# Colonizing Mars.



## metal134 (Sep 2, 2010)

This is a subject I have often thought about and in recent years, with talk of an immenent manned mission, it makes it somewhat topical.  I have always heard optimism about the potential project of terraforming Mars, but the more I think about it, the more I think that it wouldn't work.  I think it probable that you could make it habitable for it's own forms of life to evolve, but for life that is intriniscally adapted to Earth conditions... think about the logistics of it.  Here on Earth, you could take an organism out of it's native environment and place it in another (say for example you took a plant out of the rainforest and planted it in your front you somewhere in Arkansas) andmaybe it will thrive, maybe it will die.  The slightest changes in temperature, humidity, air pressure, etc can have DRAMATIC impacts on an organism that is not adapted to that environment. So let's say you did mange to heat up Mars to an Earth-like or near Earth-like temp and infused it with an atmosphere.  How can you expect organisms to easily adapt to the differences?  Gravity, length of days, seasons, etc.  No matter how hard you try, conditions are going to be drastically different and it would take life millions of years to adapt to those differences.  And what about resources?  I doubt Mars has many desirable resources.  What do you think? Is it a valid argument? Am I overthinking it?


----------



## Casper Parks (May 1, 2011)

I'd say resources are there, mining and frozen water. Creating a breathable atmosphere falls into question for scientific reasons, as well as cold due to distance from the Sun and other issues.


----------



## Brenda Carroll (May 21, 2009)

Another thing that is usually overlooked concerning Mars colonization is that Mars has little or no magnetic field as I understand it and there would be potential for UV/cosmic ray damages not experienced on earth.  Perhaps, we could build controlled environments like the ones in that Arnold Schwarteneggar (whew!) movie? But building a viable atmospheric for Earth plants/animals is unlikely.  However, if we heat it up and add water, we may be able to introduce genetically altered lifeforms that would be adaptable to such conditions.  What say you to that?


----------



## Chris Northern (Jan 20, 2011)

I never quite saw the point of going to all that effort to get out of one gravity well just to put yourself back at the bottom of another. It's a bit like breaking out of a gaol cell just to cross the corridor and lock yourself into another one.

The big problem with creating an atmosphere on mars (heh, 'the' big problem, like there was only one) is that the core is cool, no Vulcanism means the atmosphere wouldn't replenish itself as ours does. But say that problem is solved, I think you have a valid point, metal, that some species would fail to flurish when introduced. Creating a working ecology would be a massive challenge.

On the subject of getting out of the gravity well, there is this, which looks interesting: <http://forms.theregister.co.uk/mail_author/?story_url=/2011/11/02/space_airships/>


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

Well, humans and many other animals are quite resilient.  I mean, a person and their dogs can live in both Florida and in Alaska.  So we could adapt to a lot of things.  But there are inherent things that humanity needs to survive that are absent on Mars and in order to colonize we'd have to figure out a way to have them there.  Is it impossible?  Well, 100 years ago who thought man would actually leave Earth's atmosphere and then walk on the moon (and come back.)  Not many, but it was done.

As far as why one would bother to leave Earth to go to Mars - it's not just a matter of a person leaving one room and going down the hall to another.  It's about a person leaving a room with 8 billion people in it and going to another room.  More space!  It wouldn't be a long-term solution, obviously, as no doubt in time we'd overpopulate Mars as well.  And then there's the whole problem of the Sun turning into a white giant and destroying every planet in our galaxy, but I'm not that worried about it, to be honest...


----------



## NapCat (retired) (Jan 17, 2011)

Sign me up !


----------



## BMathison (Feb 4, 2011)

I was watching _Red Planet_ last night, as a coincidence.  Pretty contrived themes, but I enjoyed it just the same.

I think human beings are inherently explorers. We strive to move onward and outward (sometimes with very good results, many times with terrible results). Every time we step out into space, new technologies are created. Many times, people from different nationalities/backgrounds come together to work on a common goal/mission. I believe that our space programs provide our collective psyches with hope and possibility.

The technologies we have now will most likely not support a colony on Mars. But what about 20 years from now? What technologies will we have in 50 years? Our tentative steps to Mars now will have lasting impact on future generations.


----------



## *DrDLN* (dr.s.dhillon) (Jan 19, 2011)

Rather than settle on Mars, we can use all the sources to make this earth a peaceful heaven for all the inhabitants.


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

Only problem with that is, we can't stay here indefinitely. The heat from the sun is increasing by one degree every thousand years, which means that global warming (and all its consequences) will happen eventually, with no help from us. And after that, things are going to start getting very hot and nasty. It's a long way off, but if we survive that long we'll have to abandon this planet sometime. So we might as well start figuring out how to do so.


----------



## scl (Feb 19, 2011)

I think the asteroid belt is a better bet.  You wouldn't be at the bottom
of another big gravity well and there's lot of matter to use to make things
that you'd need.  Reaction propulsion systems are a big bottleneck to getting
back up from Mars, not so much a problem in the belt, but time to get from
A to B might be a problem.


----------



## Carol (was Dara) (Feb 19, 2011)

Brendan Carroll said:


> Perhaps, we could build controlled environments like the ones in that Arnold Schwarteneggar (whew!) movie? But building a viable atmospheric for Earth plants/animals is unlikely.


This. I don't really see us changing the planet over all but am thinking something like a huge, dome-like enclosed city would be more doable.


----------



## Brenda Carroll (May 21, 2009)

The challenges of space exploration are legion and much of what we accomplished in the 1960's was accompanied by a great deal of beginner's luck (if you believe in luck).


----------



## metal134 (Sep 2, 2010)

Chris Northern said:


> I never quite saw the point of going to all that effort to get out of one gravity well just to put yourself back at the bottom of another. It's a bit like breaking out of a gaol cell just to cross the corridor and lock yourself into another one.


Well, truth be told, I can see a good reason why we would WANT to do it, and it all goes back to that old Neil Armstrong chestnut "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." If Mars were to actually be succesfully colonized,as huge as that would be for us, it's also just a baby step to getting out of the solar system and setting up colonies elsewhere. And why would we want to do that? Like Tony said eariler, we know that one way or another, Earth will become uninhabitable at some point by our hand or not, whether we like it or not.


----------



## talleylynn (Apr 24, 2009)

Kim Stanley Robinson has written a sci-fi trilogy - Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars - that tackle the problems of coloniazation as well as the politics. He goes into a lot of the science of making Mars habitable for humans. Coincidentally, I just finished reading the second book, Green Mars, last week and I'm still seeing red rock in my sleep.


----------



## Alain Gomez (Nov 12, 2010)

Tony Richards said:


> Only problem with that is, we can't stay here indefinitely. The heat from the sun is increasing by one degree every thousand years, which means that global warming (and all its consequences) will happen eventually, with no help from us. And after that, things are going to start getting very hot and nasty. It's a long way off, but if we survive that long we'll have to abandon this planet sometime. So we might as well start figuring out how to do so.


That would be multiple billions of years away. Plus, the magnetic poles reset themselves every couple hundred thousand years to prevent such things from happening. Such is the wonder that is Earth.


----------



## Alain Gomez (Nov 12, 2010)

metal134 said:


> And what about resources? I doubt Mars has many desirable resources. What do you think? Is it a valid argument? Am I overthinking it?


I truly believe that Mars has one very desirable natural resource: tourism. Laugh if you want but money and jobs is what drives our modern economy. Take for example Virgin Galactic and the supposed commercial spaceport in New Mexico that is being built. If it ever comes to fruition, a spaceport would provide TONS of jobs. Not to mention all the jobs in creating and producing space shuttles.

