Opposition to Mars

[RDoc]

I'm not "opposed" to human colonization of Mars, I just think it's very premature. My main issues:

• I doubt that that humans can live long term, much less reproduce in other than 1.0G
• I can see no economic plan that would allow anything other than a very small, very heavily subsidized colony forever. There's nothing that could be mined or produced on Mars that would be useful to export to Earth. The notion that people will buy property on Mars is absurd IMHO. Property on the bottom of the ocean would be both cheaper and easier to live on.
• I don't see how a Martian colony could even be close to self sufficient. Antarctic bases are in a far more hospitable environment and they require pretty much everything to be brought in.
• If anything went badly wrong, or someone had a severe medical problem, it would likely be impossible to escape. Windows for return to Earth only open every 2 years or so.

Once we have nuclear rockets that allow much shorter and cheaper travel between Earth and Mars and which doesn't have to wait over 2 years between flights it might be worth looking at. I'd also like to see some real experience with living in low G environments for multiple years and what happens to mammalian reproduction. The economic issues though seem pretty intractable.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Once we have nuclear rockets that allow much shorter and cheaper travel between Earth and Mars and which doesn't have to wait over 2 years between flights it might be worth looking at. I'd also like to see some real experience with living in low G environments for multiple years and what happens to mammalian reproduction. The economic issues though seem pretty intractable.

The economics aren't totally intractable. On Mars you'll have free ground* and a free natural gas supply.
If there are places where people are paying $30k+ per year just to rent an apartment then If you plan to stay there, a trip to Mars on the BFS** could be considered a cheap investment.

* "Land" doesn't really capture it correctly.
** It's official. Gwynne said so.

 

[electracity]

I'm not "opposed" to human colonization of Mars, I just think it's very premature. My main issues:

• I doubt that that humans can live long term, much less reproduce in other than 1.0G
• I can see no economic plan that would allow anything other than a very small, very heavily subsidized colony forever. There's nothing that could be mined or produced on Mars that would be useful to export to Earth. The notion that people will buy property on Mars is absurd IMHO. Property on the bottom of the ocean would be both cheaper and easier to live on.
• I don't see how a Martian colony could even be close to self sufficient. Antarctic bases are in a far more hospitable environment and they require pretty much everything to be brought in.
• If anything went badly wrong, or someone had a severe medical problem, it would likely be impossible to escape. Windows for return to Earth only open every 2 years or so.

Once we have nuclear rockets that allow much shorter and cheaper travel between Earth and Mars and which doesn't have to wait over 2 years between flights it might be worth looking at. I'd also like to see some real experience with living in low G environments for multiple years and what happens to mammalian reproduction. The economic issues though seem pretty intractable.

Optimal travel may be 1G acceleration/deceleration for the trip. This may be the cosmic limit for all species, if we are unlucky.

Humans will likely need to be genetically engineered to live elsewhere long term, as you point out. This is the primary reason that a million people on Mars in 35-100 years is absurd. This is not the century for that reality.

Edit: Maths says about 2 days to mars at 1g

 

[ggr]

Not true. I do care, and so do a lot of other people. For example, that's why I'm against the current administration's plan for cutting foreign aid. We (the USA) are a rich country. I think our foreign aid should be expanded.

A famine in a foreign country is a localized issue, and we should care about it. But we don't need to limit ourselves to such issues. Some endeavors are just looking on a larger scale of scope or time than others are used to considering. Climate change has a scope of the whole planet over a time scale of several decades up to possibly hundreds of years. Mars is similar, but stretches even further. Beyond the inspirational aspects of it, Mars is about addressing risks over a time scale on the thousands of years. And it's not just about having another planet, it's also about having advanced space technology, both of which will help shield us from future cosmic risks. It's the grand stretching of our sphere of concern, no longer thinking like a community, or a country, or even a civilization, but thinking as a species in space and time.

I agree completely with what you said, except for the bold point. It is arguable that the ongoing civil unrest in Syria was started by a "local famine". It is currently costing a lot more to fight there than it would have to just ship them lots of food at the beginning.

 

[RDoc]

Optimal travel may be 1G acceleration/deceleration for the trip. This may be the cosmic limit for all species, if we are unlucky.

Humans will likely need to be genetically engineered to live elsewhere long term, as you point out. This is the primary reason that a million people on Mars in 35-100 years is absurd. This is not the century for that reality.

Edit: Maths says about 2 days to mars at 1g

The issue isn't the acceleration for the trip. The gravitational acceleration on Mars' surface is roughly 1/3 that of the Earth. There is no data on what happens to living beings in that kind of gravitational field. The experience with 0 G isn't very promising though.

