Support NeoGAF

[Alright]

Space Race 2 : Martian Boogaloo is going to kick off over the next few years with the inter-planetary Whack Races looking like this:

UAE
China
Russia
US
Musk
India
NK (probably not though, Kim)
Europe

All setting their sights on Mars. One lucky contestant will have their rocket propelled hopes and dreams come true, they will be the first to land on Mars.

Then what? How will colonies be powered? The Sun? which is weaker than here on Earth. The Wind? Nuclear? Hydrogen fuel cells?

Whichever it is, how the hell are we going to get a reactor on Mars?

What are the logistics for getting a working nuclear or hydrogen reactor in space and to Mars? Think of the weapons treaties here on Earth, how will Russia react to Musk loading a space rocket up with nuclear material? Likewise the US and China?

Answers on a post card

 

[GHG]

If we are to start to colonise in space then energy will need to be harvested or mined in space.

There's not a chance we will start sending up energy on a regular basis, the above is a requirement of we are to start making significant progress as far as space is concerned.

 

[Alright]

If we are to start to colonise in space then energy will need to be harvested or mined in space.

There's not a chance we will start sending up energy on a regular basis, the above is a requirement of we are to start making significant progress as far as space is concerned.

Aye. But to get to the point where we have the people, the machinery etc to mine in space, we need a power source to get us stable.

If we did send a nuclear reactor up there, how long would a KG of uranium last, energy wise? A month, 12 month? (I have no idea)

 

[Prison Mike]

 

[T8SC]

 

[GHG]

Aye. But to get to the point where we have the people, the machinery etc to mine in space, we need a power source to get us stable.

If we did send a nuclear reactor up there, how long would a KG of uranium last, energy wise? A month, 12 month? (I have no idea)

No idea but sending that kind of energy up there in a rocket is a huge risk for obvious reasons. Would any government even sign off on something like that?

I would suspect we would start sending unmanned proves up to find out if certain methods of energy capture and storage are feasible before we start sending people up.

 

[Ballthyrm]

right now only spaceX is even trying. I don't think it's going to be a race when there's only one at the starting line.
Robots don't count.

 

[strange headache]

Space Race 2 : Martian Boogaloo is going to kick off over the next few years with the inter-planetary Whack Races looking like this:

UAE
China
Russia
US
Musk
India
NK (probably not though, Kim)
Europe

At this point I'm willing to accept a new cold-war if it means getting mankind to Mars. If it is what it takes to finally advance space exploration, so be it.
If peaceful cooperation doesn't get us somewhere, maybe conflict will out of cold necessity. It's sad, but true.

 

[triplestation]

potatoes

 

[Alright]

No idea but sending that kind of energy up there in a rocket is a huge risk for obvious reasons. Would any government even sign off on something like that?

I would suspect we would start sending unmanned proves up to find out if certain methods of energy capture and storage are feasible before we start sending people up.

We best get our skates on because the talk is people on Mars by 2030. Though people in the sixties did say we would have moon colonies by now...

But yeah, it'll be interesting to see how international cooperation works and who will be the first to land the flag.

At this point I'm willing to accept a new cold-war if it means getting mankind to Mars. If it is what it takes to finally advance space exploration, so be it.
If peaceful cooperation doesn't get us somewhere, maybe conflict will out of cold necessity. It's sad, but true.

What will be interesting is Earth-bound politics trying to manipulate what happens on another planet. "Russia, if you don't pull those tanks out of Berlin, we will destroy your colony on Mars!"

The harsh truth is, for the first few gens, Mars will be a utopia. Then eventually Earth will be a prison planet.

 

[The Hamburglar]

I hope musk fails

 

[ArtemisClydeFrog]

I hope musk fails

Why?

 

[ManaByte]

Why?

It's hip to hate on Musk, didn't you get the memo?

 

[The Hamburglar]

It's hip to hate on Musk, didn't you get the memo?

I don’t like him for various reasons, one of them being he’s a massive cunt.

It’s also hip to idolise him on here
So..

 

[ManaByte]

I don’t like him for various reasons, one of them being he’s a massive cunt.

