Mars and Off Planet Colonization - General Possibilities Discussion

[ohmman]

”Historically”, yes. But not pre-historically, which is what I was referring to. And I mean tens of thousands of years ago when the human population was very low.

Look at my avatar. You think I don’t remember those times?!

I disagree that we can attribute early migration to any cause, especially not that of the love of exploration. Hypotheses vary based on my reading, but in many of them, the idea is that migration is a result of following resources. Perhaps the best known of these is the Sahara Pump hypothesis.

In even the toughest of cases in history, the challenges were mild compared to what we face away from our home planet.

 

[RDoc]

RDoc - are you familiar with Mr Musk's argument that we need to establish a hard drive backup? You cannot do that on earth, including either Antarctica or the ocean bottom.

Very familiar, but if you can't make the $Ts needed on relatively easy and low cost endeavours, trying to do the same thing in a high cost extremely difficult environment probably won't work.

I'm also very familiar with the far more immediate issue of global warming.This is a problem that will be seriously affecting us in a century, and cause huge disruptions in 500 years if we don't take action. Yet, the world is doing nothing effective about global warming because it is deemed too expensive, disruptive, and long term. So even though there are very good current technical solutions, overwhelming supporting scientific evidence, and a relatively near term deadline, we're not funding it, apart from things like solar and wind power, and some efficiency efforts, all of which have an immediate payback.

Now, consider the notion of setting up a truly self sufficient and expanding human Mars habitation to avoid some undefined future catastrophe. We have no evidence that humans can live long term on Mars; the cost is completely unknown, but would be gigantic; there's no known economic plan that would be even close to break even, much less fund expansion; and the probability of this catastrophe happening in any given millenium is tiny. Not a very compelling case for decades or centuries of heavy investment, which is why I'm doubtful it would be sustained, or even started.

If we're going to really become a space faring nation that could colonize off Earth locations, I don't see how it can be done other than on something like a pay as you go basis. I'm a lot more interested in NEO manufacturing or something of the kind that could be started on a reasonable scale and grow organically into extra-terrestrial human habitation.

Trying to colonize Mars in the near future seems analogous to DaVinci attempting to build his wood framed human powered aircraft.

 

[Grendal]

I changed the title of the thread to better fit the long term discussion going on.

 

[ecarfan]

I disagree that we can attribute early migration to any cause, especially not that of the love of exploration. Hypotheses vary based on my reading, but in many of them, the idea is that migration is a result of following resources. Perhaps the best known of these is the Sahara Pump hypothesis.

We can posit a number of causes for the vast migration of early humans across the surface of the planet, we just can’t be certain which causes explain the data we have about that migration.

The Sahara Pump Hypothesis is specific to humans (and other species) leaving Africa but is not relevant to the continuing expansion of human populations after that period.

When I bring up the spirit of exploration and adventure that the human species unquestionably possesses, and that I believe will drive us to colonize Mars, what I’m really talking about is simple curiousity. We want to know what’s over the next mountain range, what’s under the surface of the ocean, what it would be like to go to orbit. Not necessarily because there might be resources in those places that we would find useful, but because we are curious. This book takes a stab at explaining that deeply rooted human trait: https://www.amazon.com/Why-What-Makes-Us-Curious/dp/1476792097

In even the toughest of cases in history, the challenges were mild compared to what we face away from our home planet.

I agree. But it is important to acknowledge that at this point in human history we are very close to possessing the necessary technology to enable a human colony on Mars. We can’t say we have the technology, obviously. But we may have the capabilities and understanding needed to create it, we just have to make the effort.

We won’t know unless we try. Elon’s position appears to be that, given the numerous existential threats facing humanity* it is imperative that we make the attempt, especially given that it will be decades if not centuries before we will know if we have succeeded. If we don’t start our efforts as soon as there is some chance of successe, there is a possibility that we will be too late and that humans will perish. It would be morally indefensible not to try. I agree with him.

* Existential threats, near term to long term, some much more probable than others:

• Nuclear war with ensuing massive climate change and agricultural and economic collapse collapse.
• Climate change with rising sea levels, altered ocean chemistry effecting the base of the food chain, and fisheries collapse
• Asteroid strike (as occurred about 66 million years ago)
• Permian extinction type event from natural geologic processes (as occurred on Earth about 220 million years ago)
• Nearby supernovae and/or gamma ray burst
• Massive solar flare from our sun (has been observed at other stars at energy levels that could wipe us out)
• Reversal of earth’s magnetic field (has happened multiple times in the past and may be related to past mass extinctions)
• Passing black hole that radically alters Earth’s orbit
• Aliens showing up and treating us like bothersome insects

Many of those possibilities are highly unlikely, some will be dismissed with a laugh by people who have difficulty looking at the big picture, but some of them are much too likely for my comfort. Sure, the probability of most of those occurring in this century are low. But the first two on the list make me very nervous, and just those to me justify what SpaceX is attempting to do: provide some insurance that because of human stupidity we don’t go extinct. I don’t have kids, and I’m not going to be around in 30 years. But I do care about the future of humanity.

