Author Topic: Who wants to go to Mars?  (Read 68162 times)

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3629
  • 92129
  • Liked: 1146
  • Likes Given: 360
Re: Who wants to go to Mars?
« Reply #40 on: 11/16/2010 12:57 am »
Here is the original paper that prompted the news article in space.com.
http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars108.html It's been thought-out in some detail, except they are planning to send old people. It will be difficult to establish a self sustaining colony by sending only people beyond reproductive age.
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1230
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Who wants to go to Mars?
« Reply #41 on: 11/16/2010 06:57 am »
Here is the original paper that prompted the news article in space.com.
http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars108.html It's been thought-out in some detail, except they are planning to send old people. It will be difficult to establish a self sustaining colony by sending only people beyond reproductive age.
    Why should it be the elderly?
    Are there not some diseases that are incurable, uniformly fatal, detectable far in advance, with a long gestation period with few symptoms, but (near the end) a rapid onset and demise? (Any medical doctors here on NSF who can advise?)
 
    Audition people in their, say, twenties, thirties, or forties, who have been dealt a lousy hand of cards by nature and genetics, and know they face a ticking clock with at least a (say) ten year window. Downselect for intelligence and psychological compatibility with the rigors on confinement and isolation. Offer them a grand bargain: devote the bulk of the your time on earth to study of a subset of needed skills, according to interest and aptitude  -- say, surgery, psychology, geology, mechanical engineering, aerospace engineering, etc., plus astronaut training for all. The government pays to send them to the best graduate schools followed by internships with the best practitioners on Earth, skipping the time-wasting scutwork. The government pays for a reasonably lavish lifestyle -- in between studying and training and practicing, sure, go vacation in Tahiti, sure, go diving in Bora Bora. And eventually they go to Mars.
    The trade is that their financial needs and those of their families are taken care of. They agree to devote their lives to intellectual development and practicing to be the most capable astronauts possible. They know that they will eventually die far from home, physically almost alone (but not in spirit) -- but for a Great Cause, having lived a very rich and full and intense life in the time available. One could call that a lot better choice than a regular working life inevitably ending in a hospital on Earth.
    And at the very end, instead of a lousy end in the lander's microclinic, one might chose to take a walk outside. Put on a thin wetsuit on a hot summer Martian day at the bottom of Olympus Mons, grab a small bottle of oxygen, and go for a walk -- just for once, feel the sun on your face, the rocks between your toes, the breeze on your skin, the crisp bite of Mars's air in your lungs.

    I suspect that out of 300 million Americans, or 6 billion humans, we could find the necessary few both able and wiling to take that trade. Their stories would be told and their praises sung for generation upon generation.
 -Alex

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
Re: Who wants to go to Mars?
« Reply #42 on: 11/16/2010 05:21 pm »
Here is the original paper that prompted the news article in space.com.
http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars108.html It's been thought-out in some detail, except they are planning to send old people. It will be difficult to establish a self sustaining colony by sending only people beyond reproductive age.
    Why should it be the elderly?
    Are there not some diseases that are incurable, uniformly fatal, detectable far in advance, with a long gestation period with few symptoms, but (near the end) a rapid onset and demise? (Any medical doctors here on NSF who can advise?)
 
    Audition people in their, say, twenties, thirties, or forties, who have been dealt a lousy hand of cards by nature and genetics, and know they face a ticking clock with at least a (say) ten year window. Downselect for intelligence and psychological compatibility with the rigors on confinement and isolation. Offer them a grand bargain: devote the bulk of the your time on earth to study of a subset of needed skills, according to interest and aptitude  -- say, surgery, psychology, geology, mechanical engineering, aerospace engineering, etc., plus astronaut training for all. The government pays to send them to the best graduate schools followed by internships with the best practitioners on Earth, skipping the time-wasting scutwork. The government pays for a reasonably lavish lifestyle -- in between studying and training and practicing, sure, go vacation in Tahiti, sure, go diving in Bora Bora. And eventually they go to Mars.
    The trade is that their financial needs and those of their families are taken care of. They agree to devote their lives to intellectual development and practicing to be the most capable astronauts possible. They know that they will eventually die far from home, physically almost alone (but not in spirit) -- but for a Great Cause, having lived a very rich and full and intense life in the time available. One could call that a lot better choice than a regular working life inevitably ending in a hospital on Earth.
    And at the very end, instead of a lousy end in the lander's microclinic, one might chose to take a walk outside. Put on a thin wetsuit on a hot summer Martian day at the bottom of Olympus Mons, grab a small bottle of oxygen, and go for a walk -- just for once, feel the sun on your face, the rocks between your toes, the breeze on your skin, the crisp bite of Mars's air in your lungs.

