Paul Davies and the Mars Colony

Darkchilde · #1 by **Darkchilde** » Nov 30, 2011 1:34 pm

From here: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/11/st_mars_davies/

Putting Scientists on Mars in Permanent Colonies

Eminent physicist Paul Davies has a proposal for you: a one-way ticket to the Red Planet. As it’s typically conceived, a round-trip Mars mission would take about two years and cost at least $80 billion. But you could cut 80 percent of the expense, Davies says, by nixing the return and initiating a permanent Mars colony. The hard part, he says, isn’t subsisting in a hostile environment millions of miles from home but changing the Space Shuttle-era culture of timidity. That’s starting to happen, though: The NASA Ames Research Center teamed up with Darpa to put $1.1 million into a study of manned interstellar travel. Even so, no one’s going anywhere, Davies argues, unless we can bring the price down. To do that, the ticket has to be one-way.

I read the whole interview and I agree with Paul Davies.

Permanent colonies, if we can make them, are the way to go. However, there is much that needs to be done before it is feasible, but we need the research and we need to go out there.

Spearthrower · #2 by **Spearthrower** » Nov 30, 2011 1:57 pm

I'd sign up.... if I could take my cat!

andyx1205 · #3 by **andyx1205** » Nov 30, 2011 2:21 pm

Whoa when did Davies shave off his moustache?

Matt_B · #4 by **Matt_B** » Nov 30, 2011 2:37 pm

I can't say I'd be in favour of this as it raises at least as many problems as it solves.

Firstly, if you want a self-sustaining colony you're going to have to send out rather a lot more kit than just a straightforward flags and footprints mission and that might well come in at a greater cost and weight than a vessel capable of making the return flight. It's questionable as to whether you'd get a saving at all.

Secondly, a lot of the kit that's sent out is going to break eventually and need replacing as it's going to be infeasible to manufacture locally. As such, sending people there to form a colony would tie us in to a lifetime of regular supply runs. Also, the lead time on these missions is going to be of the order of two years, so we'd need to make sure that everything they've got is sufficiently redundant for them to be able to last that long. And this will certainly push the eventual budget way above a return mission.

Thirdly, crewed space exploration has always been about 99% prestige and 1% science. Other than merely proving it's possible, there's no pressing reason to actually send anyone to Mars at all. Rather, it'd be much cheaper and safer to explore the planet using a series of robotic probes as is currently the case. The additional downside of sending people out there for good is that they won't be around to do the sort of outreach and advocacy work we expect from our astronauts and, worse still, there's eventually going to come a time when they'll die out there. If they're lucky it'll be of old age rather than accidents, starvation, lack of water or oxygen

Ultimately, I'd think that we would like to set up colonies on other planets, but rather it should be seen as something that'll take a stepping up of investment than a cheaper option.

Horwood Beer-Master · #5 by **Horwood Beer-Master** » Nov 30, 2011 3:04 pm

Darkchilde wrote:... However, there is much that needs to be done before it is feasible, but we need the research and we need to go out there.

It's far more a matter of getting the investment than of developing the technologies. In terms of technology, there's no major fundamental technological hurdles to overcome for such a mission to take place, and probably hasn't been for some time.
Hell, I wouldn't have put it past them to have reached Mars in the 70's when they were originally planning to - if the 'political will' (i.e. funding) hadn't dried-up. Although it's would have been a far more touch-and-go affair back then - damn good odds of a horrible tragic catastrophe.

That said, despite the odds of disaster, I rather wish they'd gone ahead given it a go. I've little time for this "wait until better technology is developed" argument. The best way to develop the technology for an interplanetary flight is to actually get out there and have an active programme (with a rigid deadline) that commits you one.
The problem otherwise is that wherever we are technologically there will always be new technologies just over the horizon that would make a Mars flight easier - If you're committed to waiting for the 'best time', then you're committed to waiting forever. Unless you accept that the 'best time' is now (the same principle applies for waiting for the best economic circumstances).

I'm just afraid we're stuck in a catch 22. People will never believe in manned interplanetary flight until it's a reality, and it's never become a reality until there's the political will - which requires people to believe it can be done.

Spearthrower · #6 by **Spearthrower** » Nov 30, 2011 3:21 pm

What we need, sadly, is a bogeyman to 'beat to Mars'.

andyx1205 · #7 by **andyx1205** » Nov 30, 2011 3:28 pm

Spearthrower wrote:What we need, sadly, is a bogeyman to 'beat to Mars'.

China, especially as they continue to develop their space program further. Of course, the ideal solution would be a global world federal government or at least single space-program that all countries participate in and pour funds into it.

Spearthrower · #8 by **Spearthrower** » Nov 30, 2011 3:37 pm

andyx1205 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:What we need, sadly, is a bogeyman to 'beat to Mars'.

China, especially as they continue to develop their space program further. Of course, the ideal solution would be a global world federal government or at least single space-program that all countries participate in and pour funds into it.

Regardless of whether we achieved the objective, that would offer an immense success in knowing that we could participate in such projects from the perspective of cooperation rather than competition.

andyx1205 · #9 by **andyx1205** » Nov 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
andyx1205 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:What we need, sadly, is a bogeyman to 'beat to Mars'.

