Colonization of Mars

I've always loved the idea of space colonization, but the recent hype about Mars One and Elon Musk has left me with a sour taste.

The idea that we can, in the foreseeable future, send humans to live on Mars (and not have them die a horrible death) is, frankly, hogwash. Cosmic radiation, lack of oxygen, nitrogen, and gravity, are problems that we're not going to solve anytime soon no matter how much money we throw at it. Sure, we can come up with plausible sounding ideas about how to solve those problems, but there's a huge gap between concepts and practice.

However, what if we didn't send people to Mars? What if we send drones? Most of those problems suddenly vanishes. Drones don't need to eat, drink, or get cancer from radiation.

What we need is a sufficiently advanced AI that will allow drones to operate autonomously in a Martian environment. The drone needs two abilities: 1) terraform Mars for human habitation, and 2) fabricate other drones from Martian raw resources.

Once we have those two (3?) technologies, we can send in a first generation of drones to Mars. Their first task is to multiply until they reach sufficient numbers, then they can start the terraforming process. Once the drones have prepared Mars sufficiently for human habitation, then, and only then, will we send people in.

solarz said:

I've always loved the idea of space colonization, but the recent hype about Mars One and Elon Musk has left me with a sour taste.

The idea that we can, in the foreseeable future, send humans to live on Mars (and not have them die a horrible death) is, frankly, hogwash. Cosmic radiation, lack of oxygen, nitrogen, and gravity, are problems that we're not going to solve anytime soon no matter how much money we throw at it. Sure, we can come up with plausible sounding ideas about how to solve those problems, but there's a huge gap between concepts and practice.

However, what if we didn't send people to Mars? What if we send drones? Most of those problems suddenly vanishes. Drones don't need to eat, drink, or get cancer from radiation.

What we need is a sufficiently advanced AI that will allow drones to operate autonomously in a Martian environment. The drone needs two abilities: 1) terraform Mars for human habitation, and 2) fabricate other drones from Martian raw resources.

Once we have those two (3?) technologies, we can send in a first generation of drones to Mars. Their first task is to multiply until they reach sufficient numbers, then they can start the terraforming process. Once the drones have prepared Mars sufficiently for human habitation, then, and only then, will we send people in.

Click to expand...

You mean kind of like developing Bioroids (genetically engineered humans) or drones with advanced AI with a human touch? That would work, IF you can get past the religious institutional elites to start developing a program for it. You know those freaks will not allowed such ungodly science research to go through, just like the out cry against stem cell research using aborted embryos.

solarz said:

I've always loved the idea of space colonization, but the recent hype about Mars One and Elon Musk has left me with a sour taste.

The idea that we can, in the foreseeable future, send humans to live on Mars (and not have them die a horrible death) is, frankly, hogwash. Cosmic radiation, lack of oxygen, nitrogen, and gravity, are problems that we're not going to solve anytime soon no matter how much money we throw at it. Sure, we can come up with plausible sounding ideas about how to solve those problems, but there's a huge gap between concepts and practice.

However, what if we didn't send people to Mars? What if we send drones? Most of those problems suddenly vanishes. Drones don't need to eat, drink, or get cancer from radiation.

What we need is a sufficiently advanced AI that will allow drones to operate autonomously in a Martian environment. The drone needs two abilities: 1) terraform Mars for human habitation, and 2) fabricate other drones from Martian raw resources.

Once we have those two (3?) technologies, we can send in a first generation of drones to Mars. Their first task is to multiply until they reach sufficient numbers, then they can start the terraforming process. Once the drones have prepared Mars sufficiently for human habitation, then, and only then, will we send people in.

Click to expand...

I like it, but the company that gets to "mirror" Tyrell Corp, will it be Chinese. European or American and will the "Replicants" have a use by date and just shut down as they may object to humanoids occupying their space.

People will need to go one day, otherwise is is not human exploration and expansion.

The real issue and stumbling block over all others it that of getting back off the Martian surface after landing?

You can most likely deal with all the other hurdles for humans with foreseeable technology. Building a large permanent Space Station in Mars orbit, sending Robotic/AI missions to the surface to build viable habitation etc etc.
The issue however for humans on the surface, getting back into orbit remains however, an insurmountable problem.

First if you compare Mars with earth.

No liquid surface water, bone chilling cold (could go to -107°C and - 60°C for most of the year), high levels of radiation, global sand storms, 1/3 of the Earth's gravity and most importantly only about 1% of the Earth's air pressure meaning if you take off your space helmet outside you wouldn't last a minute. You will be cooked from the inside.

