Humans Will Never Colonize Mars

Producing an atmosphere to support people on Mars is not rocket science so to speak.

And producing habitats sitting out in space is much more difficult than terraforming on the same scale.

 

We can already get to Mars in 6 months with simple chemical propulsion. Aerobraking to deaccelerate.

 

You don't need to shield the entire spacecraft from solar flares. Just a small "storm cellar" compartment the crew can take refuge in during the times of greatest solar activity. Solar flares are detectable at a distance so there would be plenty of warning time.

Once on Mars, the bulk of the planet would protect astronauts from half the cosmic rays (from one direction). Sand bags on the roof of the habitat module would protect them from the rest.

 

That's false.

One budget agreement isn't going to save our fiscal asses or fund a moon or mars mission

 

If we have to genetically engineer ourselves to live in space, we're probably not going to live in space.

 

Well when I say "one budget agreement" I'm NOT saying one ONE YEAR budget agreement.

I'm talking about a budget agreement that lays out appropriations and tax levels for a decade or more. One that scales back entitlements dramatically for example.

 

Just add Mars and Venus and 1 tbsp water and you've got 1g.

It's worth nothing that we only know what 1g, 0g and 1/6th g long term effects are.

We don't know what would happen in long term 0.4 g.

In other words, what are the gradations and what effects does each gradation of 1g bring.

 

Actually, that is exactly what the problem is.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170330142211.htm

The Earth is protected from this not because of the ozone layer, that only helps prevent most of the UV rays from penetrating the upper atmosphere. It is the Van Allen belts that divert most of the solar wind around us, and that is generated by our molten core. The Northern and Southern Lights are our visual evidence of this happening.

In Mars, the core has largely solidified hundreds of millions of years ago. We know this by looking at volcanology of the planet. All of the volcanos we can find range up to 3.7 billion years ago, roughly the age of those on the Moon. But the newest ones we can identify are around 500 million years old.

That means what you have is 500 million years of weakening "Van Allen belts", our primary defense on the Earth that protect us from solar winds. And this is what over time has stripped away most of the atmosphere.

Unless some future technology is able to melt the core again and return an active volcanic and seismic system, no amount of terraforming and atmospheric seeding will ever restore a self-sustaining atmosphere.

Most of the studies of what happened to Mars tend to center around the core solidifying and the loss of those radiation belts. That is why a planet that is in the habitable zone and likely supported liquid water on the surface and all the requirements of life has largely died.

This is one reason why so many are studying the results from the InSight lander which arrived back in November of last year. One of it's main missions is to study the composition of the Martian core, and try to determine how deep each of the main layers lie (crust, Mantle, core). That data will help us calculate how long such solidification will take on our own planet.

 

You don't need a "self sustaining" atmosphere. Create an atmosphere that lasts a few thousand years before needing to be regenerated (probably by impacting iceteroids) then you're still good.

 

Liberals: We're killing the planet! We won't have clean air to breath or clean water to drink! Let's colonize a dead planet.

 

So?

 

It is sadly interesting that you attempt a derail scientific conversation with a Liberal bash. Basically (though you do nit seem bright enough to realize) you lend credence to the idea that Libs are Smart and Cons are not while making yourself seem a fool at the same time....Best to just sit this out in your case.

 

"If it wanted to"???

That phrase includes huge assumptions about budget and quality of the mission.

Sending stuff to Mars is not the only item in the federal budget. It isn't even the only item in the NASA budget. Plus, there are safety regulations regarding sending humans into space. That requires multiple test missions.

I don't see a valid reason to send anyone to Mars, even if it were able to be made safe.

And, projects such as ths have every likeliood of killing or signifiantly reducing scientific exploration of our solar system and beyond,

Today, the EU, China and other countries are exploring our cosmos. Two separate European missions will be looking for life on planets that the Kepler mission and others have found. Also, there are missions to greatly increase the number of exoplanets we know about.

