|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"John Savard" wrote in message ... We have to settle the question of life on Mars first before we can think of colonizing it. Why? What would you do differently if there was, or is, life on Mars than if there wasn't, or isn't, any life on Mars? And what is your deadline for making any determination? If I today say there isn't any life and never was, is that good enough? Or will you never accept any negative, always forever waiting for confirmation which may or may not ever come? My point being that "settling the question" could take forever. RT |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"George William Herbert" wrote in message ... Tkalbfus1 wrote: Wow. Could you talk about that a bit more? I've been Googling around, but haven't found anything about this particular assertion. I've got the book. "Destination Mars" by Alain Dupas, it imagines a mission to Mars in 2033. [...] The astronauts then mine Phobos for a month and a half for regolith to process for fuel and water for the Tsiolkovski and the Mars landers (There are 3). I don't mean to be rude, but a proposal which calls mining Phobos for water credible and the Sabatier reaction ISRU on the Mars surface impractical is more than a little whacky. What the 2 crew members spending 30 days spiraling out through the Van Allan belts doesn't bother you? :-) -george william herbert |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Rocky Top wrote:
"John Savard" wrote in message ... Indigenous, independently-evolved Martian microbes would have an immense scientific value. As what? As possible bio-weapons? No thanks. Enormously unlikely. Alien microbes are tremendously unlikely to be compatible with Earth life, and thus tremendusly unlikely to be infectious to us. It is possible for them to be toxic, but that is a much less serious problem (on par with ordinary chemical toxicity problems). Even more so considering the difficulty of adapting to Earth's different environment. Rather, an independent strain of life would be enormously helpful in answering our questions on the fundamental processes of life, which are general to all life and which are specific to Earth (or Mars) life. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Tkalbfus1
wrote: There are plenty of microbes living underground on Earth that we do not disturb. What we disturb are those complex life forms that live on the Earth's surface, Mars clearly does not have any of those. Have we proven that yet? I'm not saying there's likely anything there, but have the probes we've sent had the ability to detect something moving under its own power on the surface? "The New Ocean" mentions Sagan franticly trying to figure out how for example a snake would show up on the first mars probe's camera and if he would recognise something similar in an image. -- Chris Mack "Refugee, total ****. That's how I've always seen us. 'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us." -'Deal/No Deal', CHESS |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Earth microbes that live deep underground, on the other hand, will be,
and they, eventually, will find a way to Mars if large-scale colonization is undertaken. What happens if you put a rabbit on the surface of Mars without life support? It dies, does it not. Life on cushy Earth doesn't seem to make the lifeforms any tougher. I don't think rabbits will be taking over the planet anytime soon. Earth lifeforms are used to plentiful resource. Martian life forms if any are used to scarce ones, they've evolved to deal with the environment they are now living it. Earth lifeforms have not and they will be limited in the same respect as the Martian ones. I don't see where you get the idea that Earth life forms will be tougher. Clearly rabbits won't survive on the surface despite many millions of years of evolution in a much more benign environment. Because Mars has limited resources, its ecosystems will likely be even more fragile than those of the high Arctic. and why don't you complete that line of thought? ...Earth organisms that evolved in the high Arctic will die if place on Mars! In a Martian setting, it is clearly Earth organisms that are more fragile, because Earth organisms didn't have millions of years to adapt to the Martian environment and the Martian organisms did. Your argument turns evolution on its head. Martian life would be literally so priceless that we could not afford even one extinction. If there is only one Martian life form, its as good as extinct anyway. I don't see how only one Martian lifeform could survive a die off lasting billions of years only to become extinct when humans arrive. Isn't that like Martian Volcanoes remaining dormant for thousands of years only to erupt when humans first set foot on its slopes? What are the chances of that? Or how about Mars suddenly experiencing a warm Epoch in the next 10 years with a thickening atmosphere and spreading oceans, what are the chances of that? I do agree that an off-Earth base for human life is also a very high priority, given the risk that things may go badly on Earth; but barring disaster, the knowledge gained from studying alien life could be of immense value. John Savard I agree that it would be of immense value, I just don't think Martian life forms would be as fragile as Earth life forms. The Species we threaten on Earth depend on a complex ecological cycle that we humans tend to interfere with. Our planet is covered with multicelular lifeforms than have evolved to fill a specific nitch in a vast ecological web. Mars doesn't appear to be so well endowed with life, otherwise we'd immediately see it like we do on Earth. A martian life form would have evolved to survive the specific planetary conditions there, but I doubt we are going to alter the planetary environment any time soon and Earth life we inadvertantly import won't thrive and therefore won't threaten indigeous Martian life. The reasoning is the same why fish do not survive out of water. Tom |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) wrote:
"George William Herbert" wrote: I don't mean to be rude, but a proposal which calls mining Phobos for water credible and the Sabatier reaction ISRU on the Mars surface impractical is more than a little whacky. What the 2 crew members spending 30 days spiraling out through the Van Allan belts doesn't bother you? :-) I decided to save time and space and only reply to the mission-necessary obvious goof. It would not affect the mission design at all if the flight up through the Van Allen belts was on autopilot. Author goof but not a mission design gross error. Having to mine resources by hand, which you haven't been able to test properly etc before you get there, for your *return fuel*.... I have less objection to such ISRU if it's for the mars landing and return phase, but the main spacecraft can return to Earth without any refueling. People's lives aren't at risk if it turns out that you can't mine Phobos successfully, just the lander submission. I am not entirely sure why you'd bother having to mine Phobos for your orbital mission fuel anyways. GEO to Phobos and back on one tankload of ion fuel is within reasonable design parameters, and I have a whole set of mission architectures I worked up for Mars missions starting with manned Phobos missions and building a base there for teleoperation of surface rovers, ramping up through eventually staging a lander out of the Phobos base. -george william herbert |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Earl Colby Pottinger wrote: ...In a book I've just read, Zubrin's idea of manufacturing rocket fuel on Mars was considered infeasible. Why? It is basic chemistry for the conversion so we know that will work. Test prototypes have been built, all that is needed is engineering to make a design that will work unattended on Mars. Expensive yes, infeasible I don't see how. There is room for some doubt (unless you're Zubrin) about issues like the problems of handling dusty Martian air and the energy requirements of the complete system. Serious engineering uncertainties do remain, and only Mars-surface tests can definitively settle whether current ideas about solving them would actually work. But any flat declaration that the whole concept is "infeasible" rests on hidden assumptions. the ISS, The orbit is all wrong for Moon or Mars missions! No, that's a misconception, based on oversimplified notions of orbital dynamics. The only thing *badly* wrong with the ISS orbit as an assembly site is that it's relatively expensive to get to, which seriously increases the number of launches needed to assemble a given mass there. That is a relatively minor issue for a government-run program, since in such a program, the development costs of the hardware will undoubtedly completely dominate launch costs anyway. If you want a *good* assembly site, using existing launchers, the thing to do is to put in a couple of Zenit or Atlas V pads at Kourou, and assemble in an equatorial orbit. a refueling stop at Phobos, We have no probes on Mar's moons, what does he plan to use there as fuel that we know is there? It is likely -- not certain -- that a substantial fraction of the mass of Phobos is either water ice, or water-rich organic gunk like the Tagish Lake meteorite. Confirmation of this definitely would be useful... -- "Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer -- George Herbert | |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
(Tkalbfus1) wrote...
The Astronauts are basically colonists. They have a spare hab just in case NASA misses a launch window, and each hab is designed to last for 4 years, this means that NASA can miss two launch windows and still send a hab in time to save the astronauts. And we can do this much sooner than the time it would take to develop the technology for a round trip mission. Anyway if we plan on colonizing Mars, why not start right away? http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1023276.htm http://www.marsinstitute.info/rd/fac.../rtr/ma26.html One way to Mars is the right way to go. And it may be fatal for some of the colonists - just consider early colonies in the Americas. But that is not an argument against doing it. Success will come to those hearty and lucky enough to survive. There are two kinds of tech for the colonists of Mars - that which is imported from the Earth and that which is built on Mars. In addition to exploiting water (essential for any successful Martian colony), the colonists will need to develop production capabilities for iron, glass, fuel, and food. We assume a nuclear reactor to provide the colony with a source of power. Martian agriculture seems feasible if water can be found and the UV radiation can be filtered. This may then depend on glass production. Imagine a 1 ft square "table" that might allow lichen to grow underneath. One would have to check the temperature range, but the partial pressure of the CO2 should support it. Or one can go with the normal heated and pressurized greenhouse ideas. The faster the colony becomes semi self-sufficient the more likely it will hold on and survive. Spare parts are a problem since your resupply from the Earth has such a nasty delay. Thus machine tools and raw feedstock are very important. One problem is that much of this technology on Earth is associated with large industrial scale production. Initial Mars production will likely be in small batches. Think of a small glass making machine, a small iron smelter, etc. If I'm a colonist on Mars, I don't just want duct tape - I want the means to make my own duct tape. - Cris Fitch San Diego, CA http://www.orbit6.com/ |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"George William Herbert" wrote in message ... Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) wrote: "George William Herbert" wrote: I don't mean to be rude, but a proposal which calls mining Phobos for water credible and the Sabatier reaction ISRU on the Mars surface impractical is more than a little whacky. What the 2 crew members spending 30 days spiraling out through the Van Allan belts doesn't bother you? :-) I decided to save time and space and only reply to the mission-necessary obvious goof. Fair enough. But I think making even such a simple basic goof further illustrates the problems with this book. Zubrin may be optimistic, but at least he's trying to pay attention to details. :-) -george william herbert |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Space Calendar - March 26, 2004 | Ron | Misc | 0 | March 26th 04 04:05 PM |
Space Calendar - September 28, 2003 | Ron Baalke | History | 0 | September 28th 03 08:00 AM |
Space Calendar - August 28, 2003 | Ron Baalke | History | 0 | August 28th 03 05:32 PM |
Space Calendar - July 24, 2003 | Ron Baalke | History | 0 | July 24th 03 11:26 PM |
Space Calendar - June 27, 2003 | Ron Baalke | Misc | 3 | June 28th 03 05:36 PM |