wierd sciece questions

[Braydon]

I don't see why everyone's so sure colonizing mars would have no benefits, I mean for starters there's basically a planet of untapped mineral resources, obviously space travel would need to be easier but maybe in a hundred years or so.

 

[KanaX]

While Mars may have important minerals (which it doesn't), it doesn't have the resources needed to even allow people to live on it.

 

[The Stranger]

Well, the human mission to Mars is scheduled to start in 2020. I think supplies will be sent to Mars every two years after the astronauts arrive. One of the main dangers of the mission is the journey itself. Space on its own is a very hostile environment, and any number of things could happen in the relatively short span between Earth and Mars. They're organising a one way mission, which means those people will never see the Earth again.

While Mars may have important minerals (which it doesn't), it doesn't have the resources needed to even allow people to live on it.

Mars has enough natural resources to support human life with the aid of current technology. Sure, people wont be able to go outside and take a big gulp of fresh air, but they should be able to live, so long as they don't screw around.

 

[Oddball]

My point wasnt sending everyone to.mars. my point was while there figuring things out, the whole thing is parasitic. It might even be so afterwards

 

[Braydon]

While Mars may have important minerals (which it doesn't), it doesn't have the resources needed to even allow people to live on it.

So you're telling me the whole planet has no mineral resources? I find that hard to believe that a planet of that size is entirely barren of mineral deposits. And anyway, it's not that hard to live on, I did say probably in around a hundred years, should be easy by then.

 

[Ralpf]

I'm trying to think this through, and the more I do, the more expensive it sounds.

However, per Wikipedia, Silicon, Iron, Aluminum, Magnesium, Titanium, and Oxygen can all be found in abundance in Lunar soil, all of which can be useful in building tools, shelter, and spacecraft, and of course the lack of gravity makes launching from the moon much cheaper and easier. Now the biggest problem is that it would be harder to live on the moon then on Mars, for plenty of reasons, so any manufacturing would have to be largely or completely automatic and/or remote controlled (round trip for light to moon from Earth is 2.5-4 seconds). Other raw materials would have to be shipped from earth, but that should still be much lighter then shipping everything straight from Earth.

But if we can get that down then supplying a Martian colony becomes much cheaper than manufacturing and shipping stuff from earth. Which increases the possible growth rate of said colony, shortening the time for self-sufficiency (in which case the lunar base can be used in other areas). Not to mention the automatic and remote control techniques would also be useful on Mars.

This is just spit-balling from someone with no engineering background and possibly reads too much Sci-Fi, but I think it makes more sense then going straight for Mars.

On a related note, what do you guys think on the feasibility of asteroid capture? I just found this and haven't got around to reading it yet (it's late here) in entirety, but their conclusion sounds positive.

 

[cabfe]

There is a potential problem with the Mars colonization, which is the lowest gravity than Earth's.

While it can be dealt with using physical exercise equipments, if we intend to stay there, babies will be born. And the lowest gravity will affect their bones/organs and their overall shape.

We'll be giving life to literal monsters, as we imagine them from Earth.

In addition to the cultural shock this might cause, there is a medical concern where we have little to no clue about its consequences on a human body.

 

[Matseb2611]

There is a potential problem with the Mars colonization, which is the lowest gravity than Earth's.

While it can be dealt with using physical exercise equipments, if we intend to stay there, babies will be born. And the lowest gravity will affect their bones/organs and their overall shape.

We'll be giving life to literal monsters, as we imagine them from Earth.

In addition to the cultural shock this might cause, there is a medical concern where we have little to no clue about its consequences on a human body.

This. Low gravity has a lot of detrimental effects on our bodies, ranging from low bone density, to weaker blood circulation to the head. People who are born and raised in low gravity will have their circulation adjusted to that gravity. If they then move onto a planet of higher gravity, they will have problems, because their body is not used to pumping blood upwards against that kind of gravity. And same for bone density problem. If someone is raised in low gravity, their bones and joints will be weaker and they'll struggle to live on higher gravity planets. We'll need some miraculous advances in medicine to be able to combat these. Should be possible with time though.

Having said that, Mars IS a reasonably logical option, I think, even though it's hostile. We won't find any planet in the nearby vicinity that has ideal conditions, and Mars seems the least bad of the lot. With the advances in engineering, we'll be able to create tech that helps us to survive on it. For example, we could wear masks with air filters that would convert the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere into oxygen for us to breathe.

Also, check this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FaTBd3gdPI

 

[Ms Littlefish]

I agree, the gravity and air pressure on Mars definitely pose very threatening health questions, as well questions for nearly every aspect of living. Which is why I think a "true" colony is still decades away. However, a small manned mission? That's definitely something I can see happening in my life time. Which is a necessary mission before can even imagine the technology that may be needed to facilitate a longer stay.