Terraforming the planet will be difficult since the planet doesn't have enough mass (just 11% of that of Earth) or a electromagnetic field to either hold on or to protect the new atmosphere. And how do you terraform a planet like Mars or any planet anyway ?

People will have to live underground to shield them from the elements above. That means using natural caves at first and later digging our own. They would of course have to be pressurized for our needs. Install UV lights everywhere. Because there never has been life on the planet or at least not more than bacterial life. That means there are also no hydrocarbon energy sources for us to exploit. Wind energy won't work because with about 0,5% of the Earth's air pressure you won't be able to fly a kite in the Martian sand storms. No thermo energy sources either because the planet is no longer geologically active. Its molten core has gone cold. That leaves solar power and what we can take with us in terms of energy sources. There seems to be some methane on the planet. Maybe nuclear as there must still be U-235 uranium on the planet. But to mine, process and then use them in a nuclear powerplant on Mars will be a HUGE undertaking.

Here is a bit of sci fi fantasy about Mars. The Book and TV show is called The Expanse. It's set about 200 years into the future and Mars is a more advanced and wealthier society and possesses better technology and a stronger military than Earth. Its now home to 4,5 billion people.

First of all, if there is Methane there is life (or a very large deposit of Methane that was generated by life a long time ago) since Methane is a rather unstable gas.Scientist have been saying this for a long time.

Developing a permanent base on planet Mars is an interesting idea but we first need to go back to the moon first since the moon would be the base of operation for exploitation of the solar system. From there we can colonize Mars if there is enough natural resources on the planet.

We don't actually know if the core had gone cool. The Mars crust is three times thicker than Earth so there may still be some heat down below.

Instead of using chemical rockets, if we use the VASIMR thrusters we will be on Mars in just a month rather then months making it viable within our lifetime.

I am still waiting for a manned mission to Mars in 2030.

At a minimum, testing colony equipment on the moon would ensure a base level of functionality when used on Mars, so that would be better than the Mars Direct approach that Zubrin and others advocate.

SampanViking said:

The real issue and stumbling block over all others it that of getting back off the Martian surface after landing?

Click to expand...

Why not just replicate and improve the technology NASA used to get back off the moon surfasce?

Franklin said:

First if you compare Mars with earth.

No liquid surface water, bone chilling cold (could go to -107°C and - 60°C for most of the year), high levels of radiation, global sand storms, 1/3 of the Earth's gravity and most importantly only about 1% of the Earth's air pressure meaning if you take off your space helmet outside you wouldn't last a minute. You will be cooked from the inside.

Terraforming the planet will be difficult since the planet doesn't have enough mass (just 11% of that of Earth) or a electromagnetic field to either hold on or to protect the new atmosphere. And how do you terraform a planet like Mars or any planet anyway ?

People will have to live underground to shield them from the elements above. That means using natural caves at first and later digging our own. They would of course have to be pressurized for our needs. Install UV lights everywhere. Because there never has been life on the planet or at least not more than bacterial life. That means there are also no hydrocarbon energy sources for us to exploit. Wind energy won't work because with about 0,5% of the Earth's air pressure you won't be able to fly a kite in the Martian sand storms. No thermo energy sources either because the planet is no longer geologically active. Its molten core has gone cold. That leaves solar power and what we can take with us in terms of energy sources. There seems to be some methane on the planet. Maybe nuclear as there must still be U-235 uranium on the planet. But to mine, process and then use them in a nuclear powerplant on Mars will be a HUGE undertaking.

Click to expand...

You bring up excellent points. Can we terraform Mars into a human-habitable planet? The answer is far from certain!

We certainly would not be able to change the gravity, but we might be able to create a biological process that can increase the atmosphere and the abundance of organic elements.

Energy is another critical issue. Solar and nuclear seem to be the two most viable options, but, as you said, creating a nuclear power plant on Mars would be a huge undertaking.

This is why all the talk about sending people to Mars is ridiculous. We aren't even able to resolve the most basic problems yet.

B.I.B. said:

Why not just replicate and improve the technology NASA used to get back off the moon surfasce?

Click to expand...

Two big differences to deal with.
1) Moon has no atmosphere to clear, so Apollo was able to orbit very low above the lunar surface.
2) Lunar gravity is 1.6m/s while Martian is 3.8m/s. This means that you need a lot more fuel to gain each meter of altitude and you need to climb much higher to clear the Martian atmosphere.

In short, while the Lunar Module could carry enough fuel just to kick the top half back into space, the Martian expedition would need to take a full launch vehicle, fully fuelled to Mars, land it safely in the vertical position and for it to be in perfect working condition for lift off.
Just look at the scale of the operation this requires on Earth to lift a rocket that has been simply put together on the ground under optimum conditions.