Slashdot Mirror
Interviews: Ask Shaun Moss About Mars and Colonizing Space
samzenpus writes: Shaun Moss is a computer scientist with a 15-year passion for Mars. While reading Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson in 1999 Shaun realized that people would go to Mars in his lifetime, and he decided he wanted to be part of that. Since then he has been an active member of a variety of space enthusiast groups, including the Mars Society and Mars Society Australia. Shaun is also the founder of the Mars Settlement Research Organization. His research has included how to make air and steel on Mars, Martian timekeeping systems, terraforming and more, and he has given numerous presentations at conferences in Australia and the United States. For the past 1.5 years he has been developing a robust and affordable humans-to-Mars mission architecture and a plan to establish an International Mars Research Station, which is now available as a book. Shaun has agreed to answer any questions you may have. As usual, ask as many as you'd like, but please, one per post.
Do you think you'll be able to get one on Mars?
So how do you respond to things like Mars One, which more or less seems to be a suicide mission in which people will be shipped to Mars, and assuming they make it that far will basically be on their own to survive?
Mars One seems to be using the business model of the underpants gnomes, and leaving a lot of things unanswered.
Apparently people dying on another planet will make for good TV.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Also, do they have beachfront property, and can we party on them?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Or will they remain a colony of Imperial Britannia forever?
Also, do I have to send them birthday presents, cause it's really really expensive to ship there.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
What's your opinion on Mars One?
I'm extremely sceptical that they can achieve their roadmap or anything close to it, do you share this scepticism? If so do you think they're mostly finished at this point (ie the project will fade into obscurity) or do you think the Mars One group will achieve something significant in the future?
I stole this Sig
Primary galactic cosmic radiation bombards the surface of Mars because its magnetic field is too feeble to turn high-energy charged particles aside, but most colonization plans envision human-constructed habitations on the surface. How much work is being directed toward finding subsurface features (lava tubes, sinkholes) which can provide radiation-hardened locations for long-term habitations? (and perhaps a word about popularizing both the risk and subsurface habitation to address it).
How far away are we from remotely constructing a fully human-ready, self-sufficient Martian living environment (mining, farming, fabricating, energy production, etc.)?
what will they do on mars without snow?
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
I believe the most likely way we'll actually have any impact on Mars is via genetically engineered microbes, as we've recently seen Darpa has mentioned.
http://science.slashdot.org/st...
This, at first blush, seems harmless, Mars is already dead. But given the increasing evidence that Mars and likely many other celestial bodies have in the past and maybe even at the present microbial life on them, and that it's extremely likely all of the planets in the solar system routinely trade biological materials via asteroid impacts. It seems that logical to assume that Biological Tera-forming of Mars is also Biological Tera-forming of Earth.
In short, the Bugs we design here, and send there, will eventually come back to haunt us.
Do you have opinion on this? I love science, and want us to use it to our benefit. But I'm not ignorant to the fact that nature has the uncanny knack of turning our best intentions to ashes in our mouths.
We are all . . . children of this universe. Not just Earth, or Mars, or this system, but the whole grand fireworks. And if we are interested in Mars at all, it is only because we wonder over our past and worry terribly about our possible future.
— Ray Bradbury, Mars and the Mind of Man, 1973.
Is there anything that Mars could profitably export to Earth?
In order to be viable, a Mars colony must pay for anything they need to import from Earth. Given that nothing on Mars will be cheaper than on Earth (economy of scale, no space suit required, third world wages, shipping costs), how can they maintain a positive trade balance with Earth?
Decades ago, Jerome Pearson produced detailed plans for a lunar space elevator for NASA Institute of Advanced Concepts, seeking to enable lunar mining and lower-cost access to water in space.
Since any human missions to Mars would benefit from (if not outright require) large amounts of water (either split into propellent and oxidizer, used as radiation shielding, or even just for life support), do you feel that construction of such a device would be a net benefit? Why or why not?
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Also, all of you idiots posting about Mars One are just that: idiots. We're supposed to be asking him about colonizing mars, not about reality TV shows.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
I don't mean this in a cynical, "why do anything," sort of way, but what exactly is the objective? Glory? No breathable atmosphere, no native food source, little to no natural resources, high radiation, and likely a very shortened lifespan as a consequence. Not to mention social isolation. Most explorers come back, and most migrants travel for a better life, so it seems like you are doing this wrong.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Of course you have read Andy Weir's novel "The Martian", what did you think of it? Are you excited about the upcoming movie adaptation?
Given Apollo level funding and political will (from the US and other involved nations), what do you think the major steps to getting to Mars will be and how long do you think it would take to actually put a man on Mars?
What do you think the needed new technologies are left to develop, test, and refine to production models before we can perform a manned Mars mission?
Because it's very unlikely the first expeditions will be completely independent of Earth - they're likely to rely on continued support for survival, much like the ISS needs resupply ships. Closed-loop life support probably won't be solved before we get to Mars.
There's supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom!
Assuming we ever make it to Mars, do you see it as a likely spot to foment revolution? Do you see a presence there as being able to relieve or change issues here on earth? How so?
What do you see as the primary reason we should go to Mars? I agree we should and have my own reasoning, but I want to know yours.
Silence is a state of mime.
Do you think it might be easier to colonize the upper atmosphere of Venus first? It seems there are several advantages to this approach (easier access to solar power, an existing magnetic field, close to earth-normal gravity). If Venus is an easier target, why not start there first?
so I love the exploring attitude. This has parallels to early colonists to America. But my sense is a) that the costs to get there , are , adjusted for inflation, way higher. b) the costs to live there are even higher: you can't grown corn there, or hunt deer (tho granted, no Indigenous Tribes) c) that a lot of the explorers, whilst marketing as 'for the crown' were doing it for profit. So costs are way higher, comparatively, and, show me the money?
