Colonization...

[Crissa]

BP makes more than that mining company. But they both are resource extraction companies.

No, just about every discussion about doing exploration will get trolls saying we should end hunger or that we should wait until some next technology arrives before going.

It's stupid. We'll never do anything saying there's something else to do; and we'll never do something waiting for the results to come without doing it. And it's often tangental to the question - which in this thread, 'how many people are willing to take the risk?'

Apparently there's alot willing to take the risk. But just as many willing to troll and say that we shouldn't even discuss it.

-Crissa

Edited for my poor reading skills.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

You know what, I have learned a lot about human nature in the past couple years. And to be blunt, even though solving world hunger would be monumentally easy and living on Mars requires tech that doesn't exist yet I somehow see people living on Mars long before world hunger is eradicated (and it very well might never happen, because I don't think humans have changed much over the eons.)

All there has to be is a reason to do so.

[Maj]

BP makes more than that mining company.

BP's not a mining company. It's an energy company. Of course they're not going to be interested in looking for minerals on another planet - that's not really what they do.

No, just about every discussion about doing exploration will get trolls saying we should end hunger or that we should wait until some next technology arrives before going.

There's nothing wrong with saying that if it's appropriate. When it's cold and rainy, I'm not going to let my son out of the house until he has found his coat and boots and put them on. Likewise, we have some preparation to do before we go to Mars.

My misunderstanding came when I thought you meant a real colony - one where people go, move, and start a whole new world. If we end up with a Martian Roanoke, people are probably not going to be inclined to support a second attempt. And to prevent that, we need to understand more about biology before we will succeed. I don't think that's unreasonable.

But that's not what you meant. You wanted to know how many people would go to Mars. But I don't even know how anyone can give a good answer to that question because it seems like the parameters are constantly changing. Do we need people educated enough to be astronauts or technical mining workers? Do we need to have long term plans for living up there? Is there going to be a lot of support from Earth? Are we going to have robotic support? Is there a reason to stay there at all?

With multiple potential parameters not originally specified, you're going to get a wide variety of answers to the original question.

But just as many willing to troll and say that we shouldn't even discuss it.

This is all you. You are so disappointed in the responses to this thread and how they haven't gone the way that you expected that you are creating a false mental picture of this thread where people don't think that we should have a discussion about the topic. If you would stop pouting with your keyboard and review what the thread actually says, you will find that the majority of people are not against the idea at all. And the fact that people are still replying constructively seems to me to be a good indicator that people do think we should discuss it.

[Hicks]

So the crux of the problem: Why go?

• Discovery! Humans possess a collective genetic bug up our asses whenever we see a blank map. People go places because of "just because". It is worth noting that most people who have gone there, die there.
  
  Chicxulub 2: Electric Boogaloo. It's the end of the world as we know it, and people want some sort of Life Insurence for peace of mind. The sad fact is that you can never personally benifit from your own Life Insurence; the solace that humanity endures is rather hollow when you don't.
  
  Resource Rush. Mars may have no women, but it does have iron, and all those other elements our modern culture so desperatly craves. However, so does the rest of the solar system, and the Moon is a better springboard for system wide explotation.

The main disadvantage to Mars is that it has no magnetic field! It is naked to the solar wind, solar storms, solar mass ejecta, and cosmic rays. The big ass problem with our red friend in the sky is that you need meters of lead to deflect the radioactive ejecta or die of cancer, quickly, and a journey of 6 months is unsurvivable without the massive weight penalty of shielding.

This "no magnetic field" is the same problem shared with the Moon, but our lunar friend is much closer, has less of a gravity well, and no atmosphere; and those are all major advantages over Mars. The moon is closer, so it is easier and cheaper to ship heavy drilling equipment needed to dig deep enough to escape the sun's violent tantrums. The smaller gravity of the moon allows easier landing and lower escape velocities making travel anywhere else in the solar system easier and cheaper than a Mars based hub. Mars' atmosphere is toxic, extreamly low pressure, and fucking cold, neccesating the use of spacesuits anyway and inflicts death to an unprotected human just as fast as a vacuum. Mars is covered intermittantly by planet wide, hurricane force dust storms that block sight and communication; any base on the red planet is going to have trouble with erosion and storm damage to every surface structure (such as communication equipment); No atmosphere means no corrosion of equipment and no weather delays ever.

I am not saying that Mars will never have a permenantly manned base. I am saying that it is not the first place to consider a permenantly manned base.

[Crissa]

The Moon doesn't have an atmosphere nor does it have much water. These are things we need to live. No atmosphere means all your equipment must be able to survive the rigors of deep space and all the horrible temperatures that entails. That's expensive.

Mars has the benefit of having resources to make breathable air, it has ready supplies of water under the surface, and it doesn't have a temperature range that means limited materials. Nor does it have to deal with micrometeorites. And it has a day cycle which is familiar to humans.

