Is it possible to colonize Mars?

[Monolith]

Prompted by several posts similar to this one (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=170553&postcount=27), I decided to create a thread about the feasibility of colonization of this planet. Please note that this is not about whether Mars should be colonized, but rather is it possible to colonize it in the first place. Posts with specific knowledges pertaining to biology, physics and technology in general would be highly appreciated.

Share and discuss. :)

Edit: Poll added

[Poltergeist]

As possible as the cloning of the Neanderthal.

[Poltergeist]

(Half)-seriously: how and where would people live on Mars? I guess they would live under some gigantic glass domes into which oxygen would be pumped incessantly.

[poiuytrewq0987]

Prompted by several posts similar to this one (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=170553&postcount=27), I decided to create a thread about the feasibility of colonization of this planet. Please note that this is not about whether Mars should be colonized, but rather is it possible to colonize it in the first place. Posts with specific knowledges pertaining to biology, physics and technology in general would be highly appreciated.

Share and discuss. :)

Edit: Poll added

Easily done if we had something like this (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13167). ;) Colonizing Mars will cost an unimaginable amount of resources and money. It's not a feat a country can do alone (USA could but last I read, 700B of US budget is being spent on the military meanwhile only 16B of US budget is being spent on the NASA) and smaller countries Germany or France will not be able to successfuly colonize Mars on their own. Other potential candidate is Russia but its wealth isn't far from Germany and very far from America. If anything, Russia has experience spanning all the way back to the 60s'.

[Grumpy Cat]

I don't know if I would want to live on Mars. It's pretty cold.

[Tabiti]

For now, no. Doesn't matter what they say about our technological level. In 1000 years, maybe, if there is still mankind.
Why we should colonize other planets for now instead of just carrying more about our Mother Earth?

[antonio]

Easily done if we had something like this (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13167). ;) Colonizing Mars will cost an unimaginable amount of resources and money. It's not a feat a country can do alone (USA could but last I read, 700B of US budget is being spent on the military meanwhile only 16B of US budget is being spent on the NASA) and smaller countries Germany or France will not be able to successfuly colonize Mars on their own. Other potential candidate is Russia but its wealth isn't far from Germany and very far from America. If anything, Russia has experience spanning all the way back to the 60s'.

I guess that cost of Mars colonization depends heavily on Earth-taken decisions, so I'll start for wise plan to cut engineering costs, and then a time-sustained policy of saving, for example reducing frecuency on colonizers going back and forth. So I'd resort to cleverest death-corridor prisoners being instructed to hi-tech operations.

Pd. This is not a sarcastic comment. :D

[Sol Invictus]

The technology is for the most part availble. It's just a matter of getting their faster than we can now. Do you know how many top secret aerospace propulsion technology is out there? I don't. But I'm sure as hell sure that we can get there.

[Tabiti]

There are some technologies, no doubt, but are you sure even about Moon landing in 1969?

[Daos]

I can envision humans terraforming Mars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars), but I doubt I will live to see it...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/MarsTransitionV.jpg

[Liffrea]

No, not at present anyway.

There are a lot of claims that technologically it is feasible right now but personally I think this is ludicrously optimistic, besides NASA, the only agency likely to go to Mars in the next thirty or so years if anyone does, does not now have the technological capability to leave earth orbit (it has downgraded considerably since the last Apollo mission in 1972). At present we don’t have the capacity to send men to Mars, it’s not just funding there are real technological barriers at present as well. An astronaut on Mars would have to survive 18 months……Apollo astronauts on the Moon survived three days maximum, at present that’s an impossible length of time, though it will probably be worked around soon.

As for colonisation, Mars does have an atmosphere that affords some protection but humans would need to live in self contained habitats, which need to produce oxygen and also provide water, potentially this could come from Mars itself (water ice at the poles) then be recycled from then on. At present we simply don’t understand enough about the effects of extra-terrestrial radiation on the human body nor do we know what effects Martian gravity would have, presumably habitats would have to operate as close to earth standard as possible. There is also the issue of self sufficiency, again we don’t know enough at present.

