'We may be able to grow asparagus on Mars'

[Zixinus]

The things we'll learn by going to Mars and setting up shop will serve us well going to other places that are not rocky airless dustballs.

I know that Mars would be a handy staging point for future space travel, but we do not have the capacity to use that. Not anytime in the near future.

If you want to limit space exploration to Earthlike planets, well, we may as well give up now because even our most powerful telescopes haven't found any-- and if we do find them, they are hundreds of years away from us.

If you are replying to me, then I have to ask: where did I say that we should limit ourselves to Earthlike planets?

[Coyote]

I was actually replying to Commander598, above your post.

[General Zod]

If you want to limit space exploration to Earthlike planets, well, we may as well give up now because even our most powerful telescopes haven't found any

That's just because Earth is simply too small to see across interstellar distances with present technology. Gas giants on the other hand have big enough effects that we can pick them up, so we see lots of them. Earth like planets might be out there - we can't tell either way because we can't see them yet.

O rly?

”The goal is to find life on a planet like the earth around a star like the sun. This is a step in that direction,” said study leader Stephane Udry of the Geneva Observatory in Switzerland. “Each time you go one step forward you are very happy.”

The new planet is about 50 percent bigger than Earth and about five times more massive. The new “super-Earth” is called Gliese 581 C, after its star, Gliese 581, a diminutive red dwarf star located 20.5 light-years away that is about one-third as massive as the sun.

This doesn't sound like a gas giant to me. It's still more massive than Earth is, but we're not too far off from detecting Earth-like planets from the sound of things.

[Commander 598]

We can colonize Mars easily enough if there are stable caves there...

I hope someone else finds this as amusing as I do.

[Commander 598]

Ghetto edit: Not so much the "easiest way to live on Mars" part so much as the "spend the better part of a year on some form of ship traveling millions of miles...to go live in a cave" part.

[Zixinus]

Ghetto edit: Not so much the "easiest way to live on Mars" part so much as the "spend the better part of a year on some form of ship traveling millions of miles...to go live in a cave" part.

Its more of the irony of it.

Era of gaining sapience: living in caves and ditches.
Dawn of history: wood structures and tents.
Anchient times: living in small houses of walled cities.
Medieval times: Castles and fortresses.
Renesance and later: mansions.
Modern era: sky scrapers and big apartment buildings.
Space era: back to living in caves.

Granted it makes sense, but still, its funny.

[Sarevok]

Problem with living on Mars is settling at bottom end of a gravity well is a one way trip. It is extremely hard to reach orbit from Earth. even with the industrial base of US or Russia. How can a nascant colony on Mars do it ?

An asteroid colony on other hand can actually build gigantic interplanetary spacecraft, giant space cities and like. They have very little transport costs. An asteroid based civilization would flourish whereas a Mars colony could stagnate or experience slow growth. It would be more natural to think of planets as bottoms of oceans and asteroids as future city states that ply the void of space.

[Lancer]

Sarevok, I'm going to have to ask you to stop talking out of your ass. Mars only has about 38% of the surface gravity that Earth does. Hence, it's escape velocity is 5.027 km/s, less than half that of Earth's. You would only need 1/5th the energy required to lift off a spaceship off of Mars as you would on Earth. (Gravitational potential energy = -G*m1*m2/R. Since G is a constant, and m1 is an arbitrary figure dependent on the mass of your spacecraft, you can cancel them out and the ratio of the magnitude of energy required to escape is determined only by the relative ratios of m2/R).

Granted, it's far more energy than you would need to lift off from the Moon, but colonizing Mars in the long run is hardly going to be the one-way trip you described, and as mentioned beforehand, it'll give us the experience we need to build those asteroid colonies you're so much a fan of.

[Dave]

What about the moon?

It's only three-four days away by Hohmann Transfer Orbit.
It's only ~1.5 light seconds away.
Major construction materials are available in the dirt.(surface composition in decreasing order: oxygen, silicon, iron, calcium, aluminum, titanium, magnesium)
Delta V requirements for a round trip are slightly less than Mars.
Solar energy is plentiful (photo-voltaic for electricity and reflectors/concentrators for furnaces.)

[Junghalli]

O rly?

We can detect planets down to 2 Earth masses with present techniques, provided they're close to their stars.

A recent sky survey suggests as many as 1/3 of Sol-type stars have close-orbiting "super-Earths". This means (unsurprisingly) small planets are more common than big ones, and odds look rather good that there could be stars with Earthlike planets in the local neighborhood. Of course, a lot depends on how likely the development of multicellular life is, which is something we can only guess at this point.

This doesn't sound like a gas giant to me. It's still more massive than Earth is, but we're not too far off from detecting Earth-like planets from the sound of things.

Indeed, the ESA Darwin Mission should be able to not only detect nearby Earth-sized planets but detect Earth-type life by spectroscopy of their atmospheres (if they're in the habitable zone and rich in oxygen it's a good bet something's making it and that something is plants, or at least photosynthetic bacteria). It's supposed to be launched sometime around 2015. I don't know about you guys but I'm quite excited about that.

What about the moon?

