Slashdot Mirror
The Strangeness of the Mars One Project
superboj sends an article written after its author investigated the Mars One Project for over a year. Even though 200,000 people have (supposedly) signed up as potential volunteers on a one-way trip to Mars, there are still frightfully few details about how the mission will be accomplished. From the article:
[Astronaut Chris Hadfield] says that Mars One fails at even the most basic starting point of any manned space mission: If there are no specifications for the craft that will carry the crew, if you don’t know the very dimensions of the capsule they will be traveling in, you can’t begin to select the people who will be living and working inside of it. "I really counsel every single one of the people who is interested in Mars One, whenever they ask me about it, to start asking the hard questions now. I want to see the technical specifications of the vehicle that is orbiting Earth. I want to know: How does a space suit on Mars work? Show me how it is pressurized, and how it is cooled. What’s the glove design? None of that stuff can be bought off the rack. It does not exist. You can’t just go to SpaceMart and buy those things."
The author concludes that the Mars One Project is "...at best, an amazingly hubristic fantasy: an absolute faith in the free market, in technology, in the media, in money, to be able to somehow, magically, do what thousands of highly qualified people in government agencies have so far not yet been able to do over decades of diligently trying, making slow headway through individually hard-won breakthroughs, working in relative anonymity pursuing their life’s work."
The minute they said there was an application fee it should have been obvious.
That, plus the tiny size of the team, the handwaving away of all technical problems to subcontractors, and the bizarre funding ideas, should have warned people off long ago. Sadly the regular newsmedia, in their admirable efforts to publish fun and interesting science storise, were duped.
It really is an example of the effects of authority and herd behavior. They first approached a number of prominent science/tech figures and asked them to endorse it. Turns out, if you approach a large enough number of people with a crazy idea, a few will by chance support it, especially if you keep the details hidden. Then this was enough for the avalanche of followers and news reports to start.
Do we have the technology to get to Mars? Depends on who you ask. NASA already has the plans on the drawing board. They just don't have the money. And that's the sticking point. There is absolutely no way you are going to get the $100 billion required for a Mars mission by producing a freaking reality show.
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
Somewhere on the next continent.
It would be nice to know that mammals can successfully reproduce in 1/3 G with healthy offspring.
And other little things like that.
Most of the promoters of space colonization always seem to be either ignorant or deliberately overlooking all the problems there were in colonizing the new world and Africa, post renaissance, and the sheer number of failed colonies. That was just on this planet. It's pretty difficult to make the case Mars will be easier.
I am torn on this issue.
On the one hand, I agree with the submission's stance. Those things are custom engineered to perform optimally in the specific problem domain they are engineered for. A space suit worn to do EVAs wont work on mars, or vice versa.
The habitats need to be designed with all manner of ergonomic considerations; people will live the rest of their lives inside the damned thing. They need to be designed to withstand constant ablation by blowing sand and fine particulate dusts. They need to have door seals that are up the the task. They need to have robust circuitry that can withstand the increased intensity of solar storm radiation, since mars lacks a comprehensive global magnetosphere. So many things need to be engineered for, purpose built for the specific tasks at hand, and built to not only last, but last a lifetime, or longer.
On the other hand, the nature of this kind of mission makes it toxic to any world government that would actually be able to accomplish it properly. No politician in this universe wants to be the one who willfully signs the death certificates of highly trained, highly intelligent and skilled people. That's what a manned mission to mars would be. It would require much more than the vertical thrust booster used by the LLM in the 60s to get the crew back to the command module. It would take another complete lower stage rocket. Unless you want to soft-land something that weighs millions of tons, filled with highly volatile propellant on mars so that the crew can get back into space again after the mission period is over, you are planning a one-way trip, and that means consigning those people to die up there.
Politically, a proper mars mission is a non-starter.
That means that only people that would be willing to finance it are sociopaths. People that dont mind if people die, and dont care about being associated with signing that check. Corporate America, and those similarly aligned to the all mighty dollar.
Sadly, that same sociopathy means that any such mission will be done with duct tape, bailing wire, and discount bubblegum wrappers. Lowest bidder on everything. Minimum training for the mission personnel. A mission that, if it succeeds, it would be a statistical anomaly.
I am conflicted.
I want people to get off this planet. But at the same time, I want them to get there safely, properly, and with the tools they need to actually have a chance to pull it off.
I agree with the article author, that the lack of meaty information about this project is not something that instills confidence. By now, the first round of selectees should be getting initial training. Where are they being trained, and what are they being taught? Did they even get out of their homes yet?
Who knows.
I thought it was just a harmless enthusiast group promoting space travel and stuff.
If they're actually taking people's money as a fee (rather than a charitable donation) when they have no launcher no lander no habitat no nothing, they're selling snake oil.
Atmospheric temperatures on Mars can range from 20 deg. C to -150 deg. C, depending on where you are standing and the time of day. Since the atmosphere is so thin the relative importance of convection and radiation heat transfer tilts toward radiation being a bigger player. Standing in the sun when the atmosphere is 20 deg C might be uncomfortably warm as you don't just feel the atmospheric temperature, but you also get a radiation component unrelated to the air temperature. If you have ever skied or hiked in the mountains in the winter, on some clear calm sunny days you may be very warm despite the air temperature being quite frigid. Upshot is that a suit would need a general thermal regulation capability (heating and cooling).
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
Think about it (if you can):
Wanting something is enough to make it happen.
Wisdom of crowds.
Scientists don't know everything.
You'll be famous.
Sounds like the recipe for external validation that every GenY and Millenial are craving.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
But if there WAS a SpaceMart, I'd totally shop there!
This one gang kept wanting me to join cause I'm pretty good with a bo staff.
to be able to somehow, magically, do what thousands of highly qualified people in government agencies have so far not yet been able to do over decades of diligently trying, making slow headway through individually hard-won breakthroughs, working in relative anonymity pursuing their life's work
Personally, I think it's great that there are people dumb/crazy/brave enough to try to accomplish this outside of whatever the ossified system is. I'm sure Linus was told by plenty of people "You can't develop a better operating system like this! We've been sitting in cubicles at Bell Labs for 20 years, slaving over punch cards and 9 track mag tapes toiling in anonymity and you think a bunch of Internet hackers are going to create a viable operating system that can do real work?"
Maybe this is what bothers all those people, that despite their trying and relative anonymity someone else NOT diligently working in anonymity and utilizing other skills or methods will succeed where they haven't, and this bugs them. Should there be a manned mission to Mars it should be THEIR mission because of their ceaseless faith and devotion to the true methods and ideals of space travel.
It almost reads like a religous argument from the 16th century -- why should a group of barely literate peasants be allowed to read and interpret the word of God and achieve salvation through their own heretical ideals and methods? It can only be achieved through the devotion to and leadership of the one true church and its singular vision as revealed through its chosen leaders.
Now, I don't know much about Mars One and it probably is a bullshit deal designed to fleece the naive and they can't get to Disney's "Mission to Mars" let alone fly a mission to Mars. So what? Whining that it's hard and and that someone wants to do it some other way than the "true way" sounds like MORE bullshit designed to protect the chosen ones than any real criticism.
You figure all of NASA, the european space agency, the Russians, the Chinese... the various private undertakings, every satellite manufacturer and service provider in the world... are all deluded, do you? You think the ISS is an illusion, and that there are no raw materials to be had outside of deep gravity wells? You think the ISS can't be bettered? You think we can't solve the remaining problems just because they're "hard"? You think we won't? I suppose you think the landing of a man on the surface of the moon in 1969 is a myth, then? You think the landing of the various (numerous) mars probes is a myth? You think Voyager isn't out there at the boundary of the solar system? You think we don't have spacecraft watching the sun from various angles? You think there aren't weapons platforms, weather satellites, radio and television satellites, flight/orbital test platforms, GPS constellations, cubesats, amateur radio sats... and yet there are engine tests going on with new propulsion methods, there are tests on new methods that aren't ready for engine design, there are space telescopes, gravity sensing platforms, It's actually getting kind of crowded near the earth, but that's no impediment to the various probes that have gone up, and continue to go up to destinations further out. Then there are the people trying for a beanstalk, working the materials science for all they're worth, trying to develop just the right material.