All you would have to do is create one dinky hotel on mars and charge for a 1 month vacation package. If celebrities are spending money on multiple chateaus, I guarantee you that they will be willing to make the trip. To help cover the rest of the costs, they could offer to-space-and-back one day trips for the not quite so rich.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

talleylynn said:


> Kim Stanley Robinson has written a sci-fi trilogy - Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars - that tackle the problems of coloniazation as well as the politics. He goes into a lot of the science of making Mars habitable for humans. Coincidentally, I just finished reading the second book, Green Mars, last week and I'm still seeing red rock in my sleep.


I read the series 3 or so times and I agree it has a lot of plausible science on how to terraform. As for the gravity well, I've always loved the idea of space elevators. Once the first one is built, Earth would soon have 3 or 4 more under construction. We just need to get out there first and start spreading ourselves across the solar system. I would move to Mars or onto an orbital station in an instant even if my partner isn't so hot on the idea.


----------



## Chris Northern (Jan 20, 2011)

scl said:


> I think the asteroid belt is a better bet. You wouldn't be at the bottom
> of another big gravity well and there's lot of matter to use to make things
> that you'd need. Reaction propulsion systems are a big bottleneck to getting
> back up from Mars, not so much a problem in the belt, but time to get from
> A to B might be a problem.


Exactly what I meant. Easier to get there, collect and process what you need to build an environment big enough for the population, building bigger and better as generations pass. Getting out of the gravity well is the big problem - though there are unimplemented solutions (lets face, rockets are just silly) - so ounce you've made the hard part of the journey there seems little sense deliberately putting yourself in a position where you have to do it again.

Once you are out of Earth's gravity you are half way to anywhere, to misquote whoever I'm quoting. Maybe Jerry Pournelle in A Step Further Out.

@Brendan Carroll - Beginner's Luck? Some of the slide-rule and by-hand calculations came to light recently and the current NASA staff were looking them over; someone commented, "I don't know how they figured this out."

Not luck; competence.


----------



## Brenda Carroll (May 21, 2009)

Chris Northern said:


> @Brendan Carroll - Beginner's Luck? Some of the slide-rule and by-hand calculations came to light recently and the current NASA staff were looking them over; someone commented, "I don't know how they figured this out."
> 
> Not luck; competence.


I wasn't referring to math because I'm not qualified to comment on that part of the program. But I do know that our space vehicles are not properly shielded from cosmic rays, nor are they impervious to fatal damage from space debris or even micro-meteors; therefore, I believe that luck or God played a part in the manned space program we conducted in the 1960's. Only recently, the ISS was going to be shut down because of danger from space debris. Even now, in 2011, 50 years later, we haven't invented "Shields" or "Deflectors" for Sulu to raise. Until we overcome the problem of our space vehicles (however they may be powered), becoming space sieves, then we need more work at the design drawing board.


----------



## metal134 (Sep 2, 2010)

Alain Gomez said:


> That would be multiple billions of years away. Plus, the magnetic poles reset themselves every couple hundred thousand years to prevent such things from happening. Such is the wonder that is Earth.


Well it's true that it will be a few billions of years before Earth is swallowed by the sun, the fact remains that it will happen one day. It just means that there is no sense of urgency. Hell, by that time, humans will probably be extinct, having evolved far beyond anything we can imagine at this point. If we survive that long, that is.


----------



## Chris Northern (Jan 20, 2011)

Brendan Carroll said:


> I wasn't referring to math because I'm not qualified to comment on that part of the program. But I do know that our space vehicles are not properly shielded from cosmic rays, nor are they impervious to fatal damage from space debris or even micro-meteors; therefore, I believe that luck or God played a part in the manned space program we conducted in the 1960's. Only recently, the ISS was going to be shut down because of danger from space debris. Even now, in 2011, 50 years later, we haven't invented "Shields" or "Deflectors" for Sulu to raise. Until we overcome the problem of our space vehicles (however they may be powered), becoming space sieves, then we need more work at the design drawing board.


Good points, now that I see what you mean. More mass is the usual answer to shielding. Not a solution easily implemented, sadly. At least, not with rockets at a realistic price and time-frame. The original Orion project would have solved that problem... basically a launch system involving 100 nuclear bombs lifting 8,000,000 tons into orbit, including the fairly necessary shielding. 

