MIT predicts Mars1 human settlement to suffocate in 68 days
Posted by freedomforall 10 years, 11 months ago to Technology
While we're very happy to have you in the Gulch and appreciate your wanting to fully engage, some things in the Gulch (e.g. voting, links in comments) are a privilege, not a right. To get you up to speed as quickly as possible, we've provided two options for earning these privileges.
2: they could use it to raise funds and televise it as well to significant profit.
3: meh, what do I know. I'm just another engineer.
4: some people would pay $$ just to vacation in that simulator.
add to this list other points you think would change this to be viable. :-)
The things they claim are fatal problems are things we solved a long, long time ago.
It may seem counterintuitive, but Mars is the easier, safer, cheaper, and more useful of the two. There is nothing you can "learn" from a lunar colony which would be of use on Mars and not capable of being learned on Earth.
You are even better off going from the Martian surface to Earth's lunar surface than from the Earth's surface. The difference is that drastic, indeed moreso.
A lunar colony without the infrastructure provided by a solid Martian base is a money pit, or as I call it, a "moondoggle".
Second, getting to orbit is pretty much 90-95% of the fuel to get anywhere in the solar system. Climbing out of the gravity well is the main hurdle.
Third, Mars' atmosphere again helps once there. With hydrogen feedstock we can make all the air and water we want, and do it before we even arrive. Also, the difference between a near-absolute vacuum on the moon and op the thin one on Mars means less read shielding required adpnd your suits are much, much thinner, lighter and more maneuverable.
Fourth, look at the moon footage. That hop they do isn't just for show. It happens to be the way to move around in the very small amount of gravity on the moon. On Mars your gait would be much easier and less ungainly - virtually normal compared to Luna. As CircuitGuy and DriveTrain refeenced, Zubrin's book goes into great detail on the specifics. It even includes a deeper explanation with tables on the delta-v for cruising various points in our solar system. Mars is the gateway to the stars for mankind barring some miracle breakthrough that cuts through known laws of physics or technology.
Now I believe we should have been on Mars by now. You can understand, I'm sure, you can understand how a tyro like me would assume that the closer would be easier. Like many other things I've discovered, the obvious isn't always so obvious.
As I like to say "commence sense isn't always common or correct".
Robert Zurbin has me sold on this idea too- Mars Direct
Getting sidetracked on building a Moon base as an intermediary step (instead of a completely separate endeavor,) would be a waste for several reasons, not the least of which is the fact that it's a more harsh place even than Mars. The Moon's only advantage is proximity - but the inexpensive craft Zubrin details for his Mars transit would render radiation shielding over long time periods the single biggest obstacle. Everything else would be more difficult to do on the Moon than on Mars.
Not that it wouldn't be cool to have a Moon base - and we almost certainly will at some point - just that it's unnecessary for going to Mars. And as in every case of new exploration in human history, the drive to space exploration will not truly take off (pun if you want one,) until private enterprises a.) see a ton of money to be made in space and b.) governments have sufficiently unshackled private enterprises to allow them to go after it.
As I see it: Mars firsr, which opens the belt, which provides the mass for tether relays to be built, which then provides the means for rapid and safe travel from Mars orbit to Luna and earth orbit. Hell, call it the Galt Line for snickering.
Then from there you can build shipyards at Mars Planitia as well as mass haulers and more tether cyclers to build orbital infrastructure. Mass is cheapest from the belt to orbit.
And that is where the honest money is to be made. Personally my goal is to build the first pre-fab Martian colony company. :-D. Let Musk get us there and I'll get your colony setup.
go for it - please use your nickel$ though
Still all a waste of money ... unless we want to set up the Gulch on Mars and sign a Constitution guaranteeing individual and economic freedom.
Bone loss is another example of the adaptability we possess. It happens because the bone density isn't needed (a feedback if physical stress being absent on the bones). This is an area Mars enjoys a tremendous advantage over Luna in. The Gravity on Mars results in a higher resting point. Once the body has adapted the the Martian gravity the bone loss will stop.
This is only a "problem" if you'll be headed back to a deeper gravity well. This for colonists it isn't an issue.
I love the notion, but I think it's more practical to find an inhospitable out-of-the-way place on Earth. The colonists will thrive if they can find the sweet spot of trade with the rest of the world without interference from the rest of the world.
1) They would know what they are passing or not.
2) Bills would not be 2500 pages long filled with unintelligible jibberish
3) It would get done quickly or we would get to vote in someone new.
But why can't we just move congress and His Emmaculation to Mars.
The End.
What pristine ecology? Hey, I don't think like those bozos.
Let us pray for a happy outcome.
"Rail travel at high speed is not possible, because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia."
Dr Dionysius Lardner (1793-1859), professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy, University College London.
GIGO on display.
More productive than stealing the rival's mascot.
Easy to feed, can control their growth, and they'll transform oxygen to carbon dioxide.
