A human Mars mission?

The decreased solar flux is a problem for solar power generation, but it's
also
a problem for agriculture.


Not as much as you seem to think. At the equator, Mars solar flux is about 1/2
Earth strength, or the sunlight level at 45 N (or S) latitude. Lots of farming
there. From there, it falls off in the same way as on Earth toward the poles,
and the distance is about the same as from 45 N to the pole. So the whole
surface is one for high-latitude agriculture.

Mike Combs wrote:

You ever read
Aurther C Clarkes book 'The Sands of Mars', first ever sf book I read,
and have been into Mars ever since.


And I think that's entirely the problem. SF authors have no special insight
into how the future will unfold, and can (and do) suffer from planetary
chauvinism as bad as anyone. The future might well turn out significantly
different from what SF has predicted.


It seems to me Stanford Tori and O'Neill habitats are becoming more
common in written science fiction, maybe not the movies (Though 2001 had
a nice Stanford torus)

Hop
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

(G EddieA95) wrote:

The decreased solar flux is a problem for solar power generation, but it's
also
a problem for agriculture.


Not as much as you seem to think. At the equator, Mars solar flux is about 1/2
Earth strength, or the sunlight level at 45 N (or S) latitude.
Lots of farming there.

Ump, no. Mars receives *one half* of the amount of energy, the 45
(N/S) latitude receives (roughly) the same amount of energy as the
Equator, but for a lesser period of *time*.

When you are talking about plant growth, the two terms (energy and
time) are not interchangeable.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

Mike Combs wrote:

Christopher wrote:

snip

Nobody. But you want the mining operations to be administered from the surface
of Mars, without providing any reason why the surface would be better for this
purpose than an orbital habitat.

The paper pushers won't lose their pencil?

Why not work on the uninhabitable earth areas first?
Aus outback, deserts, ocean floor? When we run out of room,
Then we should consider offworld habitat. It appears to be a
waste of resources when we have so much to do here.
You must consider the effects of close quarters. Research
shows that violence, stress and agression are bred in close
contact without a release.

BTW: I live on the edge of a huge forest, The closest
settlement to the north is over 75 miles away, with nothing,
not even a shack, between here and there.

Jim Davis.
Running away from "spaceship earth" is not an option.

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 13:05:05 -0500, Mike Combs
wrote:

Christopher wrote:

The colonies in the New World didn't start that way.

What nonsense. The first colonies in the new world were started to serve the
interests of European investors (tea, pelts, etc.).

What nonsence the first colonists went to the New World to escape
religious persecution.

Intercolonial trade was a
small part of the picture near the very beginning. By the same token, the
first settlements beyond the Earth, wherever they are built, will be built to
meet the needs of Terrestrial investors. Because at the beginning, that's the
only kind there is.

But their are only a few asteriods that are NEO ones compaired to the
number of asteriods reachable from Mars orbit,

True, but NEOs number into the thousands. I imagine they'll be fairly used up
before there's a major push toward the belt. And that will take many decades.

But the fact that the major amount of raw material resides in the Belt is to me
a reason for building settlements in the Belt, not on the surface of a planet.

as the 2 martian moons
will act as refuelling stops for Mars ships to and from the main belt.

Have you ever seen one of those signs that says "If you lived here, you'd be
home by now"?

No, but I have seen the saying "No matter where you go, there you
are".



Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 12:20:45 GMT, Christopher James Huff
wrote:

In article ,
jimmydevice wrote:

Why not work on the uninhabitable earth areas first?
Aus outback, deserts, ocean floor? When we run out of room,
Then we should consider offworld habitat. It appears to be a
waste of resources when we have so much to do here.

Turn Earth into a global city first, great idea.

Earth = Coruscant, hmm you'd need those anti grav aircraft though to
get around.


Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 15:55:00 -0500, Mike Combs
wrote:

Christopher wrote:

I just cant see them living all their life in a flying can as an
alternative to living on another planet,

That's good. Bear in mind at all times that your difficulties with this
concept relate only to the limitations of your imagination.

What are all these space can dwellers going to do with their dead,
burial at sea, or do you favor recycling?


Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 16:11:31 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:


"Christopher" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 13:05:05 -0500, Mike Combs
wrote:

Christopher wrote:

The colonies in the New World didn't start that way.

What nonsense. The first colonies in the new world were started to serve
the
interests of European investors (tea, pelts, etc.).

What nonsence the first colonists went to the New World to escape
religious persecution.

Wrong.

The Pilgrims were not the first colonists in the New World.

And the only reason why they felt that they could go where they did was
because of a long European history of fishing off of the Great Banks and
setting up "summer" colonies and trading in furs and the like.

How do you think the Indians Samoset and Squanto knew English when they got
there? I'll give you a hint, Squanto had already been to Europe.

And why did the people/pilgrims on the Mayflower go to the New World.



Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

On 22 Aug 2003 17:43:07 GMT, (G EddieA95) wrote:

Another scenario we all in this thread should consider is humanity
will never build these flying cities in the main belt, nor go to Mars,
or even back to the Moon,

We *all* know that that is the most likely outcome. The point is, how do we
move the timeline to any other outcome?

*We* as newsgroup posters can't, as we don't have the ear of the
people who can move the timeline to have one or all of the various
scenario's featured in this thread come about. We can only watch
events unfold.


Space cities and Mars exploration can
coexist, and maybe the *problem* with the US space program is that it has
become unidirectional.

nods No big goal yet that the public mindset can get enthusiastic
about, like in the mid 1960's, when getting to the Moon was the goal.


Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 18:06:40 GMT, (Derek Lyons)
wrote:

(Christopher) wrote:
What are all these space can dwellers going to do with their dead,
burial at sea, or do you favor recycling?

RAH in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" proposes cremation and use the
ashes as fertilizer in a flower garden.

I kinda like the idea myself.

You could always have a crew composed of Catholics or Hindus or both.


Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill