Take on mars
Take on mars
Tobi_Foong i did not arguing which one will be sustainable or not (Moon or Mars). It’s not the case.
The topic is " Is that the best way to colonize mars?". So my point was just about Moon infrastructure as a key stepping stone to reach Mars. To enable much cheaper, regular(steady) transport route to Mars. Which in itself would enables a more realistic colonization of Mars. Why is it inevitable? Because You can not build fully self sufficient colony in short time frame. It will take more than a few decades or even longer.
I’m very skeptical about Musk’s way to do that. I’m even think it’s not realistic at all as it is at this moment. Btw Musk are not going to colonize Mars He just want to build interplanetary transportation system which gives opportunities for others to colonize Mars. And Bezos …well who knows
Both SpaceX and BlueOrigin are transport service providers but not base/colony builders.
Indeed. Once these systems are available we can expect much more rapid deployment of robot explorers into the solar system. Plus the general public is more likely to get behind the effort to build permenant colonies on both the Moon and Mars once there is a proven and reliable transport system available. We have put rovers and landers on Mars but those missions held a high probility of failure (7mins of hell). Until that risk can be reduced exploration of the Solar system will be both slow and expensive. In that respect I do think SpaceX has the idea. Making both getting to LEO and the Solar system cheap and reliable will in it self be followed by others developing ways to make use of that ability. It’s a big risk bussiness wise for both SpaceX and Blue Origin; What if they spend all that money on development just to send a couple of flag & foot print missions. I think they are looking far ahead and I hope they get there and make a decent return on their investment. I suppose the biggest question at the moment isn’t so much as how but who. Will it be a nation or nations or a private company (say SpaceX or Blue Origin as proof of concept) to make/fund the first landings. As nice as it is to see all these companies coming up with concepts for habitats etc. I feel we need to satrt seeing some hardware / cross efforts. Perhaps NASA or an internation comitte of space agencies could at as an organisational control. Not so much doin the desgin work but helping reduce the overlaps. I’m not sure but i would asume there are some standards set for ISS that everyone follows i.e. power grids docking ports etc. I know the Chinese are secretive about a lot of their space tech. However bringing them into the fold for a joint ‘Earth’ effort to get out there would not onbly help in funding and industrial power but may have other political benefits. This effort has the possbility to either bring mankind together or push it further apart. With so much to develop and test over the coming years lets hope we can all pull in the same direction. We now seem to be commited to Moon first which to me makes sense. But is there any reason why small landings and test missions to Mars and elsewhere be made in parallel with the build up on the Moon for a push to a more permenat Mars base. After all there are some things we just can’t test fully anywhere but Mars like EDL systems, improved bandwidth comms/data. With so much to do and come up with this won’t/can’t/shouldn’t be placed on just one company or agency. The old addage is true here ‘Many hands make light work’. So lets get behind the startups and small companies even if they are not deirectly pushing tech for Mars after all a small sat propulsion system will work just as well deployed in orbit of the Moon or Mars as it will in LEO. There is so much out there I know Elon Musk has hinted at BFR being able to take small loads eveb further than mars can we get some small sat constalations around othe bodies scanning and recording and relaying home. I’m so excited by teh possibilites and I’m just a run olf the mill geek/nerd/whatever. Thats why i love this show … I learn stuff it’s my weekly Geekout.
It’s a bad idea. Any time astronauts spend in orbit - he lose bone and muscle tissues. And Mars atmosphere give additional 16-23 g/cm2 protection from radiation - this is more than the current level of protection of ISS modules!
Unfortunately in real life this is not so. You can’t send a mission to the Moon when the landing site is shaded or when the Sun is high above the horizon. This gives you about 5% of the time in a month. And if you build your spaceship not appropriatly (without enough spare delta-V like a Luna-Glob lander) you can stuck in Earth not for a month, but for a year, lol.
The hype around Mars One has already subsided, so they are now unable to raise funds even for one launch. And there are no other projects of Mars colonization for now - SpaceX must rely only on themselves. Or NASA, if somehow it will be possible to push SLS lobby away.
Any type of trajectory have his “launch windows”. High energy transfer just have wider one. In my opinion, the high energy tranfer (3 month as SpaceX offers) has prohibitively high costs and risks. Best choice is 6 or 4,5 month.
Mars Society have project like that. But they not found enough funds and NASA abandoned it.
Difference in water recycling system efficiency (85-98%) have no importance. The BFR will still replenish its water supplies upon arrival to Mars/Earth.
Hydrogen or methane fuel refinery
Tech r&d decisions
Landing site building materials
Craters as resources
Early resupply missions
High ground for wind turbines, sensor towers?
Landing site away from buildings dust causes maintenance
robot Metal depot
Lots of rechargable batteries
Salvage unwanted stuff
make Paint, goo & cement
Upgrade buildings tech
Solar power farms cables & batteries
New Potato soya beans fruit trees
robot Metal mine
So round up - it’s a big BIG mountain of money
Seriously, someone has to sign a check at the end of the day.
