How long until we have colonize Mars?

[swampyankee]

You'd probably have to rely on nuclear sent from Earth to establish any settlement. Wind seems pretty abundant on Mars but I don't know how the low pressure will affect wind turbines.

The scientists who would precede any colonists would have a better idea of local geology areology and the possibilities of local power sources.

Low air density. The amount of power that can be extracted by a wind turbine is directly proportional to the air density. Solar power would probably work well, but it would require maintenance effort to keep the collector panels clean. Certainly nuclear would be workable, but the colonists may want a system that doesn't require fuel shipments.

[Noclevername]

Low air density. The amount of power that can be extracted by a wind turbine is directly proportional to the air density. Solar power would probably work well, but it would require maintenance effort to keep the collector panels clean. Certainly nuclear would be workable, but the colonists may want a system that doesn't require fuel shipments.

Solar power sats? Maybe that's where their real market is-- not for Earth, but Mars. Of course there will need to be a manufacturing center to make them, possibly on one or both of Mars' moons-- so put an orbital hab there for powersat builders, maybe even in time a separate colony "upstairs" from the Martians...

[danscope]

I certainly hope you have lots and lots of your own money.

[Noclevername]

How many ways can you say the same thing?

[danscope]

How is it technically possible to tear away your fantasy of mars for long enough that one can be aware of the economic realities
confronting America today and for quite some time to come? Or perhaps you are suggesting the money come from elsewhere?
Whch prompted the inquiriy. Well, I shall put aside the financing of your scheme and we shall all explore this design whim
.... just for fun.
Best regards,
Dan

[Noclevername]

I guess that answers the question: many, many ways.

[Noclevername]

danscope, if you really want to contribute to this thread, how about offering some constructive ideas? Like, ways to raise money. Ways to amortize costs. Business plans. Useful suggestions.

Endlessly repeating "it costs money, it costs money" does nothing to help and does nothing to inform anyone of anything they didn't already know.

[danscope]

Sir, that is the object of discussion, the money. Apart from that, this is simply an academic exercise in engineering. And that's fine.
But you should be honest with who ever reads this that tax payers don't have the moneys you would spend, and we already have to
"Borrow" funds just to do what needs to be done here. So , it's just an honest observation .
This portion of the debate is concluded.

[Antice]

How to pay for a mars colony?
Well.. the colonists themselves would have to put up as much of the money needed as possible. the remainder would have to come from whomever was willing to help fund the effort.
Thing is. going to mars is actually more expensive than say, going to an asteroid, but both destinations have most of their cost in the form of getting from the ground and into LEO in the first place.

so what is a potential colonist to do? they organize. they try to raise money and help develop the very technology they are going to need in order to live on mars. It is not entirely unfeasible for an NGO based on the goal of colonizing mars to potentially be able to raise enough funds trough it's members to actually pay for a robotic mission or two.
One has to remember. the people who want to go to mars as colonists arent among the poorest people on earth. quite the contrary. some of them are indeed in the top 10 percentile as far as wealth goes. Colonizing mars is not going to be about earthly profit. the profit for these colonists are only going to materialize on mars, and this wealth will be stuck on mars as well. Does not mean that there won't be potential benefits for the first waves of colonist tho. they could easily become land barons once the population starts growing.

[Noclevername]

This portion of the debate is concluded.

It was four pages ago.

[Jens]

Despite even the non-physical manmade hardships, we should still go.

And I agree with that too. I just think it's unwise to assume that we will be able to go to Mars and establish a libertarian paradise.

[Noclevername]

And I agree with that too. I just think it's unwise to assume that we will be able to go to Mars and establish a libertarian paradise.

Despite all the talk about that, I've still never met anyone who's actually said they wanted to do that. How many would-be colonists actually think that way? The only ones I know of were in old SF stories in which Mars had breatheable air and canals.

[Glom]

I thought wind power would be proportional to the square of air density, since dynamic pressure has that relationship.

Solar power on Mars would suffer a couple of problems. 1) it's dusty, 2) at 1.5 AU, the intensity of solar light is less than half what it is on Earth.

[Ara Pacis]

Every place on Earth is a poor analog for Mars.

Even those bone dry islands up in the Arctic circle have breathable air and other Earthly benefits.

If it's used. Even on Earth we have the ability to hermetically seal suits and habitats so that some locations can become closer analogs to Mars WRT pressure and chemistry. Of course, there's still gravity to contend with, but a Mars habitat may synthesize Earth level gravity via rotation. This assumes one wants to create an analog, instead of living somewhere else just to live somewhere else.

------

I'm trying to figure out if your post should be read literally or if there is some deeper meaning which I'm missing. If we, as USians, or an Atlantic culture, or Earthlings, decide that space development should be left to commercial interests, those sorts of costs: launch facilities, vehicle development, space facilities, environmental control systems, etc, would have to be included as part of doing business. Boeing includes the cost of development in the price of a 787, GE, Rolls-Royce, and Pratt&Whitney include the development costs of their commercial engines in the selling prices.

