4 years is simply fanciful.
I’m all for space exploration, but not like this. It seems to be largely built on the assumption that all that is needed is few test runs, chuck in some barely tested equipment (most of which doesn’t even exist at the moment) and hope for the best. As has been pointed out in some of the previous comments, do the remaining candidates have any real understanding of what they are so enthusiastically signing up for? Even if the unproven life support systems can be made to work, even if the radiation risks can be managed, I suspect that the pyschological problems are probably fatal.
According to the Mars One website ‘No new major developments or inventions are needed to make the mission plan a reality. Each stage of Mars One mission plan employs existing, validated and available technology’. The sheer audacity of this statement is breathtaking and demonstrably untrue.
I have no doubt but that the project will either wither away as the enormity of the technical challenge becomes increasingly obvious, the money runs out, it is stopped by a national state government, or else results in the death of the first 4 people, if by some terrible mis-fortune they are actually sent on their way.
It is very hard to look past the likely reality that the Mars One project is actually little more than a money making scheme, built around a TV game show, to take money off the credulous.
That said, it is intriguing to look at the issues the project raises, not least of which is the psychology of the applicants. What is it that the candidates want to achieve? After all, if successful in their quest, then they are extremely likely to be sacrificing their lives in pursuit of these goals. The material I’ve seen on the background of some of the remaining 705 candidates seems to indicate that they have little understanding of what they might be undertaking. Nowhere is there any hard information about the state of development of life support systems. The presentations I’ve seen (e.g. Adriana Marais, quantum biology researcher) overstate the present status – Marais seems to believe that Lockheed Martin are developing the power assisted landing system when it would appear they are only contracted to undertake a feasibility study for an unmanned system – and are big on communications with Earth but almost entirely devoid of any information on the habitat or the problems they might face. To quote another candidate, Joseph Roche (an astrophysicist) – “One thing they’ve promised you on Mars is Internet and WhatsApp’. That’s OK then, everything sorted. The candidates seem to believe that the necessary technologies will simply ‘appear’ in the stated time frame. Given the fuzzy platitudes they all seem to espouse, one could be forgiven for thinking that they are going on a game show just for their 15 minutes of fame. There could well be room for a few PhD’s in psychology here.
I wonder what the crew selection criteria is ? It certainly is not public. If the project were serious they should go for short, slightly built people with no hair (minimizes maintenance requirements), with engineering experience, who have had their families. Basic medical training (e.g. as a paramedic) would be useful, but anything more is probably superfluous. Major surgery would be impossible (no blood supplies, restricted medical facilities), except perhaps for the odd amputation.
As far as I am aware, the nearest anyone has got to trying to demonstrate sustained operation of a closed environment system is the Biosphere 2 project, attempting to replicate natural (Earth) bio systems but on a small scale. As I understand it, the system was not quite as closed as it was supposed to be, and although the ‘crew’ did stay in for around 2 years, the experiment probably showed more about the psychology of confinement than anything else. At over 3 acres and 161,000 m3 volume its 8 person crew had a lot more room than anyone in the Mars One project might have. The MIT study of the Mars One proposal gives a habitat volume of c. 1500 m3, for 4 people (and projected death after 68 days, though that assumes that they get there). In the Biosphere project they could see the sky, feel the sun and know that they could always walk out if they wanted. The Mars One crew will have to live underground for most of the day in what would amount to a 12 m square room each, probably cramped full of stuff, with no expectation of a return to Earth, and likely to be permanently teetering on the edge of catastrophe, fully occupied with trying to stay alive.
For the Mars One project I would have expected to see a large and sophisticated program of development and demonstration. For the enclosed habitat this might be expected to consist of an initial detailed design study and system simulation, demonstration on Earth of sustained operation of each component technology followed by sustained operation of the complete system. There would inevitably be a continual recycling and refinement of the design, culminating with a full scale, perhaps 2-3 year demonstration on Earth. This would have to include operation with a 4 person crew, in a suitable location (the middle of the antartic perhaps, where it is very dry, bitterly cold with nothing to see except rock), following activities they might reasonably undertake on Mars (including suited-up walks!).
Then there is the question of why there is no attempt to test out the environment system in a moon based habitat (it’s not the same as Mars, but it’s a lot closer and could be expected to reality check much of the basic design philosophy). The apparent lack of a credible development program for any part of the project points strongly to the perception that the project is not for real.
The comment you have made here is a neat, albeit sharp-edged, summary of much of the foregoing.
