Humans to colonize Mars by 2023

Originally posted by PluPerfect
reply to post by SloAnPainful

 

I agree that a "goal" of the year 2023 is a bit over-zealous.

Still.....we willcolonize Mars, eventually. And, there will be subsequent political problems that ensue....as in, Mars (as a planet) or any community located there will eventually require to be "independent" and its own entity......there will be wars, over jurisdiction and "ownership"..... and basic rights.......mark my words.

Sounds like the video game series "Red Faction"

Play It through to see one possible outcome of that exact situation.

was a giant asteroid DELIBERATELY hurled at earth to clear the dinosaurs to make way for man. According to religions such as islam, earth was inhabited by creatures/spirits before man was placed here, these creatures were exiled to make space.

reply to post by badman6


You mean the Jinn? Suppose if they live in a lamp then we might perceive there lamps as UFOs? Think there fire spirts or born of a/the fire spirit.

I hope this project goes from strength to strength,despite many obvious hurdles.

But lets be honest-

No one ever got anywhere by whinging and moaning that "it cannot be done."

The way we as a species overcome supposedly impossible odds is down to an attitude which states "This is going to be very hard,but we shall overcome the problems to make it a reality."

Mars One,go for it I say.
At least they are trying.

Without people like these who are willing to push the boundaries of exploration,we would never leave the Earth.

My only concern is that in the future they may turn into a kind of uber corporation,like Weyland/Yutani from the Alien films..

Ok lets say this is possibe, can someone please tell me the method of propultion they will use to get from Earth to Mars in only 7 months!

Probly the same they use to
send the rovers there...

No problem there...

They dont need to worry about the gforce and radiation with cargo as much as with people, if they can get there in only 7 months how much gforce/acceleration will the human astronauts experience? How much cosmic radiation exposure with only minimal shielding can the astronauts take? Transporting people might be a lot more awkward than cargo, especially since there is no rotational section and hence no gravity for 7 months, sounds like they should name the ship Titanic 2.

Mehhh..
They´ll solve itty problems like that..

And btw i see tons of benefits with this.

1: Permanent settlement would give opertunitys to
other ventures.
2: Terraforming, the trash we need to get rid of can be burnt
on mars in big reactorlike factorys.
3: New tech could be giving the Settlers possible "earth vacations"

Just to name 3

Why Mars? Wouldn't it be more plausible to make your first "serious venture" for colonization on Luna?

Assuming we can even get people to Mars in one piece, I would like to hear about how they're going to "colonize" it.

reply to post by andy06shake

Ok lets say this is possibe, can someone please tell me the method of propultion they will use to get from Earth to Mars in only 7 months!

Nothing says chemical rockets can't do it.

Theoretically, VASMIR could do it, as well (though VASMIR technology is notably under developed and this doesn't solve the problem of power generation - which would need to come from a nuclear fission or fusion source for sustained operation).

The problem in either case is the sheer mass you are sending off planet and then accelerating out of low earth orbit. Chemical rockets require a lot of mass for their power... but even a small naval reactor (such as the type used on a Virginia Class submarine) would be quite a challenge to launch into orbit to begin with (and have it work once it got there).

Constructing such systems in orbit is another daunting task - given the difficulty of manned labor in a zero G environment and the relative complexity of the systems.

Of course - even a chemically propelled system is going to require power to operate life support and other mission critical systems.... so using a reactor from a naval submarine may be necessary no matter how you look at it (and such a system would be able to provide power for several years after arriving on Mars, presuming you can construct one that could survive a landing - solar power cells would be unreliable in the martian sand storms). Being able to use some of that power in a drive system like VASMIR could substantially reduce the mass that needs to be placed in low earth orbit (and eventually accelerated out of it).

That said - I'm not a huge proponent of sending people to Mars. We should send construction drones in first to set up camp and essential support equipment - which may allow for a return trip if we do it correctly (so it isn't a one-way ticket).

I would actually recommend we set up orbital stations strategically around Mars to provide navigational and logistical support to any operations on the ground. These would make 24/7 communications possible, as well as open up other options for expansion in the future (such as simulated gravity to help astronauts regain bone mass lost during travel (which may have only minimal simulated gravity)). You set up a 'colony' using robots and run various biological tests to ensure a sustainable existence is possible (you know - before you send people into an atmosphere filled with everything but the essential oxygen). These robots could also be used by future manned teams for expansion/maintenance as well (or for handling dangerous jobs that pose an unnecessary risk to the team).

Just because there are people who would volunteer for a one way trip does not make the prospect of spending the resources to send them there a beneficial one.

Placing a man on Mars is really no different than placing a robot on mars, if you really want to think about it. We can keep people alive in space aboard stations for long periods of time and have the technology to place their being on the planet's surface.

That's not the issue. It's being able to place people on the planet in a productive capacity to do research. Mars isn't just a square in a hop-scotch game of stellar proportions like the Moon was. It represents the challenge of effective habitation off of our own planet - of information and supply networks (even at their most primal level) that span a segment of the solar system.

Placing a man on mars is, essentially, as difficult as throwing a bigger rock even harder. Strap a bigger rocket to it.

Making it so they are capable of actually doing much more than going: "I'm here!" is an all together different challenge from that of placing people on the Moon.

From a realistic standpoint - the moon represents a much more economically and industrially viable location to establish colonies. It can serve as an outpost for the processing of materials and construction of various systems (such as entire sections for space habitats) - which would open up the prospect of viable martian colonies (as well as other regions of the solar system).

I've been waiting my whole life to hear news like this,but I very much doubt if funding it in this way will ever work and doubt even more if it'd happen any other way in such a short time span.

But I bet the likes of Decisively,Blocula et al are already planning their conspiracy theories and no matter how much empirical evidence they're shown won't sleep until they can prove it didn't happen.

Load of crap!

It's one thing to come out with it if you had the financial clouts to back your words up. Another thing entirely you expect to make it all up via donations & sponsorships.

Nobody is going to give these 'unknowns' billions of pounds to put a handful of people on another planet. The company would gain a fortune from the money & 2/4 people would get the opportunity of a lifetime. There is absolutely nothing that would get the 'financiers' their initial investment back.

Never going to happen!