MARS ONE - Making a Mars settlement a reality!

[antysmok]

Erbse,
I am wondering about different aspect of the project, the communication system (satellites on Mars and Solar orbits). Are there any project to lease part of the bandwidth to some other mission? Obviously good relay around Mars can help many other missions around, same for the satellite on Sun orbit.
It could help to reduce the cost of scientific robotic or even manned mission.
The communication system send with each mission can be smaller, since not design to reach Earth but only satellite on orbit.
Or it is the part which helps you to get sponsors ? they can earn some money on leasing it to NASA, Russian or Chinese.

In the same way of thinking, there are any plan to create even crude GPS system on Mars? that could boost research on Mars incredibly also safety for first settlers.

[erbse]

Thanks for your input here

We were discussing such issues.

If the bandwidth allows it, it could easily be used by other missions and rovers etc. sent to Mars.

Past Mars rovers already worked with some sort of "crude GPS" on Mars.

Mars Express might be a term to you. It was a probe (attended by the lander Beagle) that mapped the Mars from 2003 on and might continue to do so until 2014 or even longer.

[eklips]

By the way, is it planned that the first four ever go back to earth at one point?

[erbse]

Must be like the 5th time I'm responding to this, but anyway

Here's something about a possible return to Earth: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...5#post92544335

[erbse]

After all it's all just a matter of acclimatization.

There are many people who just can't imagine the technological means that are available to us today. And what's possible in some years or decades from now on.
Remember: Human knowledge doubles every 5-10 years, and that is exponentionally accelerating.
Check this for reference: Information explosion

Once we're on Mars everyone will be excited about it and get used to it quickly.
50 years from now, it'll seem unimaginable people said it was a bad idea to go to Mars, back in 2012.

[eklips]

Originally Posted by erbse

Must be like the 5th time I'm responding to this, but anyway

Here's something about a possible return to Earth: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...5#post92544335

Sorry!

[CanadianDemon]

Originally Posted by wino

question:
how abundant is water in Mars?

They mentioned there is water in Mars, so there will also be oxygen. Then is it safe to assume that there is also CO2? How easy is it to support life in Mars?

Over 90% of Mars atmosphere is CO2. So if you can warm it up, yes it could potentially support life of plants and bacteria.

[goschio]

Just don't see the point of living in little containers in martian desert while 90% of Earths desert and arctic regions are empty.

One day in the far future (500 years from now or so) we might have the technology to terraform Mars and built whole mars cities with automated nanorobots.

But now we will be restricted to little containers at an astronomical cost. And all only for symbolism.

50 years from now, it'll seem unimaginable people said it was a bad idea to go to Mars, back in 2012.

Back in the days people also thought we will be living on the Moon in the year 2000. There was no space boom after the moon landing. More a sobering out and scale back.

[brightside.]

This is an incredible idea and I wish great success to the people working towards the goal of colonizing Mars. It might seem very difficult at this stage, but then every successful idea over the course of history seemed impossible/ridiculous at one stage.

The people who go to Mars will be psychologically affected by having only 3 other people to interact with in the flesh for at least 2 years, and not having anything to do outside except research or construction work. I think that is a very important aspect which should be addressed before the humans are dispatched to the red planet.

It would be disastrous if the colonizers start complaining about life there and start expressing a wish to come back to earth within months/years of landing on Mars. It would discourage other people from joining them there.

[amigo32]

NASA: Life on Mars

What Would Life Need?

What would life need to exist on Mars?

Warmth?
It seems that the temperature on Earth (room temperature, so to speak) is just right for life. More importantly, chemical reactions take place at just the right speed in temperature ranges found on Earth. The speed at which chemical reactions take place is relevant to the formation and existence of life. Really extreme temperatures such as -300 F or 5000 F won't work. Thus an habitable planet can't be too cold or life won't be able to get started. Billions of years might pass before the relevant chemicals are exchanged because the chemical reactions take too long. And a planet can't be too hot or molecules won't stay together long enough to form solid matter.
Oxygen?
seems to be essential for life
Water?
water is a source of oxygen
Protection from Ultra Violet rays
Ultra Violet light breaks molecules apart

Exploratour - Life in the Solar System
Conclusion

In spite of Mars' similarity to Earth in size and closeness to the sun, the environment of Mars seems unfriendly toward life as we know it on Earth. Mars is small, so there is not much gravity. For this reason, much of the atmosphere of Mars has drifted away. With little atmosphere, and no ozone layer, there is less protection from the ultraviolet radiation of the sun, which is very harmful to life.

With little atmosphere, there is a only a small buffer between the surface and space itself. This means that the temperature above the surface is cold. With little atmosphere, there is also little pressure, which sophisticated life forms such as humans need to keep blood from boiling. (Remember what happened to the characters of the movie "Total Recall" when they encountered the surface of Mars)!