    I suspect that out of 300 million Americans, or 6 billion humans, we could find the necessary few both able and wiling to take that trade. Their stories would be told and their praises sung for generation upon generation.
 -Alex


I am a terminally ill candidate (dying of old age).  My great grandmother lived to 107, let's say that's my expiry date.  Right now I'm a 30 year old geologist with an advanced degree in Engineering.  I'd hope to be able to make some useful contributions for at least 50 years before syptoms of my terminal condition become noticeable.  Perhaps 75 years more if I'm lucky.  But the thing is...  Life is a one way trip for all of us.  Is bringing back a few great apes from a distant rock worth the opportunity cost of saving lives by repairing/maintaining highways for example (where dollars into lives saved is statistically quantifiable for a much better return on lives saved per dollar)? 

I'd go.  But I'd want to bring a guitar, and some good books.
« Last Edit: 11/16/2010 05:23 pm by go4mars »
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2399
  • Liked: 1693
  • Likes Given: 598
Re: Who wants to go to Mars?
« Reply #43 on: 11/16/2010 06:18 pm »
So if we're sending new groups of seniors to Mars periodically to compensate for "attrition", then the transit vehicles are going to accumulate in LMO unless they're designed to be landed and reconfigured for 3/8g.  A steady stream of consumables will be needed to support the outpost, so we'd have to have a reasonably efficient system for moving fluids and other cargo.

The cost of moving propellant out to LMO in order to return the transit vehicles to EML2 for reuse by later crews is not enormous in comparison to the outbound supply chain and saves the cost of new transit vehicles.

The costly part of the return trip is the ascent to LMO.  But the most commonly proposed solution for that (atmospheric ISRU) can also reduce the long-term costs of sending water and/or oxygen from Earth.

I think there's a rather large overlap between the technologies needed to return to Earth from Mars and the technologies needed to sustain a semi-permanent Mars outpost. In fact, I'd argue that the challenge of returning the crews pales in comparison to the challenges (many of them yet unknown) of living on Mars for years.

If the Mars outpost is so bare-bones that it can't even support ascent vehicles, then how is it supposed to keep people alive, not only for a 30-day opposition-class surface stay favored by NASA or even for a 550-day conjunction-class stay favored by less risk-averse exploration advocates but for the rest of their natural lives?

We know WAY more about the orbital mechanics of Mars exploration than we do about the day-to-day challenges and risks of living on Mars. 

But I suppose I should not be surprised that people are wringing their hands over the propulsion elements while glossing over the surface operations, because that seems to be the modus operandi.  We can't stop obsessing over propulsion for long enough to think about what we're going to do when we get there and why.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25241
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Who wants to go to Mars?
« Reply #44 on: 11/16/2010 06:39 pm »
...We can't stop obsessing over propulsion for long enough to think about what we're going to do when we get there and why.
There's a lot of truth in that sentence.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline CitabriaFlyer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 315
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Who wants to go to Mars?
« Reply #45 on: 11/16/2010 07:47 pm »
Here is the original paper that prompted the news article in space.com.
http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars108.html It's been thought-out in some detail, except they are planning to send old people. It will be difficult to establish a self sustaining colony by sending only people beyond reproductive age.
    Why should it be the elderly?
    Are there not some diseases that are incurable, uniformly fatal, detectable far in advance, with a long gestation period with few symptoms, but (near the end) a rapid onset and demise? (Any medical doctors here on NSF who can advise?)
 
