-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
Human settlement of Mars in 2023
- Thread starter Hash Zeppelin
- Start date
Budweiser13
Active member
Suicide mission and waste of money I don't care if it is still planned 20 years from now. We need to fix this world before going to another...
Humans were meant to explore the stars and planets... the farther we get away from Religion on this planet...the more we can evolve and become complete...imgaine if Orignal Man was too scared to venture out of Africa over vast oceans.... Earth would still be primitive as fuck
FreedomFightr
Member
shit a pack of seeds and 3 female porn stars,,, sighn me up
we must settle Mars and then move out across the solar system and then beyond to other stars as soon as possible to prolong our existence as a species. Humans are fucked up in a lot of ways but we have a lot of potential too and we could accomplish a whole lot more if we united and gave up the petty warmongering greed bullshit. It can be done, it just takes some backbone and will power and a system that values people, the environment, and getting things done, and not just the super rich and their corporations. A new planet will force cooperation and may offer the fresh perspective we need to get our shit together as a species. Time to stop playing in and messing in our crib and explore both what's out there and what really lies within us as well.
G
greenmatter
we are STILL "primitive as fuck", and the earth would still be in good shape if we were not. thinking that we were "meant'' to do a damn thing has it's roots i religion, and religion has always been one of the excuses we use to fuck things up whenever and wherever we see fit.
we don't even have a permanent base on the moon because A.)there is nothing there worth having and B.) we can't make it work in the first place
mars won't belong to us any time soon
G
guest 77721
Have they figured out how to protect from the radiation exposure yet?
The Earth's Van-Allen belt provides good protection from cosmic radiation and fair protection from solar flares. That's why astronauts can spend a lot of time in the space station.
Radiation isn't just a risk to getting Cancer. It also causes electronic systems to glitch and fail. Not nice when your survival is dependant on computers and other gadgets.
There's no radiation shield when you travel to Mars and Mars itself has no magnetic shield because it has no spinning iron core like the Earth.
Mars is a one way trip to Cancer, at this time.
The Earth's Van-Allen belt provides good protection from cosmic radiation and fair protection from solar flares. That's why astronauts can spend a lot of time in the space station.
Radiation isn't just a risk to getting Cancer. It also causes electronic systems to glitch and fail. Not nice when your survival is dependant on computers and other gadgets.
There's no radiation shield when you travel to Mars and Mars itself has no magnetic shield because it has no spinning iron core like the Earth.
Mars is a one way trip to Cancer, at this time.
yes, kind of, you accelerate some mass that shields the space habitat/ship
good part is that if you have enough material, you can reduce the radiation issues way down
bad news is the cost goes way up, but if cost is no object it could be done
and there is tech in the works, magnetic field surrounding the ship would be near ideal, but that's technology in the works
a very cool propulsion method would be plasma magnetosphere, this would combine protection and propulsion in one package
the ship is protected by a magnetic field that also serves as a solar sail, it captures the energy of the charged particle wind from the sun
double thumbs up for ingenuity and efficiency
there is no assumption on my part, this is documented space science. They can prevent muscle atrophy, but bone loss is unavoidable. The only way we know to prevent, end and restore the bone density is returning to Earth and time. (READ: TIME ON EARTH)
but physically we CERTAINLY are not build for space travel.
If there was a habitual planet with gravity equal to Earth, 100 months travel from Earth. WE couldnt practically get there.
FWIW here is a 1984 article stating the 3 cosmonauts who spent a then record 238 days were having trouble walking.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...ghgiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=m6UFAAAAIBAJ&pg=753,1256288
Without artificial gravity, long term space travel is an impossibility.
G
guest 77721
Ok now we have identified two hurdles. Low gravity illness and radiation.
The third hurdle is the lack of a decent propulsion system.
An ant can lift six times it's own bodyweight but an elephant can't jump. This is a problem of scale. An ant the size of an elephant would collapse under its own weight.
The rocket is the same way. A bottle rocket has a tremendous thrust/weight ration and a rocket is useful as an anti-aircraft missile. The fuel/payload ration rises exponentially.
Look at the size of an Apollo rocket with a tiny capsule with three guys packed into a tin can. It's a flying fuel tank.
The amount of material that needs to be transported by rocket for an expedition can't be done in a one-shot mission like the moon visits. Those were weekend camping trips.
The rocket is barely adequate for orbital missions but forget it for missions that go beyond our backyard.
It's nearly impossible to transport the fuel needed to get there and have enough to get back. Mars is again a one way ticket.
The third hurdle is the lack of a decent propulsion system.
An ant can lift six times it's own bodyweight but an elephant can't jump. This is a problem of scale. An ant the size of an elephant would collapse under its own weight.
