Thread: One way ticket to Mars, by 2023.

You should all follow my lead, trust me it makes reading the board a lot more enjoyable without post after post of poinltess, boring, inane drivel from someone just looking to fill up his day by finding someone to argue with.

This message is hidden because Creepy, oddball stalker is on your ignore list.

Originally Posted by Chairman Mao

Andy ruining yet another thread.

Great.

the thread was shit already, so don't panic

you will miss me when I am gone

^Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out...

do you think that the Teakdoor is a real one, BatBoy?

Originally Posted by BaitongBoy

^Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out...

I take it he hasn't gone yet as getting this message above and below your post.

This message is hidden because Creepy, oddball stalker is on your ignore list.

^Wishful thinking only...maybe he will flounce to Mars...

How many people do you figure they will need to provide all the necessary maintenance and research? I mean in such a hostile environment maintenance is paramount. So you have how many people doing visual checks daily or hourly on the structure? Then there are the hourly checks to insure the instruments are accurate.

Three eight hour shifts. How many people will that take? And how much space and supplies will they require? What are they going to do about food? Splash Tabasco sauce on their recycled turds? Grow algae? How will they keep the water liquified?

What's the source of energy? Solar backed up by batteries?

Talk about radiation, Mars has no solid metal core surrounded by a liquid metal core. There is no magnetic filed to protect against cosmic rays.

They claim to be ready to settle the surface in 11 years? I guess they could. How much of the USA's GDP will be required?

Originally Posted by attaboy

How many people do you figure they will need to provide all the necessary maintenance and research? I mean in such a hostile environment maintenance is paramount. So you have how many people doing visual checks daily or hourly on the structure?

It's not that bad. The two mars rovers Opportunity and Spirit are active since 2005 and they had been designed for 3 months operational time.

The atmosphere is almost too thin to be hostile or corrosive.

Due to the bigger distance solar radiation is less than half than near earth. The atmosphere even though thin does provide some protection. But for long term settlement some shielding like underground habitats would be necessary.

But in general I agree totally with you. It would require a huge effort to maintain a permanent settlement on Mars. Some kind of BigBrother Mars will not provide the funding.

The atmosphere is almost too thin to be hostile or corrosive.

I mean hostile to our life form. The slightest crack in a structure can lead to death.
What about wind and rocks, dirt and dust? Then there is the wear and tear that humans generate.

From what I've read there are massive dust storms on Mars which can last for months. This can effect energy production, clog machinery, cause temperatures to plummet.

Designing equipment to withstand the extreme elements is expensive unless there is an adequate replacement inventory on hand.

Planning a settlement which can withstand a shutdown of its energy source for months will require more need for storage.

Even if this is handled via technology. There is the need to maintain the technology so the human workforce grows.

If they do get up there I think they should change the name to Snickers.

I don't see a problem. I watched this documentary the other day:

Terraforming is the way to go.

Like in 'Serenity'.

They better take a lot of water.

Mars may have enough water.

I'd be a bit worried about having enough heterosexuals in the starter mix.

Originally Posted by ENT

At that age when hormone production reverses, males and females often turn gay.

Originally Posted by ENT

The sexual re-orientation bit is usually a big secret for a few years, first, but it happens quite a lot!

nutter or troll.

Are you trying to keep a big secret from us all, Swilly?

Didn't you even notice your tits?

As I said before, I don't disagree. Your points are valid and I don't think it is viable to maintain a permanent settlement on mars. Unless there would be a need so dire that mankind as a whole is willing to spend a very large share of our resources for the purpose. I am only discussing the details.

Originally Posted by attaboy

I mean hostile to our life form. The slightest crack in a structure can lead to death.
What about wind and rocks, dirt and dust?

Correct, in that way you can consider it as a vacuum. As someone put it: almost too thin to be considered poisonous. But building a vacuum tight habitat is not too difficult. The atmospere is thick enough to provide protection from small meteorites and too thin to carry anything but the finest dust, so no threat.

Originally Posted by attaboy

Then there is the wear and tear that humans generate.

Agree and all replacement would need to be brought in from earth. You would need a population of 10s of thousands of people to even start any kind of broad based industry even if you find the raw materials.

Originally Posted by attaboy

From what I've read there are massive dust storms on Mars which can last for months. This can effect energy production, clog machinery, cause temperatures to plummet.

There are and they cause problems to the Mars rovers. Their energy supply is sometimes severely reduced until another storm blows the dust away. That would need to be handled by a kind of cleaning system.

That is why the new rover Curiosity is using a plutonium battery instead of solar panels. The plutonium also provides heat to keep the temperature up. But this kind of energy source would be inadequate for human settlements.

It would have to be solar arrays or a nuclear reactor, probably a reactor that can operate a few decades. Or rather two or three for backup.

Solar panels don't last like on earth as the solar radiation wears them quite fast so they need replacement from earth. Probably nuclear is the way to go.

Originally Posted by attaboy

Designing equipment to withstand the extreme elements is expensive unless there is an adequate replacement inventory on hand.

One of the smaller problems. The mars rovers prove that long term viable systems can be designed and built. The cost of designing and building is small compared with the cost of getting it to mars. And as replacement cannot be built on Mars they need to be shipped from earth. Only repairs can be made on mars using spare parts brought from earth.

Originally Posted by attaboy

Planning a settlement which can withstand a shutdown of its energy source for months will require more need for storage.

Another argument in favor of nuclear. Besides nuclear would provide a constant source for heating, which is very much needed.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Terraforming is the way to go.
Like in 'Serenity'.

In Science Fiction. I love Science fiction.


BTW, less than two month now until Curiosity arrives on mars. They use a new way of landing it. A kind of sky crane will hover on rocket thrust over the landing area and wind down Curiosity on ropes. Many are wondering if that will work.

Originally Posted by DrAndy

you will miss me when I am gone

Fuck off then and we will see.