    Audition people in their, say, twenties, thirties, or forties, who have been dealt a lousy hand of cards by nature and genetics, and know they face a ticking clock with at least a (say) ten year window. Downselect for intelligence and psychological compatibility with the rigors on confinement and isolation. Offer them a grand bargain: devote the bulk of the your time on earth to study of a subset of needed skills, according to interest and aptitude  -- say, surgery, psychology, geology, mechanical engineering, aerospace engineering, etc., plus astronaut training for all. The government pays to send them to the best graduate schools followed by internships with the best practitioners on Earth, skipping the time-wasting scutwork. The government pays for a reasonably lavish lifestyle -- in between studying and training and practicing, sure, go vacation in Tahiti, sure, go diving in Bora Bora. And eventually they go to Mars.
    The trade is that their financial needs and those of their families are taken care of. They agree to devote their lives to intellectual development and practicing to be the most capable astronauts possible. They know that they will eventually die far from home, physically almost alone (but not in spirit) -- but for a Great Cause, having lived a very rich and full and intense life in the time available. One could call that a lot better choice than a regular working life inevitably ending in a hospital on Earth.
    And at the very end, instead of a lousy end in the lander's microclinic, one might chose to take a walk outside. Put on a thin wetsuit on a hot summer Martian day at the bottom of Olympus Mons, grab a small bottle of oxygen, and go for a walk -- just for once, feel the sun on your face, the rocks between your toes, the breeze on your skin, the crisp bite of Mars's air in your lungs.

    I suspect that out of 300 million Americans, or 6 billion humans, we could find the necessary few both able and wiling to take that trade. Their stories would be told and their praises sung for generation upon generation.
 -Alex

From a doctor's standpoint I can't think of an illness off the top of my head that fits your criteria.  Most people with a terminal illness will have some symptoms either from the disease or treatment that would preclude their being able to train intensively for a couple of years and then fly the mission.  Also, surface exploration will not be easy.  Lunar EVAs were physically grueling.

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3629
  • 92129
  • Liked: 1146
  • Likes Given: 360
Re: Who wants to go to Mars?
« Reply #46 on: 11/17/2010 12:48 am »
A big part of the reason to colonize Mars is the objective of preserving the human race and our civilization in the event of a global extinction event on Earth. If the colony population deviates to far from Earth norm then we run the risk of invalidating this objective IMO. Even with the best scenario of unlimited funds and transport, Martin colonists would be selected for skills, strength, intelligence and other factors that set them apart from the norm, but hopefully align them to a somewhat realistic ideal of the population we wish we were. I don't see how population selection criteria based on old age and ill health fits within this objective norm to preserve our race and civilization. Other off the wall schemes might include sending a few fertile women and a large number of fertilized embryos but that fails to meet the basic objective of preserving our civilization. If Mars is colonized using some technique that fails to meet the original objective for colonizing the planet, then the project is a failure.

It would be great if we could afford several round trip missions supplied from Earth to prepare for colonization, but posters here have pointed out that such total Earth supply chain may not be necessary. Maybe one objective of the first missions should be to create the necessary infrastructure to fuel the return trip to Earth. That may take several years to accomplish but it is much more palatable than a mission of no return. After the first successful return trip, one way trips of colonization could proceed uninhibited by the politics of no return.
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline colbourne

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 455
  • Liked: 75
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: Who wants to go to Mars?
« Reply #47 on: 11/17/2010 06:32 am »
Most people would like to see man land on Mars in their own lifetime.

A one way mission is the cheapest way to achieve this , although no one wants to see the astronauts go through unneccessary discomfort.

Hopefully the World will get behind any mission to provide as much resources as possible and hopefully plan for a return of any astronauts who wish to.

It is a race and their is lots of prestige with being the first people on Mars. Surviving their will teach us lots of things relevant to life on Earth.


Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: Who wants to go to Mars?
« Reply #48 on: 11/17/2010 02:52 pm »
It doen't have to be an absolute one way trip. If the plan clearly states:

1)  For the first 10+ years, there will only be minimal ISRU propellant and a small unmanned ascent vehicle for sample return.

2)  After 10+ years there will be limited return capability.

3)  Anyone wanting to be eligible for eventual return has to maintain Earth gravity conditioning through weight and centrifuge training over that 10+ years.

4)  There is an on-going committment to regular re-supply including a few luxuries and plenty of multi-media entertainment.

I think you would find plenty of people willing to commit to a semi-permanent move to Mars.

This would have the added benefit of weeding out the people who just want fame and fortune. What you would get is dedicated scientists, engineers, technicians, etc, who love their work and see life on Mars as a huge opportunity, not a life-sentence.
« Last Edit: 11/17/2010 02:53 pm by kkattula »

Offline spacester

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 332
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 178
Re: Who wants to go to Mars?
« Reply #49 on: 11/18/2010 03:43 am »
It doen't have to be an absolute one way trip. If the plan clearly states:

1)  For the first 10+ years, there will only be minimal ISRU propellant and a small unmanned ascent vehicle for sample return.

2)  After 10+ years there will be limited return capability.

