5 ms·

Just as an aside, the last time we seriously talked about manned Mars missions was in the '70s. NERVA would have been powerful enough to make the round trip in

by keenerd 14y ago

Just as an aside, the last time we seriously talked about manned Mars missions was in the '70s. NERVA would have been powerful enough to make the round trip in 90 days, but the program was canned in '72. This 501 day trip will be an interesting bit of logistics in itself. We are almost living in a Heinlein novel, though it would be unexpected if Mars was colonized before the Moon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket

kristopolous 14y ago
And this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_manned_Mars_mission_plans_in_the_20th_century#List http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_manned_Mars_mission_pla...
Retric 14y ago
In many ways it would be easier to build a long term habitat on on Mars than the Moon. Mars might have a mostly Carbon dioxide / Nitrogen atmosphere at vary low pressure but it's a hell of a lot better than nothing. There is even enough H2O (220ppm) that it's probably viable to extract enough of it from the atmosphere to make up for recycling losses. (As in you could build a machine that produces more H20 over time from extraction than you would spending that mass shipping H20 directly.)
- InclinedPlane 14y ago
  Mars is lousy with water. There's a very tiny amount of it in the atmosphere, but for long term colonization that's irrelevant. Much of the surface of Mars is underlain by significant amounts of water ice permafrost. If you pick a decent place to put a base then it would be straightforward to begin producing literally tonnes of water on a regular basis using a small amount of capital equipment. P.S. To be more clear, the presence of large quantities of CO2, H2O, and Nitrogen as well as a near 24-hours day is a huge boon for a potential colony. With one or a small handful of shipments of industrial equipment it would be possible to bootstrap an initial Martian industry which produced Oxygen, water, Carbon Monoxide, Methane, and Methanol. O2 and water are obviously useful for human habitation as well as for growing crops using natural Martian sunlight (likely in inflatable domes). O2 and Methane would be used cryogenically for rocket propellants or as compressed gases for powering long-range / high-performance surface vehicles (such as the very bulldozers and excavators which would be used to mine water ice). Carbon Monoxide could be used to smelt Iron and other metals from high-grade ores. Methanol could be used as a fuel and could also serve as a chemical feedstock for manufacturing plastics and other organic materials. All of this is stuff that could be happening within the first few missions to Mars, which gives you a sense of the enabling characteristics of in-situ Martian resources.
  - Retric 14y ago
    Step one is keeping ~10 people alive for ~5 years with minimal risk. Colonization is 'possible', but there is basically zero economic incentive.
    - InclinedPlane 14y ago
      In the case of Mars the use of in-situ resources helps lower the cost of Mars missions and reduce risk, so colonization becomes a natural byproduct of exploration.

by keenerd 14y ago

kristopolous 14y ago

And this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_manned_Mars_mission_plans_in_the_20th_century#List http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_manned_Mars_mission_pla...

Retric 14y ago

In many ways it would be easier to build a long term habitat on on Mars than the Moon. Mars might have a mostly Carbon dioxide / Nitrogen atmosphere at vary low pressure but it's a hell of a lot better than nothing. There is even enough H2O (220ppm) that it's probably viable to extract enough of it from the atmosphere to make up for recycling losses. (As in you could build a machine that produces more H20 over time from extraction than you would spending that mass shipping H20 directly.)

InclinedPlane 14y ago
Mars is lousy with water. There's a very tiny amount of it in the atmosphere, but for long term colonization that's irrelevant. Much of the surface of Mars is underlain by significant amounts of water ice permafrost. If you pick a decent place to put a base then it would be straightforward to begin producing literally tonnes of water on a regular basis using a small amount of capital equipment. P.S. To be more clear, the presence of large quantities of CO2, H2O, and Nitrogen as well as a near 24-hours day is a huge boon for a potential colony. With one or a small handful of shipments of industrial equipment it would be possible to bootstrap an initial Martian industry which produced Oxygen, water, Carbon Monoxide, Methane, and Methanol. O2 and water are obviously useful for human habitation as well as for growing crops using natural Martian sunlight (likely in inflatable domes). O2 and Methane would be used cryogenically for rocket propellants or as compressed gases for powering long-range / high-performance surface vehicles (such as the very bulldozers and excavators which would be used to mine water ice). Carbon Monoxide could be used to smelt Iron and other metals from high-grade ores. Methanol could be used as a fuel and could also serve as a chemical feedstock for manufacturing plastics and other organic materials. All of this is stuff that could be happening within the first few missions to Mars, which gives you a sense of the enabling characteristics of in-situ Martian resources.
- Retric 14y ago
  Step one is keeping ~10 people alive for ~5 years with minimal risk. Colonization is 'possible', but there is basically zero economic incentive.
  - InclinedPlane 14y ago
    In the case of Mars the use of in-situ resources helps lower the cost of Mars missions and reduce risk, so colonization becomes a natural byproduct of exploration.