Obama puts Mars at heart of space vision

[Yazman]

Link to article: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20100415/twl-obama-puts-mars-at-heart-of-space-vi-41f21e0.html

Snippet from article (click link for full article):

The US president told a crowd of about 200 people at Kennedy Space (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/space.html) Center: "The bottom line is, nobody is more committed to manned space flight, to human exploration of space, than I am. But we've got to do it in a smart way."


He sketched out a vision of manned missions to Mars by the 2030s, but did not provide a detailed road map of how these breakthroughs would be achieved.

Mr Obama said a $6 billion increase in NASA's budget will help ramp up exploration of the solar system, increase Earth-based observation to improve an understanding of climate change (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/fc/climate-change.html), and bolster support for private space companies which he said have formed a bedrock of America's space programs.


We discussed Obama's cancellation of the moon base and the Constellation program previously - which I, along with some others here was very pissed off about. But now that we actually have an idea of what form the new space program will take - I am exceptionally happy to hear that it will involve manned missions to asteroids and Mars.

What does everybody else think?

[AK]

Let's see how they manage to outsource jobs here.

[Mendax]

I think manned missions to mars by 2030 would be pretty damn awesome, although wether it will actually happen or not is probably going to be part people need to look at.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

A shot for Mars in the style of the Apollo missions would be a great leap backwards, but projects with near-Earth asteroids as their targets and a focus on space-based recource extraction and manufacturing could potentially be a massive shot in the arm for space exploration; the interim goal should be to make future missions increasingly reliant on spaceborne resources and therefore effectively self-funding.

The great thing about this is that the ISS has a potentially important role to play in this - if we want humans to be out there for periods of time ranging from years to lifetimes, we need to build on our previous experience as well as undertake daring new initiatives.

But of course, all this would have been done a hell of a lot sooner if NASA scientists could get on with their work without constantly having their projects cancelled or their funding slashed by petty, short-sighted politicians.

[Mumbles]

Have they actually developed good enough solar radiation shields to protect the people on board? I hadn't heard or read anything about new developments (don't know if it's necessarily "new") in this, but I'd think it'd be kinda important before we go shooting them off to their doom.

[cska]

I'm still skeptical. Personally, I'm putting more hope that the Russians remain committed to going to Mars and put their money where their mouths are. Cause I don't think America has the audacity and vision to achieve anything innovative anymore.

[Yazman]

I'm still skeptical. Personally, I'm putting more hope that the Russians remain committed to going to Mars and put their money where their mouths are. Cause I don't think America has the audacity and vision to achieve anything innovative anymore.

The Chinese space agency seems to be the one aiming for mars missions with the most conviction lately AFAIK.

[cska]

The Chinese space agency seems to be the one aiming for mars missions with the most conviction lately AFAIK.

Really? I thought they were trying to go to the moon. There's nothing to do on the moon...

[InuyashaKnight]

I see a new space race...

[Salyut]

It'll be canceled when the 2012 Palin/Bachmann administration takes over.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Have they actually developed good enough solar radiation shields to protect the people on board? I hadn't heard or read anything about new developments (don't know if it's necessarily "new") in this, but I'd think it'd be kinda important before we go shooting them off to their doom.

As I understand it, the problem is not the provision of radiation shielding itself, but rather that currently available radiation shielding is heavy and would enormously increase fuel requirements.

The Atomic Rocket website has some notes (http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3ah.html#shielding) on radiation shielding.


I'm still skeptical. Personally, I'm putting more hope that the Russians remain committed to going to Mars and put their money where their mouths are. Cause I don't think America has the audacity and vision to achieve anything innovative anymore.

While it would be great to see the Russians undertake new major space projects, especially since their engineering philosophy and approach to space exploration in general is, I feel, worth pursuing, I don't think Russia has the money to spare.


Really? I thought they were trying to go to the moon. There's nothing to do on the moon...

Nonsense. There's plenty to do on the Moon; actually going through the business of establishing a self-sufficient colony will teach us many valuable lessons that will apply throughout the Solar system, and getting to the Moon will require far less fuel than getting to Mars.

Establishing a colony on the Moon will also enable us to undertake substantial projects such as a farside observatory (http://orbitalvector.com/Solar%20System/Moon/FARSIDE%20OBSERVATORY.htm) free from Earthly interference.


It'll be canceled when the 2012 Palin/Bachmann administration takes over.

Really? I'm afraid my crystal ball isn't as good as yours.

[Dimentio]

I think Earth should be at the heart of every space agency's vision. They have so much to give in terms of self-sustained housing today. The Moon, Mars and Alpha Centauri are amazing places, but to send out large manned expeditions there is a giant resource waste, as long as people are starving.

[Leonid Brozhnev]

That'll leave the He3 mining up to Russia and China then, while the US goes for useless Solar walkabouts. Establish a base on the moon first, THEN think about getting to Mars.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think Earth should be at the heart of every space agency's vision. They have so much to give in terms of self-sustained housing today. The Moon, Mars and Alpha Centauri are amazing places, but to send out large manned expeditions there is a giant resource waste, as long as people are starving.