 

[RDoc]

The economics aren't totally intractable. On Mars you'll have free ground* and a free natural gas supply.
If there are places where people are paying $30k+ per year just to rent an apartment then If you plan to stay there, a trip to Mars on the BFS** could be considered a cheap investment.

* "Land" doesn't really capture it correctly.
** It's official. Gwynne said so.

I'm not sure what you mean by free "natural gas". Mars' atmosphere, what there is of it, is mostly CO2. Notably, there's no oxygen which is necessary if you are going to burn natural gas, and for that matter, breath, raise crops, keep livestock, etc.

While martian land many be much cheaper than a NYC apartment, the apartment comes with some perks. Air, water, access to food, normal gravity, no deadly radiation, access to health care, heat, power, paying jobs, etc.

Martian land also comes with a high concentration of pretty poisonous perchlorates.

 

[electracity]

The issue isn't the acceleration for the trip. The gravitational acceleration on Mars' surface is roughly 1/3 that of the Earth. There is no data on what happens to living beings in that kind of gravitational field. The experience with 0 G isn't very promising though.

I was more thinking of the ability to occupy mars if travel can be reduced to a couple of weeks. I assume there can't be martians with genetic engineering and other measure well beyond current knowledge.

 

[ccutrer]

I'm not "opposed" to human colonization of Mars, I just think it's very premature. My main issues:

• I doubt that that humans can live long term, much less reproduce in other than 1.0G

This is a great question, and an unknown. Maybe just the fact of an embryo maturing in martian gravity will somehow cause it to adapt (and obviously be different than a Terran) and be able to live a full life on Mars. It'd be crushed if it came to Earth, though.

• I can see no economic plan that would allow anything other than a very small, very heavily subsidized colony forever. There's nothing that could be mined or produced on Mars that would be useful to export to Earth. The notion that people will buy property on Mars is absurd IMHO. Property on the bottom of the ocean would be both cheaper and easier to live on.

So? As long as they can produce enough for their own needs, they don't necessarily need to export anything to Earth. There are still isolated islands on earth where humans live completely self-sufficiently and disconnected from the rest of the world.

Also, it's still absurd to me that it's more economical to ship raw materials to China, assemble it there, then ship it to the rest of the world for consumption, and it's cheap. But it happens. A LOT. Even though the cost of shipping between Earth and Mars seems astronomically expensive at the moment, it could hit a critical mass where it becomes worth it.

• I don't see how a Martian colony could even be close to self sufficient. Antarctic bases are in a far more hospitable environment and they require pretty much everything to be brought in.

Antarctic bases don't even attempt to be self-sustaining. They simply rely on constant re-supply. Mars may be similar at first, but Elon's whole point is to bootstrap Mars enough that it CAN be self-sustaining.

• If anything went badly wrong, or someone had a severe medical problem, it would likely be impossible to escape. Windows for return to Earth only open every 2 years or so.

Yup. Risky business. The first colonists will likely be well apprised of these risks. But don't kid yourself that "doctor" won't be in some of the vanguard. Or pretty much any profession that would be critical to survival. Maybe there will be some "passengers", but most colonists will be selected (wether self-selected or not) for having skills necessary to building a new society from nothing.

Once we have nuclear rockets that allow much shorter and cheaper travel between Earth and Mars and which doesn't have to wait over 2 years between flights it might be worth looking at. I'd also like to see some real experience with living in low G environments for multiple years and what happens to mammalian reproduction. The economic issues though seem pretty intractable.

Elon's whole point is he thinks space travel is technologically at the point NOW that we could start building a Martian colony. Possible. Not easy. And to not do so would be irresponsible.

 

[jkn]

Rocket fuel is far easier to make on Mars than on the Moon. That is what SpaceX has determined, not me (I'm not an expert).

Mars has far more natural resources than the Moon. That is one of the main reasons why Elon choose Mars rather than the Moon as the best place off Earth to establish a human colony that ultimately could be self-sustaining. Everything SpaceX does is driven by that decision.

You are welcome to disagree with Elon and SpaceX. We shall see in a decade or two whether or not there is the start of a self-sustaining human colony on Mars or the Moon. My bet is Mars. At the moment there is no government or private entity that has any kind of barely realistic plan to do that on the Moon nor is there funding for such a plan. If there is some Moon plan out there that I am missing, please let me know.

I agree with everything above. I have seen plans for Moon base, but I doubt they have funding. You forget time. Launch window for Earth-Mars is every 26 months, Earth-Moon every 25 h. If everything else fails, backup life support is needed. For Moon base: O2 bottles, CO2 scrubbers and batteries for 2 weeks. For Mars: ?