Bluntly, I think many of the advocates for commercialized space simply do not have a concept of how much aerospace systems cost to develop. In 1972 dollars, the Shuttle's development cost -- $5 billion -- correlates to $26 billion today, less than the 787's program cost.

My post was ironic to point out that commercial development happens on the back of other development, so they don't have to re-invent the wheel. That's not to say that I think or expect commercial development to fund the entire exercise --far from it-- my point is that government can subsidized the infrastructure of space access just like it does with roads and airports and fuel systems and then commercial development can proceed in a similar manner to how gas stations and hotels and restaurants popped up along the interstates.

------

That is the thing tho. there are quite a few people who really would like to get off this planet in search of a new independent life in a new and independent society. they want the distance. where ever you are on earth you are still ON earth. within easy reach of anyone that has the capability of paying for a trip to wherever you are.

I agree. I take your meaning of "independent" to refer to the society, not necessarily to the individuals that may make up that society. A lot of societies who have sought independence from perceived oppression were driving by religion and were tightly cohesive as a socialistic group, which is quite the opposite of Randianism. The problem with Earth is that political ideal of comprehensive administration, meaning that all lands must belong to a government that is responsible for what happens there. There is no wilderness, and to create a new political paradigm, one must excise an enclave from another entity - it's become a zero-sum game. It's not about lebensraum, in the sense of physical land for population habitation and agriculture, but about room for living in your own way while allowing others enough room to live their way.

[Antice]

I take your meaning of "independent" to refer to the society, not necessarily to the individuals that may make up that society. A lot of societies who have sought independence from perceived oppression were driving by religion and were tightly cohesive as a socialistic group, which is quite the opposite of Randianism. The problem with Earth is that political ideal of comprehensive administration, meaning that all lands must belong to a government that is responsible for what happens there. There is no wilderness, and to create a new political paradigm, one must excise an enclave from another entity - it's become a zero-sum game. It's not about lebensraum, in the sense of physical land for population habitation and agriculture, but about room for living in your own way while allowing others enough room to live their way.

Yes indeed. independence is not the same as freedom. it just means not being dependent on someone/thing.
The entity/thing that people may seek independence from can vary a lot, but in my case it's independence from other peoples misguided efforts of controlling the progress of technology. wither for their own gain or just due to misguided fear.
It is my belief that in order to progress to the next level we need to get rid of all the risk aversion mentality going on and jump into a big and risky venture like making a colony anywhere in our solar system. I'm not choosy about where. my preference is to go to the moon and the main asteroid belt first, then later onto mars and onwards. but that is just because i believe that the moon and or the asteroid belt is a lower hanging fruit. less gravity to contend with. and in order to move our volunteer paying colonists, we are going to need some mighty fine spaceships.

[Jens]

Despite all the talk about that, I've still never met anyone who's actually said they wanted to do that.

Well I was thinking of comments like this: "It's not about lebensraum, in the sense of physical land for population habitation and agriculture, but about room for living in your own way while allowing others enough room to live their way." Implying, to me, that you would be going to Mars to "live your own way," in other words to escape earth to get away from the political or economic system here, implying that it can be made better elsewhere.

[swampyankee]

I thought wind power would be proportional to the square of air density, since dynamic pressure has that relationship.

Solar power on Mars would suffer a couple of problems. 1) it's dusty, 2) at 1.5 AU, the intensity of solar light is less than half what it is on Earth.

It's going to be proportional to the dynamic pressure, which is one-half of the density times the velocity squared. Solar power on Mars has a positive track record, with Spirit and Opportunity both functioning far longer than planned. Photovoltaic panels have a lot going for them, including the fact that they have no moving parts once they're deployed. That there is only about 40% of the above-atmosphere insolation of the Earth just means that about 2.5 times the area is required. Minor problem.

Nuclear is also useful, although the power requirements for a base -- let alone a colony -- are too great for RTGs to be practical. Most nuclear plants are also likely to use either Rankine, e.g., NaK vapor, or Brayton (gas turbine) cycle, both of which require dynamic components.

[danscope]

Anyone thinking about going to mars to "get away from it all" should serve on a submarine for several years. You may find that it requires a lot more discipline and personal compromise than you may have thought.
There's a song which goes... " No matter where you go or do, you'll never get away from you. "

[Antice]

Anyone thinking about going to mars to "get away from it all" should serve on a submarine for several years. You may find that it requires a lot more discipline and personal compromise than you may have thought.
There's a song which goes... " No matter where you go or do, you'll never get away from you. "

You keep insisting that we are talking about personal freedom here. we are NOT implying personal freedoms, but group freedom to build a different kind of society on a different set of values. It follows pretty consistently that doing so would require giving up a LOT of personal freedom. It's part of the cost of doing business so to say. The marsians would truly have to build a NEW kind of society, one that truly has to survive in a new way as well. this is kinda the point of it all no?

