Expected Fatality Rate for That Mars Reality Show: 100 Percent

It takes 68 days for the first crew member to die.*

That projected fatality is the result of suffocation, space-style: The researchers found that growing plants would increase the amount of oxygen in the air to the point where it would need to be vented outside of the habitat to avoid increasing the pressure within the life support unit.

But there isn’t technology yet to vent oxygen separately from nitrogen, and indiscriminate venting would quickly cause the colonists to run out of the nitrogen used to maintain pressure, creating a situation where there will not be enough air pressure for crew members to breathe, but enough oxygen in the habitat to create serious fire danger.

And did I mention that humidity in the capsule will hover around 100 percent, thanks to the agricultural efforts?

So, according to MIT researchers, the Mars colonists are doomed. What does ATS think?

finance.yahoo.com...

Two domes... one for agriculture, the other for habitation. Vent the O2 from the agriculture dome to the habitation dome. Excessive O2 released to wherever it's needed.

To me, not a hard problem to solve.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
Two domes... one for agriculture, the other for habitation. Vent the O2 from the agriculture dome to the habitation dome. Excessive O2 released to wherever it's needed.

To me, not a hard problem to solve.

Your logic is perfect
You should have their job

Maybe someone can clear this up for me but why not perfect this on the moon before we attempt this on Mars? At least there is a chance to return from the moon.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
Two domes... one for agriculture, the other for habitation. Vent the O2 from the agriculture dome to the habitation dome. Excessive O2 released to wherever it's needed.

To me, not a hard problem to solve.

Except during the construction phase of that "habitat" of course.

The only viable option is to follow mission after mission to back each other up. In case there is a problem with one, the next crew can perform a rescue mission. Now if they can only get the funding for the "Manned Martian Merry go round".

Do it with robotics. "Just cuz its there" is a fools errand.

That is the kind of question that makes you go all tingly and go HMMMMMMMMMMM.....

A very good question and one I would like to hear the "answer" to.


a reply to: TheLieWeLive

a reply to: EternalSolace

They said the problem is seperating the oxygen from the nitrogen gas. I think a better Idea would be having some type of material that oxidizes readily and then use some sort of chemical reaction to take the oxygen out of the oxidized substance. The only problem with that is freeing the oxygen molecule is going to take a lot of energy.

a reply to: TheLieWeLive

Maybe someone can clear this up for me but why not perfect this on the moon before we attempt this on Mars? At least there is a chance to return from the moon.

The return rocket motors on the LEM during the Apollo missions were not tested before they were needed. They couldn't be. One shot throw aways.

They had to work the first time and every time. Same thing goes on Mars. If the rocket doesn't fire, you are just as stuck.

Going to the moon first and then Mars is a waste of energy. And return missions are really only necessary if they are manned. When a probe dies, nobody has to watch it turn blue.

originally posted by: TheLieWeLive
Maybe someone can clear this up for me but why not perfect this on the moon before we attempt this on Mars? At least there is a chance to return from the moon.

I agree with you and ill take it a step further, why not perfect this under our oceans before we go to the moon?

a reply to: BGTM90

" The researchers found that growing plants would increase the amount of oxygen in the air to the point where it would need to be vented outside of the habitat to avoid increasing the pressure within the life support unit."

From what I understand, the reason they needed to vent the O2, is because the agriculture creates and over abundunce of it. There's no need for the air from the agriculture to be in the same circuit as the habitat's life support.

The agriculture can be grown in a seperate dome, and bypass the problem all together.

Those MIT researchers must have skipped biology lessons at school. At night (or in the dark), plants absorb oxygen and release CO2. www.enotes.com...

Besides, ever heard of an oxygen absorber? It's in those little "Do Not Eat" sachets in your jerky packs. Put enough of them around the plants (which should be kept in a closed environment anyway), problem solved.

originally posted by: lostbook
So, according to MIT researchers, the Mars colonists are doomed. What does ATS think?

A number of researchers are working very hard and spending a lot of money to create a system to successfully deliver corpses to Mars.

a reply to: EternalSolace

yeah sorry I read that wrong. Well then you can skip the last step of my idea just get a material that can oxidize readily and then store it when it is used up. Use it for emergencies or activities out side the habitat or make water. Why vent and waste such a precious commodity on a planet with so little resources?

Of course they're doomed, there's no way home... it's a one-way trip.

there is a new material that easily solves this problem.

rt.com...

Well, we will learn something from their death anyway. We will learn that we are nowhere near a point of colonizing another planet. The difference in gravity and vibration alone will cause the failure. But I guess unless we get some suckers to go there there will be no real evidence to prove this will happen. Now we will need double blind testing, so everyone will be replaced after they die with new suckers and after two generations of death they will abandon the project. But someone else will again try it thinking they are better so it will all happen again. I like it here, why would I want to go to Mars anyway. Maybe Venus, where there is a civilization of women. How do I know that? I saw it on an Abott and Costello movie and another scifi movie. That is double blind evidence that two people made movies of it and succeeded with their movies.

I don't understand why we keep dragging our feet and putting off going to Mars with excuses such as this. What is it, is there something to hide on Mars? I never used to believe so, but sending big R/C cars for decades instead of actual people when we've had the tech for decades seems...well, odd.

a reply to: lostbook

There isn't an osmotic membrane that would allow this selective transfer?

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: lostbook

There isn't an osmotic membrane that would allow this selective transfer?

I don't have the answer to that question. I do however, wonder about the "man made breath-able" leaf. I wrote a thread about it a while back.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I don't understand why we keep dragging our feet and putting off going to Mars with excuses such as this. What is it, is there something to hide on Mars?

People don't want to completely admit that there's no reason to go to Mars except for symbolic reasons. And while we were willing to pay a huge cost for symbolism during the Cold War to go to the Moon, Mars just doesn't have that same value. It's a dead planet, with not enough resources to truly be used as a "spare" planet in case Earth is going to be destroyed. Any research outpost we might establish there anytime soon would likely fail, and produce minimal scientific results for the cost. And our robots are quickly getting smart enough to take over the job of exploring space for us. They're always going to be much more durable and efficient at it.

It's sad to face our own limitations as a species. But the universe is huge and hostile, and while we can dream of flying around in space like Captain Kirk, the simple fact is we're not physically cut out for it. We didn't know that when we first started going into space, but we know it now.