Well, I think that part of a grander space programme should involve a phase of research and establishment of arcologies (http://orbitalvector.com/Megastructures/Arcologies/Arcologies.htm), seasteads (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasteading), underwater habitats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwater_habitat), Antarctic colonies (http://colonizeantarctica.blogspot.com/), Aerostatic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerostat) dwellings, and underground cities. All of these will provide valuable experience of living and working in various environments which can be found to various degrees in the rest of Solar system.

Actual missions into space should concentrate on launch systems, both rocket and non-rocket, as well as Earth-independant resource extraction and utilisation and the effects of microgravity on biological and technological systems.

[Revy]

Really? I thought they were trying to go to the moon. There's nothing to do on the moon...

Helium-3. could be used for nuclear fusion and provide a clean, safer form of nuclear energy than the horrible, polluting, wasteful and extremely unsafe one used now (fission). it's supposedly abundant on the Moon, and even a small amount could power the whole Earth for centuries, or something like that.

Space launches require lots of fuel and thrust in order to exit the atmosphere and the high gravity of the Earth. The Moon has virtually no atmosphere at all and low gravity. If you wanted to go to Mars, it would be better to launch from the Moon.

[piet11111]

I doubt current capitalism can afford such massive undertakings as a new space program unless its done internationally but then what would be the point in such an ego program ?

[Dr Mindbender]

Well, I think that part of a grander space programme should involve a phase of research and establishment of arcologies (http://orbitalvector.com/Megastructures/Arcologies/Arcologies.htm), seasteads (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasteading), underwater habitats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwater_habitat), Antarctic colonies (http://colonizeantarctica.blogspot.com/), Aerostatic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerostat) dwellings, and underground cities. All of these will provide valuable experience of living and working in various environments which can be found to various degrees in the rest of Solar system.

Actual missions into space should concentrate on launch systems, both rocket and non-rocket, as well as Earth-independant resource extraction and utilisation and the effects of microgravity on biological and technological systems.

i'd tend to agree that there should be more focus on antarctic or underwater colonies before a Mars trip.

Disregarding the economics or even the scientific return for a moment, there hasnt been nearly enough experimentation into the psychological and social effects on a small group of humans being in deep space for up to 2 years at a time, completely isolated from any main sphere of human contact which a manned Mars mission would inevitably be.

If they go crazy and end up killing each other the mission will be a complete waste of money, time, resources and lives.

I dont think deep space exploration by people will become truly feasible until we have the resources, technology and knowledge to construct large vessels capable of comfortably housing and self sustaining veritable communities, in the order of a few hundred (for example onboard fruit and vegetable production and durable hydration systems). Such vessels would be absolutely necessary for a trip to Jupiter and the other gassy giants. With current technology even a Martian trip would be dangerous to the point of impracticality.

[Dimentio]

Well, I think that part of a grander space programme should involve a phase of research and establishment of arcologies (http://orbitalvector.com/Megastructures/Arcologies/Arcologies.htm), seasteads (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasteading), underwater habitats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwater_habitat), Antarctic colonies (http://colonizeantarctica.blogspot.com/), Aerostatic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerostat) dwellings, and underground cities. All of these will provide valuable experience of living and working in various environments which can be found to various degrees in the rest of Solar system.

Actual missions into space should concentrate on launch systems, both rocket and non-rocket, as well as Earth-independant resource extraction and utilisation and the effects of microgravity on biological and technological systems.

I do love your attitude, man!

[Salyut]

Helium-3. could be used for nuclear fusion and provide a clean, safer form of nuclear energy than the horrible, polluting, wasteful and extremely unsafe one used now (fission). it's supposedly abundant on the Moon, and even a small amount could power the whole Earth for centuries, or something like that.

Harder to fuse then a D/T mix plus the He3 is actually pretty scarce and confined to the top meter of regolith. If you really want He3, you fly out to the outer planets and drop aerostats into the atmosphere to liquefy the He3 and some hydrogen for a nuclear thermal rocket. Ta dah!

What we really need are self replicating factories. I've read the studies, for a fraction of the cost of the Iraq war we could have them smelting the Sahara into PV arrays and desalinization thingies. ;_;

[cska]

While it would be great to see the Russians undertake new major space projects, especially since their engineering philosophy and approach to space exploration in general is, I feel, worth pursuing, I don't think Russia has the money to spare.


Yeah, that is my worry. Then again, they have a knack at getting things done with a fraction of the cost that we incur.



Nonsense. There's plenty to do on the Moon; actually going through the business of establishing a self-sufficient colony will teach us many valuable lessons that will apply throughout the Solar system, and getting to the Moon will require far less fuel than getting to Mars.

Establishing a colony on the Moon will also enable us to undertake substantial projects such as a farside observatory (http://orbitalvector.com/Solar%20System/Moon/FARSIDE%20OBSERVATORY.htm) free from Earthly interference.