3)  Anyone wanting to be eligible for eventual return has to maintain Earth gravity conditioning through weight and centrifuge training over that 10+ years.

4)  There is an on-going committment to regular re-supply including a few luxuries and plenty of multi-media entertainment.

I think you would find plenty of people willing to commit to a semi-permanent move to Mars.

This would have the added benefit of weeding out the people who just want fame and fortune. What you would get is dedicated scientists, engineers, technicians, etc, who love their work and see life on Mars as a huge opportunity, not a life-sentence.

BINGO! That is almost exactly as I see it. A long thread severals years ago on another site lead to nearly the same proposal and for nearly the exact same reasons; any differences would be quibbling. I could see this thread headed in the same direction and have been biding my time hoping for something like that to get posted.

If you go to settle Mars, everyone's expectation should be that you are in it for the long haul. Otherwise, you're there on an expedition, not as a settler.

Even so, morality dictates that if an individual needs to bug out, the capability should be there. But since orbital mechanics is in charge you're gonna have to wait. Also, there needs to be a minimum time period before the trip to Earth is granted, barring extreme circumstances.

Offline butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2399
  • Liked: 1693
  • Likes Given: 598
Re: Who wants to go to Mars?
« Reply #50 on: 11/18/2010 04:36 am »
So we can afford to land an artificial gravity centrifuge and an ISRU plant for sample return vehicles, but we can't afford ascent vehicles for crew?  And it almost seems like we're depriving the mission of this capability on principle as if permanent settlement is a higher virtue than rotating expeditions? I don't get it.

I also don't understand how the funding mechanism would work, since whichever entities are financing this program are going to have no idea how long a commitment they are making to support a Mars colony that is almost entirely reliant on Earth for consumables and hardware. 

With an opposition-class or conjunction-class expedition, they know how long the mission will last and can plan accordingly.  With a one-way colony and our still-limited understanding of the challenges and risks of living on Mars, they have no idea if the colonists are going to be fried by radiation in two years or if they're going to be writing home for more supplies 10 or 15 years down the line.

It's a very open-ended commitment whose program termination poses difficult moral and political questions.  Remember the health care reform debate?  Now imagine a future Congress debating whether it's worth $2 billion a year to try and keep some old geysers alive on Mars.

Offline spacester

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 332
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 178
Re: Who wants to go to Mars?
« Reply #51 on: 11/18/2010 05:15 am »

With an opposition-class or conjunction-class expedition, they know how long the mission will last and can plan accordingly.  With a one-way colony and our still-limited understanding of the challenges and risks of living on Mars, they have no idea if the colonists are going to be fried by radiation in two years or if they're going to be writing home for more supplies 10 or 15 years down the line.



This is precisely why I advocate *Settlement* as the goal over *Colonization*

No doubt many see it as a distinction without a difference, or pedantic semantics, but I beg to differ.

Colonization means not just permanence but self-sourced growth. In particular, making babies. I personally think that pregnancies will not be successful on Mars. Just a "hunch", but based on my research.

Settlement is the first major step past expeditions.

Expeditions have no intention of setting up infrastructure for future use, and is to me essentially the same as flags and footprints.

Settlement OTOH, means permanence and growth of infrastructure, utilizing resources from the outside and from within.

A half-step between Expeditions and Settlement is Attempted Settlement, meaning that the initial mission is to prove long-term viability, while maintaining the capability to evacuate all personnel at the next opportunity.

I advocate Settlement, because it seems the most ambitious and audacious approach, without over-reaching due to unfounded optimism. This is the basis of so-called one-way trips, while providing for bugging out for some individuals, but not evacuation and abandonment of the entire enterprise.

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3629
  • 92129
  • Liked: 1146
  • Likes Given: 360
Re: Who wants to go to Mars?
« Reply #52 on: 11/18/2010 05:34 am »
It doen't have to be an absolute one way trip. If the plan clearly states:

1)  For the first 10+ years, there will only be minimal ISRU propellant and a small unmanned ascent vehicle for sample return.

2)  After 10+ years there will be limited return capability.

3)  Anyone wanting to be eligible for eventual return has to maintain Earth gravity conditioning through weight and centrifuge training over that 10+ years.

4)  There is an on-going committment to regular re-supply including a few luxuries and plenty of multi-media entertainment.

I think you would find plenty of people willing to commit to a semi-permanent move to Mars.

