Humans may only survive 68 days on Mars

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by cosmictraveler, Oct 15, 2014.

  1. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Washington (AFP) - Space enthusiasts planning a move to Mars may have to wait to relocate: conditions on the Red Planet are such that humans would likely begin dying within 68 days, a new study says.


    Oxygen levels would start to deplete after about two months and scientists said new technologies are required before humans can permanently settle on Mars, according to the study by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).


    http://news.yahoo.com/humans-may-only-survive-68-days-mars-220955518.html
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. forrest noble Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    210
    I think this was a wasted study. Although new technologies are needed, IMO they are not that high tech. The surface of Mars in rich in oxygen, including water ice near the poles and possibly elsewhere. The easiest device would be to melt the ice and produce water and oxygen through an electrical current. More sophisticated equipment could produce oxygen from the soil. It's not called the red planet, iron rust, for nothing

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . When we are ready for colonization we will know it. Like the moon, the first colonies would be the easiest underground for living, and the surface for excursions only. For these excursions a six hour re-breathing device is presently available as scuba gear. As I understand it, only a very light-weight space suit would be needed for these excursions. Underground habitats could be pressurized, insulated, and heated.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2014
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,522
    Am I the only one who finds it odd that we are talking about a trip to Mars before we've established a lunar colony? Wouldn't it make more sense to iron out the difficulties a little bit closer to home?
     
  8. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Remember that this study is for FUTURE trips to Mars not the first base that we build. I really don't care where we build first but I just want a safe place and a way to return home if trouble happens wherever we build. Safety is paramount no matter where we go so that should always be on the minds of those who build devices that will go anywhere in space for humans to build. I still think that getting Earth in shape from all of its problems environmentally would be the very first thing on top of the list of things to do.
     
  9. Landau Roof Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    598
    The bright side is that there ill is there's no need to but 90-day flea collars for any dogs they take along!

    You think this was a wasted study, do you? So MIT says one thing, Forrest Noble says something else. Hmmm. Let's see. Who should I believe... It's a real poser!
     
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Not at all. In many ways it's easier to get to Mars and back. The existence of an atmosphere allows aerobraking and provides raw materials for air and fuel. It also provides more protection to explorers. The availability of water is also a huge factor; while the Moon has some water, it is far more accessible on Mars.

    That's not to say there's anything wrong with a Moon base. But we should do a Moon base for its own reasons; it really doesn't teach us much about Mars.
     
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    The problem described in the report was too MUCH oxygen, not too little.

    Which would work not at all in the environment of Mars (low air pressure.)
    Not for thousands of years. You need a full pressure suit on Mars for the forseeable future. The only potential savings are the removal of the micrometerorite layer.
     
  12. forrest noble Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    210
    It's not a matter of who to believe, it's a matter of which alternative would you be willing to bet a case of premium beer ?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Staying 68 days or less could hardly be called a colony. It's more like a visit. Maybe the first 1o visits or so to Mars will probably be less than 68 days each. But a colony has a meaning of a longer duration. A longer stay would require perfecting mostly existing technologies IMO.

    The definition below is more or less the definition of a "colony" that I was thinking of :

    A group of people who leave their native lands and create a settlement in a new land for an extended period, with the intention of all colonizers for it to become a permanent settlement, and the intention of some to become a permanent home.

    As to the first colonies: We could fly a Bigalow Hotel (inflatable) and place it around Mars as a space station for refueling and resupplying, and a habitat to prepare for excursions to and from the surface. Also it could be a permanent Mars space station where astronauts would "enjoy" staying for years at a time, with a supply ship coming every maybe 6 months or so. For this both sexes might be better.

    Bigalow type Hotels would be great since one hotel would be primarily for occupancy, another inflated enclosure for growing food, a third might be a processing center of some kind, and a fourth could be for scientific activities. There would be plenty of room to live in relative luxury, and an internet relay of some kind would be great for many reasons

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Even so, especially in the beginning, there will of course be many dangers involved. The same type Hotels could be eventually flown down to the surface of Mars or to the Moon. The first colonies, if such inflatable habitats to be used, will probably be on the surface. But more permanent ones could be inflated inside excavations for better insulation, protection from meteorites, cosmic rays, etc.