And you can't even connect all this with the idea that the odds hugely favor that we have lots and lots of time to develop whatever we need... and that we did almost all of the forgoing in just over 50 years...
You think a few years of low-ish progress spell the end? You think a scam (or overly optimistic collection of fruitbars) and the actions of a bunch of oath-violating fudgetards in congress defines and terminates the entire undertaking?
Frankly, I'm quite confident the "nutter" here... is you. You, and the drooling idiot with mod points who cranked your insanity up past zero.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
We have to get off this planet and, like every other early voyages to any place we've ever been, we have got to experience lots of failures.
If dude ranchers want to take the first lunge, it's their business.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
We have to think of everything -- and more. We should have solved the problems the people on mars will face before we send them there. There should be at least three well-tested working backups for everything thats needed: water, food, housing, etc... Medicine needs to be advanced far much further, so that possible cancer from the radiation can be healed or prevented.
If these conditions are provided, we can try to get to mars without a large risk. We will need unmanned testing missions before. We will need a shitload of money.
Its far more likely that we will send people that die early. We will have to realize that that will be a send-and-die mission. We don't have the patience to build, test and plan for a mission this complex and large.
Our long term goal should be on how to bootstrap an industrialized system from some rockets we sent there. Things you can manufacture on mars will be cheap, but things you need to send there will be expensive. When you've reached the point where you can build a rocket (or at least the heaviest parts of it) you can get back. This can be as simple as the fuel, and dumb parts of the lower stages.
Typical non-profit entities have grandiose goals such as eliminating poverty or feed orphans or some other goal that tugs as the hearts (and purse strings) of a dedicated and forgiving audience. They usually have no idea what they are doing and are making it up along the way. Of course they try really hard and maybe they accomplish a few things along away, but of course they never really "solve" the problem. If they do they find something else.**
Meanwhile, the principal of the organization get to earn a living doing what they enjoy with other folks footing the bill.
Take it for what it is people. People gotta earn a living somehow...
**for instance, the March of Dimes was started to stamp out Polio. After the vaccine was developed (none of their funding contributed to the Salk Vaccine, it was spent on palliative care), they had to find something else to do, they simply didn't wind down, which is why you have to start with a really really grandiose goal to make sure it doesn't happen to quickly
Why? What do you think is within the reach of human beings in space that is not available on Earth? A reply containing the words "wonder", "exploration" or "adventure" are not acceptable.
Space is mind bogglingly large but despite that the Earth is fucking huge. Helpfully it's also absolutely drenched in the sort of things us humans need to survive. With a bit of preparation we can readily travel to just about anywhere on the surface of the Earth. To simply survive we don't need to bring significant amounts of our home environment along with us.
The Earth is also jam packed with resources. The idea of mining asteroids and comets is laughable. It's ridiculously expensive to actually do and nowhere even remotely close to being cost effective. It's not even a question of profitability, it's simply wasteful to expand the resources to mine a single asteroid when a single mountain on Earth is far more accessible and likely has a much better yield of industrially useful materials. It simply does not make sense to pay thousands or millions of dollars a pound for carbon, ice, or silicon (the primary component of most asteroids and comets). Even for space based industry, launched prices of a thousand dollars a pound means it's more economical to build stuff on Earth and launch it into space.
The idea of "spreading out the species" is another very silly idea. It would take a ridiculous amount of resources to build even a remotely sustainable colony somewhere else in the solar system. There's simply nowhere else in the solar system where humans can easily survive. Even with a self-sustained colony on Mars the odds of humanity being wiped out by a natural disaster (asteroid, etc) aren't significantly improved over all of humanity on a single planet. Without a full ecosystem a Martian colony would eventually die out, likely long before they were able to build their own means to spread to other planets.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
well they don't have the money to send a small gift box to mars so that's why they haven't had the money or thought it worth the effort to figure out the gritty details.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Why? What do you think is within the reach of human beings in space that is not available on Earth? A reply containing the words "wonder", "exploration" or "adventure" are not acceptable.