This would have the added benefit of weeding out the people who just want fame and fortune. What you would get is dedicated scientists, engineers, technicians, etc, who love their work and see life on Mars as a huge opportunity, not a life-sentence.

BINGO! That is almost exactly as I see it. A long thread severals years ago on another site lead to nearly the same proposal and for nearly the exact same reasons; any differences would be quibbling. I could see this thread headed in the same direction and have been biding my time hoping for something like that to get posted.

If you go to settle Mars, everyone's expectation should be that you are in it for the long haul. Otherwise, you're there on an expedition, not as a settler.

Even so, morality dictates that if an individual needs to bug out, the capability should be there. But since orbital mechanics is in charge you're gonna have to wait. Also, there needs to be a minimum time period before the trip to Earth is granted, barring extreme circumstances.

I don't see it quite like that. Granted, if all of the colonists come back to Earth, then the project fails, but would it really take 10 years to develop the ISRU fuel source to fuel return trips? Consider that the colonists will need reasonably comfortable conditions to live in, provided in a combination of supplies from Earth and ISRU. If they don't have some level of comfort then they will want to return to Earth. Won't the transport ships from earth (the ones the colonists came in) be different than the landers, and won't those transports remain in orbit needing only restocking and refueling to make the return trip? And won't the colonists know that and won't there be landers from the supply runs laying about?

I see two extremes to the scenario. One, supplies from Earth and ISRU provide a good level of pioneering comfort to where the colonists can see things getting better and so start thinking about home and family on Mars. Scenario two, the colonists decide that this whole thing was a mistake and divert resources and effort to restock and refuel the orbiting transports for a return to Earth.

Scenario One implies significantly more resources than scenario Two, hence it should not take 10 years for the scenario One colonists to restock and refuel the orbiting transports. We should not contemplate sending colonists to live scenario Two. We do not need to send transports fueled and provisioned for the round trip to Mars, but we do need to make it feasible for the colonists to return using Mars resources and Earth supplied "stuff" that can't be made on Mars, in particular, ascent rocket engines.

I want to emphasize that to me, 10 years does not seem an unreasonable length of time to expect the first colonists to stay on Mars before returning to Earth. My point is that it should be possible for at least some of them to return sooner, if need be. It's the difference between knowing you're trapped and knowing there is a way out. The knowing there is a way out might enable some people to work out the 10 years instead of "going postal."
« Last Edit: 11/18/2010 05:39 am by aero »
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2399
  • Liked: 1693
  • Likes Given: 598
Re: Who wants to go to Mars?
« Reply #53 on: 11/18/2010 11:21 am »
...Expeditions have no intention of setting up infrastructure for future use, and is to me essentially the same as flags and footprints...

I disagree.  Consider the ISS for example, which will host an overlapping rotation of several dozen expeditions over its lifetime.  The station is continuously employed while crews are rotated in and out.

I absolutely agree that any surface hardware landed on Mars should be designed to last for a substantial length of time (15 years?).  I also believe that surface hardware should be delivered separately from crew rotation and that a robotic precursor missions should prepare the basic surface station before the first crew arrives.  The station would be built up over a number of expeditions much like ISS.

As technology progresses and the station grows more sophisticated, new crews arrive that have been extensively trained on the new hardware.  Remember that the station will be largely experimental at first and will not have "set it and forget it" operations.  The first several crews are going to have to be highly proficient engineers including specialists in the latest and greatest systems that have arrived.

As the station matures, then we can consider extending surface stays to multiples of the conjunction-class mission rate and see how that works out physiologically.

I think we can agree that 550-day surface stays with accumulated surface hardware is more than "flags and footprints"?

Offline spacester

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 332
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 178
Re: Who wants to go to Mars?
« Reply #54 on: 11/18/2010 03:38 pm »
...Expeditions have no intention of setting up infrastructure for future use, and is to me essentially the same as flags and footprints...

I disagree.  Consider the ISS for example, which will host an overlapping rotation of several dozen expeditions over its lifetime.  The station is continuously employed while crews are rotated in and out.

I absolutely agree that any surface hardware landed on Mars should be designed to last for a substantial length of time (15 years?).  I also believe that surface hardware should be delivered separately from crew rotation and that a robotic precursor missions should prepare the basic surface station before the first crew arrives.  The station would be built up over a number of expeditions much like ISS.

As technology progresses and the station grows more sophisticated, new crews arrive that have been extensively trained on the new hardware.  Remember that the station will be largely experimental at first and will not have "set it and forget it" operations.  The first several crews are going to have to be highly proficient engineers including specialists in the latest and greatest systems that have arrived.

