Mars One - One way commercial trip to Mars

[chamaeleo]

Just to off topic for a minute what you just said is why global warming is a difficult theory for me to believe. When the planet heats up more CO2 is released. As opposed to the assumption that we're making the CO2 which makes the temperature goes up. Plus tying it in, Mars shows similar polar melting in sync with the Earth.

That's called a positive feedback loop. Quite common in dynamic systems such as global climate: more CO2 leads to more atmospheric thermal E, which leads to more CO2 release, and so on. Fortunately there's a hundred other contemporaneous processes that you've probably never considered, which eliminate the runaway generation of CO2...photosynthesis leading to sequestration, increased cloudcover creating higher albedo and more reflection of solar rays, increased atmospheric carbonic acid reacting with carbonate rocks, and so on.

1. Fair enough.

You're both forgetting that Martian gravity is but 1/3 that of Earth.

2. The atmosphere does not prevent the radiation by and large, that would be the magnetosphere.

Please explain, then, CO2's role in regulating atmospheric temperature...

It's no wonder you don't 'buy' climate change. You clearly don't even understand the basic mechanisms.

3. I think that's one of the claims that would need hard mathematics, not gut instincts. C02 isn't terribly heavier than O2.

Not even hard math can anticipate the behavior of a spontaneously generated atmosphere on a relatively small, low-G, tectonically dormant planet, orbiting at ~1.5 AU's, with two moons and a barren landscape. Bring back a hydrologic cycle under these conditions, and all theory goes out the window.

We could build significant structures under ground which would shield from radiation and hold a more manageable sustainable atmosphere. There's no evidence that there is still tectonics going on that I know of, so we can probably assume it will be safe to build submartian structures (it's going to be painful replacing "terranean" with "martian".)

According to some theories, Mars should have large untapped hydrocarbon reserves for the settlers. Apparently they aren't limited to the Carboniferous and biology, they'll form from carbon deposits in the mantle.

S-waves, the most damaging manifestations of earthquake E release, travel along surfaces. Exactly like waves traveling across the surface of a lake:


The safest place to be during an earthquake is underground.

And carbon deposits in the mantle...good luck with that. We should just send Dr Evil ahead to establish the base!

[MathiasOfAthens]

There are ways to produce water from hydrogen, so if Mars has large reserves of hydrocarbon then we hit the ing gold mine.

Or there is this:

Importing hydrogen

Hydrogen could be imported for atmosphere and hydrosphere engineering.[10] For example, hydrogen could react with iron(III) oxide from the Martian soil, which would give water as a product:
H2 + Fe2O3 => H2O + 2FeO
Depending on the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, importation and reaction of hydrogen would produce heat, water and graphite via the Bosch reaction. Alternatively, reacting hydrogen with the carbon dioxide atmosphere via the Sabatier reaction would yield methane and water.

Importing hydrocarbons

Another way would be to import methane or other hydrocarbons,[8][9] which are common in Titan's atmosphere (and on its surface). The methane could be vented into the atmosphere where it would act to compound the greenhouse effect.
Methane (or other hydrocarbons) could be helpful to increase atmospheric pressure. These gases also can be used to produce water and CO2 for the Martian atmosphere:
CH4 + 4 Fe2O3 => CO2 + 2 H2O + 8 FeO
This reaction could probably be initiated by heat or by Martian solar UV irradiation. Large amounts of the resulting products (CO2 and water) are necessary for photosynthesis, which would be the next step in terraforming.

[chamaeleo]

I still think that asteroids should be exploited first: higher concentration of valuable materials, no gravity well, and mined out volume can become living space. Grok?

[Sphere]

S-waves, the most damaging manifestations of earthquake E release, travel along surfaces. Exactly like waves traveling across the surface of a lake:


The safest place to be during an earthquake is underground.

And carbon deposits in the mantle...good luck with that. We should just send Dr Evil ahead to establish the base!