 

[Clord]

Wouldn't simulating a proper gravity inside the base help?


Now the real challenge is how to simulate it properly.

 

[Matseb2611]

Now the real challenge is how to simulate it properly.

That's exactly it. We often see this handwaved in nearly every sci-fi, but simulating gravity is not easy. Right now, the only thing we're aware of is having a spinning model spacecraft where the centrifugal force created by the spin acts as an artificial gravity. The faster it spins, the stronger the force (and the higher simulated gravity is). Not sure how something like this can be done on a planet though.

 

[The Stranger]

Having said that, Mars IS a reasonably logical option, I think, even though it's hostile. We won't find any planet in the nearby vicinity that has ideal conditions, and Mars seems the least bad of the lot. With the advances in engineering, we'll be able to create tech that helps us to survive on it. For example, we could wear masks with air filters that would convert the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere into oxygen for us to breathe.

I believe they're test driving some machines that should be able to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen. Not 100% sure about that, though; I only read about it in a single article.

The manned mission will consist of a four man team, which have been in training since 2012\2013; additional four man teams have also been trained in case somehing happens to the first lot. Their goal will be to establish a permenant settlement on Mars. There are no plans on shipping hundreds of colonists to Mars; not yet, anyway. It's a very exciting time for space exploration. Very exciting.

 

[Matseb2611]

Everyone should take a look at this list of everyday things that were first invented by NASA for space exploration purposes:

http://www.design-laorosa.com/2012/11/26-nasa-inventions-that-we-take-for.html

 

[Ralpf]

Gravity (or the lack thereof) is a real problem, but simulating gravity in a small enclosed area is actually pretty simple. I'm thinking off the top of my head exercise areas and sleeping quarters in spinning rooms at (or maybe slightly above) Earth gravity. The questions really are, how much time would a person have to spend in Earth gravity if the rest of the time is spent in ~.4g (Mars gravity) and does it matter which direction the rooms are spinning in. Those questions could at least be partially answered right now, we could do experiments on the ISS (thinking on mice, not enough room for people I think, which is why I said partially) on the effects of artificial gravity.

Child birth is of course more problematic, we would need to see how long the mother would have to be in artificial...wait a minute...OK test tube babies, in a more literal sense then we use that term now (complete growth outside the mother), I don't know where the science is on that front right now but I think that is the logical long term answer. If the children were exposed to earth gravity from conception to, well, whatever age (I don't know) that their growth slows down to the point that they could be exposed to some Martian gravity, then that problem is taken care of. The other option that I was going to say, would be to figure out how much longer the mother would have to be in artificial gravity compared to someone not pregnant, which the answer may be the whole time, which would be, very bad, I think. In both situations the child would be exposed to artificial gravity after birth constantly, or at least to a greater extent than an adult, until they grow to a specific point.

This was a reason that in that video I linked before that Venus could be a better spot than Mars for human settlement. Gravity on Venus is ~.9g, it would probably be lower at the altitudes that we would live at, but that is still better than Mars in that respect. But I think Mars is the better choice, either way we will need infrastructure not needed on Earth simply to survive.

Simulating gravity planet wide or with "fields" is outside of our current technology, and I think impossible.

 

[Clord]

That's exactly it. We often see this handwaved in nearly every sci-fi, but simulating gravity is not easy. Right now, the only thing we're aware of is having a spinning model spacecraft where the centrifugal force created by the spin acts as an artificial gravity. The faster it spins, the stronger the force (and the higher simulated gravity is). Not sure how something like this can be done on a planet though.

I have an idea. Ferris Wheel like design expect it rotates a ring which is the base itself. It would just keep rotating until someone needs to exit or enter the base.

 

[cabfe]

I have an idea. Ferris Wheel like design expect it rotates a ring which is the base itself. It would just keep rotating until someone needs to exit or enter the base.

Wouldn't the whole place become a mess each time it stops rotating?

Once you start rotating, unless everything is screwed, you can't stop without having these objects move by their momentum.

 

[Clord]

Wouldn't the whole place become a mess each time it stops rotating?


Once you start rotating, unless everything is screwed, you can't stop without having these objects move by their momentum.

Well, maybe the vehicles could be used to get out and in on it. Computer would calculate how to enter back without crashing.

 

[cabfe]

The old game Elite did that with its always spinning bases. You could dock manually, but it was much easier with a computer.

Yes, that would work.

 

[Braydon]

You could magnetize people to the floor, if you could find away to get enough magnetic materials in a person without causing some form of poisoning. Might be possible and magnets in a floor would be easier than spinning rooms for artificial gravity.

 

[captainproton]

Is anyone else getting the idea that it would be easier to colonize Narnia first?