I'm with Commander 598: the most economically profitable space exploitation program would be based in Earth orbit, with the Moon and the near-Earth asteroids as resource extraction points. Mars is interesting from a pure-science standpoint, but from an economics viewpoint it's unlikely to have that much value except as a tourist attraction.

This site discusses rather thoroughly the economic potentials of space exploitation:

http://www.permanent.com/

[Sarevok]

Sarevok, I'm going to have to ask you to stop talking out of your ass. Mars only has about 38% of the surface gravity that Earth does. Hence, it's escape velocity is 5.027 km/s, less than half that of Earth's. You would only need 1/5th the energy required to lift off a spaceship off of Mars as you would on Earth. (Gravitational potential energy = -G*m1*m2/R. Since G is a constant, and m1 is an arbitrary figure dependent on the mass of your spacecraft, you can cancel them out and the ratio of the magnitude of energy required to escape is determined only by the relative ratios of m2/R).

1. 38 % gravity is more of a curse than boon because you can't alter it. You can't make some fancy 1 G spinning thingy on Mars. Someone living on Mars or born there might never be able to visit Earth.

2. How is launch costs that now require your to sell one kidney instead of both any better ?

3. Which brings up the most important point. A mars colony can't really send back anything of value to Earth. It will require very expensive regular resupply to stay afloat. So does an asteroid colony until it becomes self sufficient. But an asteroid colony can at least try shipping metals, minerals etc in bulk. They can actually make a profit instead of being a multi century long cash burning ceremony.

So in conclusion a Mars colony does not sound like a bad idea if you had s self sustaining one to start with. But it takes an awful amounts of resources to get rolling and does not offer any economic return.

Granted, it's far more energy than you would need to lift off from the Moon, but colonizing Mars in the long run is hardly going to be the one-way trip you described, and as mentioned beforehand, it'll give us the experience we need to build those asteroid colonies you're so much a fan of.

It's quite the opposite. Asteroids are cheaper and provide experience before taking on uber projects like Mars.

[Anguirus]

Am I really the only one who read the OP and went HOLY SHIT, you could grow Earth plants on Mars? Because that is certainly the coolest thing I've read in several days.

[General Zod]

Am I really the only one who read the OP and went HOLY SHIT, you could grow Earth plants on Mars? Because that is certainly the coolest thing I've read in several days.

It's not all that surprising really. Mars has gobs of C02 in the atmosphere, which plants thrive on. They don't really need Oxygen since it's a waste product for them.

[Broomstick]

Plants do need oxygen - when there's no sunlight, such as at night, they switch over to burning oxygen for energy just as animals and fungi do. It's just that, since they make oxygen during daylight hours, it's not usually an issue for them.

[Zixinus]

Question: could Mars's gravity hold an ozone layer and an oxygen layer?

[PeZook]

Criticism that NASA is not developing new rockets or trying to colonize the Moon amuses me greatly, since it proves beyond a doubt the person making this argument didn't even bother to read the NASA website.

While this may sound like a novel idea to some, it is in fact possible to run several different space programs at the same time. We are going back to the Moon, and we are going to stay there this time, unless the energy crisis kills us. The Moon is basically one huge asteroid full of construction materials, is close, and the launch costs are ridiculously small.

[Commander 598]

Criticism that NASA is not developing new rockets or trying to colonize the Moon amuses me greatly, since it proves beyond a doubt the person making this argument didn't even bother to read the NASA website.

While this may sound like a novel idea to some, it is in fact possible to run several different space programs at the same time. We are going back to the Moon, and we are going to stay there this time, unless the energy crisis kills us. The Moon is basically one huge asteroid full of construction materials, is close, and the launch costs are ridiculously small.

IIRC, that's at least a decade and, two new Presidents, and an untold number of NASA officials away. Shit happens and NASA doesn't exactly have a history of perfect decision making.

Also: Nobody said that they weren't.

[PeZook]

IIRC, that's at least a decade and, two new Presidents, and an untold number of NASA officials away. Shit happens and NASA doesn't exactly have a history of perfect decision making.

Well, NASA only gets 10 billion greenies a year, so it's no wonder the new rockets will take longer than the Saturn V. Converted to today's dollars, the 1960s moon program took more than 130 billion to realize.

Also: Nobody said that they weren't.

It was strongly implied they should start working on new rocket designs, I just pointed out they actually are. Actually, the first Orion capsule will start doing tests within the next couple of years - of course, realistically, lack of funding will almost certainly cause delays.

They really fucked themselves over with the Shuttle, though, I'll admit Set space exploration back a goodly time.

[Commander 598]

IIRC, that's at least a decade and, two new Presidents, and an untold number of NASA officials away. Shit happens and NASA doesn't exactly have a history of perfect decision making.

Well, NASA only gets 10 billion greenies a year, so it's no wonder the new rockets will take longer than the Saturn V. Converted to today's dollars, the 1960s moon program took more than 130 billion to realize.

I thought their budget last year was like $17 billion?

Also: Nobody said that they weren't.