Meh,

You cannot talk about earthquake damage without talking about the natural frequencies of the structure, and the frequencies of ground motion produced by the Earthquake.

The ground motion alone is pretty useless. Indeed, for most earthquakes we experience, the safest place to be would be in a skyscrapper. Something like the Sears Tower has a first natural frequency of .14 Hz while typical earthquake ground motion has frequencies above 1Hz. High enough up in the building you probably wouldn't even experience motion.

[Nizam89]

This entire project is a joke: Seriously they need the right propulsion first before they even think of sending humans on mars.
Traditional chemical propulsion isn't the best choice because it will take 2,5 years a journey to mars therefore a higher cancer risk. Only the VASIMR project of Nasa is a promising one but this is still under development. Mars One is either a joke or a suicidal mission.

[MathiasOfAthens]

The Mars Project is basically a group that wants to colonize mars. Whether its now with primitive tech or in the future with better technology I dont think they care very much.

And it takes 7 months to get to mars, but 2 years to send new immigrants.

[Nizam89]

I think they can't achieve this goal in 2023. It's too early for such an undertaking but I might be wrong.

I mean they really need to reconsider many things not only technological improvements to get there but also logistics, medical care, psychological issues and the greatest threat of all radiation. And a private company will fix that?

[Condottiere 40K]

In theory, we could send the disenfranchised over to establish colonies, promising them freedom of expression and escape from bureaucratic tyranny. Problem is the expense per person involved, assuming that the technology developed sufficiently to make it a going concern.

[Col. Tartleton]

That's called a positive feedback loop. Quite common in dynamic systems such as global climate: more CO2 leads to more atmospheric thermal E, which leads to more CO2 release, and so on. Fortunately there's a hundred other contemporaneous processes that you've probably never considered, which eliminate the runaway generation of CO2...photosynthesis leading to sequestration, increased cloudcover creating higher albedo and more reflection of solar rays, increased atmospheric carbonic acid reacting with carbonate rocks, and so on.

Or it could just be that when the sun gets a little hotter the earth gets a little hotter and introducing more energy into the system increases the biological and abiological sources of CO2... You know, like animals, and plant decay, and the ocean...

You're basically trying to argue that a correlation is a causation because you say so when there's simple and better evidence that X -> Y not Y-> X. I think the fact that CO2 levels follow (centuries mind you) temperature increases, that we're screwing this up. The heightened CO2 now is probably from the Medieval Warm Period... about 800 years ago. The fact the CO2 began to rise around the same time as the Industrial revolution is coincidental. If the warming was 1000 years ago and it's 800 years of lag, the symptoms should show up about 200 years ago. Which is what is happening.



You're getting worried about the future when you're really looking at something from the past.

You're both forgetting that Martian gravity is but 1/3 that of Earth.

I'm not forgetting that. I'm just agreeing that the atmosphere we produce wouldn't get blown away overnight. I think billions of years is too high an estimate, but it's something lengthy.

Please explain, then, CO2's role in regulating atmospheric temperature...

It's no wonder you don't 'buy' climate change. You clearly don't even understand the basic mechanisms.

I'd honestly rather you explained it because I'm sure I don't understand it. I mean I was told the middle school "CO2 traps heat" "greenhouse effect" stuff, but I'm not exactly sure how that works from a physics or chemistry perspective. I don't think it ever came up.

I'm of the understanding that greenhouses use glass to let heat in as radiation, but form a barrier trapping the heat in the air inside. Basically radiation enters at a faster rate than it can escape leading to a net build up in temperature as the air inside becomes more excited. I would assume that somehow carbon dioxide does the same thing if they're calling it a greenhouse effect, but I don't really know.

You implied that the atmosphere (I assume based on it's composition) is going to reflect certain radiation and yet also trap other radiation. That seems logical enough assuming the gas has similar properties to glass. Some radiation obviously reflects off glass, which is why we can get a glare off glass or have sunglasses that stop UV rays while we can also see through it. If I'm not mistaken glass is a liquid, so I would imagine it's going to be closer to gasses than solids would be.

Not even hard math can anticipate the behavior of a spontaneously generated atmosphere on a relatively small, low-G, tectonically dormant planet, orbiting at ~1.5 AU's, with two moons and a barren landscape. Bring back a hydrologic cycle under these conditions, and all theory goes out the window.

I couldn't predict the rate of removal by solar wind of carbon gas? Besides his argument was that it's too heavy. It's not like it's Radon gas, and it wouldn't have as much gravity.

S-waves, the most damaging manifestations of earthquake E release, travel along surfaces. Exactly like waves traveling across the surface of a lake:


The safest place to be during an earthquake is underground.

I thought the safest place to be was in a building designed to flex, not a building underground? At the very least it should be pretty equal.The danger is pretty much from rigid structures collapsing or gas lines breaking. I mean it's not like an earthquake is going to harm you on a salt flat. Even if it's an absolute monster you'd just get knocked on your ass and ride it out like a man.

And carbon deposits in the mantle...good luck with that. We should just send Dr Evil ahead to establish the base!

Well on earth for example, they should be forced up into the crust by pressures. But on Mars the tectonics is different.

[Nikitn]

Just to off topic for a minute what you just said is why global warming is a difficult theory for me to believe. When the planet heats up more CO2 is released. As opposed to the assumption that we're making the CO2 which makes the temperature goes up. Plus tying it in, Mars shows similar polar melting in sync with the Earth.

1. Fair enough.
2. The atmosphere does not prevent the radiation by and large, that would be the magnetosphere.
3. I think that's one of the claims that would need hard mathematics, not gut instincts. C02 isn't terribly heavier than O2.

We could build significant structures under ground which would shield from radiation and hold a more manageable sustainable atmosphere. There's no evidence that there is still tectonics going on that I know of, so we can probably assume it will be safe to build submartian structures (it's going to be painful replacing "terranean" with "martian".)

According to some theories, Mars should have large untapped hydrocarbon reserves for the settlers. Apparently they aren't limited to the Carboniferous and biology, they'll form from carbon deposits in the mantle.

Oh please, CO2 is a drive-house gas. The more CO2 released, the faster the atmosphere will heat up.

2. That's because the magnetosphere is the first line of defence. Ie it gets the first shot at capturing them molecules. Besides, for a surface-pressure of 100kPa Mars would have a relatively high atmospheric pressure higher up compared to Earth (the scale-height of the Martian atmosphere is much higher due to the low gravity). This means that a Martian atmosphere of 100kPa will protect it much better against radiation than a Terran atmosphere of 100kPa, due to solar radiation simply needing to pass thru more particles.
3. Well, it doesn't matter anyway. Mars retained an atmosphere for a very long time, so by the time all the N2 or O2 or even CO2 escapes, humanity will be long gone.

You implied that the atmosphere (I assume based on it's composition) is going to reflect certain radiation and yet also trap other radiation. That seems logical enough assuming the gas has similar properties to glass. Some radiation obviously reflects off glass, which is why we can get a glare off glass or have sunglasses that stop UV rays while we can also see through it. If I'm not mistaken glass is a liquid, so I would imagine it's going to be closer to gasses than solids would be.

ehh, no.

[Sphere]

. I mean it's not like an earthquake is going to harm you on a salt flat. Even if it's an absolute monster you'd just get knocked on your ass and ride it out like a man.

Sounds like Burning Man.

[chamaeleo]

Meh,

the natural frequencies of the structure, and the frequencies of ground motion produced by the Earthquake.

The ground motion alone is pretty useless. Indeed, for most earthquakes we experience, the safest place to be would be in a skyscrapper. Something like the Sears Tower has a first natural frequency of .14 Hz while typical earthquake ground motion has frequencies above 1Hz. High enough up in the building you probably wouldn't even experience motion.

Skyscrapper...does not sound like anywhere I'd want to be during an earthquake!

You cannot talk about earthquake damage without talking about magnitude, building height, materials and event duration, either. The fact is: we can mitigate through engineering BMPs, but if you are standing beneath the plane across which the surface waves are traveling, there is no need for engineering safeguards. It's the difference between blocking a throw, and ducking.

Concerning frequency: I remember from my EQ Geology grad seminar, discussing a fairly recent EQ in Taiwan which completely leveled a disproportionately high number of 7 story buildings, leaving adjacent buildings of all other story-counts relatively intact. Sympathetic vibrations set up a harmonic oscillation in structures of just the right (wrong) height. The take-home from the talk was that even following all the right mitigative techniques, there's no telling when nature will throw the right mix of resonance patterns at you, possibly causing even the Sears Tower to shimmy like Elvis on speed. Especially if the city is built on seds within a hardrock basin, cuz waves do like to bounce around, reflect, negating and amplifying each other, creating localized pockets of both extreme destruction and fortuitous calm.

Col T:
You're confused. At no point did I say x -> y or vice versa, it has always been :
x <-> y

It's an equilibrium equation.

And given that CO2's atmospheric residence time ranges btwn 5 ~ 200yrs, averages at 92 yrs, and drops off in a somewhat log-decay fashion, it's pretty ludicrous for you to say that a warm period 800 yrs ago is just beginning to generate CO2.

I'd honestly rather you explained it because I'm sure I don't understand it.

Sorry, pretty busy at ATM...the short version:

1. CO2 absorbs and emits IR radiation.
2. atmospheric CO2 levels are higher today than any other moment in the last 800k - 20m years.
3. The Earth has been buffering its atmospheric CO2 concentration across millions of years, in part by sequestering billions of tons of C. We've burned a pretty significant mass in not even 200 yrs. I'm dumbfounded why anyone would expect this to not have any impact whatsoever.

I couldn't predict the rate of removal by solar wind of carbon gas? Besides his argument was that it's too heavy. It's not like it's Radon gas, and it wouldn't have as much gravity.

You could certainly try, but you apparently don't even understand the Terrestrial models! You're right, though: solar winds would prolly scrub that puppy pretty quick.

[Nizam89]

Holy crap! They are really into it.

http://www.space.com/17360-private-m...-sponsors.html

[Legionary Jezza]

First chance they look for applicants, I'm going to apply.

[Lord Baal]

Ditto. I don't really care if I die on the trip. THIS is exactly the kind of things mankind should be pursuing with flagrant intensity, instead of siting all day in front of a tv to see how a bunch of promiscuous steroid/silicon filled jerks with the intelligence of 5 years olds fight and .

[Nutsack]

Man the fact that they make it a reality show is messed up, but if that's what a private company wants to do then let them. I am just curious about what happens to the astronauts once the reality show buzz dies down and nobody wants to watch the show anymore - will they simply be forgotten and spend the rest of their lives lonely on mars? They are basically never going to return, and that's ed up in my opinion.

[Legionary Jezza]

I think the tv side is to help finance it, could be wrong though.

[Ramashan]

I'd imagine that once people are there someone's going to begin thinking about how to get them back. Just a matter of sending the necessary material there for them to use. Not saying it's easy, just not impossible. The only issue would be how many they could get back if they try to build a large colony.

I believe a recent probe, the one that took soil samples and landed after Spirit and Opportunity, returned data that showed that some plants could grow in the martian soil. Stuff like Brussel Sprouts and such, could be wrong. But, if that is the case, a long term colony 'could' be feasible and independent with the proper habitat.

I personally have no problem attempting to terraform the place. But, you know, once done people breath in some ancient microbe and BAM! Zombie planet.

[SuperTechmarine]

Thats the point 6644kp: http://mars-one.com/en/mission/is-this-really-possible

Astronauts or should we say Marnauts? IDK... will Emigrate to Mars for an indefinite amount of time to settle on Mars for good.





