[–] somat 4 days ago
[–] FranOntanaya 4 days ago
But there's places like the araneiform terrain where you likely get much higher transient pressures, and maybe they create enough of a greenhouse effect to warm up before they burst through the CO2 ice crust. They'd be a great way for life to spread mechanically using those pressurized bursts.
[–] KurSix 4 days ago
[–] phatskat 3 days ago
[–] BurningFrog 4 days ago
So if you can get 7km down without digging, that's the first place to look!
[–] NitpickLawyer 4 days ago
[–] King-Aaron 4 days ago
[–] Levitating 4 days ago
Though the person you commented on didn't refer to habitation specifically I think, just humans on the surface.
[–] King-Aaron 4 days ago
[–] somenameforme 4 days ago
Since Mars atmosphere is 95% CO2 you're pretty much good to go there with a moderate supply of hydrogen. And conveniently enough electrolysis of water yields of course hydrogen and oxygen. And water is shockingly widely available on Mars given the regolith is 2-5% water by volume (giving the unit bastardization of 1 cubic foot of regolith = 1+ liter of water).
Most of the issues people are concerned about like radiation aren't, in reality, that big a deal. I say 'in reality' to mean that the radiation isn't enough to just give you immediate radiation sickness, so the real effect will be a probably reduced life expectancy due to greater rates of cancer. Even that isn't so clear for reason outside the scope of this post, but it's not a show stopper in any case. In general early colonists will have a significantly reduced life expectancy - it's just the nature of colonization, and always has been.
---
Beyond that the Moon is a nightmare. Relatively minimal resources, 2 week long days/nights that vary between way beyond boiling hot and something close to absolute zero. No atmosphere at all so no protection against meteorites, somewhat higher radiation than Mars, and so on. There's also gravity very near zero which can pose some issues with various processes (industrial/etc).
And other destinations like Europa not only have dramatically more difficult 'local settings', but also have significantly greater distances. For instance Europa is about 10x as far as Mars and a somewhat more difficult trajectory to manage. In practice you're probably looking at upwards of 5 years for a one-way trip. We probably need to level up the tech tree a few bumps before realistically looking at things like that and Mars is a good way to do that.
[–] BurningFrog 4 days ago
[–] tokai 4 days ago
[–] King-Aaron 3 days ago
[–] Tangurena2 4 days ago
Our existing method of moving between planets (heck, even the Earth & Moon) will take 9 months to get from Earth to Mars (or back). And the launch window is every 22 months. The return to Earth is either 4 weeks after you get to Mars, or 23 months later (so any fault that prevents a prompt return means you better have almost 3 years of food/water/air onboard).
Without some magical SF technology being invented, no, we're not going to see humans travelling to Mars in our lifetimes.
If folks are serious about human trips to Mars, there would be an effort to send supply ships ahead of time and stockpiling fuel/food/water/air in orbit around Mars. This would solve 2½ problems:
1 - Carrying supplies for both directions would require building spaceships bigger than we can currently build.
2 - If there is any failure on the way or at Mars, there will be stuff to let the astronauts survive until they can fix things or any sort of rescue mission could be sent.
And "that half" - Currently, the US has had a 70% success rate sending stuff to Mars (the Soviets had 50% success). Some of those supply ships won't reach Mars orbit. Some will break on the way there and drift past Mars. Some will smash into the surface of Mars.
Why send stuff? Supplying the astronauts on ISS requires sending 1000 pounds of stuff per person per month. And that's only 300 miles from Earth. And the ISS has water recycling, yet they still need water sent up.
My estimates for a successful "manned" trip to Mars (and return them safely to Earth again) would start around $200 billion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_window
This page claims Earth/Mars launch windows are every 26 months:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploration_of_Mars#Launch_win...
[–] BurningFrog 2 days ago
[–] fma 4 days ago
So you are telling me we could have gone to Mars and back a few times instead..
[–] Tangurena2 4 days ago
[–] podocarp 4 days ago
[–] solyin 4 days ago
[–] NitpickLawyer 4 days ago
And even then, again there's just something about a trained geologist being there, immersed in the thing, thinking on the spot, using a shovel that just can't be matched with robots.
Then you have all the ISRU (in situ resource utilisation) that you can take advantage of on Mars vs. in orbit around Mars. There have been experiments already demonstrating obtaining useful stuff (MOXIE got oxygen). And theoretically you can also make methane, you can melt water, etc.
[–] bell-cot 4 days ago
Sounds like the Martian mantle is (or was) organized as a single giant convection cell, with the upwelling under the volcanoes and sinking at Hellis Planitia.
Effects of 7km upon the atmosphere seem easily predictable. Ditto the benefits of 7km for exploration - improved aerobraking, drone performance, etc. But not so predictable would be effects on the subsurface.
An obvious downside of 7km would be "better" air cooling of equipment that needs to stay warm during Martian nights.
[–] somat 4 days ago
Also, whatever caused the Noctis Labyrinthus (west side of the valley in the article south east of the volcanoes) is a wild geologic process I don't think I have seen anywhere else. The large valley looks sort of like a rift valley, and erosion canyons are obvious, but Noctis Labyrinthus with it's fragmented plate look is weird, my best guess is a rift valley where three plates are separating, but that is a weak guess.
[–] radarsat1 4 days ago
[–] somat 4 days ago
Really the fact that the jpl was able to fly a helicopter at all in mars's weak excuse for a atmosphere was an engineering flex like I have never seen.
[–] KurSix 4 days ago
[–] jsbisviewtiful 3 days ago
[–] Aachen 4 days ago
[–] bajard 4 days ago
[–] sebzim4500 4 days ago
[–] setr 4 days ago
[–] brnt 4 days ago
[–] bajard 3 days ago
But visually, it's even less, because Mars is smaller than earth, so its curvature matters.
[–] brnt 3 days ago
[–] KurSix 4 days ago
[–] ButlerianJihad 4 days ago
[–] novia 4 days ago
[–] NooneAtAll5 4 days ago
[–] novia 3 days ago
[–] bell-cot 4 days ago
And Mars, with giant volcanoes and credible evidence of recent* vulcanism, obviously has more options for causing quakes.
*"Recent" in the geologic sense - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanism_on_Mars#Potential_cu...
I am vaguely surprised it was not higher rated for a rover mission. 7k meters down should do something interesting to the atmosphere if nothing else.
1. https://trek.nasa.gov/mars/#v=0.1&x=72.07800218650755&y=-42....
2. https://trek.nasa.gov/mars/#v=0.1&x=-116.4913302335018&y=16....