The number one obstacle to success of Mars One is money. It’s that simple. Their estimate of $6 billion is likely to be low, but even this “low” amount seems to be out of their reach. Without the money, all of the technical hurdles are meaningless.
As to the timetable, they have already slipped by two years and almost certainly will continue to do so every two years. Ten years is a perfect length of time for scamming investors and participants.
Their first mission to Mars is a toy compared to what NASA has already done. To be fair, it’s far beyond any existing commercial venture. However, that’s not a rational standard against which to measure human presence on Mars. I would be less harsh were the initial proof-of-concept mission capable of demonstrating things not yet proven or provable without the trip. Testing solar collectors? Scratching the regolith? And bidding for open space on the lander is just a fund-raising scheme as is putting your name on it.
The latest funding scheme has them selling the exclusive interview rights to 663 remaining candidates piecemeal.
The psychology of living in an underground (apparently underground anyway) tomb for the rest of your life is daunting — to understate the situation. Only the certainty of reinforcements every other year, along with new technology, can help to maintain sanity.
The hope of terraforming within fifty years could help a great deal. For the time being, that’s an illusion.
The realities of living in a closed environment in an outrageously hostile environment have not been adequately explored. Life on Mars will not only be claustrophobic, it will also be long periods of ennui punctuated by extremely dangerous incidents. Just one of the latter may doom the entire expedition and may even be caused by bored settler not paying close attention or simply losing a grip on sanity for a brief time.
Mars is the first step of the path to the stars. A permanent settlement on the Moon would have rotating crews and not be a true colony. The Moon has too many problems for lengthy human stays there. It could be a great testing ground for Martian settlement technology anyway.
I give Lansdrop credit for vision but subtract many points for haziness of vision. The commenter has characterized the M1 statement about using existing technology by saying that the sheer audacity … is breathtakingly and demonstrably untrue. I have to agree. Mars One cannot succeed with today’s validated technology. A mission to Mars can succeed with tomorrow’s technology. A real fusion power generator that can fit on a truck is in the works right now, for example. Magnetoplasmadynamic space engines are being tested in laboratories. New plant varieties that will provide better nutrition with less input of light and water are coming to us soon. New ways to lift mass into LEO should be available wthin ten years. Entirely new ways of making space (and Mars) suits are being developed today. The list goes on.
We can be sanguine about going to Mars within two decades but not about a fuzzy scheme to send four people on a trip that is likely to be an abysmal failure on live TV. Mars One just has too much hand waving and too little solid planning to make be a believer.
So it is that I have written about how to make such a mission a success in my novel, Martian Rhapsody, available as an e-book from Amazon today for 99 cents and about to become available in paperback. I could not possibly every issue into 68,000 words, but many of the major ones are there. Comment here or at MartianRhapsody.com about what you read. The e-book will be updated with the paperback content that has been thoroughly scrubbed of typos. Please forgive the occasional minor errors in the current release.
Just to add some points to your discussion in August on the merits of LED v. piping in light to grow plants.
Natural light is comprised of a continuous distribution of wavelengths, but only a portion of this is utilized for photosynthesis, wavelengths in the range of 400-700 nm, referred to as Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR). For Earth this comprises about 45% of the total energy of the incoming radiation. Typical efficiencies for PV in normal applications (like domestic/commercial power generation) are in the range15-20% (electrical power from irradiation), but can get to 30% in state of the art systems. I’m not sure what the impact is on efficiency of operating at Mars surface ambient temperatures but I believe that spacecraft solar panels can operate at around 25-30%.
Using LED’s as the light source allows the production of only PAR. I’m not sure of the actual efficiency of LED’s (seems a hard number to pin down, but it’s high). This could mean that the PAR available from LED’s is equivalent to 20-30% of the original incident irradiation, less than the original 45% but still reasonably high. I would guess that there are significant practical difficulties with designing a system for collection and redistribution of light. The other obvious advantage of using LED’s is of course that if other power sources are available then these can be used when natural light levels are low (i.e. at night or if there is significant dust).
I would suspect that growing vascular plants is not the way to go, even if the entire plant can be consumed. Growing (phototrophic) algae could be a much better option (shouldn’t be susceptible to problems associated with lower gravity) and if grown in enclosed bioreactors (which can just be a plastic bag or sleeve) could well give a higher volumetric productivity. This could be important if space is at a premium, which it is likely to be assuming that the growing systems will have to be covered to enable a stable operating temperature and protection from irradiation.
