The Case for Mars

[Laika]

In these dispiriting times, it is occasionally healthy to look to the future and wonder what mankind could achieve. Our individual contributions to the great tapestry of human history may be large or small, but with the power of imagination, ambition and understanding we can maximise our impact within the brief span of our lifetimes upon this earth. There is nothing wrong with a little day dreaming if it gives us hope for the future and gives us a chance to remember that we have so much potential.

I have posted this video a few years ago, but I figured it might be overdue for another outing in the need for something uplifting and inspirational. It essentially covers much of the substance of Robert Zubrin's book "The Case for Mars" (published in 1996 and updated and revised for 2011). Zubrin was also the founder of the "Mars Society" in 1998. Although the daily headlines may overwhelm us with bad news, the potential for mankind to take a leap in to the stars is still there. Perhaps, it is more urgent than ever for us to gain some perspective on who we are, where we are going and what place we really have in the universe.

Should mankind go to Mars? Do you believe we will? Will it be within your life time? Would you want to be one of the first people to set foot on the Red planet? Would you move to Mars to help colonise it and begin a new future for humanity? Will we discover evidence of life or its fossilised remains on the martian surface?

Your thoughts and comments are welcome fellow martians.

 

[Terese]

Should mankind go to Mars? - Yes. Expanding humanity increases our survival of existing as a species.

Do you believe we will? - Yes.

Will it be within your lifetime? - It's likely, with Space X and Elon Musk's ambition to send people to Mars. I'm nearly 23. I could be alive in the next century. I (wish) expect it to be fully established by then.

Would you want to be one of the first people to set foot on the Red planet? - No. Mars is very hostile to life. I imagine it would be like living in a cabin of a ship except instead of water its no oxygen I'll hop on board when Mars is terraformed. Won't be in my lifetime though. *sad sci-fi noises*

Would you move to Mars to help colonise it and begin a new future for humanity? - A tempting prospect. I think i could after the colony's early establishment.

Will we discover evidence of life or its fossilised remains on the martian surface? - Mars once had water. But this can't be a yes or no answer. We simply don't know However, if we did find alien life on Mars, I would be ecstatic

 

[Brickjectivity]

Your thoughts and comments are welcome fellow martians.

Currently space x still plans to send people to live on mars around 2023 sometime. I think the people will eventually move underground to obtain a naturally higher pressure atmosphere, unless the rocks are too cold. Using Earth technology they should be able to dig very, very far down many times deeper than what is possible on Earth. They may find as a result that there are lucrative mining operations, and a human will be able to life much larger objects there though large objects will continue to be dangerous and to have a large momentum. Their challenge will be transforming the surface to be safer. They'll need a long term goal of climate change to slow the winds and even out the surface temperatures. This will likely begin with releasing gases from Martian rocks and digging canyons in which to grow plants out of the wind. The search is already on to find plants that will grow there at lower temperatures and in tainted ground. At first they will start to request that Earth send lots of soil, and that soil will be carefully distributed and mixed with Martian made clays and soils in order to extend the soil.

If they succeed they will be exceedingly famous having founded a new planet.

We on Earth are relatively bound by gravity and can only leave our planet at great expense, but if the Martians on Mars can slow the dangerous winds, people on Mars will have an easier time leaving their planet. They'll be able to make much larger craft using less fuel to reach their multiple moons and to go beyond. Where on Earth we must carefully measure the ships and craft them for efficiency, a Martian could make a ship 10x less efficient and still achieve an orbit.

So it is that Mars after its population grows will begin to construct rockets and to steadily send a trickle of people from Mars to Earth. We will call them 'Homecomers' or 'Retirees' or something like that. They'll board huge vessels and make their way here loaded down with gold and other high value minerals. For a time they'll be welcomed and treated with honor and will start large families on Earth. Later on new arrivals will be less welcome but will still find life on Earth to be fantastically easier than on Mars. For a long time to come Mars will be sending people to Earth, and these people will be happy to live anywhere even Antarctica or in high pressure bubbles under the oceans.