Redundancy. There are lots of potential disasters that could wipe out life on earth. Most (but not all) of them are remediated by having humans on another planet.
Even with a self-sustained colony on Mars the odds of humanity being wiped out by a natural disaster (asteroid, etc) aren't significantly improved over all of humanity on a single planet. Without a full ecosystem a Martian colony would eventually die out, likely long before they were able to build their own means to spread to other planets.
Isn't that the point of sending people to mars? To build infrastructure to allow more people to arrive?
Granted, 6 people living in a tiny habitate on mars aren't going to recolonize Earth even if they had the means to come back, but a colony of 100,000 might. Such a large colony may be decades (centuries?) in the future, but until the first people arrive, there will continue to be zero people on mars -- someone has to be first.
even there, they need to become much more efficient.
more efficient ... than who? who else has autonomously landed a nuclear powered rover the size of a small car on the surface of mars? do you have some evidence to support that this should / could have been done for less (2.5B USD)?
i searched for "curiosity rover pork" and the first article that came up was from the tea party. there you go.
we're not talking about commodity gear here, this is frontier tech as it has been the entire run of the space program so far. They still haven't got EVA gloves right yet (too bulky, means that equipment designed for orbital maintenance has to be given the Duplo treatment - handles twice as large as they would otherwise need to be, etc.), manned capsules are still touch and go, with a what, 1 in 50 chance of a catastrophic failure at any point in the mission? Still not bad odds considering we're talking about the most complex machines ever conceived of by human minds (the shuttle orbiters have over 2.5 million parts and 230 miles of wire - each. Any one of which can fail with potentially fatal consequences). Step one of having a viable programme is reducing the odds of failure while maintaining or improving the safety record. Reducing the odds of failure involves reducing the number of parts which can fail, ie simplifying the design - considering the SOV programme was pretty much experimental by its very nature, I think the kinks are fairly well known by now.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
I'm as far from a 'free market religionist' as one can get. I'm a ridiculously left-wing hippie-dippie liberal. To me, this isn't about some sort of mad faith in Adam Smith's Invisible Hand. It's simply a reaction to the fact that our government would rather allocate huge sums of money to things OTHER THAN manned space exploration.
For instance, the military. And the contractors that support the military.
NASA's budget has, quite simply, been far too small to support an envelope-pushing manned space flight program for quite some time. Witness how the Shuttle (1970s tech!) was used into the 2010s. NASA's manned spaceflight program stalled some time in the 80s and never really recovered. (It may have been the Challenger tragedy that made funding NASA significantly harder; I don't know. I'm not a politician, nor an economist.)
Quite simply, the government ISN'T doing it. And it probably won't, for the forseeable future. Who does that leave, with the kind of money to go to space? Corporations.
It's simple logic. Has nothing to do with 'the corporations are better than the government' or any sort of rhetoric at all. It's just "[X] isn't doing it, so [Y] is gonna try, because it's something some people want."
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
There should be at least three well-tested working backups for everything thats needed: water, food, housing, etc...
I would start by creating self contained units that can survive equally well in the sahara, antartica, and underwater with minimal* air exchange with
the outside. Salt water, cold, and sand are notoriously hard on equipment and if a single type of unit can survive in all 3 environments then they
might have a fighting chance. My guess is we have very little that can survive 80 years in any of those 3 environments without repair materials
being sent and I don't see mars being self sufficient for a very long time.
* the only reason I say minimal is that there is no reason even on mars that you couldn't do outgassing or ingassing of needed or unneeded
gases. It doesn't have to be 100% self contained if there is some way to regulate correctly the amount of different gases in the environment.
You're kinda missing the point of asteroid mining. The idea is to gather useful materials up there and keep them up there to support a space based civilization. That way you can use and move the stuff around using energy efficient transfer orbits and modest amounts of delta-vee, instead of lifting mountains of material against Earth's gravity. A lot of high-tech from Earth will be needed to bootstrap early operations, but the goal would be a self supporting space-based society based on raw resources available in space, eventually trading with Earth-based societies.