As the station matures, then we can consider extending surface stays to multiples of the conjunction-class mission rate and see how that works out physiologically.

I think we can agree that 550-day surface stays with accumulated surface hardware is more than "flags and footprints"?

I think I failed to explain this well.

Words mean what we want them to mean and my objective with that post was to establish some agreed-upon terminology to facilitate discussions. By focusing on that one word, and tying it to current usage relative to ISS, I have to conclude that you missed that point. My bad.

Perhaps I lack authority here to propose terminology, but I don't see anyone else doing it.

I think we can agree that Man on Mars is quite different than Man in LEO, with the principle difference being the extremely limited access to Mars.

A lot of people do not appreciate that orbital mechanics is a harsh mistress and you cannot just come and go as you please.

Launch windows open for a few months at a time, but for similar flight profiles, you have to wait about 26 months for the next launch period (IIRC). But more importantly, if my calculations are correct, crews that are committed to a single cycle have to leave before the next crew shows up.

De-camping  and leaving the facilities unmanned is to me a series of expeditions, whereas continuous human presence is at least Attempted Settlement.

So I propose the words "Expedition" to mean that all crews will sign up for a single cycle, "Attempted Settlement" to mean that at least some crew sign up for two or more cycles, and "Settlement" to mean multiple cycles for all, with at least some crew intending to stay "for the duration." "Colonization" means to me that you take it one huge step further and make babies.

The last thing I would want is to have these words limit options or discussion of alternative strategies. But I made it sound like these proposed definitions were derived from infrastructure build-up, which was a mistake on my part.

I'll address that in an attempt to clarify, but this is IMHO only:

In general, but not defining, terms, I see Expeditions to be mostly supported by pre-placed facilities and resources, and efforts at ISRU to be experimental and tentative. Attempted Settlement implies that you have demonstrated viability of ISRU and part of your mission is to scale that up to useful levels. Settlement means that you are establishing extensive infrastructure in addition to core ISRU. Colonization means you are actively working towards complete self-sufficiency.

In closing, my proposal is meant to allow us to move past the "One-way trip" terminology, which we have determined to be too simplistic.

edit: "babies" was "bablies"
« Last Edit: 11/20/2010 11:25 pm by spacester »

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2173
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Who wants to go to Mars?
« Reply #55 on: 11/20/2010 09:54 pm »
So we can afford to land an artificial gravity centrifuge and an ISRU plant for sample return vehicles, but we can't afford ascent vehicles for crew?  And it almost seems like we're depriving the mission of this capability on principle as if permanent settlement is a higher virtue than rotating expeditions? I don't get it.

I also don't understand how the funding mechanism would work, since whichever entities are financing this program are going to have no idea how long a commitment they are making to support a Mars colony that is almost entirely reliant on Earth for consumables and hardware. 

With an opposition-class or conjunction-class expedition, they know how long the mission will last and can plan accordingly.  With a one-way colony and our still-limited understanding of the challenges and risks of living on Mars, they have no idea if the colonists are going to be fried by radiation in two years or if they're going to be writing home for more supplies 10 or 15 years down the line.

It's a very open-ended commitment whose program termination poses difficult moral and political questions.  Remember the health care reform debate?  Now imagine a future Congress debating whether it's worth $2 billion a year to try and keep some old geysers alive on Mars.

Firstly, every kg mass you financially commit to return to Earth requires the expenditure of at least 30kg of mass  to provide the fuel and vehicles to return it. Returning 1 kg of inert matter (rocks, water, etc) with no life support needs is significantly different from returning a 100 kg human body, and all their life support needs, for a return trip (at a minimum of 5kg per day of expendable life support matter (food, water, air, etc)). Thus, returning a human to earth requires a minimum investment of 550 x 30 = 16,500 kg. At $10,000/kg, that cost is thus $165 million dollars, whereas the cost of returning 1 kg of inert mass is much much smaller ($300,000).

If you invest in sending ISRU equipment to Mars, then the mass requirements, and the cost per kg of fuel, drops massively.
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Who wants to go to Mars?
« Reply #56 on: 11/20/2010 10:00 pm »
I brought it up in another thread, but it fits here more appropriately.