Some have bought a visit to space station (I have met one of them). But its done. Next thing nobody else has done is trip around Moon. After that is done, next step is Moon landing. For Mars mission SpaceX needs to reduce cost to orbit. When that's done, we will have tourists on the Moon. SpaceX will accept that money. It is also necessary exercise for Mars mission.

 

[jkn]

This is a great question, and an unknown. Maybe just the fact of an embryo maturing in martian gravity will somehow cause it to adapt (and obviously be different than a Terran) and be able to live a full life on Mars. It'd be crushed if it came to Earth, though.

So? As long as they can produce enough for their own needs, they don't necessarily need to export anything to Earth. There are still isolated islands on earth where humans live completely self-sufficiently and disconnected from the rest of the world.

Also, it's still absurd to me that it's more economical to ship raw materials to China, assemble it there, then ship it to the rest of the world for consumption, and it's cheap. But it happens. A LOT. Even though the cost of shipping between Earth and Mars seems astronomically expensive at the moment, it could hit a critical mass where it becomes worth it.

Antarctic bases don't even attempt to be self-sustaining. They simply rely on constant re-supply. Mars may be similar at first, but Elon's whole point is to bootstrap Mars enough that it CAN be self-sustaining.

Yup. Risky business. The first colonists will likely be well apprised of these risks. But don't kid yourself that "doctor" won't be in some of the vanguard. Or pretty much any profession that would be critical to survival. Maybe there will be some "passengers", but most colonists will be selected (wether self-selected or not) for having skills necessary to building a new society from nothing.


Elon's whole point is he thinks space travel is technologically at the point NOW that we could start building a Martian colony. Possible. Not easy. And to not do so would be irresponsible.

Perhaps even 1/6 g is enough for our bodies. We don't know.

Mars base cannot produce everything. They need imports from Earth. Medicines, electronics,...

With current tech there is nothing on the Moon worth of exporting to Earth. He3 would be, if we had fusion reactor needing it. I doubt even fusion reactor could enable trade between Mars or Moon and Earth. Moon base could produce materials and components for other space projects. Mars also but Moon is closer.

Income sources for Moon base: Tourists, radio telescopes protected from radio noise of Earth, optical telescopes and fuel and components for other space projects.

Building Mars base now is too long step. Probability of failure is too high. We need to start with easier and cheaper Moon base.

 

[WannabeOwner]

I doubt even fusion reactor could enable trade between Mars or Moon and Earth.

If rockets are coming back "empty" from Mars the cargo-transport cost may become tolerable. Still need to get the extra weight off that planet, and slow it down when it gets home, and land it. So its going to have to be a cargo with value.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

I'm not sure what you mean by free "natural gas". Mars' atmosphere, what there is of it, is mostly CO2. Notably, there's no oxygen which is necessary if you are going to burn natural gas, and for that matter, breath, raise crops, keep livestock, etc.

While martian land many be much cheaper than a NYC apartment, the apartment comes with some perks. Air, water, access to food, normal gravity, no deadly radiation, access to health care, heat, power, paying jobs, etc.

CO2 + 2H20 + energy => CH4 + O2

If you're going to need electricity, and you're going to need energy storage, and land is free and abundant you're really going to end up with a lot of spare methane.

Martian land also comes with a high concentration of pretty poisonous perchlorates.

Which can also be a problem on Earth, so we already use microbes that break them down, producing chlorides and oxygen.

But my key point is that if it costs hundreds of millions of people what's comfortably more than a livable wage _just_ for shelter then really the economic arguments are bunk. There's a massively complex barter system hiding the fact that technology is responsible for the massive human wealth. It's technology that would enable humans to live on Mars.

The real question just relates to whether our bodies can cope in a low g environment. We don't really know yet because we live in 1g except for a few who live in zero g. We could try living on the Moon, but the Moon _really_ sucks.

 

[pilotSteve]

I struggle with that : Why didn't the other advanced civilisations backup themselves?

Growing scientific evidence that WE (humans) might well be a remnant of the backup done by "advanced" (e.g. past) civilizations? Lots of science emerging showing that Homo Sapiens DNA "hard fork" occurred much earlier than previous estimates. Homo sapiens 100,000 years older than thought

 

[jkn]

Growing scientific evidence that WE (humans) might well be a remnant of the backup done by "advanced" (e.g. past) civilizations? Lots of science emerging showing that Homo Sapiens DNA "hard fork" occurred much earlier than previous estimates. Homo sapiens 100,000 years older than thought

Our species being 100 000 years older, does not give any support for an idea of ancient advanced civilizations.
There is now evidence of such civilizations. Of course they did amazing astronomy, could handle heavy stones,... Those can be done without modern tools.

