How long until we have colonize Mars?

[Noclevername]

Bottom line: We cannot always spend on what we would like ...just for entertainment.

I like the way you ignore all the arguments you've heard about the importance of space colonization and instead reduce it to a dismissible "just entertainment". Good to know those mental blinders are still working.

[swampyankee]

Leaving aside various ideological issues, which are not trivial, but are not acceptable topics here, there are technological problems, most of which can probably be solved by sufficient application of money. I think the most difficult one is a closed or semi-closed life support system which can support human beings for at least two years without external supplies.

[Noclevername]

Leaving aside various ideological issues, which are not trivial, but are not acceptable topics here, there are technological problems, most of which can probably be solved by sufficient application of money. I think the most difficult one is a closed or semi-closed life support system which can support human beings for at least two years without external supplies.

That one will have to be solved before any manned mission to Mars. Or, indeed, before any manned mission to anywhere outside the Earth/Moon system. It definitely is one of the most underestimated yet most important aspects of space travel, and we need to put a lot more effort and research into it.

I assume that true colonization will happen quite sometime after that first visit-- probably after numerous visits.

[mutleyeng]

I cant remember where i heard it, but someone recently said (talking of the question of sending man to Mars),
"on a mission to Mars, if the toilet breaks, you die" - that sums up the scale of the challenge quite well for me.
What interests me, and is probably more relevant to the opening post, is just how we go from where we are today, to having a self sufficient(or largely so) human presence on Mars

[Noclevername]

I cant remember where i heard it, but someone recently said (talking of the question of sending man to Mars),
"on a mission to Mars, if the toilet breaks, you die" - that sums up the scale of the challenge quite well for me.

Quite true. Any plan to send humans into BEO space will have to take such possibilities into account-- washable diapers and plumber training for all crew members. Not to mention training to fix anything else that might break, and alternate systems for life support, power and other crucial systems. Of course, there are mass limits on anything we launch into space, so spare parts will be in short supply and redundancy will be limited, so multi-use tools and hardware may become vital. All these factors have to be balanced out before any mission, and even then there's a chance of failure. Like Apollo 13, the crew must be ready to innovate and improvise.

What interests me, and is probably more relevant to the opening post, is just how we go from where we are today, to having a self sufficient human presence on Mars

In stages. First we have to find out how to make it there in one piece. We need to develop technological areas like ISRU and materials processing, compact automated manufacturing, and above all, longterm life support. We also will need to send more scientific exploratory missions, both robotic and human, to find out what's on Mars and where the necessary resources are easiest to get to. We must determine the effects of longterm living on Mars, not only for humans but for anything we take with us as part of our life-supporting ecosystem. We will need to determine exactly what materials and equipment will be necessary for building viable habitats, let alone self-sufficiency (the first scientific outposts will probably be dependent on shipments from Earth for some things). All this will take signifigant time, research, effort and (yes, danscope) money. But none of it is undoable, and sooner or later, someone will do it. It's a question of when, not if.

[danscope]

Yes, doable. I am a carpenter.I can build you a house for 50 million dollars. But who wants it? Before you think mars, why don't you try....just try to think " spinning space station " in upper earth orbit. One that is self sufficient, without yelling "mother" every couple of weeks. If you want people to take you seriously, you have to approach the subject from a logical begining, by stages.
The present ISS is not the answer.But it does answer some questions.

[Noclevername]

But who wants it?

As has been said many times on this thread, when it comes to Mars, there are many people who want it. Just because you don't understand their wants does not make them invalid.

[swampyankee]

Yes, doable. I am a carpenter.I can build you a house for 50 million dollars. But who wants it? Before you think mars, why don't you try....just try to think " spinning space station " in upper earth orbit. One that is self sufficient, without yelling "mother" every couple of weeks. If you want people to take you seriously, you have to approach the subject from a logical begining, by stages.
The present ISS is not the answer.But it does answer some questions.

Judging by some of the real estate listings (multi-million dollar houses are fairly common on the Connecticut shoreline, especially in, say, Westport or Greenwich), quite a few people would want a $50 million dollar house, were it in the right place.

Your main point, though is quite valid: there will have to be a lot of technological development and demonstration of reliability before any country would send humans out to Mars, and it will have to be staged. The ISS has taught us a lot about human adaptation to microgravity, but it is very far from a closed (or semi-closed¹) life support system, and that is an absolutely necessary technology. Another problem area is human adaptation to long-term exposures to accelerations that are between microgravity and Earth-normal gravity.