Finally, point? It’s highly unlikely any state will front the bill for a Mars colony, it’s highly unlikely NASA alone will fund a Mars mission, they will likely either co-operate with other agencies and/or take on private sponsors. Space has to pay to be worth while and any corporation is likely to be more interested in a Moon colony (far more feasible) and the resources that the Moon has are more extractable. One possibility is that Mars could develop as a way point between mines operating in the asteroid belt and earth; perhaps a viable colony could grow from that.

Technology, will and, above all, funding are needed and, sad to say, humans have back tracked from space considerably, I don’t expect to see any real moves towards Mars for sometime, at best I would hope to see a lunar base somewhere before 2100, but I think man’s rise into the solar system will be a long drawn out affair, that’s if we decide to bother.

[antonio]

The technology is for the most part availble. It's just a matter of getting their faster than we can now. Do you know how many top secret aerospace propulsion technology is out there? I don't. But I'm sure as hell sure that we can get there.

If primary aerospatial target is speed (a misguided one at this time IMHO). colonizing Mars would be simply a waste of money: in my opinion colonizers must quietly accept the current-tech 2 or 3 years journey to Mars. Hence, I say again: long-time prisoners would be first choice candidates. And staring further...wouldn't it be nice a psycopathic bizarre colonization of galaxies whilst we, good people, stay here with our ancient traditions and way of living?

[antonio]

At present we simply don’t understand enough about the effects of extra-terrestrial radiation on the human body nor do we know what effects Martian gravity would have

Extra-terrestrial radiation is not a problem, because, even on assuming a deep unhealthy effect of them, I dont think barrier functionality of terrestrial atmosphere agains them would be difficult to emulate.

As Mars is lighter than Earth, I guess gravity it will not constitute as important problem as if opposite was true.

For me, it's simply a question of Human resource disponibility, assuming a heavy engenerial work to cut costs till the threshold of security.

[antonio]

There are some technologies, no doubt, but are you sure even about Moon landing in 1969?

It would be nice a scenario of World scientific class supporting such a delusion for decades, but, frankly, persistently maintaining such a lie and making it passed as truth, would be more costly than effectively send men to the Moon. It's like me trying to pretend finishing degree at time while I really taken three times more. :D

[Svipdag]

Yes, it is possible. It would require improvements in and expansion of space technology far beyond what can be accomplished now, but there is nothing inherently unfeasible involved.

Initially, the colonists would have to live in air-tight, pressurised, interconnected buildings which would be supplied with oxygen and cleared of carbon dioxide by vegetation grown hydroponically in large greenhouses.

Though Mars is about 1.5 times as far from the Sun and , therefore, receives about 44% as much solar energy as Earth, improved efficiency of conversion of solar energy to electricity which is already in progress, should provide sufficient energy for the bases after they have been built.

Mars may have enough internal heat to make use of geothermal [actually "Areothermal"] power practical also. However, the energy required for the construction of the bases may require the use of nuclear energy.

The bases are, of course only a first step. The domed cities, so popular with science fiction writers, would be the next. Though vastly more expensive and difficult to build, they would provide a much more natural and Earth-like environment in which to live and would be much more attractive to colonists.

The last and grandest step would be terraforming: converting Mars into another, though drier, Earth. This process would require centuries to achieve.
Mars has water, as ice, below the surface. There may also be "juvenile" magmatic water at attainable depths. Part of the water would have to be electrolysed to obtain oxygen for the atmosphere.

It is not necessary for the pressure of the terraformed Martian atmosphere , currently 9 millibars, to be increased to the terrestrial value of 1013 millibars.
It is ony necessary that the partial pressure of oxygen in the Martian atmosphere be the same as it is on Earth, about 213 millibars.

Human lungs could probably function in an atmosphere having a pressure of
600 mb if about 36% of that atmosphere were oxygen, as compared to 21% of Earth's atmosphere. Mars probably has nitrogen and surely has argon which could make up the remaining 64%.

The first bases on Mars will probably be built in this century. The domed cities will not be feasible for two or three more centuries. Perhaps as early as 1000 years from now, Mars will have been terraformed.

[Svanhild]

I'm afraid it's possible but rather useless. Apropos, I've read that Terraforming makes no sense. If you heat up the atmosphere of Mars the molecules increase their movement and become evanescent. Some scientists say that Mars can only hold his tiny atmosphere by reason of the lower temperature. If you heat Mars up to make it warmer he'll lose his tiny atmosphere as time goes by.

