NASA to annouce life on Mars

[Az]

I've got an economy question:

Is it possible to sustain life on mars through a starting investment only? If the answer is yes, or will become positive in 100 years, then I think we should start preparations now.

and though mars couldn't hold a candle to earth, We could always use criminals boost the initial settlement.

[Urban Ranger]

Mars seems to have a molten core that's mostly iron. That seems to mean that it does have a magnetic field.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Azazel
I've got an economy question:

Is it possible to sustain life on mars through a starting investment only? If the answer is yes, or will become positive in 100 years, then I think we should start preparations now.

and though mars couldn't hold a candle to earth, We could always use criminals boost the initial settlement.

Difficulty, you could provide Food and O2 by means of Agricultural Domes and maybe use human waste as nutritients for the Plants.
But you will always have to get Supplies such as Spare Parts to Mars and will have to be prepared that Disasters coul happen, such as Meteors striking one of the Domes and the like.

[Ned]

Azazel, I think Mars hotels, golf courses, wild animal parks, etc., and the like would be hugely profitable if the cost to get there were reduced to around $50k per person. Even if we could first land on Mars in '30, I wouldn't expect costs to go that low for at least 100 years. But the time will come.

[Ned]

BTW, Dr. Strangelove, would it even be possible for females to give birth on Mars if the low gravity somehow affected the fetus, making it physically larger or more fragile than on Earth?

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Ned
BTW, Dr. Strangelove, would it even be possible for females to give birth on Mars if the low gravity somehow affected the fetus, making it physically larger or more fragile than on Earth?

If what you are saying is correct then they can simply give birth the cesarian way. This, actually, more and more earth-women are already choosing, but for entirely different reasons, I gather.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Ned
Azazel, I think Mars hotels, golf courses, wild animal parks, etc., and the like would be hugely profitable ---

These were things we read in science fiction stories from the 50's, and still only a few 100 people has been to space. I can't see how space travelling could ever be profitable, except for some short orbit tourist trips around earth perhaps. Mars travelling takes years for each trip. Considering how little space travel has developed the last 30 years, I can't see how it would develop that much in the close future, unless funds are increased significantly (= an order of magnitude at least). And that will not happen.

[The Mad Monk]

Especially with all the people moaning "oh, we have too many problems here to deal with first!"



We really, really, really have to get off this rock.

[Chemical Ollie]

I'm not saying we should stop spending money on space research, I'm just saying it woun't be fast and it will never be profitable.

[Az]

If we get humans there, and equipment for it to be self sufficient, it WILL be profitable. becides, the whole concept of profit diminishes when you move from a planet to a planet, and transportation being essentially the only expenditure in interplanetary commerce.

In that case, what we need to establish in Mars is a complete material autarky. That means: agriculture, mining, manufacturing, services, all will have to be on mars. In that case, extrernal supply of general goods will be uncompetitive and redundant, limiting trade to tourism, entertainment, information, and limited amounts of luxury goods.

The only power that has the power, and the desire to create such a thing is a government interested in the progress of entire mankind since such a thing will NOT be profitable to it. ( What is it going to do to the new Mars territory? Tax it ?

[Az]

confused 'profitable' with 'self-sustaining'.

I meant the latter, in the previous post.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Azazel
confused 'profitable' with 'self-sustaining'.

I meant the latter, in the previous post.

Yeah, there is a a certain difference between the words. If not, anyony who started a Mars exploration enterprise and registred at NASDAC would become billionarie.

[Az]

Not so. Plus, I don't exactly see any private company placing the thousands of people, and the ****load of equipment mars needs to begin, anyway.

They'll have to have:

-mines of various metal ores.
-smelting factories.
-manufacturing plants.
-energy sources ( no current solution, besides some sort of nuke power. Fusion ? )
-Agriculture.
-Chemical Industry: such an industry is a must for any industrial/technological society. And any other kind will not survive on Mars.

So, how much people will the smallest of mines require? the smallest of factories, and of plants? If we minimize everything, what's the minimum of people to get there, if it's to be self-sustainable?

I imagine the numbers are in the hundreds of thousands.

[Ned]

One is not going to have private enterprise doing anything on the Moon or Mars until some governmental organization begins to grant real property deeds and concession rights. I think the US ought to enter into bilateral treaties with countries willing to invest in the development of Mars exploration to set up an interantional agency ala the IMF to issue such deeds and concessions. Participation on the Space IMF board would be proportional to members financial contribution.

[Dauphin]

Its a bit early to be considering any of that. You can't really framework an organisation 30-50 years before you think it might be needed. It'll be outdated by the time its implemented.