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.
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).
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.
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
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.
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?
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
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."