Mars is not the closest match to Earth within reach, Venus is. Venus is 90% of the mass of Earth and can hold an atmospheric pressure that can support human life after terra-forming the atmosphere.

Mars has 38% of the gravity of Earth and will never be able to support the atmospheric pressure needed to sustain human life. The current atmosphere on Mars is like living at 125,000 feet above sea level here on Earth. We will be required to live in pressurized cavern to sustain life. So why not just live in ventilated caverns here on Earth?

Venus however can have its' atmosphere terra-formed from space. Let me know if you want references. And the same technology can provide both active Weather Control for Venus and Earth. The same structures can be used for solar sails to transfer people and resources between the inner planets and provide maintenance transport. All without fossil fuels.

Catalysts and energy differentials of the Venus atmosphere can convert the CO2 to oxygen and hydrocarbons. The atmospheres of both Mars and Venus are 97% CO2, but Venus has more atmospheric components to sustain catalyst based conversions.

Indeed, the current egoists want an easy visible target that has PR appeal, but has no significant return on investment.

http://www.orionsarm.com/fm_store/TerraformingVenusQuickly.pdf

http://www.academia.edu/5367728/Terraforming_Venus_A_Synthesis_of_Modern_Approaches

http://global-energy-system.pbworks.com

Sources of water:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/01/unlocking-solar-system-with-water-from.html

PlanetaryResources.com moving water asteroids to Venus

Pulverizing hydrogen rich asteroids and seeding cooled Venus atmosphere

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/maps/article/viewFile/14865/14836

Seeding H2O catalysts

http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Kinetics/Case_Studies%3A_Kinetics/Catalytic_Converters

Recurrent catalytic processes

Creating fuels from CO2

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ie3007962

I'm sure there are better systems, but this was just an example.

    Two things: pragmatism and time (no PR about it). I never said Venus was not an interesting place, and I'm sorry to disagree with you, but Venus is not easier to colonize than Mars for the following reasons:

    Venus has a surface pressure of 90 Earth atmospheres. Our technical ability to make structures here on earth at such pressures, habitable for more than a couple people, is limited. This is especially limiting when you consider structure mass and Entry, Descent and Landing requirements, as well as our ability to launch large mass vehicles from the surface of Earth to go there in the first place. The deepest diving combat-sub (i.e., large crew/structure), of Soviet origins, could sustain about 100 atm. We don't even have bases on the bottom of Earth's oceans which have an average depth of 12,080.7 feet (3,682.2 m), and 355 atmospheres. This is why we have research outposts in Antarctica and not at the bottom of the ocean. One is much easier and much more sustainable than the other.

    Other reasons why going to Venus are untenable include no known insitu water (bringing water from asteroids requires another whole space program in and of itself = $$$ and time), sulfuric acid rain, low levels of sunlight (little solar power), large gravity well like Earth (makes launching from the surface very costly and difficult), and lastly we would need 100s of years to accomplish any atmospheric terraforming (on any planet) that might make the surface suitable for settlement (or opposite in the case of the Earth). And the whole purpose of this essay was to point out that we, on Earth, have no more time to waste before statistical probability and our combined behaviors catch up and threaten our very existence.

    Nice essay; we may have different ideas about how best to achieve diversification, but we certainly agree about its desirability.

    A detail which caused me some confusion: in your counterfactual "What if" Fig. 2, you have "First Interplanetary Probe" in the year 2002, several years after the establishment of the first Mars colony. I suppose it must be something very different from the interplanetary probes which have been flying around the solar system since the 1960s, but what?

      Tommy,

      That might be a typo on my part. I meant first Interstellar Probe, i.e., something directly purposed for someplace like Proxima Centauri or the like. Its like the one you have a picture of with the Saturn V in your paper. Something very big and going fast and far. Just one of many possibilities given large amounts of money.

      Oh, interstellar! Well, I guess it depends on how fast and big. The cost estimates for Daedalus are mind-boggling, roughly 100 trillion in 1978 dollars, and would have put it well beyond that date (my guess would be by a couple of centuries).

      4 days later

      Dear Mr. Barker,

      I thought that your essay was very interesting. I only have one minor quibble about it that I do hope you will not resent me mentioning.

      There used to be an atmospheric sheathe around earth that protected it from all sorts of radiation. Every time a rocket is fired upwards, it punches a hole in that sheathe. Nature automatically fills any perceived hole with trillions of sub-sub microscopic particles and in every case of a rocket firing, the only sub-sub microscopic particles nature could use consisted of rocket fuel.

      Instead of being protected from damaging ultra-violet rays from the sun, those rays are now being enhanced by the myriads of rocket fuel particle filled holes in the sheathe that the ultra-violet rays travel through.

      Fossil fuel burning did not cause global warming, Krakatoa, or any erupting volcano pumps more ash into the atmosphere than any amount of coal burning could.