 

[Revoltingest]

I say practical (ie, safe & cost effective) trips to Mars are a couple centuries off.
The big danger is that the current cost of a manned Mars expedition would
siphon money from better projects...better because we're not just exploring
our tiny corner of the solar system....we're exploring the whole universe
with remote sensing & telepresence. This has yielded far more info &
understanding than guys in bubble suits bouncing around on airless orbs.

Mars is also risky for people. From a human factors standpoint, the moon
was a walk in the park. Mars is much much much farther, with a greater
risk of health dangers & death. (Space traveling astronautics is the most
dangerous profession of all. The death rate is in the neighborhood of 10%,
depending upon how one calculates it.) Technology changes, but humans
are as frail as ever. AI is advancing rapidly, so humans will have an ever
decreasing capability relative to it. Robotic exploration is the future.

 

[Laika]

We on Earth are relatively bound by gravity and can only leave our planet at great expense, but if the Martians on Mars can slow the dangerous winds, people on Mars will have an easier time leaving their planet. They'll be able to make much larger craft using less fuel to reach their multiple moons and to go beyond. Where on Earth we must carefully measure the ships and craft them for efficiency, a Martian could make a ship 10x less efficient and still achieve an orbit.

Wow. That's a really interesting thought. I didn't know that. Mars could end up becoming a shipyard for people to build bigger space ships. That is so cool!

I say practical (ie, safe & cost effective) trips to Mars are a couple centuries off.
The big danger is that the current cost of a manned Mars expedition would
siphon money from better projects...better because we're not just exploring
our tiny corner of the solar system....we're exploring the whole universe
with remote sensing & telepresence. This has yielded far more info &
understanding than guys in bubble suits bouncing around on airless orbs.

Mars is also risky for people. From a human factors standpoint, the moon
was a walk in the park. Mars is much much much farther, with a greater
risk of health dangers. Technology changes, but humans are as frail as
ever. AI is advancing rapidly, so humans will have an ever decreasing
capability relative to it. Robotic exploration is the future.

That picture of Bender is now my desktop wall paper! It's so good!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Should mankind go to Mars?

Yes

Do you believe we will?

Yes

Will it be within your life time?

No

Would you want to be one of the first people to set foot on the Red planet?

No. Too lonely.

Would you move to Mars to help colonise it and begin a new future for humanity?

No. I wouldn't give up this life on a beautiful, mostly hospitable planet for something so bleak.

Will we discover evidence of life or its fossilised remains on the martian surface?

I think that's very likely, although nothing more complex than microscopic forms.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I kind of picture all those movies portraying a dystopian corporate driven Mining Company on the surface of Mars will someday be a reality.

 

[Brickjectivity]

No. I wouldn't give up this life on a beautiful, mostly hospitable planet for something so bleak.

That is so selfish! Me, neither.

 

[Revoltingest]

I kind of picture all those movies portraying a dystopian corporate driven Mining Company on the surface of Mars will someday be a reality.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I say practical (ie, safe & cost effective) trips to Mars are a couple centuries off.
The big danger is that the current cost of a manned Mars expedition would
siphon money from better projects...better because we're not just exploring
our tiny corner of the solar system....we're exploring the whole universe
with remote sensing & telepresence. This has yielded far more info &
understanding than guys in bubble suits bouncing around on airless orbs.

I don't disagree with that although unlike in Engineering, pure research is not always rewarded. Pure research can be a process of finding out nothing, and finding something is a bonus. A diverse approach to research is, yes, much more expensive; but you can't guarantee what results will come from a particular avenue. Also, private companies have started to take over, and the Mars mission is an example of that. Its privately funded and driven by investors and donors. Its not like the Moon lander missions. Its more of a high end camping trip.

Mars is also risky for people. From a human factors standpoint, the moon
was a walk in the park. Mars is much much much farther, with a greater
risk of health dangers & death. (Space traveling astronautics is the most
dangerous profession of all. The death rate is in the neighborhood of 10%,
depending upon how one calculates it.) Technology changes, but humans
are as frail as ever. AI is advancing rapidly, so humans will have an ever
decreasing capability relative to it. Robotic exploration is the future.