Why don't go for Titan, the largest moon of our solar system with a rather thick atmosphere? :wink Some experts say Titan resembles the early Earth in a frozen form. Due to the distance from sun.

http://www.saturnmonde.de/images/titan_27102004_2.jpg

[poiuytrewq0987]

I'm afraid it's possible but rather useless. And I've reads that Terraforming makes no sense. If you heat up the atmosphere of Mars the molecules increase their movement and become evanescent. Some scientists say that Mars can only hold his tiny atmosphere because of the lower temperature. If you heat Mars up to make it warmer he'll lose his tiny atmosphere as time goes by.

Why don't go for Titan, the largest moon of our solar system with a rather thick atmosphere? :wink

http://www.saturnmonde.de/images/titan_27102004_2.jpg

Either we do that or we could send a ship to a different solar system and perhaps find another earth-like planet and colonize it? :D

[Svanhild]

Either we do that or we could send a ship to a different solar system and perhaps find another earth-like planet and colonize it? :D
Rather impossible without lightning speed or almost lightning speed. You can't send a space ship for centuries or millenias trough space. The next solar system is 4,2 light years away, Alpha Centauri. A conventional space craft couldn't make it in one single lifespan. Or two lifespans. Or three lifespans...:cool: It's Science Fiction.

I'm afraid we only have our own solar system for the time being. There's enough to explore for further generations. Our home is here. The Earth.

[poiuytrewq0987]

Rather impossible without lightning speed or almost lightning speed. You can't send a space ship for centuries or millenias trough the space. The next solar system is 4,2 light years away, Alpha Centauri. A conventional space craft couldn't make it in one single lifespan. Or two lifespans. Or three lifespans. :cool:

Maybe when we colonize Mars we'll discover something big like this (http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Mass_relay). :eek::p


It's Science Fiction.In the realm of the undiscovered, it's fiction until we discover the technology that will get us there is the day it's no longer a fiction.


I'm afraid we only have our own solar system for the time being. There's enough to explore for further generations. Our home is here. The Earth.Indeedy.

[SwordoftheVistula]

There's a book called 'The Case For Mars' which lays out a plan to colonize Mars. With technology close to our existing technology, we could send modules containing a few astronauts with a small return vehicle. Once there, they could use existing elements on Mars to manufacture fuel for the return trip. Repeat process, sending more modules, and use these to establish a base which could eventually host settlers full time, and expand from there, eventually progressing to terraforming of some sort

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1a/Caseformars.jpg

[Svipdag]

There can be no doubt that both oxygen and the inert gas component of the Martian atmosphere, nitrogen &/or argon would be lost from the Martian atmosphere by diffusion. Nitrogen is retained and conserved by vegetation and oxygen is released by vegetation as a by-product of photosynthesis. The extent to which either of these processes would tend to offset loss by diffusion is hard to estimate.

However, the Martian atmosphere would surely require periodic, if not continuous replenishment. This was recognised by Edgar Rice Burroughs in his Martian stories, "A Princess of Mars", 1917, and many others. There would have to be "atmosphere plants" to maintain a breathable atmosphere. Oxygen would be replenished through the electrolysis of water.

Of course, on Mars, water is not an inexhaustible resource. It, too, would have to be replenished . Mars is close to the Asteroid Belt in which there are numerous bodies of water ice which could be nudged into collision courses with the Martian polar regions.

These bodies would have to be explored and analysed carefully to assure that they do not contain dangerous quantities of cyanogen or ammonia. It is not known whether there is free nitrogen or argon in the Asteroid Belt.

Argon is suitable for an inert component of the Martian atmosphere though it cannot be used by vegetation. Argon is almost surely present on and in the rocky bodies of the Asteroid Belt because it is a decay product of the radioactive isotope of potassium, K-40 .

Indeed, the possibility of using Mars as a base for spacecraft employed in deflecting the orbits of asteroids and comets which endanger life on Earth is a major reason to colonise Mars.

[Svarog]

I think the real question would be - is it important to colonize the Mars?!

Ye, ye resources etc etc

[Svipdag]

I just gave you a reason. Every year, Earth has close encounters with asteroids and other bodies which would do some damage if they were to strike our planet. At longer intervals, there are near misses by large bodies a collision with which would be a major disaster.