I don't know how long developing such a society would take, but it'll likely be started by people nearly everyone else considers lunatics. Something like Mars One should be a rehearsal for later attempts at colonizing space itself, without a planet under your feet.
Its far more likely that we will send people that die early.
Yep. Being a pioneer is all about finding new and interesting ways to die ... or the old ways in new settings.
See for example the first few hundred years (counting from the Vikings) of European colonization attempts of North America. (Probably the same holds true of Asian attempts, but they're a lot further back in the prehistorical record.)
Or more recently, the roughly 10% that died along the Oregon Trail.
As a plaque on some old Conestoga wagon puts it: "The cowards never started. The weak died along the way. Only the strong survived."
That said, only the stupid set out on a trek like that without preparation, and they don't even last as long as the weak. If Mars One has being doing preparation, they haven't been talking about it.
-- Alastair
That should be the first step. Learn how to mine the moon, export water to space, split the water to make fuel, oxygen etc. Mine moon materials and be self sufficient within easy communications range of earth. The skills learned there will be useful in eventually going to Mars. The distance for resupply is more realistic. The fuel created can be used for other missions. It is the next logical step from the ISS.
You have somer serious misconceptions in this post.
The ability for adults to digest milk has nothing to do with "settling down". Adults producing the lactase enzyme is a result of natural selection favoring humans that could digest dairy in regions where it was a viable food source. Both goats and cows are grazing animals and so prehistoric humans that drank their milk didn't have to "settle down" to herd them. Humans remained fairly nomadic until large scale agriculture developed. Lactose tolerance came long before agriculture. It has nothing to do with intelligence.
This is incorrect by several orders of magnitude. Clothes don't allow don't make parts of Earth more habitable. If you're stuck in the Alaskan wilderness you can still die of exposure even if you have warm clothes. Clothes tend to allow people to more comfortably live in some areas but they don't do a lot to make those places livable. Shelter makes inhospitable parts of the Earth livable, clothes let you get between different shelters.
Space suits needed on Mars don't need to just keep people warm or dry but provide them with a breathable atmosphere at a workable pressure. They'll also need to have facilities for hydration and feeding since they'll be self contained. A space suit capable of keeping someone alive on Mars is much more than mere clothing.
This is just fantasy. Genetic engineering could in the future filter out congenital diseases or make everyone lactose tolerant but it's a little absurd to state as a matter of fact that we could engineer ourselves to live on Mars (or some other planet). Large complex organisms like humans can't be easily adapted for life on Mars or elsewhere. We're not tardigrades or bacteria. Even if we did manage to somehow engineer ourselves to live on Mars or elsewhere those creations would no longer be "ourselves". They would be a wholly new species and incompatible with our own. They would as as alien to us as native Martian bacteria.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
I don't think it's that we need to not send repair materials, but they should be included up front. Consider them as consumables.
For example, salt water is (currently) best dealt with by sacrificial anodes. It's dirt cheap (when you don't need to lift the mass), and it works very effectively. You just need to make sure to launch with enough of them to supply a large safety factor. This is engineering 101. You don't build products that rely on critical parts you anticipate becoming unavailable. You make sure there's enough of them, or you redesign.
You build in enough consumables to replace the parts that can go wrong (which is a very lengthy list--sorry, no magic bullets) and you also build in a system to transition away from supply missions before you exceed the normal working life--NOT the safety factor(s). Mining will be crucial to human expansion; indeed, this is one of the twin reasons to expand. We want a backup for humanity and more space for everyone, but we also simultaneously want to expand our mining territory. I'd rather turn Earth into a nature preserve, as we only have one of it, and do the mining somewhere else that's already barren and dead.
Mars One is a sad scam. It is not real. It was never intended to be real, it has always been intended to separate gullible people from their money.