Very risky, yes. Similarly, people like to ride motorcycles, eat bacon and smoke cigars. Imagine what could be accomplished if only they would direct their energies towards relevant research instead.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't disagree with that although unlike in Engineering, pure research is not always rewarded. Pure research can be a process of finding out nothing, and finding something is a bonus. A diverse approach to research is, yes, much more expensive; but you can't guarantee what results will come from a particular avenue. Also, private companies have started to take over, and the Mars mission is an example of that. Its privately funded and driven by investors and donors. Its not like the Moon lander missions. Its more of a high end camping trip.

I'm advocating pure research....it's just by remote sensing &
telepresence rather than boots on the regolith. It's not about
guarantees, but rather what offers the most bang for the buck.

Private companies sending people to Mars to do something
productive....I'll believe it when it actually happens.

Very risky, yes. Similarly, people like to ride motorcycles, eat bacon and smoke cigars. Imagine what could be accomplished if only they would direct their energies towards relevant research instead.

Space travel is far riskier than motorcycles. This is not just in the death rate,
but also in financial loss. Let's say a manned Mars mission costs $100B.
If they die on the way there, it's a total loss. NASA's faster-better-cheaper
approach using probes & robots has yielded far more than the manned
space program did.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Space travel is far riskier than motorcycles. This is not just in the death rate,
but also in financial loss.

In counterpoint I return to the fact that people throw their lives away every year just for a spin on two wheels, and we let them. We let poor kids get bachelor's degrees in Art History if they want to. If they want to go to Mars it is a double standard to suddenly be all concerned about loss of life. People spend their lives knowing full well that since they are going to die anyway they'd like to do something interesting. From some perspectives it may seem crazy, but its a common trait that people have.

I'm advocating pure research....it's just by remote sensing &
telepresence rather than boots on the regolith. It's not about
guarantees, but rather what offers the most bang for the buck.

Private companies sending people to Mars to do something
productive....I'll believe it when it actually happens.

That is advocating an engineering approach instead of an all-in approach. It aims for that which gives results and drops what is less interesting. We can send robots to Mars, yes and have done so. They can conduct pure research there, yes. They can't do as much. As soon as they get there everyone realizes their limitations, and it becomes all about trying to push them a little further than their design specs. They aren't a commitment, either. They've got no blood. Its like the diff between riding a motorcycle and playing a videogame about riding one.

Let's say a manned Mars mission costs $100B.
If they die on the way there, it's a total loss. NASA's faster-better-cheaper
approach using probes & robots has yielded far more than the manned
space program did.

Ok, so what you have is a spaceship of people who are committed to the success of a mission versus a tinkering bot. They are risking their lives to do something interesting. They're pilots and sticky fingers who want to be out there with those exploring bots instead of staying behind, plus they get to spend $100B. If they die its not a total loss to them, because they went.

 

[Revoltingest]

In counterpoint I return to the fact that people throw their lives away every year just for a spin on two wheels, and we let them. We let poor kids get bachelor's degrees in Art History if they want to. If they want to go to Mars it is a double standard to suddenly be all concerned about loss of life. People spend their lives knowing full well that since they are going to die anyway they'd like to do something interesting. From some perspectives it may seem crazy, but its a common trait that people have.

That is advocating an engineering approach instead of an all-in approach. It aims for that which gives results and drops what is less interesting. We can send robots to Mars, yes and have done so. They can conduct pure research there, yes. They can't do as much. As soon as they get there everyone realizes their limitations, and it becomes all about trying to push them a little further than their design specs. They aren't a commitment, either. They've got no blood. Its like the diff between riding a motorcycle and playing a videogame about riding one.

Ok, so what you have is a spaceship of people who are committed to the success of a mission versus a tinkering bot. They are risking their lives to do something interesting. They're pilots and sticky fingers who want to be out there with those exploring bots instead of staying behind, plus they get to spend $100B. If they die its not a total loss to them, because they went.

Technology without the burden of humans can do far more.
(Cassini was far more interesting than moon missions. And far cheaper.)
By remote sensing & unmanned exploration, we stand to learn so much more.
Divert that to sending fragile meat sacks into space, & it'll be a net loss for us...
...that's if info & understanding are the goals.
What goals do you see for manned space travel to other planets?