On Earth the atmosphere causes scattering, such that even under clear sky conditions a significant proportion of the ground level irradiation is diffuse light (i.e. it comes from all directions) rather than direct. It seems likely that this effect will be far less on Mars, and it may well therefore be more important that PV panels are steerable to maximize their output.
Hi Hephaestus,
Yours is one of our more erudite comments on this thread and merits close attention.
The problems of piping natural light into the early versions of Mars habitats probably will outweigh the benefits. You also have the benefit you mentioned of continuous lighting for plants that are designed for that environment. You can grow more food in the same space.
The efficiency of solar panels on Mars will depend on many factors. Mars One writes of planning to use rolled plastic collectors. The technology for these gives you a substantially smaller efficiency than do crystalline collectors. Will that change in a decade or so? Can’t say. New ideas are already pushing the limit of solar efficiency right now. Based on all of my reading, I don’t expect photovoltaics to do better than 50% ever — not even close.
The mass of the PV arrays limits how much you can send to Mars. The mass of batteries (or other energy storage devices) also limits what you can do there.
WRT algae, I agree that algae is more efficient at converting sunlight into plant mass. The primary problem here is the water volume required. Aeroponics allow very efficient use of water with vascular plants. There’s also the “yuck’ factor, readily overcome with algae as an addition to meals but difficult as the primary food source.
I did not use algae in Martian Rhapsody for these reasons. It’s just easier to lift to Mars (and to write about) a single growing system. Eventually, the systems for living on Mars will have to use algae, vascular plants, yeast, and fungi. Settlers must extract every possible food calorie from their systems. To survive psychologically, the food should have significant variety.
The Orion space capsule. You have to be tuned out not to notice.
Orion is NASA’s first step to Mars in the 2030s. To test all systems, they are planning an audacious mission to visit an asteroid. First though, they will have an unmanned ship rendezvous with a well-situated asteroid and push it into an orbit around the Moon.
Mars One still is spinning their story about going to Mars in 2023 — or whenever they can get people to swallow their story. Given a huge infusion of cash, they could try it before 2030. Will the cash come? Who can say? The odds are against it.
I would much rather see us on Mars before 2030, but this is how things now stand.
In the meantime, Britain is going to the Moon courtesy of Kickstarter. Their plan puts a lander on the South Pole of the Moon in a few years. No one has explored either pole yet, and the polar regions have the most hope for water as well as the possibility of having sunlight most of the time during the monthly lunar rotation cycles.
I am constantly amazed by the amount of news about going to Mars and other solar travel. As I begin the follow-up novel to Martian Rhapsody, I am watching this news carefully. I will do everything I can to make each and every book I write fit current science as well as likely future developments. I won’t get it all right, but I hope that I can be in the ballpark with most of my predictions.
Have a happy new year!
Life on Mars? Maybe long ago. This hypothesis has already been floated in the fictional setting of Martian Rhapsody. Now, a scientist has put it forward with some strong evidence.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2015/0108/Are-there-fossils-on-Mars
This is only evidence, and not conclusive, of microbial life. Note the potential age of this possible evidence for life is 200 million years older than the oldest such structure found on Earth, which feeds into another speculation of Martian Rhapsody.
Elon Musk (owner of SpaceX) is building a new Internet using low-orbit micro-satellites. Oh, and so is Richard Branson (owner of Virgin Galactic). Branson calls his effort OneWeb. Both tout their efforts as increasing speed, decreasing cost, and, they say most importantly, improving access worldwide. They may even combine forces.
There is one major difference between them. Musk claims that his effort is the first step to providing the Internet for Mars. Hence, my entry here in this column.
No matter how many satellites you put up over Earth and Mars, the fact will remain that it can take up to ten minutes for a signal to travel from Earth to Mars. However, many of the assets of the Internet can be stored on servers on Mars and updated from Earth — and vice versa someday. You can achieve the appearance of immediacy for many things.
You will not be able to have instantaneous communication between a person on Mars and one on Earth unless someone develops the device I propose in my second Martian novel.
THE STATE OF THE UNION
From the 2015 SOTU,
“I want Americans to win the race for the kinds of discoveries that unleash new jobs – converting sunlight into liquid fuel; creating revolutionary prosthetics, so that a veteran who gave his arms for his country can play catch with his kid; pushing out into the Solar System not just to visit, but to stay. Last month, we launched a new spacecraft as part of a re-energized space program that will send American astronauts to Mars. In two months, to prepare us for those missions, Scott Kelly will begin a year-long stay in space. Good luck, Captain – and make sure to Instagram it.”