It’s also hip to idolise him on here
So..

That massive cunt is doing more to advance humanity than anyone else on this planet right now.

 

[GHG]

We best get our skates on because the talk is people on Mars by 2030. Though people in the sixties did say we would have moon colonies by now...

But yeah, it'll be interesting to see how international cooperation works and who will be the first to land the flag.



What will be interesting is Earth-bound politics trying to manipulate what happens on another planet. "Russia, if you don't pull those tanks out of Berlin, we will destroy your colony on Mars!"

The harsh truth is, for the first few gens, Mars will be a utopia. Then eventually Earth will be a prison planet.

I think what's different now vs all the previous "space races" is that there is now significant private company involvement in the sector. Before it was just governments going up against one another but now we have a range of pure-play private launch companies with upcoming mars/moon missions (SpaceX, Rocket Lab in particular) and it is these companies who are driving the technology forward and pushing the issue. Because these companies do nothing else but space related activities failure is not an option for them unlike governments of the past who were easily distracted.

While all a lot of people will see is that it's a battleground between countries, the real battleground is happening in the private sector between individual companies. Barring a monumental disaster that exponentially increases the risk factor (e.g an incident involving a huge loss of capital or life), I think for that reason alone the idea of space exploration and all things beyond is here to stay.

 

[Alright]

I think what's different now vs all the previous "space races" is that there is now significant private company involvement in the sector. Before it was just governments going up against one another but now we have a range of pure-play private launch companies with upcoming mars/moon missions (SpaceX, Rocket Lab in particular) and it is these companies who are driving the technology forward and pushing the issue. Because these companies do nothing else but space related activities failure is not an option for them unlike governments of the past who were easily distracted.

While all a lot of people will see is that it's a battleground between countries, the real battleground is happening in the private sector between individual companies. Barring a monumental disaster that exponentially increases the risk factor (e.g an incident involving a huge loss of capital or life), I think for that reason alone the idea of space exploration and all things beyond is here to stay.

History repeats itself then if these private companies are backed by a Monarchy, or in this modern age, a Bank group.

When the Spanish Empire expanded her empire to Latin America and Columbus' expedition to the New World, it was funded by the Spanish Monarchy, yet it was the trade business that brought in the money (trade sector)

The British empire extended her reach across Canada to lands no westerner had done before, She was funded by the British Monarchy. When shop was set up in Canada, private business made sure these new routes were trade routes to bring in the big business.

If private companies pay the way to Mars, now and they are funded by banks, who are they exploring the new world for? Because who ever it is, will own Mars. First one to land and set up power wins the planet.

Who do we want to win?

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

Nuclear posterchild Musk, and as far as one can guess the race ain't even close.

 

[GHG]

History repeats itself then if these private companies are backed by a Monarchy, or in this modern age, a Bank group.

When the Spanish Empire expanded her empire to Latin America and Columbus' expedition to the New World, it was funded by the Spanish Monarchy, yet it was the trade business that brought in the money (trade sector)

The British empire extended her reach across Canada to lands no westerner had done before, She was funded by the British Monarchy. When shop was set up in Canada, private business made sure these new routes were trade routes to bring in the big business.

If private companies pay the way to Mars, now and they are funded by banks, who are they exploring the new world for? Because who ever it is, will own Mars. First one to land and set up power wins the planet.

Who do we want to win?

Yeh a lot of the majority investors in these companies are banks and institutional investors, so from that perspective it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

But to be honest, i don't think those guys are particularly interested in "ownership" in the traditional sense (which is more about territory ownership for status and pride). If Mars is an asset that can be commoditised in any way (whether for rare materials or as a launch pad for deeper space missions) then they will want to own a piece of the pie for those reasons.

 

[Alright]

Yeh a lot of the majority investors in these companies are banks and institutional investors, so from that perspective it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

But to be honest, i don't think those guys are particularly interested in "ownership" in the traditional sense (which is more about territory ownership for status and pride). If Mars is an asset that can be commoditised in any way (whether for rare materials or as a launch pad for deeper space missions) then they will want to own a piece of the pie for those reasons.