China, especially as they continue to develop their space program further. Of course, the ideal solution would be a global world federal government or at least single space-program that all countries participate in and pour funds into it.

Regardless of whether we achieved the objective, that would offer an immense success in knowing that we could participate in such projects from the perspective of cooperation rather than competition.

And the budget for this space-program that is supported and funded by all the major countries would be quite large...large enough to do some real space exploration!

Personally I say fuck Mars, sounds like a waste of time (unless we want to terraform it and colonize it). Rather go to Europa which has the greatest chance of life in our Solar System outside our planet.

HughMcB · **#10** by **HughMcB** » Nov 30, 2011 3:55 pm

I would have no problem signing up. Although perhaps a mixed group of men and women might help. :dopey:

Someone needs to go ahead and start terraforming. Why have we not started bombarding the surface with bacteria that can induce a habitable atmosphere. Surely that is within our reach. :think:

Spearthrower · **#11** by **Spearthrower** » Nov 30, 2011 4:02 pm

HughMcB wrote:I would have no problem signing up. Although perhaps a mixed group of men and women might help.

Someone needs to go ahead and start terraforming. Why have we not started bombarding the surface with bacteria that can induce a habitable atmosphere. Surely that is within our reach.

I think it might be wise to wait and see whether Mars has its own first.... planet-wide speciecide might not be the kind of foundation we want to build our space colonisation programme on! :whistle:

Horwood Beer-Master · **#12** by **Horwood Beer-Master** » Nov 30, 2011 4:06 pm

andyx1205 wrote:...Personally I say fuck Mars, sounds like a waste of time (unless we want to terraform it and colonize it)...

Terraforming it is not a prerequisite for colonising it. If we're to be serous about colonising space we can't be so picky as to only choose places that either are, or can be made, Earthlike. We're going to have to learn to adapt at some point - why not start with a (relatively) easy target?

andyx1205 · **#13** by **andyx1205** » Nov 30, 2011 4:10 pm

Horwood Beer-Master wrote:
andyx1205 wrote:...Personally I say fuck Mars, sounds like a waste of time (unless we want to terraform it and colonize it)...

Terraforming it is not a prerequisite for colonising it. If we're to be serous about colonising space we can't be so picky as to only choose places that either are, or can be made, Earthlike. We're going to have to learn to adapt at some point - why not start with a (relatively) easy target?

Well it really depends if we want to go to Mars for future prospects of colonization or we just want to go there to learn more about Mars for scientific purposes, if the latter...Europa would be a better trip.

The_Metatron · **#14** by **The_Metatron** » Nov 30, 2011 4:13 pm

HughMcB wrote:I would have no problem signing up. Although perhaps a mixed group of men and women might help.

Someone needs to go ahead and start terraforming. Why have we not started bombarding the surface with bacteria that can induce a habitable atmosphere. Surely that is within our reach.

Sure, but who'd want to go with you?

No liquid core of Mars. No magnetic field. Atmosphere will continually be blown away by solar wind. Unless you find that big pyramid thing that we saw in that Arnold Schwarzeneger documentary...

HughMcB · **#15** by **HughMcB** » Nov 30, 2011 4:21 pm

Matt_B wrote:Firstly, if you want a self-sustaining colony you're going to have to send out rather a lot more kit than just a straightforward flags and footprints mission and that might well come in at a greater cost and weight than a vessel capable of making the return flight. It's questionable as to whether you'd get a saving at all.

Whilst I agree that the kit needed would be substantial, I don't necessarily think that it would be horrendously expensive. Certainly when one doesn't need to worry about lifting back off from Mars and also approaching and re-entering the Earth's atmosphere. We can built a closed self sustaining system for relatively cheap.

Matt_B wrote:Secondly, a lot of the kit that's sent out is going to break eventually and need replacing as it's going to be infeasible to manufacture locally. As such, sending people there to form a colony would tie us in to a lifetime of regular supply runs. Also, the lead time on these missions is going to be of the order of two years, so we'd need to make sure that everything they've got is sufficiently redundant for them to be able to last that long. And this will certainly push the eventual budget way above a return mission.

How do you think people fix kit on ships or submarines that are at sea for months at a time. They fix them. They have on board workshops and skilled workers who can rebuilt (from scratch if necessary) whatever needs to be built. If they had more space to grow food and harvest water, they would not even need to return to shore.

Matt_B wrote:Thirdly, crewed space exploration has always been about 99% prestige and 1% science. Other than merely proving it's possible, there's no pressing reason to actually send anyone to Mars at all. Rather, it'd be much cheaper and safer to explore the planet using a series of robotic probes as is currently the case.

How much money has been wasted on these robots already? How many have failed? Just recently the Russian lost theirs. The great advantage about humans is that we can reprogram ourselves as needed and repair damage to ourselves too. I agree however that obviously the introduction of a life support system and supplies of food, water, plants and animals compared to strapping a rover onto the side of a probe is quite the difference.