Yes, President Obama has put his prestige behind going to Mars.
This is BIG.
It a’most brings a tear to m’ e’e
If nothing else, the argument can certainly be made that Mars One has increased the profile of space exploration. While this can be ascribed to commercial, scientific or even purely adventurous reasons, the efforts of India, China and other private interests have called into serious question the billions of dollars spent by NASA with modest results at best.
The best years of NASA cannot be attributed to the current administration; ISS and the shuttle program were put in motion while he was learning to read, the Mars rover program while he was still organizing marches in the streets. The shining light of modern space exploration is the ESA’s Rosetta program.
I seem to recall President Bush making similar Mars claims when he needed a boost in the ratings.
Welcome back Brett.
Mars One has had some impact on worldwide interest in Mars. That is certain.
The best years of NASA were long ago when budgets were better and government was not the whipping boy for every fringe demagogue wannabe.
I agree that Rosetta is a remarkable accomplishment despite the glitch on landing. However, the India Mars satellite may be the real harbinger for the future. We’ll have to wait and see.
Static evolution discovered. One bacteria species has remained unchanged for over 2 billion years.
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-microbes-deep-sea-evolution-20150202-story.html
This is more or less what we might expect on Mars, where evolution probably was halted many billions of years ago.
Personally all this talk about colonizing the Planet Mars right now I think Mars One – Human Settlement of Mars is a farce that’s going to blow up before it takes off just like the Avro Canada CF-105 “ARROW” did in the 1950s!!! :/
The Arrow was twenty years ahead of its time; cancelled, ostensibly, for financial reasons. She flew high, far and fast, very fast – intended to intercept Russian bombers and possibly even missiles coming over the Pole.
It’s an interesting analogy to Mars One although you may have it backward: if Canada had the foresight to keep the program we would be selling fighter planes to the world today. Instead these planes were cut up and the blueprints destroyed to keep the technology from falling into the wrong hands.
Many of the engineers ended up working south of the border in the US aerospace industry, at a time when fighter jets and rockets to the Moon were taking off.
When more information is declassified I suspect you will find it was a political decision, possibly not even made in Canada: look up the Anglo-American Loan Agreement. Consider it in the light of the Cold War.
I’m looking forward to seeing what really happened if and when the documents are made public. If that’s your analogy then whoever takes control of Mars One is going to control important technologies in the decades ahead.
Seen in that light, politics might be the downfall of Mars One.
Of course the story to the public will be that it was too expensive and the plans will be destroyed – wouldn’t want terrorists getting their hands on them would you? And the US will land on Mars twenty years later…
Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry
“Of course the story to the public will be that it was too expensive and the plans will be destroyed – wouldn’t want terrorists getting their hands on them would you? And the US will land on Mars twenty years later…”
Can’t tell if your tongue is in your cheek or not.
The story will be that they were unable to raise enough money and that, after taking their huge salaries and paying the for-profit arm of the venture for its consulting, the remainder of the money left in the non-profit (not much, I’m sure) will be donated to the Mars Foundation.
The story will be much more mundane (money and greed) than the conspiracy you posit. BTW, even the US may not be capable of making it there alone, especially in these days of decreasing taxes just to benefit the rich.
I don’t think a man as wealthy as Landorp would risk his reputation like that – usually once they make the big bucks they’re trying to clean up their image – start a foundation for some sort of charity. At this point his name is way out there for everyone to see.
Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry
Ah, but these people have exit strategies in the event of failure (after plan B etc.). Can he really be that much of an optimist? Can he believe that failure is impossible?
IMO, he will not make it alone. If he gets partners, then all is well. If not, then what?
It all comes down to how serious Lansdorp and company are and, if truly serious (and possibly deluded), how much money they can raise.
I just don’t see them raising $6 billion (their number) or much more as required for a sustainable program — on their own.
Mars One is either a hoax or a hail Mary pass. If the latter, then they are counting on getting far enough along on their PR chops that they can rope in one or more partners. The Indian space agency comes to mind. They put a satellite in Mars orbit on a (relative) shoestring budget. However, they have not put humans in space yet.
Once they get one partner, others may sign up too. Imagine India followed a year later by Russia. Eventually, ESA and NASA will have to jump on board. At least, I see this as the M1 thinking.
If they think they can do this alone, then they certainly are deluded. Their game plan has to be attracting partners with deep pockets — or “take the money and run.”
