The astronauts would be sent supplies from Earth on a regular basis but they would be expected to become self-sufficient on the red planet’s surface as soon as possible.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1324192/Nasa-plan-Hundred-Year-Starship--mission-astronauts-Mars-leave-forever.html#ixzz13afDBFjp
Apparently there is money to be made retrieving dead satellites.
Question: Do you think planets should remain colonies of their respective nations, of earth as a whole, or if they can support it, entirely separate and sovereign worlds.
Question: Do you think planets should remain colonies of their respective nations, of earth as a whole, or if they can support it, entirely separate and sovereign worlds.
The idea of 4 people, though... probably 2 women and 2 men, creeps me out. The inbreeding of the children would be inhumane. I can see 4 people up there for 5 years or so to do some preliminary ground work to build a base, then another group to come and augment them. I can't see a colony surviving in a genetically healthy state (not to mention the civil rights issues of scientifically arranged marriages), with less than at least 50 people.
You don't need to send more people to avoid inbreeding. Send spermAn interesting solution....
You don't need to send more people to avoid inbreeding. Send sperm (and possibly egg) samples from several hundred parents.
I would sign up in a heartbeat. =)
You could keep the genetic lines separate until the third generation, the grandchildren. They should have plenty of time to bring in fresh blood before inbreeding becomes necessary.
Although, could you imagine growing up entirely on Mars and never knowing more than a handful of people?
1 way may not be be necessary. The plasma drive has real money behind it, and they already have plans for what amounts to an orbital tow truck. Apparently there is money to be made retrieving dead satellites.
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/support/researching/aspl/index.html (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/support/researching/aspl/index.html)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_Specific_Impulse_Magnetoplasma_Rocket (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_Specific_Impulse_Magnetoplasma_Rocket)
babies are resource hogs
sterilize the travelers
I've always thought it could be a profitable venture IF you already have a space vehicle capable of making the trip multiple times and it is capable of collecting space junk. Of course some of that stuff has some kind of nuclear power source so an extra bit of caution with that.
The idea of 4 people, though... probably 2 women and 2 men, creeps me out. The inbreeding of the children would be inhumane.
Isn't there also some form of 'controlled inbreeding', which prevents the more horrific genetic malformations that inbreeding causes?
You don't need to send more people to avoid inbreeding. Send sperm.
Those dang Martian rebels! :police:Loonies strike at Earth! :police:
Question: Do you think planets should remain colonies of their respective nations, of earth as a whole, or if they can support it, entirely separate and sovereign worlds.
Just how would the supposed governing authority back on Terra enforce its rules?By withholding the vital supply shipments that are necessary for the survival of the colonists.
Just how would the supposed governing authority back on Terra enforce its rules?
One of the colonists smuggles a few MJ seeds and starts growing pot in the hydroponic garden... what are the feds going to do: spend a few billion to build another spaceship and then send a swat team out there...? :P
As far as genetic variety, there are a number of different options, if you think "outside the box [book]" ... two couples, that's four different genetic combinations, you know ;)
By withholding the vital supply shipments that are necessary for the survival of the colonists.
If some billionaire happened to fund the whole thing "just for humanity", do you think the powers that be would even let it happen?
"Why do you need to become a Colonist? __________________________________________________________"
If some billionaire happened to fund the whole thing "just for humanity", do you think the powers that be would even let it happen? =|
By withholding the vital supply shipments that are necessary for the survival of the colonists.
You know that Columbus guy, right? Suppose his name will ever die in history?
THAT is your billionaire motivation.
If someone held a press conference 1 minute before launch, and 1000 miles away from the secret launch site (ideally a hollowed out volcano), declaring intent to launch and the purpose, I doubt the US Government would have the information assets to stop it before ignition, or chutzpah to forcibly shoot it down in light of the starry-eyed dreams of the billionaire philanthropist whom the public would love so much.
Look how much everyone loves Burt Rutan.
The thing is, a "self-sustaining" colony isn't one that can make all of its own stuff, it's one that can make or trade for all of the necessary stuff.Know of any good intergalactic trading posts? ;)
The thing is, a "self-sustaining" colony isn't one that can make all of its own stuff, it's one that can make or trade for all of the necessary stuff.