[Glom]

It's going to be proportional to the dynamic pressure, which is one-half of the density times theo velocity squared.

Yes of course it is. I got a bit confused because everyone keeps mentioning the war.

[Ara Pacis]

Yes indeed. independence is not the same as freedom. it just means not being dependent on someone/thing.
The entity/thing that people may seek independence from can vary a lot, but in my case it's independence from other peoples misguided efforts of controlling the progress of technology. wither for their own gain or just due to misguided fear.
It is my belief that in order to progress to the next level we need to get rid of all the risk aversion mentality going on and jump into a big and risky venture like making a colony anywhere in our solar system. I'm not choosy about where. my preference is to go to the moon and the main asteroid belt first, then later onto mars and onwards. but that is just because i believe that the moon and or the asteroid belt is a lower hanging fruit. less gravity to contend with. and in order to move our volunteer paying colonists, we are going to need some mighty fine spaceships.

I think the moon is the logical low-hanging fruit, and maybe NEOs, but from what I've read, the asteroid belt is definitely not low hanging fruit. The asteroids on the main belts are far away, have low insolation, have high inclinations and require lots of delta-v with little in the way of gravity for slingshot maneuvers or Oberth Effect maneuvers or aerobraking/aerocapture. And then there's a lot of distance between them so it's not suitable to try and travel between them --it's easier to go out to one and come back to Earth then go back out to another one. Actually, it might be better to come back to Venus or Mercury since they revolve around the sun more rapidly and thus present more frequent departure and arrival windows. IF you really want to go to the asteroid belt in a big way, you may want to go to Venus first.

[Ara Pacis]

Well I was thinking of comments like this: "It's not about lebensraum, in the sense of physical land for population habitation and agriculture, but about room for living in your own way while allowing others enough room to live their way." Implying, to me, that you would be going to Mars to "live your own way," in other words to escape earth to get away from the political or economic system here, implying that it can be made better elsewhere.

Not necessarily better, just different.

[Jens]

Not necessarily better, just different.

But if it's not better, just different, why be enthusiastic about it? I would assume one would be enthusiastic in a project that one judged would be "better", not in an objective sense necessarily but according to your own feelings.

[Jens]

Yes of course it is. I got a bit confused because everyone keeps mentioning the war.

Well, you started it.

[Noclevername]

But if it's not better, just different, why be enthusiastic about it? I would assume one would be enthusiastic in a project that one judged would be "better", not in an objective sense necessarily but according to your own feelings.

People get enthusiastic about the strangest things. And yes, "objectively better" is one of the most difficult things to judge, because most people insist that their way is the best.

[Noclevername]

I think one important resource for the first colonists will scavenging the equipment left behind by earlier expeditions. Let's say a manned mission or even a large sample-return used ISRU to make rocket fuel for the return. They'd leave behind systems for making and cracking various chemicals, as well as a power source (probably small but able to supplement the colony's energy budget) and that would be immensely valuable to a permanent settlement. Since such ISRU might include local water ice, just knowing the location of the launchsite would also be of value.

[Ara Pacis]

But if it's not better, just different, why be enthusiastic about it? I would assume one would be enthusiastic in a project that one judged would be "better", not in an objective sense necessarily but according to your own feelings.

Humans like variety. They also tend to be cliquish. Historically, humans lived in small groups of a few hundred max. Humans don't need a reason to develop shibboleths and ingroup-outgroup except for the fact that they are doing what humans do.

[Antice]

Humans like variety. They also tend to be cliquish. Historically, humans lived in small groups of a few hundred max. Humans don't need a reason to develop shibboleths and ingroup-outgroup except for the fact that they are doing what humans do.

+10 points for making me google fu that word. shibboleths indeed.

[Ara Pacis]

+10 points for making me google fu that word. shibboleths indeed.

Surprisingly, I only ran across it a year or so ago. Ever since then I take every opportunity to use it. It's easy since I do a lot of talking about politics and communications and religion and group identity issues.

[danscope]

I think the moon is the logical low-hanging fruit, and maybe NEOs, but from what I've read, the asteroid belt is definitely not low hanging fruit. The asteroids on the main belts are far away, have low insolation, have high inclinations and require lots of delta-v with little in the way of gravity for slingshot maneuvers or Oberth Effect maneuvers or aerobraking/aerocapture. And then there's a lot of distance between them so it's not suitable to try and travel between them --it's easier to go out to one and come back to Earth then go back out to another one. Actually, it might be better to come back to Venus or Mercury since they revolve around the sun more rapidly and thus present more frequent departure and arrival windows. IF you really want to go to the asteroid belt in a big way, you may want to go to Venus first.

Hi, You DO realize that Venus is around the temperature of molten lead , do you not ??