 

[RDoc]

* Existential threats, near term to long term, some much more probable than others:

• Nuclear war with ensuing massive climate change and agricultural and economic collapse collapse.

And if there such a war, why wouldn't it extend to Mars? For centuries, wars in Europe were also fought in their colonies.

• Climate change with rising sea levels, altered ocean chemistry effecting the base of the food chain, and fisheries collapse

t would be much cheaper and easier to avert climate change than move to Mars. I'm pretty sure that even after it was well under way, reversing climate change by extracting CO2 from the atmosphere and sequestering it would be cheaper, easier and quicker than moving to Mars.This also is a great excuse for not doing anything about climate change. "Don't worry we'll just move to Mars".

• Reversal of earth’s magnetic field (has happened multiple times in the past and may be related to past mass extinctions)

References? It's happened during human times with no fossil record of any extinctions.

• Nearby supernovae and/or gamma ray burst
• Massive solar flare from our sun (has been observed at other stars at energy levels that could wipe us out)
• Passing black hole that radically alters Earth’s orbit
• Aliens showing up and treating us like bothersome insects

All of these would effect Mars in exactly the same way as Earth, some even more.

• Asteroid strike (as occurred about 66 million years ago)

It would be much easier to divert such an asteroid or comet and there are programs in progress to figure out how.

• Permian extinction type event from natural geologic processes (as occurred on Earth about 220 million years ago)

This makes some sense, I don't see how we are going to stop massive vulcanism any time soon, but they are so infrequent that the argument for rushing off to Mars in the next few centuries is pretty thin.

I'd add the possibility of a 100% fatal illness, natural or a weapon, but unless the colonies were completely cut off, they'd likely get it too.

 

[ecarfan]

And if there such a war, why wouldn't it extend to Mars? For centuries, wars in Europe were also fought in their colonies.

And those wars were on the same planet. Mars is a ways away, as you know.

t would be much cheaper and easier to avert climate change than move to Mars. I'm pretty sure that even after it was well under way, reversing climate change by extracting CO2 from the atmosphere and sequestering it would be cheaper, easier and quicker than moving to Mars.This also is a great excuse for not doing anything about climate change. "Don't worry we'll just move to Mars".

I hear that argument a lot, from people who somehow ignore the fact that the mission of Tesla is to convert the world to sustainable energy specifically because of the threat of climate change. As I’m sure you know, this fellow named Musk is the CEO of Tesla. So he’s concerned about the issue.

And at present we have no even vaguely realistic solutions to sequestering that much CO2 and we continue to pour increasingly vast amounts into the atmosphere. The trend is not good.

It's happened during human times with no fossil record of any extinctions.

Note I said “may be related...”.

It would be much easier to divert such an asteroid or comet and there are programs in progress to figure out how.

Yes there are but you forget that we almost certainly only know the orbits of a a tiny fraction of all the asteroids that could conceivably harm us because asteroids are so difficult to detect.

All of these would effect Mars in exactly the same way as Earth, some even more.

Maybe, maybe not if the Mars colony was shielded from the effects of those events by being below ground.

I'd add the possibility of a 100% fatal illness, natural or a weapon, but unless the colonies were completely cut off, they'd likely get it too.

Yes, my list of existential threats was incomplete. I left out a human engineered plague that got out of control, nanotechnology that got out of control, a malevolent AI that got out of control, I could go on...

As you can see, humanity faces a number of very serious existential threats, some of our own making, some not. You can ignore or trivialize them if you wish. I am not ignoring them, and neither is Musk.

 

[ecarfan]

Stephen Hawking, someone far smarter than me (to put it mildly) has said this about the topic: (reference Colonies in space may be only hope, says Hawking )

“I don’t think the human race will survive the next thousand years, unless we spread into space … We face a number of threats to our survival, from nuclear war, catastrophic global warming, and genetically engineered viruses; the number is likely to increase in the future, with the development of new technologies, and new ways things can go wrong … We need to expand our horizons beyond planet Earth if we are to have a long-term future, spreading out into space, and to other stars, so a disaster on Earth would not mean the end of the human race. … Once we spread out into space and establish independent colonies, our future should be safe.”