Maybe graphine will get us a space-elevator and $100 a ton lift cost using slightly less in the way of thermonuclear devices.


----------



## R. M. Reed (Nov 11, 2009)

I once saw a proposal to build habitats in the sides of the huge trench on Mars, so they would be shielded from radiation. Humans are built for gravity wells, I think many will want to find a new one wherever they go. People who live in space won't be able to survive in gravity after a while, maybe they will become a new species.


----------



## Colin Taber (Apr 4, 2011)

I'd love to go, what an adventure!

As for what we'd do there, we'd be human and spread the majesty of life! Imagine the grand civilisation we could build!


----------



## Coral Moore (Nov 29, 2009)

If I could afford it I'd be on the first ship off this rock! 



talleylynn said:


> Kim Stanley Robinson has written a sci-fi trilogy - Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars - that tackle the problems of coloniazation as well as the politics. He goes into a lot of the science of making Mars habitable for humans. Coincidentally, I just finished reading the second book, Green Mars, last week and I'm still seeing red rock in my sleep.


Thanks for that, those look good! Added to my ever-growing TBR stack.


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

Great discussion.


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

Rockets? Mars? If the recent experiment at CERN, which has just been replicated with the same result, turn out to be correct, these goals and methods of transport may be like a trip down to the high street on your roller skates compared with what we might find ourselves capable of in centuries to come. I emphasise might. No one is quite sure what the implications are -- as yet -- of moving an object (albeit a very small one) past light speed.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Tony Richards said:


> Rockets? Mars? If the recent experiment at CERN, which has just been replicated with the same result, turn out to be correct, these goals and methods of transport may be like a trip down to the high street on your roller skates compared with what we might find ourselves capable of in centuries to come. I emphasise might. No one is quite sure what the implications are -- as yet -- of moving an object (albeit a very small one) past light speed.


FTL travel - now that's a whole other conversation and I'm hoping I get to see it somewhere in my second century. I've always felt that just because we don't know how to do it or how to get around the current physics barriers doesn't mean it's not possible .... I want to go to Mars but I'm also happy to just stop in there on my way to Ceti Alpha VI ....


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

Geoffrey said:


> FTL travel - now that's a whole other conversation and I'm hoping I get to see it somewhere in my second century. I've always felt that just because we don't know how to do it or how to get around the current physics barriers doesn't mean it's not possible .... I want to go to Mars but I'm also happy to just stop in there on my way to Ceti Alpha VI ....


Isn't it frustrating not knowing -- or even having any way to know -- if we can really do it? As Homer Simpson might say, "Lousy 21st Century, what use are you?" Doh!


----------



## lea_owens (Dec 5, 2011)

It's interesting discussing possible future means of travel. With the current galloping transition to global connectivity via the internet, and with young people growing up in an environment where they expect to be connected all the time via technology (phone, facebook, skype, SMS, etc), they are already well on their way to accepting their consciousness existing outside of their body. They they are utilising their consciousness through technology so much of the time, anyway, that I believe they will be open to the notion of 'leaving the body at home' and sending the consciousness out as a form of energy into either artificial devices or 'other bodies', almost along the lines of Avatar. If someone sits at home, their body in the one place, communicating with the world via their computer most of the time, literally 'living through' their computer, then they might easily accept the notion of allowing their energy of consciousness, if possible, to leave their physical body. Perhaps it will be easy to move our thoughts in the form of energy to other places, even times, rather than move the mass of our bodies. 

Theoretical physicists are discussing the existence of multiple universes, parallel universes & intersecting universes where entire other universes exist alongside and within each other. Perhaps, all around us, exists one or many other universes, separated by a slight time or matter deviation which means we are totally unaware of the others even though we exist in the same space, and although matter isn't able to cross between the planes of the universes, energy may be able to make the journey. Of course, I like to tease them and tell them they've just described heaven - another existence all around us that souls (energy) can go to after death and, if you believe in reincarnation, where they can come from back here if they choose to come here again. It seems, the more extreme science goes, the closer it comes to some of the basics of religion. I remember learning how some eastern religions described all life as simply being made of light - that we were 'beings of light' - and then scientists delved deeper and deeper into the structure of the atoms of which we are constructed, and the further they went, the clearer it became that within the atoms themselves, the 'essence' of them was electromagnetic radiation... light. So, at sub-atomic level, we really are beings of light.