Bootstrapping a space based industry would be fantastically expensive. Delta-v is the least of your concerns with space based industry. It's the simple questions like "how do you lubricate mechanical compoentns" or "what do you do about swarf in microgravity?" that are the really expensive problematic things. The bootstrapping needs to find viable solutions to those problems, launch it into orbit, assemble it, and then maintain it until a point where it becomes self-sustaining (assuming that point exists).
It's more likely that the cheapest solution will be manufacture finished items on Earth and launch them into space (what we do now). It's not likely there exists a break even point for space based industry. There's just way too many small problems to overcome to make it really feasible. The ISS cost about $150 billion to construct, a minimally feasible space-based industrial base would likely need to be at least an order of magnitude larger. The comparable investment in mining, refining, and manufacturing on Earth would yield significantly higher output.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Infrastructure is a lot more complicated some pressure capsules and solar panels. Infrastructure to make a colony viable would mean agriculture and industry (including ways to deal with their negative externalities). Everything about both of those would need to be bootstrapped from Earth.
Even at SpaceX's best rates for the Falcon 9 and Dragon capsules at maximum capacity it would take over 14,000 launches to put those 100,000 colonists into orbit. That alone would cost a trillion dollars (assuming awesome rates from SpaceX and no failures). Just the structures and resources to keep those people alive for the first year would cost several tens of trillions of dollars more. The infrastructure to make an actual colony...well hopefully you get the picture. To put the numbers in better perspective we've only launched a little over 300 manned orbital missions in history. Ever.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
political freedom for starters.
I stand astounded. Whatever makes you think that living on Mars will bring political freedom? How are those ideas even connected?
Everything about Mars suggests that political freedom is virtually impossible. You will not be able to pay the cost of your transfer to Mars (including the tons of food and supplies needed to keep you alive there). This means that to convince someone to pay for your trip to Mars, they will require something from you in return. The basis of life on Mars is obligation - your obligation to the government or company that paid for you to travel there.
In addition there is the issue that nobody on Mars will have any money or any means to make money. There is no resources , no soil to grow crops, no infrastructure to support primary industry or manufacturing. At best people might trade the various things they brought from earth. And themselves (i.e. prostitution), although the notion of sex will be less attractive after the radiation sickness kicks in.
Mars will be like prison, without any chance of escape. Linking life on Mars with political freedom is simply laughable.
Or has the situation with the orwelian police state in much of the western world, coupled with the growing corporatocracy in the eastern world, and the overall growing issues with pollution and and criminality in the rest of the world.
It might not have occurred to you that you caused that orwellian state. Who is to blame for the state of Western democracy but ourselves? In which, you will just take that corruption with you to Mars. Unless you view yourself and coincidentally your fellow travellers as somehow more enlightened than the rest of us - do you think that?
It's not even a question of profitability, it's simply wasteful to expand the resources to mine a single asteroid when a single mountain on Earth is far more accessible and likely has a much better yield of industrially useful materials.
There are no mountains made from pure gold, pure iridium, pure iron or pure coal.
However there are such asteroids.
So from a strictly monetary standpoint mining asteroids makes a lot of sense if you don't care what the economic impact on earth is.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You know. I tried to write a calm, and sensible reply to this poisoned barb you have thrown at me, and I just couldn't do it.
Let's just say that you are simply wrong on a good many of your points.
Here are just a few of them:
1) You make the mistake in asserting that people leaving earth as political asylum seekers would be doing so without something already being there. Even the puritans didnt leave england en-mass until AFTER the colonies in north america were fully settled and productive. --What you are are failing to grasp, is that there would not be such a place to go, if nobody makes the damned colony; The puritans would never have left england, because the colonists never would have preceded them. Did all the irish people fleeing ireland after the potato fammine come with metric fucktons of food and other things? No-- they sold themselves into indentured servitude to come here, with just the clothes on their backs. Why? because there was a means of producing food over here already.
There is nothing inconsistent with wishing to create a colony, with the intention of permitting political asylum once it is able to accept such persons. Granting asylum is a great way to get desperately needed genetic variability and skill diversity for such a project once it is ready to accept such people. The notion that the colony would be built by political refugees when they have no money or resources with which to do it is a strawman of your own construction-- Good thing it isnt what I advocated! Beat that strawman all you want, his stuffing coming out does not impact my position in the slightest.