--------------------

1: I'm using "semi-closed" to indicate one where some major item, like food, is consumed from storage, so a semi-closed system could have a really big pantry full of canned and freeze-dried food. In a closed system, the necessary nutritional requirements would be produced on-board.

[Noclevername]

Before you think mars, why don't you try....just try to think " spinning space station " in upper earth orbit.

Because this thread is about Mars?

[Ara Pacis]

Leaving aside various ideological issues, which are not trivial, but are not acceptable topics here, there are technological problems, most of which can probably be solved by sufficient application of money. I think the most difficult one is a closed or semi-closed life support system which can support human beings for at least two years without external supplies.

Well, the definition of a colony, in the politico-economic sense, is dependent upon it's imperial center. I'd expect supplies to arrive at each opposition along with other exchanges. And Mars has supplies aplenty if they have the ability to use them via ISRU techniques, depending on technology and the chemistry of Martian lithosphere and atmosphere.

I cant remember where i heard it, but someone recently said (talking of the question of sending man to Mars),
"on a mission to Mars, if the toilet breaks, you die" - that sums up the scale of the challenge quite well for me.
What interests me, and is probably more relevant to the opening post, is just how we go from where we are today, to having a self sufficient(or largely so) human presence on Mars

If the toilet breaks, you get out the ziploc bags.

[Ara Pacis]

Quite true. Any plan to send humans into BEO space will have to take such possibilities into account-- washable diapers and plumber training for all crew members. Not to mention training to fix anything else that might break, and alternate systems for life support, power and other crucial systems. Of course, there are mass limits on anything we launch into space, so spare parts will be in short supply and redundancy will be limited, so multi-use tools and hardware may become vital. All these factors have to be balanced out before any mission, and even then there's a chance of failure. Like Apollo 13, the crew must be ready to innovate and improvise.

Cross training, definitely, but mass limits aren't cumulative. Send things up in pieces and assemble it in space or on Mars or en route.

In stages. First we have to find out how to make it there in one piece. We need to develop technological areas like ISRU and materials processing, compact automated manufacturing, and above all, longterm life support. We also will need to send more scientific exploratory missions, both robotic and human, to find out what's on Mars and where the necessary resources are easiest to get to. We must determine the effects of longterm living on Mars, not only for humans but for anything we take with us as part of our life-supporting ecosystem. We will need to determine exactly what materials and equipment will be necessary for building viable habitats, let alone self-sufficiency (the first scientific outposts will probably be dependent on shipments from Earth for some things). All this will take signifigant time, research, effort and (yes, danscope) money. But none of it is undoable, and sooner or later, someone will do it. It's a question of when, not if.

I suspect they'd be dependent on shipments from earth for quite a while. That's to be expected and is a good thing as it facilitates trade and gives rise to a space-transit infrastructure. And it doesn't mean they have to depend on earth for everything, but some things will need to be imported for replacement or for expansion. We may be able to grow enough food in the habs on mars for a certain percentage of the need and the rest can be imported, but it probably will be neither 0% nor 100%.

Once we know the chemistry of martian regolith well enough, we can probably create a system for using it for plants. we might use hydroponics or aeroponics with nutrients extracted from it, or we might mix it in a slurry to change it's chemical and physical characteristics, then ferment it in a bioreactor with appropriate microbes to create "paydirt" (a Heinleinism) that can be spread/mixed into more regolith to create a suitable micro-ecosystem in which plants can grow.

[Ara Pacis]

Before you think mars, why don't you try....just try to think " spinning space station " in upper earth orbit. One that is self sufficient, without yelling "mother" every couple of weeks. If you want people to take you seriously, you have to approach the subject from a logical begining, by stages.
The present ISS is not the answer.But it does answer some questions.

The term colony precludes the meaning of "self-sufficient" Anyways, I agree that it needs to go longer than a couple of weeks between supply runs. A couple years would be better. However, it doesn't have to spin, if Martian gravity is strong enough for human physiology to manage or if we have the medical ability to undo any damage from .38 g or if exercise routines and smaller centrifuges can suffice.

I wish you'd take your own advice about approaching a subject from a logical beginning by stages. Technology has advanced beyond wood, nails and a hammer. You remind me of the aunt in "A Christmas Story" who sends Ralphie the pink bunny outfit because she thinks he's perpetually 4 years old and a girl.

[Noclevername]

Well, the definition of a colony, in the politico-economic sense, is dependent upon it's imperial center.