I think all travelers should be fixed to not be able to reproduce there is not food planned for a child a pregnant woman eating for two and many other factors. I feel if food does run out women will be turned into human cows there young will feed the colony and there breasts will constantly be milked for a nutritional drink.
Wow! That’s really a dark vision.
In the first place “eating for two” does not mean eating twice as much — literally. In the second place, we do not know the food creation parameters, except that you have to make more food than is required because you have to have reserves in case of any problems with the growing facility. Freeze-drying is rather easy — just put the extras outdoors.
That being said, reproduction must be controlled. Settlers will have multiple problems to deal with in raising children on Mars. I’ll be addressing them in my second Mars novel. Food may be the least of these. The second flight to Mars is supposed to double the population and must vastly increase the food growing facilities as well just two years after the first flight. Two years later, the population jumps by 50% and so also must food growing. There really is no reason why you couldn’t handle 8-1/2 people after that second arrival and keep on adding one more child every two years.
What cannot be dealt with in the earliest years is a population explosion.
The vision of turning women into human cows fails instantly because food in is around ten times food out. Simply, it’s an enormous waste of perfectly good food to process it through an animal before eating it.
On Earth today, were we to stop growing beef and pork, the food saved could readily feed the world — if we could transport it efficiently. If we stopped chicken and egg farming, we’d have huge surpluses of food. It would require some repurposing of farmland from animal feed to edible crops, of course.
For the above reasons, I reject your dark vision and your idea of sterilizing colonists. We have pills for restricting fertility temporarily and must presume that our colonists are rational and intelligent.
I too reject such notions, as well as the idea we could all live without meat.
The practice of using grain to feed animals can be questioned – it is a relatively new phenomenon, grain was only used sparingly in the past when it was more difficult to produce.
Most importantly the bacteria of ruminants are able to turn food sources we cannot consume, on land with limited agricultural value, into valuable and complete protein.
In any case I would want to see many generations of rabbits, chickens and fish reproduce before even thinking of human progeny created under Mars conditions so there is the experimental aspect quite aside from the practical.
Think of it this way: if you could figure out how to permanently feed an enclosed population in any manner you would have solved Earth’s food problems (which are primarily logistics and politics anyway) for the foreseeable future.
Just thinking about the difficulty of this makes me a little more sceptical, although I would be the last to try and stop somebody from trying.
The crude comments about the treatment of women are likely addressed under the heading of psychological difficulties – already pointed out as possibly larger than technical difficulties – but obviously would be a huge aspect of the selection process. Strong impulses toward starting a family in the early stages (not to mention straying from the mission objective) would be an immediate red flag.
There is a multitude of questions to be answered before any child should be born on Mars. The early missions should be thought more of in terms of “boldly going where no one has gone before” rather than “where shall we stake out the homestead?”
When it is time to try for children it will also be possible for survivalist groups to make it to Mars on the cheap, relatively speaking. At that point children become inevitable. As far as Mars One goes, the minute they start talking about children you can write it off as a scam.
Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry
Hi Brett,
Taking the last point first, I remain suspicious of Mars One, but I like the guts and publicity.
On Mars, there won’t be prairies of grass that we cannot digest for ruminants to use as food. It won’t happen for a century or more.
Anyone can live without any meat at all, and a huge number do. Of course, it can be done. Bodybuilders and athletes are among those who do this. Every nutrient necessary for human health can be obtained from plants and unicellular organisms. OTOH, excessive meat consumption is linked to many illnesses.
It makes no sense at all to transport ANY animals, including insects, to Mars. Without an ecosystem, things can go awry. Animals require roughly ten times the nutrients as input to what they produce. We would not be growing grain on Mars soon anyway. It produces too much waste. The initial Mars diet will be very limited due to efficiency considerations. It’s not space or soil that’s the problem. It’s energy.
WRT bacteria in ruminants, we can culture bacteria outside of their stomachs and craft them into cellulose processors for a variety of outputs.
As there will be NO animals on Mars, except as temporary experiments if there are any in the short term, testing reproduction on them doesn’t work too well. Sending up a pair of gerbils to test reproduction success could be done. They’d all have to be killed when the experiment was over (incensing animal rights activists). It’s totally unclear whether extrapolation of such an experiment would be useful. We can recreate Mars gravity on a satellite near Earth and conduct those experiments here more cheaply and with better control.
All of this begs the question of when families might begin on Mars. Certainly, not in the first two years, Mars Rhapsody notwithstanding. I’d expect that at least three successful missions to Mars would be necessary to have some assurance of the success of the colony and to have sufficient resources to begin with a child. As the new missions come each two years, another child could be planned.