 

[Salvador]

In these dispiriting times, it is occasionally healthy to look to the future and wonder what mankind could achieve. Our individual contributions to the great tapestry of human history may be large or small, but with the power of imagination, ambition and understanding we can maximise our impact within the brief span of our lifetimes upon this earth. There is nothing wrong with a little day dreaming if it gives us hope for the future and gives us a chance to remember that we have so much potential.

I have posted this video a few years ago, but I figured it might be overdue for another outing in the need for something uplifting and inspirational. It essentially covers much of the substance of Robert Zubrin's book "The Case for Mars" (published in 1996 and updated and revised for 2011). Zubrin was also the founder of the "Mars Society" in 1998. Although the daily headlines may overwhelm us with bad news, the potential for mankind to take a leap in to the stars is still there. Perhaps, it is more urgent than ever for us to gain some perspective on who we are, where we are going and what place we really have in the universe.

Should mankind go to Mars? Do you believe we will? Will it be within your life time? Would you want to be one of the first people to set foot on the Red planet? Would you move to Mars to help colonise it and begin a new future for humanity? Will we discover evidence of life or its fossilised remains on the martian surface?

Your thoughts and comments are welcome fellow martians.

The human colonization of Mars, increasing living space, is the ultimate solution for getting rid of over-crowded places here on Earth as well as getting rid of the Earth's excess greenhouse gases.

There should be no worries about high levels of atmospheric CH4 and C02 due to industrialization or overpopulation, because these greenhouse gases could be sent away to Mars where they'd transform Mars into a warmer planet; this methane and carbon dioxide would help transform Mars into a way more comfortable place for sustaining life from Earth. Any excessive levels of these green house gases could simply be transported via the Space X interplanetary transport system from Earth to Mars.

The first step towards forming a man-made biosphere that is an appreciable fraction in size comparable to Earth's biosphere around Mars as well as on the surface of Mars ( terraforrming ) is the deployment of a magnetic shield that protects Mars against the solar wind stripping of its atmosphere. This magnetic shielding would subsequently allow the planet's atmosphere to reacquire its former density that'd be high enough to allow for sustainable surface liquid water.

Reference: https://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magne...phere.html

An effective artificial magnetosphere placed at Langrangian point 1 from Mars is very achievable with foreseeable technology. This magnetic shielding apparatus could weigh less than a few hundred tonnes which is within the load capacity of a big Falcon 9 rocket. I'm guessing the cost of protecting the Martian atmosphere with an artificial magnetosphere would probably be similar to the cost of a small nuclear reactor.

In addition to CH4 (methane) and C02 (carbon dioxide), some few billion tonnes of sulfur hexafluoride gas (SF6) could increase Martian atmospheric surface temperatures by over 20 degrees Celsius. Sulfur hexafluoride - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The SpaceX interplanetary transport system could deliver this super greenhouse gas to Mars at a cost of less than $2,000/kg.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Mar...astructure

A few hundred thousand tonnes of SF6 delivered annually to Mars would cost just approximately $500 billion yearly. This is less than a fraction of a percent of the global economic output value. An accumulation of a few billion tonnes of SF6 at an annual rate of a few hundred thousand tonnes would take less than some few thousand years. The annual cost of less than $100 per person per year on Earth would be totally worth transforming Mars into a world with triple its current atmospheric pressure and a warmer Mars with average surface temperatures greater than typical summer Antarctic temperatures.

The forming a man-made biosphere that is an appreciable fraction in size comparable to Earth's biosphere around Mars as well as on the surface of Mars ( terraforrming ) would create many high tech jobs, and save planet Earth by way of transferring away its harmful global warming green house gases to Mars where these gases would be beneficial as they'd contribute to forming a man-made biosphere that is an appreciable fraction in size comparble to Earth's biosphere. This project ( terraforming ) to make Mars a better place for human colonization there should be dubbed the "Green New Deal for Earth and Mars". I'd favor the "Green New Deal for Earth and Mars" instead of the Green New Deal that'd only be focused on Earth alone.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Technology without the burden of humans can do far more.
(Cassini was far more interesting than moon missions. And far cheaper.)
By remote sensing & unmanned exploration, we stand to learn so much more.
Divert that to sending fragile meat sacks into space, & it'll be a net loss for us...
...that's if info & understanding are the goals.
What goals do you see for manned space travel to other planets?