All fine and dandy, but what about the costs of maintaining such a colony? You have to send up everything you need, and that will end up requiring more fuel than colonizing Mars would.


Helium-3. could be used for nuclear fusion and provide a clean, safer form of nuclear energy than the horrible, polluting, wasteful and extremely unsafe one used now (fission). it's supposedly abundant on the Moon, and even a small amount could power the whole Earth for centuries, or something like that.

By the time you can build me a working fusion reactor we will be sending ships from Mars to the gas giants to extract their abundant helium-3. Fusion reactors with net energy gain are still at least 50 years off, and using Helium-3 instead of deuterium/tritium is not going to make that any better.


Space launches require lots of fuel and thrust in order to exit the atmosphere and the high gravity of the Earth. The Moon has virtually no atmosphere at all and low gravity. If you wanted to go to Mars, it would be better to launch from the Moon.

So, we want to leave Earth, take a detour to the Moon, and then go to Mars? Don't you realize that everything we launch from the Moon has to be launched from Earth anyway? Since we can't extract rocket fuel from the moon (unlike Mars), we still have to launch everything from the Earth...


I think Earth should be at the heart of every space agency's vision. They have so much to give in terms of self-sustained housing today. The Moon, Mars and Alpha Centauri are amazing places, but to send out large manned expeditions there is a giant resource waste, as long as people are starving.

Your viewpoint is somewhat understandable. However, spaceships don't use up any food (I'd guess the average engineer eats less than the average person). We have plenty of food in this world to go around. The problem is that capitalism doesn't care if people starve. Not exploring space is not going to solve that problem. Granted, resources and effort that go into going to Mars that could instead be used to faster industrialize the world. However, the technological advancements that come from such endeavors will actually increase productivity, and is beneficial to the world in the long term. It is a matter of balancing long term and short term needs.

If you are so concerned about directly spending resources on people's well-being, you would have to close all libraries and schools, get rid of art and entertainment, and end funding for physics or any research that doesn't have a direct, immediate application.

[Technocrat]

Is there anything for us to do on Mars? I can see the merits of a mission to an asteroid because we could learn things that would help us design an asteroid defense system. I can't see permanent human habitation on Mars ever occurring because it lacks a magnetic field. People could live underground on Mars, but who wants to do that and why would we spend the resources (which would probably be great) to do so?

[Sir Comradical]

JFK wannabe...

[Die Neue Zeit]

I watched a documentary that brought to my attention the amount of space junk up there. The prospect of humanity being trapped on Earth by its inability to move all that orbiting space junk is frightening.

[Ernest Valdemar]

Capitalist regimes engage in space exploration for three reasons: to look for new sources of wealth to exploit for private profit; to develop surveillance, robotics, remote sensing, targeting, guidance systems, and other technology that is readily adaptable for military use and for methods of social control; and to extend their military presence into space, to the exclusion of all rivals.

I have no interest in cheering on their efforts, no matter how much they dress them up in humanitarian and nationalistic disguises.

[piet11111]

I watched a documentary that brought to my attention the amount of space junk up there. The prospect of humanity being trapped on Earth by its inability to move all that orbiting space junk is frightening.

Would it not be possible to clear a way through with explosive means ?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

i'd tend to agree that there should be more focus on antarctic or underwater colonies before a Mars trip.

Underwater colonies would be more useful, in my opinion, for gaining experience with working in high-pressure environments such as the surface of Venus or the lower atmospheres of gas giants.


Disregarding the economics or even the scientific return for a moment, there hasnt been nearly enough experimentation into the psychological and social effects on a small group of humans being in deep space for up to 2 years at a time, completely isolated from any main sphere of human contact which a manned Mars mission would inevitably be.

A Mars mission would not be completely isolated from the rest of humanity - while real-time communication would not be possible for the majority of the mission, it would still be possible to send compressed video "postcards" to and from Mars and Earth.


If they go crazy and end up killing each other the mission will be a complete waste of money, time, resources and lives.

Careful selection of the crew, plus a period of them working alone together before the actual launch should be able to avoid murderous consequences.


I dont think deep space exploration by people will become truly feasible until we have the resources, technology and knowledge to construct large vessels capable of comfortably housing and self sustaining veritable communities, in the order of a few hundred (for example onboard fruit and vegetable production and durable hydration systems). Such vessels would be absolutely necessary for a trip to Jupiter and the other gassy giants. With current technology even a Martian trip would be dangerous to the point of impracticality.

With regards to the outer planets, a degree of self-sufficiency will doubtless be needed. How much of a degree will probably depend on the mission parameters - my preference is for as much self-sufficiency as technically possible for mission intending to establish a permanent human presence on the outer planets and/or their satellites.

As for Mars, it's reckoned to be just within the reach of current technology if we are clever - schemes like Mars Direct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct) by Robert Zubrin would enable us to at least visit the surface of Mars in person, with a view to establishing a permanent settlement.


Yeah, that is my worry. Then again, they have a knack at getting things done with a fraction of the cost that we incur.

Indeed, which is why I like the Russian approach.


