Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

This thread is starting from a very small idea.

I have absolutely no prior knowledge and I am not a scifi geek, but I would consider myself a curious monkey. That said, I just watched Prometheus and the idea was seeded.

I want to know what the chances are that Mars can be terra-formed / colonized before 2200. I'm about to read the Wiki article on it, and I would love to see some NG Politics opinions, facts, and math.

They're already talking about mining asteroids

Space X and a couple other companies are talking about building moon mines and resorts n junk

At 6/10/12 05:39 AM, Kellz5460 wrote: They're already talking about mining asteroids

Looked into Space X, but who are "they", the ones talking about mining asteroids?

Probably quite unlikely until we develop better renewable energy devices and some way of transporting insanely large amounts of food that won't spoil.

At 6/10/12 09:25 AM, camobch0 wrote: Probably quite unlikely until we develop better renewable energy devices and some way of transporting insanely large amounts of food that won't spoil.

But we don't necessarily have to use people to colonize the place, putting them at risk.

We could potentially launch self-repairing machines, and work at a distance to build a colony which can grow genetically modified plants, pausing the project whenever the world doesn't have the resources to continue. And then launch for Mars in time.

Unless we can learn to control gravity, Mars will not be terraformed in the way we generally think of when we say "terraform".

There just isn't enough gravity to hold a thick enough atmosphere to support earth-like conditions. It is possible to spot terraform under man-made structures, like domes. However, any atomshpere we attempt to create would just drift out into space thus sbujecting the land to radiation and massive temperature variations.

I think it's generally accepted that building a large enough high energy nuclear fusion center at the core of a small body is powerful enough to make a complex field of effect which simulates the "natural gravity" of larger bodies, simple extrapolating on the concept of E=MC^2 and BEC-LASER Conversions at ~0K.

At 6/10/12 11:29 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Unless we can learn to control gravity, Mars will not be terraformed in the way we generally think of when we say "terraform".

There just isn't enough gravity to hold a thick enough atmosphere to support earth-like conditions. It is possible to spot terraform under man-made structures, like domes. However, any atomshpere we attempt to create would just drift out into space thus sbujecting the land to radiation and massive temperature variations.

My knowledge on this subject is limited to what I read in a popular science magazine a few years ago and a few cursory glances at the wikipedia pages on this topic, but what I seem to remember reading is that Mars COULD theoretically keep an atmosphere that could sustain human life, and that humans COULD theoretically take measures that would transform the atmosphere of Mars to this end. BUT, this transformation from barren wasteland into a livable environment would likely take hundreds of years to achieve with technology that we are decades away from possessing on a planet that we are decades away from even visiting.

So at the moment, Mars colonization is at best a several centuries long project or pipe dream at worst. We certainly won't see it in our lifetimes.

There are amplitudes of companies researching and planning on getting into orbit and nearby planets for a plethora of reasons.

The problem? Highly dangerous, very technical but primarily it's very costly.

At 6/10/12 03:37 PM, The-universe wrote: The problem? Highly dangerous, very technical but primarily it's very costly.

Costly? Yes. But imagine the iron available. Heck, Mars or the Moon (being made of Earth's crust) may be the only place to get the rare metals viable for battery technology in thenot too distant future.

Guys forget Mars..

MOONBASE HO!

At 6/11/12 12:15 AM, Dawnslayer wrote:

At 6/10/12 11:55 PM, Ketzelkab wrote: Guys forget Mars..

MOONBASE HO!

There are dissenters to the point of view reported here who speculate that a straight shot to Mars is more practical than involving an extra base on the moon. From the evidence I've seen, I'm inclined to agree with them. A lunar base could be an extra money sink that is ultimately unnecessary in the grand scope of a Mars mission.

Except that as test-runs go, a base on the moon is one that will teach us a LOT about things we need to know. In fact, our first lunar lander would never have come back if not for the probes we sent to the moon prior, due to the conditions for which we would have been unprepared otherwise. The regolith (moon dust) is so fine, that with earlier designs of the lander, it would have infiltrated many of the systems, completely shut down their ability to take off, and likely rendered their suits unusable. There are hundreds of things that we can learn from a moon base that would help the success chances of one on Mars.