I don't think there need be any goals, and I suspect that robotic research will continue. I suspect its mostly for the fun, for doing something memorable, to inspire; but there can be goals to do some research, to develop new technology, to found a colony. Once people are there they will come up with all kinds of goals. Some will immediately start working on a way to return to Earth. Here on Earth it will be a lot of entertainment. I think one of their goals should be to get plants growing there in balance with some microbes and insects. Another should be to see how deep they can go under the ground. Another goal should be to even out the temps and slow down the wind. They should try to make their homes luxurious with greenhouses and swimming pools in them, and they should make underground highways. They should...build factories; so they can make all kinds of goods.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The human colonization of Mars, increasing living space, is the ultimate solution for getting rid of over-crowded places here on Earth

I disagree, because so much fuel is required to get people away from Earth. Its unlikely that will ever change. Its always going to take a whole lot of fuel to move one person into space, so much fuel that you couldn't make enough fuel to help with population problems.

 

[Salvador]

I disagree, because so much fuel is required to get people away from Earth. Its unlikely that will ever change. Its always going to take a whole lot of fuel to move one person into space, so much fuel that you couldn't make enough fuel to help with population problems.

Rocket fuel would be needed to boast a payload into parking orbit around Earth for refueling, from there a combination of rocket fuel and light sail propulsion could be used for propelling the craft to Mars..

 

[Left Coast]

Yes



Yes



No



No. Too lonely.



No. I wouldn't give up this life on a beautiful, mostly hospitable planet for something so bleak.



I think that's very likely, although nothing more complex than microscopic forms.

I was going to respond but then you took all my answers!

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't think there need be any goals...

Oh, it's not necessary.
But with specific goals in mind to guide spending & focus, I say that it's more productive.
As they say, necessity is the mother parent of invention.
I've always had more fun designing things to solve problems & achieve goals.
The harder the challenge, the more elegant the solution.
Of course, this doesn't work so well if one attempts something very likely to fail,
eg, anti-gravity field generator using a mercury vortex.
(Yes, that's a real thing many believe.)

....and I suspect that robotic research will continue. I suspect its mostly for the fun, for doing something memorable, to inspire; but there can be goals to do some research, to develop new technology, to found a colony.

Now you're getting somewhere. If we recognize that it's for inspiration &
fun, & with open eyes spend vast sums doing that, it's more reasonable.
I loathe the claim that it's a Plan B for a destroyed Earth. Think global
warming is bad? Try global ice box with no breathable air, & poisonous
soil of Mars. And the commute there....we'd send perhaps as many as
a few hundred people to die a slow death in a very hostile environment.
Earth is our real Plan B.. It's cheaper-faster-better than Mars.

Once people are there they will come up with all kinds of goals. Some will immediately start working on a way to return to Earth. Here on Earth it will be a lot of entertainment. I think one of their goals should be to get plants growing there in balance with some microbes and insects. Another should be to see how deep they can go under the ground. Another goal should be to even out the temps and slow down the wind. They should try to make their homes luxurious with greenhouses and swimming pools in them, and they should make underground highways. They should...build factories; so they can make all kinds of goods.

You impractical dreamers.....
Terraforming is not the reality seen in sci fi.
I prefer "terrapreserving". Even a once every 100M years
killer asteroid would be more survivable here than on Mars.
As with all things, advance planning is the key to success.

Think about manned exploration.....
Sure, the Moon missions (assuming they weren't faked) were
inspiring. But they pale in comparison to alternative exploration,
eg, discovering dark energy, dark matter, exoplanets, early galaxies,
quasars, black holes, gravity waves, weather & geology of the
outer planets, etc, etc.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I disagree, because so much fuel is required to get people away from Earth. Its unlikely that will ever change. Its always going to take a whole lot of fuel to move one person into space, so much fuel that you couldn't make enough fuel to help with population problems.

Not to mention the insurmountable problem of lethal radioactivity and hostile atmosphere.