All fine and dandy, but what about the costs of maintaining such a colony? You have to send up everything you need, and that will end up requiring more fuel than colonizing Mars would.

The idea is that the colony should be self-sufficient, hence my proposal for a phase of Earth-based research into the habitation of extreme environments, as well as actually seeking to establish a spaceborne industrial capacity. Once you're in orbit, you're half-way to anywhere.


By the time you can build me a working fusion reactor we will be sending ships from Mars to the gas giants to extract their abundant helium-3. Fusion reactors with net energy gain are still at least 50 years off, and using Helium-3 instead of deuterium/tritium is not going to make that any better.

It may not be worth extracting the He3 for terrestrial use, but it would certainly be a potential power source for any Lunar endeavours. The real boon for Earth in terms of industrialising space lies in asteroid mining and the construction of solar power satellites.


So, we want to leave Earth, take a detour to the Moon, and then go to Mars? Don't you realize that everything we launch from the Moon has to be launched from Earth anyway? Since we can't extract rocket fuel from the moon (unlike Mars), we still have to launch everything from the Earth...

There is rocket fuel on the Moon. Aside from the aforementioned He3, there is also aluminium and oxygen (http://asi.org/adb/06/09/03/02/095/al-o-propellants.html) which can be used to lift off from the surface. Cargo can be sent via solar-powered ground-based mass drivers.


Is there anything for us to do on Mars?

Aside from Earth, Mars is the friendliest place in the Solar System for human life. For that reason alone Mars is a worthy target.


I can see the merits of a mission to an asteroid because we could learn things that would help us design an asteroid defense system. I can't see permanent human habitation on Mars ever occurring because it lacks a magnetic field.

The radiation problem on Mars is not due to a lack of magnetic field, it is due to a thin atmosphere that is bad at screening out UV radiation. But that is easily protected against.


People could live underground on Mars, but who wants to do that and why would we spend the resources (which would probably be great) to do so?

Because it's not putting all our eggs into one basket (Earth).


I watched a documentary that brought to my attention the amount of space junk up there. The prospect of humanity being trapped on Earth by its inability to move all that orbiting space junk is frightening.

If space junk becomes a serious problem, it may be worthwhile sending up spacecraft specifically to sweep up the rubbish - this can be done by sending up satellites with large "wings" for the small bits to impact harmlessly against, satellites that collect up debris using electromagnetic fields, or semi-autonomous "junk eaters" that process any bits they can catch or de-orbit any larger chunks.


Capitalist regimes engage in space exploration for three reasons: to look for new sources of wealth to exploit for private profit; to develop surveillance, robotics, remote sensing, targeting, guidance systems, and other technology that is readily adaptable for military use and for methods of social control; and to extend their military presence into space, to the exclusion of all rivals.

I have no interest in cheering on their efforts, no matter how much they dress them up in humanitarian and nationalistic disguises.

Hey, welcome to the world.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Would it not be possible to clear a way through with explosive means?


If space junk becomes a serious problem, it may be worthwhile sending up spacecraft specifically to sweep up the rubbish - this can be done by sending up satellites with large "wings" for the small bits to impact harmlessly against, satellites that collect up debris using electromagnetic fields, or semi-autonomous "junk eaters" that process any bits they can catch or de-orbit any larger chunks.

Piet, there's no oxygen in space to feed the fire:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_it_possible_for_something_to_explode_in_space_l ike_in_the_movies


A nuclear explosion would essentially be a "light-bomb" and not have the violence of a nuclear bomb going off in the atmosphere which is caused by the violent propulsion of matter outward by radiation. A sufficiently armored ship or station, shuttle, pod etc should be able to withstand a close nuclear explosion.

NoXion, the problem is that all this orbiting debris is travelling much faster than a bullet from a gun.

[Salyut]

Aside from Earth, Mars is the friendliest place in the Solar System for human life. For that reason alone Mars is a worthy target.

Ever read Landis's paper on aerostat habitats in Venus's atmosphere? Very interesting material, although getting your hands on metals would be...tricky. Doesn't help that the surface is mostly basalt...

[Dr Mindbender]

I watched a documentary that brought to my attention the amount of space junk up there. The prospect of humanity being trapped on Earth by its inability to move all that orbiting space junk is frightening.

that in itself is probably a damn good reason for hurrying the colonisation of the moon and Mars sooner rather than later. Once we stumble across teleportation ability the trapped earthlings will be able to escape but someone will need to be there to build the destination pod.

as for the issue of te debris, im thinking a high energy laser or solar energy ray would be able to evaporate them; they may be travelling supersonic but they cant outrun a light beam.