So, eventually, travel may not be in the physical form which we are used to at present, the travel of the future may be of energy, not mass, and we will send our thoughts out, not ourselves.

As to Mars, the main problem with terraforming is that it will be done by scientists in the pay of governments who are run by officials who are influenced by big business. Ultimately, it will be a move taken by business giants such as those involved in mining, media and weapons. The decisions made won't be ethical or 'for the betterment of humanity and life on earth' but for the advancement of those businesses. The 'quick fix' of using nuclear weapons to blast enough dust into the sky to create a protective barrier, hold in the heat and allow the ice to melt will be preferred over the the slow and steady approach of gradual change over thousands of years. They are likely to use fast nuclear energy to release oxygen and hydrogen from the ice in the permafrost, poles and under ground in order to get gasses into the atmosphere. They are likely to use genetically engineered plants from earth which survive in low oxygen environments whilst still functioning to manufacture oxygen in order to get the planet 'living' for us in as short a time as possible. 

The 'leading edge' of humanity isn't driven by kindness and good will towards others, it is driven by money and greed and a belief that the decisions made by those people are the best decisions and no others should be considered. Watching the terraforming of Mars will be, on the one hand, very exciting and, on the other, rather terrifying to see to what lengths the big business of the world goes in order to control the new territory. 

And, from Mars, perhaps we'll spread across our galaxy, forcing our beliefs and terraforming ways on to other planets and primitive cultures, because we do know best. And it would be useless to resist.

You know, we just may be the Borg.


----------



## KVWitten (Apr 11, 2011)

This might be a stupid question but why don't we colonize the moon first?  It's a heck of a lot closer.


----------



## R. M. Reed (Nov 11, 2009)

BarbaraKE said:


> This might be a stupid question but why don't we colonize the moon first? It's a heck of a lot closer.


Colonising anywhere else in the solar system will happen when there is a profit. There is stuff to mine on the moon, but the cost of getting there and setting up places to live and getting the mines going is prohibitive. I'm sure it will happen, but only when there is a return on investment.


----------



## Coral Moore (Nov 29, 2009)

BarbaraKE said:


> This might be a stupid question but why don't we colonize the moon first? It's a heck of a lot closer.


Mars has an atmosphere, albeit not particularly friendly for us. The moon has no atmosphere at all. I would think that makes a difference in colonizability that gives Mars a slight edge.


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

BarbaraKE said:


> This might be a stupid question but why don't we colonize the moon first? It's a heck of a lot closer.


I have it on good faith, from people who know, that the Chinese are drawing up plans to exploit the moon's mineral wealth at some time in the future (although it would probably be mostly done by robotized diggers). It's an extremely hostile environment, but then Mars isn't too great for your health either. And the Moon would be the ideal venue for a trial colony, where we could refine the whole business and correct our mistakes, leaving us better equipped when we move further out. So good point.


----------



## metal134 (Sep 2, 2010)

lea_owens said:


> As to Mars, the main problem with terraforming is that it will be done by scientists in the pay of governments who are run by officials who are influenced by big business. Ultimately, it will be a move taken by business giants such as those involved in mining, media and weapons. The decisions made won't be ethical or 'for the betterment of humanity and life on earth' but for the advancement of those businesses. The 'quick fix' of using nuclear weapons to blast enough dust into the sky to create a protective barrier, hold in the heat and allow the ice to melt will be preferred over the the slow and steady approach of gradual change over thousands of years. They are likely to use fast nuclear energy to release oxygen and hydrogen from the ice in the permafrost, poles and under ground in order to get gasses into the atmosphere. They are likely to use genetically engineered plants from earth which survive in low oxygen environments whilst still functioning to manufacture oxygen in order to get the planet 'living' for us in as short a time as possible.


