how do we share Mars?

[MolotovCocktail]

Guys! you all have to remember that this is all pure speculation We don't know what we will accomplish once on Mars. And I don't think anyone here has to address any of Sayonara's points because they may very well be wrong. We are not NASA scientists, or politicians, or sociologists, or futurologists.

 

Political freedom is an entirely different than technical freedom. And I was only attacking your claim that Martian colonists will always need to rely heavily on Earth for its survival.

[Comandante]

Guys! you all have to remember that this is all pure speculation We don't know what we will accomplish once on Mars. And I don't think anyone here has to address any of Sayonara's points because they may very well be wrong. We are not NASA scientists, or politicians, or sociologists, or futurologists.

 

Political freedom is an entirely different than technical freedom. And I was only attacking your claim that Martian colonists need to rely heavily on Earth for its survival.

 

LOL good point. We may well all be wrong but there are some certain high probabilities for things occuring, as both Sayonara and I have addressed. In reality, it's all speculation and we can't really know for 'sure' what will happen, but we like to speculate here on SFN, don't we?

 

Anyway, I have a great parcel of land for sale in Gusev Crater if anyone's interested

[MolotovCocktail]

In reality, it's all speculation and we can't really know for 'sure' what will happen, but we like to speculate here on SFN, don't we?

 

Anyway, I have a great parcel of land for sale in Gusev Crater if anyone's interested

 

I'll offer 50K for it ! (remember, cheap land will attract buyers)

[Comandante]

60 or nothing!

[Phi for All]

Guys! you all have to remember that this is all pure speculation We don't know what we will accomplish once on Mars. And I don't think anyone here has to address any of Sayonara's points because they may very well be wrong. We are not NASA scientists, or politicians, or sociologists, or futurologists.

I disagree with the "pure" part. Speculation should be based on logical methodology and Sayo has made some extremely tough points to refute. Addressing them isn't something you can brush off and still maintain the integrity of your argument.

 

I have noticed certain discrepancies that keep popping up, like the Martians won't need uranium for power but then suddenly they have reactors to solve another problem. The equation needs to stay balanced.

 

Again, I think Mars *could* become self-sufficient (no freebies from Earth) but I don't think 50 years is near long enough. Remember that a Mars colony's biggest commodity / export is probably going to be research but whoever foots the bill for getting there in the first place is going to want that research as a return on investment, not as a trade medium.

Political freedom is an entirely different than technical freedom. And I was only attacking your claim that Martian colonists will always need to rely heavily on Earth for its survival.

Now you're definitely moving the goalposts. "Survival" seems different than "self sufficiency in 50 years". And now we're changing self-sufficiency to mean simply *not* having a "need to rely heavily on Earth for its survival"? I think you used strong terms to begin with and are now back-pedaling. I also think Sayo's "never" is too strong but he's sticking with it.

 

Those arguing for Mars independence in 50 years have tried to refute each individual obstacle to self-sufficiency but when taken as a whole it seems like it would require too many resources and too much manpower. How big is this colony after 50 years (now *this* part is pure speculation)? 1000 people? 10,000 people? 100,000 or more? Within this population you'll have a need for a wide variety of skilled and unskilled professions. And if you obviate the need for, for instance, miners to extract metals and minerals by supposing robots or other mechanical means you've just increased your need for new and growing technology and manufacturing.

Their needs will be proportional to their size. One small factory on Mars can be enough to make clothes for entire Martian civilization. As their size grows they will have more people to work on production of materials and will then be able to make more factories to suit their needs which is pretty much a 'positive feedback system'.

This feels wrong. Their needs will always be out of proportion to their size it would seem. The list of things a *Mars* colony would need to manufacture is huge. We have a clothing factory ( I guess we're assuming that we have another factory for taking fibers we've grown in our agriculture facility and weaving them into cloth), which needs a factory to make replacement parts for the clothing equipment. Remember that this colony isn't starting out like any other; it's technology needs are far greater right from the beginning. How many factories are you going to need to maintain self-sufficiency?

 

Another thing, are we assuming (as Sayo did at one point) that Earth has a cohesive political infrastructure with an Earth President and no competing countries? Why would any Mars colony want independence if there is a possibility of rival concerns (either simply competitive or possibly hostile)?