[Technocrat]

Noxion:

the "putting our eggs in one basket argument" doesn't seem like a good argument for Mars - we could establish orbital colonies much more cheaply than we could a Martian colony: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_habitat

This is what I found on the Martian magnetosphere:

It is believed that Mars would be uninhabitable to most life-forms due to high solar radiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation) levels. Without a magnetosphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere), the Sun is thought to have thinned the Martian atmosphere to its current state; the solar wind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind) adding a significant amount of energy to the atmosphere's top layers which enables the atmospheric particles to reach escape velocity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity) and leave Mars. Indeed, this effect has even been detected by Mars-orbiting probes. Another theory is that solar wind rips the atmosphere away from the planet as it becomes trapped in bubbles of magnetic fields called plasmoids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmoid).[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars#cite_note-14)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars#Magnetic_field_and_solar_radi ation)
I'd like for people to go to Mars, but I honestly can't think of a good reason for them to do so. Maybe as a tourist destination once an abundance of space flight has been achieved?

[cska]

Disregarding the economics or even the scientific return for a moment, there hasnt been nearly enough experimentation into the psychological and social effects on a small group of humans being in deep space for up to 2 years at a time, completely isolated from any main sphere of human contact which a manned Mars mission would inevitably be.

If they go crazy and end up killing each other the mission will be a complete waste of money, time, resources and lives.

Actually there are ongoing simulated Mars expeditions.
http://desert.marssociety.org/index.asp
http://www.fmars2009.org/




You are right about deep space exploration. Additionally, I haven't kept up to date, but I don't think we have the spaceships to go to Mars right now. We have had the technology for several decades, though, and if we didn't cancel the constellation program, we would have soon had the ships too.


Noxion:

the "putting our eggs in one basket argument" isn't a good argument for Mars - we could establish orbital colonies much more cheaply than we could a Martian colony: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_habitat

No we can't. We would have to send all the food and supplies up to those orbital colonies. Also, do note that Mars would then allow us to launch ships fueled by Martian fuel to the asteroids and to mine for precious metals.


It may not be worth extracting the He3 for terrestrial use, but it would certainly be a potential power source for any Lunar endeavours. The real boon for Earth in terms of industrialising space lies in asteroid mining and the construction of solar power satellites.

Errm. If we want to use it as a power source for Lunar endeavors, we still need a fusion reactor to burn it... That fusion reactor will take several decades to create.

[QUOTE=NoXion;1724843There is rocket fuel on the Moon. Aside from the aforementioned He3, there is also aluminium and oxygen (http://asi.org/adb/06/09/03/02/095/al-o-propellants.html) which can be used to lift off from the surface. Cargo can be sent via solar-powered ground-based mass drivers.

That looks interesting though. It looks like the specific impulse is low, but if combined with a bit of terrestrial hydrogen, could work well enough to go to Mars.

[Technocrat]

No we can't. We would have to send all the food and supplies up to those orbital colonies. Also, do note that Mars would then allow us to launch ships fueled by Martian fuel to the asteroids and to mine for precious metals.

The colonies are designed to be self-sufficient (using recycling), but even if they weren't a Martian colony would suffer from the same problems: You would have to send food and supplies to any Martian colony, too - and it would be more difficult because it would be further away. We don't need to mine the asteroids for precious metals because all metals can be recycled. Capitalism relies on the ever-increasing consumption of resources, not communism or technocracy.

You did make me think of a good reason, though - Mars could be a launch point for deep space missions. That is, we could launch a ship from Earth and have it re-fuel on Mars, thereby reducing the required size of the craft. If we can set up refueling points throughout the solar system we wouldn't need to build giant ships, although I think giant ships would still be necessary for some missions. I've always thought that deep space craft or interstellar craft would have to be massive due to the amount of fuel they would need to carry.

There's also Helium-3 on the moon which can be used as fuel for fusion reactors - which would make deep space missions easier and we would also need for any interstellar mission (like to Alpha Centauri).

I think the only real motivation to go to space in a Technocratic society would be like in Star Trek, "To go where no one has gone before". This is because the social problems of limited resources would be solved by technology and efficiency in a Technocratic society. The only remaining motivation to go to space would be human curiosity.

There's the "putting our eggs in one basket problem", but this isn't something which is going to motivate most people (because people tend to not be motivated by things which they think they aren't going to see in their lifetimes). I think if we found a suitable planet for human habitation, we should settle it. Interstellar travel to any but the very nearest systems would require some way to freeze people in stasis and revive them. An alternative to this would be freezing embryos and have the ship piloted entirely by AI.

I'm getting way off topic, though.

[cska]

The colonies are designed to be self-sufficient (using recycling), but even if they weren't a Martian colony would suffer from the same problems: You would have to send food and supplies to any Martian colony, too - and it would be more difficult because it would be further away. We don't need to mine the asteroids for precious metals because all metals can be recycled. Capitalism relies on the ever-increasing consumption of resources, not communism or technocracy.

We can grow food on Mars, as it has soil that is more fertile than the average Earth soil. We can also get water on Mars, which we can't on the Moon. I see your point about recycling precious metals, but when I say precious metals, I mean stuff like platinum. I may be wrong, but I don't think it is easy to recycle the platinum in our electronics.


You did make me think of a good reason, though - Mars could be a launch point for deep space missions. That is, we could launch a ship from Earth and have it re-fuel on Mars, thereby reducing the required size of the craft. If we can set up refueling points throughout the solar system we wouldn't need to build giant ships, although I think giant ships would still be necessary for some missions.