That said, the only way a long-term large population could be sustained on Mars is through terraforming, which would have to be of the comet-dropping type, which would take hundreds of years. At which point we could probably just build generation ships and set out for already-hospitable worlds around other stars.

At 6/11/12 12:15 AM, Dawnslayer wrote:

At 6/10/12 11:55 PM, Ketzelkab wrote: Guys forget Mars..

MOONBASE HO!

There are dissenters to the point of view reported here who speculate that a straight shot to Mars is more practical than involving an extra base on the moon. From the evidence I've seen, I'm inclined to agree with them. A lunar base could be an extra money sink that is ultimately unnecessary in the grand scope of a Mars mission.

I see where you're coming from but let's consider some things about Mars.

-it's only really efficient to plan trips within a certain frame of orbit where it will be closest

-the risk of error is greater in comparison to the moon with current technology (I believe by 2200 we could learn much from lunar base experimentation)

I also heard, although it's unverified, that they would be utilizing the moons porous surface to have bases in tunnels and such, and not just a bubble on the surface like the cliche space colony image.

We need to look to unconventional technology, conventional technology has room for improvement but it is already nearing it's theoretical limits, there is not much a colony based on solar farms powdering the hydroponic farms can do.

It would make a good test bed, beyond that though I don't think it would have much research value. I don't think it is likely mining on mars will be profitable, enriched uranium has a value of around $7000 per kilogram, launching a kilogram into orbit from earth where fuel is readily available costs $5000, launching a kilogram into geo synchronous orbit costs $20000, sending the supplies to mars needed to fuel a rocket capable of bringing back the uranium is going to cost a lot more. These expenses will only increase due to resource depletion and conventional technology is reaching it's theoretical limits so there is a low probability that we will solve these problems.

A mars colony would need to be self-sufficient and capable of supporting an economy and expanding across the surface. The biggest problem seems to be us, we are high maintenance and have very low intelligence, we may be able to survive on mars with a lot of supplies sent from Earth at great expense but we won't prosper there. We need to be surpassed before mars can be colonized, by organisms or machines capable of operating on mars.

Imagine something that could be powered by solar energy and that has about the same capabilities of a human here on earth to mine resources, refine them and manufacture more solar panels or replicate without the need for outside help.

powdering the hydroponic farms*
oops, I meant "powering hydroponic farms", bleh

reason to proof read #845000000

At 6/10/12 05:54 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 6/10/12 03:37 PM, The-universe wrote: The problem? Highly dangerous, very technical but primarily it's very costly.

Costly? Yes. But imagine the iron available.

Imagine the sheer amount of other raw materials available. But you'd still have to bare in mind that the cost of mining it, refining it, creating products and then transporting it to a sales centre would have to be cheaper for it to be done in space than that of earth before it was viable. Either a revolutionary technology would have to be invented or earth Iron deposits run dry.

Heck, Mars or the Moon (being made of Earth's crust) may be the only place to get the rare metals viable for battery technology in thenot too distant future.

We could be terraforming and building civilisations on the moon, mars and venius by the time the technology or the necessity requires us to mine planets and moons. But when that time comes is a matter of opinion. From my own limited perspective I can picture this happen within centuries as opposed to decades. I'll be happy if I see the first manned mission to mars within my lifetime.

TL:DR - It's obvious that colonising moons and planets is going to happen, but I doubt it'll be soon.

It would be interesting to see how Mars is divided up.

At 6/11/12 12:38 PM, The-universe wrote: TL:DR - It's obvious that colonising moons and planets is going to happen, but I doubt it'll be soon.

I agree. However, concurrent with the pessimism of the times I'd have a add a "if no major negative event occurs."

How much do you think it would cost?

Any engineering students with accounting minors here?