 

Lastly, if we assume that Sysco's "technologically advanced apparatus" becomes reality, won't that mean that getting state-of-the-art goods from Earth will just get easier and easier? In that case diminishing returns will dictate that some things will always be easier and cheaper to get from Earth than to make from scratch yourself.

[SkepticLance]

Re Martian self-sufficiency again.

 

I think my point has been missed.

 

Bluntly, if a Mars colony cannot become 99% self sufficient really quickly, it will fail, and everyone will die. This is not a case of whether they can become self sufficient. It is a case of do it or die. Literally.

 

Remember that any Mars colony is 50 years in the future, at least. Possibly 100. Technical advances by then will include ways of smelting iron from Martian iron oxide using small electric furnaces. One thing that will have to be imported initially is Uranium. But only small amounts are needed for a small reactor.

 

The only imports will be small items that cannot be made locally. The logistics simply forbid anything else. The whole concept of trade between Mars and Earth (except for knowledge) is utterly ridiculous. The transport costs forbid it. Perhaps in 200 years, when both planets have a space elevator, it may be possible - but not until then.

 

I pointed out that a device exists today that can make components by a kind of 3D printing system. By 50 years hence, it will be small, reliable, able to 'print' iron structures, and flexible enough to make any component out of iron up to the size of a football. You can build a car that way. Under Mars conditions, iron will not rust, making iron structures extremely practical.

 

Anything that the Mars colonists cannot make, they will have to do without. People might be valued, but if someone gets cancer, and they cannot make the drugs, the patient will simply die.

 

However, in 50 years, I suspect we would be utterly amazed at what can be made with small devices. There will be a wide range of GM crops available, able to grow under Mars conditions. Quite possibly, the anti-cancer drug required might be obtained by eating a GM potato. There may be plants able to grow in wetted down Mars dust, able to concentrate minerals for extraction. Carrying seeds from Earth is a way to overcome the logistics problem.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You're making assumptions about the progression of technology that we simply cannot make.

 

A long-term base on Mars could only manage to be a small scientific outpost (compare the situation to Antarctica) without needing vast quantities of supplies sent in through cargo spacecraft at an enormous cost, as you yourself admitted.

 

If you were to limit the scope of the colony, Mars could certainly become self-sufficient on its own. All you need to grow is food, and replacement parts for basic systems could probably be designed. But any sort of "colony" that intends to grow in size (and gain its own independence) would need a level of sophistication that we have yet to achieve.

[Phi for All]

I suppose, in the end, most of this argument is moot. If we can't figure a way to send a colony to Mars and have at least a 90% chance of success no matter what the mission model is we'll never send it in the first place. If sustainability is the goal and we can't make the numbers work with our then-present technology, no one will make the investment. If we figure out a way to have a limited science colony that can at least repair and update their own machinery, harvest water and grow their own food then we'll ask for volunteers and we'll do it.

 

I'm starting to lean more towards Sayo's thinking that Mars is a pretty second rate rock and anything other than a research station is probably not going to happen. While I can see spending a few months traveling there, working a hitch and then coming back, who would want to live there and raise a family there unless life on Earth was somehow less attractive?

[SkepticLance]

The Cap'n said :

 

You're making assumptions about the progression of technology that we simply cannot make.

 

I assume this comment was addressed to me. It may well be correct. However, that would appear to be a factor of time. If we do not have the technology in 50 years, we may have it in 100.

 

However, the 3D printing machine already exists, even though it is still too crude for the needs of Mars colonists. Electro-smelting iron is technology that is pretty much already available. GM crops making drugs have been developed, though not yet commercialised. I don't think anything I suggested in the last posting is too far out.

 

The point is that no colony on Mars that is not at least 99% self sufficient will survive. If it cain't be done, it won't be. Even a limited scientific outpost will need to be largely self sufficient.

 

Earth/Mars trade in the foreseeable future is just a silly joke.

[Phi for All]

Earth/Mars trade in the foreseeable future is just a silly joke.

If we're going to assume advancements in technology though, we should also keep a slight hope out for some kind of discovery / process that can only be found / performed on Mars. Trade requires something for both sides to profit from and if Mars has something to offer then trade will ensue.

 

Not that much of a joke, just implausible at this point.