It was strongly implied they should start working on new rocket designs, I just pointed out they actually are. Actually, the first Orion capsule will start doing tests within the next couple of years - of course, realistically, lack of funding will almost certainly cause delays.

The Orion capsule isn't really a rocket though. When people say rocket they usually mean lift vehicle, of which they've really only got the Shuttle, Delta IV, and the in development Ares V. Can someone explain to me why the hell they never went after Sea Dragon? I have to find any reason for nixing a rocket with a theoretical payload of 500 tons and really cheap launch costs.

[Junghalli]

IIRC, that's at least a decade and, two new Presidents, and an untold number of NASA officials away. Shit happens and NASA doesn't exactly have a history of perfect decision making.

Indeed, Obama already wants to delay the Moon programs by 5 years to free up money for his education programs.

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/obamas ... ttle_p.php

There's a bunch more sources if you're wondering and want to Google it.

[PeZook]

I thought their budget last year was like $17 billion?

Oh, right. I just checked, you're correct.

The Orion capsule isn't really a rocket though. When people say rocket they usually mean lift vehicle, of which they've really only got the Shuttle, Delta IV, and the in development Ares V. Can someone explain to me why the hell they never went after Sea Dragon? I have to find any reason for nixing a rocket with a theoretical payload of 500 tons and really cheap launch costs.

The Orion actually goes with the Ares I - and yes, its service module is a rocket by any definition of the word. Then there's the Altair lander, carried on the Ares V. It's a pretty ambitious project, all in all, and waaaaay overdue IMHO.

Sea Dragon was nixed because of budget constraints, IIRC. One more reason to hate the Shuttle.

You know what's best, though? The STS actually is sligthly more efficient than the Saturn V: if only NASA didn't decide upon the goddamned spaceplane as payload, they could've had a 100-ton-to-LEO partially reuseable launcher. Would surely make building the ISS way cheaper and faster.

[Zixinus]

Indeed, Obama already wants to delay the Moon programs by 5 years to free up money for his education programs.

Considering that this is the same country that still has support for creationism, I would say that its worth it.

[PeZook]

Considering that this is the same country that still has support for creationism, I would say that its worth it.

Yeah, five years aren't gonna change much. Of course, I wonder why NASA is the first thing to cut when the time comes ; Why not defence? 18 billion is pocket change for a country like the US ; A well-run health care reform would probably save at least as much. Of course, that would take time...

Ah, well. I'll still be alive when this happens, hopefully, and the US really need to get its shit together education-wise, since a manned space program would require a lot of qualified people.

Heh, this reminds me of guys who can't even do logarithms claiming the Apollo missions were faked. Epic fail - they want to criticize the most technologically complicated human undertaking to date without even understanding the rocket equation

[Omega18]

It's quite the opposite. Asteroids are cheaper and provide experience before taking on uber projects like Mars.

You're ignoring some key things with your asteroids are cheaper evaluation. For instance you have to spin something BIG to avoid nausea being a huge issue for your colonists. (Its a matter of the spin being slow enough, which requires something huge to provide enough gravity.)

Another gaping issue with a long term asteroid colony is the threat from radiation. On Mars you already have an atmosphere and could very well send out genetically engineered algae along with a couple other measures to work on thickening the atmosphere a bit more to block more radiation prior to humans actually landing on the new colony base. (The point is we could probably send out the genetically engineered algae pretty soon if we wanted to, while we figure out other details involved with actually having a base on Mars and work on establishing the necessary infrastructure for human in advance. If necessary, you could also potentially drill fairly deep into Mars to provide more radiation protection with only the "gardens" where the plants are grown needing to be on the surface.)

The other important difference, at least given what we appear to have learned about the soil so far, is the Mars soil is in fact highly suitable to growing a variety of plants. (I've learned crops that grow in alkaline soil also include Kale, Cabbage, Broccoli, Cauliflower, Collard Greens, Watercress, and Tatsoi among others.) This means you're going to have to mostly bring along nitrates for the crops, while you already have a huge amount of soil and water readily available on Mars. By contrast you're definitely going to have to bring along all your soil for growing crops to your asteroid colony, and water is also going to be a complicating factor you're going to have to at a minimum find. Another related issue is on an asteroid colony providing light for your plants without dangerously exposing your colony to radiation or breaches caused by space debris due to "gardens" being right next to the outside of the asteroid with a transparent bubble for protection is another complication. (You can solve this by having large numbers of powerful lights provide what the plants need, but a large amount of energy will need to be dedicated to this specific task, and you're also going to have to bring up all those lights to the asteroid colony in the first place.)

Another basic point to consider is due to the thread of radiation its going to be easier to have robots do the actual mining of assorted asteroids rather than arranging for building a sufficient radiation protection system and elements of a life support system among other things with each one. Of course if robots are pretty much doing all the actual mining that brings up the question of whether its actually necessary to have humans in an asteroid colony in the first place for asteroid mining in this solar system.

[Junghalli]

For instance you have to spin something BIG to avoid nausea being a huge issue for your colonists. (Its a matter of the spin being slow enough, which requires something huge to provide enough gravity.)

I don't think that'd be a huge issue. Just put your habitats at opposite ends of a long pole.