In addition - you don't want to VENT the oxygen - that's oxygen you need in the system and the plants aren't creating NEW oxygen - they're transforming CO2 into carbon and oxygen - so getting rid of it is just silly - you need to trap excess oxygen - not toss it out of the system. Same for excess CO2 (consider shellfish as a way).
Regardless, there are low tech ways to solve these problems, aren't there?
Yes, low tech is the way to go. We use gas-lifht era technology and chemical reactions to extract O2 from Mars' atmosphere. We take a feedstock of hydrogen and produce water and oxygen from the CO2 laden atmosphere. If we aren't needing water as much we can recycle nearly all of the hydrogen used to extract oxygen from the atmo.
Enough so that we really won't be concerned with venting some oxygen. It will be cheaper and easier to extract more than to compress and store any excess.
Andy Weir wrote "The Martian" (amazon) which showed a variety of ways a single human could survive alone on Mars using is intelligence and very little else to sustain himself.
The book As It Is on Mars is a story that goes into great detail on this. Two astronauts come with an inch of dying on Mars after a disaster kills the rest of their crew. They meet up with another astronaut who was on a one-way suicide mission to Mars. They work their tails off and use supplies to build a greenhouse and just enough food to keep them alive. After that they thrive. They contact earth and show them the amazing residence and greenhouse they've constructed, mostly with native materials. People on earth are envious of this "easy wealth" (which they built working 70 hours a week while rationing their food) from Mars that should be shared with earth. Earth gov'ts want to take over their three-person community and get in on the gold rush. They don't realize the real wealth came from hard work, not "Mars". When I say it it sounds far-fetched, but the author will have you suspending disbelief. I don't know why the books is virtually unknown. It's as good as Asimov or Clarke, but I guess he never promoted it well.
http://www.amazon.com/Martian-Andy-Weir-...
astronomical.
Light a match you MIT academic morons! Burn some of the plant stuffs and make O2 into CO2.
I'm sure there are real problems with the colonization of Mars, but too much oxygen isn't the showstopper.
The real problem being pointed to here is that humans are used to breathing in a nitrogen-rich atmosphere - not an oxygen-rich one. Air pressure is one problem, but air composition is the bigger one - as oxygen levels rise, even normal breathing (which is critical to bodily processes) would tend to bring too much oxygen into the body such as when one intentionally hyperventilates. At some point the excess oxygen (if it can't get flushed out of your system) will kill you.
What they need to be able to do is combine the oxygen through combustion with something in the soil to create a waste-product. No idea what that would be. Terraforming is a lot of art at this point - not much science.
It is not just a matter of O2/N2 mix. A person can survive quite well in an O2 rich environment with a lower pressure, or an O2 reduced environment with higher pressure, until Nitrogen Narcosis becomes a problem.
Divers, particularly those that are nitrox or rebreather certified, are pretty familiar with these issues, although they generally think about higher pressures, not lower ones. Climbers think about the O2 pp.
my first concern regarding morons is actually who would be motivated to spend $6Billion (probably over 2x that in reality) just for the first mission/group. and just whose $6 Billion they are spending/confiscating.
Completely, agree, with the waste of money point.
I know nothing about how much space, power, fuel,
chemicals, etc. CO2 scrubbers use.
But I can see that technically the Oxygen problem could be solved - every pound of mass from Earth used to solve it though gets more and more pricey.
Hopefully you do not need an Ocean for low cost/use of materials operation.
Part of what I got from the brief article is that these guys were not bringing enough stuff to survive - like perhaps a CO2 scrubber in addition to a lighter
(to be used before Oxygen levels would ignite the entire place!).
I hope I'm wrong and that someone tries it. Even if some brave people go and either die or go crazy, it moves science closer to people go building new Gulches or Americas out in space. I'm just not getting my hopes up.
Our planet has few areas left to spread to: polar regions, deserts, ocean bottoms, mountaintops. Not the most hospitable places, though still easier to get to than Mars. Terra-forming Earth to be fit for human life will, of course, find objection from climate crazies and gaia gurus.
Governments tend to be lenient with pioneers into new frontiers at first, until enough work and progress has been done for looters to be attracted. Even building the internet followed that formula. Just watch the current attempts to milk it.
"First steps down new roads"...and the herd soon follows. In today's world, the frontiers are internal, intellectual, psycho-epistemological. Winning individual liberty in action, not just lip service, is that frontier. Let's hope to achieve it by persuasion, not violence.
Jan
We should focus our efforts not on getting to Mars, but on making it worth it to go to mars. For example, let's launch a gigantic Nuclear Reactor, crash land it on the Martian Ice Cap, melt the ice, and put water in the Atmosphere.
Maybe it will work, maybe it won't. But it's step 1.
We can take along methane, isolate the hydrogen and create water from the Martian atmosphere. Due to the light gravity we can build ridiculously large domes. Domes large enough that you wouldn't see the dome itself while standing in the surface. And we can make the domes there. Again, partially from the "thin air".