[SkepticLance]

Re Earth/Mars trade.

 

As I said earlier, the only thing that is cheap to trade between planets is knowledge. Earth can send designs for the Mars colonists small computer operated manufacturies. Mars can send back information gleaned from the study of Mars. This will include photos, and probably video also. In fact, longer term, there is no reason why Mars cannot make specialty videos for sale to Earth entertainment networks. Kind of like the Sky National Geographic channel.

[Phi for All]

As I said earlier, the only thing that is cheap to trade between planets is knowledge.

You keep going back and forth between what we can do now and what we'll be able to do then. Believe me, if something is found and can only be obtained on Mars and Earth will pay for it, there will be trade. Goods don't have to be cheap, they have to be profitable.

[SkepticLance]

Phi for all said :

 

Believe me, if something is found and can only be obtained on Mars and Earth will pay for it, there will be trade.

 

A realistic estimate of the cost of bulk freight Earth to Mars or back, assuming major and substantial advances in the transport technology, is about $ 10,000 per kg.

 

Imagine importing a 1000 tonne nuclear reactor. Work out the cost on that baby! What could Mars possibly export to Earth that would be worth $10,000 per kg plus cost of extraction plus profit?

 

And that only applies if it is exported in bulk.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Argument from incredulity: I can't think of anything, so there is nothing.

[Comandante]

This feels wrong. Their needs will always be out of proportion to their size it would seem. The list of things a *Mars* colony would need to manufacture is huge. We have a clothing factory ( I guess we're assuming that we have another factory for taking fibers we've grown in our agriculture facility and weaving them into cloth), which needs a factory to make replacement parts for the clothing equipment. Remember that this colony isn't starting out like any other; it's technology needs are far greater right from the beginning. How many factories are you going to need to maintain self-sufficiency?

 

As many factories as necessary for the minimum requirements that will allow for survival and advancement of the colony should be built. To achieve that point Mars will most likely need Earth's support until it achieves it. But after it does it can simply declare "maturity" and carry on on its own. Now one thing that seems to have slipped out is the fact that I in no way promote this idea, or say that this will happen, what I'm simply saying is that it CAN happen and that this approach would allow Mars to become self-sufficient after a certain point, as opposed to Sayonara's "never". What I'm also suggesting is that Mars will never cut the communication with Earth willingly or want to be isolated unless Earth was under deadly virus attack or something alike.

 

Another thing, are we assuming (as Sayo did at one point) that Earth has a cohesive political infrastructure with an Earth President and no competing countries? Why would any Mars colony want independence if there is a possibility of rival concerns (either simply competitive or possibly hostile)?

 

I have a weak belief that there would be such thing as Earth president, perhaps only the person or organisation responsible for interplanetary communications which would need to work much like UN, consulting all member countries before making decisions. But then again, it's too far into the future to possibly know or predict.

 

Perhaps Mars would want independence for the goodness of both Earth and Mars, in which case Earth would agree since it wouldn't be reponsible for direct control of Mars and Mars would be able to do the things they think would be proper. That way the only thing Earth would need to do is maintain 'friendly' communications, exchange of information, research findings and anything else of a kind.

 

As for aid, something that struck me recently, do you think Earth would want to provide Mars with aid all the time? What if it once refuses to do so, wouldn't that create tensions between the two planets?

 

Lastly, if we assume that Sysco's "technologically advanced apparatus" becomes reality, won't that mean that getting state-of-the-art goods from Earth will just get easier and easier? In that case diminishing returns will dictate that some things will always be easier and cheaper to get from Earth than to make from scratch yourself.

 

Quite possibly, perhaps that may even be the way it will happen. I never said it wouldn't though, I was only suggesting a possible approach otherwise.

[Phi for All]

What could Mars possibly export to Earth that would be worth $10,000 per kg plus cost of extraction plus profit?

A serum derived from a Martian source which cures the latest superflu on Earth? Some form of bacterial life which thrives in Mars' 95% CO2 atmosphere and can be used to destroy cancer cells? Why is it easy to imagine a totally self-sustained Mars colony and not a valuable commodity for it to export?