Yup. That aluminum and oxygen thing on the Moon also looks promising, although my first priority would be Mars. The gas giants would be a nice refueling station too, as they are mostly hydrogen.


There's also Helium-3 on the moon which can be used as fuel for fusion reactors - which would make deep space missions easier and we would also need for any interstellar mission (like to Alpha Centauri).

Yes, certainly. However, making a fusion rocket is no small feat, though it is probably easier than making a reactor.


I think the only real motivation to go to space in a Technocratic society would be like in Star Trek, "To go where no one has gone before". This is because the social problems of limited resources would be solved by technology and efficiency in a Technocratic society. The only remaining motivation to go to space would be human curiosity.

There's the "putting our eggs in one basket problem", but this isn't something which is going to motivate most people (because people tend to not be motivated by things which they think they aren't going to see in their lifetimes). I think if we found a suitable planet for human habitation, we should settle it. Interstellar travel to any but the very nearest systems would require some way to freeze people in stasis and revive them. An alternative to this would be freezing embryos and have the ship piloted entirely by AI.

I'm getting way off topic, though.

That is why I want to go to space. However, a lot of people need practical reasons to support going into space.

Anyways, to clarify my viewpoint on Mars vs the Moon, I consider the Moon to be something we can put an outpost on. I consider Mars to be something we can put a civilization on.

[Technocrat]

Anyways, to clarify my viewpoint on Mars vs the Moon, I consider the Moon to be something we can put an outpost on. I consider Mars to be something we can put a civilization on.

That makes sense. So people would live underground, grow food in domes, get water from the icecaps and fuel from the atmosphere?

[cska]

By the way, I created a group or space enthusiasts here. http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=450


That makes sense. So people would live underground, grow food in domes, get water from the icecaps and fuel from the atmosphere?

Yes, though for the water, it would probably be most practical to microwave it from the Martian soil. The Martian soil is extremely dry by Earth standards, but is still 1% water on the surface, and probably slightly more concentrated a bit deeper into the ground. In the long run, it would be best if we discover underground aquifers on Mars. We have strong evidence to suggest their existence (including pictures of gullies that weren't there when we last took pictures of that spot).

[Ol' Dirty]

Reminds me of a song by Gil-Scott Heron: Whitey's On The Moon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtBy_ppG4hY).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Piet, there's no oxygen in space to feed the fire:

Chemical explosives will work in space because they contain their own oxidiser.


NoXion, the problem is that all this orbiting debris is travelling much faster than a bullet from a gun.

That's not a big problem for two reasons:

1) Relative velocities. The debris may be travelling at supersonic speeds relative to the surface of the Earth, but a debris collection craft can come to a slower relative velocity before setting to work.

2) Whipple shields (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whipple_shield) can be used to harmlessly vapourise any debris that cannot be collected in the manner above. follow this link (http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3x1.html#kinetic) and scroll down, where you will see an image that demonstrates their effectiveness.


Ever read Landis's paper on aerostat habitats in Venus's atmosphere? Very interesting material, although getting your hands on metals would be...tricky. Doesn't help that the surface is mostly basalt...

I've come across the concept, but I haven't read the paper. While I think it a project worth pursuing (hence my advocacy of research into aerostat habitats on Earth), I still think Mars is the "better" option, for reasons that should be obvious. Experience with skyborne colonies on Venus could also be transferred to the gas giants.


the "putting our eggs in one basket argument" doesn't seem like a good argument for Mars - we could establish orbital colonies much more cheaply than we could a Martian colony: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_habitat

Orbital colonies are more fragile than planetbound ones; they have no natural resources and their orbits will require correction from time to time. Orbital colonies are perfectly viable as an interim measure, but when one starts thinking in terms of centuries and millennia, planets make sense.


This is what I found on the Martian magnetosphere:

Yes, but that's only a concern if you're going to terraform Mars, and if you can do that then dealing with the slow process of atmospheric erosion should be a breeze.


I'd like for people to go to Mars, but I honestly can't think of a good reason for them to do so. Maybe as a tourist destination once an abundance of space flight has been achieved?

I think you underestimate the importance of establishing a permanent, self-sufficient human presence outside of Earth. Mars is the best bet for a host of reasons.


Errm. If we want to use it as a power source for Lunar endeavors, we still need a fusion reactor to burn it... That fusion reactor will take several decades to create.

It seems likely that fusion will be viable by the time we get our arses in gear with regards to extra-terrestrial colonisation.


The colonies are designed to be self-sufficient (using recycling), but even if they weren't a Martian colony would suffer from the same problems: You would have to send food and supplies to any Martian colony, too - and it would be more difficult because it would be further away.

We must keep in mind the kind of investment we should be making; we're trying to establish a home from home. We're not going to do that by cutting corners. Besides, if we do our homework back on Earth with regards to sulf-sufficient colonies and exploitation of spaceborne resources like I mentioned earlier, we can lower the material costs of initial investment without sacrificing effectiveness.