That is a great point.


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

Everyone will want a "bubble" on the moon.
It is a gravity well to the Earth.  Drop a stone down the gravity well - better than shooting a missile.  No nation will allow another to set up a base without a counter-base.

Just sayin....


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

geoffthomas said:


> Everyone will want a "bubble" on the moon.
> It is a gravity well to the Earth. Drop a stone down the gravity well - better than shooting a missile. No nation will allow another to set up a base without a counter-base.
> 
> Just sayin....


A Lunar arms race? Well, that's an intriguing idea.


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

Hey Bob Heinlein told us all about it in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
And so did other "science" science-fiction writers.
The principle works from satellites but even better from the moon.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

sheiler1963 said:


> Aww please don't colonize Mars! We're all full up here trust me. I let my dogs poop all over everyone's yard, I play loud head banger music all night long. The utility costs up here....out of this world man! One day shipping from Amazon (even with Prime).....not happening. Trust me, nothing to see here, move one. Try the Moon. I understand the infrastructure is much more advanced.


I thought women were from Venus?

*If Sheiler is male I'm in big trouble*


----------



## SheenahFreitas (Oct 7, 2011)

I believe that there could be a gradual colonization method that involves building a temperature controlled dome that can also act as an ozone. Then begin farming plant there (basic one's like trees and grass) to build an atmosphere of oxygen. With time the dome can be expanded and cities can be built. that's what I think is possible at least.


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

SheenahFreitas said:


> I believe that there could be a gradual colonization method that involves building a temperature controlled dome that can also act as an ozone. Then begin farming plant there (basic one's like trees and grass) to build an atmosphere of oxygen. With time the dome can be expanded and cities can be built. that's what I think is possible at least.


It makes more sense -- rather than expand the dome -- to build more domes some quarter of a mile from the central one and then link them with tunnels wide enough to have dwelling spaces, storage etc. either side, so that a good part of the colony's business goes on underground, and thus fully protected from solar radiation.


----------



## sheiler1963 (Nov 23, 2011)

Chad Winters (#102) said:


> *If Sheiler is male I'm in big trouble*


as if to suggest if sheiler is a female it's not a problem......
poor Chad may have hung himself and it's a pun that was intended.

click  if you get the joke.


----------



## Casper Parks (May 1, 2011)

Keep in mind, Mars has a weak magnetic field.


----------



## erikhanberg (Jul 15, 2011)

I'll second Robinson's Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars trilogy as making a plausible scientific case for how you would terraform Mars. Space lenses, giant boreholes, diverting ice asteroids into the atmosphere, genetically modified plants, etc. They're good sci-fi books!


----------



## balaspa (Dec 27, 2009)

I am not sure that terraforming will ever work, but I once heard a theory that the best way to bring a man or woman to Mars would be to give them everything they would need to set up a living space there - but not worry about bringing them back.  Bringing them back is too expensive and risky, but get someone to volunteer to live out the rest of their life there on Mars.  NASA has already said such a plan would never be considered, but there are some actual scientists who feel this might be the best way to do it.


----------



## Casper Parks (May 1, 2011)

balaspa said:


> I am not sure that terraforming will ever work, but I once heard a theory that the best way to bring a man or woman to Mars would be to give them everything they would need to set up a living space there - but not worry about bringing them back. Bringing them back is too expensive and risky, but get someone to volunteer to live out the rest of their life there on Mars. NASA has already said such a plan would never be considered, but there are some actual scientists who feel this might be the best way to do it.


NASA is correct... I'd go... Where do I sign-up?


----------



## HappyGuy (Nov 3, 2008)

Don't you think it would be better to get our act together here on Earth BEFORE we mess up another planet?


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

Well it might be a good idea to spread the gene pool around to some other planetary bodies - just in case we do something stupid here.

Just sayin.....


----------