The one thing that bothers me about all of this is the impact of 38% gravity on a growing human being. We just don’t know what it will be. As astronauts in space for a long time become taller (and shrink back upon return to Earth), I would expect slightly taller people. The effect would be the same for the colonists too. Would growing in low gravity increase or decrease height? We can’t say. Would it matter? Probably not.
These children would have trouble visiting Earth — for sure. Then, their parents would too.
As I have pointed out before, we have only two real data points for gravity and health: 100% and 0%. The first is normal. The second is bad. Going to 110% is very likely to be unhealthy, compared to 100%. Thus, the health-gravity curve slopes downward at 100%, which means that 90% is probably more healthy than 100%. Where is the peak in that curve? How quickly does it trend down as it moves toward 0% after the peak? Where is 38% on the curve? No one knows. Mars gravity could be the optimum for our species or a disaster.
After the colony has been on Mars for four or six years, we should have an idea and can then decide about reproduction.
unit of radiation dose is Sievert, not Siemen
Yep. Fixed that long ago but cannot edit what has been posted. Sorry for that.
Anonymous, thanks for the correction. The article has been corrected.
Harry, I caught two instances. Let me know if there are more.
UAE is getting to the game. Yes, that country with the tallest building. The Emirates are out to show the world that Arabs are not a bunch of terrorists but are on the frontiers of science. The good part is that they can buy their way in and that it’s working. The article is worth the couple of minutes it takes to read.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/19/emirates-space-mars-mission-middle-east
This is a “mere” unmanned science satellite that will circle Mars. Getting a space mission to Mars is no trivial matter and really does illustrate the capabilities of those making it.
Well its 2016, according to The original mission plan they should be launching their first satellite towards the planet. As of this date however they still have no contractors signed to build said satellite nor has anything been constructed. They also have no contracts with Space X to actually transport payloads to Mars.
Too bad no one took me up on my million dollar wager that this would be the case :D
Totally true, Don. And very predictable.
Mars One has numerous issues to resolve, but the number one issue remains money. Even if they raise millions, they have to get billions. This is a huge gap, and many people seem unable to comprehend exactly how large it is. Expect another schedule slippage by the end of this year.
Well I think motivation might be a bigger issue. I honestly think they have no real intention of going through with this. The fact that they have raised over $700,000 so far and have not put any effort into building an infrastructure or assigning contractors so far makes me very suspicious.
Well, I don’t try to read minds. I strongly suspect a scam here, but some people are very passionate about Mars, have good intentions, but are clueless. So, I defer judgment. They have signed up a couple of contractors but not let the contracts as far as I know.
It was a cool idea that pumped up the public interest. There’s no real substance that I can find. Their claim to us current technology is nonsense. Can’t be done with current (and fully developed) technology at any reasonable cost or even with acceptable safety.
I too see no infrastructure, unless you count a website.
The main point of a lottery is the dream for 99.9% of us anyway.
Interesting how, in a lottery, everyone is a potential winner until the numbers are announced.
At last with a lotto you actually get a prize if you beat the odds. :)
Mars is an airless desert unimaginably far from home with present human abilities. Others have mentioned terraforming the deserts of Earth makes more sense, or the Moon because it is closer and therefore cheaper, safer and doable with current technology.
The idea of Mars as a lifeboat colony for extreme circumstances is of some merit but the idea it could be self-sustaining is far-fetched at present.
The effects of a large asteroid impact on Earth make this an idea worthy of consideration.
Detection and interception of such objects would be cheaper, but extremely difficult to guarantee either detection or interception. Current theory is that such an impact has “reset” life on Earth at least once in the past. For this reason a colony should also be developed on the Moon and also underground on Earth with the largest gene banks possible and the ability to stay self-contained for a generation while the Earth’s climate settles down: a messed up climate on Earth is still infinitely better than what Mars has to offer.
There are conceivable events that could end life as we know it on this planet – that’s a lottery we will “win” again.
Only one asteroid impact has been shown to be correlated to an extinction. That one (the dinosaur extinction) did not directly cause the full extinction; it only started it. It exacerbated the volcanism already present so much that a major extinction took place instead of a probably minor one.
Enoroous volcanism over a very long time will belch megatons of CO2 (and also noxious gases) into our atmosphere along with lots of particulates. The particulates (and sulfur oxides) will block the sun and cause a rapid cooling resulting in loss of many species. After a few years, the particulates will drop out of the air, and the CO2 will take over turning the planet into an oven and acidifying the oceans. Many of those species able to withstand the cold will succumb to the heat.