That would be a hard thing to sell to most people. To settle on a rock for good. To basically live a Spartan existence for at least 20 years? Maybe your be allowed to bring a book and a laptop... but space will be critical on the journey there. And the fact that the atmosphere on mars is in no way similar to the moon it will be nearly impossible to provide a return journey.



But the plan does say residence does not have to be permanent... just that for the first few crews there it will be. No return journey is planned until components can be sent.

The one thing I didnt understand was food and the point?

Will they be able to build a greenhouse to grow food? What about meat? Will animals be sent over later? You cant really ship over a cow... or provide the land needed to raise them. So meat will have to be sent over frozen in space in yearly supply trips.

Another thing, besides research is the point of this. Will there be some sort of mining on the planet? Prob nothing worth mining and shipping home.

But one interesting thing mentioned in the link above is the reality tv program. I can see the owners making a lot of money from a reality tv show. A LOT OF ING MONEY. Who would not want to air this show on national television broadcasting the adventures of mars settlers. It would be bigger than New Jersey Shore. Hopefully it would be big enough to fund this mission. But prob not.

I think they should invest heavier in an actual ship to send to Mars. If the crew will spend 7 months in a ship there it better at least be a freaking cargo vessel... I mean most people would go insane in a small environment for 7 months. Thats the biggest fail I see in this. If the ship is too small it will be a journey to live through.

I would like to see them build a rectangular ship full of supplies and and large enough for the crew to at least live a comfortable 7 months in 0 gravity.

Was thinking about that actually.

We could send a HUUUUUUUUUGE Ship full food supplies, everything needed to for daily life, they could bring along their relatives friends, etc. In less than a century, blam, We colonized Mars.

Ditto. I don't really care if I die on the trip. THIS is exactly the kind of things mankind should be pursuing with flagrant intensity, instead of siting all day in front of a tv to see how a bunch of promiscuous steroid/silicon filled jerks with the intelligence of 5 years olds fight and .

Same here, this is what Humanity should be striving for. Earth is dying. But the governemants, in their greed and arrogance ,instead of funding the project, decide, "Its not worth it."

[Lord Baal]

Nutsack I don't think this would become a reality show (most of them actually are heavily scripted btw). This is scientific and exploration endeavor that could mean a new age for mankind. Imagine for the first time we are not tied down to the fate of earth? Not so much as earth is dying, but we are definitively messing a lot with it. Establishing a colony there could be the incentive to improve technologies ranging from materials, propulsion, electronics to things like storage and agriculture.

Imagine that in the long term we move most heavy industry and mining operations outside earth, where it doesn't really matter if we "destroy" the environment because is incompatible with our life anyway. This would allow earth to sustain even greater numbers of population without the need of destroying it. The only trouble is that in order of being able to move our industry from earth we need two things, better technologies and an infrastructure to make it economically viable. Both of those things go hand to hand. As long as we don't start trying to send people out here there will be no motivation to improve technologies, which in turn impair the ability to send people out there.

If we send people to mars to start a small colony at first there won't be much economic incentive, but in the long run there's a lot more at stake, as our survival as species for example... once we get people there, there would be a necessity of keeping them alive which would drive the necessity to improve current tech or develop new ones, which in turn would allow to more people to get there and so on until we end up with mars being a second home away from home. Once sufficient infrastructure is set up an industry can be developed and as this grows the colony stop being a spend and becomes a ingress.

I can only dream where we could be today if at least 10% of the money, energy and materials spend in stupid amenities around the planet where invested in a global space program and health care.

But nah, I better watch out which jerk the probably STD filled cardashians are ing with tonight, until a gigantic rock comes from the space and crush us all or a megalomaniac imbecile gets the power in a nuclear capable country. That way, when future generations ask why humanity is doom, the proud answer would be: "because celebrities where sooo important that is was totally worthy, besides the governments said that was not worthy and instead spend decades pointed fingers among themselves"