We don't need to mine the asteroids for precious metals because all metals can be recycled. Capitalism relies on the ever-increasing consumption of resources, not communism or technocracy.

I think he was talking about Martian colonists mining material for themselves, but nonetheless if the resources of the asteroid belt, let alone the Solar System were available to Earth we could do things we could only dream of before.


You did make me think of a good reason, though - Mars could be a launch point for deep space missions. That is, we could launch a ship from Earth and have it re-fuel on Mars, thereby reducing the required size of the craft. If we can set up refueling points throughout the solar system we wouldn't need to build giant ships, although I think giant ships would still be necessary for some missions. I've always thought that deep space craft or interstellar craft would have to be massive due to the amount of fuel they would need to carry.

If we use fission, fusion or antimatter, then fuel requirements can be minimal - what's actually the big deal is propellant, in other words the stuff pushed out the back of a spacecraft to provide thrust. But thankfully the Solar System is rich in propellant if you know where to look, and there are dozens of proposals for improved space propulsion methods that we desperately need to do some practical research on.


There's also Helium-3 on the moon which can be used as fuel for fusion reactors - which would make deep space missions easier and we would also need for any interstellar mission (like to Alpha Centauri).

I think building up a stockpile of antimatter would be a better idea if we're going interstellar.


I think the only real motivation to go to space in a Technocratic society would be like in Star Trek, "To go where no one has gone before". This is because the social problems of limited resources would be solved by technology and efficiency in a Technocratic society. The only remaining motivation to go to space would be human curiosity.

There's the "putting our eggs in one basket problem", but this isn't something which is going to motivate most people (because people tend to not be motivated by things which they think they aren't going to see in their lifetimes).

That's why I am a Transhumanist as well as an advocate of extra-terrestrial colonisation. Evolution has equipped us extremely poorly for the task of expanding into the universe and surviving long-term as a species. Were we to live longer lives and be able to live in a greater variety of environments than can be found on Earth, then it would be in our immediate interest both individually and collectively to colonise the cosmos.


I think if we found a suitable planet for human habitation, we should settle it. Interstellar travel to any but the very nearest systems would require some way to freeze people in stasis and revive them. An alternative to this would be freezing embryos and have the ship piloted entirely by AI.

We would be in a much, much better position to seriously make moves towards colonising other star systems if we gained the experience and greater resources that colonising the Solar System would grant us.

[Mendax]

On a side note what do people think of the chances/option of terrarforming Mars would be?
I know several ideas have ranged from Genetically engeneering plants that can survive the conditions and that will help alter the gas make up of the atmosphere(although plants is pushing it, more like moss)
Space "Mirrors" to reflect the suns rays and warm up the atmosphere.
Releaseing the water from underground auqaufers onto the surface etc

Do you think we'll terraform mars? should we? whats the best methods we could use to do this?

And do you think we'll be looking at space elevators anytime soon to effectively wipe out the gravity sink which could be a right pain in the ass?

Sam :)

[cska]

On a side note what do people think of the chances/option of terrarforming Mars would be?
I know several ideas have ranged from Genetically engeneering plants that can survive the conditions and that will help alter the gas make up of the atmosphere(although plants is pushing it, more like moss)
Space "Mirrors" to reflect the suns rays and warm up the atmosphere.
Releaseing the water from underground auqaufers onto the surface etc

Do you think we'll terraform mars? should we? whats the best methods we could use to do this?

I think all of those methods should be investigated. However, it is far enough in to the future that terraforming Mars probably won't start in our lifetimes. As far as wether we should terraform Mars, I think the only reason no to is if we do find life on Mars after all, in which case it would be unethical to destroy the planet's ecosystem.


And do you think we'll be looking at space elevators anytime soon to effectively wipe out the gravity sink which could be a right pain in the ass?

Sam :)

I dunno. The space elevator certainly sounds interesting, though seeing the media attention on it, I think it might be hyped. It'll be interesting to see. Here's a comic about it though. :laugh:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tensile_vs_shear_strength.png

[Dr Mindbender]

On a side note what do people think of the chances/option of terrarforming Mars would be?


I think the chances would be quite high, the martian environment already has some earthlike qualities and the temperature generally gets no cooler than the antarctic in winter. If we utilised the same greenhouse gas reactions that are taking place on Earth then it would be quite easy to organically sustain life.

Mars already has the native elements for photosynthesis (CO2, water and sunlight). Raising the planets temperature via a greenhouse effect would encourage the growth of plant life, releasing oxygen into the air to support animals.

[Technocrat]

I think the chances would be quite high, the martian environment already has some earthlike qualities and the temperature generally gets no cooler than the antarctic in winter. If we utilised the same greenhouse gas reactions that are taking place on Earth then it would be quite easy to organically sustain life.

Mars already has the native elements for photosynthesis (CO2, water and sunlight). Raising the planets temperature via a greenhouse effect would encourage the growth of plant life, releasing oxygen into the air to support animals.