No extraterrestrial cause is necessary for this long-lasting event to initiate another extinction. If it begins, we will have time to figure out how to survive here on Earth, not that lots of lives won’t be lost unless we are much more technologially advanced by then.
Mars is the next step in the great adventure that began when our forebears left Africa to seek out new places to live and, hopefully, thrive. We reached New Zealand and Pacific Islands far removed from the continents. “The grass is always greener” seems to be one hallmark of our species. Now, the rocks are redder.
And the only thing more authoritative than an archaeologist is a paleontologist ;-)
Well… here your prize is the privilege of dying in a very cold, very dry, very distant place. Oh… Not! You get to be postponed numerous times until you realize that you get no prize except for the dubious honor of being spotlighted as one of the fools who signed up for this boondoggle. OTOH, fame is in the eyes of the beholder. ;)
Now, it’s a race. Elon Must tells us that SpaceX will have a Dragon V2 capsule on Mars in two years and people there by 2024. Mars One has people on Mars by 2024 too, but the capsule thing is a bit more uncertain. BTW, they plan to use the same rocket to get off of Earth, the Falcon Heavy rocket.
Who’s going to get there first? With NASA planning for the 2030s, it won’t be them unless all others fall flat. Even then bureaucratic bumbling could turn the 2030s into the 204os.
Elon Mush has a record of doing amazing things but also of predicting time schedules that even his remarkable abilities cannot fulfill. If that capsule lifts off in 2018 and makes it to the Mars surface, then he is king of the race to Mars for sure. Mars One might as well fold up its tents and steal away into the night. And NASA should partner with Musk fot the betterment of both.
Presumably Musk is not going with the one-way trip for colonists, which makes the venture less controversial but also a lot more complicated: having to lift off Mars and return is a huge added task. However the unmanned test runs will be fascinating in themselves.
Hi Brett,
Musk has said that he will not take the first trip but that he’d like to. He’s truly a Mars maniac. He won’t go because his death would, in his opinion, ruin SpaceX and mankind’s future on Mars for a long time.
He has said that he’d like to go to Mars (and come back) once a base is established. Furthermore, he would like to go there later in life to die there. Don’t know how serious he is when making these statements. Certainly the gravity is good for the aged, but I don’t see much else to recommend it to the elderly.
For now, it’s wait and watch. If a Falcon Heavy rocket with a Dragon V2 lifts off for Mars in 2018, then Musk has done it. Given that most of his ambitious projects take longer than he thinks, don’t hold your breath. He tends to estimate time based on a bunch of “Musks” doing the work instead of mere mortals.
I do admire his pizazz, but going there to die seems like a pretty Eloncentric point of view. It’s a pretty good metaphor for the widening gap between the wealthy and the working people on good old planet Earth (and I am not known for my socialist sympathies, believe me). I suppose if he founds a practical electric car industry his Spaceman Spiff fantasies could be overlooked. But is still consider turning the Sahara into a breadbasket a much simpler task than colonies on Mars – and I’m including the elimination of homicidal ideologies in those calculations.
To me, Solar City is a substantial accomplishment for this planet. The concept that you don’t have to pay up front and that you are guaranteed to pay no more for electricity than you do now is a breakthrough business model. After some years, you get a free upgrade to the latest solar-cell technology too.
This has so threatened the electric utilities that they are lobbying the states to levy a surcharge on people with solar systems. IMO, that’s just wrong. The solar homes allow electric utilities to avoid building more plants and, eventually, to decommission the least productive ones they have.
The advances in battery technology that Musk has pioneered along with high-volume manufacturing soon fits with the electric car concept. I have a Chevy Volt that works great here in SoCal. It has a supplemental gasoline generator, but I get 40 miles to a charge, and all of the power to the wheels comes from electric motors.
Back to Mars. It’s such a stretch. I read an article recently about making bricks from regolith with some plastic or other. What the heck would you do with bricks on Mars? I cannot imagine building shelters. Would they really be airtight? Would they be strong enough to withstand the internal pressures of a habitat? Both answers are probably no. What are these people thinking?
Regarding bricks on Mars, what would you use as mortar? The plastic being used to make the bricks would have to be sent from Earth to Mars at great cost. How would you make the floor and root, both of which must be airtight?
Some might suggest that brick walls will help with radiation, but the real problem is the cosmic rays from overhead. It’s the roof that critically must be a radiation shield, not the walls. You might be able to build in a crater and have plenty of horizontal shielding. Even without it, the air path is so long that you have significant, although still inadequate, shielding there.
