Mars again

Elon Musk describes Mars colonization in substantial detail. It is big - individually (100-person carriers launched with 42 large oxygen/methane engines) and collectively (about 100 such carriers eventually shuttling, along with much other equipment). Obviously it would be expensive, requiring much more money than Musk has. Still, much less than global GDP. If there are no fundamental engineering flaws, it is feasible in principle.

One essential aspect is synthesizing fuel on Mars for all (many) return flights. Until somebody puts a ‘robotic factory ship’ on Mar’s surface and starts working (using energy from solar panels), the entire process will be limited to ‘in principle’. Anyway, a few more people may take interest in Sabatier reactions. Yay chemistry.

Mars has the first-time exploration cachet (many feel Moon lacks this). It is correct to say that humans won’t become interplanetary while still within range of help from home (Moon and Mars differ). But this would be first major such effort and would rely on complex systems and techniques. Shoot this at Mars without testing many systems first on Moon (1/100 distance) – This is Elon Musk’s way.

Not my way. If all this is a good idea, it will be a good idea to trial it first on the moon. Moon has more than a few colonization and space-science merits of its own. Not only not my way. Engineering proceeds intentionally, stepwise and cumulatively. Seems to me that all disruptive technologies of Silicon Valley have been engineered in that way. They ‘leapt’ by redefining what constitutes a valuable product or service. So, for Mars to be a disruption that Moon is not, seems to get engineering and marketing confused.

‘Shoot the Moon’ used to mean trying what might be impossible, by untested means. It remained so until conquered by incremental engineering steps (rushed, but incremental). Now, the Moon is totally doable, and in a very large (useful) way if Musk-like mega rackets were involved.

Seems this term could be replaced by ‘Shoot the Mars’.

 

A new reason why biologicals may suffer from being outside the Earth's magnetosphere:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161010052832.htm

Gives another opportunity for Moon-first cheerleaders . How to best shield against high-energy charged particles out there? Experimentation seems appropriate. Y'all may know that Earth's magnetosphere is not symmetrical; far extended on the 'away from sun' side. Every month as Moon orbits Earth, it is within magnetosphere during 'away' periods. Cosmic rays thus are switched off and on, on the Moon. Very helpful for experimentation I'd say, and not readily found elsewhere.

 

As a Moon-first proponent, must report that Moon is receiving impacts at a rate higher than previously supposed:

Small impacts are reworking the moon's soil faster than scientists thought | ASU Now: Access, Excellence, Impact

For meter-scale, very fast incoming, I can't imagine a tough enough surface structure to survive. This is a concern

At the same time, there is no particular reason to suppose impact rates on Mars surface are lower. It is simply not yet as well imaged for detection purposes. Things are tough all over.

But we gotta go, right? Being explorers. Gonna need more duct tape...

 

European Mars lander Schiaparelli is unresponsive and may have hit too hard.

+++

What size of meteor is required to get to the bottom of Mars' atmosphere? Seems a good question Seems that millimeter-sized things do not. Centimeter? Maybe. Meter, probably so.

 

Rovers on Mars have found meteorites on surface in 20 to 80 cm size range. They would have been larger before hitting the atmosphere. How much? do not know. But probably moving pretty fast at surface contact. Small impact craters do not survive long there because of windblown dust.

 

Mars exploration 'success ratio' is about one for three, and the latest splash has not helped. It may be that SpacEx or others will attempt to go big to Mars, without first practicing on the Moon. I'd not.

 

Saturn’s Moon Titan as a colonization target. Advantages presented here:

Let's Colonize Titan - Scientific American Blog Network

Two major related disadvantages: So far from Sun that one can forget photovoltaic power. It is 3000 to 4000 times further from earth than is moon, depending on planetary positions. So, if Mars is more challenging than moon for being 200 times more distant, well, crank that up a bit.

As always I am not arguing against human’s explorer spirits. But technology is needed to match lofty goals. Earth’s oceans were navigated long ago, but not with mask, snorkel and swim fins.

We don’t have the necessary interplanetary technology yet. Enough for colonizing the moon; that can be perceived as perhaps not so very far off. But it makes sense to solve problems (small and large) at that scale before jumping 200 times further. Or 3000 times further.

Meanwhile, robotic exploration of Titan’s atmosphere seems like a dandy goal.

 

1,000 to 10,000