These missions plus some scheduled by the US actually advance our scientific understanding of this universe. Humans in space is at best a stupendously expensive approach and most likely nearly pointless at this time.

 

Hell, we send probes to Mars all the damned time. It is just that most people do not give a damn.

Most people seem to think that we stopped since 2012 when Curiosity arrived. This is far from the truth.

In 2014 the MAVEN orbiter arrived.

Also in 2014 the Indian Space Research Organization's (ISRO) Mars Orbiter arrived.

The European Space Agency (ESA) ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter arrived in 2016.

And in 2018 we had the already mentioned InSight arrive and touch down on the planet. But that is not the only one. 2 CubeSats (MarCO-A and MarCO-B) arrived at the same time, and are doing their own missions from orbit.

Next year the ESA Rosalind Franklin rover will be launched, estimated arrival in 2021.

Also in 2020 is the NASA Mars 2020 rover. This will include a UAV, the Mars Helicopter Scout.

In 2020 the UAE is launching the Hope Mars Orbiter.

Also in 2020, China plans to launch an orbiter, a lander, and a rover.

The only one currently in the pipeline beyond 2020 that is announced is the next ISRO mission. The Mars Orbiter Mission 2, it is expected to be both an orbiter and a rover.

And there are other proposals awaiting approval. A Finland-Russian one to land multiple weather stations. A Russian one to return with samples from the surface. There is a similar ESA-NASA proposal to do the same thing, and to act as a proof of concept mission for future manned missions.

Also the follow-up NASA 2020 rover is expected to include an orbital probe that will dip into the upper atmosphere and then return to Earth with samples.

And Japan is still working on their long-term MELOS program. Which will include an orbiter, a rover, and a drone that will return close up photographic surveys before it crashes on the surface.

We already are pretty much sending craft to Mars on a regular basis. It is just that most of them are not as "sexy" as the various rovers, and are of little interest other than to the nation that launches them, or the scientists in the specific specialty these craft are looking for.

In fact, the largest gap in time between missions was the 1975 Viking series, and the 1997 Pathfinder mission (1992 if you count the failure of the Mars Observer) . There has not been a period of more than 6 years since we have specifically sent a mission to Mars. And once again with a caveat. That 6 year period (2005-2011) included 2 missions (ESA Rosetta 2007 and NASA Dawn in 2009) that did fly-bys of Mars and took readings and accumulated data on their way to conduct other missions (Rosetta to Comet 67P, Dawn to the asteroid Vesta).

 

So we don't know how much of a problem .4g is.

 

And how are we ever going to find out without going to Mars and having people stay there a year or three in .4 G?

As Dr. Robert Zubrin points out in "The Case for Mars"

"We don't train our bomber crews by having them fly through real flak"

 

I don't think I suggested we don't go.

And no, we wouldn't have to go to Mars to find out.

 

How would we find out what the long term effects of .4G are then?

 

Artificially creating .4g in a space station I would guess.

 

Difficult, expensive and probably not worth the trouble. You're asking a couple (at least) astronauts to sit in an isolated, rotating part of a space station for at minimum a year or so for no really good reason.

 

I see.

And are you in favor of a manned mission to Mars at some point in the future.

 

You weren't, and no one else is ... obligated to reply. If you've been distracted by my observation ... I'm sorry ... that you're so easily distracted.

 

Actually, it is not all that hard. Gravity of that degree can be generated with a rotation as little as 32 RPM.

And there are several proposals in how this would be accomplished. While the most commonly known is simple rotation of the vehicle (like in the movie 2001), other proposals include a manned module counterweighted by an unmanned module on a tether or even 2 separate manned modules (Tempo3).



And this is something we are going to have to take seriously if we are intending journeys of such a duration. One of the things that have worried NASA and other agencies is how surgery would be possible in no gravity. Even fractional gravity would simplify such issues.

 

Why would you need to do surgery in route to Mars or back? And the Mars Direct mission plan already calls for generating Mars normal gravity using the counterweight method you suggested.

 

As soon as possible. And hang the risks to the astronauts.