Probably not…
ROTF!
I am guessing that the political issues with greening the Sahara surpass the technological ones. Unfortunately, things are going the wrong way today with climate change expanding deserts. However, there are areas where GMO plants are reclaiming desert.
As a scientist myself, amateur astronomer, with a long interest in planetary science and appreciation for exploration, it is hard for me to believe that people would volunteer for this. or even believe its feasible. A successful mission will require YEARS of rocket launches, experimental runs on every scenario that could possibly happen, space trials, and the absolutely most brilliant and experienced scientists, engineers, mechanics, and pilots. A BILLION things can (and will) go wrong with even the most careful research. We”ve lost 2 space shuttles after many successful launches into space. Rockets are extremely comicated and complex machines that can malfunction easily on a long term flight. its hard enough for people to survive in extreme environments on earth much less in a place so far out of reach of help or re-supply. And 6 billion dollars? that’s a joke
Shelby,
Thank you for taking the time to comment here. I will be posting an entirely new set of “Thinking about Mars” articles on LinkedIn soon.
Let me first affirm that 6 billion dollars to land people on Mars and sustain them with biannual supply and personnel missions is worse than a joke. I seriously doubt that it will even be able to provide the preliminary landings of supply missions.
When I wrote “Mars Rhapsody,” I was taking the most optimistic view possible. After all, it’s fiction, even if I worked hard to make all of the science real.
My view is that advancing technology will allow it to happen well before 2050. I’ll be long dead by 2050 and so hope that it happens sooner rather than later. While your cautions seem reasonable, total pessimism never won any battle.
Considering the technology at the time, landing people on the Moon by the end of the sixties was impossible, but it was done. The number of systems involved, due to old technology, was probably greater than a Mars landing would be today. Therefore, failure was more likely.
We do face some very serious hurdles. Mars One is just a fantasy. I laud the PR value, but don’t see it ever really happening. The cost of landing a sufficiently large module on Mars is enormous. I don’t think that the difficulties surpass SpaceX’s landing of first stages back on Earth, though — at least when taken individually. Even Elon Musk has not produced a detailed roadmap to Mars yet. So, we have far to go.
I’ll note that one of those space shuttles was lost due to political pressures and bureaucratic game playing. If the correct launch protocols were observed, that shuttle would not have been lost. The second case also was avoidable, but NASA would have had to do a better job of anticipating the problems, which is sort of what you’re saying. Two losses out of so many launches make the shuttle program reasonably safe as space programs go.
We cannot go into space without the occasional disaster and loss of life. So it has been throughout history with exploring. Danger has not stopped us before. Have we become such cowards that we are unwilling to face danger to achieve great things. You can argue about how great going to Mars is, and you’ll find lots of company as well as plenty of opposition.
We will go to Mars. Only the when and the how remain to be answered.
Mars One has just, as predicted, moved the goal posts again. Now, their initial unmanned landing has gone from 2018 (impossible) to 2022 (still far fetched). The manned landing has moved from 2026 (almost as crazy as Elon Musk but with much less money) to 2031 (nearing the NASA dates).
Mars One was always nonsense for a variety of reasons, mostly because they have no money compared to the billions of dollars required for their plans. The sole question about them was always how long they could continue to exist.
Nevertheless, they have helped to bring Mars to the forefront of public discussion. That, in my opinion, is a good thing.
I will add that I have just written an 11-part series called “Thinking about Mars” and published on LinkedIn (free membership) that has a two-fold purpose. It discusses all of the issues (I could think of) that will arise regarding living on Mars, and it provides lots of material for science classes to use for discussion and projects.
Unfortunately your series does not cover all the problems that will occur for people living on Mars. It takes another 50 years to solve that.
Inka Lanser-Liebe
Just about every Mars problem will be solved in much fewer than fifty years due to the acceleration of technological innovation.
The primary potential problem that cannot be so readily solved is gravity.
Sure, there may be other problems. One is human psychology. I sought out the most likely ones.
Whether all of the living-on-Mars problems will be solved in 20, 50, or 100 years depends heavily on whether we people here on Earth strongly desire to solve them. Without the will and the money, they will languish.
Because the world in 20 years will be as far removed from today as the world of 40 years ago is, I suspect that we will have people on Mars by 2040 at the latest and will be able to live there, if it’s worth the trouble, by 2050. I’d bet on it, but I won’t be alive in 2050 to collect or pay up.