Aye. Who are 'they' though?

Say, for example:

Citi Group is funding Musk to get to Mars. Musk lands on Mars, sticks the flag in the ground. "I have landed on Mars for..." Which flag does he put down? If we find rare minerals or new elements, who owns them? When the research, captured aliens and old Earth-probes are recovered, which country owns them on earth? Which country will those minerals be first 'imported' to?

It's all a fun hypothetical atm, but i do wonder about the realistic logistics and laws that will be drawn up. Can an Earth bound treaty still exist on Mars?

 

[Birdo]

Radiation is far too high on Mars for human life. It's a pipe dream that will never happen.

 

[Alright]

Radiation is far too high on Mars for human life. It's a pipe dream that will never happen.

Where's the radiation coming from?

 

[OmegaSupreme]

I hope musk fails

Of course, you do.

 

[EverydayBeast]

I see people living on Mars as if there’s nothing wrong with it. It still surprises me people live in deserts.

 

[Square Grooper]

Musk wins. Paypal fees go through the roof.

 

[bad guy]

Where's the radiation coming from?

The sun. Earth has a magnetic field that shields us. Mars does not.

 

[Alright]

The sun. Earth has a magnetic field that shields us. Mars does not.

How did we solve the problem when we went to the moon? Can we use the same tech again?

 

[The Hamburglar]

Of course, you do.

I know. I just said .

 

[IDKFA]

I saw a video on YouTube of this grand idea to build a city on Mars. The city looked fantastic, and for a moment I thought how amazing it would be to love on Mars.......

Then after a few seconds I thought "No. Fuck that". The novelty of living on Mars would get old real fast. You'd be locked down to just one city. You wouldn't be able to go outside for a walk (unless you got so sick of the planet that you were begging for death), you wouldn't be able to experience nature, different environments or locations, and a host of other experiences that we take for granted on Earth.

Rather than going there now and creating a prison, why don't we just pump money into terraforming Mars instead?

Terraforming of Mars - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Alright]

I saw a video on YouTube of this grand idea to build a city on Mars. The city looked fantastic, and for a moment I thought how amazing it would be to love on Mars.......

Then after a few seconds I thought "No. Fuck that". The novelty of living on Mars would get old real fast. You'd be locked down to just one city. You wouldn't be able to go outside for a walk (unless you got so sick of the planet that you were begging for death), you wouldn't be able to experience nature, different environments or locations, and a host of other experiences that we take for granted on Earth.

Rather than going there now and creating a prison, why don't we just pump money into terraforming Mars instead?

Terraforming of Mars - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

How do you terraform it? How do you build a city? The materials need to be shipped there. That shipping needs to be paid for by someone. That someone needs something in return, that isn't just money.

The first company/country to harvest/harness power on Mars wins, but how the hell do we, as a species, agree to have one country/company launch all the components of high-energy reactors (nuclear, hydrogen, salt) without another country getting a twitchy arsehole?

Would anyone want a Russian vessel with a nuclear payload strapped to it, going in to space? Or a Chinese vessel? American? Middle-eastern?

How do we leave Earthly diplomacy behind, so that we as a species can do what no other known, living organism in 4 billion years has done and successfully reproduce on another planet?

 

[mango drank]

Building a small human settlement would probably happen long before terraforming, mainly for cost reasons: probably much cheaper to have a few dozen people living on Mars in a modest hab and prodding at the planet for a while, gathering data on what it's like to survive there, and figuring out unforeseen challenges, vs sending massive numbers of heavy, expensive terraforming machines straight away. Also, scientists probably want to study the planet in its pristine state for a good while longer, before sending in the smog machines.

Re: the question of what type of energy will power the first hab, solar sounds like the most practical out of your listed options. Wind too, if they can get a turbine of some kind assembled on Mars. Otherwise, what's the smallest a nuclear reactor can get? Or something that generates hydrogen for fuel cells? Solar energy systems are probably easiest, because they've got the fewest moving parts and least maintenance required. Otherwise you'd need to send over a bunch of nuclear engineers to maintain equipment.