Matt_B wrote:The additional downside of sending people out there for good is that they won't be around to do the sort of outreach and advocacy work we expect from our astronauts and, worse still, there's eventually going to come a time when they'll die out there. If they're lucky it'll be of old age rather than accidents, starvation, lack of water or oxygen.

So we can't communicate with them?

Horwood Beer-Master · **#16** by **Horwood Beer-Master** » Nov 30, 2011 4:27 pm

andyx1205 wrote:
Horwood Beer-Master wrote:
andyx1205 wrote:...Personally I say fuck Mars, sounds like a waste of time (unless we want to terraform it and colonize it)...

Terraforming it is not a prerequisite for colonising it. If we're to be serous about colonising space we can't be so picky as to only choose places that either are, or can be made, Earthlike. We're going to have to learn to adapt at some point - why not start with a (relatively) easy target?

Well it really depends if we want to go to Mars for future prospects of colonization or we just want to go there to learn more about Mars for scientific purposes, if the latter...Europa would be a better trip.

I want to go for both reasons.

HughMcB · **#17** by **HughMcB** » Nov 30, 2011 4:27 pm

Spearthrower wrote:I think it might be wise to wait and see whether Mars has its own first.... planet-wide speciecide might not be the kind of foundation we want to build our space colonisation programme on!

Or is it EXACTLY how we want to build our colonization program?! :think:

HughMcB · **#18** by **HughMcB** » Nov 30, 2011 4:28 pm

andyx1205 wrote:Of course, the ideal solution would be a global world federal government or at least single space-program that all countries participate in and pour funds into it.

Horwood Beer-Master · **#19** by **Horwood Beer-Master** » Nov 30, 2011 4:41 pm

HughMcB wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:I think it might be wise to wait and see whether Mars has its own first.... planet-wide speciecide might not be the kind of foundation we want to build our space colonisation programme on!

Or is it EXACTLY how we want to build our colonization program?!

I'm split on this issue. As much as I'm an environmentalist when it comes to affairs here on Earth, I do wonder if it is realistic to colonise space while maintaining a strict "prime directive" type policy towards life - be they only microbes - we may encounter.

Certainly however, I wouldn't want to loose the opportunity for Mars-life to be thoroughly studied - although if any of the probes we've sent already carried microbes, we may be too late already.

Matt_B · **#20** by **Matt_B** » Nov 30, 2011 4:49 pm

HughMcB wrote:Whilst I agree that the kit needed would be substantial, I don't necessarily think that it would be horrendously expensive. Certainly when one doesn't need to worry about lifting back off from Mars and also approaching and re-entering the Earth's atmosphere. We can built a closed self sustaining system for relatively cheap.

The expense isn't just the kit itself, it's the cost of transporting it to Mars. And at around a million dollars a kilo that's substantial. It's also got to work perfectly first time, no mistakes, so extensive testing and simulation is required; with at least a two year wait for a replacement if it's going to get one at all, everything to be incredibly robust and redundant which will tend to add to the weight.

As for a closed self-sustaining system, there's no such thing. I'd think that something that'll last for three or four years for a round trip with a minimal amount of consumables is probably going to come in a lot cheaper and lighter than one that's got to last a lifetime and beyond.

How do you think people fix kit on ships or submarines that are at sea for months at a time. They fix them. They have on board workshops and skilled workers who can rebuilt (from scratch if necessary) whatever needs to be built. If they had more space to grow food and harvest water, they would not even need to return to shore.

And how much do you think those workshops weigh and how many workers are required? We're still talking a million dollars a kilo here, after all. And a crewed mission to Mars would probably have no more than half a dozen astronauts in total and quite possibly as few as two or three; there's no way you could get the necessary skill set aboard to be able to maintain all the systems when a typical space probe is constructed by thousands of engineers. Having enough redundancy to keep it all working for the entirety of a round trip would be bad enough.

Similarly, as you say, ships survive at sea for months not indefinitely. It's a myth that they could last that much longer if they could grow food aboard. Rather, they'd rapidly run out of consumables and many systems require servicing in port. Also, ships generally need to be scrapped or rebuilt after twenty years or so, and it's not like the latter will be an option for anything you send to Mars.

How much money has been wasted on these robots already? How many have failed? Just recently the Russian lost theirs. The great advantage about humans is that we can reprogram ourselves as needed and repair damage to ourselves too. I agree however that obviously the introduction of a life support system and supplies of food, water, plants and animals compared to strapping a rover onto the side of a probe is quite the difference.

A lot less has been spent on robotic exploration than crewed missions and they've gone far further afield and collected more scientifically useful data.

If anything, the failure of robotic probes should be taken as a warning that space exploration is still a very hazardous proposition. Perhaps some of the failures could have been averted with crew on board. However, many couldn't have - it's not like the crews could do anything to save Challenger and Columbia - and you'd have ended up with more dead astronauts into the bargain. Plus, of course, when you can send dozens of robotic missions for the cost of a single crewed ones, you can afford to lose a few of them without the whole program going up the spout.

So we can't communicate with them?

We can, but the time lag isn't going to be particularly conducive for conversation.