Mars could provide us with a distant early warning station for such potential collisions and could serve as a base for specialised spacecraft designed to deflect (perhaps by the use of giant lasers) such bodies out of orbits which intersect Earth's.

We cannot go on trusting to luck, and it is sheer luck that there has not been a significant impact event since the Tunguska event of 1906. If even that had taken place in a densely populated area, it would have been a major disaster comparable to ther nuclear bombing of Hiroshima.

[Nordish Persephone]

We do not need something like this right now. Its definitely not possible right now, if so there would be attempts to do so. Maybe in year 3000 it will be feasible. lol.

[SwordoftheVistula]

A scientist is claiming to have developed a rocket which could travel between Earth and Mars in just 39 days:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100226/sc_afp/usspacenasamars

A journey from Earth to Mars could soon take just 39 days -- cutting current travel time nearly six times -- according to a rocket scientist who has the ear of the US space agency.

Franklin Chang-Diaz, a former astronaut and a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), says reaching the Red Planet could be dramatically quicker using his high-tech VASIMR rocket, now on track for lift-off after decades of development.

The Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket -- to give its full name -- is quick becoming a centerpiece of NASA's future strategy as it looks to private firms to help meet the astronomical costs of space exploration.

NASA, still reeling from a political decision to cancel its Constellation program that would have returned a human to the moon by the end of the decade, has called on firms to provide new technology to power rovers or even future manned missions.

Hopes are now pinned on firms like Chang-Diaz's Texas-based Ad Astra Rocket Company.

"In the early days... NASA support for the project was rather minimal because the agency did not emphasize advanced technologies as much as it's doing now," Chang-Diaz told AFP.

NASA was focused instead on the series of Apollo missions that delivered men to the moon for the first, and so far last, times.

"They were mesmerized by the Apollo days and lived in the Apollo era for 40 years, and they just forgot developing something new," he said.

Chang-Diaz, 60, hopes that "something" is a non-chemical rocket that could speed a return to the moon and eventually allow for a manned trip to Mars -- long the Holy Grail for Apollonians.

His rocket would use electricity to transform a fuel -- likely hydrogen, helium or deuterium -- into plasma gas that is heated to 51.8 million degrees Fahrenheit (11 million degrees Celsius). The plasma gas is then channeled into tailpipes using magnetic fields to propel the spacecraft.

That would send a shuttle hurtling toward the moon or Mars at ever faster speeds up to an estimated 35 miles (55 kilometers) per second until the engines are reversed.

Chang-Diaz, a veteran of seven space missions, said this rapid acceleration could translate into a round trip voyage to Mars that would last as little as three years, including a forced stay of 18 months on the Red Planet, as astronauts await an opening to return to Earth.

The distance between the Earth and Mars varies between 35 and 250 million miles (55 million and 400 million kilometers) depending on their points of orbit.

And the use of ionized fuel could have the extra benefit of helping create a magnetic field around the spacecraft to protect against radiation.

Scaled-down models of the VASIMR craft have been built and tested in a vacuum, under a deal with NASA.

The next major step, according to Chang-Diaz, will be orbital deployment at the end of 2013 of a vessel using the 200-kilowatt prototype VASIMR engine, the VX-200.

Talks are underway with fellow space firms SpaceX and Orbital Science Corp to make that a reality.

Despite the hurdles ahead, Chang-Diaz sees the potential for a vast market for his technology -- maintaining and repairing fixing satellites or launching robotic and commercial missions to Mars.

His rocket may just launch NASA's brave new, commercial, world of space exploration.

[Germanicus]

A scientist is claiming to have developed a rocket which could travel between Earth and Mars in just 39 days:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100226/sc_afp/usspacenasamars

A journey from Earth to Mars could soon take just 39 days -- cutting current travel time nearly six times -- according to a rocket scientist who has the ear of the US space agency.

Franklin Chang-Diaz, a former astronaut and a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), says reaching the Red Planet could be dramatically quicker using his high-tech VASIMR rocket, now on track for lift-off after decades of development.

The Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket -- to give its full name -- is quick becoming a centerpiece of NASA's future strategy as it looks to private firms to help meet the astronomical costs of space exploration.

