What if Mars is the wrong path for Human exploration?

[Tywin]

I wonder what is a better use of NASA's and World governments' future resources, if not better to go to YG 2022 or other nearby asteroids, besides the Moon, to create O'Neill colonies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_YG

According to Gerard O'Neill, creating a 10,000-person station would cost about the same as the Apollo program at the time.





And now we have semi-reusable and in the future 100% reusable rockets.

But more important than that, Mars is a semi-dead planet, full of radiation, with almost no atmosphere, no magnetosphere,  extremely cold, and so on.

I'm not saying NO, go to Mars, to create a small scientific base, but I think it's better to strive for O'Neill colonies.

For two reasons, it is a much better system to live in, and if we also want to go to other stars, multigenerational spacecraft will be our only option with current physics knowledge.

What path do you think we should follow to expand into the solar system and other nearby stars in the future?

[Jim]

I wonder what is a better use of NASA's and World governments' future resources, if not better to go to YG 2022 or other nearby asteroids, besides the Moon, to create O'Neill colonies.

No, not a task for gov'ts to create  O'Neil colonies

[MightyNag]

Mars "exploration" is great. I'm sure there are a tonne of discoveries there for us. Mars colonization on the other hand is a big meh for me. Sure orbital colonies(be it O'neil, standfords, bernalls, kaplana's) etc are much more expensive upfront, they solve most of the unsolvable problems with Martian, Lunar, Jovian(moon), etc with trying to colonize in our solar system.

[Robotbeat]

Ah, the ol’ O’Neil vs Zubrin argument.

I think Zubrin is right. Surface of a planet just has vastly more and better resources than floating in free space, has better built in radiation and micrometeorite protection, plus built in gravity. Overall better.

[daedalus1]

It's the difference between going to a hotel and staying in the lobby or going out to explore the country.  I know which I  think is the best for taking my hard earned money.

[MightyNag]

I always love debate, though I don't think Mars solves many problems.

So for against Mars.

1) It's FARRRRR. Risky to get there, risky to get back, long time for help. Plus energy hog.
2) Mars DOES have gravity... but it's pretty pathetic. Can us terrestrials live with it? Can Martian born come back?
3) Sure it has resources.. but they're all gravity well locked. Getting stuff to and from Mars requires landing and taking off. Unless you plan to use a pickaxe Mars will be import heavy for a while. And they'll want to export eventually as well.
4) Micro Meteors and radiation protection. Not really unless you want to live like mole people. And I'm not sure how many people will want to live underground most of their lives.

For with Orbital Installations
1) They're CLOSE. 1 to 2 days aways
2) Any gravity you want. Well rotational forces anyways.3
3) Sure you can't mine on them, but nothing stopping you from slowly bringing asteroids around to mine from. Plus railgun stuff from the moon? Who knows
4)The lack of gravity well is pretty sweet, takes next to no energy to move from one base to another.
5) This is a biggy, but I'm going with cylinders with no windows(artificial light) and polarized holes... probably the same radiation problems as Mars?

[Coastal Ron]

...Sure orbital colonies(be it O'neil, standfords, bernalls, kaplana's) etc are much more expensive upfront, they solve most of the unsolvable problems with Martian, Lunar, Jovian(moon), etc with trying to colonize in our solar system.

We don't even know if space stations like the O'Neill cylinders or Stanford torus are practical to build, or even possible to build. There are elements of them that seem to defy any sense of safety in the harsh environment of space.

So from that standpoint, testing out colonization on Mars is much more straightforward - and less costly if it turns out that humans can't adapt.

[Tywin]

...Sure orbital colonies(be it O'neil, standfords, bernalls, kaplana's) etc are much more expensive upfront, they solve most of the unsolvable problems with Martian, Lunar, Jovian(moon), etc with trying to colonize in our solar system.

We don't even know if space stations like the O'Neill cylinders or Stanford torus are practical to build, or even possible to build. There are elements of them that seem to defy any sense of safety in the harsh environment of space.

So from that standpoint, testing out colonization on Mars is much more straightforward - and less costly if it turns out that humans can't adapt.

We don't know, either if is possible to terraform Mars at something minimally viable...

[Jim]

Mars "exploration" is great. I'm sure there are a tonne of discoveries there for us. Mars colonization on the other hand is a big meh for me. Sure orbital colonies(be it O'neil, standfords, bernalls, kaplana's) etc are much more expensive upfront, they solve most of the unsolvable problems with Martian, Lunar, Jovian(moon), etc with trying to colonize in our solar system.

There are no unsolvable problems with Martian, Lunar, Jovian(moon) colonies. 

[Jim]

3) Sure you can't mine on them, but nothing stopping you from slowly bringing asteroids around to mine from. Plus railgun stuff from the moon? Who knows

That is the fallacy in your argument.

That is harder than doing things on Mars or the Moon.

And supporting the rail gun on the moon would take a colony, so what is the point of sending the material away from the moon and just use it there.

[MightyNag]

Other then you'd probably die and or ever return to earth.... Colony is not a base. Colony implies LONG term living. Plus... terraforming is SOO FAR outside of our ability. Probably be cheaper to house everyone in an oneil, and quicker, then to terraform Mars. And mars would STILL be too weak gravitationally.  Not saying orbital colonies are easy. They are right not doable outside of like kaplana one.. but long term they MIGHT be the most viable. Not sure the weak gravities and full radiation found on every planet other then venus(good luck with it's OTHER problems) or Titan(waaaay too weak gravity) are going to make anything but a short stay or a deep dig viable.