      All space programs have to stop now. There has been considerable damage to the sheathe; but enough of it may be left to still protect us for a while.

      Ruefully,

      Joe Fisher

        Hi Donald,

        Thanks for making the case for a Mars colony. It would certainly be great to see humanity branching out in a way that might increase its chances of surviving in the medium to long term. I support your call for greater focus on space exploration!

        If you'd allow me to offer one objection to your thesis - it seems quite feasible that the technological capability to move significant resources either to or form Mars would also imply the ability to deliver a weapon, even just a heavy object falling from a great height, to or from Mars is also possible. In the event of global conflict, this means Mars would become just as strategically dangerous as any place on Earth. In fact, it seems possible that a Mars colony would infact be far, far more vulnerable to destruction (and extinction) than Earth, due to the fragile pressurised habitations and the lack of atmosphere to protect it.

        It seems to me that your noble goal of Mars colonisation must also be coupled with some kind of attempt to deal with our social issues and our conflicts. Wherever the hand of humanity may reach, so may its fist.

        Thanks for an informative essay and be sure to read and rate my entry if you get a chance!

          Dear Mr. Fisher,

          If the "protective sheath" to which you are referring is the ozone layer in our upper atmosphere, then there seems to be very little work done showing that any rocket propellants other than "solid-fuels" could cause a negative impact on the atmosphere's UV protection characteristics (see http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/090414-rockets-ozone.html). More work does need to be done to address fuel-environment impacts. But stopping altogether would be quite impossible, and sending humans to settle Mars, a few launches every few years (orbital alignments) would not significantly impact our environment when compared to telecommunication, weather and military satellite launches rates.

          As to the cause of global-warming, I do not believe that there is a single source, nature provides ample variations, but human behavior and fossil fuel use has contributed significantly (and continues). I would suggest we all stop driving cars before we stop launching into space.

          Bottom line, if we want to survive, we need to diversify off Earth.

          Hi Ross,

          I concur. Any place that humans go other humans will be able to enact horrible actions upon them if desired. This has been the case throughout human existence. Humans are just extremely good at it now and the scales involved can be enormous. The benefit of being 6 months away on Mars, might mean that it would be difficult to initiate a sneak attack on a Mars settlement; and it would be very sad indeed if as a species, the first settlers would need to monitor the home world for such a negative threat. Human behavior, conflict and social issues aside, because these are ongoing, if we want to survive, we need to diversify off Earth.

          • [deleted]

          • Post #11

          Dear Donald Barker,

          You wrote an awesome essay!

          I really liked your analogy with the Titan lander; it fits perfectly with Earth's current situation. You fleshed out in detail why we must become a multi-world species (one of the imperatives that I covered only briefly in my essay Three Crucial Technologies ). Why the vital importance of our diversification off of Earth isn't obvious to everyone is beyond me.

          Your discussion with James Dunn about the respective merits of Mars and Venus is very interesting. In the near term; i.e. our current technological and economic conditions, Mars is the better choice, though the chances of success will increase if we first test many of the technologies and processes on the Moon (which has it's own advantages, most notably that it's only three days away if something goes wrong). Did you have a good reason for ignoring O'Neill colonies? They have their own set of attractive characteristics, such as control over gravity, length of day, and location.

          Moore's Law (and more generally Kurzweil's Law of Accelerating Returns) predict fairly reliably that our level of technological development will continue to increase. This progress is the most important in the form of Molecular Manufacturing, which will enable significantly better and cheaper spacecraft. Nanotechnology is not magic -- there are plenty of things it can't do; but it makes our global warming problems irrelevant (see The Politics and Ethics of the Hall Weather Machine ), and terraforming possible within two decades (see The Drexlerian Terraformation of Mars ).

          NASA has done a great job, and I too lament the budget cuts it has suffered for the past decades. But keep in mind that it is a government agency with many of the inherent inefficiencies of government. I'm hopeful that the privatization of space will enable a space-faring civilization, especially if we figure out which organizational system works best for which task. Ultimately, Mars (and Venus, and the rest of the Solar System) will be settled because it is economically worthwhile; otherwise the only people who will make the investment will do so for religious reasons (e.g. Pilgrims and Mormons), and even then the cost needs to low enough that any upper-middle class family can afford it by selling their homes and businesses.

          You did touch on another problem that we face--that we often make choices based on hate and fear (probably greed, too), but unfortunately you didn't offer any solution. It appears that Semantic Web techniques may offer machine assistance in helping us think better, and maybe get us a step closer to wisdom.

            That was my post, BTW; FQXi logs you out if you type too slow (but doesn't tell you). It's a feature (a back door for allowing anonymous entries), not a bug! :-)

            Donald, I think you might enjoy my essay, Planetary Procreation. :-) It looks to me like your wish will be granted, since we appear to be evolutionarily programmed to expand life outward and upward, whenever possible...