NASA, still reeling from a political decision to cancel its Constellation program that would have returned a human to the moon by the end of the decade, has called on firms to provide new technology to power rovers or even future manned missions.

Hopes are now pinned on firms like Chang-Diaz's Texas-based Ad Astra Rocket Company.

"In the early days... NASA support for the project was rather minimal because the agency did not emphasize advanced technologies as much as it's doing now," Chang-Diaz told AFP.

NASA was focused instead on the series of Apollo missions that delivered men to the moon for the first, and so far last, times.

"They were mesmerized by the Apollo days and lived in the Apollo era for 40 years, and they just forgot developing something new," he said.

Chang-Diaz, 60, hopes that "something" is a non-chemical rocket that could speed a return to the moon and eventually allow for a manned trip to Mars -- long the Holy Grail for Apollonians.

His rocket would use electricity to transform a fuel -- likely hydrogen, helium or deuterium -- into plasma gas that is heated to 51.8 million degrees Fahrenheit (11 million degrees Celsius). The plasma gas is then channeled into tailpipes using magnetic fields to propel the spacecraft.

That would send a shuttle hurtling toward the moon or Mars at ever faster speeds up to an estimated 35 miles (55 kilometers) per second until the engines are reversed.

Chang-Diaz, a veteran of seven space missions, said this rapid acceleration could translate into a round trip voyage to Mars that would last as little as three years, including a forced stay of 18 months on the Red Planet, as astronauts await an opening to return to Earth.

The distance between the Earth and Mars varies between 35 and 250 million miles (55 million and 400 million kilometers) depending on their points of orbit.

And the use of ionized fuel could have the extra benefit of helping create a magnetic field around the spacecraft to protect against radiation.

Scaled-down models of the VASIMR craft have been built and tested in a vacuum, under a deal with NASA.

The next major step, according to Chang-Diaz, will be orbital deployment at the end of 2013 of a vessel using the 200-kilowatt prototype VASIMR engine, the VX-200.

Talks are underway with fellow space firms SpaceX and Orbital Science Corp to make that a reality.

Despite the hurdles ahead, Chang-Diaz sees the potential for a vast market for his technology -- maintaining and repairing fixing satellites or launching robotic and commercial missions to Mars.

His rocket may just launch NASA's brave new, commercial, world of space exploration.


Whoa.....I think you are putting the cart before the horse.:)

Like most things in life, flying to Mars looks easy on paper. But in reality, it is almost insanely risky, technologically fanciful (at least by 2009 standards) and of course horrendously expensive. Here at Cheap Astronomy, we like doing things on paper.

Planning a spaceflight is all about reducing weight and finding fuel efficiencies. One of the heaviest things you are going to have to lift off the Earth is your fuel, so you need to make your spacecraft as light as it can be and try and limit how much fuel you need for the trip – because you have to take it all with you. For every bit of extra fuel you think you’ll need, you’ll have to take extra fuel to lift that extra fuel – which means even more extra fuel and so on.

Some of the other heavy stuff you are going to need to get to Mars includes enough consumables, like oxygen, food and water, to last you for about two years. You’ll also need some kind of heaving shielding to protect you from the intense radiation out past Earth’s magnetosphere – including the surface of Mars itself.

You are almost certainly going to need a whole separate spacecraft as well, like the Apollo lunar module, so you can undock and land when you achieve Mars orbit – and take off again after you’ve had a bit of a walk around. Otherwise you would have to land all the consumables and the fuel needed for your return trip and launch them off the surface again when you have finished your Mars mission – which wouldn’t be very fuel efficient.

Apparently landing on Mars also carries its own complications. The atmosphere is too thin for aero-braking to have much effect on a big spacecraft carrying humans. This means you will have to slow your spacecraft down with retrofire. And guess what that means? Yep, you are going to have to carry more fuel, which means your spacecraft will have more mass and more momentum, so it will need even more fuel to slow itself down and land on the surface – and you already know this story.

Mars’ gravity is only 40% of Earth’s, but remember that the Moon’s gravity is only 17% of Earth’s. So your Mars module will need to be a lot bigger than the lunar module was – or at least its fuel tank will need to be.

