Thoughts on Colonization

I do not like to have an extended discussion about Mars here but your
questions have been studied.

The only thing that many think that will help keep the drain to a
sustainable level would be to increase Mar's magnetic fields. No one has even tried
to properly address this to my knowledge.
But truthfully I have been paying more attention to freedom politics than
space for the past 6 years so I may have missed something.

IMHO, I believe that the only way to rebuild the magnetic fields of Mars
is to have a larger moon, and that it would take several thousands of years
to make an appreciable difference.
People could live there while this is taking place but would always have to
be on guard for Mars quakes and the development of Volcano's

The moon would have to be large. At least as large as Ceres and would have
to be in an orbit about twice that of Deimos and circle Mars once every 4
to 6 hours.

I could be wrong but that is the way I think.

John Wayne Smith, CEO 1000 Planets, Inc.
Libertarian Candidate for Governor of Florida - 2010

In a message dated 7/31/2010 3:24:09 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
epibeemie@... writes:

Here's what I wonder about Mars, and how it could effect terraforming.
Where did Mars' water and oxygen atmosphere go? If we start pouring
resources into re-creating Mars' ancient atmosphere, is there a drain waiting
somewhere that will make it futile? The most likely candidate is Mars' lack of
a magnetosphere, which means Mars' atmosphere has been bombarded with
charged particles since its core went solid a billion or more years ago. This,
and Mars' lower gravity, likely stripped the hydrogen from Mars'
atmosphere, and even its surface water, causing the surface to hyper-oxydize (Mars'
surface strata are loaded with oxides and peroxides). Can a terraforming
process stay ahead of that drain?

To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
From: bhn1700@...
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 18:58:05 +0000
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Thoughts on Colonization

> From: brooksn

> > But in the case of Mars for example some minor tweaking could open the
surface to plant life

> > (agriculture) in a relatively short period of time, say 1 to 2 hundred
years. In 500 to 1,000

> > years humans might be on the surface with minor protection.

>

> Yes, but where would High Frontier-type technologies be in 1 to 2
hundred year? In 500 to 1,000? An important point is that people investing
their efforts in orbital habitats rather than Mars terraforming could, within
the span of their own lifetimes, begin personally enjoying a home beyond
Earth with conditions far more Earthlike than what even a terraformed Mars
could offer only at the very end of the effort (at least 500 years by your own
estimate).

I agree that a large investment in terraforming Mars would be difficult to
produce 'useable' results in the lifetime of that investor. But if
someone is already on the surface or in orbit for that matter, the dream of
making a planet liveable and the small investments that can be tried with
today's technology I would consider too tempting not to try.

Before any serious colonization of the surface occurs, comets/iceteroid
collisions can be done with very little investment, mirrors, halocarbons, and
black soot for the caps can be experimented with for minor investment, but
to seriously use them would take more substantive funding. If the results
are promising, who knows, researchers at NASA have grown plants in
conditions very close to Mars's current atmospheric conditions, if genetic
engineering and some minor decades long modifications of the environment make
plant life possible I can see it as a very reasonable avenue to persue.

As a side not, I already agree that orbital habitats are the first step
man should take, it is the lowest fruit to pick for colonization and the one
that we should be working toward. My only point is after we are
substantively established off planet, Mars has potential that should not be ignored.
I would personally see 50 people in orbit first, mining meteroids for
habitat expansion and sale of rare metals to Earth, SSP, satellite refuel, plus
expanding the current science and tourism already occuring in orbit. Then
a lunar orbiting tourism habitat, a lunar outpost for science and tourism
on the ground. Once the LEO (or GEO) habitat is far more sulf sustaining,
needing less and less supplies from Earth, food, water, tools, equipment,
fuel, centripetal force in sections to reduce crew turn around times and
health problems, etc. Then it can begin to 'divide' and half can move out of
Earth orbit to Mars orbit, studying the planet, mining nearby asteroids,
supplementing an e
ventual ground pre colony. Both the orbiting and ground colonies can
begin experimenting with terraforming to see what benefits are possible. But
again this would be after a couple of hundred people were already in space.

> > Considering the surface area of the Mars to be gained vs. the costs of
some minor fiddling

> > with the planet I would say the benefits outweight the costs of
'testing' what can be done

> > with terraforming Mars.

>

> You not only need to demonstrate that the benefits outweigh the costs.
You also need to establish that another route wouldn't provide better
returns more quickly.

>

> In one of my articles
(http://writings.mike-combs.com/case_spc.htm#Room_To_Grow) I assumed the first orbital habitat could be completed 50 years
after the start of the project (NASA said 22 years). I assumed a doubling
time of 5 years (NASA said 2). I also assumed only the near-term Stanford
Torus design, ignoring the efficiencies which could be later achieved with
larger Island-3 scale designs. In 190 years, we could still have built
enough habitats to equal the entire surface area of Mars.

>

> Regards,

>

> Mike Combs

190 years to equal the entire surface area of Mars, which is nearly the
entire land area of the Earth seems very optimistic, considering 10,000 years
of human expansion still doesn't have us occupying all of Earth's land
areas.

Investment is not always about 'better' returns, if it were then 99% of
companies and only the top 1% would recieve all the investment money. People
'believe' that one investment will do well and not be too risky for them
whether that be commodities, stocks, bonds, venture capital, real estate, or
starting their own business. I'm sure some will 'believe' experimenting
with terraforming Mars will lead to a return they will invest in.

Brooks