 

[jkn]

If rockets are coming back "empty" from Mars the cargo-transport cost may become tolerable. Still need to get the extra weight off that planet, and slow it down when it gets home, and land it. So its going to have to be a cargo with value.

My quick calculation shows that 5.14 kg propellant is needed for every kg from Mars surface to Earth transfer orbit. (With Raptor ISP 382 s.) Heat shield for breaking on Earth must be added.

What product would be cheaper to produce on Mars than on Earth?

Since I suggested radio telescopes on the Moon: Mars would be even better because of greater distance.

 

[abasile]

Perhaps even 1/6 g is enough for our bodies. We don't know.

This is the biggest question in my mind as to long term settlement of Mars.

On Mars, one can imagine creating cavernous sub-surface habitats with simulated sunlight (via LEDs), sustainable food production, development of energy sources, etc. These are hard problems but they seem solvable.

Whether humans can thrive at 0.38g is really unknown. I suspect the answer is "yes", but there may be some serious side effects. It might also be very difficult for people who've spent years on Mars to visit or return to Earth.

At 0.91g, Venus' surface gravity is much closer to Earth's, but Venus would obviously require some drastic pre-conditioning, including perhaps nudging it out to an orbit more distant from the sun.

Perhaps another option, if 0.38g just doesn't work out well, could be to choose a large asteroid with a reasonably stable orbit around the sun and helpful resources. Then hollow out a huge, interior ring, and build a giant centrifuge that simulates 1.0g.

 

[WannabeOwner]

What product would be cheaper to produce on Mars than on Earth?

I definitely can't think of anything, but I also wouldn't have thought it would remain cost effective for my T-shirt to be made in China and travel to me on a boat that goes half way around the world ... so I suppose its wait & see. Maybe the only return cargo will be humans who are homesick.

 

[jkn]

This is the biggest question in my mind as to long term settlement of Mars.

On Mars, one can imagine creating cavernous sub-surface habitats with simulated sunlight (via LEDs), sustainable food production, development of energy sources, etc. These are hard problems but they seem solvable.

Whether humans can thrive at 0.38g is really unknown. I suspect the answer is "yes", but there may be some serious side effects. It might also be very difficult for people who've spent years on Mars to visit or return to Earth.

At 0.91g, Venus' surface gravity is much closer to Earth's, but Venus would obviously require some drastic pre-conditioning, including perhaps nudging it out to an orbit more distant from the sun.

Perhaps another option, if 0.38g just doesn't work out well, could be to choose a large asteroid with a reasonably stable orbit around the sun and helpful resources. Then hollow out a huge, interior ring, and build a giant centrifuge that simulates 1.0g.

Centrifuge rings could be build on Moon and Mars.

We could start moving Venus soon, but it would take millions of years before we see any results. Removing CO2 from atmosphere would be easier. But this causes storage problem of about 270 tons of C for each square m. ... Floating carbon fiber cities on Venus.

If we manage to escape this gravity well, why should we jump into another?

 

[abasile]

Centrifuge rings could be build on Moon and Mars.

Thanks for nudging me to think a bit harder. A centrifuge ring could actually be constructed in a plane parallel with a portion of the planetary surface. In this case, for inhabitants of the centrifuge, "up" would be at an angle relative to the planet's surface and they could experience 1.0g at the appropriate rotation rate.

Given the added expense of constructing large centrifuges, perhaps most Martians could spend most of their time in standard habitats, and only use centrifuges on a part time basis for conditioning purposes. Again, what's needed depends on a big unknown, that is, our bodies' long term response to 0.38g.

 

[RDoc]

CO2 + 2H20 + energy => CH4 + O2

Well, the energy part, not to mention all the equipment to mine the water, compress the CO2, etc. is very far from free, nor is the maintenance of the whole process. It seems pretty doubtful to me that any Martian colony would have so much electricity and high temperature process heat available that it could be considered free. It's orders of magnitude cheaper to produce energy on the Earth's surface and I haven't noticed energy being free.

<Perchlorates in soil>
Which can also be a problem on Earth, so we already use microbes that break them down, producing chlorides and oxygen.

The issue with perchlorates is water contamination due to things like explosives and rocket fuel. Some microbes can break it down but they require controlled bioreactors to work efficiently, not dry subfreezing soil exposed to heavy radiation. Perchlorate remediation is extremely difficult and expensive.

I've yet to hear any plan which even approaches plausibility for how a Martian colony could even maintain itself economically. If it's going to cost hundreds of millions or billions per year to maintain a small colony on Mars, it's going to be very short lived.