In a nutshell, if you want to fly to Mars, start inventing now. As well as your light weight, but lead-shielded spacecraft – you will need to lift probably several oil tankers worth of fuel. And of course it will take more tankers of fuel just to get the first lot of tankers into orbit.

Of course instead of oil, we are talking large amounts of liquid hydrogen/oxygen and some hypergolics. Alternatively, we could just plan ahead in anticipation of someone discovering an incredibly light weight and ultra-efficient Inventi-fuel along with some lightweight-but-lead-dense Inventi-shields needed for the spacecraft. As long as all that happens, this whole thing will be a piece of cake.

Otherwise, it seems reasonable to assume that a mission to Mars will need to engage a workforce in the hundreds of thousands over a decade or more and during this intense period there may not be enough extra money or infrastructure around for people to fight wars and stuff – so yeah, all that is going to happen real soon.

But hey, apart from all those fiddly practicalities, the flight plan to Mars is a piece of cake. You just go up and turn right. We’ve done the go up thing plenty of times now. The smart thing is to launch your rocket from near the equator, which is moving much faster than any other part of the globe – and then let your rocket lean over to the east in flight, since the Earth is spinning towards the east so you get that bit of a leg up into orbit.

Once in a direct orbit (that is an orbit in the same direction the Earth is spinning) you can consider your next step – and the first thing to consider is that although you may be technically in orbit around the Earth – really both you and the Earth are in orbit around the Sun – and both moving at about 30 kilometres per second relative to the Sun.

If you can imagine looking down on the solar system from above the Earth’s north pole, then you would see the Earth rotating on its axis in an anti-clockwise direction – as well as orbiting the Sun in an anti-clockwise direction. Indeed all the planets will also be orbiting the Sun in an anti-clockwise direction. So from Earth you’ll need to turn right to go to Mars or turn left to go to Venus.

The most fuel efficient kind of interplanetary mission – at least to Mars or Venus – involves initiating a Hohmann interplanetary transfer orbit. This involves firing your rockets in one burst to put you on an elliptical trajectory that transfers you from one solar orbit to another. The trajectory is always going to be elliptical because you are still deep within the Sun’s gravity well. Firing your rockets in a quick burst will move you up or down the gravity well, but as soon as you stop firing, the curvature of space-time will determine your subsequent trajectory.

Anyway, when I say you turn right to go to Mars – all you really have to do is fire your rockets to propel you ahead of the direction the Earth is travelling around the Sun – meaning you are increasing your velocity relative to the Sun. This gets you that bit closer to the escape velocity from the Sun, so you move up the gravity well towards Mars’ orbit – that is, right. If you wanted to go to Venus you would actually have to do a retrofire, reducing your velocity relative to the Sun, making you move down the gravity well towards Venus’s orbit – that is, left.

But of course there’s more to this than just getting to Mars’ orbit. If Mars’ orbit is at the far end of your elliptical trajectory you are going to have to fire your rockets again to stay there, otherwise you will just keeping following your ellipse and fall back towards Earth’s orbit again. Also, you really want to time this whole manoeuvre so that you arrive at Mars orbit just as Mars is passing by. Then all you have to do is get captured in its gravity well and commence your landing.

With today’s rocket technologies and the whole fuel-equals-weight-equals-more-fuel issue it turns out that the most fuel-efficient Hohmann orbit from Earth to Mars will take you about 259 days – or about 9 months. And of course there’s a limited launch window to ensure that when you leave Earth and follow your 9 month Hohmann orbit Mars is there waiting for you when you arrive. This timing is actually determined by the aptly named porkchop plot – try Wikipedia for more information there. The plot demonstrates that a launch window from Earth to Mars is available every 25 and a half months. This opportunity just passed us by in late 2009 – and we’ll have to wait until February 2012 for another shot – but somehow I don’t think we’re going to be ready.

So look, I know everyone’s keen to go to Mars, but just in case all of humanity gets wiped out in the next asteroid impact – how about we build that planetary defence system people have been talking about first. Maybe clean up the atmosphere a bit too? Then we’ve got plenty of time on our hands to plan the trip properly – not to mentioning inventing all that stuff we’ll need to make it happen.