Who's Burt Rutan?
Quote from: Headless Thompson GunnerBy withholding the vital supply shipments that are necessary for the survival of the colonists.
That's real humane ;/
The government could very well stop it with the stroke of a pen. New federal regulation, buying off other governments with nice trade agreements, loans, etc. There will be no privately funded colonizations if the government doesn't want it to happen. I'm all for getting off our butts and into the great unknown. I'm just saying it would be easy for the government to stop. There would never be a need to shoot down anything as the program would never get that far if it was not allowed.
That's real humane ;/
But, very practical. Power is amoral.
Not even slightly.
Two kinds of Mars colonies can exist.
Either a symbolic one with half a dozen scientists running experiments - like an ISS, but far away. Obviously such a thing seceding is ridiculous - but such a thing is a waste of money anyway.
Or a real one, which would only be viable if the colonists supply trade goods of some kind back to Earth. In which case ending trade with them would be massively counteproductive.
Unlikely.The same could have been said about the America's. Setting up an expedition was ridiculously expensive, let alone keeping the colony afloat.
Unless there's truly unique compounds that exist on Mars that can't be synthesized on Earth without great difficulty, or perhaps a higher proportion of heavy metals and rare earths, there's nothing that can't be gotten cheaper from asteroids or other places that have smaller gravity wells, or simply be synthesized here at home.
I'm not saying there won't be pseudo-economic make-work that will provide a prima-facie justification for colonization, but there won't be anything as valuable as simply expanding the human footprint.
I can't completely rule out that such colonization won't invent, or discover completely new resources or products we've never even considered before, however, one can do simple math based on energy availability and the rough distribution of the periodic table of elements in any given solar system body, and unless you're engaging in mega-engineering where no one planet has sufficient resources anymore, it's almost always going to be cheaper to produce it at home, or collect the elements elsewhere.
http://www.ted.com/talks/burt_rutan_sees_the_future_of_space.html
Scaled Composites.
Designer of WhiteKnight/Spaceship1 and WhiteKnight2/Spaceship2.
Partner with Sir Richard Branson for Virgin Galactic.
Branson is the $$$, Rutan is the idea behind the $$$. The "Karl Rove" of the privatized space flight movement.
Looks a bit like Conway Twitty. [tinfoil]
Then it won't be done.
The same could have been said about the America's. Setting up an expedition was ridiculously expensive, let alone keeping the colony afloat.
Sure, it was cheaper and easier to just walk out into the English country side and chop down a tree or get some coal. Only problem was they'd stripped much of their own national resources to the point that it was cheaper to sail it all the way back from America. Same thing with Spanish gold, rum, sugar, and todays doodads shipped all the way from China.
A point is reached where easily accessible resources far away become more economically viable then dwindling resources at home. Once the right combination of propulsion to get the colonists there and the materials home, and large enough deposits of a material here at home that is dwindling, it will be economically viable. The propulsion system probably isn't more then a few decades away, there only needs to be the right resources found that we need here.
To do these things we need lifters.
Very, very big lifters.
Think Sea Dragon or Orion.
I don't think political support for these will materialize any time soon.
Um... why do people insist on going to Mars when the moon is so much closer and cheaper to get to?
Then it won't be done.
I really can't bring myself to think space elevators are a good idea. It may be, but the idea of having hundreds of miles of cable hovering in the air/in space that could break at any moment just sits wrong with me.
author=Tallpine link=topic=26681.msg521480#msg521480 date=1288481907
Even so, getting there really isn't the problem. The big challenge would be sustaining life long term in a basically closed environment. You would have to recycle everything - and I do mean everything ;)
There's not going to be a launch to Mars.Or find new ways to supplement using nearby materials.
It would probably take several years and dozens or hundreds of launches to build the "ship" in earth orbit.
Even so, getting there really isn't the problem. The big challenge would be sustaining life long term in a basically closed environment. You would have to recycle everything - and I do mean everything ;)
Or find new ways to supplement using nearby materials.