Princeton professor J. Richard Gott said : (reference A Survival Imperative for Space Colonization )

“In 1970 everyone figured we’d have humans on Mars by now, but we haven’t taken the opportunity. We should do it soon, because colonizing other worlds is our best chance to hedge our bets and improve the survival prospects of our species. Sooner or later something will get us if we stay on one planet. By the time we’re in trouble and wish we had that colony on Mars, it may be too late.”

 

[ohmman]

The Sahara Pump Hypothesis is specific to humans (and other species) leaving Africa but is not relevant to the continuing expansion of human populations after that period.

I disagree with "not relevant." I believe it shows yet another example of humans migrating due to the "historical" factors I named previously, but in this case being prehistoric. I haven't seen any support for people migrating due solely to curiosity. I am not disagreeing that curiosity isn't part of the draw, however.

And on the other front, I'm not arguing against colonizing Mars; on the contrary I'm fully in support of that being a future reality! I'm just saying that I haven't seen a good economic argument in favor of making it a reality.

 

[RDoc]

Stephen Hawking, someone far smarter than me (to put it mildly) has said this about the topic: (reference Colonies in space may be only hope, says Hawking )

“I don’t think the human race will survive the next thousand years, unless we spread into space … We face a number of threats to our survival, from nuclear war, catastrophic global warming, and genetically engineered viruses; the number is likely to increase in the future, with the development of new technologies, and new ways things can go wrong … We need to expand our horizons beyond planet Earth if we are to have a long-term future, spreading out into space, and to other stars, so a disaster on Earth would not mean the end of the human race. … Once we spread out into space and establish independent colonies, our future should be safe.”

Princeton professor J. Richard Gott said : (reference A Survival Imperative for Space Colonization )

“In 1970 everyone figured we’d have humans on Mars by now, but we haven’t taken the opportunity. We should do it soon, because colonizing other worlds is our best chance to hedge our bets and improve the survival prospects of our species. Sooner or later something will get us if we stay on one planet. By the time we’re in trouble and wish we had that colony on Mars, it may be too late.”

When I was in school, that kind of argument was referred to as "Proof by intimidation". It's very similar to "Proof by assertion".

 

[RDoc]

I disagree with "not relevant." I believe it shows yet another example of humans migrating due to the "historical" factors I named previously, but in this case being prehistoric. I haven't seen any support for people migrating due solely to curiosity. I am not disagreeing that curiosity isn't part of the draw, however.

And on the other front, I'm not arguing against colonizing Mars; on the contrary I'm fully in support of that being a future reality! I'm just saying that I haven't seen an good economic argument in favor of making it a reality.

Agreed.

 

[ecarfan]

When I was in school, that kind of argument was referred to as "Proof by intimidation". It's very similar to "Proof by assertion".

Hmm...I never stated it was “proof”. Simply offering up the opinion of someone who I think is far more qualified and knowledgeable than I am on the topic. You are free to disregard Mr. Hawking’s argument. I take it very seriously.

 

[ecarfan]

I'm not arguing against colonizing Mars; on the contrary I'm fully in support of that being a future reality! I'm just saying that I haven't seen a good economic argument in favor of making it a reality.

Musk’s position is that once the transportation costs of getting to Mars fall below a certain threshold, there is an economic forcing function that will drive the Mars colonization process. And I’m saying that the human drive to explore and learn is also a driver. Combine those two drives and there is a real likelihood that it will happen and ultimately be successfull. The obstacles are huge. But the goal is not impossible, in his opinion, and I agree with him.

No doubt there will be setbacks, unanticipated problems, and yes, fatalities. Musk would be the first to admit that. When he started SpaceX he openly acknowledged that the company could fail. But he felt the goal was important enough that it was worth risking his $100 million investment. In just 15 years, SpaceX has accomplished incredible things and achieved goals that numerous aerospace experts said could not be achieved. But those accomplishments are just the first small steps towards the end goal.

 

[ecarfan]

Scientists Discover Clean Water Ice Just Below Mars' Surface

Quote: “In this week's issue of Science, researchers led by USGS planetary geologist Colin Dundas present detailed observations of eight Martian regions where erosion has uncovered large, steep cross-sections of underlying ice. It’s not just the volume of water they found (it's no mystery that Mars harbors a lot of ice in these particular regions), it’s how mineable it promises to be. The deposits begin at depths as shallow as one meter and extend upwards of 100 meters into the planet. The researchers don't estimate the quantity of ice present, but they do note that the amount of ice near the surface is likely more extensive than the few locations where it's exposed. And what's more, the ice looks pretty damn pure.”

It’s also at higher latitudes than would be optimal for human settlements, because they are colder. But it is an exciting discovery.

 

[KarenRei]

We've known for quite a while that Mars has shallow ice in many locations. I don't think anyone is going to be colonizing a cliff any time soon

The problem is that none of it is likely to be simply "ice"; it's more like permafrost (with varying consistency). With Mars's normal mix of toxic compounds included. Certainly usable when properly mined and distilled, but developing and maturing extraction systems will take time and money. I once read a paper on the state of the various technologies NASA is considering; the TRL on all of them is quite low.

Get a couple core sample returns, followed by a properly funded 5-10 year development programme including at least one in-situ demonstrator mission, and you'll have a reliable water production means. Consumables will not be insignificant (even removing overburden (which constantly regenerates as ice sublimates) involves a lot of wear and tear, let alone if you're using a mining method that involves having to rip up super-cold (extra hard) permafrost!), but they'll certainly be less than importing water!

 

[Ludus]

We've known for quite a while that Mars has shallow ice in many locations. I don't think anyone is going to be colonizing a cliff any time soon

The problem is that none of it is likely to be simply "ice"; it's more like permafrost (with varying consistency). With Mars's normal mix of toxic compounds included. Certainly usable when properly mined and distilled, but developing and maturing extraction systems will take time and money. I once read a paper on the state of the various technologies NASA is considering; the TRL on all of them is quite low.

Get a couple core sample returns, followed by a properly funded 5-10 year development programme including at least one in-situ demonstrator mission, and you'll have a reliable water production means. Consumables will not be insignificant (even removing overburden (which constantly regenerates as ice sublimates) involves a lot of wear and tear, let alone if you're using a mining method that involves having to rip up super-cold (extra hard) permafrost!), but they'll certainly be less than importing water!

We don’t have definitive proof, but there’s evidence that some of the glacial ice on Mars is relatively pure, at least not permafrost or frozen mud but similar to old glaciers on earth made of layers of snowfall.

I think colonizing cliffs exposed by exacavating glacial ice and roofed over would make good places to live. Aerogels made from local materials could insulate the ice face. He ice is gonna get mined anyway to make propellant, water, oxygen so why not use the space created too.

 

[jkn]

We don’t have definitive proof, but there’s evidence that some of the glacial ice on Mars is relatively pure, at least not permafrost or frozen mud but similar to old glaciers on earth made of layers of snowfall.

I think colonizing cliffs exposed by exacavating glacial ice and roofed over would make good places to live. Aerogels made from local materials could insulate the ice face. He ice is gonna get mined anyway to make propellant, water, oxygen so why not use the space created too.

Yes, they found relatively pure ice. It might need distillation before use. It also too close to pole for human colony.

 

[Ulmo]

Forget Mars - Occupy Venus. Venus Labs

Substitute corn with wheat (I am allergic to corn -- see page 27 of http://www.venuslabs.org/Rethinking Our Sister Planet (ebook).pdf), and I'll go live there.

The approved unit is Tonne.

I like it! (Yes, I'm stretching -- I generally hate Metric.) But, I'm ok with tonne. It's similar in amount to ton.

What is "150t" in BFR specs?

Back to:

Forget Mars - Occupy Venus. Venus Labs

Ok, reading on page 27 of the above referenced doc, it says "In short, a mature habitat of this size with a 10-person crew would mass at least 60k tonnes of dead mass, leaving no more than around 170k tonnes to spare for the ascent vehicle."

What I'm confused by is what they mean by "leaving no more than around 170k tonnes to spare for the ascent vehicle." Payload capacity on BFR is 150t. Is 150t = 150 tonnes? Also, I think 60k tonnes and 170k tonnes are typos, and they meant 60 tonnes and 170 tonnes respectively. Anyway, that BFR is looking better and better for Venus. If someone could walk me through these mass measurements, I'd be delighted.

Can a mod move this to another thread?

 

[NeverFollow]

World going to hell? Here are the Solar System’s five most livable places

Let's Colonize Titan

Where could we put a Human Settlement besides the Moon and Mars?

 

[ecarfan]

For humans Titan looks awful to me. So cold that it’s “lakes” are liquid methane. The atmosphere is a hazy concoction of nitrogen and hydrocarbons. From the surface you can’t see the sun or even Saturn. It would be an incredibly depressing place to live.

Mars is clearly the best candidate for an off-Earth human colony based on its available resources and a day length very close to Earth (the latter is more important than I think most people appreciate). It poses tremendous challenges, obviously. Humans evolved on Earth, and Mars is very different. But we may be on the cusp of being able to develop the technologies to allow us to live there. We could learn to live on the Moon but I think it would be much more difficult to build a self-sustaining colony on the Moon than on Mars because the Moon lacks so many resources we need and because the light/dark cycle is so extreme.

 

[Grendal]

I expect we'll see a Moon base. One day in the future it may expand into a colony but not too soon. Something more like how the ISS works. People go there to work for a period of time but come back to Earth.