2) You make the implicit assumption that no industrial capacity or food production would ever be possible on-site at mars. This is a very laughable position to take, so laughable in fact, I wonder from what body of information you produced it from. Data from multiple rovers at very diverse areas on the martian surface has revealed very useful and valuable minerals. Not terribly useful here on earth mind-- we have water, nitrogen and oxygen in copious abundance-- But for martian colonists, those minerals would be more valuable than gold. Do you have any idea how much water is chemically stored in gypsum? Here's a hint-- Gypsum has the chemical formula CaSO4(2 H2O) It's a hydrated sulfate mineral. For every mole of gypsum, 2 moles of water can be produced. The process to do so? Heat it up to about 500 degrees F, and catch the vapor that comes out. Is gypsum a common soil mineral on mars? Apparently so-- Nasa's rovers have found very large veins of the shit.
In fact, There are entire expanses of sand dunes made of gypsum sand in the northern hemisphere of mars.
To quote the linked page:
Somehow I don't think getting sufficient water will be a problem for a martian colony. Harvesting that dune field alone would produce enough water to supply a massive colony site.
Know what else the rovers found? Ammonium salts at rock nest. The linked paper does give the caveat that the sample could be evolved methane and not reduced nitrogen, and suggests further study with the laser spectrometer. However, the gas form of nitrogen i
Earth's crust is 5% iron. That's pure enough to make it cheaper than mining an asteroid. And unless you come up with amazing breakthroughs in technology, even mining gold on Earth is cheaper than an on asteroid.
A human would have approximately 5 to 10 seconds in which to respond to the tear in their suit, and if repressurized within 60 seconds, have a fairly good chance of survival.
From the source:
Source:
http://www.geoffreylandis.com/...
The use of a form-fitting pressure suit, like that used by a fighter pilot (or those being demoed by MIT for use on mars, which have form-fitting metal coils to supply mechanical compression) would buy the suit occupant even more time in the event of a tear in the suit by preventing ebullism, and resulting drop in blood pressure, and resulting loss of consciousness.
There are a number of potential mechanisms that could be implemented into a space suit of the MIT type, that would make abrasion type holes in the suit less lethal, such as the non-newtonian silicon shear thickening liquid that is used in ballistic vests. A thin layer of this inside the suit would harden under the pressure being exerted on it by the occupant of the suit against the reduced pressure outside, exerted through the tear. This would reduce the effects of the hard vacuum on the suit occupant, buying more time to apply an appropriate patch to the suit.
The leverage with which powerful people can control others on Mars would be undeniably much greater than on Earth. On Earth, you can flee on foot. You can hide in the amazon and become a hunter-gathered if you want. On Mars, if you're at odds with your colony leadership, you have to acquire spacesuits air food water building materials etc. Everyone will know where you are on a Mars base, and all they have to do to eliminate dissent is "accidentally" depressurize the compartment. Mars requires living together and depending on each other a great deal, and that lends itself to strong rules and strong leadership.
This space intentionally left blank
So, why are there so few humans living on the Greenland ice sheet, the Gobi desert, or on the bottom of the oceans ? These places are all more hospitable than Mars.
Yep. Being a pioneer is all about finding new and interesting ways to die ... or the old ways in new settings.
In all the examples you cited, the pioneers in question didn't set out on a one-way trip to die - they fully intended to live. The explorers who first went to the South Pole, Everest, and other terrestrial extremes all planned on a return trip. In fact, I'd say it was their will to live that drove them on. Most had family and children, and when faced with adversity did all they could to live and return to their loved ones. Shackleton did not intend to die in the South Pole, and thus he was driven to push his men to extremes to overcome his challenges. It was his will to live to drove him on.
If you send a group of people to Mars who signed up to what is essentially a suicide mission, will they show the same will to live that will drive to overcome the first life-or-death challenge they face, or will they just cross their arms and accept their fate? Someone psychologically ready to die is the last person you want in such a trip, or as your crewmate.