As a permanent human settlement the International Space Station is NOT viable.
For past 50 years, Mars has been 20 years away. In 60s, they say people will be on Mars in the 80s. In 80s, they say people will be on Mars in the 00s. Well it's 2010s and they say people will be on Mars in 2030s. Cmon you all, don't you see a pattern here?
mfwright@batnet.com
There are actually some compelling reasons to go to Venus first including cost and transit time but also more human-favorable gravity, greater protection from radiation and possibly the only other place in the solar system which currently offers temperatures and atmospheric pressures close Earth norm - albeit only at a 30-mile altitude. So, why not cloud cities on Venus?
BTW loved the Mars trilogy - have you read 2312 yet?
Most scientists argue that the ISS is not viable and provides little science knowledge with respects to its costs. Money that could be better spent on other scientific pursuits. The SCSC is one example. It would have been 20x more powerful than the LHC which has produced orders of magnitude more data than the ISS, but was cancelled to give money to the military contractors who built the ISS. The whole space spinoff thing is also a fabrication by people with financial incentives in the aerospace industry.
Some people think that we should send someone to Mars as soon as possible, even if they can't do much before they return home. Simply leaving a human bootprint would be worth it. Others think that unmanned missions should first build up enough Martian infrastructure to support human "colonists" with a reasonable level of comfort. Only then should people be sent. Where would you put yourself on this continuum? What sort of activities should Martian astronauts be able to do before you would think the expensive trip there was worth it?
And there's no one there to raise them if you didn't
And all this science, I don't understand
It's just my job, five days a week
Any chance a chocolate company will sponsor one of the Mars exploration/colonization missions?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Why colonize Mars instead of just building colonies in space? It seems to have many disadvantages and hardly any advantages. It's incredibly far away. You still have to deal with a large gravity well every time you want to come or go. You can't create artificial gravity on Mars, so you're stuck with 38% Earth gravity. We don't even know if humans can be healthy long term living in such low gravity. Colonies in space seem as good or better in nearly every respect. About the only advantage Mars has is access to raw materials, but space colonies could mine those from asteroids or the moon.
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
I also assumed that burrowing would be a early colony strategy, as several meters of rock makes great radiation shielding. Also, you are going to want to start to bring mineral extraction and fabrication technology online quickly to minimize resupply needs. So, while colonists mine resources, they can be constructing habitat space at the same time. Has any thought been given to martian mining procedures? If there is or was frozen water in sub-soil permafrost, isn't there a good chance that if you go deep enough, you might hit a water table? If we drop you off on Mars, what is your dig plan?
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
the surface temperature is high enough that you aren't going to do much there until you stop the greenhouse effect and cool down the planet quite a bit. It might be a great Terraforming project, though.
One of the speculated effects of a large meteor striking earth is throwing large amounts of dust into the atmosphere, and cooling the planet by blocking incoming solar radiation. We can land on comets and such, so it is probably possible to land an engine or solar sail on a large meteor, and steer it into Venus's gravity well. It would give us some good (real) data on the effect of a large strike on Earth, and would be a fast and relatively cheap way to take a stab at terraforming a nearby planet. More cooling == more space rocks slammed into Venus at 17k MPH....
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
"Won't Mars children grow up too tall and thin-boned to ever return to Earth?"
They won't be like us, but they will have a highly popular sitcom.
These sorts of papers and documents are really interesting. Are there places that the are being shared out for public consumption and/or comment?
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
And never vote Democrat either, because that's where the anti-science wackos congregate. Seriously, if we're going to get anywhere, we need a new pro-science party.
Engineers, space physicists and tech magnates are quite talented in delta V, derivative trading and the Lambert problem but are, unfortunately, very poor biochemists. In recent times there has been much excitement concerning extraterrestrial water and very little consideration of nitrogen -- the reduced form is literally the stuff of life.
Given that 78% of the air you breathe is nitrogen, Mars has a paucity of 2% in its already tenuous atmosphere and that the Martian soil more closely resembles Clorox (TM) than anything what is your proposed Nitrogen source/budget? Note there is yet no evidence of vast subsurface nitrate deposits.
The public loses interest after the first few trips. You must make visible progress to keep the funding going, or better yet start with a colony. If you do a "wave the flag" trip, that's likely all you'll get.
What do we think should be the composition and density of a Martian atmosphere modified to accommodate human life and a reasonable greenhouse effect and how long do we think it will last (given that Mars lost its original atmosphere)?
It's in Earth orbit, which means the moon gets about the same amount of solar radiation per unit area as the Earth...
You're technically correct, which as we all know is the best sort of correct. :-)
The issue isn't the amount of light per unit area, it's the 2 week periods of darkness that will likely kill off your plants. Plants don't really like to grow in two week on/two week off spurts.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
we need a new pro-science party
A vote for me gets the IRS the microscopes they so direly need! I don't have PACS, just millions of grad students writing grants! Whatever is leftover from the campaign, I will use to build gargantuan cannons that run on superconductors, that fire invisible stuff! Also I recently read an authortative article that subverts whatever 'fact' you happen to mention at a social function.
Perchlorates, a reactive chemical and toxic to human is present in the soil on Mars. This will prevent the use of the soil for agriculture and will be hard to avoid as colonists will bring the dust into habitats. How do plans to colonize Mars deal with the presence of Perchlorates in the soil?.
Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.
What would have happen to Earth to make Mars look more habitable? And I'm not talking Earth-ending asteroids, I'm talking slower progression changes. What is the tipping point or scenarios where this would make sense?