[RoyBatty]

sounds like some kind of ion engine? nothing new there those things have been around for a long time

[Germanicus]

sounds like some kind of ion engine? nothing new there those things have been around for a long time


The engine sounds good, but i have read somewhere that a spacecraft would need 4 metres of lead shielding around it to be protected from solar radiation?

[SwordoftheVistula]

A couple things I have heard mentioned in regards to the fuel situation:

Launch from a spacestation which orbits the earth. This cuts down on the fuel needed to escape from Earth.

Manufacture fuel for the return trip on Mars using elements found there.

[SwordoftheVistula]

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/2010/07/marsgarden.jpg

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/08/mars-farming/

Mars explorers could use complicated mechanical systems to produce oxygen and filter waste, and eat food carried from Earth. Or they could just save a lot of hassle and plant crops.

A model of Martian gravity’s effects on water flow, nutrient dynamics and root-feeding microbes suggests it’s possible to farm in the Red Planet’s soil.
“In terms of biogeochemistry and in interms of hydraulics, I’m pretty confident it could work,” said Federico Maggi, a University of Sydney biogeochemist who conducted the simulation.

Growing plants in soil on Mars might seem old-fashioned for those raised on the futuristic prospect of hydroponic or aeroponic agriculture, in which crops sprout soil-free nutrient broths or mists.

But in recent years, starry-eyed biologists have come to appreciate the importance of soil-dwelling microbes to plant roots and soil processes. Moreover, soil-based agriculture is backed by thousands of years of human-based research and development, and millions of years of natural evolution.

“Mechanical systems are very reliable over short-term expeditions,” said Maggi. “But soil can control itself. In terms of operation error, it’s more reliable. Plants provide more benefits in terms of energy and health. And real soil performs operations that other systems cannot.”

However, there are many unknowns about extraterrestrial agricultural biology. Among the most important is how low gravity will affect the flow of water and nutrients, and in turn microbes. Once water and nutrients get into the plants, capillary action will take care of the rest. But getting them there is the key.

“If there’s low gravity, water will not flow down so quick. The transport of nutrients would also be slower. If transport of nutrients towards root microorganisms is not fast enough, it will suffocate them,” said Maggi.

In a July Advances in Space Research study, Maggi and University of California, Berkeley biogeophysicist Céline Pallud simulated both Mars- and Earth-gravity root processes using BIOTOUGHREACT, a well-regarded model of soil nutrient transport and microbe dynamics developed at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

The simulation suggests that slower water transport is actually a good thing, preventing water from falling through the soil and being lost, along with the nitrogen it absorbs on the way.

At Mars gravity — about one-third of Earth’s — up to 90 percent less water would be needed than in a terrestrial greenhouse, said the researchers. Much less nitrogen would also be needed.

“You don’t have a leaching of nutrients. The nutrients you put into the soil, remain in the soil. You don’t lose them,” said Maggi. The simulated bacteria thrived on all this extra food, reaching densities between five and 10 times the usual.

According to University of Florida agricultural engineer Ray Bucklin, an advisor to the Mars Foundation and author of several NASA reports on Mars greenhouse design, the nitrogen savings could be especially important.

“Mars is nitrogen-depleted,” and any fertilizer would need to come from Earth, he said. “And in terms of the soil microbes, they would be in a pretty beneficial situation.”

Bucklin warned that the real-world water savings would likely be much less than 90 percent. “Water movement through a plant has several other things that influence it besides what happens in the soil,” he said. At low gravity and low atmospheric pressure, “water movement through the plant would be accelerated.”

But Bucklin still said the study “is interesting and needed to be done.”

According to NASA plant physiologist Raymond Wheeler, most extraterrestrial crop researchers have used hydroponics or artificial soil, “which simplify their testing and allow easy recycling of water and nutrients.” But real soils “might have certain advantages,” including better waste degradation and a built-in buffer against water shortages or equipment malfunction.

Maggi plans to perform more simulations on how other important plant nutrients, such as potassium and iron, will behave.

Of course, the ultimate tests will come on Mars itself, and NASA’s budget problems have put a damper on such dreams. But even if NASA has problems, other programs — especially the European Space Agency — intend to have people on Mars by mid-century. Private enterprise could also sponsor the voyage.

“We already have the engineering to put a base on Mars,” said Bucklin. “If Bill Gates wanted to blow his whole fortune, he could do it right now.”