I'm not sure how those first missions would generate ROI. It's often said the first people on Mars probably won't return; they'll die there. It's possible they could bring along a small return rocket for sending back some rock and soil samples, to be auctioned off for high prices for collectors back on Earth. But no serious mining for profit is going to be happening in the early days. Companies could pay to have their logos / ads plastered on the interior of the habs, which would show up in video streams for people on Earth to see. Or they could pay the homesteaders to take spacesuit walks outside and plant little billboards with company logos / ads on them. Or the companies sending the homesteaders out could charge people a monthly streaming fee for 24-hour access to a time-delayed feed of the habs, or of outdoor views. Or people on Earth could pay to be able to email or send / receive video messages to the homesteaders directly. They could also pay to send (delayed) commands to any rovers out there: move here, look over there, take a video of this, etc. So a lot of monetization around novelty, at least at first.

 

[ThatStupidLion]

i feel like chiner and russia are more preoccupied building a settlement on the moon than mars.

 

[Sybrix]

Dont the moon bases need to be established first?

I read somewhere that the moon needs to be a giant gas station in order for travel to the Mars to happen in the scale we want

 

[West Texas CEO]

Radiation is far too high on Mars for human life. It's a pipe dream that will never happen.

On the surface, yeah, but what about underground civilizations?

 

[Porcile]

Who gives a shit about living on Mars. What's the big problem with just letting our species die out (naturally or self-inflicted) like every other thing that has existed and will exist?

 

[bitbydeath]

Before worrying about power they should try find a way to make it more like Earth so people don’t need tech to survive on it.

 

[ArtemisClydeFrog]

On the surface, yeah, but what about underground civilizations?

 

[Alright]

Building a small human settlement would probably happen long before terraforming, mainly for cost reasons: probably much cheaper to have a few dozen people living on Mars in a modest hab and prodding at the planet for a while, gathering data on what it's like to survive there, and figuring out unforeseen challenges, vs sending massive numbers of heavy, expensive terraforming machines straight away. Also, scientists probably want to study the planet in its pristine state for a good while longer, before sending in the smog machines.

Re: the question of what type of energy will power the first hab, solar sounds like the most practical out of your listed options. Wind too, if they can get a turbine of some kind assembled on Mars. Otherwise, what's the smallest a nuclear reactor can get? Or something that generates hydrogen for fuel cells? Solar energy systems are probably easiest, because they've got the fewest moving parts and least maintenance required. Otherwise you'd need to send over a bunch of nuclear engineers to maintain equipment.

I'm not sure how those first missions would generate ROI. It's often said the first people on Mars probably won't return; they'll die there. It's possible they could bring along a small return rocket for sending back some rock and soil samples, to be auctioned off for high prices for collectors back on Earth. But no serious mining for profit is going to be happening in the early days. Companies could pay to have their logos / ads plastered on the interior of the habs, which would show up in video streams for people on Earth to see. Or they could pay the homesteaders to take spacesuit walks outside and plant little billboards with company logos / ads on them. Or the companies sending the homesteaders out could charge people a monthly streaming fee for 24-hour access to a time-delayed feed of the habs, or of outdoor views. Or people on Earth could pay to be able to email or send / receive video messages to the homesteaders directly. They could also pay to send (delayed) commands to any rovers out there: move here, look over there, take a video of this, etc. So a lot of monetization around novelty, at least at first.

Good post.

I read somewhere that Solar Power needs storage to be effective (for when there's no sun) On earth that's easy; we just use recycled car batteries. On Mars though? l don't know how the heckerooney we are going to lug heavy-arse batteries in to space. I don't disagree that solar and turbine are the best choices and that nuclear, while long-lasting, could be a pain in the arse. Imagine chernobyl-ing Mars before we even get started.

I've seen prototype Hydrogen fuel cells for cars, and they are about the same size as a magazine for an assault rifle. How long they last, or how you charge them, i have no idea.

I imagine the top egg-heads have already worked this out, but it's interesting to think how something so simple could scupper plans.

Unless, there is another energy source out there that is been kept hidden, that would be perfect for Mars but too powerful for Earth