At 6/11/12 05:23 PM, Dawnslayer wrote: We've also sent probes to Mars, and they have collected a wealth of information about the environment there. Indeed, we know that Martian dust has very similar properties to lunar dust that cause the same issues, and existing plans for Mars missions already take that and other known factors into account. If we already know how the Martian environment would affect an operation there, what would a lunar base teach us that brings a significant contribution to the table?

Logistics, construction, a locale where if something does go wrong, we can extract residents, and the base itself can give us significant scientific value from studying the moon itself, as well as the viability for a long-term self-sustainable colony. Practice runs are a good thing. We didn't send people into space first, we sent unmanned satellites, then animals, then only once we were comfortable with our abilities did we send people.

Also, a moon base is more than just a practice run for Mars. It can be a significant help with construction of interplanetary vehicles, due to lower gravity, allow us to mine for materials that could cheapen the bigger missions (though I think the Moon is pretty metal-poor, so that might not be much of a benefit outside of Helium3), not to mention the science that can be done there as well. The science we're getting back from the ISS is pretty astounding, and if we can do some of that, on a larger scale, and with a different set of gravity, that could teach us tons. Astronomy could be helped as well if we put an observatory on the dark side.

At 6/12/12 02:11 PM, GoodFish wrote: How much do you think it would cost?

Any engineering students with accounting minors here?

Probably a Trillion dollars or more. Yes, with a T.

At 6/12/12 11:01 PM, Ravariel wrote: (though I think the Moon is pretty metal-poor, so that might not be much of a benefit outside of Helium3

I doubt there is coal or oil on the moon, but it seems fairly logical that there would be a good deal of crust metals on the Moon. The Moon was fromed from the crust of the Earth, so it isn't much of a jump to say that on the moon, likely buried, there would be a similar array of minerals, or at least ores (as they do not require volcanic activity to form, unlike many types of rock).

At 6/12/12 11:01 PM, Ravariel wrote:

At 6/12/12 02:11 PM, GoodFish wrote: How much do you think it would cost?

Any engineering students with accounting minors here?

Probably a Trillion dollars or more. Yes, with a T.

I think it would be a lot more expensive. The USA is in 15 trillion debt for the war in the Middle East, and it costs about 2.5B to send the MSL to Mars. That machine was lightweight with a boardroom meeting to discuss every last ounce.

Something this scale would require sending a fleet of solar powered machines which could mine the surface for raw materials and repair/duplicate themselves.

And the base would have to be advantageous somehow in order to win the backing. Simply colonizing Mars because it's a cool idea won't earn a cent.

Reasons I can think of to colonize Mars
1. Mining for precious metals
2. Cheaper industrial construction (lower gravity, lower coolant costs)
3. Distance from earth allows bigger gamble projects which dont put the "home" at risk (high mass/energy reactors).
4. Launchpad into the outer planets and eventually other solar systems (if that's even necessary? Recent science is uncovering that space/distance is inconsequential at certain levels of existence).

The simple answer is that it won't happen because there's no money in it. We're probably going to mine asteroids at some point, since we're projected to run out of helium sometime in the next few centuries; but unless capitalism is superseded massively, there's not a chance, because there's just no point in doing it.

There's also the magnetic field issue. Turns out it'd be more realistic to colonize some moons of Jupiter than Mars, because in addition to water, they have a magnetic field (well, Jupiter does, but it covers them) so the colonists don't die of radiation.

At 6/12/12 11:01 PM, Ravariel wrote: (though I think the Moon is pretty metal-poor, so that might not be much of a benefit outside of Helium3

It would still be a heck of a lot easier to go there than Mars, not to mention much more expensive. We're a lot closer to making a colony on the Moon than Mars, even though we haven't been there since 1973. Newt Gringrich would have looked like an ever bigger moron if he had said Mars.

Here's a good article on the benefits of a base on the moon, with references to using it as a more efficient/cheap launchpad to the outer parts of the solar system (mars included).

At 6/14/12 10:20 PM, Ravariel wrote: Here's a good article

This is actually an okay read.