The Viking lander, which carried the first experiments designed to detect life on Mars, did not find evidence of even the simplest organic molecule. The Mars Pathfinder came up with negative results when looking for signs of life on Mars. We know, however, that there are life forms on Earth which can survive in very harsh environments. It's possible that if life ever existed on Mars or if it will ever exist on Mars, it will look very different from life as we know it!

[EdgarsSTAR]

Erbse what do you think about planetary resource project? Can they be connected somehow or not?

[ikops]

Each group's internal dynamics will have been carefully selected on the basis of personalities, ability and chemistry to make sure they work well

Are astronauts also selected on their sexual preferences? I mean when the colony grows there has to be more than one gay astronaut. That only seems human.

[Diggerdog]

I think if this happens, selecting gay astronauts would be somewhat counterproductive, hey? Certainly if we want the colony to grow naturally...And what with the limited shopping and entertainment options, I dont think too many would apply!

About terraforming - its quite do-able if we are able to get there. Once we have water, we can create oxygen. Once we do that, we are away! Starting with greenhouse type structures with breathable air and plant life. Exand little by little, explore the deep canyons...perhaps we can get to the point of sealing a large canyon and oxygenating it, deploy plantlife and see what happens.

[erbse]

Originally Posted by goschio

Just don't see the point of living in little containers in martian desert while 90% of Earths desert and arctic regions are empty.

A sulf-sustaining colony on Mars isn't restricted to "containers" and won't be.

While it's true a lot of Earth's barren regions are uninhabitated, we can learn a lot from Mars how to make better use of them.

The 21st century and the current generations need their modern "Apollo mission". The interest in space flight definitely needs a boost.

Originally Posted by goschio

One day in the far future (500 years from now or so) we might have the technology to terraform Mars and built whole mars cities with automated nanorobots.

But now we will be restricted to little containers at an astronomical cost. And all only for symbolism.

The costs are quite laughable compared to all the money spent on modern day military.

Are you going to tell me we should spend more on military to fuel even more useless wars down here on Earth? This mission is scheduled for around 6 bln $, which is not even half the cost of a fucking useless aircraft carrier! USS Gerald R. Ford will eat up $13.5 billion of the US budget.
And still, keep in mind: NO FREAKING TAX PAYER'S MONEY WILL BE SPENT FOR MARS ONE. In contrast to any of all those laughable government spendings on military. It all will be private money spent here. So please people, stop worrying about the money spent for this mission. Thank you!

(Sorry I'm a little outraged about this, but had this discussion like the 100th time - and there's no point in even raising this question, when you know it's privately funded. You wouldn't complain about someone building himself a mansion on Greenland or in the desert, so why complain about a colony on Mars? It's not your freaking money if you're not involved, finally admit that.)

Humanity needs to achieve things together. A manned Mars landing and colony could be one of the first events truly achieving to weld mankind together a little more.

Originally Posted by goschio

There was no space boom after the moon landing. More a sobering out and scale back.

You've got to be kidding. It was nothing but the initial spark for the aerospace industry.

Just because the Apollo missions weren't followed by another celestial body landing or a colony, it's not like everything went down the drain. It's true that e.g. the NASA was scaled down after Apollo, but that's a natural development. With the Space Shuttle and the 80s, the budget was raised over the years again.

Sadly politics are always intervening with most space activities nowadays.
This era has to end. The space belongs to us all! Really I'd even just go to Mars to give governments all around the globe the stink, ja.

[eklips]

Private money does come from somewhere though, it just doesn't fall from the sky . It's just like public money except that redistribution happened in a different way.
Who are the main donators?

[erbse]

Sponsors prefer to stay private for now.

When some of them decide to go public, you'll belong to the first to know


And of course the money's coming from somewhere. Many private entrepeneurs made a hella lot of money with their software ventures. You can't really oppose anything to money spent this way.

[erbse]

Originally Posted by ikops

Are astronauts also selected on their sexual preferences? I mean when the colony grows there has to be more than one gay astronaut. That only seems human.

Regarding that: It just doesn't play a role for now.

Rather gender will be a considered factor, as a mixed team is preferred (they are verifiably working better, as experienced by ISS teams.)
Astronauts aren't supposed to have babies on Mars for the first years, as it's not safe to get a baby there as long as there aren't enough medical facilities etc. to serve such purposes. Perhaps after 20 years or something that's an option though. In the end, the colony needs both, natural growth and immigration.

See also: Can the astronauts have children on Mars?

[.D.]

I guess is cool for scientific research, but for living? Way too depressing imo.

[erbse]

Keep in mind: There won't be saggy tits on Mars like on Earth, because of the lower gravity.

If that ain't a place full of joy and splendour, tell me what is.


Anyway: The people going there are living for research, just like people in Antarctica are.
But some day, we'll be able to turn Mars into a true paradise similar to Earth (at least domed colonies there) - once we understood the planet better when being there.

[Kiboko]

Originally Posted by erbse

Keep in mind: There won't be saggy tits on Mars like on Earth, because of the lower gravity.

What will be the long term effects of this low gravity on the human body?