Funny that people keep discussing these long involved martian schemes, when even something as simple as a 500kg earth orbiting "Martian Biosatellite" failed to fly.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=31612
http://web.archive.org/web/20080514012157/www.marsgravity.org/main/bus.html
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/livingthings/20jan_marsmice.html
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Nathan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 710
  • Sydney
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Who wants to go to Mars?
« Reply #57 on: 11/20/2010 10:25 pm »

With an opposition-class or conjunction-class expedition, they know how long the mission will last and can plan accordingly.  With a one-way colony and our still-limited understanding of the challenges and risks of living on Mars, they have no idea if the colonists are going to be fried by radiation in two years or if they're going to be writing home for more supplies 10 or 15 years down the line.



This is precisely why I advocate *Settlement* as the goal over *Colonization*

No doubt many see it as a distinction without a difference, or pedantic semantics, but I beg to differ.

Colonization means not just permanence but self-sourced growth. In particular, making babies. I personally think that pregnancies will not be successful on Mars. Just a "hunch", but based on my research.

Settlement is the first major step past expeditions.

Expeditions have no intention of setting up infrastructure for future use, and is to me essentially the same as flags and footprints.

Settlement OTOH, means permanence and growth of infrastructure, utilizing resources from the outside and from within.

A half-step between Expeditions and Settlement is Attempted Settlement, meaning that the initial mission is to prove long-term viability, while maintaining the capability to evacuate all personnel at the next opportunity.

I advocate Settlement, because it seems the most ambitious and audacious approach, without over-reaching due to unfounded optimism. This is the basis of so-called one-way trips, while providing for bugging out for some individuals, but not evacuation and abandonment of the entire enterprise.

Good distinction. I agree.
Given finite cash, if we want to go to Mars then we should go to Mars.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Who wants to go to Mars?
« Reply #58 on: 11/20/2010 10:28 pm »
Words mean what we want them to mean and my objective with that post was to establish some agreed-upon terminology to facilitate discussions. [...]  Perhaps I lack authority here to propose terminology, but I don't see anyone else doing it.

Want some unasked-for advice?  Don't use the "Looking Glass" approach for defining terms unless it's absolutely essential.

I do applaud your attempt to establish some sort of classification scheme for Mars visits.  Allow me to use a different distinction you attempted to make as an example of the difficulty you face.  In other less specialized contexts there are already widely-accepted economic and political aspects of the terms "Colony" and "Settlement" when used to describe human habitation of a place.  Ancient Greece.  Modern-day West Bank.  Etc.  The connotations of these cannot really be avoided; use them with caution!
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline spacester

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 332
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 178
Re: Who wants to go to Mars?
« Reply #59 on: 11/20/2010 11:20 pm »
Words mean what we want them to mean and my objective with that post was to establish some agreed-upon terminology to facilitate discussions. [...]  Perhaps I lack authority here to propose terminology, but I don't see anyone else doing it.

Want some unasked-for advice?  Don't use the "Looking Glass" approach for defining terms unless it's absolutely essential.

I do applaud your attempt to establish some sort of classification scheme for Mars visits.  Allow me to use a different distinction you attempted to make as an example of the difficulty you face.  In other less specialized contexts there are already widely-accepted economic and political aspects of the terms "Colony" and "Settlement" when used to describe human habitation of a place.  Ancient Greece.  Modern-day West Bank.  Etc.  The connotations of these cannot really be avoided; use them with caution!

That's good advice. I very much like unasked-for advice - it means that my words had some kind of impact, and makes my ego a bit warmer and fuzzier.

But on the highly specialized subject and altogether unprecedented enterprise of Man-on-Mars I do indeed find it absolutely essential to establish specific meanings to pre-existing words.

I've discussed this exact subject several times before and every time - so far - it only gets to a certain point before dying. My goal here is to push this thread further than previous ones. The brainpower here greatly exceeds previous venues.

I personally highly despise analysis by analogy, and the use of historical examples of previous expansions of humanity into "terra incognito" as a prescriptive guide for how to approach "the final frontier". Expanding into space is just too darn different. Sure, history can teach us lessons but it CANNOT tell us how to solve this new problem, where air and water do not await us at our destination, where the transportation options are much more constrained than anything before, and destinations which do not provide easily exploited resources.

So I'm not sure what I should do with your advice. Are you suggesting I - or we - make up brand new words? Otherwise, how to use these existing words with caution without defining them? I'm not being snarky, I seriously don't know how you suggest we proceed.

Would it be good enough to precede each word with "Martian" in order to nail down the context in each case?

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1