No place else in the solar system has both air and water. People living anywhere else in the solar system will have to bring their air, water, and solar day with them.

The technical challenge with Mars isn't living there - it's getting there. With the Moon it's not getting there - it's living there.

-Crissa

[violence in the media]

I thought they found evidence that there might be ice on the Moon? I think this is a little more recent?

[MfA]

If you have water and carbon you can make air ... asteroids have both. Any material you care to mention is in fact more easily harvested from an asteroid than a planet or moon ... the only problem is getting it/there.

[Crissa]

There seems to be small amount of ice on the moon, mostly in perpetually shaded craters. Mars seems to have tons of ice less than an inch under its surface. The Moon has so little ice that you may not actually want to use any of it except to drink and recycle... So fuel, which needs water, would be in short supply on the Moon.

The asteroids are both farther away and less useful to do... Well, anything with. It turns out that they're more like lumps of gravel or clods of dirt. They may have valuable minerals, but it's a crapshoot. And like the Moon, any of them near Earth have had the ice blasted off of them by the sun.

You can mine them, but any sort of colonization would be highly Earth-supported for food/fuel sources.

-Crissa

[MfA]

How far away they are isn't relevant, what's important is how much energy you need to get them somewhere useful. The important advantage of an asteroid colony ... you can do 1G.

Not as romantic as a Mars colony of course.

[Crissa]

Well, farther means more time, which means more supplies, which means more fuel and mass required. It is farther to return from Mars - because of the gravity well - but it's still shorter to get there.

The atmosphere of Mars is nearly all CO2, which is actually very nonreactive. It's similar to how you'd store, say, apples. So you could drop a crate of apples on the surface of Mars and they wouldn't rot. They'll probably freeze and explode over night, but they won't decompose.

-Crissa

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Depends on how they are stored. There are anaerobic microbes that could potentially live in a nearly 100% CO2 atmosphere. Normally, they need other compounds for ATP production, but the apples would add to the stack.

Traditional microbes wouldn't be able to affect the apples and the process would slow a good bit, but they would rot eventually.

(When you step into the world of decomposition, you are stepping into my area of expertise. I only do three things very well, this is one of them).

[Crissa]

True. But placing apples into CO2 atmosphere is how they store apples crisp and nice all year long. It doesn't work on everything. But it does work on steel.

-Crissa

[Count Arioch the 28th]

the atmosphere would be great for steel, you'd need something to protect it from the dust storms though (and I'm not sure we have a whole that could hold up).

[Crissa]

At 1% atmospheric pressure, the storms aren't a big deal, really. It doesn't have the strength to actually lift or push large objects around.

Visibility sucks, and the static charges would probably be annoying - but you'd have that on an airless world as well. And communications wouldn't be blocked if you had an antenna larger than, say, directtv dish.

-Crissa

[Maj]

Discovery! Humans possess a collective genetic bug up our asses whenever we see a blank map. People go places because of "just because". It is worth noting that most people who have gone there, die there.

If this is the motivation for going, then we will go - regardless of any level of technology, long-term goal, whatever. I question the most who have gon ethere, die there, though... Is that actually true? And because I'm curious, do we have the technology right now to get a person to Mars and back?

This "no magnetic field" is the same problem shared with the Moon, but our lunar friend is much closer, has less of a gravity well, and no atmosphere; and those are all major advantages over Mars.

Why are they advantages?

Besides "just because," armageddon, and mining, is there some other reason to go to Mars? Would it make a good base for communications of any type?

[Crissa]

Exploring Mars will give us a ton of chemical knowledge we don't currently possess. It will extend our knowledge of many physical sciences - climate, ecology, geology, etc. It is a solid base to support science experiments, and while it may not have a magnetic field, it has ample dirt and rock to hide under. It would be cheaper to run an experiment on Mars (after the investment to put an outpost there) than to run one in orbit (after the expense of putting an outpost there).

It's something to do. Capitalism is about ready to leave the Earth without a middle class after feeding one for so long.

-Crissa

[Orca]

Mars is more interesting, but the moon is so much closer that on any likely cost/benefit analysis (IMO) a permanent base would be established there first. If we ever do establish such a base rather than just visiting, or sending robots.

There is plenty of water in the lunar regolith in absolute terms. Any greater difficulty in extracting it has to be weighed against the greater amount of extraction equipment you'd be able to send to the moon. Also, martian ice will contain chemicals which would make it interesting to drink - starting with peroxides but probably not ending there. Dunno about lunar ice.

On the other hand, the martian atmosphere looks likely to be a boon for landing stuff there (parachutes & similar can work if designed right), and probes to Mars which actually land successfully seem to outlive their mission lifespan, so it can't be too impossible an enviroment for machinery.