[Robotbeat]

...Sure orbital colonies(be it O'neil, standfords, bernalls, kaplana's) etc are much more expensive upfront, they solve most of the unsolvable problems with Martian, Lunar, Jovian(moon), etc with trying to colonize in our solar system.

We don't even know if space stations like the O'Neill cylinders or Stanford torus are practical to build, or even possible to build. There are elements of them that seem to defy any sense of safety in the harsh environment of space.

So from that standpoint, testing out colonization on Mars is much more straightforward - and less costly if it turns out that humans can't adapt.

We don't know, either if is possible to terraform Mars at something minimally viable...

Yes we do. In fact, the typical paper cited for arguing it’s “scientifically proven we can’t terraform Mars”… actually shows it can be terraformed to a minimal level.

[Robotbeat]

Other then you'd probably die and or ever return to earth.... Colony is not a base. Colony implies LONG term living. Plus... terraforming is SOO FAR outside of our ability. Probably be cheaper to house everyone in an oneil, and quicker, then to terraform Mars. And mars would STILL be too weak gravitationally.  Not saying orbital colonies are easy. They are right not doable outside of like kaplana one.. but long term they MIGHT be the most viable. Not sure the weak gravities and full radiation found on every planet other then venus(good luck with it's OTHER problems) or Titan(waaaay too weak gravity) are going to make anything but a short stay or a deep dig viable.

It’s easier to create large pressurized volumes on Mars than in an O’Neill cylinder. The gravity is just right.

Additionally, Mars at lower elevations (like where you’d want to land anyway) has radiation levels comparable to or lower than on ISS, even when totally unshielded on the surface.

[Jim]

but long term they MIGHT be the most viable.

Unsubstantiated

[Coastal Ron]

...Sure orbital colonies(be it O'neil, standfords, bernalls, kaplana's) etc are much more expensive upfront, they solve most of the unsolvable problems with Martian, Lunar, Jovian(moon), etc with trying to colonize in our solar system.

We don't even know if space stations like the O'Neill cylinders or Stanford torus are practical to build, or even possible to build. There are elements of them that seem to defy any sense of safety in the harsh environment of space.

So from that standpoint, testing out colonization on Mars is much more straightforward - and less costly if it turns out that humans can't adapt.

We don't know, either if is possible to terraform Mars at something minimally viable...

As I pointed out was an option, so need to be redundant. 

But it will likely cost far less, and take far less time, to validate if humans can not only survive on Mars, but thrive. And if it turns out that humans can adapt to 0.38 Earth gravity, then that opens up a LOT of opportunities in space for future artificial gravity space stations.

So I would argue that experimenting on Mars first would actually benefit the space station building industry. Especially because committing to building an O'Neill cylinder or Stanford torus will require a LOT of capital, and you need to buy down the risk for that capital as much as possible beforehand.

[MickQ]

Two main points I see being put forward against Mars are Terraforming and exporting.

Both these are WAY off in the future, as far as we, our children and theirs are concerned.

 With the imminent availability of human capable spacecraft designed for Mars missions, we will go there.  We will transport megatons of cargo to there and we will set up manned camps/bases/outposts there.

Three of the most vital items for human survival are available on Mars, after varying degrees of processing ie. air, water and rocket fuel.  All these must be taken to any orbital outpost.

So much less work involved in creating a pressurised and shielded space to live in on Mars.  Hey, if you don’t want to reside underground then don’t go.  More room for those of us that do want to.

Absolutely everything needed to create and maintain an orbital colony must be taken from Earth, at our current level of development.  With a little work Mars can provide so much without needing any future tech.

Leave the terraforming and asteroid mining for our grandkids grandkids.

( Steps down off soapbox ).

[JayWee]

<Inserts the Why not both? meme>

[Welsh Dragon]

We have no moral right to ruin another planet. Get all of us into orbit asap and don't get stuck down the dead ends that are gravity wells.

[Robotbeat]

We have no moral right to ruin another planet. Get all of us into orbit asap and don't get stuck down the dead ends that are gravity wells.

See, this kind of nonsense that O'Neillians pull just to try to get points in favor of their favorite technical solution to space settlement really gets on my nerves.

You really want to go this route? Because people are already complaining about bright satellites being visible in orbit (as if just being able to see a thing means you're harmed by it), and typical O'Neillian settlements at Lagrange points would be MASSIVE. What's YOUR right to change the appearance of the nightsky for all humanity?
*Insert more anti-Starlink screaming.*

There's also a non-insignificant risk of impact from one of these things crashing down and causing a regional-scale impact event, on the order of dozens of gigatonnes of TNT for just ONE O'Neillian habitat.

And nothing really distinguishes minor planets (asteroids) from having rights compared to large planets having rights.

This sort of weird moralist over-reach type of argument is NOT the path you want to go down to argue in favor of an O'Neillian future. All of us space nerds lose when this kind of argument is used.

[daedalus1]

We have no moral right to ruin another planet. Get all of us into orbit asap and don't get stuck down the dead ends that are gravity wells.

Define ruin.