It seems to me that the main obstacle is funding. Because we have all the necessary technologies and technical equipment, at least in theory. Of course first of all we need to make the necessary equipment, test it. Create the right technology. But there are no theoretical obstacles at least. Just suitable staff, time, funding…
Ah and by the way …why we want to go to Mars ? It’s a rhetorical question.
We have to find a justifiable reason to get funding. Motives. If somebody succeeds in solving this problem (funding) then we will reach Mars. And someday maybe even colonize it if its proves possible.
So the best way to “colonize” Mars - big mountain of money. Yeah i know sounds silly, but still.
More or less accurate. And that’s the stepping stone if we want to reach and colonize Mars.
Moon base. Can we? Why we should?
If we’re really going to colonize Mars - we have to avoid meaningless money-scavengers like a base on the Moon or a station in Lunar/Martian orbit.
Did you watch the video (all of it)? If so then it’s not “meaningless money-scavengers” it’s an investment to enable space infrastructure (an economy) needed to get to Mars cheaper and on a regular basis.
But if Your mission to Mars is one off. Then You don’t need a moon base for that purpose. You are right.
I thought a moon base would serves as a catalyst for the development of the space industry and not just for the Mars.
Of course I can be wrong, But we are talking about “colonization”. And that’s mean a LOT cargo and peoples.
That’s mean we need “railroad” and a lot of “trains”. That’s mean special infrastructure and “regular” flights.
Now there is no such material that would be profitable to extract somewhere outside the Earth, and not on it. The launch of the space industry requires too much money and effort - this will not happen in our lifetime (except that some production in zero gravity in orbit from the resources brought from Earth).
Here is my point: you send the first Settlers on Mars on a reusable BFR ship, so you need to bring it back to Earth anyway. Flight back is still not free - to load ship with cargoes on the way back you will need to refuel it with a more fuel. But you almost do not need to build additional infrastructure and pay for the use of the ship. Let’s say Robert Zubrin offers Mars to trade with the Earth deuterium - it is contained in martian water in greater content and it is still desirable to clean the water from it to drinking, so that its extraction on Mars will also cost almost nothing. Only Zubrin offers to do it in the distant future, and in the version of the Mask it can be started from the beginning. Even so, it can be more profitable to produce deuterium on Earth, since here we already have proven reserves and infractructure for extraction. But in this case, you are not tied to the benefits of the project - if it is not profitable to produce deuterium, you can continue colonization looking for other sources of income for Mars.
You propose for this project to build on another celestial body (directly useless for the colonization of Mars) infrastructure from scratch, for the extraction of materials with unknown economic benefits. And if the benefits from this will not be - we’ll be stuck here for several decades building useless plants on the Moon, and then (as in Apollo) we demotivate society for another few decades if not few hundreds of years.
Is it ? I thought we need at least 3 main part of additional infrastructure on Mars. Landing site, power plant and fuel production “plant”. And we may have the technologies but they aren’t proven(tested) yet in similar conditions. BFR does not exists yet but we have FH which gives as an opportunity to build and test needed tech right now on the moon. It’s the best “sandbox” or laboratory if You wish and not just for this mission.
So do we have an infrastructure on the Mars? Mars materials has known economic benefits?
Wrong statement. The Apollo project does not demotivate society. This has happened for completely different reasons. But not for the project itself.
To test technique designed for Mars on the Moon is meaningless. There are completely different conditions, and for vacuum and heat tests, NASA already has the world’s largest vacuum chamber.
Mars now has reasons to fly there (the search for life and the creation of a backup of humanity) - the Moon has no such goals. So the research/use projects of the Moon can be much easier to abandon.
But we’re still here despite the fact that 50 years ago it was proven that we can reach the Moon and stay there. Now the most important are not technical or even economic issues, because I do not believe in the possibility of creating a space industry in the foreseeable future.
I think that is more important than anything else to find now the goal for which people can unite around manned space exploration - no illusions about business in space will be able to do it. If you notice, all firms like SpaceX, Blue origin and even Rocket Labs was not created by entrepreneurs dreaming about superprofit, but dreamers about space exploration that “far-fetched” business model to his dreams.
Why is testing technique designed for Mars on the Moon is meaningless ? Cause it has <1% gaseous atmosphere or warmer. The Moon conditions is harder than Martian. So If they work on moon, it will work on Mars. No? And we can’t fit all needed hardware in to the NASA’s vacuum chamber unfortunately.
Do you proposing to send people to find that life? And if you find one what then? And the second reason - to create a backup of human civilization. Pandemic, massive volcanic event or any kind of man made disasters event in that scenario Earth still be more hospitable than Mars. And if you can reach Mars then probably you can use that tech to survive on Earth.
I cant see how it is possible to create a colony (not just visiting, making base or outpost) without having a space industry outside of Earth.
It maybe so. But how long do you think those firms will operate without a profit? No business in space - no Mars colony. Let’s be realistic.