[Phi for All]

As many factories as necessary for the minimum requirements that will allow for survival and advancement of the colony should be built. To achieve that point Mars will most likely need Earth's support until it achieves it. But after it does it can simply declare "maturity" and carry on on its own. Now one thing that seems to have slipped out is the fact that I in no way promote this idea, or say that this will happen, what I'm simply saying is that it CAN happen and that this approach would allow Mars to become self-sufficient after a certain point, as opposed to Sayonara's "never". What I'm also suggesting is that Mars will never cut the communication with Earth willingly or want to be isolated unless Earth was under deadly virus attack or something alike.

I think a Mars colony would need a very limited set of criteria to perform to be considered successful; they simply aren't going to be able to do a whole bunch of complicated tasks and also work towards self-sufficiency. But I agree that it could happen.

 

I also agree that it wouldn't be in Mars' best interests to claim total independence from Earth.

I have a weak belief that there would be such thing as Earth president, perhaps only the person or organisation responsible for interplanetary communications which would need to work much like UN, consulting all member countries before making decisions. But then again, it's too far into the future to possibly know or predict.

I'm a globalist so I share that belief. It just shouldn't be a chimp named Blair. Ever.

Perhaps Mars would want independence for the goodness of both Earth and Mars, in which case Earth would agree since it wouldn't be reponsible for direct control of Mars and Mars would be able to do the things they think would be proper. That way the only thing Earth would need to do is maintain 'friendly' communications, exchange of information, research findings and anything else of a kind.

I really hope we're thinking that way when the time comes. If it happened today the need for short-term ROI might outweigh propriety.

As for aid, something that struck me recently, do you think Earth would want to provide Mars with aid all the time? What if it once refuses to do so, wouldn't that create tensions between the two planets?

I think Sayo tried to bring that up with disaster relief. It would almost certainly cause tension. Look at how nationalistic many people get when they hear about their own country sending aid offshore when there are so many problems in-country.

Quite possibly, perhaps that may even be the way it will happen. I never said it wouldn't though, I was only suggesting a possible approach otherwise.

No worries. It would be nice to live that long and see what problems they do have, and how many of our concerns they've dealt with.

[Comandante]

It just shouldn't be a chimp named Blair. Ever.

 

 

It would be nice to live that long and see what problems they do have, and how many of our concerns they've dealt with.

 

Well, it's questionable whether it would be nice, but it would definitely be interesting!

[SkepticLance]

A prime reason for Mars (eventually) to want independence.

 

To escape from the edicts of assholes who are telling them what to do without any local knowledge of what really needs to be done.

[GutZ]

Are you trying to imply that we humans mastered it?

 

lol no. That would be silly.

[gcol]

Never mind about sharing Mars, just see how politicians are creaming their pants about getting helium 3 from the moon. As one of them (who I will not name) recently said "who gets to plant their flag on the moon first and claim it, gets to rule the world". I thought the yanks had already done that. perhaps history is already being re-written. But then it was a politician who said it, so I guess it was not worth the breath he used.

[SkepticLance]

There is no international law permitting a nation to plant a flag on a moon or planet to claim it. The fact that the US has put a flag on the moon means nothing. The moon is available to anyone who want to set up a colony or base. As is Mars.

[D H]

There is no international law permitting a nation to plant a flag on a moon or planet to claim it.

 

There is an international law prohibiting nations from claiming the Moon (or some other celestial body). It is the "Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies", aka "The Moon Treaty". The US is a signatory nation.

 

Some excerpts:

 

Article I

 

The exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind.

 

Outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law, and there shall be free access to all areas of celestial bodies.

 

Article II

Outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.

 

The treaty, in full, is at http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/publications/STSPACE11E.pdf

[Sayonara]

Well, this thread has developed a bit since I last checked in.

 

I think it is important to understand two things about the arguments I have been making:

 

Firstly, the question of whether or not Mars could ever be free of all dependencies on Earth will have massive ramifications for any colonies, bases, or (optimistically) nations that arise there.

 

Secondly, while the discussion has so far leaned towards the technological arguments, self-sufficiency of a Martian population would be contingent on a very particular set of circumstances which are unlikely to coincide. Don't forget that we are not just talking about it being feasible, we are talking about it being workable.

 

There are all sorts of factors which have not been considered. People and groups on Mars will have familial, political, religious, financial, and social links to Earth, to name just a few.