The rocket is the same way. A bottle rocket has a tremendous thrust/weight ration and a rocket is useful as an anti-aircraft missile. The fuel/payload ration rises exponentially.
Look at the size of an Apollo rocket with a tiny capsule with three guys packed into a tin can. It's a flying fuel tank.
The amount of material that needs to be transported by rocket for an expedition can't be done in a one-shot mission like the moon visits. Those were weekend camping trips.
The rocket is barely adequate for orbital missions but forget it for missions that go beyond our backyard.
It's nearly impossible to transport the fuel needed to get there and have enough to get back. Mars is again a one way ticket.
the tech to do Mars trips is doable, just damn expensive
the OP showed one route, current tech and a 1 way trip, it would 'work', at a reasonable price
good chance of dead astronauts along the way, and that seems to affects the decision process
now if we want to start to develop nuclear engines, magnetic shielding, those would work(eventually)
another possibility is laser propulsion from Earth and Mars, laser in Earth orbit sends ship at high speed to Mars
and Mars will have boost(also braking) laser in orbit which has been prepositioned
all would eventually work, probably just take 5-10 trillion dollars or some such thing
which ain't happening any time soon
the OP showed one route, current tech and a 1 way trip, it would 'work', at a reasonable price
good chance of dead astronauts along the way, and that seems to affects the decision process
now if we want to start to develop nuclear engines, magnetic shielding, those would work(eventually)
another possibility is laser propulsion from Earth and Mars, laser in Earth orbit sends ship at high speed to Mars
and Mars will have boost(also braking) laser in orbit which has been prepositioned
all would eventually work, probably just take 5-10 trillion dollars or some such thing
which ain't happening any time soon
T
texsativa
Shit...lol. I'll believe it when I see it.
baittis
Member
The thing is, if we think FUNDING to be the biggest problem of solving issues regarding the radiation of the sun etc. we're not gonna make it.
RESOURCES is what we need, not MON€Y or FUND$.
Fuck the munnysystem. But i guess we're never gonna learn to let go of oh-so-sweet cash. Too many seem to hysterically try and get rich.
The idea of habitating another rock in the space is fascinating tho.
RESOURCES is what we need, not MON€Y or FUND$.
Fuck the munnysystem. But i guess we're never gonna learn to let go of oh-so-sweet cash. Too many seem to hysterically try and get rich.
The idea of habitating another rock in the space is fascinating tho.
Last edited:
The solution as I understand it is to launch the mission from space so that you don't have to deal with the weight of the elephant. Most of what makes space travel impractical with current technology is breaking out of the gravitational pull of earth. Now that we've discovered water on the moon we could in theory build a moon base to process liguid oxygen fuel from that water to supply the fuel for a mars mission launched from space or the moon and if it was a one way mission we wouldn't even need to worry about fuel to get back.
Planets maybe but stars, not likely unless we find a way to travel faster then the speed of light without the ship and everything in it being transformed into energy.
getting back to the beginning of topic, let us consider why we might want to colonize Mars
one part seems to be the natural urge of people to expand their range, a good survival trait, eggs in many different baskets
but what's the likely disaster on Earth that requires Mars to survive?
asteroids are a maybe, super volcanoes would be nasty, and nuclear war threats probably won't go away
but if you want to create a self contained, self sufficient environments, plenty of Earth locations to do this
short of a completely ice covered globe, i just don't see that Mars offers anything over Earth for a survival habitat
one part seems to be the natural urge of people to expand their range, a good survival trait, eggs in many different baskets
but what's the likely disaster on Earth that requires Mars to survive?
asteroids are a maybe, super volcanoes would be nasty, and nuclear war threats probably won't go away
but if you want to create a self contained, self sufficient environments, plenty of Earth locations to do this
short of a completely ice covered globe, i just don't see that Mars offers anything over Earth for a survival habitat
I've already applied for and received licensing for the exclusive right to market bath salts when we get there.......
Budweiser13
Active member
^^S4L I think you should market them as Mars Salts...
Im pretty sure Nasa/Roscosmos says the third problem is PEOPLE. People get on each others nerves. Even your best friends would get on your nerves after a 6 month journey in a tin can (never mind the actual stay on the planet) Can you say Lord Of The Flies?.
I thought i had read they came up with a process to strip the oxygen from the 'rusty iron' crust of the Martian soil. Now i cant remember if it was just about iron production or producing fuel...
i believe there is also thought process to send an automated 'fuel' processor first. Let it convert Martian ice into hydrogen fuel...
but it doesnt matter if we want to do it, only if we could do it, and once it is possible (read: artificial gravity) we wont be limited to any planet.