What do you call a self-sustaining community?

[danscope]

My point was that you need to dig the foundation before you start polishing door knobs.
It means that we are a very very very long way from putting men into deep space than you sometimes infer.
Putting a man on the moon was a brief bounce up, a brief stop and a precarious return to lunar orbit , and return to Earth, all done with onboard food, oxygen,water and duct tape. mars is an entirely different task, perhaps beyond your lifetime.

[Noclevername]

My point was that you need to dig the foundation before you start polishing door knobs.
It means that we are a very very very long way from putting men into deep space than you sometimes infer.
Putting a man on the moon was a brief bounce up, a brief stop and a precarious return to lunar orbit , and return to Earth, all done with onboard food, oxygen,water and duct tape. mars is an entirely different task, perhaps beyond your lifetime.

Yes, that's why I mentioned "the end of the century" as a benchmark. I'm probably not going to live to be 130 (although I'd love to be wrong!)

[Van Rijn]

I think the most difficult one is a closed or semi-closed life support system which can support human beings for at least two years without external supplies.

I think that's one of the smaller issues.

For a spacecraft, the main advantage to reducing consumables is that it reduces the mass that has to be launched. It's a matter of economics.

On Mars, there's plenty of water, CO2, etc. All oxygen could be produced mechanically if wanted (it's done today in submarines). For the long term, food would need to be produced, but it wouldn't be a closed system - there would be large mass inputs and outputs. Recycling would be based on what would be most practical and economical.

The biggest issues I see are

(1) getting Earth launch costs down - a lot of people are interested in the idea, but not many can do much about it when costs are so high.

(2) Is there money in it? I expect that Mars colonies will be one of the later things done, because it will probably have to follow the development of a larger space infrastructure, and that probably isn't going to happen until other money making projects have happened (for instance, asteroid mining).

(3) Developing better small scale on-site manufacturing. 3-D printing has advanced a lot in the last decade. A colony wouldn't need to be 100% self sufficient, but improving technology will make colonies much easier to sustain and expand. This is going to look a lot different in a couple decades as the technology continues improving.

[Noclevername]

It means that we are a very very very long way from putting men into deep space than you sometimes infer.

Other than stating when I think there will be a first attempted Mars colony as per the OP, I never inferred a timeframe for manned missions. When did you think I was "inferring"?

ADDED: This is not a casual question. If I am miscommunicating then I need to know what you think I'm saying or I can't corerect it.

[swampyankee]

Semantics. Colonies are not, by definition, self-governing, so they are, in that way dependencies. Colonies can be self-supporting (or even profitable). A colony on Mars will not be able to depend on supplies of the consumables needed for human life, like food and oxygen, although they may need shipments of nutritional supplements, spare parts, and updated equipment, because it's unlikely that supply shipments could be both frequent enough and reliable enough to allow missed shipments.

[Jens]

Semantics. Colonies are not, by definition, self-governing, so they are, in that way dependencies.

Unless they're made up of bees!

[Ara Pacis]

What do you call a self-sustaining community?

"Settlement" is probably the best neutral term. You could use "colony" if you like with qualifying modifiers. You can qualify a settlement too to go either direction. But I think there's a useful distinction to be made between a wholly dependent habitation (colony or outpost) and an interdependent settlement that can be self-sufficient, but conducts trade for useful items it can't make itself but which aren't immediately critical. Right now, nuclear reactors are made in Japan, and not in the US, but we don't consider that to mean the US is a dependency of Japan.

[Ara Pacis]

My point was that you need to dig the foundation before you start polishing door knobs.

And our point is you draw up plans for the house before you even start digging the foundation.

[Swift]

I like the way you ignore all the arguments you've heard about the importance of space colonization and instead reduce it to a dismissible "just entertainment". Good to know those mental blinders are still working.

Let's keep this discussion polite and non-personal. Thanks,

[Ara Pacis]

The biggest issues I see are

(1) getting Earth launch costs down - a lot of people are interested in the idea, but not many can do much about it when costs are so high.

A chicken and egg problem. I suspect that needing a space infrastructure to support such endeavors as asteroid mining, a LEO station, a lunar colony and a mars colony would drive down costs through economies of scale and perhaps new tech. I'd suspect that this would lead us to HLLV due to both the sheer size and mass of materials we need to send up. With different endeavors underway, and with a way-station in LEO, we could pack a rocket with different stuff at the same time and sort it out once it gets to orbit before sending different parcels on to their destinations.

(2) Is there money in it? I expect that Mars colonies will be one of the later things done, because it will probably have to follow the development of a larger space infrastructure, and that probably isn't going to happen until other money making projects have happened (for instance, asteroid mining).

While mining might provide more in physical commodities, I suspect that a lunar and mars colony would be sexier and get more attention. That attention can be commercialized in part. Even if it's not Commercial TV or Reality TV, we could still have transmissions use a Pay-Per-View system with people knowing the money goes directly to supporting the missions. There could be novelties that could be sold at scarcity prices (like diamonds) or that are dividends from Space Mission Bonds sold to the public or as general fundraisers. I'm thinking of items such as "blueberries". Footage could be sold to movie-producers who recoup that investment by using it in dramatic films or as a surcharge on the tickets, DVD/BD. Science lab time could be sold to companies that want certain the scientists on site to conduct certain experiments for them, allowing them to develop ideas for new products made in a non-earth environment. (Perhaps martian gravity works better than free-fall for certain processes, who knows yet?)

(3) Developing better small scale on-site manufacturing. 3-D printing has advanced a lot in the last decade. A colony wouldn't need to be 100% self sufficient, but improving technology will make colonies much easier to sustain and expand. This is going to look a lot different in a couple decades as the technology continues improving.

I've seen some of the new ideas. The first rapid prototyping devices were grainy and sharp and made of plastic when I saw them at a tradeshow 12 years ago, but Iv'e seen new ones that use metal sintering and can have additional metal flowed between the grains later to make a solid object. Cool stuff.

[Romanus]

Re OP:
Don't think it will ever happen. I'm guessing we'll basically end up with both the Moon and Mars as a kind of Antarctica in space: for scientists to go for a spell, do some studies, come back and write things, with a few tourist operations thrown in (particularly for the Moon). At best.

[Noclevername]

Re OP:
Don't think it will ever happen. I'm guessing we'll basically end up with both the Moon and Mars as a kind of Antarctica in space: for scientists to go for a spell, do some studies, come back and write things, with a few tourist operations thrown in (particularly for the Moon). At best.

If we develop the capacity to live long-term in space at all, we'll be able to live in Antarctica just fine.

(And yes, I know you were describing the present-day Antarctic situation. But if we learn to survive in space then it will open up new potential habitats on Earth.)

[Ara Pacis]

If we develop the capacity to live long-term in space at all, we'll be able to live in Antarctica just fine.

(And yes, I know you were describing the present-day Antarctic situation. But if we learn to survive in space then it will open up new potential habitats on Earth.)

The environmental constraints are very different, not the least of which is needing to survive a massive heater in one location while needing to survive a massive heat-sink in the other.

[Noclevername]

The environmental constraints are very different, not the least of which is needing to survive a massive heater in one location while needing to survive a massive heat-sink in the other.

I may have misspoke (I'm very tired, I was up all night meteor-watching), I wasn't trying to say they'd be literally the same, I was just saying that if we have that much mastery of closed environmental systems that can support humans, it would certainly be simpler to build them in the Antarctic, in deserts, undersea, Mount Everest, etc. All the environments that give people a "well we don't live there and it's easier than space!!!!" argument.

[Ara Pacis]

I may have misspoke (I'm very tired, I was up all night meteor-watching), I wasn't trying to say they'd be literally the same, I was just saying that if we have that much mastery of closed environmental systems that can support humans, it would certainly be simpler to build them in the Antarctic, in deserts, undersea, Mount Everest, etc. All the environments that give people a "well we don't live there and it's easier than space!!!!" argument.

Well, if it's completely self-contained and inside a thermos so that the external conditions were roughly equivalent, you could have a decent analog (ignoring gravity).

[Noclevername]

Well, if it's completely self-contained and inside a thermos so that the external conditions were roughly equivalent, you could have a decent analog (ignoring gravity).

Places like those will probably serve as Earth-based test beds for actual bases on Mars, the Moon, etc. Of course, to deal with the gravity issue you'd have to go that extra step and use rotating space stations in LEO.

[Scriitor]

Re OP:
Don't think it will ever happen. I'm guessing we'll basically end up with both the Moon and Mars as a kind of Antarctica in space: for scientists to go for a spell, do some studies, come back and write things, with a few tourist operations thrown in (particularly for the Moon). At best.

I might point out that both Argentina and Chile maintain permanent settlements on the Antarctic Peninsula, as part of their territorial claims to that area. Including families with children. People have even been born there.