What do you do about this:



Earth abounds with water because its ionosphere is permeated with a magnetic field (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere). The hydrogen ions present in its ionosphere move very fast due to their small mass, but they cannot escape to outer space because their trajectories are deflected by the magnetic field. Venus has a dense atmosphere, but only traces of water vapor (20 ppm) because it has no magnetic field. The Martian atmosphere is devoid of water vapor for the same reason.
It is believed that Mars would be uninhabitable to most life-forms due to high solar radiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation) levels. Without a magnetosphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere), the Sun is thought to have thinned the Martian atmosphere to its current state; the solar wind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind) adding a significant amount of energy to the atmosphere's top layers which enables the atmospheric particles to reach escape velocity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity) and leave Mars. Indeed, this effect has even been detected by Mars-orbiting probes. Another theory is that solar wind rips the atmosphere away from the planet as it becomes trapped in bubbles of magnetic fields called plasmoids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmoid).[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars#cite_note-14)
Venus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus), however, shows that the lack of a magnetosphere does not preclude a dense (albeit dry) atmosphere. A thick atmosphere could also provide solar radiation protection to the surface, similar to Earth's. In the past, Earth has regularly had periods where the magnetosphere changed direction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal) and collapsed for some time.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars#cite_note-15)
The lack of a protective magnetic field would also have possible health effects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_threat_from_cosmic_rays#Effects) on colonists due to increased cosmic ray flux. The health threat depends on the flux, energy spectrum, and nuclear composition of the rays. The flux and energy spectrum depend on a variety of factors, which are incompletely understood. The Mars Radiation Environment Experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Radiation_Environment_Experiment) (MARIE) was launched in 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001) in order to collect more data. Estimates are that humans unshielded in interplanetary space would receive annually roughly 400 to 900 milli-Sieverts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieverts) (mSv) (compared to 2.4 mSv on Earth) and that a Mars mission (12 months in flight and 18 months on Mars) might expose shielded astronauts to ~500 to 1000 mSv.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars#cite_note-icrc2005.tifr.res.in-16) These doses approach the 1 to 4 Sv career limits advised by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Council_on_Radiation_Protection_and_Measu rements) for Low Earth orbit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Earth_orbit) activities. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars#Magnetic_field_and_solar_radi ation)

[Dr Mindbender]

^

Perhaps there can be an industrial effort to produce an ozone layer, in the interim human colonists would need to remain in radiation proof biospheres or underground settlements avoiding solar exposure as much as possible.

Im guessing a thickened atmosphere as a result of greenhouse emissions would block at lot of radiation anyway.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What do you do about this:

As long as the rate of atmospheric production exceeds the rate of atmospheric erosion, I don't see the problem.

[Mendax]

Im guessing a thickened atmosphere as a result of greenhouse emissions would block at lot of radiation anyway.
It would cause the atmosphere to become thinner though by causing it to re-act but we would merely have to continue to create and release the gas's that made up whatever gas composition we went for in the atmosphere in order to keep it constant. By this point that would require little effort though.

(I'm saying this from what I can remember, from reading the future Mars books about a year ago (although they actually had a much bigger basis in science then I thought since most of the points in it have come up in this thread.))

[cska]

The only problem is that there is limited CO2 and hydrogen on Mars, which might get ripped off by the Sun as we release it into the atmosphere. On the other hand, this destroying of the atmosphere by solar radiation might take on the order of millions of years (Mars has been around for several billion years), in which case we don't really care about it, and can go ahead with terraforming. Perhaps a hundred thousand years into the future, a hyper advanced human civilization could create an artificial magnetic field to shield Mars.

[Technocrat]

As long as the rate of atmospheric production exceeds the rate of atmospheric erosion, I don't see the problem.

Wouldn't this entail the constant use of non-renewable resources?

I think people could live underground on Mars, but I don't see the possibility of terraforming it to be likely because of the radiation problem.

If the erosion of atmosphere takes millions of years like cska suggests, then it isn't really a problem.

[piet11111]

Piet, there's no oxygen in space to feed the fire:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_it_possible_for_something_to_explode_in_space_l ike_in_the_movies

This just means that the explosion wont be as big as on earth but there would still be explosive force.

Another way would be via laser to "burn" debris creating limited thrust that would take it out of orbit making it either drift away or burn up in our atmosphere.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Wouldn't this entail the constant use of non-renewable resources?

Well, the cussed issue of resources is why I am an advocate of interstellar as well as interplanetary colonisation.


I think people could live underground on Mars, but I don't see the possibility of terraforming it to be likely because of the radiation problem.

If the erosion of atmosphere takes millions of years like cska suggests, then it isn't really a problem.

Don't forget also that Mars is further away than Earth or the Moon, and hence the strength of the solar wind will be reduced logarithmically (by the inverse-square law) rather than linearly. It always surprises me at least just how much volume increases/intensity drops off as the radius of a sphere increases.

For that reason alone I would not rule out terraforming Mars, although to be absolutely sure we need to do the maths.