            4 days later

            P.S., I will use the following rating scale to rate the essays of authors who tell me that they have rated my essay:

            10 - the essay is perfection and I learned a tremendous amount

            9 - the essay was extremely good, and I learned a lot

            8 - the essay was very good, and I learned something

            7 - the essay was good, and it had some helpful suggestions

            6 - slightly favorable indifference

            5 - unfavorable indifference

            4 - the essay was pretty shoddy and boring

            3 - the essay was of poor quality and boring

            2 - the essay was of very poor quality and boring

            1 - the essay was of shockingly poor quality and extremely flawed

            After all, that is essentially what the numbers mean.

            The following is a general observation:

            Is it not ironic that so many authors who have written about how we should improve our future as a species, to a certain extent, appear to be motivated by self-interest in their rating practices? (As evidence, I offer the observation that no article under 3 deserves such a rating, and nearly every article above 4 deserves a higher rating.)

            Aaron,

            I like that you have addressed some of the problems associated with the rating of people associated with a given process, i.e., usually biased. I have read a few other submissions and have rated even fewer because I prefer leaving the judging up to judges or impartial public readers (if possible). I would change one thing on your ranking comment to make it more objective. You cant use interesting vs boring or how much one learned, as those are completely subjective. You can only judge on how relevant the manuscript is to the top at hand to make it little less subjective.

            I will read your submission but don't promise that I will rate it.

            Cheers,

            Don

            Donald,

            Your emphasis on " diversification off-Earth" is one of many options, indeed. The case you make for it is strong.

            A question: You say that "life on Earth has solely been at the mercy of natural events." Wouldn't life on Titan or Mars be at the mercy of natural events in the same manner?

            I look as the doom and gloom scenarios and get a lot of comfort from three facts:

            - First, that nature's time-frames are enormously large from human time-frames: a century is nothing in nature's timeline but it is 5-6 generations in human terms.

            - Second, the amount of transition we make and knowledge about nature we gather per generation gives me solace that we can tackle any problem. You seem to agree when you say "capabilities, from fashioning flints to rocket engines that will potentially prove our salvation."

            - Third, I have spent the better part of two years trying to understand the public's "belief in science." The issue, I am learning, is not that the public believes less in science, but that the conflicts between scientists on what science tells us is what's confusing the public.

            Good essay.

            - Ajay

              Hi Donald,

              Great essay! You offer good arguments supporting your views about the future of humanity and space technology. I enjoyed reading your essay very much, especially "Why is settling Mars the Answer?". I agree with you that technology has great impact on humanity's present, and through science and technology we can make a better future, whether on earth or in space. This is in agreement with my essay: Improving Science for a Better Future, I'd be glad to take your opinion.

              Good luck in the contest, and best regards,

              Mohammed

                Hi Ajay,

                Thanks for the review. To hopefully can answer your questions simply and in order >>

                1) Yes, everything is at the mercy of nature, always. And all life on Earth would probably be gone during any of the 5 great mass extinctions had it not been diversified in all habitats it could cling to around the planet. Those species not well diversified, spread out, probably went extinct. But until now, no other species was cognitively and technically capable of goal oriented diversification with an understanding of what nature is capable of doing.

                2) We can tackle the problem as long as man made and natural threats occur sporadically. But when several things occur in close succession, then recovery may be impossible or take a very long time. Europe and much of the world regressed for hundreds of years following the Black Death, and we are still recovering from all the ill effects and waste that occurred from the wars of the last century, ect.

                3) Our culture is so mired in "instant gratification" (also attributed to our technology) and too many distractions that most people do not want to take the time to actually learn difficult topics like the sciences. And I agree, bad communication, presentation skills and lack of funding all contribute to general public disinterest and inattention.

                Thanks Mohammed,

                I look forward to reading yours as well.

                Ideally yes, technology and the expansion of humans to Mars (as rapidly as possible) will positively impact our species, but neither will guarantee a better future for humanity because humans are still in the equation. Until we as a species are miraculously able to control our animalistic and egocentric components and focus on building rather then destroying, then I see the pendulum as always hitting one extreme and the next, as it always has done.

                But when taking all probabilities of threats to our very survival into account, our time is now to take action to heighten our chances of long term survival. Heck, the Dinosaurs got really luck with a 150 million years here, yet they were not a threat to themselves.

                Don

                8 days later

                Donald,

                Does your push for Mars indicate giving up on Earth's prospects or is it only a backup? New developments, including the plasma engine, gives us several months round-trip access rather than several years, though I gather your concept is long-term and self-sufficient with an eye toward terraforming.

                My essay speaks of "looking beyond" in terms of beyond Earth and beyond the conventional and "looking within" to harness the untapped potential of the human brain, which many see as the microcosm of the universe.

                I would like to see your comments.

                Jim