    Closer to home we could also use these inflatable enclosures surrounding and accessible to the ISS, greatly increasing its size and potential for pleasant living, more room for everything, for a relatively moderate cost. After that we could try out all needed settlement techniques on the Moon first before we proposed an extended stay on Mars IMO.

    http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/

    p.s. I have no stock or connection to this company

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2014
  13. forrest noble Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    210
    yes, I missed that quote about too much oxygen. I think this upcoming technology and material, link below, may be the ticket. It can absorb oxygen to a certain concentration level, but then release it when the level drops below a set level, depending upon its design of the machine that holds this new material.

    http://themindunleashed.org/2014/10...-breathe-underwater-without-oxygen-tanks.html

    Regarding a re-breathing device and lightweight space suits.
    I think a modified version of a re-breather of some kind using this new material, could work at the low air pressures on Mars. Also a much lighter and maneuverable space suit has been designed for Mars, as well as less cumbersome ones for the moon.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-futuristic-spacesuit-works-like-shrink-wrap/
    http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/7/5481688/far-out-space-suits-past-present-future-photos
     
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Agreed, the basic principles would work in both places. But a lot of work would have to be done.
    That's just an idea on a fabric that's not practical yet. It's a good idea but there's a long distance between "good idea" and "working spacesuit design."
     
  15. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
  16. rcscwc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    721
    1. Surface of Mars maybe rich in oxygen. But it has to be extracted, quickly and with light weight equipment.

    For the record. 75 kg payload of MAVEN cost 670 mln $. Imagine a 40 ton dozer taken to Mars. Cost increases geometrically with weight of freight.

    2. Large electrical currents would be required for producing water and oxygen in viable quantitis. Imagine the weight of equipment needed

    3. Ready to occupy UG habitats do not exist on Mars. Imagine the machinery needed for earth moving after blasting, which can happen after deep drilling ONLEE.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2014
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    The chemical plant for Mars Direct (generating methane and oxygen) weighs about 230 kilograms. If you have a water source all you need is an electrolysis unit.
    For reference Curiosity weigh 900 kilograms.
    512 kilograms for a SAFE-4000 reactor; that's 100 kilowatts of electrical power.
    Bulldozer and excavator technology is pretty well established. You'd need to build much lighter ones of course but there's not much new technology there.
     
  18. rcscwc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    721
    Curiosity, for record, cost $ 2.5 bln. Excavation and earth moving machinery still is here. Don't forget to ship spare parts and fuel like diesel. What about humans? How many need to be sent? Initial supplies of food, oxygen and 1001 items are still on earth.

    Better technology has only meant sturdier machines, but not the weights. And men may have to evacuated in a hurry, a very costly affair.

    Better set aside 70-100 bln, at today's prices.

    Not feasible in near future.
     
  19. SpaceFan0101 Registered Member

    Messages:
    8
    I don't know.... We simply don't have the proper technology to live on Mars for long. Yes, there are projects like ""Mars One" and etc... But even then it doesn't seem like we'll go to mars by 2020''
     
  20. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    i doubt you would use diesel powered machinery.



    ship a few of these there first to build the habitats.
     
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Yes, and manned exploration will cost far more than that.
    ?? You do realize that diesel engines don't work on Mars, right?
    How many "need" to be sent? Eventually quite a few once the infrastructure is there to support them. Initially not that many,
    $100 billion is probably close. Quite feasible in the near future - very little new technology needs to be developed. It's all a question of whether we want to pay for it or not.
     
  22. rcscwc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    721
    How many humans would be needed for initial infra structure building? At least 12. Not weighing more than 70 kg each, you got to watch weight. How time would they need? Three months, if they take fully capable machines, weighing how many hundred tons plus spare parts + plus diesel plus bottled oxygen for engines, modified slightly, for breathing, for creating an atmosphere in your built cavity, plus food and water plus plus .. think on details. More than one year with minimal machinery [mmm you save on weight], but more food and water and oxygen [sigh... increased weights]. Do you realise that a space train of S/Cs leaving REGULARLY would be needed?

    Not feasible in next 30-50 years.

    A quick tourist visit will be easier.
     
  23. Landau Roof Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    598
    I'm all for planetary colonization, and none to squeamish about the oppression of the natives, but what's the great big god damned hurry? Is the Earth doomed? If the Sun were going to super-nova we'd have to go a lot farther than Mars. So Mars is just kind of a Earth starter kit so we'll have a few clues when we really colonize extra-solar planets. If we're not ready to go then why not just wait? What's the point of all this haste? Are we afraid the Russians will beat US there?
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2014

Share This Page